Just read an article about the new dambusters movie, Guy Gibson`s black labrador is to be called "Tigger" so as not to offend anybody !!
For pete`s sake political correctness gone mad, the dogs name wasn`t that, HISTORICAL FACT.
Mind you being how a lot of American money is behind the new film I am surprised they haven`t replaced the Lanc`s with Fortresses, and have Gibson coming from Texas.

Shouldn't be surprised when they show the original on T.V it's muted out now.

They will, I wouldn't bother getting all het up about it, it won't be worth watching anyway, won't have anything to match the CGI when the bomb hits the dam in the original

Will it spoil the film for you, what with the dog's name being such an integral part of the plot?

Do you rage against any of the other things they might have changed in the film? I'm pretty sure there was probably a bit of swearing going on in the plane and such. They don't include that.

I would hardly describe my post as a rage. Merely a comment.
The dogs name was also the call sign for the succesfull breach of the dam, so I would say it was important. I would place money that no black people would be offended, just the usual crowd of Gaurdian readers.
Why change history ?

Again, are there any other changes in the film you object to?

If not, why not?

Must it be an absolute historical record to be worthwhile? A film is not a history book, it's a piece of entertainment.

And when you include the phrase 'polictical correctness gone mad', unnecessary exclamation points and capital letters for some words, indicating shouting, then I class it as a rant.

Oh sorry the puctuation mafia.
Yes any change for the sake of change I am against. If you want to make a film about Guy Gibson and 617 Squadron. Tell the story as acurately and truthfully as you can.
If you want to make a film about a group of un-named pilots going on a difficult mission, film what you like.

OK, so can we count on you posting threads about anything else they get wrong?

Blimey, I made a clearly labled OT post about an article that in my mind showed how politically correct society had become, in relation to Guy Gibson being a particular hero of mine.
If I had read an article about another aspect of the film I found so ridiculous, yes i would have posted it.
What you are trying to infere about me, you couldn`t be more wrong.

I'd quit while I was behind if I were you.

Well you have one person (me) who agrees with you. And, as the ever-sensible Mac Field said, it won't be a patch on the original anyway.

How can you top the Redgrave / Todd combination in the original ?

This sort of thing kind of reminds me of the Comic Strip's send up of Hollywood in the late 80s .... Where they turned the Miners Strike in to a Hollywood Blockbuster with Arthur Scargill played by Peter Richardson as Al Pacino

You can't.

I'll be interested in seeing it to see if it'a as good as the original.

The Nigger/Tigger argument is neither here nor there. The film's about how the bouncing bomb was devised and the heroism of those men who flew on that air raid. Whether they include the name of Gibson's dog isn't central to the plot IMO, to even bring it up is to miss the whole point.

The problem is, that the dog does give another angle to the raid story, by virtue of the fact that it is seriously injured / killed (it get run over IIRC) just on the verge of Gibson and the rest of the crews setting out on the raid.

Why?
Did the dog bounce?

Indeed.

And there is no need whatsoever to edit history because the name of the dog is now not considered an appropriate one. Any more than editing history so that we did not set out to drown a load of Germans and flood their towns, but instead just to make a symbolic gesture.

Salt wasn't it?

Dog: integral part.
Name of dog: not.

The problem happens when you mess with history you end up with a situation as occurred in the film "Zulu".
In the film Henry Hook is portrayed as a drunken malingerer, anybody who as seen the film will assume that is what Hook was like in real life.
In fact Hook had just received a pay award for meritorious behavior, was a teetotal, devout Christian and family man. Is it ok to portray a VC winning hero in such a bad light for the sake of entertainment ?
In "Titanic",if my memory serves me right the film makers had to make a substantial payment to the family of a crewmember who was shown to be a self serving coward in the film, but who had actually acted with great courage in real life.
If you are making a film about a historical event,naming specific people (and dogs) you should have a duty to portray thing as true to life as possible, warts and all.

Since when have films had any factual representation of historical events?

Braveheart anyone?

Yes, but in doing that you have the opportunity to remove something that inclusion of would be seen as gratuitously offensive and you also have a duty to do that.

I see the issue a bit like this. If you are making a film about a factual historical event, then you should make the film as close to the actual events as possible, or it's simply not retelling the details of that actual event, and shouldn't be advertised as such.

If you start changing some of the details then that is bordering on censorship, which IMHO is always a bad thing. The only time that events shouldn't be retold with exact detail is if that detail includes breaking the law.

I have no issue with the dog's name in this particular case, and nor, I suspect, would most people who "others" feel would be offended. Would there be the same outcry if the dog was called "honky"?

Its a film not a documentary. As GCH pointed out much earlier on the portrayal of events will have been toned down before and will be again - oddly enough people don't get so animated over that as they do for the removal of a fairly irrelevant racist name.

That said, were major historical events removed, whether vital to the plot or not, I'd be peeved - see Operation Burma (a film that was withdrawn in the UK for provoking unrest in cinemas) or U-571 for example - but the name of the dog is irrelevant.

The dog's name is symbolic of attitudes of the time - attitudes that could be difficult for some to square with the film's hero: Guy Gibson, incredibly brave war hero and racist (though during a time when racism was considered right and normal).