Putting all this in film perspective:

On the one hand, we have a dog being (slightly) renamed in a film. I don't agree it was necessary or even appropriate, but its hardly the end of the world and I will lose precisely one nanosecond of sleep over it.

On the other hand, we have any number of US-made films where what the Brits & Commonwealth did is pretty well airbrushed out and it was an all-American show. That worries me a whole lot more, since when I TALK to Americans, all too often now they deride anything British and seem to lack any understanding of our role in the war. On several occasions, when I asked US guys how they know that we had little to do with D Day other than being a US staging-point or how they know it was the US who were the means of cracking the enigma code (for example), they cite what they saw in the films... That has implications for our influence (or lack of) in the current world, and is something I AM concerned about.

The first -at worst - appeases the PC brigade.

The second helps to rewrite history, not at all in our favour, in the minds of too many Americans, especially those not old enough to have even second-hand experience or knowledge.

So which issue gets the most forum inches?

Does anybody seriously believe that Barnes Wallace, a quiet studious man. Badly affected by guilt and grief after the death of so many of 617 sqd,that he felt responible for, would be the type of man to pee on the grave of his friends much loved dog ?

This is a point I also made in the original thread, the whole dogs name issue was an example of history being changed for entertainment.
I also mentioned about the complete missrepresentation of VC winner in "ZULU". But other posters seem happy to alter history for the sake of a good film.

Absolutely, this is a bug bear of mine too. The British are portrayed as just sitting around drinking tea and generally being incompetent in comparison to the brave, mighty and ingenius Yankees. The British and Canadians taking 3 of the 5 beaches on D-Day is ignored almost entirely, as is the taking of Caen in the North by the British which allowed the Americans to sweep round the South and establish a beachhead.
The only part of the war we get any credit for is the Battle of Britain.

Are you dyslexic as well as dysfunctional?

Where did he say Barnes Wallace did?

Perhaps , perhaps his friends father was a air fitter, or a gunner, or any of the other mutlitude of roles that could be bitten/harassed by Gibson's dog. perhaps it was forever getting them in trouble so they hated it.

How the hell would we know?

I don't know what your moral crusade is all about but you've made some pretty blindingly daft statements on here.

Are you Bang in disguise?

Here



It does fairly improbable though that Gibson would urinate on his own dogs grave.

I interpreted that as meaning his mates dad worked with Gibson and Wallace and it was his mates dad and his work mates that hated the dog, not Gibson and Wallace who hated the dog.

Yes, it is a pain to see how the Yanks continually skew history with regard to the good ol' US of A, but the old adage about paying pipers and choice of tunes still holds true. I shouldn't imagine any of the Axis countries were overly enamoured either by their portrayal in the immeadiate post war film industry.

I can easily beleive also, that the media is the sole reference point for a vast swathe of our own younger society. How many times have you heard the justification for a viewpoint as "I read it in the papers" FFS!

Since when were newspapers anything other than conduits for their owners particular political views? And cartoons!

As Mr Royale might opine....."Facts my "

Hmm, I think it most likely given the context that "they" was the group that tigertots mate's Dad worked with, rather than actually being part of a trio with Barnes Wallace and Gibson. Either you're being deliberatley obtuse or plain linguistically pedantic.

QED, cheers G1.

I interpreted as Gibson and Wallace peeing on the grave.
If that isn`t the case then I apologise.

I'm confused here. You thought Gibson peed on his dog's grave? Why would he do that?

"Do you recognise the sacrifice of all the elderly soldiers in your area who sit at home alone for days on end. Who struggle to heat their homes, struggle to get by on a day to day basis? "


"But either way, no need for getting on your high horse about those who don't pander to your expectations of gratitude towards a generation that to be fair has done very little to make any impact on the youth of today other than to tell them they are "Thugs" "Scoundrels" and refuse to give them their ball back. "

LTID, Nothing like consistancy eh ?

To finally try and clear things up. The only reason i started this thread was to try and find out if people think that it ok to alter historical fact in films, for entertainment or any other reason. The dog`s name was an example,as it is a current film I could have used "U571" "Braveheart" or "Titanic" and did mention "Zulu".
The main point I feel strongly about, is that fact is fact, and if you make a film refering to actual people and events you have a reponsibility to portray them as acuratley as possible.
Other wise make a fictional film based on events like "Memphis Belle".

Of course, I can see how asking a Paramedic with 20 years experience to respect the elderly is the same as asking the "youth of today" to do so.

What I don't see is the "youth of today" on a soap box talking about the stocks and portaloos as punishment for desecration of monuments to sacrifice! The same of which can not be said of certain Paramedic with 20 years in the job.

Ah, yes on second thoughts you're probably right.

The Suspension of Disbelief

This term was coined by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1817 with the publication of his Biographia literaria or biographical sketches of my literary life and opinions:

"In this idea originated the plan of the 'Lyrical Ballads'; in which it was agreed, that my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic, yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith."

The state is arguably an essential element when experiencing any drama or work of fiction. We may know very well that we are watching an actor or looking at marks on paper, but we wilfully accept them as real in order to fully experience what the artist is attempting to convey.

I think in this case calling the dog "Tigger" will not cause you too many heartaches.

Calm yourself, dont you think it might not be out of the realms of possibility that I misinterpreted the post? Especially considering how the post is worded.

Same here.

They p1ssed me off.

Perhaps you're a clairvoyant Loiner, in which case we may attach some weight to your theories........ otherwise you're simply peeing in the wind!

Numpty originally wrote


He may well have been a close colleague of Barnes Wallis or Gibson if Numpty is to be believed....... and that I fear is where my theory starts to lose water as well .

Perhaps the OP will provide a name and we can all google it!

Well you are obviously miss-informed, and looking at your location, Sheffield, where the urinating on the monument happened first, haven`t been out much. There were Facebook pages removed because of the severity of punishment being called for. The ones left which called for a custodial sentance had thousands of members. Many who were from the "youth of today".
I was in Sheffield a few weeks ago (up until a couple of months ago I lived there ,my user-name refers to the Wicker Camp Gym in Sheffield) and the the outrage felt by all ages was mentioned all over the city,stocks and flogging being very middle of the road.

"Of course, I can see how asking a Paramedic with 20 years experience to respect the elderly is the same as asking the "youth of today" to do so."
What do you mean by that ??
Are you going to start having a go at my old job now ?

You said "consistent" I demonstrated that I couldn't be consistent when they are two different things.

And yes I live in Sheffield, and no, I didn't get to hear much outrage about a drunk student peeing on a wreath. But then, I don't mix in that type of circle. At the risk of being pompous I tend to hang about with people who have the ability to think before they say things like "Put him in the stocks and pour the contents of a portaloo over him"

Either way, I'm done.