HeadingNorth Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 There sensibilities don't need protection by self righteous nannies like Stephen Fry. National treasure? I don't think so. Fry was the person bemoaning the point, not approving of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoPro Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 It happens in movies all the time. Yep. They change history to make the story more acceptable to contemporary audiences. These days, use of that word is no longer acceptable. You can't just run around drunk or sober in the middle of town, shouting "*******.... *******". iansheff, I don't know you personally and I will try not to judge you, but does this really upset you so much? Dunno man, it seems trivial. The world will not come to an end just for this. Slavery isn't acceptable these days either. Come at me dude...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Why don't they just use a white dog and call it wigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I was just reading this story on the BBC News about renaming Guy Gibson's dog for a remake of the Dambusters, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-13727908. I know that certain words are no longer acceptable in this day and age but should we change history just to make a film. Why can they not put out a warning with the film that it is likely to have a word that will offend. It's not whether the film is offensive or not - it's whether it will gross millions in the US box office. US studious are notoriously risk averse. Given that it's not being directed by Spike Lee, I think it's a sensible choice from a financial perspective. As for the film - it's bound to be dross, don't you think? [and ask yourself - would you decry this as outrageous revisionism if the dog's name had been "spot" and they changed it to "spike"? Would you/anyone have cared or noticed?] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
<Aim 4> Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Why don't they just use a white dog and call it wigger. very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Fry was the person bemoaning the point, not approving of it. Really? He's writing the screenplay. If he's not allowed to write the truth he should refuse the job. I reckon he could afford to take a principled stand. "So Digger seems OK, I reckon." Stephen Fry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Get over what, the fact that they want to change history? you cannot change it it happened that was the dogs name. What on earth makes you think this film has anything to do with History? Anyone who wants to research the history of the period won't be watching it. Anyone researching the history of the period is unlikely to want to know the name of the dog, unless of course that is the subject of their research. And if it is, they're not going to be misled by 90 minutes of finest hollywood dross, are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Really? He's writing the screenplay. If he's not allowed to write the truth he should refuse the job. I reckon he could afford to take a principled stand. "So Digger seems OK, I reckon." Stephen Fry. Again - what on earth does a Hollywood movie have to do with "the truth"? Was his dog really called ******? Can you support that with any actual documentary evidence, or are you just taking a film as gospel? If he was writing a documentary, then you might even have a point, but here you certainly don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Was his dog really called ...? Can you support that with any actual documentary evidence, or are you just taking a film as gospel? The dog has a grave, on which his name is carved. That much, at least, is provable fact. Words change their meanings over time. That's another fact, and sadly, the word which was then the name of said dog, is now unspeakable for entirely different reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I was just reading this story on the BBC News about renaming Guy Gibson's dog for a remake of the Dambusters, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-13727908. I know that certain words are no longer acceptable in this day and age but should we change history just to make a film. Why can they not put out a warning with the film that it is likely to have a word that will offend. Replace the dog with a tiger cub and call it Tigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.