Phanerothyme Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 It is a big deal. It is changing history No it's a Peter Jackson film. There is a subtle difference. If you're really clever you'll be able to spot the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 What planet you moved to ,like I said I get accused of colour prejudice when iv never mentioned anything to do with colour just immigrants or muslims,they band them into the colour spectrum and try to pass the buck I think if those accusations are made against you it it's your choice of words and how you use them that results in that outcome. Ps: To be honest I can't recall anyone saying someone is 'colour prejudiced' here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I think if those accusations are made against you it it's your choice of words and how you use them that results in that outcome. Ps: To be honest I can't recall anyone saying someone is 'colour prejudiced' here. I never mention colour si if theres any inference its in the mind of the accuser ,I had occasion to question someone recently over such a accusation,I asked for proof ..Im still waiting..Im not one to name names so I'll leave it at that glamrockerx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I dont think the dog was called 'black'. we had a kid at school called nigel....never guess what his nickname was...1968....and shouting that everytime he had the ball...mind you cannot remember any teachers objecting to his nickname.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Replace it with an elephant and call it "Bigger". Or an Australian shepherd breed and call it Digger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Where are they going to get all those Lancaster bombers from for the remake? Only one or two of them left in flying condition I heard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Where are they going to get all those Lancaster bombers from for the remake? Only one or two of them left in flying condition I heard It's a Hollywood remake. They'll probably use B17s and have Guy Gibson coming from Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 It's a Hollywood remake. They'll probably use B17s and have Guy Gibson coming from Texas. That'll really improve US-UK relations I'm sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuchi_Zien Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 It's a film. Most of it isn't going to be true. If they were to make it as accurate as possible, no one would want to watch it as it would no doubt be a terrible film. People are making thjis a bigger deal than it is. So when the Japanese produce a film portraying the Pearl Harbour attack as a response to an aggressive and belligerent US policy of forcing Japan out of South East Asia you won't have a problem? When Japan produces a film showing that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with the war in Japan but were a warning to Russia paid for by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians? When Japan then starts using these films in schools to portray Japan as a victim of Imperial American aggression in the Philipines? That won't be a big deal will it? The past is the past, like it or lump it. When we start censoring the past because we don't agree with their standards it is a big deal. We should not be trying to change history simply because it may cause offence to a few narrow minded idiots who can't cope with the context of the use of the language. How long before Wild west films start calling Indians Native Americans in case they cause offence? Where does it stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 So when the Japanese produce a film portraying the Pearl Harbour attack as a response to an aggressive and belligerent US policy of forcing Japan out of South East Asia you won't have a problem? When Japan produces a film showing that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with the war in Japan but were a warning to Russia paid for by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians? When Japan then starts using these films in schools to portray Japan as a victim of Imperial American aggression in the Philipines? That won't be a big deal will it? The past is the past, like it or lump it. When we start censoring the past because we don't agree with their standards it is a big deal. We should not be trying to change history simply because it may cause offence to a few narrow minded idiots who can't cope with the context of the use of the language. How long before Wild west films start calling Indians Native Americans in case they cause offence? Where does it stop? Me personally? No I wouldn't have a problem with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.