The Dam Busters remake

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by christoph404 I think as you mentioned earlier ,that in a drama based on historical events often details are changed to serve the drama while still maintaining the thrust and theme of the story.I would agree with that, providing the changes are within reason and we don't have the USA discovering the enigma code in a daft submarine film! In a two hour movie based on real events, of course it is often advantageous to the drama to amalgamate characters, change names and alter sequences of events. In a film about a Lancaster bombing raid I don't think the code name for the raid or the name of the squadron leaders dog is going to affect the drama, of course it isn't, what seems important is the fact that the name would be changed for purely PC reasons which I don't agree with at all, as DB7 mentioned it would be revisionist and somewhat of an insult to Guy Gibson and the audience in general.I really do think changing it for that reason will attract more attention and make more of an issue of a small detail that doesn't really deserve that kind of attention. If the dogs name is not that important why not just leave it as it is? At least it would be an authentic feature of the film so it would be entitled to be there. I think when "The Dam Busters" was shown recently as a limited cinema re-release it was shown in its original uncut form without any problems, I think the audience were sensible enough to view it in the context of the time and I think audiences would feel the same about the remake.

The dog's name isn't at all important to the facts about the raid or the development of the bomb itself.

But it does happen to be a word that is now a great insult to a large section of the American population. It's not being PC to change it, it's just good manners not to insult people when it's not at all necessary

Steve

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Third Man I can't think of one good reason to keep the name of the dog in the film and I've yet to see one either. Simon

Steve

[christoph404]

As I said, I think opinion will remain very divided on this topic and both camps have provided very convincing arguments to back their preference for the title of the friendly and impartial mutt! An interesting debate though, lets see how the remake is, I read that a lot of filming will take place in New Zealand, I can sense a CGI laden film on the cards, wouldn't it be cheaper to rebuild full size working replicas of a couple of Lancasters so at least there would be some realistic footage of planes in flight? That was certainly one of the strengths of the original film and obviously a lot easier to realise in the 50s as there were still a few air worthy Lancasters around. Watching the "Aviator" on TV the other night I was struck by the unreality and cartoon nature of the CGI flying sequences and the impossible camera perspectives etc that are just too flashy and contrived, I hope the new Dam Busters film does not go down that route.

[penfold]

There may have been more flying in the fifties, but it doesn't mean the external shots of the planes flying were particularly convincing....you have to use your imagination quite a bit. Models can be unconvincing too....for Titanic, the CGI work was better than the huge (but still not big enough) model work....and I doubt flying replicas would be a cheap option....