(N/D)igger the dog.

Can't stop progress.

Reminds me of this...

melb wrote: »

So, one of the great films of all time is being remade... "The Dambusters"

At the start Peter Jackson wanted to keep as close as possible to the original script which included keeping the dog named ******. However, studio execs succeeded in changing the dogs name to Digger.

Whats the AHers thoughts on this?

this debate has been had before...they should rename the dog "african american"

When i was a kid there where a couple of dogs in the neighbourhood called nígger, seems fúcking mental now!:D
I don't think it even occured to people it might be insulting or racist.

Well it would be great to keep the historical references, BUT this would cause too much offense and not PC to do so

Sanjuro wrote: »

It's so far down the list of things to get your knickers in a twist about that I think I almost passed out from apathy.

but you just couldn't care enough to even bother to do that?

Min wrote: »

All they needed was a black rapper in the army owning the dog.

God, I read that as "pwning" the dog.. I need to get out more

As it's a remake I don't see the point in putting in such an offensive word. It's just not required.

However I hate when older films and programmes are dubbed/censored, e.g. Only Fools and Horses having unPC words and dubbed over and smoking removed from cartoons from decades ago etc.

They were products of their time and I want to enjoy it as originally made.

KungPao wrote: »

As it's a remake I don't see the point in putting in such an offensive word. It's just not required.

But it is required. It's not just a remake of a film, like Ocean's 11 or the Italian Job.

It is a remake of a film based on historical fact. The dog existed and that was it's name.

It's altering history to make it more palatable, which is crap imo.

The film should reflect the racism that was prevelant at the time, The dogs name should be Ni*ger as it originaly was and everyone should take offence to it and still watch the movie.

If the dog were fictional then I'd have no problem changing it, but the fact that's it a real, historical dog complicates things.
I'm usually dead set against changing historical things in films, but in this case I don't mind. It's not like the dog being called "N*gger" is crucial to the plot. Now if they changed it to the Americans blowing up the dams, or removed all references to the Nazis, then I'd be annoyed.

The original film was dubbed in America when it was released. The dogs name was dubbed "Trigger".


/thread

Was the dog even black?

was the original film any good?

Guill wrote: »

Was the dog even black?

Yes.

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm usually dead set against changing historical things in films, but in this case I don't mind. It's not like the dog being called "N*gger" is crucial to the plot. Now if they changed it to the Americans blowing up the dams, or removed all references to the Nazis, then I'd be annoyed.

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

But it's not required at all. If the dog had been called Spot and it was changed to Fido, that wouldn't change the fact the the movie is/was about coming up with an innovative way to bomb dams and damage German war capability while accepting thousands of civilian and allied POW casualties. It's not a film about a dog.

No the film is not about a dog, but the dogs name does highlight something important. It's the start of a slippery slope of small changes that could eventually lead to the Americans blowing up the dams in another version of the film. It stops being about the history and is just about an entertaining story, but propping itself up on the fact that it is a factually historical film.

Let's say that in 20 years they decide to remake it again, but decide that the cast isn't racially diverse enough, or there isn't enough women in the film so lets make one of the pilots a woman.

If they want to deviate from history then call the film something else, change the story how they want it and and just say that it was "inspired" by the events.

The original was certainly dramatised but it did follow the history pretty well.

Sin_J wrote: »

No the film is not about a dog, but the dogs name does highlight something important. It's the start of a slippery slope of small changes that could eventually lead to the Americans blowing up the dams in another version of the film. It stops being about the history and is just about an entertaining story, but propping itself up on the fact that it is a factually historical film.

Let's say that in 20 years they decide to remake it again, but decide that the cast isn't racially diverse enough, or there isn't enough women in the film so lets make one of the pilots a woman.

If they want to deviate from history then call the film something else, change the story how they want it and and just say that it was "inspired" by the events.

The original was certainly dramatised but it did follow the history pretty well.

I'd love if they didn't change his name because people were mature enough to accept that that's how things were at the time, but unfortunately I think there'd be a huge outcry if they kept the name (and not just from black people) and I can understand Peter Jackson changing the name to avoid that.
However I do agree that it's part of a larger trend to sanitise history in films.
For example, from what I'd seen so far, Captain America seemed to be trying to remove as many references to Nazism as possible (remember when the Allies fought H.Y.D.R.A in the 40s?) in the trailers at least, though I did see a poster (limited edition for a small number of people, I think) with Captain America punching Hitler, so hopefully it won't be a complete erasure of the Nazis.

Cant change history when its set in stone.