Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Pc Version Of 'The Dambusters'
46 Answers
Watched the Dambusters again last night on Ch5 (I think!). This is the first time I've noticed that Guy Gibson's black labrador has had his name changed. For those that don't know, his name was N*gg*r, but in this version it was overdubbed to Trigger. Now, I know the N word is abhorrent and totally agree with that, but if we start changing historical facts, just to suit current 'sentiments', is that wrong? Surely history teaches us why things should change, but if you remove them in the first place, you have no benchmark. Is this the thin end of the wedge and the start of us all being duped and influenced by re-written history as envisaged in '1984'? or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sddsddean. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
it is not history innit?
and changes may be enforced by law ( censorship or court order following successful libel)
or changed before final press
and yes - Davina McCall who are they now programme gets changed. News programmes - - mature
I am sure that the fella that said the Magna Carta was signed in the 1300s doesnt mind if the voice over is corrected
and changes may be enforced by law ( censorship or court order following successful libel)
or changed before final press
and yes - Davina McCall who are they now programme gets changed. News programmes - - mature
I am sure that the fella that said the Magna Carta was signed in the 1300s doesnt mind if the voice over is corrected
//N igger is an unacceptable term for use today, but the dog is still....N .Gger//
Spot on, sqad.
This ridiculous idea that there is a need to airbrush unpalatable habits or events from historical portrayals is very worrying. Things happened in the past that would or should not happen today. But it doesn't mean they didn't happen. This thread has probably given more airtime to the name of Guy Gibson's dog than if it the film had simply been shown undubbed. The film perfectly illustrates how the prevailing attitude of the time didn't really care for other people's sensitivities and it should be shown unaltered as a reminder to illustrate how much attitudes have changed.
Spot on, sqad.
This ridiculous idea that there is a need to airbrush unpalatable habits or events from historical portrayals is very worrying. Things happened in the past that would or should not happen today. But it doesn't mean they didn't happen. This thread has probably given more airtime to the name of Guy Gibson's dog than if it the film had simply been shown undubbed. The film perfectly illustrates how the prevailing attitude of the time didn't really care for other people's sensitivities and it should be shown unaltered as a reminder to illustrate how much attitudes have changed.
But is it the word itself that is offensive, Zacs, or the context in which it is used or portrayed?
The TV channel "Talking Pictures TV" specialises in old films from the 40s and 50s. It often provides a health warning at the beginning of a showing along the lines "This film was made in 1955 and it includes attitudes and language that would not be acceptable today" (or something like that). Won't this do?
The TV channel "Talking Pictures TV" specialises in old films from the 40s and 50s. It often provides a health warning at the beginning of a showing along the lines "This film was made in 1955 and it includes attitudes and language that would not be acceptable today" (or something like that). Won't this do?
