I know I’ve had a few nights on the bottle of late but I can’t remember cracking your account and posting this but very much from my keyboard
If any of you know your Disney, you’ll know that Splash Mountain in all the Disney parks is to be re-themed with The Princess and the Frog (Disney’s best film by miles, I’ll stand no argument here) because the original Song of the South is now considered inappropriate.
I’m looking forward to the day we all live in grey suits in grey houses is a world that’s half way between Demolition Man’s portrayal of the future and Orwell’s 1984. With a side order of Kylo Ren’s “Destroy the past, let it go”
We should learn from the mistakes of the past, not bury them. Buried events get forgotten and then they can be repeated. Don’t pull down statues, explain them and the errors in the thinking of the time AND the horrific acts that were perpetrated.
Very much lest we forget.
And Tiana is boss and blew my a kiss once as I was the only one in the crowd shouting “We love you Tiana!” Granted she now has a restraining order on me…
I think we could all agree that an act can ultimately be more offensive than a word? Therefore discussing the use of a word used in a film about the worst events in human history (therefore the most offensive) is a tad moot. It’s OK to make films about the systematic murder of ethnic groups on an industrial scale but don’t use words that might offend?
In fairness I think the gaming “community”, such as it is, falls to the extreme right politically more often than most other communities. Things like 4Chan riling 14 year olds up to hate women or minorities so when they are forced to play as black characters or women their first response is to lash out with anger.
Criticising a movie about two soldiers on the front lines in WW1 for not having female representation just strikes me as complaining for the sake of it. Narratively it wouldn’t make sense for a woman to be in that film, apart from the context of being a civilian which is what the movie portrays. Presumably those critics wanted the young soldier to die in the basement and then the woman heroically takes up the message herself.
There are a number of historical inaccuracies in Dambusters. I’d challenge you to find any historical film that doesn’t.
For example, in reality, Barnes Wallis said he never encountered the bureaucracy he has to overcome in the film. Wallis wasn’t the one who suggested the Dams as as a target, and in the film Wallis whole crew follows him to his new command, which never happened in real life.
Is that the thin end of the wedge as well, or is is it just the historically incorrect naming of dogs that we should be concerned about?
The thing to take away from this is that if you crave historical accuracy, read history books, where you will find Wallis’ dog in all its racially insensitive glory. Films and TV are entertainment, and will always take liberties with the truth, if a more entertaining story can be made.
OK Gibson’s dog. I’m just pointing out the absurdity of complaining that dubbing the name of the dog is an affront to historical accuracy, when significant plot points were invented for the sake of dramatic licence.
It’s been years since I saw the film, but according to Wiki, in the film the purpose and method of the raids were Wallis’ idea, whereas in reality the Dams had long been a target of the air ministry.
There are a long list of inaccuracies from the banal (the calibre of ammunition used in the machine guns) to the actual massive liberties with the truth (The Whitehall bureaucracy that Wallis has to face in the film being a complete fabrication).
And this is a film praised for its historical accuracy.
I think you’ll always find, in any historical film or biopic, dramatic licence taken with the truth to tell a better story. So who gives a shit what they call a dog. It makes no odds to most people that the dog is called Trigger rather than Nigger, but to some people it’s the difference between enjoying the film and being justifiably offended.
To be fair, most of the inaccuracies in Dambusters extend from the Brickhill book, which was written before much of the material was declassified. Even history books are going to come with an agenda of their own.
Not buying the idea that every film is simply entertainment @Mascot but they can be, they can also be clever ploys for propaganda nationalism and changing normative behaviours. It depends on the film, the placement of the ‘issue’ in time and intended audience targeted behavior or attitude. Its a question of semiology.
Thought I’d put this here. So a pundit makes a comment and then somewhere down the line the club in question posts a put down. I think, why not because these shit for brains pundits feel they can say whatever without reproach. Without any more context than that, read this article:
