Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

IIRC Stephen Fry also supports downloading stuff illegally from the internetz. He's one outspoken and opinionated Brit, good stuff.

Anyway imo its a good move to change the name since it can piss off audiences and shift the attention of the picture. Plus you now have an extra tidbit for the DVD special features.

This is a different era we're living in and its hard to imagine even a comedy like Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles being made but shows like Family Guy's not too far from trying to follow its lead of being politically incorrect. Now only if Seth MacFarlane was as good as Mel Brooks....

Seth's pretty good. If anything convinced me of that, it was when Quagmire ripped into Brian.

halonachos wrote:Just irate.

I like movies about historical events to be as close as possible. Would keeping the name of the dog the N-word really change the focus of the story?

Yes.

The Dambusters film is as close to historical events as Objective, Burma! and U-571.

Its not a historical document, but I for one don't believe in political correctness. Sure its being directed by Peter Jackson, but that doesn't mean they could at least try to make it as close to history as possible.

I mean for all things, to change the name of a dog for political correctness? I can't wait for them to remake Pulp Fiction and any other movie where its in 'context' and have them say something else, like 'Digger'?

I can see it now; "Why is there a dead digger in my garage?". That whole scene where the guy from Mad TV was accidentally killed by John Travolta in the car will just be filled with the word 'digger'.

The next closest thing this is to is when Spike Lee complained about Clint Eastwood's Letters of Iwo Jima and Flags of our Fathers because there were no black people in the movies.

"The film is not about the dog - my big concern would be if they watered down what the Dam Busters had achieved."

Which was not a great deal, the raid's only real benefit was as propaganda. Yes it's political correctness, yes it's bad that the facts have to be changed for films. But that is what happens whenever something changes medium. It's not U-571 bad though. By the way, things could have been much, much worse.

Peter Jackson via BBC News wrote:He came back and said that [film company] Icon had the rights and that Mel Gibson was going to direct and possibly act in it...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5301998.stm

halonachos wrote:Its not a historical document, but I for one don't believe in political correctness. ...

...

That did not need to be stated.

Oh, if Mel Gibson is in charge there will most likely be some other shots at other races of people so I guess that changing the name to 'digger' was to prevent too much protesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:Its not a historical document, but I for one don't believe in political correctness. ...

...

That did not need to be stated.

Maybe not, I don't subscribe to treating people differently due to race, color, or creed whether its positive or negative to do so. I'm a big believer in MLK Jr's philosophy on equality and political correctness is not how we shall obtain it in my opinion.

It's not political correctness to try not to really piss off a bunch of your consumers for no real good reason. It's good business. The purpose behind this film is primarily to generate profit, not be an in depth study of the subject.

It is not acceptable to refer to Black people with that word, as you will notice if you have read some posts in this thread.

Because it is unacceptable, the word has been auto edited out, hence the following message:

"[see forum posting rules]".

Well, it won't be getting my money. Sure they'll lose a whole $10 and that's like spitting in the ocean, but oh well personal feelings and what not.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:It is not acceptable to refer to Black people with that word, as you will notice if you have read some posts in this thread.

Because it is unacceptable, the word has been auto edited out, hence the following message:

"[see forum posting rules]".

Again, movies like Pulp Fiction where the use of the N-word was exclusively used to refer to black people.

halonachos wrote:I mean for all things, to change the name of a dog for political correctness? I can't wait for them to remake Pulp Fiction and any other movie where its in 'context' and have them say something else, like 'Digger'?

halonachos wrote:Again, movies like Pulp Fiction where the use of the N-word was exclusively used to refer to black people.

I was wrong, you are that naive. Your understanding of complex social and cultural dynamics in this area are staggeringly simple minded.

The trouble I see is that by changing the name of the dog it implies that Gibson was a shameful racist, which is not the case. The name was innocently used and it would be better if that was reflected rather than the implied disgrace of the alternative. It would have been better if they used the nickname of the dog, 'nigsy' instead. That at least had some accuracy, the oter decent alternative is not to include the dog at all.

As long as they don't change it to an American crew in an American bomber who happen to pick up all the Enigma codes and singlehandedly win the war on their way over I don't really mind...

Orlanth wrote:The trouble I see is that by changing the name of the dog it implies that Gibson was a shameful racist, which is not the case. The name was innocently used and it would be better if that was reflected rather than the implied disgrace of the alternative. It would have been better if they used the nickname of the dog, 'nigsy' instead. That at least had some accuracy, the oter decent alternative is not to include the dog at all.

If you want the movie to be about institutional racism versus 'shameful' racism this would be a good place to look, but it isn't about that and would only cuase a derailment of the film. I think anyone with a sense of history already nows that that kind of casual racism wasn't unusual during that time period and, again, wouldn't be worth the loss of revenue for something insignificant to the point of the film. If you want to see a major and odd change to history look into what SilverMK2 is referencing.

Ahtman wrote:

halonachos wrote:I mean for all things, to change the name of a dog for political correctness? I can't wait for them to remake Pulp Fiction and any other movie where its in 'context' and have them say something else, like 'Digger'?

halonachos wrote:Again, movies like Pulp Fiction where the use of the N-word was exclusively used to refer to black people.

I was wrong, you are that naive. Your understanding of complex social and cultural dynamics in this area are staggeringly simple minded.

Complex social and cultural dynamics? You do realize that I was referring to Chibi's post when I mentioned Pulp Fiction again right?

Chibi wrote:It is not acceptable to refer to Black people with that word, as you will notice if you have read some posts in this thread.

Is there really that complex of a social dynamic about the use of the N-word? Seriously Ahtman there really isn't, it was a word originally used to describe trash which was later used derogitavely towards blacks and that use has stuck in America. I don't know how England used the word or if they never once in their culture used it in that way as much as we did since the 1800's. But its pretty much well known that in America its bad to say the N-word because of its history. Wow, that was pretty simple.

Will people get mad about it, yes people like Al Sharpton and other people who are ignorant to the history of the name's meaning. If he kept it as the N-word it would create controversy and controversy is free publicity, would it dent their demographics you bet it would. But then again, who sees movies based off of history now? It would be refreshing from the rash of modern set films and super hero movies but those are the types of movies people want to see in this current market.

You have some sort of controversial part of the movie and then you have people saying, "Ooh, I wonder why its so controversial." and people will buy into it, maybe enough to make up the loss of potential revenue from people who are going to protest it because it has the N-word in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:As long as they don't change it to an American crew in an American bomber who happen to pick up all the Enigma codes and singlehandedly win the war on their way over I don't really mind...

Oh don't worry, I haven't seen Valkryie because of similar actions by Hollywood.

halonachos wrote:
Maybe not, I don't subscribe to treating people differently due to race, color, or creed whether its positive or negative to do so. I'm a big believer in MLK Jr's philosophy on equality and political correctness is not how we shall obtain it in my opinion.

You realize that MLK was basically a leading figure in creating what we now consider "political correctness", right?

Everyone is politically correct. You have to be in order to actually not die. You wouldn't call your mother a c-bomb, or the guy holding a gun to your head an idiot.

Orlanth wrote:The trouble I see is that by changing the name of the dog it implies that Gibson was a shameful racist, which is not the case. The name was innocently used and it would be better if that was reflected rather than the implied disgrace of the alternative. It would have been better if they used the nickname of the dog, 'nigsy' instead. That at least had some accuracy, the oter decent alternative is not to include the dog at all.

Not really
As I mentioned earlier the word was in common parlance with no intentional racist overtones.
It was used to describe something of a dark hue, rather than a person of black skin, in Britain in the first half of last century.

The racist connotations would not have been widely appreciated back in Gibson's day on ths side of the Atlantic, pre-1950's immigration.
It was then that the word was used with pejorative intentions.

As also mentioned the labrador was something of a mascot and the commemorated his loss by using his name for a successful call sign.
So it would be worse imho to leave him out altogether.

Is political correctness not calling a guy with a gun to your head an idiot? I don't think that calling your mother a c-bomb falls under political correctness as well.

MLK said that he had a dream that one day his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I don't see political correctness anywhere in that, I see people using a person's character and actions to judge them despite their color.

A white guy who steals a car is as much a crook as a black guy who steals a car and a white guy who saves somebody's life is as much a hero as a black guy who saves a person's life. Of course if its all in the same context besides color of skin, a white guy who saves an evil guy's life is less of a hero than a black guy who saves an innocent person's life of course.

dogma wrote:
Everyone is politically correct. You have to be in order to actually not die. You wouldn't call your mother a c-bomb, or the guy holding a gun to your head an idiot.

Not everyone is politically correct, thank goodness.
Politeness or wisdom are not necessarily political correctness, and political correctness is not necessarily polite, let alone correct. In fact political correctness is very often political, but as often incorrect and hypoctritical regarding its goal iof avoiding offesnse and abuse. The Modus operandoi of the PC is often a warning not to appear to discriminate or we the politcally correct will overtly discriminate against you and call ourselves good in doing so. Where it claims to bring unity and promote equality it brings division and accusation.

Political Correctness makes people afraid when a person of a different culture or color is close to them, that's not equality.

Sorry Holanchos but since we are not going to change each others opinions on this it is time to say ta-ta.

Personally I would prefer that the original name be used, but it would have been a distraction not worth screwing a film over for.
Jackson has spent a lot of pennies recreating some full scale Lancasters for the film so the issue is obviously not big enough a deal for him to wind up people.

So Digger is fine imho and I look forward to seeing the film on release.

Steady... left, left, steady...steady...
Bomb gone!

NAh nah nah nah nah nah nah nah ...
Ah the sound of 4 Merlins! More concerned they get that right tbh!

halonachos wrote:Is political correctness not calling a guy with a gun to your head an idiot? I don't think that calling your mother a c-bomb falls under political correctness as well.

To be politically correct is to do anything which is intended to maintain a politically positive relationship with another person, or group of people.

Politics are literally everywhere and are not just about being a Democrat or Republican.

I'm writing a screen adaptation for H.P. Lovecraft's The Rats in the Walls.

I expect that my changing the name of his cat to "Digger-Man" will be highly controversial.

I do enjoy the sound of bomber planes but for me the siren from the Stuka is more exciting, at least in movies.

dogma wrote:
To be politically correct is to do anything which is intended to maintain a politically positive relationship with another person, or group of people.

No its not. Thats called politeness, possibly even diplomacy depending on scale. Political correctness is a modern movement, politeness is part of basic human interaction.
Besides politcial correctness is only about niceties on the surface, scratch beneath and it's about empowerment politics.

Orlanth wrote:
Not everyone is politically correct, thank goodness.

Yes, they are.

Orlanth wrote:
Politeness or wisdom are not necessarily political correctness, and political correctness is not necessarily polite, let alone correct.

Every bit of that is completely wrong. Political correctness is always correct for the purpose of politics, and is always polite given the people the politically correct behavior is aimed at. Its also always wise.

Orlanth wrote:
In fact political correctness is very often political...

Really? I wonder what would have given you that idea.

Orlanth wrote:
...but as often incorrect and hypoctritical regarding its goal iof avoiding offesnse and abuse. The Modus operandoi of the PC is often a warning not to appear to discriminate or we the politcally correct will overtly discriminate against you and call ourselves good in doing so. Where it claims to bring unity and promote equality it brings division and accusation.

Wait, are you pretending that political correctness is some type of conspiracy? Or a particular list of behaviosr?

If either is the case, you are terribly mistaken. When I stand in front of a group of people, or a person that is significant to a group of people, and behave in a way that is deliberately inoffensive, then I am being politically correct. Being politically correct is not just not being racist, in fact racism can be politically correct (and has been throughout history) given the right audience. You seem to be using at as a conservative pejorative, which is just naive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
No its not.

Yes, it is.

Orlanth wrote:
Besides politcial correctness is only about niceties on the surface, scratch beneath and it's about empowerment politics.

What do you think politeness is about?

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:Is political correctness not calling a guy with a gun to your head an idiot? I don't think that calling your mother a c-bomb falls under political correctness as well.

To be politically correct is to do anything which is intended to maintain a politically positive relationship with another person, or group of people.

Politics are literally everywhere and are not just about being a Democrat or Republican.

websters wrote:: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

Insulting someone isn't under the jurisdiction of political correctness, however discriminating against a race and or sex is under the jurisdiction of political correctness. Not calling a mugger an idiot is common sense.

halonachos wrote:
Insulting someone isn't under the jurisdiction of political correctness, however discriminating against a race and or sex is under the jurisdiction of political correctness. Not calling a mugger an idiot is common sense.

When a definition notes something using the words "as in" it isn't being exclusive. Just as you wouldn't say calling a black man the n-word isn't an insult.

You are correct though, my example of the mugger was poorly chosen, as he is not necessarily part of a group of people. Your mother, however, certainly is.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Not everyone is politically correct, thank goodness.

Yes, they are.

I am not, so are many others.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Politeness or wisdom are not necessarily political correctness, and political correctness is not necessarily polite, let alone correct.

Every bit of that is completely wrong. Political correctness is always correct for the purpose of politics, and is always polite given the people the politically correct behavior is aimed at. Its also always wise.

Nope, political correctness emerged in the 1980's. Human interaction goes back a bit further. So to clarify someone being polite in the 1970's wasn't being poltically correct, as poltical correctness wasnt around then.
Now the politcally correct might try to hijack the concept of politeness and self identify with it. For those duped into using PC honestly that makes no difference, they are simply trying to be polite under new formal guidelines. For those who see political correctness as a tool for changing the politcial dialectic then masking poltically correct dogma as 'politeness' is a useful mask for baser ends.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
...but as often incorrect and hypoctritical regarding its goal iof avoiding offesnse and abuse. The Modus Operandi of the PC is often a warning not to appear to discriminate or we the politcally correct will overtly discriminate against you and call ourselves good in doing so. Where it claims to bring unity and promote equality it brings division and accusation.

Wait, are you pretending that political correctness is some type of conspiracy? Or a particular list of behaviour?

I am pretending nothing, I am observing. Political correctness is often used as a beatstick for political ends, failure to adhere to political correct dogma can lead to punishment of some form, and its is often unevenly applied. It preaches fairnes and equality, but does not deliver, in fact it can be a to by which unfairness is delivered, by inference that people who fail to adhere to politically correct terminology are offensive, ignorant or bigoted and that those who do are culturally superior.

Orlanth wrote:
When I stand in front of a group of people, or a person that is significant to a group of people, and behave in a way that is deliberately inoffensive, then I am being politically correct. Being politically correct is not just not being racist, in fact racism can be politically correct (and has been throughout history) given the right audience. You seem to be using at as a conservative pejorative, which is just naive.

Naive? Have you any idea what you are talking about? Rhetorical question by the way. You should try and live through New Labour, you would have seen the hard reality of political correctness and how easily it can be weaponised politically. Part of the OFFICIAL training I and many others had was to swallow the idea, packaged as political correctness, that women could not be sexist and ethnic minorities could not be racist. Both could be discriminatory, but at a lower level than someone who was in the 'political majority'. Political correctness enabled differing levels of treatment for similar offences and differing levels of opportunity based on blanket criteria. This dogma was enforced in the training, that 'disempowered persons' can be given advantages without surrendering the concept of equality, with the concept of empowerment being limited to blanket group identity membership. One had to formally agree with it being 'correct' in order to pass government accreditation (and keep your job). It is the root behind how you can marry the twin doctrines of claiming to be 'pro-equality' while openly practicing 'positive discrimination', even well beyond the point by which minorities are represented demographically in the workforce.

This is but one type of example, political correctness can do a whole lot of evils, and relabel them good. It can be used innocently but it is also an Orwellian concept depending on how it is applied.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Besides politcial correctness is only about niceties on the surface, scratch beneath and it's about empowerment politics.

What do you think politeness is about?

Politeness is about positive interaction, it makes no statement of itself about power balance.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
Insulting someone isn't under the jurisdiction of political correctness, however discriminating against a race and or sex is under the jurisdiction of political correctness. Not calling a mugger an idiot is common sense.

When a definition notes something using the words "as in" it isn't being exclusive. Just as you wouldn't say calling a black man the n-word isn't an insult.

You are correct though, my example of the mugger was poorly chosen, as he is not necessarily part of a group of people. Your mother, however, certainly is.

Not necessarily, if you normally use the term c-bag as an insult and just decided to use it against your mother it doesn't mean that you're being sexist or trying to offend her in relation to her sex, you could just really hate her because of how she acts.

Calling a black man the n-word is another fun concept because in my high school some of the black kids called each other the n-word when greeting each other.

In fact I have an aversion to the N-word because when I was 8 I was listening to some rap outside with my friends, a black kid from another neighborhood happened to be riding by on his bike when the rapper decided to use the N-word. The black kid thought that we were saying it and he got his older brother, and let's just say that when you're 8 years old and a highschooler comes up to you and your friends and threatens to get his friends and beat the living crap out of you, you try to avoid the word as much as possible. I don't avoid the use of the word out of political correctness, I avoided it out of fear for my life.

I had all sorts of fun with different races and culture when I was younger, in fact there was about a week in time when I thought that black people had tiny holes in their hands because a black kid in my class had managed to use soap to stick wet paper towels to his hand and told me that the holes allowed him to do so.