Is It Ok To Change History For Movies?

[The Batman]

The remake of the Dambusters has taken one further step to getting the go ahead.

and they will not be calling the dog by it's name.

The only problem with this is that the codeword for the success of the Mohne Dam is the same name as the dog. How they will get round that is anyone's guess.

So Stephen Fry will be calling the dog "digger" instead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-13727908

I think it's an insult to those who never made it home after the raid, some historians view it as one of the most important events in World War 2.

While we're at it, let's change the name of the creator Barnes Wallis to Nicky Maynard. The planes they flew in will be Concordes and they attacked alien invaders rather than the Germans.

If they can change one name they can change the rest.

If they are gonna change it, then they should not make it. Pretty sure the money from the film wont be going to the British Legion or RAF either.

[Barrs Court Red]

In Egypt and ancient Rome it was acceptable to bum young boys.

Times change and sometimes it's eort omitting things that where acceptable at the time.

[The Batman]

um, ok??

so what if the German government said that no more movies could involve *unacceptable word*'s as it portrays their history in an offensive way.

would you say "fair enough, times change etc etc"

edit - damn you otib. i cant even say N@z1.

unacceptable word my arse.

[The Batman]

here's another one for ya

just spoke to my cousin who lived in australia. apparently digger is offensive to Australian and new zealanders.

so stephen fry will have to change it again as you mustn't offend anyone.

[fka dagest]

The idea of re-writing history to suit modern tastes and sensitivities is idiotic. Everyone should know what words are acceptable or not because each age lives by its own standards.

Having said that cinema is just that - cinema. It doesn't purport to be history. The problems lie when people don't know the difference.

[Barrs Court Red]

The german government HAVE banned anything that shows N@zi logos or ideology, even games! It's even illegal for game modders to add swastikas.

I'd rather a film aboutvyhe dam busters educates a whole new generation on the amazing story, rather than be mired over a dogs name.

um, ok??

so what if the German government said that no more movies could involve *unacceptable word*'s as it portrays their history in an offensive way.

would you say "fair enough, times change etc etc"

edit - damn you otib. i cant even say N@z1.

unacceptable word my arse.

[The Batman]

They may have done in Germany, but the rest of the world still portray it. With regards to the story of the dambusters, what was the codeword that confirmed the success of the bombing of the mohne dam?? It's part of the "amazing story" and is a significant moment in British military history. Just gonna ignore it??

[Barrs Court Red]

In this case we're talking about one word.

The film that showed the yanks capturing the enigma took the piss, as did the embarresingly pc episodes of Sharpe in India. In this case like I said, I feel it's worth a change of codeword and dog to avoid detracting from the true point of the film.

[InCider]

I'm with AVIA on this one. I don't think that changing one letter of a name is such a bad thing and as long as the rest of the film is accurate, it will hopefully educate a new generation about their heroic exploits. The n word now has negative connotations, which it didn't at the time. I don't see it as re-writing history, purely a change of one word in a film, which needs to appeal to all ages and creeds. I would be against such a name change in history books though.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

We live in a country of sharp contradictions.

For instance we allow a guy who was a murderer and torturer for Mugabe to live in Fishponds and pay for him and his wife not only to live here but also pay for their aids treatment, because it would infringe THEIR human rights to send them back to Zimbabwe.

We vilify a woman for putting a cat into a dustbin, but conveniently turn a blind eye to slitting an animals throat and allowing it to bleed to death for a religious ritual.

We have a top tory poiltician clamouring to cut jail sentences and telling us 'some rapes are not as serious as other rapes' but we allow a 3 year witch hunt to go on within the Bristol council where one black politician calls another black politician 'a coconut' ending in court cases and one of the politician with a criminal record.

in the end you get the government and the political landscape you deserve and all that goes with it including re-writing history.

[Philip Belgrave]

here's another one for ya

just spoke to my cousin who lived in australia. apparently digger is offensive to Australian and new zealanders.

so stephen fry will have to change it again as you mustn't offend anyone.

No- it most decidedly is not !!

I'm afraid your cousin's memory has become seriously distorted. Australia's troops have always been "Diggers" , or just "Digs"for short:- a long and honourable nickname.

However, coming back to the topic: history has always been distorted to some degree in film: Mel Gibson is chief, recent ,offender.

[Laner]

The remake of the Dambusters has taken one further step to getting the go ahead.

and they will not be calling the dog by it's name.

The only problem with this is that the codeword for the success of the Mohne Dam is the same name as the dog. How they will get round that is anyone's guess.

So Stephen Fry will be calling the dog "digger" instead

http://www.bbc.co.uk...nshire-13727908

I think it's an insult to those who never made it home after the raid, some historians view it as one of the most important events in World War 2.

While we're at it, let's change the name of the creator Barnes Wallis to Nicky Maynard. The planes they flew in will be Concordes and they attacked alien invaders rather than the Germans.

If they can change one name they can change the rest.

If they are gonna change it, then they should not make it. Pretty sure the money from the film wont be going to the British Legion or RAF either.

To answer your main question... no, it is not right to rewrite history for the movies.

However, what is acceptable and often done is to leave certain details out. I'm sure the story won't become too confusing for the viewer if the codeword of one successful breach is left out!

[Monkeh]

history is written by the winners,

Take rome and the invasions of the barbaian states of Germania you only hear romes view of it because they won,

Again with their invasion of Briton and their quilling of the native up raising apart from the sacking of the roman city of Camulodunum (modern day colchester) you hear very little of the Celtic tribes, and almost nothing north of the wall

Changing history for a film isn't a new thing and has happened for donkey's years although it will outrage a few many will simply not care and in another age will be forgotton all together,

Then you also have the warped bible thumpers view of history which starts as little as 4000 years ago and some 200 years ago,

History is what you make of it

[barry_mack]

history is written by the winners,

Take rome and the invasions of the barbaian states of Germania you only hear romes view of it because they won,

Again with their invasion of Briton and their quilling of the native up raising apart from the sacking of the roman city of Camulodunum (modern day colchester) you hear very little of the Celtic tribes, and almost nothing north of the wall

Changing history for a film isn't a new thing and has happened for donkey's years although it will outrage a few many will simply not care and in another age will be forgotton all together,

Then you also have the warped bible thumpers view of history which starts as little as 4000 years ago and some 200 years ago,

History is what you make of it

Quite so old bean. I'd say that abuot 78% of history is just random statistics used to formulate a perspective.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Who are these 'some' historians?

Though its a famous raid in terms of Tech and Propaganda.. It wasnt that great in terms of actually achieving anything pracitcal

'Operation Chastise' Stats

53 out of 133. (40%) Allied Service men died on the mission

The deaths caused by the Dam Bursts were about 1,300 iirc and about half killed were POW's from France, Belgium, Netherlands and the Ukraine (female forced labour iirc)

And The Ruhr was pretty much back up to full pelt in terms of industrial output within 5 weeks of the raid

Now if the RAF/USAF had bombed afterwards as they were clearing up then it could have been a massive victory but because it was flooded it was left.

Instead it ruined some farmland, killed some people and boosted the UK Morale and lessened the German a bit

Not as huge as the film would have you believe. The technical achievement and the flying skills are really where the merit is but other than that its not really a great thing and certainly not among the most important events of WW2.. Celebrated, yes. Important, no

All very true but morale boosting during this particular war was very important indeed and not to be under estimated. We can see from information about WW2 as it released into the public domain that much was exaggerated and even more never even released to the public especially defeats and even news about air raids and heavy loss of life, because morale was probably the most important weapon that we possessed during those dark days.

[Philip Belgrave]

history is written by the winners,

Take rome and the invasions of the barbaian states of Germania you only hear romes view of it because they won,

Again with their invasion of Briton and their quilling of the native up raising apart from the sacking of the roman city of Camulodunum (modern day colchester) you hear very little of the Celtic tribes, and almost nothing north of the wall

Changing history for a film isn't a new thing and has happened for donkey's years although it will outrage a few many will simply not care and in another age will be forgotton all together,

Then you also have the warped bible thumpers view of history which starts as little as 4000 years ago and some 200 years ago,

History is what you make of it

Not really.

The true academic study of history , just like any other field of scholarship, is a DISCIPLINE, and trite utterings such as "History is what you make of it", and "History is written by the winners" are, to my mind, so much crap.

Genuine historians- unlike the popularist Hollywood productions of such people as Mel Gibson- approach their field objectively by a study of primary sources. There will,of course, be differences in emphasis,brought about by the background of the particular scholar and there are inevitably and regrettably, people who presume to call themselves "historians" because they have a particular axe to grind and seek to gain publicity by producing works of fiction disguised as the real deal.

I am sure that, if you took the trouble to study the topic thoroughly, you would find plenty of material concerning the relationship of the Celtic tribes, Brigantes, Iceni, Silures etc with the invading Romans and their differing responses to the intrusion.

Presumably you are only aware of what happened in Colchester because you happened to have encountered Boudicca in your readings.

Rome winning in Germany- you're joking, right ?

[oldfield]

First off why remake a classic in the first place. Same old film makers with no new ideas.

But if the only change to the historical facts of the Dambusters story, is the name of Guy Gibsons dog, this is acceptable in the PC world we live in.

What is wrong when history is changed for Box Office sales.

U571 - The film shows the American Navy capturing the Enigma machine in 1942, Enigma had actually been deciphered almost a year before this film is set and seven months before the US entered the second world war. The first capture took place in February 1940, when the U-33 was taken by HMS Gleaner off the coast of Scotland

U571 was never captured, though it was sunk by an Australian plane off Ireland in 1944.

The Great Escape - Is another story changed for the American Box Office.

What makes it strange, is Stephen Fry changing history as the presenter of Qi.

[barry_mack]

[Philip Belgrave]

Thing is, it's hard not to argue that all history is subjective. You could argue that every event worth recounting is implausibly complex merely by the nature of the maelstrom of human effect both pre, during and post event, that any perspective, no matter how objective the investigation, is subjective. Look at the pyramids, people can't agree on their build dates, let alone their function.

Even recent events with the advent of photo/film etc are very easily manipulated. Certainly I feel that the history taught in schools is not much short of propaganda.

Talking of the academics of it is beyond me. Are you referring to field studies and on hand investigation? It's just not practical. If you are referring to further word of mouth stories then again it is subjective.

As for rewriting history, it is understandable but needs limits. Band of Brothers was very good, and although quite biased, kept to the correct story as much as possible (from what I'm led to believe). Saving Private Ryan however was just a load of old bollocks. But who's to say what is accurate and what isn't?

A-ha,

"What is truth?" (attributed to Pontius Pilate circa 33 CE)

It must be understood that serious history is a branch of the humanities. It's not an exact science like, say. Physics. Therefore all historians see things through the prism of their own scholarship (and some non-historians promulgate propaganda in the guise of history).

Therefore. it follows that the truth may only be glimpsed after extensive reading around the subject and conclusions then duly drawn. It certainly cannot be ascertained by the reading of a single book or the viewing of a single movie on the subject- which brings us back to the topic of this thread.

For example,any notion that the Romans were actually sucessful in invading and permanently ccupying what is now modern Germany can,perhaps ,be attributed to the film Gladiator, starring my compatriot, Russell "Unleash Hell" Crowe. The reality was the exact reverse, the Romans suffered a such a defeat that the results resonated down the centuries- and ,perhaps, are with us still.

Such was the disaster that it is recorded by Roman historians that Emperor Augustus exclaimed, "Quintilius Varus, Give me back my Legions!" (What was that about history being written by the winners?).

Take another example: There is a towering figure in British history whose cause is championed by a renowned contributor to Bristol City Forums.

Many believe that he was a pivotal figure in our history: - Well ahead of his time,Inspired Forward-Looking Reformer, Champion of the Common People, Superb Tactician and Cavalry Commander. One of the Great Political Leaders in History. A Patriotic founder of the British Empire.

Others say that he was a Cruel Zealot, Merciless Regicide and all-round Bastard.

What is truth ?

Certainly it could not be ascertained be only viewing the film of his life, which starred, rather incongruously, Irishman Richard Harris.

[The Batman]

evening folks

been away for a while, hence why not added anything further.

I do see where you are all coming from. After all it is a name, if it wernt for the code word being named after him they could simply write the dog out the story.

Mind you, could be a subliminal hatred for Peter Jackson. I hated King Kong and I hate the Lord of the Rings.

Needless to say, I doubt Stephen Fry is gonna change his mind. minus 1000 points for him on QI.

regarding U-571, never watched it due to the anger it caused a relative of mine.