'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
The problem is it seems also other people's, and as I argued below, the way the reaction to the word has changed makes using it less true to the intentions of the original film-makers.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
You may have a point but the endless use of needless profanity in films and TV programmes does in my view totally distract from what a film is about. Plus it seems particularly objectionable when fed throughn my TV screen. I understand the use and need for swearing but my emphasis is on 'endless' and 'needless'. I thought Pulp Fiction as one example was a great film, but it would still have been with absolutely no swearing in it at all.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
Would you also insist that Shakespeare's plays must always use all the original words in a modern production? Even if their meaning has completely changed?
Felix Leither being stabbed is key to the point of their relationship. I've just bought the last 22 Bond movies as a box set - I love Live and Let Die. Along with Moonraker and Dr No.
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Has the dog gone completely in the remake? Since it neither designed the bomb nor flew the planes, it could easily be omitted (although the code word would need to be changed, of course). It is not as if the Captain's goldfish played an important role in The Cruel Sea.
Has any other film had such an odd structure as Dambusters, which is almost like two unrelated documentaries shown back to back? It would be like tacking The First of the Few onto the front of Battle of Britain.
Its important insamuch that one is always seriously pissed off with a film that bears little or no relation to the book, or like the Americans rewriting history about the capture of Enigma.
Its a nonsense and a re-wrining of history. Once you start where does it all end?
I haven't watched the US film about Enigma on primciple, nor will I ever watch a BBC rewrite of any film (or re-edit)
In Live and let Die the BBC remove the frames where the US agent is stabbed whilst he is standing by the lamppost
We live in a sanitised world. Its ok to report about all the stabbings and knife crime in real life (CF the stabbings in Australia) but not in a film.. Utterly ridiculous
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
Would you also insist that Shakespeare's plays must always use all the original words in a modern production? Even if their meaning has completely changed?
Many people seem to insist so for some reason, it's weird.
That's a very sharp observation of it. I hated Mad Men because I simply didn't give a toss about the characters - they were all awful bar Joan.
Agreed. Watched the first season, and I like slow paced dramas, but I never got the appeal of these supposedly 'amazing' characters. If not likeable people need to be interesting in some way, and in Mad Men (season 1 anyway, not seen the rest) even the interesting bits of them were played in a way that made it all seen dull.
Yes, Dallas and Dynasty (before your time, most of you) handled it differently - Dallas had an anti-hero, engaging and awful, and half the time he'd come out on top, so there was genuine uncertainty in it. Dynasty had nicer people, battling with wicked schemers, so there was less uncertainty but in some ways it made pleasanter viewing. Some people saw it as all about obscene riches - not sure it was meant to be in the US context: successful people yes, but not really about filthy riches.
It could be that some of their support comes from the likes of Respect too as 'others' are lumped in with 'don't knows.' What is clear though is that the main switchers to Green are 2010 LDs who voted LD when they were seen as left of Labour but have now discovered the Greens are the true left of Labour party, that has also hit Miliband's hopes of winning all those lefty LD defectors OGH was saying were so important to him
That's always been priced in - Labour has been getting 30%ish of LibDems who have decided what they want to vote next time, but there is still a big chunk of don't knows, who might revert or more probably just scatter. The rise of the Greens hasn't eaten into the Labour share noticeably - what the Greens are doing is taking some of the ex-LDs who weren't sure what to do because they were disappointed with Clegg but still didn't like Labour.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
Would you also insist that Shakespeare's plays must always use all the original words in a modern production? Even if their meaning has completely changed?
Many people seem to insist so for some reason, it's weird.
Do they? Pretty much every Shakespeare production ever has cut, edited, and re-cut the plays to suit themselves.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur in the context though is it?
Cant you take context into account when things happen? That seems to be the main problem with political correctness
AS a candidate in the May elections, should you not be canvassing and organising ? You seem to spend 24 hours a day in PB.
In my view the ex Lib Dems who have switched to Green did so because they hated the Conservatives more than they loved the Lib Dems and could not tolerate the Lib Dems going into coalition with the Conservatives.
However, when it comes to voting, these Conservative hating ex-Lib Dems will surely vote for the party which is most likely to keep out the Conservatives ie Labour or Lib Dem not Green?
Some of these types wants to keep their conscience "clean". Later on, they could say "But I didn't vote for this lot"
A lot of people talk about 'swingback' to a government as an election draws closer. Far fewer seem to be aware, however, that the official campaign period - the month leading up to polling day - actually favours the Opposition. This was true in 1959 - 1964 - 1966 - 1970 - Feb1974 - Oct 1974 - 1987 - 2001 - 2005 - 2010.In both 1979 and 1997 the incumbent did make some recovery from lagging by a very big margin but still lost decisively. 1983 did see the Tory Govt increase its lead in the campaign but this was because of a swing between the opposition parties from Labour to Alliance - the Tory vote did fall back.On this basis the Tories only have barely 3 months left to build up a lead sufficient to withstand likely campaign slippage
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Has the dog gone completely in the remake? Since it neither designed the bomb nor flew the planes, it could easily be omitted (although the code word would need to be changed, of course). It is not as if the Captain's goldfish played an important role in The Cruel Sea.
Has any other film had such an odd structure as Dambusters, which is almost like two unrelated documentaries shown back to back? It would be like tacking The First of the Few onto the front of Battle of Britain.
They're calling it Digger I believe.
A few thoughts.
The film remake in some aspects will be more historically accurate than the original book, since things that were classified then are de-classified.
When the original film was done, the dog's name wasn't intended to be jarring or particularly noteworthy to the audience. Times have changed etc, and it now is.
So you have the choice of changing the dog's name so it adheres to the spirit and intent of the original, or you keep the name but go away from the spirit and intent. I'd say changing the name is probably more accurate to the original film as it was meant for audiences.
Take the dog out completely. How many other films mention the domestic pets of the protagonists? That it is still an issue makes me worry this remake will be almost a scene-by-scene copy (adjusted for accuracy as you say) but with better special effects.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
Would you also insist that Shakespeare's plays must always use all the original words in a modern production? Even if their meaning has completely changed?
What on earth is the point of going to see Shakespeare if it isn't actually Shakespeare? The bard of Avon didn't achieve fame and immortality because of his original plots but because of his use of language. I have, for example seen MacBeth set in the medieval period, the Tudor period*, the 1930s, the 1970s and in the Zululand of the early 19th century but in each case the script was Shakespeare's. I don't mind directors experimenting with the setting but even the best of them can't write dialogue to match Shakespeare and they shouldn't try.
*At the Old Vic with the delicious Diana Rigg as Lady MacBeth, a superb production, second only in my view to Polanski's 1971 film adaptation.
@isam ------------------------------------------------- I must come in on this.
In the Dam Busters, a film about a raid on a German controlled dam, A pilot leaves his faithful dog, named Nigger, behind to wait for him to return.
Now in 1943 the word Nigger was in general use for names of animals and for a shade of brown - a colour, and was not deemed offensive. Indeed in 1948 a bought 2 pair of trousers in the shade of nigger, one of Hopsack and one of Gabardine
It was only after the first few shiploads of west Indian immigrants arrived in the early 1950's that some people thought the word might be offensive to those same immigrants, although the word was used freely in film and print to describe certain black people right up to the 1960's and the era of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The use of words and their meaning changes with time, but please don't try and change the past by using today's foibles and preferences.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
Would you also insist that Shakespeare's plays must always use all the original words in a modern production? Even if their meaning has completely changed?
The use of the words 'nigger black' to describe the colour of a dog has not changed since the original Dambusters film was made. So the black labrador dog's name 'nigger' is still appropriate today and is not derogatory in context.
@isam ------------------------------------------------- I must come in on this.
In the Dam Busters, a film about a raid on a German controlled dam, A pilot leaves his faithful dog, named Nigger, behind to wait for him to return.
Now in 1943 the word Nigger was in general use for names of animals and for a shade of brown - a colour, and was not deemed offensive. Indeed in 1948 a bought 2 pair of trousers in the shade of nigger, one of Hopsack and one of Gabardine
It was only after the first few shiploads of west Indian immigrants arrived in the early 1950's that some people thought the word might be offensive to those same immigrants, although the word was used freely in film and print to describe certain black people right up to the 1960's and the era of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The use of words and their meaning changes with time, but please don't try and change the past by using today's foibles and preferences.
Point of order, Mr K., Gibson's dog was not left on the night of the Damn Busters Raid waiting for his master. The Dog was run over and killed during the day. Gibson asked the Station Warrant Officer to bury the poor beast at about midnight, because he thought that then they would both be going into the ground at the about the same time. It is that fact, that Gibson thought he was on a one way trip, that makes the inclusion of the Dog worthwhile.
From the point of view of the story the Dog's name is irrelevant.
This is all fascinating.I worked with a lady whose first name was Gay. Would we change her name in a film as it was potentially perjorative? I hope not. A dog called Nigger isn't a slave or anything to do with it.
My screen name isn't about Greek philsophers - but the name of a cat I once had.
Those who seek to take offense by making some absurd leap of context should be given a spanking IMO.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
Publications of old Warner Brothers cartoons from the 1950s come unedited with this warning up front:
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over."
The dog is called nigger because of being nigger brown, its colour. The word nigger originates as a colour descriptor and is only perjorative through use in the USA to describe people with black skin, not its use as the colour of dogs.
So used in context as a dogs name because of its colour, why should it be changed?
The only reason would be because some ignorant people can't distinguish the context. Is the way of the world to be determine by the ignorant?
I believe the use isn't purely American.
The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.
The dog was reportedly black not brown. The N word seems as i've always thought to have originated from the French or Spanish for Negro. Its always been perjorative though the use in the colour brown has probably arisen because ''as black inferiority was at one time a near universal assumption in English-speaking lands, the word in some cases could be used without deliberate insult.'' http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nigger
@isam ------------------------------------------------- I must come in on this.
In the Dam Busters, a film about a raid on a German controlled dam, A pilot leaves his faithful dog, named Nigger, behind to wait for him to return.
Now in 1943 the word Nigger was in general use for names of animals and for a shade of brown - a colour, and was not deemed offensive. Indeed in 1948 a bought 2 pair of trousers in the shade of nigger, one of Hopsack and one of Gabardine
It was only after the first few shiploads of west Indian immigrants arrived in the early 1950's that some people thought the word might be offensive to those same immigrants, although the word was used freely in film and print to describe certain black people right up to the 1960's and the era of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The use of words and their meaning changes with time, but please don't try and change the past by using today's foibles and preferences.
Point of order, Mr K., Gibson's dog was not left on the night of the Damn Busters Raid waiting for his master. The Dog was run over and killed during the day. Gibson asked the Station Warrant Officer to bury the poor beast at about midnight, because he thought that then they would both be going into the ground at the about the same time. It is that fact, that Gibson thought he was on a one way trip, that makes the inclusion of the Dog worthwhile.
From the point of view of the story the Dog's name is irrelevant.
I stand corrected @HurstLlama, my memory of the film must be mixed up with others of a similar genre. Well thats my excuse, anyway.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
Publications of old Warner Brothers cartoons from the 1950s come unedited with this warning up front:
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over."
The dog is called nigger because of being nigger brown, its colour. The word nigger originates as a colour descriptor and is only perjorative through use in the USA to describe people with black skin, not its use as the colour of dogs.
So used in context as a dogs name because of its colour, why should it be changed?
The only reason would be because some ignorant people can't distinguish the context. Is the way of the world to be determine by the ignorant?
I believe the use isn't purely American.
The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.
The dog was reportedly black not brown. The N word seems as i've always thought to have originated from the French or Spanish for Negro. Its always been perjorative though the use in the colour brown has probably arisen because ''as black inferiority was at one time a near universal assumption in English-speaking lands, the word in some cases could be used without deliberate insult.'' http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nigger
@isam ------------------------------------------------- I must come in on this.
In the Dam Busters, a film about a raid on a German controlled dam, A pilot leaves his faithful dog, named Nigger, behind to wait for him to return.
Now in 1943 the word Nigger was in general use for names of animals and for a shade of brown - a colour, and was not deemed offensive. Indeed in 1948 a bought 2 pair of trousers in the shade of nigger, one of Hopsack and one of Gabardine
It was only after the first few shiploads of west Indian immigrants arrived in the early 1950's that some people thought the word might be offensive to those same immigrants, although the word was used freely in film and print to describe certain black people right up to the 1960's and the era of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The use of words and their meaning changes with time, but please don't try and change the past by using today's foibles and preferences.
Point of order, Mr K., Gibson's dog was not left on the night of the Damn Busters Raid waiting for his master. The Dog was run over and killed during the day. Gibson asked the Station Warrant Officer to bury the poor beast at about midnight, because he thought that then they would both be going into the ground at the about the same time. It is that fact, that Gibson thought he was on a one way trip, that makes the inclusion of the Dog worthwhile.
From the point of view of the story the Dog's name is irrelevant.
I stand corrected @HurstLlama, my memory of the film must be mixed up with others of a similar genre. Well thats my excuse, anyway.
Fair enough, I know how you might feel, age is a terrible thing.
I think there was a Battle of Britain film in which a pilot's dog was featured and who was shown as pining when his master didn't come back from a mission. The name of the film eludes me but looking at the number of photos of BoB pilots with dogs it must have happened on many occasions.
OT There aren't many TV shows that don't date horribly - so I have to recommend The Addams Family as just pitch perfect - it only ran for 3 seasons, but they're just as funny and clever as they were 50yrs ago.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
The problem is it seems also other people's, and as I argued below, the way the reaction to the word has changed makes using it less true to the intentions of the original film-makers.
if the films being remade, I'd change the name of the dog, but if the old film is being shown Id leave it in
The word in question is used in loads of films. If I heard a mate say it nastily in real life d be shocked, but if I heard someone say it in a film ie Pulp Fiction I d understand the context
@isam ------------------------------------------------- I must come in on this.
In the Dam Busters, a film about a raid on a German controlled dam, A pilot leaves his faithful dog, named Nigger, behind to wait for him to return.
Now in 1943 the word Nigger was in general use for names of animals and for a shade of brown - a colour, and was not deemed offensive. Indeed in 1948 a bought 2 pair of trousers in the shade of nigger, one of Hopsack and one of Gabardine
It was only after the first few shiploads of west Indian immigrants arrived in the early 1950's that some people thought the word might be offensive to those same immigrants, although the word was used freely in film and print to describe certain black people right up to the 1960's and the era of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The use of words and their meaning changes with time, but please don't try and change the past by using today's foibles and preferences.
Just because something was not deemed offensive at the time doesn't mean it wasn't. There were very few people of dark skin in British society before the late 1940s, but the history of the term "nigger" in other parts of the British Empire was highly abusive in a lot of situations, even if no offence was meant in others. This isn't the meaning of words changing, it's the implication that an animal is like a race of human, even if that animal is loved.
That said, I don't think we should change the media of the past. It is what it is.
That doesn't mean that everyone who used it intended it to be offensive, so your experience could well have been different.
In general, I think the test of offensiveness is whether a word is or was routinely used to disparage people in a vulnerable position, especially when they've been systematically murdered (which is why people get more upset about anti-semitism than, say, a joke about Scotsmen). For instance, "Toff" is arguably meant disparagingly, but nobody really feels upset by its use in general because it doesn't describe a vulnerable group ("there are a lot of toffs in Surrey" doesn't sound terribly offensive, whether it's accurate or not, whereas "a lot of niggers are descended from Jamaicans" would sound offensive).
Of course, that's all separate from whether past creative works should be edited, which I agree is a debatable question.
This is all fascinating.I worked with a lady whose first name was Gay. Would we change her name in a film as it was potentially perjorative? I hope not. A dog called Nigger isn't a slave or anything to do with it.
My screen name isn't about Greek philsophers - but the name of a cat I once had.
Those who seek to take offense by making some absurd leap of context should be given a spanking IMO.
The absurd leap of context is that when you hear a word you think of the common meaning of it.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile I'd say change it. Not because there's a connection between the two people, but it'd be a distraction given it's association with a particular figure.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
The problem is it seems also other people's, and as I argued below, the way the reaction to the word has changed makes using it less true to the intentions of the original film-makers.
if the films being remade, I'd change the name of the dog, but if the old film is being shown Id leave it in
The word in question is used in loads of films. If I heard a mate say it nastily in real life d be shocked, but if I heard someone say it in a film ie Pulp Fiction I d understand the context
This is all fascinating.I worked with a lady whose first name was Gay. Would we change her name in a film as it was potentially perjorative? I hope not. A dog called Nigger isn't a slave or anything to do with it.
My screen name isn't about Greek philsophers - but the name of a cat I once had.
Those who seek to take offense by making some absurd leap of context should be given a spanking IMO.
A quite timely comment by coincidence!
I was watching an episode of S2 Elementary last night. Sherlock walks in on a lady who introduces herself as "I'm Gay". Cue some discomfort until it turns out that's actually her name. Then the sting of "Oh and yes, I'm also gay" "Very efficient" (or similar) responded Holmes.
That doesn't mean that everyone who used it intended it to be offensive, so your experience could well have been different.
In general, I think the test of offensiveness is whether a word is or was routinely used to disparage people in a vulnerable position, especially when they've been systematically murdered (which is why people get more upset about anti-semitism than, say, a joke about Scotsmen). For instance, "Toff" is arguably meant disparagingly, but nobody really feels upset by its use in general because it doesn't describe a vulnerable group ("there are a lot of toffs in Surrey" doesn't sound terribly offensive, whether it's accurate or not, whereas "a lot of niggers are descended from Jamaicans" would sound offensive).
Of course, that's all separate from whether past creative works should be edited, which I agree is a debatable question.
It just goes to show how, "sources" are often completely wrong, @NickPalmer. As kids we used the word freely in the playground, we were taught the word in literature and used to go up to the black (segregated) US troops asking for, "any gum, chum". The word Nigger was deemed perfectly normal for the period.
Just been re-reading Tom Sawyer for a Reading Group. The word “nigger" is used and was clearly pejorative, in that it was used to describe someone who was held to be of a different and inferior race.
While “Injuns” were regarded as untrustworthy, they weren’t “inferior" in the same sense.
The book was written post Civil War but refers to events before it, and although much was unquestionably from Clemens’ fertile imagination, one can only assume that the social situation presented was true.
Well quite. I referred to someone who was presumed to be gay as bent upthread.
It's not straight which is slang for heterosexual. Who would get miffed about being called straight if it was accurate?
The thin skins around here are very odd.My best mate was gay and loved to misspell query as queerie.
Indeed. It doesn't even need to be accurate. It's all about the context.
I have a very good black friend who calls me "nigger" (especially when he's on the scrounge for a favour) which is obviously meant affectionately and not offensively - because I'm a pasty-white yid!
I love Elementary - Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu are superbly cast. I'm an enormous Sherlock fan [can play Name That Play in 5 secs] and I thought they've done a great adaptation.
This is all fascinating.I worked with a lady whose first name was Gay. Would we change her name in a film as it was potentially perjorative? I hope not. A dog called Nigger isn't a slave or anything to do with it.
My screen name isn't about Greek philsophers - but the name of a cat I once had.
Those who seek to take offense by making some absurd leap of context should be given a spanking IMO.
A quite timely comment by coincidence!
I was watching an episode of S2 Elementary last night. Sherlock walks in on a lady who introduces herself as "I'm Gay". Cue some discomfort until it turns out that's actually her name. Then the sting of "Oh and yes, I'm also gay" "Very efficient" (or similar) responded Holmes.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
Publications of old Warner Brothers cartoons from the 1950s come unedited with this warning up front:
For instance, "Toff" is arguably meant disparagingly, but nobody really feels upset by its use in general because it doesn't describe a vulnerable group ("there are a lot of toffs in Surrey" doesn't sound terribly offensive, whether it's accurate or not, whereas "a lot of niggers are descended from Jamaicans" would sound offensive).
I'm pretty sure there was an extended snivel on PB on how dreadfully discriminatory the word 'toff' is.
Miss Plato, not seen Elementary, but the last series of Sherlock nose-dived. Wife of Watson is Scrappy Doo. And they seem to be bringing back the godawful Moriarty. He's meant to be an evil genius, not Graham Norton on crack.
I love Elementary - Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu are superbly cast. I'm an enormous Sherlock fan [can play Name That Play in 5 secs] and I thought they've done a great adaptation.
This is all fascinating.I worked with a lady whose first name was Gay. Would we change her name in a film as it was potentially perjorative? I hope not. A dog called Nigger isn't a slave or anything to do with it.
My screen name isn't about Greek philsophers - but the name of a cat I once had.
Those who seek to take offense by making some absurd leap of context should be given a spanking IMO.
A quite timely comment by coincidence!
I was watching an episode of S2 Elementary last night. Sherlock walks in on a lady who introduces herself as "I'm Gay". Cue some discomfort until it turns out that's actually her name. Then the sting of "Oh and yes, I'm also gay" "Very efficient" (or similar) responded Holmes.
Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce were my favourite pairing
Well quite. I referred to someone who was presumed to be gay as bent upthread.
It's not straight which is slang for heterosexual. Who would get miffed about being called straight if it was accurate?
The thin skins around here are very odd.My best mate was gay and loved to misspell query as queerie.
Indeed. It doesn't even need to be accurate. It's all about the context.
I have a very good black friend who calls me "nigger" (especially when he's on the scrounge for a favour) which is obviously meant affectionately and not offensively - because I'm a pasty-white yid!
That report says it will struggle to get a LARGE number of MPs, something blatantly obvious to all us on here.
However my view is that they will get 5 to 10 MPs which is a huge platform for 2020.
Indeed. A year ago tory knockers laughed at the prospect of UKIP getting anything like 5 MPs. Now they will claim its a failure if they do.
About a year ago, their response was "You haven't got any MPS in Westminster... 2nd doesn't count"
Now they say "you'll only get a few MPS etc"
Just old fashioned party politics from "Yes Minister" fans, they cant move on
yes its quite worrying that a racist party like UKIP is getting such support
Woolas was promoted by Ed Miliband following Woolas' disgraceful race-baiting " make white folk angry " electoral campaign. Later, Woolas was expelled from Parliament for his racist activities. Labour is in no position to lecture anyone on racism.
Miss Plato, not seen Elementary, but the last series of Sherlock nose-dived. Wife of Watson is Scrappy Doo. And they seem to be bringing back the godawful Moriarty. He's meant to be an evil genius, not Graham Norton on crack.
I love Elementary - Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu are superbly cast. I'm an enormous Sherlock fan [can play Name That Play in 5 secs] and I thought they've done a great adaptation.
This is all fascinating.I worked with a lady whose first name was Gay. Would we change her name in a film as it was potentially perjorative? I hope not. A dog called Nigger isn't a slave or anything to do with it.
My screen name isn't about Greek philsophers - but the name of a cat I once had.
Those who seek to take offense by making some absurd leap of context should be given a spanking IMO.
A quite timely comment by coincidence!
I was watching an episode of S2 Elementary last night. Sherlock walks in on a lady who introduces herself as "I'm Gay". Cue some discomfort until it turns out that's actually her name. Then the sting of "Oh and yes, I'm also gay" "Very efficient" (or similar) responded Holmes.
Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce were my favourite pairing
Miss Plato, not seen Elementary, but the last series of Sherlock nose-dived. Wife of Watson is Scrappy Doo. And they seem to be bringing back the godawful Moriarty. He's meant to be an evil genius, not Graham Norton on crack.
I love Elementary - Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu are superbly cast. I'm an enormous Sherlock fan [can play Name That Play in 5 secs] and I thought they've done a great adaptation.
This is all fascinating.I worked with a lady whose first name was Gay. Would we change her name in a film as it was potentially perjorative? I hope not. A dog called Nigger isn't a slave or anything to do with it.
My screen name isn't about Greek philsophers - but the name of a cat I once had.
Those who seek to take offense by making some absurd leap of context should be given a spanking IMO.
A quite timely comment by coincidence!
I was watching an episode of S2 Elementary last night. Sherlock walks in on a lady who introduces herself as "I'm Gay". Cue some discomfort until it turns out that's actually her name. Then the sting of "Oh and yes, I'm also gay" "Very efficient" (or similar) responded Holmes.
Benedict is so wooden an actor he should really be called "Lumberbatch"
Miss Plato, not seen Elementary, but the last series of Sherlock nose-dived. Wife of Watson is Scrappy Doo. And they seem to be bringing back the godawful Moriarty. He's meant to be an evil genius, not Graham Norton on crack.
The thing they did best in my opinion was provide a plausible reason why Sherlock and Watson started working together (somewhat plausible anyway), despite Sherlock by his very nature being a complete dick before you really get to understand him; it was her job, and the respect followed and developed into a working partnership. If a version of the partnership starts off with them meeting for the first time, it has to nail that dynamic, explain why someone would voluntarily work with someone who, when you first meet them, is very abrasive and might appear unpleasant even. I only saw the first episode of BBC Sherlock, but I don't recall it managing that plausibly.
I like the use of Irregulars in Elementary, I don't know if that was a thing in the stories, but it allows for some fun semi regulars or one offs to appear to assist with cases.
I love Elementary - Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu are superbly cast. I'm an enormous Sherlock fan [can play Name That Play in 5 secs] and I thought they've done a great adaptation.
This is all fascinating.I worked with a lady whose first name was Gay. Would we change her name in a film as it was potentially perjorative? I hope not. A dog called Nigger isn't a slave or anything to do with it.
My screen name isn't about Greek philsophers - but the name of a cat I once had.
Those who seek to take offense by making some absurd leap of context should be given a spanking IMO.
A quite timely comment by coincidence!
I was watching an episode of S2 Elementary last night. Sherlock walks in on a lady who introduces herself as "I'm Gay". Cue some discomfort until it turns out that's actually her name. Then the sting of "Oh and yes, I'm also gay" "Very efficient" (or similar) responded Holmes.
Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce were my favourite pairing
Oh yes! I loved them when I was small, especially Nigel Bruce' endearing bumbling, played for laughs; and how we needed cheering during the war.
The Baker St Irregulars appear in a couple of the original stories and are very Fagan troop like.
I liked Inspector Gregson transposed and thought the casting of Mycroft was awful. The actor was greasy. Sebastian Roche would've been superb in that role.
Lucy Liu is such an interesting way to characterise Watson - she's so square and analytical. How they do her version of Mr Watson will be fascinating, I really like Moriarty being female. And Vinnie Jones!!
Miss Plato, not seen Elementary, but the last series of Sherlock nose-dived. Wife of Watson is Scrappy Doo. And they seem to be bringing back the godawful Moriarty. He's meant to be an evil genius, not Graham Norton on crack.
The thing they did best in my opinion was provide a plausible reason why Sherlock and Watson started working together (somewhat plausible anyway), despite Sherlock by his very nature being a complete dick before you really get to understand him; it was her job, and the respect followed and developed into a working partnership. If a version of the partnership starts off with them meeting for the first time, it has to nail that dynamic, explain why someone would voluntarily work with someone who, when you first meet them, is very abrasive and might appear unpleasant even. I only saw the first episode of BBC Sherlock, but I don't recall it managing that plausibly.
I like the use of Irregulars in Elementary, I don't know if that was a thing in the stories, but it allows for some fun semi regulars or one offs to appear to assist with cases.
That doesn't mean that everyone who used it intended it to be offensive, so your experience could well have been different.
In general, I think the test of offensiveness is whether a word is or was routinely used to disparage people in a vulnerable position, especially when they've been systematically murdered (which is why people get more upset about anti-semitism than, say, a joke about Scotsmen). For instance, "Toff" is arguably meant disparagingly, but nobody really feels upset by its use in general because it doesn't describe a vulnerable group ("there are a lot of toffs in Surrey" doesn't sound terribly offensive, whether it's accurate or not, whereas "a lot of niggers are descended from Jamaicans" would sound offensive).
Of course, that's all separate from whether past creative works should be edited, which I agree is a debatable question.
I agree with most of your post, but even "toff" can be a nasty term. I had a family member who attended a grammar school and was called "fucking toff scum" on the walk home by kids from the comprehensive. It's clearly not on the same scale as "nigger", but it still exemplified hatred and was used to make people feel victimised and frightened for their safety.
Miss Plato, not seen Elementary, but the last series of Sherlock nose-dived. Wife of Watson is Scrappy Doo. And they seem to be bringing back the godawful Moriarty. He's meant to be an evil genius, not Graham Norton on crack.
Elementary's first season (as we have learned to call series) was better than the second imo (and I've not seen the third). I got the impression that the second season was following the BBC's version (which by then the writers and producers would have seen) and shoe-horning in name-checks to the canon, so Moriarty, Irene Adler, Mycroft et al.
Anecdote from 1996. On a Caribbean island. From a local. "Hey boss have you heard the news about ABC?" (Me) No, where did you hear that? "On N*****gram"
I don't agree about it aping the BBC version. Johnny Lee Miller gives off such immense adrenlin foot tapping impatience - quite different to Cumberbatch's dreary superiority. I can' t imagine him ever having an opium addiction to slow himself down.
I liked the first couple of BBC Sherlock's such as the pink version of A Study In Scarlet - the rest are very pedestrian IMO.
Miss Plato, not seen Elementary, but the last series of Sherlock nose-dived. Wife of Watson is Scrappy Doo. And they seem to be bringing back the godawful Moriarty. He's meant to be an evil genius, not Graham Norton on crack.
Elementary's first season (as we have learned to call series) was better than the second imo (and I've not seen the third). I got the impression that the second season was following the BBC's version (which by then the writers and producers would have seen) and shoe-horning in name-checks to the canon, so Moriarty, Irene Adler, Mycroft et al.
I agree with most of your post, but even "toff" can be a nasty term. I had a family member who attended a grammar school and was called "fucking toff scum" on the walk home by kids from the comprehensive. It's clearly not on the same scale as "nigger", but it still exemplified hatred and was used to make people feel victimised and frightened for their safety.
Very nasty - I suppose it's the same point, really: in the context, the grammar school pupil did feel vulnerable even though upper-class people usually don't.
Basically people get to choose what they don't like to be called and anyone who doesn't actually wish them ill should try to avoid it as a matter of politeness. (Still skipping the issue of editing historical stuff, which is a different question.)
Well, I suppose that does prove your Scottish credentials
[Kind of you to say so].
Mr. Roger, it seems we dwell in distant realms.
In a Middlesborough pub once with a Southern friend, and he asked the barman for a pint of "Vo" (the local brewery was Vaux, pronounced "Vox")
Oh how the locals laughed! The mickey taking was beyond belief, but in good spirits.
(Is mickey taking permitted? It may be derogatory to our celtic cousins?)
Do you think he may have been thinking about Shakespeare's Sir Nicholas Vaux (pronounced "Vo")? Or possibly the famous Elizabethan recusant Henry Vaux (also "Vo")?
Miss Plato, not seen Elementary, but the last series of Sherlock nose-dived. Wife of Watson is Scrappy Doo. And they seem to be bringing back the godawful Moriarty. He's meant to be an evil genius, not Graham Norton on crack.
Bringing him back? Didn't he sort of very definitely die?
Isn't it a bit misleading to lump together "Others" and "Don't Knows"? Not least because that includes anyone who voted Green in 2010, who we can presumably be fairly certain will be voting Green again in 2015.
Well, I suppose that does prove your Scottish credentials
[Kind of you to say so].
Mr. Roger, it seems we dwell in distant realms.
In a Middlesborough pub once with a Southern friend, and he asked the barman for a pint of "Vo" (the local brewery was Vaux, pronounced "Vox")
Oh how the locals laughed! The mickey taking was beyond belief, but in good spirits.
(Is mickey taking permitted? It may be derogatory to our celtic cousins?)
Do you think he may have been thinking about Shakespeare's Sir Nicholas Vaux (pronounced "Vo")? Or possibly the famous Elizabethan recusant Henry Vaux (also "Vo")?
A not entirely complimentary article for UKIP, that seems to have gone unnoticed on here I think, but echoes what I said about Farage's Friday "gaffes"... they continued yesterday
"Conventional political analysis - often done by younger, metropolitan types like, well, me – tends to see Mr Farage's recent comments as "gaffes" or blunders. And it's true that such remarks are mistaken if you're seeking the votes of younger, more liberal and more female voters. But if Mr Farage is pitching to a different audience -- older and more male -- his approach starts to look rather more rational.
Being the one man in politics who dares say what (some) voters think is a cornerstone of Mr Farage's appeal to a generation that feels excluded from the modern world and belittled by its masters. "Gaffes" over ostentatious breastfeeding and road-clogging immigrants don't undermine his strategy. They are his strategy."
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
And yet people watch films like The Wolf of Wall Street, which averages over 3 uses of the work f**k per minute for the whole tedious three hours. In the time Dambusters was made using that word even once would have had the film closed down if not the studio.
Personally "The Wolf of Wall Street" fails on two accounts, its unpardonably profane for no real reason, but in some ways, more importantly, it's cr@p!
That was the most disappointing thing about it. Jordan's original book is interesting - although he still shows little remorse for what he did. The film was just dull, sensationalist nonsense.
Miss Plato, not seen Elementary, but the last series of Sherlock nose-dived. Wife of Watson is Scrappy Doo. And they seem to be bringing back the godawful Moriarty. He's meant to be an evil genius, not Graham Norton on crack.
Bringing him back? Didn't he sort of very definitely die?
Miss Plato, not seen Elementary, but the last series of Sherlock nose-dived. Wife of Watson is Scrappy Doo. And they seem to be bringing back the godawful Moriarty. He's meant to be an evil genius, not Graham Norton on crack.
Bringing him back? Didn't he sort of very definitely die?
I rather like Alex Salmond's call in The Times today for a referendum in England on a new constitutional settlement including the abolition and replacement of the House of Lords. This as an alternative to the dead end of an anti-EU poll.
Whatever ones view of the Scottish referendum there is no doubt that it galvanised Scottish life in a way that no-body has experienced before. It is also clear that most people - with the exception of a few kill joys - really enjoyed the experience as perhaps the first worthwhile thing concerning politics that they had ever lived through.
Could something positive and similar happen in England?
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
And yet people watch films like The Wolf of Wall Street, which averages over 3 uses of the work f**k per minute for the whole tedious three hours. In the time Dambusters was made using that word even once would have had the film closed down if not the studio.
Personally "The Wolf of Wall Street" fails on two accounts, its unpardonably profane for no real reason, but in some ways, more importantly, it's cr@p!
That was the most disappointing thing about it. Jordan's original book is interesting - although he still shows little remorse for what he did. The film was just dull, sensationalist nonsense.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
Publications of old Warner Brothers cartoons from the 1950s come unedited with this warning up front:
I rather like Alex Salmond's call in The Times today for a referendum in England on a new constitutional settlement including the abolition and replacement of the House of Lords. This as an alternative to the dead end of an anti-EU poll.
Whatever ones view of the Scottish referendum there is no doubt that it galvanised Scottish life in a way that no-body has experienced before. It is also clear that most people - with the exception of a few kill joys - really enjoyed the experience as perhaps the first worthwhile thing concerning politics that they had ever lived through.
Could something positive and similar happen in England?
" it galvanised Scottish life in a way that no-body has experienced before"
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
Publications of old Warner Brothers cartoons from the 1950s come unedited with this warning up front:
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
And yet people watch films like The Wolf of Wall Street, which averages over 3 uses of the work f**k per minute for the whole tedious three hours. In the time Dambusters was made using that word even once would have had the film closed down if not the studio.
Personally "The Wolf of Wall Street" fails on two accounts, its unpardonably profane for no real reason, but in some ways, more importantly, it's cr@p!
That was the most disappointing thing about it. Jordan's original book is interesting - although he still shows little remorse for what he did. The film was just dull, sensationalist nonsense.
I rather like Alex Salmond's call in The Times today for a referendum in England on a new constitutional settlement including the abolition and replacement of the House of Lords. This as an alternative to the dead end of an anti-EU poll.
Whatever ones view of the Scottish referendum there is no doubt that it galvanised Scottish life in a way that no-body has experienced before. It is also clear that most people - with the exception of a few kill joys - really enjoyed the experience as perhaps the first worthwhile thing concerning politics that they had ever lived through.
Could something positive and similar happen in England?
Yes it can!
I was born too recently (as in under 50) to have had a vote on the future of my country in a way that has "galvanised ... life in a way that no-body has experienced before".
The chance to say that I have "really enjoyed the experience as perhaps the first worthwhile thing concerning politics that (I) had ever lived through" would be a fantastic experience and I'd love to tell my grandchildren that I voted to leave the EU.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
The problem is yours, and the solution is to get over it, or not watch films that might upset you if you cant deal with things outside your comfort zone
Publications of old Warner Brothers cartoons from the 1950s come unedited with this warning up front:
Comments
Would you also insist that Shakespeare's plays must always use all the original words in a modern production? Even if their meaning has completely changed?
Felix Leither being stabbed is key to the point of their relationship. I've just bought the last 22 Bond movies as a box set - I love Live and Let Die. Along with Moonraker and Dr No.
*At the Old Vic with the delicious Diana Rigg as Lady MacBeth, a superb production, second only in my view to Polanski's 1971 film adaptation.
-------------------------------------------------
I must come in on this.
In the Dam Busters, a film about a raid on a German controlled dam, A pilot leaves his faithful dog, named Nigger, behind to wait for him to return.
Now in 1943 the word Nigger was in general use for names of animals and for a shade of brown - a colour, and was not deemed offensive. Indeed in 1948 a bought 2 pair of trousers in the shade of nigger, one of Hopsack and one of Gabardine
It was only after the first few shiploads of west Indian immigrants arrived in the early 1950's that some people thought the word might be offensive to those same immigrants, although the word was used freely in film and print to describe certain black people right up to the 1960's and the era of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The use of words and their meaning changes with time, but please don't try and change the past by using today's foibles and preferences.
From the point of view of the story the Dog's name is irrelevant.
My screen name isn't about Greek philsophers - but the name of a cat I once had.
Those who seek to take offense by making some absurd leap of context should be given a spanking IMO.
http://praag.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/PC_Warner_Bros_cartoons_zps93a10074.jpg
Seems to me like the best way to handle it.
I think there was a Battle of Britain film in which a pilot's dog was featured and who was shown as pining when his master didn't come back from a mission. The name of the film eludes me but looking at the number of photos of BoB pilots with dogs it must have happened on many occasions.
If you fancy the DVDs - they're a bargain.
The word in question is used in loads of films. If I heard a mate say it nastily in real life d be shocked, but if I heard someone say it in a film ie Pulp Fiction I d understand the context
How is that difficult?
That said, I don't think we should change the media of the past. It is what it is.
http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/nigger-word-brief-history
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger
That doesn't mean that everyone who used it intended it to be offensive, so your experience could well have been different.
In general, I think the test of offensiveness is whether a word is or was routinely used to disparage people in a vulnerable position, especially when they've been systematically murdered (which is why people get more upset about anti-semitism than, say, a joke about Scotsmen). For instance, "Toff" is arguably meant disparagingly, but nobody really feels upset by its use in general because it doesn't describe a vulnerable group ("there are a lot of toffs in Surrey" doesn't sound terribly offensive, whether it's accurate or not, whereas "a lot of niggers are descended from Jamaicans" would sound offensive).
Of course, that's all separate from whether past creative works should be edited, which I agree is a debatable question.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile I'd say change it. Not because there's a connection between the two people, but it'd be a distraction given it's association with a particular figure.
It's not straight which is slang for heterosexual. Who would get miffed about being called straight if it was accurate?
The thin skins around here are very odd.My best mate was gay and loved to misspell query as queerie.
I was watching an episode of S2 Elementary last night.
Sherlock walks in on a lady who introduces herself as "I'm Gay".
Cue some discomfort until it turns out that's actually her name.
Then the sting of "Oh and yes, I'm also gay"
"Very efficient" (or similar) responded Holmes.
Wave power runs into choppy seas:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30560980
Hardly a surprising development, sadly.
While “Injuns” were regarded as untrustworthy, they weren’t “inferior" in the same sense.
The book was written post Civil War but refers to events before it, and although much was unquestionably from Clemens’ fertile imagination, one can only assume that the social situation presented was true.
I have a very good black friend who calls me "nigger" (especially when he's on the scrounge for a favour) which is obviously meant affectionately and not offensively - because I'm a pasty-white yid!
I don't think much of Cumberbatch.
He got monstered.
I think the writers really love Sherlock and have transposed it really well.
A whole thread of english middle class wanky bollocks on "race".
It's just the modern version of Victorians covering up the legs of a piano.
The rest of the world looks on and laughs.
Anyway, won't be watching the next season.
I like the use of Irregulars in Elementary, I don't know if that was a thing in the stories, but it allows for some fun semi regulars or one offs to appear to assist with cases.
"Benedict is so wooden an actor he should really be called "Lumberbatch"
I'd be surprised if he isn't nominated for an Oscar this year-and deservedly so in my opinion
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/12/the-conservative-challenge-to-win-back-express-man-from-ukip.html
I liked Inspector Gregson transposed and thought the casting of Mycroft was awful. The actor was greasy. Sebastian Roche would've been superb in that role.
Lucy Liu is such an interesting way to characterise Watson - she's so square and analytical. How they do her version of Mr Watson will be fascinating, I really like Moriarty being female. And Vinnie Jones!!
"A whole thread of english middle class wanky bollocks on "race"."
.........Pass the Bollinger
@Ukip tells members: ‘Don’t go on Twitter’
http://gu.com/p/44c3c/stw
On a Caribbean island. From a local.
"Hey boss have you heard the news about ABC?"
(Me) No, where did you hear that?
"On N*****gram"
One hopes Elementary didn't make Moriarty a ridiculously camp moron, about as intimidating as the Andrex puppy.
I liked the first couple of BBC Sherlock's such as the pink version of A Study In Scarlet - the rest are very pedestrian IMO.
Basically people get to choose what they don't like to be called and anyone who doesn't actually wish them ill should try to avoid it as a matter of politeness. (Still skipping the issue of editing historical stuff, which is a different question.)
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/546339695790415872
"Prole Roger"
From the poster who gave us after the Scottish referendum "If at first you don't secede........"
Definitely one to watch
"Conventional political analysis - often done by younger, metropolitan types like, well, me – tends to see Mr Farage's recent comments as "gaffes" or blunders. And it's true that such remarks are mistaken if you're seeking the votes of younger, more liberal and more female voters. But if Mr Farage is pitching to a different audience -- older and more male -- his approach starts to look rather more rational.
Being the one man in politics who dares say what (some) voters think is a cornerstone of Mr Farage's appeal to a generation that feels excluded from the modern world and belittled by its masters. "Gaffes" over ostentatious breastfeeding and road-clogging immigrants don't undermine his strategy. They are his strategy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11283041/Nigel-Farages-caution-why-Ukip-will-always-be-Lidl-not-Tesco.html
(For the record, I enjoy Sherlock)
Very good
Whatever ones view of the Scottish referendum there is no doubt that it galvanised Scottish life in a way that no-body has experienced before. It is also clear that most people - with the exception of a few kill joys - really enjoyed the experience as perhaps the first worthwhile thing concerning politics that they had ever lived through.
Could something positive and similar happen in England?
I also dislike Mr Di Caprio a lot - he's a greasy wotsit that can't act IMO. I've never seen him in a good film.
is life in Scotland really THAT crap ?
"Could something positive and similar happen in England?"
I'd be all for a referendum on getting rid of the monarchy. Though the result probably isn't in doubt I'd enjoy the two year debate on it.
I was born too recently (as in under 50) to have had a vote on the future of my country in a way that has "galvanised ... life in a way that no-body has experienced before".
The chance to say that I have "really enjoyed the experience as perhaps the first worthwhile thing concerning politics that (I) had ever lived through" would be a fantastic experience and I'd love to tell my grandchildren that I voted to leave the EU.
If you fancy UKIP in S Thanet, that is the bet
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/ukip-vote-percentage
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-votes-match-bet
"is life in Scotland really THAT crap ?"
Have you ever been bitten by midges?