Classic British Flight Sim

This could be an innocent statement from a younger generation who have no comprehension of the context of what they are talking about.

Garry

Yes mate.. it could

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Garry Russell wrote:This could be an innocent statement from a younger generation who have no comprehension of the context of what they are talking about.

Garry

Thats why I started this topic. I knew not of the dog therefore seeing such a controversial word, I'd thought I would pop the question. I am glad I did, there are some very interesting contributions here.

Rgds

Ben

I think it is irrelevant what the dogs' name was. If you are making a film that is supposed to depict a real event in history, you stick to the facts however palatable or unpalatable they may be. If you cannot do this then do not make the film.

We have all seen films in the last few years where that has not been done ie Memphis Belle, the films about the Enigma code, Titanic etc.

Many, many years ago Mad Magazine did one of their lampoons on the film industry and PC. Showing how it has changed over the years they used Pearl Harbour as the subject. In the 40's the film showed dastardly , evil Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour. In the 60's it was a Japanese person full of humanity forced by circumstances to do what he did, but regretting it all the time. Their prediction was for the future a film would come out showinghow the unthinking, gung ho Americans exploded their own ships whilst the Japanese were engaged in a piece of harmless formation flying over Hawaii.

At the end of the day if they cannot stick to the facts then I won't pay to go and see the film. We all have the choice.

In the 40's the film showed dastardly , evil Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour. In the 60's it was a Japanese person full of humanity forced by circumstances to do what he did, but regretting it all the time.

So which version do you think was more historically accurate?

simondix wrote:I think it is irrelevant what the dogs' name was. If you are making a film that is supposed to depict a real event in history, you stick to the facts however palatable or unpalatable they may be. If you cannot do this then do not make the film.

Our world has gone stupidly PC in recent years trying to accommodate everyone's race, beliefs etc etc. My hat's off to anyone who sticks to their guns and doesn't pander to or worry about hurting people's over sensitive natures when quoting historical fact.

When I click on the last post I get a Simshed login and only get the post when I cancel that.

I've looked but I can see nothing wrong?? :think:

Garry

I'm getting the same trying to open up my last post????? :brick: :brick: :brick:


Garry

simondix wrote:I think it is irrelevant what the dogs' name was. If you are making a film that is supposed to depict a real event in history, you stick to the facts however palatable or unpalatable they may be. If you cannot do this then do not make the film.

No, you don't stick to the facts, you modify the facts to an acceptable extent in order to make an entertaining film. If you want to stick to the facts and nothing but the facts then you need to make a documentary rather than a mainstream film. There are many degrees of this, some of which is acceptable and some of which is not, it's up to the viewer to decide. The only thing that is true is that if something was produced based on just the facts and remained 100% true to them with no alterations in the name of dramaticism, character development, narrative and various other essentials in storytelling it would be horribly boring and no-one would watch it no matter how exciting real life events were.

The art of cinema (as in literature) is based around interpretations of events, very rarely is it to do with reporting actual events in a completely factual manner.

Personally when I saw Dave B's reference to Homer I thought he was going all poetic and leading us on an odessy - but disappointingly we only got as far as Springfield ;-)

The name of Guy Gibson's dog is one of an increasing number of linguistic minefields we seem to have to cross from time to time. As others have said context is all - there is no end of F**k, S**T (the capital T is to show it's reversable) etc etc in much literature but you wouldn't use it in polite text (at least not unless waxing lyrical on some of our hobbies less good contributions); same is true of "nigger" - its use in the right place and context, e.g. historically, is fine but its use in the Skysim ad does seem a bit gratuitous.

Regards,
Chris