Former Lancastrian

My morse is a bit rusty but that looks like an SOS

scrubbedexpat142

It's a call for help with our thorny problem!

yellowroom

scrubbedexpat142

Tbh, this debate, which has been rumbling for years, makes a remake completely pointless. However the issue is handled, every review and opinion will be dominated by this subject, making the film redundant.

Might as well put up a still of a black dog, with the allocated name printed below and let everybody get on with the debate.

caretaker

Obviously more important than rubbing out the unsuspecting people down the valley. Sometimes I have trouble liking re-makes, (or films made from books), and sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised. The original was good enough that any major changes to the screenplay or addition of sub-plots will be ripe for criticism.

yellowroom

From what I recall, they said a remake is worthwhile because so much of the dambuster's story was still classified when the film was made in the 50s, so there actually is new material/plot.

caretaker

I like historical accuracy and can see how updating some things would be good, but I'm apprehensive about the industry predilection for throwing a love story into a war story. The structure of background and tactical need, inspiration, development, crew selection,training, execution, and epilogue seems straight forward. Since they obviously aren't going to get a bunch of flying Lancs these days the quality of cgi will be very important. The sooner they make it and release it the sooner I may find a second-hand dvd.

scrubbedexpat099

Do a US version with B17's

scrubbedexpat142

Yes but the "meeja" - in all its forms, will make so much fuss about the dog that all the good stuff will be lost in the noise!

scrubbedexpat142

With Tom Cruise in the starring role? Actually rolling him up, rotating him at speed and dropping him into a lake from 60 feet might make a good spectacle!

Anian

I bet it will just be called Nigel.

scrubbedexpat142

Far too gender specific!

Oakvillian

I'm sure there was a version of the 1954 film on TV several years ago with the dog's name overdubbed to "Digger." Since it sounds like a person with a heavy cold pronouncing the poor mutt's acutal name, the lip-synch didn't look off, and I imagine hardly anybody noticed enough to care. But it's possible I imagined that...

Absolutely. Some of Wallis's work was still classified into the 1970s, and although I understand that several of the key players were consulted for the '54 movie, there is probably a lot of information they still weren't able to share. However, much of that will be technical detail, which may not translate too well into an action film.

Other memoirs that have been published since, probably shed some more light on Gibson's character: by all accounts he was really not a very likeable man, but he has that in common with many other inspirational leaders. His is a fascinating story, though, however it's told: born to a Raj family in India; brought up largely by an aunt as his mother became an alcoholic following a messy divorce; always a bit of a loner; pursued and ultimately married a showgirl after becoming mesmerized by her performance on stage... there's enough for a sub-plot or two in there to keep the scriptwriters happy.

Bring it on...

kimilseung

My opinion for what it's worth, is the name needs to be changed. No other word I can think carries the same level of deep biting insult. It matters not to the history of the story, if it stays it diverts from the heroics to question the time and place, and society that created the ability for such insults. It might remind the viewer that WW2, was all about putting down a rival power with imperial ambitions. The result of the war was dismantling of empire, so all a bit pointless in the end. For the movie to work it will want heroes. Any reminder that they wouldn't have been everybody's heroes probably needs to be taken out for dramatic reasons, for what will be a planned block buster.

kimilseung

Fry was writing for Jackson, so I suppose that is our answer