Dambusters remake

Daisey

New member
So apparently Peter Jackson is to produce this film. Is anyone else praying that they don't "Americanize" or "Hollywoodize" this story? The fact that there's no good reason to make it is not a good sign.

This coming from someone who just watched (the new) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for the first time...
 
I'm glad that it seems like it's being taken seriously and should get some money put into it. I was a bit anxious that it might have been done on the cheap, but knowing that PJ is behind it is promising.

I'm still thinking it's going to be like Pearl Harbor (because films have to have a love story in them these days for some reason), but even that had some awesome aerial sequences which were worth a dvd buy (even if you do have to skip through 80% of the film).
 
I agree with you in some ways. I'm not against a remake if it was handled correctly. Its 52 years since the original and the story could be retold. :) But I fear as with U571 this will become a more hollywood and American version. The history will be altered to satisfy an american audience, Thats the only way it would make money for the greedy studio producers. Also in a post 9/11 society the american public are screaming out for heroes!!!!
 
But when are they ever handled correctly? The only reason to remake these things is MONEY. This is not a story begging to be retold. The same is true for almost all remakes and that's why they're almost universally awful. They only want to make something that a bunch of people will pay to see once - they don't care if it's actually good (or accurate) or not.
 
Having read what Jackson said when this was announced about how much he admired the British spirit and ingenuity of that time I'm sure if anyone can do it justice, he can.
 
Let's face it the special effects in the original, even by the standarRAB of the time, are pretty woeful. If we can get a film that retains the feel and spirit of the original, while adding state-of-the-art FX, we could end up with a new classic!

BTW - they CANNOT change the dog's name! It was what it was and you can't change facts just because they seem a bit embarassing now! If you follow that PC reasoning to its extreme extent, you'd never be able to watch classics like Casablanca or The Maltese Falcon, because of all the smoking!
 
Was it Carlsberg that spoofed the film in an ad? It showed a German guard playing goalkeeper on a dam with the bouncing bombs. This new version will be a boon to Carlsberg as they can link it to a rerun or new version of the ad. :D
 
Not only was that the real dog's name, the same word was used as one of the callsigns during the mission to indicate that one of the dams (I forget which) had been breached. Will they change that too?

What would happen if the word 'Guy' was an outrageous swear word in some language or other - would they change his name to Fred Gibson?

Where do you draw the line?

BTW, has anyone read Joseph Conrad's brilliant book 'The African-American of The Narcissus'?
 
I read that they are planning to use some newly declassified information in the new film so there is a very slight possibility that we may get a more accurate representation, though as has been said, if they change the name of the dog then just forget it. Could they just not mention it?
 
Back
Top