More than that, judging from the current rentals of the 1957 3:10 to Yuma, a lot of people certainly *will *become aware of it once the Jackson-produced film is out.
There you go.
I’m having a hard time imagining how making a film in 2007 (or whenever he’s going to make it), and naming the dog Nigger could result in a movie about anything other than the fact that there’s a dog named Nigger. Maybe that’s okay, if Peter Jackson wants to focus on the historical climate that led to a dog being cheerfully called Nigger and everyone getting right on board with it.
Hmmmm…perhaps “Cracker”?
Reading this thread I have the impression that the majority of Dopers think that changing the dog’s name is a mistake.
I can’t say, now, myself.
A lot of it’s going to depend upon what other changes that will have to be made to the story to make the remake palatable to modern audiences.
I think that the technological story, as it is, is quite compelling, and makes for great drama. But, having said that, the story is almost completely sexless, and from what I recall of the movie, there isn’t even an attempt to have the audience identify with more than just the single bomber crew. Given the number of planes involved in these raids (Again, going off my admittedly fallible memory - weren’t there three or more dams that were attacked that night?) and the losses suffered, I can’t see any modern filmmaker being willing to avoid having a “Mother and Country” plane* to make the audience feel for the ones who didn’t make it.
I also think that it’s very likely that the story will have some sort of romantic plot shoehorned into the movie. To the detriment of the overall story, but to the benefit of the movie’s box office numbers.
If the changes that I’m suggesting are going to be made, to be more clear if Jackson is going to be telling an essentially modern story set to please modern sensibilities, I don’t see why there’s any need to include the admittedly callous and embarassing detail of the dog’s name.
If, on the other hand, the intent is to tell the story pretty much as the original movie showed it - as a mostly historical film of a most interesting raid and technological solution to a difficult problem - keep the dog’s name accurate. We do no one any favors by gratuitiously removing the warts from the historical record.
*“Mother and Country” was the name of the plane in the 1990 remake of Memphis Belle that existed for no other purpose than to show the audience that gasp people died in the air war!
For the record, the other crews were in fact a big part of the movie, but of course, as in life there was a lead pilot whose job it was to oversee the training of those crews. That’s the dude with the dog.
See, that’s what I say: I say he should leave the name, but make it clear that he’s acknowledging the cultural context that such a name signifies.
Maybe he should add a German officer with a dog named Hymie or something.
Agreed. A film that has white people casually using the word nigger, especially to name a pet, instantly becomes about race issues. And that’s not what this film will be about. They should and almost certainly will change the name.
lissener, I only remembered the crew of the lead pilot, myself - but I’ll admit it’s been a while since I’ve seen the film. And what I recall most vividly was the way they solved the altimeter problem that the bomb required.
I’d change the name (Agatha Christie did). Why piss off people over such a trivial plot point?
If the dog isn’t in an extreme amount of scenes I don’t think it’d be a big deal.
The big question is, will Peter Jackson include the Scouring of the Shire in the movie? 
They Should keep the dog named “Nigger”, and change the name of the movie to “The Darnbusters.”
No, but he will have the Swedish Air Force turn up for a crucial battle. And the middle hour will be an entirely pointless and utterly boring exploration of the boundless love between Wing Commander Gibson and his dog.
On the OP :- the name of the dog is of no historical import. It can and should be changed.
Keep the word in Huckleberry Finn, replace it in Dambusters
Will the remake use a cylindrical bomb as was actually used, or a spherical one as in the original movie, made when the cylinder shape was still a classified secret?
Aah. I wondered why the bomb was so clumsily FXed over. I imagine they’ll use the cylinder; they did in the recentish *Foyle’s War *episode.
Does changing the dog’s name change the movie? If the dog’s name played an important role in the story (or in the actual events, like if the pilots had chosen the German village of Nigger as their first target in memory of the dog), I’d say no, don’t change it. If there were some relevant context outside the movie that would cause the dog’s name to throw events within the movie into a clearer light, that is, if it added any new layer of relevance or meaning to the film (such as Nigger Jim in Huck Finn), again I’d say leave it as is.
In this case, though, it’s just a distraction, and an unnecessary one. If PJ changes it, I won’t feel the film has lost anything for it.
Why not do what George Lucas did and call the dog Chewbacca?
I thought the dog’s name was Indiana.
I’m against the whole movie as a whole, and not because I give a shit about the dog’s name but because I’m against the idea of remakes in general. I think they’re a waste of money and time, they rarely improve upon the original, and they make the original less special. And yeah, I know the Maltese Falcon was a remake - it doesn’t count. I can’t think of a single remake in recent memory that’s been anything other than trash.