Actually, he’s saying the padding would occur as a result of changing the name, and that that would be a good thing.
Seems to me, though, that it’s hard to argue one way or another as to whether changing the name or keeping it the same would result in a larger public debate.
I’m for keeping the name, but seeing the another angle, from the suit’s POV
Controversy = Publicity = more butts in the seats.
Indistinguishable is correct: I’m saying that, solely from the practical point of view of the filmmakers, I believe it would be preferable to change the dog’s name.
Obviously there would be a debate either way, and more or less equal public awareness of the film due to the controversy. However, again solely from the point of view of those who would like the film to do well, and not arguing whether use of the actual name is “right” or “wrong,” I believe it would be better that the debate take the form of, “why did the filmmakers change the name,” rather than, “why didn’t they.”
In the latter circumstance, there is greater risk of the debate drifting away from legitimate questions of narrative interpretation into bullshit about the filmmakers’ secret intent (“maybe Peter Jackson is a closet racist, look at how dark the orcs were compared to the elves, and how about those natives in King Kong”), which could potentially pollute public opinion of the (as yet unseen) movie, and thus decrease, however slightly, people’s interest in seeing it. In the former circumstance, the debate would take predictable shape, with the anti-PC police shrieking familiar phrases about whitewashing history; but the film itself would have the (modest) benefit of attempting not to offend, which I believe the average moviegoer would more easily forgive than the alternative.
And as many previous controversial events have shown, the public tends to be interested in properties (books, movies, etc) where the angry protest comes from people who object, apparently far out of proportion, to a harmless alternative take on existing material (e.g. Last Temptation of Christ and Satanic Verses, neither of which would have come to general attention without the furious objections of the purists), whereas the public generally shuns material that apparently seems calculated to attract attention simply through shock (e.g. Hostel 2).
Right or wrong, I believe the mainstream audience would interpret the inclusion of the dog’s actual historical name as an attempt on the part of the filmmakers to generate controversy and publicity, and would resist that attention-mongering, by avoiding the film; and by contrast, I believe the same audience, right or wrong, would interpret the protests of the anti-PC police not as defense of history but as advancement of a political agenda and an attempt to pressure people not to see the film, which they would similarly resist, by going and buying a ticket.
Incidentally, I don’t think the effect would be a large one, by any means; it would result in, at most, a swing of five percent in revenue. But at the scale of a major motion picture, five percent represents a whole lot of dollars. And if that can be accomplished with the change of a single word, it would be extremely cost-effective, and foolish not to do.
Hmm. Everything you say makes sense, and I feel, as I’m reading, like I agree with you. But then, bottom line, changing the name feels like some kind of compromise to me. It makes me queasy, politically and artistically speaking. Still, that’s my gut versus your logic.
But what the actual codeword is is a minor detail. Just as minor as what the actual dog’s name is.
I was afraid you’d ask that. No, I can’t. At least not coherently on a message board, as it’s more of a ‘feeling’.
There’s something (rather pretentiously) called ‘the Director’s vision’, which is the way a director ‘sees’ a film and wishes the audience to see it. One director could envision a film, in this case a war film, as a rolicking action-adventure, another might see it as a documentary, and third might want to make it a comedy. If I were directing it, the dog’s name is important to me as part of my ‘vision’ for the reasons I have not been able to adequately articulate. In the end it’s an artistic choice and one either agrees with it or disagrees.
Can’t argue with that.