*OFFICIAL THREAD* "THE PACIFIC" on HBO

[TheWart]

I just posted this in the other "The Pacific" thread but I think it applies here as well:

With Band of Brothers the first two episodes were training, the last one was sitting around waiting to get shipped to the pacific, and there was a stretch near the end where they spent two episodes dug in frozen trenches staring at an invisible enemy who never brought on a full attack. The series followed small squad attacks on a line of troops doing shooting practice, into a small village before falling back, and taking a prisoner during the night across a river amongst others. You had very little sense of the advancement across the European front, just the experience of the soldiers. Seems the same is going on in The Pacific but for some reason that isn't good enough. The fighting was much more chaotic due to the nature of the landscape and the enemy. The quality of the action in episode 5 alone was better than anything from Band of Brothers. Yeah, it has been almost ten years so they should be able to create a more realistic and immersive battle sequence, and thankfully they do.

As far as character development, I feel The Pacific does a superior job of building real characters. Band of Brothers was a collection of many characatures but not real people. Winters was well developed but that was about it. There were too many characters shown in too short of a time to really get into the meat of who they were, including having someone be the primary focus of an episode to just never seeing them again. Since many of the guys were still alive who were portrayed in Band of Brothers, I can't help but feel they took away as much of the rough edges as they could with those guys. Any "war is an atrocity" things were done by people outside of those guys. In The Pacific, they are really jumping into the characters and showing that they weren't perfect and the situation out there was far from perfect as well.

I think you contradict yourself a bit. I find the Pacific disappointing not because there isn't enough fighting or explosions, but because the series thus far feels lifeless and the characters nameless individuals. You claim people are upset cause they want more action, yet as you correctly point out there were significant stretches of BoB where there was no fighting - or if there was, it was short and sporadic. Why then aren't we all disappointed with BoB? Because it was also an excellent character drama, which the Pacific is not (at least so far).

Maybe it is the actors, maybe it is the fact that HBO had an excellent book off of which to base BoB, maybe it is something else....but the upshot is that I still can't really get behind any of the characters in the Pacific, whereas in BoB you had memorable ones like Spiers, Malarcky, "Gonorrhea," Winters, "Bull," etc etc. I think I speak for most of the people who have posted negatively in this thread when I say we are not Michael Bay fans clamoring for explosions...we just want to see a compelling WWII drama, and so far the Pacific comes up short, especially when measured against BoB.

 

[HendrixFan]

I think you contradict yourself a bit. I find the Pacific disappointing not because there isn't enough fighting or explosions, but because the series thus far feels lifeless and the characters nameless individuals. You claim people are upset cause they want more action, yet as you correctly point out there were significant stretches of BoB where there was no fighting - or if there was, it was short and sporadic. Why then aren't we all disappointed with BoB? Because it was also an excellent character drama, which the Pacific is not (at least so far).

Maybe it is the actors, maybe it is the fact that HBO had an excellent book off of which to base BoB, maybe it is something else....but the upshot is that I still can't really get behind any of the characters in the Pacific, whereas in BoB you had memorable ones like Spiers, Malarcky, "Gonorrhea," Winters, "Bull," etc etc. I think I speak for most of the people who have posted negatively in this thread when I say we are not Michael Bay fans clamoring for explosions...we just want to see a compelling WWII drama, and so far the Pacific comes up short, especially when measured against BoB.

I'm not contradicting myself at all, I enjoy both series for what they have to offer be it action scenes or storylines. There are numerous posts here and in the other thread that they prefer BoB because of the action. The people who say that aren't being consistent because there was no more action in BoB, and much of it was smaller scale (smaller fx budget Im sure). I preferred "The Thin Red Line" to "Saving Private Ryan", so my preference surely does not lie with action for the sake of action.

The character drama in Band of Brothers is sugar coated compared to The Pacific and I think that is the problem for some of the people here. Like I said in the other post "Band of Brothers was a collection of many characatures but not real people." Those memorable characters weren't well developed or rounded and besides Winters. 5 episodes into BoB you wouldn't have listed Spiers as memorable at all, he didn't get featured until later. Each character had quirks to help differentiate between them, but they fit into the generic soldier always trying to do good mold. Most of the characters you listed had no internal conflict, they just reported for duty. Characters that had episodes devoted to them and their internal conflict usually lasted one episode to never be seen again. The main internal conflict shown was "war is scary".

I guess you can call that better character drama, but it is the easily digestable sugar coated fluff version of characters. The only guy from BoB that you aren't sure about was Spiers, but that was glossed over and almost abandoned by the end. For being a huge ensemble story that isn't much in the way of variety. Because of the nature of the characters in The Pacific you don't feel the same way. They have real emotions and reactions to the events that surround them. They aren't "perfect soldiers" as I feel BoB leaned towards, as I said earlier because the men were still alive and I think they went too far to please them and make them feel like heroes at the expense of accuracy or fullness. The soldiers from The Pacific aren't necessarily to be liked, it is clear the characters weren't developed for sympathy. It is a bold move to make a series or movie about characters that the audience won't fall in love with. The Pacific is making that bold move and it should be commended for telling the story in a more accurate way, even if it means emotional detachment and uncertainty (which by the way is what the soldiers are being shown as experiencing).

 

[bdude]

I'm not contradicting myself at all, I enjoy both series for what they have to offer be it action scenes or storylines. There are numerous posts here and in the other thread that they prefer BoB because of the action. The people who say that aren't being consistent because there was no more action in BoB, and much of it was smaller scale (smaller fx budget Im sure). I preferred "The Thin Red Line" to "Saving Private Ryan", so my preference surely does not lie with action for the sake of action.

The character drama in Band of Brothers is sugar coated compared to The Pacific and I think that is the problem for some of the people here. Like I said in the other post "Band of Brothers was a collection of many characatures but not real people." Those memorable characters weren't well developed or rounded and besides Winters. 5 episodes into BoB you wouldn't have listed Spiers as memorable at all, he didn't get featured until later. Each character had quirks to help differentiate between them, but they fit into the generic soldier always trying to do good mold. Most of the characters you listed had no internal conflict, they just reported for duty. Characters that had episodes devoted to them and their internal conflict usually lasted one episode to never be seen again. The main internal conflict shown was "war is scary".

I guess you can call that better character drama, but it is the easily digestable sugar coated fluff version of characters. The only guy from BoB that you aren't sure about was Spiers, but that was glossed over and almost abandoned by the end. For being a huge ensemble story that isn't much in the way of variety. Because of the nature of the characters in The Pacific you don't feel the same way. They have real emotions and reactions to the events that surround them. They aren't "perfect soldiers" as I feel BoB leaned towards, as I said earlier because the men were still alive and I think they went too far to please them and make them feel like heroes at the expense of accuracy or fullness. The soldiers from The Pacific aren't necessarily to be liked, it is clear the characters weren't developed for sympathy. It is a bold move to make a series or movie about characters that the audience won't fall in love with. The Pacific is making that bold move and it should be commended for telling the story in a more accurate way, even if it means emotional detachment and uncertainty (which by the way is what the soldiers are being shown as experiencing).

qft

 

[GTaudiophile]

Mine is ailing fast. It's a shame our country is losing the generation that lived through the Great Depression and WWII.

Well, if they are all like my 91-year-old grandmother (who served as a WWII Army nurse) then they are glad to die.

My grandmother is sick and tired of seeing what is left of the country that the "Greatest Generation" worked so hard to preserve.

Do you think ANY American today would commit suicide if they were declared "4F" and could NOT go and fight?

 

[TheWart]

I'm not contradicting myself at all, I enjoy both series for what they have to offer be it action scenes or storylines. There are numerous posts here and in the other thread that they prefer BoB because of the action. The people who say that aren't being consistent because there was no more action in BoB, and much of it was smaller scale (smaller fx budget Im sure). I preferred "The Thin Red Line" to "Saving Private Ryan", so my preference surely does not lie with action for the sake of action.

The character drama in Band of Brothers is sugar coated compared to The Pacific and I think that is the problem for some of the people here. Like I said in the other post "Band of Brothers was a collection of many characatures but not real people." Those memorable characters weren't well developed or rounded and besides Winters. 5 episodes into BoB you wouldn't have listed Spiers as memorable at all, he didn't get featured until later. Each character had quirks to help differentiate between them, but they fit into the generic soldier always trying to do good mold. Most of the characters you listed had no internal conflict, they just reported for duty. Characters that had episodes devoted to them and their internal conflict usually lasted one episode to never be seen again. The main internal conflict shown was "war is scary".

I guess you can call that better character drama, but it is the easily digestable sugar coated fluff version of characters. The only guy from BoB that you aren't sure about was Spiers, but that was glossed over and almost abandoned by the end. For being a huge ensemble story that isn't much in the way of variety. Because of the nature of the characters in The Pacific you don't feel the same way. They have real emotions and reactions to the events that surround them. They aren't "perfect soldiers" as I feel BoB leaned towards, as I said earlier because the men were still alive and I think they went too far to please them and make them feel like heroes at the expense of accuracy or fullness. The soldiers from The Pacific aren't necessarily to be liked, it is clear the characters weren't developed for sympathy. It is a bold move to make a series or movie about characters that the audience won't fall in love with. The Pacific is making that bold move and it should be commended for telling the story in a more accurate way, even if it means emotional detachment and uncertainty (which by the way is what the soldiers are being shown as experiencing).

I guess we will just have to disagree, because I really do not consider BoB to be "sugarcoated" drama. On the other hand, I find the way that the Pacific producers/directors are trying to deal with the psychology of the troops to be entirely hamfisted and contrived. I am glad that you are enjoying the series...I just wish it was more engaging.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I really liked Episode 3, talking about their time in Melbourne when Lucky met the Greek girl. Thought it was a nice relationship.

But otherwise, The Pacific if 3/5 for me. BoB is 5/5.

BoB had Ambrose and Michael Kamen. And the characters just FIT so well. It was not just the development. You just felt the "Band" of it all. You almost feel like you are one of them. It's almost inexplicable.

 

[HendrixFan]

I guess we will just have to disagree, because I really do not consider BoB to be "sugarcoated" drama. On the other hand, I find the way that the Pacific producers/directors are trying to deal with the psychology of the troops to be entirely hamfisted and contrived. I am glad that you are enjoying the series...I just wish it was more engaging.

It is sugarcoated in comparison to The Pacific, that is certain. When dealing with the subject of war there are many ways to look into it, BoB followed the unit and tried to get you to be a part of the comraderie. It succeeded in doing so, and I think that is where the appreciation comes from in this thread. But to tell that part of the story in ten hours, you have to sugarcoat the other parts. There isn't much of a way to avoid it. The Pacific takes it head on, so you won't be able to feel like you are a part of the team. You aren't as pumped to enlist after watching The Pacific as you were watching BoB, meaning that it is taking a broader view of war, including the less pleasant parts. It is more honest. It also has the negative of being less entertaining in order to be more cerebral.

 

[TheWart]

It is sugarcoated in comparison to The Pacific, that is certain. When dealing with the subject of war there are many ways to look into it, BoB followed the unit and tried to get you to be a part of the comraderie. It succeeded in doing so, and I think that is where the appreciation comes from in this thread. But to tell that part of the story in ten hours, you have to sugarcoat the other parts. There isn't much of a way to avoid it. The Pacific takes it head on, so you won't be able to feel like you are a part of the team. You aren't as pumped to enlist after watching The Pacific as you were watching BoB, meaning that it is taking a broader view of war, including the less pleasant parts. It is more honest. It also has the negative of being less entertaining in order to be more cerebral.

I dunno, I didn't think that BoB made all the guys out to be superhero angels...I mean from the cowardice ('blind' dude, etc etc) to the whole PTSD story with Buck, it seemed pretty despairing at times. I also don't know how one would call the whole concentration camp episode "sugarcoated" either, but that's just me perhaps...

 

[KMFJD]

That was the best depiction of any war film / show I've ever seen. Holy shit the entire sequence from when Sledge boarded the landing craft till the end of the episode was absolutely jaw-dropping.

God damn.

You guys are hard to please.

QFT the last 19 min was awesome, thoroughly enjoying the series so far

 

[HendrixFan]

I dunno, I didn't think that BoB made all the guys out to be superhero angels...I mean from the cowardice ('blind' dude, etc etc) to the whole PTSD story with Buck, it seemed pretty despairing at times. I also don't know how one would call the whole concentration camp episode "sugarcoated" either, but that's just me perhaps...

The characters that you follow were sugarcoated. Yes it was war, and yes they depicted things that happened in WWII. Bringing up the concentration camp or anyone dying or any other type of horrific event is a strawman. Look through my posts, I said twice that Band of Brothers was sugarcoated in comparison to The Pacific, and another time to specify the sugarcoating was in the characterization of the American troops. Bringing up any events that were depicted, either in detail or glossed over, does nothing to refute my assertion. I'll state it again, hopefully more clearly: The characterization of the soldiers in Band of Brothers is sugarcoated in comparison to The Pacific.

I already did say that there were internal conflicts in Band of Brothers, but the conflict never went much beyond "war is scary". The "blind" dude who was too afraid of combat until he snapped, Buck had the PTSD from seeing his friends blown up, those are perfect examples of the internal conflict not going beyond "war is scary". There was little debate on war and mankind, the deeper issue of war that The Pacific seems to be going after. Neither of those two examples dispute the "superhero angel" (your term) idea that I felt Band of Brothers portrayed.

The reason I feel The Pacific is a better and deeper story is because the men are flawed. In Band of Brothers, when a soldier like Buck struggles to deal with the effects of war, you feel sympathy for him. This is because he was 100% a good guy before that happened. Any of the "bad" guys like Ross, the drill instructor, were obviously bad with almost no attempt at rounding them out to see the duality of man. Never were characters we followed flawed in any meaningful sense, unless like Ross (whatever his characters name was I don't remember) who was almost like your strawman argument; only there to provide a foil to attack.

You don't know if you like the characters in The Pacific, because they are more realistically portrayed. You feel for Buck in BoB because you know he was a virtuous, great guy who never did anything wrong until he had to suffer through witnessing his friends lose their legs. If Leckie goes through something similar in The Pacific you wouldn't feel the same way, because you aren't sure where he is coming from. He is reluctant to be heroic, he is an anti-hero. Just when you think you are starting to like him he does something that makes you look down upon him.

That is a tough way to tell a story, but in the end you can say so much more by doing so.

 

[duragezic]

Tonight's episode was great IMO.

What happened to Leckie? Did he have some kind of internal bleeding from the explosion?

I don't get the medical ship at the end. They were pulling down the flag to not be a target? I didn't hear what they said at the end. "Let's go home"?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Tonight's episode was great IMO.

Agreed.

 

[Train]

Tonight's episode was great IMO.

What happened to Leckie? Did he have some kind of internal bleeding from the explosion?

I don't get the medical ship at the end. They were pulling down the flag to not be a target? I didn't hear what they said at the end. "Let's go home"?

Ships don't fly colors at night, just the way its always been done. I doubt they were trying to be stealthy, the ship is painted white with big red crosses on it.

 

[Train]

I take it last night's episode made all the critics go silent?

It was pretty good, lots of action it seems that they are going to spend at least 3 episodes on Peleliu, a lot more detail than we got on Guadalcanal.

Characters were great, "Snafu" was annoying, but seems to fit the overall group. It appears they are building up to Sledge's heroic moment.

Nothing on Basilone, I figured they would throw in another scene of him selling war bonds.

Currently not knowing what happens to Leckie next.

 

[pyonir]

I take it last night's episode made all the critics go silent?

It was pretty good, lots of action it seems that they are going to spend at least 3 episodes on Peleliu, a lot more detail than we got on Guadalcanal.

Characters were great, "Snafu" was annoying, but seems to fit the overall group. It appears they are building up to Sledge's heroic moment.

Nothing on Basilone, I figured they would throw in another scene of him selling war bonds.

Currently not knowing what happens to Leckie next.

Nearly the whole episode was action...but I'm still thinking someone will come in and complain it was boring or too little too late.

Thought it was a great episode. I, too, was surprised they didn't throw something in about Basilone. I also agree that Snafu is annoying...but he has his moments.

 

[anxi80]

i did chuckle though when he nicknamed him ball-peen hammer and also telling gunny that they'll be ready in case they come over with bayonets and gunny tells him i wasnt talking to you, i was talking to sledgehammer. and then his "woof!" and his reaction like what the hell was that?!

 

[pyonir]

i did chuckle though when he nicknamed him ball-peen hammer and also telling gunny that they'll be ready in case they come over with bayonets and gunny tells him i wasnt talking to you, i was talking to sledgehammer. and then his "woof!" and his reaction like what the hell was that?!

Gunny's character cracks me up. Everyone thinks he's nucking futs and is. Adds some great comic relief to the show/situations.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Ok, this episode was far and away the most amazing so far and I will have to watch it and rewatch it to catch some of the things I missed the first time. I've kept all of them on the DVR so I can watch them in succession, maybe that will help the continuity of the whole series. I do stand by all my criticisms up to this episode. They could have had episodes like this all along.
Not saying they don't need to get you to know and empathize with the main characters, but getting laid and drunk in Australia did NOT deserve an entire episode.

 

[TehMac]

Btw, Eugene Sledge in real life looked far better than the actor playing him. Makes me kinda wonder wtf they were thinking when they picked that actor.

 

[CRXican]

Finally some characters I can feel for. Sledgehammer and Skipper.

Still feel the show is kind of weak. Not excited about seeing the Sgt come back as the focus, seems like a doucebag.

 

[BoomerD]

I haven't seen episode 7... yet. It's on the DVR waiting for me.

Overall, this has been a pretty decent series. As someone already mentioned, this spans several years, so character development has been somewhat sporadic. For me, that doesn't detract from the otherwise well made shows.

I tend to connect more with the stories about the war in the Pacific because my biological dad was a US Marine during WWII before he met my mom. From the stories I heard when I was young, he was on Guadalcanal, Peleliu, and Iwo Jima. He stayed in after the war and was killed in Korea not long after I was conceived.

 

[Printer Bandit]

Btw, Eugene Sledge in real life looked far better than the actor playing him. Makes me kinda wonder wtf they were thinking when they picked that actor.

maybe steven speilberg has a hard on for him? he did cast him to play that boy in jurassic park.

 

[BoomerD]

Episode 7 was...interesting, although gritty and gruesome.

I was sort of surprised that

Spoiler

The Skipper, AKA "Ack-Ack" was killed

as well as

Spoiler

Gunny breaking down

, but IMO, that only adds to the reality of it all, if only just a bit.
Peleliu was a tough campaign for the USMC.

 

[Train]

Last nights episode was pretty awesome. I was surprised at how well acted/directed it was. Best one yet.

 

[her209]

Who is the kid that nicknamed Eugene "Sledgehammer"?