HBO´s The Pacific

[castor troy]

Hi

Been quite some time since we had the last movie discussion. HBO´s The Pacific is being shown on German TV and I was quite excited when my PBEM opponent told me about it. Now that I´ve watched the first five parts of the series I really have to say I´m totally disappointed. [:(] I really like Band of Brothers so I had high hopes for The Pacific. But seriously, the acting, special effects, the story, it´s really bad IMO. Nominated for 24 Emmies? Costliest series ever? In BoB they obviously used the same style and special effects as they did in Saving Privat Ryan but the special effects and camera style of The Pacific seems to me like a third class computer game. The fifth part of the series was shown yesterday and I even turned off the TV before it was over.

To me, it´s an absolute disappointment and can by far not being compared to BoB.

Thoughts?

ps: why is it shown on German TV and you can´t get a DVD set worldwide before November?[&:]

[witpqs]

Just hang in there, Castor. While they told an important story, the first few episodes had their flaws. The series gets much better. Overall, quite deserving of the accolades it received.

[The Gnome]

I am in the camp of those disappointed by The Pacific. I found it's technical merits holding to the same high standard of BoB. The special effects, the sound, the camera work, and the attention to detail were all outstanding.

For me the show failed on two major areas due to the writing:

1) Characters. I think this maybe comes from the above, but BoB left me feeling like I knew each character like a close friend. The Pacific felt like there was a glass wall between me and almost every character, and even with the main characters I felt like there was only a superficial detail brought to them.

I suppose where Ambrose the elder had a lifetime of interviews to draw upon in order to breath life into the men of BoB, Ambrose the younger didn't - and truthfully the material felt like he was afraid to inject what he might have learned from other interviews as the screenplays felt 100% taken from the books.

2) Nature of the opponents. The biggest flaw to me is the white washing of the Japanese conduct during the war. I don't think there is any grand conspiracy here, but there was only the briefest display of the brutality on the Japanese side, while the Marines were portrayed as savage. Unfortunately, the Japanese were so briefly covered that they really just seemed like 2-dimensional targets.

I have watched Band of Brothers so many times I've lost count, and whenever I see it on, I still watch, but I honestly couldn't sit through The Pacific more than once.

[jomni]

Kinda liked Pacific not because it's entertaining, but it makes you think about the war.
Band of Brothers is your typical exciting action flick.
The Pacific is more psychological / philosophical.

[Terminus]

BoB followed Easy Company as a unit, The Pacific follows three individuals. That's the main difference.

[Lomri]

One thing that really stood out with BoB for me was the casting and the interviews with the vets. I think they did an amazing job getting the personality of the vets onto the screen. The interviews also really brought home that you are watching an attempt to recreate the biographies and real events of the war for these men instead of a vague re-telling.

But I haven't seen Pacific yet, waiting for the whole thing at once. Just love BoB so much I can't imagine it will compare, so I won't expect it!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Just hang in there, Castor. While they told an important story, the first few episodes had their flaws. The series gets much better. Overall, quite deserving of the accolades it received.

+1

I agree with the other posters above about the focus on three individuals throughout many battles. The Pacific 'gets in their head' more than 'BoB' ever did, as far as I am concerned. Much of BoB character development was spread on pretty thin-almost caricature-like.

The Pacific War was different than the war in Europe. The nature of the fighting was different, the participants were different, the action was different and the relentless distance from real civilization was different.

The aforementioned series are different. They're both pretty special in their own rights.

[thegreatwent]

The Pacific War was different than the war in Europe. The nature of the fighting was different, the participants were different, the action was different and the relentless distance from real civilization was different.

This is very true. The VFW Post used to have a rivalry between veterans of the two theaters. Sort of along the lines of which one was tougher, but they never devolved as far as the Wildcat vs Zero debate[8|]

Sadly the number of WWII vets still participating has dwindled.[:(]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Now that I´ve watched the first five parts of the series I really have to say I´m totally disappointed.

Well you must have liked it more than I did - I couldn't watch any more after the third episode!

My thoughts are similar to other posters - the lack of character development is the easiest differentiator to notice between BOB and PAC.

[wwengr]

Ultimately, I liked the Pacific for its story, but I have to admit that I had to consciously avoid the comparison to Band of Brothers. I thought that the producers were doing a disservice by creating that expectation in the advertising in the run up. They were different and if I lined them up against each other, I would have to say that BoB was better. More importantly, I would advise anyone planning to watch it to avoid the expectation and comparison and to watch the Pacific for its own merits.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Now that I´ve watched the first five parts of the series I really have to say I´m totally disappointed.

Well you must have liked it more than I did - I couldn't watch any more after the third episode!

My thoughts are similar to other posters - the lack of character development is the easiest differentiator to notice between BOB and PAC.

You should have persisted Joe... ahh... [:(]

The episodes #5, #6 and #7 were outstanding (they were all dealing with Peleliu)! [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well you must have liked it more than I did - I couldn't watch any more after the third episode!

You watched the worst episodes and stopped.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Now that I´ve watched the first five parts of the series I really have to say I´m totally disappointed.

Well you must have liked it more than I did - I couldn't watch any more after the third episode!

My thoughts are similar to other posters - the lack of character development is the easiest differentiator to notice between BOB and PAC.

You should have persisted Joe... ahh... [:(]

The episodes #5, #6 and #7 were outstanding (they were all dealing with Peleliu)! [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

Those were very good Apollo, but I thought the Okinawa treatment was particularly good, both in terms of character development, plotline and gritty, visceral action. I think that was episode 9.

[Caltone]

Overall, I think this was a good but not great series. Parts of the show were almost boring. Some of my problems with the series were the high expectations I had like others have noted.

That said, there were definately some great scenes in the show and a couple of real standout episodes. For fans of this WWII theater (like all of us here [;)] ), it's on need to see list if you haven't already.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
You should have persisted Joe... ahh... [:(]

Oh, I'm sure I'll get the DVDs and watch the whole thing when it comes out. Given the subject matter I won't be able to resist ... and I don't think the accuracy is so bad ... certainly not an "it cannot be named" ... but as many have said ... I was expecting the "personal involvement" feeling of BOB and missed that in the PAC episodes I watched.

[John Lansford]

Comparing the Pacific with BoB is pointless; like the two theaters of war, the two series took different approaches to showing what was going on.

BoB focused on one small unit that remained fairly cohesive through a period of less than a year. We got to know quite a bit about the unit and the men in it, and nearly every episode had combat scenes.

The Pacific, OTOH, focused on three men, in different units of the 1st Marine Division. One of them (Sledge) didn't join the unit until after Guadalcanal. Another, Luckie, spent a lot of time in noncombat units or medical wards. The third, John Basilone, fought only on Guadalcanal and then later, with a different division on Iwo Jima.

In addition, the tempo of the war was different in the Pacific vs the Europe. Units in Europe tended to be in combat or at least the risk of combat was present as long as they were on the front line. Combat in the Pacific was short and incredibly violent, then the units were sent back to rest and rebuild their strength in preparation for the next assault.

Given all of these differences, it's no surprise that Pacific wasn't the same kind of series as BoB. I realized that right from the start and enjoyed both, but I never tried to compare the two series either.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Comparing the Pacific with BoB is pointless

I wasn't comparing the wars - I was pointing out that the movies contained very different amounts of "personal engagement". Movie makers have lots of lattitude ... even though some of the people who made BOB and PAC were the same ... the level of "personal engagement" the movie makers chose to provide their audiences in these two movies is different.

[witpqs]

The level of personal engagement deepened in the later episodes.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The level of personal engagement deepened in the later episodes.

Great - I'll look forward to it when I finally get the DVDs.

[Knavey]

Its worth sticking it out JW. Was slow to start but it does pick up.