"HBO's The Pacific" Topic

Well episode one was on this PM.

So what did people think of it in general?

I would say not bad for the first episode.

I was surprised that they had combat on the first episode. Were with B.O.B. you had the story of Easy Co. coming together as a unit this went straight in to Guadalcanal.

We shall see in the coming weeks.

Robert Henry

Yeah, I was surprised about the combat happening so quickly. I liked it, but then I was sure that I would. I didn't seem to follow characters as much as I did with BoB. Maybe it's just the nature of this film. I'll be burning the series.

Thanks,

John

I was suprised as well but I read both of the books this based on so I knew some of the names already. I am sorry we won't see Edson's ridge but the rest of the canal should be pretty good.

It is a lot harder to keep interested in the characters as the show jumps around a lot.

Was pretty good, but I found myself drifting some. I guess I am jaded now.

I thought it was pretty good. The combat was well done. They did a good job portraying the home front. The scene of Christmas in the Italian/American home was very moving, liked the use of lighting. I still marvel at the US, not anywhere near a super power taking on two such powerful enemies on opposite sides of the earth. The Navy and Marines pretty much tasked with taking down a whole empire…

I think the pace is faster as there are many more events, unit formations and over all time line to cover than "Band of Brothers".

I thought they did a very good job of showing how different the Japanese culture of the time was from the Americans. The shock effect of just how brutal their enemy and the combat was going to be.

I enjoyed the first show very much and am looking forward to the following shows.

Somua S35,

There were many US Army divisions that were fighting along with the Marines against the Japanese.

There were no Marine divisions in the PI's in '44-'45. Also at Peleiu, the Army 81st Division made a landing on an island next to the Marines and in fact finished the taking of Peleiu after the 1st Marine Div had been destroyed (over 50% losses).

The US Army's contributions to the victory in the Pacific have often been over looked by historians, but they did a great dealing of fighting against the Japanese.

Enjoyed it very much.

Was also surprised about how quickly the action started. However, BOB had 10 episodes to cover about a year of real time (44 – 45). The Pacific has 10 episodes to cover 3 years (42 – 45).

The battle at Alligator Creek was intense and well handled.

I recall when BOB hit the streets one of the comments that was frequntly seen in reviews centred on the lack of action in the first episode. Perhaps HBO decided to take a route that they thought would appeal to a wider audience that craves instant gratification?

I think there was action in the first episode for several reasons.
1. If the first episode was just basic training like BOB then it would seem like they were just following the same formula.
2. It appears that they will be sending some characters back to the States for PR work etc. So you will have some more home front episodes, unlike BOB which stayed in Europe the one they left the states in Episode 1.

So far my wife and I really like this mini-series. Very well done I think.

I believe the first episode of BoB, with training and everybody bonding against the martinet captain did a lot to familiarize us with, and bond with the characters. Pacific is going in a different direction, with much less investment in character development on the front end. We'll get to know everybody really well as the story unfolds. I'd wager there'll be fewer individual stories than we had in BoB and more concentration on a smaller number of characters/actors.

Don't forget BOB was taken from one book, this mini-series is taken from two books from two different Marines and their out look on the war. So I was really happy the show went right to the canal. Now the bad thing is no Tarawa or tank battle on Saipan.

Irish Marine,

You might not get the tank battle on Saipan, but there was a Japanese attack with tanks on Peleiu, so ya got that to look forward to.

Thats right I forgot at the airfield.

I liked the attention to detail: Springfiel M1903 rifles, and while I was suspicious of the LVT-1 wreck, a little research said some were used for logistical support. Nice!

Damon.

Oddball, I thought the same thing when they were making the speech about the Marines handling the Pacific and the Army Europe. Plenty of Army guys fighting right alongside the Marines on a lot of those islands.

HBO sent me a screener before setting up a couple of interviews for me, so I've already seen all 10 episodes. I'm not going to spoil anything by talking about it too much here except to say it gets more intense as it goes along in the battle scenes. Much more intense. The episodes set outside the battlefield are also emotionally intense, but in a very different way. Definitely worth watching all the way through.

For those who are talking about the Army, this story's point of view is that of Marines; all the characters are real-life warriors taken from books like With the Old Breed and Helmet for My Pillow, whose authors were Marines. Bear in mind, Band of Brothers focused on the Airborne; it didn't veer off to tell the story of armor divisions or Army Rangers or the Army Air Corps because that wasn't its POV. Yes, the U.S. Army fought hard in the Pacific and lost a lot of good men in the process, but this miniseries isn't about that. It's the story of a handful of Marines.

One of the interviews I did was with Bruce C. McKenna, who researched and did the lion's share of the writing on The Pacific. If you want to see what he has to say, here's a link to it.

link

Spielberg, Hanks and company weren't dissing the Army but, speaking as a writer, any story has to limit its focus, and this miniseries is a story, not a compendium of the the War in the Pacific. Maybe it will inspire someone else to tell the story of some Army troops in the PTO. Or the story of sailors. Or of naval airmen and US Army Air Corps in the Pacific. Or submariners. Or . . . you get the idea.

Once the series gets to Peleliu and beyond, you'll see what I mean about it ratcheting up the intensity, not just of battle but of survival.

I thought the first episode was above avergae and easily met my expectations.

I agree withe the jumping around on characters. Hard for me to follwo but then again I only had 3 hours of sleep yesterday so it was easy for my brainpan to overheat.

Getting to Guadalcanal in the first episode surprised me too. I have read all three books the series is based on and was particularly interested in the way they portrayed Leckie in this episode. I think they hit on him very well.

Episode two should flesh out Basilone a lot more. I'll be interested to see how they show his inner turmoil that was looked at in depth in his biography.

Sledge will be coming in for the Peleliu episodes, so we have a bit of a wait for him.

If they stick to the books, we'll see fighting on Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Those were the battles the three main characters fought in. I'm looking forward to the rest of the series.

Regards, Bill

Enjoyed it. If the rest is this good, it'll be a worthy sucessor to BoB.

Gerald Swick,

You are correct that the story is about the group of Marines on the sharp end. To try and show EVERY aspect of the Pacific (or ETO as in Band of Brothers) would be impossible.

I meant no ill will towards the series and I am very impressed after the first episode. I also made not of the attention to detail on equipment while watching.

Just wanted to mention that the Army was out in the Pacific also. Not that they should be the part of THIS story.

I have only read "With The Old Breed", but I am very interested in reading "Helmet For My Pillow" now.

I recommend that those who have not read the books above or know the stories of the main charactors take a look at the profiles on On Demand under the HBO header. Not a spoiler but helps put the story line in perspective.
VR
James Mattes

Yes, I thought it was pretty well done … and I think I will enjoy it at much as I did BOB. And I don't think they were "dissing" the US ARMY. The story is about the USMC. However, I would think any one who has a decent working knowlegde of WWII, would know that the US ARMY, both on the ground and in the air had a very large part in the PTO. Actually larger than the USMC, as during WWII the USMC had 6 Divisions and other separate Bns, and Rgts. While the US Army around 20 Divisions, including the 11th Airborne, 1st CAV(converted to an Infantry Div.), and numerous separate Bns and Rgts, in the PTO … Not to take anything away from the Marines, HBO's "The Pacific" is about the Corps. BOB was about the US Army in the ETO …

I still marvel at the US, not anywhere near a super power taking on two such powerful enemies on opposite sides of the earth. The Navy and Marines pretty much tasked with taking down a whole empire…

Not to belittle their effort, but the US was more industrialised and had a larger population and more natural resources than Japan. Besides which the US was not the only one facing Japan – there was also the British Commonwealth (including India, Australia and New Zealand) and China in fight against them, and possibly various others such as local resistance movements in Vietnam and Philippines.

I screened the whole thing as well and they all die at the end! Oops! Did I spoil it for anyone???

I would also argue that Japan was technologically inferior to the US in just about every area. While there might be some parity in naval technology (particularly torpedoes, as we all know), in terms of small arms, armor, aircraft, etc. they were inferior (the Zero was good only inasmuch as they stripped it to the bone in order to get the maneuverability, range, and speed). Once the US began to apply it's resources and manpower to the technology question, the US quickly outstripped the Japanese's capability to innovate.

Damon.

I didn't care for it.

BOB we got to see the group come together, train, ship off, and then finally get into action. We got a chance to know them, where they were coming from. Who was worth something and who came up short. I cared about them, and wanted them to pull through.

This series didn't bother with any of that. I wanted to see their reactions to Pearl, capture why it was that thousands of young men immediately joined "specifically" the marines because of Pearl. I wanted to see boot camp, and THEN land unopposed on the Canal. Get sucked into jungle warfare, etc. Then they can follow that up with the horror of Tarawa, and move on.

As it stands right now, other than the fact that I'm an American, and I naturally want to "pull" for my guys, I don't care if they live or die. None of the characters have any personality.

The Marines were an all volunteer outfit at least in the beginning, and I have no idea why any of them are there. And they haven't given me any reason to care.

The actor (William Sadler) portraying Chesty Puller had about 2 minutes of screen time early on when he gives a speech, and then about 30 seconds later on, and he's the only one even remotely interesting.

I'm going to stick with it to the bitter end, but that first hour was tedious. Top production quality, and a good "unknown" cast trying to do their best. But the script sucks.

I agree with SeattleGamer. I was surprised that they spent so little time on character development. I couldn't really keep track of who was who, or why we were following their story.

Is every important character in a different unit? Or are some of them serving together? There seemed to be very little connection between the Home Front scenes and the battle scenes.

I watched it too and am of the same opinion as of SeattleGamer and Hatmaker to the Bourbons. There appears to have been no attempt to connect the audience with the characters. Ill watch all the other episodes though. Robert

I just heard an interview with Tom Hanks. Based on what I heard him say I think the biggest problem with the series is that behind the realistic battle scenes is an attitude that the United States fought a racist war against Japan. Anyone watching the series needs to understand that Hanks and Spielberg have a leftist agenda and want to rewrite history to fit that agenda. We can argue about the lack of character development or the imbalance between the Marines and Army but that's just window dressing.

db

Several people have commented that they had trouble telling people apart. I have to confess that when I first saw Band of Brothers, except for Winters and Nixon and whathisname (their first C.O.) I had real trouble telling them apart for the first couple or three episodes. Was that just me?

I've seen every episode of BoB probably 5 times, and some more than that, and I've read the book. So by now there is a familiarity with the characters and the story that is difficult to match. I suppose I once didn't know all the BoBs by name, etc, so I agree fully with mweaver. What I'm sure will happen is we will accumulate a good understanding of all the Pacific characters by and by. And some, like me, will watch it enough times to let it all really sink in. So enjoy and let the story develop over time.

Not shown here yet – we have to wait until April.

Anyway – from the trailers it is clearly all about the Marine Corps, just as BOB was all about the Paratroops and only a single company at that. Fair enough, but they should make it clear – even just in passing – that there are US army units fighting too, and other nations. Maybe the individual marines did feel it was just them – I think that's a common misconception of troops in the front line – but somehow they shouldn't repeat the errors of Saving Private Ryan and BOB in that regard.

I worry that, for 99% of viewers, this is all the history they are going to get.

oldnorthstate – of course we in the West fought a racist war against the Japanese. It was the 1940s FFS! People were brought up with racist attitudes back then. I'm surprised anyone is surprised by this…..

Mind you, our racism wasn't state policy like their's was. City of Life and Death is the best 'Pacific War' film I've ever seen.

A common problem with historians and I guess this can be said for many people, film makers or not, is that when they view the past they assign society's current views to those in the past.

Judging a person's behavior from 70 years ago by todays standards is not fair those in the past. They were products of their time.

If you have any of the on demand services on cable or satellite check for the HBO channel specials. They have a nice 20 minute item on the making of The Pacific. They also have short, stand alone pieces, from 3 to 8 minutes each, on 6 of the main characters. They cover both their real story (with interviews with the actual Marines in many cases) as well as the actor playing them. Great way to keep the characters apart.

"Judging a person's behavior from 70 years ago by todays standards is not fair those in the past. They were products of their time."

Then I suppose there is no point to history, for the essence of history is interpreting the past by analysis and current models. Moral judgement and condemnation are not the best tools in the historian's tool box, but most practitioners have and make use of them. Social scientists, like social psychologists and anthropologists, are better trained not to judge.

As far as the On Demand features, HBO is also making each episode available On Demand the day after the first airing.

I get the Marine focus. Welcome it. Just get concerned when they make an entire speech of the fight being just Marines vs. Japan.

I agree that I have no reason to know why these guys are in the Marines, or who the heck they are, or how long it took to get them there.

The battles are great. Very intense. Just have no hook to the players. It is more like watching a newsreel than a movie as far as that goes.

Yes, I heard about the comments Hanks made about Racism … From my study of history … it appears to me, the average Japanese soldier, sailor, etc. was more probably more racists than any other "group" in WWII, as a whole … And we were allied with the Chinese … don't see any racism there. But regardless the first episode, looked pretty good.

I would've liked to see more character development as well. In my eyes that is a disapppointment. As for a leftist agenda; give it a rest and stick to the topic, nobody wants to hear fringe ranting.

I think the character development issue stems from BoB being mainly from one source, while Pacific is from three or four sources. Also, I don't believe any of the main characters are in the same platoon… maybe same regiment.

It's not 'fringe' ranting. Hanks put his foot in his mouth connecting the Pacific War to the War against Islamic Jihadists. We want to see a series that represents WWII in the Pacific. Leave politics out of it Mr. Hanks.

Thanks,

John

"I think the character development issue stems from BoB being mainly from one source, while Pacific is from three or four sources."

Good grief, it's about WRITING, DIRECTING and EDITING. The craft of film making and story telling. It has nothing to do with sources.

I was surprised that they spent so little time on character development.

Pretend you were just transferred into the unit before the battle and haven't had a chance to meet everyone.

[ I think the biggest problem with the series is that behind the realistic battle scenes is an attitude that the United States fought a racist war against Japan. Anyone watching the series needs to understand that Hanks and Spielberg have a leftist agenda and want to rewrite history to fit that agenda. ]

The blatant racism has been copiously documented by historians from all over the political spectrum, most spectacularly by John Dower's brilliant book "War Without Mercy," which is a fascinating comparison/contrast between the racist views of the Japanese and the racist views of their western enemies. (It won the Pulitzer, the Nat'l Book Award, and the Bancroft Prize in History.)

Nobody disputes the racism of the Japanese. (Sort of comes with the territory when you're on the Axis team.) But I'll let your conscience be your guide, with regard to images like this. If you don't think of this as "racist" then we'll just have to disagree:

picture
picture
picture
picture

As for a hidden agenda… Hanks and Spielberg actually "cleaned-up" many of the nastier episodes described in the books that the series is based upon, for fear of treading upon the patriotic and political sensibilities of American viewers. For example, in the Iwo Jima episode, there is a scene in which US Marines find an old Japanese woman dying from an infected bomb fragment wound. The book documents that the Americans cursed at her and put a bullet in her head. "The Pacific's" version of that scene has the Marine holding the woman's head in his lap, cradling her tenderly, until she dies.

I've interviewed a few USMC Pacific veterans, one as recently as last year, whom I helped to complete his memoirs as a manuscript for publication. He's also the mid-Atlantic coordinator for the veterans' public-history group, and he was consulted for "The Pacific," and he's been collecting memoirs for years. These guys usually aren't too shy when it comes to talking about the brutality and racism of that war. But I have my doubts that we're going to see The Greatest Generation scalping still-living Japanese wounded, knocking their fillings out, or castrating them and collecting their scrotums any time soon on American TV.

Yes, I read "War Without Mercy" … good read and enlighting … And unfortunately … brutality and racism was very prevalent in the PTO. On both sides …

My problem with Hanks is not that he infused racism into the discussion. Of course there was racism on both sides and villifying ones enemy, either on ethnic or racism grounds, is tactic as old as war. Neither do I believe American soldiers were boy scouts…they are the greatest generation, not because of their excesses, that have always been part of war, but because they responded when their country was attacked and managed to turn the tide against not one but two enemies. My problem with Hanks is that all he seems to be interested in is shining a light on the racism of his people and ignores the sins of the enemy. Hanks also has decided that not only was their racial racism but also a religious element to America's attitude against the Japanese. Where he gets that from who can tell…I have never seen any reference to WWII being a war against another religion,unless you classify national socialism as a religion. Hanks also tries to suggest that America's position in the mideast today has some relationship to WWII attitudes about race and religion.

When you go to war the only thing to do is win and do so without remorse. PC rules of engagement do not win wars.

db

[My problem with Hanks is that all he seems to be interested in is shining a light on the racism of his people and ignores the sins of the enemy.]

Huh? There's not a hint of "shining a light on the racism" of the Americans in the first episode. On the other hand, the first episode opens with the Pearl Harbor attack, references the Bataan Death March, has a scene of a tortured US Marine's body displayed by the Japanese, and a scene involving a Japanese fake-surrender with a grenade that kills two Marines who were about to take a Japanese prisoner.

"Ignoring the sins of of the enemy?" Are you making this up, speculating, or just trying to change the subject because your previous accusation about "rewriting history to fit their agenda" was disproven?

Just read the books on which "The Pacific" was based, and you'll see how much Hanks and Spielberg bent over backwards to avoid depicting the Amercans as the bad guys. The TV show probably could never have gotten on the air if it had depicted half of the scenes in the books.

I'm not talking about the series, since we're only one episode in but Hanks comments, both prior to this and in the past couple of days. No one has disproven my contention that Hanks and Spielberg are rewriting history…they suggest, in their comments, that America was driven to fight with Japan for either racial or religious reasons…neither are true. We were attacked and once attacked the goal was to win. Of the pictures you posted only one was in my opinion "racist". Japanese racism had nothing to do with being on the "Axis" team…it was part of their cultural DNA and expressed itself in China, Korea and the Phillipines.

As far as "bending over backwards to avoid depicting the Americans as bad guys", now you're the one either making it or speculating…we'll see how it plays out. They might have an agenda but they're not stupid…the viewing public would not stand for an overt depiction of Americans as bad guys but its another thing to suggest a subtle morale equivilency between the motivations of both country's.

db

[I'm not talking about the series…]

Yes you were. You wrote: "I think the biggest problem with the series is that behind the realistic battle scenes is an attitude that the United States fought a racist war against Japan. Anyone watching the series needs to understand that Hanks and Spielberg have a leftist agenda and want to rewrite history to fit that agenda."

[No one has disproven my contention that Hanks and Spielberg are rewriting history]

That's because you offered no evidence at all to disprove.

[As far as "bending over backwards to avoid depicting the Americans as bad guys", now you're the one either making it or speculating]

No, I've read the books in question, upon which the series screenplay is written. Have you? I am stating, factually, that the screenplay was substantially "softened" to avoid the nastier scenes of Americans doing bad things.

[the viewing public would not stand for an overt depiction of Americans as bad guys]

My point exactly. You've just confirmed what I said.