"HBO "The Pacific" just not doing it for me..." Topic

As a series I have not found it very interesting. I still do not know many of the characters. Lacie finally made an impression, after his time with Greek friend. Too much home front stuff.

What I have enjoyed very much is the details. The asbestos glove for the MG operator, for example. Never seen that before. The weapons, vehicles, equipment seem good. I was thinking that the Marines must be just about the most casually "uniformed" troops in modern times. There are many styles but most are just loose hanging (on thin men), with no embellishment, drab shirts and pants.

Not a Private Ryan or BoB but still an interesting show.

Im enjoying it,read a couple of the books (and im a brit)And im now doing WW2 pacific.

Interesting about the Asbestos Glove (seing that i work in Asbestos trade) British WW2 gas masks were all made with Asbestos, with Blue Asbestos being in soldiers gasmasks as it was thought to be better than white asbestos, which was used in civilian gasmasks. :)

After complaining that the stories were not very engaging, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with Episode #5. I was waiting for the Peleliu landing and hoped (against hope) that I would see the great tank charge just south of the airport.

Well it wasn't actually a full tank charge, but the tanks looked very real. Dammit they were even the right ones, Type 95's. Just when it looked bad the M4's (and M10's) show up. By the way is it true that the Type 95 at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds is the sole survivor from Peleliu? During the charge, one tank drove into the swamp and got stuck. The marines dragged it out and sent it to the States to be scrutinized by "Military Intelligence".

Here's a video of the performance of these tanks:

YouTube link

Sorry to be such a tank geek. Best episode so far in the series.

Ralph

Check out what these guys did:

YouTube link

YouTube link

and especially:

YouTube link

Again sorry for the tank geekiness

Ralph

The running one is probably from the tanks designated for Japanese home defense and brought back to the States, without ever seeing action. I doubt too many of the exposed tanks at Aberdeen are in running condition.

Ralph

"its not the same as the ww2 version…"

Ummmm…. What?

"The Pacific book also includes a bit on Shuri Castle, a critical Japanese defensive position on Okinawa. After a protracted battle, victorious U.S. First Marines raised a Confederate flag above the ruined castle in honor of campaign commander Simon Bolivar Buckner Jr., whose father had been a Confederate general. I'll be interested to see if Hanks and company include that nugget of Southern military heritage in their series."

link

Ok, the last episode and a half have caused me to do a 180 on this series, especially last nights chapter, extremely well done.

The Sledge character has really reached out and grabbed me and saved the series to be frank.

And Leckie has two kinds of luck, bad and none at all.

The next episode looks to be over the top as well…………….

I did just watch the third episode of Peleliu, and I am totally impressed with the action scenes and the harrowing sense of utter exhaustion of the Marines that fought there. Each episode is being better than the previous one.

After watching tonights episode, now I know why Basilone is viewed as a God by fellow Marines, that was an over the top depiction of the landing on Iwo, nothing compares to that, not even "The Sands of Iwo Jima"………….lol………..

More intense than "Flags of our Fathers " as well.

Geez…still too may Japanese night attacks…LOL!

Emmy bound.

Well after watching last nights episode I wonder what Spielberg and Hanks were thinking?

10 minutes worth of Iwo Jima?

The rest of it being training up a new unit and falling in love in beautiful Camp Pendelton.

After the last three episode on Peleliu!

Last night was just, I don't know what to call it.

Maybe they are trying to get the chicks to watch it like North and South or Once we were Eagles.

I will watch the last two episode just to be fair.

But over all on a 1 – 10 rating its a 3 or maybe a 4.

They used to call "1941" Spielberg's folly but this make 41 look like a masterpiece!

(And I was in 41).

Robert Henry

Hi

The issue was to personalize a character so that you FEEL more about how those around him suffer in his loss.

The family dinner where dad is proud, sibligs bask in the glow, and the romance not just the girl, but the recruits for the guy who teaches them how to survive.

This parallels the earlier scene of other "great warrior/leaders" who devistate the men around them with their death.

Rocky

They were thinking the series main focus is on three characters; Leckie, Basilone and Sledge.

The past three episodes were mostly about Sledge and his experiences on Pelelui.

Last night was mostly about Basilone, who was on the bond drive since the canal, was sick of it, wanted to train new recruits and then ended up falling love, getting married and then shipping off to Iwo, where he was killed during the initial landing.

The series is about THREE CHARACTERS, is not a minute by minute, blow by blow account of the Pacific Campaign.

Maybe they should have called the series something different as to not confuse you.

Previews for Episode 9 show Sledge turning into a heartless killing machine – which if you recall from the early episodes is what his father was most afraid of. I wonder how accurate that is?

Warz is only about fightin' boyz. Yer want to watch some girlie style kissin' and feelin' and junk then yez go watch yerself "South Pacific".
Warz only about killin'. Don't need no damrammit stuffs 'bout trainin' and junk. Sissy boyz cares about trainin' and supplies and junk. Never bins a warz won by none of that.
Gimme the pew pew and kapowees and keeps yer damn characters and yer personalities to yerselfs.

What the Heck was that?

War is all about supplies, no doubt about that!

Esp 8 was very good if you got or have friends who suffer from PTSD or War Guilt. It was very moving and I cried at his death, very personal and very intense. You note that he had a smile on his face when he died; a friend of mine said that he would die with a smile on his face if he ever got back to the Stan, he misses the men he lost alot.

I just watched Episode 8 from the original BoB, out of sequence. It is where a new lieutenant come to Hagenau, and the patrol has to go across the river to capture Germans.

Sorry but the script, the acting and the storyline was just so much better than anything in the Pacific. The series peeked at Peleliu.

"Pacific" is a very different show than "Band of Brothers" no doubt.

The series did start out very slow for me and I'm not sure that it I can give high ranks for enjoyability, but I must say it has been extremely educational. I don't think that any documentary, movie, series etc has ever brought home the true ugliness of war better than "Pacific" has. The animosity, hatred, and pure hell of the Okinawa campaign in Episode 9 was particularly well captured. Had I seen this series as a youngster I might never had tried to pursue a career in the military as I did…not ground combat arms at least.

My Grandfather was a WWII Vet who served in the US Infantry in the Pacific. I always wanted to hear his "war stories" but he never would speak of his experiences. This series has really helped me to understand why. Deep down I always knew, but now my understanding is so much more complete.

So "Pacific" gets high marks in the end from me not because it's filled cool, heroic battle scenes but rather for the fact that its full of ugliness, horror, and the depths we can sink to as human beings when subjected these. Hat's off to Mr. Hanks and crew. They might not have given us what we, as wargame geeks, may have wanted but I think they gave us a bit what we need.

I watched episode 9 last night. I have to say some of the middle parts of the series did drag on but as I knew the story I kind of had an idea where they were going. John Basilone's story had to be told because he had everything going for him, did not have to go back but did. Tatum's book gives great credit to him for the training he received by John. It is a good read as well. FWIW Basilone's wife never remarried for the rest of her life. Don't know if that will come out in the story. What happened to Basilone lead to an unwritten rule about medal of honour winners. I do not know of any that were ever allowed back in combat after that.
As to the "battle fatigue" you see in the series I have talked to many GWOT vets who suffer similar experiences. Especially those who were seriously wounded and can not return to their units. Last night, episode 9 was hard for me to watch in parts. Slept okay but felt rather blue this morning. I was glad Sledge did seem to come to terms with the difference between combat and killing. It is a fine line at times. I did like that they showed how friendly fire was just as deadly regardless of which side you were on. It is more common then most can ever imagine. That is also much harder to live with then any enemy combatants one might have killed in combat.
I hope they focus on those who return who do after time adjust not just those who carry the mental scars to an early grave. Those who return from any war where they see real action are never the same, some just get on with it better then others.
VR
James Mattes

Having just watched the final episode it's my turn to do a 180.

I have been incredibly dissapointed in this series.

If you are going to do a series called "The Pacific" you need to make it comprehensive and cover all of the Marine campaigns (Tarawa, Saipan etc) as well the naval engagements and Army action in the Phillipines. You could probably cover it in seventy five episodes.

Ten minutes on Iwo was ridiculous even though that's about how how long Basilone was alive there. His being inconsiderate enought to get killed right away should not have stopped Mssrs Spielberg and Hanks from entertaining us with more combat action

The character development and writing was poor. None of the characters were memorable. Sledge, Leckie, Basilone, Gunny Haney, Sid Phillips, Snafu, Hoosier, Chuckler, Lt Haldane, Runner, Burgy, Chesty Puller, Hamm (with two M's), Stella, Lena, Vera, Dr and Mrs Sledge…none of them.

What a waste of time.

;?)

Sad you feel that way. I was rather the other way, it did more for me than BoB.

I liked the characters, felt a connection to them, liked the character development within the time frame of history and the episode.

This was always going to be a big story, 3 individuals in a cast of thousands spread over a massive theatre. It was about the experiences of those 3 and the others, and unlike BoB or others movies of recent times it left you with a bad taste for war and what it does to men.

You can complain about the name or that your favourite battles were missed or skimmed, however you probably missed the point of the whole thing.

It should remind us that war is a terrible thing, that the dead may be the lucky ones, that it hits all areas of our society in some way, that it can easily destroy the humanity of those there. And for those of us with troops in combat zones now, let us remember that we have a fast growing number of men who would probably agree with the film, who are going to be social wrecks or messed up for the rest of their lives. Some are going to be mistreated simply for being there as was done in another war.

Big thanks to Hanks & Speilberg for bringing us this mini-series.

Regards,

G (a big USMC fan who also would have liked more battles but appreciates this was not about battles but men).

Hate to break it to you, but Millhouse was being sarcastic.

Reread his post.

Really, he was.

Well thank God it's over!

Yes just a short 10 week's.

Just a waist of 10 Sunday evening home with the family.

I still see that it is nothing like BoB.

They never really did character development.

I'm not impressed.

I would have to say they have built me up over the last year for a let down.

I enjoy watching the "Victory at Sea" series more.

Just something missing for me and others out there.

Well after watching all ten episode I really wonder what Spielberg and Hanks were thinking?

Yes only 10 minutes worth of Iwo Jima?

I don't know what to call it.

But over all on a 1 – 10 rating its a 3.

They used to call "1941" Spielberg's folly but this make 41 look like a masterpiece!

(And I was in 41).

I guess we will just have to wait and see if history proves me and other's wrong!

Robert Henry

That 10 minutes of Iwo Jima was better than both of Clint Eastwood's movies combined!

As I have mentioned before, this is a tough crowd. I agree that this was not as good as BoB, not even close. Still pretty good though, and worth watching. Unlike BoB I won't spend money on my own copy, but I don't regret watching.

It's only a letdown by comparison; so don't compare.

Ten years from now they'll be doing "BoB Sicily" and you guys will all complain that "It's not as good as The Pacific! It has no character development. I knew all the characters in Pacific really well like three seconds into the credits."

LOL Caesar !!!

The only thing BoB and Pacific had in common was WW2 and the production team management. The rest is not comparable.

As somebody else pointed out there were expectations of what The Pacific would be and that was the downfall for them.

Strangely enough, I reckon more will have forgotten by next week who was that MoH guy as they drive down a highway named after him.

G

Caeser,
Some people can't be reached.
Which is just the way he wants it.
So… He gets it.
I thought it was a pretty damn good show.

Of course I was being sarcastic.

I wept during the final episode. For those of you (including 11thACR) who didn't get it, I thought of saying something smartalecky. Truth is, I just feel sorry for you.

did not cry, weep or any such thing during the final.

I did clap with joy that it was finally over!

Spielberg and Hanks are a couple of HACKS!

"I just feel sorry for you."

And I for you.

Hi

Ya, I agree. I hope that Spielberg and Hanks stop doing these things. I want HBO to do more of their staple dramas like "Big Love".

No way should they do anything about men in combat.

R

11th ACR,
Maybe if Speilberg does a remake of 1941, he'll give you a call, because afterall, you were in the original as you've told all of us.

More than once.

We get it.

You did not like "The Pacific."

You've made your point.

More than once.

It was a terrific series, by far THE best depiction of men in combat, the Peleliu and Okinawa episodes were incredible, sorry if it didn't work for you.

Your loss.

stopped after episode 3 or 4

wasn't hooked to try further. Have no clue how they could spend millions in this dull series

You probably would have understood how they spend all of that dough if you had watched the other 7 episodes……….

It's funny listening to all these critics squawking about how bad The Pacific was compared to BOB. Do any of you realize that the time period for Band Of Brothers was only 2 years, 1943-45? The Pacific takes place between 1941 to '45. What the heck do you expect out of 10 episodes? Each episode was equal to approximately half a year. How much character development could you expect when you are dealing with a time fame that huge? I was and am a big fan of The Pacific and liked it MUCH more than BOB. There was much more combat feel in The Pacific, much more ID with what the Marines went through and if those critics had any mind they would realize that comparing the ETO to the PTO is like saying North Korea is exactly the same as the USA! Two different theaters, two different armed forces branches, two TOTALLY different wars. I thank Hanks and Spielberg for touching a seldom acknowledged branch and theater of WWII.

"Wow, this is SUCH a tough crowd. The unis and equipment are perfect, the battle scenes are authentic loking, the history is correct, and you're COMPLAINING!?!?!"

Hey guys. My friend James and I grew up reading Marvel comics. We spent the majority of our youth sitting around thinking about how cool it would be if they made really good Marvel movies. Now for the last 8 or 10 years they have been. James has a saying: "Support the peeps." Sure, Daredevil isn't my favorite movie and the first Punisher (not Dolph Lundgren) made me put John Travolta on time out. But, I did pay to see them at the theater and I did purchase them on DVD. Why? Because I want Marvel to know there is a large paying audience for their product so they will keep making the great ones like X Men, Spiderman, and Ironman.

What does this blather have to do with the subject at hand? Well, every time I see a WW2 movie I give it the benefit of the doubt and most importantly I pay to watch it. Why? Because I want more producers/directors to know there is a huge audience out there waiting for it. That is why Valkerie is in my Blu Ray collection. Because whether the lapels were 100% accurate or not, it looked good. And whether it was 100% accurate or not, it was still a good story and it entertains me more every time I watch it.

As for the Pacific and the comparisons to BoB, I am guilty of the same. However, I have owned BoB for years and watch it 3 to 4 times a year. I know those characters because I can sing a long with the dialog. And I read the book. And by read the book I mean I listened to it in the car on a long driving trip. To fully judge the Pacific, I'd at least give it a second complete watch. And we all should probably read the source material.

That said, I really like this forum. There are great discussions here with folks feeling very strongly on opposing view points but the discussions usually stay on topic and don't feel like arguing. Unlike a certain other WW2 themed game's message boards. Cheers to theminiaturespage!

The Pacific takes place between 1941 to '45. What the heck do you expect out of 10 episodes?

Better character development, better writing……basically a better means to engage the viewer.

How much character development could you expect when you are dealing with a time fame that huge?

Seems to work in some well made movies.

It has nothing to do with being in the Pacific, nothing to do with taking place over 4 years, nothing to do with the realism, nothing to do with the night fights, etc, etc. It has to do with the writing. The level of engaging storytelling has slipped since BoB.

I was and am a big fan of The Pacific and liked it MUCH more than BOB.

Fine. Please allow for a differing viewpoint.

…. and if those critics had any mind they would realize that ………

See what I mean?

Ralph

Seems to work in some well made movies.

Please crhkrebs, name a good movie that takes place over 5 years and deals with 3 main characters and has addressed those criticisms you are concerned about.

As for allowing different points of view, no where in my post did I say others view points were wrong. But you posting my comment out of contexts to make it sound like I'm putting people down is going against exactly what you are accusing me off. My view differs from all the negative criticism ones, so as you posted, allow for differing points of view.

crhkrebs 22 May 2010 6:34 a.m. PST wrote:

How much character development could you expect when you are dealing with a time fame that huge?

Seems to work in some well made movies.

Ralph,

So I guess Pearl Harbour is your mark of excellence? Same three characters plus Baldwin win the entire war from the Battle over Britain to the raid on Tokyo.

VR
James Mattes

The Pacific, ROCKED!

There was much more combat feel in The Pacific, much more ID with what the Marines went through and if those critics had any mind they would realize that comparing the ETO to the PTO is like saying North Korea is exactly the same as the USA!

My comment stands. By the way, 5 years is stretching it a bit, isn't it?

So I guess Pearl Harbour is your mark of excellence?

So I'm critical of The Pacific, and that makes me like Pearl Harbour? Good reasoning there, James.

Ralph

"By the way, 5 years is stretching it a bit, isn't it?"

First episode is set during Christmas of 1941. Last episode deals with coming home after the surrender of the Japanese which happened approximately August 15th 1945, but that's not to mention the time taken to get home and the like. If it makes you feel better August. That's four years and 8 months give or take a month. Closer to five than to four, not much of a stretch at all.

"So I'm critical of The Pacific, and that makes me like Pearl Harbour?"

No, but you haven't given any examples of "good movies according to you" that deal with the same characteristics, 3 main characters and a span of 5 years..

First episode is set during Christmas of 1941. Last episode deals with coming home after the surrender of the Japanese which happened approximately August 15th 1945, but that's not to mention the time taken to get home and the like. If it makes you feel better August. That's four years and 8 months give or take a month.

Uuuummmm…….Christmas '41 to Christmas '45 is 4 years. To Aug 15th '45 is 3 years and 8 months. Now I feel better.

No, but you haven't given any examples of "good movies according to you" that deal with the same characteristics, 3 main characters and a span of 5 years..

What, are we in the playground? Mine is bigger and better than yours? By the way, I notice you have surreptitiously expanded your criteria from a few days ago.

"The Duellists" (1977). I still remember it, 33 years after it was made. Takes place between 1800 and 1814. Carradine, Keitel and Finney. A better written, engaging story, all delivered in a runtime of 100 minutes. Have you even seen it?

Look I'm absolutely thrilled that you liked The Pacific. I really am. I'm still at a loss to see why I should be more enamoured by the show because it spans 3 years and 8 months and has three characters in it. That's your criteria, not mine. I explained mine already, above.

Ralph

I think Speilberg should have named this series "The story of three guys" instead of "The Pacific" because by doing so, he opened the door for people to ASSUME this was a blow by blow, day by day, battle by battle account of the entire Pacific campaign.

I know everyone reads to first few posts of page 1, gets tired head and skips to the last page. I know I do. Unfortunately, my post on this subject made the last post of page 3 meaning no one will ever see it. The main idea for those of you who didn't read every post of the thread is this: Support the people making these movies. A less than perfect program on a subject we all love so much is better than no program (previous statement not including Pearl Harbor). Also, we've all watched BoB a lot since it came out. Give Pacific a second or third watch over the next year. The story may fit together a little better. Who knows, you might have missed some details going to the kitchen or listening to your wife talk.

However, after reading the above posts of page 4, I may have to reconsider what I said in my last paragraph. Cheers!

crhkrebs,you are correct, I miss counted on the dates, my mistake. I have seen "The Duelist" and we OBVIOUSLY have different tastes because I found the movie boring, not well written and very slow, as a matter of fact I think I fell asleep during it.

Hi

I really liked the Duelists. And i LIKED Pacific.

In both cases, they told a story well and didn't do silly hollywood stuff with equipement or history.

The Duelists is a small story involving a couple guys and only vaguely refers to the wars it crosses. The Pacific is a much bigger story in space and complexity and they are not comparable.

R