Comments on: The Pacific (2010)

By: kent

kent — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 02:53:33 +0000

Read the books…..the events you pawned off as ridiculous (i.e. tossing rocks into a skull) were described in sledges book with a sense of actuallity. “With the old breed” is as true A piece of war literature as there is, no fabrication, just how it is. The previous post about no cohesive unit was true too, no unit made it through guadalcanal to okinawa. Sledges group of 235 in pelileu left okinawa with less than 45 original members, that was only two battles. Where pacific destroys bob is its ability to truly capture civilized men from two civilizations adapt to and endure twentieth century barbarism, a barbarism clearly drawn out in sledges and to a lesser extent leckie’s books.

By: allaboutwarmovies

allaboutwarmovies — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:16:26 +0000

I had a similar reaction like Chris at first but then gave it some time and thinking and decided we should for a start not compare The Pacific and Band of Brothers (see my post http://allaboutwarmovies.com/2010/06/26/the-pacific-versus-band-of-brothers-should-we-compare/) and, yes, The Pacific is good.
I think what it is particularly good at showing is post-traumatic stress. And it emphasizes the difference of the two war theaters. Especiallay when it comes to the end.
Just picture this: the war in Europe is over. Everybody is celebrating and you have to go on fighting a stubborn enemy that will only give up after the very worst has happened. When it’s finally over for you the rest of the world doesn’t even now what you are talking about. The war is over? Hell, yes, it was over months ago.
And no rewarding liberation of captives and concentration camps…
I thought that this was shown very well in The Pacific. When it comes to “liking”, that’s another story. I did like Band of Brothers much better.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:04:24 +0000

I feel like I have to respond to both Dave and Buzz here… Yes, I realize that comparing the two theaters is not possible. That’s not what my intent was. The comparison to BoB is inevitable, though. Where BoB succeeded mostly was in making (most of) the episodes gel on their own, while still obviously part of the bigger picture. I didn’t get that from The Pacific. I didn’t think the three stories *were* combined successfully. The overall “Good, Bad, and Ugly” (Leckie, Basilone, and Sledge resp.) aspect of how each of their stories turned out was the high point, and I did get that, but only at the very, very end.

Like I said, I just didn’t feel the same way about it. My opinion doesn’t have anything to do with what actually happened, (both of you are spot on,) but how it was told. The Basilone story, while not insignificant to be sure, absolutely (IMO) did not represent 99.9% of anyone’s story or experience, except in the most abstract of ways. That is to say, being cast the hero where he didn’t feel like it was warranted. Leckie’s story was just dropped on the floor, it seemed, as Sledge came into the picture, and I still think that Sledge’s story could have carried the entire series, even if he didn’t join the fight until later.

Agreed, Buzz, that the visuals were important, but if you’ve seen the *real* footage (or been there, I don’t know) you’ll understand that what they tried to show only scratched the surface of what really happened and looked like. What was surreal and twisted should have been horrifying and sickening, and it wasn’t, IMO. A conscious decision? I dunno, but it seemed cliched to me at times.

I still haven’t found the time to go back and go through the whole thing again, but I will, and I’ll report back.

By: Davep

Davep — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:47:28 +0000

Two entirely different battle theaters, enemies, and circumstances.. Band Of Brothers, has nothing to do with the Pacific. Because the chances of finding an entact marine unit that made it through the entire Pacific theather, and one which hit all the various islands, was impossible, they had to weave several stories together.

Comparing Band of Brothers to the Pacific, and saying one is better than the other, is to say one war is better than another war.

By: Buzz

Buzz — Fri, 28 May 2010 00:56:37 +0000

I disagree with your take and with your conclusion. I do agree you didn’t get it.

In Band of Brothers, they used a slick , well researched book to show an elite unit going through 13 months in Europe. It was well done and reflected all the work Ambrose did documenting Easy Company. It had lots of action and little of the impact the battle was having on individuals.

In the Pacific, we are looking through the eyes of young enlisted Marines, and the chaos they encounter over a much longer and more brutal campaign, than was experienced in Europe. The series captured the soul of the Marines. The ability to laugh and make jokes during the worst of times; the combination of being boys and men at the same time; and the reality that they were all extraordinary in overcoming a much tougher and desperate enemy. Visually it did a good job of capturing the extreme landscapes and tremendous losses experienced in the island fights. I think they needed to tell the three stories, because the combination was more powerful than a single memoir would have been. No where in Europe did American fighting men sit side by side with rotting corpses for extended periods. Yet if you want a sense of what was experienced, then you needed those shots. The drag of Australia was a bit much, especially when we find out it was all fabricated about Lecke and the Greek girl. Otherwise, I think we are there with them. Lecke and Sledge represent the youth of America responding to the call. Basilone is the hardened NCO, the hero of WWII and the backbone of Marine Corps. He has a chance to stay safe but he doesn’t take it. He returns to battle and sacrifices everything.

To me, Band of Brothers was slick, polished and well told. It also didn’t represent what was experienced by most soldiers on the European front. The Pacific takes us along with the Marines and covers the fight from start to finish. Not so slick, not so tight, but more true.

My two cents.