The Pacific HBO miniseries

I've had this set for quite a while and know it's been out for a couple of years but I'm just now getting around to watching it.

When the series first came out, I purchased and read the book expecting something along the lines of "Band of Brothers" which I really enjoyed.

The book was not bad but it did not grab onto me the way the Band of Brothers did.

The miniseries is a major disappointment. It seems almost as if they are trying to bring out the worst in men in this series.

I've only gotten through the first four parts so perhaps it will improve.

Where Band of Brothers emphasized friendship, honor and integrity, this series seems to focus on drunken nights on the town, sex when they can get it, divisions between the men and their leaders, mental breakdowns and violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Anyone else get this impression or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Different yes as was the type of combat, the location, the author and sources and I'll miss a few more. As opponents the German's were at least honorable excepting some isolated but never the less often frequent butchery (i.e. Malmedy). The Marines fought a almost entirely ruthless opponent in the Japanese, no quit, disregard for life in the way we know it, hid and fought a defensive war after Guadalcanal, significant casualties seemed the norm. The media/press was more likely to be in Europe than the Pacific which is possibly better that it happened that way.

The strategy was to defeat Hitler first, then the war in the Pacific. I disagree that the Marines lacked honor, and as for a breakdown in the Geneva Convention? The Germans were guilty of this and many other atrocities, but the Japanese never abided by them and were not shy to say so, hard to convince your fellow warriors to abide by something the enemy disregards. The Marines ( I know Army also in the Pacific) attacked and couldn't leave or be relieved it seems until they were a casualty or the conflict concluded, troops were rotated more frequently in Europe or at least a greater attempt to do so. And to me what's most important is that one was written by Ambrose who's style chose not to dramatize the ugly or the I can't believe they did that incidents, truth is they had sex in Europe and shot German's at times when not necessary, it happened. The Marines story was told by Leckie ( not my favorite) and Sledge ( his accounts are the best). Each series needs to be appreciated for individual qualities, there are parts of BOB that I don't care for, but it is overall a better directed series. The Pacific really picks up at Peleliu and continues with a strong finish at Okinawa, but again it's just a weaker director, the stories of both are a testament to the men who fought for our freedom.

The individual soldier stories are horrifying and inspiring with human courage and sacrifice, I feel it a disservice to compare one as better, they are just different. Both series deal with real persons, each of which was affected for the rest of their lives.

I found one storey in each that didn't thrill me, BOB was the first in training and Pacific was Australia. Like we HAVE to put in a love story...The other part was best said at the end of Pacific when Leckie came home. The cab driver wouldn't take his money because he had been airborne and jumped in on D-Day, had a couple nice leaves in London and Paris, the marines just had Japs...that sort of thing makes different men.

I spent most of the time looking at the equipment anyway. Yes, I have the box set. Also I've had the books by Robert Leckie and Eugene Sledge for decades...I knew immediately when they started with that introduction, where the story was going.

Band of Brothers also had Col. Winters as a behind the scenes force. Imagine Tom Hanks' (and others) chagrin when the possibility of being shunned by Winters arose.

I was a big fan of Saving Private Ryan.. and BOB. By far BOB was better. So I had high regards going in... that Pacific was going to be awesome.

But I was disappointed... but I have to agree with the above posters, on just about every account. I also had the books, and read them going in.

I have to say that it took me nearly 1 year to actually watch the Pacific.. by the 4th episode I lost interest...

Don't get me wrong, I am happy that the movie was made... and was hoping that more movies of this caliber (modest budget based on real events) would be made.

I also had high expectations for the Pacific. Reading the book lessened that considerably but even so, I expected the film to be better than it is. The film does not cover many of the characters in the book, the pilot for instance. Unless he's in the later episodes but I believe I read somewhere that he isn't included.

I've also found myself looking a the equipment but the only thing I've seen in great detail is the water cooled machine gun. The Japanese stuff is almost non-existent with the exception of the pistol used as a bribe.

It just seems to me that this director sought out the worst in people and there isn't any balance with the good in people. I understand the Pacific was different than Europe but still, this portrayal seems off.

Winters almost did pull out of BOB. The original script had excessive foul language in it and he refused to continue if it were not cleaned up. I've read every book I can find on the BOB. There are a lot of interesting ones out there. Dick Winters is buried a little over a mile from my house. I live in his childhood home town. His grave is easy to find, it's the one covered in flags and flowers.

I would encourage those who read the mini-series book to at least read Sledge's "With the Old Breed". His account as well as the recent veterans who also were there give a idea of what they felt and still feel to this day (i.e. RV Burgin)

I think the two series are so vastly different for an external reason: The societal circumstances had changed. Leading up to BOB we had the fall of the Soviet Union and the successful and low-casualty Gulf War followed by ten years of peace in the world. Hollywood was beginning to think that there was actually a place for a military as a force for peace in the world. The generation that inspired BOB had just been dubbed by Tom Brokaw "The Greatest Generation" and was co-opted in his book to further a left-leaning agenda. At the same time, that generation was beginning to disappear, so it was time to give them a great send-off. Right in the middle of the debut of the series, 9-11 occurred, stirring patriotic feelings, even amongst those in Hollywood.

Ten years later we were up to our eyeballs in the business of cleaning out Terrorism with two wars running at once. The media, and especially Hollywood, were loosing faith in the cause. Isn't it funny that they seem to be the first? Hanks was itching for another big deal like BOB but as he delved into the subject matter he discovered that the Pacific War was a much darker war, lacking much of the simple, cohesive "the guys in white clobber the bad guys and save the world" feeling of the ETO. And a large segment of American society was loosing sight of the task we had taken on. In the run-up to this series Hanks admitted that the complexity of the War on Terror and the waining support from some of the public had an influence on him.

So the two series ended up reflecting the attitudes of Hollywood at the times they were produced.

Bob

The Ambrose book was a great read though I may not have a very objective view being an Ambrose fan. Unlike any film I have ever watched I can watch the BOB series over and over. The cinematography, direction,casting and acting were superb in my opinion. The inclusion of the interviews with the surviving members brought it all toghether. I have avoided watching The Pacific for fear of disappointment based on some reviews I have seen. Perhaps it is time to watch it.

Bob,

Excellent reasoning there and I have similar feelings about it. The director of the Pacific seems to be "anti-war" to the extreme, as if the actual conditions of war aren't enough to make anyone not want to go. It just seems as if he's portraying the Americans in a bad light and hardly portraying the Japanese at all although there are efforts to make them human at least.

Movies like Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers and even The Pacific do bring the realities of war much more strongly than previous Hollywood productions which are pretty sanitized.

Yeah, I thought the production sank into "sex, drugs, and rock n' roll" and "Life's a B**** and then you die," the typical "let's sell some TV time" stuff. Hanks admitted that he was jaded and war-weary and thought the potential audience was the same. By contrast, though gritty and reality-based, BOB ended up with the feeling that it was all worth it, and though the participants were scarred, they realized they had accomplished something. "The Pacific" reduced it to myopic, individual terms, simple survival, with no acknowledgment of the bigger picture. Except in the case of "We Were Soldiers" and BOB, Hollywood has rarely been able to "get it right." Oh, well. Par for the course.

Bob