I had really high hopes for this show, given how much I loved Band of Brothers.
It’s not doing it for me. Not to say that it’s a bad show, but I feel it pales in comparison to BoB in every way, especially in regards to character development. Bull Randleman, Sgt Winters, Malarkey…all outstanding characters that you’d hate to see get shot. Truth be told I couldn’t give a damn if any of these “Pacific” guys succumb to a Jap bullet.
It’s still relatively early in the series, so hopefully they can salvage it to some extent.
I think they are delving way to much into the psychosis of what happens to soldiers during war. It has been done thousands of time I watch the fucken “The Pacific” because i want to see the progression of the war and the blood and guts of it. I want to see the soldiers terrified fucken face during a barrage of bullets. I want to see him weep for his fallen brother. BUT I DO NOT care about there personal lives outside the war, im sorry but its just stupid having the guy go to Australia and shit, I only want to hear about his personal life through talking with his friends on the battlefield… This recent episode was better but still again with the ‘PTS’ shit.
War movies are getting boring. Generation Kill was the last one that was worth anything. Hurt Locker was absolutely terrible, I don’t think they hired a military advisor.
I’m enjoying it just because I love war movies/shows/whatever, but yes, it has absolutely nothing on Band of Brothers. Even the firefights are lacking.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Agreed. Haven’t yet seen tonight’s show yet (will shortly) but I thought last week’s show was weak. Too much happened in the four year war and in too many places for them to waste a whole segment on R & R down under.[/quote]
Though I have to admit his love interest was pretty smoken
I’ll watch to the end but I sure hope the action starts soon. One minute of mowing guys down in the dark is not enough action for a war flick. Jeez, that makes me sound bloodthirsty lol.
It was a different style of war guys, tons of down time smattered with crazy intense battles, followed by more downtime. Overall, things were much more “heady” maybe due to a much younger population of war-fighters (USMC NCO’s) given much more responsibility than the standard Army leg.
The Marines got their reputation for being professional anphibians during this war, and I think The Pacific is trying to chronicle that aspect of it.
The Army being in Europe was relateable (BoB) since some of the leadership was there in WWI, and the environment was similar to the US. The Marines in the Pacific were leaving ships and landing basically on another planet, fighting a force that didn’t have the same rules as say a Christian would. The Pacific theater didn’t have the romance or nostalgia that the Europe had.
Consider the 1st episode when the Marine was going through the personal effects of the dead Japanese soldier, looking at the photographs and the little doll that was in his kit. I could only imagine after looking at the the Marine was thinking “what the fuck are we dealing with?”
That being said I was a little bummed about the Melbourne R&R episode last week, but it was a part of the history of 1st Mardiv, and ultimately I’m glad it was discussed.
Remember too that The Pacific is following an actual unit with actual characters. SSGT Basilone was a real dude who (SPOILER!) ends up buying it in Iwo Jima. There’s a road in Camp Pendleton and an exit off the I-5 named after him. I gotta be honest, I’m dissapointed to read that everyone so far is wanting more blood and guts and action regarding a series that, in my mind, deserves a little more reverence than that.
Also, the dude playing Chesty Puller (I remember him from Shawshank Redemption) is playing the character really well. I was afraid we were going to see a Nick Nolte’esque (from Thin Red Line) attempt at middle aged bravado leading men to slaughter with this character, but so far I’m impressed with how Chesty is being portrayed.
Before the series came out I watched Tom Hanks and Speilberg talking in an interview. They even said they wont be focusing too much on the action, and there more getting into what the war did to these guys mentally. It could use a little more action, but I have nothing negative to say about the series.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
War movies are getting boring.[/quote]
This is how I have felt about war movies for some time now. WWII movies, especially those based in the European theater, are a tired, overdone genre. Inglorious Basterds (I won’t go into detail of how frustrated I was with this movie) is a prime example of a war movie recycling tired cliches.
I would say that the few war movies I have seen recently that I enjoyed are those told from a different perspective, like the Cross of Iron and Letters from Iwo Jima.
p.s. BoB was the exception and an excellent series.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
War movies are getting boring.[/quote]
This is how I have felt about war movies for some time now. WWII movies, especially those based in the European theater, are a tired, overdone genre. Inglorious Basterds (I won’t go into detail of how frustrated I was with this movie) is a prime example of a war movie recycling tired cliches.
I would say that the few war movies I have seen recently that I enjoyed are those told from a different perspective, like the Cross of Iron and Letters from Iwo Jima.
p.s. BoB was the exception and an excellent series.[/quote]
Oh come on at least Inglorious Bastards was a ‘What If’ scenario
The problem for me is that there is not really much a of a connection to the guys like there was in band of brothers. Next week looks like it’ll be pretty epic on the action side atleast.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
War movies are getting boring.[/quote]
This is how I have felt about war movies for some time now. WWII movies, especially those based in the European theater, are a tired, overdone genre. Inglorious Basterds (I won’t go into detail of how frustrated I was with this movie) is a prime example of a war movie recycling tired cliches.
I would say that the few war movies I have seen recently that I enjoyed are those told from a different perspective, like the Cross of Iron and Letters from Iwo Jima.
p.s. BoB was the exception and an excellent series.[/quote]
Oh come on at least Inglorious Bastards was a ‘What If’ scenario
[/quote]
It was fantasy, but it still had all the boring cliches that we have seen in WWII movies over the last 60 plus years.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A pet peeve of mine is the short duration of the episodes. It’s almost 10 minutes after the hour before the show actually begins and then it ends 5 - 10 minutes before the following hour. There’s hardly 45 minutes of show there.
This must be so it can be packaged up for syndication for non-pay TV, I guess.[/quote]
As well as be shown in the classroom. BoB has been shown in history classes from Jr. High all the way through College level courses.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A pet peeve of mine is the short duration of the episodes. It’s almost 10 minutes after the hour before the show actually begins and then it ends 5 - 10 minutes before the following hour. There’s hardly 45 minutes of show there.
This must be so it can be packaged up for syndication for non-pay TV, I guess.[/quote]
Good point, I was thinking that too.