MovieChat Forums > The Pacific (2010) Discussion > After watching The Pacific, I felt BOB g...

After watching The Pacific, I felt BOB glamorized WW2


I have never been in a war, I don't know what it is really like. Regardless, when I watched BOB, I felt like I was going on an adventure. On a few occasions I actually found myself wanting to be in one of the soldiers' shoes, and found myself thinking that would be an epic thing to live through. I enjoyed watching the majority of the episodes (even somewhat the episodes depicting The Battle of the Bulge), and couldn't wait for the next one to come out. Especially during the early episodes. Maybe it was because of the 'success' of Easy Company, but I felt like things where too organized and clean for the most part.

The Pacific on the other hand was a completely different story. I feel like it showed war for what it really is: confusing, frantic, disgusting, and absolutely horrifying. I found it hard to watch, and didn't want to be anywhere near what I was seeing. I think that's a much better depiction of war. That's what a really good war movie or series should do, IE Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line, etc.

Thoughts?

reply

I wouldn't necessarily say that BoB glamorised WW2, as the battle scenes in that series were also very intense. But, the European theater was an entirely different animal compared to the Pacific theater, which I think was captured well on screen. The Japanese were a radically different enemy unlike anything the Allies had ever encountered. Their tactics were brutal and perplexing, and they refused to surrender. The Marines and soldiers fighting throughout the campaign were severely demoralized and exhausted, not just by the enemy encounters, but by the environment they found themselves in.

I'm not saying that the war in Europe was a cake walk, by any means, but the landscape wasn't nearly as harsh and primitive as the jungles and islands on the Pacific were. And the German army (for the most part) tended to follow the "rules" of warfare when it came to tactics and battle.

"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see."

reply

I'm not saying that the war in Europe was a cake walk, by any means, but the landscape wasn't nearly as harsh and primitive as the jungles and islands on the Pacific were.


I certainly wouldn't rather pick the wet cold Hurtgen Forest or the cold and snowy Ardennes instead of Pacific Islands and jungles.

And the German army (for the most part) tended to follow the "rules" of warfare when it came to tactics and battle.


Again, I certainly wouldn't rather pick facing well equipped and tactically savvy German army and SS soldiers armed with Tiger and Panther tanks and other deadly weaponry instead of Japanese soldiers and their weaponry.

reply

This series gives an idea that life in the pacific was terrible in comparison to the European theatre. That may be so butb the death toll to the allied was greater in Europe

reply

One of the characters in the series put it best- something to the effect "I was at Normandy on D-Day, but I had liberty in Paris- You gi-rines had to slog through the jungle with rot and malaria"

I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

I think one of the things a lot of people have trouble recognising about The Pacific is that it is anti-war. I'm not saying that Band of Brothers is pro-war and I'm not sure "glamourized" is the best word but there is a very different feel to both. I take your point.

I also think a lot of people confuse the anti-war message with being pro-Japanese or PC or something else which it is not. If you watch the series more than once, it is unmistakeable. I think this puts it apart from most war movies or series because it goes down a path that few producers would be brave enough to take.

reply

I think one of the things a lot of people have trouble recognising about The Pacific is that it is anti-war. I'm not saying that Band of Brothers is pro-war and I'm not sure "glamourized" is the best word but there is a very different feel to both. I take your point.

I also think a lot of people confuse the anti-war message with being pro-Japanese or PC or something else which it is not. If you watch the series more than once, it is unmistakeable. I think this puts it apart from most war movies or series because it goes down a path that few producers would be brave enough to take.

Why does something have to be "anti-war" or "pro-war"? Why can't people just take things for what they are? If they made a WWI series which just showed mud and decomposing corpses mixed with constant artillery barrages would I try to compare that to BoB and come to the conclusion that BoB is less "anti-war"? Stop trying to infer these black and white interpretations.

reply

Stop trying to infer these black and white interpretations.


Mate, that's you, not me.

I made it pretty clear that Band of Brothers didn't necessarily go one way or the other. All I did was offer the opinion that The Pacific was anti-war because that's what I think it is.

reply

Anti-war is a dumb label, like many other over-simplifications about movies and TV shows that fail to convey what the subject matter is about. You're looking more along the lines of a closer look at the visceral and intense experience of the infantryman's war. This one happened to be more awful because what those Marines went through was literally hell, and one of the worst places to fight in in the whole war. Anti-war does not describe this series correctly. Technically all war movies can be interpreted as anti-war or whatever generalizing type of terms you want to call them.

reply

Anti-war is a dumb label, like many other over-simplifications about movies and TV shows that fail to convey what the subject matter is about.
You've got to be kidding...?
You're looking more along the lines of a closer look at the visceral and intense experience of the infantryman's war. This one happened to be more awful because what those Marines went through was literally hell, and one of the worst places to fight in in the whole war.
You think I don't know this? Yep. Sounds like an anti-war message to me.
Anti-war does not describe this series correctly.
You're the one using adjectives like "dumb", "over-simplifications" and "generalizing". "Correct" is just another value judgement in your ever-tightening circle of argument.

Please enlighten us as to what is "correct" and what is not.

The OP posed a question. I gave my opinion.

reply

This is what I think. If you capture the essence of the brutality of any war, it will be anti-war in its nature.

reply

Anti-war? I dunno so much about it being anti-war but more of focusing on PTSD because right after they did this, they also produced War Torn documentary about PTSD. The name is Pacific because it was the beautiful looking hell they had to endure and the nightmare followed them home. That's what this entire mini-series touches on. And at the end Sledge pretty much gets interested in Biology and such but the nightmares and terrors still continued pretty much the rest of his life.

It's not pro-Japanese either because it shows you what the Japanese soldiers do to POW's with the genitals in his mouth in the 1st episode. Things like that and what's already known by the general public like the Rape of Nanking and how they pretty much raped and pillaged every country they occupied. Now there were many good men but it'd be wrong to try to bring good vs bad into a topic about war.

reply

He himself said it wasn't pro-Japanese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2BKWx_0qK0

reply

On a few occasions I actually found myself wanting to be in one of the soldiers' shoes, and found myself thinking that would be an epic thing to live through. I enjoyed watching the majority of the episodes (even somewhat the episodes depicting The Battle of the Bulge), and couldn't wait for the next one to come out. Especially during the early episodes. Maybe it was because of the 'success' of Easy Company, but I felt like things where too organized and clean for the most part.


An epic thing to live through? Too organized and clean? I'm amazed that anyone who watched Joe Toye and BIll Guarnere getting their legs shot off, Ed Tipper having his eyeball blown out of its socket, Chuck Grant suffering permanent brain damage after getting shot in the head, John Julian being cut down by machine gun fire so intense no one can retrieve his body, Eugene Jackson slowly dying from friendly fire injuries after a meaningless POW grab in Haguenau, or the company stumbling across a nightmarish concentration camp (this, by the way, is just a partial list) would claim that Band Of Brothers "glamorized WW2."

reply

I'm amazed that anyone who watched Joe Toye and BIll Guarnere getting their legs shot off,


Right; when Joe & "Wild Bill" were maimed & when Muck & Penkala were 'vaporized' by that artillery shell & Buck cracked under the strain...they were guys we'd spent 'several episodes' with getting to know & probably like-to see that happen to them, that was like a punch in the gut.

reply

While those parts where depressing and difficult to watch, it wasn't enough to leave an impression on me like The Pacific did. IMO The Pacific just did a much better job overall of depicting the horror of an event like WW2. Even the music did a better job of setting the mood with a wiry, horror movie-esque sound.

reply

I can understand someone stating that the events depicted in The Pacific were more harrowing than those seen in Band Of Brothers; it's the claim that Band Of Brothers "glamorized WW2" that's difficult to accept. The carnage Easy Company veterans dealt with created profound emotional problems for them in later years; there was nothing "glamorous" about the events they lived through (which were later dramatized for the miniseries).

reply

I'm not saying the events they lived through are glamorous at all. That's exactly my point is it should have not been presented in a way in which it feels glamorous in any way (and as I said The Pacific does a much better job at not doing this). Further, I felt HBO glamorized the events for the series, though 'dramatized' may have been a better word.

reply

Further, I felt HBO glamorized the events for the series, though 'dramatized' may have been a better word.


Well, both The Pacific and Band Of Brothers "dramatized" events, because they're both dramatic works. But I still don't see how the word "glamorize" could be used to describe Band Of Brothers and its depiction of WW2. The word "glamorize" means "to make (something) seem glamorous or desirable," and I just don't see how the vivid carnage of Carentan or Nuenen, or the freezing misery of Bastogne, or the discovery of a concentration camp in Landsberg (to take just a few examples) "glamorizes" WW2 or the experiences of Easy Company.

Essentially, dramatic structure and setting are the elements that separate the two shows. Band Of Brothers tells the story of a single company and the soldiers in its ranks, and that "single company" coherence gives the show a dramatic unity The Pacific simply doesn't achieve - and couldn't, because the latter follows different soldiers from different companies. Which doesn't make The Pacific inferior in any way; it just means the show has its own unique identity. Also different is the fact that Band Of Brothers is about the esprit de corps that existed within Easy Company, something that could be seen as a silver lining to the lethal cloud of war they lived under. Sledge's With The Old Breed may be the most harrowing account of an American soldier's experiences in WW2, and much of that is due to the fact that Sledge lived through some of the most harrowing events in the Pacific theater of war. But esprit de corps isn't the focus of The Pacific; on the other hand, it's what Band Of Brothers is all about.

And this is the point that I, and a few other posters in this thread, have been trying to make - that while Band Of Brothers examines story elements that aren't seen in The Pacific, it doesn't necessarily follow that Band Of Brothers "glamorizes" WW2; it simply tells a different story.

reply

i just finished binge-watching BOB yet again and it does... not... glamorize war.... while it does not show war as a 100% purely evil horror, it does show the effects that war has on people, and the suffering that people endure from it


God does not build in straight lines.

reply

I find this interesting, as espirit de corps featured prominently in With The Old Breed. It was far and away the greatest asset to Marines struggling to endure unimaginably hellish circumstances, utterly incomprehensible to those of us fortunate enough not to have been subjected to it.

You may recall the particularly harrowing depictions of the environment in Okinawa during the siege of the Shuri ridge (or was it the preceding defensive line?). Between the incessant artillery and mortar barrage and ever present sniper fire the Marines could not collect their dead. The stench of decomposing bodies and horrific hygienic conditions and mental breakdown over constant bombardment were all terrible, and I find myself viscerally sick trying to conjure the mental picture. But what I found interesting is Sledge's horror at the Marine bodies left rotting in the fields, unable to be retrieved. He had become increasingly numbed to the atrocities and living conditions, but the sight of dead Marines left out there is what almost broke him (I think at one point he talks about recurring nightmares out on the battlefield where the dead rise and stalk towards him).

Over the course of the campaigns Sledge grows increasingly numb to the brutality and carnage around him. But what strikes me is the sheer anguish leaping from the page whenever he talks about see his Marine brothers in harms way and not being able to do anything about it (they are too far away, or particularly tragic when he can't shoot lest he risk hitting his buddies). The overwhelming helplessness, shame, anguish, hatred, disgust. Very few mentions, each in succinct and sparse prose. And yet the emotional impact, trying to put myself in his frame of mind, is devastating. I feel that these experiences of helplessness in the face of mortal peril to his comrades were among the most scarring to him.

It was a disappointment to me too that this did not come across so well in the final production. After reading the memoirs upon which the series is based I rewatched it and found it much more compelling knowing the background, for Sledge in particular.

There were several factors that likely diminished this essential facet of Marine life in the mini-series.

*One is that many of the horrific acts perpetrated by Marines were attributed to unnamed individuals in Leckie's and Sledge's memoirs, so as to not dishonor their memory. Due to the constraints of TV storytelling these had to be ascribed to named characters (SNAFU got hit the hardest I think).
*Two, Leckie and some others who documented their experiences didn't have the same sense of belonging. Leckie was insubordinate, capricious, spent time in the brig and was demoted several times. His view of the officers in particular engendered a more antagonistic perspective than the more sympathetic Sledge
*Three, it's just not possible to fully capture this phenomenon through film (in the context of such vicious prolonged combat). The Marines are haggard and mentally and physically gone much of the time. Overt expressions of comraderie discernable to audiences aren't very realistic. They might not understand how crucial and fundamental the bond of trust between them was to their continued survival (both mental and psychological). The fact that if a Marine went down 4 stretcher bearers and a corpsman would go out and get him, knowing full well that the Japanese wanted to draw them out and kill them, because they had absolute faith that any of their comrades would do the same. I agree the show could've done a better job though.


Back in the real world, Eugene Sledge mentions esprit de corps and how it sustained him and his brethren many times in his memoir. His remarks at the very end say it better than I ever could. I'll let him have the last word.


Then on 15 August 1945 the war ended. We received the news with quiet disbelief coupled with an indescribable sense of relief. We thought the Japanese would never surrender. Many refused to believe it. Sitting in stunned silence, we remembered our dead. So many dead. So many maimed. So many bright futures consigned to the ashes of the past. So many dreams lost in the madness that engulfed us. Except for a few widely scattered shouts of joy, the survivors of the abyss sat hollow-eyed and silent, trying to comprehend a war without war.

....

My happiness knew no bounds when I learned I was slated to ship home. It was time to say goodbye to old buddies in K/3/5. Severing the ties formed in two campaigns was painful. One of America's finest and most famous elite fighting divisions had been my home during a period of most extreme adversity. Up there on the line, with nothing between us and the enemy but space (and precious little of that), we'd forged a bond that time would never erase. We were brothers. I left with a sense of loss and sadness, but K/3/5 will always be a part of me.

....

War is brutish, inglorious and a terrible waste. Combat leave an indelible mark on those who are forced to endure it. The only redeeming factors were my comrades' incredible bravery and their devotion to each other. Marine Corps training taught us to kill efficiently and to try to survive. But it also taught us loyalty to each other - and love. That esprit de corps sustained us.

reply

there was nothing glamorized about bastogne

reply

Both series were dramatised versions of true events the creators had a lot of access to, and both did a very good job of portraying those events sticking relatively close to the facts (though, obviously, there were deviations).

Therefore, saying that The Pacific did a better job of depicting the horror of WW2 or the horror of war is like saying that Band of Brothers did a better job of depicting the war in Europe, or saying that American Sniper did a better job than either of those two series of depicting modern warfare.

It's a meaningless comparison, and I don't see how it could possibly be used as a criticism of Band of Brothers.

reply

The Pacific war theater was far worse for the soldiers. The western side of the European war theater was deadlier but it was fought against an enemy that was seen as somewhat reasonable and patriotic. This is understandable considering that the majority of American soldiers were Caucasians with European roots and Germans are Europeans. Thus, both sides had some knowledge about the civilian and military traditions, language, culture and history of the opposing side. It was not exceptionally difficult to find Germans, who could understand some English or French. This wasn't the case with the Japanese soldiers. Both sides in the Pacific theater followed completely different ethical and military traditions, and had no historical or cultural touching points, so they perceived each other as savages and animals. I think this is what the mini-series try to show. BOB wasn't trying to glamorize WWII. The war in the Pacific was bloodier and more disgusting.

reply

The conditions are debateable, but the casualties were worse fighting the Germans than fighting the Japanese. In fact most battles against the Japanese weren't even close. The equipment with the Germans was far better, and the talent with the German generals was much better than with the Japanese. That is why the casualty rate was pretty comparable in battles between the US and the Germans, but in battles between the US and Japanese, the Japanese took far more casualties.

reply

"The western side of the European war theater was deadlier"

Second sentence in.

reply

[deleted]

I thought it was wonderful. It was incredibly hard to watch, and was very disturbing. It just made my respect for the greatest generation grow. It just goes to show what happens when you let Generals fight wars instead of politicians.


I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

I prefer Band of Brothers and Generation Kill to this series. The fact that you get to follow a single unit works better then following 3 separate characters in different units. I also thought the violence was over done in certain parts, and almost became decensortised to it and felt they were just trying to shock the viewer for no reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IrT5IeXo80

reply

I'm sure many of the Marines at the time would disagree with your statement about generals, especially MacArthur's "I shall return" retreat at Bataan (although, he did eventually return) and the questionable objectives on many of the island campaigns, such as Peleliu.

"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see."

reply

^ ^
(Whoops.... In reply to 'blisteringlogic'.)

"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see."

reply

I'm not sure what the "whoops" was for...? All I know is that if I were a soldier, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with a military officer planning the war, rather than a politician.

I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

Sorry, I was trying to reply directly to your initial message, but it went to the other person.
But I understand what you mean. WW2 had its share of great military leaders and tacticians, but I think many of them were also stroking their egos with some of the big decisions, and in some cases, those decisions cost a lot of lives.

"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see."

reply

"I think many of them were also stroking their egos with some of the big decisions, and in some cases, those decisions cost a lot of lives."


I couldn't agree with you more. I think the difference between the two is that while the General my make poor decisions based on his ego, a politician will will make colossally poor decisions based on politics. And if that's the choice, I'll go with the one that actually has some military acumen. But you're so right about that ego thing...




I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

Two different monsters. In the Pacific the fighting was more intense, shorter, & with longer gaps between them. I don't think that the mini-series did a good job of portraying the boredom that came with the downtime. The series wasn't exactly true to the weeks upon weeks the servicemen had to face crammed in their ships with absolutely nothing to do & no AC.

On the other-hand BoB was in Europe & on that front the fighting was daily & constant. It wasn't as intense,the battles weren't as grand & epic in scale. It was big battles intermingled with the stress of daily smaller skirmishes. I think that BoB did a good job of showing the PTSD that the constant fighting in Europe caused. Everyone had their little mini-PTSD breakdown in BoB & I think that addition does anything but glamorize war.

reply

I completely agree with the original poster. I had the same feelings after watching both Band of Brothers and The Pacific.

At its core Band of Brothers is about the brotherhood of war, about the bond between soldiers that is created in conflict. It was said best by the German general "You are a special group, who have found in one another a bond that exists only in combat" and so on. Band of Brothers was also about how the heroic western allies came together to stop one of the evilest empires humanity has ever seen, something that every soldier who participated could be proud of for the rest of their lives.

The Pacific on the other hand was about war being hell. It was about the insanity, degradation, sickness, dehumanization, etc that soldiers face in war. It wasn't about brotherhood or even about defeating an evil enemy for the betterment of humanity (the Pacific front soldiers did this but the series wasnt about it).

This difference is most striking in the soldiers interaction with locals. In Band of Brothers, the soldiers are welcomed as liberators by the Dutch, are aided by a Belgian nurse, and also liberate a concentration camp, whereas in The Pacific they watch a family get mowed down, then later try to help a woman and her baby, only to get blow to pieces by said woman. The difference is also noticeable in the much deeper and more frequent antagonism between allied soldiers in The Pacific compared to Band of Brothers, as well as The Pacific's depiction of the effects of the war on the homefront.

Interestingly, many soldiers in The Pacific went on to become lifelong friends. Conversely, many soldiers in Band of Brothers ended up committing suicide. This tells me that while Band of Brothers and The Pacific chose to explore opposite themes, the themes were not specific to each theater of war. Band of Brothers could have been about war being hell, and The Pacific could have been about the bond formed between soldiers in combat, if the filmmakers had chosen to do it that way. I think it would have been much more unnatural, but it could have been done.

As to what a war movie should do: filmmakers should tell whatever story is most powerful and important to them and their audience. Sometimes that story is Band of Brothers, sometimes that story is The Pacific. There is no should and shouldn't be done, there is only good versus bad filmmaking.

My film blog:
http://gabrielbruskoff.wordpress.com

reply

I agree with all of this- the theatres are different, the psychology is different. Though I think BoB is superior and more entertaining I like the fact that Pacific took a different approach- had to really. To create another 'brotherhood formed in war' story would have been repetitive- as grueling as it is to get through, I'm glad Pacific focused on the horror and PTSD caused by conflict rather than another epic 'journey' through the battles.

reply