MovieChat Forums > The Pacific (2010) Discussion > The love story killed it

The love story killed it

posted 13 years ago by WilliamCutting92
24 replies | jump to latest

I bought Band of Brothers and The Pacific back to back. I of course watched Band of Brothers first and was not disappointed. One of the finest miniseries of all time. I just got done with the Pacific last night and it wasn't as good as BoB. For one thing the love story killed it I beleive. And the 3rd episode I believe where they got to Australia. It was a good show but doesn't stand the test of time with BoB. When I got them I thought they were going to be similar. They have nothing in common besides being to shows about WWII and have Spielberg and Hanks produce it.

[–] Jamie_Hitchcock_2 13 years ago

It's certainly not as good as BOB, but let me just say this, one of the best scenes in the whole of "The Pacific" is a love story scene. One that takes place in a mess-hall kitchen. Wonderful stuff!

REMEMBER ME?

[–] Hot_Karl 13 years ago

Since when does not having anything in common make something bad?

[–] artimak 13 years ago

You can't tell the story of John Basilone without it. The goal of this series was to show what the Pacific War was like and how it affected the men who served. How? By focusing on the experiences of three individuals, two of whom having written exceptional first hand accounts of their time in the service. The third? Basilone (who has had several biographies written about him). To say that the love story killed it or was unnecessary reflects a pretty superficial understanding of who these men were or the purpose of the series itself.

As far as Australia is concerned, it was a major event for many of the Marines who fought on Guadalcanal. Leckie wrote extensively about it and, despite there not being any "cool battle scenes" in the episode, it is critically important for understanding all of the subsequent character development that happens with Leckie (and, to a lesser degree, his comrades).

[–] indy_go_blue44 13 years ago

I agree with you about the love story, both in Australia and in the USA. I don't want to watch my dad fooking, which basically it is. Can't remember if it's disc 2 or 3 that features Australia, but I have written on the disk "skip."

Actually the two things that disappoint me the most is that, without having read the fine book "Delivered from Evil" I would have had no idea who Basilone was, and the pitifully flat acting of the guy who portrayed Leckie.

[–] Mr_researcher 13 years ago

I thought the love story and the episode in Australia was an important part of the series due to:

1. It wasn't all battle as BoB
2. It happened that way in reality with the Marines
3. It made the story more personal and showed me something more of the characters.

So, a big plus from me for leaving it IN the series.

[–] farzhan 13 years ago

Australia was important because for those guys it was like liberating the French to the forces in Europe. Otherwise they were out dying on god-forsaken islands living and fighting like animals. Not pretty stuff for 10 episodes. You don't even say which love story you are talking about by the way

[–] Syava 13 years ago

I don't think it's the love story itself that is the problem, the Australia episode was just badly made. That's why it sucked. I'm sorry, but watching Leckie getting laid isn't terribly interesting to me as at that point I really did not care much for his character. Same for watching Sid Phillips hook up with that girl, we barely knew who he was, so why are we wasting time watching this?

I actually think episode 8, the romance between Basilone and Lena, was handled very well.

[–] tombennett91 13 years ago

I know I'm in the minority by saying this but the Australia episode to me is one of the better episode's. The set designs and costumes are brilliant and the acting is great. Their doing more than just making sarcastic remarks to each other or being depressed, there getting a chance to act out who Basilone and Leckie were in a social environment. Spending one episode away from the action and instead focusing on the different traits the characters have, makes their risks in later episode's all the more meaningful. If you're not a fan of the love story in that episode, then the scenes with Basilone are entertaining enough as well as Leckie being demoted, the MPs trying to regain control and the battalion's retraining.

"You won't take my children!"- Michael Corleone.
(Part III would have done well to remember this.)

[–] joekinplaya 11 years ago

The reason why they looked at Phillips was because he was in the same company with Leckie and was also best friends to Eugene Sledge. He's in the preview documentaries; the guy who said in the 2nd episode "we figured that none of us would survive, that we were expendable." They were able to get a detailed depiction from them about what they went through. But it's true, the show wasn't meant for you to like the characters; just to show you what they used to be and what happened to them and what they became.

[–] CGSailor 13 years ago

Methinks you are in the wrong board.

Take the "The love story killed the film" to the message board for "Pearl Harbor"
They'll love you there for it.

Note: They are just as wrong there though.
Historical inaccuracies killed that one.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] Flinstone 12 years ago

This Transformers/Dark Knight/Avengers movie generation just hate war movies/series without constant blood, explosions and gore.

´´This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time´´

[–] CGSailor 12 years ago

Generation "Duh"

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] blacklabelkk 12 years ago

Did anyone think it was pretty mean of the girl to just dump him like that? I get she didn't want her or her mothers feelings hurt in case he died, but wtf was she thinking? This man was going into war for her freedom and she screws him like that?

There were better ways to handle that situation than to dump him right before he left. For example, maybe just explain she is going to move on, but if he comes back, she'll be there for him. She didn't have to just dump him and tell him to never come back no matter what. Just thought she could have been more compassionate than that. It seemed like a selfish thing to do to a man going off to war.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Franny25 12 years ago

"I had a bigger problem with the idea that she would jump into bed with him in her parents' house right after their first date, and with the idea that her parents would be just fine with that. I know Australia has always been a little more fast and loose than America, but these are religious people before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and before the birth control pill. There's a sorry tendency in historical dramas to portray the culture of the time as very similar to our own"

LOL! People were a lot more sexual than was discussed in public or even in private.. Sex didn't start in the 60s. We just weren't hypocrites about it. People have ALWAYS been having sex.

How old are you? That might explain your rather parochial attitude toward some healthy sex.

I'm reading some peculiar posts here. My father was a flyer in the Pacific and was also in the Solomons & I wouldn't have begrduged him some R & R. Though I've read about them, I'm appreciating anew the work done by the Marines to secure those islands to make it possible for the bombers to do their job. Magnificent people. This is hard to watch.

[–] blacklabelkk 11 years ago

She dumped him because she lacked faith in him. She wanted him to come back. She hoped he would. But, she couldn't make herself believe that he would. That's why he said, "She (your mother) can save her breath (prayers that he'd return)," and walked away. He was offended and heartbroken that she had no faith in him. Really, it's not so much that she dumped him as she forced him to dump her.

Faith? Since when is going off to war and returning based off faith? It's about surviving... if she was so worried he wouldn't come back, then why did she so selfishly engage in a relationship with him only to dump him before he left?

[–] jd-276 11 years ago

If you read Leckie's book you'll find it didn't happen that way...

[–] hell-cat-1 12 years ago

And why is WII being compared to the War in Iraq? That's a bit disturbing.