MovieChat Forums > The Pacific (2010) Discussion > More Important than Band of Brothers

More Important than Band of Brothers

posted 14 years ago by art_or_Art
54 replies | jump to latest

No disrespect to Band of Brothers, it's an amazing mini series. That being said, The Pacific can not be considered any thing but equal to or greater than BoB.

Most people think I'm crazy for saying so. But I truely believe that BoB really didn't show us anything new. We had seen everything that Band of Brothers had to offer time and time again: graphic violence, huge explosions, bond of brotherhood in war, etc. BoB told us nothing new, didn't share anything that we hadn't already seen a hundred times before in any other war movie.

The Pacific on the other hand dealt with a far more important issue: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Look at how the mental state of the Marine's in TP are treated. Men breaking down from the elements and the fighting - that is something relatively new in WW2 depictions.

BoB scratches the surface of "war is hell"; however TP, makes it a point of the story. So much so that the viewer isn't allowed to really get to know almost every character because most of them either die, or are mentally destroyed by the series end. Most people found that off-putting, I think you missed the point the writers, producer, etc. were trying to make.

Most people will tell you BoB is superior. The problem is, most people dont like to be challeneged, and TP is more challenging than BoB.

TP displayed war in a realistic way, rather than glorifying it like BoB tended to do most of the time. Most people think TP is too graphic, it's hard not to laugh at that, how can a war series be too graphic?

It covered the duality mindset of a soldier with Snafu and Sledge most specifically, as they flip roles by series end.

TP does have it's downsides, as the story lines lose eachother sometimes.

It's assinign to think that anyone could even attempt to argue that TP doesn't cover issues more important, not only during WW2, but also today than BoB did.

"Brothers, what we do in life echoes in eternity."

[–] Ginnn 14 years ago

does not matter from historical point of view, show/story wise its pretty awful compared to BoB.....5/10

[–] kdimmick 14 years ago

Exactly,you put it well in your post. I also liked BoB very much but it told a story that was tailor made for a "Greatest Generation" type story.

Also, the unit that was depicted in BoB suffered around a 10% casualty rate during their entire time in combat whereas the ones depicted in TP generaly suffered 30-40% casualty rates per battle with some units such as the 1st Marine Regiment suffering upwards of 60% casualty rate at Pelileu before being replaced.

I would not have wanted to experience EITHER the European or Pacific theaters during WWII and my hat goes off to ALL WWII vets but of the two theaters I can say for sure that the Pacific theater would have been the one I LEAST would have wanted to experience myself.

Another thing.....While the Germans were no pushovers in battle they did tend to surrender when no hope was left in them winning while the Japanese just fought harder no matter what the odds against happened to be and they never surrendered en mass like the Germans did after the Battle of the Buldge.

[–] MrMoochie 14 years ago

The problem I had with The Pacific when comparing it to Band of Brothers is that by the end of The Pacific, I really didn't have any idea who the soldiers were. It felt less character oriented than BoB and didn't make me care as much. Perhaps it showed a more realistic and less glorified version of the war, but in terms of what is the better show, I would give it to Band of Brothers.

[–] kdimmick 14 years ago

The problem I had with The Pacific when comparing it to Band of Brothers is that by the end of The Pacific, I really didn't have any idea who the soldiers were. It felt less character oriented than BoB and didn't make me care as much. Perhaps it showed a more realistic and less glorified version of the war

Yes, BoB did show just one unit from beginning to end covering a period of about 2 years from start to finish while TP showed 3 different main characters in 3 different units covering a total period of a little over 4 years all together.

I think the main thing here is to not try and compare the two using the same criteria but to judge them BOTH on their individual merits.

[–] Glucojel 14 years ago

Why is it that whenever someone likes something widely regarded as inferior to something else, they announce that the two should not be compared? They are both historical HBO 10 part miniseries following soldiers though a prolonged campaign in the Second World War. They can, will, and should be compared. Otherwise what would you rather have The Pacific compared to? Dad's Army?

[–] aworgill 14 years ago

I agree with Brok. It's inevitable that they're going to be compared. I felt The Pacific was very effective showing that WWII was a lot more than the Nazis, and gave me an appreciation of what the soldiers in the Pacific had to deal with, but I think it's a mistake to conclude that Band of Brothers was unrealistic. There were legs being blown off, gaping holes, and entrails in that one too. I own Band of Brothers. I am glad I watched The Pacific, but I don't know that I will buy it, or even that I'll ever want to see it again.

[–] kdimmick 14 years ago

I think it's a mistake to conclude that Band of Brothers was unrealistic.

I never said that it was unrealistic. I only said that the unit depicted in BoB had it comparatively easy to units in the Pacific theater of WWII that were sustaining 50-60% casualty rates with each battle they fought.

[–] aworgill 14 years ago

I wasn't at all trying to single you out, kdimmick. I am just saying that saying BoB is merely a "greatest generation" thing ignores all the bloodshed and misery. It certainly had that element and was far more uplifting than TP, but it's not as if BoB was one of those old John Wayne movies making war look like a great adventure. I agree with you that the Pacific would have been the place I'd LEAST have wanted to be in WWII, and the miniseries showed why very effectively.

[–] MisguidedMiscreants 14 years ago

I wouldn't want to be on the Eastern Front. I would not want to be in either the Red Army or the German army, or a civilian caught between the two armies. Also the regular infantry had it bad in Europe, as bad as in the PTO. The PTO was just different, generally shorter battles that had fiercer combat. The constant slog in Europe would have been horrible.

I used to think Band of Brothers was a good depiction of what the western front was like. I've since changed my mind. Being a paratrooper was way different than being in the regular infantry.

Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.

[–] deeveed 14 years ago

You know personally I dont' have a horse running in either BoB or TP. I'm just an individual who loves history and glad that producers found a way to present a part of the Pacific War to viewers. I don't think I'm off the mark if I say for the most part the European theater gets a good deal of "talk" moreso than the Pacific when it comes to WWII. Heck, the guys in the Pacific at times had to wait for materiel since a big part had to go to Europe. I think they got 1st dibs. So it's good to seeing "The Pacific" being done many years on. And anyway how many would know about that rock called "Peleilu"? TP put out the word on that one.

[–] DariusStrain 14 years ago

I think both the series pale when compared to the source material. Granted I haven't read Ambrose's book but I've read some other books about the airborne troops in the ETO.

[–] Dantès 14 years ago

Darius, BoB also touched on PTSD, just not to the same degree. Buck what's-his-face essentially lost it and is shown in the hospital pretty much broken.

[–] MightyTiki 14 years ago

Both narratives tell the story of American service members in combat and non-combat operations during World War II, that's about where the similarities end.

Band of Brothers is about company of U.S. Army Infantry Airborne Soldiers who train together in the United States, fight through Europe and end the war with the occupation of Germany.

Versus The Pacific, which follows the story of three U.S. Marines (Leckie, Sledge and Basilone). A key point which created more layers to The Pacific was telling the stories about the families, lovers and wives which Band of Brothers touched on but not nearly as in depth as The Pacific.

Overall, I enjoyed Band of Brothers more so than The Pacific just because the The Pacific seemed fragmented and there was no real tie in between the three main characters and by the last episode where they show the epilogue, I didn't feel emotionally involved as I did when watching Band of Brothers.

But having said that, it's by far the most impressive mini-series regarding the U.S. Marine Corps in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II. The realism and subject matter blows away any movie made before or since including Flags of Our Fathers, Letters of Iwo Jima, Windtalkers, Sands of Iwo Jima or any other movie worth mentioning.

"Toto, I've [got] a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

[–] Fuzzy Green 14 years ago

Well, and in BoB the unit is supposed to be better than average Joes; they are special duty volunteers and tough SoB's too. The better than average survival rate reflects their quality. Every soldier fought but E company were a tight knit band of brothers who watched each others backs better than others and that's the rather obvious point and also their charm.
Charm is what is almost missing from Pacific. It casts its net too wide in a effort to capture as much as possible whereas BoB achieves its snapshot of the effect of war from the individuals in a small group and affords us greater detail in the process. In some respects it's the difference between Schindlers List and The Pianist. Both big films in their own right on a similar topic but for me The Pianist was the superior as I was more connected with the individuals.
Pacific is more like a flick book approach, lots of bits here and there, moments in time. It deals for longer periods with the human aftermath than other war memoires but that alone doesn't make it greater.
I really wanted to like Pacific more but it just doesn't wrench you with the same honest strength as BoB and you absoutley have to compare the two. Maybe the source books are just lacking or maybe it is just harder to be so impressed with men in pain than men fighting for each other. I must say that I can't declare that I would be as good as any of them in the harsh pit of war, and I hold them them all in the fiercest of respect, I'm just judging the televised concept here.

And it follows in a long line of sequel concepts that just aint as good.

[–] MisguidedMiscreants 14 years ago

Well, and in BoB the unit is supposed to be better than average Joes; they are special duty volunteers and tough SoB's too. The better than average survival rate reflects their quality. Every soldier fought but E company were a tight knit band of brothers who watched each others backs better than others and that's the rather obvious point and also their charm.

That's ridiculous. These are US Marines and they were as well trained as the paratroopers we see in Band of Brothers. The Marines had many veterans from China that took the newer recruits under their wings and shaped them. Ore J. Marion discusses this in his book On the Canal. Just because the men of Easy Company jumped out of airplanes doesn't mean that they knew how to fight any better than the Marines depicted in this series.

It's offensive that you would state that paratroopers watched each others back better than any other soldier did with his comrades. Is it the series that gives you that impression? I find it impossible to determine if one unit of men "cared" more for their comrades than another unit simply because in most books I read it seems that camraderie is a common theme in all American units. (I have not read nearly enough memoirs from Germans, Japanese, Russian, or British soldiers to be able to come to the same conclusion. I am assuming that it's a common theme among most soldiers.) Not to mention that you can try and watch each others back but s**t happens in war and there is a great deal of luck involved in surviving.

Maybe the source books are just lacking or maybe it is just harder to be so impressed with men in pain than men fighting for each other.

With the Old Breed is one of the greatest war memoirs ever written so it isn't an issue with the source material. You weren't impressed that Sledge and Leckie had survived the things they went through? Damn.

Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.

[–] Fuzzy Green 14 years ago

I'm not saying that E compnay would have won the war single handedly but they are exemplars of greatness rather than, as The Pacfic leans towards, examples of average Joes just surviving. It would be churlish to suggest that every soldier fought and bonded as well as each other against the common foe; there are just too many individual people and randoms entailed. Not everyone was a volunteer, not all were as fighting able or even just lucky. As the old joke my Dad would say goes "Did you fight in the war?"
"I fought like hell, but they still made me go!"

And yes, as you say, the Parachute fellas fought a slightly different war on occasion, but then they are not meant to be quite the blunt object that the infantry are and with that comes a different esprit de corp. It's the fact of that particular spirit that has sold better in print and on screen (is perhaps my point) looking at the hard numbers of it and keeping to the topic of this thread.
Speaking to friends at the time of initial aring, dissapointment reigned as regards to The Pacific. Now few choose to talk about it at all, let alone remember the details of the show. The Pacific needed to be made, BoB however holds a special place in peoples hearts and gains more repeat viewings. I still hear "I'm gonna have a BoB marathon this weekend" and I just don't feel that happening with any similar event with The Pacific.

[–] deeveed 14 years ago

(The Pacific) It casts its net too wide in a effort to capture as much as possible whereas BoB achieves its snapshot of the effect of war from the individuals in a small group and affords us greater detail in the process.

I'd say that that observation is correct but I'd suggest that if the producers say focused on another band of brothers, i.e. the Chindits, then I'd think you'd get a film that kind of approximates the feelings that are attributed to watching BoB. The focus on small groups affords looking at the servicemen's lives more deeply and consequently can elicit more emotional power from viewers to a film.

[–] DariusStrain 14 years ago

I don't think Basillone qualifies as an "average Joe just surviving".

I think both the series were intended to be kind of last hurrahs for the WW2 generation, that's why there isn't much time spent on dwelling on the bad stuff the US troops did like for example bombing and killing civilians.

[–] Fuzzy Green 14 years ago

True, but Basilone is perhaps the most like a BoB character, just with the 'misfortune' to be plucked from the theatre of war.
And there is #no way# that America is ready to show that war as anything other than the 'pure' victory it was.

[–] Flinstone 11 years ago

If Pacific was like BOB (focused on one company), most of the show would have focused on Guadalcanal and Battle of Cape Gloucester. There would´ve been ALOT MORE episodes in Australia because 1st marines spent almost a year in there. By the time Peleliu landings started, there were only few marines from Guadalcanal landings.

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

[–] Nr_1 14 years ago

I would not have wanted to experience EITHER the European or Pacific theaters during WWII and my hat goes off to ALL WWII vets but of the two theaters I can say for sure that the Pacific theater would have been the one I LEAST would have wanted to experience myself.

Another thing.....While the Germans were no pushovers in battle they did tend to surrender when no hope was left in them winning while the Japanese just fought harder no matter what the odds against happened to be and they never surrendered en mass like the Germans did after the Battle of the Buldge.

Less than one third of total US casualties during the war (ca 1.1 million) was in the Pacific theater. Well trained and well equipped German forces proved far more dangerous than fanatical Japanese soldiers. One could probably make the point, as some historians have, that the Japanese soldiers near indifference to death was overall an disadvantage for them rather than the other way around. That the casualty rate was lower in Europe is simply because of the massive amount of men sent to the European/Atlantic theater of war. Not to say that the Pacific wasn't hell, it most certainly was.

I would also disagree with the OP's take on TP. First to claim that TP did anything new with "war is hell" or "PTSD" is absurd. The well known point "War is hell" has been hammered home ad nauseam by film makers for decades. As for "realism", as someone that is familiar with the source material for both series, BoB definetley came of as much more "realistic", in my opinion. I didn't see how BoB "glorified" war either. Few American WWII dramas have IMO captured the utter misery of the war like BoB did with the Battle of the Bulge episodes.

[–] deeveed 14 years ago

One could probably make the point, as some historians have, that the Japanese near indifference to death was overall an disadvantage for them rather than the other way around.

That's a great point. Not for nothing that we had Halsey roaming around the Pacific seas railing to "kill Japs" and "more Japs". Apparently it does seem true that the Japanese had an "indifference" to death then with that logic it was perfectly permissable to destroy them before they undoubtedly destroyed "civilization:. In any case it goes without saying the Allies had to win the Pacific War. I'd think if the Allies "lost" in the West, Germany would be a much different foe when it came to them being a victor.

[–] MisguidedMiscreants 14 years ago

That the casualty rate is lower in Europe is simply because of the massive amount of men sent to the European/Atlantic theater of war. Not to say that the Pacific wasn't hell, it most certainly was.

Shouldn't that be taken into account when talking about casualties? Warfare was far larger on the western front while battles in the PTO tended to be confined to small islands where you wouldn't have massive warfare seen in conflicts such as the Battle of the Bulge that would produce such huge amounts of casualties. I do agree that the Germans were deadly even though they surrendered, being fanatic doesn't make an enemy more deadly as we can see in early in the war against the Japanese and Germans. The Germans were a more proficient enemy and they dealt death like no one else. The strategy of the Japanese changed in 1944. They (for the most part) abandoned the pointless and idiotic frontal attacks and fought a much more costly war when they adopted their cave system.

I appreciated what The Pacific was trying to do. They show how combat changes men, and how it can damage the psyche. Also it explored what the environment can do to men and it did it more effectively than any other show or movie.

Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.

[–] jm_mathias-1 14 years ago

I appreciated what The Pacific was trying to do. They show how combat changes men, and how it can damage the psyche. Also it explored what the environment can do to men and it did it more effectively than any other show or movie.

+1

Besides, The Pacific shows that the fight for Kyushu & Honshu would have been like an "Okinawa after another Okinawa" (meaning that the Japanese would have fought to death for every single hill just like they did in Okinawa with civilians in the middle).

[–] indy_go_blue44 13 years ago

"Besides, The Pacific shows that the fight for Kyushu & Honshu would have been like an "Okinawa after another Okinawa" (meaning that the Japanese would have fought to death for every single hill just like they did in Okinawa with civilians in the middle)."

You've touched on a point I was thinking about. While the fighting against IJA was vicious and deadly, for the most part it was limited to isolated islands or outposts on tropical jungles. Even Okinawa was nothing more than a large island where the battle line was rarely more than 10-15 miles at its widest. Thanks to the A-bomb (and yes, I consider it a horrendous blessing) we never had to face the IJA on a wide front, as the Americans fighting in France had to face the Germans. I still think that 1,000,000 Japanese KIA is too low of an estimate for a nation of 60,000,000 people.

Something that few Westerners think about also, is that while the western allies were slugging through the hedgerows and cities of Normandy, the Russians virtually destroyed the German Army Group Central, inflicting a million casualties on 6 armies (including POWs) and advancing 300 miles from east of Smolensk to the gates of Warsaw (where they sat on their red asses while the Germans devastated the Polish uprising.) Had those forces been available in the West, it would have been a whole 'nuther ball of wax.

[–] Storm_Thunder_Infantry 14 years ago

Not only were the Japanese far more inferior than the Germans in terms of tactics, but they also had a ridiculously poor armored force to support their infantry out in battle. One of the German military's strengths was its armored force - and the war in Europe and N.Africa featured the largest tank battles and maneuvers in history. Out in the Pacific, Japanese tanks were always constantly outmatched by the Shermans, Matildas and even the M5 Stuarts.

Whilst the Germans were able to equipment equal to superior than the Allies, the Japanese lacked very badly in that field - they fielded submachine guns in awfully low numbers and the main Arisaka T38 and T99 rifles were awfully huge in size (not something so handy in jungle warfare especially). The Type 11s and 92 MGs especially had a notorious reputation of being difficult to operate, unreliable, short clips etc.

Let the world change the punishment for sexual-related crimes to execution

[–] deeveed 14 years ago

Not only were the Japanese far more inferior than the Germans in terms of tactics, but they also had a ridiculously poor armored force to support their infantry out in battle. One of the German military's strengths was its armored force - and the war in Europe and N.Africa featured the largest tank battles and maneuvers in history. Out in the Pacific, Japanese tanks were always constantly outmatched by the Shermans, Matildas and even the M5 Stuarts.

You noted the materiel difference whcih apparently the Japanese chose to ignore in their planning of Pacific domination. I don't know if anybody did a study of
their battle planning prior to engaing in full blown war but I'd think it has to show extreme dysfunction. Their thought processes had to be off the oblique. Leads me to believe they thought they had the psychological edge but that was obviously a misnomer.

[–] jm_mathias-1 14 years ago

Agree, deeveed.

remember the film "Letters from Iwo Jima"? There's one moment when the Japanese NCO is asking the recruits what is the advantage the Japanese have that Americans don't. One soldier who was member of the Kempeitai said: "Us the Japanese have the determination to not let our emotions interfere in combat, Americans are weak and inferior in combat compared to a japanese warrior...etc."

Apparently they believed that was the key to prevail in war. Their psychological edge as you put it.

[–] deeveed 14 years ago

That's interesting on "not letting their emotions" interfere. In hindsight, it appears they put too much emphasis on that quality. Recently, a book has come out on the attack on Pearl Harbor. The writer reassesses the Japanese attack through operations analysis by looking at the how and why of their planning. I haven't read it yet but will. It should be fascinating because Pearl Harbor was the opening gambit of the Japanese to eventually fulfilling their ideas for Pacific domination. I have the feeling the seeds of their destruction were there already before King and Nimitz had to get boats and guns after them.

[–] Hot_Karl 13 years ago

Im too lazy to go look up my history book but im pretty sure Pearl Harbour as meant to be a 3 wave attack. The third wave being destroy all the islands infastructure; however, the japs panicked and thought American reinforcements were coming and left. While a devastating blow it was not half as bad as if they would have destroyed all the infastrcuture. It allowed America to rebuild far faster.

Also as an unintended consequence the future of naval warfare ended up being air craft carriers and the USA build them to replace all the frigates/destroyers bombed at Pearl Harbor

[–] chas437 13 years ago

I agree with most of your points, although I submit that small tropical, jungled islands are not suitable for armored force. But yes the Japanese had no sane tactical approach to Island warfare. They never made adjustments in technology. They were fighting a war of insanity. Anyone who blames the US for dropping 2 nukes on Japan should watch this series, and see that it was a blessing.

[–] Hot_Karl 13 years ago

Are you talking about the german army of 1940 or the german army the allies faced in 1944. The one that no longer had air superiority, was horribly outnumbered in its armor divisions, had very little motorized transport.

I agree the Germans were a better fighting force then the Japanese but the soldiers defending d-day armored force was no longer a strength and hadnt been since the eastern front started.

I sometimes wonder how much deadlier d-day and liberating europe would have been if an extra 3 million germans had been fighting in the west instead of the east and hadnt lost all their planes and tanks to that front

[–] BiohazardNemesis1984 13 years ago

According to my Grandpa who was in the Bulge, the Germans were ruthless and at one point did not take prisoners. Said the Germans turned Anti-Aircraft Weapons on Infantry.Overall, we suffered a 75% Casualty Rate in that battle and while we won the battle, we won at a huge cost to man and equipment. We were under-equipped and our supply lines were over strained. We very well could have lost that battle.

"May God have mercy on my enemies as I shall have none"
"George S Patton"

[–] imtokyojoeiknowtokyo 11 years ago

Pacific war much tougher friend.

Nowhere to hide/

No drinking water

Death at sea

Malaria and disease - you die retching your guts out

Or by a samurai saber - take your pick.

Tough war friend.

im tokyo joe and i know tokyo
http://www.tokyojoe.tk

[–] japa231 11 years ago

Actually Easy Company had a 150% casualty rate, one of the highest casualty rates of any given rifle company during the war.

[–] Leonidas808 14 years ago

I'm not saying that E compnay would have won the war single handedly but they are exemplars of greatness rather than, as The Pacfic leans towards, examples of average Joes just surviving

Wrong again.

The series depicts US Marines. These aren't 'regular joes' who were conscripted. (like most infantrymen who fought in WW2) They were volunteers who underwent the toughest recruit training in the US at the time, and were every bit as well trained and tenacious in battle as Airborne troops, with a fierce Esprit de Corps.

Bog standard infantrymen, they were not.

A couple relevant quotes about Marine combat effeciency:

The Marine Corps has just been called by the New York Times, 'The elite of this country.' I think it is the elite of the world.
~Admiral William Halsey, U.S. Navy, World War Two

"The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. Lord, how they could fight!" ~ Major General Frank Lowe, US Army

"Panic sweeps my men when they are facing the American Marines." ~Captured North Korean Major, Korean War

"I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!" ~ General Douglas MacArthur, US Army

"The American Marines have it [pride], and benefit from it. They are tough, cocky, sure of themselves and their buddies. They can fight and they know it.
~General Mark Clark, U.S. Army, Korean War

"This was the first time that the Marines of the two nations had fought side by side since the defence of the Peking Legations in 1900. Let it be said that the admiration of all ranks of 41 Commando for their brothers in arms was and is unbounded. They fought like tigers and their morale and esprit de corps is second to none.
~Lt Col. D.B. Drysdale, Commanding
41 Commando, British Royal Marines, Chosen Reservoir, on the 1st Marine Division Division

A few of those quotes were made during the Korean War, but keep in mind that the Korean War broke out just 5 years after the end of WW2, and many of the Marine NCOs and Officers were veterans of battles like Okinawa, Iwo Jima or Peleliu.

[–] Storm_Thunder_Infantry 14 years ago

I believe the commies made similar comments regarding pilots of the USAF, USMC and USN since the bulk of the pilots that fought in Korea were veterans from all fronts the US took part in WW2, much like the marines that fought in those islands against the Japanese.

Air superiority was one of the major factors that repulsed the numerous offensives the Chinese launched during late 1950 to mid 1951.

Let the world change the punishment for sexual-related crimes to execution

[–] BiohazardNemesis1984 11 years ago

Paratroopers and Rangers were not "average joes" either. Both elite unites in the US Army that had an EXTREMELY HIGH failure rate. First you had to go to basic, then you had to go to Ranger/Paratrooper School. Then you had to be fit enough to jump out of a plane with an excess of 100 pounds of gear on then you had to be able to cut yourself from a tree if need be and get out of your chute while being fired upon. Rangers also went through jump school but also had to be able to climb mountains and be efficient in demolitions. Lets also not forget the subzero temperatures our GIs suffered though in the Bulge and the fact they faced Hitlers elite SS Panzer Divisions who had no problems using artillery and antitank weapons on infantry. Hitlers Army and SS were battle hardened from the Spanish Civil War,some officers fought in WW1 and the Germans placed an emphasis on Training and marksmanship. I am in no way minimizing the PTO but saying flat out that the Marines had it worse and were better trained than what we saw in BOB, is false.

"May God have mercy on my enemies as I shall have none"
"George S Patton"

[–] DariusStrain 14 years ago

Well good points but for some reason I don't think Pacific really succeeded in depicting PTSD adequately. Pacific really suffers from 'made for television' - syndrome, this is not to say that BoB doesn't suffer from it too but with with Pacific it seems to be more severe.

Many stuff in Pacific is made up and not in the source material, or some parts of the source material are given centre stage in the series although in the books it was in the background.

There was the Leckie goes to nuthouse - episode and then the aftermath of Sledge's return from the war. Also shown was the older soldier in the Sledge episode breaking down (did not happen in the source material). It seems to me the series didn't so much want to deal with the subject of PTSD but to make it voyeristic tv-hollywood drama.

Not that the subject of PTSD shouldn't be dealth with, just that Pacific didn't do a very good job of it.

[–] chas437 13 years ago

I agree to a point. I think casting was better in BoB, and I liked BoB a little bit better. Its probably because I consider the European Theatre much more interesting, whereas the Pac Theatre was a monotonous grind against a completely insane opponent. Not that Hitler wasn't insane, but the Germans at least had some reasonable stratagies, at least early on.

But the Pacific captures the essence of the nonstop grind that was the Pacific T
heatre. As a WW2 fanatic and historian, I appreciate this mini-series greatly. For the "Island Hopping" Marines, there were to great tactics (as shown by Major Winters in BoB), it was just the same bloody scenario over and over again; dig out all the Japs and kill every last one. Whether or not you survived was a matter of pure luck. In that context, maybe its more appropriate that the castand/or characters are not as compelling.

[–] travisbickle5 13 years ago

you are simply a clown

[–] sugreev2001-1 13 years ago

It's not a scratch on Band Of Brothers.Only the episodes featuring Joseph Mazzello as Eugene Sledge can be called excellent (particularly Okinawa).Some of the earlier episodes were great too,but it really lost it's groove when Leckie and Basilogne were concentrated on.They could have shown the sacrifices these men undertook for their country.Leckie's story was utterly worthless in my opinion,which is not what I want to feel about a person who undertook so many hardships for his country.

"What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left."

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] farzhan 13 years ago

I don't know about importance, but Pacific was more ambitious in some ways trying to show the mental ramifications of undergoing intense trauma. I liked the Leckie story but the thing with the greek girl and her family in Melbourne was just painful. If they had made it clearer that he never sent Veira any of the letters he wrote her sooner that would have helped explain what was going on there also. I was really resenting her for not writing him back or wanting to see him when he got home.