After watching The Pacific, I felt BOB glamorized WW2
-
nickm2 — 12 years ago(December 18, 2013 10:25 PM)
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 strainthey 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. -
kingbiscut33 — 12 years ago(December 21, 2013 10:11 AM)
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.
-
murph24 — 12 years ago(December 21, 2013 11:03 AM)
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). -
kingbiscut33 — 12 years ago(December 26, 2013 01:06 PM)
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.
-
murph24 — 12 years ago(December 26, 2013 06:31 PM)
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. -
irishpisano — 11 years ago(April 27, 2014 04:59 PM)
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. -
Sekraan — 11 years ago(March 04, 2015 01:22 AM)
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 indelibl -
iresheen — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 04:00 PM)
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. -
naum-rusomarov-944-460795 — 11 years ago(November 01, 2014 09:15 AM)
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.
-
RoyWilliamsbeatsCoachK — 10 years ago(December 18, 2015 05:55 PM)
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.
-
blisteringlogic — 11 years ago(December 19, 2014 12:21 AM)
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 -
matthewcashew — 11 years ago(January 03, 2015 03:22 PM)
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.
-
mistamajestyk — 11 years ago(January 05, 2015 05:44 PM)
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." -
blisteringlogic — 11 years ago(January 05, 2015 06:20 PM)
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 -
mistamajestyk — 11 years ago(January 06, 2015 12:45 PM)
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." -
blisteringlogic — 11 years ago(January 06, 2015 01:13 PM)
"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