After watching The Pacific, I felt BOB glamorized WW2
-
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 -
generationofswine — 10 years ago(September 06, 2015 06:27 PM)
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. -
gb321 — 10 years ago(December 15, 2015 01:32 AM)
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 -
twelveboar — 9 years ago(July 21, 2016 07:54 AM)
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.