Misrepresentation of Guadalcanal?
-
MisguidedMiscreants — 14 years ago(November 14, 2011 12:52 PM)
Your complaints are undestandable. I think The Pacific should have done away with the stupid Tom Hanks historical intros and used the Band of Brothers format. The series really could have used some text after the episodes, there is not sense of time during the battles. I think it's a fricken crime to only have Okinawa in one episode while devoting a whole episode to made up stuff about Australia. They didn't even follow Leckie's book in that episode.
Overall they really messed up on alot of The Pacific. They deviated from the books and there was never any sense in the stories about the time the men spent on the islands or the historical importance of it all.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. -
chas437 — 14 years ago(November 15, 2011 01:04 PM)
Good Points. Your points are essentially why this was not as good a BoB, there isn't enough historic context given to the individual battles. We get a small taste of Iwo Jima, and a muddled picture of Okinawa. These two battles/campaigns along with Saipan, were the most significant of the war. They did nice job on the early weeks of Guadalcanal. I know people who are not WW2 buffs, that liked BoB, but couldn't get into this.
-
myturn21 — 14 years ago(December 11, 2011 09:14 AM)
I agree about the timeline factor, seemed to jump by leaps & bounds & it did throw me the 1st time I watched the series. However, the producers & writers were trying to create something very diff from BoB & I think they succeeded. When you consider what a long & hard campaign the entire Pacific theatre was (hot, wet & stormy weather, bugs, snakes, hard terrain, an enemy that wouldn't surrender & committed atrocious acts of violence) & everyone back home assuming that these guys were going to get freaky with naked "native girls" on So Pacific islands & enjoy great weather & sun, the way they wrote the series really makes sense. And don't forget (and NOT to trivialize what the 101st went through in Europe,
especially
at Bastogne) that the campaign of the Marines was 3.5 yrs long & the timeline needed to jump forward very quickly.
When you adapt any book to TV or a movie screen, the method's pretty much the same almost every time: you take the standout passages (battles, hardship in the jungle, Melbourne) & build a script around them. This could've been an entire, regularly-run show that could last a few seasons but they chose to stay in the 10 ep miniseries style they had w/BoB. And they did a VERY admirable job of it!
"WHOOPSIE DAISY!!!!" - Bill the Butcher -
MisguidedMiscreants — 14 years ago(December 11, 2011 02:30 PM)
The producers bit off more than they could chew. They should have dropped the Basilone storyline completely because they didn't do it justice. Three minute cameos in an episode doesn't cut it. They picked two of the best memoirs of the PTO to adapt and they throw in a storyline that didn't need to be added. Not just that but they hampered their ability to do these stories justice when they had 42 minute episodes. The series is very disjointed and I don't buy for a second that they couldn't have made it clearer and given the series a sense of time.
You have two core characters in Leckie and Sledge and the circumstances of what really happened would have made it easy to make a cohesive story. My biggest issue with the series though is that they made up whole episodes! Leckie never had that serious of a relationship with a woman in Melbourne yet they wasted most of the 3rd episode making up a bullsh*t relationship instead of showing what Australia was like for Marines and soldiers who just came from battle. They fabricated and needlessly changed alot of what happened to Sledge also.
This series by all accounts should have been better than Band of Brothers. It had a bigger budget and the source material was vastly better than anything Ambrose had ever written. But the producers just didn't go about it the right way imo.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. -
jdown-1 — 14 years ago(December 15, 2011 08:28 PM)
I have to disagree. This wasn't about Guadalcanal, but rather the experiences of certain Marines, the protagonists, on Guadalcanal. As for the overall series, I prefer the realism of The Pacific over BoB, which too often was a buncha really swell guys out hiking or camping in the woods. The Thin Red Line? A muddled, melodramatic mess.
Historian S.E. Morrison has in interesting anecdote about Guadalcanal in Vol V of History of U.S. Naval Operations in WWII. Having swept the Allies from southeast Asia and the Phillippines, the IJA had no doubt that they could destroy the American forces on Guadalcanal. So much so that not only did they set the date at which the surviving US forces would surrender, but also they decided on the place where our surrender would take place, and the Japanese general to whom the US commander would surrender. Didn't quite work out that way.. -
chas437 — 14 years ago(December 16, 2011 07:25 AM)
My point was that they should have given mare information or context to Guadalcanal as a campaign. Its an interesting comparison between the two series. I think your point is valid, BoB is more 'eurocentric'? Maybe there was some nobility for American soldiers fighting an already depleted Germany, whereas for the marines in the Pacific, it was a non-stop meat grinder on island after island. Both series are fantastic, I just thappen to like the BoB better, mainly due to better casting and the fact that I'm more of a European Theater fanatic.
I've read a couple of books on Gaudalcanal, and I am struck by how obsessed the Japanese were with "not losing" on Guadalcanal. For six months thet reinforced daily at a cost of tremendous resources. Maybe it was the Bushido Code that we will not accept defeat, or maybe it was a realization that if they lost on Guadalcanal, they would lose the strategic initiative, and would be fighting a defensive war from that point on. Its hard to know what the Japanese high command was really thinking. Were they so deluded that they thought they could set a surrender date for Guadalcanal? Anyhow, The comparisons to Stalingrad and perhaps Kursk are valid in many respects. -
deeveed — 14 years ago(January 10, 2012 07:20 AM)
The comparisons to Stalingrad and perhaps Kursk are valid in many respects.
Definitely and thus the homage to the foot soldiers who struggled to stave off the Japanese who mounted attacks after attacks. On the other hand, I'd wish something could have looked to the naval actions guarding Guadalcanal particularly the courageous efforts of Admirals Callaghan and Scott who in their "night action" turned back the Japanese ships in the sound off Guadalcanal. From that operation where both Admirals were killed under terrible practically point-blank fire, the Japanese would never ever take Henderson Field or "Guadalcanal" for that matter. It's a story that I would love to get its own separate treatment. I think it's high drama as the series was. -
chas437 — 14 years ago(January 10, 2012 09:08 AM)
Agreed, there are so many incredible stories to tell from WW 2 of heroism and honor. It would fantastic to see all of them get their own treament. There is a strong nostalgic movement in the US and Europe about WW 2. Let's hope for more good films and miniseries about WW 2.
I personally would love to see a film about Kursk from the Soviet or even German POV. It was unrivaled as the greatest land battle in human history. I think the budget to do justice to the battle might be cost prohibative. -
deeveed — 14 years ago(January 11, 2012 06:55 AM)
I think the budget to do justice to the battle might be cost prohibative.
Probably however there's a plus on the horizon I think where CGI will get better and better to mimic "reality" as it was. It's there I think that when producers look at WW events perhaps more of them can open up to the screen. -
daveapps-464-983170 — 11 years ago(April 24, 2014 06:48 AM)
Get a video of 'The Desperate Hours'. Granted, it is almost entirely about Halsey, but Scott and Callaghan do at least appear, and there is an extended sequence in which we hear their final moments in the Battle of Guadalcanal, choreographed to the sound of the sonar. It's probably the best part of the movie.
-
daveapps-464-983170 — 10 years ago(March 08, 2016 04:10 AM)
Just read the IMDB page - it certainly sounds like the one I mean - particularly the part about starting and ending with Halsey's retirement.
It's been nearly 40 years - the title must have changed in my head at some point. And Jimmy Cagney in the lead - that I didn't remember!
What I do recall (apart from the Scott-Callaghan scene) is that the climactic scene was the death of Yamamato. That stuck in my head because it was not long since I had seen a documentary about his career. That included an interview with one of the P-38 pilots who shot him down. He felt that it was an unusual decision to intentionally target a specific enemy commander. I'm not sure about that - the British sent commandos after Rommel, and kidnapped the commander of the German garrison on Crete.
I vaguely recall that the movie made a big deal of Halsey's decision to make the interception, but that may not be too reliable if I couldn't remember the title or the star! I may see if I can find the DVD. -
-
indy_go_blue44 — 14 years ago(March 09, 2012 06:13 PM)
Kudos and a thumb up (if available) to Chas and Miscreant on this thread.
I'm also an amateur historian and have read numerous books on the Pacific Theatre, which actually allowed me to enjoy this series more than I would have otherwise. Had I not read about him, I would have had no idea who John Basilone was; I know why the Marines were fighting there arses off on Edson's Ridge and what a near thing it was; as far as TP is concerned, it was a confused jumble with no context, just a relentless enemy attacking our guys.
Only 42 minute episodes? I didn't realize they were so short. They definitely could have cut those 3 minute opening credits down by half. But they really did a discredit in not giving better explanations as to what was going on. Simple script:
"On the night of September 12, 1942, the Kawaguchi Brigade had taken up positions in the jungles south of the American perimeter. The Marines held a long ridge, called "Edson's Ridge" after Lt. Col. "Red Mike" Edson whose battalion was dug in there. Around 9pm the Japanese struck." One minute of dialogue, and you have the background of the battle. -
daveapps — 13 years ago(August 24, 2012 08:01 AM)
According to the histories that I have read, the Japanese commanders believed that it was essential to win another victory over the Americans after their defeat at Midway. They still believed that the USA would negotiate a peace settlement that would leave Japan in control of South-East Asia, if the American public could be convinced that it would cost too much to retake.
For this reason, after the destruction of the Kawaguchi regiment on Guadacanal on 13-14 September 1942, the Japanese shut down their campaign in New Guinea in order to concentrate their resources on Guadalcanal. General Horii, in command of the Nankai beep only 25 miles from Port Moresby but unable to advance without supplies and reinforcements, was ordered to retreat to the Gona-Buna beachhead - because 'to defeat the Australians achieves nothing', and all available men and supplies were to be redirected to the Solomons.
The conviction that the war would be won or lost on Guadalcanal, which cost Japan 700 aircraft, two battlecruisers, one aircraft carrier, eight cruisers and 37 destroyers, would prove to be correct. The victory left the American public in no doubt that the war in the Pacific could be won, and inured them to the three costly years that it would take to win it. The psychological importance of the battle far outweighed the strategic value of the island and its airfield. -
chas437 — 13 years ago(August 24, 2012 12:56 PM)
Excellent analysis. The stategic importance of the the Island and the airfield were not that great. The fact that the Japanese poured so many resources into the Guadalcanal campaign, and esssntially "bet the farm" (pardon the cliche) on the outcome made it into a decisive stategic campaign. Surely it was a foolish stategy on the part of the Japanese.
No doubt, victory on Guadalcanal was a huge morale booster of American troops in the Pacific and on the homefront. I still think the Americans were hell bent on removing the Japanese from SE Asia, and it would have eventually happened regardless of what happened on Guadalcanal.