I think they did just what they needed to, which was to make something a little different from BoB.
I was, and am, a huge BoB fan. When I first watched the Pacific, on Sunday nights as each new episode aired, I felt a little underwhelmed. When it was over, I liked it, admired the craft that went into it, but overall I felt like it wasn't as good as BoB. But about a year later when I had a long weekend, I rented all the Pacific episodes from our last local Blockbusters as it was closing, and marathoned them all.
After that weekend I had a whole different view of the series. Where Band of Brothers is about this group that you follow through training, through their baptism of fire, and through to the end, the Pacific is more about the effects of war on the individual.
In this sense, Sledge's character arc was fantastic. I realize it's a bit crass to talk about a real man who experienced these things and call it a character arc, but Spielberg/Hanks were essentially making a cinema-quality film that was ten hours long with both series, and the writers had to adapt the real stories into recognizable arcs that the audience could follow, and empathize with.
In watching these series, and reading the probably dozens of books I've read about the infantry in WWII, the main thing I always wondered is how these guys could have seen and done the things they did, and then returned home and live some kind of normal life. Especially based on what I know about the realities of the war against Japan. Sledge's story in the series really shines in this respect. He starts out as a sensitive kid, who experiences progressively worse and worse things, and is changed forever. I really enjoyed the last episode that showed him, Leckie, and Lena after the war.
I still love BoB, but in a way, The Pacific had a larger emotional impact on me, in the long term.

showing the too much of the bloody gore in numerous battles does not a movie makenor is it the only way to show the pain and anguish i especially liked the scenes done in australia and camp pendleton and the soldier's homes where the human side of could be visited up close and personalmore than any other scene in the film, i could relate best to lena's loss of her finally found beloved husbandno more future for themi've watched band of brothers many timesit was a different type of war in europe so i'd never compare it to island hopping logistics or coping with monsoon rainsthe marines have my respect

Its still a good show , but BoB was a lot better. I agree with BOB having 9.6 rating and Pacific 8.3.
The Pacific spends to much time with soldiers outside of battle , it ruins the overall experience. Also the story jumps around between diff story arcs , with only 10 eps. its hard to get invested in the soldiers.

1.Do you still like the Pacific?
Absolutely. Maybe even more so than when I first saw it. It's held up very well.
2. If you could, how would you change or improve it?
Change the actors for Basilone and Sledge parts. Wasn't convinced by either.
In retrospect, I wonder if the chronological order was a wrong choice because it highlights the series' main weakness, i.e. the lack of continuous narrative. It's basically three movies woven together with mixed results. What if, instead they told Basilone's story first, then Leckie's, and, finally, Sledge's? It might have been a bit confusing to a casual viewer but then again, it probably is anyway.
3. Do you think it is worthy as a spiritual Successor to Band Of Brothers?
I don't view it as a successor. They only have a few things in common: WWII and a miniseries format. Other than that, they're quite different. In fact, I wonder if comparisons to BoB was the main source of disappointment for some viewers. While I liked BoB, to me, The Pacific is more ambitious of the two, with a larger scope to deal with.
4.Do you think more movies should be made about the Pacific War or other untold stories?
Absolutely. Maybe because I'm from Europe but I'm somewhat burned out by the European theater while the Pacific (and other theaters) are a lot less known to me.

Many of the Marines, like E.B. Sledge were never fully able to forgive the Japanese or lose their animosity towards them. While I think for the most part the veterans of the European theater saw the Germans as just soldiers in war doing their duty like themselves.

We had no way to understand our enemy. No common reference points. It was like fighting Martians.
Very astute point; more than one veteran had stated that the Japanese fighting style was so incomprehensible, it was almost like fighting 'smart' animals rather than people.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

leonglapgong;
1.Do you still like the Pacific?
2. If you could, how would you change or improve it?
3. Do you think it is worthy as a spiritual Successor to Band Of Brothers?
4.Do you think more movies should be made about the Pacific War or other untold stories?

1. Yes, but I can't watch it often. It's too horrific and painful.
2. I wouldn't change a thing.
3. No, it is not a "successor to BoB in anyway. It is a companion piece.
4. Yes, I look forward to Masters of the Air and I'm watching Manhattan on WGN.
   My answer here is also an answer to another thread on this board about showing the Japanese point of view.
   The Pacific is not an "anti-war" film. It is an honest war film and no sane person can watch an honest war film and not want to find an alternative method of solving international issues without fighting.
   Band of Brothers allowed us to follow one company of soldiers from the beginning to the end of the war. We got to see them train, bond, suffer, some die, and to ultimately triumph with the majority surviving. Their camaraderie binds the survivors to this day. There were few stories like that in the Pacific Theater of Operations, the China-Burma-India Theater of Operations, the or the Southwest Pacific Theater of Operations.
   There is a clue to one of the differences. This secondary side of the war had not one, but three theaters of operations. Our forces, as well as the Japanese, were spread out over more than a third of the globe.
   I don't think any single company of Marines fought through the war and stayed intact, so we could not watch them train, bond, and triumph the way E/2/501 did in BoB. In addition, the ware in the Pacific was fought for the first two years, 1942 and 1943 on a shoestring. The Navy withdrew and left the Marines to starve on Guadalcanal for nearly a month because they had no choice. Our Navy was so weak after Pearl Harbor and until the industrial might of the United States reached the frontline in 1944 that we were at a severe deficiency in everything. We lost four or five cruisers in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal and had nothing left to defend the transport ships.
   We fought the entire war in the tropics and sub-tropics. It was three years of ugly scrambling through incessant rain, oppressive heat, and debilitating diseases against an implacable enemy that did not believe in surrender or taking prisoners. Pardon me, BoB, I respect the hell out of all you guys, but the entire European war, from the landings in North Africa through the Battle of the Bulge to the occupation of Germany, including the Normandy landings was a cake walk compared to the war against the Japanese anywhere. And the British had more soldiers in it than we did in some parts.
   We were fighting an enemy that spoke a radically different language, was smaller and weaker than us on an individual basis, as well as a nation, but was willing to hide a hand grenade on his person in an effort to blow up one of us along with himself. We killed 107,000 out of 110,000 Japanese soldiers on Okinawa. Okinawa is a Japanese prefecture, one of their "states." The civilians were all Japanese nationals and the Japanese army did not defend them, but used them as "walking sandbags." We killed (or the Japanese army killed - using them to clear minefields or to stop bullets) at least 100,000 Japanese civilians on Okinawa. Some estimates run as high as 150,000. My first wife was Okinawan. Her father and his four brothers were all in the army serving in other locations. They all survived the war. Her mother had a brother and two sisters. She (the mother) was sent to Kyushu to live with relatives outside Nagasaki. She was the only member of her family to survive. Both of her parents, both sisters, and the brother, all of the children too young to fight and the parents too old, all of them died during the Battle of Okinawa.
   We had no way to understand our enemy. No common reference points. It was like fighting Martians. The Pacific War is thought by many to have been Robert Heinlein's inspiration for Starship Troopers. We were thrilled to discover near the end of the war that the Japanese were actually afraid of what we could and might do to them.
   The Pacific is beautiful to watch, much the way a nuclear detonation is beautiful. The release of energy is so massive that it is awe inspiring, and the destructive results are so horrible to view that we cannot help but be impressed, but we don't want to see it again.
   General Lee said "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we learn to love it too much."

Well I had heard that Australia was VERY welcoming to the Marines when they returned from Guadacanal; in any rate most families had their sons in the service so the Marines were often treated as 'surrogate children'. I'm sure a bunch of teen/twentysomethings who may die in the next few months would probably have the 'hormones raging'; Nevertheless, I too feel the love stories were overdone.
PS: I wonder how "Masters of the Air" will handle this: Flying death defying missions during the day & during the night you're partying your ass off in London.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

Personally I connected more with The Pacific than I did with BoB. I love them both but prefer The Pacific myself.
The only improvement I can see would be a little less on the love stories. I understand why they did them, but considering Lecke's story was completely fabrication why drag it out so long. Also it was too much of a stretch in my opinion. It's the 1940's and he's banging this girl right in her families home and they just let this strange American G.I. just move right in.

I did like 'The Pacific' but not as much as 'BoB'; also, it doesn't seem to have gotten as much 'repeat play' as BoB has.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

1.Do you still like the Pacific?
Yes. I've seen the entire series six or seven times and it's always great.
2. If you could, how would you change or improve it?
Expand on Iwo Jima, and add Saipan to the story.
3. Do you think it is worthy as a spiritual Successor to Band Of Brothers?
There's not much spirituality in The Pacific, but Sledge and Snafu have some memorable lines about how they felt about fighting the Japs.
4.Do you think more movies should be made about the Pacific War or other untold stories?
I'd like to see more WWII movies, but I don't think the masses do. I recently bought the History Channel series WWII In HD. Absolutely fantastic!

1.Do you still like the Pacific?
Yes. I've seen the entire series six or seven times and it's always great.
2. If you could, how would you change or improve it?
Expand on Iwo Jima, and add Saipan to the story.
3. Do you think it is worthy as a spiritual Successor to Band Of Brothers?
There's not much spirituality in The Pacific, but Sledge and Snafu have some memorable lines about how they felt about fighting the Japs.
4.Do you think more movies should be made about the Pacific War or other untold stories?
I'd like to see more WWII movies, but I don't think the masses do. I recently bought the History Channel series WWII In HD. Absolutely fantastic!

From those numbers it's no wonder that Okinawa produced the highest PTSD rates for US forces in the whole war. There is a reason the last episode made such a stark contrast between Asian & European theatre vets.
Not to mention that even though the IJN is no longer a factor & Japan is being 'hemmed in' from all sides, it's cities are being bombed into ash, and the logistical noose is tightening all the time on the home islands & and the Allies' 'teeth' are almost on Japan's JugularIN SPITE of all that, there seems to be no end in sight & no sign of victoryall they see ahead of them is blood & death & the enemy seems to be as determined to die fighting as ever. No wonder people went a little 'farky';

The fact of the matter is that the theatres are simply different and the 1st Marines suffered through the most hellish campaigns the Americans ever faced. In his book, Eugene Sledge mentions that because replacements were killed or wounded before they even made their unit's muster list, statistically the casualty rate of the infantry units was 150% between Peleliu and Okinawa.
The Germans would be singing songs on Christmas, while the Japanese blew up Corpsmen trying to help injured troops. At Okinawa the shelling was so bad that the Marines couldn't evacuate their own dead and left them there to rot right beside them until the battle was over.
From those numbers it's no wonder that Okinawa produced the highest PTSD rates for US forces in the whole war. There is a reason the last episode made such a stark contrast between Asian & European theatre vets.

You make some very valid points, jd-276.
I also feel the same way about The Pacific vs. BoB. I recently went back and watched Band of Brothers again, and the last episode, 'Points' had a particular scene which I felt was a little too casual and relaxed. (or maybe it was just my interpretation)
It's the part where the men are gathered in the room watching newsreel footage of the pacific battles in Okinawa, and they are generally concerned about having to go fight in a second theater of war. But the officers have an almost adventurous, care free attitude about going, which on one hand seems appropriate, because maybe Easy company was not well informed about the harsh enemy and environment compared to Europe. At the same time, it feels a little too casual and eager, especially considering Nixon was their intelligence officer and seemed like he could have intel on the pacific? Or the fact that they had just been through the Battle of the Bulge and realize what brutal fighting can be like? I'm not sure. Maybe the actors portrayals were a little too aloof, or maybe the real soldiers had the same feelings.
But the after effects of battle seemed to be handled much better in The Pacific.
"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see."

Why do
I
think?
I'll start by answering your second question first. You kind of answered it when you said that more people like
Band of Brothers
, which I wouldn't dispute. You only have to read the user reviews. I guess that pretty much explains why
Band of Brothers
is still seen and
The Pacific
is not.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and just give my rather convoluted opinion of why
Band of Brothers
was more popular. Feel free to flame away but it's only my opinion, nothing else.
The European theatre of war had very easily identifiable enemies. Hitler, with his shock of hair, his mannerisms and his toothbrush moustache, and the Nazis with their swastikas and goose stepping were pretty easy to identify. Here's the enemy; go get him.
The Pacific theatre didn't really have that. I suppose some knew what Tojo looked like and were probably happy to stereotype but they didn't have the same symbolism as what existed in Europe. They had every bit as many fanatics but they were less readily identifiable.
On top of that, when the allied forces liberated towns in Europe, there was usually a large mob to greet them (with a good few Nazis hidden among them) and lots of flowers and girls. This was less so in the Pacific. Peleliu probably didn't have many people on it and Iwo Jima had been effectively evacuated before the battle. Okinawa was a bloodbath, with tens of thousands of civilians killed.
I can't help thinking that liberating a European town is probably viewed as more glamorous than "tiny specks of land you've never heard of", as Chesty Puller put it.
The other thing which I think contributes is the message of
The Pacific
. For what it's worth, I found
The Pacific
the most powerful
anti-war
show I've seen since
All Quiet on the Western Front
. That's really saying something.
I think a lot of people misinterpreted the anti-war message as being politically correct or even pro-Japanese. This was not the case in
Band of Brothers
and explains why I liked
The Pacific
better. That's not to say that
Band of Brothers
didn't have an anti-war message. It was just more prominent in
The Pacific
.
It's quite a while since I saw
Band of Brothers
and my memory of it fading but there didn't seem to be the same focus on the dreadful personal toll the war took on the men who fought it. I'm not talking of the physical injuries so much as the emotional ones.
Most people who lose a limb can go back home and, in time, lead a relatively normal life whereas emotional injuries are much more difficult to heal. PTSD was not well identified back then and treatments were very rudimentary. Re-adaptation to civilian life was seen as a given. It was assumed everyone would be able to do it.
So, to sum up, I think it's down to three major points;

• Readily identifiable enemies and symbols,
• The anti-war message and
• The nature of the liberation.
  Just my opinion.

why do you think more people liked band of brothers rather than the pacific? And why doesn't HBO air the pacific anymore?

1.Do you still like the Pacific?
I only discovered it this year. I knew it had been made and run on television but I had never seen it. I have watched the whole series several times and each time I have "enjoyed" it more than the last.
2. If you could, how would you change or improve it?
Change the actors who played Snafu and Basilone. Snafu was annoying because of the over-acting and the bloke who played Basilone just couldn't sell me the part.
3. Do you think it is worthy as a spiritual Successor to Band Of Brothers?
To be honest, I don't think it is the spiritual successor to anything. It stands on its own and for me, it leads rather than follows. I thought it was a fine achievement.
4.Do you think more movies should be made about the Pacific War or other untold stories?
That rather depends on who makes them. Over the years there has been no shortage of war movies. In fact, there was a glut of them in the 1950s. Quality or quantity is kind of the issue here.
People are always pushing
Saving Private Ryan
to the fore in these discussions. For mine
Saving Private Ryan
was a joke. They spent all their pennies in the first 15 minutes - and I include the bit in the cemetery. Even then, it was just gore and guns. I had no emotional stake in it the way I did in
The Pacific
. Where
Saving Private Ryan
left me with absolutely no interest in what happened to any of the characters,
The Pacific
had a strong anti-war message. While it was evident almost the entire way through the series, it was driven home particularly forcefully in the ninth episode (Okinawa). There is one scene in that ep which brings me to tears.
Saving Private Ryan
, despite its pretensions, has nothing of that about it.
So I guess it comes down, more or less, to two camps; those who loved
Saving Private Ryan
and those, like me who hated it but loved
The Pacific
and others of its ilk. I know my opinion on
Saving Private Ryan
is probably different from most. I can only call it as I see it.

Something that I always thought would be interesting to see would be a movie or mini-series that focused solely on a single battle. No dramatized scenes or deep character development, necessarily. Just the full impact of warfare. (for instance, if Saving Private Ryan's entire length of the film was the Omaha beach landings)
It would be difficult to sit through, but it would probably be the closest thing to understanding what it was really like for the men in those engagements.
Naturally, the powers that be in the movie industry would say that something like that isn't marketable, and would be too overwhelming for audiences.
"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see."

I wish more would contribute. But thank you for typing.
Having watched very little of Band Of Brothers. I envy how it seemed more cohesive. I know why people like it much more. However, Band Of Brothers was based on one book by Stephen Ambrose while The Pacific was based on 3 books (Helmet For My Pillow, In with the Old Breed and Red Blood, Black Sands) I also suspect they took some elements from Sid Phillip's You'll be Sor-ree as well RV Burgin's islands of the damned and Sledge's China Marine. Obviously it was probably in works since 2004 as they interviewed a lot of people including the departed Hugh Corrigan (Ivy League.) To Me, the Pacific was much needed, Pacific seems to take a back seat to the ETO even though the claim could be tested.
A miniseries that you describe would be very expensive to make, and we m ight get some of that with Speilberg's and Hank's new series (ETO) on the Eighth Army Air Force Corp. May be that will spark some good miniseries like the one you describe, if it is good, i'll watch it. Maybe even a modern day Tora!Tora!Tora! I would love a series or movie on the 11th Airbourne in the Phillippines or something about the British Army in Burma (Slim's 14th.) The most ambitious would probably be a movie or miniseries on British Spec Ops (SOE and SAS.)
If i could change one thing, it would probably be to make it non-linear. Put the training of Basilone's soldiers first or add a scenes of the guys before and during pearl harbor. Maybe try to make the story more cohesive by tring to tighten the Pavuvu episode. Hanks tried doing the impossible of combining the two books. Something tells me this probably meant more to Hanks than BoB

I thought The Pacific was excellent, and I would love to see more films on that particular theater of the war.
I agree that different perspectives are appreciated, and to that end, I thought that Clint Eastwood's 'Letters from Iwo Jima' was a great movie showcasing the Japanese point of view. I'd like to see a mini-series focusing on the Naval and air battles during the war; showing both American and Japanese characters. Episodes that dealt with the Kamikaze pilots alone would be very intriguing.
As far as improvements to The Pacific, I think some of the characterizations could have been fleshed out more, and some of the later episodes felt rushed, choosing to add a montage of battle scenes instead of dedicating more time on the subject, but I understand the scope of this production was massive, and there will always be time and money contraints with any Hollywood production.
"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see."

Anybody?