tv: The Pacific (WW II miniseries)

[L2R]

I'm not suggesting that this show is painting war in an overly positive light.

No, that was me. Based on the first three episodes, i've found nothing but war glamourisation. The battles are two dimensional and very cheaply choreographed, and the impact the characters go through is even shallower.

so far, this doesn't come near the quality of band of brothers or generation kill.

 

[Arnold]

http://www.hbo.com/the-pacific/episodes/0/07-part-7/slideshow/creating-the-pacific-part-7.html
This is the reason it looks so shitty lol.

 

[DexterMeth]

Dude TheDeceased, I really don't think you understand where I was comming from when I said that. All wars are definately inevitable, that's WHY they ever happened. You said some are fought because of greed and power. Actually, all wars are fought because of greed and power. This is entirely obvious and it's a part of life. You're trying to argue against reality. The majority of men in whatever societies throughout history do not object to conscription because they didn't obviously. Everyone could also stop watching TV and instead just hug each other all day but that's not what happened yesterday or ever. It's great to be an idealist, I guess, especially if you do something to change the world in a positive manner, but then you have to be a realist to get anything done.

I am not pro war, I'm simply stating what is true. When I talk about push comming to shove, you may not want to believe that it is ever really a necessity. Hate to break it to you, but it is. Everything has a purpose, even bullshit. Many times in history wars have been fought with the "arrogant flag sucking war freaks" being the attackers and the "pacifist hippies" being the defenders. Sometimes it's the pacifist hippies that attack first to prevent even more death from occuring, a la a pre-emptive attack. I'm not making this stuff up. Are you saying you wouldn't even take a side and just sit there and get slaughtered by EITHER side? I certainly hope not, because that means you stand for nothing, not even others (obviously forget yourself if that's how it is).

edit - This show definately does not paint war in a positive light. It's also not as good as Band of Brothers, but it's not surprising. Sequels are never as good as the original. Glamorizing certain parts of western and military culture back during WWII is not glamorizing war. What's wrong with looking at the positive and fun things that happened with people's lives in the military during a war? Nothing imo, as they're not even related. I personally find it interesting to know simulate through film what it was like to live through these events, as I love reading about human history. War unquestionably makes for more dramatic events and roles in TV and movies but that is fiction. If you want someone to point your sticks at, point it at Hollywood and freedom of speech and expresion. You could always choose not to watch shows like this either.

 

[L2R]

What's wrong with looking at the positive and fun things that happened with people's lives in the military during a war? Nothing imo, as they're not even related.

 

[TheDeceased]

Dude TheDeceased, I really don't think you understand where I was comming from when I said that. All wars are definately inevitable, that's WHY they ever happened. You said some are fought because of greed and power. Actually, all wars are fought because of greed and power. This is entirely obvious and it's a part of life.

That's a simplification. Everything that has occured isn't therefore inevitable. If someone murders someone else, that murder -although it has happened- was not neccesarily inevitable.

The majority of men in whatever societies throughout history do not object to conscription because they didn't obviously.

I don't know if this is a joke or not. I'll assume that it is.

Everyone could also stop watching TV and instead just hug each other all day but that's not what happened yesterday or ever. It's great to be an idealist, I guess, especially if you do something to change the world in a positive manner, but then you have to be a realist to get anything done.

I don't know what you mean by "get anything done". Personally I think being a consciencous objector is acheiving something. Whereas I think serving in Vietnam or Korea and slaughtering innocent women and children isn't particularly productive. But hey, that's just me I guess.

I am not pro war, I'm simply stating what is true. When I talk about push comming to shove, you may not want to believe that it is ever really a necessity. Hate to break it to you, but it is. Everything has a purpose, even bullshit.

I did agree that some wars are inevitable. But obviously all wars aren't. For example, the decision for the US to send troops into Iraq was at least influenced by popular opinion. The majority agreed that it was neccesary. Then, like Vietnam, they soon realised that it wasn't and changed their tune. Now, if they hadn't supported the idea in the first place then perhaps that would have had an influence on the decision? Furthermore, as I said, you can chose not to fight. No one can put a gun in your hand AND make you pull the trigger. However if you believe that war is inevitable, as you do, then you probably are more likely to not object and serve some time. You're probably more likely to go out and wear a uniform and shoot some poor fucker through the head, then justify it to yourself because it was inevitable or it was for the "greater good". I say fuck that.

Many times in history wars have been fought with the "arrogant flag sucking war freaks" being the attackers and the "pacifist hippies" being the defenders. Sometimes it's the pacifist hippies that attack first to prevent even more death from occuring, a la a pre-emptive attack. I'm not making this stuff up.

On the contrary, I think it's quite rare for the peaceful side of a conflict to start the violence, unprovoked. You got any examples of this?

Are you saying you wouldn't even take a side and just sit there and get slaughtered by EITHER side? I certainly hope not, because that means you stand for nothing, not even others (obviously forget yourself if that's how it is).

As there has never been a war on Australian soil, I don't really see how me not chosing to involve myself in an international conflict would leave me to be slaughtered by either side. Perhaps I'm missing something.

I personally find it interesting to know simulate through film what it was like to live through these events, as I love reading about human history.

That is where we disagree. This is a fictional television program. It's not history.

Glamorizing certain parts of western and military culture back during WWII is not glamorizing war.

Are the enemies painted as human?
Do they glamorize both sides?
Aren't there heroese that you empathize with?

I think you're being naive.

 

[Wizzle]

I don't like this series. Just like Band of Brothers it shows what great heroes the men fighting it were.. Just because they won. In a 'Nam movie, all the soldiers are all the sudden psycho assholes.

 

[mikehunt]

Overall good and entertaining series. Certainly better than 99.9% of the other Shit on! But I liked BOB more. Certainly, HBO, showtime, etc. Are the only places to find non crap shows like this, sapranos, dexter etc.

 

[thujone]

I don't know how long people are going to continue watching films/ TV shows about the same fucking thing. I mean, do we really need more WW2/ Vietnam stories?

I liked 'Inglourious Basterds' and 'The Reader', but that was because they were a bit different.

Typically, though, I can't sit down and watch a film that realistically depicts war, no matter how well it's acted or how many explosions there are. I really don't understand why anyone would want to watch a ten part miniseries that retells the most frequently revisited moment of history from yet another perspective. Is there anything more to reveal?

you're clearly missing the point. these shows aren't meant to glamourize war or put you in the action, they're simply well-crafted stories about people who just happened to be there, wondering how and why they're fighting a war. sure, some of the themes may be recycled but hell, there isn't a story in print or on film or tv anywhere that doesn't recycle universal themes of people struggling with life and humanity because ALL fiction tries to imitate reality as best as it can. that's just a necessary part of the flavouring to make characters more real, and flawed, and tragic; characters that everyone can relate to and feel sorry for.

and for the record, episode 8 and 9 completely quashed any feelings of "war glory" or the notion that war is being glamourized. frankly, lying in mud next to maggot-eaten, half-buried corpses for months on end isn't going to convince anyone that they should be going to enlist. games like call of duty, on the other hand......

 

[TheDeceased]

ALL fiction tries to imitate reality as best as it can

I think some fiction, particularly war fiction, despite perhaps realistically depicting some aspects of war, inadvertently or more often intentionally has political messages spliced into the drama.

They're not going to make a film or a miniseries about a psychotic allied soldier who abuses POWs. No. They're going to make the tragically uplifting ones, the tales of heartache, the journey of the heroic soldier. There is always something redeemable about the main character.

These accumulate into a mass of fiction, all depicting certain aspects of war. Skewing it. We don't have as much of an issue with our ancestors involvement in certain wars because we are not really faced with the reality of what went on over there. It always goes through a filter. Well, most of the time.

Do you think the army would approve "The Pacific"?

They're probably credited somewhere. Special Thanks.

 

[thujone]

it's fairly cynical to think that the army had an involvement in the direction of the stories just because there are more heroes than villains. sure, there's some artistic license, but the stories are at least based in reality. john basilone for example, one of the main characters in the series, was a real man who did the real shit that he's being portrayed doing. no doubt there were a few less honourable men serving at the same time, but the bits of anti-jap brutality that interlaces the show is a far better way of demonstrating that than creating outrageously psychopathic characters just to take the show to an extreme that dishonours the majority of veterans who fought and died with honour.

 

[TheDeceased]

I don't think having a balance of good and bad lead characters is outrageous. I didn't say outrageous. Pysopathic yes, but- There were a lot of psychos fighting on both sides. You said something about dishonouring the men who fought. Well, some of them deserve to be dishonoured. The ratio is difficult to determine. You said that the majority of them fought with honour. I don't know why you make this assumption. I would be more likely to decide the opposite.

I've asked you a couple of questions that you've ignored.

Do you think that the majority of soldiers fighting in wars today are honourable men?

If not, then why do you believe it was any different two, three generations back?


PS. The fine line between reality and fiction isn't really a good thing. The fact that The Pacific presents itself to be a true story, while still being selective /edited /partially-fictional just makes it all the more potentially dangerous. The use of real war footage/ interviews with veterans/ etc strengthens this.

 

[95Land]

Another solid episode, I think its finally found its feet. I'm really enjoying the interplay between Sledge and the New Orleans sounding guy.

I know this post is a few weeks old, but I agree. The series didn't really grab my attention until about the midpoint. The episodes centered around John Basilone were less interesting because the character was as well.

NSFW:

They didn't get Basilone's death right either, which is annoying from a technical standpoint. He was hit by shrapnel from a mortar shell. Of course, in the Hollywood version, he gets shot, slow motion, and dies a slower, more poignant, death. Stupid. I think it would have had more impact if he was just, all the sudden, blown away by a mortar. Nitpicking.

I also like "Snafu" a lot. Sledge is kind of a dull character at times. There have been numerous scenes where, IMO, Snafu has stolen the scene from him.
It's like there's a psychosis(brought on by the war, or otherwise) that's just brimming under Snafu's surface. But he's found a way to hide it and/or use it to his advantage. Cool character. Good actor.

I agree it hasn't been as good as Band of Brothers, but I have learned a lot about the war in the Pacific that I previously had no idea of. Seems like history is always focused on D-Day, Hitler, the European campaign as a whole. I also agree that films, and series, on that part of the war are overplayed, and can probably stop now.
However, in regard to the Pacific campaign, "The Pacific" has at least spurred my interest in some of the island battles depicted. As a result, I've read more on the subject, and just how shitty, Vietnam-like, those battles were for those men.

 

[Belisarius]

Have to agree that the last three episodes have been great. Snafu is not a particularly likable character, but he is by far the most interesting one onscreen; he's stolen every scene he's been in.

For the record, I don't think we're going to see any more grand WW II dramas for a while. A shame...then again, I'm a WW II nut, as I've posted before.

 

[thujone]

I've asked you a couple of questions that you've ignored.

Do you think that the majority of soldiers fighting in wars today are honourable men?

If not, then why do you believe it was any different two, three generations back?


PS. The fine line between reality and fiction isn't really a good thing. The fact that The Pacific presents itself to be a true story, while still being selective /edited /partially-fictional just makes it all the more potentially dangerous. The use of real war footage/ interviews with veterans/ etc strengthens this.

well, i apologize for ignoring the questions. my response to them follows (i put it in a nsfw tags just because it's not directly related to the show)

NSFW:

i don't know many of the soldiers fighting in wars today but from the raw footage leaked across the internet of the fighting recently, it does not seem to me that they conduct themselves with much honour at all.

why do i believe it was different two or three generations ago? because people were fighting in a cause they believed was just. i think the main problem with modern warfare is that the people who volunteer to go and fight are often misguided, angry individuals who believe in the vendetta of vengeance that this war is being fought in the name of.

"war on terror" is a farce. the only constant is that the enemy's face changes to suit the situation. first it was bin laden. couldn't find him, so then it was saddam. found him, killed him, now it's al qaeda and next it'll be whoever best matches the constantly-refined criteria.

in the great wars, there were less shades of gray. people had no choice but to get behind the wall of whoever seemed like the safest bet and defend against the aggressors. nowadays, americans fight with relative ease against enemies hardened by and armed with soviet-era weaponry. al qaeda is militants with rifles and rocket launchers trying to hold back the battering tide. this is more like a one-sided slaughter than a war. seems like the theatre of choice for jaded psychopaths who just want a reason to kill. i don't see any well-decorated heroes in support of this action.

back on topic... i agree with Belisarius that the last three eps really shone, as did Snafu! What's revealed at the very end about the person that the Snafu character was based on really does support the idea that his twisted behaviour was just a way of coping with the war and that he really didn't want to be fighting at all.

 

[Belisarius]

^
Oh my...time for my own NSFW / Off-T tag.

NSFW:

Two things:

*I think the people fighting in WW II believed in their cause no more--or less--than people today. In fact, I doubt many cared for their causes at all when the bullets started flying; from people fighting in all wars, the biggest motivators you see recalled are the fear of death, and the fear of letting your comrades down.

*Ground wars today--at least the ones the U.S. has been fighting since Korea--are mostly occupation wars, which automatically introduces a level of uncertainty not found in "classic" conflicts with a definite front line. Not knowing who the enemy is makes a bad situation worse, and brings out the worst in people with guns and an axe to grind, something I think is true for anyone involved in either side of such an asymmetrical conflict.

 

[TheDeceased]

NSFW:

i don't know many of the soldiers fighting in wars today but from the raw footage leaked across the internet of the fighting recently, it does not seem to me that they conduct themselves with much honour at all.

There wasn't as much independant war journalism seventy years ago. A lot of what we saw was based on approval by the government and the army. We weren't exposed to the realities of war then like we are today. Now everybody has a mobile phone camera and a video camera. There are thirty thousand news channels. The internet is a free world-wide distribution network.

So it's no wonder that you are seeing leaked footage of military misconduct.

in the great wars, there were less shades of gray. people had no choice but to get behind the wall of whoever seemed like the safest bet and defend against the aggressors.

Ground wars today--at least the ones the U.S. has been fighting since Korea--are mostly occupation wars, which automatically introduces a level of uncertainty not found in "classic" conflicts with a definite front line.

Which are the great wars? WW1 and WW2?

The US was not directly involved in WW2 to begin with. The common understanding is that Japan attacked Pearl Harbour basically unprovoked - but in reality, the US had been intervening in the Japanese occupation of French Indochina by creating certain trade embargos in the 1940s and then finally cutting off the supply of oil to Japan (bit of irony there, considering recent events) in July 1941. This was less than five months before Pearl Harbour.

The US was openly aware of the seriousness of this decision. The reason the previous trade restrictions didn't include all gasoline (they had already banned the trade of aviation gas in the 1940s) was because they knew over a year before they decided to do so, that it would be provoke Japan into retaliating.

This is why Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. The US purposely provoked them.

Why?

Because the US government wanted to be involved in WW2, but they don't like to throw the first stone - and also the public didn't support the US involvement in WW2 until they were attacked.

After Pearl Harbour, the Nazis soon declared war on the US. And the US was able to join the conflict while still maintaining a good public image.

They are still up to the same tricks.

What wars throughout history don't fit this description:

i think the main problem with (modern) warfare is that the people who volunteer to go and fight are often misguided, angry individuals

 

[lostNfound]

I started watching this the other day. It does seem really good but it's not quite living up to my expectations.

Leckie just left hospital no longer wetting his pants. I'm going to keep on with it and hope it gets a little more entertaining.

So far it's definitely no Band of Brothers.

 

[L2R]

i never bothered to finish it