Why wasn't the Pacific as "good" as Band of Brothers?

Seriously? I watched both and they seem so different. While Both are excellent, Band feels a lot more cohesive and movie like. So, why didn't "The Pacific" become a staple like BoB? I don't even see it on HBO anymore.

 

While I really liked Band of Brothers, I actually liked the Pacific better. One reason the OP may feel that BoB, "Band feels a lot more cohesive and movie like" is that is cleaner, less brutal more sanitized. The Pacific is more base and savage, more realistic.

 

I think it runs parallel to the interests of those like us, who frequent military forums, read history and collect artifacts. If you look at the weighted average of what is focused on (posts, displays, collections, books, and magazine articles) I think the ETO wins out over the PTS. I simply think most of "us" have a greater affinity for the ETO. That does not mean we do not appreciate the PTO, or did not like the movie Pacific, its just where everyone's prime interests lie.

I thought the price of PTO artifacts were going to go through the roof after the movie Pacific, but they did not. I spent a lot of time trying to figure that out!
IMHO

 

I can't say

Your dead wrong, at least in my case. My "first love" of World War II has always been the Pacific, with the ETO placing a distant second. That said, I have the DVD sets of both, however, I have watched "Band of Brothers" straight through several times(most recently - last week), but "The Pacific" only once


I do wholeheartedly agree with Slipdigit, I felt a strong attachment to all the BoB characters that I just did not have for those of "The Pacific"(with the exception of Sledge).

To that point, I believe that "The Pacific" had way too much ground to cover and too little time to do it in, which is further complicated by the "story" that had to be told. BoB, essentially, was only from 44-45 and followed only one unit. Whereas TP had to cover 41-45 and needed to follow several different units, because no one outfit fought in all of the major battles. For me this was the disconnect, as I found myself often going "who is this again?", as opposed to knowing the BoB characters by name. Further, I believe that this factor is what made BoB, IMHO, the "superior" series - It was one "story arc" that you followed, whereas TP felt more like a loose collection of episodes that lacked unity.

To crossover into the Sci-Fi for a second, this is the driving reason why I feel such an attachment to "Babylon 5" as opposed to "Star Trek the Next Generation". B5 had one major story arc that was told over the length of the series, whereas STNG was just weekly episodes that, for the most part, went nowhere.

 

Have to agree with Takao, Too much time and not a single unit that did it all (at least not that we have found yet).

That said could they have been better off breaking the Pacific off into a larger number of small series? Would have allowed each individual series to concentrate on their set character's while being able to cover all of the PTO in one series or another (including having in Dutch, British, Indian and Australian forces possibly).

On the subject of Sci-Fi, Firefly was an awesome show but stupid Fox just had to cancel it grr (That and they decided to air the episodes out of order o.0)

 

That's it for me too.
BoB had a 'theme' that ran right through it, a few characters telling a connected story.
Pacific felt a bit disjointed. The story development didn't seem first and foremost.

The missus wandered off halfway through the Pacific, while she was gripped by BoB.
We sort of wondered if the 'buzz' around that Gun attack in BoB made them lean too heavily on combat scenes in the second series, but that's probably too simplistic. Maybe it's just the way of such things - one success never really guaranteed a related project will flourish in the same way.

I have to agree with Takao too. Normandy to Berlin seemed an easier arc to follow, whereas the Pacific war was probably just too massive (and disjointed by it's very nature) to try and fit into even such a substantial format.


I'd be interested to see the earnings figures for both series.

 

You could tell that Tom Hanks wanted Pacific to dwarf BoB. He hired Bruce McKenna, spent twice as much money and tried to get the best of everything from caterers to Scouts. I think he personally wanted this to be his defining ww2 series. Hell, so many darn endorsements. This project was supposed to be aired in 2007- they started interviewing veterans (most of them died) in 2005. My guess is that it was too big of a project, and it eventually failed.

 

I would not say it was a failed project. They clearly decided to make Pacific into a full fledged movie with character subplots. That, in my opinion, was the downfall of the series. It was also extremely over hyped. I don't subscribe to HBO, but I made sure I did for this series. And although I enjoyed the series, I remember my wife just saying in episode 3. "I like it, but I am not feeling it." For example; the entire episode where PFC Leckie falls in love with that woman, it just didn't sit right: it was trying too hard for the audience to connect with the characters, true to life or not. I also believe the acting was sub par compared to BOB. It seemed to me at the time that they were appealing to those who do not study Second World War history and cut a series that was designed for mainstream audiences. BOB on the other hand was completely engaging and not disjointed with more cohesion. And as WWII historians, we didn't need the fluff that Pacific offered.

 

The Pacific was based on two: "With the Old Breed" by Eugene Sledge,and "Helmet for My Pillow" by Robert Leckie. There were a couple other books involved: one was written by a Marine who was with Basilone at Iwo, another by Lena Basilone and then the letters that Basilone wrote to his wife and mother.

THe Robert Leckie protions are very similar to his book as well as the portions from Sledge's the mini series is actually a series of vinetts within a bigger project; much like the war in the Pacific was.

 

I haven't even watched 'Pacific' , doubt if I will. I could have borrowed it off a mate but haven't bothered.
Only watched BoB twice.
Real BoB chaps based down road from me & they fought in places I've been too.

 

I share the same sentiment that Jeff posted. It just didn't come off the way BoB did in that category. That and it took about 3 episodes to figure out that there were several story lines going on at the same time, different men and different units. That just killed it for me. I don't consider "The Pacific" (I just can't refer to "The Pacific" as "TP" as "Band of Brothers" is referred to as "BoB" for obvious reasons), but I felt let down after viewing it in it's entirety. I was expecting too much perhaps, and it didn't deliver. And like Price, I did like the shooting parts (as a viewer). Being out there in that meat grinder was not a good place to be. I feel that instead of making a "beginning to end" movie of the PTO, they should have followed just one story instead of bits and pieces of 4 or 5. I think that they should've followed Manila John Basilone, but that's me.

 

Takao,
I'm went back to watch it again. Its been almost 4 years since I last saw it. I did not focus on the various characters so much as the visual appeal, the equipment and accuracy of what was being portrayed. I'm on episode 4 and I can see what you are referring to. I appreciate your view and must say that I have to agree with you.

That being said, A-58 is correct, we can't use the term TP, because the Navy's ships deserted Guadalcanal and took all the beans, bullets and the a$$-wipe. There's none left!

oz

 

One of the best action scenes I've ever seen in a movie though /// coming out of well dock and heading fo... beach...superb cinemetography

 

He was called Manila John because he was in the Army and was stationed in Philippines in '36. I don't know how long we can elongate it. I think the Leckie or Sledge ones would be more practicable despite the lack of badassness. I often feel conflicted about the Pacific. My favorite Episodes were episode 4,6 and 10. I liked how it had episodes dedicated to the psychological aspect of war. To me it is better portrayed in the Pacific. I loved TP's final episode as it shown how hard it was for the Marines to adjust living back at home. To me, everything felt complete. Sledge was the changed man who was forever a boy shattered, Leckie was the man that rose to the challenge and became a better man despite his struggles and cynicism, Sidney Phillips was the guy that remembers the war, but is not as badly damaged by it (he's the most successful member, and Basilone was the man that became a legend but he could not make his death's effects less bad or heartbreaking.

 

Agreed, perhaps too many stories to follow, but the fighting as we get closer to Japanese mainland, is getting more and more vicious and hand-to-hand. For me that was quite impressive on film to shoot.

 

I just feel so bad that there was such a big difference between both series. Watching how different they are pains me to see how many people will just drop the PTO. Its becoming a second rate theater.

 

If you look at a military and personal standpoint-all campaigns of CBI, MTO, ETO and PTO are all miserably equal.
I meant in memory and hagiography. Pacific is perceived as rough and traumatic, ETO was just as horrible but it has an element of dark glamour.

 

The American involvement in the Pacific war is as much a grinder and so is hard to follow in general unless you are American as is the Russian war to many of us and fought just as hard. Kudos to the folk involved.