So this is all that I’ve been waiting for? Two episodes in, and I’m not sold just yet on The Pacific. When I volunteered to cover the rest of the series, I decided I needed to completely separate this show from Band of Brothers to enjoy it. I’m not sure that I can. The picture below is from my bookcase, and it shows how completely I feel in love with the original “companion piece.” However, I guess I need to let The Pacific develop on its own, without its big brother standing over its shoulder.
My biggest problem is that we really haven’t been given a chance to get to know the characters enough. Hell, at this point it is still pretty damn hard to tell the characters apart. We’re following two groups (Well, if Leckie is a group unto himself), and Eugene trying to get into the war. It’s a little much, if you ask me. When the lieutenant (if it was a lieutenant) got shot in the first scene, I don’t even know if I was supposed to know who he was yet (not to say that his death means any less, but I’m just trying to follow what’s going on, ya dig?).
Several things really stood out for me though this week.
The story of the Pacific is far from over. Every time I watch one of the episodes, I like the series more and more. While it hasn’t yet lived up to my (admittedly lofty) expectations just yet, I think it is getting better, and by the time the last chapter is complete, I will be completely on board.
Clacked by Ivey West 
on Mar 21, 2010 @ 22:00 EST5EDT
Man, RDM really got to you with his whole “it’s about the characters stupid” speech, huh? It’s not *always* about the characters. A show with a title like “Band of Brothers” is clearly is about characters, but I’m not convinced we’re supposed to base the entirety of this show on how we feel about a few individuals.
Maybe I’m wrong, as I haven’t watched the rest of the series yet.
*POST AUTHOR*
What can I say, Keith, I drank the Kool-Aid :) (Though, as much as RDM furthered that point, I don’t think he had a leg to stand on when he created the cardboard cut out that was Helo).
Seriously, though, I’ve always been a big fan of character stories. I think it is a critical piece into making the plot work. I want to care about the people, so that I care about what happens to them. Like I said, in this case, I’ve got to watch an episode twice before I can figure out what happened because, not only do they look so much alike with the grit of battle on their faces, but there’s not that much difference in who they are.
And I’m not saying you’re wrong, that in this case, the theatre of operation, or the island, or the situation, or the story is supposed to be central, but if that’s the case, it’s not going to be nearly as good, from my perspective, as it’s predecessor.
Here we go Dorv, again, I feel in competition with you over who loves Band of Brothers more. Your books are lovely, but when I last had all the surviving members of Easy Company at my house, when they hugged me goodbye they said my hair smelled like freedom. Beat that! ;)
Seriously though, I agree with you in that I don’t have a feel for these fellas. With Band, we had the benefit of training with Sobel to learn about everyone and that is where I fell in love with the men.
And I too, am sure, that by the final episode, I’ll feel something for these few men we are following. I can be patient.
The biggest complaint I have about how they tackle the whole thing is the mere “After nine months of losses the Japanese stand on Australias doorstep” – and the rest is ass-kicking.
At the moment they don’t get the point of losing across at all. There’s a reason why Little Boy and Fat Man came into play, namely predicted losses of 100 to 200 thousand soldiers if Japan had to be invaded to end battle.
The desperation of it all isn’t there. On “Band of Brothers” that wasn’t the focus, which is ok, but even on “Saving Private Ryan” it wasn’t the focus either. Maybe I’m just understanding this better because the germans lost the war in Europe mainly because Hitler thought it would be nice to now also conquer Russia because there was no more Europe left to the east he could attack – and just like Napoleon his advances died in the Russian Winter in Stalingrad. The Story in the Pacific is basically the same. Japan went all through Asia and nearly conquered it all but then didn’t manage to put a stop to it.
I really hope they make this more about the story of the war as a whole. Because I have to agree with Ivey that if they don’t, then they fail at both. If they don’t manage to give us the big picture instead of a great character story, then they HAVE to give us the character story. At the moment they fail at that and I don’t mind because I like to be told the story of the war instead, not what kind of influence the war has on people. War itself then just gets across as dire circumstances that forges friendships between men but there is so much more to this. I think it’s even glorifying war when you only talk about characters and how they react to it. Sure it’s grizzly but when does one of these epic stories finally tackle the mysterium of war in itself.
I mean there has to be more to it than Steve McQueen jumping a fence on a chopper.
*POST AUTHOR*
I’m sorry, I find it a bit silly that you can say that Band of Brothers didn’t deal with themes of desperation after watching “The Breaking Point.”
That was a comment about dropping nuclear bombs on Japan at the end of the Pacific Scenario. I understand that the aspects of war concerning the effects on the solder as a single entity as well as on his group of peers in it was a good choice when it came to telling the story of freeing Europe.
I also understand that in german movies about the “Kessel” of Stalingrad and wouldn’t even think about asking what Hitler’s motives were to even think about attacking that city. Focusing on the men and their stories is good there.
I won’t be able to understand it when it comes to the war in the Pacific when in the end what decided it all was the Manhattan Project.
Let me re-phrase that paragraph then
The desperation (the reason for dropping the nuclear bombs in the end) isn’t there (yet). See above – just a sidenote on nine months of severe losses in the pacific, including the loss of Guam, which is only mentioned when they loot the corpses of the fallen Japanese in Episode One.
On “Band of Brothers” that wasn’t the focus (even though there were were other attacks on Europe, for instance in the Netherlands after D-Day where the germans hit back hard – something that doesn’t really come across on Band of Brothers) which is ok, but even on “Saving Private Ryan” it wasn’t the focus either. (Characters matter, I get it, and it made for some real good TV). Maybe I’m just understanding this better because the germans lost the war in Europe mainly because Hitler thought it would be nice to now also conquer Russia because there was no more Europe left to the east he could attack – and just like Napoleon his advances died in the Russian Winter in Stalingrad. (War is more than a character building exercise and I really miss information about the overall developments. It’s ok to view the war from the standpoint of a single soldier but it frustrates me at the same time because you just can’t always only tell stories about single soldiers or small groups because there’s more to war than that. At least I think there is.)
The Story in the Pacific is basically the same (as with the Nazis in Europe). Japan went all through Asia and nearly conquered it all but then didn’t manage to put a stop to it, but compared to Germany they fought much more fiercely, with Kamikaze-Bombers and the possibility of another couple of years of bombarding Japan to be able to conquer it.
And then I said something about the prospects of hundreds of thousands of people dying during the ground assault on Japan.
Up until now we saw a single solder commiting suicide, another one wanting to be killed instead of returning home in shame. On Band of Brothers the Nazis are portrayed as pigs who have no dignity, who seek opportunities, who tug their tails between their legs and run home. That’s fine, that’s most likely also how it happened.
But if “The Pacific” doesn’t manage to tell a compelling story about how desperate the war was fought in the Pacific, which made Eisenhover drop those bombs, but instead only focuses on a couple of guys, then that might be a good way to sell a couple million BluRays and give every guy in the US the warm feeling of being on the winning team (and feeling like a wuss, like Tom Hanks said on the Colbert Report) but I really think that’s not the whole story that should be told here.
I really loved “Band of Brothers”, I also liked “Saving Private Ryan” very much, but The Pacific needs to stand on its own two feet and needs to tell another story, not a variation of the same one. I outlined what I want it to be above.
Maybe I’m wrong but I _really_ think there’s room for a ten episode series that tells more than just character stories, because the other extreme end of this spectrum is “Dr. Strangelove” and that doesn’t really tackle the whole thing the way I want it to be tackled either…
*POST AUTHOR*
I’m not sure we watched the same series. The way the German soldiers were shown in “Points” was really the only long term look we got at them, and it was done with respect.
The conclusion I’ve come to after my admittedly American-based schooling, was that the decision to drop the bomb(s) was not one of desperation, but one of calculated prevention. It was a horrible, yet simple, mathematical equation.