"The Pacific" Open Thread

[E4 No More]

I haven't missed an episode. I love it.

This is a show based on the Marine perspective, not the Japanese perspective, so naturally it will show the things that the US Marine saw the most, which it what their own men were doing.

I haven't had a problem with anything. As crimsonaudio has said, "war truly is hell", and this help us younger generation folks see what our soldiers sacrificed for us.

I wished the show wasn't so short.

You think the Marines didn't see Japanese atrocities?

[memphismason]

You think the Marines didn't see Japanese atrocities?

Wow, what a question

uh, yeah, they saw them, but as I said before, I am sure they saw it more from their side since they lived, ate, slept, drank, sh*t, fought, with each other that long.

[mikegideon]

I haven't missed an episode. I love it.

This is a show based on the Marine perspective, not the Japanese perspective, so naturally it will show the things that the US Marine saw the most, which it what their own men were doing.

I haven't had a problem with anything. As crimsonaudio has said, "war truly is hell", and this help us younger generation folks see what our soldiers sacrificed for us.

I wished the show wasn't so short.

+1. I have on demand, so i have been able to watch all of it. Well worth you time IMO.

[E4 No More]

Wow, what a question

uh, yeah, they saw them, but as I said before, I am sure they saw it more from their side since they lived, ate, slept, drank, sh*t, fought, with each other that long.

The point was that they aren't showing any Japanese atrocities from the Marine perspective. I'm about being fair, and I don't think the producers/directors are being fair at all.

[memphismason]

The point was that they aren't showing any Japanese atrocities from the Marine perspective. I'm about being fair, and I don't think the producers/directors are being fair at all.

I understand.

[E4 No More]

I did like how they portrayed John Basilone's actions on Iwo although I thought that they understated his actions at "The Canal" which got him the CMH.

[DMark]

I did like how they portrayed John Basilone's actions on Iwo....

Other than he was killed by a mortar round and not shot.

Why not show the truth. Why the "artistic" take.

[Guest Spurhunter]

We just got HBO back after a couple years off, I saw this series and hoped it would be good. I hope they show re-runs on it soon.

[E4 No More]

Other than he was killed by a mortar round and not shot.

Why not show the truth. Why the "artistic" take.

Just to nit-pic...how did you tell the difference between a bullet and mortar shrapnel in the film? They did portray his heroism getting his Marines off the danged beach and fighting the bunker system. Typical Homowood would have him fighting the entire Jap Army with a shovel and a Thompson.

[I_Like_Pie]

Just to nit-pic...how did you tell the difference between a bullet and mortar shrapnel in the film? They did portray his heroism getting his Marines off the danged beach and fighting the bunker system. Typical Homowood would have him fighting the entire Jap Army with a shovel and a Thompson.

They have a big write up at the Medal of Honor museum here in Chattanooga (have had for years before pacific) and from what I understand...it messed him up pretty bad. A bullet to the heart was more "poetically dramatic" than getting blown to bits by a mortar.

[E4 No More]

They have a big write up at the Medal of Honor museum here in Chattanooga (have had for years before pacific) and from what I understand...it messed him up pretty bad. A bullet to the heart was more "poetically dramatic" than getting blown to bits by a mortar.

My point is that they didn't screw the truth up near as bad as they normally do. The man stood-off 3,000 Japs on "The Canal" with a couple of machine guns before repairing a third machinegun. They came no where close to that fact when they shot the scene at "The Canal".

[E4 No More]

Also, they just skip over Chesty Puller in the whole thing. The most decorated Marine Officer, and they skip over his contributions? WTF?

[9teeneleven]

The point was that they aren't showing any Japanese atrocities from the Marine perspective. I'm about being fair, and I don't think the producers/directors are being fair at all.

so the japanese soldier using the okanawans as human shields wasnt a japanese atrocity?

the pacific has been very different from bob, but the conflicts are very different. the pacific has much more of the Kurz descent into madness feel to it. i dont even see it as showing american atrocities as much as it is showing us how war strips out idealism of even the purest person and kills the human soul. this has been particularly true in the sledge storyline.

[9teeneleven]

Also, they just skip over Chesty Puller in the whole thing. The most decorated Marine Officer, and they skip over his contributions? WTF?

again, i dont think the show is meant to part of the historical record. it is meant to be about the 3 central characters.

[E4 No More]

so the japanese soldier using the okanawans as human shields wasnt a japanese atrocity?

the pacific has been very different from bob, but the conflicts are very different. the pacific has much more of the Kurz descent into madness feel to it. i dont even see it as showing american atrocities as much as it is showing us how war strips out idealism of even the purest person and kills the human soul. this has been particularly true in the sledge storyline.

Compared to throwing newborn babies up in the air to impale them on their bayonets as they did in Nanking (SP?) or line-up a bunch of captured American nurses and machinegunning them down on a beach, no, it's not.

[E4 No More]

I also seem to recall that their marketing was a bit Band of Brothers-ish, so I'm shocked at the difference in the shows.

[9teeneleven]

Compared to throwing newborn babies up in the air to impale them on their bayonets as they did in Nanking (SP?) or line-up a bunch of captured American nurses and machinegunning them down on a beach, no, it's not.

Ok, but I don't think the show is about atrocities. It is about how the pacific theatre took a psychological toll on American soldiers. WW2 is often called a "just war" (arguably the last one in us history to be referred to that way), I've found it interesting to see how the show has explored the idea that even if a war is "just," it is still often morally ambiguous. I think that to try and understand that makes all the more real the sacrifices that these soldiers made.

[Mike.357]

lots of comment to respond to in this thread now.

I am not going to quote anyone so I will just let it fly.

IMHO this is every bit as good as BoB. Pacific tells the story of 3 Marines, not an entire Company. The Pacific went into much more detail about Sledge, Leckie and Basilone. In the first episode we saw Sledge and his homelife, Leckie's trip to church and his neighborhood girl. We had NONE of this stuff in BoB. Basilone we did not learn so much about until Episode 8. And there is no way to aptly show what he did on the Canal, They could have done an entire 10 episodes on that place alone. I think they did show that what he did was above and beyond.

Chesty Puller is not a major player in this story. If had had written a book there would be more. Also he is not important in the telling of the story of the three major players here.

What the Japs did in China is not part of this series either. It is unimportant to the story. The Pacific tells the story of three battles through the eyes of three Marines.

Heck I had never heard of Peleliu ( sp) other than a series of Survivor. What an awful place that was. That battle should rank right up there with Iwo Jima. Except for the fact that it was a waste of time and resources. As it could have just been bypassed basically. Put that fault on Macarthur.

As for atrocities that played a part in this series the battle at Okinawa showed plenty.

One scene that struck me the most was the Jap soldier dragging a woman by the hair to insure she was killed in their attack. the hatred of the Marines toward the Japs was very evident all through this series. In BoB we did not see atrocities until they found a concentration camp. They did not depict the slaughter of Army prisoners, and rightfully so as it had nothing to do with the story.

The development of Sledge in this series is incredible. How he went from someone wanting to enlist to being changed from the entire experience of being at war. They also showed how he went from being a new guy to being a leader of sorts. I am looking forward to how they portray his experience of going home.

They have also made it very clear of the brutality of war and how it affected the men. Even a hardnose like Gunny Haney cracked. We saw just about none of this in BoB. I am sure guys in the 101st cracked in a similar manner but that was never addressed other than one character. We have it now 6 times or more in Pacific.

Also BoB the characters were in the entire series. In The Pacific Marines rotated in and out of the theater of war. To me comparing the two series is like apples and oranges. I assume it has to do with the vast difference in time frames involved.

[Garufa]

Mike, you commentary is excellent and you see the series for what it is.

It was never meant to be BoB in the Pacific, it is an entirely different story written by different people. The only thing the two share in common are producers and excellent special effects.

The war in the Pacific was so vastly different than in Europe there is no way to tell the same or similar story.

My only complaint is the seeminlgy schizophrenic plot and the fact they tried to compress over 3 years of combat into 10 episodes. The series could easily have been twice that long. As far as the plot goes, I have a feeling that is intentional, not only for brevity, but to help put viewers into the Marines' shoes. They probably had no idea of what what going on either big picture-wise.

I will be watching it the rest of the Summer.

[E4 No More]

Just to be clear, I am fully aware that the "Rape of Nanking" was in China. I was using that and the nurses as examples of the severity of their atrocities for I do not know specifics atrocities at Iwo Jima or Pelilu.

Perhaps I'm more sensitive to the way the story is being told because I am a former Marine, but I do see it as obviously one sided in the sense of atrocities being committed. One could do an entire series on the Japanese atrocities during the war, but I have also seen Hollywood do this crap in other formats getting stupid people to believe just one side: hence, the "We should pay reparations to the Japanese for what we did!" crap I've seen floated around.

[E4 No More]

Mike, you commentary is excellent and you see the series for what it is.

It was never meant to be BoB in the Pacific, it is an entirely different story written by different people. The only thing the two share in common are producers and excellent special effects.

The war in the Pacific was so vastly different than in Europe there is no way to tell the same or similar story.

My only complaint is the seeminlgy schizophrenic plot and the fact they tried to compress over 3 years of combat into 10 episodes. The series could easily have been twice that long. As far as the plot goes, I have a feeling that is intentional, not only for brevity, but to help put viewers into the Marines' shoes. They probably had no idea of what what going on either big picture-wise.

I will be watching it the rest of the Summer.

I would bet that you are wrong here. They saw it first hand, and command took great pains to let them know what was going on for morale purposes. There are reports of commands having to order their men to take prisoners for intelligence purposes.

[Mike.357]

Just to be clear, I am fully aware that the "Rape of Nanking" was in China.

well duh It certainly was not Alaska

And FWIW I would love to see an entire series based on Puller's career.

[Garufa]

I would bet that you are wrong here. They saw it first hand, and command took great pains to let them know what was going on for morale purposes. There are reports of commands having to order their men to take prisoners for intelligence purposes.

You may be right. My impression has always been the average rifleman, grunt, private, etc. was doing what he was told and was not privy to the grand scheme of things other than what trickled down through the ranks...most of it BS I'm sure.

There isn't too much focus on officers in this series I noticed.

[E4 No More]

You may be right. My impression has always been the average rifleman, grunt, private, etc. was doing what he was told and was not privy to the grand scheme of things other than what trickled down through the ranks...most of it BS I'm sure.

There isn't too much focus on officers in this series I noticed.

They got news reels shown to them in the rear areas, and what better way to fire-up your Marines than to report the inflammatory items to them? EDIT: They also had war correspondents in the mix too.

Since I'm prior enlisted, I kind of like the overall lack of focus on the officers other than Ack-ack. I could relate to how a leader like him would be appreciated by the company. Heck! I was sad when he died. It's just that Smedley Butler, Chesty Puller and Dan Daly were such a part of our history drummed into us in bootcamp, so I guess I'm also a bit sensitive to them brushing over Chesty in the series.

Edited May 12, 2010 by SWJewellTN

[inspecting1]

my uncle was part of one of those units that was the 1st on the Canal. From what he told me it was very, very realistic. Especially the part about them watching the night naval battle... and the next morning the US Navy retreating and leaving them stuck.

Its going to be a great series.

If we are thinking about the same time. My grandpa was a Coxswain on a Higgins boat that was left on the canal when fleet got word that the Japs were moving in. You never know he might have gave your uncle a ride to the beach.

He made 3 of the 4 major invasions in the phillipenes driving a Higgins boat.