MovieChat Forums > The Pacific (2010) Discussion > How is this series even considered good?

How is this series even considered good?

posted 9 years ago by Innsmouth
11 replies | jump to latest

5 episodes in, and I'm giving up, which is saying a lot since I always give shows lots of time...but I can find almost no redeeming factors in this one.

- Random characters with no real engaging back stories, can't even root for them
- Entire episodes dedicating to the love lives of these irrelevant characters, including your standard HBO porn sex scenes. It's not porn, it's HBO, you know.
- Fighting that while clearly takes advantage of high production values, also feels disjointed and scattered.

No real messages or underlining narratives that I care enough to identify.

A generic bore, and yet it's rated one of the best miniseries ever made...

[–] mistamajestyk 9 years ago

- Random characters with no real engaging back stories, can't even root for them
The central focus is on two characters; Robert Leckie and Eugene Sledge, as the series is based (albeit, loosely at times) on their memoirs. As far as back stories go, there's only so much you can do on a show that is centered around an entire Marine division. If you had origins and deep backgrounds on every character, the series would go on forever.

- Entire episodes dedicating to the love lives of these irrelevant characters, including your standard HBO porn sex scenes. It's not porn, it's HBO, you know.
This is a valid point, as most of the events that take place in the Melbourne episode were dramatized for the show. It seems like there is some kind of contractual obligation on HBO shows that requires sex and nudity. Not a big deal, IMO, but in the context of a WW2 series, I don't think it's exactly necessary.

- Fighting that while clearly takes advantage of high production values, also feels disjointed and scattered.
I think that was the point? Combat is disjointed and scattered, in reality. The battles in the Pacific theater were chaotic and brutal. I think the show did an excellent job of portraying this, to the best of their ability.

"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see."

[–] jporter-6 8 years ago

Of course Lecke's Melbourne love and sex scenes are necessary. They show the depth of Lecke's romance with Stella Karamanlis and her family. If Stella had encouraged him at all, Lecke might have returned to Melbourne and married Stella.

His feelings for her and them can't have been adequately portrayed by hugs and handshakes and dinners.

[–] noelani54 9 years ago

The point of this series wasn't to be entertaining. It was to give Americans some understanding about the horror, fear, pain anguish and sacrifice of young lives that was required of those Americans who fought in the Pacific theater, in WWII.

The script was an enormous challenge. Band of Brothers was based on one group of men who fought together, many of whom were living at the time it was made, and had some involvement in it. The three men they based The Pacific on didn't know each other and were all deceased by the time they started working on it. The Pacific war was more horrible, in some ways, than even the European war. There was very little that was interesting or fun that was experienced by the Marines who were on the front lines. The final episode talks about that.

Episode 7 is the hardest to watch of any of them. It's about one of the nastiest battles of the war. There was nothing interesting or colorful about it. Had something fictitious been created to make it more entertaining, it would have failed to put across the points they were trying to make.

I guess the "entire episodes devoted to the love lives of irrelevant characters" that you refer to are episodes 3 and 8. There is actually a great deal more going on in them than that. I agree that the part about a love affair between Leckie and a Greek-Australian girl was bogus and fictitious. However, I think part about John Basilone and his wife, Lena Riggi, was entirely pertinent to the story.

[–] Druffmaul 9 years ago

The point of this series wasn't to be entertaining. It was to give Americans some understanding about the horror, fear, pain anguish and sacrifice of young lives that was required of those Americans who fought in the Pacific theater, in WWII.

The key to the success of shows like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers is that they achieved precisely what you laid out there, but they did it with a great cast of characters. The Pacific's cast fell almost completely flat, and that was the show's downfall. I doubt there was much difference between the actual groups of soldiers who fought in the real military campaigns portrayed in these shows. There's no reason The Pacific's cast had to be so... meh.

[–] halomaniac88 7 years ago

Good post

[–] blisteringlogic 9 years ago

I felt similarly as you, but I felt obligated to watch it, and I'm glad I stuck with it. It is easily one of (along with "Letters From Iwo Jima") the most realist depictions of war (coming from someone who has not been in actual war) that I've seen on film yet. It is disturbing and hard to watch, but I have even more respect for those guys than I did before I watched it.

I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

[–] spamade 9 years ago

I agree with the OP entirely. I gave band of brothers 10 out of 10 but I couldn't get past six episodes of this.

[–] HoustonTed 9 years ago

When I first watched The Pacific I stuck through it all to see what happened to the main characters. I did understand that The Pacific wasn't as cohesive as Band of Brothers because it was based off of many different books, memoirs etc.

I can see the point that a large majority has made about these two series and how BoB was better, but remember as the second commenter here said: BoB followed one unit and included interviews of actual soldiers - which helps sell you on the story. It really is a shame that they did not, or could not interview some of the men for the Pacific. It just gets you tightly tied to a character when you are watching and listening to testimony through from the actual people. The sad thing is that many of the last men have recently died (2012-2014). I think Malarkey (BoB) and Sidney Phillips (Pacific) are the two main characters still alive.

I think both are really great in their own ways. I watch these 2 every year once or twice along with a few other great WWII movies so that I never forget.

One thing I can say for both shows - I feel like a worthless human being after watching them every time; I am glad we had a great generation like this before us; I really wish these shows could've been out decades earlier so I could then understand the war and be able to try to talk to, or at least understand what my grandfather (Pacific-Avenger tail gunner), and my great uncle (Europe, army) experienced. Watching these really makes me miss them, and I do have a greater respect for them and their war brothers.

[–] TheCarpooler 9 years ago

Regarding your last paragraph; I, too, feel like crap after watching these. You really want to feel bad about your life?? Read the books written by or about the BOB. Buck Compton, Wild Bill and Babe, anthologies of BOBs not in the show and stories from the families of those who died since. Holy cow. Amazing.

[–] zxcv-9 9 years ago

Some of the early episodes are a bit tedious, but the later ones are much better. I'm glad I stuck with it.

[–] luke-nye 9 years ago

right with you bud. wether this movie should be considered a different animal than BOB or not, the comparison is inevitable. Not to mention the acting was unbearable- predictable and cliche. reminded me of Saving private ryan and the thin red line. The former was so great and then the latter came out and it was like wtf did I just watch? Sean Penn?...dear God