Film & TV The Pacific (HBO-mini series)
- Thread starter Flipmo
- Start date
Just watched the premier. It was a bit slow, expected more ... but then again it's just starting off. I hope it gets better cause the Pacific War is nothing like the Western Front in Europe. It was more like the Eastern Front in Europe...
I like how they gave a quick preview of the Japanese' fight till the end/kamikaze mentality though.
Else from the, it's visually well made. Lets hope it lives up to the hype.
I like how they gave a quick preview of the Japanese' fight till the end/kamikaze mentality though.
Else from the, it's visually well made. Lets hope it lives up to the hype.
After seeing the first the parts, I'm not too sold on it. I read somewhere that critics said it gets better after the third part. I'm not too sold on the acting or the dialogue. The show lacks in those areas. I haven't watched Band of Brothers so I feel that I'm not biased. But yeah, I'll continue watching, but I'm not so excited about it anymore.
Last night's episode was dull - it was about the Marine corps having leave time in Australia, who was almost clear of men because of the war. It's supposed to pick up by the next episode with the Battle of Cape Gloucester, followed by the Battle Peleliu, Iwo Jima and finally ... Okinawa.
Apparently they won't be touching the Battle of Midway, which is gay because it was one of the main turning points, but no big deal since it's before the events seen in the show.
Compared to Band Of Brother - This one started really slow, but it's based on true memoirs so it's not like it's Hollywood bullshit (even though I'm sure it's not 100% accurate). If they fuck up next Sunday's episode (even though it was a small fire fight), you can be sure they'll fuck up some of the bigger battles like Okinawa, or Peleliu.
Apparently they won't be touching the Battle of Midway, which is gay because it was one of the main turning points, but no big deal since it's before the events seen in the show.
Compared to Band Of Brother - This one started really slow, but it's based on true memoirs so it's not like it's Hollywood bullshit (even though I'm sure it's not 100% accurate). If they fuck up next Sunday's episode (even though it was a small fire fight), you can be sure they'll fuck up some of the bigger battles like Okinawa, or Peleliu.
While I understand the importance of remaining historically accurate with a series like this, I still first and foremost believe in a story well-told. While they might not "fuck" up the bigger battles in the future episodes, and by that I mean they might actually stay true to historical events, it doesn't mean much if it's not told well. To me, a well-shot and realistic gun battle isn't as significant as character development and making you feel for the characters. For a Spielberg/Hanks/HBO/Dreamworks production, the series feels too amateurish. It doesn't produce strong emotions in the viewer and doesn't make the viewer want to feel for the characters. Some actions and reactions by the actors seem forced. Part III bordered on soap opera corny shit. If I wanted historical accuracy only, I'd watch a Discovery/History Channel production on it.
I agree wholeheartedly. Episode 3 was an attempt to develop the characters, but it failed. Compared to Band Of Brothers also, the soldiers hardly seem like they're bonding. It makes the show awkward to watch in certain occasions.
I put well-shot/realistic gun battles as important as character development. The more realistic it is, the more you can feel for the character and the position he's in. All the actors said that while playing their roles in the battle or camp scenes they were surprised at how real (such as a battle) it looked for them. I'm assuming this feeling as an actor would convey more realistic and natural emotions, but it hasn't as you said. Much of it does look forced.
I'm wondering if it's because of the choice of actors and their inexperience. Band of Brother had some more recognizable performers like Donnie Walhberg, Ron Livingston, David Schwimmer (who did quite well as a drill sergeant lol) and Colin Hanks...
Hollywood eats dick, they always fuck up the Pacific war. I fear the day they decide to make a legit movie (Not enemy at the gates, that was diarrhea) or series on the Eastern Front between the Ruskies and Germans.
I put well-shot/realistic gun battles as important as character development. The more realistic it is, the more you can feel for the character and the position he's in. All the actors said that while playing their roles in the battle or camp scenes they were surprised at how real (such as a battle) it looked for them. I'm assuming this feeling as an actor would convey more realistic and natural emotions, but it hasn't as you said. Much of it does look forced.
I'm wondering if it's because of the choice of actors and their inexperience. Band of Brother had some more recognizable performers like Donnie Walhberg, Ron Livingston, David Schwimmer (who did quite well as a drill sergeant lol) and Colin Hanks...
Hollywood eats dick, they always fuck up the Pacific war. I fear the day they decide to make a legit movie (Not enemy at the gates, that was diarrhea) or series on the Eastern Front between the Ruskies and Germans.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.