Which did you like better?

[jeffs60s]

Band of Brothers for the consistency, and staying in the battle. The Pacific had its peaks, but went back and forth too much from wartime, to homefront, etc. I still love the Pacific though.

[RustyCanteen]

Personally, I think some of the dislike for Pacific was that it was too narrow a focus for such a large theatre of WWII.

[history-buff1944]

Band of Brothers. Im more "into" the war in Europe than the War in the pacific.

[TasmanianDevil]

Have just introduced my Son to Band of Brothers, we started watching it together a couple of days ago, I have watched it many times, we have had some great discussions following each episodes viewing. Joel is loving it, it is his first "war film" experience. Kane

[sundance]

Hey, I've got no choice - my dad was in the Pacific. I like BoB though, big time. I just wish The Pacific included the army's involvement. If you just watched TV you would think the was nobody in the Pacific but the Marines.

[ScottG]

I will start by saying that I love and own both sets of DVD's. But I would like to take exception to a few of the comments already made. Many are stating that The Pacific is formulated and lacking some of the elements of BoB. To this I would say that as much as The Pacific may be an extension of the process of BoB, so too was BoB an extension of Saving Private Ryan. Basically they took an already successful story line and decided that they could make a mini-series while telling a true story.

Where I think there is a key difference is that while BoB tells the story of how Easy Company won the war, The Pacific does a bit better of a job spreading the so called glory to more units, albeit Marines only.

Where The Pacific could have been better would be in a name change to better imply that it is a Marine series, and by showing Tarawa or even a brief segment on Wake Island. Still its hard to show everything the Marines did in such a huge theater of war, so BoB really was able to be a much more chronologically succinct story line.

Patches mentioned that the sex scenes were not needed but I would argue that they were needed but there should have been a follow on storyline in the Australia episode that perhaps showed how the Aussies were handling the situation as I think that was part of the message in showing some of that. In BoB there is a scene in episode 7 or 8 that has one of the guys with a German girl who is nude in an office, so if a scene was ever unnecessary to the plot it would be this more than in The Pacific. As for the scenes with John and Lena Basilone, I think the writers were trying to get the audience to really grasp a situation that is 60 + years in our past and sympathize with what happened to Basilone and what type of guy he was.

So, I love both but really feel that The Pacific broke some ground whereas BoB had already achieved its success before it was released because of Saving Private Ryan. I am not a huge fan of aviation but I eagerly await Masters of the Air because I think they will do a great job as well. Scott

[Garandomatic]

I actually think they toned down Bob Leckie's romantic activities after reading "Helmet for My Pillow." He called Australia "the great debauchery."

[Bill47]

Cinematically, BOB was more enjoyable for me, though I saw and appreciated both. As far as the written word, however, I don't think anything in the literature of World War II tops "Helmet for My Pillow" or "With the Old Breed." Those are classics that aren't approached by anything in the ETO that I know of. They are literary classics.

Bill

[Linedoggie]

BoB but maybe because I have met the real men on numerous occasions. There's something about breaking bread with a Bill Guarnere or LTC. Winters that adds to it somehow I cant explain.

[patches]

As to Grandomatics revelation on the Leckie book, I never read the book, so I would ask just how sexual graphic where they? But, and in any event we can only be grateful that Spielberg and Company didn't turn the Australian episode/sequences in to one big soft core porn fest like one will see in other Cable series' like oh what's that one, Ah yes the Tudors, or Rome.

I'll state my postion again,as to the Pacific, the graphic sex scences were not nessesary, we know, let me say that again, WE KNOW, that Men and Woman have sex, we know, we don't need to see it. Yes a far better way of doing this would just to show the intimmacy of it all, without the nudity and humping (Humping, am I being to GRAPHIC?), an intellegent person would rightly assume these people slept with each other. In my estimation the sex scenes where nothing more as a shot, to be "relevant" to "contemporary viewers, or at least some comtemporary viewers, it was a cheapining I'd say, especially in reguards to John Basilone and his widow Lena, AGAIN, would Basilone and his wife, before and after they were married have sex? YES, but we don't need to see it.

[Sabrejet]

In the movies back in the 40s /50s when censorship was strict and public sensibilities much more acute than they are today, whenever the lovers were about to "get it on" there'd be a surge of violins and the camera would pan slowly to the sky (or my Hitchcock favourite, an express train entered a tunnel ) All of this was deeply symbolic...a kind of coded language which the audience understood which got the message across and which didn't offend anyone. Any domestic bedroom scene from a 40s /50s movie will invariably contain twin single beds (think Col. and Mrs Hall from "Bilko"!) because the movie industry code of practice of the time forbade men/women...whether portraying husbands and wives or not... to be seen in bed together! All of that began to change in the "Swingin' 60s" when attitudes towards sex became more liberal...and it's been that way ever since. Sometimes directors and writers will claim that the sex scenes in their movies are "integral to the plot"...but equally sometimes they are there gratuitously, just to titillate (no pun intended!)

[patches]

In the movies back in the 40s /50s when censorship was strict and public sensibilities much more acute than they are today, whenever the lovers were about to "get it on" there'd be a surge of violins and the camera would pan slowly to the sky (or my Hitchcock favourite, an express train entered a tunnel ) All of this was deeply symbolic...a kind of coded language which the audience understood which got the message across and which didn't offend anyone. Any domestic bedroom scene from a 40s /50s movie will invariably contain twin single beds (think Col. and Mrs Hall from "Bilko"!) because the movie industry code of practice of the time forbade men/women...whether portraying husbands and wives or not... to be seen in bed together! All of that began to change in the "Swingin' 60s" when attitudes towards sex became more liberal...and it's been that way ever since. Sometimes directors and writers will claim that the sex scenes in their movies are "integral to the plot"...but equally sometimes they are there gratuitously, just to titillate (no pun intended!)

I agree with your observations Ian, but I wound,nt say the peoples attitudes changed, it was the studios attitudes that changed, they put this in, and when they seen they could get away with it gradually increased it, it wasn't everyday movies goers that demanded it. Take that 1964 movie the Pawnbroker with Rod Steiger, it was one of the first movies to have gratuitous nudity, but in reality what the hell did the nude scene have to do with the overall story? who asked it to be included? answer, nothing, and no one, it was just thrown in for the hell of it, to be "provoctive, oh they said that it was to show that this charactor played by Steiger, a Concentration Camp survivor's anguish, because seeing the nude women in front of him, made him think about his wife back in the camp being "Raped by Germans", nah it was just put in to see the reactions and to see just how far they can go, in any event the Pawnbroker was a horrible move, I rented it once, terrible.

 

Your take on sex scenes in modern movies and T.V, as a gratuitous ploy are spot on Ian, same with dialog. But maybe I,m just old fashion, heck I don't know. But let me tell all this, I don't know how in the world a young child can watch any main stream movie now a days. Take when I was young, a favorite was Some Like It Hot, you know the one with Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon, now this movie would be watched by all of us when ever it came on T.V. back there in the late 60 into the 70s, me and my sisters were young, the movie as you know showcases a lot of guarded sexual stuff, Monroe for instance, then there was the cross dressing by Curtis and Lemmon, but it was done in good taste without it being overt, it was a fun and witty comedy, and my parents had no problem with us watching it.

 

Now fast forward to today, what do you think a remake of Some Like It Hot would look like if one was made today? you can guess, it would be in all likeyhood one where a 9 to 13 year old would not be able to watch, certainly not in the theater at any rate. but on the other hand.... some parents or a "Single Parent" wont care one way or another or will be to stupid to notice the differance, knowing as we know today how childern go to movies that are really for old teenagers 17 to 19 or young adults.

 

A case in point these two movies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_of_the_Month_(2006_film)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_Something_About_Mary

Two really funny movies with clever plots and good charator development, it would be an ideal movie for kids, fun rollicking movies but, and that's a big BUT, it is unsuitable for children because of it crass and vulger language, overt sexual suggestiveness, that juuust had to be written in, like the dialog in the scene between the actor Dane Cook and his Grandmother before he goes out on his first date with Jessica Simpson, those familar with this movie will know what I mean. All the vulgerisms are unnessesary, it is possible to make a more adult movie if you will, without it, it was done in the past, and it can be done today, a good case in point will be The Apartment, the 1961 movie, and others.

[Sabrejet]

I hear what you say say Kevin. Interesting that you quote those British produced historical "romps" as examples. Be warned, there's another "bodice ripper" in the same vein probably coming your way soon...."The White Queen"!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018sxqp

[patches]

I hear what you say say Kevin. Interesting that you quote those British produced historical "romps" as examples. Be warned, there's another "bodice ripper" in the same vein probably coming your way soon...."The White Queen"!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018sxqp

Bodice Ripper, that's classic Did you coin that just then? Yeah these things are nothing more than dramatisized nonsense,with alot of soft core thrown in, masquerading as a "Historical" depiction, yeah I know what some will say, it's about the money, makers, producers et al are about making money, but if you like, go ahead spend your money to let them make money, I won't stop you, but count me out, I,m not in to censorship, I only take the position that IT IS possible to make a well made movie or series, historical, comedy or otherwise WITHOUT being ovely profane and vulger, WITHOUT graphic sex.

 

You know I don't even have cable anymore, it's a personel choice, I just can't watch that garbage anymore, I mean I don't wanna see even the commerials for them, so why would I want to contiuously pay for it, pay for something I'll never watch, yes it's DVDs, DVDS, and more DVDs, and if it ain't available on DVD then VHS.

[Garandomatic]

I think I lean prett similarly to you guys, especially having kids. I'd have to pick up the Leckie book again (borrowed it when I read it), but he went on at pretty great length about the debauchery, but it wasn't terribly graphic in description. He made it clear that there was a LOT of it going on, and if he was telling the truth, he cleaned up pretty well down there. In the film, the girl breaks his heart in OZ. In the book, it seemed to me like he didn't miss her that much, as he was on to the next girl that appreciated being saved from the Japanese.

[patches]

I think I lean prett similarly to you guys, especially having kids. I'd have to pick up the Leckie book again (borrowed it when I read it), but he went on at pretty great length about the debauchery, but it wasn't terribly graphic in description. He made it clear that there was a LOT of it going on, and if he was telling the truth, he cleaned up pretty well down there. In the film, the girl breaks his heart in OZ. In the book, it seemed to me like he didn't miss her that much, as he was on to the next girl that appreciated being saved from the Japanese.

That's basically the point I,m trying to make, I would never have been taken along to see all those war movies back in the late 60s, if they were done the the way most are today, like I mentioned awhile ago, that my Mother insisted that my father NOT take me to see Patton back there in 1970, why? because she was of that WWII generation and remembered Patton's penchant for cursing and salty speak, she believed it would be so in the movie, therefore I didn't go, I was sad I couldn't I remember. Ironically I was allowed around three years or so earlier to see The Dirty Dozen when it came out in 67, as we know The Dirty Dozen is an ultra Violent movie really, but I guess it was deemed by my parents as just a regular war movie, not knowing anything really about it, but Patton? ooh there's gonna all sorts of foul langauge, no he can't go, but as we now know it wasn't like that at all, even my Mother was surpised when we seen it on the T.V. when it was first broadcast

[Mach]

I always liked The Pacific better, in regard to the Melbourne episode, I really liked it however I was a bit upset they did not include the chases by MP's which Robert Leckie co well covered in his book and how some 'aussies' helped him by hiding him. I did not mind the sex scenes and in fact they reminded me of what I asked my grandfather years ago when he was stationed in England, after we had a beer or two I was taking down his memories of wartime London and leave in general and asked him about women, he looked at me, looked around to make sure grandma wasn't around and out of his log book in which he made a hidden pocket pulled out photos of his English 'girlfriends' being in my late teens at the time my first impression was WOW these girls are hot so I asked him what was the story there and his reply was simple, 'oh they were good for sport'.... yup ok then gramps. We actually had a great laugh about it.

 

With Band of Brothers I think I would have liked it much more if it covered the 82nd Airborne and Sicily, Italy, Normandy, Holland and Germany. Many times I had to explain to some of my friends who loved BoB that the war did not start at Normandy... teens.....

[Lancer127]

Both were masterfully put together, but I thought that the action sequences in The Pacific were much more intense than that of Band of Brothers.