The Pacific (miniseries)

[DC Tom]

How could you possibly determine the ranges of the opponents from the scenes they showed? Why do you assume they were ships of both nationalities? They could have just been showing the American/Australian ships with the IJN out of frame.

 

When ships are a ship-length apart, and a ship is 200 yards long, you can pretty much bet they're not 5000 yards apart. And you don't even maintain that separation between friendly ships - standard convoy formation in WWII required 1000 yard separation between ships, for reasons of control and tactical safety. During the First Battle of Savo Sound (the naval battle in last night's episode) the northern Allied screening force were sailing with the cruisers sailing line-ahead 600 yards apart and destroyers 2000 yards off either bow (can't find the info for the southern, oddly the official report doesn't say) - again, pretty typical. So you would expect, even if they're all friendlies on screen, for ships to be separated by 3-4 times their whole length, which they definitely weren't.

 

Same with the invasion itself; you don't pack ships and landing craft that close. For one, it makes managing the beach hellaciously difficult (the Marines later in the war introduced beachmasters whose sole purpose was to keep **** moving over the beach without causing traffic jams, and traffic still wasn't as close together as they showed on TV). For another...it means that one enemy shell won't take out two or three Higgins boats.

 

It's easy enough to check, too...Military Channel's running the World at War series right now (great series, by the way). They showed some of the island invasions last night; ships and landing craft did not pack that close together (nor did men, for that matter, nor did an entire carrier are group cover a landing by flying in squadron 'V's 2000 feet up). Whoever filmed The Pacific was either lazy or stupid; they got basic facts wrong (another one that just occurred to me: the Marines on Guadalcanal did NOT have M1 carbines) they could have easily verified in five minutes.

[dib]

either lazy or stupid; they got basic facts wrong (another one that just occurred to me: the Marines on Guadalcanal did NOT have M1 carbines) they could have easily verified in five minutes.

 

Granted, the scenes showing the Marines climbing down to the Higgins boats was a little crammed. Do you mean the M-1 carbine of the M-1 Garand? The Carbine had been around since 1936, and was issued to machine gun squads, mortar mne etc. Thr troops liked it in the jungle because of it's light weight and non corrosive cartridges. The Marines were equiped with Springfields at the 'Canal and to be honest I think the props department did a cr@ppy job reproducing them . Did younotice that some (at least one) of the Thompsons was sporting a drum magazine?

[Astrojanitor]

I'm finding the Pacific fairly engrossing so far--but then I'm totally indifferent to historical inaccuracies. As long as there isn't a marine on a cell phone I'll be happy.

 

Realism in films comes from not a documentary sense, but the ability for the viewer to accept the onscreen actions as believable. perhaps the guns are wrong, maybe ships sail too close (I'd argue thats an artistic choice--made for television...directors are dealing with smaller screen space, you want to create the panic/awe but have a small canvas) but the ultimate success of the series will be the ability to honestly project scared kids doing something brave. Does it feel like 18 year olds fighting for their lives in a foreign land or is it Rambo destroying Burma with a hunting knife? Last night was only the first hour out of ten...it's like watching 10 minutes of a movie. Hard to know where it's going to go, but so far I am certainly digging it.

 

Also, if William Sadler started yelling at me in real life, I would never stop wetting myself. That guy projects hard ass intensity like nobodies business.

[CountDorkula]

We cancelled HBO to save some $$$ on our cable bill, does anyone have a link to where they are showing the first episode.

 

I would Mucho Grande appreciate it!!

[John Adams]

Whoever filmed The Pacific was either lazy or stupid; they got basic facts wrong (another one that just occurred to me: the Marines on Guadalcanal did NOT have M1 carbines) they could have easily verified in five minutes.

 

Every party has a pooper.

 

I can't imagine how inaccurate something would have to be for me in this series to notice it. "Hey Jones, I just got an email from my mom..."

[dib]

I didnt notice in the credits, but did they use Dale Dye as technical advisor again?

[NCDAWG]

I didnt notice in the credits, but did they use Dale Dye as technical advisor again?

Yes they did. Saw it in the making of the series show.

[dib]

Yes they did. Saw it in the making of the series show.

 

Then for the most part, things are probably as they should be-for the ground pounders anyway.

 

For a treat watch the 1943 movie 'Guadalcanal Diary'

[DC Tom]

(I'd argue thats an artistic choice--made for television...directors are dealing with smaller screen space, you want to create the panic/awe but have a small canvas)

 

I'm sure it was. It's a particular nit-pick of mine in any film - compressing reality to make it more dramatic on film.

 

 

Every party has a pooper.

 

I can't imagine how inaccurate something would have to be for me in this series to notice it. "Hey Jones, I just got an email from my mom..."

 

I know. It's my own personal view on it - I've studied the subject for decades, so gross (as I define it) historical inaccuracy bugs the **** out of me. And particularly Tom Hanks' infliction of it on the viewer - he very much wants people to think of him as someone who honors history, then goes on ahead and butchers the living **** out of it.

 

And yes, there's a valid point to be made that if one wants extreme technical accuracy one should just watch documentaries like V for Victory. Which misses the point: to get so wrong the basic technical aspects is to completely misrepresent the environment the soldiers fought in. You don't get a sense of the loneliness of standing watch on the line when fighting positions are separated by about four feet, or the complete feeling of abandonment the Marines had on Guadalcanal after Admiral Fletcher unassed the area by throwing out a single "The Navy left us!" line (I literally just now was discussing that with a Marine in the office - he's bitter about that decision, and he was born thirty years after the battle), or the absolute confusion in facing a Japanese night attack. To take dramatic license to convey feelings that are better conveyed by NOT taking dramatic license is an idiotic production decision - and yet, so typical of Hanks' and Speilberg's nonsense.

[C.Biscuit97]

I'm not a war historian so seeing things blow up and get shot in HD entertained me. The one thing I did have a slight problem with is they really didn't develop the main characters much. Hopefully they will in future episodes but you don't really have any connection to anyone in particular.

[Astrojanitor]

I'm sure it was. It's a particular nit-pick of mine in any film - compressing reality to make it more dramatic on film.

 

 

 

 

I know. It's my own personal view on it - I've studied the subject for decades, so gross (as I define it) historical inaccuracy bugs the **** out of me. And particularly Tom Hanks' infliction of it on the viewer - he very much wants people to think of him as someone who honors history, then goes on ahead and butchers the living **** out of it.

 

And yes, there's a valid point to be made that if one wants extreme technical accuracy one should just watch documentaries like V for Victory. Which misses the point: to get so wrong the basic technical aspects is to completely misrepresent the environment the soldiers fought in. You don't get a sense of the loneliness of standing watch on the line when fighting positions are separated by about four feet, or the complete feeling of abandonment the Marines had on Guadalcanal after Admiral Fletcher unassed the area by throwing out a single "The Navy left us!" line (I literally just now was discussing that with a Marine in the office - he's bitter about that decision, and he was born thirty years after the battle), or the absolute confusion in facing a Japanese night attack. To take dramatic license to convey feelings that are better conveyed by NOT taking dramatic license is an idiotic production decision - and yet, so typical of Hanks' and Speilberg's nonsense.

 

I think I can counter this with a couple examples from recent film:

A couple weeks ago i saw The Hurt Locker. I found it to be an unnerving and tense film that made me deeply uncomfortable. My fiancee is in the Army and is deploying to Afghanistan in June. I felt a certain connection, understanding and respect for her situation by watching the film. However when she saw it all she could focus on was the huge amount of inaccuracies in the uniforms, guns, etc. Is it more important to inspire feeling amongst civvies or to create documentary realism? I have a another perspective on the current war, I'd argue that is infinitely more important than Jeremy Renner wearing a patch on the wrong side of his shirt.

 

Like I said I'm not a military guy at all, but I am a record collector. The film High Fidelity features scenes that borderline enrage me they are so inaccurate (especially in relation to the vastly superior novel). However the film nails the mindset of record collecting for those who are lucky enough to not be trapped with this affliction. No self respecting record nerd would hold a Captain Beefheart LP by only it's upper corner...but the obsessiveness/self loathing/pretentiousness that goes into demanding a Green Day fan respect Stiff Little Fingers? That's exactly what it's like.

 

And ultimately isn't that the point of all this? "the Pacific" is beginning to (from what I understand ep 1 is the weakest of the bunch) create an emotionally realistic account of the war. it's that realism, not gear fetishism, that enlightens the viewer. The end result of this series will be to spark interest in an element of WW2 that rarely gets told (honestly, Nazis are far more cinematic). As long as the basic historical arc is respected manipulation of certain elements for dramatic affect is forgivable. The night battle in last night's episode may not have been 100% accurate, but I found it to be stunning. Flashes from bullets, the occasional glimpse of enemy combatants running along the creek--felt like the Marines were fighting ghosts. Could it have been better/ I don't know, I was never involved in a firefight with Japanese ghosts. Got my heart beating though.

 

People in the know are always alienated when someone tries to film their baby.

[dib]

I'm not a war historian so seeing things blow up and get shot in HD entertained me. The one thing I did have a slight problem with is they really didn't develop the main characters much. Hopefully they will in future episodes but you don't really have any connection to anyone in particular.

I had a small problem with that too, made an instant connection w/BoB characters,not so much with Pacific, but it's still crazy early in the series.

 

Made Dad was in the CBI theater and always feels 'gyped' that they dont get coverage. Objective Burma with Errol Flynn doesnt count.

[John Adams]

I know. It's my own personal view on it - I've studied the subject for decades, so gross (as I define it) historical inaccuracy bugs the **** out of me. And particularly Tom Hanks' infliction of it on the viewer - he very much wants people to think of him as someone who honors history, then goes on ahead and butchers the living **** out of it.

 

I get it. It's why I can't watch lawyer movies/TV shows and why my surgeon friend refuses to watch anything medical. You start to get wrapped up in the inaccuracies.

 

At the same time, the appearance of the M-1 doesn't detract for me and the ships being in tight formation is a detail that doesn't bother me because I am learning about something that I don't know jack squat about.

[Frit0 Bandit0]

Noway Jose, that sheets real.

 

Technical and Operational flaws? .... Part of It looked liked the damn thing was filmed in my bathtub.

 

You know, though they were still boots coming from New Zealand, the snap shots of the moral reflection cracks me up....time to look at a picture? Naw, he better get busy wiping the **** out of his pants instead. For real, if someone did get soft, someone else would have said "knock it the !@#$ off"

 

M! Garand, The m1 sakinaw (carbine already field tested and used by the Raiders and Paramarines), The Thompkins (I don't know about that magazine clip/maybe), and the M50 which replaces the Tommy Gun (was issued to the 1st in New Zealand prior to Gaudal...guess it can look like an M1 carbine, from a movie point)

 

Having been on my share of Amtraks I couldn't help but smell the diesel and feel a short ping of sea sickness when watching those LVTs go up, down left and right ...all at the same time.

 

This movie is more about personal drama than factual ops...which is fine and probably well done but the only firefight put me to sleep with its lack of realness from being condensed

 

One point I thought rediculous was when those Bozo's decided to go to the shore and watch the Japanese ships off shore...Who by the way were looking right back at them and saying in Japanese "look at those Bozo's on the beach".

[Frit0 Bandit0]

When ships are a ship-length apart, and a ship is 200 yards long, you can pretty much bet they're not 5000 yards apart. And you don't even maintain that separation between friendly ships - standard convoy formation in WWII required 1000 yard separation between ships, for reasons of control and tactical safety. During the First Battle of Savo Sound (the naval battle in last night's episode) the northern Allied screening force were sailing with the cruisers sailing line-ahead 600 yards apart and destroyers 2000 yards off either bow (can't find the info for the southern, oddly the official report doesn't say) - again, pretty typical. So you would expect, even if they're all friendlies on screen, for ships to be separated by 3-4 times their whole length, which they definitely weren't.

 

Same with the invasion itself; you don't pack ships and landing craft that close. For one, it makes managing the beach hellaciously difficult (the Marines later in the war introduced beachmasters whose sole purpose was to keep **** moving over the beach without causing traffic jams, and traffic still wasn't as close together as they showed on TV). For another...it means that one enemy shell won't take out two or three Higgins boats.

 

It's easy enough to check, too...Military Channel's running the World at War series right now (great series, by the way). They showed some of the island invasions last night; ships and landing craft did not pack that close together (nor did men, for that matter, nor did an entire carrier are group cover a landing by flying in squadron 'V's 2000 feet up). Whoever filmed The Pacific was either lazy or stupid; they got basic facts wrong (another one that just occurred to me: the Marines on Guadalcanal did NOT have M1 carbines) they could have easily verified in five minutes.

 

I bet you were calling bull ****.

[Frit0 Bandit0]

Every party has a pooper.

 

I can't imagine how inaccurate something would have to be for me in this series to notice it. "Hey Jones, I just got an email from my mom..."

 

 

I haven't heard that expression in a long time...Your right the series is a good drama about real people ... some of us might get anal...cough cough Tom cough. I'll try to keep it tempered.

[DC Tom]

I think I can counter this with a couple examples from recent film:

A couple weeks ago i saw The Hurt Locker. I found it to be an unnerving and tense film that made me deeply uncomfortable. My fiancee is in the Army and is deploying to Afghanistan in June. I felt a certain connection, understanding and respect for her situation by watching the film. However when she saw it all she could focus on was the huge amount of inaccuracies in the uniforms, guns, etc. Is it more important to inspire feeling amongst civvies or to create documentary realism? I have a another perspective on the current war, I'd argue that is infinitely more important than Jeremy Renner wearing a patch on the wrong side of his shirt.

 

And I caught the inaccuracies in Hurt Locker, too. An EOD team cross-trained as a sniper team? All the same, that scene was about as close as they will ever get to actually capturing the feel of sniper combat on film, unreality aside.

 

The Pacific didn't do that for me. What emotional content it conveyed was completely artificial, in large part because the historical inaccuracies were glaring attempts to substitute spectacle for drama (the presence of M1 Garands, of course, being decidedly minor). In contrast, Band of Brothers, for all its historical inaccuracies, never had that problem. You don't need to film the Battle of Savo Sound like it was fought in a bathtub if you get the script right to begin with.

 

And I don't see how it could get any better. Hell, on Guadalcanal alone I could outline a pretty good 15-episode series. They're going to do that, and Cape Gloucester, Peleliu, Okinawa, and probably Tarawa and Iwo Jima too (which means they're going to mix two or three separate plot threads, since 1st Marine Division didn't fight at those two)...in ten episodes?

[DC Tom]

I haven't heard that expression in a long time...Your right the series is a good drama about real people ... some of us might get anal...cough cough Tom cough. I'll try to keep it tempered.

 

Blow me, !@#$tard.

 

 

Read the above. It's not "unreality" per se, but unreality for the purpose of substituting spectacle for actual feeling. Plenty of people here have already said they couldn't relate to the characters.

[Frit0 Bandit0]

Blow me, !@#$tard.

 

 

Read the above. It's not "unreality" per se, but unreality for the purpose of substituting spectacle for actual feeling. Plenty of people here have already said they couldn't relate to the characters.

 

 

Tom there is ALOT of unreality in there ... and some of it is pure comedy

[Frit0 Bandit0]

Something that pisses me off is why do they make an ass out of an officer in the field...What's the message there? Beside the fact it didn't happen. Cut the seen and give more time to the firefight and make that more real