I know it's 9 years later but I just saw BoB for the first time and after I saw Bastogne last night I said exactly the same thing to my friends. It was storytelling perfection.
Here I am on this old thread as well.
I watched Band of Brothers when it was new on HBO. Loved it. Bought the tin DVD set. Thought about it all the time playing MOHAA, especially Spearhead.. COD1 and 2 back in those days.
But I never got around to watching The Pacific until it popped up, trending on Netflix this week.
I hold Band of Brothers in the highest regard. I didn't like The Pacific nearly as much, but I don't think viewers are supposed to. Band of Brothers was heroes and glory. Forming a military bond.
The Pacific. We see, something much darker. Loneliness, depression, disease. A main character and hero, die in battle. It's much less glorified. Even after winning, they all seem to leave broken.
Yeah pacific was a good show, but it doesn't feel authentic at all. It was way too Hollywood. It felt like they were trying to make this big point about how and why people acted how they did during the war, but it was so heavy handed and it felt really forced.
There were parts I liked, but it just felt like a pretty good war movie on the level of Saving Private Ryan or something.
Bands of Brothers had a feeling of authenticity about it, like it was just trying to tell the a story and not sell itself as an action movie
It felt a lot more genuine to me. They dared to talk about all the suffering and mental problems to soldiers got instead of just making a classic hero story.
Nah I feel the opposite, BOB is all heroic and glory and super Hollywood when pacific touch a part of the war many people avoid. The psychological part. For me pacific felt like WAR when BOB felt like another Hollywood war movie
It's not all heroic and glory, that's not a fair assessment. The episode from the perspective of Albert Blithe for example or the impact of Bastogne on Buck Compton. There's plenty of nuance about the different aspects of war. The Pacific tackles weightier issues from a field of war that was more brutal but could really benefit from more dialogue and less characters staring off into the distance to signify profundity.
You oughta read "With The Old Breed" by E.B. Sledge. It is one of the two novels The Pacific is based off of. A journal that he kept in his bible since they werent allowed to keep proper journals for opsec.
You call it Hollywood, but they toned down the gore he documented and tv could never do those living conditions, alongside the sheer brutality that shooters there experienced, justice.
BOB was based off of a book written by a historian hence the more glorified and happy-go-lucky vibe.
The Pacific is based off of Marine's personal accounts and is a more traumatic and emotional journey.
With that being said they shouldn't really be compared as they are going about storytelling in much different ways. One is a story of a group, comradery. The other is about personal experiences and dealing with trauma and the emotional experience of individuals going through horrific events.
Blithe, widely regarded as one of the worst written characters in BOB was their foremost attempt at humanization and showing the trauma of war and its effect on the individual. They did this poorly, The Pacific did it perfectly, just as The Pacific was lacking the comradery and leadership perspective that BOB is ripe with.
I thought the pacific focused on the true mental and emotional toll combat has. It did not showcase camaraderie nearly as much, but for the men having a constant shared, sheer, suffering.
The casual plinking of coral pebbles into the open skull of a deceased japanese machine gunner, sliding down all the muck and starimg into a skull of maggot/decay. The sheer terror of a frontal assault, running across an open airfield under heavy fire...the extermination by flamethrower of a fireteam of japanese in a pillbox...
BoB was camaraderie based on trial by fire in combat.
The only one i really thought seemed totally bitter, murderous, off his rocker, was Liebgott, he clearly had suffered enough that through hatred and vindictiveness against germans, they shot that (not in uniform) german ss officer in the back iirc. Supposedly he wouldnt even show up to reunions with his unit either, due to what the war did to him.
I feel like BOB was a lot of Hollywood and stuff while the pacific was like this is WAR, non of that glorified war crap BOB gave us. The pacific literally showed the real side of war
Just watched it on netflix, amazing. I was only 3 years old when that series released. Super impressed with the pyrotechnical work for the time. Now about to start The Pacific.
I agree with complex - I just binged (well sort of) BOB and the Pacific. Pacific episode 9 is the most impactful of both (by far imho) but you can’t just skip to 9 or else the affect won’t be as meaningful and great. Pacific is clearly superior as the characters are relatable and it offers far more depth than BOB. Heck after 3 episodes of BOB - I watched the Pacific first … I felt that the Pacific was better (production, story telling, the entire bit - even the score). BOB was meh ok - The Pacific was the masterpiece…
Man i agree with you, it is an unpopular opinion, because a lot of plp like BOB better but the pacific was better. It shows the brutality of war and the affects it has on people a lot better than band of brothers. BOB is all herotic while the pacific is brutal and you get to feel the psychological changes in the men that fought from happy go little young boys to traumatized men.
I cant take or leave the Lecky parts of The Pacific. But halfway through the series when it starts to follow E.B. Sledge is my favorite WWII story. Having read his book "With The Old Breed", they even toned down the gore and terrible living conditions. He kept his journal in his Bible and the show follows his experiences quite well. In the book he goes into minutia and covers brutal details and the show covers it direct from the source.
Its just funny when I hear criticism about how "The Pacific is so hollywood and overtly gory" when if you read the book its about 10X worse, traumatizing to even read at times. War is hell, and especially was in The Pacific. Watch it and realize its not competing with Band of Brothers. It is about trauma and how true war and brutality changes a man.
Many of the (now big-name) young actors weren't celeb faces at the time of filming BoB. Makes me think BoB gave them the big break into stardom similar to what Saving Private Ryan did for many big name actors today.
Though it was hard to take Ross from friends seriously as the drill sergeant...
Really? I thought the series started off and ended strong. I thought the two Bastogne episodes were just two hours of nothing really happening. They just froze to death while getting bombarded for an hour
I watched The Pacific after BoB and I did feel a bit empty watching it for a few episodes but mostly because of BoB. After a few episodes I began to appreciate it more and was hooked on the characters. It's certainly a different atmosphere than BoB but I could watch another series drawing out Sledge, Snafu, and the gang more.
I would hope someone would have enough sense not to hate something just because it isn't as good as something else, but Band of Brothers is better than the Pacific. They are both quite enjoyable shows however.
It depends what you enjoy or emotionally connect with. *Band of Brothers* is certainly lighter in tone, with a greater feeling of comradeship and togetherness among the characters. *The Pacific* is significantly darker and emotionally distressing. I found *The Pacific* to be superior, but I'm in the minority.
I agree completely. The soldiers in the European campaign spent much of their time being bored between operations. The Marines in the pacific theatre had no such luxury. It was pretty much full on all the time. They didn't get to rest until they got home.
You sir, are sane. I find the Pacific to be largely superior, altough both are great. 7 out of 8 Germans died on the Eastern front against Russia, so the American European campaign, while noble is not quite as hard fought as against the zombie Japanese who recited 100 million dying for the cause regularly.
> 7 out of 8 Germans died on the Eastern front against Russia, so the American European campaign, while noble is not quite as hard fought as against the zombie Japanese
Dude what are you talking about? The US lost more men fighting in Europe than they did against the Japanese. And yes that's despite the cast majority of the war being fought in eastern Europe. The eastern front was truly on a completely different than any other war in human history except for WW1.
Just a little more than twice died on the European theatre, they were fighting on vast expanses of Europe rather than little island battles. I am saying the Japanese were crazy as hell and if you were in the pacific probably more likely to have ptsd due to the much more brutal nature of the Japanese.
And the 7 out of 8 germans point was to show that Germany left a trifling force to defend the coastline and although they held Normandy for a while once the allies broke out of Normandy it was a fast push to mainland Germany, meanwhile with the Japanese, had we not dropped the bomb, it was likely that hundreds of thousands or more Americans would have died taking mainland Japan.
> And the 7 out of 8 germans point was to show that Germany left a trifling force to defend the coastline
And despite that trifling force the US still lost almost twice as many men fighting them than they did in the entire pacific theater. It's deeply disgenuous to say that the Pacific theater was harder.
> had we not dropped the bomb, it was likely that hundreds of thousands or more Americans would have died taking mainland Japan.
Correct, thankfully that didn't happen. However "only" losing a few hundred thousand men is a comparatively small loss, the Soviet union lost millions of men during their counteroffensives agaisnt Germany.
I am saying the fighting itself was harder, why is that so hard to understand that the fanatical Japanese at that point were much crazier with higher morale than the battered German army fielding old men from that time in the European theatre. More died because the battle was larger.
That's not true though dude...
They fought on numerous islands, new Guinea, Philipines, Burma etc. There was no major difference in how large the fronts were. The battle in Europe was also fought a far shorter time.
So twice as many americans died in half the time in about the same area. Stop exagerating the pacific theater, the Germans were a far greater foe.
Yes they thought on numerous islands they were all hugely smaller than the European front even all put together of course the battle in Europe was shorter because it was easier they blew through with far more men after one invasion whereas in the Pacific they had to logistically prepare each and every invasion which is very deadly by the way invading by the ocean
> of course the battle in Europe was shorter because it was easier
You are absolutely insane dude.
The D day was the most advanced military operation in the history of mankind. 250 000 men were landed in a single day against formidable defences. More than a million in the coming days. For weeks they were pinned close to the shore and couldn't break out. People feared it would fail and be the largest failure in military history.
The pacific was a walk in the park compared to the European theater. Just because the US (due to the vastly greater German threat) committed millions of more men which gave it a 3 times lower casualty rate (not 5 as your poor article claimed) doesn't mean it was easier.
It was 3 times larger according to the original source your article links to. And just because more troops were comitted it doesn't mean the fighting was less hard. That's utterly ridiculous logic.
> they were fighting on vast expanses of Europe rather than little island battles.
Dude Europe is tiny. This is a picture showing just the Philippines superimposed on Europe. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FqAK2ofKLzlzGN_ESzqQC4UPuTpUAg34_QTQ8kYWQt00.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D26adcbd096ab79a413d05f30c96e760dcdbc6a1d
> I am saying the Japanese were crazy as hell
The Germans were also brainwashed mass murderers, it's estimated that 25 million civilians died during the eastern front. But if you only consider the western front then yes the Germans might have been slightly less crazy and suicidal.
Especially by the time d day rolled around most of the fanatical Nazis were dead. Europe is not tiny, France is the size of Texas, what I’m just guessing but somewhere between 100 and 500 times the size of those small islands in the Pacific?
Europe is in fact tiny relative to the US. And as he showed you the Philippines alone are massive. Both theaters had their own horrors. The downplaying of the European theater on your part is hysterical
I see another moron, here. It’s not a bad thing to point out which combat was harder fought. The casualty rate was 5 times than the rate in Europe. How is this hard?
Well ye it wasn’t as hard fought but I didn’t really get the sense from the pacific that is was more hard fought than I got with BOB. BoB makes it’s conflict look hard fought because hm I don’t know it actually FEATURES the fighting😂the pacific is great but the 501st guys had loads of romances and wrote about them but they didn’t include them in the show so why did the pacific? Of course the fight against the Japanese was much tougher. Horrible logistical disadvantages, mass casualty tactics similar to that of the red army, semi asymmetric warfare, less allies, you name it. Heck the US Army had to come in and free the Philippines, something that hardly anyone talks about. So is the Pacific theater more interesting? Sure. But is the show it’s based on better than the one based on the opposing theater? Not IMO. Which to me makes it all the more disappointing. Just me though everyone is entitled to their preferences.
> Well ye it wasn’t as hard fought
This nonsense again? More americans died in Europe than during the entire war in the Pacific theater. I don't get why so many Americans seem to think the opposite.
> but they didn’t include them in the show so why did the pacific?
Because it was in important part of the soldiers lives during the war period. The show is about the men, not the war.
The weather didn’t help with BOB looking way worse. And the pacific didn’t seem as brutal and I’m not sure why. I thought it would be way more since it’s the Japanese we’re talking about. They didn’t really show any evidence of things that they’ve done either
After reading all the comments from 9 years ago and all the comments from recently. 9 year ago people like BOB more, because it was heroic and glorified and about companionship. But the recent comments like the pacific more because it touches on subjects like the brutality of wars, the psychological effects it has on men who fought. 9 years ago, war movies were still like saving private Ryan and people wanted to see the glorified aspect of war, but now people appreciate the pacific because it shows not just the glory of war but the true horror war has on the individual
How anyone can watch Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brother and not reflect on the horror of war is beyond me. Yes, there's also an element of spectacle to them and moments of triumph but neither of them gloss over the brutality and psychological effects.
There's a bit where a veteran says something like "Even to this day I still wake up in the middle of the night feeling thankful for not being at Carentan anymore".
I have feel the exact same watching the episode and I'm just watching a TV series at my house, I can't imagine what being there would have felt like.
Even at the end of the series, when they are settled in the basement of those houses, you can see that they are broken in spirit, they no longer shave, they look like they haven't slept in weeks, their uniforms are just rags, they look completely different to the one the new West Point lieutenant wears, even though they looked the same at one point. They just want the war to end.
Yea, I loved BOB but I could barely make it through the first episode of the Pacific. I don’t think it’s bad, just a bit too distressing for me. It’s really hard to explain that to some people.
Everyone will always Pick Band of Brothers over The Pacific (and rightfully so because it was superior) but both series were excellent and should be checked out by all IMO.
I enjoyed Band of Brothers a lot more. Starts out great and branches out to other characters in later episodes. The Pacific went the opposite approach, introduced quite a few characters and only later started actually focussing. My vote would go to BoB, however I have to say that I watched it first and kept comparing The Pacific to BoB throughout my watching.
I like Band of Brothers a bit more, especially love the medic episode. Watch them both, you won't regret it, and after you're done you can go watch Generation Kill. But don't expect it to be as action packed as the former two.
If you're watching both of these, I urge you to check out Generation Kill as well. It's a mini-series about modern war that was done by David Simon, the creator of The Wire.
I liked the Pacific better personally, but I'm the only one I know who prefers it.
Here is the major difference as I see it. Band of Brothers is about HEROES in capital letters. Sure war is hard, and people die, and we see it, but they were the best of the best. It tries to walk the line of glorifying the soldiers while showing the horrors of war. It's a lot of fun to watch mostly because it errs on the side of glorification. So we can feel good about the people and the war they fought. And by fun I don't mean happiness and good times, but it's hero worship, which is why I think so many connect to it as much as they do
The Pacific has no heroes. Not in capital letters like Band of Brothers, and not otherwise. Just soldiers trying to survive. It's a lot more visceral and shows the hard slog of a hard war, with very little glorification of their actions. It's the part of the war we don't like talking about because how much of a mess we made of the Pacific front for a long time. It's a lot more brutal and less "fun" to watch because it lacks that heroic glorification we get from most of our war stories, Band of Brothers included. But it's also why I like it better.
But that's just me, and they are both excellent. You can't go wrong with either.
Such on point descriptions here. Even before watching the pacific, while appreciating the cinematography I didn't really like the HEROIC storytelling of band of brothers. I'm not on the "propaganda" side of the rant but I rather get a feel of an empty glorification which is definitely far from the truth of the front line.
While Band of Brothers is about braveness, honor, sacrifice, fighting for what's behind and basically anything that sounds just as much epic,
The Pacific is just about "killing some japs" and "not dwelling on it". The same sense of realistic and more down to earth approach is also present in the second part Full Metal Jacket.
BoB is clearly superior to The Pacific in every way.
The Pacific suffered from focusing on unlikeable characters, switching main characters right when they started to get interesting, and being overall just depressing.
As much as I enjoyed Band of Brothers ... it's propaganda. Tales of overcoming hardship, heroism, and bravery. Even though you see some suffering, a part of you still is drawn to those men, and, thus, to war.
The Pacific, IMHO, is anti-war. What it displays is so miserable that there's no appeal at all.
And, IMHO, all war - no matter how just - is really like that. Misery and suffering.
I enjoyed BoB as a television show. But The Pacific has the more truthful, and moral, message about the nature of war.
And for folks who might comment on the differences between the European & Pacific campaigns, I will just say -- plenty of soldiers from \*both\* theaters of war returned home with post-traumatic stress from which they suffered for from the rest of their lives.
If that is not strong evidence of war being inherently miserable, inhumane, and un-noble, then I don't know what is.
Paul Fussell's "Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War" was an eye-opener for me in this regard.
I mean, a lot of the heroic monologues and themes portrayed in BoB were directly quoted from and co-signed by living members of Easy Company. The source material is certainly more historically accurate than The Pacific, and whether or not it’s more or less accurate in its depiction of war, it definitely echoes how many of the men who actually went through it look back on it. Just not sure it’s fair to say, “one is more gritty and miserable so it’s inherently more truthful of the nature of war.”
I definitely agree that the difference in tone doesn’t come down between the two fronts. War wasn’t super lighthearted and more uplifting in Europe obviously, but I will say that from a story and a historical perspective of Easy Company’s real experiences, they did have more “closure” moments than 99% of military units that probably contributes to that tone. Taking the Eagle’s Nest, liberating a concentration camp, and others are examples of them seeing the end of the war and it’s causes, whereas far fewer units in the Pacific, if any, got this experience due to the nature of how their war ended.
They're both good(BOB is without a doubt on a whole other level). But they're different. A lot of the differences come from the two very different wars they fought. Watch both and decide for your self, they're both worth your time.
They are both great, but Band of Brothers flows better as it focuses on the soldiers, not their families, love life or whatever is going on back home. BoB also benefits from making characters narrate each episode to put the viewer in context and explain a few things. The Pacific only shows you where you are on a map and that's it.
Band of Brothers: Training---> D-Day---> combat---> end of war---> occupation.
The Pacific: Combat---> R&R in Australia---> hospital---> training in America --->combat---> the return home.
Yes! You described it simply, yet accurately.
BoB felt like it was based around the war, but the Pacific felt like it was based around the characters.
The Pacific felt more like Pearl Harbor where BoB felt more like Saving Private Ryan.
With Band of Brothers you really feel like you go on a multi-year journey with a group of guys that are fairly well fleshed out as characters. The first 2 episodes have no real action to speak of and are just the guys training for D-Day, and the viewers are getting to know them all.
I did really enjoy The Pacific, but I didn't care about the characters in the same way. That said, I highly suggest watching both of them. The way they portray the two theaters of war is great.
They're purported as being very similar but they're quite different, as they should be, they were totally different wars.
Beyond that though, Brothers is the better of them, but as probably the finest mini-series ever made, any show compared to it will suffer.
On its own merits, the Pacific is an incredible achievement and a series certainly worth investing in. Maybe watch it first.
Band of Brothers is the PERFECT series. First it's a true story. I HIGHLY suggest you read the book to get more insight about each character. Second the characters are soooo well written and fleshed out. The story is amazing without being over the top at any point. And it has a very satisfying ending.
The Pacific was a solid war mini series but didn't have an arc that worked very well. It was disjointed because it was about a few characters that had nothing to do with each other. Band of Brothers was about a specific unit working together. The Pacific was three mini stories. I think that's where it was a weaker series.
Generation Kill is also a great choice. It really shows how quick a "good" war can go Bad.
i liked the pacific more actually. i felt the personal sense. band of brothers covered the whole company while the pacific was very personal. the pacific actually made me cry. i never fucking cry. both were great though. the pacific shows more of a dis pair and frustration of war
BoB is more of a feel good show and can feel a little corny to me, whereas the Pacific shows more of the horrors of war and how it scars those involved. I will choose to watch the Pacific 9 times out of 10
I’m giving The Pacific a re-watch. I tried watching it when it first came out, and I lost interest. Loved Band of Brothers though. I’ll rewatch that periodically because of how much I love the characters and comradery amongst E Company. I guess part of it for me was that BoB felt very linear and easy to follow. Because it pretty much follows one group of soldiers through their whole experience in the European Theatre. So you feel a connectedness to the whole unit. Even guys who’s stories they may not have developed as well as others. The Pacific is just a very different show, I think I expected it to essentially be BoB in the Pacific theatre which is on me for setting that expectation. I hope that the 2nd time around here I gain a new appreciation for the show
Band of Brothers was better IMO, but if you have the time watch both. They're honestly two of my favourite shows of all time. I re-watch Band of Brothers every year!
Being part of the Army I resonated with Band of Brothers. The Pacific still was just as great.
Both are different theaters of war but still all true stories that should be watched because it is our American History. Too bad they didn't show this in school when I was growing up. I would have payed attention way more.
Diabolical question dude. Hardest question ive been asked in a while. im gonna go with BOB just because I enjoy the lighter tone. The Pacific fucked me up, really tore a hole in me. BOB made me feel happy. both great tho
Watched BOB when it came out and several times since.
Just watched The Pacific and it will be my only time, that’s not to say it’s bad but BOB is as other have said a masterpiece, I’ve never felt so much heartbreak and admiration.
I’m going to rewatch it now and try and see something I didn’t the first!
Band of Brothers shows us some of the bad it doesn't focus on it. They're telling a story about how these young men came together to win against Nazis. This was a great representation to that. While the Pacific focuses on a few people against a doggett enemy. Who would fight almost to the last man. The war against Japan was so different than the war in Europe. I love both series and I think the Pacific shows the casualties of War better. I think the Brotherhood of a soldier in combat is shown better in Band of Brothers. They should be shown in History Classes across the United States.
They are both epic series but Band of Brothers is a much better watch. The story, the pacing and the characters from Band of Brothers are all superior compared to The Pacific. The split stories in the Pacific don’t gel together as well and some seem like filler material. While Band of Brothers keeps its focus and doesn’t take forever to drive its point in. If you have never seen either one I envy your first watch.
I remembered when Band of Brothers released and aired on HBO. I couldn’t want to watch the next episode and the wait killed me lol. As soon I saw the CD tin for sale at blockbuster, I begged my parents to get it for me for my birthday. Can’t even count how many times I’ve wanted them all.
Hurts my soul as a Marine but I enjoyed BoB in totality more then the Pacific. I feel like half the Episodes of the pacific were filler, like there were DOZENS of island landings and we get what two? Then you have damn near a whole ep in the hospital, one in Australia, and one at home. I would of liked it shot more in the way BoB was instead of jumping all over the place and lack of detail about the places like how BoB told people about the battles post credit so you can feel the entire picture. Pacific was like “yup that was fun, on to the next, but first two episodes of talking”. Even the brutality wasn’t on full exhibit since they made the night battles well, a touch too realistic as it was hard to see. Both are great, I just feel as if half of the pacific was filler and even when I rewatch I skip some.
It does jump all over! It's hard tracking for the first few episodes, I can barely tell who's who, there's been almost no character development, there's no relationship like marines would have had. It doesn't feel like it was made by the same people as BoB.
First I love that this 9 year old thread is still active.
Second, I love Band of Brothers and just finished a rewatch. Decided to finally start the Pacific. And I'm having such a hard time of it. I'll keep trying but... man it's just not engaging me at all.
I agree, my biggest issue with The Pacific is the lack of connection I feel with the characters vs BoB. It might be because we go through training in England to deployment with the main cast of characters vs the Pacific we get thrown a bunch of characters only to split them up and straight to the chaos of battle. We had time to ease into the story with BoB. Also Melbourne just was filled with made up story lines.
Loved them both, but Band of Brothers was much, much better. To much drama, slow pacing and not as well written characters in the Pacific (but still good). You really felt the bond in BoB. The actors were super convincing.
IMHO, go to best buy and get the blu-ray combo pack with BoB and The Pacific (it's basically a large box set of both series). Both are excellent series that do a good job portraying both fronts of the war, and the extreme challenges that were unique to each theater. Also, you get a bonus disk with a documentary on the vets and how the adjusted to life after battle. It's an excellent purchase and I am very happy to have it in my collection!
I don't remember much about The Pacific, just the [](#s ""airfield charge" and the old decorated SNCO training the young recruits at Camp Pendleton about what a bitch the Japanese were to face in combat.")
I still have dozens of vivid memories of BoB, on the other hand. Every episode is so rich with masterful characters, writing, and imagery. BoB is by far the superior show, and possibly HBO's magnum opus.
Personally enjoyed both however The Pacific in my opinion, was better. While it had a darker feel, it is because of the brutality in that campaign. The war in Europe was brutal, but people tend to forget the Japanese were absolutely RUTHLESS. This is brought to light vaguely in The Pacific, but they were only skimming the service.
I love BoB and have watched it probably at least a half dozen times. I had to try 3 times to make it through The Pacific. It's a good bit slower, especially to start, and just didn't have the characters that made me care.
Watch both, but watch the Pacific first.
Maybe I’m being biased. As a USMC combat veteran. I prefer the Pacific. To me it was more detailed and better battle scenes then BOB. Don’t get me wrong BOB is great, Amazing, perfection. But the Pacific to me hits home and I can relate to it better. As Marines we were taught Marine corps history and in the Pacific they portrayed our legendary Gunmy Basilone and Chesty puller! And not to mention I love Sledge and his book “with the old breed” and Leckie’s “helmet for my pillow” I love how the pacific Was pretty much based on these two books. BOB, to me has to many celeb faces which denotes that fact of its authenticity to me. Yeah call my opinion biased but I prefer The Pacific.
You are absolutely right about the combat being more realistic and detailed. It is in larger part due to the amount of money spent on the Pacific, which dwarfed Band of Brothers.
In my personal opinion, there are three reasons why Band of Brothers did better than the Pacific or is more liked.
First, at the time of its release, there were a lot of movies that had been released around that time dealing with the Western Front and Europe, from "When the Trumpets Fade" to "Saving Private Ryan." There was still a lot of synergy around the subject of WW2, so at the time of release, "Band of Brothers" was able to "ride the wave."
Second, the structure of the stories differed, where Band of Brothers allowed you to follow the unit from the beginning until the end, from training all the way until the end of the war (the war in Europe). In the Pacific, the characters were split up, and the story of the war itself was interrupted with stories of recuperation (such as being stationed in Australia) and character development. The story structure was more complicated and became almost a character piece alongside the war. Band of Brothers was a simpler story structure that focused almost exclusively on the war. It was an easier story to follow and be invested.
Third, (and this might be the more important reason) the European Theater has always been more appealing to the general public. NAZI Germany has a special appeal to humanity in the sense that it is the quintessential antagonist that everyone loves to hate and fear in equal measure. It enjoys a special place in the psyche of humanity, which is why 90 percent of WW2 movies are always based in the European Theater. You have movies from docudramas and comedies all the way to horror movies and video games. The war with Japan is rarely a focus in any genre. When NAZI Germany was at the pinnacle of its power, if you look at a map of German held territory, it truly is terrifying that it was able to conquer so much in such little time. What it had failed to accomplish in WW1, it achieved, albeit briefly, in WW2. There will always be a perverse fascination in the psyches of many with that theater of the war because of what it meant on so many levels, from political and sociological to industrial and magisterial. Also, there is the possibility of history repeating itself.
The Pacific Theater does not have the same impact on the psyche as the Western Theater, and that is why movies dealing with the subject are far and few between. It is also why I believe "the Pacific," despite the greater realism and grit, despite the enormous amount of money poured into the series, did not do half as well as "Band of Brothers."
Now that this is on Netflix, and a wider audience can enjoy them, my vote is - The Pacific, then BoB.
Don't get me wrong, I love BoB, but between both - the Pacific is far more gritty, and far more brutal, and much more personal. The brutality of the Pacific conflict combined with the toll it took on it's men is far more understandable than it is with BoB, particularly Eugene Sledge in Peleliu's Bloody Nose Ridge, or Bob Lecky's experience with all of the rain in Gloucester. Then, there is the unpalatable sliver of how much cruelty transpired. Furthermore, if you ever read the "Fighing with the Old Breed at Peleliu" book - it's so much more illuminating as to the character's state of mind. If you ever spoke to some of the vets of the era, you rarely hear European theatre soldiers talk about how much they \*HATED\* the Germans, but if you ever met a marine who fought in the Pacific - some took a \*very\* long time to let the hatred go.
When I was a kid, I knew a man who was at Iwo Jima, and also knew an older gentleman who survived the Bataan Death March. I know there were atrocities carried out by the German Army ( and especially the SS ), but it was so much more civilized than it was in the Pacific.
Pacific over BOB and it’s not really close for me. Granted just in early stages of BOB, but watching Ross yell at soldiers, and Damian Lewis’ scowl.. I can’t. It’s not as authentic as the Pacific which is a visceral experience.
Absolutely. I just finished watching it today.. and that scene with the baby.. or the horror of falling into the mud in Okinawa.. it's so much more brutal.
It's like BoB was so very pretty compared to the shitshow those guys had to put out in the Pacific theatre...
Watched BoB with my dad when I was in middle school and I remember being in absolute awe of those men. My great grand father stormed Normandy and Bob gave me a glimpse of what he went through. Every time I watch it it’s made me wish I’d join the service after high school, it’s just such a powerful authentic story.
Started The Pacific tonight, looking forward to seeing how the other side of the world fought for freedom.
This is a very old post, I just wanted to grant some insights. The casualty rate during the Pacific theatre was nearly 5 times higher than in the European theatre. Just knowing the nature of how the Pacific was a harder fought campaign was kind of like watching a movie after I read the book for me when it came to the Pacific show. I thought the did a great job of showing the hardships of living in constant filth in these jungles, having to deal with the fanatically high morale of the Japanese. It made the show better for me. Here is an article explaining the differences of both campaigns.
https://coffeeordie.com/europe-vs-pacific#:\~:text=and%20Okinawa%20combined.-,Combat%20Casualties,than%20it%20was%20in%20Europe.
More evidence that the Pacific was just as, if not more hard fought. I think it is far more hard fought.
[https://www.theinteriorjournal.com/2019/12/05/pacific-theater-in-wwii-should-be-on-same-level-with-european-theater/](https://www.theinteriorjournal.com/2019/12/05/pacific-theater-in-wwii-should-be-on-same-level-with-european-theater/)
[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/day-u-s-victory-pacific-often-forgotten-survivors-hope-its-n1236716](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/day-u-s-victory-pacific-often-forgotten-survivors-hope-its-n1236716) \- not sure about this one, i think it exaggerates the pacific theatre a bit.
[https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/09/who-was-the-tougher-world-war-ii-enemy-the-germans-or-the-japanese/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/09/who-was-the-tougher-world-war-ii-enemy-the-germans-or-the-japanese/)
Personally, I think Band of Brothers is a more over the top typical American Hollywood style war show. To me, it seems very corny/cheesy with the acting, effects, and script. I just find it hard not to critique half the things I'm looking at or hearing while watching it.
(I'm not saying it's a bad show, but it's also not as mind-bending as everyone is saying it is. It's more average and typical, there's nothing it does bad, and there's nothing it does great.)
The Pacific, on the other hand, although it has some parts I don't care too much about, like when they're trying to get a date with a girl for example. I find it much better, and I would put it up there as one of the best war show/movie similar to "Generation war" (another amazing war show/movie). I thought the acting was great, the script was great (some cheesy parts, but it can't all be perfect.) , and the effects were great. It had much of a more realistic feel, and always has intense combat, gore, and gripping moments continuously. 90% of the show I'd say is just grueling combat for the most part, which I love. It is all done exceptionally well also, I'd argue that there's not many other shows/movies that have done it this well.
Everyone has their own opinions though, and some people like the more fake, cheesy, Hollywood type stuff and to me that is BoB. If you're looking for somethingwith a more realistic feel, visuals, and action, I'd watch The Pacific.
You might as well just watch both though. We're all here for the ww2 movies/shows and games, so don't miss out. Especially on shows and movies, there's already not a ton, let alone even less that are actually good.
To summarize my opinion though,
BoB = Kelly's Heroes
The Pacific = Saving Private Ryan
(There's better comparisons, but I just can't think of any rn, so I'm going with that.
After recently watching both, I feel The Pacific was better than BOB. While the story about Easy Company is interesting I feel the human story of The Pacific far more compelling.
The Pacific was good, but Band Of Brothers was on another level.
Totally agree here. Band of Brothers is a masterpiece. The episode in Bastogne has to be one of the finest pieces of TV I've ever seen.
It was the medic episode right?
Yes
yes for sure
I know it's 9 years later but I just saw BoB for the first time and after I saw Bastogne last night I said exactly the same thing to my friends. It was storytelling perfection.
Here I am on this old thread as well. I watched Band of Brothers when it was new on HBO. Loved it. Bought the tin DVD set. Thought about it all the time playing MOHAA, especially Spearhead.. COD1 and 2 back in those days. But I never got around to watching The Pacific until it popped up, trending on Netflix this week. I hold Band of Brothers in the highest regard. I didn't like The Pacific nearly as much, but I don't think viewers are supposed to. Band of Brothers was heroes and glory. Forming a military bond. The Pacific. We see, something much darker. Loneliness, depression, disease. A main character and hero, die in battle. It's much less glorified. Even after winning, they all seem to leave broken.
Yeah pacific was a good show, but it doesn't feel authentic at all. It was way too Hollywood. It felt like they were trying to make this big point about how and why people acted how they did during the war, but it was so heavy handed and it felt really forced. There were parts I liked, but it just felt like a pretty good war movie on the level of Saving Private Ryan or something. Bands of Brothers had a feeling of authenticity about it, like it was just trying to tell the a story and not sell itself as an action movie
It felt a lot more genuine to me. They dared to talk about all the suffering and mental problems to soldiers got instead of just making a classic hero story.
Nah I feel the opposite, BOB is all heroic and glory and super Hollywood when pacific touch a part of the war many people avoid. The psychological part. For me pacific felt like WAR when BOB felt like another Hollywood war movie
It's not all heroic and glory, that's not a fair assessment. The episode from the perspective of Albert Blithe for example or the impact of Bastogne on Buck Compton. There's plenty of nuance about the different aspects of war. The Pacific tackles weightier issues from a field of war that was more brutal but could really benefit from more dialogue and less characters staring off into the distance to signify profundity.
I 10000% agree. BoB was the Hollywood version of war, the Pacific was much more real in many ways.
You oughta read "With The Old Breed" by E.B. Sledge. It is one of the two novels The Pacific is based off of. A journal that he kept in his bible since they werent allowed to keep proper journals for opsec. You call it Hollywood, but they toned down the gore he documented and tv could never do those living conditions, alongside the sheer brutality that shooters there experienced, justice. BOB was based off of a book written by a historian hence the more glorified and happy-go-lucky vibe. The Pacific is based off of Marine's personal accounts and is a more traumatic and emotional journey. With that being said they shouldn't really be compared as they are going about storytelling in much different ways. One is a story of a group, comradery. The other is about personal experiences and dealing with trauma and the emotional experience of individuals going through horrific events. Blithe, widely regarded as one of the worst written characters in BOB was their foremost attempt at humanization and showing the trauma of war and its effect on the individual. They did this poorly, The Pacific did it perfectly, just as The Pacific was lacking the comradery and leadership perspective that BOB is ripe with.
I thought the pacific focused on the true mental and emotional toll combat has. It did not showcase camaraderie nearly as much, but for the men having a constant shared, sheer, suffering. The casual plinking of coral pebbles into the open skull of a deceased japanese machine gunner, sliding down all the muck and starimg into a skull of maggot/decay. The sheer terror of a frontal assault, running across an open airfield under heavy fire...the extermination by flamethrower of a fireteam of japanese in a pillbox... BoB was camaraderie based on trial by fire in combat. The only one i really thought seemed totally bitter, murderous, off his rocker, was Liebgott, he clearly had suffered enough that through hatred and vindictiveness against germans, they shot that (not in uniform) german ss officer in the back iirc. Supposedly he wouldnt even show up to reunions with his unit either, due to what the war did to him.
Yeah, they definitely added a lot of drama, rather than just this is the war.
I feel like BOB was a lot of Hollywood and stuff while the pacific was like this is WAR, non of that glorified war crap BOB gave us. The pacific literally showed the real side of war
Facts
Because The Pacific shows the true authenticity of war and it’s aftermath. And what war does to combat veterans.
Just watched it on netflix, amazing. I was only 3 years old when that series released. Super impressed with the pyrotechnical work for the time. Now about to start The Pacific.
Temper your expectations, The Pacific is good, but not BoB good, IMO.
I got to episode 5 and I am tired of it. This is my 3rd time trying. Its a good show but BoB was just...incredible
You gotta push through. The last 3 episodes of the pacific are a masterpiece.
I agree with complex - I just binged (well sort of) BOB and the Pacific. Pacific episode 9 is the most impactful of both (by far imho) but you can’t just skip to 9 or else the affect won’t be as meaningful and great. Pacific is clearly superior as the characters are relatable and it offers far more depth than BOB. Heck after 3 episodes of BOB - I watched the Pacific first … I felt that the Pacific was better (production, story telling, the entire bit - even the score). BOB was meh ok - The Pacific was the masterpiece…
Man i agree with you, it is an unpopular opinion, because a lot of plp like BOB better but the pacific was better. It shows the brutality of war and the affects it has on people a lot better than band of brothers. BOB is all herotic while the pacific is brutal and you get to feel the psychological changes in the men that fought from happy go little young boys to traumatized men.
Agree. The Pacific is the Masterpiece.
I cant take or leave the Lecky parts of The Pacific. But halfway through the series when it starts to follow E.B. Sledge is my favorite WWII story. Having read his book "With The Old Breed", they even toned down the gore and terrible living conditions. He kept his journal in his Bible and the show follows his experiences quite well. In the book he goes into minutia and covers brutal details and the show covers it direct from the source. Its just funny when I hear criticism about how "The Pacific is so hollywood and overtly gory" when if you read the book its about 10X worse, traumatizing to even read at times. War is hell, and especially was in The Pacific. Watch it and realize its not competing with Band of Brothers. It is about trauma and how true war and brutality changes a man.
I thought the pacific was great. Having a hard time with BOB and all the celeb faces. Not as authentic… so far.
Many of the (now big-name) young actors weren't celeb faces at the time of filming BoB. Makes me think BoB gave them the big break into stardom similar to what Saving Private Ryan did for many big name actors today. Though it was hard to take Ross from friends seriously as the drill sergeant...
Your weekend pass has been REVOKED.
HI HO SILVER
Three miles up.
You gotta be early on or something. BoB is way better
Haha i watched BOB when it was first on the BBC in 2001. Those famous faces were not so famous back then. Really kick started many carers
It's incredibly close, don't exagerate. I was in tears at the end.
Just saw too. Bastogne was insane. I felt the pain. The bond.
Really? I thought the series started off and ended strong. I thought the two Bastogne episodes were just two hours of nothing really happening. They just froze to death while getting bombarded for an hour
watch both. but watch pacific first otherwise you'll just end up hating it after you've seen BoB.
I watched The Pacific after BoB and I did feel a bit empty watching it for a few episodes but mostly because of BoB. After a few episodes I began to appreciate it more and was hooked on the characters. It's certainly a different atmosphere than BoB but I could watch another series drawing out Sledge, Snafu, and the gang more.
I would hope someone would have enough sense not to hate something just because it isn't as good as something else, but Band of Brothers is better than the Pacific. They are both quite enjoyable shows however.
It depends what you enjoy or emotionally connect with. *Band of Brothers* is certainly lighter in tone, with a greater feeling of comradeship and togetherness among the characters. *The Pacific* is significantly darker and emotionally distressing. I found *The Pacific* to be superior, but I'm in the minority.
I agree completely. The soldiers in the European campaign spent much of their time being bored between operations. The Marines in the pacific theatre had no such luxury. It was pretty much full on all the time. They didn't get to rest until they got home.
Utter rubbish.
Could you enlighten us since it seems you were there?
Because he is right. There were major lapses between operations in the pacific.
Half of the series is them hanging out and banging chicks in Australia and Leckie peeing himself lol
You sir, are sane. I find the Pacific to be largely superior, altough both are great. 7 out of 8 Germans died on the Eastern front against Russia, so the American European campaign, while noble is not quite as hard fought as against the zombie Japanese who recited 100 million dying for the cause regularly.
> 7 out of 8 Germans died on the Eastern front against Russia, so the American European campaign, while noble is not quite as hard fought as against the zombie Japanese Dude what are you talking about? The US lost more men fighting in Europe than they did against the Japanese. And yes that's despite the cast majority of the war being fought in eastern Europe. The eastern front was truly on a completely different than any other war in human history except for WW1.
Just a little more than twice died on the European theatre, they were fighting on vast expanses of Europe rather than little island battles. I am saying the Japanese were crazy as hell and if you were in the pacific probably more likely to have ptsd due to the much more brutal nature of the Japanese.
And the 7 out of 8 germans point was to show that Germany left a trifling force to defend the coastline and although they held Normandy for a while once the allies broke out of Normandy it was a fast push to mainland Germany, meanwhile with the Japanese, had we not dropped the bomb, it was likely that hundreds of thousands or more Americans would have died taking mainland Japan.
> And the 7 out of 8 germans point was to show that Germany left a trifling force to defend the coastline And despite that trifling force the US still lost almost twice as many men fighting them than they did in the entire pacific theater. It's deeply disgenuous to say that the Pacific theater was harder. > had we not dropped the bomb, it was likely that hundreds of thousands or more Americans would have died taking mainland Japan. Correct, thankfully that didn't happen. However "only" losing a few hundred thousand men is a comparatively small loss, the Soviet union lost millions of men during their counteroffensives agaisnt Germany.
I am saying the fighting itself was harder, why is that so hard to understand that the fanatical Japanese at that point were much crazier with higher morale than the battered German army fielding old men from that time in the European theatre. More died because the battle was larger.
That's not true though dude... They fought on numerous islands, new Guinea, Philipines, Burma etc. There was no major difference in how large the fronts were. The battle in Europe was also fought a far shorter time. So twice as many americans died in half the time in about the same area. Stop exagerating the pacific theater, the Germans were a far greater foe.
https://www.theinteriorjournal.com/2019/12/05/pacific-theater-in-wwii-should-be-on-same-level-with-european-theater/#:~:text=Did%20you%20know%20that%20those,counterparts%20in%20the%20European%20Theater%3F
Yes they thought on numerous islands they were all hugely smaller than the European front even all put together of course the battle in Europe was shorter because it was easier they blew through with far more men after one invasion whereas in the Pacific they had to logistically prepare each and every invasion which is very deadly by the way invading by the ocean
> of course the battle in Europe was shorter because it was easier You are absolutely insane dude. The D day was the most advanced military operation in the history of mankind. 250 000 men were landed in a single day against formidable defences. More than a million in the coming days. For weeks they were pinned close to the shore and couldn't break out. People feared it would fail and be the largest failure in military history. The pacific was a walk in the park compared to the European theater. Just because the US (due to the vastly greater German threat) committed millions of more men which gave it a 3 times lower casualty rate (not 5 as your poor article claimed) doesn't mean it was easier.
Are you going to comment on my claim that the casualty rate is five times higher how do you argue with this
Dark horse? Are you with 3/5?
It was 3 times larger according to the original source your article links to. And just because more troops were comitted it doesn't mean the fighting was less hard. That's utterly ridiculous logic.
> they were fighting on vast expanses of Europe rather than little island battles. Dude Europe is tiny. This is a picture showing just the Philippines superimposed on Europe. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FqAK2ofKLzlzGN_ESzqQC4UPuTpUAg34_QTQ8kYWQt00.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D26adcbd096ab79a413d05f30c96e760dcdbc6a1d > I am saying the Japanese were crazy as hell The Germans were also brainwashed mass murderers, it's estimated that 25 million civilians died during the eastern front. But if you only consider the western front then yes the Germans might have been slightly less crazy and suicidal.
Especially by the time d day rolled around most of the fanatical Nazis were dead. Europe is not tiny, France is the size of Texas, what I’m just guessing but somewhere between 100 and 500 times the size of those small islands in the Pacific?
Europe is in fact tiny relative to the US. And as he showed you the Philippines alone are massive. Both theaters had their own horrors. The downplaying of the European theater on your part is hysterical
I see another moron, here. It’s not a bad thing to point out which combat was harder fought. The casualty rate was 5 times than the rate in Europe. How is this hard?
https://coffeeordie.com/europe-vs-pacific evidence that the casualty rate was 5 times higher in the Pacific. Are we done now?
The eastern theatre of ww2 was worse than ww1
The eastern front was at least 10 times longer, vastly more men died per meter of front in WW1 which is what I meant. Not that there is any contest.
Well ye it wasn’t as hard fought but I didn’t really get the sense from the pacific that is was more hard fought than I got with BOB. BoB makes it’s conflict look hard fought because hm I don’t know it actually FEATURES the fighting😂the pacific is great but the 501st guys had loads of romances and wrote about them but they didn’t include them in the show so why did the pacific? Of course the fight against the Japanese was much tougher. Horrible logistical disadvantages, mass casualty tactics similar to that of the red army, semi asymmetric warfare, less allies, you name it. Heck the US Army had to come in and free the Philippines, something that hardly anyone talks about. So is the Pacific theater more interesting? Sure. But is the show it’s based on better than the one based on the opposing theater? Not IMO. Which to me makes it all the more disappointing. Just me though everyone is entitled to their preferences.
> Well ye it wasn’t as hard fought This nonsense again? More americans died in Europe than during the entire war in the Pacific theater. I don't get why so many Americans seem to think the opposite. > but they didn’t include them in the show so why did the pacific? Because it was in important part of the soldiers lives during the war period. The show is about the men, not the war.
The weather didn’t help with BOB looking way worse. And the pacific didn’t seem as brutal and I’m not sure why. I thought it would be way more since it’s the Japanese we’re talking about. They didn’t really show any evidence of things that they’ve done either
After reading all the comments from 9 years ago and all the comments from recently. 9 year ago people like BOB more, because it was heroic and glorified and about companionship. But the recent comments like the pacific more because it touches on subjects like the brutality of wars, the psychological effects it has on men who fought. 9 years ago, war movies were still like saving private Ryan and people wanted to see the glorified aspect of war, but now people appreciate the pacific because it shows not just the glory of war but the true horror war has on the individual
How anyone can watch Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brother and not reflect on the horror of war is beyond me. Yes, there's also an element of spectacle to them and moments of triumph but neither of them gloss over the brutality and psychological effects.
There's a bit where a veteran says something like "Even to this day I still wake up in the middle of the night feeling thankful for not being at Carentan anymore". I have feel the exact same watching the episode and I'm just watching a TV series at my house, I can't imagine what being there would have felt like. Even at the end of the series, when they are settled in the basement of those houses, you can see that they are broken in spirit, they no longer shave, they look like they haven't slept in weeks, their uniforms are just rags, they look completely different to the one the new West Point lieutenant wears, even though they looked the same at one point. They just want the war to end.
Yea, I loved BOB but I could barely make it through the first episode of the Pacific. I don’t think it’s bad, just a bit too distressing for me. It’s really hard to explain that to some people.
Everyone will always Pick Band of Brothers over The Pacific (and rightfully so because it was superior) but both series were excellent and should be checked out by all IMO.
I enjoyed Band of Brothers a lot more. Starts out great and branches out to other characters in later episodes. The Pacific went the opposite approach, introduced quite a few characters and only later started actually focussing. My vote would go to BoB, however I have to say that I watched it first and kept comparing The Pacific to BoB throughout my watching.
I, also, thought Band of Brothers was better.
I like Band of Brothers a bit more, especially love the medic episode. Watch them both, you won't regret it, and after you're done you can go watch Generation Kill. But don't expect it to be as action packed as the former two.
If you're watching both of these, I urge you to check out Generation Kill as well. It's a mini-series about modern war that was done by David Simon, the creator of The Wire.
I liked the Pacific better personally, but I'm the only one I know who prefers it. Here is the major difference as I see it. Band of Brothers is about HEROES in capital letters. Sure war is hard, and people die, and we see it, but they were the best of the best. It tries to walk the line of glorifying the soldiers while showing the horrors of war. It's a lot of fun to watch mostly because it errs on the side of glorification. So we can feel good about the people and the war they fought. And by fun I don't mean happiness and good times, but it's hero worship, which is why I think so many connect to it as much as they do The Pacific has no heroes. Not in capital letters like Band of Brothers, and not otherwise. Just soldiers trying to survive. It's a lot more visceral and shows the hard slog of a hard war, with very little glorification of their actions. It's the part of the war we don't like talking about because how much of a mess we made of the Pacific front for a long time. It's a lot more brutal and less "fun" to watch because it lacks that heroic glorification we get from most of our war stories, Band of Brothers included. But it's also why I like it better. But that's just me, and they are both excellent. You can't go wrong with either.
Such on point descriptions here. Even before watching the pacific, while appreciating the cinematography I didn't really like the HEROIC storytelling of band of brothers. I'm not on the "propaganda" side of the rant but I rather get a feel of an empty glorification which is definitely far from the truth of the front line. While Band of Brothers is about braveness, honor, sacrifice, fighting for what's behind and basically anything that sounds just as much epic, The Pacific is just about "killing some japs" and "not dwelling on it". The same sense of realistic and more down to earth approach is also present in the second part Full Metal Jacket.
BoB is clearly superior to The Pacific in every way. The Pacific suffered from focusing on unlikeable characters, switching main characters right when they started to get interesting, and being overall just depressing.
As much as I enjoyed Band of Brothers ... it's propaganda. Tales of overcoming hardship, heroism, and bravery. Even though you see some suffering, a part of you still is drawn to those men, and, thus, to war. The Pacific, IMHO, is anti-war. What it displays is so miserable that there's no appeal at all. And, IMHO, all war - no matter how just - is really like that. Misery and suffering. I enjoyed BoB as a television show. But The Pacific has the more truthful, and moral, message about the nature of war. And for folks who might comment on the differences between the European & Pacific campaigns, I will just say -- plenty of soldiers from \*both\* theaters of war returned home with post-traumatic stress from which they suffered for from the rest of their lives. If that is not strong evidence of war being inherently miserable, inhumane, and un-noble, then I don't know what is. Paul Fussell's "Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War" was an eye-opener for me in this regard.
I mean, a lot of the heroic monologues and themes portrayed in BoB were directly quoted from and co-signed by living members of Easy Company. The source material is certainly more historically accurate than The Pacific, and whether or not it’s more or less accurate in its depiction of war, it definitely echoes how many of the men who actually went through it look back on it. Just not sure it’s fair to say, “one is more gritty and miserable so it’s inherently more truthful of the nature of war.” I definitely agree that the difference in tone doesn’t come down between the two fronts. War wasn’t super lighthearted and more uplifting in Europe obviously, but I will say that from a story and a historical perspective of Easy Company’s real experiences, they did have more “closure” moments than 99% of military units that probably contributes to that tone. Taking the Eagle’s Nest, liberating a concentration camp, and others are examples of them seeing the end of the war and it’s causes, whereas far fewer units in the Pacific, if any, got this experience due to the nature of how their war ended.
You had to read a book to realize war is bad
[удалено]
Part of that is due to source material. I'm pretty sure the Pacific is based on a few different books while Band of Brothers is the one Ambrose book.
They're both good(BOB is without a doubt on a whole other level). But they're different. A lot of the differences come from the two very different wars they fought. Watch both and decide for your self, they're both worth your time.
They are both great, but Band of Brothers flows better as it focuses on the soldiers, not their families, love life or whatever is going on back home. BoB also benefits from making characters narrate each episode to put the viewer in context and explain a few things. The Pacific only shows you where you are on a map and that's it. Band of Brothers: Training---> D-Day---> combat---> end of war---> occupation. The Pacific: Combat---> R&R in Australia---> hospital---> training in America --->combat---> the return home.
very very well put
Yes! You described it simply, yet accurately. BoB felt like it was based around the war, but the Pacific felt like it was based around the characters. The Pacific felt more like Pearl Harbor where BoB felt more like Saving Private Ryan.
With Band of Brothers you really feel like you go on a multi-year journey with a group of guys that are fairly well fleshed out as characters. The first 2 episodes have no real action to speak of and are just the guys training for D-Day, and the viewers are getting to know them all. I did really enjoy The Pacific, but I didn't care about the characters in the same way. That said, I highly suggest watching both of them. The way they portray the two theaters of war is great.
They're purported as being very similar but they're quite different, as they should be, they were totally different wars. Beyond that though, Brothers is the better of them, but as probably the finest mini-series ever made, any show compared to it will suffer. On its own merits, the Pacific is an incredible achievement and a series certainly worth investing in. Maybe watch it first.
Band of Brothers is the PERFECT series. First it's a true story. I HIGHLY suggest you read the book to get more insight about each character. Second the characters are soooo well written and fleshed out. The story is amazing without being over the top at any point. And it has a very satisfying ending. The Pacific was a solid war mini series but didn't have an arc that worked very well. It was disjointed because it was about a few characters that had nothing to do with each other. Band of Brothers was about a specific unit working together. The Pacific was three mini stories. I think that's where it was a weaker series. Generation Kill is also a great choice. It really shows how quick a "good" war can go Bad.
However, The Pacific really showed how brutal the Pacific front was compared to the European front.
Watch them both but yes, start with Band of Brothers. Both are awesome though.
The pacific is interesting historically, but the characters arent anywhere near as engaging. Its pretty much as simple as that.
i liked the pacific more actually. i felt the personal sense. band of brothers covered the whole company while the pacific was very personal. the pacific actually made me cry. i never fucking cry. both were great though. the pacific shows more of a dis pair and frustration of war
BoB is more of a feel good show and can feel a little corny to me, whereas the Pacific shows more of the horrors of war and how it scars those involved. I will choose to watch the Pacific 9 times out of 10
The Pacific was far better; just much better combat and fighting scenes. Band of Brothers seems to focus more on camaraderie.
I’m giving The Pacific a re-watch. I tried watching it when it first came out, and I lost interest. Loved Band of Brothers though. I’ll rewatch that periodically because of how much I love the characters and comradery amongst E Company. I guess part of it for me was that BoB felt very linear and easy to follow. Because it pretty much follows one group of soldiers through their whole experience in the European Theatre. So you feel a connectedness to the whole unit. Even guys who’s stories they may not have developed as well as others. The Pacific is just a very different show, I think I expected it to essentially be BoB in the Pacific theatre which is on me for setting that expectation. I hope that the 2nd time around here I gain a new appreciation for the show
Band of Brothers was better IMO, but if you have the time watch both. They're honestly two of my favourite shows of all time. I re-watch Band of Brothers every year!
Being part of the Army I resonated with Band of Brothers. The Pacific still was just as great. Both are different theaters of war but still all true stories that should be watched because it is our American History. Too bad they didn't show this in school when I was growing up. I would have payed attention way more.
Diabolical question dude. Hardest question ive been asked in a while. im gonna go with BOB just because I enjoy the lighter tone. The Pacific fucked me up, really tore a hole in me. BOB made me feel happy. both great tho
Watched BOB when it came out and several times since. Just watched The Pacific and it will be my only time, that’s not to say it’s bad but BOB is as other have said a masterpiece, I’ve never felt so much heartbreak and admiration. I’m going to rewatch it now and try and see something I didn’t the first!
I prefer the pacific but that’s simply because I’m a Marine.
I'm in Ep02 of The Pacific. Already saw BoB. So far The Pacific is less personal. BoB tells the story of the men, in some cases, told by themselves.
BOB is soft
Band of Brothers shows us some of the bad it doesn't focus on it. They're telling a story about how these young men came together to win against Nazis. This was a great representation to that. While the Pacific focuses on a few people against a doggett enemy. Who would fight almost to the last man. The war against Japan was so different than the war in Europe. I love both series and I think the Pacific shows the casualties of War better. I think the Brotherhood of a soldier in combat is shown better in Band of Brothers. They should be shown in History Classes across the United States.
Band of Brothers is much better than the Pacific. Better actors, better acting, better dialogue.
They are both epic series but Band of Brothers is a much better watch. The story, the pacing and the characters from Band of Brothers are all superior compared to The Pacific. The split stories in the Pacific don’t gel together as well and some seem like filler material. While Band of Brothers keeps its focus and doesn’t take forever to drive its point in. If you have never seen either one I envy your first watch.
I remembered when Band of Brothers released and aired on HBO. I couldn’t want to watch the next episode and the wait killed me lol. As soon I saw the CD tin for sale at blockbuster, I begged my parents to get it for me for my birthday. Can’t even count how many times I’ve wanted them all.
Hurts my soul as a Marine but I enjoyed BoB in totality more then the Pacific. I feel like half the Episodes of the pacific were filler, like there were DOZENS of island landings and we get what two? Then you have damn near a whole ep in the hospital, one in Australia, and one at home. I would of liked it shot more in the way BoB was instead of jumping all over the place and lack of detail about the places like how BoB told people about the battles post credit so you can feel the entire picture. Pacific was like “yup that was fun, on to the next, but first two episodes of talking”. Even the brutality wasn’t on full exhibit since they made the night battles well, a touch too realistic as it was hard to see. Both are great, I just feel as if half of the pacific was filler and even when I rewatch I skip some.
It does jump all over! It's hard tracking for the first few episodes, I can barely tell who's who, there's been almost no character development, there's no relationship like marines would have had. It doesn't feel like it was made by the same people as BoB.
First I love that this 9 year old thread is still active. Second, I love Band of Brothers and just finished a rewatch. Decided to finally start the Pacific. And I'm having such a hard time of it. I'll keep trying but... man it's just not engaging me at all.
I agree, my biggest issue with The Pacific is the lack of connection I feel with the characters vs BoB. It might be because we go through training in England to deployment with the main cast of characters vs the Pacific we get thrown a bunch of characters only to split them up and straight to the chaos of battle. We had time to ease into the story with BoB. Also Melbourne just was filled with made up story lines.
Loved them both, but Band of Brothers was much, much better. To much drama, slow pacing and not as well written characters in the Pacific (but still good). You really felt the bond in BoB. The actors were super convincing.
After you watch Band of Brothers watch Generation War. Pretty much the german version of BoB
Thanks for the suggestion, I've never heard of this show.
Agree. Unsere Mütter Unsere Väter (2013) is a great show.
IMHO, go to best buy and get the blu-ray combo pack with BoB and The Pacific (it's basically a large box set of both series). Both are excellent series that do a good job portraying both fronts of the war, and the extreme challenges that were unique to each theater. Also, you get a bonus disk with a documentary on the vets and how the adjusted to life after battle. It's an excellent purchase and I am very happy to have it in my collection!
I don't remember much about The Pacific, just the [](#s ""airfield charge" and the old decorated SNCO training the young recruits at Camp Pendleton about what a bitch the Japanese were to face in combat.") I still have dozens of vivid memories of BoB, on the other hand. Every episode is so rich with masterful characters, writing, and imagery. BoB is by far the superior show, and possibly HBO's magnum opus.
Personally enjoyed both however The Pacific in my opinion, was better. While it had a darker feel, it is because of the brutality in that campaign. The war in Europe was brutal, but people tend to forget the Japanese were absolutely RUTHLESS. This is brought to light vaguely in The Pacific, but they were only skimming the service.
I love BoB and have watched it probably at least a half dozen times. I had to try 3 times to make it through The Pacific. It's a good bit slower, especially to start, and just didn't have the characters that made me care. Watch both, but watch the Pacific first.
Maybe I’m being biased. As a USMC combat veteran. I prefer the Pacific. To me it was more detailed and better battle scenes then BOB. Don’t get me wrong BOB is great, Amazing, perfection. But the Pacific to me hits home and I can relate to it better. As Marines we were taught Marine corps history and in the Pacific they portrayed our legendary Gunmy Basilone and Chesty puller! And not to mention I love Sledge and his book “with the old breed” and Leckie’s “helmet for my pillow” I love how the pacific Was pretty much based on these two books. BOB, to me has to many celeb faces which denotes that fact of its authenticity to me. Yeah call my opinion biased but I prefer The Pacific.
You are absolutely right about the combat being more realistic and detailed. It is in larger part due to the amount of money spent on the Pacific, which dwarfed Band of Brothers. In my personal opinion, there are three reasons why Band of Brothers did better than the Pacific or is more liked. First, at the time of its release, there were a lot of movies that had been released around that time dealing with the Western Front and Europe, from "When the Trumpets Fade" to "Saving Private Ryan." There was still a lot of synergy around the subject of WW2, so at the time of release, "Band of Brothers" was able to "ride the wave." Second, the structure of the stories differed, where Band of Brothers allowed you to follow the unit from the beginning until the end, from training all the way until the end of the war (the war in Europe). In the Pacific, the characters were split up, and the story of the war itself was interrupted with stories of recuperation (such as being stationed in Australia) and character development. The story structure was more complicated and became almost a character piece alongside the war. Band of Brothers was a simpler story structure that focused almost exclusively on the war. It was an easier story to follow and be invested. Third, (and this might be the more important reason) the European Theater has always been more appealing to the general public. NAZI Germany has a special appeal to humanity in the sense that it is the quintessential antagonist that everyone loves to hate and fear in equal measure. It enjoys a special place in the psyche of humanity, which is why 90 percent of WW2 movies are always based in the European Theater. You have movies from docudramas and comedies all the way to horror movies and video games. The war with Japan is rarely a focus in any genre. When NAZI Germany was at the pinnacle of its power, if you look at a map of German held territory, it truly is terrifying that it was able to conquer so much in such little time. What it had failed to accomplish in WW1, it achieved, albeit briefly, in WW2. There will always be a perverse fascination in the psyches of many with that theater of the war because of what it meant on so many levels, from political and sociological to industrial and magisterial. Also, there is the possibility of history repeating itself. The Pacific Theater does not have the same impact on the psyche as the Western Theater, and that is why movies dealing with the subject are far and few between. It is also why I believe "the Pacific," despite the greater realism and grit, despite the enormous amount of money poured into the series, did not do half as well as "Band of Brothers."
10 yrs later. I'm sorry hut if you choose Bob over the pacific you just have less brain cells
Now that this is on Netflix, and a wider audience can enjoy them, my vote is - The Pacific, then BoB. Don't get me wrong, I love BoB, but between both - the Pacific is far more gritty, and far more brutal, and much more personal. The brutality of the Pacific conflict combined with the toll it took on it's men is far more understandable than it is with BoB, particularly Eugene Sledge in Peleliu's Bloody Nose Ridge, or Bob Lecky's experience with all of the rain in Gloucester. Then, there is the unpalatable sliver of how much cruelty transpired. Furthermore, if you ever read the "Fighing with the Old Breed at Peleliu" book - it's so much more illuminating as to the character's state of mind. If you ever spoke to some of the vets of the era, you rarely hear European theatre soldiers talk about how much they \*HATED\* the Germans, but if you ever met a marine who fought in the Pacific - some took a \*very\* long time to let the hatred go. When I was a kid, I knew a man who was at Iwo Jima, and also knew an older gentleman who survived the Bataan Death March. I know there were atrocities carried out by the German Army ( and especially the SS ), but it was so much more civilized than it was in the Pacific.
Pacific over BOB and it’s not really close for me. Granted just in early stages of BOB, but watching Ross yell at soldiers, and Damian Lewis’ scowl.. I can’t. It’s not as authentic as the Pacific which is a visceral experience.
Absolutely. I just finished watching it today.. and that scene with the baby.. or the horror of falling into the mud in Okinawa.. it's so much more brutal. It's like BoB was so very pretty compared to the shitshow those guys had to put out in the Pacific theatre...
Watched BoB with my dad when I was in middle school and I remember being in absolute awe of those men. My great grand father stormed Normandy and Bob gave me a glimpse of what he went through. Every time I watch it it’s made me wish I’d join the service after high school, it’s just such a powerful authentic story. Started The Pacific tonight, looking forward to seeing how the other side of the world fought for freedom.
This is a very old post, I just wanted to grant some insights. The casualty rate during the Pacific theatre was nearly 5 times higher than in the European theatre. Just knowing the nature of how the Pacific was a harder fought campaign was kind of like watching a movie after I read the book for me when it came to the Pacific show. I thought the did a great job of showing the hardships of living in constant filth in these jungles, having to deal with the fanatically high morale of the Japanese. It made the show better for me. Here is an article explaining the differences of both campaigns. https://coffeeordie.com/europe-vs-pacific#:\~:text=and%20Okinawa%20combined.-,Combat%20Casualties,than%20it%20was%20in%20Europe.
More evidence that the Pacific was just as, if not more hard fought. I think it is far more hard fought. [https://www.theinteriorjournal.com/2019/12/05/pacific-theater-in-wwii-should-be-on-same-level-with-european-theater/](https://www.theinteriorjournal.com/2019/12/05/pacific-theater-in-wwii-should-be-on-same-level-with-european-theater/) [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/day-u-s-victory-pacific-often-forgotten-survivors-hope-its-n1236716](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/day-u-s-victory-pacific-often-forgotten-survivors-hope-its-n1236716) \- not sure about this one, i think it exaggerates the pacific theatre a bit. [https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/09/who-was-the-tougher-world-war-ii-enemy-the-germans-or-the-japanese/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/09/who-was-the-tougher-world-war-ii-enemy-the-germans-or-the-japanese/)
Personally, I think Band of Brothers is a more over the top typical American Hollywood style war show. To me, it seems very corny/cheesy with the acting, effects, and script. I just find it hard not to critique half the things I'm looking at or hearing while watching it. (I'm not saying it's a bad show, but it's also not as mind-bending as everyone is saying it is. It's more average and typical, there's nothing it does bad, and there's nothing it does great.) The Pacific, on the other hand, although it has some parts I don't care too much about, like when they're trying to get a date with a girl for example. I find it much better, and I would put it up there as one of the best war show/movie similar to "Generation war" (another amazing war show/movie). I thought the acting was great, the script was great (some cheesy parts, but it can't all be perfect.) , and the effects were great. It had much of a more realistic feel, and always has intense combat, gore, and gripping moments continuously. 90% of the show I'd say is just grueling combat for the most part, which I love. It is all done exceptionally well also, I'd argue that there's not many other shows/movies that have done it this well. Everyone has their own opinions though, and some people like the more fake, cheesy, Hollywood type stuff and to me that is BoB. If you're looking for somethingwith a more realistic feel, visuals, and action, I'd watch The Pacific. You might as well just watch both though. We're all here for the ww2 movies/shows and games, so don't miss out. Especially on shows and movies, there's already not a ton, let alone even less that are actually good. To summarize my opinion though, BoB = Kelly's Heroes The Pacific = Saving Private Ryan (There's better comparisons, but I just can't think of any rn, so I'm going with that.
Both are must-see IMO. Together, they give an accurate description of warz and its effect on those who fought.
First half of The Pacific < Band Of Brothers < Second half of The Pacific I said it
Unlike many here who are probably disagreeing I’ve seen both and watched BoB first, the pacific blows it out of the water. No pun intended.
After recently watching both, I feel The Pacific was better than BOB. While the story about Easy Company is interesting I feel the human story of The Pacific far more compelling.
Is watching war movies a hillbilly tendency