The First and Only

In 2001, HBO released Band of Brothers as a ten-part television World War II miniseries. It was all based on the book written by historian/biographer Stephen Ambrose. The executive producers were Steven Spielbergand Tom Hanks. Previously, both of these producers had collaborated on the World War II film Saving Private Ryan (1998). In my opinion, Band of Brothers was much more than just an extended Saving Private Ryan. It was continuation of a cinematographic legacy and a rebirth of historical appreciation. So, really to make a long ramble short, it was amazing; best war-drama I've ever seen in any medium/format.

Now in 2010, probably due to it's massively epic success in 2001 and the following years, HBO decided to create a sequel miniseries focusing on the United States Marine Corps' actions in the Pacific Theater of Operations within the wider Pacific War. The Pacific primarily follows three Marines (Eugene Sledge,Robert Leckie and John Basilone) in separate combat actions. These three characters have a remarkable story, and as displayed throughout this series, have seen things both similar yet completely unique to the originally bigraphical Band of Brothers. So the real question is: Why was it so bad?

Ok, so actually I do admit it wasn't bad at all. In fact, I believe that is the very problem--It was good, not great. And therefore it was terrible. Am I making any sense? Ok let's back up.

So Band of Brothers was an epic masterpiece, and inevitably the gold standard. So what was so different about The Pacific that kept it from measuring up to that gold standard? In theory, The Pacific was suppose to be at the very least, up to par with Band of Brothers. To answer this question, I must first dispute the most popular reasoning: It was not based off a Steven Ambrose book. I admit that this was a contributing factor but I honestly feel that it is only an insignificant factor. Band of Brothers was successful for an entirely different foundational reason: character development. Ah, yes that little term that so many writers struggle with while other thrive on it. Some could argue that this the exact determining factor of good story-telling--I'll save that can of worms for another day... The point being though is that if you combine top 10 character development with award-winning cinematography, award-winning actors, award-winning producers, you get....Band of Brothers.

So what I am trying to say is that The Pacific failed to produce solid character development. The reason? No idea. This ramble is really more of an observation of failure--not of fault. That being said, it can now easily be seen that this theoretical blockbuster series provided everything it was suppose to: award-winning cinematography, award-winning actors, award-winning producers...But that key foundation was simply not there...

Never-the-less, it was good. I do not feel that I wasted my time. If it wasn't for the over-looming shadow of Band of Brothers, I would really consider maybe even calling one of the best. Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago...