The Pacific

[vegascub]

Anybody catch the premier of this last night? I thought it was pretty good. Another Spielberg/Hanks project about WWII. This one focuses on the United States' entry into the war with Japan just days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The series will be in ten parts.

[Giff]

I think it looks really good, I'm gonna watch the re-air that starts in 10 minutes.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=82890:date=Mar 15 2010, 08:46 PM:name=vegascub)-->QUOTE (vegascub @ Mar 15 2010, 08:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Anybody catch the premier of this last night? I thought it was pretty good. Another Spielberg/Hanks project about WWII. This one focuses on the United States' entry into the war with Japan just days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The series will be in ten parts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Band of Brothers was great and I'm sure this will be very well done but...well, what for?

[Destined]

Hopefully it will be just as good as Band of Brothers. Watched the premiere, thought it was pretty good.

[funkster]

<!--quoteo(post=82893:date=Mar 15 2010, 08:51 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 15 2010, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82890:date=Mar 15 2010, 08:46 PM:name=vegascub)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vegascub @ Mar 15 2010, 08:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Anybody catch the premier of this last night? I thought it was pretty good. Another Spielberg/Hanks project about WWII. This one focuses on the United States' entry into the war with Japan just days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The series will be in ten parts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Band of Brothers was great and I'm sure this will be very well done but...well, what for?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not?

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=82932:date=Mar 16 2010, 02:16 PM:name=funkster)-->QUOTE (funkster @ Mar 16 2010, 02:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82893:date=Mar 15 2010, 08:51 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 15 2010, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82890:date=Mar 15 2010, 08:46 PM:name=vegascub)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vegascub @ Mar 15 2010, 08:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Anybody catch the premier of this last night? I thought it was pretty good. Another Spielberg/Hanks project about WWII. This one focuses on the United States' entry into the war with Japan just days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The series will be in ten parts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Band of Brothers was great and I'm sure this will be very well done but...well, what for?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Because when you give the same treatment to everything that you find interesting, you turn into Ken Burns.

This is as though PBS were about to launch Ken Burns' Football.

[funkster]

It works and they do it well. Its a good story and done in a manner that makes it interesting...that's all you can ask for right?

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=82934:date=Mar 16 2010, 02:49 PM:name=funkster)-->QUOTE (funkster @ Mar 16 2010, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It works and they do it well. Its a good story and done in a manner that makes it interesting...that's all you can ask for right?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No, it's not. The opposite of Ken Burns is the Coen Brothers. New and different stories, told differently.

The history buff in me will succumb and watch The Pacific when it's on video.

"Let's do what we did before but this time about this similar thing" isn't high concept. It's now ripe for parody.

Stephen Spielberg and Tom Hanks present "Grenada."

It's a mini-series on HBO in half a part.

[funkster]

Its the minimum they can do. Yet, despite all this as you said you're still going to watch it. Clearly, they're doing something right. In a perfect world every movie/tv show/book would be new and completely original. Not everyone can be the Coen Brothers. At the end of the day they're out to make money, just like they all are, and they found a formula that works.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=82935:date=Mar 16 2010, 02:55 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 16 2010, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82934:date=Mar 16 2010, 02:49 PM:name=funkster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (funkster @ Mar 16 2010, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It works and they do it well. Its a good story and done in a manner that makes it interesting...that's all you can ask for right?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No, it's not. The opposite of Ken Burns is the Coen Brothers. New and different stories, told differently.

The history buff in me will succumb and watch The Pacific when it's on video.

"Let's do what we did before but this time about this similar thing" isn't high concept. It's now ripe for parody.

Stephen Spielberg and Tom Hanks present "Grenada."

It's a mini-series on HBO in half a part.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So Scorcese shouldn't have done "Casino" (after Goodfellas)?
The Coen's shouldn't have done "Burn After Reading" (after Raising Arizona)?
Coppalla shouldn't have done "Godfather 2"?
Spielberg shouldn't have done any Indiana Jones after the first one?
Wes Anderson shouldn't have done pretty much anything after "Bottle Rocket"?


The War in the Pacific is an entirely different animal than the War in Europe. As long as they have a story to tell, I don't see a problem with them revisiting the same genre.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=82939:date=Mar 16 2010, 03:41 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Mar 16 2010, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82935:date=Mar 16 2010, 02:55 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 16 2010, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82934:date=Mar 16 2010, 02:49 PM:name=funkster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (funkster @ Mar 16 2010, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It works and they do it well. Its a good story and done in a manner that makes it interesting...that's all you can ask for right?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No, it's not. The opposite of Ken Burns is the Coen Brothers. New and different stories, told differently.

The history buff in me will succumb and watch The Pacific when it's on video.

"Let's do what we did before but this time about this similar thing" isn't high concept. It's now ripe for parody.

Stephen Spielberg and Tom Hanks present "Grenada."

It's a mini-series on HBO in half a part.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So Scorcese shouldn't have done "Casino" (after Goodfellas)?
The Coen's shouldn't have done "Burn After Reading" (after Raising Arizona)?
Coppalla shouldn't have done "Godfather 2"?
Spielberg shouldn't have done any Indiana Jones after the first one?
Wes Anderson shouldn't have done pretty much anything after "Bottle Rocket"?


The War in the Pacific is an entirely different animal than the War in Europe. As long as they have a story to tell, I don't see a problem with them revisiting the same genre.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes.
Manic action comedies separated by how many years?
Godfather II was a continuation of the story and the better film. Sequels don't count.
Sequels don't count.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a Wes Anderson film.

I'm gonna watch a series about the war in the Pacific. I'd rather watch one by a different filmmaker with a different visual vocabulary and story telling style. I'd rather Spielburg/Hanks sank their teeth into something other than a multipart dramatization of a theater of war during WWII.

I'm sure it will be good. It just doesn't seem like the most interesting approach to this story or the most interesting thing for this pair to do.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=82942:date=Mar 16 2010, 03:53 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 16 2010, 03:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82939:date=Mar 16 2010, 03:41 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Mar 16 2010, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82935:date=Mar 16 2010, 02:55 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 16 2010, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82934:date=Mar 16 2010, 02:49 PM:name=funkster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (funkster @ Mar 16 2010, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It works and they do it well. Its a good story and done in a manner that makes it interesting...that's all you can ask for right?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No, it's not. The opposite of Ken Burns is the Coen Brothers. New and different stories, told differently.

The history buff in me will succumb and watch The Pacific when it's on video.

"Let's do what we did before but this time about this similar thing" isn't high concept. It's now ripe for parody.

Stephen Spielberg and Tom Hanks present "Grenada."

It's a mini-series on HBO in half a part.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So Scorcese shouldn't have done "Casino" (after Goodfellas)?
The Coen's shouldn't have done "Burn After Reading" (after Raising Arizona)?
Coppalla shouldn't have done "Godfather 2"?
Spielberg shouldn't have done any Indiana Jones after the first one?
Wes Anderson shouldn't have done pretty much anything after "Bottle Rocket"?


The War in the Pacific is an entirely different animal than the War in Europe. As long as they have a story to tell, I don't see a problem with them revisiting the same genre.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes.
Manic action comedies separated by how many years?
Godfather II was a continuation of the story and the better film. Sequels don't count.
Sequels don't count.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a Wes Anderson film.

I'm gonna watch a series about the war in the Pacific. I'd rather watch one by a different filmmaker with a different visual vocabulary and story telling style. I'd rather Spielburg/Hanks sank their teeth into something other than a multipart dramatization of a theater of war during WWII.

I'm sure it will be good. It just doesn't seem like the most interesting approach to this story or the most interesting thing for this pair to do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Wrong
What would separation of years have to do with anything? When does the statute of limitations expire on "Band of Brothers"?
How is "The Pacific" any different than "a continuation of the story" or a sequel?
Why not?
Rushmore? Royal Tennenbaums?

[funkster]

So now you're claiming Scorsese shouldn't have done Casino? That's preposterous. Just because the two movies are about the mafia, and are done in the same "style" doesn't mean he shouldn't have done the movie. Casino is a great film, not the masterpiece that goodfellas is, but still one of my favorite movies and extremely well made and acted. If the only films that entertain you are "completely original" material, then I feel sorry that you rarely are entertained.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=82943:date=Mar 16 2010, 04:00 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Mar 16 2010, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82942:date=Mar 16 2010, 03:53 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 16 2010, 03:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82939:date=Mar 16 2010, 03:41 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Mar 16 2010, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82935:date=Mar 16 2010, 02:55 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 16 2010, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82934:date=Mar 16 2010, 02:49 PM:name=funkster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (funkster @ Mar 16 2010, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It works and they do it well. Its a good story and done in a manner that makes it interesting...that's all you can ask for right?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No, it's not. The opposite of Ken Burns is the Coen Brothers. New and different stories, told differently.

The history buff in me will succumb and watch The Pacific when it's on video.

"Let's do what we did before but this time about this similar thing" isn't high concept. It's now ripe for parody.

Stephen Spielberg and Tom Hanks present "Grenada."

It's a mini-series on HBO in half a part.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So Scorcese shouldn't have done "Casino" (after Goodfellas)?
The Coen's shouldn't have done "Burn After Reading" (after Raising Arizona)?
Coppalla shouldn't have done "Godfather 2"?
Spielberg shouldn't have done any Indiana Jones after the first one?
Wes Anderson shouldn't have done pretty much anything after "Bottle Rocket"?


The War in the Pacific is an entirely different animal than the War in Europe. As long as they have a story to tell, I don't see a problem with them revisiting the same genre.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes.
Manic action comedies separated by how many years?
Godfather II was a continuation of the story and the better film. Sequels don't count.
Sequels don't count.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a Wes Anderson film.

I'm gonna watch a series about the war in the Pacific. I'd rather watch one by a different filmmaker with a different visual vocabulary and story telling style. I'd rather Spielburg/Hanks sank their teeth into something other than a multipart dramatization of a theater of war during WWII.

I'm sure it will be good. It just doesn't seem like the most interesting approach to this story or the most interesting thing for this pair to do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Wrong
What would separation of years have to do with anything? When does the statute of limitations expire on "Band of Brothers"?
How is "The Pacific" any different than "a continuation of the story" or a sequel?
Why not?
Rushmore? Royal Tennenbaums?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ok.
Never.
Maybe Spielberg/Hanks should just be the official WWII guys from now on.
Because sometimes a filmmaker plans a series. Indiana Jones was based on serialized adventure films.
Saw Tennenbaums. Sucked.

You can't debate me into becoming excited about WWII with artillery fire blowing up palm trees as a whole new dramatic motif.

They told the last story well and I'll watch this but I anticipate a buttload of familiarity. More sweat, less frostbite. Bataan Death March instead of the camps...more sailors and marines, fewer infantry.

They can do this justice and still be predictable. I'm predicting predictability.

[Butcher]

Casino was absolutely amazing. If GoodFellas were never made (or if Casino were made first), I'm convinced that people would be taking about Casino the way they talk about GoodFellas.

Hell...Sam Raimi basically remade Evil Dead when he made Evil Dead 2. And both movies are awesome.

I do think the fact that it's a miniseries makes it seem more derivative. All the movies we've listed in this thread are between 1.5 and 2.5 hours long. It's easy to sit through a movie that is similar to a previous director's work without being too critical. Band of Brothers was 10 hours long (right?) and presumably The Pacific will be a similar length. I can sort of understand the "10 more hours of the same shit?" feeling...