The Pacific

[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.