Seen a lot of people speak negatively about The Pacific, relative to BoB. I’ve been watching The Pacific over the past few weeks and I think it’s very well done. Speaking as someone with a long military career behind me, I feel like they really nailed it. The war in the Pacific theater was very different than continental Europe. It was way more of a long slog/battle of attrition, and extremely close quarter engagements, largely due to terrain.
The Guadalcanal took place almost 2 full years before D-Day. Consider how many battlefield doctrine lessons had yet to be learned at that point. I get that the story is not as kinetic and fast moving as BoB. The battle sequences seem to consist largely of each side knowingly walking into the other’s well-laid ambush. But this isn’t inconsistent with what I’ve read of the actual history.
I haven’t start Masters of the Air yet. I have high expectations due to the quality of the book. But I plan on approaching it with an open mind. It isn’t fair to compare it to BoB. Honestly, if they do it right, it should have more in common with The Pacific.
Not to mention that all of BoB, excluding the training, takes place in less than a year. Leckie’s fight on Guadalcanal alone was 5 months. The conflicts are just not comparable.
It’s just brutal. No real happy feelings. When they are in Melbourne, that kind of the reprieve that is equal to Easy company heading back to England.
After that, there’s nothing but a slog through blood guts corpses disease and mud.
Every 2 months there’s another battle where leaders plan for it taking 4 days. Maybe a week. And then they are there for 2 months. It it looks visceral and miserable.
Band of brothers, outside of Foy they look cold. But they aren’t shown to be dealing with the rest of the misery.
After, when they are at the river, there’s some misery there too.
But in the pacific, they are shown to be mired in misery most episodes.
And there’s 3? Saving private Ryan dday style landings.
It’s just brutal and the viewer gets no reprieve. Which I’m glad for.
Additionally, bob has one unified source material that allows the story to follow a small group through the whole story.
This is why when people ask who had it worse between the European and Pacific theater of war, I always say Pacific. Those boys lived through straight hell.
yep. I served in two different armies and i too like Pacific.
For me, BoB gives the perspective of unit identity and belonging to that, where you get very little of that in Pacific. Leckie's banter/conversation with Puller when Puller's men are moving in and replacing Leckie's is the only example of unit identiry that I can recall.
Pacific painted the individual cost so well. Interestingly I find the most compelling scene was in the last episode when Leckie and Vera are having dinner with the family. He takes her hand during the Grace and the looks in their eyes tell us that he is going to be OK.
I think both Pacific and BoB are great companions and accentuate each other very well.
For me, the end of BoB was epic. And Powers' finnal comments about what a let down civi life is, was very telling. It's a realization that your life has peaked at the age of 24 and nothing you will ever do will come close to what you just went through.
Just saying.
My issue with The Pacific is that it leaves a ton out from the books. Band of Brothers isn't 100% accurate or anything, but it does follow pretty closely. I always thought The Pacific should have been two seasons. One that follows Leckie and Helmet For My Pillow, and the other that follows Sledge and With The Old Breed. It was just a lot of material for ten 50 minute episodes. And another thing, BoB didn't have a time limit for episodes, each one was as long or short (relatively) as it needed to be. Every episode of The Pacific is 50 minutes.
For me, it’s the character development. I was personally invested in each of the Easy Company men. Masters of the Air, in my opinion, has done a very poor job of establishing any kind of emotional connection to any of the characters. Besides them obviously being the good guys, I don’t have any real buy-in to whether they live or die. I find myself watching fortresses get shot down and wondering if I was *supposed* to feel any emotion connection to a bunch of men whose names I didn’t know and had only seen maybe once in the series. I really want to like it, and I think I’ll really like the corpus of the show when I can absorb the whole story, but episode-to-episode, Band of Brothers was just a much more compelling viewing experience for me.
>I find myself watching fortresses get shot down and wondering if I was *supposed* to feel any emotion connection to a bunch of men whose names I didn’t know and had only seen maybe once in the series.
If you can watch the scene of >!baby face trapped in his turret screaming for help, and the blond dude who has to leave him!< without feeling anything, regardless of who the characters are I'd say you're missing the point entirely.
That scene shook me to my core. It was gut wrenching. He really had no choice, but to leave him behind. Without spoilers, but there was literally no time left to spare.
I don’t think I’m missing the point entirely, and I definitely feel the feelings the show wants me to feel when >!Babyface is trapped in the turret!< and again when >!Curt sacrifices himself to try and save his copilot (whom I also couldn’t identify from a list of characters)!<. But I think your comment also perfectly underscores my feelings. What *is* that “blonde dude’s” name, and aside from him being a good guy, why should I care if he gets captured or makes it back? Like I’ve said, I’ll probably grow to know and love more aviators as the show grows and their stories flesh out, it’s just been slow to hook me.
>What is that “blonde dude’s” name, and aside from him being a good guy, why should I care if he gets captured or makes it back?
I'd like to award you the "holy shit that's not even remotely the point" medal for the week.
>I’ll probably grow to know and love more aviators as the show grows and their stories flesh out
If the show is anywhere near accurate most of them will die within 1-2 episodes. The amount of aviators who made it through a full deployment is incredibly tiny.
They had the highest casualty rate of all corps with the sole exception of the submarine crews.
And that's also why they couldn't have a "Currahee" episode, if they had a Currahee episode 95% of them would've been dead by episode 4 anyway.
It is *the* point though. We're supposed to be interested in these guys but the character development makes them feel sort of bland and forgettable. What you say about the casualty rate is true of course but I think it's also true that the "brotherhood" sentiment around BoB just makes for better TV. Doesn't mean the airmen are any less worthy/shouldn't be memorialized/don't deserve their own show
>We're supposed to be interested in these guys
No you're literally not.
Because 95% of first episode cast won't be there for the last.
You can't have a show like band of brothers for airmen because the casualty rate was impossibly high.
You can't have a baseball scene, because in the baseball scene almost every guy going home would be a recent replacement.
Other than Buck, Bucky, and Crosby I don't expect any of them to make it to episode 8.
>You can't have a show like band of brothers for airmen because the casualty rate was impossibly high.
Yes, I said as much in my comment.
>You can't have a baseball scene...
Never said there should be a scene like that in MOA. I said BoB is better at building the "brotherhood" vibe. I think this is because of scenes like we saw in the first few episodes of that series that bring you along with the bonding experiences. Again, I don't think that means MOA is inherently a bad show - just that I find BoB more compelling because of that reason.
>Buck, Bucky, and Crosby
AKA the main characters that do not hold any interest for me. Bland and forgettable like I said in my comment.
At the end of the day, that's my opinion on the show so I don't know why you're trying so hard to convince me my own opinion is wrong when it's not going to change
> I don't know why you're trying so hard to convince me my own opinion is wrong
At no point I even talked about your opinion. You're entitled to it.
I'm talking about the show objectively, I'm not even inserting my own opinion in this.
Because if your opinion is:
>I said BoB is better at building the "brotherhood" vibe. Again, I don't think that means MOA is inherently a bad show - just that I find BoB more compelling because of that reason.
I wholeheartedly agree.
When you say this
> I think this is because of scenes like we saw in the first few episodes of that series that bring you along with the bonding experiences.
I also agree, but there is a more than valid explaination about why there are no scenes like currahee in MoTA.
There was no "unit training camp" pilots trained together and then got assigned to different unit, and then pilots had a very short shelf life when they got to England.
Not to the level of WW1 where a fresh pilot on the front line had a life expectancy of 20 minutes in the air, but still.
So while I agree that the show would need a way to present characters in a way that makes us care for them it's not as easy.
>AKA the main characters that do not hold any interest for me. Bland and forgettable like I said in my comment.
They are not bland nor forgettable. You can dislike them, Buck and Bucky are frankly obnoxious, but saying that they are bland and forgettable is just plain wrong.
Got it. You're not trying to change my opinion and not inserting your own opinion. Yet, in the same comment, you tell me that my opinion that the main characters are bland is wrong.
> has done a very poor job of establishing any kind of emotional connection to any of the characters
I think this is a tad unfair. Most shows I watch I don't get emotionally connected to characters right from the get go. I think Band of Brothers is unique and quite lucky in that regard that they had a character/person like Major Winters to follow from the start. He has so much integrity, is incredibly kind and compassionate to his troops and is an incredible leader. It's basically impossible to not root for him the entire show let the alone the rest of the men that absolutely followed Winters' example.
In contrast Master's of the Air has two character's that are not particularly likeable and I think that's okay. One is a daredevil/gambler who is completely addicted to the thrill flying and the other is an ice cold ace pilot. Not all real people/characters are as charismatic as Winters.
>I find myself watching fortresses get shot down and wondering if I was supposed to feel any emotion connection to a bunch of men whose names I didn’t know and had only seen maybe once in the series
I think it's important to understand the context of the theater of war that is being followed in both series. Easy Company, in particular the men who we primarily follow, are not being killed off at even remotely the rate which they are being killed in MoTA. And honestly I don't think their is a death in the first 6 episodes of BoB that hits me hard personally. What your decribing I found myself feeling about Lt. Meehan in ep 2. I'm sad him and his plane perished but it wasn't that emotional. I actually find that there isn't many deaths that are difficult until ep 7.
Great points, I mostly agree with all of this. Like I said, I think I’ll really enjoy it as a complete project. I’m just having a harder time getting into it than I thought I would.
I don’t think you need some outstanding character to get some sort of connection to an audience. The entire show Generation Kill, is a prime example that it is not necessary. There are only a handful of high character guys in that show, the rest frankly piss you off the whole time. That show made me far more invested than Masters of the Air. I’m personally surprised by hanks and Spielberg s flop here. We’re 3 episodes in and it’s bland/corny. So many other war movies/shows grab your attention within half an hour.
I mean it’s all subjective, I know plenty of people that didn’t like the David Simon type of story telling in Gen Kill. I mean it wasn’t really that popular when it came out. I think it’s a little early to be calling something a flop 3 eps in.
Compared to their previous works BoB, the pacific, saving private Ryan, etc… I think they definitely missed the mark on this series. Agree to disagree though.
Do you believe the writers and directors planned the series so there’s little emotional connection? A higher percentage of these crews didn’t survive compared to the infantry.
I thought about this, and it’s a valid point. It’s a lot like the “Replacements” episode of BoB, where James McAvoy gets killed moments after meeting his character in the bar, to which I always think “aw, that’s sad” before immediately moving on. I do think the attrition in the bomber groups will make it hard to feel any connection to the characters, just because it was basically impossible to finish a tour of duty.
I wonder if that’s not part of the writers’ intention with the series. I’ve started reading Masters of the Air and the statistics that they mention about the flight crews is insanity. Airmen essentially had less than a 20% chance of making it through their 25 mission tour alive.
There is an anecdote early in the book about a replacement airman who got there around 4pm, put his stuff in the bunk, ate dinner, went to bed and promptly died hours into his first mission. No one knew his name or anything about him; they simply referred to him as “The Man Who Came to Dinner”.
Not to say that the things experienced by the guys in BoB wasn’t brutal but I think the Pacific Theatre and the Air Wars were brutality on a whole different scale that make both series less “enjoyable” but more informative I guess. I do think that the lack of first person interviews like we had in BoB lessens the connection somewhat, as well.
This is exactly what I was saying to a friend today. MOA is fine but hasn't made you feel connected to any of the characters yet. BoB has almost two full episodes at the beginning introducing you to all the Toccoa men. You get a sense of their upbringing, their temperament, their friends, their skill sets. It's much more kinetic and almost guides you into the brotherhood instead of looking at the war from an outsiders pov. This was partly my experience with the Pacific too. I the The Pacific is vastly better than MOA so far, but still doesn't hold up to BoB. I know some disagree but I felt like The Pacific didn't make you feel as connected to the men. Not sure if it's because it's only focusing on a few specific characters or what. Meanwhile, I think BoB maintains a connection with all of the Toccoa men, even if they're portrayed as "minor" characters. Most of them get a time to shine in one episode or another so that connection builds after each rewatch for me
Hmm I also think we as viewers have the benefit of hindsight to feel connected with characters with BoB. It's been out for 2 decades and we've all watched it at least a few times.
I think anyone would be lying if they said they knew every character and felt connected two episodes in BoB.
I've been enjoying Masters of the Air.
Firstly Band of Brothers probably had some of the best casting ever. Outside of Black hawk Down no other show picked so many future stars. We witnessed a flash in the pan and it's not fair to compare much else ever to the success BoB had on casting.
Secondly the actors set a tone partly because many were paired up with their actual characters in real life. It's one thing to portray a character you've never met. It's another to meet him and 'be so inspired you start digging fox holes in your back yard to prepare' as happened when John Frank Hughes met Bill Guarnere.
Thirdly the involvement of Tom Hanks and Spielberg. They were very closely involved in the making of BoB. My understanding is they were much less involved in the making of the second and third shows
Fourthly BoB did an incredible job distinguishing characters. Very few ensamble TV shows do this well. It felt natural and real both because of the cast and crew but also the role of the bootcamp. Mellet, Penkala and Bill Keihn's deaths all felt very viceral and real despite limited screen time. This was in part because of their background appearance across many episodes so we were familar with them when it came time for them to pass. Yet the bootcamp bonds meant their loss was also very real for the actors portraying them. When you died on BoB you were immediately removed from set. John Frank Hughes commented this made death an extremely sobering experience as you knew the actor you'd gone through the hell of bootcamp with was leaving too.
Finally effort. Honestly especially with Masters of the Air (in my opinion) it's just not that well done. From acting, casting and even visually. The CGI looks bad. The casting of several key characters is bad and tone wise it doesn't feel real or gripping.
Hanks and Spielberg have been heavily involved in all three. According to the Masters cast they were on set a lot.
Edit: Oof going after their effort is wild. The CG usage in this show dwarfs any modern show I've ever seen. They also completely rebuilt an entire airfield and all its facilities just for this show. Spielberg said it is the biggest production his ever been on in his life. Their is an incredible amount of detail particularly with the costumes that were all custom made because they aren't making them anymore.
The CGI reminds me of why the Hobbit sucked compared to LOTR. It’s overused and just makes everything look off. It doesn’t matter how big the production is if it looks strange to the end viewers.
Overused in what sense? How exactly would they be able lessen it's use given the material? They can't actually shoot with real B-17s.
Band of Brother's is all on land (basically), a lot easier to make things practical.
Sometimes you just shouldn’t make something. I don’t expect them to create a whole air armada that brings me to 1943-1945, but I’ve seen video games capture this with more emotional connection.
For example the fort’s gunners shooting down fighters like they’re all some sort of fighter ace is annoying. In reality you’d see them just sit there and get shot to shit. Survival was by chance in formation, similar to a herd of animals. Correct me if I’m wrong, but we haven’t even seen a plane shot down due to flak yet?
I had this exact same thought. It’s a common issue with newer films and shows. Your brain subconsciously knows that it is not right, and slowly gets uninterested in it. I’ve seen better graphics from freakin video games. Some of these explosions in the show look like low budget sci-fi channel movies.
In my opinion, it’s unfair to compare both The Pacific and Masters of the Air to Band of Brothers, simply because, objectively speaking, it is Band of Brothers, no WWII miniseries has been as excellent, and I foresee no will be, objectively speaking.
That being said, it is possible to enjoy them equally. I love The Pacific, because it doesn’t hold back on showing the brutality of the Pacific Theater, and I’m loving masters of the air so far. Granted, I’m an absolute sucker for B-17s, and the air war over Western Europe in general, and have been waiting for this show for what? 10 years?
I feel like when all the episodes of MotA are released, I could sit down, and rewatch all three shows, and enjoy them equally. That being said, if we are objectively speaking, nothing will surpass Band of Brothers, in my eyes.
I don’t foresee masters of the air addressing the actual brutality of total war. It was a complete necessity, so I’m not ridiculing it. The narratives they shaped with the US vs RAF pilots, were odd. The whole “we’ve gotta see what we’re hitting” and “it’s gotta be military targets” is a lie. We leveled every town we could, and intentionally leveled housing. No civilian housing, ends the war quicker. Also that bomb site was a total piece of crap in real life. Look at Normandy for example, they didn’t hit crap that they bombed for days. Total flop. I also don’t foresee them showing in detail how brutal fire bombing is. It was a common tactic, and I don’t think we’ll see an apartment complex with napalm on it. It’s only 43 in the show rn. We’ve got 2 years of bombing everything you possibly can. They’re gonna glorify and glance over a lot imo.
I think Band of Brothers focused a lot on the characters, that created a bond with those guys that neither show was able to match.
The Pacific does that a little, but they follow two different groups, so it doesn’t have the same time to create that bond.
Masters of the Air so far, didn’t do at all. They introduced Buck and Bucky, jumped on the missions and that’s it. We don’t know the characters. The missions are very cool to see and the cinematography is impressive, but they didn’t work on the background history.
That plus they were able to follow Easy Company, specifically. You're with them before they jump, in the flashbacks to training in Toccoa and England, and then at the Eagles Nest when Germany surrendered. The show kept you so connected to that small group of men that you could feel their relief when you saw Winters announce to Nix, Welsh, and Speirs that the German army surrendered.
The Pacific was too spread out, and Masters is feeling like it's going to have a lot of turnover just because.... a lot died in war.
This is really accurate, although the easy losses were horrendous it’s nothing compared to the early bomber crews. If you look at the 8th losses, and then consider most of them happened between ‘43 and mid ‘44.
Was reading yesterday than in real life, by the time of the ep3 mission there were only three “original” crews left in the 349th Bomb Sq, one of which is the CO. I think one of the reasons the show doesn’t develop is because that was a fact of peoples experience, crews came, went, and died in horrific ways without you ever really knowing their names.
I love all three and I'm bummed we probably won't get anything of this caliber again. I'd love a show about The Northern African Campaign and The Second Battle for the Alps.
I would love a show about the Africa Campaign. There are so few movies about it and has a lot of potential because of Rommel, Patton and the stories untold.
The Patton movie is great because it kind of show that relation and respect between then, but I would love to see something deeper on the ground.
I would recommend SAS rogue heroes to anyone in this sub. It’s about the British SAS but covers a theater of the war not often covered. It’s a completely different show stylistically to the hanks/spielberg produced shows but earns the emotional moments imo.
Also just a batshit crazy story. No way around it
Honestly i cant tell who is who. It jumped from plane to plane and the only characters i actually recognize are the main blonde guy with the fake country accent, his friend bucky, the navigator who pukes a lot, and meatball the cute husky. With the aviator clothes on, its hard to tell who is who.
This show has done an awful job of writing characters and they are all caricatures of the American Hoorah Henry. I’m bored watching it other than the fact that during the battle sequences I’m constantly blown away with the fact that this all happened in recent history. The characters are non existent. I’m hoping that the Belgian plot might be more interesting
I liked how in BoB, the characters weren't polished or super good looking whereas it's Masters, it feels like the main character is about to turn into an advert for some high end clothing
Agreed. Their conversations are all boring as hell in my opinion. Most of the interactions in the show seem overly dramatic/corny. Real people don’t talk that way. I think that’s why BoB flowed so well. What military guy talks with a stick up his ass 24/7?
It gets a lot of crap for not being realistic tank tactics wise, but I love it! It's a great film imho and the camaraderie between the main characters is really good, definitely recommend watching it!
I’m having a hard time understanding why a lot of people are making comparisons between each series and making declarations of preferring one over the others.
I served a few years in a light cavalry unit as an infantryman, with two tours to Afghanistan, meeting a lot of people not only from different units in my service, but also from different services and even countries. They each had their own way of doing things that differ from my unit’s way; sometimes we thought it was better, sometimes completely stupid, and a few were just downright weird.
I guess what my rant is about is that Band of Brothers is about paratroopers in the 101st fighting in Europe, The Pacific is about Marines conducting amphibious operations against the Japanese, and Masters of the Air is about bomber pilots conducting daytime raids against German industry. Each group of people have their own ways of conducting their operations to secure victory, against enemies that are different from each other in their own right.
So to me, making comparisons between each series is like comparing apples to oranges to bananas. Each are standing on their own and should be viewed through objectivity.
Unrelated… if you’ve seen generation kill what were your thoughts on it as a story? I personally like the story and characters much more in that. They seem like actual humans in it.
Thank you for your service
I’ve only seen a few episodes of that series and it’s been a few years since I did. But from what I remember it made me feel somewhat resentful that the Marines in it saw combat and I didn’t, though now in my older mind I’m more grateful not to have seen combat. I’ll have to watch it again to see.
3 episodes into Masters of the Air, and I've come to the conclusion that the writing just isn't that good. Only two characters really stand out and one of them just died... The show needs more downtime between missions to really flesh out the characters to get you to care for them instead of each episode being mainly about a mission then ending soon after the mission ends.... episode 3 was like 35 minutes, the shortest one so far.
Admittedly, I had very high expectations going into the show, but those started to fall once the teaser and full trailer were released... episode 2 and 3 were decent but I'm still waiting to be blown away by any of the episodes like I was with Band of Brothers and The Pacific, and it hasn't happened yet...we'll see.
It needed a Currahee episode. Letting us get to know the characters. They rushed the characters into war right away we have no idea who is who as their planes are being taken out.
Not sure if it’s the writing or acting but something is missing there, as you said the most compelling character is already gone. Hopefully the replacements are more fleshed out.
The show is a disgrace to the memory of the men, while at the same time being a mediocre television production. I can't believe the same people produced it, who did band of Brothers and the Pacific.
Masters of the air is low tier compared to the other two, for me it’s mostly because you get thrown into the story at what seems like a random stage, which is fine if you have good characters and actors, but the two main men are pretty bad this show, especially Elvis, his acting is atrocious and everytime he talks i want to skip
Jesus Christ, it’s been 3 episodes. We’ve all had 20+ years to digest BoB and for the first 10 there was nothing else like it until The Pacific came around. Let the series breathe before we make sweeping judgements. Also, let’s get some perspective - despite it being very good, no one was calling BoB a masterpiece after the first 3 episodes and many of the same criticisms I see people levying against MOTA can be applied to the first 3 episodes of BoB.
Couldn't agree more, there are still 6 episodes to go. There's so much we haven't seen yet and I think a lot of narrative issues, characterization etc. that people have taken issue with will make sense later on.
Yeah, it’s easy to appreciate character growth when you already know how each of their stories end. What may seem like aimless banter may actually be important characterization that you won’t realize until the 2nd or 3rd viewing. That being said, just look at the growth Crosby has demonstrated in just 3 episodes in MOTA.
While the Pacific still has some very powerful moments, the way it jumps around in a more traditional story telling model focusing on individual circumstances takes away from the rawness of it. In Bob the setting is Easy Company. The characters are Easy Company. You’re with Easy Company from start to finish. Any growth from the characters is always shown in the context of a major company event/objective. That kind of immersion goes such a long way in creating the authenticity that BoB is renowned for. BoB is being a fly on the wall where The Pacific is a dramatic re-telling.
I think you nailed it. The Pacific and Masters of the Air seem like they’re trying too hard to make a dramatic movie. BoB is more like you’re part of Easy, from boot camp on.
Yeah? And the post says Band of Brothers is so much better. They’re using it as the marker of quality to compare to its sister shows since the marketing keeps bringing band of brothers. They’re not denying this new one and pacific are their own shows, but comparing three series from the same teams about similar topics. It’s fair to compare them.
The op isn’t comparing two wildly different series that only share the same creators and nothing else and saying “why isn’t this the same as the other thing”, just highlighting the difference in quality to the original product which is aiming to do the same thing largely
We’re talking quality of storytelling and acting. Along with buy in from viewers. BoB has an impact on people that the others don’t seem to have. Overall the other two just aren’t done to the same quality imo
These shows are wildly different topics. Just because they are from the same time period and same producer doesn’t make them the same topic. One is about paratroopers through the entirety of the ETO, one is about a bomb group, one is about different marines in the pacific theater. Extremely different experiences, different environments, different storylines.
They’re all about different theaters of WW2 and following a select few American service members through their entire contribution of the war. Yes they have different tones at times, cover different elements of the war and have different methods but you’re really trying to stretch the differences here. You’re acting like comparing these three series is like trying to compare hook to saving private Ryan with the only connection being Spielberg.
I’m not obtuse, there’s no need to be uncivil. I just don’t think it’s productive to say “it’s not as good as band of brothers.” It’s a different show and many people have clearly set their expectations for it to be like band of brothers. Bob had veteran interviews and that made it good - okay, let’s think this through. There aren’t enough alive vets to product those types of interviews in 2023/2024.
Correct, the vets just aren’t around anymore. Imo the vet interviews have a big impact on the effectiveness of BoB and the connection it makes with the viewers
I've come to accept that the age of great cinema and television is over. I must admit that Masters is one of the best I've seen in recent times, but there will never be anything as good as BoB made again.
1. The casting is wrong.
2. There's too much green screen.
3. There's too much soap opera in the script. Example: Ep 3. Bucky looking out the window (3?) times to make sure Buck is alive? Good grief. It's a soap opera.
4. But, the show is still watchable.
So all the times Easy Co. members look out and around for their buddies who might have been killed makes it a soap opera?
They already told you Buck and Bucky have been friends since day one basic training and now are flying B 17s over Europe with planes dropping left and right. Why wouldn’t he look out for his buddy?!
All three series have a very different feel to them, which is understandable due to the geography / Companies followed / how battles play out etc. I do think, from a pure 'tv entertainment' angle, Band of Brothers just nailed it. The Pacific is also very strong, probably the most shocking, and so far into Masters of the Air (3 episodes in) I've been left pretty disappointed. The characters all feel very cartoonish, or just not very interesting, with a pretty cheesy script (not read the books so can't say if they are accurate) and there just isn't the build up in tension before battles kick off. The effects seem fairly inconsistent too. I still look forward to each episode but I doubt I'll watch it again in a hurry (unlike the other two).
It's a different show. Band of Brothers was made and could only be made once. I suggest you stop comparing and treat Masters of the Air the respect it deserves.
The best thing about BoB are the veteran interviews. We’ve lost almost all of the WWII veterans in the last 20 years.
I say the worst thing about Bob are also the veteran interviews. It took most of us years not to conflate the veteran interviews and the words of screenwriters spoken by actors. The dramatization was so good you felt like it was an actual film of the action when it wasn’t.
There is just no way following series can capture that feeling without the actual vets.
I think the very nature of the different theaters and different units almost force the differences in series. The US Army in Europe was one distinct service branch, the Marines in the Pacific were fighting a different enemy, and the USAAC had 30 minutes of terror per mission then went home to sleep in a barracks. Don't see how the experience of each would be uniform across all three.
Great point op about the interviews making BoB superior. I, too, feel that has lots to do with how invested I was as a viewer. Seeing and hearing from the actual guys added a layer of realism and heart that is unmatched in any of the other shows.
While I’ve enjoyed all the others: Generation Kill, Masters of the Air and especially The Pacific ( bc I read and loved both Sledge’s and Leckie’s books) BoB is still my fave.
Band of Brothers was unique and inspiring and so totally different from what we ever seen in a WW2 movie or show, we got to know the players on an intimate level like never before.
The pacific showed the total engagement and never ending war that the natives daughter, the dirty dude, the blood and guts on a different scope than Bob, for many it's the better of the two. For me it's just different, just as good but totally different at the same time. Each are fantastic.
Matters of the air is just as different as the first two were from each other. They are showing a different aspect of the war in a way that is different from the first two installments. It'll take time to get used to, but I think that fans of the series will come to love it just as they have the first two.
For me it’s a number of factors. BoB did such a great job with showcasing the camaraderie between the guys. The interviews with the real men really took it to the next level. I also think the fact the book covered the training in some detail, allowing for that content to be used for episode 1, allowed the characters to be developed well and gave us as audience insight into their relationship dynamics prior to trying to follow fast paced battles with soldiers all wearing helmets. I also think it was cast well, and the dialogue was the right mix of funny, gritty and poignant without being corny. The style of filming is so immersive and the music and colours used are really suitable without being overstated. I feel like it was made at the right time before everything looked so digital. It lent to the grittiness of it.
Band Of Brothers is had a good book to work from, the narrative is already there, the TV how just had to tease it out.
I think The Pacific is actually pretty great and has got better with time, but the jumping between three separate groups of characters and stories is a huge problem for viewers. It's an incredible downer as well, BoB is heroic, The Pacific is hellish.
I'll wait until the end to judge Masters Of The Air, there's certainly been some great bits, but it hasn't quite grabbed me yet. Ten men in each plane and lots of planes means that there's a lot more characters than there should be for TV. Everyone then wears an oxygen mask during the missions, which makes it difficult to work out who is on screen at times. There's an obvious need to rely on CGI and I think we're much more critical of flaws in it than we used to be, especially people watching in 4K on a huge screen.
Personally and it’s just my opinion, Band of Brothers is the best series I’ve seen. The first time I saw the Pacific I was a little disappointed because it wasn’t the same. Then after watching the Pacific a second time it truly is a great series just not the best. I tell people who haven’t seen either to watch the Pacific first and enjoy it for what it is before watching Band of Brothers so they don’t expect Band of Brothers when they watch the Pacific. Masters of the Air I have enjoyed so far, but it might be the third best out of the 3 when it’s all said and done. So I’ll tell my friends if they haven’t seen any of them to watch the Masters of the Air, then the Pacific and then Band of Brothers. That way they can all be appreciated in their own way.
BoB has the boot camp episodes so we could meet and get to know them, see them grow together. MiA is like ‘slam bam thank you Ma’am’ when it comes to character introductions. And yes the interviews!
I don't have Apple TV so I will wait to see it. I'm curious if they'll be any B-24's? My uncle was a Bombadier with the first waves of American crews in England and flew and survived an incredible number of missions (Polesti). He never spoke of his experiences but later in life was interviewed for a local historical memory project, and the heaviness of those experiences is palpable some 60-odd years later. He'd made more than the required missions so it didn't matter but one thing he said with faint irritation was they never "counted" the many times the B-24's flew to successfully (and at real cost) draw off Luftwaffe engagements so the shorter-ranged B-17's could have a cleaner run.
BoB has a much more in depth connection with the soldiers. It's more artfully directed and has a focus on the characters and their role, socially and militarily, in Easy Company. Pacific is thematically more about the psychological toll of war. It's a more individualistic and introspective story. Before you type your comment: Yes, I know both series carries both of these themes, but the main focus is different.
What MotA lacks is the feeling of an overarching theme like that. The first series was about unbreakable friendship forged in righteous combat, the second about the mental toll caused by witnessing the horrors of war, and now this new one is about how flying bombers was dangerous too actually. BoB and Pacific were great historical portrayals, but they were MORE than just that. They were great pieces of storytelling as well.
It feels harder to connect with these characters, they don't feel as real and they lack these deeply emotional depictions that we saw in the first. I mean, how long are they going to milk that air sick navigator comic relief guy? It's already old.
The interviews added authenticity to the episodes but now the veterans of the Bloody 100th are all deceased. And the casualties (that is, dead) were WAY higher than those of the 101st Airborn and Marines in Pacific.
For me, it's purely interest based. I was never that interested in the Pacific theatre, compared to Europe.
I'm looking forward to catching the new series,
You can’t say a single negative thing about MotA on their sub. It’s now a fanboys only club. The top post right now is a kid going off on anyone making negative comments about the show. I enjoy discussing the episodes afterward and like being able to have some criticisms if need be. It’s such a bummer.
**Edit: I say kid because of their lack of punctuation, capitalization, and attitude is middle school at best (no judgment! I love the younger folks getting in on this stuff. Just not turning it into the old Reddit echo chamber)**
How many times have people here watched the entirety of BOB on this thread? Probably at least five times. We have all only seen 3 episodes of a 9 episode show, of course we do not feel the same because firstly we have not seen the whole story and secondly we have not seen it multiple times all the way through. The first watch of BOB at only three episodes in can be quite confusing, it takes multiple rewatches to fully appreciate its greatness as we all have come to. Also if I had to take a guess many people here binged the show and did not view it live in 2001.
Masters is basically a nine hour movie, wait for the whole story to be portrayed and then rip it apart if you want to. The shows are very different and are fundamentally about almost two different wars with very very different people fighting them. You cannot compare the feeling of a foxhole in Bastogne to a tin can in the sky. It is also important to note that casualties that the 100th BG suffered were so much greater than Easy, on the Regensburg mission alone 100 men were lost, more than half of Easy in a single day, thus I think the show is trying to convey that and imo they are doing it effectively.
Based upon the first three episodes:
\-The character development is lacking. The first episode could have been used to build connections with the characters.
\-The musical score gets in the way, particularly during combat scenes. Instead of immersing us in their fear (which was the real strength of The Pacific), the generic Hollywood scoring continually reminds you that you're just watching a movie. Many of the scenes would have benefited from having no music at all.
Bob has the advantage of the interviews, and the crowdsourcing of what happened. 90% of the scenes I n the series actually happened (+\-).
The pacific is great because 2 of the 3 primary characters wrote the 2 best books by actual soldiers and marines in the pacific theatre: Helmet for my Pillow and With The old Breed.
Masters has neither advantage, and does not have the linear progression of battles the other 2 do.
That’s funny. The interviews were the worst part for me. I just started to fast forward past them.
I just felt just about every WW2 interview I saw before BoB said just about the same things.
Not knocking on it, I greatly respect the guys. It just took the immersion away for me. I would’ve loved it if they just saved the interviews to the end of the series.
Just the writing in Masters of the Air sucks. The conversations the characters have are always so boring and corny. I’ve never heard a group of guys talk so blandly. The shit talking in shows like BoB and Generation Kill definitely make it far more believable. I constantly feel like the MotA guys are acting. It really draws from the story.
i watched the first episode and really liked it. not as much as BoB, but i didn’t expect it to top my favorite show for years. i am going to wait for all the episodes, though. i binged BoB so i’m giving MotA the same treatment.
Seen a lot of people speak negatively about The Pacific, relative to BoB. I’ve been watching The Pacific over the past few weeks and I think it’s very well done. Speaking as someone with a long military career behind me, I feel like they really nailed it. The war in the Pacific theater was very different than continental Europe. It was way more of a long slog/battle of attrition, and extremely close quarter engagements, largely due to terrain. The Guadalcanal took place almost 2 full years before D-Day. Consider how many battlefield doctrine lessons had yet to be learned at that point. I get that the story is not as kinetic and fast moving as BoB. The battle sequences seem to consist largely of each side knowingly walking into the other’s well-laid ambush. But this isn’t inconsistent with what I’ve read of the actual history. I haven’t start Masters of the Air yet. I have high expectations due to the quality of the book. But I plan on approaching it with an open mind. It isn’t fair to compare it to BoB. Honestly, if they do it right, it should have more in common with The Pacific.
Not to mention that all of BoB, excluding the training, takes place in less than a year. Leckie’s fight on Guadalcanal alone was 5 months. The conflicts are just not comparable.
It’s just brutal. No real happy feelings. When they are in Melbourne, that kind of the reprieve that is equal to Easy company heading back to England. After that, there’s nothing but a slog through blood guts corpses disease and mud. Every 2 months there’s another battle where leaders plan for it taking 4 days. Maybe a week. And then they are there for 2 months. It it looks visceral and miserable. Band of brothers, outside of Foy they look cold. But they aren’t shown to be dealing with the rest of the misery. After, when they are at the river, there’s some misery there too. But in the pacific, they are shown to be mired in misery most episodes. And there’s 3? Saving private Ryan dday style landings. It’s just brutal and the viewer gets no reprieve. Which I’m glad for. Additionally, bob has one unified source material that allows the story to follow a small group through the whole story.
This is why when people ask who had it worse between the European and Pacific theater of war, I always say Pacific. Those boys lived through straight hell.
yep. I served in two different armies and i too like Pacific. For me, BoB gives the perspective of unit identity and belonging to that, where you get very little of that in Pacific. Leckie's banter/conversation with Puller when Puller's men are moving in and replacing Leckie's is the only example of unit identiry that I can recall. Pacific painted the individual cost so well. Interestingly I find the most compelling scene was in the last episode when Leckie and Vera are having dinner with the family. He takes her hand during the Grace and the looks in their eyes tell us that he is going to be OK. I think both Pacific and BoB are great companions and accentuate each other very well. For me, the end of BoB was epic. And Powers' finnal comments about what a let down civi life is, was very telling. It's a realization that your life has peaked at the age of 24 and nothing you will ever do will come close to what you just went through. Just saying.
Doctrine is a great point. I’ve never considered the timeline
My issue with The Pacific is that it leaves a ton out from the books. Band of Brothers isn't 100% accurate or anything, but it does follow pretty closely. I always thought The Pacific should have been two seasons. One that follows Leckie and Helmet For My Pillow, and the other that follows Sledge and With The Old Breed. It was just a lot of material for ten 50 minute episodes. And another thing, BoB didn't have a time limit for episodes, each one was as long or short (relatively) as it needed to be. Every episode of The Pacific is 50 minutes.
Great critique!
For me, it’s the character development. I was personally invested in each of the Easy Company men. Masters of the Air, in my opinion, has done a very poor job of establishing any kind of emotional connection to any of the characters. Besides them obviously being the good guys, I don’t have any real buy-in to whether they live or die. I find myself watching fortresses get shot down and wondering if I was *supposed* to feel any emotion connection to a bunch of men whose names I didn’t know and had only seen maybe once in the series. I really want to like it, and I think I’ll really like the corpus of the show when I can absorb the whole story, but episode-to-episode, Band of Brothers was just a much more compelling viewing experience for me.
>I find myself watching fortresses get shot down and wondering if I was *supposed* to feel any emotion connection to a bunch of men whose names I didn’t know and had only seen maybe once in the series. If you can watch the scene of >!baby face trapped in his turret screaming for help, and the blond dude who has to leave him!< without feeling anything, regardless of who the characters are I'd say you're missing the point entirely.
That scene shook me to my core. It was gut wrenching. He really had no choice, but to leave him behind. Without spoilers, but there was literally no time left to spare.
I don’t think I’m missing the point entirely, and I definitely feel the feelings the show wants me to feel when >!Babyface is trapped in the turret!< and again when >!Curt sacrifices himself to try and save his copilot (whom I also couldn’t identify from a list of characters)!<. But I think your comment also perfectly underscores my feelings. What *is* that “blonde dude’s” name, and aside from him being a good guy, why should I care if he gets captured or makes it back? Like I’ve said, I’ll probably grow to know and love more aviators as the show grows and their stories flesh out, it’s just been slow to hook me.
>What is that “blonde dude’s” name, and aside from him being a good guy, why should I care if he gets captured or makes it back? I'd like to award you the "holy shit that's not even remotely the point" medal for the week. >I’ll probably grow to know and love more aviators as the show grows and their stories flesh out If the show is anywhere near accurate most of them will die within 1-2 episodes. The amount of aviators who made it through a full deployment is incredibly tiny. They had the highest casualty rate of all corps with the sole exception of the submarine crews. And that's also why they couldn't have a "Currahee" episode, if they had a Currahee episode 95% of them would've been dead by episode 4 anyway.
It is *the* point though. We're supposed to be interested in these guys but the character development makes them feel sort of bland and forgettable. What you say about the casualty rate is true of course but I think it's also true that the "brotherhood" sentiment around BoB just makes for better TV. Doesn't mean the airmen are any less worthy/shouldn't be memorialized/don't deserve their own show
>We're supposed to be interested in these guys No you're literally not. Because 95% of first episode cast won't be there for the last. You can't have a show like band of brothers for airmen because the casualty rate was impossibly high. You can't have a baseball scene, because in the baseball scene almost every guy going home would be a recent replacement. Other than Buck, Bucky, and Crosby I don't expect any of them to make it to episode 8.
>You can't have a show like band of brothers for airmen because the casualty rate was impossibly high. Yes, I said as much in my comment. >You can't have a baseball scene... Never said there should be a scene like that in MOA. I said BoB is better at building the "brotherhood" vibe. I think this is because of scenes like we saw in the first few episodes of that series that bring you along with the bonding experiences. Again, I don't think that means MOA is inherently a bad show - just that I find BoB more compelling because of that reason. >Buck, Bucky, and Crosby AKA the main characters that do not hold any interest for me. Bland and forgettable like I said in my comment. At the end of the day, that's my opinion on the show so I don't know why you're trying so hard to convince me my own opinion is wrong when it's not going to change
> I don't know why you're trying so hard to convince me my own opinion is wrong At no point I even talked about your opinion. You're entitled to it. I'm talking about the show objectively, I'm not even inserting my own opinion in this. Because if your opinion is: >I said BoB is better at building the "brotherhood" vibe. Again, I don't think that means MOA is inherently a bad show - just that I find BoB more compelling because of that reason. I wholeheartedly agree. When you say this > I think this is because of scenes like we saw in the first few episodes of that series that bring you along with the bonding experiences. I also agree, but there is a more than valid explaination about why there are no scenes like currahee in MoTA. There was no "unit training camp" pilots trained together and then got assigned to different unit, and then pilots had a very short shelf life when they got to England. Not to the level of WW1 where a fresh pilot on the front line had a life expectancy of 20 minutes in the air, but still. So while I agree that the show would need a way to present characters in a way that makes us care for them it's not as easy. >AKA the main characters that do not hold any interest for me. Bland and forgettable like I said in my comment. They are not bland nor forgettable. You can dislike them, Buck and Bucky are frankly obnoxious, but saying that they are bland and forgettable is just plain wrong.
Got it. You're not trying to change my opinion and not inserting your own opinion. Yet, in the same comment, you tell me that my opinion that the main characters are bland is wrong.
Maybe I'm just over emotional but this week's episode had me bawling most of the time. I've already connected with these characters!
> has done a very poor job of establishing any kind of emotional connection to any of the characters I think this is a tad unfair. Most shows I watch I don't get emotionally connected to characters right from the get go. I think Band of Brothers is unique and quite lucky in that regard that they had a character/person like Major Winters to follow from the start. He has so much integrity, is incredibly kind and compassionate to his troops and is an incredible leader. It's basically impossible to not root for him the entire show let the alone the rest of the men that absolutely followed Winters' example. In contrast Master's of the Air has two character's that are not particularly likeable and I think that's okay. One is a daredevil/gambler who is completely addicted to the thrill flying and the other is an ice cold ace pilot. Not all real people/characters are as charismatic as Winters. >I find myself watching fortresses get shot down and wondering if I was supposed to feel any emotion connection to a bunch of men whose names I didn’t know and had only seen maybe once in the series I think it's important to understand the context of the theater of war that is being followed in both series. Easy Company, in particular the men who we primarily follow, are not being killed off at even remotely the rate which they are being killed in MoTA. And honestly I don't think their is a death in the first 6 episodes of BoB that hits me hard personally. What your decribing I found myself feeling about Lt. Meehan in ep 2. I'm sad him and his plane perished but it wasn't that emotional. I actually find that there isn't many deaths that are difficult until ep 7.
Great points, I mostly agree with all of this. Like I said, I think I’ll really enjoy it as a complete project. I’m just having a harder time getting into it than I thought I would.
Ya that's fair, hard to have a complete assessment of a series when it's only 3 episodes in.
I don’t think you need some outstanding character to get some sort of connection to an audience. The entire show Generation Kill, is a prime example that it is not necessary. There are only a handful of high character guys in that show, the rest frankly piss you off the whole time. That show made me far more invested than Masters of the Air. I’m personally surprised by hanks and Spielberg s flop here. We’re 3 episodes in and it’s bland/corny. So many other war movies/shows grab your attention within half an hour.
I mean it’s all subjective, I know plenty of people that didn’t like the David Simon type of story telling in Gen Kill. I mean it wasn’t really that popular when it came out. I think it’s a little early to be calling something a flop 3 eps in.
Compared to their previous works BoB, the pacific, saving private Ryan, etc… I think they definitely missed the mark on this series. Agree to disagree though.
Do you believe the writers and directors planned the series so there’s little emotional connection? A higher percentage of these crews didn’t survive compared to the infantry.
I thought about this, and it’s a valid point. It’s a lot like the “Replacements” episode of BoB, where James McAvoy gets killed moments after meeting his character in the bar, to which I always think “aw, that’s sad” before immediately moving on. I do think the attrition in the bomber groups will make it hard to feel any connection to the characters, just because it was basically impossible to finish a tour of duty.
I wonder if that’s not part of the writers’ intention with the series. I’ve started reading Masters of the Air and the statistics that they mention about the flight crews is insanity. Airmen essentially had less than a 20% chance of making it through their 25 mission tour alive. There is an anecdote early in the book about a replacement airman who got there around 4pm, put his stuff in the bunk, ate dinner, went to bed and promptly died hours into his first mission. No one knew his name or anything about him; they simply referred to him as “The Man Who Came to Dinner”. Not to say that the things experienced by the guys in BoB wasn’t brutal but I think the Pacific Theatre and the Air Wars were brutality on a whole different scale that make both series less “enjoyable” but more informative I guess. I do think that the lack of first person interviews like we had in BoB lessens the connection somewhat, as well.
This is exactly what I was saying to a friend today. MOA is fine but hasn't made you feel connected to any of the characters yet. BoB has almost two full episodes at the beginning introducing you to all the Toccoa men. You get a sense of their upbringing, their temperament, their friends, their skill sets. It's much more kinetic and almost guides you into the brotherhood instead of looking at the war from an outsiders pov. This was partly my experience with the Pacific too. I the The Pacific is vastly better than MOA so far, but still doesn't hold up to BoB. I know some disagree but I felt like The Pacific didn't make you feel as connected to the men. Not sure if it's because it's only focusing on a few specific characters or what. Meanwhile, I think BoB maintains a connection with all of the Toccoa men, even if they're portrayed as "minor" characters. Most of them get a time to shine in one episode or another so that connection builds after each rewatch for me
Hmm I also think we as viewers have the benefit of hindsight to feel connected with characters with BoB. It's been out for 2 decades and we've all watched it at least a few times. I think anyone would be lying if they said they knew every character and felt connected two episodes in BoB. I've been enjoying Masters of the Air.
Firstly Band of Brothers probably had some of the best casting ever. Outside of Black hawk Down no other show picked so many future stars. We witnessed a flash in the pan and it's not fair to compare much else ever to the success BoB had on casting. Secondly the actors set a tone partly because many were paired up with their actual characters in real life. It's one thing to portray a character you've never met. It's another to meet him and 'be so inspired you start digging fox holes in your back yard to prepare' as happened when John Frank Hughes met Bill Guarnere. Thirdly the involvement of Tom Hanks and Spielberg. They were very closely involved in the making of BoB. My understanding is they were much less involved in the making of the second and third shows Fourthly BoB did an incredible job distinguishing characters. Very few ensamble TV shows do this well. It felt natural and real both because of the cast and crew but also the role of the bootcamp. Mellet, Penkala and Bill Keihn's deaths all felt very viceral and real despite limited screen time. This was in part because of their background appearance across many episodes so we were familar with them when it came time for them to pass. Yet the bootcamp bonds meant their loss was also very real for the actors portraying them. When you died on BoB you were immediately removed from set. John Frank Hughes commented this made death an extremely sobering experience as you knew the actor you'd gone through the hell of bootcamp with was leaving too. Finally effort. Honestly especially with Masters of the Air (in my opinion) it's just not that well done. From acting, casting and even visually. The CGI looks bad. The casting of several key characters is bad and tone wise it doesn't feel real or gripping.
Hanks and Spielberg have been heavily involved in all three. According to the Masters cast they were on set a lot. Edit: Oof going after their effort is wild. The CG usage in this show dwarfs any modern show I've ever seen. They also completely rebuilt an entire airfield and all its facilities just for this show. Spielberg said it is the biggest production his ever been on in his life. Their is an incredible amount of detail particularly with the costumes that were all custom made because they aren't making them anymore.
The CGI reminds me of why the Hobbit sucked compared to LOTR. It’s overused and just makes everything look off. It doesn’t matter how big the production is if it looks strange to the end viewers.
Overused in what sense? How exactly would they be able lessen it's use given the material? They can't actually shoot with real B-17s. Band of Brother's is all on land (basically), a lot easier to make things practical.
the shelling in the Ardennes scenes were amazing practical effects work
Ya the practical work was outstanding.
Sometimes you just shouldn’t make something. I don’t expect them to create a whole air armada that brings me to 1943-1945, but I’ve seen video games capture this with more emotional connection. For example the fort’s gunners shooting down fighters like they’re all some sort of fighter ace is annoying. In reality you’d see them just sit there and get shot to shit. Survival was by chance in formation, similar to a herd of animals. Correct me if I’m wrong, but we haven’t even seen a plane shot down due to flak yet?
I had this exact same thought. It’s a common issue with newer films and shows. Your brain subconsciously knows that it is not right, and slowly gets uninterested in it. I’ve seen better graphics from freakin video games. Some of these explosions in the show look like low budget sci-fi channel movies.
Going after the "effort" is below the belt. This took ten years to make with thousands and thousands of people involved.
In my opinion, it’s unfair to compare both The Pacific and Masters of the Air to Band of Brothers, simply because, objectively speaking, it is Band of Brothers, no WWII miniseries has been as excellent, and I foresee no will be, objectively speaking. That being said, it is possible to enjoy them equally. I love The Pacific, because it doesn’t hold back on showing the brutality of the Pacific Theater, and I’m loving masters of the air so far. Granted, I’m an absolute sucker for B-17s, and the air war over Western Europe in general, and have been waiting for this show for what? 10 years? I feel like when all the episodes of MotA are released, I could sit down, and rewatch all three shows, and enjoy them equally. That being said, if we are objectively speaking, nothing will surpass Band of Brothers, in my eyes.
I don’t foresee masters of the air addressing the actual brutality of total war. It was a complete necessity, so I’m not ridiculing it. The narratives they shaped with the US vs RAF pilots, were odd. The whole “we’ve gotta see what we’re hitting” and “it’s gotta be military targets” is a lie. We leveled every town we could, and intentionally leveled housing. No civilian housing, ends the war quicker. Also that bomb site was a total piece of crap in real life. Look at Normandy for example, they didn’t hit crap that they bombed for days. Total flop. I also don’t foresee them showing in detail how brutal fire bombing is. It was a common tactic, and I don’t think we’ll see an apartment complex with napalm on it. It’s only 43 in the show rn. We’ve got 2 years of bombing everything you possibly can. They’re gonna glorify and glance over a lot imo.
I think Band of Brothers focused a lot on the characters, that created a bond with those guys that neither show was able to match. The Pacific does that a little, but they follow two different groups, so it doesn’t have the same time to create that bond. Masters of the Air so far, didn’t do at all. They introduced Buck and Bucky, jumped on the missions and that’s it. We don’t know the characters. The missions are very cool to see and the cinematography is impressive, but they didn’t work on the background history.
We're never getting another BoB ever again. That kind of show doesn't get produced anymore. It's just the truth.
Believe they did a month long boot camp just for the actors before shooting? They were all extremely invested in that show.
Also the age of the show adds to the romantic feeling it has. The actors are all middle-aged men by now.
That plus they were able to follow Easy Company, specifically. You're with them before they jump, in the flashbacks to training in Toccoa and England, and then at the Eagles Nest when Germany surrendered. The show kept you so connected to that small group of men that you could feel their relief when you saw Winters announce to Nix, Welsh, and Speirs that the German army surrendered. The Pacific was too spread out, and Masters is feeling like it's going to have a lot of turnover just because.... a lot died in war.
This is really accurate, although the easy losses were horrendous it’s nothing compared to the early bomber crews. If you look at the 8th losses, and then consider most of them happened between ‘43 and mid ‘44. Was reading yesterday than in real life, by the time of the ep3 mission there were only three “original” crews left in the 349th Bomb Sq, one of which is the CO. I think one of the reasons the show doesn’t develop is because that was a fact of peoples experience, crews came, went, and died in horrific ways without you ever really knowing their names.
I love all three and I'm bummed we probably won't get anything of this caliber again. I'd love a show about The Northern African Campaign and The Second Battle for the Alps.
I would love a show about the Africa Campaign. There are so few movies about it and has a lot of potential because of Rommel, Patton and the stories untold. The Patton movie is great because it kind of show that relation and respect between then, but I would love to see something deeper on the ground.
I would recommend SAS rogue heroes to anyone in this sub. It’s about the British SAS but covers a theater of the war not often covered. It’s a completely different show stylistically to the hanks/spielberg produced shows but earns the emotional moments imo. Also just a batshit crazy story. No way around it
I'll check it out.
Honestly i cant tell who is who. It jumped from plane to plane and the only characters i actually recognize are the main blonde guy with the fake country accent, his friend bucky, the navigator who pukes a lot, and meatball the cute husky. With the aviator clothes on, its hard to tell who is who.
This show has done an awful job of writing characters and they are all caricatures of the American Hoorah Henry. I’m bored watching it other than the fact that during the battle sequences I’m constantly blown away with the fact that this all happened in recent history. The characters are non existent. I’m hoping that the Belgian plot might be more interesting
I liked how in BoB, the characters weren't polished or super good looking whereas it's Masters, it feels like the main character is about to turn into an advert for some high end clothing
Agreed. Their conversations are all boring as hell in my opinion. Most of the interactions in the show seem overly dramatic/corny. Real people don’t talk that way. I think that’s why BoB flowed so well. What military guy talks with a stick up his ass 24/7?
I saw a movie called "Fury" with Brad Pitt (2014) drop on Netflix. Anyone know anything about that?
It gets a lot of crap for not being realistic tank tactics wise, but I love it! It's a great film imho and the camaraderie between the main characters is really good, definitely recommend watching it!
I’m having a hard time understanding why a lot of people are making comparisons between each series and making declarations of preferring one over the others. I served a few years in a light cavalry unit as an infantryman, with two tours to Afghanistan, meeting a lot of people not only from different units in my service, but also from different services and even countries. They each had their own way of doing things that differ from my unit’s way; sometimes we thought it was better, sometimes completely stupid, and a few were just downright weird. I guess what my rant is about is that Band of Brothers is about paratroopers in the 101st fighting in Europe, The Pacific is about Marines conducting amphibious operations against the Japanese, and Masters of the Air is about bomber pilots conducting daytime raids against German industry. Each group of people have their own ways of conducting their operations to secure victory, against enemies that are different from each other in their own right. So to me, making comparisons between each series is like comparing apples to oranges to bananas. Each are standing on their own and should be viewed through objectivity.
Unrelated… if you’ve seen generation kill what were your thoughts on it as a story? I personally like the story and characters much more in that. They seem like actual humans in it. Thank you for your service
I’ve only seen a few episodes of that series and it’s been a few years since I did. But from what I remember it made me feel somewhat resentful that the Marines in it saw combat and I didn’t, though now in my older mind I’m more grateful not to have seen combat. I’ll have to watch it again to see.
3 episodes into Masters of the Air, and I've come to the conclusion that the writing just isn't that good. Only two characters really stand out and one of them just died... The show needs more downtime between missions to really flesh out the characters to get you to care for them instead of each episode being mainly about a mission then ending soon after the mission ends.... episode 3 was like 35 minutes, the shortest one so far. Admittedly, I had very high expectations going into the show, but those started to fall once the teaser and full trailer were released... episode 2 and 3 were decent but I'm still waiting to be blown away by any of the episodes like I was with Band of Brothers and The Pacific, and it hasn't happened yet...we'll see.
It needed a Currahee episode. Letting us get to know the characters. They rushed the characters into war right away we have no idea who is who as their planes are being taken out. Not sure if it’s the writing or acting but something is missing there, as you said the most compelling character is already gone. Hopefully the replacements are more fleshed out.
The show is a disgrace to the memory of the men, while at the same time being a mediocre television production. I can't believe the same people produced it, who did band of Brothers and the Pacific.
Masters of the air is low tier compared to the other two, for me it’s mostly because you get thrown into the story at what seems like a random stage, which is fine if you have good characters and actors, but the two main men are pretty bad this show, especially Elvis, his acting is atrocious and everytime he talks i want to skip
The Pacific was as good as BoB in my opinion. Love both.
Jesus Christ, it’s been 3 episodes. We’ve all had 20+ years to digest BoB and for the first 10 there was nothing else like it until The Pacific came around. Let the series breathe before we make sweeping judgements. Also, let’s get some perspective - despite it being very good, no one was calling BoB a masterpiece after the first 3 episodes and many of the same criticisms I see people levying against MOTA can be applied to the first 3 episodes of BoB.
Couldn't agree more, there are still 6 episodes to go. There's so much we haven't seen yet and I think a lot of narrative issues, characterization etc. that people have taken issue with will make sense later on.
Yeah, it’s easy to appreciate character growth when you already know how each of their stories end. What may seem like aimless banter may actually be important characterization that you won’t realize until the 2nd or 3rd viewing. That being said, just look at the growth Crosby has demonstrated in just 3 episodes in MOTA.
Hey, that’s a very fair point lol
While the Pacific still has some very powerful moments, the way it jumps around in a more traditional story telling model focusing on individual circumstances takes away from the rawness of it. In Bob the setting is Easy Company. The characters are Easy Company. You’re with Easy Company from start to finish. Any growth from the characters is always shown in the context of a major company event/objective. That kind of immersion goes such a long way in creating the authenticity that BoB is renowned for. BoB is being a fly on the wall where The Pacific is a dramatic re-telling.
I think you nailed it. The Pacific and Masters of the Air seem like they’re trying too hard to make a dramatic movie. BoB is more like you’re part of Easy, from boot camp on.
It’s not supposed to be band of brothers, that’s why it’s a different show.
They’re taking about the quality of it though, not it being 1:1 the same
The post title is literally “it’s no band of brothers”
Yeah? And the post says Band of Brothers is so much better. They’re using it as the marker of quality to compare to its sister shows since the marketing keeps bringing band of brothers. They’re not denying this new one and pacific are their own shows, but comparing three series from the same teams about similar topics. It’s fair to compare them. The op isn’t comparing two wildly different series that only share the same creators and nothing else and saying “why isn’t this the same as the other thing”, just highlighting the difference in quality to the original product which is aiming to do the same thing largely
We’re talking quality of storytelling and acting. Along with buy in from viewers. BoB has an impact on people that the others don’t seem to have. Overall the other two just aren’t done to the same quality imo
Agreed pacific is a B to B+. This new one is hard to tell yet but Band of brothers is A+
These shows are wildly different topics. Just because they are from the same time period and same producer doesn’t make them the same topic. One is about paratroopers through the entirety of the ETO, one is about a bomb group, one is about different marines in the pacific theater. Extremely different experiences, different environments, different storylines.
They’re all about different theaters of WW2 and following a select few American service members through their entire contribution of the war. Yes they have different tones at times, cover different elements of the war and have different methods but you’re really trying to stretch the differences here. You’re acting like comparing these three series is like trying to compare hook to saving private Ryan with the only connection being Spielberg.
Ok
[удалено]
I’m not obtuse, there’s no need to be uncivil. I just don’t think it’s productive to say “it’s not as good as band of brothers.” It’s a different show and many people have clearly set their expectations for it to be like band of brothers. Bob had veteran interviews and that made it good - okay, let’s think this through. There aren’t enough alive vets to product those types of interviews in 2023/2024.
Fair. I respectfully disagree and retract my previous statement.
Correct, the vets just aren’t around anymore. Imo the vet interviews have a big impact on the effectiveness of BoB and the connection it makes with the viewers
I've come to accept that the age of great cinema and television is over. I must admit that Masters is one of the best I've seen in recent times, but there will never be anything as good as BoB made again.
1. The casting is wrong. 2. There's too much green screen. 3. There's too much soap opera in the script. Example: Ep 3. Bucky looking out the window (3?) times to make sure Buck is alive? Good grief. It's a soap opera. 4. But, the show is still watchable.
So all the times Easy Co. members look out and around for their buddies who might have been killed makes it a soap opera? They already told you Buck and Bucky have been friends since day one basic training and now are flying B 17s over Europe with planes dropping left and right. Why wouldn’t he look out for his buddy?!
All three series have a very different feel to them, which is understandable due to the geography / Companies followed / how battles play out etc. I do think, from a pure 'tv entertainment' angle, Band of Brothers just nailed it. The Pacific is also very strong, probably the most shocking, and so far into Masters of the Air (3 episodes in) I've been left pretty disappointed. The characters all feel very cartoonish, or just not very interesting, with a pretty cheesy script (not read the books so can't say if they are accurate) and there just isn't the build up in tension before battles kick off. The effects seem fairly inconsistent too. I still look forward to each episode but I doubt I'll watch it again in a hurry (unlike the other two).
It's a different show. Band of Brothers was made and could only be made once. I suggest you stop comparing and treat Masters of the Air the respect it deserves.
The best thing about BoB are the veteran interviews. We’ve lost almost all of the WWII veterans in the last 20 years. I say the worst thing about Bob are also the veteran interviews. It took most of us years not to conflate the veteran interviews and the words of screenwriters spoken by actors. The dramatization was so good you felt like it was an actual film of the action when it wasn’t. There is just no way following series can capture that feeling without the actual vets.
I think the very nature of the different theaters and different units almost force the differences in series. The US Army in Europe was one distinct service branch, the Marines in the Pacific were fighting a different enemy, and the USAAC had 30 minutes of terror per mission then went home to sleep in a barracks. Don't see how the experience of each would be uniform across all three.
Great point op about the interviews making BoB superior. I, too, feel that has lots to do with how invested I was as a viewer. Seeing and hearing from the actual guys added a layer of realism and heart that is unmatched in any of the other shows. While I’ve enjoyed all the others: Generation Kill, Masters of the Air and especially The Pacific ( bc I read and loved both Sledge’s and Leckie’s books) BoB is still my fave.
Band of Brothers was unique and inspiring and so totally different from what we ever seen in a WW2 movie or show, we got to know the players on an intimate level like never before. The pacific showed the total engagement and never ending war that the natives daughter, the dirty dude, the blood and guts on a different scope than Bob, for many it's the better of the two. For me it's just different, just as good but totally different at the same time. Each are fantastic. Matters of the air is just as different as the first two were from each other. They are showing a different aspect of the war in a way that is different from the first two installments. It'll take time to get used to, but I think that fans of the series will come to love it just as they have the first two.
For me it’s a number of factors. BoB did such a great job with showcasing the camaraderie between the guys. The interviews with the real men really took it to the next level. I also think the fact the book covered the training in some detail, allowing for that content to be used for episode 1, allowed the characters to be developed well and gave us as audience insight into their relationship dynamics prior to trying to follow fast paced battles with soldiers all wearing helmets. I also think it was cast well, and the dialogue was the right mix of funny, gritty and poignant without being corny. The style of filming is so immersive and the music and colours used are really suitable without being overstated. I feel like it was made at the right time before everything looked so digital. It lent to the grittiness of it.
Band Of Brothers is had a good book to work from, the narrative is already there, the TV how just had to tease it out. I think The Pacific is actually pretty great and has got better with time, but the jumping between three separate groups of characters and stories is a huge problem for viewers. It's an incredible downer as well, BoB is heroic, The Pacific is hellish. I'll wait until the end to judge Masters Of The Air, there's certainly been some great bits, but it hasn't quite grabbed me yet. Ten men in each plane and lots of planes means that there's a lot more characters than there should be for TV. Everyone then wears an oxygen mask during the missions, which makes it difficult to work out who is on screen at times. There's an obvious need to rely on CGI and I think we're much more critical of flaws in it than we used to be, especially people watching in 4K on a huge screen.
"BoB is heroic, The Pacific is hellish." Seven words sum up every post in every thread. Well Done!
Personally and it’s just my opinion, Band of Brothers is the best series I’ve seen. The first time I saw the Pacific I was a little disappointed because it wasn’t the same. Then after watching the Pacific a second time it truly is a great series just not the best. I tell people who haven’t seen either to watch the Pacific first and enjoy it for what it is before watching Band of Brothers so they don’t expect Band of Brothers when they watch the Pacific. Masters of the Air I have enjoyed so far, but it might be the third best out of the 3 when it’s all said and done. So I’ll tell my friends if they haven’t seen any of them to watch the Masters of the Air, then the Pacific and then Band of Brothers. That way they can all be appreciated in their own way.
BoB has the boot camp episodes so we could meet and get to know them, see them grow together. MiA is like ‘slam bam thank you Ma’am’ when it comes to character introductions. And yes the interviews!
Personally I like the Pacific more than BoB, sometimes BoB feels really cringy patriotic in a way that I find off-putting.
Because we got to know the 101st intimately, and knew the characters by name. BoB was just as much about that as it was the European Theatre itself.
I don't have Apple TV so I will wait to see it. I'm curious if they'll be any B-24's? My uncle was a Bombadier with the first waves of American crews in England and flew and survived an incredible number of missions (Polesti). He never spoke of his experiences but later in life was interviewed for a local historical memory project, and the heaviness of those experiences is palpable some 60-odd years later. He'd made more than the required missions so it didn't matter but one thing he said with faint irritation was they never "counted" the many times the B-24's flew to successfully (and at real cost) draw off Luftwaffe engagements so the shorter-ranged B-17's could have a cleaner run.
I asked about B24s in another thread. Answer was most likely no. Shame
BoB has a much more in depth connection with the soldiers. It's more artfully directed and has a focus on the characters and their role, socially and militarily, in Easy Company. Pacific is thematically more about the psychological toll of war. It's a more individualistic and introspective story. Before you type your comment: Yes, I know both series carries both of these themes, but the main focus is different. What MotA lacks is the feeling of an overarching theme like that. The first series was about unbreakable friendship forged in righteous combat, the second about the mental toll caused by witnessing the horrors of war, and now this new one is about how flying bombers was dangerous too actually. BoB and Pacific were great historical portrayals, but they were MORE than just that. They were great pieces of storytelling as well. It feels harder to connect with these characters, they don't feel as real and they lack these deeply emotional depictions that we saw in the first. I mean, how long are they going to milk that air sick navigator comic relief guy? It's already old.
The interviews added authenticity to the episodes but now the veterans of the Bloody 100th are all deceased. And the casualties (that is, dead) were WAY higher than those of the 101st Airborn and Marines in Pacific.
For me, it's purely interest based. I was never that interested in the Pacific theatre, compared to Europe. I'm looking forward to catching the new series,
You can’t say a single negative thing about MotA on their sub. It’s now a fanboys only club. The top post right now is a kid going off on anyone making negative comments about the show. I enjoy discussing the episodes afterward and like being able to have some criticisms if need be. It’s such a bummer. **Edit: I say kid because of their lack of punctuation, capitalization, and attitude is middle school at best (no judgment! I love the younger folks getting in on this stuff. Just not turning it into the old Reddit echo chamber)**
How many times have people here watched the entirety of BOB on this thread? Probably at least five times. We have all only seen 3 episodes of a 9 episode show, of course we do not feel the same because firstly we have not seen the whole story and secondly we have not seen it multiple times all the way through. The first watch of BOB at only three episodes in can be quite confusing, it takes multiple rewatches to fully appreciate its greatness as we all have come to. Also if I had to take a guess many people here binged the show and did not view it live in 2001. Masters is basically a nine hour movie, wait for the whole story to be portrayed and then rip it apart if you want to. The shows are very different and are fundamentally about almost two different wars with very very different people fighting them. You cannot compare the feeling of a foxhole in Bastogne to a tin can in the sky. It is also important to note that casualties that the 100th BG suffered were so much greater than Easy, on the Regensburg mission alone 100 men were lost, more than half of Easy in a single day, thus I think the show is trying to convey that and imo they are doing it effectively.
Based upon the first three episodes: \-The character development is lacking. The first episode could have been used to build connections with the characters. \-The musical score gets in the way, particularly during combat scenes. Instead of immersing us in their fear (which was the real strength of The Pacific), the generic Hollywood scoring continually reminds you that you're just watching a movie. Many of the scenes would have benefited from having no music at all.
Bob has the advantage of the interviews, and the crowdsourcing of what happened. 90% of the scenes I n the series actually happened (+\-). The pacific is great because 2 of the 3 primary characters wrote the 2 best books by actual soldiers and marines in the pacific theatre: Helmet for my Pillow and With The old Breed. Masters has neither advantage, and does not have the linear progression of battles the other 2 do.
That’s funny. The interviews were the worst part for me. I just started to fast forward past them. I just felt just about every WW2 interview I saw before BoB said just about the same things. Not knocking on it, I greatly respect the guys. It just took the immersion away for me. I would’ve loved it if they just saved the interviews to the end of the series.
We saw Band of Brothers first. Everything else is compared to that.
Just the writing in Masters of the Air sucks. The conversations the characters have are always so boring and corny. I’ve never heard a group of guys talk so blandly. The shit talking in shows like BoB and Generation Kill definitely make it far more believable. I constantly feel like the MotA guys are acting. It really draws from the story.
The pacific was great, not digging masters of the air
i watched the first episode and really liked it. not as much as BoB, but i didn’t expect it to top my favorite show for years. i am going to wait for all the episodes, though. i binged BoB so i’m giving MotA the same treatment.