|
The Pacific (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Could you elaborate just a tad? I remember that episode but I can’t quite picture what you’re talking about. I remember the company finding the concentration camp, but that’s about it. |
It's nothing major, it was just the episode title and from that the caption saying "Why We Fight". Quite a small thing, but it certainly didn't sit right with me, because it was clearly trying to suggest America fought to stop tyranny and so on, which isn't really true at all.
| quote: | | Yeah, I always found that a little weird. What was the point of that whole saga, other than to make us cringe as the knife went in? still though, I wouldn’t file it under ‘historic inaccuracy’ compared to poetic license. I give writers/directors quite a bit of latitude if they’re portraying a fictitious narrative set against the backdrop of an historical event. |
Yeah, I wasn't talking about historical inaccuracy as such. I was just listing things about the Spielbergian combat movie that strike me as a bit weird or not right. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
I didn't know historical fact constituted an 'agenda'. |
Depends on the creator/director's influence. Fact? Have you read Tom Hanks' statements? He's not a historian... true historians are pretty upset at his take in this matter. Read this article about how far from reality Hanks is (and ignorant from a real historical standpoint), by renown Stanford historian Victor Hanson:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson031310.html |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
It's nothing major, it was just the episode title and from that the caption saying "Why We Fight". Quite a small thing, but it certainly didn't sit right with me, because it was clearly trying to suggest America fought to stop tyranny and so on, which isn't really true at all. |
I don't think that the title of the episode was meant to suggest that, at all. I think it pertained to a realization that, occurring upon discovery of the concentration camp, the end result was much more important than the reasons that America and its allies fought in the war, on the outset. |
|
|
| enydo |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Depends on the creator/director's influence. Fact? Have you read Tom Hanks' statements? He's not a historian... true historians are pretty upset at his take in this matter. Read this article about how far from reality Hanks is (and ignorant from a real historical standpoint), by renown Stanford historian Victor Hanson:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson031310.html |
Hmmm, well after watching the first episode, it doesn't really seem like they're approaching the war from that point of view. The first episode explicitly states why we went to war in the first place: Pearl Harbor, and Japan's conquest of the Pacific leading to the halting of our trading with Australia.
While Hank's comment is surely a little out of place, the first episode didn't really seek to paint the war as a racial thing. One aspect of it though is that racial prejudice and tension arise as a result of war, so maybe we'll be seeing more of this in future episodes. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Depends on the creator/director's influence. Fact? Have you read Tom Hanks' statements? He's not a historian... true historians are pretty upset at his take in this matter. Read this article about how far from reality Hanks is (and ignorant from a real historical standpoint), by renown Stanford historian Victor Hanson:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson031310.html |
Honestly, that article doesn't seem grounded in very much familiarity with the mini-series, at all. It seems more reliant on a rather pedantic disagreement with what was said during an interview and the fact that it's Hanks making the comparison subject to interpretation doesn't negate (nor does it imply) its veracity nor the validity of Hank's work in the mini-series. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Depends on the creator/director's influence. Fact? Have you read Tom Hanks' statements? He's not a historian... true historians are pretty upset at his take in this matter. Read this article about how far from reality Hanks is (and ignorant from a real historical standpoint), by renown Stanford historian Victor Hanson:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson031310.html |
I don't think that ONE statement represents an agenda, plain and simple. It is once sentence, that does make sense. He is not talking about the official policy of the United States government (though you could argue it because of the internment camps and period propaganda), but of general attitudes in place in the 40s after Pearl Harbor.
I also don't think he was trying to reduce the entire war in the pacific to those racial undertones, like you and Mr. Hanson seem to believe. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| Yeah i agree with you guys; its about Hanks' statements last week. Given those words, i think Hanson (and myself) are weary regarding what to expect. But like he said in the article, it very well may end up being a nice bookend to Band of Brothers. I hope so! |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| I loved every minute of it. |
|
|
| bas |
| Pretty good first episode, I'm all hooked now. |
|
|
| woscar |
| Finally procured a decent 720p version, really looking forward to it. |
|
|
| Nostalgic |
| I wish they would do a 10 part series on North Africa with Rommel, Montgomery, etc. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
I don't think that the title of the episode was meant to suggest that, at all. I think it pertained to a realization that, occurring upon discovery of the concentration camp, the end result was much more important than the reasons that America and its allies fought in the war, on the outset. |
That's a very generous interpretation. Perhaps there's something in the episode you can quote me to add weight to that view of it, but otherwise I don't really buy it. |
|
|
|
|
