The Pacific [Band of Brothers II]
- Thread starter Ralfst3r
- Start date
you mean hollywood showing American's coming in and winning the war onehanded?
wouldnt matter if it was WW1 or WW2 then
wouldnt matter if it was WW1 or WW2 then
who else would do it? bollywood? no they wouldn't they are doing romantic musical comidies it is just not them to do a drama,much less to the standards of the western world. And for all intens and puropses Hollywood and Bollywood are the only ones with the budjets that would come close to covering the expensis of what it would take to make a film or series like this. That is why it is hollywood that is capable of breaking new ground.
See, that's the problem right there. Why must a movie/series about war be 'fun' in the first place.
That's because the war in your view is already skewed. There were far more brutal and in the end more important battles fought around the same or even way later as market garden. And some of them were operational victories for Germany. But you can't think of them, because they happened on a front that didn't involve the US or GB.
Then show the war crimes I say. The only thing important to me is that they are real and well researched. It annoys me anyway that the modern war movies are about as romanticising as those from the 50s.
I doubt a 'Band of Brothers' existed in Nam!
New kids were shipped in (and out) all the time. There was no time for any kind of comradeship. Unless its some made up Hollywood BS!!!
And if you believe that then that's just fine!
Last edited:
Because you want people to watch it, so that you can make money, so that you can make more films / series?
Or maybe not, I guess.
I doubt a 'Band of Brothers' existed in Nam!
New kids were shipped in (and out) all the time. There was no time for any kind of comradeship. Unless its some made up Hollywood BS!!!
And if you believe that then that's just fine!
They could focus on a unit from its first deployment in Vietnam when all the personnel know each other and serve their tours in unison... one by one dwindling down as the unit takes casualties and receive reinforcements until in the last episode there's just two left. Sure there are new guys who have earned their stay, but they're not the Old Guard... it's just not the same...
Then one of them dies doing something stupid and/or heroic and the last man rides the chopper out of the hotzone, tears rolling down his face, fade to black.
Or something, I dunno.
Last edited:
Or maybe you have some morals and want people to know what it's like?
Some of the best movies have ****ty endings, you know.
... and how many of those made lots of money, enabling the producers to make more movies, and more money?
The issue isn't that films with unhappy endings are unsuccessful, the issue is that the people that are focussed on telling a story for everyone are not interested in making things as realistic, or as accurate as possible - they are interested in making things as entertaining as possible for as many people as possible. And let's be honest, most people don't give a ****. When you're covering the subject of war you cannot tell a story with a happy ending without sacrificing the true nature of the it. War is hell.
Good war films don't have "happy" endings...they have a resolution with a sidestory of catastrophic loss. And in my opinion the best (especially) war films are usually the ones with "sad" endings...
Last edited:
On the world map behind the officer giving his speech, it shows Denmark as Axis or Axis-occupied, even though it was officially neutral and unofficially pro-Allies. Maybe because the Germans occupied Denmark.
even more interesting is that the map shows the whole Italian Empire as it was before the 2nd world war as (eeeevil) Nazi territory
