Right, just getting in early with this! Can people please avoid posting political views within this thread - I don't wanna see any anti-Bush, pro-Bush, anti-war, pro-war (and all other variations!) views. Please keep discussion to the DVD only.

This was a great series.  The criticism it got from some Iraq War vets may have been somewhat justified, but all in all, I thought it was a pretty well-done series, in the fact that for the most part, the physics they used for the special effects and all, were pretty accurate.  

The acting I thought was pretty good considering.  The only thing that kinda got tedious was the "back home" scenes.  Kinda the same way the "back home" scenes in We Were Soldiers took you out of the moment.  I generally hate all that jumping around from one event to another.  I guess that's why I still don't care for Tarantino's Pulp Fiction.

In any case, I've already got this on pre-order, and I can't wait to own this with anamorphic widescreen and 5.1 audio.  Should be a good set.  I bet it comes in slimcases.

I wonder if there are any readers who were or are actually "over there" that could tell me how realistic the series is. I'm assuming it can't be 100%, as it plays on television, which has certain rules about language and violence.

Gabe Powers wrote: I wonder if there are any readers who were or are actually "over there" that could tell me how realistic the series is. I'm assuming it can't be 100%, as it plays on television, which has certain rules about language and violence.

Maybe you missed the part about it being an FX series.  The more risque sister channel of the mainstream FOX.  The language and violence level in Over There was quite realistic.  In the pilot episode, for example, there was a close-up shot (thru a gun scope) of a terrorist getting his head blown off by a direct hit of a 40mm grenade.  Trust me, this series didn't hold back on the level of violence.  As for the language, let me give you this example...the main character, the sergeant, is nicknamed Sgt. "Scream".  When a higher ranking officer asked him why they called him Sgt. "Scream", he answered "I HAVE NO GODDAMNED IDEA, SIR!"

The battle scenes are very well done, not only in realistic ballistics, (maybe not totally realistic in their tactics, but it'd take a real soldier to pick out the inaccuracies), but in the level of tension.  When they're going from room to room in structures, you're feeling the same anxiety they are.

I'd say the only thing this series lacked was any sort of armor combat.  Oh, they used HUMVEEs till you're blue in the face, but some heavy armor support would have been fun to watch.  But the series really wasn't really about an overview of the war, but about this small squad of soldiers under the command of a sergeant who was supposed to be going home just before he was assigned them.

My suggestion is to go rent the pilot episode, which is available separately, if you like that, I'd pick up the whole series.  The way I look at it, I'd rather pick up this 13-episode series for ~$35, rather than spend $25 for Jarhead, which has very little action.

David Molinarolo wrote:
I generally hate all that jumping around from one event to another.  I guess that's why I still don't care for Tarantino's Pulp Fiction.


Blasphmey! hehe

So what do you think of Lost? That show lives and dies with its 'back home' sequences.

I never really got into this show. It seemed weird to me that they were always capitalizing on how it was "gut-wrenching" but they never pointed out anything but that. I started to wonder if it had any worth other than shock value.

Bradavon wrote: I've never heard of this. I don't think it's been shown in the UK has it?

Is it about the Second (current) Iraq War?

I asked the same thing. The silence was like the desert wind.....

Thanks. That would be US and British occupation to be precise.

I don't suppose it gives both sides or is it just the American point of view?

Mal wrote:
I'd imagine the majority wouldn't want to watch a drama about war whilst there's a major one going on in real life.

Er..yeah...the SAME war!

OK, what's with all the ignorance about this show?  And I mean that literally.  Meaning, lack of knowledge.

Yes, this show is about the current conflict in Iraq.  NOT the '91 Gulf War.  It's supposed to take place in 2004, I believe.

It's filmed mainly in southern California, and perhaps some in Baja California, Mexico.  But the way they shoot the scenes, you can't hardly tell where it's shot.  The only scenes that make that apparent is when they're traveling on desert roads, where you can see mountains and cactii in the background.  Something that doesn't really exist in Iraq.


But just to clarify something for you UK'ers...it's not an occupation....hasn't been since June 2004.  Control was turned over to the interim Iraqi government then.  Thus, technically, ending the occupation.  I know that concept is hard for some of you knee-jerk reactionists to grasp.

The presense of foreign troops in a country does not an occupation make.  If that were the case, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Germany would still be occupied.

Coalition troops in Iraq are there as a security force.  Nothing more, nothing less.  They do not run the country, as say Nazi Germany's forces did during WWII.

David, please, enough with the baiting.

Though I am interested in the local of the show's shooting. I'm from Southern AZ and use to drive by the piece of land they shot Three Kings around. The two environments are so very simular that I remember Arizonian Armed Foreces memebers were specifically recruted for the first Iraqi conflict, though I believe I was about 12 at the time. All the kids in my class had a soldier pen pal. I still have all my Operation Desert Storm postcards to this day.

I think the actual show was overlooked by the public, including myself. I am honestly curios about it, and will put it on my Netflix cue, but God only knows when I'll get to it, I've got like 120 things on that list, plus all the stuff I buy and the review copies I get.

I'm going to make an ignorant assumption that this series haa nothing on Band of Brothers though, because really, I don't see how it could.

This show looked good, but I never got a chance to see it.  It's hard to tell if it would be worth a blind buy based on the messages posted here.  Seems like a 50/50 split.  Hopefully one of my friends will buy it so I can check it out first.

Mal wrote:
David Molinarolo wrote: But just to clarify something for you UK'ers...it's not an occupation....hasn't been since June 2004.
The term is used quite a lot in the media here - although these days it usually appears in quotes, don't worry about it.

Well yeah, I know...and that's the problem.  The problem presents itself when the anti-war crowd uses the term inaccurately.  It just makes them and their cause look foolish.  

Like I said, the presence of foreign troops does not an occupation make.  An occupation is when the "occupying" forces actually control the government activities in that region/country.  

The misuse of the term in this case, would be like saying that every state in the Union is occupied by its National Guard, and every state that has an active duty military base, is also occupied.  Both statements, of course, are ridiculous.  

And a quick note to Gabe...I'm not baiting...I'm clarifying.  There's a big difference.  And about comparing Over There to Band of Brothers, I agree.  It's a case about apples and oranges.  Band of Brothers showed the growth and change of soldiers from bootcamp to hardened war veterans by the end of the war.  Over There shows typical engagements and political bullc**p that the troops have to deal with in a politically correct war.

One thing that Over There was clear on, was that it did not portray a pro-war stance, nor did it portray a anti-war stance.  There were elements in the 13 episodes that displayed aspects for both sides of the argument.  But it mainly just showed the hardships and tensions of a squad of soldiers in this war.  Basically it's like a new version of the late '80s show "Tour of Duty" which dealt with Vietnam.  

Tony DeFrancisco wrote: I remember this show... in my opinion, I liked this better than Rescue Me.

You remember it?  Well, I should hope so.  It just finished airing in late October.  You say that as this was an old show.

Vic never says F**k James Tully wrote: David Molinarolo wrote:
Maybe you missed the part about it being an FX series.  The more risque sister channel of the mainstream FOX.  The language and violence level in Over There was quite realistic.

But The Shield is on FX and despite it being an adult show, never actually uses any swear words. I'm not saying that I'm a big fan of swearing but sometimes you know that characters would be 'F'ing and blinding all over the place and they dont do it - it detracts from the realism.

Maybe not F**k, but there are alot of s**t, d**k and other such language.

Which reminds me, when do we get Lucky on DVD?