I had limited expectations, BoB and the Pacific were great, but I felt that this was largely because they fit the eras in which they were released, respectively being a 90s and 00s perspectives on Western warfare. While I still love BoB (MEDIIIC!!!), the Pacific has held up a bit better, in part because it more consistently and varyingly…
I had limited expectations, BoB and the Pacific were great, but I felt that this was largely because they fit the eras in which they were released, respectively being a 90s and 00s perspectives on Western warfare. While I still love BoB (MEDIIIC!!!), the Pacific has held up a bit better, in part because it more consistently and varyingly depicts the futility and confusion of war. The trailers of Masters of the Air definitely were closer to BoB (unsurprising regarding the theatre of war it focuses on), and I was not that interested in some reductive version of BoB. While the first two episodes confirmed this to some extent, I was still entertained. The performances by the main actors are probably the biggest reason for this, possibly combined with the novelty of aerial warfare from a bomber's perspective. For now, I am in, though I hope for some more complexity regarding these bombing campaigns. I can also imagine that these bombing runs can get tedious. Being in the air does not allow for a change of terrain, and the nature of the mission (bomb something) is not likely to change much tactically.
Regarding the inability to distinguish characters, I initially had the same issues with BoB and the Pacific. One of my favourite series of the last few years - season 1 of The Terror - also had a lot of similar looking men in uniform and facial covers. However, because these series rewarded you for recognising (minor) characters, it did increase their re-watchability to some extent. If Masters of the Air pays the same attention to major and minor character arcs, for me the issue will solve itself in the end. Let's see.
I had limited expectations, BoB and the Pacific were great, but I felt that this was largely because they fit the eras in which they were released, respectively being a 90s and 00s perspectives on Western warfare. While I still love BoB (MEDIIIC!!!), the Pacific has held up a bit better, in part because it more consistently and varyingly depicts the futility and confusion of war. The trailers of Masters of the Air definitely were closer to BoB (unsurprising regarding the theatre of war it focuses on), and I was not that interested in some reductive version of BoB. While the first two episodes confirmed this to some extent, I was still entertained. The performances by the main actors are probably the biggest reason for this, possibly combined with the novelty of aerial warfare from a bomber's perspective. For now, I am in, though I hope for some more complexity regarding these bombing campaigns. I can also imagine that these bombing runs can get tedious. Being in the air does not allow for a change of terrain, and the nature of the mission (bomb something) is not likely to change much tactically.
Regarding the inability to distinguish characters, I initially had the same issues with BoB and the Pacific. One of my favourite series of the last few years - season 1 of The Terror - also had a lot of similar looking men in uniform and facial covers. However, because these series rewarded you for recognising (minor) characters, it did increase their re-watchability to some extent. If Masters of the Air pays the same attention to major and minor character arcs, for me the issue will solve itself in the end. Let's see.