I haven't been watching The Pacific, but we've been discussing it in my historiography class, and the people watching it seem to be getting a little bored. The class is about how history is written, including how popular history like The Pacific is communicated to the public.
The complaints (from the prof, and one student that is watching) are that the characters all seem the same, and the fatigue with the band-of-brothers approach to military history in general (sequel-itis). Apparently, military history has been moving away from the great generals and grand strategy approach, and taking on more of a social history approach that focuses on the everyday life of the men in the field. That worked great for Band of Brothers, but I guess it's been getting kind of old. Yeah, war is hell, but we already knew that, I guess. (Not that I would know; I'm not a military history guy.)
One thing the prof brought up was that, in the old days, war movies had a guy from Brooklyn, a guy from Texas, a guy from Iowa, etc, with the appropriate regional characteristics. Pacific apparently doesn't have that, which may make the characters less interesting.
The above aren't really my comments, just some commentary I thought might interest some of you. Haven't seen Pacific or BoB myself.