MASH: Frank or Charles. Who do you like better? (character, ABC, Houston)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Winchester was a complex character with surprising sides and attributes that would occasionally crop up and run counter to what we thought we knew about him.
Burns was just a one-dimensional cartoonish figure - he had all the depth of the Roadrunner. Of the three major characters who were replaced (along with Blake and Trapper), his character was the thinnest. That his character lasted two seasons longer than the other two was unfortunate - it should have been the other way around.
Frank is a doctor who wouldn't be doing well in civilian practice, given his being incompetent. Hopefully he learned enough he won't make a trail of lawsuits when he goes home. And that maybe he learned enough to know when to ask for help. And when he's home and its the general urban mix, and he's got the family and wife and neighborhood, he might discover he actually did learn something from Hawkeye.
Winchester is as good a doctor as he thinks he is, but isn't used to the sort of case he has now. He and Hawkeye enjoy one upping each other, but he knows how to get revenge when Hawkeye gets him. Frank had no idea. Winchester can hold his own in the competition. It doesn't mean they call a truce, but it gets even more interesting.
In the bloody and cruel world they were living in, every survivor was a victory. And their one upping is something which diverts them from the dark and messy reality for a little while. Later, they'll think of it and those moments will be golden.
I couldn't stand Frank; he was sniveling and inept. Charles at least was intelligent and a good surgeon and never, ever sniveled. Yes, he was an arrogant snob; but he could listen to reason. He was a far more worthy antagonist to Hawkeye than Frank could ever be; and more humorous a character.
I couldn't stand Frank; he was sniveling and inept. Charles at least was intelligent and a good surgeon and never, ever sniveled. Yes, he was an arrogant snob; but he could listen to reason. He was a far more worthy antagonist to Hawkeye than Frank could ever be; and more humorous a character.
Yep.
One of the worst things about Frank was that he was sniveling.
Charles was a much more enjoyable character.
I did laugh though when an exasperated Hot Lips would exclaim "Oh, Frank!"
For me, I just loved Frank Burns and his 'high and mighty' attitude and the battle-of-wits with Hawkeye and Trapper
Charles! That beautiful language he spewed from day one. And we got to see the actor in the shower and nearly undressed in another scene. As a young gay male at the time, priceless.
Frank in a landslide. I am really shocked that anyone thinks Potter, BJ and Charles were funnier than Blake, Trapper and Frank.
I personally don't think the show had a funny moment after those three left. The show got way too political, self righteous and preachy, led by BJ.
It went from a light, goofy, well written and acted Comedy to a wannabe Drama with some attempted comedic undertones.
Agree. I much prefer the “funnier” MASH of the first three seasons.
By the fifth or sixth season it was became a differnt show, good but not as funny.
And like a lot of shows set in a certain era they started to not caring as much with
the hairstyles, Hot Lips started having that late 70s Farrah Fawcett styling ..not early 50s,
same thing happened with Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, and That 70s Show.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.