Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > TV
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2013, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Florida
25 posts, read 52,680 times
Reputation: 54

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_flembeck View Post
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.
+1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2013, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,846,266 times
Reputation: 40166
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 02:28 PM
 
3 posts, read 1,318 times
Reputation: 20
Frank was a tattle tale where as Winchester was just a snob but I liked him much better
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 07:58 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,352 posts, read 54,527,600 times
Reputation: 40819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripes17 View Post
I prefer Charles over Frank as well. Charles is a believable character whereas Frank is a caricature.

I agree. And I've known a few living ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,299,071 times
Reputation: 16944
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Northeastern U.S.
2,082 posts, read 1,613,595 times
Reputation: 4680
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2018, 11:56 PM
 
33,323 posts, read 12,618,939 times
Reputation: 14954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regina14 View Post
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!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 12:27 AM
 
17,668 posts, read 15,373,029 times
Reputation: 23007
Charles over Frank. I agree with others that Charles was a character with more depth.

BJ and Trapper.. Tie. Both really good.

Potter over Blake due to the character being more real. Blake was the funnier character.. But Potter tied the show together better.

As for shows replacing main characters.. I can only think of three.. Maybe 4.. That have done it decently.

MASH
Doctor Who (13 times now with the main character, and hundreds it seems with supporting characters)
Walking Dead (Jury is out on 'decently')
ER
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 12:48 AM
 
Location: San Diego
2,082 posts, read 1,078,511 times
Reputation: 4276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trance750 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 04:24 AM
BMI
 
Location: Ontario
7,454 posts, read 7,294,962 times
Reputation: 6127
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_flembeck View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > TV
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top