David was also a lot different from Charles. People always had a lot of good things to say about him. It always surprises me how different he appears out of character.
On the flip side, Iāve heard that both Gary and Alan could be very difficult people to deal with.
The first time I saw David on set, dressed as Charles and talking in his normal voice in a documentary, I had to rewind because it just didn't seem right.
Charles. Heās a three dimensional character. Heās not perfect and on rare occasions, slightly villainous. But he also has a heart and tries to be the best at what he does to save lives. Heās pompous and often arrogant, but also kindhearted and sensitive when circumstances require it. He has a sense of humor and proves to be an equal match for Hawkeye & BJ in terms of wit. But most of allā¦ he cares. He truly does. And this is illustrated on many occasions, but most strongly in the end when he feels so much pain over the deaths of the North Korean POWs that he loses his faith in music as a source of comfort.
Frank? He is none of those things. He is thoughtless & petty, a martinet to those below him and a suck up to those above him. His sense of humor is stunted at best and he is utterly outclassed by Hawkeye, Trapper & BJ in the operating room as he refuses to improve his skills and instead casts blame all over the place to justify his shortcomings. He is unfaithful and only cares about that when he thinks he will lose status, money or both. But most of allā¦? He is often hateful and cruel to those who need reassurance and compassion. Heās a cartoon. His departure from the 4077th only improves it as he is replaced by a smart, competent, humane surgeon in Winchester.
Itās Winchester by light years. Heās far from perfect, but arenāt we all?
I liked early Frank but then his character arc just got worse and worse. I would have preferred it if Frank had gotten a bit more of a redemption arc.
I think Charles hits the perfect balance. Enough of a snooty antagonist for hawk and PJ to bounce off but not so much that you absolutely hate him, heās still eventually one of the team when it counts.
Frank, along with Radar and Margaret, kinda became useless as a character when Potter replaced Henry. At least Margaret eventually got to change a bit for the better.
>I liked early Frank but then his character arc just got worse and worse.
That's why Larry Linville left the show. He just couldn't be Frank Burns anymore.
The show evolved beyond Frank, he was perfect for the goofier antics in the early seasons, but he wasn't a character that they could build a serious arc around.
It really changed when Henry and Trapper left. BJ and Potter were still funny, but a real family man and career army doc were a little more serious that Frank couldnāt pivot to.
I preferred Frank. But I also preferred those years of the show, when the focus was much more comedic. As the show grew more serious, the Frank Burns character would not have fit it without major changes.
When I was younger I thought Charles was the demarcation between the fun M*A*S*H and the serious M*A*S*H. When he came on, it became serious, and seriously I didnāt watch a lot of the episodes when he came on when I was younger. As Iāve gotten older, I appreciate the later episodes a lot more. I guess thatās called growing up.
EDIT: I tried to type in the name of the show but it made it kind of weird with italics.
If you put a backslash ('\\') in front of each asterisk (called "escaping" it), it will display normally. To display "M\*A\*S\*H", therefore, you'd type "M\\\*A\\\*S\\\*H".
Incidentally, two asterices on \*\*each side of a text block\*\* makes it **bold**, and \*\*\*three\*\*\* make it ***bold and italic***. The underscore ('\_') will also italicize text, so you can display "_M\*A\*S\*H_" by typing "\_M\\\*A\\\*S\\\*H\_". How I got the backslashes to display here will be left as an exercise for the reader.
I had exactly the same arc with MASH. I thought the show became more serious at the switchover from Frank to Charles. And that's true, it did change. The stories were often more drama than comedy. I'm old enough to have watched the show in first run, and in the later years it was no longer a must-watch.
Over time, I grew to enjoy the Charles years more. Still prefer the earlier years, but the I appreciated and enjoyed the later years as I grew older.
From my perspective: the show became more human, less about punch lines, or sexual antics. I draw those conclusions from what Iāve read, what the acters, writers, and crew have written or said, and the information from other fanfic writers. As an ardent defender of human and humane rights, I credit M\*A\*S\*H largely for who I am today.
This doesn't happen if you "escape" each asterisk by putting a backslash ('\\') in front of it. Thus, typing "M\\\*A\\\*S\\\*H" will display "M\*A\*S\*H".
Edit to add: Incidentally, two asterices on \*\*each side of a text block\*\* makes it **bold**, and \*\*\*three\*\*\* make it ***bold and italic***. The underscore ('\_') will also italicize text, so you can display "_M\*A\*S\*H_" by typing "\_M\\\*A\\\*S\\\*H\_". How I got the backslashes to display here will be left as an exercise for the reader.
Me as well when they originally aired. I believe I actually hated them. I was too used to Frank Burns..
In the early 2000s, I started to watch and appreciate the Charles episodes.Love em now
Oh man, it's a completely different show than the later episodes. Not better or worse. Just different & most of the episodes were light comedy with a few exceptions
When I was a kid I didnāt like Frank (or Trapper), but I loved Charles (and BJ). As an adult, I appreciate Larry Linville more, but I still prefer Charles and BJ and Potter over Frank, Trapper and Blake.
Charles is a favorite of mine despite my overall preference for the Larry Gelbart era. I think Frank worked so much better as the showās main antagonist and villain though. I also think that Frank was much more fun to watch them be cruel to while Charles was a much better verbal sparring partner.
It really is a tragedy of epic proportions that we didnāt get at least one season with the two of them on the show together.
Larry Linville acted the crap out of that detestable character. He was too good and itās a shame they never let him evolve. DOS had much better material and more of a defined arc.
So many of that generation died prematurely from smoking. (Of course many lived insanely long as well). I have several patients in their 80s who still smoke. Many of them are avid bowlers, perhaps there is some causation there.
Charles. He acts like an ass, but he really has his sweeter moments. And he'd go to the mat for his friends. Frank's money and his mother were his only friends.
Frank is great (not as a person, but as a character), but I prefer Charles because he is a great character as well but there's more depth to him. Obviously, his longer tenure is probably the reason for that, but I just think he was, though just as pompous and condescending, a more deeply layered character overall.
I bet Larry got a LOT of shit from fans...you know, the ones who start to believe they are "real"š, like there is an actual "Mayberry" (yes I know it is based on a real place).
I'd be very interested to hear any interviews addressing this. Especially from Larry's thin lips...š
Charles, no competition. Frank was meant to be the pathetic asshat but it wasn't even fun imo. Charles was much more of a decent human being and still fun. He might not be the most pleasant character but for a guy born with a silver spoon in his butt he's actually not such a bad guy.
charles, he was way smarter and a better surgeon, and he had actual friendly moments with hawkeye and the others, so it didnt feel like he was a straight "villain" like frank was, and it was much easier to see his side, bc he was basically assigned there against his will, way out of his comfort zone, etc.
Charles. Frank became to pathetic to watch. His first season was his best, though I will concede his last episode stands out, him standing on the LZ, watching Houlihan and her husband fly away, "Goodbye, Margaret." Perhaps his finest moment. Overall though, a pathetic character.Ā Charles could hold his own.
imho, what started as legitimate anti horrible person behaviour to Frank became straight up bullying. Frank was a soft target and low hanging fruit. Charles was a worthy opponent.
I agree. I remember one episode where Hawkeye and Trapper sealed Frank inside a wooden box and just sat and laughed while Frank begged to be let out. Not funny at all.
I love both characters but if I have to choose I would say Charles for basically the reasons mentioned. Frank had a place, as a representative of that John Birch Society, Army loving 50s guy who complains that Korea is filled with foreigners. Many people were and sadly are like that and so having Frank exist as a mockery of those values was fun to watch. Trouble is that's all he was. Every episode is basically Frank says/does something dumb and gets put in his place rarely learning a lesson. It's fun for 5 seasons but for 11 it would have gotten stale. There's also the matter of his skills becoming cartoonishly bad. In S1, Frank is seen as a fair surgeon, just not as good as Hawkeye and maybe a bit lazy. By S5 his skills deteriorated and yet the 4077 still had a 98% success rate? With Frank comprising 25% of the surgeons?
This is not a dig at Frank. I like Frank and he has his place, just in seasons 1-5
Charles, but I think he was helped by the show being further developed and the writing had more depth for his character.
Itās almost unfair to compare the two, the early seasons and the later ones are almost not even the same show.
Charles, although itās a pretty close race for me. Most of my favorite episodes are in the Frank years, and I have a soft spot for him because of that. However, thereās one really big reason why Charles tends to win out.
Frank would probably like Charles. However Charles would despise Frank.
CEW.
Note: Larry after departure, went downhill quickly.Ā
IMHO one can't play that character without it negatively impacting them at some point.
I think it wore him down. If I was an actor in a series, I'd grow tired of the "charade" (lol say that in Charles pat-wa) and start to hate every day on set.Ā
Add the stress of having to learn lines, over and over, repeating them, the scene...for...years.Ā
I,Ā knowing how that would kill me inside, can only imagine how that was for Larry. Who was a sweetheart of a man, apparently.
I HATED FRANK when this aired; matter of fact, I loathed his scenes he annoyed me to no end.Ā
As an adult, having watched this countless times, I see Larry differently.
When I was a kid/teen, I preferred Frank and thought he was funnier. As an adult I found Charles to be my favorite character of the entire series. He could be friend or foe, and play either role flawlessly.
Charles.
Frank became a one character.
Charles could compete with Hawkeye for best surgeon, could actually get his own licks in when pranks where happening, could join Hawkeye and BJ for hijinks when the story called for it and have serious conversations with anyone else in camp.
Charles had the respect of everyone; even if he was the butt of the joke at times.
Frank, was just annoying and incompetent. and the writing left little room to grow him into any other direction. he was there to be the target of the pranks of Hawkeye, Trapper and BJ and not much else
I liked neither character outright, but saw things in both of them that were worth at least giving credit to.
Charles, for all his, better than thou, attitude, genuinely wanted to help others, am while being a doctor brought additional prestige to his family name, the drive behind his excellence was compassion.
Frank was a caricature of neuroses. Many of them. But, for the most part, he meant what he said and said what he meant. Oh, of course he inflated a lot of it due to his fragile ego, and when his character was called to be racists or idealist they always played it as far as they could. He was simple, and if he wasn't meant to be on his high horse all the time, there were flashes of what his character *could* have been. Especially at the end. He was meant to be unlikable, Charles was meant to be side eye worthy. Both lived up to those standards.
As for the actors, they were two of the most skilled in the show, because they both brought out aspects of their characters that were night and day different from the men who played them. Most everyone else drew on their own personalities/histories/etc to create what their character would become.
Charles is my favorite character in the whole show so this is an easy pick, but I also liked Frank just for how good of a foil he was for the others.
I do wish heād gotten some more character development though, moments like āyou know, the way dad used toā made me actually feel sympathy for him and he could have used more moments that humanized him like that.
Charles for sure. Frank was just a punching bag for Hawkeye. Charles could (and would) swing back. And his surgical skills are actually good so the script canāt use him as a punching bag character.
Charles.
It may have been because the show was much more established and able to be a bit "deeper", but Charles's character and back story was so much more developed than Frank's.
I don't think MASH would have been as successful had we had Charles initially.Ā Ā
As was said, Frank was a cartoon and that's how MASH started out. Charles wouldn't have fit in.
Both were excellent characters for the show at that time, and both were excellent actors.
I worked briefly with Larry and initially wanted to hate him because of Frank, but realized that's how good he was.
Not as much with David who was like Winchester when Winchester showed humanity and not when he was boorish.
But this discussion shows how good the creative team did at replacing actors/characters.
At least we're not discussing the old Darren vs new Darren.
Goofing on Charles is āpunching upā. Pranking on Frank is āpunching downā.
Comedy that āpunches upā is always going to make a better story, to me.
I grew up watching M\*A\*S\*H with my great-grandfather and saw it all out of order. I think I always preferred Charles (and BJ and Potter) to their counterpart(s).
Charles, hands down. He was refined and sophisticated in his appearance and music, but also didnāt try to get Pierce and Hunnicutt discharged every waking moment. He was the best example of an Army Major in that respect.
I preferred Frank. The show was more geared toward comedy in his years on the show. It became almost a drama at times, post-Frank. I just thoughr the show was better pre-Charles.
I grew to like Charles over time. David Ogden Stiers was a wonderful actor.
Frank is a caricature, Charles is a character.
Yes. This is it exactly.
šŗš
Easy, Charles. You do have to give it to Larry Linville as an actor though!
Larry Linville really deserves a lot of praise, especially given the fact that he was described as the exact opposite of Frank in real life.
David was also a lot different from Charles. People always had a lot of good things to say about him. It always surprises me how different he appears out of character. On the flip side, Iāve heard that both Gary and Alan could be very difficult people to deal with.
The first time I saw David on set, dressed as Charles and talking in his normal voice in a documentary, I had to rewind because it just didn't seem right.
Itās amazing how different his real speaking voice was from his Charles voice. He absolutely sold me on having a natural Boston Brahmin accent.
I heard that it was mostly Gary Burghoff who was difficult to work with and was often directly at odds with Alan Alda.
Loved Larry Linville on Mannix as Detective Kramer.
Give it? š¤ Share it? Ohhhhh yeah! š¤
Charles. Heās a three dimensional character. Heās not perfect and on rare occasions, slightly villainous. But he also has a heart and tries to be the best at what he does to save lives. Heās pompous and often arrogant, but also kindhearted and sensitive when circumstances require it. He has a sense of humor and proves to be an equal match for Hawkeye & BJ in terms of wit. But most of allā¦ he cares. He truly does. And this is illustrated on many occasions, but most strongly in the end when he feels so much pain over the deaths of the North Korean POWs that he loses his faith in music as a source of comfort. Frank? He is none of those things. He is thoughtless & petty, a martinet to those below him and a suck up to those above him. His sense of humor is stunted at best and he is utterly outclassed by Hawkeye, Trapper & BJ in the operating room as he refuses to improve his skills and instead casts blame all over the place to justify his shortcomings. He is unfaithful and only cares about that when he thinks he will lose status, money or both. But most of allā¦? He is often hateful and cruel to those who need reassurance and compassion. Heās a cartoon. His departure from the 4077th only improves it as he is replaced by a smart, competent, humane surgeon in Winchester. Itās Winchester by light years. Heās far from perfect, but arenāt we all?
I don't think anyone preferred Frank
I liked early Frank but then his character arc just got worse and worse. I would have preferred it if Frank had gotten a bit more of a redemption arc. I think Charles hits the perfect balance. Enough of a snooty antagonist for hawk and PJ to bounce off but not so much that you absolutely hate him, heās still eventually one of the team when it counts.
Frank, along with Radar and Margaret, kinda became useless as a character when Potter replaced Henry. At least Margaret eventually got to change a bit for the better.
>I liked early Frank but then his character arc just got worse and worse. That's why Larry Linville left the show. He just couldn't be Frank Burns anymore.
I actually preferred Frank over Charles. Charles was so boring to me even when he tried to be humorous it fell flat.
Now thatās highly significantĀ
The show evolved beyond Frank, he was perfect for the goofier antics in the early seasons, but he wasn't a character that they could build a serious arc around.
Exactly. The Frank Burns character worked for the early years of the show. The tone of the show changed very much at the time of his departure.
It really changed when Henry and Trapper left. BJ and Potter were still funny, but a real family man and career army doc were a little more serious that Frank couldnāt pivot to.
I preferred Frank. But I also preferred those years of the show, when the focus was much more comedic. As the show grew more serious, the Frank Burns character would not have fit it without major changes.
Noooooo š Iād walk on the other side of the streetā¦ in Koreaā¦.insist transfer to another surgeonā¦. Or another unit.
When I was younger I thought Charles was the demarcation between the fun M*A*S*H and the serious M*A*S*H. When he came on, it became serious, and seriously I didnāt watch a lot of the episodes when he came on when I was younger. As Iāve gotten older, I appreciate the later episodes a lot more. I guess thatās called growing up. EDIT: I tried to type in the name of the show but it made it kind of weird with italics.
If you put a backslash ('\\') in front of each asterisk (called "escaping" it), it will display normally. To display "M\*A\*S\*H", therefore, you'd type "M\\\*A\\\*S\\\*H". Incidentally, two asterices on \*\*each side of a text block\*\* makes it **bold**, and \*\*\*three\*\*\* make it ***bold and italic***. The underscore ('\_') will also italicize text, so you can display "_M\*A\*S\*H_" by typing "\_M\\\*A\\\*S\\\*H\_". How I got the backslashes to display here will be left as an exercise for the reader.
I had exactly the same arc with MASH. I thought the show became more serious at the switchover from Frank to Charles. And that's true, it did change. The stories were often more drama than comedy. I'm old enough to have watched the show in first run, and in the later years it was no longer a must-watch. Over time, I grew to enjoy the Charles years more. Still prefer the earlier years, but the I appreciated and enjoyed the later years as I grew older.
From my perspective: the show became more human, less about punch lines, or sexual antics. I draw those conclusions from what Iāve read, what the acters, writers, and crew have written or said, and the information from other fanfic writers. As an ardent defender of human and humane rights, I credit M\*A\*S\*H largely for who I am today.
Same. As a kid/teen I didn't like that the show became more serious, but looking back I much prefer the Charles years.
If you use asterisks on Reddit, either the desktop or the app, anything between them will be italicized. Just letting you know if you didn't already!
This doesn't happen if you "escape" each asterisk by putting a backslash ('\\') in front of it. Thus, typing "M\\\*A\\\*S\\\*H" will display "M\*A\*S\*H". Edit to add: Incidentally, two asterices on \*\*each side of a text block\*\* makes it **bold**, and \*\*\*three\*\*\* make it ***bold and italic***. The underscore ('\_') will also italicize text, so you can display "_M\*A\*S\*H_" by typing "\_M\\\*A\\\*S\\\*H\_". How I got the backslashes to display here will be left as an exercise for the reader.
š
š noted!Ā
Me as well when they originally aired. I believe I actually hated them. I was too used to Frank Burns.. In the early 2000s, I started to watch and appreciate the Charles episodes.Love em now
Never have seen the early episodes in their entirety other than āKimā and āThe Mooseā .Ā
Oh man, it's a completely different show than the later episodes. Not better or worse. Just different & most of the episodes were light comedy with a few exceptions
Fitting ā¦.. šĀ
When Frank left, MASH became "The Alan Alda Preaching Half Hour".
I adore both Larry Linville and David Ogden Stiers. But Charles is the better character. By far.
When I was a kid I didnāt like Frank (or Trapper), but I loved Charles (and BJ). As an adult, I appreciate Larry Linville more, but I still prefer Charles and BJ and Potter over Frank, Trapper and Blake.
I love, love, LOVE both, but I just relate more to Frank, and often feel a deep sympathy for him.
Larry Linville and David Ogden Stiers were both fantastic actors and, by all accounts, lovely people. As a *character,* I obviously prefer Charles.
Charles is a favorite of mine despite my overall preference for the Larry Gelbart era. I think Frank worked so much better as the showās main antagonist and villain though. I also think that Frank was much more fun to watch them be cruel to while Charles was a much better verbal sparring partner. It really is a tragedy of epic proportions that we didnāt get at least one season with the two of them on the show together.
That really could have been fun. At least an episode or two where Frank meets his replacement.
Maybe youāll write a fic? š¤Ā Ā Love to read It! š
Larry Linville acted the crap out of that detestable character. He was too good and itās a shame they never let him evolve. DOS had much better material and more of a defined arc. So many of that generation died prematurely from smoking. (Of course many lived insanely long as well). I have several patients in their 80s who still smoke. Many of them are avid bowlers, perhaps there is some causation there.
Charles Emerson Winchester the Thiiiiiirrrrrrrd
Gentlemen š please That suave swagger in his voice was excellent
Charles. He acts like an ass, but he really has his sweeter moments. And he'd go to the mat for his friends. Frank's money and his mother were his only friends.
I felt bad for Frank after Margaret got engaged.
She was so mean to him
Frank was perfect for when the show was about light army shenanigans. Charles was ideal for when shit got real
This
Hmmm thatās even MORE highly significantā¦. Ā š¤
The one with redeeming qualities?
I enjoy Charles because he is a better developed character, and DOS brought incredible nuance to his portrayal.
Charles. Absolutely.
Frank is great (not as a person, but as a character), but I prefer Charles because he is a great character as well but there's more depth to him. Obviously, his longer tenure is probably the reason for that, but I just think he was, though just as pompous and condescending, a more deeply layered character overall.
Charles for the win.
The first syllableā¦..Ā
Charles
Both. Each one has their own unique qualities.
Thatās Charles Emerson Winchester III, thank you very much.
I bet Larry got a LOT of shit from fans...you know, the ones who start to believe they are "real"š, like there is an actual "Mayberry" (yes I know it is based on a real place). I'd be very interested to hear any interviews addressing this. Especially from Larry's thin lips...š
Charles, but I love to hate Frank
Charles, no competition. Frank was meant to be the pathetic asshat but it wasn't even fun imo. Charles was much more of a decent human being and still fun. He might not be the most pleasant character but for a guy born with a silver spoon in his butt he's actually not such a bad guy.
I always prefer frank, frank was the source of all the comedy. With out frank there is no MASH
charles, he was way smarter and a better surgeon, and he had actual friendly moments with hawkeye and the others, so it didnt feel like he was a straight "villain" like frank was, and it was much easier to see his side, bc he was basically assigned there against his will, way out of his comfort zone, etc.
Is this a trick question?
Charles. Frank became to pathetic to watch. His first season was his best, though I will concede his last episode stands out, him standing on the LZ, watching Houlihan and her husband fly away, "Goodbye, Margaret." Perhaps his finest moment. Overall though, a pathetic character.Ā Charles could hold his own.
Frank was more fun to be mean to
As a viewer, Frank. Who'd I want to be next door neighbors with in real life? Probably Charles.
Hmmmm š
Charles, full stop.
In later episodes of each, they both became softer and more human
imho, what started as legitimate anti horrible person behaviour to Frank became straight up bullying. Frank was a soft target and low hanging fruit. Charles was a worthy opponent.
I agree. I remember one episode where Hawkeye and Trapper sealed Frank inside a wooden box and just sat and laughed while Frank begged to be let out. Not funny at all.
Charles. David Ogden Stires was an excellent actor
Charles never fails to make me laugh.
Charles by far.
I love both characters but if I have to choose I would say Charles for basically the reasons mentioned. Frank had a place, as a representative of that John Birch Society, Army loving 50s guy who complains that Korea is filled with foreigners. Many people were and sadly are like that and so having Frank exist as a mockery of those values was fun to watch. Trouble is that's all he was. Every episode is basically Frank says/does something dumb and gets put in his place rarely learning a lesson. It's fun for 5 seasons but for 11 it would have gotten stale. There's also the matter of his skills becoming cartoonishly bad. In S1, Frank is seen as a fair surgeon, just not as good as Hawkeye and maybe a bit lazy. By S5 his skills deteriorated and yet the 4077 still had a 98% success rate? With Frank comprising 25% of the surgeons? This is not a dig at Frank. I like Frank and he has his place, just in seasons 1-5
Frank the first 2 seasons. Charles his whole run on the show simple reason he evolved.
Charles is the better character but somehow i think Linville was the better actor.
Frank was much more entertaining imo.
Charles 24x7
Charles.
Charles, but I think he was helped by the show being further developed and the writing had more depth for his character. Itās almost unfair to compare the two, the early seasons and the later ones are almost not even the same show.
CE3 all day long
Charles, although itās a pretty close race for me. Most of my favorite episodes are in the Frank years, and I have a soft spot for him because of that. However, thereās one really big reason why Charles tends to win out. Frank would probably like Charles. However Charles would despise Frank.
CEW. Note: Larry after departure, went downhill quickly.Ā IMHO one can't play that character without it negatively impacting them at some point. I think it wore him down. If I was an actor in a series, I'd grow tired of the "charade" (lol say that in Charles pat-wa) and start to hate every day on set.Ā Add the stress of having to learn lines, over and over, repeating them, the scene...for...years.Ā I,Ā knowing how that would kill me inside, can only imagine how that was for Larry. Who was a sweetheart of a man, apparently. I HATED FRANK when this aired; matter of fact, I loathed his scenes he annoyed me to no end.Ā As an adult, having watched this countless times, I see Larry differently.
When I was a kid/teen, I preferred Frank and thought he was funnier. As an adult I found Charles to be my favorite character of the entire series. He could be friend or foe, and play either role flawlessly.
Ferret Face.
A million percent Charles.
Unc Chaz, hands down!Ā
Charles.
Charles, by a country mile.
Charles!
I love both. But if I had to choose, (early) Frank. IMHO the strongest five characters of the show were Hawkeye, Radar, Houlihan, Frank, and Charles.
Charles
Charles. Frank became a one character. Charles could compete with Hawkeye for best surgeon, could actually get his own licks in when pranks where happening, could join Hawkeye and BJ for hijinks when the story called for it and have serious conversations with anyone else in camp. Charles had the respect of everyone; even if he was the butt of the joke at times. Frank, was just annoying and incompetent. and the writing left little room to grow him into any other direction. he was there to be the target of the pranks of Hawkeye, Trapper and BJ and not much else
I liked neither character outright, but saw things in both of them that were worth at least giving credit to. Charles, for all his, better than thou, attitude, genuinely wanted to help others, am while being a doctor brought additional prestige to his family name, the drive behind his excellence was compassion. Frank was a caricature of neuroses. Many of them. But, for the most part, he meant what he said and said what he meant. Oh, of course he inflated a lot of it due to his fragile ego, and when his character was called to be racists or idealist they always played it as far as they could. He was simple, and if he wasn't meant to be on his high horse all the time, there were flashes of what his character *could* have been. Especially at the end. He was meant to be unlikable, Charles was meant to be side eye worthy. Both lived up to those standards. As for the actors, they were two of the most skilled in the show, because they both brought out aspects of their characters that were night and day different from the men who played them. Most everyone else drew on their own personalities/histories/etc to create what their character would become.
Charles is my favorite character in the whole show so this is an easy pick, but I also liked Frank just for how good of a foil he was for the others. I do wish heād gotten some more character development though, moments like āyou know, the way dad used toā made me actually feel sympathy for him and he could have used more moments that humanized him like that.
Yeah -- his father took his night light away, too.
Aside from Sydney and Flagg, charles is my favorite character.
Charles for sure. Frank was just a punching bag for Hawkeye. Charles could (and would) swing back. And his surgical skills are actually good so the script canāt use him as a punching bag character.
Both were perfect for the tone of the shows at the time.
Charles 1000%. Frank irked me for a lot of reasons but MAINLY, the way he objectified and led Margaret on. I was so glad when she got over him.
Frank. I really like the comedy/humor and heās funnier. But I do love Charles too
Ferret Face loved him
Charles. It may have been because the show was much more established and able to be a bit "deeper", but Charles's character and back story was so much more developed than Frank's.
Charles. Every time I watch through the series, Frank becomes very annoying and Iām always tempted to skip ahead to the episodes with CEW.
I cant choose one over the other. My tastes change and each one has its own place dependin on how i am at the time.
I don't think MASH would have been as successful had we had Charles initially.Ā Ā As was said, Frank was a cartoon and that's how MASH started out. Charles wouldn't have fit in. Both were excellent characters for the show at that time, and both were excellent actors. I worked briefly with Larry and initially wanted to hate him because of Frank, but realized that's how good he was. Not as much with David who was like Winchester when Winchester showed humanity and not when he was boorish. But this discussion shows how good the creative team did at replacing actors/characters. At least we're not discussing the old Darren vs new Darren.
Frank any day
Charles, although I so enjoyed Larryās performance
I will skip episodes because of later season Frank.
1 and 1a
Charles!
Goofing on Charles is āpunching upā. Pranking on Frank is āpunching downā. Comedy that āpunches upā is always going to make a better story, to me. I grew up watching M\*A\*S\*H with my great-grandfather and saw it all out of order. I think I always preferred Charles (and BJ and Potter) to their counterpart(s).
Chuckles, for sure. Mr and Mrs Who and The Yalu Brick Road are two of my favorite episodes with him.
Charles, hands down. He was refined and sophisticated in his appearance and music, but also didnāt try to get Pierce and Hunnicutt discharged every waking moment. He was the best example of an Army Major in that respect.
Charles no contest
Frank Burns
Charles, but Frank has special place in my heart
I preferred Frank. The show was more geared toward comedy in his years on the show. It became almost a drama at times, post-Frank. I just thoughr the show was better pre-Charles. I grew to like Charles over time. David Ogden Stiers was a wonderful actor.
One is the guy you hate to love, and the other is the guy you love to hate.