Maj Frank Burns vs Maj Charles Emerson Winchester III (1 Viewer)

[The Iguana]

This is a slightly different spin on the funnier character pole... instead of 2 side by side players, it pits Burns verses his replacement.

My : Burns is kind of like Ross from Friends in that he was mostly just a whiney tool that got to be the butt of a lot of jokes. Winchester was was a kind of annoying at first but was a much more diverse character and in the end I think the funnier one on the show.

 

[shuke]

This should be Burns in a landslide.

 

[TommyGilmore]

My : Burns is kind of like Ross from Friends in that he was mostly just a whiney tool that got to be the butt of a lot of jokes. Winchester was was a kind of annoying at first but was a much more diverse character and in the end I think the funnier one on the show.

Winchester was the Fraiser Crane of his day: an annoying elitist, but inherently a good person. Frank Burns was just evil.

 

[Autumn Wind]

Winchester in a photo finish. Burns himself was not really that funny - what was funny was all the crap he took from everyone else. Eventually he became a one-note character. Winchester had more wit and substance, and was funnier on his own.

 

[Sam Quentin]

every M*A*SH* replacement <<<<<<< the original chracter

 

[belljr]

We need a Trapper vs Honeycutt

 

[trogg78]

Burns was more dynamic. He was the guy you loved to hate. Winchester was the guy you just brush away.

 

[jwb]

To me, Burns was never really fleshed out as a character - he was more or less there for the guys to antagonize. Winchester was much more of a true character - right from the start, even (when he puts the snake in Hawkeye's bed, essentially saying "I'll be fighting back".)

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Frank Burns

 

[trogg78]

To me, Burns was never really fleshed out as a character - he was more or less there for the guys to antagonize. Winchester was much more of a true character - right from the start, even (when he puts the snake in Hawkeye's bed, essentially saying "I'll be fighting back".)

Burns was a guy that actually got in everyboy's way with policy. He also had a longstanding relationship with Hot Lips. Winchester always seemed to stay out of people's way and never tried to dictate policy. His only relationship was with Klinger. Winchester was trying to coast through the war, while Burns really strived to be noticed.

 

[jwb]

every M*A*SH* replacement <<<<<<< the original chracter

This is pretty interesting about this show. I would say out of the originals that left, Blake was the best character. Trapper was just starting to come more into his own as opposed to being just "second banana" when he left - that character growth definitely continued with BJ. Sadly, Frank never escaped the "you're the mean guy who's always the butt of the jokes".

 

[Godsbrother]

One of my favorite jokes from the 80s (after Michael Jackson got burned filming a Pepsi commercial):

Q: What does Margaret "Hot Lips" Houlihan have in common with Michael Jackson?

A: They both have major burns on their face.

 

[kentric]

Got to be Burn. I mean... He eat worms ffs.

 

[Gatorman]

every M*A*SH* replacement <<<<<<< the original chracter

This is pretty interesting about this show. I would say out of the originals that left, Blake was the best character. Trapper was just starting to come more into his own as opposed to being just "second banana" when he left - that character growth definitely continued with BJ. Sadly, Frank never escaped the "you're the mean guy who's always the butt of the jokes".

wow, this is a good topic...Frank was a one note character. They really toned down the Religious and Bad Doctor stuff and just made him whiny, hot lips' dude, and an incompetent surgeon. He was still very funny, but he was in no way as rich a character as CEW.Winchester was a great character. He was the anti frank. A great surgeon who hated being in a mash unit. the give an take with them was amazing.BJ and Trapper have an issue b/c of the Henry/Sherman Potter thing.Henry > ShermanTrapper > BJ but I think that has a lot to do with the other characters at this point.In the trapper days you had a bigger cast. By the time CEW came around it was really Hawkeye/BJ/Potter/Klinger/Hot Lips/CEW/Mulcahey and that is it. It was a 7 player game. Before that there were 12 - 15 people in the stories (radar, the nurses, and a bunch of "visiting regulars")MASH was a great show in replacing people it lost. The only miss was Potter, and that is just b/c he is not me.

 

[joffer]

MASH w/Burns >>>>>>>>>>>> MASH w/Winchester

Blake >>>>>> Potter

Honeycutt > Trapper (close one)

 

[Leroy Hoard]

every M*A*SH* replacement <<<<<<< the original chracter

 

[Sheriff66]

Frank Burns

 

[Mr. Chumley]

I can't believe this would even be up for discussion. Ferrett Face hands down.

 

[Dr. Watson]

ferret face

 

[Charlie Steiner]

At least with Frank you had a guy who served as the gung-ho, pro-army counter to Hawkeye's (and in the last 10 years of the show) anti-war, anti-military establishment perspective. With Frank gone, even the career military Margaret stopped being so rah-rah about Uncle Sam. A certain dimension of comedic tension left the show with Frank, and Winchester's battles with Hawkeye and BJ really lost steam after a season or two, which would have been okay except the show ran so much longer afterward.

"Flush 'em out of the sky, Frank!"

 

[DCThunder]

I'm not sure I'd call either of them an "anti-hero". That was supposed to be Hawkeye. If the definition of "anti-hero" is: "an anti-hero is a protagonist who is lacking the traditional heroic attributes and qualities, and instead possesses character traits that are antithetical to heroism.", this would be more the case of Hawkeye, who is a boozer, a womanizer, a coward, and who hates war and the Army and is totally dismissive of almost everyone else.

Now it could be said that some of these also apply to both Burns and CEW, but as orginally conceived, the anti-hero role went to Hawkeye, IMHO.

 

[jwb]

He also had a longstanding relationship with Hot Lips.

But as soon as they started growing the hot lips character (basically leaving the whole "hot lips" thing behind), that was the end of the Burns relationship. To me, they painted Burns into a corner, making it almost impossible to develop him in any way. He was essentially the exact same character from the first episode to his last. You really can't say that about any other character (Maybe Henry, but his was a fairly diverse role right from the start.)

 

[redman]

This should be Burns in a landslide.

This guy knows stuff.And this is doubly true with the Robert Duvall movie version.

 

[The Iguana]

I'm not sure I'd call either of them an "anti-hero". That was supposed to be Hawkeye. If the definition of "anti-hero" is: "an anti-hero is a protagonist who is lacking the traditional heroic attributes and qualities, and instead possesses character traits that are antithetical to heroism.", this would be more the case of Hawkeye, who is a boozer, a womanizer, a coward, and who hates war and the Army and is totally dismissive of almost everyone else. Now it could be said that some of these also apply to both Burns and CEW, but as orginally conceived, the anti-hero role went to Hawkeye, IMHO.

I think you are getting a little to deep here. Hawkeye was clearly the star/main focus of the show while Burns and Charles were more the goat which is the only place I was going with "anit-hero". I'm a little shocked at the voting so far. Burns was clearly a one-trick pony but he did do his job well which I guess is enough to swing the vote in his favor. Charles was much more diverse and, overall, a better character overall. I guess being a replacement overshadows that enough to sway the masses.

 

[Genedoc]

I'd be willing to bet this breaks down along age. I loved the series and have seen them all many times, but it was years after the fact and typically in syndication/DVD. My preferences...

Honeycut = Trapper. Too close to call, just cannot pick one over the other.

Potter >> Henry.

Winchester >>>>>>> Burns.

Whoever said Burns was 1 note was dead on. He wasn't even a character, he was a caricature. Winchester actually participated in the plot lines in a meaningful way, and he was a competent doctor. I always loathed Burns for his shear incompetence alone.

 

[Autumn Wind]

I'm not sure I'd call either of them an "anti-hero". That was supposed to be Hawkeye. If the definition of "anti-hero" is: "an anti-hero is a protagonist who is lacking the traditional heroic attributes and qualities, and instead possesses character traits that are antithetical to heroism.", this would be more the case of Hawkeye, who is a boozer, a womanizer, a coward, and who hates war and the Army and is totally dismissive of almost everyone else. Now it could be said that some of these also apply to both Burns and CEW, but as orginally conceived, the anti-hero role went to Hawkeye, IMHO.

I think you are getting a little to deep here. Hawkeye was clearly the star/main focus of the show while Burns and Charles were more the goat which is the only place I was going with "anit-hero". I'm a little shocked at the voting so far. Burns was clearly a one-trick pony but he did do his job well which I guess is enough to swing the vote in his favor. Charles was much more diverse and, overall, a better character overall. I guess being a replacement overshadows that enough to sway the masses.

You asked which character was funnier. Winchester probably takes a poll about which character was richer or more entertaining.

 

[Autumn Wind]

I'd be willing to bet this breaks down along age. I loved the series and have seen them all many times, but it was years after the fact and typically in syndication/DVD. My preferences...Honeycut = Trapper. Too close to call, just cannot pick one over the other. Potter >> Henry. Winchester >>>>>>> Burns.

Good call. I did not see the show during its original run, and I agree with all your character assessments.

 

[The Iguana]

I'm not sure I'd call either of them an "anti-hero". That was supposed to be Hawkeye. If the definition of "anti-hero" is: "an anti-hero is a protagonist who is lacking the traditional heroic attributes and qualities, and instead possesses character traits that are antithetical to heroism.", this would be more the case of Hawkeye, who is a boozer, a womanizer, a coward, and who hates war and the Army and is totally dismissive of almost everyone else. Now it could be said that some of these also apply to both Burns and CEW, but as orginally conceived, the anti-hero role went to Hawkeye, IMHO.

I think you are getting a little to deep here. Hawkeye was clearly the star/main focus of the show while Burns and Charles were more the goat which is the only place I was going with "anit-hero". I'm a little shocked at the voting so far. Burns was clearly a one-trick pony but he did do his job well which I guess is enough to swing the vote in his favor. Charles was much more diverse and, overall, a better character overall. I guess being a replacement overshadows that enough to sway the masses.

You asked which character was funnier. Winchester probably takes a poll about which character was richer or more entertaining.

Good point and an episode like "5 O'clock Charlie" may prove your point in that it may be the funniest episode ever by playing up to Frank's character. Overall, I just thought Frank got old and less funny as the series went on and became less funny.

 

[The Iguana]

To me, they painted Burns into a corner, making it almost impossible to develop him in any way. He was essentially the exact same character from the first episode to his last. You really can't say that about any other character (Maybe Henry, but his was a fairly diverse role right from the start.)

Which is kind of ironic. A big reason Linville left the show was the one-dimensional aspect of the character and the lack of a plan to diversify Burns, then they go and develop a pretty good character out of his replacement.

 

[joffer]

I'd be willing to bet this breaks down along age. I loved the series and have seen them all many times, but it was years after the fact and typically in syndication/DVD. My preferences...Honeycut = Trapper. Too close to call, just cannot pick one over the other. Potter >> Henry. Winchester >>>>>>> Burns. Whoever said Burns was 1 note was dead on. He wasn't even a character, he was a caricature. Winchester actually participated in the plot lines in a meaningful way, and he was a competent doctor. I always loathed Burns for his shear incompetence alone.

regardless of age, i don't see how you could say Potter was funnier than Blake. Potter was good in his role, but Blake was a ####ing riot"jeep....tent....smash......BOOM!"

 

[The Iguana]

I'm not sure I'd call either of them an "anti-hero". That was supposed to be Hawkeye. If the definition of "anti-hero" is: "an anti-hero is a protagonist who is lacking the traditional heroic attributes and qualities, and instead possesses character traits that are antithetical to heroism.", this would be more the case of Hawkeye, who is a boozer, a womanizer, a coward, and who hates war and the Army and is totally dismissive of almost everyone else. Now it could be said that some of these also apply to both Burns and CEW, but as orginally conceived, the anti-hero role went to Hawkeye, IMHO.

I think you are getting a little to deep here. Hawkeye was clearly the star/main focus of the show while Burns and Charles were more the goat which is the only place I was going with "anit-hero". I'm a little shocked at the voting so far. Burns was clearly a one-trick pony but he did do his job well which I guess is enough to swing the vote in his favor. Charles was much more diverse and, overall, a better character overall. I guess being a replacement overshadows that enough to sway the masses.

You asked which character was funnier. Winchester probably takes a poll about which character was richer or more entertaining.

Good point and an episode like "5 O'clock Charlie" may prove your point in that it may be the funniest episode ever by playing up to Frank's character. Overall, I just thought Frank got old and less funny as the series went on and became less funny.

Potter vs Blake is an even better example of this. Henry was by far a funnier character but Potter was easily a more robust/better character overall.

 

[Genedoc]

I'd be willing to bet this breaks down along age. I loved the series and have seen them all many times, but it was years after the fact and typically in syndication/DVD. My preferences...Honeycut = Trapper. Too close to call, just cannot pick one over the other. Potter >> Henry. Winchester >>>>>>> Burns. Whoever said Burns was 1 note was dead on. He wasn't even a character, he was a caricature. Winchester actually participated in the plot lines in a meaningful way, and he was a competent doctor. I always loathed Burns for his shear incompetence alone.

regardless of age, i don't see how you could say Potter was funnier than Blake. Potter was good in his role, but Blake was a ####ing riot"jeep....tent....smash......BOOM!"

I'll grant you funnier, but he was also less interesting, diverse, and charismatic. Odd, quirky, and self limited works in a 90 minute movie. Over the course of many seasons, it gets boring. When you could see his jokes coming 30 seconds in advance, the character got stale. Never felt that way about Sherm. Sherm was a damn good leader, a father figure, and one of the guys when he needed to be. The unit ran despite Henry, it ran because of Potter.

 

[shuke]

I'm not sure I'd call either of them an "anti-hero". That was supposed to be Hawkeye. If the definition of "anti-hero" is: "an anti-hero is a protagonist who is lacking the traditional heroic attributes and qualities, and instead possesses character traits that are antithetical to heroism.", this would be more the case of Hawkeye, who is a boozer, a womanizer, a coward, and who hates war and the Army and is totally dismissive of almost everyone else.

Now it could be said that some of these also apply to both Burns and CEW, but as orginally conceived, the anti-hero role went to Hawkeye, IMHO.

I think you are getting a little to deep here. Hawkeye was clearly the star/main focus of the show while Burns and Charles were more the goat which is the only place I was going with "anit-hero". I'm a little shocked at the voting so far. Burns was clearly a one-trick pony but he did do his job well which I guess is enough to swing the vote in his favor. Charles was much more diverse and, overall, a better character overall. I guess being a replacement overshadows that enough to sway the masses.

You asked which character was funnier. Winchester probably takes a poll about which character was richer or more entertaining.

Exactly. Winchester wasn't all that funny.Trapper, Blake, and Burns were way funnier than the replacement characters. The end.

 

[shuke]

Just in case anyone missed it:

Which M.A.S.H. anti-hero was funnier?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

At least with Frank you had a guy who served as the gung-ho, pro-army counter to Hawkeye's (and in the last 10 years of the show) anti-war, anti-military establishment perspective. With Frank gone, even the career military Margaret stopped being so rah-rah about Uncle Sam. A certain dimension of comedic tension left the show with Frank, and Winchester's battles with Hawkeye and BJ really lost steam after a season or two, which would have been okay except the show ran so much longer afterward.

 

[Pai Mei]

When I reflect on this show it is rather startling to see my own growth as a person. When it aired I used to laugh right along with the jokes. Now I look back and I realize Hawkeye and Trapper and those guys were just tools.

 

[Chaka]

For a one note character Burns seems to be running away with this one.

This show lingered for 2-3 seasons longer than it should have and that diminished every character that was on until the end to a degree.

 

[Genedoc]

At least with Frank you had a guy who served as the gung-ho, pro-army counter to Hawkeye's (and in the last 10 years of the show) anti-war, anti-military establishment perspective. With Frank gone, even the career military Margaret stopped being so rah-rah about Uncle Sam. A certain dimension of comedic tension left the show with Frank, and Winchester's battles with Hawkeye and BJ really lost steam after a season or two, which would have been okay except the show ran so much longer afterward."Flush 'em out of the sky, Frank!"

But that's the way war goes. In the beginning, there's plenty of gung ho, lets go get em, we're gonna win, rah rah rah. After a decade or so of patching up kids so they can go get shot again, that sentiment....diminishes. So in that respect I think the show was a pretty accurate portrayal of society.

 

[Southside Stosh]

IMO, as the series went on M*A*S*H became less pure comedy (ala Marx Brothers-esqe pranks) and more comedy-drama. In the later seasons the writing became more mature, the characters more developed. They focused on more serious issues such as Hawkeye's alcoholism & mental illness, Klinger's inter-racial marriage, BJ's test of fidelity to his wife, etc.

 

[BelichicksRevenge]

I voted Burns but the whole show was just funnier at the beginning. The later shows became more and more serious until the end where the show started to become depressing.

 

[shuke]

When I reflect on this show it is rather startling to see my own growth as a person. When it aired I used to laugh right along with the jokes. Now I look back and I realize Hawkeye and Trapper and those guys were just tools.

This is great shtick.

 

[Charlie Steiner]

At least with Frank you had a guy who served as the gung-ho, pro-army counter to Hawkeye's (and in the last 10 years of the show) anti-war, anti-military establishment perspective. With Frank gone, even the career military Margaret stopped being so rah-rah about Uncle Sam. A certain dimension of comedic tension left the show with Frank, and Winchester's battles with Hawkeye and BJ really lost steam after a season or two, which would have been okay except the show ran so much longer afterward."Flush 'em out of the sky, Frank!"

But that's the way war goes. In the beginning, there's plenty of gung ho, lets go get em, we're gonna win, rah rah rah. After a decade or so of patching up kids so they can go get shot again, that sentiment....diminishes. So in that respect I think the show was a pretty accurate portrayal of society.

Very true, but I think that also illustrates how the show eventually just went on way too long. At the beginning, Hawkeye represented the counterpoints, but the show evolved into everyone following Hawkeye's lead. Yes, that's to be expected, but the show changed, became less funny the longer it went on. Winchester was more of a natural fit with the direction the show went, so maybe it should have ended when Henry left, as everything changed after that; the war became more 'real' as one of their own was lost to it. That may have been a good spot to drive home their point, but we got many more years as it still brought in the money for CBS. In its original form--an attempt to recreate the movie, Frank was the perfect villian. The show evolved into something else when Frank left, and while it still made good TV, it wasn't really the same as it had been. Frank wouldn't have been as funny if he had stayed, so it was good that he left, but on the other hand the show wouldn't have been as funny if Winchester had been an original cast memeber.

 

[Buckychudd]

every M*A*SH* replacement <<<<<<< the original chracter

XPotter > Blake

 

[mr. furley]

This should be Burns in a landslide.

don't see how this could end up any other way

 

[TommyGilmore]

Trapper, Blake, and Burns were way funnier than the replacement characters. The end.

Trapper was never funny. All he ever did was spit out one-liners that sounded like Alda had rejected them.

 

[DCThunder]

As someone who watched this show in it's original run, it became less funny as it became more political. It was always an allegory for the Vietnam war and even after the US withdrew and South Vietnam fell to the Communists, the writers continued to pound home the point that the US Army was bad/incompetant and that you had to be insane to survive in war. See also Catch 22 for the definitive text on this mindset.

 

[Pai Mei]

When I reflect on this show it is rather startling to see my own growth as a person. When it aired I used to laugh right along with the jokes. Now I look back and I realize Hawkeye and Trapper and those guys were just tools.

This is great shtick.

I'm dead serious. I was a little kid when MASH was on and I thought it was hilarious. My family didn't see the humor. I look back now and I see a show filled with unfunny tools. I agree with my family.

 

[Chaka]

every M*A*SH* replacement <<<<<<< the original chracter

XPotter > Blake

If I knew you, you would be dead to me.

 

[Christo]

 

[The Man With No Name]

Trapper, Blake, and Burns were way funnier than the replacement characters. The end.

Trapper was never funny. All he ever did was spit out one-liners that sounded like Alda had rejected them.

Burns>>>>>WinchesterBlake>>>>>Potter

Trapper>>>>BJ

Come on, Trapper got his own show, Hunnicut didn't.