Celebrity Death: 'mash' star william christopher dead at 84
- Thread starter Jumptheshark
- Start date
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
RobBrown4PM
Pringles?
- Oct 12, 2009
- 8,887
- 2,782
PanthersPens62
Coach Nerd
RobBrown4PM
Pringles?
- Oct 12, 2009
- 8,887
- 2,782
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
It was funny how he got cast. Like I posted earlier. He was an actual Methodist and when the show was recasting the role after George Morgan either become unavailable or quit the show--most felt something was wrong. When Christopher read for the show he asked the question "Father Mulcahy is supposed to be a real Methodist?" and when Larry Gelbert said yes--He pointed out some mistakes in the script they had asked him to read. When they mentioned the tone and humour of the show--Christopher reportedly asked them if they wanted to hear some jokes. While they were not blue they were funny and he was cast almost right away.
He wrote a book called Mixed Blessings about his son who had Autism. It is a very good read.
Kestrel
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2005
- 5,814
- 129
While some younger people who didn't really have a proper exposure to M*A*S*H might disagree, I think you're on the money. I'm sure there had to be some actors that didn't quite have the chemistry as every show has them - but I can't think of any. Certainly not major characters. Post 1st episode - who knows how the original Mulcahy would have worked out, but having William Christopher from episode 2 on was perfect.
On top of that - having major characters depart and be replaced can kill a show. In the case of M*A*S*H, I think it kept on just fine... with a couple of the changes arguably actually improving the show. Trapper Howard being switched for BJ Hunnicut - I'm okay with the change, but Hunnicut was a little too self pitying at times for me. Colonel Blake being swapped out for Harry Morgan's character - I liked Blake, but I enjoyed the Colonel Potter character more. Frank Burns played his role and played it well, but Charles Winchester was a much fuller character, and having Frank removed allowed Margaret Hoolihan to mature and grow as a character. That, and I think David Ogden Stiers who played Winchester is a fantastic actor.
the squared circle
Registered User
Best show ever.
I'll admit he was never my favourite character, but at least I'll always like him more than Margaret!
RIP Padre
(I especially hated his scene when they were mixing cement and he was singing).
Henry- "this is Sergeant Pak, R.O.K. This is father Mulcahy, G.O.D."
I'll admit he was never my favourite character, but at least I'll always like him more than Margaret!
RIP Padre
(I especially hated his scene when they were mixing cement and he was singing).
Henry- "this is Sergeant Pak, R.O.K. This is father Mulcahy, G.O.D."
RobBrown4PM
Pringles?
- Oct 12, 2009
- 8,887
- 2,782
Winchester was a much better foil for Hawkeye than burns was. Burns was great and he was a good character, but he was 1 dimensional with no depth.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
There were a few different character changes during the series, but by far the best was the introduction of Winchester to replace Burns. As you say, Burns was really 1-dimensional with essentially nothing to like about his character other than him being the brunt of pranks. Winchester gave us a character to like being the victim of pranks but also to like when he got the one up on the other guys.
Kestrel
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2005
- 5,814
- 129
I'm obviously already on the Winchester train - you guys all have it right in my opinion. I actually at times found myself rooting for Winchester over Hawkeye and Hunnicut.
Unlike Burns, although Winchester's morals are at times questionable, he's usually no more of a moral degenerate than the other doctors, and when it actually comes down to the nitty gritty, he can usually be counted on to do the right thing, even if in an arrogant, holier-than-thou manner. Rather than just being an often-antagonist, he was actually full blown competition, and every bit as skillful as the others.
Unlike Burns, although Winchester's morals are at times questionable, he's usually no more of a moral degenerate than the other doctors, and when it actually comes down to the nitty gritty, he can usually be counted on to do the right thing, even if in an arrogant, holier-than-thou manner. Rather than just being an often-antagonist, he was actually full blown competition, and every bit as skillful as the others.
Some great discussion here.
No matter how you cut it, MASH was indeed one of the greatest shows of all time and still is to this day. As a little kid the reruns would come after cartoons in the afternoon/early evening the theme music always gave me a headache. As I grew older I actually watched the show and grew to love it and it's now one of my favorite shows of all time.
As for the changes, I posted in the other thread about them. I think they worked because all the new characters were still great and they fit what I feel was a shift in tone to a bit more of the dramatic end. The show was still funny of course, but I don't think they could have been quite as dramatic with guys like Trapper and Blake still around. And I agree that Winchester was indeed a better foil for Hawkeye, but I still definitely think that Burns was a lot funnier. His reactions, hell just the look on his face, were just side-splitting funny. I also loved how Hawkeye was able to antagonize him. I remember that scene where Frank is teaching the local population English and Hawkeye said something like "Frank Burns eats worms." They repeat him and Frank just blows up. Anyway, at the end of the day I'm glad they made the changes they did because you just go to enjoy more characters regardless of your preference.
No matter how you cut it, MASH was indeed one of the greatest shows of all time and still is to this day. As a little kid the reruns would come after cartoons in the afternoon/early evening the theme music always gave me a headache. As I grew older I actually watched the show and grew to love it and it's now one of my favorite shows of all time.
As for the changes, I posted in the other thread about them. I think they worked because all the new characters were still great and they fit what I feel was a shift in tone to a bit more of the dramatic end. The show was still funny of course, but I don't think they could have been quite as dramatic with guys like Trapper and Blake still around. And I agree that Winchester was indeed a better foil for Hawkeye, but I still definitely think that Burns was a lot funnier. His reactions, hell just the look on his face, were just side-splitting funny. I also loved how Hawkeye was able to antagonize him. I remember that scene where Frank is teaching the local population English and Hawkeye said something like "Frank Burns eats worms." They repeat him and Frank just blows up. Anyway, at the end of the day I'm glad they made the changes they did because you just go to enjoy more characters regardless of your preference.
the squared circle
Registered User
Mash is so underrated on hf boards. I guess its due to the demographic.
Agree wholeheartedly on Winchester (my favourite character) being better than Burns. However, that being said, it is an unfair comparison. They wrote Burns' character as one dimensional. His character never had a chance to evolve. Look how they changed Margaret over time.
I think the only other character that was static throughout, was BJ "I only speak in puns/rhymes" Hunnicut. "You're the toast of the coast, Yost!"
Agree wholeheartedly on Winchester (my favourite character) being better than Burns. However, that being said, it is an unfair comparison. They wrote Burns' character as one dimensional. His character never had a chance to evolve. Look how they changed Margaret over time.
I think the only other character that was static throughout, was BJ "I only speak in puns/rhymes" Hunnicut. "You're the toast of the coast, Yost!"
Yes, the removal of Burns from the show allowed for Margaret's character to evolve, making her character also better in the end.
Burgs
Registered User
- Sep 10, 2005
- 6,761
- 7
I agree that Frank Burns was written so one-dimensional that it made Winchester the better character. Burns was simply awful at everything. He sucked as a surgeon, was too cowardly as a soldier and had zero people skills. My Burns highlight was when he awarded himself a stolen Purple Heart for getting hit in the eye by "shell fragments" - from his breakfast egg. Larry Linville did a great job with how little he was given script-wise. Not only with his funny reactions, sometimes you almost felt sorry for Frank. Sometimes you got the impression that deep down the little weasel knew he was a failure and how it ate away at him. There was one episode where Hawkeye and BJ kept arguing in front of him for one entire day because it was Frank's birthday, and that was their gift to him. But any sympathy could never last because the character always quickly reverted to being a complete jerk, and Linville was right to leave before running his one-note character into the ground.
They did not repeat that mistake with Winchester. By making him an excellent surgeon, and giving him that Boston blueblood background, they gave him a lot of depth so he wasn't defenseless when sparring with the other two. I think the series got better by adding deeper characters, and developing others like Margaret and Klinger.
They did not repeat that mistake with Winchester. By making him an excellent surgeon, and giving him that Boston blueblood background, they gave him a lot of depth so he wasn't defenseless when sparring with the other two. I think the series got better by adding deeper characters, and developing others like Margaret and Klinger.
Kestrel
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2005
- 5,814
- 129
You made some good points. Frank wasn't deep - but Linville did an excellent job with him. You almost got to see Frank Burns turn the corner and add some depth when Margaret got engaged - Burns tried to accept it and be the good friend, but it was just too far out of character for him to make it last.
It was good to see Klinger get some added depth too. He was a favourite character of mine, but the dress thing got old, so it was nice to see it get put into the background eventually.
I liked the Colonel Blake for Colonel Potter switch too. Henry Blake was a decent and likeable enough character, but the unit was successful and had competent numbers almost entirely in spite of him. With Sherman Potter, you got a character that was actually competent, not just as a surgeon, but as a leader, and still managed to be likeable.
I can't remember the character name, but Potter was actually Harry Morgan's second character in M*A*S*H. His first one was pretty out there
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
You made some good points. Frank wasn't deep - but Linville did an excellent job with him. You almost got to see Frank Burns turn the corner and add some depth when Margaret got engaged - Burns tried to accept it and be the good friend, but it was just too far out of character for him to make it last.
It was good to see Klinger get some added depth too. He was a favourite character of mine, but the dress thing got old, so it was nice to see it get put into the background eventually.
I liked the Colonel Blake for Colonel Potter switch too. Henry Blake was a decent and likeable enough character, but the unit was successful and had competent numbers almost entirely in spite of him. With Sherman Potter, you got a character that was actually competent, not just as a surgeon, but as a leader, and still managed to be likeable.
I can't remember the character name, but Potter was actually Harry Morgan's second character in M*A*S*H. His first one was pretty out there
The character proved totally nuts and more than a little racist later in the episode, when, at a makeshift trial, as he questions a black chopper pilot, he interrupts himself with "but first, a number." The pilot appears confused, and Steele says "A musical number. It's in your blood boy, just let it out."
Steele (Morgan) then exits the scene singing the old negro work song "Mississippi Mud."
Last edited:
Kestrel
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2005
- 5,814
- 129
Behn Wilson
Registered User
I like all the new characters including BJ but Wayne Rogers as Trapper was far superior to BJ, the others I thought were rrelatively equal to their predecessors.
I cant believe they kept the Spear Chucker character from the movie character at the beginning of the show before they got rid of him a few episodes in. I think he ended up hanging out w Richie Cunningham's older brother from Happy Days I think it was chuck who they also wrote out of the show shortly into it.
MASH was great but as the show went on Alan Alda got too much power and made the show too preachy. The early era w the original cast IMO was the prime period of the show.
I cant believe they kept the Spear Chucker character from the movie character at the beginning of the show before they got rid of him a few episodes in. I think he ended up hanging out w Richie Cunningham's older brother from Happy Days I think it was chuck who they also wrote out of the show shortly into it.
MASH was great but as the show went on Alan Alda got too much power and made the show too preachy. The early era w the original cast IMO was the prime period of the show.
