[OT, sidekicks] Trapper John or BJ Honeycutt?

[jmucchiello]

Based on the original question: Who is the better sidekick? Trapper, hands down. But only because BJ was no sidekick. BJ was a fully realized character. Trapper had nothing with Hawkeye pushing him into it. BJ could carry a story by himself and in the episode where he bet Hawkeye over who was the best prankster he proved he wasn't a sidekick.

Joe

And if you mean the movie, then the answer is Hawkeye.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I liked Trapper better than BJ.

I liked Winchester better than Burns.

I can't decide between Potter and Blake.

Like many other people here, I was less-than-impressed with the final few seasons of MASH, when Alan Alda was put in charge and the show got all preachy and depressing. Like SemperJase, I was also annoyed by the way the show portrayed any military officers who were not doctors as being evil warmongers.

The first few seasons of MASH were so funny, however, that I would constantly find myself laughing until my stomach muscles hurt.

EDIT: Typoes.

 

[WizarDru]

Trapper, Winchester and Potter, for me. In the debate of Trapper versus BJ, I honestly don't have much of a preference....in many ways, they're hard for me to tell apart. BJ got more to do, but was also less 'edgy', if you will.

I never much cared for Burns as a foe. He became such a caricature after the first season, that he was unbelievable as either a threat or a challenge. The only thing he possessed that was of importance was rank, being inferior mentally and skill-wise, and since rank mattered little (other than the occasional 'I'll get you court-martialed' plot), he was essentially powerless. Winchester, on the other hand, was a mental equal of Hawkeye and BJ, and was a foil, not a foe. While his compassion was well hidden and often in doubt, he was an equal in the OR, and sometimes it was obvious his arrogance was somewhat earned. His occasional dips down to help the others was a clear sign that he was on the side of the angels...even if he thought he was slumming.

Classic scene I recall is Hawkeye waiting for a call about his father, who's getting surgery in the states, and who didn't tell Hawkeye until the last possible moment. A frantic Hawkeye waits by the phone, wracked with concern. Charles sits and talks with him, and explains how he's envied Hawkeye's relationship with his father, as opposed to his own distant parent...how he has a father and Hawkeye has a 'dad'.

Says Hawkeye: "Charles, you've never told me anything like that before."

Says Charles: "Hawkeye, I've never told you anything before."


To a lesser degree, I feel the same way about Colonels Blake and Potter. Blake was a good one-liner character, but seemed powerless over his own unit to the extent that he wasn't very useful as a character. He was an extension of a sidekick, and a poor one at that. Harold T. Potter came in, kicked some ass, and got to work. He functioned as friend, foe and always was motivated by his ideals. And unlike Blake, he had the muscle to back them up.

And before we get any further, I'll state my preference for Klinger over Rizzo.

 

[King_Stannis]

....And before we get any further, I'll state my preference for Klinger over Rizzo.

seeing klinger without his dress in those later episodes was probably like watching johnny unitas stumble around with the chargers or joe namath end his career with the rams. it was just unnatural.