[OT, sidekicks] Trapper John or BJ Honeycutt?

[King_Stannis]

well, which sidekick do you prefer - Trapper John or BJ Honeycutt? personally, it's a slam dunk. Trapper John wins by a mile. i never thought Honeycutt's schtick was funny - if he even had a schtick.

oh well, if you're a M*A*S*H fan, which do you prefer?

 

[Thorntangle]

Ultimately Trapper, but BJ brought some family-oriented soul to the sidekick position. And appealed to a broader demographic.

 

[Florin]

Well, seeing as I'm not an afficianado and haven't seen all to many episodes with Trapper, I'm going to go for BJ.

 

[King_Stannis]

watching some of those later episodes with even radar gone is like watching a wake. no joy, a few feigned smiles........


i remember just being shocked at how preachy and unfunny the show started getting at the end. yes alan, war = bad. we know......

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I guess that's why they call you the king. I'm with you, Trapper John was to the 'good guys' of mash what Major Frank Burns was to the 'bad guys.'

And likewise BJ was to the good guys what Winchester was to the bad; watered-down versions.

 

[Claude Raines]

Trapper, definitely. After Radar, he was my favorite character. BJ was okay, but he didn't complement Hawkeye nearly as well.

 

[Tauric]

I have to say BJ, because he seemed more grounded. He was able to bring Hawkeye out of his occasional funk, yet still contribute to the hijinx, and that's the kind of sidekick I need.

 

[Maerdwyn]

Trapper

 

[Teflon Billy]

Trapper...by along shot.

I've found that it tends to break down along gender lines...moe women seem to like B.J. than Trapper, while more men seem to like Trapper than B.J..

As a foil to whichever incarnation of the dynamic duo you prefer, Do you like Charles Emerson Winchester, or Frank Burns?

Me? I like Winchester. A much deeper and more inherently funny character than Burns.

 

[Crothian]

Trapper. BJ was a good character and I did enjoy those, but Trapper was the best.