 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 14, 2011 - 5:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jim Phelps
(Member)
|
Not only that, Mike was a complete hypocrite and was sexist in his treatment of Gloria. His "enlightened" beliefs are proof enough that the writers of AITF gave both barrels to each side of the spectrum.
I have to disagree there. Any criticisms of Meathead the show made were inevitably done in the context of him being a hypocrite for not acting true to the instincts of his far leftism, or for having an attitude problem. Only once did an episode challenge him from the perspective that he was an extremist and that was the one with their dueling recollections of the refridgerator repairmen.
That may have been Lear's intent--actually, I'm sure it was--but seeing these episodes now reveals, at least to my eyes, that Mike was nearly as wrongheaded, ignorant, and bigoted as Archie. If Mike was supposed to be the mouthpiece for Lear's worldview, then that aspect of AITF has dated as poorly as every episode of Maude. Perhaps we--make that "I"-- should give more credit to Rob Reiner's characterization for either playing Mike as hugely flawed himself, or for a few subversive writers for injecting it into the character...or for me, for seeing it in the first place. 
Maybe we should pick this up in StevenJ's AITF thread. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 14, 2011 - 6:03 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
That may have been Lear's intent--actually, I'm sure it was--but seeing these episodes now reveals, at least to my eyes, that Mike was nearly as wrongheaded, ignorant, and bigoted as Archie.
I would call that ultimately a case of purely "unintentional" humor. The writers expected the audience to take all of Meathead's soapboxing to heart or similar soapboxing from characters like Irene Lorenzo, and today when we look back at this, the joke is suddenly on them, with the ultimate example of how the joke suddenly became on them in hindsight when Archie, after being topped by Meathead shouts at him in late 1976, "You're gonna get Ree-gan in 1980, wise guy!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 14, 2011 - 4:36 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TominAtl
(Member)
|
And, lest we completely derail the discussion, my favorite M*A*S*H years were the middle ones. There were some wonderful shows early on, too, but I thought the replacement characters (BJ, Potter, and Winchester) were more interesting and believable than their predecessors. There was greater contrast between Hawkeye and BJ than Hawkeye and Trapper and it made for a much wider reservoir of potential stories. Winchester was a much less easy target as an adversary, too; he wasn't just a collection of petty hypocrisies the way Burns often was. And having a Regular Army commanding officer allowed for a different perspective sometimes, one which was absent with Blake. Not to knock earlier seasons--it was always a very good show. I just felt the character changes added some new layers.
Those are excellent and very valid points, and you are right. Having fewer goofballs and more serious minded characters offset much of Hawkeye's and BJ's devilish fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 20, 2015 - 9:32 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
And, lest we completely derail the discussion, my favorite M*A*S*H years were the middle ones. There were some wonderful shows early on, too, but I thought the replacement characters (BJ, Potter, and Winchester) were more interesting and believable than their predecessors. There was greater contrast between Hawkeye and BJ than Hawkeye and Trapper and it made for a much wider reservoir of potential stories. Winchester was a much less easy target as an adversary, too; he wasn't just a collection of petty hypocrisies the way Burns often was. And having a Regular Army commanding officer allowed for a different perspective sometimes, one which was absent with Blake. Not to knock earlier seasons--it was always a very good show. I just felt the character changes added some new layers.
Those are excellent and very valid points, and you are right. Having fewer goofballs and more serious minded characters offset much of Hawkeye's and BJ's devilish fun.
Loved M*A*S*H as a whole but disliked the buffoonery of the first half. The second half was much better with Potter and other cast changes. They got rid of the weak characters and the series improved. They made Margaret into a real intelligent person you could sympathize with. Yeah, second half was much better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seasons 1-3 for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which half? The sausages!
Great series throughout. Some absolutely wonderful sharp lines in every episode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello there
The uncanned half
The US version with canned laughter comes across completely differently to the laughter free version we had here in the UK.
Full marks to the BBC for removing it.
Regards
CC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
