Charles Emerson Winchester or Frank Burns, who was better?
by 
Account Closed
ANSWERS: 16
-
Winchester because he wasn't as annoying ;0)
-
I think on the whole, Winchester was better. He had more depth of character. If you go back to the movie, Burns didn't really last that long in the movie. And that character wouldn't have worked on television. Not in the 70s anyway, and I don't think now.
-
Frank was too whiney (or however you spell that) Mark me down for Charles Emerson Winchester. At least he had some hobbies and interests. Of course, if Frank is out - where does that leave Hot Lips? LOL
-
at what?
-
Charles of course!
-
I liked them both, but Frank was such a dill weed that he gets my vote. Charles was just to serious, most times, for me.
-
Winchester, Burns just got on my nerves.
-
Winchester wins hands down, especially in the later series's where you see he's not the pompous upper-middle class buffoon you think he is, like when he keeps a vigil with Hawkeye, or gives the presents to the orphans. Much more depth to the character than Burns :)
-
Charles was a hoot but Frank and Hot lips made the whole show.
-
ug! you have got to be kidding? neither! ek. Good question!
-
Charles Emerson Winchester, the shows were written to show different sides of the character, and sometimes you even saw a bit of compassion.
-
Frank Burns
-
FRANK WAS HILLARIOUS. FLUSH 'EM OUT OF THE SKIES FRANK!
-
IMHO, each were very good in their respective roles, and because their characters were so different in just about every aspect--it would be nearly impossible to compare them to each other! It was probably better for David Ogden Stiers to portray a completely different character, Charles Emerson Winchester III, in order to NOT be compared to the whiny, gun-ho, mama's boy portrayed by Larry Linville--Frank Burns.
-
I think Frank, he was more funny and whiny and Charles was too serious for me
-
Frank Burns.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC