As good as Alan Alda And Mike Farrell were on the show, they had a certain stance on the Vietnam war and used their beliefs to change scripts and direct episodes. Do you think *Perhaps* M*A*S*H became a bit too preachy by the end of the series?

In the latter seasons after Alan Alda became more involved behind the camera the show definitely got a lot more preachy! :singer:

It never bothered me when the show was on, mostly because I always associated the show with Vietnam (as we were supposed to, I believe) and that was such an unpopular war. But as I look back...yeah, it got pretty slanted (though it was never very balanced to begin with).

Too much so? Maybe. It might have been interesting to have had a more pro military character that wasn't a total moron/cretin like Burns or a repressed control freak like Margaret (though she did evolve), just to give the show balance and Hawk and B.J. more of a challenge.

Well, if any of you have ever read anything I had to say about MASH I think you already know what my answer is, and that is a yes. It wasn't bad until the last few seasons when the show stopped being funny and started focusing more on the bad parts of war. I mean, there are a few things that I agree with Alan Alda about, but he made Hawkeye out to be more whiny than anything, and I would rather not sit there for a half hour to hear someone whine about something and then have them come out to be the hero in the end.

They did convey the same message through out the entire show, it was shown in different formats. The first part of the show was through making fun of people in charge and showing how ridculous everything was but then when Alan Alda and Mike Farrell took charge it was through Hawkeye's morals and ideals and how he was right when everyone else was wrong.

Well, if any of you have ever read anything I had to say about MASH I think you already know what my answer is, and that is a yes. It wasn't bad until the last few seasons when the show stopped being funny and started focusing more on the bad parts of war. I mean, there are a few things that I agree with Alan Alda about, but he made Hawkeye out to be more whiny than anything, and I would rather not sit there for a half hour to hear someone whine about something and then have them come out to be the hero in the end.

They did convey the same message through out the entire show, it was shown in different formats. The first part of the show was through making fun of people in charge and showing how ridculous everything was but then when Alan Alda and Mike Farrell took charge it was through Hawkeye's morals and ideals and how he was right when everyone else was wrong.
:yeahthat

I've said it before and I'll say it again: someone made a HUUUGE mistake when they let Alan Alda take over the writing & directing!!!

Once Wayne Rogers was out and Alan Alda took more and more control of the show, then it became WAY too preachy!!

One thing that kind of bugged me, and seemed to be more prevalent in the later seasons, was when everyone seemed to forget that the show was set in the early 1950s. Were there actually officers who looked like B.J. (wild moustache) or Margaret (late '70s - early '80s hairstyle) back then? I doubt it.

My point is that as the writers and cast felt more and more removed from the early '50s setting, it seems like they felt more free to interject later ideologies and more modern ways of looking at things into the series -- costing M*A*S*H a sense of authenticity it should have had.

When you see plastic talcum containers (they were steel back then) or a visible bar code on a Hershey bar (not in use until the '70s) in the Swamp, it's an indicator to me that some just didn't care about keeping the setting back where it was supposed to be.

Or how about Radar reading Avengers comic books when the Avengers didn't come out until the 1960s?

In the episode "Peace On Us," when Hawkeye commandeers a jeep and goes to the peace talks, offering his commentary about the war and how they need to stop it, it's unreleastic to me. Because he would have been arrested on the spot for invading a meeting and editiorializing in such a manner.

Indeed, Hawkeye (as well as Trapper and B.J.) made comments to and in front of generals and military brass that would have gotten them at the very least reprimanded, if not thrown in a military prison.

And yes, the long haircuts would not have been allowed in the army. They all would have had crew cuts and not been allowed to wear civilian clothes. I love the show, but I do agree it got too preachy. I think it went on a couple of seasons too long, IMO.

When you see plastic talcum containers (they were steel back then) or a visible bar code on a Hershey bar (not in use until the '70s) in the Swamp, it's an indicator to me that some just didn't care about keeping the setting back where it was supposed to be.

I call that the Happy Days Syndrome (and sheer laziness)! :mad:

Or how about Radar reading Avengers comic books when the Avengers didn't come out until the 1960s?

In the episode "Peace On Us," when Hawkeye commandeers a jeep and goes to the peace talks, offering his commentary about the war and how they need to stop it, it's unreleastic to me. Because he would have been arrested on the spot for invading a meeting and editiorializing in such a manner.

Indeed, Hawkeye (as well as Trapper and B.J.) made comments to and in front of generals and military brass that would have gotten them at the very least reprimanded, if not thrown in a military prison.

And yes, the long haircuts would not have been allowed in the army. They all would have had crew cuts and not been allowed to wear civilian clothes. I love the show, but I do agree it got too preachy. I think it went on a couple of seasons too long, IMO.

I agree. That's what turned my Dad off from the show, he told me that there is no way anyone would ever get away with pulling any stunts like that, and then come back to a party. If anything Potter should have been pissed at him. Either way though, all it became was Alan Alda's half hour to show you what he thought the world should be like. I think he stopped caring as to whether or not it was realistic, or simply lost touch with reality.

Don't get me wrong -- I love the show. It's my all-time favorite. But sometimes the lapses of reality make me go "Um, riiiight."

The disrespect they showed to visiting generals and brass would have gotten their asses kicked. They probably would have done time in the stockade at the very least.

We all knew the show was about war and that war was not pretty or fun. But we don't need 30 minutes of preaching about it, either.

I'm a big fan as well -- maybe it's because I've watched most episodes many multiples of times that I'm on the lookout for anachronisms, or whatever you call inconsistencies with the time period being portrayed. Thanks for the ones you've added.

I just think its odd sometimes that a red flag didn't go up when props made of plastic were introduced -- so much was still common in glass and metal in the '50s. One that I've noticed on other series: Ordinary prescription bottles, sometimes seen in modern plastic packaging. Even later series like That '70s Show used syrup and mustard bottles that were not period. I have stuff out in my garage that is appropriate for those years, like the old glass French's pump-top mustard jar...!

Getting back on topic, I think Dr. Thong's statement is well-said regarding 30 mins. of propaganda-type approach -- not appropriate for dramedy even, IMO, let alone comedy series.

One thing that kind of bugged me, and seemed to be more prevalent in the later seasons, was when everyone seemed to forget that the show was set in the early 1950s. Were there actually officers who looked like B.J. (wild moustache) or Margaret (late '70s - early '80s hairstyle) back then? I doubt it.

My point is that as the writers and cast felt more and more removed from the early '50s setting, it seems like they felt more free to interject later ideologies and more modern ways of looking at things into the series -- costing M*A*S*H a sense of authenticity it should have had.

When you see plastic talcum containers (they were steel back then) or a visible bar code on a Hershey bar (not in use until the '70s) in the Swamp, it's an indicator to me that some just didn't care about keeping the setting back where it was supposed to be.
how about the time Radar did an impression of John Watne in a scene from the movie "McCLINTOCK" which didn't come out until the early 60s????

:yeahthat

I've said it before and I'll say it again: someone made a HUUUGE mistake when they let Alan Alda take over the writing & directing!!!
I basically agree.And also the funny part is Alan Alda and especially Mike Farrell were the weakest actors on the show too.They were not bad,but the other members of the cast were better.MASH still managed to be a great show during all it's seasons.However the later episodes, especially the last 3 seasons while they were good when the show originally ran ,for various reasons don't hold up as well as the earlier episodes in re-runs.

When I was younger I liked the show, but as I got older I began to see the basic flaws that brought it to an end.
The best anti-war tv sitcom, IMHO, is Blackadder Goes Forth. Up to the final five minutes of that series it was pure comedy. Only in the last few minutes of the series did it become suddenly and without warning, dramatic. THAT is what made the final scene in BAG4 so powerful.
MASH sort of did that with the first three years ending with Henry's death. If they had ended the show after that, it would have had a far greater impact.
But they chose instead to go on for another eight years into a preachy pit that actually grew UNINTENTIONALLY funny in its later years.
Apologies to fans of those years, but the final years of MASH, including the final episode, are almost physical torture to watch.

No apologies necessary for me. I feel the show went on about two years longer or so than it should have. Towards the end, it was tired and you could tell they were having a hard time coming up with fresh ideas.

If it had ended two seasons earlier, Loretta Swit could've played Christine Cagney on Cagney & Lacey. She and Tyne Daly had filmed the pilot movie during one of the M*A*S*H hiatuses. From what I understand, Ms. Swit was very unhappy that she was still tied to M*A*S*H and wasn't available for Cagney & Lacey.

It's true, Monika. Loretta Swit wanted to leave M*A*S*H and do the Cagney & Lacey series. But CBS and the studio wouldn't allow it and thus she stayed put.

It took them two tries before they were able to replace her. Season one had Meg Foster as Cagney and she was replaced in season two by Sharon Gless.

Yes,I agree.In the first years with Col.Blake and Trapper John,it got a bit preachy-just a little bit-very insignificant,and when Col.Potter took over with B.J.and Charles added,it was the same way, but it was one thing -it was FUNNY.When Radar left,and toward the very end,it was REALLY preachy.

No apologies necessary for me. I feel the show went on about two years longer or so than it should have. Towards the end, it was tired and you could tell they were having a hard time coming up with fresh ideas.
I think I read somewhere that someone on the show knew they were coming to an end when a line in a script was repeated in another episode-a woman who came to the unit was greeted with "Well, when did this line start carrying stewardesses?" And both times it was said by B.J.

For the record the episodes were "WAR CO-RESPONDENT" & "THAT'S SHOW-BIZ".

It's true, Monika. Loretta Swit wanted to leave M*A*S*H and do the Cagney & Lacey series. But CBS and the studio wouldn't allow it and thus she stayed put.

It took them two tries before they were able to replace her. Season one had Meg Foster as Cagney and she was replaced in season two by Sharon Gless.

Yep - I've seen the Cagney & Lacey TV movie/pilot with LS, and she was quite good in the role. Before that, I'd only ever seen Sharon Gless as Cagney. Never saw Meg Foster. Poor Tyne Daly must have needed a scorecard to see which Cagney she'd be working opposite those first couple of years - yikes!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Yep - I've seen the Cagney & Lacey TV movie/pilot with LS, and she was quite good in the role. Before that, I'd only ever seen Sharon Gless as Cagney. Never saw Meg Foster. Poor Tyne Daly must have needed a scorecard to see which Cagney she'd be working opposite those first couple of years - yikes!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Hey I have a question, was MASH basically based on either world war I or II or Vietnam and i wonder why the motioon picture which started the series was not included in the box sets, maybe in due time they will

Hey I have a question, was MASH basically based on either world war I or II or Vietnam

The Korean War.

The Korean War.
ok do you think if they decide to do the utlimate boxset release they will include as a bonues the motion picture

ok do you think if they decide to do the utlimate boxset release they will include as a bonues the motion picture

Your guess is as good as mine! Really, I have no idea.

but Robert Altman, who directed the movie, didn't have them make any metion of Korea and the Korean war, so people would probably think it was in Vietnam.

When I was little I really didn't take notice of the preaching, I was too young to care. However in the last 5-10 years watching it have really noticed it, and needless to say I could do without it. Regardless MASH will still be one of my favorites and will not stop watching it anytime soon.

I forget where I read it, but on one site they would have been better off renaming the show "The Alan Alda Show".:D

I don't know.but the series started during the last few years of the Vietnam war. Maybe if it did,maybe the 1st few years while it was still going on. When Wayne Rogers & McClain Stevenson were on. Maybe a bit with Mike Farell & Harry Morgan. Again i don't know as its been a while since i seen those episodes. I'm gonna have to rewatch the whole series here and there at some point.been too long lol

It never bothered me when the show was on, mostly because I always associated the show with Vietnam (as we were supposed to, I believe) and that was such an unpopular war. But as I look back...yeah, it got pretty slanted (though it was never very balanced to begin with).

Too much so? Maybe. It might have been interesting to have had a more pro military character that wasn't a total moron/cretin like Burns or a repressed control freak like Margaret (though she did evolve), just to give the show balance and Hawk and B.J. more of a challenge.


You said you associate it with Vietnam. I was only 3yrs old in 1972 when the series started. so don't associate those yrs with anything lol anyway..........

With the Vietnam War was there any talk to base M*A*S*H and have it set present day at the time IN Vietnam? I know the show was somewhat based on the movie itself but was there ANY talk of basing it on vietnam? ight it not have gotten a green light if it had?

You said you associate it with Vietnam. I was only 3yrs old in 1972 when the series started. so don't associate those yrs with anything lol anyway..........

With the Vietnam War was there any talk to base M*A*S*H and have it set present day at the time IN Vietnam? I know the show was somewhat based on the movie itself but was there ANY talk of basing it on vietnam? ight it not have gotten a green light if it had?
I don't know, but I highly doubt it would have gotten the green light in such a case; since the vietnam war was still a sore point with a lot of people in 1970.
I know that Robert Altman (the director) purposely didn't have anyone make any references to Korea, the korean war, etc. He wanted audiences to think that it MIGHT be set in vietnam.

Whether it was, or was not too preachy, doesen't change the fact that, M*A*S*H* remains for me (and many others) one of the best sitcoms ever made. I know that's not the point of this thread, but I wanted to establish that.

Having said that, it does get a bit preachy and anachronistic, blurring the Korean and Vietnam Wars. I feel that M*A*S*H was verbalizing anti-Vietnam War biases, using the Korean Conflict as a setting and platform. It was a very entertaining and well-done program. I don't think it was the main objective of the show to be political, but certainly the political biases were unmistakable. Having Korea as a setting, and not Vietnam was a wise choice, because I think it expanded the viewing audience, and took any direct focus away from Vietnam for the American people, in whose memory Vietnam was still a highly volatile and controversial issue. I don't think Beej and Hawkeye's attitudes would've been very prevalent in Korea or WWII. Nothing to base it on, just my gut feeling.

If you read 'between the lines' with M*A*S*H, it has a clear anti-Vietnam agenda. But again, I believe it's reflective of the times.

The more Alan Alda was involved the more the show became anti-war. Also he would become in the later episodes somewhat more of a pacifist type. I love Alan Alda but he could and did become preachy in the later episodes. I did not care much for that!

ok do you think if they decide to do the utlimate boxset release they will include as a bonues the motion picture
I doubt it. The motion picture is already out on DVD. I own it.

That preachiness was there even in the earlier seasons. I guess that it just got worse later, and I'm sure a lot of that was Alda's personal views. Alan Alda was a good comedic actor, but other than that, he really doesn't impress me much as far as his personal views go.

That preachiness was there even in the earlier seasons. I guess that it just got worse later, and I'm sure a lot of that was Alda's personal views. Alan Alda was a good comedic actor, but other than that, he really doesn't impress me much as far as his personal views go.

This is true, it was just in a different style. It was funny, the show was still a comedy. It wasn't a half hour of just Alan Alda complaining about something. It was certainly anti war with the death of Henry Blake, Hawkeye's message at the end of the video that the MASH unit had to make, Sometimes You Hear the Bullet, Trapper losing it when one of his patients doesn't make it because of a mistake when one of the North Korean patients breaks the container of blood that he needed.

I think I might have stated this earlier either on here or on another thread, but these moments actually had more of an impact on me than any of the later episodes had. These ones just bring the moments on unexpectedly. More realistically. The later eps however have Alan Alda talking about being against something for twenty five minutes before anything even happens.

Whether it was, or was not too preachy, doesen't change the fact that, M*A*S*H* remains for me (and many others) one of the best sitcoms ever made. I know that's not the point of this thread, but I wanted to establish that.

Having said that, it does get a bit preachy and anachronistic, blurring the Korean and Vietnam Wars. I feel that M*A*S*H was verbalizing anti-Vietnam War biases, using the Korean Conflict as a setting and platform. It was a very entertaining and well-done program. I don't think it was the main objective of the show to be political, but certainly the political biases were unmistakable. Having Korea as a setting, and not Vietnam was a wise choice, because I think it expanded the viewing audience, and took any direct focus away from Vietnam for the American people, in whose memory Vietnam was still a highly volatile and controversial issue. I don't think Beej and Hawkeye's attitudes would've been very prevalent in Korea or WWII. Nothing to base it on, just my gut feeling.

If you read 'between the lines' with M*A*S*H, it has a clear anti-Vietnam agenda. But again, I believe it's reflective of the times.

That's a great post, Gene. Since I was born about midway through M*A*S*H's original run, I can't vouch for that perspective of the times. I guess you had to be there.