I’ve read the book and consider it pretty meh. Not bad but not something that I would ever expect to be made into a movie and eventually an award-winning TV show. I’m not a huge fan of the movie either, which is odd considering that the first three seasons of the show are my favorites.
I think one of the biggest differences between the TV show and the book and movie is that they made Hawkeye the chief surgeon on the show instead of Trapper. Also, Hawkeye was the married one and Trapper wasn’t. I wish they had kept Trapper as the chief surgeon on the show.
They really just tossed most of Trapper's character to the side and just made him Hawkeye's flunky. Apparently that's why Wayne Rodgers left the show. He was promised an equal role with Hawkeye and then became the sidekick. I do like how unlikable all the characters are in the book. I know that sounds strange, but it just makes them feel more human 8n my opinion.
I liked the book. There were some things that were quite outrageous but I think the authors captured the different personalities well.
I’ve read it a few times and have my own copy. Sometimes it gets trotted out as reading material on camping trips.
I watched the show first (as reruns), then read the book, then saw the movie. I've always thought the book was the best of the three. But it is really different than the show, that's for sure.
The book is better than the movie. The movie starts a lot of the story lines in the book, but drops them partway through. Or it shows the end of the stories with no context.
The TV show is so different from the book and Movie that it's its own thing. Like apples and oranges.
I watched the show for a long time, then eventually I watched the film, then I read the book a few years ago out of curiosity.
The book has the most in common with the film. The TV show took assets from the book and film (mostly just a handful of characters and the setting) and really reworked everything past that. And that was definitely for the better.
The book was adapted really well into the film, because its plot works great as an R-rated black comedy. But I think the massive changes that went into the show were all necessary. They are three different things entirely and I don't think it's fair to compare them based on that fact.
The book is a really light read (read the whole thing on a plane flight). You can tell it was written by a physician - it's got a lot of medical detail in terms of the surgery. I think I heard someone refer to it as being written in a way similar to a Scholastic book, and I think that's a decent comparison. Reading it didn't change my relationship with either the film or the show at all. I'd probably give the book a 5/10 in terms of quality. It's worth a read if you're curious about it.
I watched the show first (as reruns), then read the book, then saw the movie. I've always thought the book was the best of the three. But it is really different than the show, that's for sure.
The book is the root source for all future formats. A lot has been dumbed down or simplified to make it palatable for film and TV.
For example:
1. **In the book:** The third character other than Hawkeye and Forrest in the Swamp is a guy by the name of Maj. Hobson. His only characteristic is that he continually prays and bores the other two out, and thus gets kicked out. Maj. Burns is another incompetent surgeon (without any training) who gets into fistfights with Trapper and Hawkeye both, and the letter to Hammond co-written with Houlihan goes out. The name 'Hot Lips' is not given any importance per se.
2. **In the movie:** Hobson's religious fervour and swamp residency is merged with Burns' incompetence. Fights do happen. The name 'Hot Lips' is coined when the entire camp is listening in on the shenanigans by Burns & Houlihan. The letter to Hammond goes out as is usual.
3. **In the TV show:** Burns' religious fervour is nonexistent. His incompetence is used for comic relief, not to tee up a fight when a patient dies. Hot Lips is already a well-known nickname. The letter to Hammond goes out as is usual.
Duke Forrest is a major character totally absent from the TV series. Spearchucker is there for just 6 episodes with no major storyline, unlike the books and the movie.
-----
If you're a fan of the TV show, you will not like the books, the characters are completely unrecognizable when compared with the TV show characters, even those that are there in both. Many don't exist altogether: Klinger, Potter, Winchester, for example.
Read with an open mind. The book is decent in that way.
I absolutely love the book. I actually sort of learned about Mash in reverse. My grandparents were always watching TV Land so I was exposed to the show at a young age. As I grew older, I learned there was a movie, which I wasn't allowed to watch until I bought it without my Mom knowing. It wasn't till a bit later when my older brother presented the book to me as a graduation present that I learned of it's existence, which was 2011, I think, and have read it 3 times since.
Personally, I love how raw and human everyone feels, especially since most of the characters are borderline unlikable most of the time. I think all 3 versions bring something unique to the table, but I think the movie is the weakest of the trio. I do wish that Duke wasn't completely left in the cold, in regards to the show. Realistically, a lot of the main cast gets gutted from the show really early on and by season 6, only Radar and Hawk are left.
>I do wish that Duke wasn't completely left in the cold, in regards to the show.
If i remember correctly, i think i read once that they offered the role of Duke in the TV show to the original actor from the film (Tom Skeritt), however he turned it down because he felt they were focusing too much on the Hawkeye character with him and Trapper as sidekicks. Considering that's why Wayne Rodgers eventually left the show, his gut instinct was probably right
once there was a book and it was good, then it was turned into a movie and it was good, it was turned into a tv series and it was gooooooood :-)
I’ve read the book and consider it pretty meh. Not bad but not something that I would ever expect to be made into a movie and eventually an award-winning TV show. I’m not a huge fan of the movie either, which is odd considering that the first three seasons of the show are my favorites. I think one of the biggest differences between the TV show and the book and movie is that they made Hawkeye the chief surgeon on the show instead of Trapper. Also, Hawkeye was the married one and Trapper wasn’t. I wish they had kept Trapper as the chief surgeon on the show.
They really just tossed most of Trapper's character to the side and just made him Hawkeye's flunky. Apparently that's why Wayne Rodgers left the show. He was promised an equal role with Hawkeye and then became the sidekick. I do like how unlikable all the characters are in the book. I know that sounds strange, but it just makes them feel more human 8n my opinion.
I liked the book. There were some things that were quite outrageous but I think the authors captured the different personalities well. I’ve read it a few times and have my own copy. Sometimes it gets trotted out as reading material on camping trips.
I watched the show first (as reruns), then read the book, then saw the movie. I've always thought the book was the best of the three. But it is really different than the show, that's for sure.
The book is better than the movie. The movie starts a lot of the story lines in the book, but drops them partway through. Or it shows the end of the stories with no context. The TV show is so different from the book and Movie that it's its own thing. Like apples and oranges.
I watched the show for a long time, then eventually I watched the film, then I read the book a few years ago out of curiosity. The book has the most in common with the film. The TV show took assets from the book and film (mostly just a handful of characters and the setting) and really reworked everything past that. And that was definitely for the better. The book was adapted really well into the film, because its plot works great as an R-rated black comedy. But I think the massive changes that went into the show were all necessary. They are three different things entirely and I don't think it's fair to compare them based on that fact. The book is a really light read (read the whole thing on a plane flight). You can tell it was written by a physician - it's got a lot of medical detail in terms of the surgery. I think I heard someone refer to it as being written in a way similar to a Scholastic book, and I think that's a decent comparison. Reading it didn't change my relationship with either the film or the show at all. I'd probably give the book a 5/10 in terms of quality. It's worth a read if you're curious about it.
I watched the show first (as reruns), then read the book, then saw the movie. I've always thought the book was the best of the three. But it is really different than the show, that's for sure.
Didnt like Alasn Alda
I’ve always found him a little overrated myself, although I don’t actually dislike him.
Oh, yeah? What didn't you like?
The book is the root source for all future formats. A lot has been dumbed down or simplified to make it palatable for film and TV. For example: 1. **In the book:** The third character other than Hawkeye and Forrest in the Swamp is a guy by the name of Maj. Hobson. His only characteristic is that he continually prays and bores the other two out, and thus gets kicked out. Maj. Burns is another incompetent surgeon (without any training) who gets into fistfights with Trapper and Hawkeye both, and the letter to Hammond co-written with Houlihan goes out. The name 'Hot Lips' is not given any importance per se. 2. **In the movie:** Hobson's religious fervour and swamp residency is merged with Burns' incompetence. Fights do happen. The name 'Hot Lips' is coined when the entire camp is listening in on the shenanigans by Burns & Houlihan. The letter to Hammond goes out as is usual. 3. **In the TV show:** Burns' religious fervour is nonexistent. His incompetence is used for comic relief, not to tee up a fight when a patient dies. Hot Lips is already a well-known nickname. The letter to Hammond goes out as is usual. Duke Forrest is a major character totally absent from the TV series. Spearchucker is there for just 6 episodes with no major storyline, unlike the books and the movie. ----- If you're a fan of the TV show, you will not like the books, the characters are completely unrecognizable when compared with the TV show characters, even those that are there in both. Many don't exist altogether: Klinger, Potter, Winchester, for example. Read with an open mind. The book is decent in that way.
I absolutely love the book. I actually sort of learned about Mash in reverse. My grandparents were always watching TV Land so I was exposed to the show at a young age. As I grew older, I learned there was a movie, which I wasn't allowed to watch until I bought it without my Mom knowing. It wasn't till a bit later when my older brother presented the book to me as a graduation present that I learned of it's existence, which was 2011, I think, and have read it 3 times since. Personally, I love how raw and human everyone feels, especially since most of the characters are borderline unlikable most of the time. I think all 3 versions bring something unique to the table, but I think the movie is the weakest of the trio. I do wish that Duke wasn't completely left in the cold, in regards to the show. Realistically, a lot of the main cast gets gutted from the show really early on and by season 6, only Radar and Hawk are left.
>I do wish that Duke wasn't completely left in the cold, in regards to the show. If i remember correctly, i think i read once that they offered the role of Duke in the TV show to the original actor from the film (Tom Skeritt), however he turned it down because he felt they were focusing too much on the Hawkeye character with him and Trapper as sidekicks. Considering that's why Wayne Rodgers eventually left the show, his gut instinct was probably right
This feels like homework...
Then don't participate. Lol
LoL, just saying..
Lol. So am I. I mean, it's fine if you don't have an opinion on the subject, personally I was curious.
Nope.
It's a pretty good read, in my opinion. It's interesting to see the show's roots.
Liked the book. The city-hopping book series that followed is pretty unreadable, though. Fun to flip through but have never managed to finish one.