Potter vs Blake

MMmmmm--not easy! I think both Stevenson & Morgan played their roles well, and in harmony with their characters' backgrounds; Blake, being a draftee, was natural in being "laid back" & "easy", while Potter, as a career officer, would expectedly be "no nonsense" & with a "stick..."....! lol I would give Potter the nod over Blake as far as knowing from the start what it entails being in a command position. Though Blake, was a commander "when he had to be", and carried that duty well, in relation to the mainly non-military environment that was the 4077th.

Also, Morgan had the good fortune of appearing in more than twice as many eps as Stevenson, and thus the advantage of the opportunity to further develop his character, with more story lines available at the writers' hands. (If that's any matter)?

I've always been more of a Potter fan. I suspect it's due to the fact that he was the fist commander that I watched on TV. I was 9 and living in Korea. We'd barely watched the show prior. Partly due to the fact that I was 6, and we'd just returned from France that year in late July.

It's also due to the fact that I'd always pictured Henry as just one of the boys. Hawkeye, Trapper and others called him Henry, and he womanized, drank, and partied.

Potter, though, was the polar opposite. The only time I can recall Hawkeye calling Potter by anything other than Potter, or Colonel, was in "Potter's Retirement".

Potter also got the respect of Margaret, and even Charles, no small task.

In "Potter's Retirement" Margaret said to Potter "I just don't know how we'll replace you in here sir!"

In "G.F.A" Charles told Potter: "Shortly, I will be in a position of authority over other surgeons and I hope I will be guided by the memory of your wisdom and your gentle good humor."

Henry was alright, but Potter was better imo.

Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory and ending a battle to save an empire is no defeat

Can't really be negative to Potter/Morgan, but those first three seasons were just golden, imo.

No comparison: Potter was the best. Potter liked his whiskey, but Blake was a wishy-washy drunk, and a coward. He snivelled in front of any member of the Brass, and he let Hawkeye and Trapper walk all over him. Useless.

Potter was a lifetime officer; he know how to stand up to the Brass, and also how to let them think they'd gotten their way. A cunning old fox who could more than keep up with Hawkeye and BJ, and run an efficient camp, at the same time. Sense of law and order, but also a sense of humor, and an understanding of when the regulations are really important, and when they aren't.

- Crazy. All crazy but I'm.

Potter was the better CO although his character often felt like a caricature.

Blake was more interesting but incompetent, I guess if Stevenson had of stayed on we might have seen Blake become better at his job over time.

Sometimes a movie or tv show plot is so stupid that only the stupid can understand it.

blake is funnier. i wouldn't have minded the changeover to Potter so much though if they hadn't killed off Blake, which I always thought a horrd thing to do.

Potter was the leader they needed, but Blake was the leader they deserved. I like them both about equally.

Seid ihr das Essen? Nein, wir sind der Jaeger!