MovieChat Forums > The Odd Couple (1968) Discussion > Why was London broil changed to meat loa...

Why was London broil changed to meat loaf?

posted 18 years ago by DHD99
18 replies | jump to latest

A question about the scene in which the two womwn are coming over for diinner and Felix is worried about his dinner being ruined and angry at Oscer for coming home late. I seem to recall that in the original play, it was London broil Felix was cooking, whereas in the movie, it's meat loaf. Why was that change made -- especially given that London broil is something where split-second timing is important and meat loaf is something that could probably be kept warm indefinitely until everybody was ready to eat?

[–] wainot 18 years ago

A wild guess:

Did they research further, and find that "pigeons" prefer meatloaf to London broil?

[–] rivieran 18 years ago

It's possible that it was changed (somewhat insultingly) so that it would "play in Peoria". We "rubes" might not know that London Broil is a type of food!

[–] mmeade1215 17 years ago

Well, to be fair, London Broil was not a cut of meat familiar to most Americans in 1968. It suddenly became popular in the mid-seventies and started appearing in supermarket meat counters across the country. But even so, most people in the audience should have been able to figure out that "London Broil" was some kind of meat. And I agree that if they had to change it, they could have made it a pot roast (which would have made more sense in this context than a meat loaf).

[–] Falkenberg2006 17 years ago

I am originally from Pennsylvania and we moved to California in 1965. My father was a chef and he had never cooked London Broil until he came here.

Besides, meat loaf is funnier...probably..

George Senda
Martinez, Ca.

[–] MrPie7 17 years ago

Actually, neither dish is very hard to cook, so Felix's expertise as a chef is not demonstrated. And "meatloaf" is definately NOT impressive to 2 gals you want to dazzle. Shoulda been something like a crown roast or maybe roast duck. Woulda been funny to see the poor incinerated duck. And Oscar's "gravy" comment would still work as well as Felix's rebuttle. "You have to MAKE gravy. It doesn't just "come" when you cook the meat!"

[–] dadaveallen 17 years ago

I hadn't noticed this until this thread. Remember the great moment in The Sunshine Boys when Matthau's character points out that "words with a 'k' sound in them are funny? "'Cucumber' is funny. 'Tomato' is not funny." I think this is probably Simon realizing for the movie script that meat loaf is funnier than London Broil.

[–] MrPie7 17 years ago

HILARIOUSLY funny. Every time I hear "meatloaf" I'm in convulsions.

[–] dadaveallen 17 years ago

MrPie7 wrote: "HILARIOUSLY funny. Every time I hear "meatloaf" I'm in convulsions."

Ooooooo! I love sarcasm!! Brevity may be the "soul of wit," but sarcasm is the heighth of intellectual human discourse. And you, MrPie7, are its sovereign lord and master. We all stand with heads humbly bowed before your masterful keystrokes, your magnificent powers of phraselogy. I invited friends and neighbors over to view your post and we all agreed that years - nay, decades - from now, entire college courses will be devoted to your IMDB Message Board Posts. This one alone will be the subject of an entire lecture by some erudite professor who will point out the brilliant use of all-caps on the word "hilarious," and the insightful, yet surprising, choice of "convulsions," and the class will rise as one to applaud his concluding remark, "can one honestly question the concept of reincarnation when, clearly, Shakespeare walks among us once again."

All I can say, MrPie7, is thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[–] MrPie7 17 years ago

Ok so you only like sarcasm if YOU spew it. Here's the LONG version ofg my opinion. I believe that the word "meatloaf" adds nearly ZERO humor to the movie whereas I think it is more important to be true to Felix's character. He would NOT be seving a humble meatloaf, but something that would showcase his culinary skills. Like Veal Oscar or Chicken Cordon Bleu. In addition it's funnier if a fancy, expensive dinner is reduced to ashes rather than a crummy meatloaf. What's funnier, a wrecking ball falling on a brand new Lexus or a beat-up 1974 Ford Pinto? Thus, in the second scenario we maintain the unique, fussy, and obsessive nature of Felix, with the added benefit of increasing the humor of the oven disaster. Better?

[–] ezbakehomes 17 years ago

Maybe it's as simple as the whole point of the movie is they are broke bachelors and they shouldn't be able to afford London Broil. And they were making the girls a home cooked meal. Weren't they Brits? Maybe originally they thought of London Broil and then changed it to Meat Loaf... also ... meat loaf can ...loaf... in the kitchen. And, broiling a steak you have to keep an eye on it... as opposed to being availble to act in the scene! There's so much great wit and humor... that is not something I ever thought about.

[–] dadaveallen 16 years ago

Better in tone - not in reasoning. I would suggest that it "adds nearly zero humor" to have the wrecking ball fall on a Lexus rather than a 1974 Pinto absent any other information. It's not the intrinsic value of the car that adds humor - it's the value to its owner. To Felix it doesn't matter if he's cooked meatloaf or London Broil or filet mignon - all that matters to him is that Oscar's ruined his carefully planned dinner. Secondly, there is no evidence that Felix is attempting to "showcase his culinary skills." He's cooking the dinner to save them money on eating out. He likes to cook, but the last line of the previous scene in the play has him calling Francis to get HER recipe. In fact, if Felix is a gourmet chef rather than just a fussbudget it actually detracts from the humor of his domesticity vs. Oscar's slovenliness. Simon knew better than to make him a graduate of the Cordon Bleu. Finally, I already provided my reasoning for the change in terms of humor. I said it was funnier, not that anyone should wet their pants over it. I still think Neil Simon thought it was funnier, too, and I think we might give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he knows more about comic writing than you do.

[–] jschillig 16 years ago

You read my mind--I was about to ask the same!

My reasoning didn't have as much to do with cooking time as the fact that meat loaf doesn't seem to me like a "company" dish. Meat loaf is a settle-in-with-the-family-on-a-cold-night dish. London broil IS a company dish. With Bernaise sauce. And roasted asparagus and new potatoes. And fluffy dinner rolls. And maybe a nice chocolate mousse for dessert.

If they felt that London broil wouldn't be as well known, why not make it, say, a roast chicken or duck a l'orange? Or Chicken Cordon Bleu?

[–] MrPie7 16 years ago

The assumption is that the Lexus would be a coveted status symbol and thus, "valued". Why else would someone waste the money on one? Would it be funny to have a poor person's irreplaceable transportation (the Pinto) be destroyed? So it is more than just the value to the owner isnt it?. Is my "reasoning" sound on this? The evidence for showcasing culinary skills is in the character. He doesn't just broil a few chicken pieces, which would save money and be easy. He makes "a carefully prepared dinner" which requires effort and he has the beef freshly ground. "that's not fresh, that's packaged. I want fresh-ground." Does that sound like someone who doesn't care about the end result as much as his budget? He also states about the dinner, "I take pride in what I do." I didn't say he was a "gourmet" cook. But he DID boast "...because I'm also a much better cook than her" (Frances). Also, it was ORIGINALLY London Broil. Can we not assume Simon wrote the PLAY? Sound "reasoning"? Maybe someone of the school of "cucumber is funny" re-writer came up with meatloaf and not Simon.Maybe this person "assumed he knows more about comic writing than" Neil Simon. Speaking of "evidence" where's yours that even if Simon DID make the change it was for comedic effect? He could have changed it to meatloaf because his wife recently burned a meatloaf and he wanted to kid her, or some other reason we don't know about. My friend, you take a very confrontational attitude in making your points. So, I have returned a little of it to let you see how it reads from the other end.

[–] dadaveallen 16 years ago

MrPie7: Let's begin with your last point - my "confontational attitude" all stems from the fact that you chose to respond to my initial post, which was just postulating an idea for the script change, with snarky sarcasm worthy of a twelve-year old, which I found completely uncalled for. (And still do.) Leaving that aside, we could argue about this trivial point forever as the only person who knows the real reason for the change is Neil Simon. However, that doesn't change the fact that I still believe your thinking is wrong. No, it is not "more than value to the owner." It is totally value to the owner. Humor stems from having the stakes being meaningful, so yes, it is funnier for the irreplacable car to be destroyed, regardless of make. Using your argument it would have been funnier if Chaplin pulled a dish of fettucini alfredo out of his cupboard rather than eating his shoelaces. Secondly, I didn't say he didn't care about the meal, only that the dish itself is secondary to the value he puts on it. It doesn't matter what he cooks!! (And, by the way, it's a small argument to say "I didn't say he was a gourmet cook" when that's been your point all along. You wanted him to cook some fancy duck so that it would be funnier when it got ruined, so I guess he isn't a gourmet cook, he just cooks like one???) Yes, of course we can assume that Simon wrote the play and that's been my whole point. He changed it - and I can promise you that your last two arguments are where you are most wrong. NO ONE rewrites Neil Simon, either in Hollywood or on Broadway, and this mastercraftsman certainly doesn't change lines in his works for the sake of some stupid in-joke with his wife.

[–] MrPie7 16 years ago

Chaplin was eating the shoelaces because he was starving. How could fettuccini alfredo ever enter into this scenario? Your logic is convoluted here. You assume because I don't think meatloaf is funnier than London Broil I don't get the Chaplin joke? And if you think that the destruction of a poor person's only means of transportation is just as funny as seeing some status-seeking snob's Lexus getting smashed you don't understand comedy yourself. You will always tend to have a little more sympathy for the poor snook than the rich snob, no matter what. This sympathy for the victim dilutes the humor as surely as water dilutes a martini. In a similar vein, the london broil WOULD have more value to Felix than meatloaf, because A.) it costs a bit more, and it was Felix's idea to save money, and B.) it is more difficult to prepare. (I know because I have made it numerous times. (Does that make me a "gourmet cook"?)So you believe that Simon let years elapse and the main element he could improve upon was london broil to meatloaf??? And apparently you know Simon's personality well enough to state catagorically as FACT that he would never change a word of one of his SACRED works unless he thought the word meatloaf was funnier than the words london broil? Despite the effect that the change of the meal would change the impact of the result of its destruction? Remember I didn't start this thread. Others also found "meatloaf" to be out of character for Felix as well.

I'm sorry that my little bon mot set you into a snit and caused you to attack like a junk yard dog defending a yard full of Yugos. ( Yugo funny, Chrysler not funny. See? I get your point, but in this case it's the WHOLE joke, not effecting anything else.) The objective of my original post was to disagree and TRYING to be a little funny at the same time. Brief, and to the point. I have made my arguments well enough to defend my opinion and will let it stand. Give your final take and let's let it go. OK?

[–] dadaveallen 16 years ago

More than happy to let it go. This is pretty meaningless, anyway. However, my logic is not convoluted. Let's begin with the main idea, which is that Simon changed London Broil to meatloaf. Why? I suggested it's possible that he did so because he discovered in the process of rewriting that it's funnier. And no, I don't know Simon's personality well enough to know for sure why he changed it, but I can make an educated guess. I know enough about Neil Simon as a writer to know that he constantly rewrites and constantly looks for ways to make things funnier. I am happy to concede your knowlege of how to cook London Broil, but I've got some knowledge on this point myself as a professor of playwriting at a large university for fifteen years and having read all of Neil Simon's work including his non-theatrical writing in which he discusses in detail his working methods. (See, for example, "Portrait of the Writer as a Schizophrenic," the preface he wrote to "The Collected Plays of Neil Simon, Vol. I") You suggest that it's a lousy change. Okay. Entitled to your opinion. But I do think it is not "being in a snit" to suggest that Simon knows more about comedy writing than you do. He knows more than virtually any human being on the planet. And I never suggested it was the "main element he could improve upon" from the play to the movie. Where did you get that idea? Just to make sure I touch on all your thoughts, where we most disagree is your statement that "the change of the meal would change the impact of the result of its destruction." Not true. The dish DOESN'T MATTER!!!! What matters is that Felix believes that Oscar ruined his dinner via his inconsiderate late arrival. In fact, it's less funny if it's a fancy dish because than Felix is upset over the ingredients in the dinner and not Oscar's selfishness. Neil Simon understood that comedy is about character, first.

And yes, I'm done.

[–] MrPie7 16 years ago

I agree. Neil Simon is a funnier writer than I am.

[–] Ben-5 16 years ago

>Brevity may be the "soul of wit," but sarcasm is the heighth of intellectual human discourse

There is no such thing as the word "heighth". It's "height". Only length, width, depth and girth have "th" endings.