Fans debate whether Seinfeld borrowed the phrase "put your sorries in a sack, mister" from an earlier Odd Couple episode, with most dismissing concerns as overreaching.
I just happen to see an episode of Odd Couple with Klugman and Randle. I couldn't beleive my ears when not once, but TWICE the phrase "Put your sorries in a sack, MISTER" was used by each star. I wonder if Jerry and/or his writers had any idea that this phrase was used before in a sitcom. Perhaps they think it is a come phrase. ( The use of the phrase on Seinfeld was the first time I've ever of it.) Just thought I'd mention it.
Dfrank
[email] (DFrank1068) writes:
Maybe it was an inside joke. Automatically assuming the worst is sort of silly, anyhow.
Doug
Well, I doubt they "stole" the line; I imagine it's a common phrase in some areas, or at least among some people.
A *what*? That sounds naughty...
"DFrank1068" wrote in message news:[email]...
sorries
writers
think
time
Hmmm- perhaps we should be trying to find a degree of separation between the writers/producers/actors/director from Seinfeld and those from The Odd Couple. ? So - who has time to do this ?
dave
"DFrank1068" wrote in message news:[email]...
sorries
writers
think
time
The point of the joke was that George thought it was a common expression (perhaps he heard it on the Odd Couple), but Jerry (and the rest of the world, with the exception of Felix Unger) never heard of it. There was never any implication that George made the phrase up.
^^^^^^ "Art is often hailed as the grandest expression of human spirit, but we know now ... that the grandest expression of human spirit is whatever it takes for a man or woman to rush back into a burning building to save more people."
In article , [email] (Art Vandelay) wrote:
In the context of the episode, Susan is the first to utter the expression, at the end of the broadcast (2 years earlier). Sounds like something her Dad would say.
In article , [email] (DFrank1068) wrote:
I don't know what that means....
Well, it really wouldn't be the first time the writers have "borrowed" from the past. Isn't the entire backwards episode notion of "The Betrayal" derived from an earlier source?
Perhaps one of the writers was seemingly a little low on cash, and his dad came out of retirement to help out, and managed to re-introduce the phrase in a script thirty years later (adapted from "The Money").
[email] (Mark Mellin) writes:
Harold Pinter's play "Betrayal".
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:53:26 GMT, [email] (Mark Mellin) wrote:
.....
There is a difference between plagiarizing another source and parodying another source. I think the Betrayal was a parody of Pinter's work. Seinfeld did a lot of parodies - the magic luggie - was an exact parody, not a theft, from Oliver Stone's JFK, etc...
But there was another line, and I discovered it a few years ago that i think was stolen from another show.
In a little-known episode (weren't they all little-known) of COACH, Hayden Fox has a gay talented quarterback on his team. That of course would threaten Fox's masculinity but at the end of the show, in reference to being gay. Hayden says, "NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT" It was used in exactly the same way Jerry says and uses the line in The Outing.
That's plagiarism or a VERY big coincidence :-)
In article , [email] (The News Guy(Mike)) wrote:
wrote:
another
did a lot
Or, as you mentioned previously, the Max von Sydow soliloquy from "Three Days of the Condor" that Newman delivers in "The Junk Mail".
Hence, my use of the term "borrow" rather than "steal".
Not that there's anything wrong with that.