Two more points to support your thesis:
-
PutTheGlassesOn — 14 years ago(October 10, 2011 08:44 PM)
Jeeze Zimmy-Z, I don't know how a guy can get so bent out of shape over something that someone else (Jay 71) has repeatedly stated in a friendly, non antagonistic way is not an attempt to definitely change someone's mind, merely just to get them to consider it. So you disagree with it- a few other people did, too. No need to rip into someone. After all, look at what you're doing, blowing up over a frickin' movie. Whether you love it, hate it, love this thread, hate this thread, whatever, it's all about fun. That's what talking about movies should be- even if someone reads something serious or deep into it. I don't mean to sound snarkey myself here, but lighten up.
I like the idea of the post myself. I have also always wondered about the George Stark reference. I don't necessarily agree with all the points in it, but the George Stark notice is something that should at least make you wonder. If not, no one is forcing you to.
Notice, a lot of other people seem to think Jay's point has some merit. Maybe your post represents Karl Marxexcept it's a post world where everyone is supposed to see things the way you do.
If you believe in Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it put this as your signature -
PutTheGlassesOn — 14 years ago(October 12, 2011 07:24 AM)
And I just want to say to Jay Brown 71 that I think you've raised a truly unique and interesting point by bringing up this subject. I have always loved What About Bob? and have seen it many, many times. It's one of the films my family and I make a point to watch at least one or two times a year together.
And more importantly as relates to the IMDB boards, your approach is kind and thoughtful. It's refreshing to see you take both support and criticism (may be too strong of a word) over your original statements so well. I think the fact that this board is still here after several years and that people just like myself respond to it so often is a sign that no matter what, your point has raised some degree of question- or at least conversation.
In regard to the specific scene that was the impetus for your post, I don't know why, but I have always remembered the name 'George Stark' from that line of Anna's. It wasn't until about a year ago that I started getting really, really into the works of Stephen King. And one day, I went to my local library and was thumbing through some of the various books they had from him and stumbled across The Dark Half. When I read a little bit about its premise, I laughed when I saw the "pen name" for the main protagonist listed as George Stark. I immediately smiled and thought to myself 'The guy Anna is going sailing with in What About Bob?' lol. Although I quickly realized that King's book was published before the movie came out- although not too far behind.
Now upon reading your post (which I had the good fortune to stumble upon only because I was checking up on anoher WAB? post I put up a few months ago) I found your suggestions exciting and utterly crafty- it would be neat if there were all these hidden suggestions/plot devices/points in the film, set there by the filmmakers.
In my own opinion, I do not think that is why the 'George Stark' part was put in or any of the other things that happened event wise in the movie did, but I really like and can appreciate your thinking so much about it or at least toying around with possibilities. I love when people do that, especially because I am such an ardent movie fan/watcher myself, plus to the fact I love talking about movies and especially because of my newfound enjoyment of Stephen King's works.
And I also admire your poise and sincerity with everything. Each reply post of yours is nothing but nice and again it's so refreshing to see. This has been my favorite IMDB post to respond slash contribute to ever and it's thanks largely to your remarks done in such a respectable manner. I sincerely hope you reply back the next time you check up on the status of your post. Once more, thanks for such a thought provoking and fun post, my best- PutTheGlassesOn
If you believe in Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it put this as your signature -
Dash_Riprock — 13 years ago(June 17, 2012 10:49 PM)
This seems to be a theme of numerous stories probably from the time of Homer, as it is a mind effer to realize the antagonist and staid-upright victim are the same person.
I myself am not literate enough to cite classical works, but the movie Neighbors with Belushi and Aykroyd comes to mind as possibly similar.
I also saw a movie with Johnny Depp as an author who was blackmailed and stalked by a man who accused him of plagarism after writing a blockbuster book. Sorry I can't remember its name.
Overall a very interesting thread on a good but unrespected movie. -
Burning_Sosobra — 13 years ago(July 11, 2012 10:51 AM)
That movie with Johnny Depp, who was accused by John Turturro's character of plagarism is Secret Window, a movie adapted by a Stephen King story. Interesting points made on this board, and I'm a few years late to the game, but some very cool ideas stated here. Perhaps a tad over the top analysis of a great comedy, but good points nonetheless. I wouldn't expect such scrutiny over this film, I certianly wouldn't over-analyze it, but that's just me. Can't say I agree with the OP's points, but it's a cool thought anyways.
As a side note, What About Bob? is playing on TV right now as I'm posting this. I haven't seen it in years, it's always a nice treat to watch this.
In Vino Veritas: In Wine there is Truth -
Veriiitas — 13 years ago(December 05, 2012 05:52 AM)
Good Analysis. I can see how you came to this conclusion, and it is indeed thought provoking.
however there are some flaws in your theory..
bob's interactions with leo's family did not indicate in anyway that they were one and the same person, just the opposite
They can not occupy the same space at the same time? - just the opposite mate, this is the only case where two persons can occupy the same space at the same time!, because they are one and the same - same matter, two different personalities.
and yet, not being able to occupy the same space at the same would be further proof that they are two different matters, but if you mean that this is all happening in his mind then it would make no sense to say they cant occupy the same space because it wouldnt proof anything, a person can have several thoughts at the same.
actually the opposite of what you said would be more accurate, two personalities of the same person are more likely to occupy the same space depending on the persons psyche, however they can not be at two DIFFERENT places at the same time, if they are one and the same, which happened more than a few times in the movie, with witnesses having been at both ends at the same time.
Also, how can he Unchoke himself?, you said he cant let leo choke, because if he dies bob dies too, but if they are both supposed to be the same person how can he save himself from choking?
in the end Bob married leo's sister, i do not think leo would marry his own sister.
sorry i didnt give more points but im writing this based on my memory of the movie the last time i saw it which was almost two years ago. -
MrBook_ — 12 years ago(April 18, 2013 09:21 AM)
LOL, that's brilliant. And it makes the family laughing and having fun with this guy and loving him so much make perfect sense. He's their dad/husband, when he's in "fun" mode. Why did I wait until today to check out the board for this movie?
You want some ice cream, in case there are no gay people there? -
jay_brown71 — 12 years ago(May 19, 2013 09:03 AM)
You know, something else has been nagging uncomfortably in the back of my mind lo these many years - and I think I will present this as the "Smoking Gun" - thats right friends, if you pour yourself a drink and patiently re-read through the entire thread to refresh your memory of the circumstantial "evidence" so far, then reach this post, you will find it all tied up neatly -
The finger puppets.
Leo, despite being an accomplished psychiatrist, has a disfunctional relationship with his children. When he angrily confronts Anna after her sailing voyage (with her friend George Stark and Bob) he is apparently unable to speak directly to her. To her dismay, he has brought the finger puppets with him and demands that Anna put hers on and they have an argument using them. The last thing he says to her as she angrily walks away shouting that Bob is fun is "Your father is fun".
Bob is a puppet. Bob is a finger puppet. Bob is Leo's finger puppet.
Bob is the physical/psycological manifestation of Leo's finger puppet. He no longer needs to bring his finger puppet with him, he can put Bob on anytime and be with his family and not be Leo.- Bob notices the finger puppets at one point and makes some comment
- When Anna picks Bob up in the family vehicle on her way to go sailing, Bob tells her his theory about how people are like phones and sometimes there's just a bad connection and you just have to try again later - Leo is disconneted
- Bob always seems to appear when there is friction or difficulty for Leo - the old couple, the television interview, Siggy's diving, Anna's sailing, Leo choking, Leo's birthday - I used to think Bob was the CAUSE of the friction, but now I think that Bob is the RESULT of the friction
Leo has serious issues. His education and career have given his subconcious a way out, a solution to his problems.
He created Bob.
Then again maybe Bob was there all along, repressed by Leo - maybe Bob even wrote "Baby Steps"
-
jay_brown71 — 12 years ago(May 19, 2013 11:25 AM)
I know its a comedy, but now that I watch it again, the diving scene is actually very moving.
http://youtu.be/sNa3WtxYa8o -
jonesy82 — 11 years ago(September 30, 2014 08:01 PM)
Although you have valid points, in reality you have completely over-analysed a very good comedy. You remind me of a conspiracy theorist, taking any and all information as proof of a hidden agenda. To quote Sophocles "Look and you will find it - what is unsought will go undetected." This wasn't a movie with a hidden agenda, next time you decide to watch a comedy I suggest you treat it as such, laugh at it, enjoy it and don't over-think it.
-
st6374 — 9 years ago(June 30, 2016 10:40 AM)
Just watched the movie and I have to completely disagree with you. Although I appreciate how interesting your theory is, you are simply over analysing specific parts of the movie as to suggest why Bob and Leo might be the same person.
There are some movie that are open to interpretations because of its ambiguity. This movie is not one of them.