I like your attitude. But if this was really intentional, in my opinion, it would have resulted in a very different movie with a much more scrutinized, and less relaxed sort of dialogue and dynamic. You may have found elements which fit your premise, but there's just too much that doesn't fit.
I'm just not seeing the Fight Club in What about Bob.
By the way, do you know Fellini's 8 1/2 ? 8 1/2 is the ultimate in a character being split in several personas. In fact each detail of the film represents some particular aspect of the protagonist/Fellini.
Also check out Bergman's "Persona" if you never have.

That would have been an amazing twist to this movie! At the end, the audience realizes that "Bob" is really a split personality created by Leo's psyche!
It would've made the line "You think he's gone? He's not gone! That's the whole point! He's NEVER GONE!" much more deeper and the line where Anna says "Bob is fun!" and Leo says "Your father's kind of fun" would've held much more merit!
"Just because you ARE a character, doesn't mean you HAVE character."
-Winston Wolf

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

Another fact for your argument is that Bob actually gave the prescription for Leo after the B-Day party.

im sorry, but no analysis is needed to determine that leo and bob are the same. that should be evident from watching the movie

you made some awesome points in your thread. genious, it hadn't even struck my mind.

This message has been deleted.

Well
It could be that the family is "playing along" calling Leo Bob anytime he acts cool and loose.
As for the psychiatrist in the beginning, it could be that Leo was his patient when he was in his "Bob"-persona and the psychiatrist just figured that signing Bob as a patient to Leo, would eventually help Leo get along with his "Bob" persona..
The George Stark comment could have been added there at a later stage as a clue.

i saw it as bob was taking leos "saneness". you can see as bob is getting better, leo is getting crazier. not, same, person. but if you want to see it as that, i can understand your points.
Dictionary.com ppl

Well,
I just had to reply, great thread with a lot of great input and insight from all of you. It has been most enjoyable to kick this around in this forum.

This message has been deleted.

Wow, after reading the first lines I was ready to reply "What are you high on?" but afterwards I realised I enjoyed this discussion very much. I wish there were more posts like this.
Never be complete.

This message has been deleted.

Interesting thoughts, although I am going to have to swim against the tide here and disagree. I think this was nothing more than a comedy with a decent, progressive plota rare thing these days, and perhaps such a rarity that it drew you into your analysis.
What I did find great about this comedy was that I can't decide on whether it is to be deemed as "light hearted" (which admittedly is what I'm leaning towards) or actually quite dark.

My personal opinion is that this movie very much mirrors an episode of Seinfeld called "The Opposite". In that episode George has a run of good luck, finds 20 dollars, gets hired by the Yankees, gets a new apartment ect; meanwhile Elaine has a run of bad luck, loses her apartment ect ect For every good thing that happens to George a bad thing happens to Elaine; by the end of the episode essentially George has become Elaine and Elaine has become George.
In "What About Bob" a similar argument could be made. At the beginning of the movie Leo is on top of his game, getting a feature on Good Morning America, celebrating a best selling book ect ect. Meanwhile Bob is a complete mess, can't even get in an elevator, bus, use a payphone ect ect.
As soon as Bob and Leo meet the chain of events sets off. From this point on everything that goes well for Bob has a negative impact on Leo. To make a long story short by the end of the movie Bob has basically become the Leo from the start of the movie He returns to Psychiatry, has a best selling book ect
Meanwhile Leo has basically become the Bob from the beginning of the movie, so messed up he can now barely function. Remember he was reduced to this point by the negative impact Bob has had on his life.
So to tie everything together the wedding scene shows the complete opposite of the beginning of the movie. Bob is rolling on top of his game and Leo is completely messed up in a wheelchair.
There is a hint at a sequel most likely titled "What About Leo". The reverse chain of events begins with the negative impact Leo has on Bob's life when he sues him over the "Death Therapy" book.
I had to do a report on this movie in school a few years back so before you ask, yes I do have a life.

agreed.
its a movie. 2 characters. DIFFERENT people.
true in fight club the 2 characters interacted with the same people, but never at the same time.
in W.A.B? for example, bob and dr marvin talk to the same people at the same time. also, the old couple who owned the genstore hated dr marvin and loved bob. when bob was in the asylum, the dr called dr marvin to come back and get him. NOT the same people. at all. with all due respect.the whole idea is retarded.

highly interesting findings here!! but stephen king's "the dark half" (about george stark) was published in 1989. "what about bob?" came out in 1991 so you figure it was filmed in 1990. could someone really have written, cast, produced and filmed the entire movie in the span of one year??? i think you may have examined this film a little too far it's kind of like how discovering the pink floyd/wizard of oz connection but not.
i love "what about bob?" for what it is a comedy that has a lot of plot and is always moving.

nice.

An interesting and admirable dissection and take on the movie. But I think personally that "sstovall-1" has the right of it. Its a Bill Murray comedy and Leo and Bob are two different people.

My brain hurts

Dear sstovall-1,
While trying not to turn this into some marijuana fueled 60's hippie love-in, let me just say, peace brother.
I never in any way took offense at your post. If I can express my thoughts here, than so can everyone else. And we all do it with the pre-requisite understanding that our comments are themselves subject to judgement and reciprocation.
When I said I think you are right, I wasn't patronizing you, I meant it sincerely. I've gotten carried away with this line of thought, and you stepped up and gave me the necessary slap in the face. I do still think there is something lurking just beneath the surface in this film, but I don't believe that uncovering it is integral to understanding or enjoying it.
Now, let me get sidetracked for just one moment. An old friend of mine was, well, lets just call him Ned Flanders. One day, Ned and I were discussing a book that we'd read, "Hawaii" by James Mitchner. A good bit of it deals (in a fictionalized account of history) with the Christian missionaries arriving in the islands to "save" the godless inhabitants by teaching them about Christ and yada yada yada
Anyways, Ned, my friend, made some comment abouut feeling sorry for the natives. I agreed, thinking that Ned and I were on the same page, but as our conversation progressed, I realized that he felt sorry for the natives because they didn't know Christ and they were so backward until the missionaries showed up to save them. When I explained that I felt sorry for them because the missionaries came and destroyed their way of life, made them renounce their gods, and told them that all their ancestors were burning in hell, well, Ned and I had quite a heated debate. I don't talk to Ned much anymore. I guess it didn't help that his father was a missionary. But anyways, where was I, oh yes, the point is that it was the first time that I realized that two people could read the exact same text, I mean identical, but be doing it from two so completely polarized points of view that it's almost as if they were reading two different books.
If I had been just a little wiser back then, Ned and I might still be friends, because now, thanks in part to imbd, I realize that when someone says "hey, heres what I thought of this movie", its not right or wrong, its just what they thought.

JB, first let me say that I never meant to belittle your opinion of the film, or would I ever attempt to diminish someone's enjoyment of a film, song, play, etc. even if it was one that I didn't care for myself.
Obviously we all watch movies from our own point of view. You are someone that appears to be heavily involved in psychology and saw the characters and messages in WAB from that vantage point, and then drew your interpretations.
I thank you for posting those ideas and starting a conversation about the movie that we can all enjoy. I am rather new to IMDB but it seems that most of the boards are "who should be in the remake?", "this movie is the best (or worst) movie ever and beep you if you dont agree" rantings. So again bravo for starting something with a little more to it than that.
I agree with your kudos to the production, directing, and writing staff on this movie. I did not mean to say that comedys are souless bits of drivel. While some of them fit that category, some of them (too few in my opinion) do incredible things on a multitde of levels, and break ground that drama or action movies would be afraid to try. MAS*H/ This is Spinal Tap/ The Blues Brothers/ Defending Your Life/ Shakes the Clown/ What's Up Tiger Lily? just to name a few. I also agree that the quality and professional pride that goes in to cinematography, and other technical aspects of these movies can equal that done in The Godfather or Citizen Cane.
My point was just that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Then again sometimes a cigar is a raging, rock hard, ginormous C==K.
Then again sometimes we all are.

This message has been deleted.