MovieChat Forums > Big (1988) Discussion > Why did Josh act more like a toddler tha...

Why did Josh act more like a toddler than a 12-13 year old?


Don't get me wrong, this is still a classic 80s family comedy that mixes some sentimental serious moments in with it, but it always bothered me how Josh (especially AFTER he's in Tom Hanks' early 30s body) seems to act like a 6 year old, not someone just becoming a teen. Like how everything in his apartment is like a playground, and he never really does anything exciting once he's in an adult body. His friend Billy seemed a bit more typical though.

(I'm 30 now and born in '81, so I grew up in the 80s only a few years younger than Josh. I knew some older kids and none of them acted that childlike, either did I or any kids from school or my neighborhood back in 1994 at this age.)

Fred Savage in "Vice Versa" was MUCH more believable to me. Charlie was only 11 and he acted older/cooler than Josh (far more accurate to how I remember kids being then). Sure he still had some childhood aspects, but was also a hard rock fan who liked playing drums, and just generally seemed more adventurous.

Did Penny Marshall really believe 12-13 year olds were still that innocent and naive? It just screams "Baby Boomer screenwriter who grew up in the 50s and was totally out of touch with how kids acted in 1988!" to me.

reply

I think that he was still at the point where he was starting to notice girls (like Cynthia), but he was still childish enough to enjoy toys aimed at older kids. He hadn't quite reached puberty yet.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

I've always felt that way that he acted like a much smaller kid. I think I even made a thread on here years ago about this. I had people respond saying "My brother played with toys till he was 27 and acted just like Josh" or some crap like that. Or that "times were different back then", which is a colossal load of horse-sh-t. It wasn't even so much the obsession with toys. It was his mannerisms and he had the attention span of a 4 year old. I also think at 13 years old, a kid would have some idea that when a girl wants to sleep over, it means a little more than a friendly sleep over in bunk beds.

reply

[deleted]

Kids back then were more down to earth, no over spoiled kid with electronics and only toys. Imaginations were more key then.

He acted younger than 12, but the character had never been by himself before, hod do you expect him to act? Most kids including myself would have been a mess, he did very well.

I hit puberty at 11, but I didn't know about sex at all until I was 13/14. Some kids did at 12 but I wasn't into that.

All of the same genre flicks were bad. Vice Versa was watchable but that is not saying much.

reply

Seriously, sliat_1981? Since he had sex with Susan, he must have reached puberty? HE WAS IN A MAN'S BODY. It doesn't matter how old Josh really is, since the body he's inhabiting is that of a man's and, presumably, works like that of a man's.

reply

[deleted]

I always thought that Josh acted a little too young in this movie.

reply

Essentially what I'm theorising here is that it's not simply that Josh's body has changed in the movie. His emotional state and level of maturity and not to mention just plain desire to match other people expectations is also being influenced (both upward and downward) all the time by his environment and by those around him. You can't just simply think of him as "an unchanging 12 year old mind in a 30 year old body".


I agree with much of Exoptergota's post above (part of it, anyway).

Times change, but people don't. There are many 12 yr old boys who act JUST like Josh, then and now (btw, I'm female and was 17 in 1988 - I actually babysat a few families with 12 yr olds. Now, some were more mature than others, but I hardly think that Tom Hanks' character acted like a 6 yr old (and there's no way a 6 yr old could've figured out how to 'live,' get a job, etc., on his own!!). So, yeah, perhaps Josh regressed somewhat once he aged, which sounds a bit ironic, but when you think about it, would make a lot of sense. He was scared, and, therefore, retreated to his 'comfort zone.' And while I'm sure he knew the basics of sex at age 12/13, I thought that scene of the first sleepover with Susan was extremely realistic...

reply

So, yeah, perhaps Josh regressed somewhat once he aged, which sounds a bit ironic, but when you think about it, would make a lot of sense. He was scared, and, therefore, retreated to his 'comfort zone.'


I think this makes the most sense in this whole thread. Yes, he acted much younger than 13, but given the circumstances, who could blame him?

Either way, I thought the movie was very sweet and nostalgic about childhood if not very realistic.

R.I.P. Rick Ducommun and Tony Longo

reply

[deleted]

Oh my God! While as I was watching the movie I kept thinking "Why is he acting more like a toddler? Maybe 13-year-olds acted that way in the '80s. Maybe I'm from a darker generation".

reply

It was unrealistic, but it was done to make the movie more fun.

reply

I am watching this movie right now, and I have to agree. He was ridiculous. And I grew up in the 80s. Kids weren't that much different back then. He had the attention span of a four year old. And though some kids take longer to develop and get into girls/sex, boys at age 13 had SOME inkling how to act around girls. His behavior was atrocious. I felt it was over the top and unfunny. After he had sex with Elizabeth Perkins he finally started acting like a 13 y/o in over his head.

It's a touching movie, but Penny Marshall should have reined Tom Hanks in earlier in the film. His toddler ADD behavior for that first hour nearly ruined the movie for me.

reply