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?

posted 12 years ago by EightiesKid
53 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] Jackie_Michele 10 years ago

They were still that naive. You are viewing this through adult eyes. Twenty years ago, kids were allowed to kids as long as they wanted. It hasn't been until these recent generations that kids have been growing up ridiculously fast and gaining an unparalleled dependence on technology.

I voted for Frenchie and Dia like a sex donkey on Xanax.

[–] jdwriter1 10 years ago

I saw this movie in 1988 when I was 14. I thought it was just as funny then as I do now. I didn't think it was over the top at all, I knew boys that were that immature but I also knew kids that were more sophisticated too. I don't know about the use of technology making kids grow up faster or anything like that; it could be a factor, I don't know.

[–] EightiesKid 10 years ago

I think LiamForeman nailed it. I don't get you guys talking like 1988 was 1958! The 80s are much more like today than most people would probably care to remember or admit. I remember how some adults and teachers in the late 80s/early 90s used to talk about how us kids were glued to our Walkmen, Nintendo games and MTV. They thought we were a bunch of media raised couch potato slackers by then too, believe me! :) People complained about that just as much as they lament smartphones and Facebook now. Different stuff, but the same message.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I think other than the superficial differences like pop culture and technology, people were always pretty much the same. If anything, 80s and 90s kids were probably even been a bit more immature and rebellious than kids now. From what I remember of my teenage babysitters or my friends' older siblings and stuff, they cussed and probably knew just as much about sex as modern kids do.

But back to the thread...I guess the real world answer as to why Josh acted young for his age, is so the differences and the contrast would be funnier. The movie answer could've just been that he was freaked out about having to fend for himself and being in uncomfortable surroundings in his adult guy's body. I still think they should've made him 9 or 10. Like I was saying, Fred Savage's character pulled all the same stuff off in Vice Versa in a relatively similar situation...and that kid felt way more like an authentic 11 year old of 1988, and he was a year or two younger than Josh!!

[–] ChuckyDucky 10 years ago

I think LiamForeman nailed it. I don't get you guys talking like 1988 was 1958! The 80s are much more like today than most people would probably care to remember or admit. I remember how some adults and teachers in the late 80s/early 90s used to talk about how us kids were glued to our Walkmen, Nintendo games and MTV. They thought we were a bunch of media raised couch potato slackers by then too, believe me! :) People complained about that just as much as they lament smartphones and Facebook now. Different stuff, but the same message.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I think other than the superficial differences like pop culture and technology, people were always pretty much the same. If anything, 80s and 90s kids were probably even been a bit more immature and rebellious than kids now. From what I remember of my teenage babysitters or my friends' older siblings and stuff, they cussed and probably knew just as much about sex as modern kids do.

But back to the thread...I guess the real world answer as to why Josh acted young for his age, is so the differences and the contrast would be funnier. The movie answer could've just been that he was freaked out about having to fend for himself and being in uncomfortable surroundings in his adult guy's body. I still think they should've made him 9 or 10. Like I was saying, Fred Savage's character pulled all the same stuff off in Vice Versa in a relatively similar situation...and that kid felt way more like an authentic 11 year old of 1988, and he was a year or two younger than Josh!!

I was shaking my head in disagreement until I read your post. You hit the nail on the head. I'll even give you guys an example of what it was like from this '80s kid (well, not anymore but you peeps get the idea).

The '80s were no different then the '00s generation! Between 9 and 13, I learned about sex through word of mouth. That was my introduction to sex education. By the time I turned 10 (say, in 1984), I had stopped playing with Barbie-dolls, Tonka toys, Lego blocks, electric trains, etc. Actually, I'll be honest and admit that dolls creeped me out, so I was ready to "grow out of" that particularly peculiar interest by age 7. Interestingly enough, my fascination with computers and specifically, games continued beyond my teenage years and well into adulthood, so the movie did get it right on that score but I digress. Anyway, the point of this reply is, kids back in '84 to '88 were a lot more socially sophisticated than this movie would imply.

I had a best friend who was "doing it" by the time she was eleven. I once knew a kid (he lived out in Yonkers) who broke into his neighbor's "mansion" and stole an entire stereo set, and then proceeded to sell it the next day. In the summer during the '80s, the children on my old block used to stay out past midnight, and when we were on lockdown (grounded), we snuck out through the fire escape when our parent(s) were "sleeping." Our national pastime involved engaging in recreational activities, such as shoplifting (there were no cameras back then...I mean, Jesus, do you people have an idea how many comic books, lipstick, nail polish and t-shirts I "borrowed"), playing hookie, bombing strangers with spiked objects (eggs, balloons, t-shirts, etc.), tagging trains with "art" (although law enforcement officials would call it by another name...such as graffiti), and the list goes on and on. Kids were not only socially sophisticated but were learning various ways to maneuver through society unscathed and undetected...that is until you were detected but that's another story...anyway.

We were still kids back then, it's just that...we had a lot of time on our hands, and in between the hours we tried to fill in, most of us learned a lot about social norms through our peers, especially when it came to sex, fashion, and how to flirt with boys/girls. So while I think this movie is an enjoyable "fantasy," it's not an accurate depiction of kids back then. It's just fiction!

By the by, I saw this movie in theaters with my mom and it didn't get as much laughs as I would've liked. I do remember enjoying it immensely and wishing my childhood could've been filled with that "child-like naivety" displayed by the character, Josh Baskin, but I also remembered that for kids like me, that "fantasy" was not viable, nor was it attainable. Maybe if I'd been 8 or 9, I could've still held onto that childhood haze that we all seem to drift in and out of as we age but as I said, it wasn't doable. But man o'man, I would've totally dug that trampoline. 'Till this day, I still dream of owning an apartment big enough to house one.

[–] EightiesKid 10 years ago

Thanks Chucky. I was 6 in '88 and yeah, your (and your friends') childhood honestly seems to sync up with how I remember older kids being back in the day. Just like Beavis & Butthead in the 90s, I think kids and teens tended to actually get into more trouble since they didn't have stuff like the internet to occupy their time. You needed money for the arcade or hanging out at the mall! And that's an excellent point I hadn't quite thought about...I think surveillance cameras were just beginning to come out, so I imagine way more kids got away with shoplifting etc.

All the negative (as well as positive) things in the world are simply much more visible and easier to share with Youtube, Facebook, and the rest of the internet...so it might give off the impression that its more prevalent now, but it really isn't. So its silly to pretend the world was any different then. Shoot, I imagine some kids' parents in the 80s/even 90s never even knew all the trouble they got into.

I think this movie was probably heavily influenced by 1950s raised baby boomers like Penny Marshall who put their more idyllic/innocent childhoods into Josh's character, as well as many other movies of that era. Just like there's lots of comedy movies today made by former 80s kids/teens.

[–] Splarne 10 years ago

i'm missing the "toddler" act somewhere.

maybe i've always seen an alternative universe copy.

***

Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

[–] cowboybebop26 10 years ago

I just watched the movie again last night for the first time in years and I thought the same thing about how he acted.

One thing that really got me close to beginning was the underoos. What 12/13 year old would be caught dead wearing those?

Maybe it was different back in the 80's but these days I don't think they even make them to fit a kid older than 7 or 8.

[–] Manth_Sigdaw 10 years ago

I was 12 in 1988. I thought Josh acted more like a 4-6 year old then a 12 year old. Now granted I admit that I still "played with toys" on some level up to age 12 or even 13. But I didn't play with toys at age 12 or 13 the way a 4 or 6 year old played with toys, nor the same kind of toys. By 12 and 13 it tended to be more remote control cars/trucks and stuff like that. I loved this water rocket I had at that age/ While I played with a remote control trucks and cars, water rockets at 12, I know I never acted as goofy as Josh in this movie. It wasn't until I was about 14 that I completely left the world of toys and kids cartoons behind me. So everyone is different.

When I was 10 and 11 I knew kids who were doing violent stuff and even having sex. Some kids refused to watch any cartoons after they turned 11, they were too cool for it and wanted to act like 19 year old teenagers. I was a more middle of the road kid. I wasn't that cool to have sex at age 10 or deal drugs at 11, or get suspending for having a switchblade at age 12,... like I said I still watched the occasional Ninja Turtle cartoon at age 12 and still enjoyed my remote control truck. But I was mature enough to act otherwise normal, I didn't run around like an idiot. Josh in this movie seemed like a 4 year old. They probably made his character an idiot kid like this to be more relatable to the then adults in the audience.

[–] EightiesKid 10 years ago

^ Yeah I agree, Manth. I was pretty much the same way in the middle ground when I was an older kid...I still liked "cooler toys" like remote control cars and Super Soakers, and goofed off sometimes and still kinda enjoyed the playground, but I also could carry on serious conversations and was interested in girls/sex and stuff. I certainly don't think I'd have been as immature as Josh was, like when he kept playing with stuff in the Limo. I would've done that at 7 but not 12!

Interestingly my perspective might be a little slanted because, even though I lived in the suburbs myself, I went to a couple of tougher edgier schools in the early-mid 90s in later elementary and junior high. I was around loads of kids around my age (born 1979-1984 or so) that were getting suspended or into fights, or just making immature d**k jokes and cussing...even the nicer ones who didn't really get into trouble talked like that. Probably no different and certainly no better than modern kids. In fact, my era was probably edgier and more defiant. Not to say there weren't some "totally innocent 12 year olds" but I can't recall any.

Yeah, I think Tom Hanks playing Josh so zany and childlike made a good contrast and probably helped the Baby Boomers relate to their 50s childhoods.

Funny you bring up the rebelling against cartoons. I remember really liking alot of mid 90s Disney movies and stuff around 11-13. I kinda enjoyed them in secret lol, but I still liked it. :)

[–] BelleStar82 10 years ago

12 is a weird age because different kids are all over the map as far as maturity levels.

I was 12 in the mid-90s, and a lot of my friends were into shopping/fashion, going to movies on their own, read magazines, into rock bands, hanging out with boys, into more sophisticated shows like Seinfeld and Friends, babysat, etc..

I noticed that the there were still some kids though who at 12 were still playing dress up, playing pretend games, had dolls/dollhouses, had no culture awareness, still watched cartoons, had all household chores done for them, and needed babysitters themselves.

I caught this movie at 13 on cable and did role my eyes at some of Josh's behavior, because at some parts he does act more like a little kid than a preteen. But; I don't think we are supposed to think too hard about it. The point is that his childlike spirit is supposed to contrast with the stuffy adults. I think they had to make him at least 12 though to justify an interest in women.

[–] artivash 10 years ago

Late to the party...

I was born in 1982, and was very, VERY sheltered.
Technically that makes me an early 90's kid in my adolescent years, but it still applies...

One important thing to remember is that at the time, regardless of a child's age and maturity level, their access to outside information was MUCH more limited in the 80's than it is today.
One couldn't just "Google it" and read just about anything about everything like you can today.
I was immature, I freely admit, because my mother chose to coddle me, and purposely treated me like her baby.
I was curious about sex at the age of puberty, but I was taught very little about it, and that it was something dirty, shameful, and was to be kept private at all costs.
Sex ed did not exist in my school.
I was encouraged to play with dolls and play dress-up in my early teens just as I had done in my pre-pubescent years.
Men were "evil" in my mother's eyes.
My mother taught me that boys were to be avoided, and that I would be safe and sound (and kept a baby forever) with her.
I've grown up quite a bit since then, but it really is true that children were more easily kept in a sort of innocence-bubble a few decades ago than they are today.

Today, information of any and every subject is easily accessible to anyone who can work a web browser - also take note: in the 80's most everyone could NOT work a web browser.
In the 80's, parents, neighbors, and other locals could much more easily control what information was given to young children, and that significantly impacted the pace at which children could grow.

Saying how infantile a kid from the 80's seems vs today's youth is similar to comparing the average reading comprehension of a peasant in medieval England vs kindergarten children today.
Back in those days most adults could not comprehend written language. Now, it is a basic requirement for entry-level education.

Different times, indeed.

[–] ordinarypassenger 9 years ago

Before he goes back, Susan asks "how old are you, 15, 16?" So obviously she didn't think so

[–] echoesofglory-389-573897 9 years ago

I agree with the OP, Hanks just acts what he thinks a child acts like, not a 12-14 year old kid, it feels very shallow. And I think most 12 year old males would be pretty nervous in a situation when Susan asks to sleep over with him, yet he acts like it's nothing.

[–] Helenlaurence 9 years ago

He acted like that mainly because there has to be a marked difference between how he looks and how he behaves... Otherwise there really is no film! That is the joke and the premise of the film.
Also the fact that he is a very innocent and young 12 year old adds to the whole storyline.
In some ways he's wise beyond his years, but he still has the innocence of being basically a child.
They couldn't have had him any younger because then the sex scenes really would be out of order! But he had to behave 'young' in some ways.

[–] echoesofglory-389-573897 9 years ago

but do a 12-13 year old really play with dinosaurs and toys like that...maybe if he had "graduated" to building model kits or stuff like that.

[–] deansaintly 8 years ago

let's just say13 yrs old is a strange age for any boy . I acted sort of like that , I also didn't know about sex not till I was 16 and this was in the 70s so did things change in that time gap don't think so . Plus this was more a less a film for kids of that age.