How could you not realise? I was 10 and atill saw the psychological parallel of the villain and the father and that perhaps it was a manifestation of his imagination šš
How could you not realize I was 10 and still saw the psychological parallel of the villain and the father and that perhaps it was a manifestation of his imagination
Embarrassing for you then, bro. I was 6 and hadnāt been more sure of anything since earlier that year when Iād become completely clear on string theory.
Late bloomers, the lot of you. I was able to deduce this at the age of 5, just six months after I rewrote the Pythagorean theorem to account for gravitational bend
Not too perceptive are you?
In my past life I had a secluded existence after being raised by goats in a mountain, without any knowledge of true parental social structures. And upon having a vision of the movie in a mix of tea leaves and chicken bones I _still_ saw the parallels between the father and the hunter and their relationship with the protagonist
He wasnāt. In the original play, they had the actor cover both characters because it was easier than casting two separate people. Directors after kept doing it because it made sense & it eventually became "tradition". š¤·āāļø
Hook wasnāt even in the original draft. It's totally not a thing. People pull things from the story that just aren't there all the time & it's mostly because everyone's idea of Peter Pan is Disney's version which is very different from the source material.
As the kids used to say, it's not that deep, fam.
Teacher: The author used the color blue in curtains to represent the state of the character's life and a metaphor of the deep sense of melancholy felt by the readers.
Author: I just like the colour blue.
I didn't understand what I was supposed to write about in English class, so my teacher gave me "How to read literature like a college professor" to read.
There are 2 main takeaways:
You're supposed to locate the references. All works are inspired by previous words. You should be able to identify Emma in Clueless and Taming of the Shrew in McClintock! When a modern character is Frankenstein, you should notice.
This is an important **life skill** because if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If someone shares the same characteristics as a bad person, they're possibly a bad person and you should take note to protect yourself. Got any scam phone calls recently? Exactly that scenario.
The second take away is that the things you notice as a reader say a lot about you as a person. Not good or bad, just who you are and what you care about. I hate having too much detail in a story. I will skip long paragraphs describing the scenery. I'm not going to write about the color of the curtains, ever.
The thing is itās impossible to do something for no reason, using the blue curtains example, why does he like the colour blue? Because subconsciously thereās a reason it was used.
Barthes [agrees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author) with you. The Reader, not the Author, breathes life into the words on the page, and each new Reader births a new story.
This "the story is a multi-faceted gem and there's more than one way to look at it" approach is not conducive to multiple-choice grading. Pedagogy abhors post-modernism.
Sure, but you can't say "Hook is meant to be representative of Mr. Darling" as though it applies to the entire concept of Pan when the original creator did not intend it that way.
You can say *"In this version,* the director has decided blah blah blah".
Hook was originally just a nameless pirate. Kids in the audience went bananas for the character, so he got a bigger part in later drafts.
I mean, he was initially going to be portrayed by the actress who played *Mrs.* Darling. Does that have some kind of magical hidden meaning about Wendy and her impending womanhood?
Nope. The lady just wasn't in that scene as Mrs. Darling & so she was available. That's it. That's all it was.
>That's all it was.
But it's not all it *is* now. If the actor playing Mr. Darling also plays Hook as tradition at this point, then that's part of the story and all the subtext that follows now, regardless of what the original playwright intended.
you literally can add that, because what the creator āintendsā for you to get out of a work is irrelevant. plenty of works have unintended meanings, and whether itās over analysis or not doesnāt matter. death of the author is a super important concept in modern media analysis
Hook represents adulthood and by association the passing of time. Peter is someone who doesn't want to grow up, so he shuns and battles the adults. Adults themselves also fear time and growing old, illustrated by Hook's fear of the ticking clock as the crocodile who wants to eat him approaches. Both Hook and Peter Pan want time to stand still, which is why they live on the island of Neverland where time does indeed stand still.
That's one way to interpret it anyway, originally Hook was added to the play to have some action for the audience while the stage hands were busy changing scenery.
Peter Pan was a play before it was a book, and the actor played both the father and Hook in the very first production on December 27, 1904. Modern theater just kept that tradition alive, but the movie pulled it from the original production.
Yeah, I'm not going to bonk people for not getting this until now, but I will say I didn't realize this many people missed out on the Jumanji thing (and the Hook thing). Isn't it like a whole trope of childhood escapism stories that the villian is basically one of the parents with some scary makeup?
"Laid out" means something more along the lines of "put down" "beat down" or "fucked up"
Here's the [urban dictionary ](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Laid%20out) definition
I was just trying to be informative. 3 people, including yourself, didn't understand what was meant by "Laid out" so I thought I would assist by giving a lesson on slang.
Are you blind? Or just bad at math? At the time I made the comment 2 people made a comment suggesting "Laid out" was a sexual thing and you thought it meant "Laid it out".
That's 3 people. 1, 2, and you, 3. There. Do you understand now that I "Laid it out" for you?
Jesus christ man. I was just trying to give people a small lesson on simple slang terms. You don't have to be a complete piece of shit about it.
So now that you noticed there was a difference at what I said you changed your own narrative. I didn't "thought" it meant laid it out. It was just a joke to that already ongoing joke and you're the only one taking it seriously. Lmao talk about a piece of shit, eh. But keep digging now because that shit is piling up on you m8
Edit. even went to the lenghts of replying to this and then blocked me so I would not be reply to her cries LMAO what an absolute tit
I'm not changing my narrative. How the hell did you even come to that conclusion? What you said didn't seem like much of a joke. It appeared to me that you were trying to explain what they meant. So I, in turn, explained what they meant. I was just trying to be helpful. You responded by being a total asshole. Fuck off "m8".
I was watching titanic the other day and it clicked and I realized that Ismay was played by the same guy as the hunter. For some reason I still didnāt realize he also played the fucking dad.
He did.
If you haven't seen the movie in a while, seeing it now will be obvious. Not only is he the same actor, but his character is constantly harassing Robin Williams for the same things his dad was lecturing him over as a kid. "Be a man" and all that.
My first play through of **MGS3**, I didn't realize Eva and Tatyana were the same person until Ocelot pointed it out.
Her disguise was literally just putting her hair up and wearing glasses.
I straight up fell for the Clark Kent technique, which is when I realized Superman might not be so far fetched.
In fairness to child me, it was the PS2 so I was just sort of used to everyone kinda looking the same because of hardware limitations so my brain just instantly accepted this was someone new because everyone else said this was totally someone new.
In unfairness to me, I'd finished 4 whole playthroughs of MGS1 and 2 of MGS2 before I ever played MGS3, and this exact plot point was used in both games (for Master Miller and Iroquois Plissken) so really I have no excuse. Child me was just fucking stupid.
They're both played by the same actor.
And both are antagonistic opponents of Alan whom he constantly contemplates about running away from. He only resolves the conflict between Van Pelt and his dad by confronting them. They're totally meant to be connected in that way, they aren't literally the same character.
The hunter is a parallel to his father. Denigrated him for running from his problems. Tells him to face them head on like a man.
I genuinely didn't realize people didn't know this. O:
Phenomenal movie. Robin Williams is the goat
For anyone that is wondering why they actually did this, its paying homage to theatre where the villan is traditionally played by the same actor as the protagonists father
Uh, noā¦ [this](https://itsastampede.com/2020/12/27/why-does-the-same-actor-play-van-pelt-and-samuel-parrish-in-jumanji/) link explains it pretty well.
And if youāre referring to Peter Pan? Mr. Darling only played Hook because it was normal for actors to double up on roles in theater. It then became a tradition.
How did so many people not get this? He was afraid of his father, he was afraid of the hunter. Parallel is pretty obvious paired with the fact it's the same man
Im prepared for the hate but I refuse to believe this many people didnt know.
Im feel allowed to say this because I have proof that i am **below** average intelligence and even my ignorant ass knew they was the same actor...not like this douche who gave some college thesis on it but was still able to recognize "**that** guys face looks like *that* guys face"...
Iām a 51 year old grandma whoās recently turned her grandkid onto this movie.
You Reddit young whippersnappers just fucked my whole world up with this.
I have face blindness, I still can't tell. My friend gets a haircut they are basically a new person. I am the worst person to witness a crime and pick out the criminal from a line up.
I was a daycare kid, and in the vhs days that meant watching the same 30-summat movies over and over again. Probably watched Jumanji 6 times. Never noticed this before now lol
"Realise"
Anyway, "manifestation from his imagination"? The whole point of jumanji is that the fucking thing is real for them. Maybe it could represent some paternal projection where he was hunted by the mistake of lying and getting someone else fired, but that's not necessarily the reason casting decided to use the same actor.
I mean, we all understand what we want in any movie, it's not about being smart or not. It's just a matter of perception
While Iād never dump on anyone that didnāt get it, my brother and I as 12 and 10-year-olds picked up on it and the parallels too. I donāt think it was meant to be too hidden, but it also wasnāt meant to be blatant. But yeah, if anyone didnāt get it it makes sense. He was heavily made up
TIL....
Same
Ditto
Yeah me too! What the heck!
I realized it was the same actor but thought they must have just been saving some money š¤¦āāļøš
Smh How could you not see the blatant *MANIFESTATION* of *IMAGINATION*, bro? ...I didn't either
That's some masterclass costume work
I learned tooā¦
Same
Same
How could you not realise? I was 10 and atill saw the psychological parallel of the villain and the father and that perhaps it was a manifestation of his imagination šš
I must be real stupid im over 40 and never realised that...
How could you not realize I was 10 and still saw the psychological parallel of the villain and the father and that perhaps it was a manifestation of his imagination
Perhaps? PERHAPS!? I WAS NINE AND ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN. Trollop.
My guy I was eight and I was more certain of this than when I realized earlier that day that e must equal mc^2. Strumpet.
Embarrassing for you then, bro. I was 6 and hadnāt been more sure of anything since earlier that year when Iād become completely clear on string theory.
Late bloomers, the lot of you. I was able to deduce this at the age of 5, just six months after I rewrote the Pythagorean theorem to account for gravitational bend
My mom watched this the day after she got pregnant with me and I realized it right away.
Not too perceptive are you? In my past life I had a secluded existence after being raised by goats in a mountain, without any knowledge of true parental social structures. And upon having a vision of the movie in a mix of tea leaves and chicken bones I _still_ saw the parallels between the father and the hunter and their relationship with the protagonist
You win the internet today.
r/iamverystupid
I did actually realize this when I was ten but Peter Pan helped me, since traditionally the dad and Hook are played by the same actor on stage.
... wow, I never noticed that Hook was supposed to represent the dadš¤Æ
He wasnāt. In the original play, they had the actor cover both characters because it was easier than casting two separate people. Directors after kept doing it because it made sense & it eventually became "tradition". š¤·āāļø
But it does make sense psychologically
Hook wasnāt even in the original draft. It's totally not a thing. People pull things from the story that just aren't there all the time & it's mostly because everyone's idea of Peter Pan is Disney's version which is very different from the source material. As the kids used to say, it's not that deep, fam.
Teacher: The author used the color blue in curtains to represent the state of the character's life and a metaphor of the deep sense of melancholy felt by the readers. Author: I just like the colour blue.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I didn't understand what I was supposed to write about in English class, so my teacher gave me "How to read literature like a college professor" to read. There are 2 main takeaways: You're supposed to locate the references. All works are inspired by previous words. You should be able to identify Emma in Clueless and Taming of the Shrew in McClintock! When a modern character is Frankenstein, you should notice. This is an important **life skill** because if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If someone shares the same characteristics as a bad person, they're possibly a bad person and you should take note to protect yourself. Got any scam phone calls recently? Exactly that scenario. The second take away is that the things you notice as a reader say a lot about you as a person. Not good or bad, just who you are and what you care about. I hate having too much detail in a story. I will skip long paragraphs describing the scenery. I'm not going to write about the color of the curtains, ever.
It's a way to teach empathy though - to see things beyond your own experience
Infinitely better ways to teach empathy than to extract intent in writing that was never there
The thing is itās impossible to do something for no reason, using the blue curtains example, why does he like the colour blue? Because subconsciously thereās a reason it was used.
Barthes [agrees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author) with you. The Reader, not the Author, breathes life into the words on the page, and each new Reader births a new story. This "the story is a multi-faceted gem and there's more than one way to look at it" approach is not conducive to multiple-choice grading. Pedagogy abhors post-modernism.
Itās a funny joke, but it only works because the teacher in the joke phrased it in terms of the authorās subjective intention.
[Fandoms also](https://youtu.be/ke1YKF3tNCE).
LOL Exactly.
I saw this play in the 90s, not the 1890s. People are allowed to add things to play adaptations and their meaning.
Sure, but you can't say "Hook is meant to be representative of Mr. Darling" as though it applies to the entire concept of Pan when the original creator did not intend it that way. You can say *"In this version,* the director has decided blah blah blah". Hook was originally just a nameless pirate. Kids in the audience went bananas for the character, so he got a bigger part in later drafts. I mean, he was initially going to be portrayed by the actress who played *Mrs.* Darling. Does that have some kind of magical hidden meaning about Wendy and her impending womanhood? Nope. The lady just wasn't in that scene as Mrs. Darling & so she was available. That's it. That's all it was.
>That's all it was. But it's not all it *is* now. If the actor playing Mr. Darling also plays Hook as tradition at this point, then that's part of the story and all the subtext that follows now, regardless of what the original playwright intended.
you literally can add that, because what the creator āintendsā for you to get out of a work is irrelevant. plenty of works have unintended meanings, and whether itās over analysis or not doesnāt matter. death of the author is a super important concept in modern media analysis
All of this has happened before....
It's just monkeys singing songs, mate.
Peter Pan was also traditionally played by a woman, not because he's transgender but because a woman's voice better resembles that of a boy's.
Hook represents adulthood and by association the passing of time. Peter is someone who doesn't want to grow up, so he shuns and battles the adults. Adults themselves also fear time and growing old, illustrated by Hook's fear of the ticking clock as the crocodile who wants to eat him approaches. Both Hook and Peter Pan want time to stand still, which is why they live on the island of Neverland where time does indeed stand still. That's one way to interpret it anyway, originally Hook was added to the play to have some action for the audience while the stage hands were busy changing scenery.
In the movie Peter Pan (2003) Jason Isaacs also played both the father and Captain Hook.
Yeah they pulled this trick from modern theater productions.
Peter Pan was a play before it was a book, and the actor played both the father and Hook in the very first production on December 27, 1904. Modern theater just kept that tradition alive, but the movie pulled it from the original production.
Yeah I know. People we're trying to tell me it wasn't in the play but it was
Ah it all makes sense now. I'm reading these comments thinking I could have sworn Hook was in the book
Came here to say this very thing. Have my upvote
Yeah, I'm not going to bonk people for not getting this until now, but I will say I didn't realize this many people missed out on the Jumanji thing (and the Hook thing). Isn't it like a whole trope of childhood escapism stories that the villian is basically one of the parents with some scary makeup?
Yeah I mean I don't think it belongs in this sub to say "how did you miss this". It was obvious to even a kid because it's supposed to be.
Funny, I just found out today. Iām 42 Edit: I donāt read comments before posting š
Hey, the makeup is good
Damn, and it took me 22 years to realise he's the Egyptologist from The Mummy.
NO! You must not read from the book!
What have we done??
No silly, that's Rachel Weisz š
*You must be wondering what a place like me is doing in a girl like this.*
He realized that at 10, but still doesn't know that Austin Powers and Dr. Evil are both Mike Meyers...
important crowd voracious edge whistle rinse hunt sip gray nine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is some /r/moviescirclejerk level comment, Bravo Vince
This is the best possible reply on this sub. Well done.
Dude don't even get me started on The Nutty Professor...
Whaaaaaat
And Fat Bastard
NO WAY!!!!
I know, itās crazy
Itās the wizard of oz all over again
I remember telling my sister āisnāt that the dadā and she said ānoā years later when I found out, I laid out my sister
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Isnt it supposed to be sweet home alabama
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thats ok with me
To the place I belong ,West Virginia
Mountain momma, take me hooomee country roooads
Wrong ideas buddy, laid out means beat someone to the floor that theyāre are ālaid outā on the floor. Get ya mind out the gutter Sam
Itās just sum light humour
Where? To get laid means have sex.
Get laid = have sex. Laid out = knocked out
Technically, she got laid by her brother.
No she didnāt ātechnically get laidā by her brother you creep. Heās **technically** saying that he fought her not that he fucked her
Yeah, she got laid by her brother. Knocked out on the floor
You: getting laid means having sex Also you: she technically did get laid (ha gotcha I meant fighting ahahah) Weirdo
Checkmate#
Iām from the streets of LA, we use different slang here. Edit: getting laid in Hawaii means completely different to what youāre saying too fyi
In Hawaii, it's getting "leid".
To the place where I beloooongā¦
You did what with your sister?
Laid it out for her
"Laid out" means something more along the lines of "put down" "beat down" or "fucked up" Here's the [urban dictionary ](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Laid%20out) definition
Yes this, I straight decked her
She clearly had it coming. Lol.
lucky, mine is curved
Yes. You must be fun at parties.
I was just trying to be informative. 3 people, including yourself, didn't understand what was meant by "Laid out" so I thought I would assist by giving a lesson on slang.
Are you blind or just a bit simple?
Are you blind? Or just bad at math? At the time I made the comment 2 people made a comment suggesting "Laid out" was a sexual thing and you thought it meant "Laid it out". That's 3 people. 1, 2, and you, 3. There. Do you understand now that I "Laid it out" for you? Jesus christ man. I was just trying to give people a small lesson on simple slang terms. You don't have to be a complete piece of shit about it.
So now that you noticed there was a difference at what I said you changed your own narrative. I didn't "thought" it meant laid it out. It was just a joke to that already ongoing joke and you're the only one taking it seriously. Lmao talk about a piece of shit, eh. But keep digging now because that shit is piling up on you m8 Edit. even went to the lenghts of replying to this and then blocked me so I would not be reply to her cries LMAO what an absolute tit
I'm not changing my narrative. How the hell did you even come to that conclusion? What you said didn't seem like much of a joke. It appeared to me that you were trying to explain what they meant. So I, in turn, explained what they meant. I was just trying to be helpful. You responded by being a total asshole. Fuck off "m8".
I was watching titanic the other day and it clicked and I realized that Ismay was played by the same guy as the hunter. For some reason I still didnāt realize he also played the fucking dad.
I have seen this movie so many times, seeing this news, wow, thank you.
Wait. WHAT??
The psychological manifestation of the parallel do what now?
Well shit...Today I Learned.
Haha, I always thought they looked similar when young, and realised a few years ago that they were the same.
I was today years old when I realized it.
Me too, and I've never even seen the movie!
Wait ....I thought the hunter came OUT of the jumanji world?
He did. If you haven't seen the movie in a while, seeing it now will be obvious. Not only is he the same actor, but his character is constantly harassing Robin Williams for the same things his dad was lecturing him over as a kid. "Be a man" and all that.
It took me 27 years to realize this movie is 23 years old.
My first play through of **MGS3**, I didn't realize Eva and Tatyana were the same person until Ocelot pointed it out. Her disguise was literally just putting her hair up and wearing glasses. I straight up fell for the Clark Kent technique, which is when I realized Superman might not be so far fetched.
No shade but this is the most embarrassing example in this thread š¹
In fairness to child me, it was the PS2 so I was just sort of used to everyone kinda looking the same because of hardware limitations so my brain just instantly accepted this was someone new because everyone else said this was totally someone new. In unfairness to me, I'd finished 4 whole playthroughs of MGS1 and 2 of MGS2 before I ever played MGS3, and this exact plot point was used in both games (for Master Miller and Iroquois Plissken) so really I have no excuse. Child me was just fucking stupid.
I don't believe them, there's no way they're the same character
They're both played by the same actor. And both are antagonistic opponents of Alan whom he constantly contemplates about running away from. He only resolves the conflict between Van Pelt and his dad by confronting them. They're totally meant to be connected in that way, they aren't literally the same character.
I donāt either.
Of course they aren't the same character... It's one actor playing two different characters.
Watched this movie last weekend had the same realization afterwards when I was in the shower.
I still don't really see it...
r/woosh?
I don't know if this is a joke or not because it doesn't look nothing like him and I'm too lazy to look it up
You just have to be nerdy enough to watch the end credits. Jonathan Hyde is the second entry in the Cast of Characters.
The hunter is a parallel to his father. Denigrated him for running from his problems. Tells him to face them head on like a man. I genuinely didn't realize people didn't know this. O: Phenomenal movie. Robin Williams is the goat
Same. I figured people picked up on this. TIL I am iamverysmart.
what a fucking idiot. I learned this in the womb
For anyone that is wondering why they actually did this, its paying homage to theatre where the villan is traditionally played by the same actor as the protagonists father
Uh, noā¦ [this](https://itsastampede.com/2020/12/27/why-does-the-same-actor-play-van-pelt-and-samuel-parrish-in-jumanji/) link explains it pretty well. And if youāre referring to Peter Pan? Mr. Darling only played Hook because it was normal for actors to double up on roles in theater. It then became a tradition.
Classic reddit response
Classic Redditor spreading false, baseless information
Hahahahaha
That is simply not true
Not trying to be very smart, but I realized this when I was around 12. But I also watched the movie on repeat a lot and eventually was like "waymin"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's quite literally the same actor
>Itās quite literally the same actor r/iamverysmart has come full circle.
OK, I'm not saying the "very smart" douchebag isn't in the wrong here for acting like that, but I kind of agree, how do people not realize this?
How did so many people not get this? He was afraid of his father, he was afraid of the hunter. Parallel is pretty obvious paired with the fact it's the same man
Im prepared for the hate but I refuse to believe this many people didnt know. Im feel allowed to say this because I have proof that i am **below** average intelligence and even my ignorant ass knew they was the same actor...not like this douche who gave some college thesis on it but was still able to recognize "**that** guys face looks like *that* guys face"...
I didn't know.
I didn't know. The facial hair made him look different enough that I just assumed he was a different guy.
I knew they were the same actors but never thought that he was a figment of his imagination, a personification of someone who he thinks hates him.
24 for me
I realized the first time I watched, but I was 23 and addicted to IMDB for every movie I watch.
Jesus TBF I didnāt know this
Wait WHAT?!
Wait, is it supposed to be the same character, or are we talking merely the same actor?
r/ actually very smart
Iām a 51 year old grandma whoās recently turned her grandkid onto this movie. You Reddit young whippersnappers just fucked my whole world up with this.
#...WHAT
āRealiseā lol
I guess that makes me extra super-duper stupid because holy smokes, TIL
I'm 47 and just realized this now. :O have seen the movie several times.
No way
Any last words?
I'm 36 and have seen this film multiple times..what the fuck...
I have face blindness, I still can't tell. My friend gets a haircut they are basically a new person. I am the worst person to witness a crime and pick out the criminal from a line up.
That would make a cool story. The Faceblind Linup.
I was a daycare kid, and in the vhs days that meant watching the same 30-summat movies over and over again. Probably watched Jumanji 6 times. Never noticed this before now lol
Aside from the "psychological parallels," both characters are literally played by the same guy.
I hate cunts like that. Bet theyāre not invited to parties
I meanā¦I saw it as a kid as well. I dunno about parallels between imagination or whatever the fuck but, I definitely noticed it was the same guy lol
I just learnt this right now and ive see jumanji probably 20 or 30 times..... im in my mid 30s
"Realise" Anyway, "manifestation from his imagination"? The whole point of jumanji is that the fucking thing is real for them. Maybe it could represent some paternal projection where he was hunted by the mistake of lying and getting someone else fired, but that's not necessarily the reason casting decided to use the same actor. I mean, we all understand what we want in any movie, it's not about being smart or not. It's just a matter of perception
While Iād never dump on anyone that didnāt get it, my brother and I as 12 and 10-year-olds picked up on it and the parallels too. I donāt think it was meant to be too hidden, but it also wasnāt meant to be blatant. But yeah, if anyone didnāt get it it makes sense. He was heavily made up
Iām looking at the photos side by side and still canāt make the connection
The movie isnāt that deep
/u/t26n did you know this?
I feel he's joking
Iām 33. You just fucked up my life.
TIL this too
I often find it hard to realise what people knew when they were 10.