|
|
Post by snsurone on Feb 20, 2017 16:41:00 GMT
I've never seen PSYCHO II, I did read on the old IMDb board that Lila and Sam (now married to each other) did forgive Norman, but were very unhappy when he was released from the mental hospital.
Is that true?
|
|
ecarle
New Member
@ecarle
Posts: 14
Likes: 12
 
|
Post by ecarle on Feb 20, 2017 17:45:40 GMT
(I'm still not used to how to post here...bear with me)
To Gubbio on the photo of Perkins with his hand over his mouth...
Yes! That is the photo.
How the billboard/poster was constructed, I believe, was like this:
The shot of the house and Norman's shadow figure at the left of the billboard. The shot of Norman with his hand out at the right of the billboard(note how his extended hand "frames" the right side of the photo.) "The Greatest Logo in the History of Motion Pictures" running along the bottom of the billboard.
Now, these three elements didn't have a "straight borderline between each one." They were merged together into one "whole." And the imagery was darkened a bit...Perkins with his hand over his mouth looked a bit more "scary."
PSYCHO was shown twice on late night Saturday night broadcast(KABC-TV) using this billboard. Once in November of 1967, and then three months later in February of 1968. The SECOND time, one more element was added to the billboard:
"ALFRED HITCHCOCK'S" was put over the word PSYCHO. And thus did I learn -- for the first time -- that the amiable TV host and "author" of kids books like " Alfred Hitchcock's Haunted Houseful" was responsible for this most horrifying and bloody of films as rumored in my neighborhood, from parents on down to kids.
This rather blew my mind -- that Hitchcock was responsible for this "major fear event of a lifetime."
. And, as I was not allowed by my parents to SEE Psycho on TV during those broadcasts, the billboard alone was rather my "vision" of Psycho for a few years before I could see it. I found that billboard to be very chilling -- the slashes to the word "Psycho,"; the house(though no motel is shown); Perkins' Frankenstein-like pose on the hill(and if you squint, you can see the form of Mrs. Bates in him, I think, as well), and Perkins look with the hand over his mouth, which seemed both "scared" and "scary" at the same time.
Someday I will find a copy of the 1967/1968 TV Guide two-page ad made from the billboard. I will to scan it and get it over here somehow.
|
|
ecarle
New Member
@ecarle
Posts: 14
Likes: 12
|
Post by ecarle on Feb 20, 2017 17:50:35 GMT
One thing I always wondered: did Lila and Sam eventually forgive Norman for his acts?
After all, he WAS insane.
---
As noted, in Psycho II...Lila is anything BUT forgiving. (And we are told in Psycho II that Sam married Lila and is now dead, from what, we are not told by Lila. My guess is: a stress heart attack out of the guilt that his living in Fairvale brought Marion to the Bates Motel, and from Lila's decades of unforgiving rage.)
But: in the original 1959 novel by Robert Bloch, Lila was pretty much forgiving at the end, saying to Sam something like "I can't really even hate(Norman.) I feel sorry for him."
|
|
Gubbio
Sophomore
@gubbio
Posts: 254
Likes: 217
|
Post by Gubbio on Feb 20, 2017 18:10:26 GMT
(I'm still not used to how to post here...bear with me) You're doing fine... We're all still feeling our way around.  |
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Feb 20, 2017 20:11:10 GMT
Psycho is great. I watch it whenever I stumble upon it on TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wesley Crusher on Feb 20, 2017 20:19:50 GMT
One of Hitchcock's best ... I haven't seen it in a long time though
9/10
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Feb 23, 2017 3:26:47 GMT
One thing I always wondered: did Lila and Sam eventually forgive Norman for his acts?
After all, he WAS insane.
---
As noted, in Psycho II...Lila is anything BUT forgiving. (And we are told in Psycho II that Sam married Lila and is now dead, from what, we are not told by Lila. My guess is: a stress heart attack out of the guilt that his livng in Fairvale brought Marion to the Bates Motel, and from Lila's decades of unforgiving rage.)
As (I'm guessing) good or trying to be good Christians, yes, I think that Lila and Sam were, after some very dark nights of their souls, able to forgive Norman. At an emotional level, leaving God, eschatology and such aside: no. Never. |
|
ecarle
New Member
@ecarle
Posts: 14
Likes: 12
|
Post by ecarle on Feb 24, 2017 5:20:26 GMT
As (I'm guessing) good or trying to be good Christians, yes, I think that Lila and Sam were, after some very dark nights of their souls, able to forgive Norman. At an emotional level, leaving God, eschatology and such aside: no. Never
---
No. Probably not. I think the film Psycho II likely got the feelings right. Lila Crane Loomis was likely already too close to her sister(they were orphaned as teens) and too much a loner(no boyfriend in sight in 1960) to feel anything but massively torn apart by Marion's death.
The 1960 Psycho ends with Lila and Sam learning that Marion is dead, but I'll be eventually they learned HOW. And that's the stuff of nightmares.
For a long, long time.
PS. Telegonus a pleasure to make your reacquaintance. I'm having trouble posting anywhere without great difficulty and sometimes I can't get to a computer, but here's hoping. I'm at a few other boards too, but I want to be loyal to everyone who found us a place to roost. (Gubbio in this case.) So...I'll keep trying. "It ain't like it used to be," as Edmond O'Brien said in The Wild Bunch..."...but it'll do." |
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Feb 24, 2017 7:58:17 GMT
As (I'm guessing) good or trying to be good Christians, yes, I think that Lila and Sam were, after some very dark nights of their souls, able to forgive Norman. At an emotional level, leaving God, eschatology and such aside: no. Never
---
No. Probably not. I think the film Psycho II likely got the feelings right. Lila Crane Loomis was likely already too close to her sister(they were orphaned as teens) and too much a loner(no boyfriend in sight in 1960) to feel anything but massively torn apart by Marion's death.
The 1960 Psycho ends with Lila and Sam learning that Marion is dead, but I'll be eventually they learned HOW. And that's the stuff of nightmares.
For a long, long time.
PS. Telegonus a pleasure to make your reacquaintance. I'm having trouble posting anywhere without great difficulty and sometimes I can't get to a computer, but here's hoping. I'm at a few other boards too, but I want to be loyal to everyone who found us a place to roost. (Gubbio in this case.) So...I'll keep trying. "It ain't like it used to be," as Edmond O'Brien said in The Wild Bunch..."...but it'll do." Yup. Same here. I'm at a couple of other sites but we can talk about that another time. Sort of ironic: on another thread, which I started, on TV, I mentioned that The Unlocked Window of the Hitchcock hour was being broadcast this A.M. on MeTV, and I watched it. There it was, the Psycho house in all its glory, and as in Psycho there was a dark and very stormy night, in this case at the end, while in Psycho it was early. Similar story in many respects: the killing of young women by a very crazy guy. This one really ramped up the volume with the rain and wind, the beating against the window of tree branches, a cat on the prowl, and yes, the unlocked window. I know it so well it wasn't so thrilling as the last half-dozen or so times I saw it but technically it was perfect. The interior of the house was mostly non- Psycho. it seemed, though some of the rooms may have been rearranged from the film. On a personal note, EC: I hope you get your computer issues resolved, and I knows how frustrating and infuriating this can be, especially in an age when computers/laps/Macs and the like need upgrades, more memory, apps  ...it can drive you nuts. |
|
rick220
New Member
@rick220
Posts: 44
Likes: 31
|
Post by rick220 on Feb 24, 2017 11:35:42 GMT
So, how about Gus van Sant's 1998 PSYCHO?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 11:39:53 GMT
So, how about Gus van Sant's 1998 PSYCHO? The sequel is a total ripoff of the original in every way except the climax. They didn't even change the screenplay. |
|
rick220
New Member
@rick220
Posts: 44
Likes: 31
|
Post by rick220 on Feb 24, 2017 13:15:49 GMT
I don't think it's a ripoff. It's a copy, same script, same characters, same dialogue, same shots...
Is it just as good then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 13:20:36 GMT
I don't think it's a ripoff. It's a copy, same script, same characters, same dialogue, same shots...
Is it just as good then? Well, then I don't know how you define ripoff. |
|
rick220
New Member
@rick220
Posts: 44
Likes: 31
|
Post by rick220 on Feb 24, 2017 13:27:36 GMT
A ripoff for me is something which stole many if not all elements from something previous but pretends to be original or something new.
I don't think PSYCHO '89 pretends to be original, as it is basically exactly the same as the 1960 version.
But for the sake of the argument, let's call it a ripoff. Are both films equal, and just as good?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 13:29:37 GMT
A ripoff for me is something which stole many if not all elements from something previous but pretends to be original or something new. I don't think PSYCHO '89 pretends to be original, as it is basically exactly the same as the 1960 version. But for the sake of the argument, let's call it a ripoff. Are both films equal, and just as good? Okay, I see your point. No, the remake is a good movie but no remake can equal the original Psycho. |
|
ecarle
New Member
@ecarle
Posts: 14
Likes: 12
|
Post by ecarle on Feb 24, 2017 14:35:48 GMT
Yup. Same here. I'm at a couple of other sites but we can talk about that another time.
---
OK. I've having the most trouble with ...well, maybe I can't say here. But my posts literally disappear off the screen before I can post them...at that site. I'm working on it. You are there.
---
Sort of ironic: on another thread, which I started, on TV, I mentioned that The Unlocked Window of the Hitchcock hour was being broadcast this A.M. on MeTV, and I watched it. There it was, the Psycho house in all its glory, and as in Psycho there was a dark and very stormy night, in this case at the end, while in Psycho it was early.
Similar story in many respects: the killing of young women by a very crazy guy. This one really ramped up the volume with the rain and wind, the beating against the window of tree branches, a cat on the prowl, and yes, the unlocked window.
---
This came late in the Hitchcock Hour run; its as if Hitch FINALLY allowed that house to be used(it had already been used a few times on Boris Karloff's Thriller.)
By 1965 TV standards, An Unlocked Window is truly terrifying...its final images taking "Psycho" to an even scarier place. I never forgot that final shot...
Indeed, in some ways, "An Unlocked Window" is the "Psycho" OF the TV series. The one that went farther than the rest and actually terrified folks. I think it even has a Herrmann score, yes?
My favorite story about "An Unlocked Window" came from a female friend who saw it when she was 10 or so, on TV. She didn't have a remote control, and she was too scared to cross the room to the TV to turn the scary show off. She didn't want to go NEAR THE TV SCREEN upon which "An Unlocked Window" was playing. So she cowered in the corner with her eyes closed until the show wen off the air.
Also this: remember that on Hitchcock's TV show, "the bad guys could win" and the good guys(and girls) could get killed...during the episode...as long as Hitch came on at the end to say that the cops EVENTUALLY caught the killer. But it made the actual episodes..."anything goes, anyone can die, the bad guys can win for now."
As in: An Unlocked Window.
---
I know it so well it wasn't so thrilling as the last half-dozen or so times I saw it but technically it was perfect. The interior of the house was mostly non-Psycho. it seemed, though some of the rooms may have been rearranged from the film.
---
Its hard to tell if any original interiors were used. Again...I saw THOSE on Thriller(which came out closer to 1960 when those sets were likely in better shape.)
But it IS weird to see the Psycho house from the outside with the interior "all wrong." Messes with the mind. Though one gets used to it.
The idea of the Psycho house being used in so many different ways(on lots of TV shows and in the WESTERN movie "Invitation to a Gunfighter") reinforces the idea that the Psycho house was a "character" unto itself in Psycho...and evidently an "actor" in later years. ("And co-starring the Psycho house as the Mayor's House.")
----
On a personal note, EC: I hope you get your computer issues resolved, and I knows how frustrating and infuriating this can be, especially in an age when computers/laps/Macs and the like need upgrades, more memory, apps ...it can drive you nuts.
---
It can and it does. One theory I have is that imdb must have had more "powerful" server/browser access. These other boards have proven maddeningly hard to get into and write on...but it seems to be getting better. Still, my computer is aging and I may not be able to upgrade anytime soon. Perhaps a visit to the library is in order.
I shall endeavor to persevere. It was a shock when the imdb message boards just disappeared last week; its comforting to read some familiar names around here...like yours, friend.
|
|
ecarle
New Member
@ecarle
Posts: 14
Likes: 12
|
Post by ecarle on Feb 24, 2017 14:43:15 GMT
No, the remake is a good movie but no remake can equal the original Psycho.
---
I call Gus Van Sant's 1998 "Psycho" -- "The Experiment that Suceeded By Failing."
Gus Van Sant was/is a very respected, Oscar-nominated director. He wasn't some hack. He was obsessed with Psycho and had been trying to get it remake "shot for shot" for years(at one time, he pitched Timothy Hutton as Norman and Jack Nicholson as Arbogast to Universal; without having them signed.) Van Sant got his chance to remake Psycho when he was Oscar nominated for "Good Will Hunting" and the powerful Ron Howard/Brian Grazer Universal company signed Van Sant and asked him what he wanted to make. "Psycho" he said. Shot for shot, line for line.
As it turned out, Van Sant's Psycho was NOT shot for shot, line for line. He couldn't help but tamper with the original. He removed the entire church scene with Sheriff Chambers. He cut the shrinks speech at the end by half.
And he added bizarre imagery of a blindfolded sexpot and a calf in the road to the Arbogast murder.
That said, a LOT of Van Sant's Psycho IS exactly like the original and while the story is still good...the movie simply doesn't work 38 years later with anything near the shocking impact of the landmark 1960 film.
Moreover, it is said of many classic films -- Psycho, The Godfather, Gone with the Wind -- that perfect casting helped make for a perfect film. Anthony Perkins was Hitchcock's first choice for Norman Bates. Vince Vaughn was, like, Van Sant's 22nd choice. (Guys like Matt Damon turned it down; Joaquin Phoenix said he would do it, but wasn't available when production started.)
I actually like Van Sant's Psycho because I always wondered what any classic movie would "look like if done today." Van Sant had the clout and the guts to try. It didn't work -- despite having the estimable Danny Elfman there to re-do the Herrman score -- but it was a fascinating experiment.
And all I watch nowadays is Hitchcock's Psycho...Van Sant's didn't take over my brain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 14:48:35 GMT
No, the remake is a good movie but no remake can equal the original Psycho. --- I call Gus Van Sant's 1998 "Psycho" -- "The Experiment that Suceeded By Failing." Gus Van Sant was/is a very respected, Oscar-nominated director. He wasn't some hack. He was obsessed with Psycho and had been trying to get it remake "shot for shot" for years(at one time, he pitched Timothy Hutton as Norman and Jack Nicholson as Arbogast to Universal; without having them signed.) Van Sant got his chance to remake Psycho when he was Oscar nominated for "Good Will Hunting" and the powerful Ron Howard/Brian Grazer Universal company signed Van Sant and asked him what he wanted to make. "Psycho" he said. Shot for shot, line for line. As it turned out, Van Sant's Psycho was NOT shot for shot, line for line. He couldn't help but tamper with the original. He removed the entire church scene with Sheriff Chambers. He cut the shrinks speech at the end by half. And he added bizarre imagery of a blindfolded sexpot and a calf in the road to the Arbogast murder. That said, a LOT of Van Sant's Psycho IS exactly like the original and while the story is still good...the movie simply doesn't work 38 years later with anything near the shocking impact of the landmark 1960 film. Moreover, it is said of many classic films -- Psycho, The Godfather, Gone with the Wind -- that perfect casting helped make for a perfect film. Anthony Perkins was Hitchcock's first choice for Norman Bates. Vince Vaughn was, like, Van Sant's 22nd choice. (Guys like Matt Damon turned it down; Joaquin Phoenix said he would do it, but wasn't available when production started.) I actually like Van Sant's Psycho because I always wondered what any classic movie would "look like if done today." Van Sant had the clout and the guts to try. It didn't work -- despite having the estimable Danny Elfman there to re-do the Herrman score -- but it was a fascinating experiment. And all I watch nowadays is Hitchcock's Psycho...Van Sant's didn't take over my brain. Hitchcock always cast his movies excellently.
Come to think of it I agree wholeheartedly about Van Sant's guts to do what he did. |
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Feb 24, 2017 14:55:48 GMT
It should never have been made, rick.
Vince Vaughn is NO Anthony Perkins!
|
|
rick220
New Member
@rick220
Posts: 44
Likes: 31
|
Post by rick220 on Feb 24, 2017 20:04:09 GMT
I disagree. Like said in comments above it was an interesting experiment, and it makes for an interesting maybe necessary debate about 'what makes a film good', and what elements are crucial to make a good film.
While there are some differences, the script is essentially the same, as are the dialogue, characters and cinematography. So, from a purely objective point of view the two versions should be equally good.
But most people will say they are not. Why is that?
Let's argue that the performances are inferior to the original, does this then imply that the cast is what gave the original its ultimate quality? Are Stefano's script, Hitchcock directional choices etc. not sufficient to make a really good movie?
I am not saying this is the case, but it is Van Sant's Psycho that really put me on the path of trying to figure out why a movie impressed me, and try to reason beyond just saying it's good or bad.
|
|
...it can drive you nuts.