I like Psycho IV: The Beginning, but there's something about it that really bugs me. In the original Psycho, when Norman has the conversation with Marion, he tells her that his mother's lover talked her into building the motel. In the flashback scenes with Henry Thomas as the young Norman Bates, the motel is up and running before she's even met the man! How could the writers make such a bad mistake?
shareSimple answer: Norman lied.
share[deleted]
Also, in Psycho II, Norman says he was 12 when he poisoned his Mother.
Norman is NOT 12 in Psycho IV.
Little plot holes like this really hurt the consistency of all four great films.
When Stefano agreed to do Psycho IV, he specifically agreed only on one condition: he would act like Psycho II and III never happened. This is why he does not take into consideration the facts presented in the two previous films
shareOoooh thats bad - do your research Stefano!! :))
shareI wondered about that. #4 completely ignores 2 and 3, so I wondered if they were all supposed to be canon to eachother, or if 4 is a stand-alone sequel that only takes 1 as canon.
shareSo happy he ignored Psycho II and III. Awful dumb changes from the original. But he should have insisted that it be simply Psycho: The Beginning since it had no relation to Psycho II and III.
shareHere's the reason why the bathroom doesn't make sense: This one with the layout of the house has bothered me from day one. (or, Psycho I, if you will...).
There is NO WAY mother could be seen in that front window of the house if she was sitting in her bedroom. Her bedroom was in the back of the house on the left, so theres no way she could be looking out the window in her room and still be seeing out the front. You go into the front door, up the stairs, turn left, go into mother's room. You would be facing the window she looks out of, and if you walked up to said window, you couldn't be looking out the front of the house. You'd be looking out of the left side of it. (from the POV of someone outside).
Then there's Psycho III's mentioning that Mrs. Spool killed Norman's father in a jealous rage, yet here we see he's died from bee stings.
There is NO WAY mother could be seen in that front window of the house if she was sitting in her bedroom. Her bedroom was in the back of the house on the left, so theres no way she could be looking out the window in her room and still be seeing out the front. You go into the front door, up the stairs, turn left, go into mother's room. You would be facing the window she looks out of, and if you walked up to said window, you couldn't be looking out the front of the house. You'd be looking out of the left side of it. (from the POV of someone outside).
Still doesn't work. Norman's room was one door down from his mother's.. If either of them were gonna get that window it would be him.
share[deleted]
Okay, this has to end here.
Look at the Bates' house from the front. Mother's room is the on the top left side of the house. Go up the stairs, turn left. Face mother's room, then enter. Turn left, then you're looking out the window on the front, left side of the house, where Norma's room is.
Norman would not have that window, because his room is on the right side of the house. Watch the original, when Lila turns to the right at the top of the stairs to enter his room. His window would be nowhere near the left of the house.
"'Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly...'"
"Maiaron i Oiosaila"
the thing about the bees maybe his aunt left him somewhere with the bees. I mean things are different all the times who the *beep* cares.
shareWho ever said that was mamma's room? Norman dresses up like her, and "she" was walking around another room in the house.
shareWho ever says *what* was mama's room? You've lost me! If you're talking about his mother's bedroom, it most certainly is her bedroom, since it's in the same location it was in during all the previous films -- only it includes an extra closet and bathroom (the closet was actually in same location in part two, though only accessible in the hallway).
share
Norman's room was on the right. Not the left.
Perhaps Mrs. Spool is the one who released the bees on him. A little lame, sure, but not impossible. In the movie The Crush, a victim was killed in this way.
Another explanation could be that Norman's mother lied to him about the way his father died. This explanation would be perfect if not for the fact that they showed his face. Because, what mother would tell her six year old child that his aunt murdered his father? So, unless there's another way to explain the lumps on his face, this explanation doesn't work.
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
When you go up the stairs of the Bates Mansion you turn left into mother's room. You are standing at the end of the room, when you look up the room, the window is at the top, that window, where mother rocks in her chair and keeps an eye on Norman and the motel, is the one on the left of the house, (front view), and hence you can see clearly out. How can you believe that the window is at the back.
Hahahaha i love this - soooo many people discussing a fictitious room hahahaha
shareHere guys - check out the house :) maybe this will help - i agree i thought the window was on the left not the front :)
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=norman+bates+house&view=detailv2&&id=5896CCE9EB80DDE1195E76CA4EA773F2CE5BD7FF&selectedIndex=7&ccid=8je745fJ&simid=608040436559839460&thid=OIP.Mf237bbe397c9028fdbe0dd3f069e4a3co0&ajaxhist=0
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=norman+bates+bedroom&view=detailv2&&id=BA8C08C715D3D25201DC67934AB7B2360DA898B2&selectedIndex=5&ccid=7OteFA%2fV&simid=608017900862571211&thid=OIP.Meceb5e140fd5d544aceb9199ccadb287o0&ajaxhist=0
Events in Psycho movies 2 and 3 are ignored. The Mrs. Spool character does not exist in this film.
shareLots of major plot holes in IV -- moreso than any of the other films (not counting Bates Motel -- that's a whole other story). Not only does this version completely ignore the events in II and III (save for Perkins line, "After the last murder, 4 years ago..."), there are a few inconsistancies between this and the first film. Previously, the only major inconsistancy took place in part III (Norman revealed in I that his father died when he was 5 -- in part III, they said he died when Norman was a baby). Here's a rundown of some of the errors in Psycho IV: The Beginning (both previously mentioned and not):
*In Pyscho II (and the trailer for the original), the bathroom was at the top of the staircase between Norman and Norma's rooms. There was even a peephole in part II that led from Norma's bedroom entry way into the bathroom. In part IV, the bathroom is beside Norma's bed -- somewhere where it couldn't really be, given the layout of the house... But I'm not gonna get into the house's layout again.
*The closet in Norma's room was not present in any other film.
*In the original Psycho, Norman reveals that his mother's lover convinced her to build the motel -- here the hotel was around when his father was alive (he talks about the peephole into cabin one that his father made -- but how would he know about it if he was 5 or 6 when his father died?).
*In Psycho, he said that he was 5 when his father died. Here he was 6. In Psycho III, it's revealed that his father was murdered when he was a baby.
*In Psycho III, Mrs. Spool was revealed to have killed Norman's father. Here he was stung to death by bees.
*In Psycho II, he revealed "When I was 12 my mother went mad, so I put some poison in her tea" (which would put him at 22 during the Marion Crane murder). Here, he was around 17, which would be age-appropriate for the way he appeared in the original film. This is a plot-hole left between the book and the film (in the original novel he was middle-aged).
*In Psycho II, Norman keeps making hot tea in a kettle, so one would assume that this was the type of tea he made to kill his mother. In IV, however, it was iced tea used to kill Norma.
*In Psycho II and III there was a second doorway into the living room, near the back of the main staircase (Mary used it to confront Norman twice in part II) that has vanished in this film. In addition, the doorway to the back staircase (which would come out somewhere by the kitchen) has also vanished.
*The kitchen is slightly different. While the tile pattern is identical to that in previous films, the cabinets seem to be slightly different (the wood between the panes of glass was a little wider) -- and the oven is totally different. The stovetop in the last films was on the right side, here it is on the left. In addition, the color pattern in the kitchen also appears to be brighter, though it could have faded with age.
*Norman uses the word "inordinately" several times as a callback to the first film -- however, the word was uttered by Marion Crane, not Norman, and in a scene where he wasn't even present.
*In the original Psycho, when Lila enters Norman's room it was filled with childhood toys, like stuffed animals, which are not present in this film.
*In the original film, it was revealed that Norma's burial dress was "perriwinkle blue," here, however, it is a floral pattern.
*In Psycho II, Norman reveals that the doctors "took away" all his memories of his mother -- yet here he seems to remember things in excrutiating detail.
*A paradox within the film: Fran askes "Wanting to have sex was grounds for murder?" Norman replies: "In my mother's eyes, it was." Yet Norma herself openly and unabashedly has sex with her MARRIED lover, Chet.
Jeez, I'd thought of a few others that have just dropped out of my head...
OK people, i love Psycho as much as the next guy but IT'S ONLY A MOVIE! Yes there will be inconsistencies (especially between the first and the last film, since they were both written by Joseph Stephano) but when you start to pick it to pieces, it becomes meaningless and loses it's original spark. Plus the house isn't real anyway....
shareWELL SAID!!
shareActually the house IS real, it's located on a back lot at Warner Bros Studios, you can visit it on tours. It's the motel that is not real and just a set.
shareI was referring to the house as located at Universal studios, CA....
But anyway, i didn't know there was a set at Warner Bros studios, is that in Burbank, california? (I'm not from America, you see) - why would this be when it's a Universal picture?
Maybe it was Universal, I'm from Louisiana and I took about 100 tours when I visited California several years back, so I could be wrong. All I know is that it is a real house and not a set and on the tour you're allowed to see a small portion of it (dissapointingly). I remember the tour guide telling us about how the house was seen somewhere for sale and moved to the backlot and given a special paintjob to make it look older than it actually was.
shareThat sounds interesting. If it is the Universal Studios california tour, i've done that but I remember that we were only allowed to see the front of the motel and house, and couldn't go inside. I know there's a VIP tour however that lets you stop and look around the entire set - is this what you did?
shareLike I said, it's been several years and I didn't pay for the trip, just tagged along. A good friend of mine has a brother that does commercials and stuntman work at many different studios and he set the whole thing up. We were allowed to look in only certain places, they had the front entryway, parlor and kitchen open but the rest was roped off and looked like storage area (no furniture or anything), we were also allowed to roam around the outside of the house. I was dissapointed to not be able to see Mothers room or the infamous fruit cellar, but hey you take what's given. I don't remember there being a motel set around though, which made the house seem very incomplete, but it was explained to me that it was not in existance anymore and was going to be rebuilt for a sequel soon, can't remember if it was for part 3 or the prequel.
shareThat sounds like you went quite a while ago! Still, sounds pretty exciting though. I did the tour 2 or 3 years ago and remember that on the tour, they took you past the motel and the house, although you can't go in or around it - although i think that's something you can do on the VIP tour that they run, and can't wait to do it when we go again!
share
Theres no inconsistencies, it's all about insanity and lies.
Norma told Norman how much pain he gave her during childbirth. She's not even his real mother. She lied to him. He lied to the radio host. Norman was insane, REMEMBER?
His real mother was insane.... his adopted mother was insane....
It's all about insanity.
He couldn't tell reality from fantasy. How would he know how old he was when certain things happened to him?
It all totally makes sense to me in the continuity of the films.
__________________________________
Norma was Norman's real Mother, it was in Psycho 3:
"Spool was in fact Norman's aunt, and killed Norman's father in a jealous rage after he left her for her sister. Spool then kidnapped the infant Norman, having convinced herself that he was her child. She was arrested and institutionalized, and Norman was returned to Mrs. Bates."
*In Pyscho II (and the trailer for the original), the bathroom was at the top of the staircase between Norman and Norma's rooms.
There was even a peephole in part II that led from Norma's bedroom entry way into the bathroom. In part IV, the bathroom is beside Norma's bed -- somewhere where it couldn't really be, given the layout of the house... But I'm not gonna get into the house's layout again.
A) Norman's memory is a little warped. Sometimes when we remember things they appear differently. I have done that alot remembering the house I grew up in by forgetting things or imagining things differently. Remember, these scenes are memories.
B) This area could've been an inside "extension" rather than an outside and thus, the area wall which is in Mother's room that forces a left turn right after entering could be the part of the bathroom that Norman had walled off.
I'd go with A, though.
*The closet in Norma's room was not present in any other film.
A) Could be we just don't see it in her room in any other film.
B) A dresser or some piece of furniture could be blocking the door. Remember in Psycho II, we are introduced to the "back stairs". There could be a "secret passage" or two unrevealed as well. It is very possible.
C) Again, could be Norman's shaky memory. She may have locked him in a closet somewhere else in the house, but he just confuses it as being in her room.
*In the original Psycho, Norman reveals that his mother's lover convinced her to build the motel -- here the hotel was around when his father was alive (he talks about the peephole into cabin one that his father made -- but how would he know about it if he was 5 or 6 when his father died?
A) Could've been another man before "Chet" who died a horrible death.
B) Mother could've been seeing Chet behind Norman's back for a long time, maybe even behind Norman's father's back as well, and finally decided to introduce Chet to Norman and explain that the motel was his idea all along. Maybe everyone thought it was Norma's idea, but it was secretly Chet's. Chet may have been married as well and was cheating on his wife with Norma. Finally, after Norman's dad was dead for a while and Chet left his wife (both things can take time), they decided to spring it on Norman. Saying at first, that they "just met" and then later sort of allowing him to know certain things.
*In Psycho, he said that he was 5 when his father died. Here he was 6. In Psycho III, it's revealed that his father was murdered when he was a baby.
5 or 6? Really, what's the difference? Maybe he was 5 and a half and told one person five and the other six. Kids do it all the time. As far as the "baby", my mother still calls my six year old a "baby". A small child is referred to as "just a baby" all the time.
*In Psycho III, Mrs. Spool was revealed to have killed Norman's father. Here he was stung to death by bees.
A) Spool could've killed Norman's father using bees.
B) Tracy Venable got some bad information.
*In Psycho II, he revealed "When I was 12 my mother went mad, so I put some poison in her tea" (which would put him at 22 during the Marion Crane murder). Here, he was around 17, which would be age-appropriate for the way he appeared in the original film.
A) Norman lied. After all he is no stranger to it and he was not telling Mary the whole truth anyway. Plus, by saying he was 12 it made him look more innocent than if he had said "I was 17" (pratically an adult).
*In Psycho II, Norman keeps making hot tea in a kettle, so one would assume that this was the type of tea he made to kill his mother. In IV, however, it was iced tea used to kill Norma.
A) Maybe Norman enjoyed hot tea and Norma liked hers iced. No contradiction here, really. It was tea.
*In the original film, it was revealed that Norma's burial dress was "perriwinkle blue," here, however, it is a floral pattern.
A) Again, Norman's memory. Can you remember every outfit a deceased person was wearing? I mean I am sure that was the last thing on his mind when recalling this memory.
*In Psycho II, Norman reveals that the doctors "took away" all his memories of his mother -- yet here he seems to remember things in excrutiating detail.
A) Norman was somewhat sane at that part. It's not uncommon for a tragic event (or series of) to jar a memory. Again, his memory could be somewhat faulty and he just remembers the major events while the minor "technicalities" he just kind of tries to recreate in his mind. Wing it, so to speak. I can remember certain events in my childhood, but not necessarily the clothing or wallpaper pattern. Although, sometimes these small things are what sticks out!
*A paradox within the film: Fran askes "Wanting to have sex was grounds for murder?" Norman replies: "In my mother's eyes, it was." Yet Norma herself openly and unabashedly has sex with her MARRIED lover, Chet.
A) Mother's eyes see Norman as a little boy, too. Besides many people often put down what they really like. Christian fundies do it all the time. Plus, Norman was the one jealous of Mother, not the reverse. It was only the reverse in his own mind.
Well said, trannongoble. I agree with you, I mean...I always noticed the so-called plot holes, but frankly, I always thought they had to do with Norman's weak memory or simply plain intentional lies to his benefit.
Sure, there might be a few plot holes here and there, but on the whole, I think it mostly has to do with lack of memory, lies or simply confussion. It happens in real life and it can happen to movie characters as well.
Number one fan of Joan & Carol
In the original Psycho, when Norman has the conversation with Marion, he tells her that his mother's lover talked her into building the motel. In the flashback scenes with Henry Thomas as the young Norman Bates, the motel is up and running before she's even met the man! How could the writers make such a bad mistake?
Also, in Psycho II, Norman says he was 12 when he poisoned his Mother.
Norman is NOT 12 in Psycho IV.
*In Psycho II, Norman reveals that the doctors "took away" all his memories of his mother -- yet here he seems to remember things in excrutiating detail.
Dude, you're just making excuses.
True, he says he POISONED her when he was 12.....not he KILLED her when he was 12..
Norman says "When, I was 12 my mother went mad so I put some poison in her tea. I'm all right now, though."
Didn't say he KILLED her when he was 12. In Psycho IV, when asked how he killed his mother, Norman replies "Very slowly".......so maybe he poisoned her over a long period of time, they only showed the poisoning that killed her in the film though.
[deleted]
well we know what he poisoned her with, you saw the bottle it was Strychnine. And Strychnine is actually oderless, but is an incredibly potent poison. Not a lot is needed to cause serious adverse health or death.
Your post started a freak show.
shareDamn straight. Gawd, people. And I thought I'd seen these movies too much.
*giggles behind her hand like a Hentai schoolgirl after having heard the word 'penis' for the first time*
There's a few simple solutions to all this...
1. Skip Parts II & III. Just watch the original and the part IV only. I'm actually pretty sure Norman did lie in the original about the guy talking his mother into building the motel. Hell, he lied about his mother being real!
2. Just watch the original and part II. Part II is an excellent sequel with hardly any flaws to the original.
3. Just watch the original and none of the sequels.
4. MAYBE... you could just watch part IV and none of the others. Granted, that's a stupid thing to do because the original is a classic.
5. Watch Peewee's Playhouse instead
Is it possible that it could have been a different boyfriend?
I have not seen this movie in quite sometime, so please forgive me if I can't remember all the details of this movie.
for gods sake everyone just drop it,im the worlds authority on the psycho films,and plot holes and errors are just part of films and sequels,ignore the mistakes and enjoy,lifes too short you lot
sharehear hear!! sometimes its fun for fans to discuss these little niggles and errors - its what fans do and they help to keep these films alive. where would star wars be without people dressing up as leia or storm troopers, or for that matter where would star trek be without it's trekkies?? yes life's too short to argue about these little inconsistencies, but its what fans do and get more from the films because of it!
"We all go a little mad sometimes..."
Okay, all the bloopers, plot holes, etc. I have seen mentioned on this board have been mentioned many times, and I'd be willing to let most of them go (because most of them have some sort of explanation). But I noticed one that not only hasn't been mentioned before, but (unlike the others) practically drives me up the wall (okay, that's an exaggeration, but it does tend to nip at me a wee bit).
Consider the following...
*PSYCHO II takes place 22 years after PSYCHO, which would mean 1982.
*Psycho III takes place almost one month later because, in PSYCHO III, the owner of the diner said that Miss Spool (killed in PSYCHO II) had been missing for that long.
*In PSYCHO IV, Dr. Richmond said that he treated Norman exactly thirty years ago (just after the murders in PSYCHO). So, that would mean the movie takes place 8 years after PSYCHO III.
BUT...
*Norman then says that the PSYCHO III murders took place FOUR years earlier.
Come again?
As I said before, there seem to be explanations for most major bloopers like this, but I'd like to hear one now. And I don't buy that malarky about Norman getting the date wrong because he was insane. Despite being a pervert and a murderer, something like that would still be inconsistent with his character. (And Dr. Richmond certainly doesn't seem like the type of person to get it wrong. Too bad he had to use the word "exactly.")
Then again, it may be the only explanation we have.
Then again AGAIN, like Hitchcock once said, "It's only a movie!"
you could have waited 11 days then you would have replied exactly a year later! lol.
instead of blaming norman's insanity, i think joseph stefano's galloping sinility (sp?) is perhaps at fault here as he wrote psychos 1 and 4 and was probably consulted on 2 and 3..oh well, that is a pretty major blooper, with no viable explanation!!
"We all go a little mad sometimes..."
also remember there are two different houses. the real one in CA and the one they used for 4 and the really bad remake back in 98 i believe, that one is in Orlando. so that would explain why there was no bathroom up the stairs, and now a closet in mother's room.
a lot of the other things were from Norman's memory which wasn't the best. so maybe his father did build the motel and Norman just made it up that the boyfield had it built or the other way around.
you'll go mad just trying to place it all together, so just enjoy the movies and not think about the plot holes.
[deleted]
Even if Joseph Stefano hadn't have ignored the other two sequels the story would make complete sense as in:
As has been said Norman's memories are warped, by the first Psycho film Norman has lived with Mothers embalmed corpse for 10 years, that's ten years of getting deeper and deeper into his psychosis. By Psycho 2 we are looking at 22 years after the first film, so that's another 32 years since Mother and her lover were killed. Norman spent 22 years in an Asylum being questioned, medicated, undergone shock treatment, and likely told via diagnosis what happened, if his mind wasn't swiss cheesed enough after the ten years living with his dead mother it would be now.
Psycho 3 picks up a month after he killed Emma Spool and he's living with her corpse in the house, that ends with Norman back in an Asylum, by the time Psycho 4 comes around we're looking at another 10 years or so. So with 42 years having passed since Mother and the lover were killed, being in an asylum for 22 years, believing Emma Spool was his real Mother, killing her and being back in an Asylum for 10 years, it's little wonder there are inconsistencies.
Norman is the classic example of the unreliable narrator and it's also possible he had seen the inside of an asylum prior to killing Marion, by a conversation in the Hitchcock film:
MARION:
(Slowly, carefully)
Wouldn't it be better if you put her
in... someplace...
She hesitates. Norman turns, slowly, looking at her with a
striking coldness.
NORMAN
An Institution? A madhouse? People
always call a madhouse "someplace."
(Mimicing coldly)
Put her in Someplace!
MARION:
I'm sorry... I didn't mean it to
sound uncaring...
NORMAN
(The coldness turning
to tight fury)
What do you mean about caring? Have
you ever seen one of those places?
Inside? Laughing and tears and cruel
eyes studying you... and my mother
there? Why? has she harmed you?
She's as harmless as... one of these
stuffed birds.