ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN PLOT HOLES


An attempt by me to explain the plot holes in Psycho IV and to connect the four films.

PLOT HOLE #1: Mr. Bates's death
In Psycho III, it is said that Mrs. Spool, Norman's aunt and Mrs. Bates's sister, murdered John Bates when Norma gave birth to Norman out of jealousy because she was in love with him. In Psycho IV, Norman says his father died of bee stings.
EXPLANATION: Mrs. Spool caused John Bates's death by bee stings. She somehow used bees to kill him.

PLOT HOLE #2: Norman's age when his father died
In Psycho III, Tracy discovers that Mrs. Spool killed Norman's father when Norman was "just a baby", while in Psycho IV, Mr. Bates dies when Norman was supposedly six. EXPLANATION: Maybe Mrs. Spool didn't murder Mr. Bates right after Norman was born. Maybe Norman was 6 (a reasonable age to call someone a "baby") and THEN Mrs. Spool killed Bates. Mrs. Spool, after kidnapping 6-year-old Norman, was arrested and institutionalized, and after this event Mr. Bates's funeral was done, where Norman is present because he was rescued from Mrs. Spool and returned to Mrs. Bates.

PLOT HOLE #3: Norman's age when he murdered his mother
In Psycho II, Norman says it Mary that when he was 12 his mother went mad so he poisoned her. In Psycho IV, he is about 15. EXPLANATION: Simple. Mrs. Bates went mad when Norman was 12, and when Norman turned 15, he poisoned her and her lover.

PLOT HOLE #4: The poison
In Psycho II, Norman discovers some powder poison in a green box in his cupboard, which is hinted that it was the poison he used to kill his mother, while in Psycho IV, he uses liquid strychnine to kill his mother. EXPLANATION: The poison in the green box isn't the one Norman used to kill mother. In the house, maybe there were both liquid and powder strychnine. The liquid strychnine was probably taken away by the police after they discovered the dead mother and lover, but they didn't take powder strychnine in the green box, simply because they might didn't know that there was such a thing in the green box.

PLOT HOLE #5: The tea
Norman, in a hallucination in Psycho II, remembers his mother dying of poison in hot tea. In Psycho IV, he murders his mother with iced tea. EXPLANATION: In Psycho II, the hallucination was probably kind of wrong because it came out of Norman's confused mind. In his vision, his mother was an old lady and he was 12-year-old boy. Something completely fantastic. We can also presume that Norman too imagined the hot tea. In Psycho IV, it is around summer time (it is hinted because of the heat mentioned during Mrs. Bates's final scenes) and Norman isn't stupid to make hot tea. In Psycho II, when he poisons Mrs. Spool, he uses hot tea because it is around November (revealed in a title card in the final script of Psycho II which was eventually deleted from the film).

PLOT HOLE #6: Toasted cheese sandwhiches
Norman, in Psycho II, mentions his Mother made him toasted cheese sandwiches when he was sick. In Psycho IV, Mrs. Bates never made him toasted cheese sandwiches (exept from a breakfast scene). EXPLANATION: Simple. Norman is never shown sick in Psycho IV, thus no toasted cheese sandwiches.

PLOT HOLE #7: The motel
Norman, in the original Psycho, says to Marion that her mother's lover convinced her to build the motel ("basically he could convince her to anything"), while in Psycho IV the motel it is already built. EXPLANATION: In the original, Norman lied for unknown reason. Maybe he tried to make Marion have a bad impression of the lover (Chet Rudolph), who could make Mrs. Bates do whatever he wanted.

PLOT HOLE #8: Dr. Richmond
In Psycho, the psychiatrist is named FRED Richmond, while in IV he is LEO Richmond. EXPLANATION: Maybe Dr. Richmond's full name is Frederick Leonard Richmond. His book, "The Motherkillers" (mentioned by the radio hostess in IV) may have been written under his pen name of Leo Richmond.

PLOT HOLE #9: Mother's age
Mrs. Bates in Psycho is probably an old woman with gray hair while she has a 20-something-year-old son. In Psycho IV, she is probably around 40 when she dies. Norman Bates didn't murder Marion until ten years later. If Mother was alive that time (10 years later) she would be around 50. (NOTE: In Psycho IV, in the flashbacks, sometime after Norman kills his Mother and he assumes her personality and begins killing young girls who check the motel, he is wearing a BROWN wig, not a grey one, meaning that Mother is not old. Mrs. Bates's hair could possibly turn from brown to grey in 10 years (some peoples' hair becomes grey very early) so it is perfectly logical for Norman to use a grey wig in Psycho, since his mother's hair would slowly become grey throughout ten years.

reply

[deleted]

You're just making up excuses for them to not pay closer attention to work that they're citing. But I applaud you for trying.

reply

i don't applaud you for trying.

i just think you're an idiot.

reply

Now try to bridge the gaps between the 4 films and the TV pilot 'Bates Motel.'





Tell me everything you saw... and what you think it means.

reply

It's kinda tough. The TV pilot simply cannot be considered part of the Psycho sequels because it's actually written as a sequel to the original and there are so many plot holes between the two, that the tv pilot cannot even connect itself with the sequels.

However, this website (http://www.geocities.com/aesgaard41/batesmotel.html) tries to connect the Bates Motel pilot with all the other films.

reply

That was a hilarious attempt to come up with some creative explanations for the things that don't make sense in these movies. I applaud your effort.

reply

plot holes or not psycho IV is still the best sequel to Psycho.

reply

[deleted]

If you notice in Psycho IV, Norman explains on the radio show the plot hole of why mother is "old" by her voice, yet died at around 40... "in my mind she had aged so the voice I gave her was that of an older lady"... or something to that effect.

Also, it's a shame people have so many problems with IV. I think II was a wonderful sequel and well done, almost as perfect as the first movie. III was just a comedic slasher movie that is very entertaining, yet pointless. Perkins plays Norman in a comedic way that is almost embarassing to the series- I guess he was too busy worrying about directing to where it affected his acting.

IV makes up for III's campiness and finalizes the quadrilogy in a very neat and satisfying way, in my opinion. There are a small handful of inconsistencies, but don't most movies sagas have those? You just gotta look passed it all. I'd love to hear someone put all the Terminator films into perspective. LOL I bet there are better than 100 plot holes in that... or even Star Trek!

reply

This didn't have the big budget of the first two sequels. But the effort was their unlike the first two sequels.

The first two sequels were just mindless horror sequels. Only the greatness of Anthony Perkins in his career defining role made those movies exceptable.

This was the only sequel to fully use Perkin's talents to full affect. His performance here was some of his best work. He also had support from the rest of the cast in Olivia Hussey and CCH Pounder. He also had a way better script.

Its a shame this movie didn't get a theatrical release, a bigger budget, and a big time director. Perkins would have won an Oscar for sure.

As far as continuity goes, I'm glad this movie ignored the sequels. In my opinion this is the true sequel to Psycho.

reply

Personally, I think this cleared up a lot of stuff, even though this was my least favorite sequel.

"A boy's best friend is his mother." Yeah. Norman Bates needs a dog.

reply

[deleted]

Maybe Mrs. Spool didn't murder Mr. Bates right after Norman was born. Maybe Norman was 6 (a reasonable age to call someone a "baby") and THEN Mrs. Spool killed Bates. Mrs. Spool, after kidnapping 6-year-old Norman, was arrested and institutionalized, and after this event Mr. Bates's funeral was done, where Norman is present because he was rescued from Mrs. Spool and returned to Mrs. Bates.


This one doesn't work for me. If he was a baby when Miss Spool killed the father and kidnapped Norman (and was subsequently found not guilty by reason of insanity and institutionalized), it makes sense that Norman doesn't know she exists until she reveals herself to him at the end of III and has no memory of being kidnapped. If, however, he was six years old as IV retcons him to be, it makes no sense that he never knew his aunt and has no memory of being kidnapped by her. (And, no, I don't think six is a reasonable age to refer to someone as "just a baby" -- that implies infant.)

reply

If you watch "The Psycho Legacy" documentary then you will see that the films "Psycho II and III" were ignored. "Psycho IV" is a direct sequel "Psycho".

reply