MovieChat Forums > Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990) Discussion > How Come Norman Was Released Again?

How Come Norman Was Released Again?

posted 17 years ago by webfix
22 replies | jump to latest

How come Norman was released again? In Psycho III, we see him carted off yet again to prison/mental hospital. Somebody even said to him that he would never get out, so what was he doing being free in Pscyho IV? What was the explanation? Was he on parole or what?

Come to think of it, was Psycho IV REALLY a sequel to Psycho III? If not, perhaps they just tried to make it a stand alone movie, as Hammer sometimes did with the Dracula/Frankenstein films.

The Webmaster
www.horrorwriters.net

[–] rudypen1216 17 years ago

I think the reason he was released is because he met a woman that worked at the mental hospital. And they got married later on, so she probably wanted him to be released.

[–] StanleyTheManley 17 years ago

Lol, it doesn't work like that!

[–] wallacesawyer 17 years ago

This film doesn't follow the continuity of parts 2 and 3. This movie pretty much ignores those sequels like they didn't happen.Some poeple say it doesn't, but I heard that's what Universal intended. Because no, he wouldn't have been released ever again after what happened in part 3.

For DEMONIC TOYS and updates on Full Moon Films:
www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

[–] JoeX2525 14 years ago

Doesn't he mention on the phone that the last time he killed someone was 4 years ago, obviously in Psycho III?

[–] CharlesVariations 14 years ago

Correction This film DOES actually stay canon with parts 2 or 3. Also, the Producer of the radio show makes references to Psycho III. They say "the Bates Motel has been closed down since the last murders occurred"

"the last murders.." meaning there was more than one string of murders?

It's really not that hard to figure out that Psycho IV does take place after 2 and 3, but it really doesn't do a good job with telling us how he got out, again. Which is obvious since he's living in a home in the middle of your typical american suburb.

However, that doesn't mean that this film isn't riddled with plot holes in relation to parts 2 and 3, however it still includes them in the series.

It was written to ignore 2 and 3 but thankfully the film makers added some dialogue in there that connects the 2 previous predecessors to part 4.

Yet still people CONTINUE to argue that it DOES in fact ignore parts 2 and 3, it DOESN'T. There are 2 specific scenes that mention the events that occurred during Psycho III, which would mean, SURVERY SAYS
DING THEY ARE CANON.

[–] JoeX2525 14 years ago

Also, shouldn't it have been 8 years ago?
ptIII takes place right after ptII which was in '82, right?
And 8 years to get released sounds better than 4 too.

[–] feierman 14 years ago

Yeah they sure did ignore 2 and 3 but I do say the woman Norman married did worked as a nurse at the mental hospital helped him get released. I would think in my head that the sheriff from two and three is really pissed that he's released again.

[–] Candyhearts27 14 years ago

They didn't ignore part 2 and 3 'cause remember, Norman mentions his last murder four years ago. Psycho III was in 1986 and this one was 1990.

[–] highlander1592uk 14 years ago

At the end of Psycho III, Norman destroys "Mother" and is therefore pretty much "cured". At the beginning of Psycho II he had spent 20 years or therapy where people tried to take Mother away from him against his will but this time he kicked her out. Assuming he was again found not guilty by reason of insanity, he would have been released from hospital once he was judged not to be a danger any more which would have happened fairly quickly this time.

[–] CharlesVariations 13 years ago

No, actually Psycho IV does NOT ignore parts 2 and 3. How many times must I say this?

The film mentions Norman's crimes from part 3 TWICE. Just watch the movie and listen. The radio show producer mentions it and then so does Norman.

[–] CasseroleWorshipper 12 years ago

Hmm. Even Mick Garris says it ignores the first two sequels in the documentary THE PSYCHO LEGACY.
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean.

[–] CharlesVariations 12 years ago

Well even he's wrong then lol.

As I said, probably over 3 or 4 times now, Psycho IV mentions events from the first 2 sequels. its IN the film. You can't argue much with that, even if the writer and director seem to think otherwise, its in the god damned film.

[–] BastetEsq 9 years ago

She's not a nurse, she's a therapist (I believe she's a psychologist rather than a psychiatrist, but I'd have to re-watch to double check that). And only the courts, which ordered him committed in the first place, can order him released. Doctors' testimony will be huge in making that decision, of course, but he's been legally committed, and would have to be legally released.

Which would not have happened. He was locked up for 22 years the first time, and within just over a month of being released he had killed four more people (five if you want to attribute Maureen's death to him). So, oops, still insane, and back to the institution he goes. The sheriff is probably right that they'd never let him out, but in any case he certainly wouldn't be re-released in just four years.

[–] luxerus 12 years ago

They mention about 10 times in the film how Bates was in a jail that let murderers get out way too soon because of the insanity thing... I hate people that don't pay attention when watching movies.

[–] snoho 12 years ago

To prepare for the sequel

[–] SteveResin 10 years ago

It's totally ridiculous that they would release him not once but twice!

--------------------
Duty Now For The Future

[–] Crow550 9 years ago

Well these sequels don't exist in the real world. ;)

Norman is just a smooth talker. LOL!

Psycho II couldn't really happen.... Going back to the same House and Motel after 20+ years? Norman going back to where the Murders happened....

However as a Movie watcher you kinda dig the return factor.

In the end.... It's a Movie. :P

Plot holes to make a sequel happen is nothing new....

[–] johnmiller (3940) 5 years ago

Yeah, it was funny! the sheriff said that he would go away forever, and here he's out in two years.

[–] Sandman81 (1509) 5 years ago

Yes IV does make 2 references too part II and III. But lets all agree that this movie works a lot better when we ignore that and just consider this a direct sequel to the original.

[–] lm362 (341) 3 years ago

What references? Stephano agreed to make this movie on the condition that it ignore the events in Psycho II and III. He should have also insisted it not be titled as if it was related to those movies.

[–] lm362 (341) 3 years ago

He wasn't released again, but released after the events in Psycho. Psycho II and III are ignored.

[–] lm362 (341) 2 years ago

I'm as confused as you are but I'll try to clear things up. Wikipedia states that this movie is both a third sequel and a prequel to the 1960 film, but this is incorrect as later in the article it states that the original screenwriter, Joseph Stephano who wrote the screenplay for this movie ignores parts 2 and 3. So this film is not a third sequel, but is both a direct sequel and a prequel to the 1960 original film. It has no connection to parts 2 and 3. I do not know why the filmmakers did not reflect this in the title nor whether Stefano tried and failed to get them to change the title to fit his screenplay, but either way, the title should be changed to show it has no relation to the last two films.