MovieChat Forums > Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990) Discussion > Does NOT ignore the previous sequels

Does NOT ignore the previous sequels

posted 17 years ago by CharlesVariations
8 replies | jump to latest

I watched this film and I know that they do not ignore the previous sequels 2 and 3. If it did do so then they shouldn't have named it Psycho IV. I know this because they mention the murders Norman committed "almost 30 years ago" which was the first one, and then Norman mentions a different inceident saying "The last time i killed was 4 years ago" and Psycho III was made 4 years before this film. So they're obviously following that time frame. Of course he's talking about the events of Psycho III.

Also, when that programmer lady for the radio show does research on the whereabouts of Norman Bates she says "The Bates Motel has since been closed down and Norman Bates has since moved away since the last string of murders." That's the key word. LAST. If this movie ignored the other sequels there would only be one string of murders and you wouldn't call it the last string of murders that occured. Even though, the paragraph above is proof enough, I just wanted to dwell on it.

Oh yea, these aren't the exact quotes but they're still on the ball. Psycho IV does not ignore 2 and 3. They are all one. However it does ignore Bates Motel, which is absolute rubbish in my opinion anyways.

[–] mcgill_j 17 years ago

It doesn't FLAT out ignore the films.. granted.. BUT it does contradict them.. which is what they were saying.. and might as well have been ignored.. as someone pointed out, the Hotel was already in operation before the "boyfriend" came along, this from a Normal was an admission that the boyfriend GOT the mother to open a hotel..

also.. just another, off hand.. when Norman poisons the tea.. its very clear it was HOT tea that he poisoned.. In Psycho II you see the "poison tea" and it was clearly not "iced tea".. those are just two minor inconsistencies.. apparently the writer would ONLY write Psycho IV if he could rewrite the history as it was..

[–] CharlesVariations 17 years ago

Hah, i think in Psycho IV it was actually liquor that he put the poison in. Yes, although it does not ignore them, it acts as if they happened, it is still filled with plot holes but I do think it is still quite enjoyable.

Also notice how the doctor's name is now Leo Richmond, in the first one his first name was different. Just go look at the credits yourself for Psycho 1.

How can the writer of the first Psycho just make all these mistakes that contradict even the first movie? The one he wrote?

[–] ames0826 17 years ago

Having not seen this movie, I assume that Norman somehow avoided prosecution for killing Maureen Coyle (whom he didn't really murder anyway).

[–] CharlesVariations 17 years ago

Yea, he probably got off again with the insanity plea.

[–] Wolf1880 17 years ago

just look at it this way. Leo Richmond is his name he uses as an author. and a book IS what he is promoting on the show. his full name is probably Dr.Fredrick Leonard Richmond. that way Dr.Fred Richmond fits in and so does "Leo Richmond" which could be his name he uses as an author. it's not that far fetched. actually it's pretty logical sounding.

[–] mackbrockton 17 years ago

I'm sorry, but there's just no way in hell Norman could be released again after the events of Psycho III

[–] JoeX2525 14 years ago

No way in hell, but in a fictional movie, there it is.

[–] CharlesVariations 14 years ago

Of course there's no way in hell that he would be released a second time after the events of Psycho III, but yes, in a fictional movie, there is a way.

Psycho IV made references to the events of Psycho III therefor it does not ignore it and takes place in the same timeline.