• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

A&E devloping Psycho prequel series

Perkins isnt so unique anyway. Just look at Michael C. Hall and Anthony Hopkins who also created indelible serial killers. In Hall's case anyway, his performance is very distinct from the character in the source novels, and for my money, superior. I'm sure there's at least one talented young actor out there capable of performing the role of young Norman perfectly well.
 
^This series seems to be shorter than most and presumably doesn't tie her down as much.

Who knows, maybe her sister recommended doing a show like this, after her own experience on American Horror Story.
 
Greg Cox said:
23skidoo said:
This is yet another case of Hollywood missing the point and attempting to reinvent a character who was defined by his actor and nothing else. Yes, Hitchcock set the scene with a classic movie. But the character lived and breathed because of Anthony Perkins. Unless they've found a way to clone Perkins or bring him back from the dead, this strikes me as a useless exercise and simply a way for A&E to cash in on Dexter.
Click to expand...

With all due respect to Hitchcock and Perkins, it's worth pointing out once again that Norman Bates was created by Robert Bloch, who almost never gets the credit he deserves.

It's always appalled me how often Bloch gets ignored or dismissed when the topic of PSYCHO comes up . . . .
Click to expand...

Bloch's character was loosely based on Ed Gein, IIRC.
 
CaptJimboJones said:
Greg Cox said:
It's always appalled me how often Bloch gets ignored or dismissed when the topic of PSYCHO comes up . . . .
Click to expand...

Bloch's character was loosely based on Ed Gein, IIRC.
Click to expand...

Loosely. But Bloch invented the Bates Motel, the shower scene, the fact that Norman thinks he's his own mother, the fact that the seeming protagonist, Marion Crane, is abruptly killed off early on . . . all stuff that movie critics and journalists routinely credit to Hitchcock.

("Only Hitchcock would be bold enough to kill off the heroine a third of the way through the movie!"--despite the fact that this was straight from the novel.)

A few months ago, when the 50th anniversary of the movie rolled around, there was a flurry of gushing articles about the movie--and you really had to search to find any reference to Bloch. At best he got a subordinate clause or parenthetical aside. Usually, he's treated as a footnote.

And just try to find Bloch's name in the credits of the remake. It's buried in small type in the closing credits, alongside the key grip and the caterer.
 
Greg Cox said:
("Only Hitchcock would be bold enough to kill off the heroine a third of the way through the movie!"--despite the fact that this was straight from the novel.)
Click to expand...

Bloch has certainly been overlooked in appreciations of the movie (a fate that has befallen most of the authors of material adapted by Hitchcock to the screen, unfortunately). Even the screenwriters he employed have struggled for recognition under the great behemoth of Hitchcock's media personality.

On this point, however, I think Hitchcock deserves some credit, both for choosing to adapt Bloch's novel and staying true to it's twist where the heroine is murdered part way through. That was bold move for the novel, but an even bolder move for the movies -- especially in a 1960 studio production. Bloch deserves all the credit for coming up with it, though.
 
The other thing to note about the twist is that apparently in the late 50s and early 1960s, it would have been common for people to walk into a cinema halfway through a showing. They would then sit on through the next showing until they'd reached the point of the movie where they first came in (at the last showing) and then go home.

Hitch persuaded movie owners not to let audience members do this for Psycho, as he reckoned that seeing the movie in this fashion would diminish the power of the twist, whereby the movie's apparent heroine was killed off so brutally and relatively early.
 
Harvey said:
Greg Cox said:
("Only Hitchcock would be bold enough to kill off the heroine a third of the way through the movie!"--despite the fact that this was straight from the novel.)
Click to expand...

Bloch has certainly been overlooked in appreciations of the movie (a fate that has befallen most of the authors of material adapted by Hitchcock to the screen, unfortunately). Even the screenwriters he employed have struggled for recognition under the great behemoth of Hitchcock's media personality.

On this point, however, I think Hitchcock deserves some credit, both for choosing to adapt Bloch's novel and staying true to it's twist where the heroine is murdered part way through. That was bold move for the novel, but an even bolder move for the movies -- especially in a 1960 studio production. Bloch deserves all the credit for coming up with it, though.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I'm a huge Hitchcock fan; I was watching a documentary on the making of North by Northwest just the other day. And he certainly deserves plenty of credit for directing the movie as effectively as he did.

It's just that Bloch's contributions often get swept under the rug, as though Norman Bates sprang directly from Hitch's brow . . . .

(I've actually met people, even in the film industry, who had no idea that PSYCHO was based on a book . . . .)
 
^^
Oh, I totally agree that Bloch (along with plenty of other authors and screenwriters) deserve much more credit for their contributions. Value added content for Hitchcock films tends to suggest that Hitchcock exercised total control over his screenwriters, firing them if they didn't do exactly what he wanted. (1) This is probably an exaggeration and (2) It manages to ignore the fact that most of Hitchcock's films were adaptations of books or plays.
 
Yeah, Robert Bloch deserves a lot more credit than he ever got. It's a shame, but pretty normal (except for movies that are adapted from "blockbuster" novels where they exploit the connection for publicity).

Anyway, I just found out about this Psycho series and I have mixed feelings. I certainly like the fact that it is (or seems to be) an expansion of the Psycho mythos rather than a re-make, re-imagining, re-boot or other kind of regurgitation. I wonder if it will really be (or even can be) consistent with the backstory in Psycho IV. The biggest problem is that they must re-cast Norman. Norman Bates is one of my all-time favorite characters and I have a really hard time with the re-casting of iconic screen characters; this is one of those cases where the actor really made the character. I know we had another actor playing young Norman in IV, but that was mitigated by having the "aging bad seed" himself present.

I guess I'll give it a try when it appears. There's no way I can resist that spooky motel and mansion-- to me that place is as iconic as Kong Island or the Black Lagoon. But they'll have a hard time pleasing me. :rommie:
 
There's no need to be consistent with Psycho IV. That movie -- like all of sequels to the original, really -- was mediocre at best. If they want to spend time being "in continuity" with something, they should just stick to the 1960 film.
 
Spock is my favorite character of all time, and I accepted the recasting. Granted, the stars aligned so perfectly for that, it's still a bit surreal. What are the odds there would be an actor just the right age, looks, persona and talent for any given role?
 
^^ One thing nuTrek got right was the casting, which was pretty amazing. Another good example was River Phoenix as young Indy in Last Crusade. So it's not impossible-- just unlikely.

Harvey said:
There's no need to be consistent with Psycho IV. That movie -- like all of sequels to the original, really -- was mediocre at best. If they want to spend time being "in continuity" with something, they should just stick to the 1960 film.
Click to expand...
Actually, Psycho II was excellent. The other two were mediocre, but entertaining. But you're probably right that they will stick with the original-- at best, because that would mean setting the show in the 40s or 50s, and it remains to be seen if that will be the case.
 
I've seen Psycho II and it could hardly be called an "excellent" film. At best, it's okay, perhaps slightly better than the next two films in the series because of Vera Miles. All the sequel films really have going for them, of course, is that they talked Anthony Perkins into returning as Norman Bates. That was enough for me to watch all of them -- once -- but I can't imagine I'll waste time revisiting any of them.
 
Oh, well. I liked II a lot. The focus was entirely on the character of Norman, and the plot successfully turned the tables and made him the sympathetic victim. I thought it was well written and directed.
 
An "original, multi-layered" take. In other words, a re-imagining. There's nothing in the original body of work to indicate that Norman didn't have a brother, but it sure seems unlikely.

Maybe Dylan Bates will be a folk-singing serial killer. :rommie:

"How many girls must a man stab to death, before you call him a psycho...?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top