Bates Motel has the same relationship with Psycho that Smallville had with the Christopher Reeve Superman films. It finds a way to re-use iconography from a previous telling of the story without being bogged down by continuity.
Just enjoy it for what it is, rather than lament the missed opportunity to do a period prequel which had already been done in 1990.
But Smallville wasn't a prequel to the Reeve films. It was based on the comics, and updated to present day. As it went on it used Iconography from the Reeve films.
But it didn't set itself out as a prequel to those from the outset. It didn't use exact recreations of the Kent farm as settings, and it didn't spend the first ten minutes pretending it was the fifties for Clarke to then pull out a mobile phone.
So, its not a prequel, but is advertised as a prequel, and described as a prequel on several sites and channel guides.
Its not a prequel, but they are meticulously recreate the Bates Motel sets from the original film? Seems awfully confused about what it wants to be.
And one of the creators IS a Lost writer, no idea why the capitals there, and as I said that should have been warning enough.
I will say though, having watched Psycho again the other night before watching this, the set has been redone faultlessly. Someone should get a pat on the back for that. Although, if its nothing to do with the film, its bizarre why they'd use it.
It's set in present day, Psycho was set in the 60s. It clearly isn't a prequel. It's based on Psycho and gives a nod to the movie. Why are you still going on about it as if it matters??
It's set in present day, Psycho was set in the 60s. It clearly isn't a prequel. It's based on Psycho and gives a nod to the movie. Why are you still going on about it as if it matters??
I'm not "going on about it", its a forum, people reply to something you post, and you in turn reply to them. I believe that's the skinny on how it works.
Its a bit rude, if someone has taken the time to respond, to not show them the same courtesy, regardless if you agree or not.
But Smallville wasn't a prequel to the Reeve films.
Just like Bates Motel isn't a prequel to the 1960 or 1998 versions of Psycho. It's a prologue to an as yet unmade modern version which finds a way to incorporate iconography from the previous versions.
It remains to be seen whether they will end just before the familiar story or carry on and do a full remake. The Hannibal series, for example, plans to eventually do its own version of Red Dragon and possibly the other Hannibal Lecter books.
It was based on the comics, and updated to present day. As it went on it used Iconography from the Reeve films.
But it didn't set itself out as a prequel to those from the outset. It didn't use exact recreations of the Kent farm as settings, and it didn't spend the first ten minutes pretending it was the fifties for Clarke to then pull out a mobile phone.
To be fair, promotional material for the series has made it abundantly clear that it's not a 1950s period piece. Even if you were somehow hoodwinked by the first ten minutes, can't you just accept it for what it is?
Just like Bates Motel isn't a prequel to the 1960 or 1998 versions of Psycho. It's a prologue to an as yet unmade modern version which finds a way to incorporate iconography from the previous versions.
It remains to be seen whether they will end just before the familiar story or carry on and do a full remake. The Hannibal series, for example, plans to eventually do its own version of Red Dragon and possibly the other Hannibal Lecter books.
To be fair, promotional material for the series has made it abundantly clear that it's not a 1950s period piece. Even if you were somehow hoodwinked by the first ten minutes, can't you just accept it for what it is?
The adverts, which showed the hotel, house and the Bateses? Batesi? The mother and Norman in 50s clothing, didn't give any hint of it being modern day, and I didn't even think it would be as its being advertised as a prequel. As I said, when the iphone popped out, and the car of valley girl types turned up just before the first ad break, I turned it off.
The adverts, which showed the hotel, house and the Bateses? Batesi? The mother and Norman in 50s clothing, didn't give any hint of it being modern day, and I didn't even think it would be as its being advertised as a prequel. As I said, when the iphone popped out, and the car of valley girl types turned up just before the first ad break, I turned it off.
Nice to see you have an informed opinion. Perhaps you get a column on DS to write reviews of TV shows and films you haven't watched properly?
Nice to see you have an informed opinion. Perhaps you get a column on DS to write reviews of TV shows and films you haven't watched properly?
Where did I proclaim otherwise?
On my very first post I said I had turned off after the first break?
After sitting through the '98 modern remake, I wasn't doing it again, but I found the idea of a prequel leading up to the original film intriguing, hence why I had watched Psycho the night before in preparation for watching it, as it was being marketed as a prequel, not a remake.
Its Psycho for Gods sake, you don't remake good things that are practically perfect in the first place. The burden of comparison is normally too heavy, and with few exceptions, remakes are always poorer.
Where did I proclaim otherwise?
On my very first post I said I had turned off after the first break?
After sitting through the '98 modern remake, I wasn't doing it again, but I found the idea of a prequel leading up to the original film intriguing, hence why I had watched Psycho the night before in preparation for watching it, as it was being marketed as a prequel, not a remake.
Its Psycho for Gods sake, you don't remake good things that are practically perfect in the first place. The burden of comparison is normally too heavy, and with few exceptions, remakes are always poorer.
We don't even know if there will be a remake yet. They may just end the series with Norman and "Mother" in the motel before Marion Crane arrives.
Your prejudice against this series does seem irrational. It is far superior to Psycho IV (the 50s prequel), Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake and the frankly bizarre Bates Motel TV Movie (which was a Fantasy Island-style comedy).
By all means, tell us why you didn't watch it. Just don't expect people who actually watched and enjoyed the show to think your uninformed opinion counts for anything.
We don't even know if there will be a remake yet. They may just end the series with Norman and "Mother" in the motel before Marion Crane arrives.
Your prejudice against this series does seem irrational. It is far superior to Psycho IV (the 50s prequel), Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake and the frankly bizarre Bates Motel TV Movie (which was a Fantasy Island-style comedy).
By all means, tell us why you didn't watch it. Just don't expect people who actually watched and enjoyed the show to think your uninformed opinion counts for anything.
Where did I state I expected anything?
I simply left a comment on the forum about Bates Motel stating that, as its been advertised as a prequel, I had turned over after the first break as it was modern day which made nonsense, especially as the first 10 minutes had made such use of period settings.
All I have done since then is reply to anyone who has responded or replied. I haven't asked or begged anyone to take an opinion on board. I've simply replied, a lot more politely than you have, to a response. Again, as I said above, isn't that how forums are supposed to work?
And to answer the other parts of your post. I've never seen any of the sequels to Psycho as, its not a film that demands a sequel and two, whoever makes it is not going to be Hitchcock, so its already the poorer before its begun.
I did make the mistake of watch the Van Sant remake, which was dreadful. It also kind of backs up my point of Psycho without Hitchock is already poorer, as they used pretty much the same script and shots.
Where did I state I expected anything?
I simply left a comment on the forum about Bates Motel stating that, as its been advertised as a prequel, I had turned over after the first break as it was modern day which made nonsense, especially as the first 10 minutes had made such use of period settings.
All I have done since then is reply to anyone who has responded or replied. I haven't asked or begged anyone to take an opinion on board. I've simply replied, a lot more politely than you have, to a response. Again, as I said above, isn't that how forums are supposed to work?
Well, the idea of a forum is debate and discussion. If your opening gambit is to say "I'm not even watching it beyond the first ten minutes because of Reason X", then it will be quite difficult to sustain any sort of discussion with people who are actually following the programme.
Honestly, what is the point in announcing you're not watching something?
As for wanting a prequel to Hitchcock's Psycho, well that dead horse has already been well and truly flogged in three separate continuities: Movie Sequels
Psycho II and Psycho III cover the backstory of Norman's parents and Emma Spool. To me, the original film and these two sequels are the true canon. TV Movie Sequel 1
Bates Motel (1987) has its own bizarre backstory which made me think the writers hadn't even bothered to watch Psycho. TV Movie Sequel/Prequel 2
Despite its title, Psycho IV: The Beginning ignores the Emma Spool backstory from II and III and acts as a direct sequel and prequel to the original. If you want a 1950s-based prequel, this is the one for you.
So we already have three contradictory versions of the events leading up to Hitchcock's Psycho. And you're disappointed that the waters weren't further muddied with a fourth? (That's before we even consider the separate canons of Robert Bloch's books and Gus Van Sant's movie remake.)
Starting afresh makes much more sense than making an expensive 50s-based series which would fight for legitimacy amongst all the other spin-offs from the 1960 film.
And to answer the other parts of your post. I've never seen any of the sequels to Psycho as, its not a film that demands a sequel and two, whoever makes it is not going to be Hitchcock, so its already the poorer before its begun.
I did make the mistake of watch the Van Sant remake, which was dreadful. It also kind of backs up my point of Psycho without Hitchock is already poorer, as they used pretty much the same script and shots.
To be fair, Psycho II and III build on the original quite well. Of course, if you don't watch them, you can never have an informed opinion on them.
Conversely, I was very disappointed with the TV Movie Psycho IV which is exactly the sort of prequel you wanted the new series to be.
Well, the idea of a forum is debate and discussion. If your opening gambit is to say "I'm not even watching it beyond the first ten minutes because of Reason X", then it will be quite difficult to sustain any sort of discussion with people who are actually following the programme.
Honestly, what is the point in announcing you're not watching something?
As for wanting a prequel to Hitchcock's Psycho, well that dead horse has already been well and truly flogged in three separate continuities: Movie Sequels
Psycho II and Psycho III cover the backstory of Norman's parents and Emma Spool. To me, the original film and these two sequels are the true canon. TV Movie Sequel 1
Bates Motel (1987) has its own bizarre backstory which made me think the writers hadn't even bothered to watch Psycho. TV Movie Sequel/Prequel 2
Despite its title, Psycho IV: The Beginning ignores the Emma Spool backstory from II and III and acts as a direct sequel and prequel to the original. If you want a 1950s-based prequel, this is the one for you.
So we already have three contradictory versions of the events leading up to Hitchcock's Psycho. And you're disappointed that the waters weren't further muddied with a fourth? (That's before we even consider the separate canons of Robert Bloch's books and Gus Van Sant's movie remake.)
Starting afresh makes much more sense than making an expensive 50s-based series which would fight for legitimacy amongst all the other spin-offs from the 1960 film.
To be fair, Psycho II and III build on the original quite well. Of course, if you don't watch them, you can never have an informed opinion on them.
Conversely, I was very disappointed with the TV Movie Psycho IV which is exactly the sort of prequel you wanted the new series to be.
To be honest, how much more expensive would a fully period setting be? They've build the main set, they've kitted out the Bateses in 50s garb, they've got them a nifty 50s motor, its a small town setting, and they never change, so location set dressing wouldn't be a huge task there. Plus they'd save a few hundred bucks reinvesting the iphone budget back into the production budget.
To be honest, how much more expensive would a fully period setting be? They've build the main set, they've kitted out the Bateses in 50s garb, they've got them a nifty 50s motor, its a small town setting, and they never change, so location set dressing wouldn't be a huge task there. Plus they'd save a few hundred bucks reinvesting the iphone budget back into the production budget.
I doubt there is an iPhone budget. Apple often supplies hardware for free to TV and film production companies. Such Product Placement deals would be limited if Bates Motel had to find sponsors who were around in the 1950s.
There's a lot more to recreating the 1950s than you imagine. Locations have to be chosen carefully to exclude anachronisms. Every shop and every house would have to be filled with new-looking vintage products. They would also need to source literally dozens of classic cars. (Modern cars are another common source of PP revenue.) Wardrobe would need be limited to what was worn during a specific year such as 1954, as opposed to the generic 50s/60s-ish look of the current outfits.
Honestly, the budget for a series like Bates Motel would probably double.
I doubt there is an iPhone budget. Apple often supplies hardware for free to TV and film production companies. Such Product Placement deals would be limited if Bates Motel had to find sponsors who were around in the 1950s.
There's a lot more to recreating the 1950s than you imagine. Locations have to be chosen carefully to exclude anachronisms. Every shop and every house would have to be filled with new-looking vintage products. They would also need to source literally dozens of classic cars. (Modern cars are another common source of PP revenue.)
Honestly, the budget for a series like Bates Motel would probably double.
Sorry, I was joking with the iphone budget, perhaps they could do a deal with Armitage Shanks or someone similar, and have someone offed in one of their vintage range bath suites weekly?
Joe Bloggs was slaughtered in the Armitage Shanks Vincenzo Suite this week. Available now in all good bathroom showrooms.
Sorry, I was joking with the iphone budget, perhaps they could do a deal with Armitage Shanks or someone similar, and have someone offed in one of their vintage range bath suites weekly?
Joe Bloggs was slaughtered in the Armitage Shanks Vincenzo Suite this week. Available now in all good bathroom showrooms.
If you're asking about Product Placement, Apple is well known for informal PP deals which involve supplying hardware for free.
"Apple won't pay to have their products featured, but they are more than willing to hand out an endless amount of computers, iPads and iPhones," said Gavin Polone, producer of HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm. "It's kind of a graft situation."
At least iPhones are something that fit in with the world of Bates Motel. The endless supply of shiny new Hyundais in The Walking Dead, for example, really stretches the credibility of that show.
At least iPhones are something that fit in with the world of Bates Motel. The endless supply of shiny new Hyundais in The Walking Dead, for example, really stretches the credibility of that show.
No I wasn't asking theshane about product placement. I was wondering how he knew the dead guy was in an armitage shanks bath if he switched off after 10 minutes.
No I wasn't asking theshane about product placement. I was wondering how he knew the dead guy was in an armitage shanks bath if he switched off after 10 minutes.
I was amazed at all the hardcore sex scenes with Miss Watson and Norma Bates after the first ad break.:eek:
No I wasn't asking theshane about product placement. I was wondering how he knew the dead guy was in an armitage shanks bath if he switched off after 10 minutes.
Its a program based on Psycho. People are going to get killed in the shower and end up out back in the swamp.
You don't need to watch an episode of Star Trek to know someone's going to fire a phaser. Same with a Psycho show, or a 'Psyshow' if you will.
What hardcore scenes with Miss Watson? Holding Normans hand was hardcore??
To be fair, the bit where she bent down and Norman could see she wasn't wearing panties was very graphic. But I was thinking more of her sex scene with Norma. I was glad I didn't switch off after the first ten minutes.;)
To be fair, the bit where she bent down and Norman could see she wasn't wearing panties was very graphic. But I was thinking more of her sex scene with Norma. I was glad I didn't switch off after the first ten minutes.;)
If there was going to be a hot girl on girl scene in it my Shane Senses would have been tingling.
Not only would it not have been turned over, but it would have been recorded and also downloaded as a safety backup.
Its a program based on Psycho. People are going to get killed in the shower and end up out back in the swamp.
You don't need to watch an episode of Star Trek to know someone's going to fire a phaser. Same with a Psycho show, or a 'Psyshow' if you will.
So you knew there would be a dead guy in a bath even though you didn't watch it? Maybe you should change your username to Psychic Shane.
Comments
But Smallville wasn't a prequel to the Reeve films. It was based on the comics, and updated to present day. As it went on it used Iconography from the Reeve films.
But it didn't set itself out as a prequel to those from the outset. It didn't use exact recreations of the Kent farm as settings, and it didn't spend the first ten minutes pretending it was the fifties for Clarke to then pull out a mobile phone.
It's set in present day, Psycho was set in the 60s. It clearly isn't a prequel. It's based on Psycho and gives a nod to the movie. Why are you still going on about it as if it matters??
I'm not "going on about it", its a forum, people reply to something you post, and you in turn reply to them. I believe that's the skinny on how it works.
Its a bit rude, if someone has taken the time to respond, to not show them the same courtesy, regardless if you agree or not.
It remains to be seen whether they will end just before the familiar story or carry on and do a full remake. The Hannibal series, for example, plans to eventually do its own version of Red Dragon and possibly the other Hannibal Lecter books. To be fair, promotional material for the series has made it abundantly clear that it's not a 1950s period piece. Even if you were somehow hoodwinked by the first ten minutes, can't you just accept it for what it is?
The adverts, which showed the hotel, house and the Bateses? Batesi? The mother and Norman in 50s clothing, didn't give any hint of it being modern day, and I didn't even think it would be as its being advertised as a prequel. As I said, when the iphone popped out, and the car of valley girl types turned up just before the first ad break, I turned it off.
Where did I proclaim otherwise?
On my very first post I said I had turned off after the first break?
After sitting through the '98 modern remake, I wasn't doing it again, but I found the idea of a prequel leading up to the original film intriguing, hence why I had watched Psycho the night before in preparation for watching it, as it was being marketed as a prequel, not a remake.
Its Psycho for Gods sake, you don't remake good things that are practically perfect in the first place. The burden of comparison is normally too heavy, and with few exceptions, remakes are always poorer.
Your prejudice against this series does seem irrational. It is far superior to Psycho IV (the 50s prequel), Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake and the frankly bizarre Bates Motel TV Movie (which was a Fantasy Island-style comedy).
By all means, tell us why you didn't watch it. Just don't expect people who actually watched and enjoyed the show to think your uninformed opinion counts for anything.
You either enjoy shows like this or you don't.
Where did I state I expected anything?
I simply left a comment on the forum about Bates Motel stating that, as its been advertised as a prequel, I had turned over after the first break as it was modern day which made nonsense, especially as the first 10 minutes had made such use of period settings.
All I have done since then is reply to anyone who has responded or replied. I haven't asked or begged anyone to take an opinion on board. I've simply replied, a lot more politely than you have, to a response. Again, as I said above, isn't that how forums are supposed to work?
And to answer the other parts of your post. I've never seen any of the sequels to Psycho as, its not a film that demands a sequel and two, whoever makes it is not going to be Hitchcock, so its already the poorer before its begun.
I did make the mistake of watch the Van Sant remake, which was dreadful. It also kind of backs up my point of Psycho without Hitchock is already poorer, as they used pretty much the same script and shots.
Honestly, what is the point in announcing you're not watching something?
As for wanting a prequel to Hitchcock's Psycho, well that dead horse has already been well and truly flogged in three separate continuities:
Movie Sequels
Psycho II and Psycho III cover the backstory of Norman's parents and Emma Spool. To me, the original film and these two sequels are the true canon.
TV Movie Sequel 1
Bates Motel (1987) has its own bizarre backstory which made me think the writers hadn't even bothered to watch Psycho.
TV Movie Sequel/Prequel 2
Despite its title, Psycho IV: The Beginning ignores the Emma Spool backstory from II and III and acts as a direct sequel and prequel to the original. If you want a 1950s-based prequel, this is the one for you.
So we already have three contradictory versions of the events leading up to Hitchcock's Psycho. And you're disappointed that the waters weren't further muddied with a fourth? (That's before we even consider the separate canons of Robert Bloch's books and Gus Van Sant's movie remake.)
Starting afresh makes much more sense than making an expensive 50s-based series which would fight for legitimacy amongst all the other spin-offs from the 1960 film. To be fair, Psycho II and III build on the original quite well. Of course, if you don't watch them, you can never have an informed opinion on them.
Conversely, I was very disappointed with the TV Movie Psycho IV which is exactly the sort of prequel you wanted the new series to be.
To be honest, how much more expensive would a fully period setting be? They've build the main set, they've kitted out the Bateses in 50s garb, they've got them a nifty 50s motor, its a small town setting, and they never change, so location set dressing wouldn't be a huge task there. Plus they'd save a few hundred bucks reinvesting the iphone budget back into the production budget.
There's a lot more to recreating the 1950s than you imagine. Locations have to be chosen carefully to exclude anachronisms. Every shop and every house would have to be filled with new-looking vintage products. They would also need to source literally dozens of classic cars. (Modern cars are another common source of PP revenue.) Wardrobe would need be limited to what was worn during a specific year such as 1954, as opposed to the generic 50s/60s-ish look of the current outfits.
Honestly, the budget for a series like Bates Motel would probably double.
Sorry, I was joking with the iphone budget, perhaps they could do a deal with Armitage Shanks or someone similar, and have someone offed in one of their vintage range bath suites weekly?
Joe Bloggs was slaughtered in the Armitage Shanks Vincenzo Suite this week. Available now in all good bathroom showrooms.
How do you know that?
At least iPhones are something that fit in with the world of Bates Motel. The endless supply of shiny new Hyundais in The Walking Dead, for example, really stretches the credibility of that show.
No I wasn't asking theshane about product placement. I was wondering how he knew the dead guy was in an armitage shanks bath if he switched off after 10 minutes.
Its a program based on Psycho. People are going to get killed in the shower and end up out back in the swamp.
You don't need to watch an episode of Star Trek to know someone's going to fire a phaser. Same with a Psycho show, or a 'Psyshow' if you will.
If there was going to be a hot girl on girl scene in it my Shane Senses would have been tingling.
Not only would it not have been turned over, but it would have been recorded and also downloaded as a safety backup.
So you knew there would be a dead guy in a bath even though you didn't watch it? Maybe you should change your username to Psychic Shane.