Never became obscure? I think it did become obscure (inconspicuous or unimportant) ... I do not think the one's you listed ever did become obscure and now have too much momentum to ever become obscure.
For some odd reason PSYCHO movies are not seen as major players in horror. I will tell you why now... because most of the horror audience are simple minded and pleased by simplicity and no imagination. Which is why remakes are so popular in horror... no imagination equals audience response.
You take a movie like PSYCHO II.... ANY other franchise woulda and HAS taken the approach (theoretically) a bunch of kids break into the PSYCHO mansion to party and Norman breaks out of the mental asylum. He makes his way back home and "mother" kills the kids who are doing drugs, partying and having sex.
Instead PSYCHO (in reality) took the high road and had intricate plot points that perfectly matched the iconic PSYCHO before it. It was a psychological thriller and not a cheap use of the name and actors to make money. Time, care and effort were put into the film. Unfortunately that doesn't strike a chord with most retards who watch horror movies. Yet you can whip up a piece of shit like Friday3 in a week and recycle the first two movies... add NOTHING to the story or development of the character.... only throw in a new look and wallah... you have a "hit" that will be respected forever.
It's disgusting how things work if you ask me. Which you did
Oh you mean why didn't it ever jump the shark (the plot spins off into absurd storylines or unlikely characterizations. These changes were often the result of efforts to revive interest in a show whose audience had begun to decline, usually through the employment of different actors, writers or producers.)
Well that never happened because thy stopped after 4 and because Anthony Perkins would never participate in a Psycho that wasn't of top quality.
Post by Leatherface on Dec 15, 2010 20:19:17 GMT -5
And unlike a lot of Actors ( with the exception of Robert Eunglund) Perkins had power because he was so reconogizeable as Bates. Bates doesn't have a mask or a bizarre deforminity so it relies all on Perkins. And we've already seen what happens when you cast someone else as Norman.
Post by Leatherface on Dec 16, 2010 11:53:54 GMT -5
I agree that 3 was more slasher esq but atleast it wasnt as bad as say Halloween 6 or Friday 3 in which they turned the killer into a joke ( I know for Michael it happened sooner but 6 did the most damage) But 4 was a good origin story
Of course Psycho 3 tried to cash in on the slasher genre, so who's the ignorant and stupid one? (And no this is not directed to you specifically)
Oh I don't take offense at all over the masses mis-perception of PSYCHO III. The fact is only those who truly can comprehend the depth of PSYCHO III see it for what it actually is. While people who call themselves horror enthusiasts just don't get it for what it actually is. Anthony Perkins is a mad genius in terms of directing. That was his directorial debut.... NO ONE has ever made such an amazing movie on there first outing... no one....
That movie was so well written and directed it's actually astonishing.... What was brought to the screen and story was almost God sent. What they captured, developed and conveyed in the overall character of Norman Bates is astounding. The visuals are stimulating. The whole idea of everything coming in full circle between Marion and Maureen. Ms. Spool being outed as the fake she was and how well it was "fixed" after Psycho II pissed on the legend of Norman and mother at the end. Norman being submerged in the very swamps where so many of his victims breathed there last breath. Being submerged in his own hell he's created for others. Being surrounded by the lifeless corpses of whom he stole the precious gift of life from this world. The exercise in forgiveness...Maureen knowing Norman killed these people and still forgave and willing to go back into his arms. With only the faith that he could change. Just like he and Dr. Raymond believed the possibility existed.
Norman being so lovable even after we all KNOW he was killing everyone in the movie that the biggest scare of the movie was Duane (A VICTIM) jumping out of the back seat and stranglehold Norman right before Norman drove him to his watery grave! Just as captured in the original when the car didn't immediately sink, we all wanted Norman to get away with this. Hoping that he can thwart Duke's last ditch efforts to stay alive and get Norman instead. We all become the psycho as a viewer!
Even the writer, director and producer of The Psycho Legacy Robert Galluzzo agrees that Psycho III is the most interesting and his favorite of the franchise. And he is a major player in the horror business.
You can't just say Psycho I and II either. The character is strong throughout. No one ever completely understands Jasons motive and wants him to get away with anything... We are never rooting for him (unless they add the most annoying characters on earth to the script). Were not glad to see most of the cast die. With Norman you are so invested in the depth of the character that you are gripped in every scene. Hoping he get's away with everything. Jason doesn't even have that formula working for him. We aren't invested in him on that level whatsoever. Why? Poor writing. We already know that he's gonna get away with everything. Therefore all we are there to do is be entertained by creative kills which Psycho ALSO has... The difference in Norman killls only 2 to 6 people per movie. So it maintained a realistic feel that is long gone in any other franchise besides Halloween part 1. Friday 3 was a prime example of poor writing and surly the weakest entry in the series.
You have to look much deeper than a simple cash in Abraxas. The nature of Psycho doesn't let it be a mere cash in... there's just too much more.
So... ignorant and stupid? Nah... Who is the ignorant and stupid one? Guess we'll really never know...
However... if you think Psycho III is as shallow and a simple cash in like Friday 3 clearly was then I feel sorry for you. I have the same feeling if you think the writing of Friday 3 even scratches the depth of Psycho 3.
Of course Psycho 3 tried to cash in on the slasher genre, so who's the ignorant and stupid one?
makes zero seance anyway... oh as if you wouldn't have made the movie if someone offered you 15 million to make it? How is that your argument for my stupidity or ignorance? Does trying to make a living automatically entail writing a bullshit script? Because I know if I was asked, I would make my money and as a talented writer... write a great movie. Such as PSYCHO III was.
So what exactly backs you up? I know my comments are backed up... I just have to show ANYONE on earth who isn't emotionally invested in either movie, both of them back to back and I'm sure they will know exactly which one is a rushed, un-thought out, shallow, money making piece of shit. And which one is another great installment in the amazing franchise.
You just saying it was made to cash in holds no water... no shit. Is that some kind of news bulletin? Are you turning Hollywood upside down on it's head with this knowledge of yours? Are we to believe any movie was made for nothing but pure fun and no studios or anyone involved cared if there movie made them money, so they can continue this art form called film making? I'm lost here with your point.
I was just answering leatherfaces question where he added Psycho to the list of typical slasher movies. He used the wrong word so I answered a question that everyone knew already, including him. You decided to contest me and compare these "apples to razorblades". I never wanted to compare them in the first place.
I still don't know why you only point out the first Psycho, when clearly none of them should be compared to the Friday's or any other slasher franchise for the most part. Psycho III and IV go way deeper than any slasher movie you are bringing up.
Again in arguing points I come off like I don't LOVE these mindless slasher movies... I do... that's why we're here. That's why I do a radio show where I interview new writers, actors, directors and producers every week of the genre. Psycho movies are just better written psychological thrillers. Did Psycho III try to keep up with the gore? Possibly... doesn't mean it lost it's integrity.
Hell in Psycho II Mother butchered a kid in the basement. A motel manger getting his face slashed to pieces. Mother rammed a knife down a woman's throat. Norman was stabbed 5 times and grabbed a blade that sliced through his hands. Had a Dr. fall onto a knife that was already buried in his chest. Norman wacking a 90yr old lady over the head with a shovel. Yet, you never bring that up as a "sell out". If anything Psycho III was less of a "sellout" to what was going on in the 80's.
Think about it... Psycho 1 had a girl stabbed in the shower. A man falling down stairs and stabbed to death. Norman bashing a guy over the head with a heavy object.
Psycho III had a girl getting stabbed in a phone booth. A girl falling down the stairs into a statue (Norman didn't even go after her). Norman beating up a guy who stole his mother. Then drowning him... A girl getting her throat cut on a toilet bowl. THAT'S IT!
It doesn't sound far from Psycho 1 to me and Psycho II sounds worse... So I guess i don't exactly agree with you that Psycho 3 "tried to cash in on the slasher genre" I guess you will see it how you do. And I will see it for what it more or less is. Not because I'm smarter or more observant than you. But because I am more passionate about it than you and I get what they were doing artistically. The same way some people see how amazing the Mona Lisa is and some people think it's a boring painting of an ugly chick. It's all relative.
What do you guys think of this? I've never seen the original but heard it's a classic. Weird that they decided to do a sequel 20+ years later, and the results were pretty good. Whoever directed this did a fine job and Meg Tilly (around the same time she did "One Dark Night") was a fine choice as the lead actress as her and Norman share similar upbringings.
This makes me curious about seeing Psycho III and what it had to offer but I imagine it was a drop-off.
Actually PSYCHO III is my fav horror movie of all time. If you read some of my last few posts in this thread you will see why. The idea that is a drop off is a misperception, which I explain perfectly in the post above this one.
Sorry for resetting this in its own thread. I liked 3 as well even though the tone got cheeky as most mid-80s sequels were. I need to see IV first since it's sort of a prequel, and THEN view the original for the first time.
Post by Leatherface on Jun 11, 2011 13:25:01 GMT -5
I can never imagine Perkins as a bad guy. But with that being said that made him even more brilliant as Bates. Perkins had this look in his eye that you can trust him and taht you can hang out with him. That is scary when he was Norman bates. It's still shocking to me to see him dressed as mother at the end of the original. And I even have the action figure of him!