Talk:Psycho IV: The Beginning

HHN Maze of 2006

There is not point in mentioning the return of that maze because it has nothing to do with the movie. The original incarnation of the maze does only because it used the original set from the movie. The newer one didn't, they made a replica.--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I thinkg I've found it

The single worst line of prose in all of Wikipedia right here in this article: "The film ends with Norman burning down the Bates mansion to free himself of his past for good, but after the whole town is deserted, it shows the inside of the cellar, a misting ghostly shape is floating in the air, the ghost then gets a awful howling noise, then a very scary shot shows the ghost get real close to the camera, when the hissing sound says: Come Back For Me Norman! The dramatic voice and line was said by the one who plays Normans mother, Olivia Hussey."

What crap! Encyclopedia my arse... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the deletion?

On 27 May 2009, user "68.51.191.101" deleted a chunk of the already-brief plot summary. Why? Vandalism? Restoration suggested. The News Hound 10:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The News Hound (talk • contribs)

Followed by in Infobox. Query on Editors opinions?

I am aware that in the Infobox template for the 8th "Halloween" film Halloween: Resurrection it says "followed by" the subsequent Rob Zombie remake of the very first film. Likewise the Infobox template for the 3rd "Hills Have Eyes" film The Hills Have Eyes III it says "followed by" the mid-2000s remake. Nonetheless, I am not sure this is a good practice, and it seems unwarranted by the actual guidelines for the template Template:Infobox film which just says "If the film is part of a series, insert the film(s) that followed it in the series". I realize you would probably do this with Daniel Craig's appearance in Casino Royale which a reboot but NOT a remake!!! However, to do it with remakes strikes me as not really right, notwithstanding it has been done with the 2 above-mentioned film series. (Is the 2000s film of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe a followup to the 1990s BBC adaptation of The Silver Chair, the 4th Narnia book? I think not.)
I have as such for the second time reverted an edit to the Infobox of this film which says it is "followed by" the 1998 remake of the original Psycho. Any thoughts on this?--WickerGuy (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

DVD Releases and Series Continuity Sections

The Region 1 DVD releases are easily documented through Amazon.com. I have no doubt the Region 4 dates are correct, but I honestly don't know how to verify them. I'll look into some other articles for clues.

The series continuity section which was again deleted helps to clarify slightly unclear cited statements on the part of screenwriter Stefano and critic Robert Price which I think remain a bit cryptic without further clarification. Perhaps the material could just be worked into the sections that mention them.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

One issue with the Series Continuity section is that if no secondary sources have noted the discrepancies, it is arguably trivia and should not be discussed in the article. An analog would be the "Differences from the Novel" sections in the Harry Potter film articles. Doniago (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Series continuity redux

In the case of the "Differences from the Novel" sections on Harry Potter, clearly some differences are trivial and others are notable, and there are many many many differences to choose from re degrees of triviality. It's not as if (re Harry Potter) we are threatened with an endless list of gobs and gobs of continuity problems!!! (There are entire books devoted to continuity errors in Star Trek). I really want to call to attention to just one, which is fairly glaring, and due to deliberate decision on the part of the script writer. It has been little commented on largely because this film (Psycho IV) as a whole has gotten little comment.

The 2nd and 3rd movie introduce as a major character Norman's aunt, Emma Spool (for a while established as NB's mother- then we find this is just her delusion) who in the 3rd movie is said to have killed Norman Bate's father. As cited in the article, screenwriter Stefano (1st and 4th movie) has overtly stated he chose to ignore films 2 and 3 ("including all that stuff about Norman's mother [said to be E. Spool in 2nd film]") and as also cited one critic says this film "ignores much of the mythology". They are patently talking about Emma Spool.

Spool is said to have killed Norman's father in film 3 (due to a love triangle with him and Norman's mother), but she is absent from 4 according to which NB's father is killed by bee stings. This is the only series discontinuity, but seems to be self-evidently a fairly major one, which emerges not out of any carelessness but out of Stefano's conscious decision to discreetly and covertly retcon out the 2nd and 3rd film. Only Robert Price (as far as I can tell- I haven't seen the Psycho Legacy DVD yet) comments on this at length, but this seems to be reflective of the fact that as I said above this film in general has generated relatively little commentary.

I have cited the actual plot points from books that discuss the plots of 2 & 3. I have cited Price more than once as evidence that this is a significant error.

At any rate, this is the best I can do with the section for now. Does it still need the tag?--WickerGuy (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuity to part 2 and 3

The movie is not ignoring all events in part 2 and 3. Norman tells Fran on the telephone that his last murders happened four years ago. That clearly indicates the events of part 2 and 3. Sry for my bad english.93.128.88.167 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

An interesting observation. However, the statement that 2 & 3 are ignored is noted here as the opinion of critic Robert Price, not as fact.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Psycho IV: The Beginning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401083024/http://www.thepsychomovies.com/films/psycho4/mgarris.html to http://www.thepsychomovies.com/films/psycho4/mgarris.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)