MovieChat Forums > Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990) Discussion > Connected to II and III?

Connected to II and III?

posted 18 years ago by BrianCTyler
26 replies | jump to latest

I hear people say that PSYCHO IV pretty much ignores II and III. However, I disagree.

So, PSYCHO took place in 1960.

PSYCHO II was twenty-two years later, so that is 1982. According to the back cover of PSYCHO III (at least the vhs version), it is only one month after PSYCHO II.

That puts about ten years between III and IV. Don't you think that is enough time for Norman to realize he is completely free of mother, meet and fall in love with Connie, and show that he is rehabilitated? I mean, of course they were probably very worried about releasing Norman a second time after he killed five people after they released him the first, but they could have made sure he stayed away from the motel and with Connie. That makes perfect sense to me.

I don't see how PSYCHO IV makes it look like II and III never happened. I think the series flows great together. In my opinion, it is the best horror series ever.

[–] Richard_Albiston 18 years ago

Na, Psycho IV can't ignore II and III beacuse, half way through the movie the blond woman who works in the radio station says "Norman Bates left town years ago after the last murders at the motel" and Psycho IV is set only 4 years after Psycho III.

[–] AriBreck 18 years ago

Why 4 years?

[–] Richard_Albiston 18 years ago

Just before Norman reviels his name to Fran for the first time and talking about having is mothers "seed" in him. He says -

"After the last murder 4 years ago, murders...plural. I either wanted to be executed or locked awayt foir the rest of my life so I'd never hurt anyone again. I wanted to protect the World from this ageing bad seed known as Norman Bates."

So Psycho IV is set four years after Psycho III....

[–] BrianCTyler 18 years ago

I guess the one month later thing on the back of the PSYCHO III vhs was a mistake.

[–] Richard_Albiston 18 years ago

No it wasn't. This is how it goes:

Psycho

Psycho II - is set 22 Years After Psycho

Psycho III - is set One Month After Psycho II

Psycho IV - is set Four Years After Psycho III

[–] Heimpi 18 years ago

Psycho 3 can't be set just one month after 2. Norman looks much older in it.

[–] daveyboy2k5 18 years ago

Umm, yes because it was made three years later, that's why Anthony Perkins (and everyone else) looks older, that doesn't change the fact that it's set a month or so after Psycho II.

[–] BrianCTyler 18 years ago

Yeah, like DRACULA'S DAUGHTER takes place directly after DRACULA but it is actually made five years later.

[–] Heimpi 18 years ago

But if it was set only a month after Psycho II, then how come Miss Spool's corpse looked so old? It looked like it had been dead for quite a while, more than a month at least, from what I remember.

[–] re_zuleta 18 years ago

Continuity, continuity is the key ... some writers, or screenplay writers decided to set the story within a certain time frame. In this case, PSYCHO II's story takes place in Nov. 1982, while the movie was released in 1983; and PSYCHO III's story, although filmed in 1985 and released in 1986, takes place within 4 weeks (a month) after the events in "PSYCHO II."

"BATES MOTEL" (TV movie), might've fit perfectly into continuity (- minus a few insonsistencies w/-the original novel, and movie) following Part 3, and NORMAN returning to the Mental Institution, supposedly for good.

"PSYCHO IV" it's a bit of a PREQUEL, and sequel continuing story from the previous 2 movies. But for some reason, some fans don't consider it canon w/- the previous chapters. Funny thing is, ROBERT BLOCH the author of the original novel 'PSYCHO,' which the first movie was based on, wrote a sequel novel, "PSYCHO 2" but it's not the same story that appears on screen. He took the events from the original book and novel, and went on a different direction than Universal Studios and the franchise producers.

One bone I do have with Part 4, was that NORMAN's mother was depicted in her mid to late 30's. Maybe early 40's. While in the original movie, and especially in 'PSYCHO II' (backstory-flashbacks) they show depict 'mother' as an old lady. Hands all wrinkly, pruned, as if she had been Norman's grandmother rather than the young 'Olivia Hussey.'

"Rezuleta"
[email protected]

[–] Heimpi 18 years ago

But the point is, the Psycho sequels aren't sequels to each other, for example, Psycho 2 isn't a sequel to Psycho 3, and 3 isn't a sequel to 4. They are all sequels to the original Psycho. The sequels have no relation to one another whatsoever. Each one of the directors, Richard Franklin, Anthony Perkins and Mick Garris all took the original and made a sequel (or a prequel) to it. So if you see it like that, it doesn't really matter about the continuity errors. See what I mean?

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

[–] BrianCTyler 18 years ago

I don't see how you could say that. PSYCHO III obviously follows the story from PSYCHO II, while in PSYCHO IV the 'other murders' at the Bates Motel were mentioned. They are all sequels to each other.

[–] re_zuleta 18 years ago

Here, here 'I agree with you 'briantylerockssocks,'
I mean 'funky29' have you even watched the films?
Sure, there maybe a few inconsistencies with the original 'Hitchock' PSYCHO film, or even the book/novel; but at least 2 and 3 piggyback ride on each other ...Part IV might be more of a reimagining/PREQUEL and continuing from the original film. But it may also connect or continue from the ending of 'PSYCHO III.'
The one chapter of the series that has little, if anything at all to do with the story, is "BATES MOTEL." But don't even get me started with that.

"Rezuleta"
[email protected]

[–] Heimpi 18 years ago

Of course I've watched the movies! It was just my opinion.

OK, maybe you have a point, but I just said that to fix all those continuity errors that were mentioned before. Anyway, I think Joseph Stefano wrote Psycho IV pretending that II and III didn't exist. So in that sense Psycho IV is kind of a sequel to the original. It isn't connected with II or III at all.

[–] re_zuleta 18 years ago

You're partly right 'funky29.'
I think both 'PSYCHO IV' and 'BATES MOTEL' tend to ignore a few concrete facts from the original book and 1960 movie. Both were 'Made for TV movies,' and were a bit of a retelling of sorts of where the original PSYCHO story might've lead to, if the series/story had taken an alternate route - rather than the course it took w/- Parts 2 and 3.
I mean just because the 1998 (reimagining) film is called: "PSYCHO" you can't exactly fit it with this series continuity, am I right?

"Rezuleta"
[email protected]

[–] Heimpi 18 years ago

Yes, you're right. If it's a remake then it's a completely dfferent "experiment". It doesn't have to fit in with the rest of the films.

But the remake should never have been made anyway!

[–] apotter3427 18 years ago

Not to mention Poltergeist 2! It took place one year after the original, however, the movie itself was actually made four years later.

[–] daveyboy2k5 18 years ago

Psycho II is without doubt a sequel to Psycho. I'm not aware of any inconsistancies between these two movies, although there may be some.

Psycho III is a direct sequel to Psycho II, apart from the unavoidable age differences (and the corpse looking older which I guess was a creative decision, the same way Jason changes between Friday movies).

Bates Motel was a spin-off, it ignores Psycho's II & III, taking place some 27 years (or so) after Psycho. It takes a few liberties with the story (and replaces Fairvale with Fairville!).

Psycho IV then picks up the story 4 years after Psycho III. Again, it changes the facts, mother being in her mid 40's rather than her 50's or 60's which Psycho II implied. (Although Mrs. Spool was that kind of age in II, so really unless she was a much older sister then Norma would have been late 30's-40's before the original when she'd been killed).

So, it's fair to say there are errors throughout the series but (apart from Bates Motel) they do follow a fairly accurate timeline.

[–] itsmrbigtoyou 18 years ago

Just remeber, that this is a fanatastic television horoor miniseries and that these are TV years, so it can be set in anytime in the future!

[–] rcarey1979 18 years ago

Miniseries???? How was this a "miniseries" it was a stand alone film, albeit made for cable.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] amyfromhell 18 years ago

Isn't there a big discrepency between how Norman's father dies in Psycho 4, and how his death is described as a murder by Norman's crazy aunt in 3?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] re_zuleta 18 years ago

That whole thing regarding 'Norman's' supposed 'crazy' aunt (at the ending of "PSYCHO II" is debateable (maybe even non-canon). Remember, she claims to be 'Norman's real mother, but in "PSYCHO III" this is later discovered to be a lie. And on top of that, in one version of the orig. "PSYCHO" and "PSYCHO II" Norma Bates (Norman's mother) is supposed to have died a very old-woman (late 50's, early 60's). Not a 40 something old NORMA BATES, as portrayed by Olivia Hussey.

REzuleta

[–] Greenie-9 18 years ago

I always wondered about mother being an old lady when Norman poisoned her until I rewatched Psycho IV. I think the writer(s) realized this little possible barrier in continuity so they had Norman mention something along the lines of "In my mind after my mother's death, she had aged and I heard her voice in that manner". It sort of balanced out that- yes, Norma Bates was killed in her 40s, but Norman's mind added the old lady voice to depict that she had aged as time went on. Sure, there are little random continuity errors, but God knows there are so many other horror series out there that do nothing to keep things consistent. The time span in the Elm St. and Friday series are way out of balance. Same goes for Star Trek. Anyway, Psycho is a great series. I think the first was the best, the second one was an excellently written sequel, the third one was ok but written more to an 80s gore audience, and the final chapter was a great wrapping on things.