Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
* Minor question: in ''Film/PsychoIVTheBeginning'', how does Norman know Holly (the girl he stabs at the beginning?) are they already boyfriend and girlfriend? Or did her family just happen to be staying at the hotel and she had the hots for him?
to:
* Minor question: in ''Film/PsychoIVTheBeginning'', how does Norman know Holly (the girl he stabs at the beginning?) are they already boyfriend and girlfriend? Or did her family just happen to be staying at the hotel and she had the hots for him?him?
* In ''Film/PsychoII'', why did [[spoiler:Emma Spool]] never target Mary despite killing her mother and Mr. Toomey (for trying to make Norman's life difficult), and the teenage boy who had been making love in the fruit cellar of the Bates House (presumably for trespassing on Norman's property)? Did she realize that Mary had a change of heart from involvement in her mother's schemes, have some affection for her from when they worked at Statler's Diner together, or simply never got the opportunity to murder her?
* In ''Film/PsychoII'', why did [[spoiler:Emma Spool]] never target Mary despite killing her mother and Mr. Toomey (for trying to make Norman's life difficult), and the teenage boy who had been making love in the fruit cellar of the Bates House (presumably for trespassing on Norman's property)? Did she realize that Mary had a change of heart from involvement in her mother's schemes, have some affection for her from when they worked at Statler's Diner together, or simply never got the opportunity to murder her?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Question marks are cool.
Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
* Why didn't Norman call the cops when he was a teenager and his mother was abusing him.
to:
* Why didn't Norman call the cops when he was a teenager and his mother was abusing him.him?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** No. He'd steal another corpse or use the corpse of one of his victims, and then pose it as Norma. Norman ''knows'' on some level that Norma is dead, but he just doesn't believe that she is ''gone...''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
* What would happen if someone just incinerated (or otherwise destroyed) Norma's corpse? Would Norman finally realize she was really dead and regain his sanity?
to:
* What would happen if someone just incinerated (or otherwise destroyed) Norma's corpse? Would Norman finally realize she was really dead and regain his sanity?sanity?
* Minor question: in ''Film/PsychoIVTheBeginning'', how does Norman know Holly (the girl he stabs at the beginning?) are they already boyfriend and girlfriend? Or did her family just happen to be staying at the hotel and she had the hots for him?
* Minor question: in ''Film/PsychoIVTheBeginning'', how does Norman know Holly (the girl he stabs at the beginning?) are they already boyfriend and girlfriend? Or did her family just happen to be staying at the hotel and she had the hots for him?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
** Aside from the fact that even today, abuse goes unreported because children are often scared to do so, in the 40s and 50s when Norman would have been growing up, the standards of what we'd consider child abuse today wouldn't have been too far from the common way. Corporal punishment and an emphasis on discipline were the norm, and that's the main reason behind the Creator/JoanCrawford debate about whether ''Literature/MommieDearest'' was made up or not - what she did to her two eldest children would have been seen as a bit strict but acceptable in some circles. So Norma's abuse of her son might have been hard to prove, and Norman himself might have convinced himself it was acceptable (and the inner hurt this caused obviously contributed to his mental breakdown).
to:
** Aside from the fact that even today, abuse goes unreported because children are often scared to do so, in the 40s and 50s when Norman would have been growing up, the standards of what we'd consider child abuse today wouldn't have been too far from the common way. Corporal punishment and an emphasis on discipline were the norm, and that's the main reason behind the Creator/JoanCrawford debate about whether ''Literature/MommieDearest'' was made up or not - what she did to her two eldest children would have been seen as a bit strict but acceptable in some circles. So Norma's abuse of her son might have been hard to prove, and Norman himself might have convinced himself it was acceptable (and the inner hurt this caused obviously contributed to his mental breakdown).breakdown).
* What would happen if someone just incinerated (or otherwise destroyed) Norma's corpse? Would Norman finally realize she was really dead and regain his sanity?
* What would happen if someone just incinerated (or otherwise destroyed) Norma's corpse? Would Norman finally realize she was really dead and regain his sanity?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
** Also, from the perspective of how the story is presented in the book (with Norman interacting with Mother similar to how the Narrator of ''Literature/Fight Club'' interacts with Tyler Durden), the reason why he won't allow Arbogast to see Mother is because Norman knows how dangerous she is and is probably under the delusion of not just trying to protect her from being arrested, but maybe part of him is trying to protect Arbogast from Norma and how dangerous she is.
to:
** Also, from the perspective of how the story is presented in the book (with Norman interacting with Mother similar to how the Narrator of ''Literature/Fight Club'' ''Literature/FightClub'' interacts with Tyler Durden), the reason why he won't allow Arbogast to see Mother is because Norman knows how dangerous she is and is probably under the delusion of not just trying to protect her from being arrested, but maybe part of him is trying to protect Arbogast from Norma and how dangerous she is.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Cut per this thread
.
.Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
* Why didn't Norman call the cops when he was a teenager and his mother was abusing him (aside from that there would be no movie(s) if that was the case.)
to:
* Why didn't Norman call the cops when he was a teenager and his mother was abusing him (aside from that there would be no movie(s) if that was the case.)him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
* Why didn't Norman call the cops when he was a teenager and his mother was abusing him (aside from that there would be no movie(s) if that was the case.)
to:
* Why didn't Norman call the cops when he was a teenager and his mother was abusing him (aside from that there would be no movie(s) if that was the case.))
** Aside from the fact that even today, abuse goes unreported because children are often scared to do so, in the 40s and 50s when Norman would have been growing up, the standards of what we'd consider child abuse today wouldn't have been too far from the common way. Corporal punishment and an emphasis on discipline were the norm, and that's the main reason behind the Creator/JoanCrawford debate about whether ''Literature/MommieDearest'' was made up or not - what she did to her two eldest children would have been seen as a bit strict but acceptable in some circles. So Norma's abuse of her son might have been hard to prove, and Norman himself might have convinced himself it was acceptable (and the inner hurt this caused obviously contributed to his mental breakdown).
** Aside from the fact that even today, abuse goes unreported because children are often scared to do so, in the 40s and 50s when Norman would have been growing up, the standards of what we'd consider child abuse today wouldn't have been too far from the common way. Corporal punishment and an emphasis on discipline were the norm, and that's the main reason behind the Creator/JoanCrawford debate about whether ''Literature/MommieDearest'' was made up or not - what she did to her two eldest children would have been seen as a bit strict but acceptable in some circles. So Norma's abuse of her son might have been hard to prove, and Norman himself might have convinced himself it was acceptable (and the inner hurt this caused obviously contributed to his mental breakdown).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:
* Yes, we know Hitchcock wanted the rocking chair to suddenly become a swivel chair which could rotate horizontally for TheReveal of Mother. But is there any way this could work on a swivel chair with real life physics?
to:
* Yes, we know Hitchcock wanted the rocking chair to suddenly become a swivel chair which could rotate horizontally for TheReveal of Mother. But is there any way this could work on a swivel chair with real life physics?physics?
* Why didn't Norman call the cops when he was a teenager and his mother was abusing him (aside from that there would be no movie(s) if that was the case.)
* Why didn't Norman call the cops when he was a teenager and his mother was abusing him (aside from that there would be no movie(s) if that was the case.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** He knows her body is dead, but that doesn't mean she's gone.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Also, from the perspective of how the story is presented in the book (with Norman interacting with Mother similar to how the Narrator of ''Literature/Fight Club'' interacts with Tyler Durden), the reason why he won't allow Arbogast to see Mother is because Norman knows how dangerous she is and is probably under the delusion of not just trying to protect her from being arrested, but maybe part of him is trying to protect Arbogast from Norma and how dangerous she is.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
** It's safe to say that their cars were also used, like Marion's, to hide the evidence of the crime, much like how Arbogast's car was used to conceal his murder. Norman doesn't appear to own a car, so him bringing a car he has never been seen in before would be a huge red sign that would get people asking where and when he got a car.
to:
** It's safe to say that their cars were also used, like Marion's, to hide the evidence of the crime, much like how Arbogast's car was used to conceal his murder. Norman doesn't appear to own a car, so him bringing a car he has never been seen in before would be a huge red sign that would get people asking where and when he got a car.car.
* Yes, we know Hitchcock wanted the rocking chair to suddenly become a swivel chair which could rotate horizontally for TheReveal of Mother. But is there any way this could work on a swivel chair with real life physics?
* Yes, we know Hitchcock wanted the rocking chair to suddenly become a swivel chair which could rotate horizontally for TheReveal of Mother. But is there any way this could work on a swivel chair with real life physics?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
** He could have sold the cars. Notably Arbogast doesn't get any leads from Marion selling her car on the way to the motel - so Norman bringing the car in and exchanging it might not look suspicious. It's just that Marion was murdered in the dead of night, so he had to dispose of her things quickly. He could also have 'found' the cars on the side of the road and reported them himself (the sheriff seems friendly with him).
to:
** He could have sold the cars. Notably Arbogast doesn't get any leads from Marion selling her car on the way to the motel - so Norman bringing the car in and exchanging it might not look suspicious. It's just that Marion was murdered in the dead of night, so he had to dispose of her things quickly. He could also have 'found' the cars on the side of the road and reported them himself (the sheriff seems friendly with him).him).
** It's safe to say that their cars were also used, like Marion's, to hide the evidence of the crime, much like how Arbogast's car was used to conceal his murder. Norman doesn't appear to own a car, so him bringing a car he has never been seen in before would be a huge red sign that would get people asking where and when he got a car.
** It's safe to say that their cars were also used, like Marion's, to hide the evidence of the crime, much like how Arbogast's car was used to conceal his murder. Norman doesn't appear to own a car, so him bringing a car he has never been seen in before would be a huge red sign that would get people asking where and when he got a car.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* There are some subtle hints that deep down, Norman knows that his mother is no longer alive, such as when he refuses to let Arbogast see her. Even stronger evidence is when they argue about him hiding her in the fruit cellar and she refuses to leave her room, forcing him to pick her up and carry her. Is this because of her nasty personality, or does he know full well that she can't walk because she's dead?
** It's possible he's in denial. He upholds the illusion that his mother is still alive, even having conversations for her in her clothes. When he is finally exposed, he breaks completely.
* Why does Marion say she's from Los Angeles and that she's planning to go to Fairvale, then tell Norman she has a "long drive back to Phoenix"? Is she just lousy at keeping up her cover story?
** She is planning to go to Sam in Fairvale, but during her conversation with Norman, she seems to have a HeelRealization. She was planning to go back to Phoenix and hand the money back in - facing the consequences of her actions. So at that point she no longer cared about pretending to be someone else or hiding what she'd done - she says she's going back to Phoenix and gives her real last name Crane to Norman (who then checks the book that she signed as 'Marie Samuels').
* Did Norman dispose of all the girls in the swamp? What about their cars?
** He could have sold the cars. Notably Arbogast doesn't get any leads from Marion selling her car on the way to the motel - so Norman bringing the car in and exchanging it might not look suspicious. It's just that Marion was murdered in the dead of night, so he had to dispose of her things quickly. He could also have 'found' the cars on the side of the road and reported them himself (the sheriff seems friendly with him).
** It's possible he's in denial. He upholds the illusion that his mother is still alive, even having conversations for her in her clothes. When he is finally exposed, he breaks completely.
* Why does Marion say she's from Los Angeles and that she's planning to go to Fairvale, then tell Norman she has a "long drive back to Phoenix"? Is she just lousy at keeping up her cover story?
** She is planning to go to Sam in Fairvale, but during her conversation with Norman, she seems to have a HeelRealization. She was planning to go back to Phoenix and hand the money back in - facing the consequences of her actions. So at that point she no longer cared about pretending to be someone else or hiding what she'd done - she says she's going back to Phoenix and gives her real last name Crane to Norman (who then checks the book that she signed as 'Marie Samuels').
* Did Norman dispose of all the girls in the swamp? What about their cars?
** He could have sold the cars. Notably Arbogast doesn't get any leads from Marion selling her car on the way to the motel - so Norman bringing the car in and exchanging it might not look suspicious. It's just that Marion was murdered in the dead of night, so he had to dispose of her things quickly. He could also have 'found' the cars on the side of the road and reported them himself (the sheriff seems friendly with him).
