The Psycho Legacy - Remake Deleted Scene

From RobG's The Psycho Legacy Documentary. Not all the footage made it onto the DVD. Here is a segment on the Psycho Remake from 1998. Be sure to visit ThePsychoMovies.com

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Psycho
• Remake
• Bates
• Norman
• Motel
• 1998

[TheQuentinStuckey]

I don't think that it was so much the movie that people hated but the idea of remaking such a respected film like PSYCHO. Why do you think remakes of classic horror films that come out today are always given bad reviews? I'm not saying that the film is actually good but that's really the main reason why it was such a failure. And it might be the reason why we don't see any more PSYCHO movies today, besides Anthony Perkins no longer being with us.

[micyficy]

I agree. It wasn't the best idea to remake psycho, but its not like it ruined the original.

[ghayooragain]

Psycho '98 was bad!

But still a worthy watch film I'd say.

[kamelion7]

Gus Van Sant was on fire??!!!and brought us his interpretation of 'Psycho'??!!! Leave off!! This pile of shit could have been 'directed' by a robot as their was not one originality or fresh concept therein - sheer plagiarism of the original na dinferior in every respect. Casting that dopey cunt Vaughan as Norman..... fuck me, his idea of stifled insanity is to have a high pitched giggle after every word he utters. The wanking scene was just a vulgar, contemporary addition - absolute shit.

[Movie06]

@codebreaker2001

That sounds cool, all of it. I don't see why not really.

[codebreaker2001]

@Movie06 I agree with you. There was no excuse for him to not go back to the book. Honestly, after reading the book, I think it would have been interesting to have the 40 year-old, balding Norman Bates and his mother interacting with each other in the same manner as shown in the book. The only problem, book wise, is that the shower scene in the book, with the way things read, occurs rather rapidly (as Mother nearly takes off Mary's head with a single slice of the knife, if I remember the text).

[Movie06]

@codebreaker2001

I still think it's no excuse for him to ditch the book. Out of print sure but I digress. I'm just so disappointed for his reasons as to why a shot for shot remake as an actual film.

[codebreaker2001]

@Movie06 Hard to say why he avoided the book. Maybe he couldn't find a copy (as far as I know, before the remake's release, the book may have been out of print) or maybe he didn't notice the film was an adaptation of the book and not seek it. The only other explanation is that he was totally infatuated with the original movie and thought doing a shot-for-shot remake would be better than another adaptation of the novel.

[Movie06]

@codebreaker2001

I agree. I mean, it'd be cool as like a project for film school but as an actual film, there are huge problems and there was no need to make a shot for shot remake.

So yes, he should've looked at the book because you're right. The books provide more material, why would he avoid the book?

[codebreaker2001]

@Movie06 Like I said, I don't have a problem with it as an experiment for a film school student. But Van Sant should have looked at the book before making the decision to do the film, especially since he was already an experienced filmmaker (one clear cut example is John Carpenter's "The Thing" went back to the original story instead of being a remake of the Howard Hawks film). The books do provide more material that a filmmaker could use, be it another adaptation or a potential sequel.