Ooooookay. Before anyone accuses me of being as crazy as old Norman by quoting "If you love someone you don't do that to them...even if you hate them" or reciting Laird Creiger's "I wouldn't think it possible to love a thing and hate it at the same time" from the Lodger....let me explain. :angel:
I want to support Bates Motel. But its a train wreck. :-[ The only similarity it has to the movie is the House and the motel, and the names of some of the characters. That's it. :'(
Deviations from either source materials (The Film or the Novel):
Norman's mother is supposed to be puritanical and overbearing. Older. Instead we get an extremely attractive, relatively young, highly promiscuous woman with mental instability issues of her own. Plus a past history of incest that resulted in a child. Supposedly. That could change later, I suppose.
Norman himself isnt supposed to go mad until his mother hooks up with a lover. The lover thats supposed to "talk her into building this motel, he could've talked her into anything". He doesnt become his mother until the guilt of killing her takes over. That's the psychosis explained in the novel and the film. Yet in Bates Motel he's already cuckoo for coa coa puffs and acting like Norma before any of this occurs. Why??--Who knows? The Shadow...but he ain't talkin'.
Which brings us to the motel. She doesnt build it with the money her husband left her as a result of his death, at the promptig of her lover. She finds one up for sale...already to go...complete with gothic mansion on the hill,lol.
Norma and Norman are supposed to be isolated. Living a life codependent on one another. Not surrounded by pot growers, the town sheriff, Norman's seemingly endless parade of girlfriends, a brother that doesnt exist in any form in Bloch or Hitchcock's treatment, and a rotating cast of 1000's. There's way to many people involved in their lives for them to be isolated in any sense of the term.
Norman-- in the film-- is a sympathetic, externally "normal" fella. That's why its shocking at the end to discover he was mother...and a murderer. An Oscar worthy performance by the late Anthony Perkins. Yet our Bates Motel Norman is not only an "abby normal" potato head, everybody knows it....and he's implicated in multiple criminal episodes in his criminal town.
In the film....its Fairvalle, California. In Bates Motel...we are in White Pines Bay, Oregon. Geographical changing for.... what reason I don't know exactly....but annoying. An unnecessary deviation from either source materials.
In the film, Norman states he "only thinks birds look well stuffed. Because they are kind of passive to begin with....some people even stuff dogs and cats...but I could never do that". yet---here's our Bates Motel Normie stuffing his puppy and juuuust about anything he can get his mitts on. Working towards the day he stuffs mama.
Surprisingly....I dont really mind it being set in modern times. But its another deviation.
I am watching the show because of my affection for the source material. But its also why I hate it. Because it deviates so much from what its supposed to be inspired by. At least with J.J. Abrams Star trek....its an alternate timeline. Explaining all the inconsistencies, yet being inspired by the original. With Bates it's ....what, exactly? :angel: :angel:
I keep watching it because, to be quite frank, I wonder how they will "put the genie in the bottle" To have it, at least attempt, to bookend either the original film or novel. Also because the sheriff's story is interesting. He may not be as corrupt and stinking as we all think....
End of rant. ;) ;) 8)
I perfectly understand your point of view. And I agree to varying degrees with your critiques of the show's flaws. Yet, the show's creators have already pretty much confirmed that the series won't dovetail into either Bloch's book or Hitchcock's film. Even though it's inspired by both, the series won't end up in exactly the same place. Which, of course, begs the question: then why the hell not create something original, instead of riding "Psycho"'s coattails? Because, that's how they get us to watch it. Just like NBC's " Hannibal" won't take the exact same route to "Red Dragon" and "Silence of the Lambs," eventually. (However, I haven't been watching that show.)
Quote from: Count_Zirock on April 24, 2015, 12:55:32 AM
I perfectly understand your point of view. And I agree to varying degrees with your critiques of the show's flaws. Yet, the show's creators have already pretty much confirmed that the series won't dovetail into either Bloch's book or Hitchcock's film. Even though it's inspired by both, the series won't end up in exactly the same place. Which, of course, begs the question: then why the hell not create something original, instead of riding "Psycho"'s coattails? Because, that's how they get us to watch it. Just like NBC's " Hannibal" won't take the exact same route to "Red Dragon" and "Silence of the Lambs," eventually. (However, I haven't been watching that show.)
Hannibal is actually quite the morbid little masterpiece. But they are going to have a hard time with his origin story due to the era in which it occurred. I am glad you are able to understand my Bates Motel misgivings and mania to some degree,lol. 8)
Yes, I've heard good things about "Hannibal," but I have a hard time accepting anyone but Hopkins in that role. So, I made the decision not to cause myself unnecessary aggravation. Same thing with NBC's "Dracula," which was just wretched, anyway. "Bates Motel" I gave a chance, because I had already accepted that it was a reboot of "Psycho," not a remake or a prequel. I was admittedly curious about what they would change, and what they would keep. I believe they changed the setting from California to Washington to hide the fact they're shooting in Vancouver. Other changes seem kinda random. The motel and house could have been where Norma grew up, and she returns to it with Norman because they have nowhere else to go. Other changes could have been less jarring to "Psycho" fans, too. Norman should be more "normal," frankly. The character of Emma is a great way to instill the seeds of madness in Norman. He becomes romantically involved with this beautiful, sweet, but tragically doomed girl (shades of Edgar Allen Poe). Her death shows him that only Mother will never leave him. Sadly, they aren't going this route with Emma. Dylan...just seems superfluous. Sheriff Romano is interesting, but is often distracting. And, White Pines Bay is just too obviously a hotbed of crime and intrigue for Norman (or anyone else) to grow up there and not somehow be scarred. So, I often find the show as frustrating as it is entertaining. I can see the places it should be going (at least, in my opinion), but isn't.
Season One was a trainwreck, but an enjoyable one where nobody got hurt. I own it on DVD.
Season Two was a disaster. I refuse to buy it on DVD or even think about. And considering how little actually happened in it, it's not even necessary to the plot.
Season Three... I actually don't mind it that much and will probably get it on DVD.
It's not Psycho or even in the same universe, but it's fascinating seeing all of the little nods to the film. For example, Norma going and trading in her car at the used car lot and then heading to a motel. That's what keeps me watching. Well that and the shenanigans.