Bates Motel premiered last night (Mon. 18th) on A&E!

[aura of foreboding]

The only reason that I am going to stick with it is because of the acting.  Norma and Norman are very well acted characters.  And the writing for both was exceptional in the first episode.  It was pretty good in the second.  I felt the third episode was the weakest for the characters, especially Norman.  But, as long as those two stay the focus, I won't turn away anytime soon. 

I mean I am a huge Dark Shadows fan, and that show had some horrendous storylines (Okay... 2, but they dragged on forever), but I still watch every episode because of the compelling characters and the great acting of the key players.  It's hard to find complex characters who are well acted on TV nowadays.  Norma and Norman fit the bill.  Besides, I've always favored character over story anyway. 

[Anton Phibes]

I'll say this: A&E's "Bates Motel" is way better than the old TV-movie starring Bud Cort and Lori Nelson.

Yeah, I know...a ringing endorsement.

They torture enemy combatants in foreign countries by maiing them watch that pilot. Its second only to forcing them to read Marvel's U.S. 1 comic.

[Haunted hearse]

I never hated the Bates Motel pilot.  I like Bud Cort, and I was glad to see him doing something again.  Also, there was no attempt to bring Norman into the series, so we didn't have to deal with them screwing up the character, like they might end up doing with the A&E series (or having something like Vince Vaughn paying homage to Paul Rubens in an adult theatre).  The idea was to do a horror anthalogy, using the framing story of a former mental patient, which had been left the Motel by Norman in his will.  This was before "Psycho 2" was released, and that may have had to do with Perkins not wanting to participate, so they simply have the character (like Ed Gein, whom Norman bates was based on) die in the institution.  The motel was modified, but the iconoc house was left alone.  I've liked a lot of Horror anthology series, and I don't remember the two stories in the pilot (Three if you count the pilot story) being all that bad.

[Anton Phibes]

Here's a thought: what if none of what's going on in the show is really happening? If its all just going on inside Norman's head as part of his fantasy/delusion? We've just seen in this week's episode how he wanders off into his own head and has imaginary conversations,etc.. It would be weird if the series ended with Norman waking up in the morning, going down to open the motel and having a conversation with his mother's corpse, barely remembering the "dream" he had the night prior.

It is done by the folks who contributed to "Lost"....so anything is possible,lol.

Bobby Ewing escape clause.

[marsattacks666]

Here's a thought: what if none of what's going on in the show is really happening? If its all just going on inside Norman's head as part of his fantasy/delusion? We've just seen in this week's episode how he wanders off into his own head and has imaginary conversations,etc.. It would be weird if the series ended with Norman waking up in the morning, going down to open the motel and having a conversation with his mother's corpse, barely remembering the "dream" he had the night prior.

It is done by the folks who contributed to "Lost"....so anything is possible,lol.

Bobby Ewing escape clause.

Interesting thought, A.P. At this point, anything is possible.

[zombiehorror]

Also, there was no attempt to bring Norman into the series, so we didn't have to deal with them screwing up the character, like they might end up doing with the A&E series................

Since this Norman is a present day incarnation there is no worry of them screwing up Norman as he is portrayed in previous films or the novels!

[Scatter]

Since this Norman is a present day incarnation there is no worry of them screwing up Norman as he is portrayed in previous films or the novels!

The modern setting is what's keeping me away. I'll give it a shot eventually.

[Count_Zirock]

Since this Norman is a present day incarnation there is no worry of them screwing up Norman as he is portrayed in previous films or the novels!

Which is good, in a way. Because there's no need to retcon things that don't mesh with the four movies starring Anthony Perkins. Even though this Norman looks like a young Perkins, he'll never become the Perkins character, because that character existed initially in 1960. Whatever happens, the very nature of the show guarantees that this Norman won't ever be the Perkins Norman Bates. And, that makes the show a little more palatable to me.

It's like "Mockingbird Lane." Those characters weren't the Munsters we know and love from "The Munsters." Once you got past that, the pilot wasn't that bad, and actually could be enjoyed on its own. Considering past attempts to replicate "The Munsters" usually tanked ("The Munsters Today," "Here Come the Munsters," etc), this seemed the smartest direction to go with it. That just might be the saving grace of "Bates Motel"; whatever expectations we have for it being close to "Psycho," we can pretty much forget. We'll get some touches and elements, just to keep a minimal connection, but that's it.

[Scatter]

Which is good, in a way. Because there's no need to retcon things that don't mesh with the four movies starring Anthony Perkins. Even though this Norman looks like a young Perkins, he'll never become the Perkins character, because that character existed initially in 1960. Whatever happens, the very nature of the show guarantees that this Norman won't ever be the Perkins Norman Bates. And, that makes the show a little more palatable to me.

It's like "Mockingbird Lane." Those characters weren't the Munsters we know and love from "The Munsters." Once you got past that, the pilot wasn't that bad, and actually could be enjoyed on its own. Considering past attempts to replicate "The Munsters" usually tanked ("The Munsters Today," "Here Come the Munsters," etc), this seemed the smartest direction to go with it. That just might be the saving grace of "Bates Motel"; whatever expectations we have for it being close to "Psycho," we can pretty much forget. We'll get some touches and elements, just to keep a minimal connection, but that's it.

Which leads inexorably to this question.........why not just call it SOMETHING ELSE? If it has only the most tangential connection to its namesake (for instance, "Dark Shadows", The Munsters", "Psycho"), and it can stand ON ITS OWN, why not let it DO SO?

Why "reinvent" (or to be more accurate, "eviscerate") a classic show so that it bears essentially no resemblance to its predecessor except on the title cards?

Why position yourself needlessly to receive an avalanche of VALID vitriol and criticism from substantial fanbases of the OS for a show which can and SHOULD stand on its own merits?

It seems to me that,given the tenuous grip any new series has on a PrimeTime timeslot while building an audience, it may not be the best course of action to antagonize the very people you're trying to reach by gutting something they love in the process.

[Haunted hearse]

Which leads inexorably to this question.........why not just call it SOMETHING ELSE? If it has only the most tangential connection to its namesake (for instance, "Dark Shadows", The Munsters", "Psycho"), and it can stand ON ITS OWN, why not let it DO SO?

Why "reinvent" (or to be more accurate, "eviscerate") a classic show so that it bears essentially no resemblance to its predecessor except on the title cards?

Why position yourself needlessly to receive an avalanche of VALID vitriol and criticism from substantial fanbases of the OS for a show which can and SHOULD stand on its own merits?

It seems to me that,given the tenuous grip any new series has on a PrimeTime timeslot while building an audience, it may not be the best course of action to antagonize the very people you're trying to reach by gutting something they love in the process.

I couldn't agree more.  The whole point of using an existing title and property for a project, should be to access an already avid following.  By making substantial changes, you're already deviating somehow from what fans of the show like. To the credit of the people making the Addams Family movies with Raul Julia, they made the point that this was specifically about the New Yorker Cartoons, and not about the Astin/Jones TV series.  To the discredit of the people of Saban, they made a Addams Family movie.  When it came to "Wild Wild West" and "Dark Shadows", a lot of time and money was put into making these respective big screen "tributes", but what was released would only alienate the very fans that these would have had a built in market for.

[aura of foreboding]

Which leads inexorably to this question.........why not just call it SOMETHING ELSE? If it has only the most tangential connection to its namesake (for instance, "Dark Shadows", The Munsters", "Psycho"), and it can stand ON ITS OWN, why not let it DO SO?

Why "reinvent" (or to be more accurate, "eviscerate") a classic show so that it bears essentially no resemblance to its predecessor except on the title cards?

Why position yourself needlessly to receive an avalanche of VALID vitriol and criticism from substantial fanbases of the OS for a show which can and SHOULD stand on its own merits?

It seems to me that,given the tenuous grip any new series has on a PrimeTime timeslot while building an audience, it may not be the best course of action to antagonize the very people you're trying to reach by gutting something they love in the process.

I can answer this, Scatter - but only in the instance of Bates Motel.  This show specifically says the characters are based on the portrayals of characters in Alfred Hitchcock's movie.  It says that, first thing, at the end of every single episode.  Why?  Because they know there would be little interest in this type of series if it didn't have characters based on the ones in the Hitchcock film.  That is the only reason any of us are watching it.  Quite frankly, if it didn't have the house and it didn't have this kid who channels Perkins, it would not be worth watching.  Without the Hitchcock elements, it plays out like some run-of-the-mill CW crime drama that includes characters with seemingly incestial relationships.  But, because it has Norman Bates -- who is based on Perkins's portrayal -- and the house, it interests us and a lot of other folks too.  I don't like how "CW" it is, but I like the two main characters and the house.  I love all of the Hitchcockian elements.  They couldn't do this series without those trademark elements because it would be boring.  And they couldn't have those trademark elements in a series without being a spin-off of "Psycho" because that would be plagiarizing. 

There's no excuse for Dark Shadows, because that film had few of the elements we know and love from the original.  And there's really no excuse for Mockingbird Lane either, though it was closer to committing plagiarism in concept than Dark Shadows was. 

[Scatter]

I can answer this, Scatter - but only in the instance of Bates Motel.  This show specifically says the characters are based on the portrayals of characters in Alfred Hitchcock's movie.  It says that, first thing, at the end of every single episode.  Why?  Because they know there would be little interest in this type of series if it didn't have characters based on the ones in the Hitchcock film.  That is the only reason any of us are watching it.  Quite frankly, if it didn't have the house and it didn't have this kid who channels Perkins, it would not be worth watching.  Without the Hitchcock elements, it plays out like some run-of-the-mill CW crime drama that includes characters with seemingly incestial relationships.  But, because it has Norman Bates -- who is based on Perkins's portrayal -- and the house, it interests us and a lot of other folks too.  I don't like how "CW" it is, but I like the two main characters and the house.  I love all of the Hitchcockian elements.  They couldn't do this series without those trademark elements because it would be boring.  And they couldn't have those trademark elements in a series without being a spin-off of "Psycho" because that would be plagiarizing. 

There's no excuse for Dark Shadows, because that film had few of the elements we know and love from the original.  And there's really no excuse for Mockingbird Lane either, though it was closer to committing plagiarism in concept than Dark Shadows was.

I understand the exploitation of a known quantity in order to generate interest.............but that sword is 2 edged. When you're relying on a KNOWN entity,which you then bastardize in the eyes of the very people who love it most, you're not gaining the sort of LONG term fans that are needed to sustain viewership.

Sure, many who watch it do so because of the Hitchcockian elements, but the very people who do so with an eye to Hitchcock are the very ones most likely to be its severest critics when the core of the thing is unrecognizable as such outside of the place and character names.

I have to disagree with your contention as well that without the pilfered names and places no audience interest would be generated. 99% of the series on TV that become hits manage to do so without reference to a previous film or TV series. They stand on their own, just as this series has been said to stand on ITS own without regard to the "Psycho" pedigree.

A bad series is going to fail whether or not it employs familiar titles and characters from the past (Mockingbird Heights, The Night Stalker, Dallas, Dragnet remakes, etc etc ad nauseum) and a great series will be great whether or not it employs familiar titles and characters from the past.

[aura of foreboding]

I understand the exploitation of a known quantity in order to generate interest.............but that sword is 2 edged. When you're relying on a KNOWN entity,which you then bastardize in the eyes of the very people who love it most, you're not gaining the sort of LONG term fans that are needed to sustain viewership.

Sure, many who watch it do so because of the Hitchcockian elements, but the very people who do so with an eye to Hitchcock are the very ones most likely to be its severest critics when the core of the thing is unrecognizable as such outside of the place and character names.

I have to disagree with your contention as well that without the pilfered names and places no audience interest would be generated. 99% of the series on TV that become hits manage to do so without reference to a previous film or TV series. They stand on their own, just as this series has been said to stand on ITS own without regard to the "Psycho" pedigree.

A bad series is going to fail whether or not it employs familiar titles and characters from the past (Mockingbird Heights, The Night Stalker, Dallas, Dragnet remakes, etc etc ad nauseum) and a great series will be great whether or not it employs familiar titles and characters from the past.

But, you see, Scatter, without Norman and Norma and everything Hitchcock, this series is awful.  That is the point. 

[Count_Zirock]

But, you see, Scatter, without Norman and Norma and everything Hitchcock, this series is awful.  That is the point.

And, let's face it, "Bates Motel" isn't aimed at hardcore "Psycho" fans. It's aimed at people who are, at best, marginally aware of the original Hitchcock film. Maybe they've seen it once or twice, in their distant pasts, and remember it being "good". So, they'll check out "Bates Motel," on the off chance that it, too, is "good". As for the big fans of "Psycho," well, sure, they want us to watch, too. But, we're really outnumbered by the less familiar potential viewers. They'll toss us bones, but we're not their core audience.

The same thing goes for NBC's "Hannibal" (which I missed on Thursday, dammit). It's for people that have seen "The Silence of the Lambs," "Hannibal," "Red Dragon," and perhaps even the dreadful "Hannibal Rising." But, it's not really made for hardcore fans--although, it will hope to attract as many of them as it can, and hope enough of them stay with it.

[Anton Phibes]

And, let's face it, "Bates Motel" isn't aimed at hardcore "Psycho" fans. It's aimed at people who are, at best, marginally aware of the original Hitchcock film. Maybe they've seen it once or twice, in their distant pasts, and remember it being "good". So, they'll check out "Bates Motel," on the off chance that it, too, is "good". As for the big fans of "Psycho," well, sure, they want us to watch, too. But, we're really outnumbered by the less familiar potential viewers. They'll toss us bones, but we're not their core audience.

The same thing goes for NBC's "Hannibal" (which I missed on Thursday, dammit). It's for people that have seen "The Silence of the Lambs," "Hannibal," "Red Dragon," and perhaps even the dreadful "Hannibal Rising." But, it's not really made for hardcore fans--although, it will hope to attract as many of them as it can, and hope enough of them stay with it.

I am just watching Bates Motel. Hannibal is good right out of the gate. Why did you hate Hannibal Rising specifically? Just curious. I watched it expecting nothing. So, by the time it was over I was actually entertained.

Is Hannibal the series set in the 80's?  Because if it sint, he would have to be about 100 years old or his Nazi Germany origin to still work.