- #Psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998 movie#
- #Psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998 full#
- #Psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998 plus#
- #Psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998 tv#
VHS NTSC videotapes are not cropped for these scenes.
#Psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998 tv#
Laserdisc version has some of the shower scenes zoomed-in ever-so-slightly, because the studio used the only remaining available source material, a cleavage-hiding TV print matte. At the time of Laserdisc manufacture in 1984/1988, the studio claimed that the original 35mm negative was lost. MCA/Universal Home Video Laserdiscs widescreen version with Aspect Ratio 1.78:1 were issued from.
#Psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998 full#
The full frame 1.37:1 (4:3) version is not available on DVD and Blu-ray and 4K UHD-BDs releases. DVD and Blu-ray releases only have the Aspect Ratio 1.78:1 version. VHS NTSC videotapes and the 1979/1981 DiscoVision (MCA) Laserdiscs and the 1984/1988 MCA Home Video Laserdiscs were issued in the full frame 1.37:1 (4:3) version, matching the original television standard Aspect Ratio. Worldwide when broadcast on TV in the 70s 80s 90s the unmatted full frame 1.33:1 version was shown (Open Matte) which was similar in shape to the original format of TV screens, the original television standard was 1.37:1 (4:3) Aspect Ratio. All of the image located outside of the area intended to be shown, is fully blocked. Achieved by masking off the frame during projection, by using a 1.85:1 Projector Aperture Gate Plate.
#Psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998 movie#
Originally shot in full frame 1.33:1 (Open Matte) with the contractually required intention that each movie theater would only ever show the movie film in the studio recommended 1.85:1 aspect ratio. The original theatrical matte was 1.85:1 but the 35mm negative was "Open Matte". They ended up making IV a few years after it was originally supposed to.USA versions of this movie, had two aspect ratios, both with the running time of 108 minutes and 51 seconds.
#Psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998 plus#
It was a box office hit and he was paid a lot to do another one plus offered the Directing role, so he agreed to it and a IV, which was almost not made at all after 3 underperformed (after 2 over performed). He only took it because Norman is placed in victim role and is the one you sympathize with this time. He didn’t wanna do II until he was promised on the Director and writers graves that they were going to give him a project he would love to film and be proud of, and be a redemption for him in peoples eyes. Everyone saw Norman when they saw him, nothing else. He wasn’t being offered good roles and tons of horror types.
![psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998 psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998](https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc1MTEyOTkyNDc0NzM2NDUy/dont-hate-me-why-i-love-psycho-1998.jpg)
He loved that Norman Bates was such a beloved character in a classic film, but he also resented him a bit because he couldn’t shake Norman off of him. Like many of us, he grew a bit jaded with time. He probably was a bit sensitive too, especially by the time II came and he was now older and a bit jaded. Perkins was a very shy and timid man in his day to day life. In the 1961 Oscars, when Janet Leigh was nominated for "Psycho" and Anthony Perkins could have been nominated for "Psycho," the nominees for Best Supporting Actor were Peter Ustinov for "Spartacus," Chill Wills for "The Alamo," Jack Kruschen for "The Apartment," Sal Mineo for "Exodus" and Peter Falk for "Murder, Inc." Anthony Perkins was not nominated. The winner for that year was Anthony Quinn, for "Lust for Life." Thalberg Memorial Award.Īnthony Perkins received only one Oscar nomination during his life, for Best Supporting Actor for "Friendly Persuasion" (1956). Hitchcock was nominated 5 times for Best Director (for "Rebecca," "Lifeboat," "Spellbound," "Rear Window" and "Psycho"), but did not win any of those. "Psycho" received 4 Oscar nominations, for Cinematography, Art Direction, Best Director (Hitchcock) and Best Supporting Actress (Janet Leigh), but did not win any them. I think he should have been, his contribution to "Psycho" was huge and memorable. Maybe her career would have been bigger if she didn’t act like a brat.ĭo you like any of the sequels, and if so do you like any of them more than the original? Some people like II better than the original. It’s a shame Perkins and Tilly didn’t like each other while filming.
![psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998 psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/53a2219ee4b0212a40698c26/1600200681992-J5VDRGT8YIHUPKXLOFU1/960_c_04_psycho_uncut_blu-ray.jpg)
They knew they couldn’t make the film without Perkins, and even with him that critics and the public would instantly hate the movie because Hitchcock’s was so beloved by the 80s, with Hitchcock being beloved by that time too. He felt Norman Bates was a curse and wanted nothing to do with that character ever again, so they wrote a strong script and made sure the film focuses on Norman and allows him to truly shine as an actor, so he agreed. The story of this film even coming to light is interesting, and how hard it was to get Perkins to agree also. There are so many moments that pay homage to the original, while still being respectful and being it’s own film.
![psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998 psycho 1960 vs psycho 1998](https://64.media.tumblr.com/8164711254bd340c288342ba2d563c0a/tumblr_inline_o2zgtkKxRr1tat538_1280.png)
Psycho II is criminally underrated, and well written and the acting is great.