Talk:Psycho (novel)

message: I'd suggest this content might make a better match with the page for the movie Psycho (1960 film). These attractions are based on the film and it's popularity, not the book. Dina 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption "Bates Motel Set" is somewhat misleading, as I seem to recall the entire film set was destroyed. For the Universal Tours, it was reconstructed. Pepso 15:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amusement park content 

message: While I find the division of the novel into sections by POV character very helpful, as far as I'm able to determine, this summary is primarily based on the **movie** and not the novel. (Or at least not in the version of the novel I have from the library.) In the novel, it is a stuffed squirrel that plays the role that in the movie is served by the stuffed birds, and it is in the house, not in the hotel's office/parlor. Further, the line about not harming a fly is definitely not in the book, though it gives the movie its final chill.
The whole story summary section may have to be revised, so that it reflects the novel, and not the movie.
:The assignment of POVs to certain chapters is way off -- the first chapter is an argument between Norman and his "mother," with Mary not even appearing until the very end; Sam and Norman are the primary POV characters after the murder, with Arbogast and Lila only getting one chapter apiece; there's never a POV for the psychiatrist -- his information is conveyed second hand in a conversation between Sam and Lila.
:I also noted a ton more details that are from the movie instead of the book -- Sam and Lila are not en route to the motel when they stop to talk to the sheriff, but instead seek him out to get him to investigate, and only go to the motel themselves when they're dissatisfied with his answers; Norman does not yell "I'm Norma Bates" before attacking Lila; and Sam and Lila do not go home together at the end of the story.
:The summary needs to be rewritten from the ground up.Seantrinityohara (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above, 100%. One of the main reasons people read both articles devoted to the same book and film is so that they can see what has been left out of one and included in the other, and what new details have been added. This is often very interesting as it reveals, among other things, how directors, producers, writers and society in general make changes to a piece of art as social moods change. The Psycho review is disappointingly sub par considering how important the film is in both the public and the critical minds. I would certainly like to know how Hitchcock used Bloch's novel, what he left out, and what he added. For example, does the book tell, or hint, that Norman murdered his mother? Wikipedia has a number of very good articles on film adaptations of books which are centred on these themes. Obviously, the novel is going to deal with the film adaptation when it comes to something like Psycho, but there is no need to go over material which is dealt with, or can be dealt with in the article on the film version. Myles325a (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A good example of what might have been dealt with is that in the book (apparently, I haven't read it) Norman is not the svelte man with the low-key charisma, he is a short, dumpy loser. That would be far more in line with the character he portrays, but of course for a film, it would have nowhere near the appeal generated by Anthony Perkins. --Myles325a (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story summary? 

message: :Image:RobertBlock Psycho.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RobertBlock Psycho.jpg

message: shouldn't "Psycho Killer" A song by Talking Heads be moved to the music category instead of the See Also category?
Fear The Hams.-- 13:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talking heads 

message: Was it a bestseller before the film came out? Valetude (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception? 

message: The Guardian article linked to as evidence of critical revulsion is actually pretty positive  https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian/0,,36035,00.html 84.64.198.152 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's got a 41% on Rotten Tomatoes. "Reviled" may be too strong a word. DonIago (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the 1998 remake reviled by critics?