Psycho (1960) (50th Anniversary Edition)

[Matt Stieg]

Regarding the aspect ratio, the guy Jeffrey Wells is an absolute idiot nutcase. Read some of his earlier articles, he has no understanding of what film grain is, and by the looks of this article doesn't comprehend shooting in 1.37:1 and projecting in 1.85:1. Many of his articles complaining about film grain amongst other things often include variations of "I was a projectionist so I know how old movies are supposed to look" or "I was a projectionist so I don't want to hear anyone's shit."

Psycho is 1.85:1. It was probably projected in Europe in 1.66:1 because that was the norm for European theaters, just like 1.85:1 was the norm for American theaters. In 1.37:1, the shot of Norman Bates after he has sunk Arbogast's car in the swamp when Janet Leigh's boyfriend comes looking for him shows a truck driving on a road in the upper portion background of the screen...I highly doubt Hitchcock meant for that to be seen.

[Banned User]

Why does the Universal UK always release awesome cases like so
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/i...n=283926&s=dvd

[Kory]

Originally Posted by Banned User

Why does the Universal UK always release awesome cases like so
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/i...n=283926&s=dvd

I think that looks terrible, and that the U.S. release looks 1000x better.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by kory

i think that looks terrible, and that the u.s. Release looks 1000x better.

+1

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Kory

I think that looks terrible, and that the U.S. release looks 1000x better.

Could not disagree more. The US cover makes it look like any cliche, pointless horror film that's created today. If not for the Hitchcock writing, it could easily be mistaken for the Psycho remake. The UK releases, either the steelbook black and grey or the red, is exactly what it should have been. The shower scene and the image of Leigh's face is arguably the most famous and iconic scene in film history. One could argue it's cliche, but that's a faulty argument because it's that scene that single handedly led to the prominence of the film when it was first released, as well as its lasting impact.

[Nielsb90]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Could not disagree more. The US cover makes it look like any cliche, pointless horror film that's created today. If not for the Hitchcock writing, it could easily be mistaken for the Psycho remake. The UK releases, either the steelbook black and grey or the red, is exactly what it should have been. The shower scene and the image of Leigh's face is arguably the most famous and iconic scene in film history. One could argue it's cliche, but that's a faulty argument because it's that scene that single handedly led to the prominence of the film when it was first released, as well as its lasting impact.

I prefer the UK one too.. Just remove the ratings and it would be perfect

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Could not disagree more. The US cover makes it look like any cliche, pointless horror film that's created today. If not for the Hitchcock writing, it could easily be mistaken for the Psycho remake. The UK releases, either the steelbook black and grey or the red, is exactly what it should have been. The shower scene and the image of Leigh's face is arguably the most famous and iconic scene in film history. One could argue it's cliche, but that's a faulty argument because it's that scene that single handedly led to the prominence of the film when it was first released, as well as its lasting impact.

Huh? The house at the Bates Motel is also one of the most iconic images in film history and instantly identifiable with the original Psycho. Quite frankly I think Hitchcock would roll over in his grave if he knew that an image revealing the most pivotal and shocking scene in his movie was being used to market it no matter how long its been since the movie was originally released. I also find your comment about confusing it with the Psycho remake rather odd, given that the poster art for the remake referenced the shower scene and not the house.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by kefrank

Huh? The house at the Bates Motel is also one of the most iconic images in film history and instantly identifiable with the original Psycho. Quite frankly I think Hitchcock would roll over in his grave if he knew that an image revealing the most pivotal and shocking scene in his movie was being used to market it no matter how long its been since the movie was originally released. I also find your comment about confusing it with the Psycho remake rather odd, given that the poster art for the remake referenced the shower scene and not the house.

haha a few things. First, the Bates Motel is nowhere near as iconic as the shower scene. Show a picture of the hotel itself to a hundred people and very few would get it correct. Show a picture of Leigh screaming in the shower and most will get it correct. There is no debate here.

Second, you clearly misinterpreted what I was saying regarding the Psycho remake. I said nothing about it's poster art. What I said is that the cover art is akin to a cliche modern horror film cover, of which there are numerous examples. The Psycho remake is a modern horror film and thus, some consumers may glance at it quick and assume it's the remake, without noticing the script about Hitchcock. Or, they may think it's another horror film altogether, since many horror films have isolated hotels or houses in them. Put a picture of Leigh screaming on the cover, and immediately people will know it's the original. Once again, there's no debate.

Quite frankly, I don't get your argument about Hitchcock rolling over in his grave. This isn't the 1960s, when the film first came out and ppl were shocked about her death. At this point, EVERYONE who is familiar with Psycho, whether they've seen it or not, know that she dies early on. Everyone fifty years ago knew that fact within a few months of it coming out because it caused such an uproar. So, you're argument makes little sense to me.

[P@t_Mtl]

Not buying this unless it's in color and 3D

[Atreyu]

I'm sure people who see the title Psycho will check to make sure it's the original version. Sure I like nice looking covers when you really get down to it you are buying the disc for what is contained on it and the quality not for the cover. Mine are displayed so only the spine is showing.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Not buying this unless it's in color and 3D

haha

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Atreyu

I'm sure people who see the title Psycho will check to make sure it's the original version. Sure I like nice looking covers when you really get down to it you are buying the disc for what is contained on it and the quality not for the cover. Mine are displayed so only the spine is showing.

I agree--the cover doesn't determine whether I'll buy a movie or not, but there's bound to be discussion about it. I also agree that if people see the word Psycho they'll prob inspect. That being said, if ppl are just glancing and see a house on a hill, they won't automatically think Psycho. If they see Leigh screaming in the shower, they will.

[Mr. Cinema]

So I guess that "50TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION" banner just below "Psycho" on the front will cause some people to think it's really the crappy remake?

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

So I guess that "50TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION" banner just below "Psycho" on the front will cause some people to think it's really the crappy remake?

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Of course someone would know it's the Hitchcock version upon looking at the writing. I was referring to the picture alone.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

haha a few things. First, the Bates Motel is nowhere near as iconic as the shower scene. Show a picture of the hotel itself to a hundred people and very few would get it correct. Show a picture of Leigh screaming in the shower and most will get it correct. There is no debate here.

If you honestly think that house isn't instantly recognizable as the house at the Bates Motel from Psycho, then you're either out of your mind or are being willfully obtuse, no matter how much you say "there is no debate." Additionally, on a subjective level, I strongly prefer the subtlety of that image and obviously I'm not alone.

Second, you clearly misinterpreted what I was saying regarding the Psycho remake. I said nothing about it's poster art. What I said is that the cover art is akin to a cliche modern horror film cover, of which there are numerous examples. The Psycho remake is a modern horror film and thus, some consumers may glance at it quick and assume it's the remake, without noticing the script about Hitchcock. Or, they may think it's another horror film altogether, since many horror films have isolated hotels or houses in them. Put a picture of Leigh screaming on the cover, and immediately people will know it's the original. Once again, there's no debate.

You're clearly reaching. The U.S. cover makes it very obvious what movie this is, not to mention when it was made and who the director is. But even if they released a cover with no image and simply the title, I'm willing to wager the vast majority of people would assume it's the Hitchcock film, because it is far better known than the remake, even to modern audiences.

This point of yours just seems very hollow. Why should we concern ourselves with a hypothetical consumer who only barely glances at the cover and therefore obviously has no interest in the first place?

Quite frankly, I don't get your argument about Hitchcock rolling over in his grave. This isn't the 1960s, when the film first came out and ppl were shocked about her death. At this point, EVERYONE who is familiar with Psycho, whether they've seen it or not, know that she dies early on. Everyone fifty years ago knew that fact within a few months of it coming out because it caused such an uproar. So, you're argument makes little sense to me.

If you're familiar with how tightly Hitchcock controlled the original marketing for the film then it might make more sense to you. Just because the film has become part of pop culture now and even people who haven't seen it are vaguely familiar with the plot doesn't mean the spirit of the original presentation should be completely abandoned. In fact, I prefer the original poster art to anything else, because it plays on the Hitchcock trick of treating the film as a Janet Leigh star vehicle in which she's embroiled in a cross-country suspense thriller. The film maintains this facade through the first act until she's suddenly, brutally murdered in that iconic shower scene. That scene is shocking as much for the way it was shot as for the brilliant set up masterminded by Hitchcock. Frankly, putting an image from that scene on the cover cheapens the whole thing and no amount of debate will change my opinion on that.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by kefrank

If you honestly think that house isn't instantly recognizable as the house at the Bates Motel from Psycho, then you're either out of your mind or are being willfully obtuse, no matter how much you say "there is no debate." Additionally, on a subjective level, I strongly prefer the subtlety of that image and obviously I'm not alone.


You're clearly reaching. The U.S. cover makes it very obvious what movie this is, not to mention when it was made and who the director is. But even if they released a cover with no image and simply the title, I'm willing to wager the vast majority of people would assume it's the Hitchcock film, because it is far better known than the remake, even to modern audiences.

This point of yours just seems very hollow. Why should we concern ourselves with a hypothetical consumer who only barely glances at the cover and therefore obviously has no interest in the first place?


If you're familiar with how tightly Hitchcock controlled the original marketing for the film then it might make more sense to you. Just because the film has become part of pop culture now and even people who haven't seen it are vaguely familiar with the plot doesn't mean the spirit of the original presentation should be completely abandoned. In fact, I prefer the original poster art to anything else, because it plays on the Hitchcock trick of treating the film as a Janet Leigh star vehicle in which she's embroiled in a cross-country suspense thriller. The film maintains this facade through the first act until she's suddenly, brutally murdered in that iconic shower scene. That scene is shocking as much for the way it was shot as for the brilliant set up masterminded by Hitchcock. Frankly, putting an image from that scene on the cover cheapens the whole thing and no amount of debate will change my opinion on that.

I have a goal for you on this Independence Day weekend. Print out a picture of the US cover art, without wording, and the picture of Leigh screaming. Go to the mall and ask 10 people if they recognize each image. Report back here and admit you're wrong regarding how iconic the house is compared to the shower scene.

I'm not trying to change your mind and I don't dislike the cover, I was merely stating a preference. Your "facts" and argument really have little substance, imo. Your history lesson regarding the film was also unnecessary. I do agree, however, that my hypothetical consumer is unrealistic to an extent. However, any store worker can tell you that consumers typically spend no more than a few fleeting moments glancing in a direction before deciding to inspect. Evidence? Do a little research on the cover art of books and why certain covers are chosen.

[Banned User]

Well the image could be either for me. I just would like the option to buy what I consider a better quality case. As for people who only care about the disc and movie thats fine, but I prefer the whole package to be of the upmost quality. Case, Artwork, Insert, Extras. That doesn't mean I don't want the highest PQ and AQ as well. For a movie like Psycho I think it deserves it all.

I don't see what the big deal is that more studio's can't release two packages of their movies. One with higher quality packaging. And when they do they always have to go over the top insane with huge packaging like Wizard of Oz , Casablanca, African Queen , Gone with the wind, etc...

[charlieray1]

I prefer the US release cover art, but for another reason: the UK version gives away a major plot point!

There are still people that haven't seen Psycho -- we showed it to some friends a few months that were shocked by "that scene" and didn't know it was coming. It reminds me of the Planet of the Apes cover from a few years ago that had the

[Show spoiler] ruined Statue of Liberty

on it.

But beside that, I just think it's better looking . . . and that house is a very iconic image!

P.S. An interesting point -- Hitchcock used the screaming face in the original trailer, BUT, to throw people off, he used Vera Miles, not Janet Leigh!

[jhiggy23]

When it comes down to it, it's all about the movie and I think most of the ppl on this thread are lovers of the film! So, the debate regarding the covers, while interesting, is somewhat moot. And I still have yet to run into someone who isn't aware of the shower scene. That's why it giving away a plot point is irrelevant at this point, just like showing King Kong on top of the tower.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I have a goal for you on this Independence Day weekend. Print out a picture of the US cover art, without wording, and the picture of Leigh screaming. Go to the mall and ask 10 people if they recognize each image. Report back here and admit you're wrong regarding how iconic the house is compared to the shower scene.

No need because I never said the image of the house is as iconic or widely recognizable as the shower scene. I only said it's also very iconic and easily identifiable with the original Psycho, in staunch disagreement to your suggestion that it could be any scary building from any horror film. Perhaps you underestimate not only the house's ominous presence in the film but also the popularity of the preserved set at Universal Studios to this day.

I'm not trying to change your mind and I don't dislike the cover, I was merely stating a preference. Your "facts" and argument really have little substance, imo.

The feeling is mutual, so we will have to agree to disagree. I will forever maintain that no matter how many people may know about the shower scene, putting an image from it on the cover is in direct opposition to the spirit of the film.