BATES MOTEL Premieres Tonight — Page 2

"but once you get over that"

Getting over that means ignoring that it makes no sense?

How desensitized are you that a rape scene like that (which somehow is the ONLY way to transition Norman into what he becomes -- which technically we have no idea what that is unless we are sure that it's going to make him a man who grows up and goes back in time to 1960) with the man with pants down around his ankles thrusting in and out of the woman handcuffed face down on the kitchen table can seem not explicit?

I'm a Hitchcock fan myself, although I would never rank myself in the top 10%, but I know his stuff. Although claiming you're his #1 fan, I guess that means I can't possibly have reactions to this show that the creator says is NOT an homage and then has all these allusions to the Hitchcock film and have my reactions "count" as much as yours because you're #1? Also, I don't care what the reviewers say (though you always feel you need to bring in the external sources to somehow prove my argument wrong when I am just talking about my personal reactions to something, I don't read reviews before I see things. I don't care if 300,000 respected television bloggers and reviewers think it's genius, that doesn't prove my describing my reactions to the show are "wrong." They are my reactions to the show). My point isn't that American Horror Story invented the neon thing, my point is Bates Motel is trying to align itself with American Horror Story by using that. I doubt this series would have happened without the success of AHS.

I honestly don't believe you when you say you were prepared to hate it. And if you were, then I believe the fact that I stated negative opinions about it has made you reflexively take a stance for the sake of taking it.

---

Updated On: 3/19/13 at 11:00 AM

I have to say I found Bates Motel very exciting and am looking foward to watching more. My only two dislikes about the show are 1.) the modern day setting & 2.) Freddie Highmore as Norman. Highmore's acting next to Farmiga(who is outstanding!!) is almost amatuer-like, and I hope he improves as the season goes along. The show seems to have a lot of promise and I'm very curious as to what direction they'll take this in.

---

It's okay you don't know where the kitchen door is as long as you liked the show.

I am not repulsed by the show, as I was by the Girls pilot.

---

I always get the feeling StockardFan enters her TV room like the opening credits of The Dick Van Dyke Show.

---

^^ ha!

Stockard, I can't read with the tv on in the background. If I try I will realize I've just turned several pages without knowing what I've just read.

Just fyi for anyone interested ... Amazon Instant has the entire first episode for free download.

I haven't watched it yet. The concept alone sort of puts me off and sounds way too gimmicky. It could work if it were campy and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it sounds like they are presenting this WAY too seriously.

---

I watched it this morning. I thought it was ok. I'll keep watching it because I think it has promise but I wasn't "wowed" by it at all.

As for the modern day setting, if anything it constantly takes me out of the story whenever I see an iPhone. I mean, most people watching know when PSYCHO takes place so I think they missed a real opportunity to make it even creepier by setting it in the 50's. But all that is based on just the first episode and like someone said before, they heard it picks up around Episode 3 or 4.

But she had a cell phone when her other son called her. She was talking to him while she was doing the dishes.

---

Right Jane, I completely forgot about it. I'm not saying obviously that you can't be attacked and raped if you have a cell phone, but it seemed odd that she spent all that effort calling her son and not looking for a phone.

And I'm guessing that in this alternate universe, they was no Psycho film, considering all of the kids would be making fun of his name...

I don't see why they needed to set it in any other time than the original was set in.

And, none of those girls would ever want to hang with Norman. Not in real life!

---

IT'S CHEAPER!! THEY DID IT BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER!!!

For crying out loud. These Bates Motel people really need to get over themselves. I would respect them so much more if they just came out and said, "It's a half-baked idea with which we can capitalize on a very well known title and a director who just so happens to be getting a lot of attention recently without having to spend the money it would take to actually do a proper prequel."

It would be like doing "The Walton Babies" but set in the 2008 economic crisis so that they audience could have "easier accessibility."

---

Just asking here because I realize I really don't know. Have the creators or anyone involved with the show actually called Bates Motel a prequel themselves, or is that term solely from the press? Even calling it a "prequel of sorts" is different than outright calling it a prequel, period.

Yeah, present day being cheaper may be part of it, but I don't think that's all. I understand some people not being able to buy it. I don't have a problem with it personally. Probably people watching the show who have never seen the film will have even less of an issue. I look at the show as its own thing if that makes sense. I don't think Highmore is half bad, and Farmiga makes it well worth watching for me.

I enjoyed it. Not greatly, but I liked it enough to watch next week's episode. I'm not thrown off by the time change. When you have a woman named Norma, she's bound to be old fashioned. I don't know if the iPhones are necessary. You'd think she'd be against technology completely.

We'll see what happens next week.

(On a side note, I loved seeing the Fairy from Once Upon a Time!)