MovieChat Forums > Psycho III (1986) Discussion > Question about the story between II and ...

Question about the story between II and III

posted 8 years ago by daverindone
4 replies | jump to latest

I've seen the first three movies many times, but I was thinking about Norman and the diner.

As I remember, he gets a job in town at the local diner in the early scenes of Part II, and later meets Emma Spool. Things happen and Spool ends up "moving in" to the Bates house on the hill.

Part III takes place a few months after and Norman is running the Motel. The newspaper he's using has an article about Spool missing and they even mention it when Norman stops in to pick up lunch for Duke. They're all friendly with Norman, so I'm wondering did he just quit after the whole Spool thing?

I guess to say it would have been easy for Norman to tell them he had to leave the diner and look after the place or was the waiter thing just temporary until he felt well enough to return to the Motel?

Thanks!

Dave

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

he quit in part 2 to run the motel. watching part 3 now. awesome movie

[–] daverindone 8 years ago

Ok, thanks, I must have missed that in Part 2 as I haven't seen the sequel in many years. It seemed a little odd to me that, if Norman had stayed at the diner and Spool vanished as well, they may have made the connection concerning his history with "older women."

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

yeah i think norman should have been suspected for sure

[–] rascal67 8 years ago

The story is a tad convoluted and contrived, and I don't like how they changed it around again and Spool wasn't really his mother after all. That was the beauty of the ending in II, that Bates got his 'real' mother back and started all over again. The reporter was a pest and while she was digging deep to find the truth, it could have gone a different route. She could have been related to Spool somehow, which means Norman would have been related to her then and she was wanting to know what happened to her. Spool had also been committed, so concern for her state of mind would have been understandable. She didn't have to be a b!tchy reporter. Norman was rightly absolved of any murders in II; but he did kill Spool at the end. Since sympathies lied with Norman at the time, Spool's disappearance wouldn't have been connected with Norman.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩