HORROR MOVIES 101

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

divinemsjunebug — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:04:36 GMT

I have to say that I really like all the Psycho movies too. Anthony Perkins was just the greatest being that sweet, nice guy one minute and then his crazy psycho mom the next minute. I really enjoyed Psycho IV. I liked how they went back in time to kind of see why he freaked out so much. Olivia Hussy (one of my favorite actresses who was a very young girl in Romeo and Juliet) did a great job playing the horribly mother. I was kind of rooting for him to off her and her boyfriend (hmmmm, what does that say about me??? eeek). Anyway, it was good, I thought the ending was a little cheesey but I liked it.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:32:56 GMT

Dr_Gor:
I had a real smart ass reply for this question, Rizzo... but I just got done saying I was going to try to be nicer...
SO, I will answer your question... and my answer is.... DUH! I think you need to reread my last posting there, Rizzo! I think it was all pretty self-explanatory...

Actually Gor I have no idea why I even posted it like that.

Of course the answer was DUH! You were talking about how good the movies were and then I basically asked if they were any good. So yeah it deserves a smart ass reply!

I guess I was just saying that other than your comments I hadn't heard anyone talk about the other Psycho movies before. I guess I was just wondering why that was? I mean I can imagine they aren't as good as the original, but that's the case in most horror movie series and you still hear a lot about many of them. Maybe I just haven't notice the Psycho series for some reason.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Puhnner — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:55:42 GMT

Dr_Gor:

Thank you again, Mr. TheWorkingDead, for that. I must agree that the "Psycho" series, taken as a whole, is nothing short of extraordinary. The original, while quite tame by todays standards, was really quite terrifying although the ending was rather anti-cimactic... Part 2 was rather disturbing in that Norman moved back into his old house and job (what WERE they thinking?) and soon was back to his old murderous ways. Part III, which was also directed by Perkins by the way, was nothing short of stunning... When Norman put on his mothers clothes and went into the Marion Crane's look-a-like's (Diana Scarwid) bathroom with his butcher knife and pulls back the shower curtain only to see that she had already slit her own wrists, I gasped. And then, as he nurses her back to health, you feel that Norman is on the road to recovery,,, And THEN, when she is accidentally killed when she stumbles backwards down the stairs and has her skull pierced by the arrow on the statue... and Norman just flips out! "M-M-M-MOTHEEER!" You just KNOW that NOW, he is WAY more disturbed than EVER before! THIS was WAY over the top as far as acting and it litterally made me wince...

I read this little description of yours Dr_Gor and immediately thought how wrong I was for summarily dismissing these films. They are being placed on my queue right now, well they are if I have any room left on it. I would watch them for no other reason than just to see the scenes you described alone.

Thank you good sir, for the enlightenment.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:21:53 GMT

Oh, Froggy! I HATE it when you get all mushy and sentimental like that ...

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

FroggyBaBe15876 — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:06:41 GMT

Dr_Gor:
Puhnner:

Dr_Gor, just why in the heck are you so 'MEAN'? I cannot wait for your answer.
I guess I was just raised wrong, Mr. Puhnner. But, seriously, I go out of my way to be NICE in this group! If you want to see 'MEAN', you should meet me in person! (just ask FroggyBabe!) ... OK... if you really want to see 'mean', just check my next post in this discussion... ;)

Well, I don't know about you, but I was expecting something phenomenonal in response to the question. Something ASTRONOMICALLY mean like, "YOUR MOM SUCKS EGGS!" ... well, that's not true. The good Doctor is usually more tasteful with his meanness...if that's possible. And, good Sir Puhnner, I'm sure your mom doesn't suck eggs, just to be clear. WARNING: MEANNESS TO FOLLOW...

Otherwise, yes. The Doc can be a piss...but then he gets all sorts of remorseful and apologizes. SO let this be a lesson to all who shall enter here: grow some balls! Thicken your damn skin! Get your heart off your sleeve! Have a damn sense of humor! Put plainly...ahem...DON'T TAKE THIS SHIT TO HEART! And if you do, perhaps you should go join a different (kind of) group...if you know what I mean. Toughen up, ladies and gents! Learn to laugh at it! I had a grand guffaw reading how you guys squabble with each other. But that's not what this here thingy is about! It's about having fun.

To wrap it up, SUCK IT UP, y'alls. And if you don't want to, run away like what's-her-name and take your little dog, too. END MEANNESS

That said, who wants a smoothie?

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:54:57 GMT

Risselada:
Wow I've never heard anyone speak of the Psycho sequels before. They are really worth seeing?

I had a real smart ass reply for this question, Rizzo... but I just got done saying I was going to try to be nicer...

SO, I will answer your question... and my answer is.... DUH! I think you need to reread my last posting there, Rizzo! I think it was all pretty self-explanatory...

And I didn't even mention the 'prequel'... "Psycho IV: The Beginning".... (before you ask, YES, this one is worth watching, too!)...

DAMNIT! Oh well... maybe I will be nicer next time... I am working on it...

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:59:11 GMT

Wow I've never heard anyone speak of the Psycho sequels before. They are really worth seeing?

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:31:28 GMT

Thank you again, Mr. TheWorkingDead, for that. I must agree that the "Psycho" series, taken as a whole, is nothing short of extraordinary. The original, while quite tame by todays standards, was really quite terrifying although the ending was rather anti-cimactic... Part 2 was rather disturbing in that Norman moved back into his old house and job (what WERE they thinking?) and soon was back to his old murderous ways. Part III, which was also directed by Perkins by the way, was nothing short of stunning... When Norman put on his mothers clothes and went into the Marion Crane's look-a-like's (Diana Scarwid) bathroom with his butcher knife and pulls back the shower curtain only to see that she had already slit her own wrists, I gasped. And then, as he nurses her back to health, you feel that Norman is on the road to recovery,,, And THEN, when she is accidentally killed when she stumbles backwards down the stairs and has her skull pierced by the arrow on the statue... and Norman just flips out! "M-M-M-MOTHEEER!" You just KNOW that NOW, he is WAY more disturbed than EVER before! THIS was WAY over the top as far as acting and it litterally made me wince...

Obviously, Hannibal Lecter is MUCH more deadly and dangerous, but, as far as sheer acting goes, I must agree with you about Perkins/Bates....

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

TheWorkingDead — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:26:45 GMT

At the risk of being punched in the face, I have to go with Anthony Perkins.

Hopkins played the role with his misanthopy on his sleeve, so to speak. There was never any question that he was a murderer. Part of that was by design, and part of that was Hopkins' winking smarminess. Contrast that with Perkins' more nuanced performance. From the beginning you knew there was something wrong with him, but he was so sweet, so tortured and kind that audiences and characters sympathised with him. It's easy to see it now with the ending in mind and see the obvious signs, but remember that in 1960 nobody knew the ending, and it was more shocking because of how innocent Perkins' character seemed at times.

Don't get me wrong, I like Hopkins, and I do agree in a movie face off that Lecter would have the upper hand over Bates, but as far as performances go, I gotta go with Perkins.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:33:13 GMT

Thank you, WorkingDead. This subject is officially dropped. I wish to apologize to you and to all of our group members and, yes, I admit this whole thing was mostly my fault. I can have a bit of a short fuse at times.

Perhaps we can all learn a lesson from this, myself included, and try to stick to the subject at hand, Horror Movies, and try to avoid personal comments about fellow group members. I value each and every one of our group members, Mr. WorkingDead included, and I hate it when anyone leaves. YOU are what makes this group and I am thankful to ALL of you.

OK, let's get back to the subject of Horror Movies, shall we?

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

TheWorkingDead — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 07:20:05 GMT

Ok, don't take this as me being argumentative, and don't assume I'm being a jerk here, because I'd rather work this out amicably. I enjoy the group, I enjoy the discussions(yes, even this one). I apologize if you don't like the way the conversation went, but I will point out that you brought it up, and I was only responding to it. Which is what the point of this entire group is. Indeed, it's the point of all these groups.

I'm more than willing to drop it, this isn't something I really think I'm going to change any minds on. But if my Jr. High comment was insulting, I'd like you to concede that you were trying to egg things on a bit toowith your 'touche' comment. Perhaps I misread things, if so, I apologize.

If this is my last post in this group, well, that's your decision.

And sorry to everyone who has to put up with reading this.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:14:11 GMT

PS. You better believe that I mean what I say...

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:03:10 GMT

OK... listen... I can boot you from this group with a click of my mouse... but I am not going to do that...yet. I respect everybody's opinions and I do not discriminate at all. But I am warning you right now, any more comments about 'Junior High' mentality and I will not only boot you from this group, but I will drive across country just to track you down and punch you in the face... my advice to you, workingdead, is to just let it go... I will if you will.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

TheWorkingDead — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:09:22 GMT

What are we, in Jr. High? Your big touche comeback was calling me gay and expecting me to be upset about it?

Obviously opinions are opinions, not fact, and we're all going to have different ones. But come on, this is a discussion board. It doesn't work to state something that you realize will be a hot button issue and then insult people who comment on it.

And apparently you weren't reading to closely. In regards to the statement about knowing I was attracted to women at the age of 14. In fact I'm married with a three year old daughter, and am completely heterosexual. My knowledge comes from an open mind and a desire to understand what my friends are going through. Not sexually, before you take that and run with it, but mentally. Emotionally.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:26:32 GMT

Now for YOU, Mr. TheWorkingDead... Yes, I knew as soon as I typed that reply to what's-her-name that there would probably be some homosexuals in this group who might take offense... I was merely talking from my own personal experience on this subject and my own personal feelings... I am sorry if I offended you somehow but I was only trying to answer a direct question as best as I could. Obviously, you know MUCH more about the 'gay culture' than I will ever care to. I bow to your superior knowledge of this subject. Personally, I STILL find it quite disturbing. And I will not back down on that stance... I respect you and your lifestyle and I firmly believe that whatever a person chooses to do with his or her body is nobody's business but their own... Touche...

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:08:13 GMT

Puhnner:

Dr_Gor, just why in the heck are you so 'MEAN'? I cannot wait for your answer.
I guess I was just raised wrong, Mr. Puhnner. But, seriously, I go out of my way to be NICE in this group! If you want to see 'MEAN', you should meet me in person! (just ask FroggyBabe!) ... OK... if you really want to see 'mean', just check my next post in this discussion... ;)

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

TheWorkingDead — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:51:24 GMT

One more note on this subject... I have noticed that even the most RAGING homos in hollywood have at least slept with a member of the opposite sex... at one time or other... Elton John was actually MARRIED, to a WOMAN (!) at one time... as was David Bowie (!) ... ( to Angela Bowie... she said in an interview that she got tired of coming home and finding David Bowie and Mick Jagger in bed together !!!) ... Even Michael Jackson was married to Lisa Marie Presley for Christ Sakes (!)... and she even stated publicly that they had sex together... BUT, I have heard the rumor and I don't know if it's true, that Anthony Perkins NEVER had sex with a woman in his entire life... even though he had plenty of offers... I find this QUITE disturbing! ...

A quick point; David Bowie is actually currently married to Iman. A woman, and a supermodel! Oh my! Bowie was never gay, he was bi, and the threesome was at the urging of his wife, according to certain reports. Not to dork out there, and I don't normally follow the sex lives of celebrities, but so many people have tried to shock me out of David Bowie fandom by claiming he's gay.

Now, about the rest of the post, that claims Perkins' homosexuality is disturbing. I think it's a faulty claim to state that all gay men have had sex with women. I have several gay friends, and not a single one of them has ever slept with a woman. One of my friends came out to me when he was 14, and that really freaked me out for awhile. Not because he was(and is, for the record, he hasn't stopped) gay, but because it seems like such a young inexperienced age to decide. I mean, how did he even know at that age?! And then I realized; well, I sure as hell knew I was attracted to women when I was 14. It can't be that different for gay people.

Some people do need to experiment, and I would agree that probably a (maybe slight) majority experiments, but a lot of people just know. In most cases it's something you are, not something you become.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Puhnner — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:57:56 GMT

Dr_Gor, just why in the heck are you so 'MEAN'? I cannot wait for your answer.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:39:54 GMT

For real.

I look at the discussions in pretty much all of the public discussion groups on this site. And I would say that there are times when at least half of the discussion on this site are specifically about horror movies.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:02:30 GMT

Six of one, half a dozen of the other... I call 'em like I see 'em and if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen...

But seriously, it seems that for every one that leaves, there are 20 or 30 more that join! Have you looked at the membership for this group? Pretty awesome! There are a LOT of Horror Movie fans out there!

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:52:21 GMT

Heh yeah you really do seem to scare them off don't you Gor?

Or maybe you're just weeding em them out.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:23:09 GMT

Thank you, Rizzo, for that. Yes, this is not the first time this has happened to me and it makes it appear as if I were talking to an 'imaginary friend'. (which I only do SOMETIMES...) ... I don't care, though. She asked me a question and I answered her. I guess my answer scared her off... oh well! Let this be a lesson to ALL of our group members ... Don't ask me a question if you might not like the answer!

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:46:52 GMT

Looks like she deleted all of her posts.

This is rather disconcerting. Whenever anyone deletes their posts and someone has replied to them, it isn't apparent that they are replying to a post that has now disappeared unles you use your deductive powers from reading the context of the message.

I have just sent a message to Spout requesting to fix this somehow. If anyone else is as disturbed by this, I suggest you write in as well.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:14:25 GMT

HELLOOO !!!

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:47:27 GMT

Now I have to ask you a question, MediaMaven... are you on drugs?

Marion Crane in 'Psycho' is, indeed, a 'floozie'! She is having an affair with her married boss and she rips off a lot of money from her former employers...

Clarise Starling is an FBI agent who is going to extremes to track down a serial killer...

Do you see the difference between the two?

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:05:03 GMT

MediaMaven:
Why do you find it disturbing that Perkins might have never had sex with a woman? Why is that even relevant? Marlene was a dyke, for the record...who cares?

I assume this question was directed at me so I will TRY to provide a relatively brief answer to a rather complex subject.... (to the other members; please excuse me while I wander WAY off topic here) ...

My knowledge of and experience with human sexuality goes back MANY years to when I was 12 or 13, if not before. (I am 46 now). My first 'full on' sexuall encounter happened when I was 13 and she was the same age. (and NOT a virgin, by the way). Now, without trying to sound like a braggart, over the course of those 34 (or so) years, I have had sex with many, MANY girls and women. Also, I have known at least a few gay men and so I know a little bit about which I speak...

Also, in my line of work (machine shop), I have met, and am still friends with SEVERAL 'lesbians' and I have had sex with MOST of them. AND they at least seemed to enjoy it, which would make them 'bi', I guess, although ALL of them consider themselves to be lesbian.

So, here is my point; ALL of the 'homosexuals' that I have ever known, be they male or female, have had sex with a person of the opposite sex at least once! In many cases, this is how they discovered they were 'homosexual' in the first place!

So, Anthony Perkins, who began his Hollywood career at a very young age and was (so I hear) considered quite attractive to the females and could just about take his pick of any Hollywood starlet that he wanted, NEVER even had the desire to take advantage of that? He found the opposite sex to be so UNATTRACTIVE that he wanted to have nothing to do with some of the most beautiful women in the world? Yes, I find this VERY disturbing.

And I guess the relevency is that perhaps Mr. Perkins was just as disturbed in real life as Norman Bates was on the screen... (if not MORE so!) ...

I hope this answered your question.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:24:44 GMT

I try to avoid paranoia, although it isn't easy. I think you are less likely to be harrassed and investigated if you look confident in whatever you are doing. Hell why pretend, why not actually be confident?

Well conspiracies are still fun.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:52:21 GMT

Well, Mr. Puhnner, it appears that we are still here... 'whew!' that was a close one... I think...

Now, back on subject (sort of), I feel that I should add two 'characters' to the 'rogues gallery' listed above...

How about 'Henry Lee Lucas' and 'Jack The Ripper'? BOTH of these are certainly worth the 'mythological' status of the two (three?) prior enlistees...

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Puhnner — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:05:47 GMT

Here is a link to the NSA ECHELON program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

There is plenty of information about it out there both on the Net and in Books ( but most probably incomplete, misinformation, disinformation or otherwise compromised ). For all intents and purposes all our electronic communication, landline/cell/internet is monitored, read, analyzed, and otherwise looked upon using Voice Recognition, key word, key phrase ( such as dope, drugs, terrorism...you name it ), although as of this date, I believe conversations via Carrier Pigeon are still unbroken and safe, but who the hell really knows???

Like so many USA secret programs i.e.; intercepts of impending Pearl Harbor, cracking Enigma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine

http://www.answers.com/topic/world-war-ii-allied-invasion-of-sicily-and-the-man-who-never-was

listening and camera posts in Mexico City before, during, and after Oswald's little visit there

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/contents.htm.

knowledge of these secret programs reduces results, so it seems more important to keep the programs secret than to avert the coming avoidable

Having said all of this and used inappropriate words and phrases in my electronic communications, I wait placidly in my living room with Mozart's Don Giovanni or the Sex Pistols blasting through the speakers, a cigar and a

in hand, waiting for the knock on the door or DEA/DOD/SWAT/ATF to swing through the windows. 'How may I help you???, but do you mind terribly if I finish this before I disappear???; comes my reply

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:03:07 GMT

Hey, RIZZO! How was THAT for wandering 'off-topic' ?

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:59:49 GMT

I fully believe that the FBI or the CIA or the NSA, or ALL of the above, has a complete regristry of every prescription drug sold to EVERYBODY.... AND, you are going to think I'm being silly but I am dead serious, I believe that "they" are monitoring our grocery store purchases... you know all of those "dicount Cards' that every store gives you for free? Think about it... Also, I am pretty sure that "they" are reading this post as I type it ! (I type pretty slow... 'caveman', remember?)

Is it a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know. This world is a scary place and I guess nobody has quite figured out how to make us all safe. I don't think it is possible. I think all we can do is 'look out for #1' (that would be ME, Dr. GOR), and see what this crazy ride we call 'LIFE' has in store for us. ONE thing is certain... we are ALL going to die. It is just a question of when. For SOME people, who are absolutely 'at the end of thier rope', that ultimate ending cannot come soon enough and so they try to 'speed things along' a bit and sometimes, they try to see how many other people they can take with them... Is it right or wrong? Who knows? I certainly don't... It is a scary world we live in.

Now, do you want to know what is REALLY SCARY? .... ( "Well, DO YA, PUNK?") ... I actually own a handgun and I know how to use it (!) ... in fact, I have had some excellent training from an ex- "Green Beret" (Special Forces)... I am quite proficient in handling MOST types of firearms... rifles, shotguns, handguns etc. BUT, my PREFFERED weapon of choice is still the knife! ... or the base-ball bat! I like the 'up-close and personal' approach...

As I mentioned earlier, "they" are probably reading this as I type it.... I probably just FUCKED myself... didn't I? ...

hang on... someone's knocking on the door....

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:46:51 GMT

Puhnner:
We don't even have a list of gun owners, and we have a list of everyone who has been prescribed anti-depressants? And in fact, the article suggests that this isn't just a database of patients who use anti-depressants, it's a federal database of every prescription drug you've ever bought.

Now THAT'S frightening.

Also I just got pulled over today because a cop saw me running to my car and had also heard news that there was somone suspicious in the neighborhood. Don't run kids, it's suspicious.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:16:50 GMT

... "... nether regions" , Mr Puhnner? It has been awhile since I've heard THAT one! I am not sure, but I think you were talking 'dirty' in some parts of that last 'dissertation'... I am afraid I cannot allow THAT type of behaviour in my group!

(you all know that I am just kidding, right?)

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Puhnner — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:33:38 GMT

an interesting aside, with some relevancy; alas my name appears on yet another list (Lector prefers prescription strength MSG ):

this is too new to check for accuracy:

Guess what? They do. From ABC News, regarding the VA Tech shooter:

Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they can find no record of such medication in the government's files. This does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources, or a gap in the federal database, but the sources say theirs is a reasonably complete search.

We don't even have a list of gun owners, and we have a list of everyone who has been prescribed anti-depressants? And in fact, the article suggests that this isn't just a database of patients who use anti-depressants, it's a federal database of every prescription drug you've ever bought.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Puhnner — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:02:21 GMT

I certainly agree with Rizzo; it is why I object to the transformation of these human beings into mythlogical beings 'monsters' ( as much fun as it is to do so ). I have a great little article at home that I will dig out and post portions that speaks to physiological changes/differences in the brains of most criminals ( that were tested anyway). Here is a portion ( sorry it is long ) of an article which shows how this evolving understanding of the brain's 'responsibility' for behavior is changing how 'criminals' are now viewed and understood.; it is a long one, however much worth the read... (link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=1112 )

Oddly enough, another recent article I read regarding 'Short Order Cooks' speaks to how this vocation produces physiological changes in the cooks' brains too. My suspicion is that further understanding or mapping the areas of the brain will give understanding to how the brain is changed physiologically through what we choose to pursue be it Short Order Cooking or how we are abused; the Criminal. There are interesting pictures of brain slices from Schizophrenics and Alzheimer patients which show large holes in the brain fabric....compared to more consistent fabric ( no holes ) in the non-sufferers.

Don't look at the light

Adults behave differently not just because they have different brain structures, according to Gur and others, but because they use the structures in a different way. A fully developed frontal lobe curbs impulses coming from other parts of the brain, Gur explains: "If you've been insulted, your emotional brain says, 'Kill,' but your frontal lobe says you're in the middle of a cocktail party, 'so let's respond with a cutting remark.' "

As it matures, the adolescent brain slowly reorganizes how it integrates information coming from the nether regions. Using functional MRI-which lights up sites in the brain that are active-combined with simple tests, neuroscientist Beatriz Luna of the University of Pittsburgh has found that the brain switches from relying heavily on local regions in childhood to more distributive and collaborative interactions among distant regions in adulthood.

One of the methods Luna uses to probe brain activity is the "antisaccade" test: a simplified model of real-life responses designed to determine how well the prefrontal cortex governs the more primitive parts of the brain. Subjects focus on a cross on a screen and are told that the cross will disappear and a light will show up. They are told not to look at the light, which is difficult because "the whole brainstem is wired to look at lights," says Luna.

Adolescents can prevent themselves from peeking at the light, but in doing so they rely on brain regions different from those adults use. In 2001, Luna and colleagues showed that adolescents' prefrontal cortices were considerably more active than adults' in this test. Adults also used areas in the cerebellum important for timing and learning and brain regions that prepare for the task at hand.

These results support other evidence showing that teens' impulse control is not on a par with adults'. In work in press in Child Development, Luna found that volunteers aged 14 years and older perform just as well on the task as adults, but they rely mainly on the frontal lobe's prefrontal cortex, whereas adults exhibit a more complex response. "The adolescent is using slightly different brain mechanisms to achieve the goal," says Luna.
Although the work is not cited in the brief, Luna says it clearly shows that "adolescents cannot be viewed at the same level as adults."

Processing fear

Other studies-based on the amygdala, a brain region that processes emotions, and research on risk awareness-indicate that teenagers are more prone to erratic behavior than adults. Abigail Baird and Deborah Yurgelun-Todd of Harvard Medical School in Boston and others asked teens in a 1999 study to identify the emotion they perceive in pictures of faces. As expected, functional MRI showed that in both adolescents and adults, the amygdala burst with activity when presented with a face showing fear. But the prefrontal cortex didn't blaze in teens as it did in adults, suggesting that emotional responses have little inhibition. In addition, the teens kept mistaking fearful expressions for anger or other emotions.

Baird, now at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, says that subsequent experiments showed that in teenagers the prefrontal cortex buzzes when they view expressions of people they know. Also, the children identified the correct emotion more than 95% of the time, an improvement of 20% over the previous work. The key difference between the results, says Baird, is that adolescents pay attention to things that matter to them but have difficulty interpreting images that are unfamiliar or seem remote in time. Teens shown a disco-era picture in previous studies would say, "Oh, he's freaked out because he's stuck in the '70s," she says. Teens are painfully aware of emotions, she notes.

But teens are really bad at the kind of thinking that requires looking into the future to see the results of actions, a characteristic that feeds increased risk-taking. Baird suggests: Ask someone, "How would you like to get roller skates and skate down some really big steps?" Adults know what might happen at the bottom and would be wary. But teens don't see things the same way, because "they have trouble generating hypotheses of what might happen," says Baird, partly because they don't have access to the many experiences that adults do. The ability to do so emerges between 15 and 18 years of age, she theorizes in an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.

Luna points out that the tumultuous nature of adolescent brains is normal: "This transition in adolescence is not a disease or an impairment. It's an extremely adaptive way to make an adult." She speculates that risk-taking and lowered inhibitions provide "experiences to prune their brains."

With all the pruning, myelination, and reorganization, an adolescent's brain is unstable, but performing well on tests can make teens look more mature than they are. "Yes, adolescents can look like adults. But put stressors into a system that's already fragile, and it can easily revert to a less mature state," Luna says.

The amicus curiae brief endorsed by the APA and others also describes the fragility of adolescence-how teens are sensitive to peer pressure and can be compromised by a less-than-pristine childhood environment. Abuse can affect how normally brains develop. "Not surprisingly, every [juvenile offender on death row] has been abused or neglected as a kid," says ABA attorney Harper.

that last sentence tells a horrible story not only for the offender, but for us as a whole

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:05:16 GMT

Yes Doctor, I know what kinds of behavior are often considered inhuman.

I guess I'm interested in the fact that when people see this behavior that is difficult to face and deal with, they place it in a certain real where they can detest it by not try to identify with it. I think we should instead by trying to understand this behavior and realize that there is always a real person behind behavior that seems less than human.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Phantasma-gore-ia — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 04:11:40 GMT

I have referred to Dr. Gor as bigfoot, caveman and several other derogatory terms and I'm not convinced he's human. But, before I get carried away, what were we talking about?

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:18:54 GMT

That is very well put, Rizzo! And a rather deep subject for a shallow mind like mine! However, I will try to 'hang' with you as best as I can on this subject! ( <<< "caveman", remember?)

How old is your Mother? I bet she would like to 'do it' with me... THAT is a perfect example of the type of 'barbarism' I have often been accused of... by the way, do you have a sister? Or a DAUGHTER?... I think you are beginning to get my point......

Whereas Hannibal Lecter would just as soon EAT you! AND your Mother! "...with some fava beans and a nice chianti..."

So who is the 'less human' of the two?

It is an interesting subject and open to much debate...

Please keep your input coming... < Dr. GOR >

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:37:35 GMT

Dr_Gor:
PLEASE understand this... NO topic is 'off-limits' here and I am truely interested in hearing what is on ALL of your minds! PLEASE speak FREELY... whenever you wish

Awesome! Sorry if I was seeming like I was being a jerk about it.

Dr_Gor:
I most certainly do NOT have "certain knowledge" of what makes someone "human" or not! I merely said that I have met several "people" that I would CONSIDER to be "less than human"... it is simply a fact... perhaps I, myself, might even be one of those! I have been accused of being a "barbarian" and a "cave-man" and an "animal" on SEVERAL occasions...

I guess it's just an issue of semantics (which most discussions usually are). Certainly I know that people can act in ways that resemble barbaric or animalistic behavior. But obviously the person doing it is a human. In a matter of biological classification, the entities we are all talking about are humans. Homo sapiens, not dogs or robots or anything like that in a strict sense. Of course there are certain behaviors that are shunned or looked at as more mindless and carnal where as because human beings should have the ability of self control and higher awareness they should avoid these behaviors. When someone deviates from that behavior and behaves destructively, we say it is inhuman behavior. But truly we must recognize the fact that this person is a human, so what ever they are doing must be in the realm of human behavior. In that way I am not asking you to define what behavior should be classified as human or inhuman. There is no question. If a human has ever committed a certain act, then that act is part of human behavior. Now the question is, how do we reconcile the fact that some of these extreme and often horrifying acts were committed by people who are of the same species as our own? I think we must recognize that these behaviors do not define who we are as a species, so you cannot disclude someone from your species just because they have committed them.

That's sort of what I was thinking.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:45:00 GMT

OK, Rizzo... I am going to "spout" here...

Yes, it IS okay to divert from the original topic! (I do it all the time, you may have noticed!)... I am VERY interested in hearing ALL of your thoughts on ANYTHING that even remotely resembles 'Horror'! And PLEASE don't let my 'admonitions' stop ANY of you from speaking your mind! That is what this group is for! However, isn't it fair that I should be able to speak my mind as well? I most certainly do NOT have "certain knowledge" of what makes someone "human" or not! I merely said that I have met several "people" that I would CONSIDER to be "less than human"... it is simply a fact... perhaps I, myself, might even be one of those! I have been accused of being a "barbarian" and a "cave-man" and an "animal" on SEVERAL occasions... I think it has to do with my 'upbringing', as mentioned earlier! Also, the group of friends I "hung out" with in my younger years... MANY of them were, perhaps, LESS 'human' than me!!! I cannot go into too much detail here for fear of 'incriminating' myself... let's just say that I truely know about which I speak! I will try to get my friend Robert to comment on this... although he only knows me online, we HAVE talked extensively and he DOES know me pretty well...

PLEASE understand this... NO topic is 'off-limits' here and I am truely interested in hearing what is on ALL of your minds! PLEASE speak FREELY... whenever you wish!

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:50:42 GMT

Dr_Gor:
OK, guys. I have to interject here.... This is NOT a discussion about whether a 'psycho-killer' is 'human' or not... this discussion is about who is the more 'effective' psycho out of Lecter or Bates...

So you are disallowing us from diverging from the original topic? Why not let the conversation go where it will? If things get interesting, there is no reason to restrict it due to formality!

Dr_Gor:
and I have actually met several 'people' who I would consider to be 'less than human'... but that is neither here nor there...

What gives you certain knowledge of what makes someone human?

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:48:44 GMT

OK, guys. I have to interject here.... This is NOT a discussion about whether a 'psycho-killer' is 'human' or not... this discussion is about who is the more 'effective' psycho out of Lecter or Bates... I will go with Lecter as he is obviously the more DANGEROUS of the two...

I have my own thoughts on what is 'Human' and what is 'less than Human' and I will save those thoughts for another, more appropriate, discussion... I WILL say this, however, I was born and raised on the 'mean-streets' of North Denver and, as a youngster, I was involved in many 'gang-fights' and I am no stranger to 'real-life' violence... I have had my nose broken, more than once, and I am missing several teeth and I am covered in scars... from my face to my hands and arms and my torso... and I have actually met several 'people' who I would consider to be 'less than human'... but that is neither here nor there...

I WILL, however, restate my earlier point, that I would MUCH rather fight Norman Bates than Hannibal Lecter...

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:37:36 GMT

Indie:
The reason they are made into monsters is because the act of killing for the fun of it does strips them of their humanity, or at least what would bind or bond them to any of us.

I certainly understand your aversion, but I don't know how you can speak in such absolutes. Such people are not truly human? Really?

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Indie — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:15:16 GMT

Still I wouldn't consider a serial killer ordinary by any means. The reason they are made into monsters is because the act of killing for the fun of it does strips them of their humanity, or at least what would bind or bond them to any of us. And consequently their rights as men are taken as well, at least by the law.

.... Though if I believed in karmic law I'd have to say that a serial killer's karma ought to be pretty bad.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:17:24 GMT

I could not have said it better myself... Hannibal wins, hands down...

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Phantasma-gore-ia — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:12:33 GMT

I think it's fairly simple to discern the more disquieting of the two: our good friend the Cannibal. Yes, they're both possessed of a certain demonic touch, but Lecter seems infintely more calculating, more keenly aware of his surroundings, his environment, the relationship between them, his place in the world, the inner workings thereof and so forth. He seems a more masterful and strategic planner, a man who better understands the human mind, its capabilities, fragilities and how to read every one like a book. His mind is more intricate and his psychosis is deeper rooted, more complex whereas Bates seems quietly disturbed and unable to examine himself and know how messed up he really is.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Puhnner — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:05:13 GMT

Oddly enough, no I did not...I just could never understand extreme violence and where it came from. Alice Miller's books seem to me, to make a very believable case for how it starts and continues through the childrearing process. Throw in a little bit of the current evolutionary psychology theory and things seem to make as much sense as anything else.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:27:57 GMT

That is a very interesting 'tye-in', Mr. Puhnner! Did you have an exceptionally violent or otherwise disturbing 'upbringing'? I certainly did! Perhaps that would explain alot...

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Puhnner — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:50:41 GMT

Rizz...

You said it so much better than I. Thank you. Our literature, our stories have explored this topic, I suspect from the dawn.

Here are a couple of books I have gone through which explore the topic and make sense to me at this moment in time.

these 2 are by Alice Miller

For your own good; Hidden Cruelty in Child Rearing and the roots of Violence ( great chapter on Hitler's childhood )

The Body never lies: The lingering Effects of Hurtful Parenting

and of course Gitta Sereny's

Into that Darkness ( Franz Stangl commandant of Treblinka )

Albert Speer; His battle with the Truth

Cries Unheard: Why Children Kill: the Story of Mary Bell

and Andrew Vachss seems to make most of his 'Burke' series about turning children to our current monsters; I thought Red Dragon the book, laid out the transformation pretty well.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:32:09 GMT

Puhnner:

oh well...another terribly ordinary 'psycho' becomes the myth, maybe this mythological transformation from the ordinary is important for understanding of these aberrations

Hmm, I wonder if it's actually an attempt to try to understand these people or just the opposite. My intial inclination when you mentioned it was to think that these mythical transformations are actually evidence of our avoidance of any attempt at true understanding. These "psychos" were real people just like us. How can we acknowledge that they were able to do such horrible things? Well the solution seems to be to deny that they were truely human but actually monsters.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Puhnner — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:32:39 GMT

Here is a shot of real Ed:

here is a shot of movie Ed ( which I thought a pretty darn good film)

of Jason

oh well...another terribly ordinary 'psycho' becomes the myth, maybe this mythological transformation from the ordinary is important for understanding of these aberrations

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:46:34 GMT

I am assuming that all of you already know this... That the characters of Norman Bates, 'Leatherface' (from TCM) and 'Buffalo Bill' from "Silence Of The Lambs" were ALL loosely based on the SAME 'real-life' person... Wisconsin's notorious 'psycho/serial-killer' Ed Gein! Look for a NEW movie version of the story of this infamous sicko (starring Kane "Jason" Hodder!) coming soon to a theater near you!

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Puhnner — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:38:06 GMT

Very well put! How about Mr. Cox in L.I.E.; astonishing. He appears as the character he plays, not Cox.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Indie — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:17:18 GMT

A consumate actor, alas I think that Hopkins has been Lecter for too long.... The edge has dulled and been replaced with something akin to theatrics. But pure performance w/ choices given I'd still have to w/ Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs.

I do like Brian Cox immensely. I appreciate him a lot in movies that need an anchor especially. Long Kiss Goodnight always comes to mind when I think of Brian Cox. He exudes gravity, which many many movies need.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Risselada — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:40:26 GMT

I've heard that the portrayal of the Bates character in Psycho was actually at least partially inspired by Dennis Weaver's character in Touch of Evil. He's probably my favorite thing about that movie. Super weird!

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Puhnner — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:39:54 GMT

This description above of the two was extremely well put and my sentiments.

While there are very few scenes that I can think of that rival the creepiness of Sir Hopkins standing at attention behind the 2" thick plexi while waiting for Ms. Starling ( one look at Hopkins and I could understand why he remains on the closed side of the glazing; while if Cox had been there instead, I would not have understood and this wondering why such an ordinary looking fellow would be there, would be even more frightening and disconcerting ), on the other hand, the scene of Cox/Lecter fiddling with the opened phone with a metalic gum wrapper piece, getting a dial tone, and then saying ( and I botch this ); 'could you dial this number for me, I haven't any hands?' put a supreme chill up my spine. This precise ordinariness of Cox, got right to me; rather than Sir Anthony/Lecter's increasingly mythical superhero attributes, which as they increased, became decreasingly unbelievable to me. Cox remains completely believable to me, while Sir Anthony/Lecter becomes less and less so.

The truth be told, I have gotten less and less enjoyment from watching Sir Hopkins since Silence of the Lambs. He became a Jack Nicholson like actor ( no matter what, he is always Jack Nicholson ) for me despite his obvious talents.

It has been such a long time since I read the works, but it seems that Sir Hopkins' performance prompted the mythical character change in Hannibal; the film version of Sir Hopkins/Lector pushing and forming the book version. Anyone read Hannibal Rising and care to comment?

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

BigJeffLebowski — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:17:25 GMT

I'm going to have to second Puhner's Hannibal Lecter assessment. I absolutely love Hopkins in the role, and he certainly deserved his Oscar, but there's something undeniably creepy about the ordinariness of Brian Cox's performance. Hopkins' Lecter relishes his deviance, while Cox's is more cavalier about it. That his Lecter could sooner pass for a normal member of society ultimately makes him more unsettling than Hopkins'. For the same reason, I'm going to have to answer Perkins to the original question, albeit with reservations.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:39:37 GMT

Thank You, Mr. Puhnner, for your input! It is a real pleasure to have you in this group! However, I must disagree with you on this one...

I HAVE seen "Manhunter" more than once and it is, in fact, part of my collection... I enjoyed this movie immensly! BUT, I found ANTHONY HOPKINS performance to be The ULTIMATE! He is the consumate actor and he portrays a 'psychopath' better than anyone! (except, maybe, Anthony Perkins!)... have you seen "The Edge" or "Instinct" ?

I DO agree with you in that i liked the original "Cape Fear" over the remake... Robert Mitchum vs. Gregory Peck (!) are you kidding me? I just cannot believe that this movie did not receive a much wider audience and publicity!

Please keep your input coming, Puhnner... that is what this group thrives on...

Thank You ... < GOR >

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Puhnner — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:14:51 GMT

Off the subject a bit and call me a heretic, but I always enjoyed Brian Cox as 'Hannibal Lecter' (in Michael Mann's Manhunter ; in fact, I enjoyed this film much more so than Red Dragon), much more than Sir Anthony Hopkins, whose performance seemed to peak for me in the Silence of the Lambs and descend further and further into Sir Anthony playing Hopkins playing Hannibal playing Sir Anthony as the series progressed ( maybe, blame it on the Director instead of Hopkins ). I also found Manhunter much more effective than Red Dragon; and Hannibal only so much fetid bilgewater under the bridge ( hell, even the book stunk ). Brian Cox seemed more real person than the 'super hero' that Lecter became ( I have not seen Hannibal Rising ), similar to Mitchum' Max Cady in Cape Fear compared to De Niro's Cady in Cape Fear.

There, I have said it, but it remains only my opinion and subject to the same lack of insight with which all my opinions are formed and proffered..

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Indie — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:36:11 GMT

My mom told me that she had a big crush on Perkins back in the day.... well until psycho.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:41:05 GMT

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Indie — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:37:59 GMT

I'll have to go with Hopkins.... Don't get me wrong perkins must have had it tough getting that gone back in the day, but there is something chilling about the way hopkins just focuses as Lector. He just has to give you a look. It seems both effortless and frenetic when Hopkins lets the psycho break through his usual cold exterior. Plus I happen to appreciate odd dynamic of the extremely educated psychological and analytical mind on a complete cannible. If Hannible were real, I don't think I'd be able to out-smart him; e.g. he'd completely kill me.

Re: Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

tmoney — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 03:57:51 GMT

I'm going to have to go with Perkins here and let me try and explain why. First off, I love both roles, and think they are both phenomenal characters. BUT for me, Hannible Lecter is more of a villain of spectacle, and Norman Bates is more of a guy-next-door-who-could-snap-one-day kind of villain. I think while Lecter is a more brutal, violent, dangerous villain, Bates was a more disturbed, unpredictable villain. I mean, at first, I thought, "Bates is such a nice guy. Getting her supper and all. And trying to make conversation. And taking care of his dear old mother...and BAMMM! She's dead. As for Lecter, I wouldn't get within ten miles of his cage. Bates I might get a little closer to. And I think Perkins performance as Bates is just unbelievable, and really captured the psyche of a deranged person, I feel that Hopkins was playing a "character out of a book" person. Just comparison, but I do like them both.

Hannibal Lecter vs Norman Bates

Dr_Gor — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:36:55 GMT

Who played the better 'Psycho' out of Anthony Hopkins or Anthony Perkins?

Sir Anthony Hopkins has defined the character of 'Hannibal Lecter' for all of us... He is quite disturbing in that role, there is no doubt! He also played quite a convincing psychopath in "Magic" ... He also played "Quasimodo" in the 1982 version of "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame"...

Anthony Perkins clearly defined 'Norman Bates' in the "Psycho" series... He is QUITE disturbing in that role! He also played a convincing psychopath in "Pretty Poison"... as well as 'Jeckyll and Hyde' in "Edge Of Sanity"...

While Hannibal Lecter has a much higher 'body-count', I feel that Norman Bates is the more 'disturbed' of the two... I would much rather fight Norman than Hannibal because I feel I could take that butcher-knife away from Norman and shove it up his ass... Hannibal Lecter, with his infinite knowledge of human anatomy and his skill with edged weapons, would not be so easy....

What do YOU think, fellow Horror-philes... let me know...