Psycho Set Going Away

[lashbear]

It's Curtains for the Psycho Set. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/film/its-curtains-for-psycho-set/2006/12/08/1165081153516.html)


The two properties, mainstays of the Universal Studios tour, are to be moved to make way for housing in the biggest production in the history of the studio. The Hollywood giant plans to spend $US3 billion ($3.8 billion) to redevelop much of what is the largest film studio lot, creating 2900 homes, 11,000 jobs and more than $US4 billion in annual economic activity.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh my frelling god.


I heard about the housing tract. But bulldozing the Psycho house for it?!? DoubleYou Tee Eff???

[mousepod]

It says they're moving it. What are the odds that it turns up in Orlando?

...and here's an interesting page - The Psycho Set Timeline (http://www.geocities.com/nfb_418/timeline.html)

[flippyshark]

It says they're moving it. What are the odds that it turns up in Orlando?

We've already got one, though I don't know if it's still standing. It was built on a hillside near the E.T. ride (which we still have), but that area is now home to a kid zone, with Curious George, Fievel and Barney related shows and play areas. I know that the Psycho house was still there a few years ago when Curious George opened, and it was hard to see past the facades of that water-playground. I haven't been back in a while, and their website doesn't mention it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was taken down.

[Alex]

From the timeline mousepod posted, the Florida version came down in 1999. Also according to that timeline, this isn't the first time it has been moved and hardly any of it is original.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, the Motel may not be original ... but I saw nothing on that page to indicate the much more famous portion of the set, the Psycho House, was not original. Merely that third - and later fourth - walls were added sometime after the original film was shot.

That doesn't make the 2 walls of the house seen from the proper Motel vantage point any less original to the Hitchcock classic.





(Of course, now I feel kinda cheap for being thrilled to play around the Bates Motel on our last "VIP" foray through the Studio Tour.)

[Alex]

My reading of this

It's decided to move the Psycho House to a new location on the backlot. (Psycho II (http://www.geocities.com/nfb_418/P_2.html) director Richard Franklin said at the time, "they built a tour around it so we had to move it to a remote location". The house was rebuilt and about 30 feet of motel was built. The rest was done as a matte painting. If you notice you don't really see much of the Motel in the picture.

was that the house wasn't physically moved, just rebuilt in a new spot. But I suppose it is ambiguously worded.

And not being original (by "hardly any" I was talking about the entire structure) doesn't mean it isn't a noteworthy landmark (though I don't necessarily consider it deserving of extraordinary preservation).

[innerSpaceman]

We will just have to agree to disagree, then. It's one of the most famous movie sets in history, and a high-point of the Uni Studios tour for over 40 years.

If the two original walls of the house still exist, then the entire original set of the house still exists.

I have no problem if they move the house (once again), but to get rid of it would be the height of movie studio tour folly. It remains one of their biggest draws. Playing at the (faux) Bates Motel was a highlight of our recent visit. When I go back again in 10 years (my average span between), I hope to find the Pyscho house still there ... somewhere.

[BarTopDancer]

Getting out at the Bates Motel was amazing. To move the house, the hotel, re-route the tour in the name of more [un-necessary] housing is just greed. Pure and simple greed. There is not a housing shortage in CA. There is an affordable housing shortage. The new houses aren't going to be cheap. They don't need to be built.

Then again neither do the houses they want to build where SFMM sits either.

[Kevy Baby]

...and here's an interesting page - The Psycho Set Timeline (http://www.geocities.com/nfb_418/timeline.html)That was cool to read. Thanks for posting that!

[Alex]

Yeah, we can disagree. I never though it was all that exciting to see any particular movie set on the Universal tour. The interesting thing about the Universal tour is to see a working backlot and a permanent set installation is the antithesis of that. And considering the quality of construction likely used for the initial construction (when it was assumed the set would be struck within the year), even if they did physically pick up and move the version of the house that existed at the time I doubt there is much original in those two walls.

It's only the most famous movie set in history because it has been left there for 40 years. Tear it down and leave the rest unchanged for 30 years and Whoville will be the most famous movie set in the world.

For the first 30 years of its existence, the house continued to be used as a working set. For the last decade it has hardl been used at all and when it is, it is self-referential. It no longer serves any purpose other than as something for people on trams to look at. While I'm not saying that means it should be removed I think it makes it a good candidate for removal.

But since they've apparently said they are going to move it, our disagreement seems academic. And if they're not, I'm sure you'll see some group trying to force some kind of "historic landmark" designation on it to force Universal's hand.

[RStar]

I think the phrase "Rebuilt" can mean one of two things. Taken apart, and then "reasembled" rather than moved as a whole (possibly due to it's age and fragile condition), or torn down and rebuilt. Since I saw nothing about it being torn down I mostly agree with ISM. But it could be the wording of the author that confuses the matter.