Piranha's sequel is a sign of desperation. They've done it already. I'm iffy on the prospects of Scream 5 as well, but I can definitely see it happening.I don't think they're desperate for something with little life in it.
No Scream 5, please.
Neve already said prior to this one, she was game for more, same with David Arquette.Would Neve be back for a 5? I thought she didn't want to do 4.
It's the same thing as Scream 3 with me. The only reason I got behind 4 was it had such a good idea behind it and the original cast was back, even though Scream 3 was a definitive ending.I feel the same way I felt after I saw Kick-Ass (which I also loved) in that I don't really see a need for a sequel, yet all the fans seem to want one. I'm not against the prospect, but I just don't think it's necessary. Especially after such a definitive ending.
I like both Gale and Dewy. I'd hate for either to go if someone should have went [blackout]Sid, my fave of the trio, had a perfect send off when Jill "killed her" in Scream 4.[/blackout]
With that said, I'd accept Gale going before Dewy. Dewy is just too sweet and affable to be killed off. That is why Wes and Williamson brought him back to life in the final shot as an afterthought in the first film. If they were to kill Dewy, they had a great opportunity in Scream 2 (now THAT was a death scene!), but he lived. He's just too much fun. Plus he and Neve Campbell were putting a lot of effort on screen for Scream 4. I felt like Courtney Cox, even with her reduced screentime, seemed to be coasting in this one as Gale.
If someone had to go, it should be Gale. In fact, I thought Gale was going to die at Stabathon. When she lived, I decided the original were invincible....and then I grew sad that Randy was the only survivor of of the original film that wasn't....Randy was my favorite.
Well, Scream 4 would never have worked if it came right after Scream 3. The 11 years were competently necessary, IMO. If they make a Scream 5, I feel like it can only work if they wait another 5 or so years. That way it can once again provide a commentary on the state of horror movies.It's the same thing as Scream 3 with me. The only reason I got behind 4 was it had such a good idea behind it and the original cast was back, even though Scream 3 was a definitive ending.
It's the same with Scream 4 with me. Another definitive ending, but there's a prospect of another one and I'm iffy just like I was when Scream 4 was announced. It's just at some point it has to stop, before it really does devolve into a typical horror franchise with bad installments.
I feel the same way I felt after I saw Kick-Ass (which I also loved) in that I don't really see a need for a sequel, yet all the fans seem to want one. I'm not against the prospect, but I just don't think it's necessary. Especially after such a definitive ending.
But they also kind of risk coming back at a time when horror is dead, like it was with the first Scream by doing that. I understand what you are saying, but there are times when horror just dies out all together.Well, Scream 4 would never have worked if it came right after Scream 3. The 11 years were competently necessary, IMO. If they make a Scream 5, I feel like it can only work if they wait another 5 or so years. That way it can once again provide a commentary on the state of horror movies.
He's deader than Kirby. Stabbed in the heart. Then stabbed again. If it weren't for Roman he'd be the lamest of the killers. He just seemed like a really expendable pawn controlled by Jill.