• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Scream 4!!!!! - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/20316/-scream-5-is-not-happening

"Scream 5" Is Not Happening?

So much for a second trilogy. The hope of "Scream 4" was that it would launch a new series of films. Decidedly mixed reviews and poor box-office however may have nixed those plans.
Moviehole spoke with a contact at Dimension Films who says "The 'Scream' franchise will likely end here, at least for the moment" and plans for a so-called trilogy "stops here". However, they did add that the film series may have future as a direct-to-DVD franchise ala "American Pie".
With a production budget at $40 million, "Scream 4" opened with $18.7 million, almost half that of its two immediate predecessors. Its second weekend wasn't much help either, the film plummeting by 62.4% despite little to no competition. International grosses are also proving somewhat lacklustre.

Little to no competition?! Wasn't this past weekend Easter? No one wants to see a horror movie on Easter weekend. Especially with Hop and Rio out. These people really need to think.

I also don't want to see a direct-to-DVD release with the Scream franchise, because then, you know, the main three will not be coming back.

I say, just end it, if anything. I love Scream. But Scream 4 was a great ending.
 
Just to clarify, worldwide numbers are the equivilant to DVR and online viewings for TV shows. Yeah, they matter a little, but the profit involved with them is so minimal that they don't matter all that much.

Except for premium cable. That's why shows like Game of Thrones and The Borgias can be renewed. :) VOD may change theatrical expectations for films in the next decade or two as well.
 
I got agree with the sentiment of if this is it. Just end it. I'd rather the series just end then see Scream the Remake or Scream 5 with a bunch of nobodies on direct to dvd.

I really don't want to see this series become that.
 
They might start using Stab 4 and 5 type plots ;)
 
And finally, Tron is a rare case because it is Disney. Worldwide distribution is usually more expensive as there is a middle man involved taking a cut of the profit (meaning the theater, studio, and international distributor split it three ways). Its my understanding (and I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not) that Disney is one of two major studios who distributes worldwide themselves (cutting out the middle man). Therefore they stand to make more from international box office.

Tron may be getting a sequel despite lackluster domestic performance due to good international numbers but they are very much so the exception rather than the rule. For every example like Tron, you can find ten examples of movies that kick ass internationally and receive no sequel due to disappointing domestic grosses.

TRON is different because it still doubled its budget (the "disappointment" was it was supposed to triple it) in box office and Disney owned the entire rights to the franchise. It was no adaptation like Narnia and they could make a crap ton by synergizing the **** out of the product by making toys, merchandising, video games, even a cartoon show on their own Disney Channel done completely in-house. The movie(s) are just the first stop on a money machine.

Scream doesn't have that. It's going to limp by its production costs domestically (though a sizable percentage of that will go back to the theaters who exhibited the movie) and probably need DVD and Bluray sales to break even when marketing costs are factored in. Now obviously it will turn a profit because horror movies do big numbers on disc and this is a branded name. They'll also turn a profit by selling the TV rights, but after that Scream 4's journey is over and its returns will be in the black, but only to a negligible degree.

However, I think in an effort to avoid tarnishing the brand, TWC will not make it a DTV franchise (though Halloween seems destined for that fate) and hope they can do an actual remake/reboot down the line.
 
Absolutely. The Weinsteins did not get rich by being loyal. Kevin Smith is proof of that. Scream isn't their baby or beloved franchise. It was only ever an investment to them.
Scream IS their beloved child. There wouldn't have been a 4th if it wasn't. They WANTED to make a 4th film because they love the franchise.
 
I think the better example is that they didn't "Stab" the franchise and make a Scream 4 in 2002 with an all new cast. They never made a PG-13 Scream. And they spent $40 million on Scream 4 as opposed to the $13-$15 million they've spent on the last three Halloween films they produced and went to the trouble of paying Neve Campbell $5 million (well above her regular price) to bring her back.

The fall out with Kevin Smith was as much on his part as Harvey (look at Smith's embarrassing publicity stunt at Sundance this year) and they have never loss loyalty to Tarantino. Even after the industry snickered at them and the filmmaker for the bomb that was Grindhouse and the early expectations was that Inglourious Basterds was going to be the death of TWC as a summer release, it worked out. Otherwise they make a bunch of trite genre pictures under Dimension and Oscar bait under their big W label, but you can tell which are special to the company.
 
I fully blame the studio for Scream 4 underperforming at the box office. Not the kind of movie you release around Easter and up against two family movies. IMO, they should've held it back until maybe early Fall, with Halloween on the horizon.
 
Hell, I don't think they should've held it back it should be ready to be in theaters in Feburary. Release around the time the Friday the 13th remake was released. I think Freddy vs Jason was released around then.
 
I got agree with the sentiment of if this is it. Just end it. I'd rather the series just end then see Scream the Remake or Scream 5 with a bunch of nobodies on direct to dvd.

I really don't want to see this series become that.

I don't want to see it come to that either. Just end it. If they go a direct-to-dvd route, they will become everything they've mocked from day one.

I do look forward to seeing how much this makes from the DVD.
 
I think the better example is that they didn't "Stab" the franchise and make a Scream 4 in 2002 with an all new cast. They never made a PG-13 Scream. And they spent $40 million on Scream 4 as opposed to the $13-$15 million they've spent on the last three Halloween films they produced and went to the trouble of paying Neve Campbell $5 million (well above her regular price) to bring her back.

The fall out with Kevin Smith was as much on his part as Harvey (look at Smith's embarrassing publicity stunt at Sundance this year) and they have never loss loyalty to Tarantino. Even after the industry snickered at them and the filmmaker for the bomb that was Grindhouse and the early expectations was that Inglourious Basterds was going to be the death of TWC as a summer release, it worked out. Otherwise they make a bunch of trite genre pictures under Dimension and Oscar bait under their big W label, but you can tell which are special to the company.
That publicity stunt actually worked though. He was right.
 
I don't want to see it come to that either. Just end it. If they go a direct-to-dvd route, they will become everything they've mocked from day one.
If Scream 5 is going to happen, I don't think it'll be direct to video. The Weinsteins wouldn't do that to such a big franchise of theirs.
 
Would Roger Jackson even be into that? The whole Direct to DVD thing? So what they'd have no returning cast members at all and a Ghostface that sounds totally different.
 
...I'd say that's on the level of 'Stab 5 and the Clock of Doom!'. :funny:
 
^^ Pretty much, lol. The film wont be DTV. It's either theatrically, or it's not happening, if you ask me.
 
I doubt we'll get anything "definitive" until a while after the home video release.
 
^^ I doubt it would be a while after. I mean, we must hear something from Wes on the future of Scream some time in the coming months.
 
But the Weinsteins are not going to want bad press while the Scream 4 brand is still as hot as it's ever going to be. Let's face it, in this day in age a franchise movie isn't considered successful unless it guarantees a sequel, so they're going to want to keep the hope alive at least for the first couple months of the Blu-ray/DVD release.
 
^^ Well, then it'll be a grueling 3 to 4 months. I'm so eager to hear what the studio and Wes has to say.
 
Why is Scream 4 Underperforming?

By thewriter2009 • April 26, 2011



After its second week in release, Scream 4 struggled to garner $7.03 million in the U.S. box office — raking in a total of $31 million domestically, according to Box Office Mojo. As Scream 4 crawls toward its production budget – which sits at $40 million – the question of “When will Scream 5 start production?” quickly shifted to “Will there even be a Scream 5
Why is Scream 4 underperforming? If you are looking for a definitive answer to this question, I wish I had one. Last week, Courteney Cox sat down with the ladies of CBS’ The Talk and said old fans appeared to love the film, but the younger audience doesn’t know about them. When most thought an 11 year gap would make the heart grow fonder – did it make most forget? Could this explain Scream 4’s mediocre box office numbers?
Wicked-scribe’s latest article touched base on how reboots have become the new format for horror movie making. The reboots mentioned made a killing in their opening weekend and grossed a respective amount of dough domestically – but all were inferior films, lacking the intelligence and humor that made Scream a worldwide phenomenon. If teens believe the PG-13 slashers, the American remakes of foreign films and reboots are what horror is all about — a Netflix trip to 70′s and 80′s horror will be a rude, yet satisfying awakening. It is a shame to see the current state horror is in.
If the Weinsteins no longer have interest in creating a new Scream trilogy, I would be game for them combining Kevin Williamson’s ideas for a fifth/sixth film and making one hell of a finale with a fifth and final film! The fans deserve their ending to the new trilogy.
Where did Scream 4 go wrong? Did teens not understand it? Was its release date a death sentence? Scream fans, this post is all about YOU! Sound off below and tell Scream-Trilogy why you think Scream 4 has been underperforming in the box office.




---


There's a number of reasons I think . If Scream 5 does get made they should release it a different time of year.
 
You can't blame TWC for releasing Scream 4 when they did. It's Rio that hurt it the most, and from what I remember, Rio announced it's release date after Scream 4 had already been locked in for April 15th. They knew pretty well their 3D family flick was going to be a sure-fire hit when up against a horror film.

Obviously kids wouldn't have gone to see Scream 4 had there been no Rio, but Scream 4 would have made much more had Rio never came out on the same day. Even if it was just $10 million more.
 
I don't believe it is outstanding or works anywhere near as well as the original, but I kind of love this movie. It's SO meta, though, and although I am a sucker for meta humor, it is sometimes too clever for its own good (especially the opening, in which the Stab scenes are well done, but when we actually enter Scream 4, there's no tension left and nothing subversive is done with the rest of the scene). That's Scream, though - highly clever and sometimes overdoing that - and there are worse things that a film can be than too clever.

Unlike 3, though, Scream 4 does work as a horror film, or at least a thriller. There's only one scene here that I found scary, but there is a great deal of suspense and unease. That one scary scene is Olivia's death, which is the most brutal to endure since Randy's (not that I'm saying the death itself packs the same punch), and it's because of the way Sidney and the others watch it, or rather the way Sidney sees it start and then runs to find help, but doesn't make it in time. That is an expertly crafted horror scene. Scream 4 is a great thriller all the way through, though, but it wouldn't be if it weren't a sequel. It's not a particularly well-crafted mystery, but none of them are. The reveal of Jill as the killer was a big surprise, but it made her unconvincing behavior (she was less believable than she thought she was) make sense. Before that, I thought Emma Roberts was just kind of stiff.

One of the things that makes Scream unique among horror franchises, and the thing that makes it most valuable as a series beyond its self-satisfied satirical bent, is that it's not really the villain that we're following from one installment to the next, that we want to and do see develop, it's the heroes. (Heroes, too, not even just a "final girl," but three core characters returning each time.) Sure, Ghostface is a fun, iconic villain, but it's just a costume, with a different person underneath it every movie, giving them all a mystery element. If you genuinely love the Scream movies, then what keeps you coming back is the trio of Sidney Prescott, Dewey Riley, and Gale Weathers (sorry, Gale Riley), and that's clearly what keeps Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson back. That's such a joy to see, because one of the things that is always criticized about contemporary horror films is the cynicism behind so many of them, particularly the "torture porn" subgenre: It's not about rooting for a hero to best a horrible villain, it's about how that horrible villain is going to win, and how elaborate and realistically gruesome the kills are. Yes, Scream is a series of slasher movies, so creative kills do matter, and there have been some great ones ('though not really in this movie), but what makes them as good as they are is how much we're made to care about Sidney, Dewey, and Gale.

As with Scream 2, this movie does not feel like it was made to cash in at all; this feels like a movie Kevin Williamson really wanted to write, and it feels like Kevin Williamson really wrote it. It feels like a proper Scream movie, unlike 3, which was a sort-of-convincing look-alike. It's already been said a ton, but I LOVE Sid in this movie so much. Her development throughout this series has been perfect - it is by far the best part of 3, and she makes a climax that is otherwise retconning the first to the point of insult into something awesome with her badassery. The way she deals with Ghostface here - no more fear, just pissed-off strength and action - is great to behold. Neve Campbell is so good here, from the warmth of her moments with Dewey to her continued cautious friendship with Gale to the kind of awkward way she carries herself around Jill and her mother; they are technically family, but really, they're not family, they're relatives, and this isn't home. Plus, Jill's friends refer to her as the Reaper or the Angel of Death, so that doesn't help. Williamson did a good job writing Halloween: H20 and taking the classic "final girl," Laurie Strode, and examining her 20 years later and turning her into an exhilaratingly strong figure. Williamson didn't write 3, but he and Craven combined have seen Sidney through 15 years and done a remarkable job with her. By comparison, Dewey and Gale have, of course, not had the same kind of growth, but I'm as happy with the way their characters have been treated. It's a pleasure to see Gale be Gale again in this film, because, although she certainly hadn't lost all of her personality, the Gale Weathers we saw last time 'round was pretty watered-down, paired with Parker Posey's character in subplot that was somewhat fun, but much too cute. She's a welcome return to form in 4, trying to team up with the new generation and their passion for media to catch the killer. There is decidedly less chemistry between her and Dewey, which is surely because the Arquettes were going through a break-up while shooting. Where Sidney has become wonderfully strong and Gale has grown just enough of a conscience that Sidney and Dewey can stand to be in the same room with her, Dewey...well, he's Dewey. What that means is that, during the climax, even though I knew what a modern-Barney Fife character he is, I was still mentally screaming, "COME THE **** ON, DEWEY, WHERE'S THE CAVALRY!?" At least he didn't get maimed this time.

This franchise has been important to me since childhood - Scream came out when I was 7, and my mom loves horror movies - so I came into Scream 4 desperately wanting our big three to survive. Ever since it was announced that there would be a fourth Scream film and that Kevin Williamson had plans for a fifth and sixth, I've naturally thought this one would begin with Sidney's death. Then once I knew what the plot was, I figured it would end with Sidney's death. That thought that Sidney, or at least one of the big three, would die this time, never left my mind, but when I entered the theater, I'd decided that my prediction was that none of them would, but in Scream 5 (which I thought more likely 3 days ago than I do now), one would. Also, I had seen the trailers, which featured that awesome clip of Gale exclaiming before a Ghostface hovering above her with a knife, "Go ahead - if you have the guts!" And then that scene came (minus that line, by the way, which I missed), but Gale was pretty clearly not dead. Sidney's close call did get me, though; as Jill told us, we expected it, to some level or another, and as the rest of that sequence unfolded, without Sidney bolting up and dispatching Jill, I was genuinely, deeply worried, shaking my head in what I thought was denial and repeatedly mouthing, "No." There was a bit of that when Jill attacked her in her hospital room, too, but as it acknowledged, that scene was so ridiculous that it couldn't be a credible place for Sidney to die. Devindra Hardawar, one of the hosts of The /Filmcast, suggested a different way for things to go: Jill actually killing Sidney, then the film ending after that scene, with Jill successfully framing Trevor and becoming the new Sidney, and the next movie picking up with her in college or something, and a Scream movie opening with viewers knowing who the killer was for the first time. That is a good idea, I have to say, it could have worked. I might be putting what I want to happen over what I think works dramatically here, but I was too happy with Sidney, Dewey, and Gale all surviving, and too happy with the movie's, "Don't **** with the original!" attitude, to want anything else. (And what a great line and moment that was - the biggest I've smiled in ages. Cheers!)

I agree that, unlike in 3, the new characters introduced were all interesting and/or likable, with Hayden Panettierre's Kirby the clear standout. Seeing her die was hard. Emma Roberts' Jill was actually very convincingly unhinged, going to such extreme and horrible measures to be famous, but not wanting to be famous for her killings, but for a faked survival; she wants to be famous for not doing anything, and that's the thing that makes 4 contemporary. The rundown is this: We're meant to think of Jill as the Sidney stand-in, Kirby the Tatum stand-in, Charlie the Randy stand-in (he certainly does), Robbie the Stu stand-in (I was expecting either he or Charlie to be a killer, and I was leaning toward Robbie because he had a slightly creepier look about him), and Trevor the Billy stand-in. Trevor is SUCH an obvious Billy stand-in that he's a clear red herring character and not much else; did anyone actually suspect him in a real way, and not just out of suspecting literally everyone? As it turns out, Charlie is more the Stu stand-in and Kirby is the Randy stand-in; Kirby is the most defined supporting character, and we like her, so it hurts when she dies. It felt like all of the younger cast members needed a little more screentime, and the same with Alison Brie as Rebecca; fun role, but I wanted more of it. However, that's a good problem to have.

I hoped Scream 4 would do better initially than it has been. There's a chance it could build, but that seems like a small chance (opening weekend counts for a lot more now than it did when the first, second, and third movies opened). I've heard it said that this film would have done better if it were instead a PG-13 remake - a straight remake, that is. Unfortunately, that's probably right. I'd like to think that Scream 4 makes a remake impossible with the way it acknowledges that it basically is one and satirizes remakes the way the first one did standard slasher flicks, the second did slasher sequels, and the third did trilogies. If the Kirby character can rattle off that list of remakes of classic horror and not even mention all of them, then Scream is not protected. (What would be even worse is if the series went the straight-to-video route. That I don't see happening, though.) For now, we have Screams 1-4, and 4 is really good, a pleasant surprise and a considerable improvement over the last.

My only disappointment is that "Red Right Hand" wasn't used at all; its become sort of a theme song, and its inclusion would have made it feel even more like a Scream movie.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,263
Messages
22,074,752
Members
45,875
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"