Scream 4!!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The trailer is decent, nothing special other than Kristen Bell :hrt:
Oh and I want Sidney to die in this one :cool:
 
kickass said:
Which character is everyone looking forward to seeing the most?
Click to expand...

The original trio for nostalgia sake; and that Sid is the best action/horror chick of all time.

Home Alone's brother and Adam Brody in a more substantial, serious role since The OC.
 
Neve Campbell has always had this reputation for being very anti-Hollywood and ppl took that as her being a snob. But she seems like anything but. She looks fantastic in that video, btw. And her smile makes me melt lol.
 
I've always liked Neve, and Sidney definitely is my favorite heroine in all of horror movies, but I'm willing to give Scream 5 and 6 a shot even if she dies in 4/isn't present.
 
It's just been leaked that the killer is
Sydney's kid who she gave up to for adoption when she got pregnant from Billy.This person is one of the new teenage characters.
 
GoldGoblin said:
It's just been leaked that the killer is
Sydney's kid who she gave up to for adoption when she got pregnant from Billy.This person is one of the new teenage characters.
Click to expand...
Damn 14 year old kids looking 17 and killing people. :cmad:
 
Joker said:
No, it doesn't work at all. All bets could have been off without resorting to such a lame contrived storyline as Maureen Prescott being a Hollywood ****e who spawned a psycho half brother for Sid, who masterminded her murder. It was ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The thing about Scream 3 is that it is even more self-aware and tongue-in-cheek than the other installments, and it expands the scope of the series, which is what most third entries in a trilogy do. Most of the movie takes place in Hollywood, and the film is filled with Hollywood stereotypes and movie references (even some cameos). Several sequences take place on movie sets for the Stab series, which are actually sets from the first film. Call me crazy, but I thought it was refreshing to see the characters in a different environment trying to out a killer who clearly had a connection to the Prescotts (we knew this because of the pictures left by the killer with every body), rather than another copycat or something like Stu's mom following in Billy's mother's footsteps.

Also, the rules established by Randy for the third entry in a trilogy are pretty accurate and funny, much like the horror rules that were established in the first film. By the end of Scream 3, even Sidney realizes that she's in a trilogy. In the first Scream, Billy goes on a whole spiel about how it's all "one big movie", and the big revelation in Scream 3 is that it was essentially Roman's movie, and one that took on a life of its own and became a trilogy. Him being "the director" during the whole movie is almost a subtle hint about his role in the series.

Plus, we always knew that Sidney's mother was a ****e, since that's what the killers in Scream 1 and 2 were always crying about. That fact that she was a Hollywood ****e doesn't change much, but the interesting thing about Scream 3 is that we finally saw the true ramifications of Maureen Prescott's actions, which was psycho Roman. Had she not been such a dirty **** that abandoned her own child, none of this would have happened. I didn't think it was such a ridiculous ending, and to this day, it definitely has its place in the series.

Now Scream 4 effectively poops all over the trilogy spiel Scream 3 was spouting.
Click to expand...

Also, not really, because the original trilogy stands on its own as a complete story, with loose ends neatly tied up. Scream 4 is simply a new chapter and new beginning. :up:
 
theShape said:
The thing about Scream 3 is that it is even more self-aware and tongue-in-cheek than the other installments, and it expands the scope of the series, which is what most third entries in a trilogy do. Most of the movie takes place in Hollywood, and the film is filled with Hollywood stereotypes and movie references (even some cameos). Several sequences take place on movie sets for the Stab series, which are actually sets from the first film. Call me crazy, but I thought it was refreshing to see the characters in a different environment trying to out a killer who clearly had a connection to the Prescotts (we knew this because of the pictures left by the killer with every body), rather than another copycat or something like Stu's mom following in Billy's mother's footsteps.

Also, the rules established by Randy for the third entry in a trilogy are pretty accurate and funny, much like the horror rules that were established in the first film. By the end of Scream 3, even Sidney realizes that she's in a trilogy. In the first Scream, Billy goes on a whole spiel about how it's all "one big movie", and the big revelation in Scream 3 is that it was essentially Roman's movie, and one that took on a life of its own and became a trilogy. Him being "the director" during the whole movie is almost a subtle hint about his role in the series.

Plus, we always knew that Sidney's mother was a ****e, since that's what the killers in Scream 1 and 2 were always crying about. That fact that she was a Hollywood ****e doesn't change much, but the interesting thing about Scream 3 is that we finally saw the true ramifications of Maureen Prescott's actions, which was psycho Roman. Had she not been such a dirty **** that abandoned her own child, none of this would have happened. I didn't think it was such a ridiculous ending, and to this day, it definitely has its place in the series.



Also, not really, because the original trilogy stands on its own as a complete story, with loose ends neatly tied up. Scream 4 is simply a new chapter and new beginning.:up:
Click to expand...

I kinda sorta love you for this post. :hrt:
 
I just recently saw Scream for the first time (yes, i know i'm very late)...and found it very intertaining. I really liked the whole "rules" thing. I noticed on the poster for Scream 4 it says New Decade. New Rules. Does any one know what the new rules are?
 
Not_Sane said:
Does any one know what the new rules are?
Click to expand...

- The killer's got to be way more extreme
- Virgins can die now
- The unexpected is the new cliche
- To be the new 2.0 version, the killer should be filming the murders now
 
GoldGoblin said:
It's just been leaked that the killer is
Sydney's kid who she gave up to for adoption when she got pregnant from Billy.This person is one of the new teenage characters.
Click to expand...

I call bull****.
 
Marx said:
Sidney is just as iconic to Scream and Laurie is to Halloween. We all know how good the Halloween movies were without Laurie. :down



:up:
Click to expand...

4 was good enough...
 
Halloween could have continued and been good without Laurie. Halloween 4 proves that. It's just that they went out of their way to retcon her death, killed any continuity the series had, then once they had done that, they killed her after one film and they had to dumb her down to do that.

I don't see them doing something like that with Sid. If she dies, it'll be in a really good way, probably will be emotional and important too.
 
JustABill said:
Halloween could have continued and been good without Laurie. Halloween 4 proves that. It's just that they went out of their way to retcon her death, killed any continuity the series had, then once they had done that, they killed her after one film and they had to dumb her down to do that.

I don't see them doing something like that with Sid. If she dies, it'll be in a really good way, probably will be emotional and important too.
Click to expand...

That was awful... "Oh God, he's trying to take his mask off. What if it's not really him again?" Yeah, because it's not like he just, not five minutes ago, tried to kill you or anything...

And her method of trying to kill him was pretty awful too. Yeah, this guy's survived being shot multiple times, a pretty huge explosion, multiple stabbings and God knows what else... but no, by all means, go ahead and drop him a few stories. I'm sure that'll do the trick. :dry:
 
If they plan six films total and Sidney gets terrorized three more times it seems really far fetched. I started to feel bad for Sidney when her life got wrecked again in Scream 2 . . I think they should have one of the killers get away this time or something.I'm not sure I like that idea but it makes sense if they need a trilogy.
 
After watching the trailer, I think....

....The two dorky kids are the killers.
 
theShape said:
The thing about Scream 3 is that it is even more self-aware and tongue-in-cheek than the other installments, and it expands the scope of the series, which is what most third entries in a trilogy do.
Click to expand...

It didn't expand the scope of the series it all. If anything it took a step backward by revisiting Maureen Prescott's murder and adding a ridiculous contrived unneeded element to it.

Not only that, but the movie has Sidney OUT of action for half the movie, as she sits up in her house in the hills, while Gale and Dewey run around like headless chickens in Hollywood with Parker Posey.

Most of the movie takes place in Hollywood, and the film is filled with Hollywood stereotypes and movie references (even some cameos).
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be set in Hollywood to have stereotypes or cameos.

The whole movie felt like an episode from Scooby Doo. You could real feel the severe lack of Kev Williamson's classy touch on the movie.

Several sequences take place on movie sets for the Stab series, which are actually sets from the first film. Call me crazy, but I thought it was refreshing to see the characters in a different environment trying to out a killer who clearly had a connection to the Prescotts (we knew this because of the pictures left by the killer with every body), rather than another copycat or something like Stu's mom following in Billy's mother's footsteps.
Click to expand...

All the main killers had a connection to the Prescotts. The difference here being Roman's connection was entirely new, ridiculous, contrived, and unbelievable.

Second, not ONE single murder in the whole movie affects Sid personally. Or Gale or Dewey. Everyone who dies means nothing to them personally. If the main characters didn't give a damn about any of these characters, why should the audience?

Also, the rules established by Randy for the third entry in a trilogy are pretty accurate and funny, much like the horror rules that were established in the first film. By the end of Scream 3, even Sidney realizes that she's in a trilogy. In the first Scream, Billy goes on a whole spiel about how it's all "one big movie", and the big revelation in Scream 3 is that it was essentially Roman's movie, and one that took on a life of its own and became a trilogy. Him being "the director" during the whole movie is almost a subtle hint about his role in the series.
Click to expand...

Pure conjecture. What Ehren Kruger did was take Williamson's established back story and bastardized it.

Plus, we always knew that Sidney's mother was a ****e, since that's what the killers in Scream 1 and 2 were always crying about. That fact that she was a Hollywood ****e doesn't change much, but the interesting thing about Scream 3 is that we finally saw the true ramifications of Maureen Prescott's actions, which was psycho Roman. Had she not been such a dirty **** that abandoned her own child, none of this would have happened. I didn't think it was such a ridiculous ending, and to this day, it definitely has its place in the series.
Click to expand...

We saw the ramifications of Maureen's actions in Scream 1, when we found out she was murdered because she was screwing Billy's father, which effectively drove Mrs Loomis out of town and abandon her son, which sent him off the rails.

It doesn't get more real than that. Sidney even says to her father at the start of Scream 3 "None of this would ever have happened if she hadn't....if she hadn't...".

What Scream 3 did was go and ruin that by saying Billy had his strings pulled by being shown Roman's home made movie, and then spoon fed all the details about to kill her, frame Cotton for it, and have a partner to sell out.

That just de-values Billy as a villain.

Plus Maureen Prescott worked much better as an amoral woman who simply slept around because she wanted to. Adding the whole Hollywood B-actress, who was gang banged at a Hollywood party angle was so hilariously stupid. The original concept was elegant and effective in it's simplicity.

Also, not really, because the original trilogy stands on its own as a complete story, with loose ends neatly tied up. Scream 4 is simply a new chapter and new beginning. :up:
Click to expand...

More conjecture. You have no idea how the killer relates to Sid in Scream 4. The very fact Sid's Aunt and cousin are in this makes me believe the Prescotts are still very much the backbone for this.

It's not called Scream a new beginning. It's Scream 4. The sequel to Scream 3. The saga is no longer a trilogy. The story continues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
My eyes! Worst dvd cover!
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
8K
Breogan
Breogan
E
Cabin Fever 2 BANNED from filming in NC.
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
TheCarter
T
E
Transmorphers!
Replies
5
Views
894
Timstuff
Timstuff
The Apatow Crew
Exclusive New Wrong Turn 2 Trailer
Replies
4
Views
841
DACrowe
DACrowe
Horrorfan
Hellboy vs the Universal Monsters????
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
the last son
the last son

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 3,075 (members: 16, guests: 3,059)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,286
Messages
22,079,284
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"