Another funny aspect of it is I've seen some people who were lukewarm on the motive start to come around on it more when they see what a sh**tshow some of the fan reaction is.
To be fair though...if you break down the primary Ghostface motivations throughout the series, it all boils down to some version of resentment or revenge towards Sidney and/or the sins of her mother. Which I enjoy, but it had definitely run its course. Jill's angle of wanting to be famous feels just as timely and relevant as what this movie was commenting on IMO. They could've gone further with the commentary, but I think it's an interesting subversion of what we've come to expect for this film to have the motivation be what it is. Especially as this is the first film to not have the killings center on Sidney.
I think the one of the most clever things this film does is
drop the bomb that Sam is Billy's daughter straight away. While we don't get that big third act lore dump we've grown accustomed to,
I feel like by the end we're left with something that feels like a new angle on the series.
I also feel like one big thing this film succeeds in is capturing the energy of our current moment just in the way it's directed, the music choices, etc., in a way that I don't think the 4th film quite managed to at the time. That's no slight against Wes, but I think the injection of younger energy into this film really works in its favor.
I'd be curious to know why you'd say Jill's motivation was any less "surface level" than what we're given here? Other than her resentment of Sidney, to me it's pretty much on the same level to me in terms of the characters' making a huge leap from initial seed of an idea to *killing spree*. One of the things I enjoy about 3 was how Sidney calls out Roman's BS and just says the only reason he kills is because he chooses to and there is no one else to blame. I need to see it again,
but I feel like Richie in particular may be the first killer who kind of owns what he is and isn't trying to blame the victim for his crimes.
I do think there's a tradeoff there in terms of not getting that satisfying whodunnit twist/lore reveal, but at the same time doing something that feels like a step in a new direction. At the end of the day every single Ghostface killer is psychopath with an extremely warped view of reality. That said, it's not something I'd want for every film if the franchise is to continue. I'd love the next one to step up and be a great whodunnit that's harder to figure out and juicy 3rd act reveals. But I can appreciate what they went for here. I think it's a situation where this film needed to exist to move forward. You needed a new creative team to step in, pay homage to Wes and kind of 'earn' the franchise and prove that this can work without Wes. For my money, they managed to pull that off which is no small feat.
I think they're going to play the Stu card at some point. By the series' own rules, he was never shot in the head, so....Factor in Williamson's initial Scream 3 idea and the fact that Lillard wants to come back. I think it'll happen eventually.
In terms of motivations, at the end of the day, the 1, 2, yes 3, and 4 there was logic to the madness. It wasn't just because they were crazy. Yes you are technically crazy when you decide to put on a ghost mask and go on a killing spree to target someone, but behind that, you need a good reason. They all have a warped view of things and that's part of their downfall, but it's still a firm view and core to why they do what they do. That's where the movie begins. With 1, 2 and 4, that ties into the theme too where Williamson could thread the needle so well. This goes for any murder mystery. You strip Scream of it's meta and self aware nature and put that script in Victorian England and it still functions as effectively because it's so sound. This movie doesn't have that. It has the surface level details of what a Scream movie should be. Suspicion isn't just people telling the other they're the killer, that's a result of something much deeper like Billy wanting to have sex with his girlfriend, to which that leads to his crux which is just abandonment and revenge. Here there isn't any of that.
With Jill, yeah, you have the superficial element, but it was in the sense that it was a commentary on the superficiality of wanting fame, but there was a reason why Jill wanted fame. She wanted to be special and got sick of hearing about her famous cousin. Yeah, it's crazy, but there's a logic to it! And that extended into the meta remake theme. There's a real thru line.
With this it's toxic fans wanting to make it more like the original because they're toxic fans. Why are they doing it though? I'm not saying it has to be deep, it just has to have a core ethos, some reason. Entitlement could have been something fine. Or maybe they wanted revenge. These could have translated to that toxic fan element because toxic fans aren't just toxic fans. There's an underlying reason why they are the way they are. Insecure, spiteful, self loathing. These things could have worked. But they're the way they are just cause. It comes off more as the filmmakers spending more time on social media than breaking these things down.
Which is a shame because the idea in theory was so promising!!! I was pleasantly surprised when they started talking about them! But Matrix Resurrections did the legacy sequel commentary better.
But we have a story of two sisters reconciling their past and then the aforementioned.
It's two things at odds. Williamson could thread the needle with both.
I think at the end of the day, Williamson is a more learned man who is educated on how these types of stories function and because he had the discipline to know storytelling fundamentals when he wrote Scream. These people are just trying to write what a Scream movie might be. Know how to draw a circle before you break it. Williamson did that. Kruger and these guys apparently don't do that.
I wouldn’t put these guys in same category as Kruger. I think you can tell how much they loved the Scream movies and were trying to make a really great Scream movie and a love letter to Wes and fans. Kruger while it wasn’t his fault was always brought in by over controlling Harvey who didn’t let Kevin do what he wanted to do with the franchise. I think this felt more like Scream 1 and 2. The dialogue was very Kevin. But I see your point around the killers and such. I mean we are never really going to get the first Scream again. It’s a different time.
I find it interesting that Scream 4 unfortunately was considered a box office bomb. The time it was made and came out I think was the reason. The new Scream much like Halloween is at a perfect time of the old fandom plus new fans who have watched Scream on streaming services in the last 5-10 years. So they’ve made this at the perfect time as there are heaps of people who’ve discovered Scream recently. We can already see box office wise this will do really well.
I wouldn’t put these guys in same category as Kruger. I think you can tell how much they loved the Scream movies and were trying to make a really great Scream movie and a love letter to Wes and fans. Kruger while it wasn’t his fault was always brought in by over controlling Harvey who didn’t let Kevin do what he wanted to do with the franchise. I think this felt more like Scream 1 and 2. The dialogue was very Kevin. But I see your point around the killers and such. I mean we are never really going to get the first Scream again. It’s a different time.
I find it interesting that Scream 4 unfortunately was considered a box office bomb. The time it was made and came out I think was the reason. The new Scream much like Halloween is at a perfect time of the old fandom plus new fans who have watched Scream on streaming services in the last 5-10 years. So they’ve made this at the perfect time as there are heaps of people who’ve discovered Scream recently. We can already see box office wise this will do really well.
They're not bad writers but I think they have a problem like most of these filmmakers making these legacy sequels. They don't really deconstruct the original movies and know how they work. They get a little too caught up in the surface level details of it and mistaken that for core storytelling function like Williamson knew. But unlike Reitman or Abrams, these guys made a genuine effort at introducing new ideas, they just didn't execute them well and kind of fell into the same trap these other guys did but for different reasons. I can appreciate what they tried to do at least.
Indeed it's hard to pin 3 all on Kruger. You had the Weinstein intervention and Laeta Kalogritis working on it. That being said it's a testament to Williamson's work. It can't easily be done.
It was a GREAT film, especially 5 movies later the fact that they made me care about the newbies and were able to keep the world feel very real and not like they jumped the shark was very gratifying. Especially in sequels nowadays where they try to update the characters for the modern world as if they were frozen in time and have to hit on everything going on, they allowed the characters to keep growing through the years and nothing felt forced.
I have minimal issues with the film. Only big ones are
Deweys death was seen from space. He didn't have to go back and you knew he wouldnt survive. And knowing WHO killed him makes it a little bit harder to believe that they were able to do as much damage as they did.
I wish they had let Judy survive and team up with Gale/Sidney in the end. Judy is finally in charge! I wanted to see her kick some ghostface butt!
One thing this franchise hasnt really dealt with and IF we get another film in this universe....would be the gays and how they are incorporated into the horror franchise. We still follow a lot of the traditional things in this film so just Ghostface or whoever mocking the lead or someone about the classic horror tropes and the person coming back with "I'm gay, we're outside the tropes" would be a good laugh I feel.
If they do a sixth one what do they do? Is it the Halloween 6, Freddy's Dead, Jason X, jump the shark aspect of horror films with too many sequels and the need to kill the franchise?
If they do a sixth one what do they do? Is it the Halloween 6, Freddy's Dead, Jason X, jump the shark aspect of horror films with too many sequels and the need to kill the franchise?
What are the rules for Franchises that go beyond 5?
Seems like things get wilder & weirder.
Who Knows?
Maybe Ghostface will have his own equivalent of Iron Man armor next time around.
Completely agree. This felt like it was bringing the whole franchise full circle.
It all starts with a couple of deranged movie fans who took their love of scary movies too far. This is taking that original motivation and updating it to our times and very specifically the state of modern fandom. I think it's very clever. And it's different than Charlie in Scream 4. He loved all the Stab movies, even the bad ones. This is the first time we've gotten into how protective fans can be of their favorite franchises and the dark places that goes. It felt right for this franchise to go there.
Judy is racing back home, calls in the troops, gets sliced and diced in a suburban neighborhood and the cops never arrive in time and no one attempts to save her. Ghostface would've had a hella of a time to go unnoticed.
Seeing this for a second time in an hour! Can’t wait to experience this again and pick up on things I missed. The more I’ve thought about this movie the more I love it. It might actually be my second favourite after Scream 2 and tied with Scream 1.
One negative was definitely the lack of chase scenes and I won’t deny that, but I think the intensity and intimacy of each kill really made up for that and is something I think it has over even the original movies
Saw it again and loved it even more. Sidney and Gale had so many great moments towards the end
Amber is probably my second favourite ghostface ever
And one thing I noticed that I thought was awesome.
When vince is about to get killed, red right hand is playing from his car, he turns off the music right before the chorus, and as ghostface begins killing him the music kicks back in as the song says “you’re one microscopic cog in his catostrophic plan, designed and directed by his red right hand” It’s pretty poetic because vince was nothing but an insignifcant red herring who only got targeted because of his connection to stu.
I really really love that whole part and the way it was shot
Fair enough, I respect your opinion and high standards for the franchise. I definitely agree that Williamson's writing isn't easy to replicate. I will say though,
I think you hit on the key by mentioning "entitlement' as a motive. By definition though, that's exactly what a toxic fan is. It's inherent to the idea IMO. Someone who acts entitled, like they own the object of their fandom and act out in hostility towards others when they feel the thing they love has been done wrong in some way. Maybe the movie didn't spell it out enough, but of course-- a toxic fan doesn't think they're a toxic fan, which is why Richie rejects the idea that it's even a thing. So I feel like I completely understood what the movie was trying to say even though it wasn't spelled out via monologue as detailed as previous motives were. I guess you kind of have to be plugged into movie culture and fandom to fully appreciate it, but I am, so I did. To me, this feels like it's bringing it full circle to what Billy was all about. The entitlement he feels towards Sidney and taking her virginity. The warped sense of reality from his obsession with horror. I think this a film that understands it's the 5th film in the franchise and is in conversation with the other films. And I think perhaps even more than the other ones, this one is turning the mirror on the fan community and trying to start a conversation. I think it's pretty bold and I respect it. Now I'm not saying I would've been against Richie and Amber having a more fleshed out personal motivation, but I don't think it's necessary for what this film is trying to say and is arguably more impactful with it being absent for the first time in the series. I mean the film even misdirects by saying that the killer is always connected to something from the past. Other than Amber living in the Macher house, Dewey ends up kinda being wrong.
Also, I mean Williamson was still on board with a producer-- he gave notes on this movie. I just listened to a podcast with him talking about the movie and he seems very happy with it, said he teared up at the end and flat out says he thinks it's better than the old ideas he had for 5. I'd love to see this team take another swing with it, now that we've passed the torch and done this love letter to Wes. Keep Williamson as a voice in the room. I think we've got a good thing in place here. This kind of movie was necessary to move the franchise forward. It would be one thing if Wes had been able to come back for a 5th film, but I think this was just the right balance for a movie that had to take the torch from a revered director who has passed away. It could've easily gone so wrong. I see enough love and understanding of the franchise on display here to want to see more and hopefully see them take it up to the next level. A little room for improvement isn't a bad thing for me, if this is going to be a franchise again.
Just thinking of the Scream tv series (oh god) and Id really rather much have had a prequel series surrounding Sids mom. Or something set in the Stab sub-verse.
Fair enough, I respect your opinion and high standards for the franchise. I definitely agree that Williamson's writing isn't easy to replicate. I will say though,
I think you hit on the key by mentioning "entitlement' as a motive. By definition though, that's exactly what a toxic fan is. It's inherent to the idea IMO. Someone who acts entitled, like they own the object of their fandom and act out in hostility towards others when they feel the thing they love has been done wrong in some way. Maybe the movie didn't spell it out enough, but of course-- a toxic fan doesn't think they're a toxic fan, which is why Richie rejects the idea that it's even a thing. So I feel like I completely understood what the movie was trying to say even though it wasn't spelled out via monologue as detailed as previous motives were. I guess you kind of have to be plugged into movie culture and fandom to fully appreciate it, but I am, so I did. To me, this feels like it's bringing it full circle to what Billy was all about. The entitlement he feels towards Sidney and taking her virginity. The warped sense of reality from his obsession with horror. I think this a film that understands it's the 5th film in the franchise and is in conversation with the other films. And I think perhaps even more than the other ones, this one is turning the mirror on the fan community and trying to start a conversation. I think it's pretty bold and I respect it. Now I'm not saying I would've been against Richie and Amber having a more fleshed out personal motivation, but I don't think it's necessary for what this film is trying to say and is arguably more impactful with it being absent for the first time in the series. I mean the film even misdirects by saying that the killer is always connected to something from the past. Other than Amber living in the Macher house, Dewey ends up kinda being wrong.
Also, I mean Williamson was still on board with a producer-- he gave notes on this movie. I just listened to a podcast with him talking about the movie and he seems very happy with it, said he teared up at the end and flat out says he thinks it's better than the old ideas he had for 5. I'd love to see this team take another swing with it, now that we've passed the torch and done this love letter to Wes. Keep Williamson as a voice in the room. I think we've got a good thing in place here. This kind of movie was necessary to move the franchise forward. It would be one thing if Wes had been able to come back for a 5th film, but I think this was just the right balance for a movie that had to take the torch from a revered director who has passed away. It could've easily gone so wrong. I see enough love and understanding of the franchise on display here to want to see more and hopefully see them take it up to the next level. A little room for improvement isn't a bad thing for me, if this is going to be a franchise again.
I'm glad you liked the movie. Despite my problems, I liked it too! I'll definitely include it in my Scream marathons. Did he say what his Scream 5 was?
I disagree about entitlement being an implication because there's never an indication of that. In the real world we might make that implication of someone, but in a movie, it's its job to tell us. You can't have assumptions about that. Otherwise how do we know in the context of the movie? And like the other movies, they do that successfully. Billy, his mother and Roman wanted revenge, Mickey and Jill wanted fame. When those killers explained what happened, there was always a core reasoning for their actions. Billy was abandoned, Jill wanted to be special, Mickey had a perverse point to prove with our culture. Those were the real motives. I'm not saying it has to be deep or Shakespearean (Stu's was peer pressure), but these are the real core things that made these people start doing the crazy things what they did.
It's like saying the Joker is crazy because he's an anarchist. Yeah he's both those things, but why does he do these things? Because he had a point to prove. He wanted to prove that everybody was as bad as him and he is constantly pushing everyone to that test and where the drama comes in.
I saw a tweet saying that Scream, Scream 4, and Scream 2022 work as a trilogy, and I think I prefer that to the actual trilogy lol (even though I'm not crazy about any of the sequels. Still think 4 and 2022 are the better ones).
I saw a tweet saying that Scream, Scream 4, and Scream 2022 work as a trilogy, and I think I prefer that to the actual trilogy lol (even though I'm not crazy about any of the sequels. Still think 4 and 2022 are the better ones).
How do they work as a trilogy? There's literally no connective tissue between the three other than the core trio. Scream 2022 could have ignored the events of Scream 4 and still did what it did.
How do they work as a trilogy? There's literally no connective tissue between the three other than the core trio. Scream 2022 could have ignored the events of Scream 4 and still did what it did.
I saw that tweet too and didn’t understand it. To me this movie basically ignored most of the events of scream 4 apart from one throwaway line about the last time this happened was in 2011. Even judy hicks seemed like a different character here than in scream 4. It didn’t even seem like the events of scream 4 happened for sidney? Idk that’s how it felt to me
I think this movie had way more connective tissue to the original 3 movies, and if anything acts as scream 4, take 2
I'm glad you liked the movie. Despite my problems, I liked it too! I'll definitely include it in my Scream marathons. Did he say what his Scream 5 was?
I disagree about entitlement being an implication because there's never an indication of that. In the real world we might make that implication of someone, but in a movie, it's its job to tell us. You can't have assumptions about that. Otherwise how do we know in the context of the movie? And like the other movies, they do that successfully. Billy, his mother and Roman wanted revenge, Mickey and Jill wanted fame. When those killers explained what happened, there was always a core reasoning for their actions. Billy was abandoned, Jill wanted to be special, Mickey had a perverse point to prove with our culture. Those were the real motives. I'm not saying it has to be deep or Shakespearean (Stu's was peer pressure), but these are the real core things that made these people start doing the crazy things what they did.
It's like saying the Joker is crazy because he's an anarchist. Yeah he's both those things, but why does he do these things? Because he had a point to prove. He wanted to prove that everybody was as bad as him and he is constantly pushing everyone to that test and where the drama comes in. My point is there's an ethos there.
The killers in this were obsessive fans of the Stab movie franchise. They were so unhappy that they didn’t get the kind of movie they wanted with the last Stab, which became their twisted reasoning for these new killings — to help steer the franchise back to what they liked and wanted to see. Deranged entitlement is 100% an implication there. It is clear as day. BatLobster nailed it on the head with how we see this in fandom all the time. You as a mod here obviously see this all the time with superhero movie fans. Everyone has their own preferences for what they like to see with their favorite franchises, and are unhappy when things don’t line up with their preconceived notions or preferences. They blame the studios, filmmakers, writers, actors, etc. The “fans” in this new movie took their love for horror movies too far — just as Billy and Stu did.
Did you need Richie to say the word “entitled” to drive that concept home?
How is Jill “wanting to be special” and feeling jealous of her cousin (who became famous for being a murder victim while Jill was a little kid) any stronger of a motivation? Or Mickey, who was already a killer before meeting Mrs Loomis, wanting to go to trial and blame the movies for his crimes?
All of the Ghostface killers have had irrational desires and twisted viewpoints of themselves and the world around them, blaming other people (Sidney) or things (movies) for their actions. The new motives here are right in line with that.
I saw that tweet too and didn’t understand it. To me this movie basically ignored most of the events of scream 4 apart from one throwaway line about the last time this happened was in 2011. Even judy hicks seemed like a different character here than in scream 4. It didn’t even seem like the events of scream 4 happened for sidney? Idk that’s how it felt to me
I think this movie had way more connective tissue to the original 3 movies, and if anything acts as scream 4, take 2
I agree. The original three movies did a much better job of showing the weight of the events carry over from each movie.
Apart from the obvious repercussions of the Maureen Prescott story spanning the trilogy, you had Cotton in 2 seeking his 15 minutes of fame after his name was dragged through the mud in 1, which Sidney gives him at the end of 2 by telling the media he was the hero they wanted to talk to. In 3 he has become a TV celebrity with his own show.
Gale and Dewey both evolve so nicely over the three movies. At the end of 1 Dewey is being hauled into an ambulance and Gale is in front of the camera cut and bruised and doing the story on the murders. At the end of 2 Dewey is being hauled into an ambulance and a cut and bruised Gale abandons the camera to go with him. Then by the end of 3 they get engaged. Really showed how Gale changed, and how much Dewey changed her.
Sidney tries to move on with her life after 1, goes to college, makes some new friends, starts a new relationship. By 3 after all her friends and her boyfriend were murdered in 2, she's become an isolated recluse. I also liked the touch of her wearing Derek's Greek letter necklace in 3.
Despite my issues with Scream 3, it still felt strongly connected as a continuation to the previous two movies.
I enjoyed it. It was my first time seeing a Scream in a theater since the second. There was more good than bad. This one felt more like a true sequel and not a self parody like 3 and 4.
- Loved the camera movements and compositions. The constant fake out of jump scares in the scene before Wes is killed was well done
- Likeable cast and good chemistry. They didn’t feel like stock characters meant just to be killed like in 3 and 4
- Dewey. Didn’t like how they recycle the same “Dewey and Gale broke up between movies” storyline but Arquette was really great and naturally fit into the story, more than Sydney and Gale. His death was well shot and tragic
- The first victim actually surviving to the end
The not so good
- I know suspension of disbelief is required in these movies. But how did Ghostface kill the sheriff in broad daylight with no one seeing? She even called for backup to her house, but no cops show up in time to stop her so getting killed?
- The female killer was too short to be believable. She’s the one who killed Dewey and we get this great long shot of her standing over the body, and no way she was that tall
- I get the motivations after the first will always be about copycat killers but it’s getting stale at this point
- Sydney and Gale really felt shoehorned in. I also don’t buy they know they’re going after the killer and don’t even bother trying to get a bulletproof vest or wear comfortable shoes
The weird
- Billy Loomis is a force ghost now?
I honestly don’t know where else to go with this franchise. The legacy characters can’t keep coming back every time there’s a new killer so at this point they should start it in a new location outside of Woodsboro if they do another one.
How do they work as a trilogy? There's literally no connective tissue between the three other than the core trio. Scream 2022 could have ignored the events of Scream 4 and still did what it did.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
