New Pic & Spoilery Blurb In EW Magazine

Thanks to a tidy relationship with Team Scream, Entertainment Weekly they’ve been the go-to rag for Scream 4 coverage on paper – if you’ll recall, they released the first movie still and featured a cast photospread, to name two scoops. Their latest issue contains the next exclusive in that long line – a short blurb with a new photo of Emma Roberts that looks like it came right off one of those nifty Scream poster cast line-ups. Hmm…

It’s the content of the blurb that has knocked fans for a loop – a quote by Wes Craven that reveals the fate of a beloved character. Surely if Craven himself mentions it, it can’t officially be a spoiler, right? The problem is, the intense secrecy surrounding the series’ production and reluctance of cast and crew to reveal the most minor of character details has conditioned us to buy into the mystery. We’ve drawn lines in the sand we normally wouldn’t with any other slasher – namely, prior to the film we don’t want to know at all who lives or dies – major or minor.

We concede it’s a subjective matter. Perhaps we’re just so used to the official company line of minimal story info that when the man himself actually unloads an intruiging nugget that us know-it-all fans had no idea about prior, it’s freak-out time. Plug this into the fan hysteria over, frankly, the mind-boggling decision to test screen the film so early, and a possible picture is painted that Team Scream have boldly discarded their gladitorial guarding of information in favor of good old fashioned in-your-face publicity.

So let’s try and put things in perspective: EW surely wanted something juicy to publish instead of the same old trotted-out basics, and Craven provided. We’ve bemoaned the lack of meaty news over the past few months, well now we have some. Let’s roll with it…

Image Source: Hello Sidney

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

24 Responses to “ New Pic & Spoilery Blurb In EW Magazine ”

Reader Advisory: Comments may contain SCREAM 4 SPOILERS
  1. Woah! It´s not because of the book :O, It would be a clue to find the killer? or the killers…

  2. Woah! It´s not because of the book :O, It would be a clue to find the killer? or the killers…

  3. No!!! Niel Prescott is dead!!

  4. Aw… RIP. :-(

  5. I liked Sid’s dad. He was a cool father and a good actor. RIP. :-(

  6. Well, actually he was a very bad father, on the first anniversary of the death of his daughter’s mother, he went on a business trip!!! then 2 years later his daughter is in college and everyone starts to die and he fails to even appear!!! then your daughter moves into the middle of nowhere and you dont move in with her??? BAD PERENTING!!! hahaha!

  7. No, I think he’s still saying its because of the book tour. Sidney’s father could have died in 2007 for all we know — and that was the only time she came back to Woodsboro within the last 15 years… until NOW.

  8. She’s got no one left

  9. Well that solves the mistry of the pictures with emma in a black dress at the grave yard :)

  10. *Mystery

  11. *Mystery

  12. Where are these cemetery pics I keep hearing about?

  13. I do not know why but this made me think that Kate can be a killer. I seriously doubt that Neil’s death was from natural causes. It may be that someone of the Roberts wants to revenge for some reason. Jill is not a killer, that is clear. But Kate… if she not get killed in the scene when the killer try to enter in the house or something, she can be… just a especulation.

  14. wow, I kinda guessed it O.o, I said on imdb on a post where Neil could be, I also think I said it here. It was the only explanation since he wasn’t casted.

  15. Nobody said the actor was dead. Just the character.

  16. I’ve heard of them too. I saw one pic of an elaborate headstone last summer but didn’t think much of it. I never saw Emma in a black dress, though. Supposedly the crew shot in a cemetery.

  17. she has her aunt… and her cousin… maybe more aunts or uncles? We hardly know anything about the Prescott/Robert’s family besides Sid’s dad, mom, aunt, and cousin.

  18. Maybe his death is natural…?
    Haha, I dunno. =X

  19. *sigh* As with the so-called spoilery photos of the “major” cast member a few weeks ago, this news is not really a spoiler, nor is the character someone I would require in a SCREAM film. There are only three characters I would consider beloved, and the one mentioned in the article is not one of those; the character is peripheral at best. And it’s obvious from Craven’s wording that this death happened sometime between SCREAM 3 and SCREAM 4, and is not directly linked to the events of the new film (although it would be a surprise to no one if we find out there IS a connection).

  20. Let me rephrase that: there are only three SURVIVING (so far) characters I would consider beloved. Hopefully, we can add some of the new ones to this list.

  21. im actually glad craven said that about sid’s dad cuz, at least to me, it gives people more to think about and keeps us busy thinking of endless possibilities of what actually happens in the movie. it keeps us amped up for april and doesn’t let us get bored of the same old news about it.

  22. Well, Neil’s gone. I think the fact that he’s dead is going to be good for the story. No obsurd shit like “Oh, It could be Neill!” will be going around anymore. God bless, Sidney though. First her mom, then her dad. RIP Mr.Prescott!

  23. “What’s the point of being a survivor, if everyone close to you is dead?”

  24. This really is not a spoiler just a hint at what could be in store. sure it’s fishy about why she really came back even to the point of suspeciousness but no biggy. Those who leak pics not approved or trying to spoil must be jelous horror fans of different franchises.

Leave a Reply

Comment Policy: Off-topic chatter, illegible spelling/grammar, spamming, fake email addresses, attacking, and any language/behavior that goes against common sense and decency may lead to your comment being removed.

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>