Scream Blu-Ray Boxset: New Still Screaming Clip

The Scream 5-film Blu-Ray collection is officially available in USA today! We know hardcore Screamers will more than likely dig straight into the two documentaries Scream: The Inside Story and Still Screaming. Regarding the latter, a fun video recently popped up online, focusing on Scream 3, and it packs quite a lot into 2 minutes:

-Patrick Warburton (Stone) talks tussling with Ghostface.

-Parker Posey (Jennifer) remembers the shooting of her deathscene.

-Brian Avery (Ghostface) tells us why Ghostface really has a long chin.

-Who stomped Ghostface’s foot? Hint, she had a “memorable” hairstyle in S3.

-Speaking of hair, a photo shows Ghostface’s rejected hair-piece (see below).

There’s one or two fresh reviews, but we’re more interested in hearing your thoughts after viewing the doco as well as the rest of the box contents. Sound off in the Comments!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

37 Responses to “ Scream Blu-Ray Boxset: New Still Screaming Clip ”

Reader Advisory: Comments may contain SCREAM 4 SPOILERS
  1. Originally in Scream 3 Roman wasn’t the only killer. Angelina Tyler was the other killer, she was Roman’s girlfriend

  2. Fabricio, the year 2000 called and wants its brand new info back. Seriously though, thanks for stopping by. :)

  3. @Wicked-Scribe Is Fabrico’s trivia true? I didn’t kow that. Interesting. I’m guessing this wasn’t KW’s plot point as he really just laid the basic groundwork right?

  4. Just got the set from best buy and the 4th disc is just “still screaming” and “scream the inside story”, no other special features.

  5. I wish I had a blu-ray player. I will buy this set if I did.

  6. JRT, yes it’s true as revealed in Wes Craven’s Scream 3 DVD Audio Commentary – the studio objected because they thought the concept of Roman sleeping with his “sister” fake Sidney was sick. Gotta love execs!

  7. LMAO wicked i love you hahaha

  8. still cool information to know though. but that was a funny conversation above lol.

  9. If Still Screaming goes online, could somebody tell me? I have all 4 on Blu Ray but they’re the European releases:

  10. I viewed Still Screaming and it was OK. I honestly thought we were going to get more bonus footage like it stated in the past article. Instead we just got the two documentaries. No extras :-(

  11. That clip reminded me of the His Name Was Jason Docu Still Screaming looks interesting.

  12. Enjoyed both docs but there isn’t a whole lot of stuff in them that wasn’t previously known. The highlight for me personally was the acknowledgement that Scream 3 would have been completely different had Williamson written it. No brother who was secretly pulling the strings in the first film. That always pissed me off. Scott Foley talks about how it makes no damn sense in hindsight in Still Screaming. And Matthew Lillard was signed on to return in some capacity in 3. The film would have taken place in Woodsboro against the backdrop of Stab 3. So some elements from KW’s treatment remained in the final version. I just really wish the studio would have been more patient with Williamson back then and waited until he was ready to write the script. Or that Kevin would have made the franchise that launched his career more of a priority. Can you tell I’m still a little bitter and feel a bit robbed of a true ending to the original trilogy? Anyway, the docs are interesting and a must see for all of us Scream fans.

  13. Toolrulzz,

    I feel you. Finding out Kevin wasn’t going to be writing 3 was a truly dark day for Scream fans. I mean, since spring of ’97 we were being told it’s Kevin’s trilogy and he had a plan.

    But, let’s be honest.. does Stu coming back sound like a good idea? Even Ehren Kruger talks about how he wasn’t sure if it was Stu, Stu’s twin or someone playing Stu in a movie. My guess is that it was never finalized. It was like “Hire Matthew Lillard and we’ll choose the story after that.” I don’t know. I just don’t think we were “robbed” (as you put it) of anything because there really wasn’t anything actually put in place. Clearly Kevin had no master plan and no master twist/reveal to the series.

    I’ve come to terms w/ Scream 3. I did that once I got in on DVD but it was only reinforced by Scream 4. The Sidney stuff is all terrific (minus the Maureen dreams/hallucinations) AND having a brother was not only a great Halloween reference but also a way to have Maureen’s secrets and promiscuity be not only a new motive but also the ORIGINAL motive we never knew about. I don’t quite know what Scott Foley thought didn’t make sense about it. They certainly blow right by how he could have tracked her down but assuming he was given up for adoption via legal means then that’s not so implausible. I guess the only hard to swallow pill is that the unloved child of Maureen was able to rise up in life and not only become a successful film director (something probably less then 1% of the population gets to do) but ALSO gets to direct the movie inspired by an incident he created in real life.

  14. No, I didn’t mean to suggest it was a good idea to have Stu come back but it would have been nice to see what KW had in mind for the finale. I’ll have to disagree about Williamson having no master plan. If he had an outline in place, I would think he knew what direction he was going to take the film.

    And the ‘original’ motive stuff is what I have a problem with. We knew Sid’s mom was a skank from the first one. But everything that follows is a stretch IMO. It’s great to give more nods to past classics like “Halloween” (the brother aspect you pointed out) and “A Nightmare on Elm St” (Maureen getting gang-raped in Milton’s secret screening room that resulted in Roman much like Freddy’s mom getting gang-raped by a bunch of mental patients resulted in Freddy). But I just don’t buy the whole brother pulling the strings behind the scenes thing. It makes no sense that Billy and Stu wouldn’t mention Roman in the first one during the reveal at the end. Why wouldn’t Roman be there for that if he really wanted everything that Sid had? It is what it is though. Nothing I can do about it lol. My dream scenario for 4 was that KW would come back and completely undo all the wrongs done by 3. But I knew of course that the Weinsteins would never let that fly.

  15. YKYMF, I don’t see what Foley thinks didn’t make sense either.

    It’s not like he fell into the job randomly. He seemed to have a working relationship with Milton and likely had a father in the industry. Given that, I don’t see the implausibility. It’s not what you know but WHO. He probably knew about Milton’s shady past and Milton may have even known who he was (particularly if Milton was his father) – so if Milton refused to give him the job directing, Roman could always pressure him by threatening to reveal that information.

    That’s all in the movie – that Milton is unnerved by the prospect of having his connection to the series he’s making millions off of revealed – and that he and Roman have a working relationship. How Roman might be able to do everything he’s done (motive and opportunity) is all clarified in that one scene, even.

  16. Toolrulzz, why would Stu even know about Roman? Also, Billy probably wasn’t HIRED by Roman.

    It was probably a Strangers on a Train scenario.

    Maybe Roman pretended that he showed up to confront Hank about something (when he knew Hank wasn’t home), then spoke to Billy about how Hank had walked out on a hotel room bill and he had proof. Billy would probably wonder what Hank was doing at a hotel anyway. Then Roman showed Billy the video and saw Billy’s reaction. Billy explained the situation with his parents to Roman, who acted surprised, then Roman started talking about how “If someone did that to me, you know what I’d do?” All hypothetical stuff, going on and on to an emotionally vulnerable Billy, letting him soak it in. So Billy thought it was his own idea to ACTUALLY do it.

    So what would Billy then have said in the original film? “And this one guy came to my house and showed me a video of my dad and your mom going into a hotel room and he said he was upset about them not paying the bill! And then we talked about how it would be a great idea to kill her, then terrorize her family to get revenge! But I actually did it!”? Would that have made much sense? I don’t think so.

  17. Wow, and I thought I was overthinking the whole thing. That whole storyline in 3 is a massive stretch but your second paragraph there makes it seem much less crazy.

    And your third paragraph only further proves how ridiculous the storyline is in 3. Because the lack of any acknowledgement of being motivated by an unseen person at the end of Scream makes the reveal in 3 nothing short of ridiculous. You guys can try and justify it but it will never really make sense.

  18. Toolrulzz, I readily admit that it can seem a bit flimsy (at best, sometimes – as do the other motives to me). But the notion is that Billy thought it was his own idea. If you want to talk about an unseen person, why not include his mother? Why doesn’t he say that her being unstable is what made him who he is? Because it seems that he’s not aware of her influence over him in that sense.

    I feel like you can include the people who have influence over how he perceives the world or you can exclude them. But if it’s his mother or someone mentioning hypothetical murders, he’s probably not going to acknowledge that they gave him the idea to ACTUALLY do it because he doesn’t realize it.

    He may not even remember that Roman first mentioned it – it was over a year ago and a lot of planning has gone on since. He probably remembers the way he felt rather than who brought up what otherwise.

    The ending of Scream 3 is one of the only parts of the movie that actually works for me (I know many will disagree). I understand being underwhelmed or confused or just angry following the REST of it, though. Ugh.

  19. i’ll just keep on thinking number 3 never existed, ’cause it ruins 1 completely.

  20. Part of my gripe with the Roman issue is that it pandered to the conspiracy theorists that held to the notion that there HAD to be a 3rd killer in the first one. They don’t go so far to say that Roman helped Billy and Stu, unless I’m forgetting something, but just the fact that they’re saying Roman influenced Billy in any way is just plain wrong to me. It further shows how out of touch with the source material Krueger was. He basically pandered to a fan conspiracy theory and, IMO, botched the finale and messed with the original. And messing with the original is just all kinds of wrong in my book. It’s unforgiveable. There’s nothing wrong with the explanation that Billy was a bit crazy, loved horror movies a bit too much, and then was pushed over the edge by his mother leaving due to infidelity and then getting his friend to help him exact some revenge. And Mrs Loomis is easy enough to explain coming from all of that followed by her son getting killed. A little snappage after all that would be understandable lol.

  21. Right, but it still doesn’t make sense – her mom ruined your family. So what? You killed her mom and ruined their family. Why go after the daughter and everyone a year later after you got away with it? There’s a big logic gap there but people forgive it because the film helped revive horror and it played to an audience well. And most just go, “Yeah, but he’s crazy!” whenever a plot hole or logic inconsistency pops up with a character they LIKE. But if it’s one they don’t, they constantly bring it up.

    Wes was a huge part of Scream 3 and worked out the story with Kruger. I don’t think their finale had anything to do with conspiracy theorists. I think that what it came down to was that later horror sequels like Halloween 6 and Freddy’s Dead end up exploring backstory and changing things around a bit (often ruining them, yes). Scream 3 was satirizing horror franchises so they had to go back to the beginning and find out that something they thought was true wasn’t true or whatever. Even though most of Randy’s video is gibberish and more about franchises than trilogies, it does line up with some of what they do. And it doesn’t undo that Billy was movie-obsessed and decided to plot all of that stuff out. It just means someone else SAID it first.

    Does knowing that Wes Craven found news articles about people dying in their sleep after they complained about someone after them in their dreams ruin A Nightmare on Elm Street because it helped give him the idea? No. That would be absurd.

  22. You could definitely make the case for a big gap in logic there. But you could just as easily explain that by saying he’s a freaking serial killer, of course he isn’t going to stop killing. And being in a small town, who better to go after than Sid and anyone close to her and then frame her dad for it, completely destroying the family in the process. And if all goes to plan, Billy and Stu get to go on killing people because, guess what, they’re serial killers and that’s what serial killers do.

    I know that Wes worked with Krueger on the story a lot, I just like to blame all the bad stuff on Ehren lol. But even Wes has said that the 3rd one doesn’t have the same feel or work as well as the first two and could have been better. And mind you, I don’t HATE the 3rd one, I appreciate it for what it is: an above average slasher/satire when compared to other horror movies. But when put up against the first two Scream films, it falls well short. And I just don’t buy the brother stuff, as I’ve mentioned numerous times. As for your third paragraph, I have no idea what point you’re trying to make there.

  23. He wasn’t a serial killer until he decided to continue things a year later. I’m with you on blaming the bad stuff on Ehren. It just seems simpler (but I know it’s not entirely “fair”).

    My last comment was about how Roman’s actions influencing the first film don’t undercut Billy’s motive unless you want to perceive it that way. The same way a news article that Craven read about a dream stalker and deaths doesn’t undercut what HE did with that information by creating A Nightmare on Elm Street. It informed his actions – it didn’t dictate them.

  24. To me the killing of Maureen and the killings a year after are a part of one big plot in the minds of Billy and Stu planned out over a specific time period making the whole thing serial in nature. And their words at the end of the movie suggest they plan to carry on with killing people, making them very much a couple of serial killers from the jump.

    It really isn’t fair to blame all that was wrong with 3 on Krueger, but I can’t help but imagine Craven’s involvement in the writing process being anything more than frantically trying to make sense of the BS Krueger churned out. But Wes ultimately signed off on the story, so he’s as much to blame for 3’s shortcomings as anyone. And I think he’s stated as much.

  25. @Wickedscribe Wow, thanks! I’ve watched S3 with audio commentary 2 or 3 times and must have missed that part. Guess i’ll give it another go.

  26. is this online anywhere to watch or download i REALLy want to see still screaming but am not going to buy the whole boxset just for that i already have all the movies and watched the inside story when it came on tv

  27. Just to get something in on this S3 discussion. Roman had no part in the plot to kill Sidney in the original Scream, at least according to what he says in the final scene of S3. He comments something along the lines that he didn’t know Billy and Stu “were going to try and make their own movie”, after he helped instigate Maureen’s murder. Billy was a narcissistic control freak; why wouldn’t he take sole credit for the murders and plot?

    Roman’s motive for going after Sidney later, he suggests, is instigated by her notoriety due to the events of Scream and S2 and his sense that she got a life (and notoriety) that he did not after being abandoned (in a sense, similar to Jill in S4). At least that’s what I took from it all.

  28. Interesting point, Zlaty. I think you may be right. I guess I might have been misconstruing it but I thought that when he said “they,” he was referring less to Billy and Stu carrying out the events of the first film (although maybe them) and more to the studios and everyone making the Stab franchise, which is what truly introduced Sidney as the STAR. He then goes on to pull out Milton and kill him – Milton being one of the main people behind making a film of his own with Sidney as the star. But yes – his influence over the murder of anyone other than Maureen is possibly unclear. But he clearly set the two on the path they took regardless. I just don’t think that he could be held “responsible” for the actions others took based on his suggestion.

  29. Awesome! Great clip. Love Scream 3.

  30. I’ve just found a website that has short not all to revealing descriptions of the 20 deleted scene’s that appear on the Scream 4 blu-ray! Its from a french website, thank you google translate! Everything from alternate opening to scene’s in which apparently dewey mentions tatum and sidneys fathers death is mentioned. Sounds like alot of williamson stuff’s been slashed. Only thing that appears to be missing are extra or alternate scenes from the house showdown.

    The final picture shows a new shot of sidney in bed, proving some authenticity.

    (you’ll need to use google translate)

  31. The scream awards, didnt nominate scream 4 for best horror movie but they put poor quality films like piranha 3d & paranormal activity 2 in their.

    But they did vote Neve campbell for best Horror actress… Get voting people!!!!

  32. Some screen shots of the alternate opening and deleted scenes have been leaked today… Not gonna post link. Dunno if that’s allowed…

    (But it’s from a Spain blog.)

  33. Denny: Yeah, I think the idea that Roman was organizing everything behind the scenes is clearly not feasible. At most (assuming the logic of the films) he simply served as a catalyst. I think the former impression is mostly a result of bad execution (something consistent with the rest of S3).

    The ending of Scream 3 really works if you recognize it as a model of a Greek tragedy. The trilogy as a whole is about Sidney’s fate to suffer for the sins of her mother—this is the whole point of the Gus speech/Cassandra section smack dab in the middle of Scream 2. The focus at the end of S3 should not have been on Roman as Catalyst, but rather on Maureen Prescott. Maureen’s sin (her desire for fame) led to her ultimate ruin, the manifestations of which are the killers that Sidney has to acknowledge, confront and defeat in order to overcome her fate as Maureen’s daughter. Hence the dreams of her mother, the theme of coming out of isolation, and ultimately Roman in the third film. Linking Roman to Maureen’s murder, I think, was just the means of appeasing Randy’s rules of a trilogy.

    Scream 3 has grown on me, because I think it has the right core. Unfortunately, the core just got somewhat lost amongst the ridiculousness surrounding it.

  34. Zlaty – I basically agree with everything you just said. It’s meant to be tragic and mirror Greek elements. Wes isn’t great at not making his subtext be just below the surface in many cases and the Still Screaming documentary had him saying that he wrote the Cassandra and Gus scenes, I believe. But it’s clear that their intended tragic conclusion is a bit undercut by all the superficial elements and quippy jokes and oddball cameos of 3. Most of Shakespeare’s comedies didn’t end with almost everyone dying (that was usually saved for the more tragic works).

  35. has anyone seen the pictures on the scream 4 facebook page. They basically have all the photos from the original opening. Marnie hanging from the ceiling fan, jenny tied to the chair.

  36. In Still Screaming Documentary in the Scream 3 section did yall watch where editor Patruck Lussier talked about many variations of Scream 3? One example Detective Kincaid (Patrick Dempsey) character had a death scene with ghostface, or an alternate ending where he wasn’t in it. I wonder where these scenes really shot ? Or where they script changes?

  37. Denny: Precisely! Wes himself openly admitted to this flaw in his Scream 4 interviews (making the Scooby Doo comparison). Really, the comedy component is where the film really suffered from not having Kevin Williamson as writer, in my opinion. The first two films (particularly the first) were wonderful in their subtle blend of tragedy and (dark!) comedy. The third film tried to continue the trend, but obviously lacked the nuance brought by Williams. The comedy was silly and ultimately just a distraction.

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>