x
It is currently 21 Dec 2014, 23:08

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


NOTE: This is *not* a section for Fan Fiction, we have a section for that.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 07:27 
I'm not sure, with Neve having a baby, they will probably bring Kirby back to shift the load of heroine off Sid so she doesn't have so many scenes. Gale was just pointless in 4, as was Dewey. I don't think Gale or Dewey have a chance of dying, they are kind of irrelevant in the new one. The only reason they're in 4 is so Wes can show off that Scream is one of the only franchises to not lose it's main characters.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 14:13 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2011, 20:13
Posts: 3522
Cal_Scream2 wrote:
I'm not sure, with Neve having a baby, they will probably bring Kirby back to shift the load of heroine off Sid so she doesn't have so many scenes. Gale was just pointless in 4, as was Dewey. I don't think Gale or Dewey have a chance of dying, they are kind of irrelevant in the new one. The only reason they're in 4 is so Wes can show off that Scream is one of the only franchises to not lose it's main characters.


They were in it because Kevin's original idea had them as full characters. Then it all got watered down to the point they had nothing to do. But yeah. I'm guessing things will continue this way with the production of SCREAM 5 so might as well not include them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2012, 07:37 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2012, 05:39
Posts: 42
Either way they can't be survivors forever. I think Sidney should become pregnant in 6 and the killer kills her after the baby is born, I'm not that keen on Dewey any more, he was a great character in the franchise but he has gotten annoying, but with Gale, she's a fighter and so funny! :D so what I'd do is:
Scream 5: Dewey
Scream 6: Sidney
Scream 7 :? : Gale.
Once the main three are dead I'd have no clue how they'd do anymore, but if they did do it without them the franchise would be ruined and .... dead :( .

_________________
Scream 5 - Click For More Information And To Read The Opening.


Thats SICK right? but SICK is the new SANE. - Jill Roberts -Scre4m


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 09:11 
Offline

Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 04:43
Posts: 64
Location: At mine and Sidney's mansion
I love love the idea of Sidney having a child she thought was dead!! I made a fic about it but that is part 2.

_________________
I heart Neve Campbell

Creating my first fan fic, is all under works on microsoft word.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 23 Mar 2012, 01:35 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2011, 19:14
Posts: 365
I'd say Dewey because I just dont like him as a character because I think he is boring although this would practically destroy Gale who I just adore. If they would kill Gale then it would be weird because then they wouldn't have the normal punches and B****y lines. If they would kill Sidney then well it just would be weird, I think. I think in the 5th the killer should target Sidney AND Gale because it would be a little different.

_________________
I'm every nightmare you've ever had. I'm your worst dream come true. I'm everything you ever were afraid of.
Pennywise-IT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 25 Mar 2012, 02:38 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2010, 02:46
Posts: 640
Location: Vancouver, BC
^I think they need to just do Scream5 quickly, before Scream as a whole, fades from people's minds again. They have people aware of it and obviously interested, let's get the new one going. Even if Neve has a reduced role like in 3 and they make Kirby the new heroine, because she wasn't supposed to live or something, than we could have Sidney back for Scream 6 and her AND Kirby could kick ass.

_________________
"I've had enough, this is my prayer, that I'll die living just as free as my hair." - Lady Gaga: Hair
Jason Alexander and Samantha Rivers - Scream RPG


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 08 May 2012, 16:06 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2011, 16:22
Posts: 2033
Location: Bardstown, KY
Gale: Opening Kill Scream 5.

Courtney was the only actress/ actor in Scream 4 that was SO over the whole thing. I think the only way she'll show back up is if she is promised to be killed in the opening scene, and even then I don't really know if she'd do it...

I'm even a little skeptical if Neve would come back, as much as it would crush me if she didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if Gale and Sid were the opening kills of Scream 5, and it was all left to Kirby and Dewey... Which, thinking about it would be a disaster... Don't kill Sid!!!

_________________
Check Out Stab 8!
Showing Now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYNkqQV3Gp8


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 08 May 2012, 16:09 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 26 Jun 2010, 15:13
Posts: 776
Android24 wrote:
^I think they need to just do Scream5 quickly, before Scream as a whole, fades from people's minds again.

Too late.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2013, 14:52 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2011, 10:48
Posts: 674
Location: Fort Myers, FL
Yes, but at the same time, it could still happen. I'm pretty sure they'd make every bit as much as the previous film, TBH.

_________________
"Do I sound like a Trevor to you?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013, 01:01 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2010, 00:35
Posts: 919
Williamson>Kruger wrote:
Yes, but at the same time, it could still happen. I'm pretty sure they'd make every bit as much as the previous film, TBH.


Right. And if they cut costs down to the twenty-five-to-thirty million range, this could mean up to twenty million more in profit "automatically." It wouldn't be all that difficult either. We see countless direct-to-DVD action pictures with explosions galore and a few "name" stars who are potentially past their prime. These generally cost below ten million (if not far, far less).

While getting certain actors to return for Scream 5 may prove difficult within such a budget (and, frankly, they should kill off one of them so Scream 6 barely needs that individual, if at all), if they focused more on story and suitable "character actor" casting (rather than release dates and "hot, young talent")...they could probably manage it with ease. And make a better film that is more in-line with Scream or Scream 2 (the two most-revered of the series). Additionally, they probably wouldn't have to pay Williamson as much since a new writer would likely take the project on. Craven might be in a similar situation - although I would rather Scream 5 gets made while both are still around - possibly in producorial positions - in order to lightly "guide" the series.

As often is the case with Hollywood, I'm confused as to why they're sitting on a bankable franchise that merely has to be properly managed while still making sequels to random crap that made a bit more immediate profit but has no long-term marketability/branding/etc. - and will be completely wiped from the cultural consciousness within a few years. Not to mention the fact that the sequels they're making often don't end up with much of a profit either.

Whereas Scream remains one of if not the most influential film series when it comes to modern horror releases. Which, obviously, tends to mean a decent amount more money over the long-term.

_________________
My stance on Kirby: Schrödinger's Kirby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013, 16:38 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 04:12
Posts: 1144
Denny wrote:
Williamson>Kruger wrote:
As often is the case with Hollywood, I'm confused as to why they're sitting on a bankable franchise that merely has to be properly managed while still making sequels to random crap that made a bit more immediate profit but has no long-term marketability/branding/etc. - and will be completely wiped from the cultural consciousness within a few years. Not to mention the fact that the sequels they're making often don't end up with much of a profit either.

Whereas Scream remains one of if not the most influential film series when it comes to modern horror releases. Which, obviously, tends to mean a decent amount more money over the long-term.


They're sitting because Scream is something they respect. And Scream 4 did shockingly bad box office wise compared to the first three. Had Scream 4 made near/around $100 million -- they'd probably hustle out another one sooner, even without Kevin Williamson. The money would be calling. However, Scream 4 was a BOMB compared to the first three movies, which scored quite a lot of money for them and was special to them. Scream 4 was a lessen to them -- the Scream movies aren't as special anymore.

They aren't bringing out cheap sequels -- yet -- because of the respect thing, I believe. Scream isn't merely a crap franchise -- the first three movies were a phenomenon. The were like the Star Wars of scary movies. Bringing out a direct-to-DVD Scream movie would be an insult and another theatrical release is also risky, but also ... embarrassing, sort of. Scream 2 and Scream 3 were proud sequels -- both came off $100 million box offices. Scream 5 would not be a proud sequel -- it's coming off of a movie that barely made $40 million.

The honor that Scream had is over. It's over, no matter what you blame for causing the dishonor. I think they are respectfully sitting on it to preserve what they have left. They took their precious franchise out into the field and it got shot. It must be protected. They could be waiting -- waiting for the right idea, for the right time, etc. Or, they might never make another one again -- something I find hard to believe, really, but it's possible.

Random, who-gives-a-fuck sequels to Scream starting up would be an insulting and sad thing to see. It could happen, but I think they're actually doing what's best. Only time will tell if they'll give up and if things will end up okay.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013, 20:35 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2010, 00:35
Posts: 919
Screaming4More wrote:
They're sitting because Scream is something they respect.


You say this but then talk about how if Scream 4 had made a ton of money, "the money" would have caused them to make another regardless. So is it about respect or money - or are you alluding to the makers only respecting money? Because if they just rushed out another without "THE" writer and all, that doesn't seem very respectful to me.

Screaming4More wrote:
They aren't bringing out cheap sequels -- yet -- because of the respect thing, I believe.


Money alone doesn't make a movie great.

Screaming4More wrote:
Random, who-gives-a-fuck sequels to Scream starting up would be an insulting and sad thing to see.


Some would argue that 3 and 4 were exactly that. Particularly if we consider the rushed productions, reshoots, a new writer who didn't use the same tone, none of the major characters from the original film dying (and all of them barely progressing - if at all), etc. If you want "going through the motions but missing the point" Screams, many (I'm not saying me) might argue that Scream 3 and 4 are perfect examples.

_________________
My stance on Kirby: Schrödinger's Kirby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013, 01:06 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 04:12
Posts: 1144
Denny wrote:
You say this but then talk about how if Scream 4 had made a ton of money, "the money" would have caused them to make another regardless. So is it about respect or money - or are you alluding to the makers only respecting money? Because if they just rushed out another without "THE" writer and all, that doesn't seem very respectful to me.


Scream is, I believe, something they respect no matter what. Along with whatever sequels they make to it. I believe they aren't rushing out any sequels right now because they still have that respect and because if they can't do it right -- meaning, I believe probably more than anything, if they can't make it successful -- then they shouldn't make anymore right now, out of respect.

BUT, if Scream 4 had made a lot more money, I could see them probably saying, "To hell with however we make it..." and rush out Scream 5 even if it's without Wes or Kevin. If the movie had been very profitable, I think they would have probably done this. But it didn't make a lot of money (for Scream, at least) -- so it's back to, I believe, the idea of cooling it and waiting to see what happens. Scream is too important as a legacy for them to just throw out cheap sequels after the last movie basically failed in theaters. Their golden ticket got busted -- why break it even more? Thus, Scream is kind of in a "healing" period. The decade between 3 & 4 wasn't a healing period -- it was a "promise" period. The franchise was a TRILOGY. They gave that trilogy A LOT of respect -- especially since it made a lot of money. That respect is still there -- BUT -- if Scream 4 had been a big success, Scream 5 would have been made, perhaps to continue the new trilogy -- EVEN if the Weinsteins brought in brand new people to make it.

Denny wrote:
Money alone doesn't make a movie great.


You mean money they spend on making the film? It's not about that. They aren't doing lower budget Scream movies because it would be sad to resort to that already, I think. Scream is higher than a lot of other films in terms of hierarchy. Thus, because of the box office failure of 4, making a Scream movie on a much lower budget... is like putting Meryl Streep into the next Leprechaun sequel. It's rich meets the poor. It's introducing something to a totally different world. It's scary -- it's unreal -- it's something hard to face. It's not going to be done yet. Scream can't afford the rent at the mansion anymore and now it needs to move into a little house. It's a slap in the face. That's why they can't rush out with some cheaper made sequel -- it's humiliating. It's "unfair." It's a major step down. Thus, to show respect and to save face, you don't go down that road yet. Maybe someday.

Screaming4More wrote:
Random, who-gives-a-fuck sequels to Scream starting up would be an insulting and sad thing to see.


Denny wrote:
Some would argue that 3 and 4 were exactly that. Particularly if we consider the rushed productions, reshoots, a new writer who didn't use the same tone, none of the major characters from the original film dying (and all of them barely progressing - if at all), etc. If you want "going through the motions but missing the point" Screams, many (I'm not saying me) might argue that Scream 3 and 4 are perfect examples.


Wrong. Those things you mentioned -- rushed productions, reshoots, new writer, etc. -- none of that matters. Scream 3 was the sequel to a movie that made $100 million and Scream 4 was the sequel to a movie that made $89 million (both domestically.)

Scream 5 would be a sequel to a movie that made $38 million. BIG DIFFERENCE! They stopped for years after Scream 3 when they saw it go down $10 million or so less than part 2. At that point, they knew they could go out big and stop before it got worse. There was a promise that it was just going to be three movies, but they also played it cool. However, if Scream 3 had made even more money than it did - and especially if it made more than the first Scream -- it is possible, I think, that Scream 4 could have been commissioned immediately after Scream 3 as a "Surprise - we're not done!" sequel. Which Scream 4 kind of is, but also, not really -- it's that, but it's also a "reunion" sequel. Like American Reunion.

So, yeah, Scream 5 isn't happening because Scream has moved to the dreaded clearance aisle. Sidney, Dewey and Gale are all 75% off. Scream isn't hot. And cheap sequels are not gonna make them hotter. Not right now, at least. The season has passed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013, 15:01 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2010, 00:35
Posts: 919
Screaming4More wrote:
You mean money they spend on making the film? It's not about that. They aren't doing lower budget Scream movies because it would be sad to resort to that already, I think.


Why? Why would that be sad at all? The quality can be maintained but it doesn't have to cost as much. Hollywood gets caught up in, "What's the budget?" posturing often but it's meaningless. All that matters is the end product's success. Cut out the expenses for casting certain talents, reduce the length of the shoot (reasonably), etc. by streamlining the production (rather than waiting on Williamson, pushing dates back, shuffling talent around unnecessarily due to delays, etc.) and you can make a film for less.

Screaming4More wrote:
Scream can't afford the rent at the mansion anymore and now it needs to move into a little house. It's a slap in the face. That's why they can't rush out with some cheaper made sequel -- it's humiliating.


Only in backwards Hollywood logic. Fans don't care how much something costs as long as it's good. When one looks toward Paranormal Activity or Saw, they kept pumping out sequels that cost more and more (but rarely look it) and I'm sure everybody in Hollywood justified it by saying that the films were doing well. But that's ridiculous and many of those films would have been just fine if their budgets were somewhat more limited. But the "reasonable" current options for a franchise like this aren't limited to, "We need something - that we can justify - in the exact same range or higher in terms of expenses." or, "We probably have to go direct-to-video and/or take the cheap way out."

Screaming4More wrote:
Denny wrote:
Some would argue that 3 and 4 were exactly that. Particularly if we consider the rushed productions, reshoots, a new writer who didn't use the same tone, none of the major characters from the original film dying (and all of them barely progressing - if at all), etc. If you want "going through the motions but missing the point" Screams, many (I'm not saying me) might argue that Scream 3 and 4 are perfect examples.


Wrong.


How can I be wrong in stating what some people think? Obviously, I'm not. Some people do think that.

Quote:
Scream 5 would be a sequel to a movie that made $38 million. BIG DIFFERENCE! They stopped for years after Scream 3 when they saw it go down $10 million or so less than part 2. At that point, they knew they could go out big and stop before it got worse.


Huh? Then why did they promote it as being the final part of a trilogy and insist in interviews that they felt it was probably going to be the last one, at least for awhile? They didn't magically have the "official" return numbers prior to its release. And your suggestion that if it had done really well, they probably would have done another immediately don't make much sense either - as the cast/crew/etc. was moving on and would have likely been far more reluctant to return then than they were a decade later.

It sounds like what you're saying is that the reason they're not making a Scream 5 right now all comes down to misguided ego. And while that may or may not be the case, that is a foolish reason. Profit is profit, the series' standing quality-wise hasn't diminished much culturally from 3 to 4, if at all (despite lesser returns, it may have improved), etc.

Your rationale is along the lines of a major part of what's wrong with Hollywood and their often-awful franchise management. Is that what it's your intention to express?

_________________
My stance on Kirby: Schrödinger's Kirby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013, 11:10 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 04:12
Posts: 1144
In, I think, many of the hearts of the people who made Scream 3 and Scream 4, they were not sequels just thrown out for fuck's sake. Wes Craven, Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, Liev Schreiber and others all came back to do them. Scream 3 and Scream 4 were big movies, with big budgets and more opportunities, and they could get a lot in them.

It's a fact that Scream 3 & 4 were not sequels just made for the hell of it. It's an opinion by outsiders that they were.

Scream 5 theoretically could be a sequel with a smaller budget and not be made "for the hell of it" if they tried to do it to continue Kevin's ideas for the new trilogy. But would that attract everyone involved with the past films? And could it be done financially depending on whatever the storyline is?

It's not an attractive situation for Scream right now. They publicly announced that they were making a new trilogy. Scream 4 is even hinted as being the first of a new trilogy on my Blu-ray's back cover synopsis because it calls Wes Craven the "director of the FIRST trilogy." Yet no second trilogy is materializing. Why? Because 4 didn't really do well and Kevin Williamson is also keeping his distance. These people had hopes and dreams for the second trilogy they were planning and it all went to shit. They weren't trying to churn out random sequels just to keep the franchise going -- they were trying to make art. They were trying to do something serious and important. Wes Craven himself sounded pretty proud in an Entertainment Weekly article that came out in the spring of 2010 before S4 started filming when he basically said two trilogies like what he was (supposed to be) directing had never been done before and was "unprecedented." The man was looking forward to being a major part of this beast.

Your idea of just throwing out some sequel just to "please" the fans, even if it's lower budget, is probably sad to someone like Wes Craven, whose dream of being this major director of the Scream double trilogy isn't coming true right now. And, really, another sequel to Scream -- cheaper, perhaps without Wes directing, maybe/probably without the three leads -- just makes it worse to those who had a dream of doing something unprecedented. Makes it worse to Kevin Williamson, too.

Plus, not every Scream fan wants to see sequels like how you imagine them to be, and certainly we all don't need them to get through with our lives, and the franchise itself doesn't need them, either. Nothing is being ruined by not creating more. Actually, stopping where they are now is actually very protective and nurturing. They are looking at their failure and saying, "We can't destroy this any further." You said people think 3 & 4 were just rushed out with no real concern for how they were being done -- maybe they're right to some degree. I mean, I would have been happy if the franchise had ended with Scream 2. I'm sure I'd be SCREAMING 4 MORE, as my username implies, and wanting Scream 3 now, but now we've had it -- and 4. We've seen what they're capable of doing, even if they screw up.

And if I put my fanboy-ness aside and think rationally, I doubt I'd like Scream 5. 'Cause I think Scream 4 is more of a mess than Scream 3. Great story, but handled all wrong. The hospital ending at the end is actually a savior, I think. And I could live with the franchise ending there. If it picks up some day again, I imagine there would be new people and new characters. I'll give it a try, but right now, I think Scream, despite its poor performance in 2011, still has dignity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2013, 07:27 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 08 Jan 2011, 04:35
Posts: 109
well i mean come on man as a scream fan you cant tell me you wouldnt want a scream 5. and thats all there is to it

_________________
Eckhardt!......think about the future.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2013, 12:55 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 04:12
Posts: 1144
At this point, I feel like the only really new and interesting thing left to see in the Scream universe is for either Sidney to become Ghostface, or for Gale or Dewey to become Ghostface. Anything else would just be a rehash of things we've seen before -- new killers, more relatives, Sidney defeating the killer, etc.

They could also all die, but I think seeing one of them become the killer is the most tantalizing possibility. And I think that it could probably be done somehow. As hard to believe as it would be, as shocking and as forced as it might feel, I think it's possible there could be another side to one of these people.

I'm not dying for a Scream sequel in which this happens, but I think the boldness of doing it would be fresher than anything else, really.

I would have liked to have seen a "Jill pretends to be innocent" storyline for another sequel, but it ain't happenin'. So now, what else can you do? I don't wanna see something like Sidney is set up as a murderer and goes on the run and has to prove her innocence, blah blah blah. That would only end with a typical ending where everyone finds out she's innocent, blah blah blah, pleasant day again. I want a bad day for these people again. For the past two films, they have had it too easy -- people not very close to them die, instead of people they are close to. In Scream, Sidney lost a boyfriend, a best friend, her mother, etc. Scream 2, she lost her boyfriend and all of her close friends. She loses NOBODY in Scream 3 -- except maybe Cotton, but big deal, they weren't that close -- and who does she lose in Scream 4? An aunt and a cousin SHE NEVER SEES, and a publicist SHE FIRED.

Sidney, Gale and Dewey have been on easy street since Scream 2 -- actually, those two have been good since Scream 1!

They need to be in another Scream where they get totally trashed again. And I say, screw 'em up by having one of them be the killer. It would be different and it would bring closure to that little group in the franchise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2013, 19:54 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2010, 00:35
Posts: 919
Screaming4More wrote:
Your idea of just throwing out some sequel just to "please" the fans...


That was never what I said and that you hear that is more indicative of something you must be caught up on (maybe something others were saying) than what I ever alluded to. You seem to be stuck in the mindset of somehow thinking that money=quality and so, if it's not in the same realm of expense, it's clearly a huge step down in terms of its placement in the culture or within the franchise itself. However, despite Hollywood having similar hangups, that is far from always the case.

_________________
My stance on Kirby: Schrödinger's Kirby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 27 Mar 2013, 22:25 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2011, 10:48
Posts: 674
Location: Fort Myers, FL
My two cents: I don't think you can kill off the main three. I do think, however, that Scream 4 was SUPPOSED to be the beginning of a new trilogy. This MUST mean that there is a predetermined plan for Scream 5/6. In my mind, lowering the budget of the film doesn't necessarily mean the QUALITY of the film must come down as well. Many people have thought up some great ways to bring down the budget of the film without sacrificing quality.

To get back to the main three: I don't think killing them off serves any purpose at this point. Randy's death was a message that anyone can bite the bullet, but I don't see how reinforcing that message now does anything. The big three, themselves, are sort of an all-encompassing Final Girl in my mind...killing off one of them would be killing off all of them.

_________________
"Do I sound like a Trevor to you?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kill off Main Three?
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2013, 03:59 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 04:12
Posts: 1144
Williamson>Kruger wrote:
To get back to the main three: I don't think killing them off serves any purpose at this point. Randy's death was a message that anyone can bite the bullet, but I don't see how reinforcing that message now does anything. The big three, themselves, are sort of an all-encompassing Final Girl in my mind...killing off one of them would be killing off all of them.


It might be a good idea to kill one of them off in the beginning of the movie, then. That way you could watch the two surviving members of the trio deal with the loss of the one who died, while also fearing that one or both of them might also end up dead by the time the movie is over.

What if Scream 4 had ended with Jill and Sid surviving and then in the beginning of Scream 5, Sidney became the movie's opening scene victim because Jill succeeds in finishing her off so that nobody would know she's the killer? Then you have Sidney dead and then you have to worry about the possibility of Jill killing Dewey and Gale, who aren't aware that she's the killer.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr