Scream 5 (January 14, 2022)

[CyberpunkCentral]

They only reset Halloween because the continuity makes no sense. Where as the Scream franchise is pretty meta about it.

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by FragnitoM

I kind of wish they did a Halloween 2018 type reset and just pretend Scream 3 and 4 never happened.

I wish studios would stop doing that reset retcon ignore crap altogether. Dictating what should count in canon just because some people no likey. Fvck that. There are fans out there who like 3 and 4, and we don't need another mess like Halloween or Terminator. Either continue the franchise(just do a better job next time) or remake it.

[Donl1282]

It doesn’t make sense to suggest Dewey may be a killer. His sister is killed in the original film.

[rooboy78]

I definitely don’t think they need to retcon 3 or 4. However, I also don’t see a big need to really reference them much, if at all, in the new film. As it is, in Scream 4 they never referenced the events of Scream 3 (no talk of being in Hollywood, Sid’s brother), etc. I think this film can stand on its own and be successful as long as it has a new strong self-contained plot. We KNOW what happened in the other movies, we don’t need to be reminded of those events by the characters through dialogue. As far as carrying over Kirby from Scream 4, I could see that happening but I also wouldn’t be surprised if they want to have a fresh start with only the original trio returning. Just because a character is alive from a previous movie doesn’t mean they automatically must return for the subsequent sequel (Joel from Scream 2 didn’t show up in 3, Kincaid from 3 didn’t show up in 4, etc.)

I think the most important thing is that we have Sid, Gale, and Dewey, a group of interesting new well-written characters and a strong, emotional storyline and this movie could prove to be very successful. Time will tell!

[postmodel]

Originally Posted by rooboy78

I definitely don’t think they need to retcon 3 or 4. However, I also don’t see a big need to really reference them much, if at all, in the new film. As it is, in Scream 4 they never referenced the events of Scream 3 (no talk of being in Hollywood, Sid’s brother), etc. I think this film can stand on its own and be successful as long as it has a new strong self-contained plot. We KNOW what happened in the other movies, we don’t need to be reminded of those events by the characters through dialogue. As far as carrying over Kirby from Scream 4, I could see that happening but I also wouldn’t be surprised if they want to have a fresh start with only the original trio returning. Just because a character is alive from a previous movie doesn’t mean they automatically must return for the subsequent sequel (Joel from Scream 2 didn’t show up in 3, Kincaid from 3 didn’t show up in 4, etc.)

I think the most important thing is that we have Sid, Gale, and Dewey, a group of interesting new well-written characters and a strong, emotional storyline and this movie could prove to be very successful. Time will tell!

I can just picture the trailer now:

Sid: "How many times is this gonna happen, Dewey! First it was high school, then college, then Hollywood! And again in Woodsboro!"

[storythecorgi]

$100 bucks on Sid saying "it's happening again..." in Scream 5.

[JackForrester]

Originally Posted by NI-Gunner

What retcon?

Billy and Stu were not the masterminds behind the first killings, they were pawns used by Roman to create havoc because he was rejected by Maureen.

[postmodel]

Originally Posted by JackForrester

Billy and Stu were not the masterminds behind the first killings, they were pawns used by Roman to create havoc because he was rejected by Maureen.

I made a similar comment earlier in this thread about people not liking that, and someone basically told me I made that up just so I could say that I liked how that aspect connects the whole original trilogy haha.

All I know is I really hope we get the original 4 in 4K soon! Maybe even with the uncut version of part 1, but just gimme that 4K.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by JackForrester

Billy and Stu were not the masterminds behind the first killings, they were pawns used by Roman to create havoc because he was rejected by Maureen.

Which was ******* stupid.

[JackForrester]

Originally Posted by postmodel

I made a similar comment earlier in this thread about people not liking that, and someone basically told me I made that up just so I could say that I liked how that aspect connects the whole original trilogy haha.

People hate part 3 so much that they erased the film out of their minds then.

[JackForrester]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Which was ******* stupid.

Yep, it doesn't even make sense. If Roman was so pissed off at Maureen he would want to kill her himself, not track down other people to do it for him. And how would he know Billy and Stu of all people were psychos who just needed a "guiding hand" to do all that? What a coincidence, the boyfriend of Maureen's daughter and his best friend of all people are psychos willing to kill for him. It's like a shitty fanfic.

[postmodel]

Originally Posted by JackForrester

Yep, it doesn't even make sense. If Roman was so pissed off at Maureen he would want to kill her himself, not track down other people to do it for him. And how would he know Billy and Stu of all people were psychos who just needed a "guiding hand" to do all that? What a coincidence, the boyfriend of Maureen's daughter and his best friend of all people are psychos willing to kill for him. It's like a shitty fanfic.

In defense of it, Roman wanted to be a director and by getting others to do his bidding then he's "directing" their actions, with no direct connection to himself. After being rejected by his biological mom, didn't he discover she was cheating on her husband with Billy's dad? If Billy wasn't Sid's boyfriend, who knows if he would've sought him out. All the dots connected and he ran with it. It was a cool twist IMO, but sometimes I do prefer the simpler motives as seen in part 1 without the events of part 3.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by JackForrester

Yep, it doesn't even make sense. If Roman was so pissed off at Maureen he would want to kill her himself, not track down other people to do it for him. And how would he know Billy and Stu of all people were psychos who just needed a "guiding hand" to do all that? What a coincidence, the boyfriend of Maureen's daughter and his best friend of all people are psychos willing to kill for him. It's like a shitty fanfic.

I thought Scream 3 was a mess and (at the time) a poor way to complete the trilogy. I loved the first two for the record.

[JackForrester]

Originally Posted by postmodel

After being rejected by his biological mom, didn't he discover she was cheating on her husband with Billy's dad? If Billy wasn't Sid's boyfriend, who knows if he would've sought him out. All the dots connected and he ran with it. It was a cool twist IMO, but sometimes I do prefer the simpler motives as seen in part 1 without the events of part 3.

He did, but what are the odds of the son of the man his biological mom is having an affair with (and his best friend) will turn out to be psychos willing to "be directed" by him in a killing spree? It's too much of a stretch.

I know many people like to look at the Scream movies as self aware of its own flaws. "Oh, that was intentional, these movies are referencing all the flaws and stretches of the horror genre and if you don't see it you don't get it" (not saying this is your case btw).
It's one way to look at it (and one way to defend it) but I just don't buy it. I like the films and think they have more accomplishments than mistakes but sometimes the writing gets dumb.

[Joey9775]

The only reason to ever retcon 3 and 4 is you just really want Liev Schrieber back. There isn't anything in those 2 that need bringing up if you don't want. And I love pt 4.

Halloween had to deal with Laurie's car crash, Jamie Lloyd, Thorn cult, Jamie's death, Jamie's kid, H20 canon, Rob Zombie canon, etc. This isn't even close to the same situation.

[postmodel]

Originally Posted by JackForrester

He did, but what are the odds of the son of the man his biological mom is having an affair with (and his best friend) will turn out to be psychos willing to "be directed" by him in a killing spree? It's too much of a stretch.

I know many people like to look at the Scream movies as self aware of its own flaws. "Oh, that was intentional, these movies are referencing all the flaws and stretches of the horror genre and if you don't see it you don't get it" (not saying this is your case btw).
It's one way to look at it (and one way to defend it) but I just don't buy it. I like the films and think they have more accomplishments than mistakes but sometimes the writing gets dumb.

I just chalk it up as a risk he was willing to take haha. With that though, 3 is my least favorite. I don't hate it, but I enjoyed 4 more.

1 and 2 are damn near perfect in my eyes. I rank Scream 2 as one of the best horror sequels, if not just sequels in general, ever made. Mickey is the craziest of all the killers IMO. Billy, Billy's mom, Roman, and Jill all had motives that kind of make you go "ok...that checks out." Stu and Charlie can be seen as easily manipulated followers, but Mickey, he had zero connection to these characters, at least not until Billy's mom found him. Eh, maybe that could fall under easily manipulated as well, but like I said, he had no connection prior to.

Do I need to spoiler tag that last paragraph? We've been openly talking about the killers so I assume it's ok...?

[JackForrester]

Originally Posted by postmodel

I just chalk it up as a risk he was willing to take haha. With that though, 3 is my least favorite. I don't hate it, but I enjoyed 4 more.

1 and 2 are damn near perfect in my eyes. I rank Scream 2 as one of the best horror sequels, if not just sequels in general, ever made. Mickey is the craziest of all the killers IMO. Billy, Billy's mom, Roman, and Jill all had motives that kind of make you go "ok...that checks out." Stu and Charlie can be seen as easily manipulated followers, but Mickey, he had zero connection to these characters, at least not until Billy's mom found him. Eh, maybe that could fall under easily manipulated as well, but like I said, he had no connection prior to.

I get it, these movies are not meant to be taken dead serious. They're slashers, pure entertainment. With all its flaws I still enjoy Scream 3. The weakest of the bunch for sure, but it's enjoyable.
And I have to say I find Scream 2 the most overrated of the bunch. Many people regard it as the masterpiece of horror sequels, and tend to justify all its flaws with "it was intentional, you didn't get it", like I said above (again, not saying this is your case lol). But I still find it superior to 3 and 4. Just doesn't come close to the original IMO. None of the sequels does. But that's me

Originally Posted by postmodel

Do I need to spoiler tag that last paragraph? We've been openly talking about the killers so I assume it's ok...?

Then I need to spoiler tag all my posts as I pretty much spoiled Scream 3 entirely lol

[JG85]

I really don’t want to see this personally. I mean what else can you do with these characters that hasn’t been done already? Also, how many times can we see a killer going after Sidney? It just feels so corny & stale at this point. I think only the first 2 movies are really good, part 3 is okay, & the 4th looking back feels like a pointless movie.

[Joey9775]

I've always like part 4 in that it gave us a much better movie to go out on instead of the absolute sh*t stain that is Scream 3.

[mulscul]

The only thing I scratch my head about in 2 is how Cotton knows to go to the theatre and before that how did the killers know that Sid would be by the theatre to hear the music as well?

There was no music for Cotton to hear as it was stopped after Sid entered.