Scream 6

[Andrew NDB]

Wow. This didn't take long at all to get greenlit:

https://www.darkhorizons.com/scream-...s-this-summer/

Starts shooting this summer.

[Warhorse]

What's the point? They killed off the good characters.

[Andrew NDB]

Well, they still haven't made one of the OGs the killer yet. That remains a card unplayed.

[Leo656]

Probably because no matter how people keep pushing for it it is objectively the dumbest thing ever and would irreparably jump the shark from being "lightly self-satirical" into full-blown self-parody. There's no way to present it without it seeming false with who the characters are and how they've always been portrayed as people. It would blatantly be some "We are officially out of ideas." Like how in that one Critters sequel the guy who spent the whole series trying to wipe them out was now allied with them because "Eh, that's the only thing we didn't do yet." Made no sense and was dumb.

"Gail decides to go on a killing spree so she can write another book off of it"? Dumb. Plausible in a sense, but dumb.

"Sidney randomly snaps and starts killing people because It's All Just To Much"? Dumb. That is not at all how or why people become serial killers. Her killing herself due to all her trauma instead is 1000% more likely and is a thing people who've been traumatized in such fashion actually do. They don't become copycat serial killers, that has literally never happened.

Plus, in the latter, it sounds very much like Neve would not sign up for that movie anyway. She talks a lot about how Sidney has become the "ultimate survivor" and a role model for women who are recovering from trauma, and she has said out loud that she doesn't think she would sign on for a movie where Sidney was killed because it would undermine what the character has come to mean to so many people. If she wouldn't want to do a movie where Sidney gets killed, I highly doubt she would agree to one where she becomes the murderer, either, for exactly the same reasons. She'd probably rather agree to have her killed off if it came down to one or the other.

If the only way you can milk one more movie is to do a plotline which assassinates the characters people still care about for the sake of a "shocking" twist (which would not even be shocking because, as noted, "It's the only thing they HAVEN'T done yet"), then you may as well just call it a day and quit while you're ahead.

[Andrew NDB]

Who KNOWS what would happen to the mind of someone who has narrowly survived 5 of these mass serial killer sprees.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Probably because no matter how people keep pushing for it it is objectively the dumbest thing ever and would irreparably jump the shark from being "lightly self-satirical" into full-blown self-parody. There's no way to present it without it seeming false with who the characters are and how they've always been portrayed as people. It would blatantly be some "We are officially out of ideas." Like how in that one Critters sequel the guy who spent the whole series trying to wipe them out was now allied with them because "Eh, that's the only thing we didn't do yet." Made no sense and was dumb.

"Gail decides to go on a killing spree so she can write another book off of it"? Dumb. Plausible in a sense, but dumb.

"Sidney randomly snaps and starts killing people because It's All Just To Much"? Dumb. That is not at all how or why people become serial killers. Her killing herself due to all her trauma instead is 1000% more likely and is a thing people who've been traumatized in such fashion actually do. They don't become copycat serial killers, that has literally never happened.

Plus, in the latter, it sounds very much like Neve would not sign up for that movie anyway. She talks a lot about how Sidney has become the "ultimate survivor" and a role model for women who are recovering from trauma, and she has said out loud that she doesn't think she would sign on for a movie where Sidney was killed because it would undermine what the character has come to mean to so many people. If she wouldn't want to do a movie where Sidney gets killed, I highly doubt she would agree to one where she becomes the murderer, either, for exactly the same reasons. She'd probably rather agree to have her killed off if it came down to one or the other.

If the only way you can milk one more movie is to do a plotline which assassinates the characters people still care about for the sake of a "shocking" twist (which would not even be shocking because, as noted, "It's the only thing they HAVEN'T done yet"), then you may as well just call it a day and quit while you're ahead.

Oh man. Thank you so damn much for this. I was about to write something like this about the 'creative twist' of Gale or Sid being the next killer(s). It's so dumb, it's extremely creatively bankrupt just like The Fifth Turtle crap in the TMNT franchise.

Also, I agree with Campbell about Sid. As a woman who's gone through a lot of trauma, I have to say, I loved her arc throughout the movies, and I actually really liked that she got married, and is now a mother herself, and seems pretty happy with her new family. It'd be so gross to take that away just for a 'twist' everyone would see coming... Sadly, this is Hollywood, and sadly, the fans would probably love it anyway.

[Leo656]

They'd hoot and holler in the moment, but in that moment everything good about the character and the series would be erased for a cheap "shock", which wouldn't even be shocking.

It's the kinda sh*t drunk/stoned people ramble about at Denny's after they see a movie and are just shooting the sh*t. "DUDE, wouldn't it be cool in the NEXT one if..." But sh*t like that always falls apart completely the second you even think about it. "No, it wouldn't be cool, it would be hack-y garbage. Use your noodle."

Could it happen? Sure, anything can. Everybody's got a price, if they offered Neve enough money to assassinate her character she just might, and she'd do the media rounds talking about how it made sense because "Sidney's story was over, and this is how we close that book for good and hand it over to the new generation"... but you know that in reality she'd hate it, and it would be sad to see and hear her go through that whole spiel.

I mean even Jamie Lee Curtis tried to put over being killed off in past Halloween movies that have since been retconned out. At the time she pretended to justify it but before too long she was like, "Yeah, no, that was garbage, I was furious." I just REALLY don't like to even see things like that happen. And they're preventable and avoidable. We just don't need to go there.

[Andrew NDB]

You don't like one of the existing, surviving characters becoming a killer? OK. Fine. I get it. What is a great Scream Part 6 story concept that is satisfying to old and new audiences and isn't rehashing anything from before?*

GO!

*: Because this isn't James Bond. "Bring in a new batch of kids and guess the 2 killers from the brand new characters" every 2-3 years probably isn't going to cut it. They can maybe do it every 10 years.

[Wildcat]

Saw part 5 and enjoyed it but I’ve only seen 4 once and the original 3 growing up so I don’t remember much. I mostly remember the first. I don’t know how I’d compare them.

I agree making the good guys the killer would be totally out of character. Hope it does not happen.

I think I mentioned my idea to make the killer an actual ghost. Maybe too supernatural for this franchise but could be cool. I mean part of the point is self-commentary. It could move into horror tropes.

Spoiler:

I thought it was interesting how the spirit of Billy Loomis kind of helped. Did he gain remorse in the afterlife or just wanted to help his daughter?

On a side note the title bothers me. Just number it or use a subtitle. I get the trend of using the “clean name” but 2 movies in the same continuity have the same name now (Halloween too with its retcons).

I know most will still call it Scream 5 but for the sake of the movies themselves it’s a disservice imo.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

On a side note the title bothers me. Just number it or use a subtitle. I get the trend of using the “clean name” but 2 movies in the same continuity have the same name now (Halloween too with its retcons).

At first it bothered me. But they literally explained why it's just "Scream" in the movie and it is clever enough.

[Wildcat]

I looked it up and it’s because it’s supposed to be like a new start. The requel/pass the torch thing.

Sam

Spoiler:

being related to Billy and her boyfriend being the killer

qualifies as this trope but Sidney, Dewey and Gale have been in all of them so it does not feel like they were “legacy characters” the way the movie portrays them imo.

I guess it works as a self reference but a subtitle still would have been better. Pass the torch movies usually use one.

Halloween must be the worst. Ignoring all the previous stuff it’s now Halloween, Halloween...Kills and Ends. This sequence is just ridiculous.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I looked it up and it’s because it’s supposed to be like a new start. The requel/pass the torch thing.

Well... sort of. But mainly it's a rub on exactly what all the other horror movies are doing now ("Halloween" "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," and so on). But in-movie and it's in on the joke.

[Wildcat]

I know. I get that. When the girl in the living room scene lists all those examples. I just wish it would have gone with a different trope for the title like using a common term (Rise, Resurrection etc...not these of course). That way it’s self referencing AND it gives proper separation.

This is better...

Spoiler:

Scream: Bloodline would have been perfect. It’s a cliche term and it fits the Sam character. It’s also the Subtitle of Tremors 5 which introduced Jamie Kennedy into the series who of course was Randy Meeks in this. Double reference.