Scream 4 Trailer

[ChiTownBoi03]

I love me some Scream films (I have the boxset trilogy), but I was somewhat underwhelmed by this trailer.

[EricMontreal22]

Oh no, I agree with you completely for once (I forgot about Red Eye). People Under the stairs is largely his script though (he even lifted bits verbatim from his Flowers in the Attic script--I guess some issues he wanted to deal with that he first thought of from there). The concept for the third one was all his--bringing back Nancy, the mental home, etc, but I concede nothing of the specific dialogue and many of the scenes were his (the more elaborate dream concept was his). Of course in a way that was the undoing of Nightmare, as a franchise--4 was the most successful movie and they took all the elements of 3 and kinda made it into this jokey fantasy (4 is actually a fun movie, in a cheezy 80s way, but 5, despite trying to go darker, and 6 are close to unwatchable IMHO). I do think, even now, New Nightmare is vastly underated. It falls a bit apart in the climax (as nearly all horror movies, and even novels--witness Stephen King--do IMHO) but otherwise... It just came a fewyears too soon, when no one wanted a new Nightmare movie, no matter how smart.

Shocker's downfall was Wes' own cynicism (something he's owned up to). He was pissed off that he had virtually no rights or money from Freddy Krueger, so set out to create a new version of him. I think it's an utter dissaster (I know some fans think it deserves re-evaluation, but I don't ). Ironically, Rachel Talelay (sp?) who directed Nightmare 6 (which I remember thinking was so bad the first time I saw it I actually kept falling asleep) later did Ghost in the Machine, an awful horror film that cribs a lot from Shocker.

Horror directors seem to fall prey to being deeply inconsistent more than a lot of other directors (Wes Craven is often mentioned in the same breath as John Carpenter who has made some truly dreadful, nearly completely forgotten films). It is interesting going back to some ofthe films Wes did for money though (again, something he always owns up to, to be fair). I think some of his earlier mainstream work like Deadly Blessing is actgually quite good (Sharon Stone is atrocious in it--you would have never guessed she could become a star). I admit I don't really have the stomach to get into his early exploitation work like Hills Have Eyes and Last House--I've seen them (didn't bother with the remakes) and I admit they have a raw power, they're just not my thing.

Then you get oddities like his tv movie work (done for money) like that camp classic with Susan Lucci as a spa owner/robot/satan whatever she was (Invitation to Hell or something? I should get that on DVD lol).

And when Nightmare was a surprise megahit, he was hired for big bucks to make his first mainstram movie--Deadly Friend. I don't put much blame on that on Wes--he was hired because of his name, but the script he was given was a variation on the oh so popular at the time "best robot buddy" 80s movie (Flight of the Navigator, Short Circuit, etc)--with more comedy and "warmth" than horror. It tested horribly, appatrently audiences wanted a HORROR film from Wes Craven's name (no kidding--even Wes apparently didn't want to do the script at first), and expected another Nightmare. So suddenly they reshot endless horror dream sequences, gory deaths, a lot of it wasn't even shot with Wes' knowledge--the infamous, awful, ending scene (check it out on youtube) wsa reportedly directed by the exec producer, and scripted by him.

Anyway, my point is part ofhis mixed track record is his own doing, part is bad luck with studios(let's not get into the Cursed debacle). I guess I hoped with more control My Soul to Take would go back to the original Nightmare. But I know it had many studio problems too (even recently--Wes was VERY against the idea of them making it 3D after the fact, even urging anyone who saw it to just see the 2D showing). But what was disappointing to me was, despite maybe 2 scenes with genuine potential and interesting dream imagery (something Wes usually excels at)--like that water bit--Wes Craven just seems bored, and apathetic. It's not even a shockign disaster in the way something like Deadly Friend is.

So... maybe with a good script and the bhuge studio support behind him, he will step up to the plate with Scream 4. I don't really blame him for Scream 3 (though surely he realized thatthe increased focus on comedy was a mistake)

[EricMontreal22]

Agreed. I do appreciate that he's admitted his huge downfall post Scream 2/Dawson's Creek was he couldn't say no to anyone, so agreed to every project handed to him and never really focused on any of them (he also seems to regret leaving Dawson's for other projects so soon). He has also admitted that there was never really much thought about a trilogy when he conceived the original movie--a line of bullshit the studio used to always cart out, that never rang true.

Hahaha, when this Scream 4 trailer came out I tried to even remember who the killer was in Scream 3 and how it tied into the past movies, and simply couldn't. I know they wrote several endings, but still I remember being utterly baffled in the theatre--but what really turned me off of it was just how goofy it was--the cameos from Silent Bob and Jay, etc--it was like some really lame fanboy made it and not a movie that involved so many of the original cast members.

That's more than fair enough, and I admit if it turns out to be like that (that's all I wanted from Soul to Take), then I can accept that.

[EricMontreal22]

This is why despite my love of horror and slashers, I'm not a very good "gorehound". For me these movies need a hero (well, since clashers almost always use the "final girl", complete with things like the final girl often has a more asexual name so male audience members can identify more with her and other odd cliches Kevin Williamson nailed perfectly, I guess I mean heroine). What derailed Halloween, etc, and made the series less mainstream and more something only obssessed fanboys(girls) were into was precisely that. The hero of the movie wasn't Michael Myers, it was Laurie (that's why her returnin H20 made it such a hit, and why so many were pissed off that they killed her in the opening scene of the next one--it kinda makes her whole struggle for three films pointless). Friday the 13th of course never was really strong or had any well done characters so it made sense for Jason to become the hero). Same with Elm Street--Nancy is a character most audiences cared about (her death in 3 was well done though).

Scream was a success cuz it was a *smart* slasher, but also because it didn't treat all its characters with contempt--people the audience would cheer when they were dead. I don't have much interest in following Sydney's stuggle and ability to overcome that stuggle, only to have her finally killed off--call me a sentimentalist. Yeah it's boring if you knwo a character won't die, but it could also just come off as cheap.

If she was smart--and I honestly think she may be heding in this direction, she'd do mainstream stuff like this to keep her in the public eye and get some moolah--and use it to do the indie films that make no money that she clearly most wants to do (Altman'sunderated ballet film, The Company, was all her idea, for instance).

It was a good idea that was just given WAY too much screentime--again making the movie much more of a (kinda lame) comedy than a horror with comic/knowing elements...

[EricMontreal22]

Oh and I can't believe Kruger was hired again to rewrite this after Scream 3... Yes, he's done some good (and some bad) work since, but... Ugh.

OK one more negative comment from me and then I'll shut up (for a bit )

These are the new rules:

Rules of a horror movie sequel (Scream 4)

These rules are explained by Robbie and Charlie during a class in which Sidney is present.

1."The Kills have gotta be way more extreme."

2."The unexpected is the new cliche."

3."Virgins can die now."

4."To be the new version, you know, 2.0? The killer should be filming the murders." ("It’s the natural next step in psycho slasher innovation").

Ummm isn't all this like 5+ years too late? Virgins have been dieing in horror films for a while, treating the unexpected as the new cliche and wallowing int he expected for scares has also been done, and God knwos the killer filming the murders isn't new...

[EricMontreal22]

Scream 1 and 2 had such great first kills (even if Scream 2 lifted theirs' almost completely from He Knows You're Alone), but I don't even REMEMBER Scream 3's...

I dunno--if you liked Scream 3 was more of a thriller then horror--then why bother making it a Scream film in the first place...

[Chris B]

I did like that it was more of a thriller. For a trilogy it felt like each film had a nice progression and can stand on it's own. I was reading an interview with Wes Craven who said when shooting the film post-Columbine the studio didn't want any blood and it was a big fight getting that in. It's obvious there was a mandate somewhere because in that regard it wasn't nothing like the first two. Had the killer been better decided I think the movie would've been better. But then who should be the killer? I always thought those young Maureen pics looked like Rose McGowan and maybe they could've done the same twist with her.

[EricMontreal22]

I'm honestly surprised it managed to get an R and not a PG 13 in the end (a long way from the first Scream which needed some trimming to not get an NC 17.

[Chris B]

One thing I will say is I wish they had used Randy's sister more. And then going into this new film, maybe she could've been included or Patrick Dempsey's character just so we have more familiar faces to interact with the old crowd (and easier to kill off).

[Vee]

I'm hoping most of Williamson's script is still in somehow - Ehren Kruger's Scream 3 is unwatchable dreck. Even 2 is not that great, given that it was rewritten on the fly after the superior original draft leaked onto the Net (in which just about everyone dies).

Neve Campbell is not much of an actress and never has been - execs at Miramax have even admitted such in print, "sweet girl [who] can't act her way out of a paper bag." I never liked Sidney much. I hope she gets offed finally. But if Campbell used her money from her heyday to keep Altman making films, I applaud her.

[Chris B]

I never knew that about Scream 2! Now I have to search for it...

[Bright Eyes]

If you find it, link me

[Money]

I'm really surprised about this new Scream considering Neve and Courtney swore that after S3 they were done because they didn't want to run the franchise into the ground. I guess ten years later they needed the work.

[Chris B]

The Scream 2 script I found was terrible. I like some of the ideas, but it was a little too cheesy. And four killers? Geez thats a lot lol. Had they gone with that script, Scream 3 would've been a completely different animal. May not have been possible since everyone died except Cotton. I'm thankful for whoever leaked that! lol

Right now I'm still waiting on my DVDs of this trilogy to arrive! Can't wait.

Scream 2 original script: http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Scream-2.html

Differences: Mickey is a strong supporter of Sidney; Cici has a different death similar to Casey (originally all the people murdered had names similar to the victims of the first film); Hallie, Derek, Debbie and Cotton are the killers; Gale, Dewey and Sidney all die.

Also I read that originally (and both are unproven rumors) that for Scream 3 Dewey was meant to be the killer and another rumor stats it was Angelina and Roman.

ETA:

That website also has a very different early draft of Ethan Kruger's Scream 3 script. The opening is similar, but doesn't include Cotton and takes place at the Hollywood sign. I prefer what made it to screen in this case. One thing I notice is that the script is very gory. That pretty much confirms for me the lack of gore was studio mandated, although Kruger gets the blame for that.

[Chris B]

My Scream trilogy finally arrived, but I haven't dug into it yet. While I was waiting I bought I Know What You Did Last Summer and it's two trilogies. I watched "I'll Always..." first since I'd never seen it. It's pretty much a remake with supernatural elements, but it has potential. The budget was large enough they could've made a decent film with a better script and director. The script is painfully dull in parts. Too much of the film is spent on the unmemorable characters talking in circles and they never build any suspense. The kills are good but thats it.

I also re-watched the original, another Williamson gem. I know it gets lots of flack, but I think this is a fabulous film. It has some of the most memorable action sequences in horror film and I thought the script was great. It doesn't feel like a copy of Scream, but obviously from the Scream era. The cast is great, particularly Sarah Michelle Gellar and Jennifer Love Hewitt. Instead of the obvious supercouple thing with Ray, I wish they'd kept both female characters for future sequels. It probably would've done the series some good. Brandy is not a suitable replacement for Buffy Summers lol. But I will say the entire sequence that leads to Helen's death is an absolute classic.

I'll return with my thoughts on the Scream films once I get to them. It's been years since I've seen any of them, but probably the longest since I've seen Scream 2.