June 19, 2025 • 51 mins
While this installment attempts to capture the magic of its predecessors, it often feels like a shadow of what once was. We’ll explore the film's self-referential humor, uneven pacing, and the challenges of continuing a beloved franchise. With a mix of nostalgia and critique, we’ll discuss how "Scream 3" fits into Craven's legacy and whether it manages to deliver the thrills fans expect.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to the net Palty.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome back to House Lights, the podcast where the body
count rises, the rules get thrown out, and the bangs
get traumatically uneven. I'm your host, Tristan Rudel, and yes,
I do keep a secret voice changer in my desk drawer,
but only for creative purposes. Joining me today from deep
within the back lot of Sunrise Studios is the man
who's rewritten more plot twist than Roman Bridger could ever
(00:43):
have dreamed of. He's the real director behind the Mayhem.
It's John Mills. And also with us is our resident parker,
posey enthusiast, a man who knows how to steal every scene,
chew the scenery and still ask if Craft Services has
oat milk. It's Darren Moser. That's right, we're talking. Scream
three Wes Craven's most polarizing entry the trilogy, Kapper that
(01:07):
dared to go full Scooby Doo and pre meta about
being meta, and where Carrie Fisher plays not Carrie Fisher.
So silence your cell phones, lock your trailers, and let's
follow the fax machine into the inferno.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Nice. I like how we were cast in this one.
I think it was.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
More effort into that intro than we did, and we're
going to put into the whole rest of this podcast,
and I can guarantee.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I'd argue that more was put into that intro than
the effort that was put into the script for this movie.
But we'll get to that. Hey, Actually, you know what, we.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Could go straight into that, because so Kevin Williamson did
not write this movie, and boy does it show. It
shows it was unavailable to write it. So but he
did write a.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Did he not like money?
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah, he was.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
He was busy with I think he was directing a movie,
he was producing another movie, and he was the showrunner
on Dawson's Creek, and so he just couldn't do it.
He just did not have the time. And it was
written by Aaron Kruger, who completely disregarded Kevin Williamson's outline
(02:15):
and basically wrote it, wrote a new page every day,
like as it was going as it was going on,
and Wes Craven was so upset with Krueger's characterizations that
he had to rewrite it on the day. And so
this movie was put together in pieces as it was
being made.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
But let me ask this question, like very straightforward like,
I don't understand how Writers Guild of America rules work
or anything like that. But if you're on the set
and you've got this writer and the writer is not
doing what you want to the point where you have
to rewrite everything that he rewrites every day, So it's
basically like you're writing three drafts a day of every
single page on top of running this production. Why can't
(02:57):
Craven just be like, screw it, I need somebody else,
and you bring somebody else onto the set. You say,
mister Krueger, Great, you have your credit and we'll give
you like a producer credit. Just get the hell off
the set and bring somebody else in that knows what
they're doing. Like I don't. I don't understand. Are there
rules against that? Is there some reason they can't do that?
Speaker 2 (03:13):
I think there is rules against that. Like I wish
I knew more about it, And I don't know how
much Wes Craven rewrote. You know, I have no idea
what quantity. If it was more or less than fifty percent,
I have no clue, but it's it was basically it's
just to illustrate that this was a this was a
good sign.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Scenes Yeah, but I will say, because it's easy to say, oh, well,
you know they were rewriting a every they were right
rewriting the pages. They were shooting every single day, and
that's a big mess behind the scenes. I will point
out that when the director and the writer are in sync,
such as in Edge of Tomorrow, like they were doing
according to Chris mcquarie, they were doing like daily. They
(03:54):
were it was like, okay, here's the new page. Okay,
here's the new page, and that worked out perfectly. But
I think that more to what you're saying, where it's
like Craven wasn't digging what Krueger was laying down.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Well, I mean, just looking at the film schedule, the
fact that it was recorded between July and September of
ninety nine, with the ending reshot in January of two
thousand oh.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
And released and released in February of two thousand that's
that's the That's the damning part right there, That one
right there, that is that is rough by ending?
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Do they mean the entire like house part?
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Like no, I have to say, that was a huge scene.
There's no way they could have reshot that.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
I mean, I could, I.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Mean, but how do you go back to that if
you want to change it, unless you you could.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Shoot inserts like you could go back to it and
like suddenly, you know, like the Patrick Timsey character, I
imagine probably got you that that smelled and felt like
a change. When he showed up at the end, I
was like, I feel like, this isn't how this went originally.
That's true, He's.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Actually only in a handful of scenes like he could
have very but why add a whole character like that
just to give the twist, because they honestly are getting
towards it looking like it's him.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
No I'm saying that he I have no idea. Maybe
Tristan you know the behind the scenes details. But when
he showed up at the end, the way his character
interacted at the end felt to me while I was
watching it like that part got redone. That felt like
a part that was definitely redone. It felt like there
was something different about how he interacted with everything.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Which character are we talking about.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Here, Patrick Dempsey the Police?
Speaker 2 (05:31):
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Milton for
some reason. Yeah, Patrick, Okay, so yes, you are correct
that Dempsey's part was like the basically where he showed
up in the third act was completely rewritten because when
he says goodbye to Sydney when she's in the police
station and he gets that really overly sexualized line he said,
(05:58):
he's like my entire life or something like that, and
then like walks away like he was written out of
the script after that, like he walks off into oblivion.
And Patrick Dempsey shows up because this is another thing.
Patrick Zimpsey was hired a day before principal photography began,
and so he had he had a night to you know,
memorize his lines before the next day, and then as
(06:21):
they were filming, he's like, where do I go in
the third act? And they're like, oh, nowhere. He's like,
that's absurd. He's like, my character is meaningless throughout the
entire movie if he has nothing to do in the
third act. He's the cop, you know, he's the investigator.
What's going on here? And so they're like, oh crap.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
It's like doing not being in the third act of Scream.
He's like, he's the cop. Yeah, and it's like, oh, yeah,
he just is not at the house during the end finale.
It's like, why would he not be there?
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Yeah, And so Dempsey said He's like, you got to
write me in here, and so they did. And so yeah,
that's why it feels clunky. That's why everything in the
movie feels.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Clunky, A man everything. But see, I came into this
one and the part I had seen before this I
had I was scanning through maybe it was on two
B or something like that, and it was the opening
of this, and I actually liked the opening. I was like, oh,
I like what they did with this. Because Cotton got
his fame, he was still kind of a douchebag. He
(07:16):
had his fame and his money and everything like that,
and he's an even worse person because he starts flirting
with this fictitious woman on the phone after hanging up
with his girlfriend, and then you know, the twist happens.
And I actually thought it was kind of interesting the
way that it set everything up in the beginning. And
even though it telegraphs, of course, you know, Cotton being
dressed all in white, it's sort of like the end
(07:37):
of Boogie Nights where it's like, oh, I know, there's
gonna be blood everywhere here. Okay, I got it, got it,
you know, But.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
It's apparently leav Shreiver insisted that he takes take his
jacket off in the opening scene because he's been working.
He was working out like crazy, and he wanted to
show people that he has been working out. He's really
filling that sweater. I respect that. I respect that. I
advocate for yourself, sir, advocate for yourself. But yeah, I
thought the opening was I was looking forward to seeing
(08:05):
this because I had seen that opening and I was like, Okay,
well maybe it is pretty good.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
So no, yeah, I mean I texted you guys, or
I think I did when I was watching it and
I was about halfway and I positive, I'm like, surely
we must be about to the very end of the Nope, nope, no,
we are like square in the middle of this movie.
We have a long way to go.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
And yeah, I was actually when you texted me that,
I was sitting next to my wife and I commented
that you said that, and I said, I was like,
Darren never tells us what he thinks about the movie
before the podcast, and for him to be so frustrated
that he had to reach out on.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Our that's not a good sign.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
That's not a good sign.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
It wasn't a positive, It wasn't a positive.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Net nag so arguably, Darren, where when did you first
see this movie?
Speaker 3 (08:55):
This was the first time seeing this. I had not
never seen this movie before, and it wasn't even like
one of those oh yeah, now that I watch it,
it comes back like No, no, I had never seen
this movie, so I had no idea what was going on.
I don't think anyone knew it.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
No no.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
I mean it's interesting watching this movie after watching New Nightmare,
because New Nightmare kind of I mean, yes, we're talking
about making a movie and the metanists like this kind of.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
It was really odd because it was like taking it
another degree, like Okay, we're on the soundstage and there's
the house, and I feel like when movies are kind
of all over the place, I default back to what
am I supposed to be feeling about these characters? What
is the director? What is the writer trying to convey
(09:52):
in these moments? Am I supposed to feel sympathy? Am
I supposed to feel fear? Things like that? And for
most of this movie, I just was like, I have
no idea how I'm supposed to feel. I have no
idea it is. It was just bouncing off the walls.
So yeah, I had no idea going in and I
still have no idea going out of this movie.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Kind of jumping off of what Darren is talking about, John,
I have a frank question for you, and I expect
a frank answer. Is this movie a horror movie?
Speaker 1 (10:22):
That is uh okay frank answer, No, it's not this movie.
And I think that gets to the core of my
biggest complaint with it is that the movie is bound
up by these quote unquote trilogy rules. And I really
think that if you're going to extend the this is
meta horror. It's not valid. Like horror trilogies don't exist,
(10:45):
they just do not exist. And if you're making fun
of the slasher genre in specific, A more apt thing
to call out is, you know you have the Randy
Meeks thing come in is for him to say, you're
gonna feel like this is the last thing, but guess what,
it's not really going to be over after this, but
I'm going to get you through this one. Nobody knows
what's going to happen. They could do a reboot like
(11:05):
Friday the Thirteenth, Part five in the next one, they
could do this, They could do that, but they'll always
come back, and they'll always keep going so long as
it's interesting to blah blah blah blah. You could go
off all of that type of stuff. So I think
that going into the trilogy, navel Gazing is a Kevin
Smith esque Star Wars reference more than anything else Star
Wars or Back to the Future or what have you.
(11:26):
And of course Jay and Silent Bober in the movie
for some reason, but whatever, and you can have. Basically,
I think that the lack of Williamson is why things
sort of break down on that level, is it moves
away from the horror and strangely goes more toward an
action y type of thing, which is I think very
(11:49):
much in keeping with the fact. Because I was reading
that when Krueger was developing it and Craven quote unquote
course corrected him. He had Sydney going more Linda Hamilton
into Erminator two, like she becomes a buff ass kicker.
I read that, and I'm like, oh, I can kind
of see those fingerprints on this script. I can see
where he was going with that, and instead they tone
(12:11):
it back and she's meekly living in the woods somewhere,
and it's like, honestly, it would have been more interesting
to see her like on a compound constantly training, which
is actually an impulse that they followed when they had
Halloween twenty eighteen, was showing up.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah, just about to say that, that is absolutely the
direction that they went with the Halloween reboot at the
second Halloween reboot. Yeah, so one thing that really the
lack of Kevin Williamson all the craziness in production. Also,
Columbine happened on April twentieth, nineteen ninety nine. This started
(12:47):
shooting in June July. This started shooting in July of
that year. Because of Columbine. The studio told them to
tone down the violence and up the humor, and that's
exactly what we got. There's even a meta reference inside
of it. Yeah there was humors.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
Okay, yes, there is.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Yeah, come on, come on, I didn't say that. There's
always lands.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
Okay, there you go. Well, and it's I think if
they're if they're gonna be shooting another STAB movie, I
think it would have been funnier to have it be
like Stab five and they're commenting on the fact that
they're cranking these out so fast, like take that angle
instead of the third one, like we're shooting the third
one like, we're in the third one like, and then
(13:30):
it doesn't even matter what you're getting.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
But there's so much there was so much ambiguity to
Stab three, where like, okay, let me rephrase this. So
in Scream there is no there is no STAB movie.
In Scream two, there is a STAB movie. That's when
we first get it, and so it's a recreation of
the first one of the of the scream that came
(13:54):
out in ninety six. We don't do a Screams two
seql in Scream three. We jump ahead and do Stab three.
But the thing is is that there's so much emphasis
put on the movie itself. The movie is about the
making of the movie, but yet we have no idea
what the movie is about. And also they make it
look like they're reproducing Stab one or Scream of ninety
(14:16):
six with all the sets and the kapoo looks like
Dewey and his uniform and everything like that, So you
have no idea what's going on. You have no connection
with it. It's just an excuse to get Sydney to
walk around the set of original screen.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Oh it felt like it like that time when she's
actually on the set and she's reacting to it. You know,
like eighty percent of this movie has been set up
for that shot, Like, yes, how do we get her
from compound in the woods to standing watching her relive
that night? Which you can do in other ways besides
making an entire movie about it. But I mean, here
(14:52):
we are. But yeah, it felt like that. And then again,
you know, we're introduced all not only do we have
our main carearacters, but we have all of their you know,
quote unquote stunt doubles to borrow from Spaceballs, you know,
the actors playing them. We also are kind of caring
about kind of not like there's a bunch of Hollywood
(15:14):
stuff thrown in and it's just and then on top
of that, at the very end again and this is
where I really wonder if this part was in the
in the pitch or the main story, or if it
came later. Does it all have to be tied up
in a bow? Can it not just be a copycat?
Like everything has to be like, oh, it has to
(15:36):
be like this is the person that created the person
that started like it. It almost felt too connected back
to the to the scream, you know, to the ghost face,
just a little bit.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
I think it's kind of a victim of what John
was talking about, where, Darren, what you're describing is is
a normal drama trilogy or a sci fi trilogy or
something like that where everything goes back to the original
because the rules that Randy is talking about are trilogy rules.
But John, you're talking about how horror trilogies don't exist.
(16:08):
It's just continuation. It's compilations. And so we are in
the mindset of watching you know, the Halloween films and
the front of the Thirteenth films, and I can go
on and on and.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
On, Nightmare on Elm Street, My Blade, Valentine's sleep Away Camp,
you know, Sally go on.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
I don't think courage all those, you know, like we
can go on and on and say like when they're
the third one is never right there, continuing trilogy. It's
just a continuation. And so our brain is set in
the horror universe. But yet we're trying to wrap it
around trilogy rules which don't exist, and so that in
itself is a confusing, a confusing thing to wrap your
(16:47):
mind around.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
It is. The thing is there are elements of this
that I think are are interesting. I just think that
it's the connective tissue that that hurts it. It's the
fact that they're rewriting and everything. There's such a first
draft feel to this movie. What it feels like you
have an idea of the scenes you want, but you
(17:10):
don't know how you're going to tie them together. Right,
we're throwing shade a minute ago on everything's constructed around
having her in the set for the house. Yes, you're right,
it is. That's still an interesting scene. The way that
it's constructed and played out. There's a logical thing that
doesn't really work with it, but that's okay, right, It's
(17:30):
still interesting to see the unreality of it all folded
in on itself. That's cool. I like that there's an
interesting aspect to them being in the house and then
you know, having that paralysis moment of wait, we should
go out of the house. No, he's telling us to
go out of the house. We should stay in the house. No,
(17:51):
but that's exactly what he thinks. Like, that's actually a
part where the humor does land interest and to your point,
like some of the humor does land, that's one of
those moments where the human lands because it gets to
that meta idea of everybody loves to sit there and say, oh,
I know what I do in that situation when they're
watching a horror movie. But you have that scene right
there where it's like, would you really or would you
(18:12):
overthink it the way that they're doing, We're like, no, wait,
that's what they expect, and you just keep going around
in circles.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
And then you know, like we have the idiot character
who lights a match to use it as a light source,
which only happens in movies. At no point in my
life have I ever thought like, man, it's really dark
in here, I need to go get a lighter, Like, no,
I find a flashflight.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Well, the thing is, you know, the characters already established
as a smoker, isn't he? But but the thing is
that right there, what you're talking about, like that's still
such a stretch, because I'll do a quick poll for you.
Do you know where matches or lighter are in your
house right now? Right the second? If you have to
go run and get one, Yeah, they're in the kitchen
(18:57):
if you do. Yeah, surprising. I figure I figured you wouldn't.
I figured you guys would be like, no, I just
used my iPhone or something like that, you know, like.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
When you need matches, you need to like candles, when
you need a light source user.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Oh, look at you set in the mood like I got.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
I got one of those one of those done things,
like with the extension that you can Yeah.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Is it one of the bendable extensions.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Yeah, the bendik Those are kind of cool, like those. Well,
the reason why I brought it up is because it's
so trophy that it belongs in this film. Yeah, you know,
it's one of those things that you only see in movies,
and so you're like, oh, okay, Like I have such
a love hate relationship with this movie because you know, Darren,
you and I were even talking beforehand where I talked
about how, you know, like season three is definitely the
(19:37):
red headed stepchild of this trilogy, but yet both you
and I were like, yeah, but it's still fun, it's
still interesting, it's still intriguing. And as I was watching
it this time, I did not have have the algic
goggles on it that I normally do because I rewatched
this series a lot, like I rewatched the Screen franchise
a lot, and I never skip three. I always watch three,
(19:59):
and I have a good time watching it, but for
some reason this time I watched it, like, you know,
when you know, Jane Silent Bob show up, I'm like,
what what are we doing here, folks? What is going on?
But then I laugh when Parker Posey jumps into Patrick
Warburton's arms, you know, like it like those kind of
little moments of levity I enjoy, but like when Jane
(20:19):
Silent Bob come in, it completely takes me out. And
it's just I think that's kind of the back and
forth of the movie, where like one moment is endearing
and charming, and then another moment you're like, what is
going on? But it's like that back and forth, back
and forth.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
I just want to take a special moment because that's
the second reference to it. I'll make the third because
it's a trilogy. But the appearance of Jane Silent Bob
actually made me really irritated in this movie. I think
for two reasons. One, I think it's such a lazy joke,
super outdated by this point. But additionally, I can project
(20:54):
myself back in time and it would have irritated the
hell out of me because of the fact that it
layers on the fake reality of it all collapses in
moments like that where you have people playing a character
from a different franchise in this franchise, like it breaks
(21:14):
all of these rules where it's like, I'm I'm already
suspending enough disbelief pretending that Courtney Cox isn't Courtney Cox
while we're making reference to other people and the Jane
Silent Bob thing irritates me, and I'll go ahead and
say it. The Carrie Fisher thing drove me nuts too.
I thought that was such a lazy joke.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
It felt like Blues Brothers, like something you throw in
as like this tiny cameo and then you move on
and you're.
Speaker 1 (21:39):
Like, what was that? But the thing is in Blues Brothers,
she's at least playing a character. She's not playing a
character that's a specifically a specific call out to how
she looks like herself. You know what it Yeah, Because
it's my first time watching it all the way through,
it reminded me of Oceans twelve, which drove me up
a wall when they had that Julia Roberts nonsense in it,
Like that is the moment where Ocean's Well became a
(22:00):
hated movie. On night part I was like, oh, you
didn't just do.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Yeah, I've I've held out watching Oceans twelve, so don't
I'm good that?
Speaker 1 (22:08):
No?
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Okay, Julia Roberts and Ocean twelve is this amped up
to eleven? I can forgive the Carry Fisher thing. I
can't forgive Julia Roberts. Now, Carrie Fisher was originally supposed.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
To be Jamie Lee. Oh huh, yeah, okay. That would
have worked. Yeah, right, would have worked.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
Because if you see Jamie Lee, you're like, oh, it's
a screen queen. Yeah, she's it's a meta cameo with
Carry Fisher, You're like, what the hell is carry Fisher
doing in here?
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (22:34):
I see? Then yeah, then the joke lands. But you
can't just substitute another actress and expect it to land.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
Right, But see, Carry Fisher is an icon, but yet
she a horror icon.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
But if if you really wanted to go deep dive
horror callback icon would have been to grab Patricia Arquette
and have her in that scene because she, like one
of her breakthrough roles was in Nightmare on Elm Street
Part three, and it's like that would have been like,
if you can't get Jamie Lee, the next person on
(23:05):
my call list would have been Patricia Arquette, especially because
that's a Wes Craven callback in and of itself, even
though we didn't direct three. But like, like that, that
super layers on the meta thing, especially if this is
supposed to be the last screen movie.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
No and I but I see what you're saying, Tristan,
because I feel like two handled it just enough, like
they handled it well where they showed like, oh, these
are the real actors that played them in the movie.
It's like, Okay, that's funny, like and they're real names
and they're real people that we know as actors. Now
in this one we have other actors playing no name
(23:40):
actors who are meant to be these characters played by
real actors, and it's like it's a bridge too far,
like like you said, John, like yeah, because Courtney Cox
is totally a reporter and not super megastar.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Courtney Cox in this would would you would would you
have liked it if Parker Posey played Parker Posey? Would
that be funny to you? Would it be distract acting?
Like both of you? What would you guys think of that?
Speaker 3 (24:02):
I think it would have been funnier if the actors
playing them in the Stab movie. Were Now, I see
what you're saying. That's what you're asking. It's like, are
they playing themselves? I don't know.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
It's no to have Parker playing Parker Posey playing a
character that's played by Courtney Cox. No, I don't have
I like, I don't I don't hate it.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
I don't love it. I think it would have been
interesting to see these people die. Like if, like Parker
Posey dies in this movie as Parker Posey, I think
that's funny.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
I having but the thing is having her so close
to the others. I don't know that it would have
worked for me. I'm not saying it's a deal breaker
sort of thing, but I don't know that it would
have worked for me, because then you're saying it's like, oh, well,
Jenny McCarthy is playing Jenny McCarthy, and I'm like, like,
it's just I don't know that it would make me
(24:53):
dislike the movie more. I don't know that it would
make me like the movie more.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
Yeah, it's a toss up for me. It was just
it was just something that came to my brain. Darren,
I do have a question for you, Like you're very
much the technical guy, out of the three of us, Like,
you build your own stuff. You're very creative, and you're
very handy, very mechanical.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
What did am I going to face?
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Yes, what did you.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Think of the voice changer emulating realistic voices?
Speaker 3 (25:24):
I mean in a way so they can't even do
that now, I know, I know in a way. I
like the fact that they kind of don't explain it.
They don't show how he gets the voice patterns, how
he like. It just is a It's a mcguffin. It's
like the purest form of mcguffin that just pushes the
plot along. I did like because you have to do
something to up the stakes. I get that, like in
(25:45):
the third one. And I did like the voice changer
aspect because in the second it's always been a thing
about scream where the voice changer is hiding that there's
multiple ghost faces because anybody could be ghosts, and that's
very clever, And so I did.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
I did.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Maybe like is too farward, but I honored what they
were trying to go for with the voice changer in
this one, taking it to that next level of now
you can't trust anyone that you hear on the phone,
And that was very interesting, and they played that very well.
Like that, I think as its core, that was a
good concept and I don't even think it was poorly executed.
(26:25):
I think it worked where you don't realize that. I mean,
we're not gonna talk about the length of this movie,
but as the movie's going, you don't realize that too early.
Where if you realize that too early, now every single
phone call is suspect. It's late enough in the picture,
at least for me when I figured out the oh
he has some sort of recording and way of talking
(26:47):
about each person that it worked. But yeah, I'll just
say that it's a mcguffin device, that it serves the
plot and it works, but it is right on the
edge of fantastical. You're talking about it as a mcguffin.
You know, when I was looking at this movie and
trying to break it down in my mind, you know,
(27:07):
I went back to, you know, not not Darren's principles
of filmmaking, but principles of filmmaking in general, where, especially
with horror, which we were already kind of saying, this
might not be a horror you have to have your rules,
you have to have you know the fact that you know,
people can't teleport. You can't have ghost Face instantly be
(27:28):
across campus, you know, without you know there being a
reason for it.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
You can. So all that to.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
Say, I feel like this movie because of the scripting issues,
because of the jumbling, because of the pages. With a
movie like this, and especially a horror movie, you need
to have your ending and your rules locked in from
the get go, and if you don't, you're gonna get this.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
You know. You mentioned you mentioned the length of the movie,
and I do remember watching it, and I'm like, man,
this movie, like it felt like a longer screen movie,
and then checking the time, it was like one hundred
eleven minutes for the first one, one hundred and twenty
minutes for the second one, one hundred and seventeen minutes
for this one. But this one feels like it's longer
(28:11):
than either of the other two. And I think that
gets to your point where it's like there are just
certain points where you're just like, oh can we just
it's because what's on screen is not pulling you in.
You're much more aware of the time, and it.
Speaker 3 (28:25):
Even takes too long to tell, like there's only this
much story. I'm just during a small amount and they're
trying to tell it in a larger span of time.
Like it's like when you see a really good story
and you're like, oh, yeah, that works as a thirty
minute television show. I could not stretch that into a
ninety minute you know, like, or you shouldn't without heavily
(28:46):
rechanging it. So the I think overall, the length of
this movie does not fit the size of the story
it's telling or how it's telling it.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
And the unfortunate thing about that is that I think
that one of the things that one of the roads
it goes down I'm very conflicted about because it feels
in a sense cheap to have the story of Sydney's
mother laid out the way that it is. It feels
(29:15):
like it's just not put together the right way. What
is the right way? I don't know. It just never
clicked for me. I was like, oh, well, it felt
it felt weird to bring that element in. Now, given
who produced the film, it's somewhat ironic. I guess that
that it went that way, But I mean, am I
(29:36):
alone in that like the story of like tying it
to Sid's mom and having the killer spoilers be her.
He was her half brother, half brother, half brother, half brother,
like that that was like, that was that whole thing
was Like that just really feels like incredibly unnecessary to
sort of to serve this sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
On practically the second cousin, former roommate, Like, it's just
it's just it's out of nowhere at the at the
eleventh hour, and I what did you think, Tristan?
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Yeah? Is it?
Speaker 3 (30:08):
Because there were times with the whole mother part, especially
when she's seeing her envisions, and I'm like, is that real?
Is that someone else under the sheet? Like I don't know,
because this movie's playing fast with loose with reality.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
And that's the thing is Yeah, I feel like, John,
I feel like you probably would have accepted this is
a wild guess and I'm mainly talking about myself, but like,
I feel like the ending would have been the ending
motivation would have been better accepted if we didn't have
that bs with the Maureen Prescott ghost because there's so
many times where, like Darren said, like is it real?
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Is it not?
Speaker 2 (30:43):
And then at the very end we have Scott Foley's
ghost face all of a sudden know that Sydney is
hallucinating about her mother, yeah, that's right, Like, yeah, how
does he know that? How does he know to play
on her hallucinations and her fears and visions and nightmares
and things like that. How does he know to do that?
(31:04):
It's a cinematic shorthand that doesn't make sense, and it's
it's was completely unnecessary. They only had twenty one days
to use Nev Campbell because she was filming a movie
at the time as well as a TV show, and
so she's like, listen, I want to do this, but
you got me for twenty one days. Use it however
you want. And so they did. And I feel like,
(31:28):
I feel like they're coming up with ways to think
about it, They're coming up with excuses to use Nev Campbell,
and they wasted her. They completely wasted her with those
Maureen Prescott ghosts. And so I say all of that
to mean, if we didn't have the Morning Prescott ghost
and Scott Foley's ghost face was just a half brother
(31:50):
who was pissed that he didn't get the life that
he wanted, but wasn't the motivation behind Billy. I think
that would have landed better.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
I agree, I agree. I don't think I could say
better myself but to tack on to what you're saying, yes,
the way that they used Nev Campbell the whole time
felt like a we've only got twenty one days. I
don't know what to do, So Okay, she's off in
a ranch somewhere, let's film. We'll figure out how to
work this in. She's anonymized this way, and she's living
(32:19):
in the middle of nowhere, and we're just we're gonna
leave her up there. Although you know, and that's still
obviously a vestige of there had to be a version
where she it was a compound and she was training
and for the fight and stuff like that. But even
that is even that if they leaned into that, I'm
not saying it would have worked or I would have
liked it, but that's an interesting thought to pursue. That
Sydney's out there training fighting her demons, you know, by
(32:43):
taking it out on the woods and stuff like that.
And at the end she shows up and she's just
an absolute like action heroin sort of thing and comes
in and like there's three ghost faces, but she just
handily just defeats all of them because she's like, I'm
ready for this, and just knocks the snot out of all.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
So I looked it up and apparently the ending the
what was reshot was the final fight, not the entire
mansion scene, but the final fight between Sydney and the
director where apparently she And what made me think of
it was what you just said is like, apparently she
took him out too easily, where they were just like, wait, no,
(33:21):
this has got to be a fight or die situation,
Like we got to believe that Sydney could die in
this trilogy, and that's why it takes longer to fight.
That's why he shoots her. And then we have the
vest reveal, which makes me laugh so much because bulletproof
vefs are so bulky and so obvious, and yet when
she walks into the mansion, she is clearly not wearing one.
(33:44):
And also, this is one of those things I just have.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
No metal because she runs the metal wand over herself.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
No, no, you're thinking of like plating. It doesn't necessarily
have platings.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
Sometimes it can have armored plating. That okay, since we're
talking about it, like this is another thing where I'm
just like, okay, it's a scream. Three is dealing with
movie tropes on purpose. But at the same time it
bugs the crap out of me when movies make bulletproof
vests an infencibility shield where yes, you know, like the
bridger is shot like what four or five times in
(34:18):
the chest and he just walks away. He would have
had broken ribs. He would have been.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
Broken broken rib to breathe, a potential heart attack caused
by it, because there's so much trauma to the body.
To your point, Tristan, he'd have gotten up and he'd
be like, see I giy just once, say just hold on,
you know, yeah, it would have been it was, Yes,
it would have been a substantial amount of pain involved
(34:45):
in that. Like it it saves your life, but it
doesn't turn the bullet into a tickle, you know, if
you're got a terminator.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
And it's also assuming that every single shot happens to
hit you exactly in the torso when your arms on
in front of you, Like it's actually a very small
area if you think about that, Like, so none of
those bullets like hit your leg or anything.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
Arm. Well, well, I guess it's center mass.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
Was like it's covering center mass.
Speaker 1 (35:13):
Yeah, center mass. But I'll give a push on that
one because I guess Sydney's a you know, we know
that she's a good shot. I guess because she has
guns in the house. So it's like, okay, well, you know,
and that's a And.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
That's another thing though, is that like they have to
go like because they went the bullet proof vest angle,
no one gets shot in the head or extremities. And
Sydney has shot all the ghost faces in the head previously.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
She shot but Billy was already laying down when she
shot him in the head.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
Yes, that was yeah, yeah, as was Billy's mom.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Head is head is an incredibly difficult shot. That's the
whole reason you go for center mass, because it's the
most body that you can you can hit. Although her
groping her well, I mean her groom, her grouping was
very loose there. I would have expect to the tighter grouping.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
But come on, Sydney, come on, come on, Sydney.
Speaker 1 (36:03):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
So apparently before we kind of head on over to
maybe things, we did like the original. So Matthew Lillard
said in a two thousand and nine interview, so this
was nine years after the movie was released, that a
one original script was having Stu Macher survive the events
of the original Scream, and he's in prison and he's
(36:26):
orchestrating these ghost face attacks from prison against high school
students and ultimately targeting Sydney at the end. And because
of Columbine, that was thrown out immediately.
Speaker 3 (36:40):
I was gonna say, that sounds like an interesting.
Speaker 1 (36:42):
Story, right, doesn't it. That does sound like a very
interesting story, because.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
That's mob stuff right there, you know, like organizing hits
from prison.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
Yeah. I would I would have actually, And the thing is,
you could have said, well, he was a celebrity when
he got to prison, so people treated him better because
blah blah blah blah bla, you know, X, Y and
Z and everything like that. You could have constructed a
reasoning I is.
Speaker 3 (37:05):
One of his yeh, or as one of Sydney's friends,
the girl that falls for the guy in prison, and
is like, you know, been the connection, you know, like
it writes itself.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
Oh my gosh, it does write. I was like, I'm
nodding along, like, yeah, when you get my notepad out.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
She did Columbine and oh.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
Yeah, oh oh no, okay, yeah, yeah. Well mean the
thing is, it's you know, speaking of Columbine. That was
actually you know, right before the first Star Wars celebration
out in Denver in ninety nine, it was like eight
days beforehand, and so it actually was a topic on
like sixty minutes and everything like that, and in the
in the lead up to Phantom Mess even coming out,
(37:45):
just to give an example of exactly how much sort
of impact that had was people even started looking at
Star Wars as like, oh, well, gosh, this movie has
violence in it. And it was like, well, oh wait,
pump the brakes on that one, guys.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
But yeah, kids today have no idea how impactful that
event was, not just in the tragedy of the event,
and I'm not making light of it, but just the
just how it affected the zeitgeist, inner conversation, in our
daily lives, of our conversation and in pop culture and
media and books and television. There was there was just
a nationwide reevaluation of violence in our lives.
Speaker 1 (38:23):
Well, I mean, the same sort of thing happened after
you know, an eleven, because I remember with that there
was like a there was a hijacking and a plane
explosion in the first episode of twenty four and it
was already in the can and then like nine to
eleven happened, and like if you go back and you
watch that pilot episode, they like kept the scene, but
you can see everywhere where they sort of like did
a like a zoom and pan to like keep things
(38:46):
out of frame. Suddenly every so often.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
Ending of Lelo and Stitch, the Red spaceship that's very
plain like initially was flying was commandeered and flying through
a city in Honolulu, and so they changed it to
be a They drew over it and made it an
alien spaceship flying through mountains in the country of in
(39:10):
the countryside of Hawaii.
Speaker 2 (39:13):
So it really is fascinating, you know, to look at.
I mean makes a Spider Man trailer. And there was
an episode of The Lone Gunman, the spinoff of X Files,
where in the pilot episode they are on a hijacked
plane going towards the two towers and they actually got
(39:35):
and like this aired around the same time, like it
aired before it or something like that, or maybe it.
Speaker 1 (39:39):
Can come ends something like that.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
And I remember hearing in an interview that the producers
got a call saying why did you write that. They're like,
it was totally just an idea we had, but yeah,
the screen three is a is a consequence of that,
is of that of the country reevaluate what we put
in our pop culture. I don't feel like we really
(40:03):
do it that much anymore because we're so inundated with it.
But this is it's a felscinating.
Speaker 1 (40:07):
There's so much Yeah, I mean back then there's not
as much content, and now there's such a lot.
Speaker 3 (40:13):
Of content held by the companies, meaning like they need
to make a profit. Now anyone can make content. So
it's like it's like how do you.
Speaker 2 (40:23):
And we're also so much more interconnected than we were
twenty five years ago, you know, like something I'm not again,
I'm not making light of it, but something god awful
happens every single day because we know of everything that's
going on in the news. But yeah, like I was saying,
it's just like it's a it's a fascinating thing to
talk about and with like Scream three is no different.
(40:44):
And so before we before we kind of give our
final thoughts and our ratings, I do want to say, like, like,
what what did you enjoy about this movie? Because this
movie's not it's not garbage, Like it's not hot garbage,
Like it's not where you're just like, oh my god,
I can't even get through through this.
Speaker 3 (41:00):
Like it above a one.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
Yeah you know, it's because I'm not wrong here, come on,
it's it's not that, it's just like it's such a
it's such a misfire compared to the previous two. And
so I would like to, you know, like John, reach
into the depths of your soul and revive that black
heart that you have and try to figure out what
was enjoyable to you in this movie.
Speaker 1 (41:21):
Well, I'm always a fan of Emily Mortimer. This was
American debuts very much. Yep, she I think she's great.
Patrick Warburton, you put him in a movie and I
will pay money just on principle for that guy I
love because I love Patrick Warburton. Yeah you know, and
yeah have me guy can talk about a guy who
(41:42):
just knows why he's being cast in something and it's
like it's a paycheck, sure thing, you got it. I
thought that Actually, David Arquette got a bit of a
chance to shine in this one. I liked do we
felt a little bit more like a human being in
this maybe than in the previous role. In the end, well,
I just I like the I like the where the
(42:03):
character goes. In this one, again, I thought the the
action in the house, the house set was cleverly done.
I like that. I thought that was well done. You
can't have too much Lince Hendrickson in a movie. In fact,
I wish there had been more because I just like
Lince Handrickson a whole lot. And uh, it eventually ended,
(42:25):
so you know there you go.
Speaker 2 (42:28):
Yeah, do you have anything to add that you that
you liked?
Speaker 3 (42:30):
No, yeah, I think that was great. Like listen off
every time someone like that showed up, like yeah, like
Lanceard' is like, oh hey, Like I feel like I'd
never see him in anything, you know, except for the
things he's most popular for, like you know, aliens like.
Speaker 2 (42:43):
Alien Versus Predator.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
You know, yeah, was that a movie?
Speaker 3 (42:47):
Uh, but we'd yeah, No, I think, like you said, Tristan,
you know there there's I really liked how they handled
Sydney as far as it's for the beginning, like I
totally bought. Oh yeah, she sets up her space, she's
out in the country. She she's trying to give back
and kind of like basically do everything butt Sy a
(43:09):
therapist you know of seeing you know, doing the crisis
line and things like that. So I buy that. I
totally buy, just like in the second one where she
got the caller ID and how she handled that, Like, yeah,
that was very plausible, and I liked that grounding of
the character. It's like, oh, yeah, I can totally believe
that she would do that. But then she just shows
(43:30):
up on set and it's like, oh, okay, I guess
she looked at page forty two and it said arrive soundstage,
Sydney and the Thus it must be so uh yeah,
And I think, you know, I think the fight, my
favorite fight was inside the set house. You know, it's
really clever as you know, you're kind of you're inside
(43:52):
of a house and your mind tells you you're inside,
but then all of a sudden, you're like, but that
wall is not there and that door leads to nowhere,
and you know, do I go upstairs? And do I
go downstairs? And I thought that fight was my favorite
of the all the different ones.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
And she uses it like she you know, she waits
outside and then pulls them through. I thought that was
a really smart thing to do, and that's a very
Sydney thing to do.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (44:13):
Yeah, she's the smartest person in this whole group.
Speaker 1 (44:17):
So it's it's no.
Speaker 3 (44:18):
Wonder she survives. Yeah, and I tried to give it
a little bit of a not a pass, but the
fact that watching it so back to back with two,
which I think did so many things, well, like I
knew as this was ass three was dragging on.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
I'm like, oh, yeah.
Speaker 3 (44:33):
This there's It's not the rose colored glasses. It's the comparison.
And often, you know, we not that we don't compare it.
This whole podcast is about comparing you know, the movies,
but not holding it hostage too. When people saw this movie,
they probably hadn't seen Scream or Scream two in like
a year or so, like or maybe they rendered it
(44:54):
or something like that. So I tried to recontextualize it,
you know, not like dare watch kill Bill Volume one
and then drive to the movie theater watch volume two.
Not everyone is that crazy.
Speaker 2 (45:07):
So yeah, to me, it was you know, I like
everything that you guys have said. I can't really add
anything to it. One thing I didn't really like was
Wes Craven has felt very inconsistent between one, two and three,
where I, you know, this is director of focused podcast,
but yet we were you know, crapping on the writing,
I think for the most part, but it's it just
(45:30):
felt like when you when you look at Craven from
Nightmare and then to Scream, to Scream two, to Scream three,
you know, you're just kind of like, where is he?
You know, like if you said, like, oh, Wes Craven
didn't direct this one, I'd be like, oh, okay, yeah,
that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (45:42):
You know.
Speaker 2 (45:42):
I don't see a cohesive style. I feel like it
changes from one bit to the next, and not in
a positive way, or at least not in an obvious
way like with the Harry Potter films where you're like, oh, yeah,
this is totally the Alfonso Koron one, where with this one,
it's like it could have been a like a journey,
you know, like it could have been you know.
Speaker 1 (46:01):
Like everybody gun.
Speaker 2 (46:03):
Yeah, And I feel like that's a definite failing with Craven.
But with all the craziness behind the scenes, with the
writing and the studio intervention and the MPa and everything
like that, I kind of don't blame them. But then again,
you know, that's what that's a director's job is to
is to fight through the adversity of making movies anyway, John,
I want you to give your rating real quick. I
(46:24):
want you to to kind of ground this movie for us.
Speaker 1 (46:27):
I want to ask you because in my formerly nicotine
stained fingers, I have the original review from Joey of
Scream three. Do you guys have any interest in hearing
a small, small, tiny bit bit of it? Not the
whole thing. It's it's it's a tome, yeah, but dialous like, yeah,
give us a little I'll give I'll give you a
little little taste. This is direct from Joey what he
(46:51):
wrote back in two thousand, because I do my research
for you guys. Okay, so watching Scream things like being
told the same joke fifty times, you've allay he heard
it and it stopped being funny a long time ago. Yes,
Wes Craven is back, and this time without that idiot
Kevin Williamson. Although nothing's changed. It's the same old BS.
But he didn't say, BS, welcome to the final act.
(47:13):
Huh my ass? I mean, who do they think they
are kidding? With the way these franchises are milked, especially
in this genre, There's no way this is it. Nev
Campbell will be stalked until she's fifty wait and see.
That was the opening paragraph from Joey's review, and it
got worse from there. He really, really, really disliked Scream three.
Did I feel the same way? Well, not that bad,
(47:36):
it's I just think it's a dud. It just doesn't
come together. But there's nothing in it that makes me
like at the end of it wasn't I wasn't like, oh,
screw this movie, this is terrible. I was like, Eh,
you know, it's there. So I'm going to give this
a two because honestly, so far it's been the law
of diminishing returns with the Scream series. The first one
(47:58):
was the best one so far, and then second one,
you know, and then no, Darren, it wasn't five. But
then this one, like it just seems to slide as
it goes forward. So it'll be really interesting to talk
next week in light of that. So that's a two
for me, Darren.
Speaker 2 (48:14):
What about you?
Speaker 3 (48:15):
Yeah, I mean I think they were just really shooting
themselves in the foot, not having a locked in story
or concept or whatever. How it came when you're talking
about writing pages day of in this kind of a story. Yeah,
sometimes you can get magic in a bottle. More often
than not, this is what's gonna happen. That's why when
you learn filmmaking, they're like, don't do this, like unless
(48:38):
you absolutely have to. It's not a good idea. And
where you know, Scream two expanded it. You know, they
are a college, like, there's a there's a specific location.
You had your boundaries. This one, I think they should
have gone smaller, like go back to basics, go back
to the city, or something like, to just keep it
(49:00):
a smaller story. There's too many characters, there's too many
plotlines and threads, and then they don't go anywhere with
any of them. Like even like Patrick Simley, we're saying
he's like, I'm not even the third act. Like that's
a tell, you know, when the cop is not even
at the end. So yeah, I'm giving this a two
as well. It I will probably never watch this movie
(49:22):
again and just enjoy the first and the second one.
Speaker 2 (49:25):
I always I enjoy this movie because it's a part
of the Scream franchise, and I think that's probably it's
like my Into Darkness, Like I will still watch Into
Darkness even though it's not a good movie at all,
just because I love the characters, and I love the
world Scream three. Originally I was just like, oh, it's stupid,
(49:47):
it's fun, it's fine. But now I'm just kind of like,
this is more of a mess than I remember, or
at least more of a mess than I'd like to
admit to myself. And so originally I this was a
three our film for me. I think I'm knocking it
down to two and a half from this viewing, and
so to me out go, yeah, it goes down to
two and.
Speaker 1 (50:07):
A half for me.
Speaker 2 (50:09):
And actually with that in mind, like because I've seen
all the Scream films, that actually changes my rating a
little bit, going from a three down to two and
a half, which maybe we'll discuss later.
Speaker 1 (50:19):
Interesting, so we all slide down YouTube most substantially between
Scream two and Scream three. Interesting.
Speaker 3 (50:27):
Interesting, Well I felt I've left between two and three.
Speaker 1 (50:29):
You sure did? You sure did?
Speaker 2 (50:32):
I've only seen the next one once, and so I'm
looking forward to reevaluating the next one. And speaking of which, Darren,
what are we doing next week? It's a huge surprise.
Speaker 3 (50:43):
Oh yes, well, you know, no surprise that the franchise
went on pause for eleven years. As we jumped to
twenty eleven, covering scream four As we end the House
of Craven. Here on house lights join the revolution, joint
the NED Party
Welcome to the net Palty.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome back to House Lights, the podcast where the body
count rises, the rules get thrown out, and the bangs
get traumatically uneven. I'm your host, Tristan Rudel, and yes,
I do keep a secret voice changer in my desk drawer,
but only for creative purposes. Joining me today from deep
within the back lot of Sunrise Studios is the man
who's rewritten more plot twist than Roman Bridger could ever
(00:43):
have dreamed of. He's the real director behind the Mayhem.
It's John Mills. And also with us is our resident parker,
posey enthusiast, a man who knows how to steal every scene,
chew the scenery and still ask if Craft Services has
oat milk. It's Darren Moser. That's right, we're talking. Scream
three Wes Craven's most polarizing entry the trilogy, Kapper that
(01:07):
dared to go full Scooby Doo and pre meta about
being meta, and where Carrie Fisher plays not Carrie Fisher.
So silence your cell phones, lock your trailers, and let's
follow the fax machine into the inferno.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Nice. I like how we were cast in this one.
I think it was.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
More effort into that intro than we did, and we're
going to put into the whole rest of this podcast,
and I can guarantee.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
I'd argue that more was put into that intro than
the effort that was put into the script for this movie.
But we'll get to that. Hey, Actually, you know what, we.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Could go straight into that, because so Kevin Williamson did
not write this movie, and boy does it show. It
shows it was unavailable to write it. So but he
did write a.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Did he not like money?
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah, he was.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
He was busy with I think he was directing a movie,
he was producing another movie, and he was the showrunner
on Dawson's Creek, and so he just couldn't do it.
He just did not have the time. And it was
written by Aaron Kruger, who completely disregarded Kevin Williamson's outline
(02:15):
and basically wrote it, wrote a new page every day,
like as it was going as it was going on,
and Wes Craven was so upset with Krueger's characterizations that
he had to rewrite it on the day. And so
this movie was put together in pieces as it was
being made.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
But let me ask this question, like very straightforward like,
I don't understand how Writers Guild of America rules work
or anything like that. But if you're on the set
and you've got this writer and the writer is not
doing what you want to the point where you have
to rewrite everything that he rewrites every day, So it's
basically like you're writing three drafts a day of every
single page on top of running this production. Why can't
(02:57):
Craven just be like, screw it, I need somebody else,
and you bring somebody else onto the set. You say,
mister Krueger, Great, you have your credit and we'll give
you like a producer credit. Just get the hell off
the set and bring somebody else in that knows what
they're doing. Like I don't. I don't understand. Are there
rules against that? Is there some reason they can't do that?
Speaker 2 (03:13):
I think there is rules against that. Like I wish
I knew more about it, And I don't know how
much Wes Craven rewrote. You know, I have no idea
what quantity. If it was more or less than fifty percent,
I have no clue, but it's it was basically it's
just to illustrate that this was a this was a
good sign.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Scenes Yeah, but I will say, because it's easy to say, oh, well,
you know they were rewriting a every they were right
rewriting the pages. They were shooting every single day, and
that's a big mess behind the scenes. I will point
out that when the director and the writer are in sync,
such as in Edge of Tomorrow, like they were doing
according to Chris mcquarie, they were doing like daily. They
(03:54):
were it was like, okay, here's the new page. Okay,
here's the new page, and that worked out perfectly. But
I think that more to what you're saying, where it's
like Craven wasn't digging what Krueger was laying down.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Well, I mean, just looking at the film schedule, the
fact that it was recorded between July and September of
ninety nine, with the ending reshot in January of two
thousand oh.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
And released and released in February of two thousand that's
that's the That's the damning part right there, That one
right there, that is that is rough by ending?
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Do they mean the entire like house part?
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Like no, I have to say, that was a huge scene.
There's no way they could have reshot that.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
I mean, I could, I.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Mean, but how do you go back to that if
you want to change it, unless you you could.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Shoot inserts like you could go back to it and
like suddenly, you know, like the Patrick Timsey character, I
imagine probably got you that that smelled and felt like
a change. When he showed up at the end, I
was like, I feel like, this isn't how this went originally.
That's true, He's.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Actually only in a handful of scenes like he could
have very but why add a whole character like that
just to give the twist, because they honestly are getting
towards it looking like it's him.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
No I'm saying that he I have no idea. Maybe
Tristan you know the behind the scenes details. But when
he showed up at the end, the way his character
interacted at the end felt to me while I was
watching it like that part got redone. That felt like
a part that was definitely redone. It felt like there
was something different about how he interacted with everything.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Which character are we talking about.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Here, Patrick Dempsey the Police?
Speaker 2 (05:31):
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Milton for
some reason. Yeah, Patrick, Okay, so yes, you are correct
that Dempsey's part was like the basically where he showed
up in the third act was completely rewritten because when
he says goodbye to Sydney when she's in the police
station and he gets that really overly sexualized line he said,
(05:58):
he's like my entire life or something like that, and
then like walks away like he was written out of
the script after that, like he walks off into oblivion.
And Patrick Dempsey shows up because this is another thing.
Patrick Zimpsey was hired a day before principal photography began,
and so he had he had a night to you know,
memorize his lines before the next day, and then as
(06:21):
they were filming, he's like, where do I go in
the third act? And they're like, oh, nowhere. He's like,
that's absurd. He's like, my character is meaningless throughout the
entire movie if he has nothing to do in the
third act. He's the cop, you know, he's the investigator.
What's going on here? And so they're like, oh crap.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
It's like doing not being in the third act of Scream.
He's like, he's the cop. Yeah, and it's like, oh, yeah,
he just is not at the house during the end finale.
It's like, why would he not be there?
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Yeah, And so Dempsey said He's like, you got to
write me in here, and so they did. And so yeah,
that's why it feels clunky. That's why everything in the
movie feels.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Clunky, A man everything. But see, I came into this
one and the part I had seen before this I
had I was scanning through maybe it was on two
B or something like that, and it was the opening
of this, and I actually liked the opening. I was like, oh,
I like what they did with this. Because Cotton got
his fame, he was still kind of a douchebag. He
(07:16):
had his fame and his money and everything like that,
and he's an even worse person because he starts flirting
with this fictitious woman on the phone after hanging up
with his girlfriend, and then you know, the twist happens.
And I actually thought it was kind of interesting the
way that it set everything up in the beginning. And
even though it telegraphs, of course, you know, Cotton being
dressed all in white, it's sort of like the end
(07:37):
of Boogie Nights where it's like, oh, I know, there's
gonna be blood everywhere here. Okay, I got it, got it,
you know, But.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
It's apparently leav Shreiver insisted that he takes take his
jacket off in the opening scene because he's been working.
He was working out like crazy, and he wanted to
show people that he has been working out. He's really
filling that sweater. I respect that. I respect that. I
advocate for yourself, sir, advocate for yourself. But yeah, I
thought the opening was I was looking forward to seeing
(08:05):
this because I had seen that opening and I was like, Okay,
well maybe it is pretty good.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
So no, yeah, I mean I texted you guys, or
I think I did when I was watching it and
I was about halfway and I positive, I'm like, surely
we must be about to the very end of the Nope, nope, no,
we are like square in the middle of this movie.
We have a long way to go.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
And yeah, I was actually when you texted me that,
I was sitting next to my wife and I commented
that you said that, and I said, I was like,
Darren never tells us what he thinks about the movie
before the podcast, and for him to be so frustrated
that he had to reach out on.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Our that's not a good sign.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
That's not a good sign.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
It wasn't a positive, It wasn't a positive.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Net nag so arguably, Darren, where when did you first
see this movie?
Speaker 3 (08:55):
This was the first time seeing this. I had not
never seen this movie before, and it wasn't even like
one of those oh yeah, now that I watch it,
it comes back like No, no, I had never seen
this movie, so I had no idea what was going on.
I don't think anyone knew it.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
No no.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
I mean it's interesting watching this movie after watching New Nightmare,
because New Nightmare kind of I mean, yes, we're talking
about making a movie and the metanists like this kind of.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
It was really odd because it was like taking it
another degree, like Okay, we're on the soundstage and there's
the house, and I feel like when movies are kind
of all over the place, I default back to what
am I supposed to be feeling about these characters? What
is the director? What is the writer trying to convey
(09:52):
in these moments? Am I supposed to feel sympathy? Am
I supposed to feel fear? Things like that? And for
most of this movie, I just was like, I have
no idea how I'm supposed to feel. I have no
idea it is. It was just bouncing off the walls.
So yeah, I had no idea going in and I
still have no idea going out of this movie.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Kind of jumping off of what Darren is talking about, John,
I have a frank question for you, and I expect
a frank answer. Is this movie a horror movie?
Speaker 1 (10:22):
That is uh okay frank answer, No, it's not this movie.
And I think that gets to the core of my
biggest complaint with it is that the movie is bound
up by these quote unquote trilogy rules. And I really
think that if you're going to extend the this is
meta horror. It's not valid. Like horror trilogies don't exist,
(10:45):
they just do not exist. And if you're making fun
of the slasher genre in specific, A more apt thing
to call out is, you know you have the Randy
Meeks thing come in is for him to say, you're
gonna feel like this is the last thing, but guess what,
it's not really going to be over after this, but
I'm going to get you through this one. Nobody knows
what's going to happen. They could do a reboot like
(11:05):
Friday the Thirteenth, Part five in the next one, they
could do this, They could do that, but they'll always
come back, and they'll always keep going so long as
it's interesting to blah blah blah blah. You could go
off all of that type of stuff. So I think
that going into the trilogy, navel Gazing is a Kevin
Smith esque Star Wars reference more than anything else Star
Wars or Back to the Future or what have you.
(11:26):
And of course Jay and Silent Bober in the movie
for some reason, but whatever, and you can have. Basically,
I think that the lack of Williamson is why things
sort of break down on that level, is it moves
away from the horror and strangely goes more toward an
action y type of thing, which is I think very
(11:49):
much in keeping with the fact. Because I was reading
that when Krueger was developing it and Craven quote unquote
course corrected him. He had Sydney going more Linda Hamilton
into Erminator two, like she becomes a buff ass kicker.
I read that, and I'm like, oh, I can kind
of see those fingerprints on this script. I can see
where he was going with that, and instead they tone
(12:11):
it back and she's meekly living in the woods somewhere,
and it's like, honestly, it would have been more interesting
to see her like on a compound constantly training, which
is actually an impulse that they followed when they had
Halloween twenty eighteen, was showing up.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah, just about to say that, that is absolutely the
direction that they went with the Halloween reboot at the
second Halloween reboot. Yeah, so one thing that really the
lack of Kevin Williamson all the craziness in production. Also,
Columbine happened on April twentieth, nineteen ninety nine. This started
(12:47):
shooting in June July. This started shooting in July of
that year. Because of Columbine. The studio told them to
tone down the violence and up the humor, and that's
exactly what we got. There's even a meta reference inside
of it. Yeah there was humors.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
Okay, yes, there is.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Yeah, come on, come on, I didn't say that. There's
always lands.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
Okay, there you go. Well, and it's I think if
they're if they're gonna be shooting another STAB movie, I
think it would have been funnier to have it be
like Stab five and they're commenting on the fact that
they're cranking these out so fast, like take that angle
instead of the third one, like we're shooting the third
one like, we're in the third one like, and then
(13:30):
it doesn't even matter what you're getting.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
But there's so much there was so much ambiguity to
Stab three, where like, okay, let me rephrase this. So
in Scream there is no there is no STAB movie.
In Scream two, there is a STAB movie. That's when
we first get it, and so it's a recreation of
the first one of the of the scream that came
(13:54):
out in ninety six. We don't do a Screams two
seql in Scream three. We jump ahead and do Stab three.
But the thing is is that there's so much emphasis
put on the movie itself. The movie is about the
making of the movie, but yet we have no idea
what the movie is about. And also they make it
look like they're reproducing Stab one or Scream of ninety
(14:16):
six with all the sets and the kapoo looks like
Dewey and his uniform and everything like that, So you
have no idea what's going on. You have no connection
with it. It's just an excuse to get Sydney to
walk around the set of original screen.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Oh it felt like it like that time when she's
actually on the set and she's reacting to it. You know,
like eighty percent of this movie has been set up
for that shot, Like, yes, how do we get her
from compound in the woods to standing watching her relive
that night? Which you can do in other ways besides
making an entire movie about it. But I mean, here
(14:52):
we are. But yeah, it felt like that. And then again,
you know, we're introduced all not only do we have
our main carearacters, but we have all of their you know,
quote unquote stunt doubles to borrow from Spaceballs, you know,
the actors playing them. We also are kind of caring
about kind of not like there's a bunch of Hollywood
(15:14):
stuff thrown in and it's just and then on top
of that, at the very end again and this is
where I really wonder if this part was in the
in the pitch or the main story, or if it
came later. Does it all have to be tied up
in a bow? Can it not just be a copycat?
Like everything has to be like, oh, it has to
(15:36):
be like this is the person that created the person
that started like it. It almost felt too connected back
to the to the scream, you know, to the ghost face,
just a little bit.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
I think it's kind of a victim of what John
was talking about, where, Darren, what you're describing is is
a normal drama trilogy or a sci fi trilogy or
something like that where everything goes back to the original
because the rules that Randy is talking about are trilogy rules.
But John, you're talking about how horror trilogies don't exist.
(16:08):
It's just continuation. It's compilations. And so we are in
the mindset of watching you know, the Halloween films and
the front of the Thirteenth films, and I can go
on and on and.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
On, Nightmare on Elm Street, My Blade, Valentine's sleep Away Camp,
you know, Sally go on.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
I don't think courage all those, you know, like we
can go on and on and say like when they're
the third one is never right there, continuing trilogy. It's
just a continuation. And so our brain is set in
the horror universe. But yet we're trying to wrap it
around trilogy rules which don't exist, and so that in
itself is a confusing, a confusing thing to wrap your
(16:47):
mind around.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
It is. The thing is there are elements of this
that I think are are interesting. I just think that
it's the connective tissue that that hurts it. It's the
fact that they're rewriting and everything. There's such a first
draft feel to this movie. What it feels like you
have an idea of the scenes you want, but you
(17:10):
don't know how you're going to tie them together. Right,
we're throwing shade a minute ago on everything's constructed around
having her in the set for the house. Yes, you're right,
it is. That's still an interesting scene. The way that
it's constructed and played out. There's a logical thing that
doesn't really work with it, but that's okay, right, It's
(17:30):
still interesting to see the unreality of it all folded
in on itself. That's cool. I like that there's an
interesting aspect to them being in the house and then
you know, having that paralysis moment of wait, we should
go out of the house. No, he's telling us to
go out of the house. We should stay in the house. No,
(17:51):
but that's exactly what he thinks. Like, that's actually a
part where the humor does land interest and to your point,
like some of the humor does land, that's one of
those moments where the human lands because it gets to
that meta idea of everybody loves to sit there and say, oh,
I know what I do in that situation when they're
watching a horror movie. But you have that scene right
there where it's like, would you really or would you
(18:12):
overthink it the way that they're doing, We're like, no, wait,
that's what they expect, and you just keep going around
in circles.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
And then you know, like we have the idiot character
who lights a match to use it as a light source,
which only happens in movies. At no point in my
life have I ever thought like, man, it's really dark
in here, I need to go get a lighter, Like, no,
I find a flashflight.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Well, the thing is, you know, the characters already established
as a smoker, isn't he? But but the thing is
that right there, what you're talking about, like that's still
such a stretch, because I'll do a quick poll for you.
Do you know where matches or lighter are in your
house right now? Right the second? If you have to
go run and get one, Yeah, they're in the kitchen
(18:57):
if you do. Yeah, surprising. I figure I figured you wouldn't.
I figured you guys would be like, no, I just
used my iPhone or something like that, you know, like.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
When you need matches, you need to like candles, when
you need a light source user.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Oh, look at you set in the mood like I got.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
I got one of those one of those done things,
like with the extension that you can Yeah.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Is it one of the bendable extensions.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Yeah, the bendik Those are kind of cool, like those. Well,
the reason why I brought it up is because it's
so trophy that it belongs in this film. Yeah, you know,
it's one of those things that you only see in movies,
and so you're like, oh, okay, Like I have such
a love hate relationship with this movie because you know, Darren,
you and I were even talking beforehand where I talked
about how, you know, like season three is definitely the
(19:37):
red headed stepchild of this trilogy, but yet both you
and I were like, yeah, but it's still fun, it's
still interesting, it's still intriguing. And as I was watching
it this time, I did not have have the algic
goggles on it that I normally do because I rewatched
this series a lot, like I rewatched the Screen franchise
a lot, and I never skip three. I always watch three,
(19:59):
and I have a good time watching it, but for
some reason this time I watched it, like, you know,
when you know, Jane Silent Bob show up, I'm like,
what what are we doing here, folks? What is going on?
But then I laugh when Parker Posey jumps into Patrick
Warburton's arms, you know, like it like those kind of
little moments of levity I enjoy, but like when Jane
(20:19):
Silent Bob come in, it completely takes me out. And
it's just I think that's kind of the back and
forth of the movie, where like one moment is endearing
and charming, and then another moment you're like, what is
going on? But it's like that back and forth, back
and forth.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
I just want to take a special moment because that's
the second reference to it. I'll make the third because
it's a trilogy. But the appearance of Jane Silent Bob
actually made me really irritated in this movie. I think
for two reasons. One, I think it's such a lazy joke,
super outdated by this point. But additionally, I can project
(20:54):
myself back in time and it would have irritated the
hell out of me because of the fact that it
layers on the fake reality of it all collapses in
moments like that where you have people playing a character
from a different franchise in this franchise, like it breaks
(21:14):
all of these rules where it's like, I'm I'm already
suspending enough disbelief pretending that Courtney Cox isn't Courtney Cox
while we're making reference to other people and the Jane
Silent Bob thing irritates me, and I'll go ahead and
say it. The Carrie Fisher thing drove me nuts too.
I thought that was such a lazy joke.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
It felt like Blues Brothers, like something you throw in
as like this tiny cameo and then you move on
and you're.
Speaker 1 (21:39):
Like, what was that? But the thing is in Blues Brothers,
she's at least playing a character. She's not playing a
character that's a specifically a specific call out to how
she looks like herself. You know what it Yeah, Because
it's my first time watching it all the way through,
it reminded me of Oceans twelve, which drove me up
a wall when they had that Julia Roberts nonsense in it,
Like that is the moment where Ocean's Well became a
(22:00):
hated movie. On night part I was like, oh, you
didn't just do.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Yeah, I've I've held out watching Oceans twelve, so don't
I'm good that?
Speaker 1 (22:08):
No?
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Okay, Julia Roberts and Ocean twelve is this amped up
to eleven? I can forgive the Carry Fisher thing. I
can't forgive Julia Roberts. Now, Carrie Fisher was originally supposed.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
To be Jamie Lee. Oh huh, yeah, okay. That would
have worked. Yeah, right, would have worked.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
Because if you see Jamie Lee, you're like, oh, it's
a screen queen. Yeah, she's it's a meta cameo with
Carry Fisher, You're like, what the hell is carry Fisher
doing in here?
Speaker 1 (22:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (22:34):
I see? Then yeah, then the joke lands. But you
can't just substitute another actress and expect it to land.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
Right, But see, Carry Fisher is an icon, but yet
she a horror icon.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
But if if you really wanted to go deep dive
horror callback icon would have been to grab Patricia Arquette
and have her in that scene because she, like one
of her breakthrough roles was in Nightmare on Elm Street
Part three, and it's like that would have been like,
if you can't get Jamie Lee, the next person on
(23:05):
my call list would have been Patricia Arquette, especially because
that's a Wes Craven callback in and of itself, even
though we didn't direct three. But like, like that, that
super layers on the meta thing, especially if this is
supposed to be the last screen movie.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
No and I but I see what you're saying, Tristan,
because I feel like two handled it just enough, like
they handled it well where they showed like, oh, these
are the real actors that played them in the movie.
It's like, Okay, that's funny, like and they're real names
and they're real people that we know as actors. Now
in this one we have other actors playing no name
(23:40):
actors who are meant to be these characters played by
real actors, and it's like it's a bridge too far,
like like you said, John, like yeah, because Courtney Cox
is totally a reporter and not super megastar.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Courtney Cox in this would would you would would you
have liked it if Parker Posey played Parker Posey? Would
that be funny to you? Would it be distract acting?
Like both of you? What would you guys think of that?
Speaker 3 (24:02):
I think it would have been funnier if the actors
playing them in the Stab movie. Were Now, I see
what you're saying. That's what you're asking. It's like, are
they playing themselves? I don't know.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
It's no to have Parker playing Parker Posey playing a
character that's played by Courtney Cox. No, I don't have
I like, I don't I don't hate it.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
I don't love it. I think it would have been
interesting to see these people die. Like if, like Parker
Posey dies in this movie as Parker Posey, I think
that's funny.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
I having but the thing is having her so close
to the others. I don't know that it would have
worked for me. I'm not saying it's a deal breaker
sort of thing, but I don't know that it would
have worked for me, because then you're saying it's like, oh, well,
Jenny McCarthy is playing Jenny McCarthy, and I'm like, like,
it's just I don't know that it would make me
(24:53):
dislike the movie more. I don't know that it would
make me like the movie more.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
Yeah, it's a toss up for me. It was just
it was just something that came to my brain. Darren,
I do have a question for you, Like you're very
much the technical guy, out of the three of us, Like,
you build your own stuff. You're very creative, and you're
very handy, very mechanical.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
What did am I going to face?
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Yes, what did you.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Think of the voice changer emulating realistic voices?
Speaker 3 (25:24):
I mean in a way so they can't even do
that now, I know, I know in a way. I
like the fact that they kind of don't explain it.
They don't show how he gets the voice patterns, how
he like. It just is a It's a mcguffin. It's
like the purest form of mcguffin that just pushes the
plot along. I did like because you have to do
something to up the stakes. I get that, like in
(25:45):
the third one. And I did like the voice changer
aspect because in the second it's always been a thing
about scream where the voice changer is hiding that there's
multiple ghost faces because anybody could be ghosts, and that's
very clever, And so I did.
Speaker 1 (26:01):
I did.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Maybe like is too farward, but I honored what they
were trying to go for with the voice changer in
this one, taking it to that next level of now
you can't trust anyone that you hear on the phone,
And that was very interesting, and they played that very well.
Like that, I think as its core, that was a
good concept and I don't even think it was poorly executed.
(26:25):
I think it worked where you don't realize that. I mean,
we're not gonna talk about the length of this movie,
but as the movie's going, you don't realize that too early.
Where if you realize that too early, now every single
phone call is suspect. It's late enough in the picture,
at least for me when I figured out the oh
he has some sort of recording and way of talking
(26:47):
about each person that it worked. But yeah, I'll just
say that it's a mcguffin device, that it serves the
plot and it works, but it is right on the
edge of fantastical. You're talking about it as a mcguffin.
You know, when I was looking at this movie and
trying to break it down in my mind, you know,
(27:07):
I went back to, you know, not not Darren's principles
of filmmaking, but principles of filmmaking in general, where, especially
with horror, which we were already kind of saying, this
might not be a horror you have to have your rules,
you have to have you know the fact that you know,
people can't teleport. You can't have ghost Face instantly be
(27:28):
across campus, you know, without you know there being a
reason for it.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
You can. So all that to.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
Say, I feel like this movie because of the scripting issues,
because of the jumbling, because of the pages. With a
movie like this, and especially a horror movie, you need
to have your ending and your rules locked in from
the get go, and if you don't, you're gonna get this.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
You know. You mentioned you mentioned the length of the movie,
and I do remember watching it, and I'm like, man,
this movie, like it felt like a longer screen movie,
and then checking the time, it was like one hundred
eleven minutes for the first one, one hundred and twenty
minutes for the second one, one hundred and seventeen minutes
for this one. But this one feels like it's longer
(28:11):
than either of the other two. And I think that
gets to your point where it's like there are just
certain points where you're just like, oh can we just
it's because what's on screen is not pulling you in.
You're much more aware of the time, and it.
Speaker 3 (28:25):
Even takes too long to tell, like there's only this
much story. I'm just during a small amount and they're
trying to tell it in a larger span of time.
Like it's like when you see a really good story
and you're like, oh, yeah, that works as a thirty
minute television show. I could not stretch that into a
ninety minute you know, like, or you shouldn't without heavily
(28:46):
rechanging it. So the I think overall, the length of
this movie does not fit the size of the story
it's telling or how it's telling it.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
And the unfortunate thing about that is that I think
that one of the things that one of the roads
it goes down I'm very conflicted about because it feels
in a sense cheap to have the story of Sydney's
mother laid out the way that it is. It feels
(29:15):
like it's just not put together the right way. What
is the right way? I don't know. It just never
clicked for me. I was like, oh, well, it felt
it felt weird to bring that element in. Now, given
who produced the film, it's somewhat ironic. I guess that
that it went that way, But I mean, am I
(29:36):
alone in that like the story of like tying it
to Sid's mom and having the killer spoilers be her.
He was her half brother, half brother, half brother, half brother,
like that that was like, that was that whole thing
was Like that just really feels like incredibly unnecessary to
sort of to serve this sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
On practically the second cousin, former roommate, Like, it's just
it's just it's out of nowhere at the at the
eleventh hour, and I what did you think, Tristan?
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Yeah? Is it?
Speaker 3 (30:08):
Because there were times with the whole mother part, especially
when she's seeing her envisions, and I'm like, is that real?
Is that someone else under the sheet? Like I don't know,
because this movie's playing fast with loose with reality.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
And that's the thing is Yeah, I feel like, John,
I feel like you probably would have accepted this is
a wild guess and I'm mainly talking about myself, but like,
I feel like the ending would have been the ending
motivation would have been better accepted if we didn't have
that bs with the Maureen Prescott ghost because there's so
many times where, like Darren said, like is it real?
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Is it not?
Speaker 2 (30:43):
And then at the very end we have Scott Foley's
ghost face all of a sudden know that Sydney is
hallucinating about her mother, yeah, that's right, Like, yeah, how
does he know that? How does he know to play
on her hallucinations and her fears and visions and nightmares
and things like that. How does he know to do that?
(31:04):
It's a cinematic shorthand that doesn't make sense, and it's
it's was completely unnecessary. They only had twenty one days
to use Nev Campbell because she was filming a movie
at the time as well as a TV show, and
so she's like, listen, I want to do this, but
you got me for twenty one days. Use it however
you want. And so they did. And I feel like,
(31:28):
I feel like they're coming up with ways to think
about it, They're coming up with excuses to use Nev Campbell,
and they wasted her. They completely wasted her with those
Maureen Prescott ghosts. And so I say all of that
to mean, if we didn't have the Morning Prescott ghost
and Scott Foley's ghost face was just a half brother
(31:50):
who was pissed that he didn't get the life that
he wanted, but wasn't the motivation behind Billy. I think
that would have landed better.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
I agree, I agree. I don't think I could say
better myself but to tack on to what you're saying, yes,
the way that they used Nev Campbell the whole time
felt like a we've only got twenty one days. I
don't know what to do, So Okay, she's off in
a ranch somewhere, let's film. We'll figure out how to
work this in. She's anonymized this way, and she's living
(32:19):
in the middle of nowhere, and we're just we're gonna
leave her up there. Although you know, and that's still
obviously a vestige of there had to be a version
where she it was a compound and she was training
and for the fight and stuff like that. But even
that is even that if they leaned into that, I'm
not saying it would have worked or I would have
liked it, but that's an interesting thought to pursue. That
Sydney's out there training fighting her demons, you know, by
(32:43):
taking it out on the woods and stuff like that.
And at the end she shows up and she's just
an absolute like action heroin sort of thing and comes
in and like there's three ghost faces, but she just
handily just defeats all of them because she's like, I'm
ready for this, and just knocks the snot out of all.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
So I looked it up and apparently the ending the
what was reshot was the final fight, not the entire
mansion scene, but the final fight between Sydney and the
director where apparently she And what made me think of
it was what you just said is like, apparently she
took him out too easily, where they were just like, wait, no,
(33:21):
this has got to be a fight or die situation,
Like we got to believe that Sydney could die in
this trilogy, and that's why it takes longer to fight.
That's why he shoots her. And then we have the
vest reveal, which makes me laugh so much because bulletproof
vefs are so bulky and so obvious, and yet when
she walks into the mansion, she is clearly not wearing one.
(33:44):
And also, this is one of those things I just have.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
No metal because she runs the metal wand over herself.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
No, no, you're thinking of like plating. It doesn't necessarily
have platings.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
Sometimes it can have armored plating. That okay, since we're
talking about it, like this is another thing where I'm
just like, okay, it's a scream. Three is dealing with
movie tropes on purpose. But at the same time it
bugs the crap out of me when movies make bulletproof
vests an infencibility shield where yes, you know, like the
bridger is shot like what four or five times in
(34:18):
the chest and he just walks away. He would have
had broken ribs. He would have been.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
Broken broken rib to breathe, a potential heart attack caused
by it, because there's so much trauma to the body.
To your point, Tristan, he'd have gotten up and he'd
be like, see I giy just once, say just hold on,
you know, yeah, it would have been it was, Yes,
it would have been a substantial amount of pain involved
(34:45):
in that. Like it it saves your life, but it
doesn't turn the bullet into a tickle, you know, if
you're got a terminator.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
And it's also assuming that every single shot happens to
hit you exactly in the torso when your arms on
in front of you, Like it's actually a very small
area if you think about that, Like, so none of
those bullets like hit your leg or anything.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
Arm. Well, well, I guess it's center mass.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
Was like it's covering center mass.
Speaker 1 (35:13):
Yeah, center mass. But I'll give a push on that
one because I guess Sydney's a you know, we know
that she's a good shot. I guess because she has
guns in the house. So it's like, okay, well, you know,
and that's a And.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
That's another thing though, is that like they have to
go like because they went the bullet proof vest angle,
no one gets shot in the head or extremities. And
Sydney has shot all the ghost faces in the head previously.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
She shot but Billy was already laying down when she
shot him in the head.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
Yes, that was yeah, yeah, as was Billy's mom.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Head is head is an incredibly difficult shot. That's the
whole reason you go for center mass, because it's the
most body that you can you can hit. Although her
groping her well, I mean her groom, her grouping was
very loose there. I would have expect to the tighter grouping.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
But come on, Sydney, come on, come on, Sydney.
Speaker 1 (36:03):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
So apparently before we kind of head on over to
maybe things, we did like the original. So Matthew Lillard
said in a two thousand and nine interview, so this
was nine years after the movie was released, that a
one original script was having Stu Macher survive the events
of the original Scream, and he's in prison and he's
(36:26):
orchestrating these ghost face attacks from prison against high school
students and ultimately targeting Sydney at the end. And because
of Columbine, that was thrown out immediately.
Speaker 3 (36:40):
I was gonna say, that sounds like an interesting.
Speaker 1 (36:42):
Story, right, doesn't it. That does sound like a very
interesting story, because.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
That's mob stuff right there, you know, like organizing hits
from prison.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
Yeah. I would I would have actually, And the thing is,
you could have said, well, he was a celebrity when
he got to prison, so people treated him better because
blah blah blah blah bla, you know, X, Y and
Z and everything like that. You could have constructed a
reasoning I is.
Speaker 3 (37:05):
One of his yeh, or as one of Sydney's friends,
the girl that falls for the guy in prison, and
is like, you know, been the connection, you know, like
it writes itself.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
Oh my gosh, it does write. I was like, I'm
nodding along, like, yeah, when you get my notepad out.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
She did Columbine and oh.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
Yeah, oh oh no, okay, yeah, yeah. Well mean the
thing is, it's you know, speaking of Columbine. That was
actually you know, right before the first Star Wars celebration
out in Denver in ninety nine, it was like eight
days beforehand, and so it actually was a topic on
like sixty minutes and everything like that, and in the
in the lead up to Phantom Mess even coming out,
(37:45):
just to give an example of exactly how much sort
of impact that had was people even started looking at
Star Wars as like, oh, well, gosh, this movie has
violence in it. And it was like, well, oh wait,
pump the brakes on that one, guys.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
But yeah, kids today have no idea how impactful that
event was, not just in the tragedy of the event,
and I'm not making light of it, but just the
just how it affected the zeitgeist, inner conversation, in our
daily lives, of our conversation and in pop culture and
media and books and television. There was there was just
a nationwide reevaluation of violence in our lives.
Speaker 1 (38:23):
Well, I mean, the same sort of thing happened after
you know, an eleven, because I remember with that there
was like a there was a hijacking and a plane
explosion in the first episode of twenty four and it
was already in the can and then like nine to
eleven happened, and like if you go back and you
watch that pilot episode, they like kept the scene, but
you can see everywhere where they sort of like did
a like a zoom and pan to like keep things
(38:46):
out of frame. Suddenly every so often.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
Ending of Lelo and Stitch, the Red spaceship that's very
plain like initially was flying was commandeered and flying through
a city in Honolulu, and so they changed it to
be a They drew over it and made it an
alien spaceship flying through mountains in the country of in
(39:10):
the countryside of Hawaii.
Speaker 2 (39:13):
So it really is fascinating, you know, to look at.
I mean makes a Spider Man trailer. And there was
an episode of The Lone Gunman, the spinoff of X Files,
where in the pilot episode they are on a hijacked
plane going towards the two towers and they actually got
(39:35):
and like this aired around the same time, like it
aired before it or something like that, or maybe it.
Speaker 1 (39:39):
Can come ends something like that.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
And I remember hearing in an interview that the producers
got a call saying why did you write that. They're like,
it was totally just an idea we had, but yeah,
the screen three is a is a consequence of that,
is of that of the country reevaluate what we put
in our pop culture. I don't feel like we really
(40:03):
do it that much anymore because we're so inundated with it.
But this is it's a felscinating.
Speaker 1 (40:07):
There's so much Yeah, I mean back then there's not
as much content, and now there's such a lot.
Speaker 3 (40:13):
Of content held by the companies, meaning like they need
to make a profit. Now anyone can make content. So
it's like it's like how do you.
Speaker 2 (40:23):
And we're also so much more interconnected than we were
twenty five years ago, you know, like something I'm not again,
I'm not making light of it, but something god awful
happens every single day because we know of everything that's
going on in the news. But yeah, like I was saying,
it's just like it's a it's a fascinating thing to
talk about and with like Scream three is no different.
(40:44):
And so before we before we kind of give our
final thoughts and our ratings, I do want to say, like, like,
what what did you enjoy about this movie? Because this
movie's not it's not garbage, Like it's not hot garbage,
Like it's not where you're just like, oh my god,
I can't even get through through this.
Speaker 3 (41:00):
Like it above a one.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
Yeah you know, it's because I'm not wrong here, come on,
it's it's not that, it's just like it's such a
it's such a misfire compared to the previous two. And
so I would like to, you know, like John, reach
into the depths of your soul and revive that black
heart that you have and try to figure out what
was enjoyable to you in this movie.
Speaker 1 (41:21):
Well, I'm always a fan of Emily Mortimer. This was
American debuts very much. Yep, she I think she's great.
Patrick Warburton, you put him in a movie and I
will pay money just on principle for that guy I
love because I love Patrick Warburton. Yeah you know, and
yeah have me guy can talk about a guy who
(41:42):
just knows why he's being cast in something and it's
like it's a paycheck, sure thing, you got it. I
thought that Actually, David Arquette got a bit of a
chance to shine in this one. I liked do we
felt a little bit more like a human being in
this maybe than in the previous role. In the end, well,
I just I like the I like the where the
(42:03):
character goes. In this one, again, I thought the the
action in the house, the house set was cleverly done.
I like that. I thought that was well done. You
can't have too much Lince Hendrickson in a movie. In fact,
I wish there had been more because I just like
Lince Handrickson a whole lot. And uh, it eventually ended,
(42:25):
so you know there you go.
Speaker 2 (42:28):
Yeah, do you have anything to add that you that
you liked?
Speaker 3 (42:30):
No, yeah, I think that was great. Like listen off
every time someone like that showed up, like yeah, like
Lanceard' is like, oh hey, Like I feel like I'd
never see him in anything, you know, except for the
things he's most popular for, like you know, aliens like.
Speaker 2 (42:43):
Alien Versus Predator.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
You know, yeah, was that a movie?
Speaker 3 (42:47):
Uh, but we'd yeah, No, I think, like you said, Tristan,
you know there there's I really liked how they handled
Sydney as far as it's for the beginning, like I
totally bought. Oh yeah, she sets up her space, she's
out in the country. She she's trying to give back
and kind of like basically do everything butt Sy a
(43:09):
therapist you know of seeing you know, doing the crisis
line and things like that. So I buy that. I
totally buy, just like in the second one where she
got the caller ID and how she handled that, Like, yeah,
that was very plausible, and I liked that grounding of
the character. It's like, oh, yeah, I can totally believe
that she would do that. But then she just shows
(43:30):
up on set and it's like, oh, okay, I guess
she looked at page forty two and it said arrive soundstage,
Sydney and the Thus it must be so uh yeah,
And I think, you know, I think the fight, my
favorite fight was inside the set house. You know, it's
really clever as you know, you're kind of you're inside
(43:52):
of a house and your mind tells you you're inside,
but then all of a sudden, you're like, but that
wall is not there and that door leads to nowhere,
and you know, do I go upstairs? And do I
go downstairs? And I thought that fight was my favorite
of the all the different ones.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
And she uses it like she you know, she waits
outside and then pulls them through. I thought that was
a really smart thing to do, and that's a very
Sydney thing to do.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (44:13):
Yeah, she's the smartest person in this whole group.
Speaker 1 (44:17):
So it's it's no.
Speaker 3 (44:18):
Wonder she survives. Yeah, and I tried to give it
a little bit of a not a pass, but the
fact that watching it so back to back with two,
which I think did so many things, well, like I
knew as this was ass three was dragging on.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
I'm like, oh, yeah.
Speaker 3 (44:33):
This there's It's not the rose colored glasses. It's the comparison.
And often, you know, we not that we don't compare it.
This whole podcast is about comparing you know, the movies,
but not holding it hostage too. When people saw this movie,
they probably hadn't seen Scream or Scream two in like
a year or so, like or maybe they rendered it
(44:54):
or something like that. So I tried to recontextualize it,
you know, not like dare watch kill Bill Volume one
and then drive to the movie theater watch volume two.
Not everyone is that crazy.
Speaker 2 (45:07):
So yeah, to me, it was you know, I like
everything that you guys have said. I can't really add
anything to it. One thing I didn't really like was
Wes Craven has felt very inconsistent between one, two and three,
where I, you know, this is director of focused podcast,
but yet we were you know, crapping on the writing,
I think for the most part, but it's it just
(45:30):
felt like when you when you look at Craven from
Nightmare and then to Scream, to Scream two, to Scream three,
you know, you're just kind of like, where is he?
You know, like if you said, like, oh, Wes Craven
didn't direct this one, I'd be like, oh, okay, yeah,
that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (45:42):
You know.
Speaker 2 (45:42):
I don't see a cohesive style. I feel like it
changes from one bit to the next, and not in
a positive way, or at least not in an obvious
way like with the Harry Potter films where you're like, oh, yeah,
this is totally the Alfonso Koron one, where with this one,
it's like it could have been a like a journey,
you know, like it could have been you know.
Speaker 1 (46:01):
Like everybody gun.
Speaker 2 (46:03):
Yeah, And I feel like that's a definite failing with Craven.
But with all the craziness behind the scenes, with the
writing and the studio intervention and the MPa and everything
like that, I kind of don't blame them. But then again,
you know, that's what that's a director's job is to
is to fight through the adversity of making movies anyway, John,
I want you to give your rating real quick. I
(46:24):
want you to to kind of ground this movie for us.
Speaker 1 (46:27):
I want to ask you because in my formerly nicotine
stained fingers, I have the original review from Joey of
Scream three. Do you guys have any interest in hearing
a small, small, tiny bit bit of it? Not the
whole thing. It's it's it's a tome, yeah, but dialous like, yeah,
give us a little I'll give I'll give you a
little little taste. This is direct from Joey what he
(46:51):
wrote back in two thousand, because I do my research
for you guys. Okay, so watching Scream things like being
told the same joke fifty times, you've allay he heard
it and it stopped being funny a long time ago. Yes,
Wes Craven is back, and this time without that idiot
Kevin Williamson. Although nothing's changed. It's the same old BS.
But he didn't say, BS, welcome to the final act.
(47:13):
Huh my ass? I mean, who do they think they
are kidding? With the way these franchises are milked, especially
in this genre, There's no way this is it. Nev
Campbell will be stalked until she's fifty wait and see.
That was the opening paragraph from Joey's review, and it
got worse from there. He really, really, really disliked Scream three.
Did I feel the same way? Well, not that bad,
(47:36):
it's I just think it's a dud. It just doesn't
come together. But there's nothing in it that makes me
like at the end of it wasn't I wasn't like, oh,
screw this movie, this is terrible. I was like, Eh,
you know, it's there. So I'm going to give this
a two because honestly, so far it's been the law
of diminishing returns with the Scream series. The first one
(47:58):
was the best one so far, and then second one,
you know, and then no, Darren, it wasn't five. But
then this one, like it just seems to slide as
it goes forward. So it'll be really interesting to talk
next week in light of that. So that's a two
for me, Darren.
Speaker 2 (48:14):
What about you?
Speaker 3 (48:15):
Yeah, I mean I think they were just really shooting
themselves in the foot, not having a locked in story
or concept or whatever. How it came when you're talking
about writing pages day of in this kind of a story. Yeah,
sometimes you can get magic in a bottle. More often
than not, this is what's gonna happen. That's why when
you learn filmmaking, they're like, don't do this, like unless
(48:38):
you absolutely have to. It's not a good idea. And
where you know, Scream two expanded it. You know, they
are a college, like, there's a there's a specific location.
You had your boundaries. This one, I think they should
have gone smaller, like go back to basics, go back
to the city, or something like, to just keep it
(49:00):
a smaller story. There's too many characters, there's too many
plotlines and threads, and then they don't go anywhere with
any of them. Like even like Patrick Simley, we're saying
he's like, I'm not even the third act. Like that's
a tell, you know, when the cop is not even
at the end. So yeah, I'm giving this a two
as well. It I will probably never watch this movie
(49:22):
again and just enjoy the first and the second one.
Speaker 2 (49:25):
I always I enjoy this movie because it's a part
of the Scream franchise, and I think that's probably it's
like my Into Darkness, Like I will still watch Into
Darkness even though it's not a good movie at all,
just because I love the characters, and I love the
world Scream three. Originally I was just like, oh, it's stupid,
(49:47):
it's fun, it's fine. But now I'm just kind of like,
this is more of a mess than I remember, or
at least more of a mess than I'd like to
admit to myself. And so originally I this was a
three our film for me. I think I'm knocking it
down to two and a half from this viewing, and
so to me out go, yeah, it goes down to
two and.
Speaker 1 (50:07):
A half for me.
Speaker 2 (50:09):
And actually with that in mind, like because I've seen
all the Scream films, that actually changes my rating a
little bit, going from a three down to two and
a half, which maybe we'll discuss later.
Speaker 1 (50:19):
Interesting, so we all slide down YouTube most substantially between
Scream two and Scream three. Interesting.
Speaker 3 (50:27):
Interesting, Well I felt I've left between two and three.
Speaker 1 (50:29):
You sure did? You sure did?
Speaker 2 (50:32):
I've only seen the next one once, and so I'm
looking forward to reevaluating the next one. And speaking of which, Darren,
what are we doing next week? It's a huge surprise.
Speaker 3 (50:43):
Oh yes, well, you know, no surprise that the franchise
went on pause for eleven years. As we jumped to
twenty eleven, covering scream four As we end the House
of Craven. Here on house lights join the revolution, joint
the NED Party
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.