Watch, Watched, Watching: Now includes ads

[RumHam]

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Agreed with everything except this. When it came out I thought Scream 3 was crap, but for me it ages well. Yes there's a lot of stupid shit in it, but I like how it turns into a greater commentary on the film industry in general while tying the events of the previous two films together. 

I haven't seen it in years so I'll see if it's on Paramount+ as well. As I remember they changed the ending at the last minute because of script leaks and part of it literally makes no sense. I don't remember the details but I'm curious if I will when I re-watch it.

Something like two killers menace someone who turns out to be one of the two killers, maybe?

[IlyaP]

58 minutes ago, DMC said:

I thought the third Scream was considerably better than the fourth one too - and a pretty good resolution for Sydney's character.

This exactly.

With the story of Maureen's killer finally being resolved and laid to rest,and the trauma that started a year before the events of Scream 1 being concluded, that last shot of the open door leading to a garden and blue skies was a perfect image and metaphor and a good place to end the series.

[IlyaP]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Agreed with everything except this. When it came out I thought Scream 3 was crap, but for me it ages well. Yes there's a lot of stupid shit in it, but I like how it turns into a greater commentary on the film industry in general while tying the events of the previous two films together. 

Pretty much. It had some production troubles and uneven screenwriting (as confessed by lead writer Ehren Kruger) but it tried, and despite being a sometimes uneven film, it resolves the story of Maureen and Sydney Prescott. There was no need for a fourth, much less a fifth, sequel.

[RumHam]

4 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

With the story of Maureen's killer finally being resolved and laid to rest

My memory is admittedly quite shitty but wasn't this resolved by the end of the first movie? Everything since has been a retcon?

Edit: I'm not saying the fourth film was needed, I'd argue the third wasn't either. As horror sequels go I remember liking the 4th one but I'm by no means arguing it's a good movie.

[IlyaP]

31 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I haven't seen it in years so I'll see if it's on Paramount+ as well. As I remember they changed the ending at the last minute because of script leaks and part of it literally makes no sense. I don't remember the details but I'm curious if I will when I re-watch it.

Something like two killers menace someone who turns out to be one of the two killers, maybe?

Scream 3 DID originally have two killers, but as it had become expected given that the previous two films both had two killers, the writers felt it was a nice change of pace to have one central killer.

[IlyaP]

Just now, RumHam said:

My memory is admittedly quite shitty but wasn't this resolved by the end of the first movie? Everything since has been a retcon?

Somewhat.

We find out that Sydney has a half-brother, that Maureen rejected him, and he was the one who helped Billy and Stu get the motivation to kill Maureen and then start the original series of killings that were the narrative basis for Scream 1's events. At the same time though, it took time to dig into Maureen's past and examined her actions and used it to explain/set up the decisions she made off-screen that resulted in, well, everything.

My posit is that the entire trilogy is about her actions and their consequences - Roman, Billy, Stu, Mrs. Loomis, Sidney. All this for a character that's always off-screen (occupying what I think we'd call narrative "negative space").

 

[RumHam]

3 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

Scream 3 DID originally have two killers, but as it had become expected given that the previous two films both had two killers, the writers felt it was a nice change of pace to have one central killer.

Ooh, then I bet it was a scene that made sense with the assumption that there were two, but there being only one killer made it so the killer had to have teleportation powers? Or I could be thinking of one of the other movies.

[DMC]

Scream 3's production changed quite a bit after Columbine.  And Kevin Williamson did have an original idea that they abandoned after he left the project.  As this article explains, Williamson's ending would have been much worse.  I'll spoiler tag the quote:

Spoiler

Back in 2013, Williamson shared that in his original story for Scream 3, the killers turned out to be a fan club that formed after Stab 1 and Stab 2, and decided to take their fanatism to a very dangerous level. The big twist, then, would have been that, as Sidney walked into the house after Ghostface killed everyone, all the victims would have risen up, as it was all a plan to become famous. Other reports said that among the victims that turned out to be alive were those from the previous movies, including Maureen, and it was all part of an elaborate conspiracy to trick Sidney and drive her insane.

 

[IlyaP]

5 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Edit: I'm not saying the fourth film was needed, I'd argue the third wasn't either. As horror sequels go I remember liking the 4th one but I'm by no means arguing it's a good movie.

The fourth film could have easily been a non-scream movie about horror movies and worked just as well. It didn't need to be part of the Scream franchise.

[IlyaP]

Just now, DMC said:

Scream 3's production changed quite a bit after Columbine.  And Kevin Williamson did have an original idea that they abandoned after he left the project.  As this article explains, Williamson's ending would have been much worse.  I'll spoiler tag the quote:

  Hide contents

Back in 2013, Williamson shared that in his original story for Scream 3, the killers turned out to be a fan club that formed after Stab 1 and Stab 2, and decided to take their fanatism to a very dangerous level. The big twist, then, would have been that, as Sidney walked into the house after Ghostface killed everyone, all the victims would have risen up, as it was all a plan to become famous. Other reports said that among the victims that turned out to be alive were those from the previous movies, including Maureen, and it was all part of an elaborate conspiracy to trick Sidney and drive her insane.

 

Thank the gods they abandoned that insane concept.

[IlyaP]

1 minute ago, RumHam said:

Ooh, then I bet it was a scene that made sense with the assumption that there were two, but there being only one killer made it so the killer had to have teleportation powers? Or I could be thinking of one of the other movies.

It did occasionally feel that way. "How the hell does the killer get around so much?"

Also, there are moments left in the film that make viewers suggest there's a second killer (Emily Mortimer was originally intended to be the second killer and Roman's girlfriend) - such as the bathroom scene involving Mortimer, Campbell, and a ghost face costume.

[IlyaP]

(I could probably write the PhD equivalent of a film thesis on the Scream series.)

[RumHam]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Scream 3's production changed quite a bit after Columbine.  And Kevin Williamson did have an original idea that they abandoned after he left the project.  As this article explains, Williamson's ending would have been much worse.  I'll spoiler tag the quote:

  Reveal hidden contents

Back in 2013, Williamson shared that in his original story for Scream 3, the killers turned out to be a fan club that formed after Stab 1 and Stab 2, and decided to take their fanatism to a very dangerous level. The big twist, then, would have been that, as Sidney walked into the house after Ghostface killed everyone, all the victims would have risen up, as it was all a plan to become famous. Other reports said that among the victims that turned out to be alive were those from the previous movies, including Maureen, and it was all part of an elaborate conspiracy to trick Sidney and drive her insane.

 

Reminds me of April Fools Day, but at least there it's all in the title and you kinda feel like an idiot for not figuring it out. Plus it wasn't undoing two movies that came before.

I'd like to think that was part of a "no bad ideas in brainstorming" thing and not something he seriously considered.

Just now, IlyaP said:

(I could probably write the PhD equivalent of a film thesis on the Scream series.)

Is the TV series worth watching? The fact that it was produced by MTV always scared me off.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Scream 3's production changed quite a bit after Columbine.  And Kevin Williamson did have an original idea that they abandoned after he left the project.  As this article explains, Williamson's ending would have been much worse.  I'll spoiler tag the quote:

  Reveal hidden contents

Back in 2013, Williamson shared that in his original story for Scream 3, the killers turned out to be a fan club that formed after Stab 1 and Stab 2, and decided to take their fanatism to a very dangerous level. The big twist, then, would have been that, as Sidney walked into the house after Ghostface killed everyone, all the victims would have risen up, as it was all a plan to become famous. Other reports said that among the victims that turned out to be alive were those from the previous movies, including Maureen, and it was all part of an elaborate conspiracy to trick Sidney and drive her insane.

 

Good god that's one of the worst ideas I've ever read.

 

12 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

The fourth film could have easily been a non-scream movie about horror movies and worked just as well. It didn't need to be part of the Scream franchise.

It could have stood on its own, but there's a reasonable financial risk in going that route. Here's a slightly outdated list of the top 10 grossing horror films of the century so far.  The majority of them are from pre-2005 and surprisingly Scream 3 is on the list. I get the impression horror films don't typically make a ton of money anymore so attaching it to an existing highly successful franchise makes sense.

[RumHam]

I've never seen the Brendan Fraiser Mummy movies but I never thought of them as horror. I always assumed they were Indiana Jones knockoffs.

I don't really think The Village is a horror movie either. It's misdirection. I've always thought someone should do the opposite. Market something as an American Pie-esq romp and then halfway through the second act ghost-face impales stiffler. A certain franchise tried something sorta similar recently, but it got spoiled by marketing:
 

Spoiler

Predator has a new movie coming out called Prey and I remember reading their original intention was that opening weekend no one would know it was a Predator movie. Blair Witch  (not to be confused with The Blair Witch Project) was publicly reffered to as Into the Woods until their festival premier.

The Bring it On franchise was last I heard doing a horror movie but again they made the mistake of telling us before hand for attention! I mean they've been direct to DVD forever I'm pretty sure so they should have just kept the secret and let word of mouth do their marketing.

Edit: That image they use for the Ring fucking haunted me when it was a second or two with the head falling. Seeing it as a still image just robs it of it's impact. Like the shark in jaws kinda?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I've never seen the Brendan Fraiser Mummy movies but I never thought of them as horror. I always assumed they were Indiana Jones knockoffs.

Yeah, family friendly horror elements, but that's it. I'd definitely check out the first one, the second is fine if you like the first. Didn't care for the third one.

And just looking up a few things, first, The Mummy reboot was not listed as a horror film and made a little less than the original, and second, it's amazing there are more movies in The Scorpion King franchise than in the original, including the reboot. 

Quote

I don't really think The Village is a horror movie either. It's misdirection. I've always thought someone should do the opposite. Market something as an American Pie-esq romp and then halfway through the second act ghost-face impales stiffler. A certain franchise tried something sorta similar recently, but it got spoiled by marketing:

My favorite podcast has argued for a while that Friends should make a movie that turns into a murder mystery killing off one of the main cast members and implying another did it.

[RumHam]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My favorite podcast has argued for a while that Friends should make a movie that turns into a murder mystery killing off one of the main cast members and implying another did it.

I feel like this could work for any sitcom or IP with enough characters. It reminds me of The Watchmen, I read that the guy wanted to do it with established super heroes but the rights holders said no so he made up his own versions and went to town.

Oh wait hang on netflix is calling me.

[IlyaP]

1 hour ago, RumHam said:

Reminds me of April Fools Day, but at least there it's all in the title and you kinda feel like an idiot for not figuring it out. Plus it wasn't undoing two movies that came before.

I'd like to think that was part of a "no bad ideas in brainstorming" thing and not something he seriously considered.

Is the TV series worth watching? The fact that it was produced by MTV always scared me off.

Not sure yet! I have both seasons, but have not yet had a chance to watch it yet. It's at the top of my to-watch list, however.

[IlyaP]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah, family friendly horror elements, but that's it. I'd definitely check out the first one, the second is fine if you like the first. Didn't care for the third one.

The score for The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor was off the charts good:

 

[Darryk]

I just finished season 3 of Succession and I think it's the most superbly written and acted show on TV at the moment (that I've seen).