So, What Was Up With The Ending To Scream 4?
Scream 4 had a rocky road to your local multiplex, going through multiple script revisions, much to the chagrin of its director and actors. But given the infinite number of possibilities that a Scream 4 script could go in, the ending that audiences saw was, to my eyes at least, odd and particularly unsatisfying. Is this really the ending (and the killer) that director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson intended? Major Scream 4 spoilers ahoy!
So to sum up: Emma Roberts was the mastermind behind the killings, with Rory Culkin as her right-hand man (right until she double-crossed him and Lillard-ed him good). Culkin wanted to live out his horror film obsessions and document the whole thing on the web, while Roberts was jealous of her cousin's notoriety and wanted the sweet taste of fame (and infamy) all to herself.
Now, no one goes to a Scream movie expecting a cinema vérité experience, but it was right about when Roberts was delivering her filibuster of the vacuous nature of fame in the 21st century that I nearly rolled my eyes out of my head. Did we get any inkling, any foreshadowing at all that Robert's character was so obsessed with fame before she delivered her preachy stemwinder? And besides the seemingly out-of-left-field nature of her sudden M.O., did they (they being whatever band of monkeys that rewrote Kevin Williamson's script) have to give Roberts such a windy diatribe? I got the gist after a few lines -- jealous of cousin, she wanted fame at any cost -- but the scene went on forever. Sloppy overwriting in the final reel does not make up for sketchy underwriting in the reels before it.
Based on the numerous reports of infighting and script tinkering, I think it may be fair to assume Roberts & Culkin were not the original killers as first scripted by Williamson, just as Laurie Metcalf (Laurie Metcalf!) was not meant to be the killer in Scream 2 until a leak prompted re-writes. So who do we think was the original killer in Scream 4? Frankly, as it played out, it could have been anyone, but I sort of liked the idea of it being Deputy Hicks, who had a brief flicker of Sidney Prescott obsession before getting lost in the shuffle. (And was it my imagination, or did it seem like she was shot in the head before she popped up and claimed the Kevlar caught it?)
Scream 4 isn't a bad movie, per se; I jumped in my seat and had an enjoyable time. But the ending hampered my enjoyment of the movie and may have contributed to its lackluster grosses. I just felt that the ending was far too pat and simplisitic (desire for fame is the real killer, children!), more appropriate for hastily delivered Jerry's Final Thoughts than a slasher flick.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
There were inklings of Jill being the killer, but in the opposite fashion. She purposefully said to Sidney that she DIDN'T want fame earlier in the movie, and if you noticed, she was never around when anything really bad was happening, she was always one removed. She WATCHED as olivia was killed, she was conveniently on her way to kirby's when her mom died, so it's not like there wasn't the requisite clues sprinkled throughout the movie. I suspected her pretty much just after the stab-a-thon.
Personally I loved the ending. Jill was such a wonderful psycho (probably the craziest of them all), and I think her over-the-top monologue fit the piece. Both of them were trying to be cool hip slashers but both just came off as little gen y dweebs.
woulda been better if it was jill + kirby
Wow. Um, okay. Everyone I know saw this movie and was shocked, surprised, and impressed with the ending. I think there were indications as Sam said. I thought it was brilliant to have the person we all assumed was going to become the defacto new lead be the killer. The opening was very clever as well. My only complaint was killing off Kirby. Not only was she sexy and fun, but she was a character I'd like to see again. Other than Deputy Hicks (who I suspected as well), we have no new bodies to populate further films. I'm just glad they didn't kill any of the core three. One more thing: Where's Sidney's father? We last saw him in #3, begging Sid to come back home with him. Oh yeah, and what happened to Dewey's limp and bum shoulder? Anyway, I really enjoyed #4, way more than I expected too. 3 out of 4 stars.
This literally came to me when I was brushing my teeth the night I saw the movie: Emma Roberts playing someone who's tired of living in the shadow of a much more famous relative?
The ending was the perfect statement on the web 2.0 sociopathic, semi-autistic infotainment generation.
And what's more, several of the post-human teens were actually humanized and compelling- seeming to be aware of being caught in the awful social overexposure of their era.
For instance, Kirby was nuanced, butch, charming, glib but warm. A very human character-- and even male psycho-killer #1's actual chagrin over having a chance at connecting with her after he's already committed to going Columbine for fame was actually moving and complex.
Scream 4's veteran cast members and their notes of defeated acceptance of fate and exhaustion with life were very moving for those of us entering our thirties, feeling that same exhaustion with what contemporary life has become.
The only minor flaws or tweaks I'd give notes on (as a professional screenwriter) are including hints at self-defense training that Jill has had in youth because of her cousin's notorious experiences. Or maybe youth gymnastics. This would add even more to the "overprotected and spoiled and catered-to youths become sociopathic narcissists." theme. And help us believe her ability to physically pull this off.
But once again, it's not physically unbelievable if you believe that she's "really going for it."
Anyone who has seen what a budding starlet is capable of will understand how believable any physical act can become when dignity is no longer an issue.
Thanks to Wes, Kevin, and even Ehren-- for bringing back character development and humanity once again to the genre.
I don't know if it will find an audience among the demographic-consumptive web 2.0 generation. If it ain't presumed to be hip, it won't be a hit. That's the way she goes these days.
I can only hope the audience can look up from their gadgetry long enough to notice the story.
God, I'd make that comment of the day if it didn't spoil the ending.
I'm a die-hard Scream fan since they originals came out, and I was extremely satisfied with about 95% of this movie. I've had the same complaints as others (Kirby's death, mostly -- she was a great character and deserved to go out with a bang if she had to go). I thought the ending statement was great, no more of a diatribe than the other "killer reveal" diatribes. And a good statement on that generation to boot. I don't enjoy multiple endings to movies, and I feel like as much as the last scene was ruthless and action-packed, part of me wanted the movie to end as Jill was being rolled away under the glow of flashing lights.
Sidney dying would have been huge and awesome, though it's almost out of character for her to succumb, isn't it? I like that the veterans ended up more vulnerable than they used to be. Almost like they were all utterly unprepared for this to happen again.
I was happy with it. And if I wasn't happy, I'd say it.
And Olivia's death? Holy crap. Reminded me of Johnny Depp's death in Nightmare on Elm Street after he explodes all over his room. Wow.
To be fair, Kirby got stabbed and then we kinda forgot about her. Per Rob Zombie's Halloween series, she might theoretically still be alive because we never saw her dead, we saw her get stabbed. (Plus she's played by a semi-popular actress, so).
Do your research, please. Laurie Metcalfe was always planned to be the killer in Scream 2. It was Mickey who had to have his part changed to that of a killer, replacing Hallie and Derek after the script leaked.
Besides that long-winded nonsensical bit of Basil Exposition from Jill, was anyone else annoyed by the fact that the entire ending was based on a false premise. That being: The only people who become famous in 2011 are those who have had effed up things happen to them. Because, no. In 2011, people become famous for participating in a flashmob or lip-syncing to some stupid pop song on YouTube. Mass murder or surviving a mass murder is not really necessary.
Which, of course, brings it back to the script. This entire film felt like something Kevin Williamson wrote in 2005, only to see it subsequently picked apart by Ehren Kruger, Bob Weinstein and the other dozens of cooks responsible for this crappy kitchen. What a total mess.
I agree. Kirby was awsome. The best of the new. I wish they played up the "Kirby might be a killer" thing(They did a little), then at the last scene flip it over and make it kirby as sidney and jill as billy. Then have like a super awsome hair-ripping, skin slashing, glass breaking, Girl fight. That would be an awsome ending. I didn't like her death at all, it was cruel "I know, it's always faster in the movies" without being scary. Not the way a kick-ass character should bite the dust.
i loved scream 4 i did it just wasnt like the trilogies that i still owned anyway itha twas the first time i saw sidnwy stab by the ghost face who turned out to be her whack job cousin jill anyway i wanted sidney to live and she barely did which im glad she survived and fought back anyway jill was no billy loomis anyway the ending was kind weird when all praised her name anyway
Jill and Charlie were always supposed to be the killers and the ending of the film was amazing and was definitely not to long. One of the best endings of the Scream series.
"Sidney dying would have been huge and awesome, though it's almost out of character for her to succumb, isn't it? I like that the veterans ended up more vulnerable than they used to be. Almost like they were all utterly unprepared for this to happen again. "
It wouldn't be that original. They killed off the main heroine in the sequel of another horror franchise. I'm actually surprised Sidney lived but I'm glad that they did.
I really dug that Jill was the killer. All along, the audience assumed that Jill WAS the Sidney reboot, that she would likely anchor any future sequels in the franchise, that she was totally safe and in no way the killer, so the reveal was actually a great surprise.
The scene of Jill injuring herself (stabbing her own shoulder, throwing herself onto the coffee table) and then posing herself just like Sidney was chilling. I think it would have been interesting to have ended it there and then maybe "Scream 5" could have had a new set of killers after Jill, who's now trapped in a situation she created by being the killer the last time around.
I did think they dropped the ball with Judy Hicks knowing Sid from high school. There was that one red herring scene and that was it.
But I did LOVE that Gale was so annoyed she lived. "Judy, YOU'RE alive?" Heh.
I thought the killers and their motive(s) were the best since the first movie (no amount of Olyphant will make me buy Jackie Connor as a psycho murderer, and the less said about Roman the better). As others have pointed out, the Jill/Charlie reveal sort of served the unique aspects of "Scream 4" that made it some combination of a remake/reoboot/sequel: Jill and Charlie were like Stu and Billy in a lot of ways, but in others they were quite different. I agree though that Jill's speech went on way too long (the name Basil Exposition came to mind...).
Of course, if the writers really wanted to be shocking they would have made the killer one of the original three characters. I think the filmmakers have done themselves a bit of a disservice throughout the franchise of treating the "core three" as untouchable, although on the other hand they are what gives the franchise some heart (and sets it apart from the "Saw 10"s of the world) .
kirby didnt die. well atleast they never showed her die. she could be in the next one.
IMO, that the traditional Final Girl was the killer was an inspired concept - but I do agree that somewhere from concept to execution something went awry (read Bob Weinstein and Ehren Kruger).
The more I think about the ending, the more I love it. All along, the movie has us thinking it's going to reboot the scream franchise by introducing new characters, a new final girl... but instead it kills all the kids for the reboot and lets the original trilogy folks live.
I loved loved loved the last 30 minutes. They were hilarious and campy -- I love a good sociopath who goes all out in forging a crime scene. When Jill throws herself onto the glass table, I couldn't help but applaud. The girl COMMITS. And the fight at the hospital was awesome. It was just so so over the top.
I felt old watching the film, but now I feel even older reading all this glowing praise for this crappy movie. Are your standards that low?
You know, when I was watching it the first time, I actually wondered if it was Gale - when she said to the Charlie & Co 'We're working together aren't we?' I wondered if it could have had a double meaning' - and I had sort of hoped that either one of the main three returners would have been either the killer or been killed.
Of course, I also thought that Gale WAS going to die the first time I watched it as well, and I'm a bit annoyed her line from the trailer 'go ahead if you have the balls' (which would have been ironic later since I think it was Jill who stabbed her) was cut out the final edit.
Overall, whether it was affected by rewrites or not this still has one thing going for it.....................it's not Scream 3!!!!!!!
But I did get a good dose of nostalgia seeing the three main cast again and I had fun (a lot of fun) while watching it. And it still also makes the Friday the 13th/Halloween/Elm Street remakes look even more like the dog turds they already were.
So.........for me, not the best of the series. But not the worst either and still better than a host of other slasher's out there.
It's a 90's thing, Jerebo. Forgive our nostalgia.
Not to mention, Rory CULKIN! Talk about living in the shadows of pop cultural giants of the 90's.
See how the pair gets meta-made?
Also, Stands-with-fists has now become Stabbed-through-the-mailslot.
Hoping somebody will get that 🙂
She was not mentioned to Jill in Dewey's post-slaughter hospital rundown as a survivor...
But Hardon Pantyliner is pretty popular... I can honestly say I never expected her to be capable of such natural likability and effortless charm.
I would also like to bring up the interesting sexual identity subtext on current youth culture.
Kirby is masculine but aggressively after a boy-- a product of post-feminist 90's "raise your girl as an assertive boy" culture. And Charlie has his long hair and effeminate tendencies, a possible product of "raise your boy to be sensitive and not be a mean ole man" PC culture. And he ends up murdering both the girl he longed for and the boy who longed for him.
This seems about right... and makes me wonder if Camille Paglia wrote this movie.
Androgyny has a transcendent peak and a terrifying nadir...
And yes, we are all thinking about Scream too much... but honestly I am finding very little to excite me in the micro-genre splintered cinema scene. If you stopped wanting to see capes and tights at 16 or so, and don't care for navel-gazing hipsters moving furniture around-- there's not a lot to love at the moment that has enough popular appeal to feel like a group event.
Did anyone else notice that Sydney is slowly murdering her own bloodline in self-defense as the franchise progresses?
Now there's a commentary on family and what it feels like for our generation.
If she doesn't kill her father in Scream 5, I'm gonna feel gypped.
Next »