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
Hey, I graduated high school in the early Clinton years, so I can appreciate nostalgia, but this movie was really a piece of crap. And I'm a huge horror fan.
Sorry to be so grumpy.
Well, in a way the "Chocolate Rain" guys of the world ARE just being appreciated for their victimage.
Becoming the "Leave Brittany Alone Guy" or what have you IS the "fucked up thing that happens to you."
Same as Charlie Sheen on some level. It's his fame that makes interest in his Fall. But it's the elevation of his Fall to A THING that makes his Fall famous... is that clear?
We all know we couldn't just walk into a Hollywood legacy family and a sitcom payday. Be we each could very easily get fucked up, lose our jobs and act grandiose and bat-shit insane while exposing our naked, foul, narcissism.
This is why the most mediocre people rise to the top of american culture. Because they most clearly represent the wish fulfillment of "This could be you."
The fame itself is dehumanizing and known on some level to the audience for the catastrophic event upon the soul of the fame-bearer that it will ultimately be.
And yet, as Jill states so succinctly: "I don't need friends, I need FANS."
The key here is not that people crave fame per se, but what fame seems to promise, which is total control over every relationship to another individual.
All conversations with Tom Cruise are one way conversations, you understand?
And digital culture has been a great enabler of people keeping one another at arms length in order to avoid the risks, responsibilities, and tolerances that actual relationships entail.
It's a beautiful irony that the famous on the stage just want to be anonymous so they can at least try to believe the loved ones in their personal life are authentic. While at that very moment, the anonymous audience member would do anything to exchange the personal relationships of his life for the anonymous adulation that the celebrity finds so suffocating.
I think it's because contemporary people feel that they are expected to try so hard to be "likable" that their now covert and passive aggressions make them feel that the love of those who know them personally is not valid.
"You don't really know me, you just know the shit that I say that is what I think you want to hear."
And they find long encounters with friends suffocating because the dishonesty they are presenting "as a favor to" the other eventually becomes an open resentment of the person they are being positively dishonest to.
And love/hate is certainly a wavering line we trespass from moment to moment. That's not a digital phenomenon.
And as people grow more unwilling to risk primal interpersonal confrontation, they grow more alienated and prone to explosive exorcisms of violence and destructiveness.
As Fromm said (and I am paraphrasing) if you want only to be liked, then you can not be loved.
That scream 4 comes down to a case of Victim-envy rather than killer simply wanting to be an immortalized predator… that seems to sum it up right there.
A wolf in sheep's clothing is so much worse than a wolf.
No, I understand. A minor flick, even if it generates some interesting fodder for conversation (which is about all I expect these days.)
And yes, sadly, my standards may have become that low... When episodes of "In Treatment" have deeper resonance with two people sitting across from one another in shot-reverse-shot than most of the films I saw last year... I guess i am getting grumpy as well.
One more joke: When Courtney Cox slid off the Ghost-Face mask at Stab-athon-- I thought: "Ghost-face to Fish-face." Someone really needed to dial back her injections. When it's called Scream 4 and you have a hard time looking surprised, that's a problem.
I really thought when she said she was "going rogue" that they might make her more of a mad-cap Palin-esque bitch like she was in the beginning of the franchise. But i think her face was just too paralyzed to pull off all the attitude. Not that it isn't believable that her character wouldn't possess similar vanity.
Also, the film could have been called:
Scream 4: An Argument For Gun Ownership
I mean, shit, Sydney ain't packin' heat!? I know that's part of the slasher-film joke, but c'mon-- nobody is that new age.
I think "navel-gazing hipsters moving furniture around" should officially replace "Mummblecore"
I didn't read all of the comments before me, so someone may have already said this, but it's called Character Development. This article said that there were no "inklings" that Jill was the killer. That was the point. Williamson did a wonderful job developing Jill's character. He made this character for the audience to LOVE not HATE. Right up until she takes the mask off, you LOVE her, then it's almost like a stab through the heart when you realize it's her. I have been a fan of this franchise since I was five years old. Yes, five years old. Scream was my first horror movie ever, and I believe this will always be my favorite franchise.
no new bodies to populate further films - i also thought this. a new generation for a new trilogy? THEY ALL DIED!!! i also agree about Sid's dad, he should be brought back. but not as a killer. maybe a death scene (one that would actually be intense, not just violent)
people are saying that the ending was good, as was the whole film, etc etc. each to their own, but frankly i think the whole theme of the film was just NOT Scream style. it spent too much time being silly and referential to be a proper Scream film.
if there is a Scream 5, i hope to god it has intensity... fear... new characters who arent just there to listen to then watch die.... and a killer with a decent motive. (with regards to that last part, i need to not spoil it for myself before i go in - that was stupid on my part).
then add the humour. Scream 1 was full of fear. it was just clever as hell and humorous, as well.
Great article. Terrible grammar and spelling. To paraphrase FIGHT CLUB, her name is Emma Roberts, not "Emma Robert." Also, I don't think the author understands the meaning of cinema verite, for it is brutally misused above.
i just want to know who was the original freaking KILLER that killed sydney's mother............remind u im only 15 and I knew there was something wrong like WTH so who killed the principle in the either 1st or second movie......gayle's old camera man.......or that whole group of people that were at that drunk party when they were watching horror movies?? so confusing
I didn't really liked the film, it tried to hard to be funny and hip, the first Scream did that, but it was effortless. Even the parts when it tried to be scary where funny. Jill to Gale "Get your skinny ass over here!" that part had me in tears. The acting wasen't very good, with the exception of Hayden Panittere, & Courtney Cox. I would have loved the ending if Kirby would have lived and could anchor Scream 5 & 6. She I thought was one of the best characters of the whole series, she sort of reminded me of Sarah Michelle Gellar in Scream 2.
Can someone explain the gay ending though? Did trevor CHEAT on Jill with the rory culkin character? or was the only gay character reference, the kid with the video camera strapped to his head? l thought it was a really kick ass ending? but im not sure if she killed the culkin character off because he betrayed her by sleeping with trevor or not. Anyone have any idea???
No, You've got it all twisted. One of the new rules was that gay people don't die. So Robbie said he was gay, but he wasn't(Kirby may have been, who knows). He was only saying that so that he wouldn't be hacked to death, which he was. Trevor cheated with Jenny Randall, which is why she got it in the opening, and he got his penis blown off. Jill killed charlie(rory culkin) so that she'd be the only one left.
I actually know Kevin's original outline for the new Scream trilogy that was suppose to happen but its been scrapped so I can reveal it:
Original Ending Details:
Jill was always the original killer, but her character was more like Robbie obsessed with social media & web 2.0
Sidney was suppose to "appear" to die and the movie was suppose to end with Jill going to the hospital mesmerized by the photographers and journalists wanting her story.
In part 5 we find out Sidney did survive. The hospital scene was suppose to be the opening with Jill being killed by Sidney. She then wakes up from this nightmare and its revealed its two years later. Mysterious murders occur again, including the murder of Sidney's father. The new killer for Part 5 was gonna be Jill's father (brother of Maureen Roberts Prescott) who wanted to avenge Jill's death.
You know, you're right.
I rewatched the first three films before I saw Scream 4 (not in one day, that would be craaaazy) and I noticed that Dewey's limp was a lot less pronounced in the third film than it was in the second. It's possible that he's just recovered, apparently nerves can regrow (?).
I thought the whole point of the advertising talking about a new generation of characters was to divert suspicion away from Jill. A couple minutes before they revealed she was the killer I started suspecting her, just because all the other kids seemed dead (and her boyfriend was the red herring). So, I guess the advertising was misleading, but for a good reason.
"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."
You're talking about having an actress blow you for a part aren't you, Mr "Professional Screenwriter"?
As a fan of the series, I had the expectation that this would be a terrible, only-for-money sequel considering Craven and company swore it all ended at Scream 3.
While this movie was much better than the previous film, I knew who at least one of the killers were the from the trailer/synopsis. Look back at the previous 3 films. The killers were always "family" or the motive for the killers if was related to "family".
Scream 1 motive: Billy's the killer because his mom divorced and left due to his dad's affair with Sidney's mother. (Family issues)
Scream 2: Billy Loomis's mother is the killer wanting revenge for Billy's (her son) death.
Scream 3: Roland, illegitimate son of Maureen Prescott (Sidney's mom) and half-brother to Sidney, is the killer waning Sidney dead because of her, well, fame and for having a mother.
Scream 4: Jill Roberts, cousin to Sidney (the aunt/Jill's mom, being Maureen's sister) is the killer because she wants to live outside Sidney's shadow in her own spotlight of fame.
The "other" killer is always some dope who is pretty much a "tag-along" with not much of a real motive.
I hope there isn't a fifth movie. The franchise had a good run, but let's stick a knife in it and call it done.
Actually, the hospital scene was originally written with the intent on Jill being the killer but no one actually knowing until the fifth movie, when we find out Sidney is still alive... Also in the script before Kruger got to it... Hicks died and Kirby lived...
That's what you get when you let Ehren Krueger near a script. As soon as I heard he was approached to rewrite Kevin's script, I lost all faith in the movie. Whose dick is he sucking? 'Cause I can't imagine why studios would still put their faith in him.
What I heard was that we were going to find out that Jill was going to be the roman Bridger of the new trilogy we would find get an inkling that she was behind the murders at the end of Scream 4. In Scream 5 we would see her plot the murders and telling the unknown killer or killers who to kill and why.Sidney was going to find out the truth about her insane teenage cousin in Scream 6 and motive was going to be the same as she had in Scream 4 she was jealous of Sidney and wanted to be famous and she would kill anyone to achieve her goal.
The reason and motivation for Sidney's cousin to do the killings is so patently ridiculous that it would have been as equally probable that Sidney was the killer.
Jill motive was the best that is the best Billy's motive was the worst so what if his family was destroyed.He was a crybaby.
I also thought Detective Hicks was shot in the head by Jill. I swear I saw something red on her head.
To be real, anyone of the motives from any of the killers in any of the Scream movies can be considered ridiculous. Billy wanted revenge on Sidney because her mom destroyed his family (how Sidney is held responsible is beyond me), Mrs. Loomis because Sidney killed him in self-defense (not an original motive), Roman wanting not just the fame, but everything in Sidney's life (the mother family, stardom, everything she ever had, not just the fame like Jill). I personally believe the killers that are the sidekicks like Stu, Mickey, Charlie, are supposed to have weaker motives. Personally, I love the killers in each Scream movie. I know many people hate Jill or find her to be a silly killer because she grew up becoming jealous of Sidney, but, I can imagine that not only did everybody talk about her, but she felt way less appreciated in life, or less loved in life than Sidney ever was and hated that all the love and attention was redirected to Sidney instead because she had to go through her mother being killed by her own boyfriend and then being hunted for a few years until the killings were finally at an end.
I always think up what must've happened in some of the killers' lives (the ones that are the mastermind in each one) that would make them be all knife-happy.
The problem with the movie's end wasn't who the killers were, although I agree the Jill motive needed more backing. The problem was how gutless the movie was with it's main cast. Cox and Campbell both had perfectly poetic death scenes that were ruined for the sake of a cliche happy ending maintaining all of the 'endearing characters' intact.
Gale got herself into a deadly situation by going in to 'examine her equipment' knowing the killer was there; and even before that she was being too independent to survive.
Sidney could have gone out like an ill-fated hero, trying to save her cousin only to be betrayed in the final scenes. There wont be a better chance to give her that death.
Lastly the idea of leaving the killer alive, for once, and leaving the intrigue of a clearly psychotic 'victim in the spotlight', was a perfect opportunity to rebrand the franchise into a new direction.
Alas, all was lost, and scream is deader than dead to me.
This movie really pissed me off. I like the first one a lot and 2-3 weren't bad either but just one thing bothered me and Scream 4 could have finally done it justice but didn't, THE MAIN 3 PEOPLE SURVIVED! These are the main targets in parts 2,3,and 4 and you are telling me that they all lived? AGAIN? AHHHHH. Wes really dropped the ball on this one, there is no f**kin way all 3 should have lived. Sid, Gayle, or Dewey should have bit the dust in this one. AND IT WAS A GOOD MOVIE! Get your head in the game Wes, kill a main character already.
Are you kidding me? You are glad they didnt kill any of the core 3? That is the only thing that could have made this a great movie. Surviving one kill spree=probable, surviving 2=possible, surviving 3=highly unlikely, surviving 4=impossible and stupid. ONE OF THEM HAD TO DIE. This was a good movie that blew it by not killing at least if not all of the main 3.
Next » « Previous