Scream: A Proper Movie Trilogy (VIDEO SCRIPT)

I wanna talk about the Scream Trilogy
__________

Scream is a slasher horror franchise created by Kevin Williamson. Directed by the late Wes Craven, it follows Neve Campbell’s Sidey Prescott; a young girl from the small town of Woodsboro who, after dealing with the murder of her mother, is being traumatized by the seemingly ongoing threat of the serial killer Ghostface, who targets her friends, family and loved ones in an attempt to get to her.

Right now the Scream series has 4 movies under its belt -- all within the same universe revolving around the characters of Sidney Prescott, Courtney Cox’s Gail Weathers and David Arquette’s Dewey Riley -- with a 5th installment planned directed by the Ready or Not pair, and an alternate universe TV show previously on MTV and now on VH1 that turned into an anthology series with its 3rd season.

But what I initially want to focus on in this video are the first three installments of the film franchise. Because despite people’s opinions of Scream 2 and ESPECIALLY Scream 3, the original trilogy of Scream films pretty much ended up being a solid staple of storytelling.

I originally was gonna make either a Masterclass or a Skillshare reference in that line, but I figured, “if they want references in my videos, then they’re gonna have to sponsor me.”

Why do I consider it a staple? Because, due to the meta nature of the franchise as a whole, the first three Scream movies actually showed those that were paying attention to it page by page what it takes narrative-wise to make a proper trilogy. And I’m gonna break down how it happened. 

But in order for one to understand how they did it, one must understand how Scream 3 came to be in the first place.

[phone rings]

LaRon: (Looks to the side and smirks before pressing a button) Hello?

Matt: What’s your favorite scary movie?

LaRon: I know it’s you, Matt.

Matt: Aw, really. Wait. Why do you sound so distant. (Pauses, shows shot of tablet) Dude, am I just my logo on your tablet AGAIN? Didn’t we do this bit already?

LaRon: I mean, yeah. But it’s a good bit!

Matt: But I’ve shown my face like...3 times since the last time we did this! The internet already knows what I look like!

LaRon: How MUCH of the internet knows what you look like?

Matt: (Pauses) Touche. Anyway, you wanna talk about the Scream Trilogy?

LaRon: Yeah, let’s talk about the Scream Trilogy!

Matt: Alright, let’s talk about the Scream Trilogy!

ANOTHER REWRITE

As Matt and I covered in the video on his channel, Williamson sold Scream 3 to Dimension as part of a package deal. When the first Scream got huge box office reception thanks to word of mouth, he took his 5 pages worth of notes for how he envisioned Scream 2 as the base for the script and the movie came out 2 years later. But despite having the same 5-page treatment, the same cannot be said for Scream 3.

You see, by the time Miramax was ready to make Scream 3, Williamson’s success with the first two caused him to become...pretty busy. The most he was able to do was whip up a 20-page bible based on the original 5 pages of notes he sold with the first Scream, and hand it off to Wes and Scream 3’s new writer, Ehren Kruger

Yes. Scream 3 was directed by Wes Craven, and written...by Mr. Kruger (pauses and looks at camera). You can’t make this stuff up, guys...

However, lots of things changed between the 20 pages Williamson supplied Craven and Kruger and the final product. Another thing mentioned by Matt and I in the video on his channel was that as Scream 3 was about to go underway, Columbine happened. And that sparked...a LOT of changes. Some made their way to the final product, while others Wes Craven fought hard to make sure they hit the cutting room floor

Things like reserving character deaths to happen off screen, along with limiting the carnage to a minimum because movies and video games were used as the main scapegoat for the cause of the massacre. Y’know, instead of the lack of laws that would’ve provided a proper form of gun control due to the NRA’s involvement in American politics (stares at camera).

Even without these outside complications, Scream 3 had its own fair share of struggles, especially in the development of the script. Later, Kruger would totally admit that taking over for Williamson was a bit of a daunting feat when it came to properly portraying the main surviving cast of characters. For preparation outside of reading Williamson’s notes for 3, Kruger read over the original scripts for 1 and 2 and watched the films NUMEROUS times, but STILL had a hard time portraying them properly because of his lack of previous involvement. This caused Wes Craven to come in as a bit of a consultant and ghost writer for the movie, helping Kruger out with character personalities thanks to his experience with them. This also included providing uncredited rewrites to portions of the script -- sometimes on the day of shooting, which Craven was familiar from the days of filming Scream 2, which had its own extensive rewrites when the killers’ original identities were leaked onto the internet.

What DID make the final cut (Ha) was the decision to change the location of the movie from Woodsboro to Hollywood. While they definitely paid homage to the concept in-movie with its in-universe movie franchise “Stab” and made it work with the narrative, the “Return to Woodsboro” aspect of the script was avoided in order to stay away from any negative criticism Dimension could receive by having the film feature mass murder in a small town after said real life events be seen as insensitive. However, considering the narrative of the trilogy of movies following the surviving characters from High School in Scream, to college in Scream 2, the more mature versions of the surviving ensemble having various careers and seeing their lives affected by their trauma being adapted by Hollywood, narrative-wise made more sense.

It’s also a decision I’m VERY glad they went with, because it makes the way the story is brought full circle feel like the perfect way of going about it. But in order to understand why, we have to go back to the beginning.

NO SHARON STONE

So for everyone who hasn’t seen this trilogy yet, here’s my mandatory warning that I’m about to cross into spoiler territory for the first 3 films in the Scream franchise. I’d suggest skipping to another point in time in this video if you haven’t seen it yet, but the whole video is about how this franchise works as a trilogy, so...?

Anyways, the reason why I say we have to go back to the beginning of the franchise to learn about how the trilogy aspect of Scream 3 is properly played out, is because of the fan-favorite character of the Scream franchise Randy Meeks played by Jamie Kennedy. While he didn’t survive the events of Scream 2, he had a cameo in Scream 3 that allowed him to deliver his usual meta exposition of how things media-related pop culture usually work in the situation the surviving cast found themselves in, which I thought was a pretty clever way of pulling it off 

In his video tape that he conveniently decided to film during the events of Scream 2, he pretty much gives us a rundown of how successful trilogies work as opposed to third installments of a franchise that just end up being another sequel. The first points are that unexpected backstory and exposition are always the dead giveaways of a trilogy. Because that backstory and exposition always lead back to the beginning of the franchise -- ie, the first movie, television season, book, video game, whathaveyou -- and either finding out something within that story that wasn’t true, plays a role in the current scenario, or both.

So because trilogies always reveal something new about aspects of the first installment during the third, that means we have to reconsider everything that happened in the first Scream. This is the recontextualization that Scream 3 is channeling in its narrative in order to make everything come full circle. Maybe that’s frustrating for a long-time fan, maybe it’s exciting. In either case, the ties between the beginning and end of a trilogy are designed to create a complete package - a loop that encases the entire story for the feeling of closure and cohesion.

And in the case of Scream, it’s the motive of Skeet Ulrich’s Billy for not only why he’s mass murdering white suburban California high schoolers, but why he killed Maureen Prescott -- Sidney Prescott’s mother.

(Billy’s motive clip)

To quote Eddie Valiant from “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”

(That’s the connection clip)

The reveal of Billy being not only one half of Ghostface but also the one who killed Maureen and framed Cotton Weary was a solid and complete reasoning on its own. But in order for Scream 3 to be a proper trilogy, it’s also the only thread that’s strong enough to carry over from the first one in order to make that loop so that the plot of the third one can work. So while everyone is fine with the revelation of Billy being Maureen’s killer, there’s only one logical way of exploring a pretty concrete storyline that began and finished with Scream 1 that doesn’t feel like the narrative of Scream 3 is reaching. And that’s by asking one question: How did Billy find out?

Some might think that going that route is a bit far-fetched; that it's milking a dead cow at that point. But considering Scream 2 pretty much took Billy’s lingering presence as far as it could go by having his mother be the mind behind the killings in Scream 2 out of revenge for Sidney killing Billy and Maureen ruining her family, it’s safe to say that Craven and Williamson have been bleeding it dry for a while. Scream 2 is designed to take the backstory of the original and expand it into a more complicated, messy web of people being impacted by murder even more than we once suspected. The sins of others coming back to haunt those who never knew about them. But like any plot or story angle that might seem unnecessary on paper, it all comes down to delivery. Out of the 5 Ghostfaces in the original trilogy, who would’ve guessed that Roseanne’s sister would be the best one?

It’s because of what Craven and Williamson were able to stretch from Scream to Scream 2 that we now have the narrative possibilities that we do for Scream 3 in order for it to successfully tie in to Scream 1. And it’s specifically a hybrid of 2 tropes. Insane Troll Logic, and Sins of our Fathers. Or in this case, Mothers.

The latter parent-based trope involves someone enacting revenge on the descendant of an individual who did a specific wrong to them. Mostly because said someone is already dead, but the motive usually varies. In the case of the original Scream trilogy, the individual is Maureen Prescott while the descendant in question is Sidney Prescott. Basically if you’ve seen any of the solo Spidey movies in the MCU, you’ve seen this trope in action already.

Scream 1 was a unique case in that tropes regard, because Billy Loomis -- the “someone” in this instance -- DID get his revenge on Maureen, the person who did him wrong, by murdering her and framing Cotton Weary, the man she was publicly having an affair with, as the murderer. But its because he establishes a relationship with Sidney in the first movie with the intention of killing her to satisfy his psychopathy, that Billy establishes the need to kill her with Insane Troll Logic; the kind of logic that’s so demented and lost in its own sanity, that any attempts to reason with it would make it even more incomprehensible than it already is. Thus adding that variant for allowing the Sins of the Fathers trope to properly play out in the narrative.

Scream 2 dips into the hybrid of these two tropes as well. Timothy Olyphant’s Mickey is DEFINITELY a victim of the Insane Troll Logic with his reasonings for wanting Sidney dead. But in the case of Billy’s mother Mrs. Loomis, you would think that Sins of the Fathers wouldn’t play a factor in her motivations because she’s technically getting her revenge on the individual who did a specific wrong to her. Then she says this:

(Why don’t you blame YOUR mother)

Though meant to be a hypocritical burn from a character clearly inspired by Mrs. Vorhees, that bit of dialogue still makes the situation very clear: Mrs. Loomis blames Maureen for all of these incidents that ended up with her taking the mantle of Ghostface to begin with. Despite wanting revenge on Sidney, even SHE realizes that this is still all Maureen’s fault. That’s when we realize that even though it’s not as cut and dry as it was in the first Scream, the repercussions of Maureen’s choices -- the sins of the mother -- are still present, because Sidney is still suffering for her actions. The plot line of Maureen’s past wasn’t resolved with her killing Billy and Stu at the end of the first Scream. If anything, the overall story arc of Maureen Prescott is what’s connecting these movies together. And it’s because of that, there are more possibilities to explore in not just another movie, but one that can possibly see the arc of Maureen Prescott come to a proper end.

WELCOME TO THE FINAL ACT

Considering they’ve been exploring Sidney’s complicated relationship with her mom as a personal trauma in both Scream 1 and Scream 2, exploring how they can take it further in a way that brings a satisfying culmination in Scream 3 was pretty much the only route they could take the narrative. And part of that involved exploring Maureen’s past more in depth, putting salt in a wound that’s still pretty fresh to Sidney who had only recently found out about her double life and recuperating from the actions of a family that was impacted by said double life

(Wide eyes) Holy Shit. Maureen Prescott is Pink Diamond. WHOOO....

Anyways, yes. In order for there to be a strong enough connection between Scream 1 and Scream 3 for it to be a proper trilogy, we once again have to put the arc of Maureen Prescott front and center in the narrative. And one of the benefits of the movie taking place in Hollywood as opposed to Woodsboro, is that now we can explore more aspects about her life than the first two movies delivered.

Enter the Rena Reynolds mystery that Gail Weathers and Jennifer Jolie find themselves solving over the course of the movie when the new Ghostface decides to leave old headshots of a young Maureen Prescott at every murder scene, taking responsibility for her death. Through this mystery we find out that Rena Reynolds was the stage name for Maureen back when she tried to make it big in Hollywood and was in a few B-movies by Hollywood producer John Milton, and the movie heavily implied that she got the roles that she did because she slept with the right people

While one that didn’t really age well, I admit, we now have an explanation as to why Maureen had affairs with both Cotton Weary and Billy’s father in the past when she gave up her Hollywood life to return to the simple one in Woodsboro. So how do we use that information to help better explore how Billy found out that his father was having an affair with Sidney’s mother? Easy. We have the decisions Maureen made as Rena Reynolds come back to bite her, in the form of a bastard. A mastermind, but a bastard nonetheless.

A bastard named (Roman Bridger, director. And brother)

So now we go back to Scream 1 and the question we’re presenting to the main thread we’re carrying over to Scream 3. How did Billy find out that Maureen Prescott was sleeping with his father? Roman Bridger told him. He told him, by showing Billy a homemade movie of all the men Maureen was sleeping with after her return to Woodsboro that he made out of spite, including Billy’s father. Because just like her life as Rena Reynolds, Maureen left Roman behind because he was a reminder of her past.

Now there’s the matter of WHY he’s doing this. Technically, he didn’t HAVE to kill anyone. He already got his revenge on Maureen for shutting him out of her life by giving Billy the motivation to kill her; he got away scott-free. And here’s where the return of the Insane Troll Logic trope comes into play. Because to Roman, seeing all the attention Sidney gained from the murder spree that he inspired Billy and Stu to go on was too much for him. Add the Stab movies and the Windsor College murders in the mix, and now Sidney’s living in Roman’s head rent free up. That is, until his own psychopathy convinces him that framing her and taking her “fame” she received since then is the only way he can reclaim everything Maureen denied him.

(You’re gonna pay for what you’ve done Sidney)

Now the three films are better interwoven with each other. The Sins of our Fathers trope that’s been explored with Sidney and Maureen since the first movie has finally come full circle. Even the Insane Troll Logic trope that accompanied it throughout the franchise -- and let’s be honest, one of the main tropes that made it on to Scream 4 -- can be finally put under the tree with a big red bow on top of it. Because by giving Sidney -- and please excuse my Nomura reference here -- a Master Xehanort-esque mastermind antagonist that was behind everything as a whole, not only provides her a pinnacle element in her development, but also wraps up the arc that the tropes played around with since the first movie, creating a proper movie trilogy

(I’m a director, Sidney. I direct) 

CONCLUSION

Outside of its comedic moments, I personally think that part of the reason why Scream isn’t taken as seriously as other slasher horror works from Craven is because its a franchise about the meta of slasher horror, despite the franchise being directed by one of the founding fathers of slasher horror cinema. Because that, the meta is perceived as self-awareness, which as a result turns to parody if left unchecked.

And considering that Scream was popular enough to use as the basis to kick off the modern parody subgenre with the Wayans Brothers’ Scary Movie franchise -- which, fun fact, was the ORIGINAL title of Scream -- people started looking at the franchise as more of a fun romp in slasher horror related works as opposed to actual slasher horror.

It's because of that, the opportunity to look at the Scream trilogy as a learning experience that provides proper building blocks for long form storytelling is lost to those that aren’t paying attention, because all they see is parody. Which is a bit sad. Because once you pay attention to the information the first three movies give -- especially once you learn the rules that the third one provides -- going back and looking at all of your favorite trilogies and seeing just how much Randy’s “Very Simple Formula” was implemented across multiple forms of media is VERY refreshing.

Yes, the obvious ones are Obi-Wan adding more context in Return of the Jedi to what he initially told Luke about his father in A New Hope when it comes to the original Star Wars trilogy. You can even say the same thing about Revenge of the Sith’s reveal that Chancellor Palpatine is Darth Sidious -- aka The Phantom Menace -- in the prequel trilogy.

But then you fast forward to the lesson of forgiveness Sam Raimi initially based his script for Spider-Man 3 on when we find out that it was Sandman that shot Uncle Ben, not the thug Peter chased down in the first movie. The “great love” that was taken from Ra’s Al Ghul that he mentioned to Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins back when he went by the alias Ducard? She gave birth to his daughter Talia before dying in prison, and she grew up to enact her revenge on Batman for killing him and finish his mission of destroying Gotham with Bane by her side in The Dark Knight Rises.

Matt: Damn, you’re really gonna make me remember The Dark Knight Rises right now?

LaRon: Listen, I said they were PROPER trilogies, not PERFECT trilogies. Besides, what was wrong with Rises?

Matt: Really? You’re gonna ask that question knowing the inconsistencies in the timeframe Bruce was taken to the prison, healed his back with a magic punch, and was able to get back to Gotham?

LaRon: Oh! You wanna talk about inconsistencies? Mister “Let me change my perfectly good theme song now that I have a Patreon to promote”? Don’t think I haven’t noticed in your videos lately!

Matt: (Gasps) Oh my God, La’Ron, you watch my videos??

LaRon: (Laughs) I can’t fucking stand you...

Matt: (Laughs Along)

But yes, even Ghostbusters: The Video Game -- the closest thing we're ever gonna have to a proper Ghostbusters 3 -- took the small amount of exposition Egon gave to the rest of the crew about Ivo Shandor when explaining the apartment Gozer’s shrine was on top of in the original movie when Walter Peck had them arrested, and used it to beautifully explain why he and his Gozer cult are the reasons there was so much paranormal activity happening in New York City to begin with. It even explained the mood slime from Ghostbusters 2. All of these are prime examples of how 1 aspect of storytelling throughout multiple mediums -- both past and present -- was brought to the attention of a generation of mainstream moviegoers, thanks to a slasher horror trilogy known for laying out the tropes and traditions of the media that formed it.

Great trilogies are like an unbroken loop, permanently tying the end to the beginning and making viewers want to re-experience the entire story, this time with a new perspective. Like Scream’s metatextual addressing of their nature, watching trilogies naturally makes us more aware of the process of storytelling. Becoming aware of its shortcomings when flawed and being rewarded when done right.

It’s pretty much why nowadays when I look at the third installment of media franchises, I actively look for the story thread that connects the third installment to the first installment and see if it leads to something rewarding or disappointing. Trust me, I’ve experienced WAY more disappointments than I have rewards -- especially when they do the work to set themselves up for greatness -- and that’s fine. Because now I know what it takes to make a true and proper trilogy -- movie or otherwise. And it’s all thanks to someone with a knife and a mask asking “What’s your favorite scary movie?”