Film Theory: I think I know who the Killers are - Scream 6
Feb 21, 2022 15:57:10 GMT -5
nickmeece and loomis96 like this
Post by Stu Macher on Feb 21, 2022 15:57:10 GMT -5
There is quite a lot to go through with this theory so please bare with me and I'll get through it as quick as possible:
I believe I know exactly who the killers are for the sixth and most likely final installment to the franchise prior to the reboot. Scream as a franchise has always been very precise about it's rules, i.e how people die, who kills who, do you see a dead body, there are always two killers etc. For almost every single kill in the franchise we get to see the kills in their full glory, from start to finish, except for three. There are just three people in the entire franchise who have not had definitive deaths on screen and what's even better is that two of them are killers (technically).
First, let me break down how I came to this conclusion with the most important clue first: Kirby. We as fans all know how suspiciously filmed Kirby's so called "death" was in Scream 4 and to absolutely no one's surprise, she is 100% confirmed to be alive and well in Scream 5 (there is a very small, blink and you'll miss it easter egg that confirms this, rewatch the James A. Janice aka YouTube's Dead Meat James Cameo scene to see if you can spot it) which now also confirms the long suspected rule of "if there is no body, there was no kill". Jumping off the back of that, I scoured my brain to try and figure out who, if anyone else, was killed in this franchise but never had a body shown and after a brief moment of thought I realized that there are only two other people that died in the entire franchise without a body being shown and both of them were killers (technically).
Let me explain the technicality first: During the production of Scream 3, there were multiple script re-writes due to leaks and the like which caused some major shifts in story towards the very end of filming. This explains away some of the very odd scenes that weren't rewritten in time and consequently make the third film pretty confusing upon multiple watches. Originally the rule of "There's always two killers" was in fact true, even for the third movie and it was none other than Angelina Tyler (Emily Mortimer) who originally assisted Roman in his killings. Now obviously script rewrites play a role in this scenario but even with that caveat attached, her death is still one of the more "odd" ones of the franchise and very much mirrors Kirby's death in Scream 4. Not to mention the fact that she is the only other character in that film that acts strangely enough and weirdly enough to be considered a possible suspect, plus there are multiple kills throughout the film that are very tough to explain without there being an accomplice to Roman's Hollywood killing spree. (In particular, the explosion kill and the attack which happens whilst Roman is supposed to be being questioned in police custody.)
Now there are two vital clues in the last two films that give major hints towards there being an unidentified killer out there somewhere, waiting to make themselves heard again: The first one is of course the fact that with Kirby's confirmed survival, the whole "no dead body" rule seems to be very much in effect when it comes to this franchise and Angelina's body was famously dragged off-screen to receive an entirely unknown fate (to the audience) in the climax of Scream 3. The second and arguably far more important clue is delivered in the latest entry into the franchise and is a line delivered to Sidney by Amber in the climax of the film that is given significant reference (by that I mean it is treated with great importance by the shot i.e camera lingers, characters do not immediately respond etc.) which reads "There's ALWAYS two killers Sid". In my humble opinion, with the way Scream 5 spent the majority of it's time harking back to the original and referencing unknown secrets again, a lot like 3 did, (as well as multiple references to Scream 3 throughout the film such as reused soundtrack cues and songs etc.) it only makes sense for me that they were hinting at a huge culmination of sorts with the next film. A big final whiplash of a surprise to throw everyone off guard, even the audience. Bring back some once thought truths and expose them as lies kind of thing and there's no better way to do that than to bring back a killer who not only was thought to be dead, but was never even caught in the first place.
This brings me onto the second killer of Scream 6 and if any of you have been following the actor Matthew Lillard as of late then you'll all know exactly where this is heading as he has confirmed that the character is in fact very much 100% alive and well in the Scream universe and there were even plans to bring the character back for Scream 5, before it was decided that the climax of the film had too much going on already. But yes folks, it is now confirmed that the legendary Stu Macher is in fact still alive. Looks like the TV didn't quite finish him off after all. See what I mean about how important it is to see a dead body in this franchise folks? I have a very strong suspicion that Scream 6 will have Angelina Tyler return as the killer to not only reveal that she was an accomplice of Romans but also that once she went into hiding following that film, she happened to come across another killer in hiding who had just been released from prison and that person will be Stu. From there they formed a relationship and set their sights on getting revenge.
Now from here, we can go one of two ways and either keep it simple by just having Stu and Angelina be the killers of the final installment to help wrap it all up and make it feel personal again. Or, and this is my preferred method, we give one last huge tribute to Wes Craven and do what he did with his original trilogy: Tie up all the lose ends, expose some truths and lies and let the audience know that once again, "The Movies" were never the real motives for the killers, it was Stu and Angelina pulling the strings all along. Just like how she helped Roman pull the strings all those years ago. To me, it makes perfect sense. Stu never met Roman according to Roman himself but he definitely knew about him as he instructed Billy to find a patsy who could take the fall and go to prison for the killings. Roman most likely was also using Angelina as an accomplice for this same exact reason which means not only would Stu and Angelina have strong motives for killing Sidney but also have motive for manipulating other killers to do their dirty work as that's exactly what has happened to them both in the past. I feel like this is exactly the sort of thing that Craven and Williamson would put together and it feels to me like it would give the entire franchise a nice and neat bow to be wrapped all up with. I mean, let's face it, the killers for the last two entries haven't exactly had the greatest of motives for their killing sprees anyway, especially in this latest entry.
Anyway, that's my little theory for you all and I'd absolutely love to hear your thoughts on it, positive or negative.
Until next time folks - Stu.
I believe I know exactly who the killers are for the sixth and most likely final installment to the franchise prior to the reboot. Scream as a franchise has always been very precise about it's rules, i.e how people die, who kills who, do you see a dead body, there are always two killers etc. For almost every single kill in the franchise we get to see the kills in their full glory, from start to finish, except for three. There are just three people in the entire franchise who have not had definitive deaths on screen and what's even better is that two of them are killers (technically).
First, let me break down how I came to this conclusion with the most important clue first: Kirby. We as fans all know how suspiciously filmed Kirby's so called "death" was in Scream 4 and to absolutely no one's surprise, she is 100% confirmed to be alive and well in Scream 5 (there is a very small, blink and you'll miss it easter egg that confirms this, rewatch the James A. Janice aka YouTube's Dead Meat James Cameo scene to see if you can spot it) which now also confirms the long suspected rule of "if there is no body, there was no kill". Jumping off the back of that, I scoured my brain to try and figure out who, if anyone else, was killed in this franchise but never had a body shown and after a brief moment of thought I realized that there are only two other people that died in the entire franchise without a body being shown and both of them were killers (technically).
Let me explain the technicality first: During the production of Scream 3, there were multiple script re-writes due to leaks and the like which caused some major shifts in story towards the very end of filming. This explains away some of the very odd scenes that weren't rewritten in time and consequently make the third film pretty confusing upon multiple watches. Originally the rule of "There's always two killers" was in fact true, even for the third movie and it was none other than Angelina Tyler (Emily Mortimer) who originally assisted Roman in his killings. Now obviously script rewrites play a role in this scenario but even with that caveat attached, her death is still one of the more "odd" ones of the franchise and very much mirrors Kirby's death in Scream 4. Not to mention the fact that she is the only other character in that film that acts strangely enough and weirdly enough to be considered a possible suspect, plus there are multiple kills throughout the film that are very tough to explain without there being an accomplice to Roman's Hollywood killing spree. (In particular, the explosion kill and the attack which happens whilst Roman is supposed to be being questioned in police custody.)
Now there are two vital clues in the last two films that give major hints towards there being an unidentified killer out there somewhere, waiting to make themselves heard again: The first one is of course the fact that with Kirby's confirmed survival, the whole "no dead body" rule seems to be very much in effect when it comes to this franchise and Angelina's body was famously dragged off-screen to receive an entirely unknown fate (to the audience) in the climax of Scream 3. The second and arguably far more important clue is delivered in the latest entry into the franchise and is a line delivered to Sidney by Amber in the climax of the film that is given significant reference (by that I mean it is treated with great importance by the shot i.e camera lingers, characters do not immediately respond etc.) which reads "There's ALWAYS two killers Sid". In my humble opinion, with the way Scream 5 spent the majority of it's time harking back to the original and referencing unknown secrets again, a lot like 3 did, (as well as multiple references to Scream 3 throughout the film such as reused soundtrack cues and songs etc.) it only makes sense for me that they were hinting at a huge culmination of sorts with the next film. A big final whiplash of a surprise to throw everyone off guard, even the audience. Bring back some once thought truths and expose them as lies kind of thing and there's no better way to do that than to bring back a killer who not only was thought to be dead, but was never even caught in the first place.
This brings me onto the second killer of Scream 6 and if any of you have been following the actor Matthew Lillard as of late then you'll all know exactly where this is heading as he has confirmed that the character is in fact very much 100% alive and well in the Scream universe and there were even plans to bring the character back for Scream 5, before it was decided that the climax of the film had too much going on already. But yes folks, it is now confirmed that the legendary Stu Macher is in fact still alive. Looks like the TV didn't quite finish him off after all. See what I mean about how important it is to see a dead body in this franchise folks? I have a very strong suspicion that Scream 6 will have Angelina Tyler return as the killer to not only reveal that she was an accomplice of Romans but also that once she went into hiding following that film, she happened to come across another killer in hiding who had just been released from prison and that person will be Stu. From there they formed a relationship and set their sights on getting revenge.
Now from here, we can go one of two ways and either keep it simple by just having Stu and Angelina be the killers of the final installment to help wrap it all up and make it feel personal again. Or, and this is my preferred method, we give one last huge tribute to Wes Craven and do what he did with his original trilogy: Tie up all the lose ends, expose some truths and lies and let the audience know that once again, "The Movies" were never the real motives for the killers, it was Stu and Angelina pulling the strings all along. Just like how she helped Roman pull the strings all those years ago. To me, it makes perfect sense. Stu never met Roman according to Roman himself but he definitely knew about him as he instructed Billy to find a patsy who could take the fall and go to prison for the killings. Roman most likely was also using Angelina as an accomplice for this same exact reason which means not only would Stu and Angelina have strong motives for killing Sidney but also have motive for manipulating other killers to do their dirty work as that's exactly what has happened to them both in the past. I feel like this is exactly the sort of thing that Craven and Williamson would put together and it feels to me like it would give the entire franchise a nice and neat bow to be wrapped all up with. I mean, let's face it, the killers for the last two entries haven't exactly had the greatest of motives for their killing sprees anyway, especially in this latest entry.
Anyway, that's my little theory for you all and I'd absolutely love to hear your thoughts on it, positive or negative.
Until next time folks - Stu.