Why does Ghostface say that Casey got the second question on the phone wrong? He asked who the killer of Friday the Thirteenth was, she said Jason.
I think they meant the killer from the first movie not the entire series. The killer from that movie was Jason's mom.
It was a trick question. Ghostface never specified which Friday the 13th, which was the whole point. In the 1st one Jason's mom's the killer, but Alice also kills her, thus she's a "killer" too. Then there's the copycat in Part 5, then there's Jason.
Yeah, it was definitely a trick question. Casey was screwed no matter what she said. I'm paraphrasing here, but at the end Stu and Billy say something like "Oh, this is the fun part. We ask you the questions, you get it wrong, BOOKAW! You die!" "You get it right...and you die."
Does Ghostface ever ask quizzes about horror movies in any of the other movies?
Yes, in the fourth one. Also, logically speaking, none of the other killers could actually know about the trivia. All 4 people involved are dead.
They could know about it becauseBilly and Stu told Sidney about the trivia part
Was there ever any reason for Ghostface to kill Casey? The other characters he killed were linked to his motive or were in his way. It just seems to be a random kill.
Stu and Casey dated at one point. It probably ended badly and he wanted revenge.
Why did the police not do some tests on the mask, once they go it? There could have been some fingerprints on it or there might have been some DNA on the inside where it touched the killer's face.
The traces would have been very faint, and a lot of small-town police departments don't have very big forensics budgets, especially back then.
At the end, why didn't Stu and Billy give each other those stab woundsafter polishing off Sidney and her father? It would have been a lot easier and less risky.
They wanted Sidney to watch? Billy was angry at her because her mother broke up his parents' marriage, maybe he wanted to make her suffer by drawing out the process and show her exactly how he was going to get away with it before he killed her.
Billy had basically fallen to the point of Ax-Crazy at this point and Stu was never the sharpest tool in the shed to begin with. It probably wasn't a well thought out plan.
How, exactly, could the killers expect to get away with their plan? Billy would have a lot of explaining to do - like why was his shirt covered in red tinted corn syrup and why was the corn syrup also all over the master bedroom in a way that would make it obvious that somebody faked a killing. With semen and other samples on the bed, it goes without saying that the police would very quickly figure out that Sydney had sex with him that night in that bed and that shortly after, he pretended to be killed. To top it off, he also had gunshot residue on his hands, and Sydney's father - the man supposed to be framed for the murders - would show obvious signs of being tied up for a couple days not the least of which would be the unmistakable marring of his face and wrists from the duct tape.
Don't mean to be condescending with the list format but it helps me organize my response
A) The cops likely wouldn't have tested the red stains in the room and the stains on Billy, they would assume it's blood since Billy and the rest of the house are already covered in blood.
B) Semen at a wild teen party is nothing new, they would have figured someone got laid before the murder broke out.
C) Billy and Stu have been badly wounded, the first priority wouldn't have been to accuse them of a crime but to get them to a hospital. They would be cleaned up at said hospital, so there goes the gun residue.
D) This is the only one that really could have screwed them but they're badly wounded and the only people left to tell the story (if everything went according to plan) so the cops would have to choose to investigate the markings on him and believe that Billy and Stu stabbed each other and made up the story or excuse the marks as something that happened during the massacre and forget about it.
Why does Sidney have a grudge against Cotton for something he didn't do?
Mainly because he was trying to pressure her into doing a interview.
Although to be fair, he had been told she agreed to do the interview. He did mention that he wanted to get the whole ordeal behind the two of them and try to get on better terms.
He did admit that Maureen was having an affair with him. Sidney likely would have disliked him no matter what out of loyalty to her father.
Sidney was trying to move on with her life. Getting harassed into doing publicity on the story of her dead mother and friends isn't something she was too keen on.
Does Too Soon not exist in the Scream universe? You would think that Stab would get a serious case of Dude, Not Funny!, with the short time frame and especially given the fact it was a crowd-pleasing slasher flick based off of a real-life tragedy. Sure the whole thing was basically a commentary on the screwed-up bloodlust of pop culture, but it's still incredibly disturbing.
I think it becomes Fridge Brilliance when you note this attitude is reinforced constantly around Sydney and company.
Sidney automatically recognises Mrs Loomis, despite the makeover. Gail, who is a reporter, which presumably means she's supposed to have an eye for details, doesn't. Is that realistic?
Being a reporter doesn't mean you have a photographic memory. Reporters are typically more concerned with retaining information rather than faces.
Sidney was Billy's girlfriend and likely knew her for several years before she left. Gail likely didn't know the woman and says she'd only seen pictures. Up until the reveal she thought "Debbie Salt" was a student from one of her lectures. If Gail thought she looked familiar, that's where she'd associate her with. She's not expecting Billy's long lost mother to be waltzing around the campus is she?
Jay and Silent Bob's cameo. It mostly appears as a throwaway gag but when them existing within the Screamverse, it begs the question, how much of The View Askewniverse films are canon? It just boggles the mind.
Equally possible is it's Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith who just happen to be in-character.
What the hell was with Roman being the killer? Gale finds him in the basement, and after checking his body pretty thoroughly she declares him dead, and they never explain how he was able to STOP HIS FREAKING PULSE.
Considering Roman was a director, he could have access to various special effects, including stuff that mask his pulse. Or Gale could have been too frantic and just didn't notice correctly...
Plus, at this point, we've already established she's not the brightest bulb in the box. Remember, she's a reporter, dammit, not a doctor. And with the whole "Psychotic Killer on The Loose for the Third Time" thing, she'd likely assume that he's already dead.
So... how did Roman get Sidney's phone number anyway? The only ones who used Dewey's phone where Jennifer and Kincaid.
I think they decided that he got it off of his phone's memory/contacts.
Is it possible he just traced her phone when he called her on the hotline? I mean, you don't generally run that kind of thing out of your home.
Gale: Do you have Sid's number in your memory? Dewey: *looks up as if he's searching through his brain's memory* Gale: No, doofus! Your phone.
Ghostface being revealed to be Charlie and Jill. During the murders that take place at Jill's house one of the killers is seen at the Stab movie marathon and the other killer is said to be with someone else. After the murders, Sidney immediately leaves for Kirby's house where both killers already are. There's a significant amount of time before Sidney shows up, even though the killer would conceivably left around the same time, so how did the killer get to Kirby's house so fast? And who killed the cops and Kate?
While there's been a theory of a third killer, Jill does states she was the one that killed her mother. And considering that the Kirby IM could have been a decoy, Jill had enough time to kill the cops, as well as her mother with or without Charlie's help.
But if Sidney and the killer leave Jill's house at roughly around the same time, why does it take Sidney so much longer to get to Kirby's house?
Wordof God states that its supposedly to be Stu's house and also it could have taken Sidney some time there because she hadn't returned to her hometown in some time.
Jill actually says "My own mother had to die", not quite the same thing as "I killed my own mother." I definitely buy the 3rd killer idea though. I mean, to kill Kate and the cops, Jill or Charlie would have to be in 2 places at once and their bodies are notably smaller than that of the actors in the ghostface costume when Jill wasn't wearing it. Besides, I just don't buy that Charlie could kick down that door.
I agree, but maybe this Ghostface was running on virginal power... and the juice.
Even if so, it stil doesn't explain Olivia's death. Hoss and Perkins were in the car when Olivia got home and went up stairs. This means Charlie was already in her closet when she goes upstairs. Then, just before Olivia gets butchered, Hoss and Perkins are chasing after Ghostface running around outside, with Jill and Charlie's locations being known, (Jill in her room and Charlie killing poor Olivia) who were they chasing? I'd buy a prankster except they say something like "He's like a ghost," which implies it's actually Ghostface.
Hoss and Perkins little chase could've just been Trevor after his talk with Jill. He is wearing dark clothing and makes note of calling himself a ninja, so it's possible he was noticed on his way out, evaded the police, only to come back after the killer struck. "He's like a ghost" was just to throw you off. Ghost, ninja, same difference
It's not known how long Jill was gone for. She could have only just left by the time Sidney discovered her room was empty. She's just killed the cops so she panics when she sees her mother's car pull up and kills her to give Sidney a reason to go to Kirby's alone. So then she just hurries over to Kirby's. She's best friends with her so perhaps she knows the shortest way to the house? Remember she can cut through other people's gardens and go anywhere while Sidney has to take the road. To a house she hasn't been to before. At night.
I buy that, but also the same thing happened in the first Scream when Sidney is attacked by someone (possibly Stu) in Ghostface attire in the bathroom. A lot of Scream is based off of misdirection really.
I'm pretty sure the bathroom attack was a prankster. Stu was with Tatum and Billy was just outside the bathroom. Besides, we saw a ton of people running around and it's not like he evaded police officers unlike in Scream 4
In Scream 4, it is shown that the fictional movie-within-a-movie Stab 3 ended up being completed. How did the studio manage to finish the movie when most of the cast, including the director, are dead?
In Scream 4, they mention that only the first three films were based on fact. They started from scratch, using the events of Scream 3 as the basis for Stab 3. The "return to Woodsboro" plot originally planned for Stab 3 was abandoned in favor of the more interesting story that actually happened.
It is shown that Stab 6 actually takes place inside Stab 7 (the characters in Stab 7 are seen watching it). Does this mean that Stab 7 is actually the sixth Stab movie? Or was there a seperate Stab 6?
The marathon was said to include "all seven" Stab movies, so presumably Stab 6 exists. The movies apparently got increasingly weird as time went on, so perhaps Stab 7 was just bizarrely meta.
I get that Stab 7 opening with the beginning of Stab 6 was a twist to throw off viewers of Scream 4, but how would that work within the Scream universe? If anybody had seen Stab 6, they'd instantly recognize those events once Stab 7 started. Thus, it's less a twist and more just a really confusing prank to make people think they're watching Stab 6 again.
Imagine this, you've seen Stab 6, and you watch Stab 7. The opening is either (A) the opening from Stab 6, which, if it was me, would make me take out the DVD and make sure it was the right one or (B) a different opening that claims to be Stab 6, which, because you've already seen it, you know to be fake, thus ruining the twist. Either way it doesn't work.
How on earth could Jill not even take five seconds to make sure whether Sidney was dead or not? For someone trying to be the Magnificent Bastard, they sure clutched the Idiot Ball harder than any of the previous killers.
How did they manage to have a final showdown in an ICU without anyone noticing? An ICU is staffed around the clock, with regular checks on patients. And they weren't exactly quiet.
A deleted scene reveals that they were in a basement meeting during those scenes.
The shooting the killer in the head thing bugs me. I have no problem with a character killing in self-defence. The intent there isn't to kill but to protect their own life with their attacker's death being a consequence of that. However, if the killer is unarmed and weak enough that they can be restrained, then, the response should be to wait until medical help and the police show up. Shooting an unarmed individual who has recently been unconscious, has lost a significant amount of blood, and who may or may not have internal injuries doesn't fall under the category of self-defence due to the fact less extreme options are available. 'This person killed my loved ones and tried to kill me,' are not acceptable moral nor legal justifications for taking an at-the-moment defenceless person's life. Sidney, Dewey, and whoever else shot the still alive killers are murderers themselves.
The only kill you could possibly be referring to is Mrs. Loomis. Billy, Roman and Jill were all shot in the head when they were attacking Sidney, Dewey and Gail. Sidney was confident that Mrs. Loomis would return for a "final scare", just as Billy and Mickey did. Yes, the right thing to do would be to wait for the police to get there and deal with it. But the woman a psychotic murderer who'd killed Sidney's closest friend, but was also responsible for planning the deaths of her boyfriend, roomate and several others and had planned to kill her and frame her for the murders. The bitch may have been defenseless, but getting shot in the head when she was probably dead anyway does not put her in the category of "sympathetic mass-murderer".
And as for "Sidney's a murderer" thing, that's the point.
Remember also that these are Genre Savvy horror movie characters, so they know that if they don't finish off the killers, it will almost certainly lead to dozens more deaths. In horror films, after all, Police Are Useless, every prison is made of cardboard, and every injury that isn't explicity a killing blow is Only a Flesh Wound. How many people died because Dr. Loomis didn't headshot Michael Myers the first chance he got? If Charles Lee Ray had his brains blown out before performing his voodoo curse, he could never have become the killer doll Chucky. If Tommy Jarvis had severed Jason Voorhees' head rather than just hacking his face a bit, that killer may never have come back to slaughter hundreds more people. Since the Scream characters are aware of the horror movie conventions in effect in their daily lives, I would argue finishing off a 'defenseless' killer is technically self defense in this case.
"You're forgetting one thing about Billy Loomis... I fucking killed him."
Legally, it might not completely excuse the killing, but it would probably make it legally manslaughter (or a less severe degree of murder). If the shooter has just seen their victim kill multiple other people and repeatedly attempt to kill them, that situation is definitely going to affect their judgement, and the law would most likely take that into account.