One reason the lost brother plot doesn't work is…
-
Housefan2 — 11 years ago(February 26, 2015 09:44 AM)
It's possible Roman didn't mention his identity to Billy. It wasn't really necessary to tell him that information. He showed Billy the footage of Billy's father meeting and carrying on a secret affair with Maureen and that was enough to set him off and decide to kill her.
In his reveal, Billy never mentions how he found out about Maureen and his father. He just tells Sidney that her mother was having an affair with his father and that's why his mother abandoned him.
I wasn't a huge fan of the lost brother twist but I'll give them credit for not contradicting what happened in the past. You're right, though, it is a stretch.
Lizzie
To love another person is to see the face of God! - Les Miserables -
Geeky Randy — 10 years ago(September 04, 2015 09:45 PM)
by
Housefan2
Thu Feb 26 2015 09:44:59
IMDb member since February 2005
It's possible Roman didn't mention his identity to Billy.
^ This is what I always assumed. Roman being Sidney's brother had nothing to do with why Billy wanted Maureen dead. If Roman was as clever as he was developed to be, we could assume he never told Billy he was Sidney's brother, therefore leaving Billy without a need to mention anything to Sidney.
Book:
http://geeksteronmovies.blogspot.com/p/the-geekster-guide.html
Votes: 3,520 -
FifthElement85 — 10 years ago(April 08, 2015 01:22 PM)
I don't knowI thought the lost brother angle worked perfectly. And, SHOULD HAVE, ended the series.
I mean, who else at that point could have had it out for Sidneybesides maybe Cotton Weary for falsely identifying him? That may have been too hokey, though. -
adventure-mode — 10 years ago(June 07, 2015 12:49 PM)
I don't think Roman mentioned he was Sidney's brother to Billy. In the end of Scream 3 he says he showed Billy the footage of Maureen and his father, and seeing him not very happy about it, gave him a few tips and pointers, like to get a partner in case he got caught and etc.
Roman also specifically says that he "had no idea they were gonna make a film of their own". I'm guessing Roman planted the seed but had no part in the whole orchestration of the thing. -
Neptunechild87 — 10 years ago(August 31, 2015 06:13 PM)
Ok maybe Roman didnt tell Billy his identity. But what DID he tell him?? What would his reason be for caring about Maureen Prescott's affair? There is no way Billy wouldnt have asked "Who are you"? Of course Roman couldve told him a lie but it wouldve been nice to know what LIE he told Billy. And honestly I think Billy wouldve repeated the lie to Sidney whether Roman told him to keep it quiet or not. Billy was gonna kill Sidney anyway so who would she even tell??
-
Axle_Starr — 10 years ago(August 31, 2015 09:00 PM)
I honestly don't find it unbelievable to think that Billy just simply didn't mention Roman to Sidney. The Woodsboro Murders were strictly Billy's (and maybe Stu's) vision; it'd be one thing if it was Maureen's murder that the movie was about and Billy failed to mention Roman's role
I'll take a potato chipand
EAT IT!! -
Man-In-Black08 — 10 years ago(March 07, 2016 08:31 PM)
There's no reason to believe Roman ever told Billy who he really was. Roman was not after Sid at the time, only Maureen. Telling Billy he was following her because she rejected him and he was the product of rape was not only irrelevant to Roman's plan, but Billy wouldn't have cared to anyway.
Sure he probably asked 'who are you?' but Roman could easily come up with some lie that he was following his own dad around to catch him cheating on his mother and hates Maureen for being such a man-stealing, house-wrecking slut. That actually makes more sense than him explaining his whole backstory.
