Billy would certainly have mentioned to Sidney at the end of Scream, that she had a brother from a different father. As
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Scream 3
5535 — 11 years ago(February 16, 2015 05:19 AM)
Billy would certainly have mentioned to Sidney at the end of Scream, that she had a brother from a different father. As decent as Wes, Kevin and Ephren's plot revolving around Rena Reynolds and her Hollywood past was, there's no way in hell that Billy wouldn't have mentioned Sidney's brother. This is the only reason why I think the long lost brother aspect was lame, despite the good effort to make it work (The footage of Rena, Cotton and Mr. Loomis, the backstory). All of that was well done, but Billy not mentioning anything to Sidney is what kills the legitimacy.
-
InTheHub — 11 years ago(February 21, 2015 01:17 AM)
He couldn't have mentioned it, because the invention didn't exist until 4 years later.
But unlike many other sequels that go back and add to the past, there is nothing that flat-out says it couldn't have happened, Scream 3 didn't un-do anything or contradict anything. Billy and Stu still carried out the actual murder.
And actually, Roman clearly wanted to remain anonymous, up until Stab and the second killings made it unbearable for him to not take credit.
It's a stretch, don't get me wrong, but they did it with more care than most sequels in the horror genre.
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
5535 — 11 years ago(February 21, 2015 01:46 PM)
You're right that it didn't undo anything, and for the most part could have worked, if they had figured out a slightly different angle. It's just too much of a stretch for me to believe that Billy wouldn't have said "By the way Sid, your mom was a slut bag whore who flashed her beep around like she was Sharon Stone", then Stu says his line, then Billy continues with "Little thing you didn't know, your slut mother had a son with another man before meeting your father, and he's the one who helped us with out little plan, shame you'll never get to meet him" etc.
I know it's reaching, but even if Roman wanted to have remained anonymous, I still think Billy would have told Sidney that she at least had a brother. It's not as if she'd survive and tell anyone, as they were just about to kill her and her father.
I know these things aren't always planned out, as sequels are expected sometimes, but Kevin Williamson apparently had ideas for a sequel while writing Scream, so it's a shame he didn't think ahead to part three and give a subtle hint at the end of Scream. -
coastin_on_a_dream — 10 years ago(April 19, 2015 01:17 AM)
Well, he couldn't have done that, because it wasn't his idea. Scream 3 was written by Ehren Krueger.
Actually, most of the movie was Kevin Williamson's idea. He even wrote a 35 page outline for Scream 3. However, he had an extremely busy schedule writing for Dawson's Creek and couldn't find the time to write the actual script. So the studio hired Ehren Krueger to write it, and Ehren followed Kevin's outline. Ehren wrote the actual script, but the ideas were all Kevin's. -
InTheHub — 10 years ago(September 03, 2015 02:34 AM)
the ideas were all Kevin's
Sorry but no. The identity and motive of the killer in Scream 3 was all Ehren Krueger/Wes Craven.
Kevin Williamson originally had a cult of killers that was being masterminded by Stu(from Scream) from prison.
The studio rejected his draft and went with other writers, hence the falling out between Kevin and Miramax.
Same thing happened years later on Scream 4, they hired Krueger to re-write and add a lot of scenes to Kevin's finished script for Scream 4.
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
tub51461 — 10 years ago(November 02, 2015 08:43 AM)
As far as the Stu angle, it's definitely for the best. Setting aside the electrocution, there's no way his psychotic brain could survive a 500 lb. TV landing on it. I'm surprised they showed his body shaking unless they wanted us to assume that he may had been brain dead, but his body didn't die yet and heart was still pulsing.
-
daiotyhgh984 — 10 years ago(November 05, 2015 05:05 AM)
Sorry but no. It was always Williamson plan for end of trilogy to revealed Sidney brother, who will be Michael Myers for her Laurie Strode. He was just wasn't movie director, as Stab 3 director survived in his treatment.
And killers in treatment wasn't cult, it was school Stab fan club led by school director's daughter.
Studio considered Stu being killer only after they rejected Williamson story, people misinterpreted Lillard words about Scream 3 and writed this wrong information in trivia. -
Movie_Buff_Brad — 10 years ago(November 08, 2015 06:34 AM)
And killers in treatment wasn't cult, it was school Stab fan club led by school director's daughter.
I still don't see where Sidney's half-brother fits in. Where are you getting your information?
http://www.dorkly.com/post/73323/5-star-wars-prequel-complaints-the-internet-needs-to-retire -
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.
