What Is So Bad About Roman's Motive, Exactly?
-
Klockard23 — 10 years ago(October 27, 2015 11:24 PM)
LOL, and you do? Roman hating his birth mother for rejecting him or resenting his half-sister because she did grow up with their mother is psychologically understandable. What doesn't make sense is Roman getting so upset about his birth mother rejecting him that he first concocts a plan in cold blood to have some teenaged stranger kill her instead of doing it himself. Then resenting his half-sister, who has no idea about him, for getting attention for the mess he created. And then out of nowhere deciding to kill random, innocent people so he can get revenge at her because of all that attention and because she did grow up with their slutbag whore mother whom he wanted dead anyway, even though she was already suffering a miserable and reclusive life. And all that without even a hint about his upbringing that would explain why he'd take the rejection so hard. There's just no pattern, causality or correlation, his reactions seem to be random and even contradictory. It's so far-fetched, not even half of it could happen in real life.
He didn't create the mess entirely on his own, though. He motivated Billy to kill Maureen and that's it. He didn't know it would set off a domino effect of two full-fledged killing sprees where Sidney would end up becoming a global sympathetic victim. It's understandable that he would further resent her over that. And we don't need to be filled in as to why he'd "take the rejection so hard", we can figure that much out for ourselves.
It apparently does to Axle and Guy (InTheHub), they brought up the comparisons. But it's not about "better" or "more understandable". It's about realism. Previous motives were much more realistic, and the first two movies had an important sense of realism.
Because Stu deciding to kill just because his best friend talks him into it is so much more realistic than someone hating their sibling for getting the cherished life they so strongly wished/felt should have been their's.
I see that differently. Randy was the fifth wheel, only stringing along because he had a crush on Sidney. They just put up with him.
That still doesn't stop them from being legit friends, though. -
Stratego — 10 years ago(October 28, 2015 04:42 AM)
He didn't create the mess entirely on his own
He was the instigator. And it's not like he couldn't have predicted that a brutal murder in a small town would get a lot of attention. Blaming Sidney for something she had no control over is not even in the same category as blaming Maureen for not accepting him.
And we don't need to be filled in as to why he'd "take the rejection so hard", we can figure that much out for ourselves.
Unlike Stu and Mickey, who are just psychopaths, Roman is supposed to have a reason to kill. But your birth mother simply not welcoming you immediately is not a good enough reason.
Because Stu deciding to kill just because his best friend talks him into it is so much more realistic than someone hating their sibling for getting the cherished life they so strongly wished/felt should have been their's.
I think it is. Stu is a psychopath with an admiration for Billy. He's also a teenager, so his comment about "peer pressure" is not that ridiculous. It's one thing to resent your sibling for their "cherished" life (like I've said, slutty Maureen as a mother and media attention for almost getting killed?), it's something else to kill random, innocent people to frame that sibling.
That still doesn't stop them from being legit friends, though.
Okay, then we just see that differently. I think Stu was annoyed and sometimes amused by Randy. But he was a psychopath, so I doubt he could form any real friendships besides the one with Billy whom he more idolized. -
Klockard23 — 10 years ago(October 28, 2015 08:55 AM)
He was the instigator. And it's not like he couldn't have predicted that a brutal murder in a small town would get a lot of attention. Blaming Sidney for something she had no control over is not even in the same category as blaming Maureen for not accepting him.
He had no way of knowing it would lead to two separate killing sprees. If it always remained the case that only Maureen had been murdered, Sidney wouldn't have become as famous as she did. And he didn't "blame" Sidney for anything, he just resented that she got what he wanted.
Unlike Stu and Mickey, who are just psychopaths, Roman is supposed to have a reason to kill. But your birth mother simply not welcoming you immediately is not a good enough reason.
To you, it isn't. To me and several others, it is. It's not inconceivable that there are people out there who could become so emotionally shattered (and thus so enraged) by something like rejection from their birth mother that they would want to kill her. Also, Roman just like the others isn't exactly supposed to be of sound mind. None of them are. We're not meant to sympathize or completely understand their reasoning for killing. Billy killed because Maureen was a homewrecker, Stu killed because of "peer pressure", Mrs. Loomis killed Sidney for defending herself against her psychotic son, Mickey, Jill, and Charlie killed because they wanted to be famous
I think it is. Stu is a psychopath with an admiration for Billy. He's also a teenager, so his comment about "peer pressure" is not that ridiculous. It's one thing to resent your sibling for their "cherished" life (like I've said, slutty Maureen as a mother and media attention for almost getting killed?), it's something else to kill random, innocent people to frame that sibling.
I'm sorry, I just fail to see how Stu doing something as extreme as murdering people because of peer pressure is any more believable than Roman killing for the reasons he did.
Okay, then we just see that differently. I think Stu was annoyed and sometimes amused by Randy. But he was a psychopath, so I doubt he could form any real friendships besides the one with Billy whom he more idolized.
Psychopaths actually can form real friendships and relationships with people, you know. -
Stratego — 10 years ago(October 28, 2015 09:47 AM)
And he didn't "blame" Sidney for anything, he just resented that she got what he wanted.
So he wanted a mother he hated so much he had her killed and attention for being the victim of serial killers? And that's why Sidney (and other innocent people) had to die and be framed for murder? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense at all.
To you, it isn't. To me and several others, it is.
Apparently so, but you asked what was bad about Roman's motive and that's what was bad.
It's not inconceivable that there are people out there who could become so emotionally shattered (and thus so enraged) by something like rejection from their birth mother that they would want to kill her.
I already said that I don't find that so inconceivable. It's everything that happened after that that makes no sense.
Also, Roman just like the others isn't exactly supposed to be of sound mind. None of them are. We're not meant to sympathize or completely understand their reasoning for killing.
But at least with Billy and even his mother we got a brief explanation about what the trauma meant to them. I have no idea if Roman was born a psychopath, if a lack of maternal/parental bonding was the cause, or if he had a sh!tty childhood. Simply saying that his birth mother didn't immediately welcome him isn't good enough for me to explain why he resents his half-sister and years later suddenly starts killing innocent people. Such an uncommon reaction needs more clarification.
I'm sorry, I just fail to see how Stu doing something as extreme as murdering people because of peer pressure is any more believable than Roman killing for the reasons he did.
Because Stu is a psychopath (or at least has some sort of antisocial personality disorder) and a teenager. Just look at youth gangs, it's so easy for teenagers to get caught up in violent crimes just to fit in. And usually with killer duos the dominant person looks for a submissive partner who wants to be dominated and will do what they're told. You won't find many people killing for the same reasons as Roman, he was not like Son of Sam.
Psychopaths actually can form real friendships and relationships with people, you know.
One of the characteristics of psychopaths is that they can't form emotional attachments to others and lack empathy. Stu admired Billy, but I doubt he cared at all for someone like Randy. -
Wildstyle26 — 10 years ago(October 28, 2015 12:49 PM)
One of the characteristics of psychopaths is that they can't form emotional attachments to others and lack empathy. Stu admired Billy, but I doubt he cared at all for
Agreed here. A sociopath is the one that can form relationships and attachments to people, though it may be hard. Psychopaths can imitate human emotions like care, empathy and remorse, but that's all it is - an act. They don't genuinely feel those things for people.
Jill was a psychopath. But her mother and friends were none the wiser to her. And it's realistic. Some wackos are among people everyday, and blend right in. The sociopaths are similar, except they can be more unpredictable and throw some clues to themselves.
Stu and Billy were sociopaths. Billy loved his mother, if nobody else. Same for Mrs. Loomis - who loved her son, if nobody else.
Stu seemed to care about his parents', and their opinion of him when he cries about them being mad at him, but he still has his wacko moments before the reveal. Mickey and Jill fall into the pyscho category. They cared about nobody but themselves, and Jill even had her own mother killed.
Roman can be debated I suppose. And maybe Stu, as some probably do not see him as a sociopath. -
Stratego — 10 years ago(October 28, 2015 01:38 PM)
Stu could be a psychopath or a sociopath, it's difficult to say as we don't really know about his background and, yes, I'm a layman. Maybe Stu really cared about his parents, maybe he was just mocking them. Either way, both psychopaths and sociopaths have trouble forming close relationships.
Billy and his mother could be sociopaths or have borderline personality disorder (abandonment issues!). Although both are also very good at hiding their real emotions and putting on a front. They're both calculating and not extremely impulsive (except for the mother killing Randy), which is more typical of a psychopath. In that regard all the killers seem like psychopaths, but I think that has more to do with the movies being whodunnit slashers, they can't give themselves away, ofcourse. -
Axle_Starr — 10 years ago(January 07, 2016 02:48 PM)
Excuse my abrupt timeout thereand the BUMP
Stratego, it seems (to me, at least) as though you more have a problem with how the events were executed rather than the motive itself
I'll take a potato chipand
EAT IT!! -
Stratego — 10 years ago(January 07, 2016 03:08 PM)
It's both really. I think the idea of a long lost brother framing bis sister as revenge because she got media attention as the result of the death of her mother which he caused himself only because she didn't immediately welcome him with open arms, is not a motive that suits the Scream series and could never be executed in a satisfying manner. If this was Dynasty, then I would probably find it deliciously entertaining. In this case, just no.
-
Axle_Starr — 10 years ago(January 07, 2016 03:57 PM)
Do you feel it doesn't fit the Scream series for being unrealistic (perhaps even in the real-world sense, if applicable) or is it strictly for being a bad fit for the Scream series? Or none of the above?
P.S. - Sorry for getting a bit quizzical, it helps for me to try and see it from the other side of the wall (which is good for cross-checking)
I'll take a potato chipand
EAT IT!! -
Stratego — 10 years ago(January 07, 2016 04:33 PM)
I certainly don't think it's realistic in the real world sense, but I also think it doesn't fit with the nature of the Scream series, which I think is more about real fears and commentary on society than far-fetched, soap-like storylines (which it is to me).
-
Axle_Starr — 10 years ago(January 08, 2016 02:23 PM)
I think I see where you're coming from on the Scream series (un)fit. To me, that sums up how I see the Scream series as well, but I feel it isn't an offense given that Roman's motive wouldn't be the only one of the bunch to bend that criteria
I'll take a potato chipand
EAT IT!! -
Stratego — 10 years ago(January 08, 2016 03:03 PM)
I think Roman's motive bends the criteria much more than the others, though. Stu and Billy set the criteria, ofcourse. Mickey is a serial killer who wants attention and uses a well-known case to get it, which seems realistic to me. Mrs. Loomis' motive of a mother wanting revenge and enlisting others to do the dirty job for her doesn't seem a stretch either (I'm reminded of "gang mom" Mary Louise Thompson). I do think that the extent of her plan and her over-the-top behavior is as far as the Scream movies could go. Jill's motive of setting herself up as the only survivor of a serial kiler also seems realistic and fitting for the Scream series. The silliest thing was that she was yet another family member. Scream 3 just took it too far with the long lost brother angle, the unbelievable retcon of Roman having been the instigator of everything and him killing innocent people just to frame the sister he never met because she got attention for the mess he created himself.
-
Axle_Starr — 10 years ago(January 11, 2016 01:18 PM)
Fair enough, Roman does stand out in that sense. That seems to have been them trying to tie-in to the first movie before closing out the series, but it does seem a fairly hit-or-miss (by a mile, apparently) aspect of the film with the audience
I'll take a potato chipand
EAT IT!! -
Axle_Starr — 10 years ago(January 11, 2016 04:31 PM)
I believe you. I know you legitimately dislike 3 and Roman's motiveI don't get that impression from everyone that comes to express disdain for them (respectively, collectively, etc.). That's not your issue or anything, just something I noted
I'll take a potato chipand
EAT IT!! -
Stratego — 10 years ago(January 08, 2016 03:04 PM)
I think Roman's motive bends the criteria much more than the others, though. Stu and Billy set the criteria, ofcourse. One is just crazy and enjoys killing, the other has a VERY personal motive having directly to do with Sidney. Mickey is a serial killer who wants attention and uses a well-known case to get it, which seems realistic to me. Mrs. Loomis' motive of a mother wanting revenge and enlisting others to do the dirty job for her doesn't seem a stretch either (I'm reminded of "gang mom" Mary Louise Thompson). I do think that the extent of her plan and her over-the-top behavior is as far as the Scream movies could go. Jill's motive of setting herself up as the only survivor of a serial kiler also seems realistic and fitting for the Scream series. The silliest thing was that she was yet another family member. Scream 3 just took it too far with the long lost brother angle, the unbelievable retcon of Roman having been the instigator of everything and him killing innocent people just to frame the sister he never met because she got attention for the mess he created himself.
-
Klockard23 — 10 years ago(October 29, 2015 02:03 PM)
Actually, a lot of psychopaths can indeed have genuine feelings for other people while still hating/intending to do harm onto others. The perception that ALL psychopaths are people who have zero empathy for others is a terrible generalization which in no way can be applied to everybody, and there's proven examples of that.
-
JupiterStorm — 10 years ago(January 08, 2016 11:58 PM)
Stratego, the only reason Roman hated Sidney was because she got the family he felt he should have had, it had nothing to do with attention.
I really enjoyed this film. I liked it how the killer had a very personal tie to Sidney. -
Stratego — 10 years ago(January 11, 2016 03:03 PM)
Stratego, the only reason Roman hated Sidney was because she got the family he felt he should have had, it had nothing to do with attention.
Yes, it did. I'm quoting Roman here: "For the mother, and for the family,
and for the stardom, and for, goddammit, everything you had that
should've been mine!"
If it was only about the family, then he would've left Sidney alone after Maureen was killed. I also think Roman's motive would be worse if he came back years later to frame Sidney and kill innocent people if it was just about the family he felt he should have had.
I really enjoyed this film. I liked it how the killer had a very personal tie to Sidney.
The thing is that it wasn't actually personal at all. Sidney didn't know of his extistence and they never even met before. Billy and Mrs. Loomis, and even Stu and Jill, now THAT was personal.