What Is So Bad About Roman's Motive, Exactly?
-
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. -
Housefan2 — 9 years ago(April 28, 2016 10:11 AM)
I didn't care about the Hollywood backdrop or her being an aspiring actress who was gang-raped, but the basic idea of him being an abandoned and unwanted child of Maureen's and blah blah blah was fine to me.
A good idea is worthless without great execution. I didn't find it far-fetched that Marueen had other secrets. That was par for the course with her character. I didn't care that the 3rd movie connected back to the first. I didn't even hate the fact that Maureen had another child.
However, where the movie lost me is the poor execution. It's hard to take Roman seriously when he's screaming about Sidney getting his fame when he's famous in his own right too. He's a Hollywood director who has enough clout to ask a major studio for the funds and ability to make a classic love story and they respond with, "sure, but only if you direct this other major motion picture first." Universal Studios did the same thing to Steven Spielberg when he wanted to make Schindler's List. They agreed but only if he made Jurassic Park first. Some newbie director doesn't just walk into a major studio, ask to make the picture of his choice and have the studio agree but only if he directs the third installment of a popular franchise first.
I also couldn't understand why he suddenly decided to go after Sidney either. I can buy why he killed Maureen. He went to Maureen looking for his birth mother. She rejected him so he set up her murder. If he was angry with Sidney for stealing his mother and family, wouldn't he have had Billy and Stu murder her as well? Why wait what year after year after year to go after her? Why wait until she's hiding from the world to go after her?
Lizzie
To love another person is to see the face of God! - Les Miserables -
josephdonavyn — 9 years ago(May 27, 2016 04:24 PM)
I really liked the finale and think the clues dropped throughout the film point to a good motive- my only gripe is because Williamson didn't right this one there was no hint at this in scream 1 & 2. If this had been hinted at least a little bit in 1 & 2 then this would've been a bit more fulfilling instead of coming out of nowhere.