The Voice Changer Issue
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Scream 3
cooluses — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 10:03 PM)
Hi all.. I'm new to the board..
I was wondering about the voice changer..is it supposed to able to perform the unreal voice changes because its a reference to how scream is a movie, and therefore the laws of the real world don't apply to the movie's universe?
this meaning that the scream universe has fictional technology..
Or was it really just a goof up? -
-
cooluses — 10 years ago(September 26, 2015 06:25 AM)
i agree with u on both counts..awesome movie..but this theory wont leave my head lol
i remember being younger and seeing this film and loving it..but the way ppl bash the voice changer kind of made me rethink it..especially on fansite boards..but then after reading about how tatums death in scream was impossible, due to garage doors not being capable causing of what happened to her..i feel kind of better..sorta bugs me like phils death in scream 2..
none of them are perfect but they have good enough plot and actors/characters to make it enjoyable..
but i feel like they may have had it in mind with all three of those instances i referenced as a way of giving the movies the feeling of existing in their own realtity.. -
Axle_Starr — 10 years ago(September 26, 2015 06:17 AM)
Yes, it was supposed to be able to mimic the voices of other characters in addition to the usual 'Voice'
Given that Roman probably had access to some fairly high-end equipment and that the voice changer has been a stretch in pretty much all of the films (except 4 maybe), it isn't that bad really
I'll take a potato chipand
EAT IT!! -
cooluses — 10 years ago(September 26, 2015 12:49 PM)
I read that no garage could lift Tatum in real life back in 96.
and Phil's death came from a fluke..but other than it being a fluke it is certainly possible..
none of these defend the 3rd films flaws..
but since scream's continuity exists in the movie universe and that voice changer exists, it is what it is.. -
Stratego — 10 years ago(September 26, 2015 02:44 PM)
I read that no garage could lift Tatum in real life back in 96.
I thought the biggest problem was the sensor. I mean, how much could Rose McGowan have weighed at the time, she was pretty petite.
and Phil's death came from a fluke..but other than it being a fluke it is certainly possible..
It relies heavily on coincidence, but it's still possible.
but since scream's continuity exists in the movie universe and that voice changer exists, it is what it is..
But it still exists in a movie universe without sci-fi, certainly in the first two movies. It's really an issue for me, especially since the plot depends on it. -
InTheHub — 10 years ago(September 27, 2015 01:54 AM)
It's hardly sci-fi.
I think it was really clever.
Take the opening scene, we set up that the killer can manipulate other voices.
So in the next kill scene, we assume Sarah is not talking to Roman, but the killer using his voice.
Jokes on us, it is Roman.
That plays against our expectations far more than anything I could name from the second film.
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
Stratego — 10 years ago(September 27, 2015 04:13 AM)
It's hardly sci-fi.
It IS sci-fi, such devices don't exist in our world. If only he recorded their voices and edited them in a program, I could've lived with that.
I think it was really clever.
That says enough -
cooluses — 10 years ago(September 27, 2015 08:30 AM)
This movie is arguably similar to Jason X as both contain technology that doesn't exist..
Maybe the film makers should have embraced and boasted this element of the plot as a small reference to horror movies with fake scifi elements.. -
Stratego — 10 years ago(September 27, 2015 09:03 AM)
This movie is arguably similar to Jason X as both contain technology that doesn't exist..
But the movie series already contained supernatural elements, it kind of had its own ridiculous little universe. Although that movie did take it too far.
Maybe the film makers should have embraced and boasted this element of the plot as a small reference to horror movies with fake scifi elements..
But how could they have done that, while still staying grounded in reality?
I don't necessarily mind him using different voices (although it was too convenient and the Ghostface voice is more effective), but the voice changer itself was just ridiculous. -
paulg-67221 — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 03:11 PM)
If only he recorded their voices and edited them in a program, I could've lived with that.
The whole point was to show that Roman, as the director of Stab 3, had access to high end equipment. He used "movie magic" to replicate the voices of the characters. It is also mentioned that he directed music videos before he moved to Stab 3 so he has experience in sound editing.
It was also a plot gimmick to make the audience unsure of whether the character on the phone was the killer or pretending to be someone else and to make the characters suspicious. -
Stratego — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 04:44 PM)
He used "movie magic" to replicate the voices of the characters
Movie magic that doesn't exist and isn't even believable. Also, movie makers mostly rely on effects in post-production. That's why editing the voices afterwards in a computer program would've made more sense. He's not a magician. Why would a sound editor need a device to change a voice on the spot anyway? Why didn't Craven use a voice changer to actually make all the killers sound like Roger Jackson, for example?
It was also a plot gimmick to make the audience unsure of whether the character on the phone was the killer or pretending to be someone else and to make the characters suspicious.
Which totally killed the suspense. Not only did it mean less of the menacing and taunting Ghostface voice, but it just made everything way too easy for the killer. -
InTheHub — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 01:14 AM)
Not only did it mean less of the menacing and taunting Ghostface voice
Ghostface BARELY taunts Sidney in the second film, he's got like two lines.(and I hated that waste)
He gets way more talk time to her in the 3rd film, at the station and when he calls her as "mother" at her house and at the pool.
but it just made everything way too easy for the killer.
It gave the killer the upper hand, you need the stakes to be raised for a sequel.
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
Stratego — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 05:58 AM)
I do seem to remember two pretty long conversations Ghostface had with CiCi and Randy, though. But what does Scream 2 have to do with it?
I wonder if the stakes couldn't be raised in a more realistic way. If not, maybe there shouldn't have been another sequel. -
paulg-67221 — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 11:55 AM)
I wonder if the stakes couldn't be raised in a more realistic way. If not, maybe there shouldn't have been another sequel.
Do you really think that they shouldn't have bothered with a sequel if it wasn't realistic enough?
It's just a voice changer gimmick, that didn't bother me. It's so insignificant it's not worth saying it's a reason not to make a sequel.
What bothered me about this film was the writer of this one (Ehren Kruger) did a bad job writing the script. He discarded Kevin Williamson's notes (which sound more interesting, he instead used them to create a TV series) and wrote the film, making it up as he went along (as it was being filmed) and Wes Craven had to step in to fix the dialogue to make it fit the already established characters. It shows, the writing of this one is the worst of the series.
It could have been worse. They were considering bringing Randy back, alive and well. But they decided against it because it was too unrealistic.
I think the issue isn't realism, Scream isn't that realistic anyway, but whether the ideas are believable in the context of the series. -
Stratego — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 12:23 PM)
Yes, I really think that. The other movies had a sense of realism, which made them scarier and effective satire. If they couldn't achieve that again, then they shouldn't have bothered.
It's more than a gimmick, it's a plot device in several death scenes. And instead of building up real suspense, they waste their time on unnecessary misdirection.
Yes, the script is no good. And yes, bringing back Randy (or Stu) would've been even worse. But that doesn't change anything about what the movie turned out to be.
Realism is not an unimportant factor in the Scream series, such a far-fetched sci-fi device does not fit in its established universe. -
paulg-67221 — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 11:36 AM)
Movie magic that doesn't exist and isn't even believable.
That's true but the film never tries to capture reality, it's an exaggeration of Hollywood's capabilities.
Why would a sound editor need a device to change a voice on the spot anyway?
Considering how quickly the voices change, it is obviously pre-programmed.
Roman would want it to have more options to taunt his victims, he could lure people and trick them into telling him things or getting them to do things for him (just off the top of my head, there are plenty more reasons why he would want such a device).
Why didn't Craven use a voice changer to actually make all the killers sound like Roger Jackson, for example?
He directed the film, he didn't write it. Like I said above, to give the killer different tactics.
Which totally killed the suspense.
It may have ruined the suspense for you but others may have found it more suspenseful.
it just made everything way too easy for the killer.
The harder it is to fight the killer, the more interesting and tense the conflict will be, theoretically anyway. Besides, if it was easy for the characters to survive, then it would be a boring film with no tension whatsoever. -
Stratego — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 12:36 PM)
That's true but the film never tries to capture reality, it's an exaggeration of Hollywood's capabilities.
This movie, yes, not the other two. I think they never should've gone that direction.
Considering how quickly the voices change, it is obviously pre-programmed.
But the effect is live. No sound editor would need such a device.
He directed the film, he didn't write it. Like I said above, to give the killer different tactics.
Not my point. If a sound editor would have need for such a device, then why doesn't Hollywood use it? He doesn't, so he wouldn't know how to make it either.
It may have ruined the suspense for you but others may have found it more suspenseful.
That's great, but I'm talking about myself, just like others are, I'm sure.
The harder it is to fight the killer, the more interesting and tense the conflict will be, theoretically anyway. Besides, if it was easy for the characters to survive, then it would be a boring film with no tension whatsoever.
I don't believe I said it should be easy for the victims to survive. But there should be some challenge for the killer, that's also what set Scream apart from many other slashers. Otherwise it's just like watching Michael Myers in Halloween 18.