The Voice Changer Issue
-
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. -
InTheHub — 9 years ago(November 03, 2016 10:50 AM)
Might I interject this fair point?
The ghostface voice is instantly recognizable at this point in the series, therefore it's illogical to think that the people would not instantly be on guard at the sound of that voiceThey would pretty much hang up and call the police instantly(as Cici, Randy and Rebecca
should
have done)
This device allowed the victims to be in conversation with the killer and not even realize it until too late, a great way to pull the rug out from under them.
Also a great way of framing people (Christine thought it was Cotton, Sarah thought it was Roman(of course that's a real clever trick because it actually WAS Roman) and Stone thought it was Dewey.
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
Stratego — 9 years ago(November 03, 2016 02:18 PM)
I'm not sure people would just assume it's a real killer on the phone or necessarily recognize the Ghostface voice. In the first two movies Ghostface didn't even call most of his victims and Randy had a great conversation with him while knowing exactly who he was. But if they felt it was necessary, they could've used real-life technology.
But if the other three movies had the characters act "illogically" for the sake of having the Ghostface voice, then why couldn't this movie? At least they would've left one of the most important aspects of the series intact. They had no problem having the characters act illogically otherwise, like running through the mansion like chickens with their heads cut off instead of sticking together. Or going inside the house to light a match and read a damn fax instead of getting the hell out of there. Or the killer going after Cotton to find out where Sidney is. Or Gale feeling a pulse and declaring someone dead. -
InTheHub — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 01:27 AM)
Well, Randy assumed he was safe in broad daylight, and he was keeping the killer talking to "distract" him. No one else would really engage and it would put then on instant guard.
It's still intact though, I love that the voice is heavily presnt in the finale(at the pool and in the screening room).
The voice all but vanishes from the second half of the first two films.
They had no problem having the characters act illogically otherwise
They do stupid illogical things like this in all the movies, as I'm sure you are aware.
Like Cotting stalking the empty film school, Sidney running all the way back into the theatre, and Sidney going on stage surrounded by people in masks with knives when she is a murder target.
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
Stratego — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 05:53 AM)
Well, Randy assumed he was safe in broad daylight, and he was keeping the killer talking to "distract" him. No one else would really engage and it would put then on instant guard.
But it did give the Ghostface voice some screentime.
It's still intact though, I love that the voice is heavily presnt in the finale(at the pool and in the screening room).
The voice all but vanishes from the second half of the first two films.
But in this movie, the Ghostface voice is pretty much absent until the finale. Great if you think that's enough, but that's still no reason to use a gimmick based on sci-fi technology for the rest of the movie. Like I said, a recorded and edited voice of Cotton, for example, would also have done the trick.
They do stupid illogical things like this in all the movies, as I'm sure you are aware.
Like Cotton stalking the empty film school, Sidney running all the way back into the theatre, and Sidney going on stage surrounded by people in masks with knives when she is a murder target.
I already pointed out that characters act illogically throughout the series. But since this movie has no problem having them act extremely illogical, what's the problem of having them converse with the Ghostface voice? -
InTheHub — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 03:36 AM)
Jesus Stratego, did this film ruin your prom night or something???
Were you going through a really bad time in your life when it came out?
The Hate is truly a marvel.
what's the problem of having them converse with the Ghostface voice?
They
Do
. But instead of just repeating what we got in the first two movies, they tried to mix it up a bit. Give the audience a new trick.
Again, if this was an idea of Kevin Williamsons, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It would probably be hailed as "genius update"
And again, I'll quote Ehrhen Krueger, "All of the ideas in Scream 3 are Kevin Williamsons and Wes Cravens."
The idea came from one of the two. And Williamson produced. They certainly gave their okay!
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself"