The Voice Changer Issue
-
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" -
Stratego — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 04:05 AM)
Just when you seemed to be so reasonable
Jesus, Guy, did my opinion that the voice changer sucks ruin your life?! You seem to be obsessed with it.
But thanks for AGAIN making personal attacks just because I don't like this movie as much as you do. How sad must an individual be to do that?
Legitimate criticism does not equal "hate". The voice changer is one of the dumbest things about the movie. And all these years I've always been consistent with my criticisms.
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.
They hardly do. But if that's the case, why not use real-life technology, like I said?
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"
Always so fncking paranoid. Not that I have to explain myself, but you're wrong. Stu being alive in the third movie was supposedly Williamson's idea and that would've been incredibly stupid.
Ofcourse Krueger tries to cover his own azz by claiming none of it was his idea. But I don't care whose idea it was, Williamson, Craven, Krueger or even the Weinsteins, it was just stupid.
"Producer" is just a credit, they don't need to give their okay. I doubt the studio asked for it, seeing how things had turned sour between Williamson and the Weinsteins. -
InTheHub — 9 years ago(November 08, 2016 12:27 AM)
I'm being unreasonable????
GHOSTFACE HAS MORE DIALOGUE IN SCREAM 3 THAN SCREAM 2!!!!
Count the friggin lines!!! You're bitching how you "missed the voice" in the movie where he actually gets more dialogue, even competeing with the voicechanger gimmick!
And I'm being unreasonable???
It's like 2 minutes of words in Scream 2, like 3 minutes in Scream 3.
And when did Craven, or Williamson or anybody on the film ever say the voicechanger was a bad idea? Never.
Yeesh.
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
Stratego — 9 years ago(November 08, 2016 02:15 AM)
Yes, you're being unreasonable. Look how hysterical you're being. Look at the personal attacks you've made. And all over a stupid voicechanger I don't like.
The Ghostface voice was hardly used in the rest of the movie and hardly in the same way as the other two movies with him taunting his victims over the phone. Only a short bit of the conversation with Cotton was like that. And even an unmasked Billy and Stu using the voice changer was more creepy than what Roman did in the finale. And like I said, that's not the only problem.
I don't care if no one involved in the movie said it was a bad idea. I do think it was a bad idea. You better learn to deal with it. -
InTheHub — 9 years ago(November 08, 2016 06:42 PM)
YOU CAN think it was a stupid idea.
But you can't tell me "Scream 3 hardly used the ghostface voice" when he actually has more dialogue than in the second film. Because
that
doesn't make sense.
And personally, I think he sounds creepier in the 3rd film and has way more memorable dialogue. I'll take the call to Sidney in the police station over anything from Scream 2.
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
Stratego — 9 years ago(November 08, 2016 06:56 PM)
I have no idea if he has more lines, I've never bothered counting them. But what I said is that it was hardly used in the rest of the movie. Most of Ghostface voice's dialogue is in the finale when Roman gives his exposition. It's not over the phone taunting his victims. It doesn't have the same effect.
But thanks for giving me permission to think it was a bad idea. Although I'm not sure what Scream 2 has to do with it. -
InTheHub — 9 years ago(November 12, 2016 12:16 AM)
But thanks for giving me permission to think it was a bad idea.
Just clarifying.
It doesn't have the same effect.
I think it was very effective. Roger Jackson really delivered some questionable lines and made them effective.
What does Scream 2 have to do with it?
I'm sorry? Weren't you singling out scream 3 from the rest of the series, of which Scream 2 is a part of??? For hardly using the ghostface voice when it used it more than Scream 2, which is the film you should have been directing that criticism at technically.
Oh but wait, now it's not the quantity but "how" they used the voice that bothers you.
You know Stratego, I saw a terrible film a few months back IT FOLLOWS.
I could tell you a vague description, but that's about it because it was awful and I don't care to remember it. Like most films I hate.
It's funny how well you know Scream 3, for a film you deem so unworthy, you've undeniably seen it multiple times, and I'd bet my bottom dollar you have a copy of it in your house.
So the only further question on this subject is why have you watched a film you get nothing from multiple times?
Your call.
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
Stratego — 9 years ago(November 12, 2016 05:08 AM)
I was comparing the voice changer with the voice changer in BOTH previous movies to explain why it feels off. "Anything in Scream 2" has nothing to do with it.
I never said it was quantity. I said there was a lack of Ghostface voice taunting his victims over the phone and that it was spread out unevenly.
There are plenty of movies I hate or don't care for and I never think about them again. But those movies aren't part of a movie franchise of which I happen to love the first two movies.
Don't be such a drama queen. I never said I hate the movie or that it's a terribly awful film. I find it a very disappointing film, but otherwise just don't care for it. I simply visit this board to talk Scream.
Before I regularly visited this board, I'd only seen it about two times. Since then I've checked it out a couple of times on tv to refresh my memory so I can discuss it. I don't think I've seen it more than five times. Looking up the transcript can also help.
No, I don't owe a copy. You'd have to pay me some good money to add it to my collection. Paying for it once to see it in the theater was enough.
I certainly didn't owe you an explanation, but I do hope it helps you to move on and accept a different opinion about this movie.