What Is So Bad About Roman's Motive, Exactly?
-
Stratego — 10 years ago(October 20, 2015 11:27 AM)
It was the least realistic and completely soapy. It's absurd that some grown up guy gets so upset, because of his birth mother not welcoming him immediately after showing up at her doorstep, that he wants her dead. It's even more absurd that instead of just strangling her or hitting her on the head or something in a fit of rage, he concocts a plan to convince a teenage boy he doesn't even know to kill her without getting his hands dirty himself. It's worse that he even succeeds in that.
To top all of that, he then cries over the half-sister he never met getting attention because of the mess he created himself and for some reason feels entitled to have everything she has (What? A slutbag whore for a mother and media attention for her and her friends being the victims of a serial killer?) And then we have to believe that just because his birth mother rejected him, he goes on to kill a bunch of innocent people just so he can blame everything on his half-sister and kill her as well.
All that, without even explaining why he overreacts in such a disproportionate way. Sorry, but I can't find anything about that realistic. -
InTheHub — 10 years ago(October 23, 2015 02:30 AM)
At the heart Roman's is the most understandable.
The problem is the long way around we get to it.
But I've said it before and I'll say it again, I prefer this motive tied to the past than some new idiot doing it for some inpersonal reason.
People act like they didn't want the final film to have any personal weight for SidneyAre they serious????
Did they really want the trilogy to end with Bob the janitor being the killer?
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
Stratego — 10 years ago(October 23, 2015 08:28 AM)
No, I think it's the least understandable. I don't understand at all why someone would be so upset about their birth mother rejecting them that they concoct some complicated murder plane and years later go on a murder spree killing innocent people crying over their half-sister getting attention because of the mess they made themselves. Especially with no explanation or background information on why they act so disproportionately.
People act like they didn't want the final film to have any personal weight for SidneyAre they serious????
Did they really want the trilogy to end with Bob the janitor being the killer?
I don't think I ever suggested that. But it would've made more sense if Dewey, Gale or her father had been the killer. A half-brother, whom she's never met or even knew about, being the instigator of it all hardly carries any personal weight. -
Klockard23 — 10 years ago(October 23, 2015 04:22 PM)
lol Roman being tilted psychologically because the mother he spent years trying to track down rejected him is too far fetched, but Dewey (who has a very bad limp), Gale, or Sidney's father suddenly deciding to kill isn't?
-
Stratego — 10 years ago(October 23, 2015 04:48 PM)
I did not say it would not be far-fetched. Guy wanted a killer who would add "personal weight" for Sidney, so in that case any of those characters would've made MORE sense than a half-brother she never even knew about and had no interaction with. At least those three had some history that could offer some sort of explanation.
lol -
Klockard23 — 10 years ago(October 23, 2015 08:12 PM)
But Roman never knowing her personally didn't subtract from his disdain for her, all the while him being the orchestrator behind her murder as well as being a sibling of Sid's still means they're connected to one another.
-
InTheHub — 10 years ago(October 24, 2015 01:40 AM)
No, I think it's the least understandable
Here's the problemBilly and Roman have essentially the same motive. But I find Billy's less understandable because it's a common thing to have an affair, and the person Billy Should hate more than anyone is his dad(who stays alive and apparently bares no responsibility).
Why he decides his girlfriend and high school friends deserve to die because his parents broke up is truly mind boggling.
Roman wanted Maureen dead and then her daughter, he didn't turn on his friends or have someone more responsible who he let live for no reason. Hell Roman even killed Milton, the man who technically caused everything.
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
Stratego — 10 years ago(October 24, 2015 04:22 AM)
Billy and Roman have essentially the same motive.
I don't think they really do. Billy killed because the family he grew up in was destroyed. Roman killed innocent strangers because some woman he never met before didn't immediately welcome him as her son.
But I find Billy's less understandable because it's a common thing to have an affair, and the person Billy Should hate more than anyone is his dad(who stays alive and apparently bares no responsibility).
As I said, it wasn't just the affair, it was because his family had fallen apart and his mother was gone. While he should blame his father, it's really not that strange for a child to hate "the other woman" more and see her as a seductress and homewrecker.
Why he decides his girlfriend and high school friends deserve to die because his parents broke up is truly mind boggling.
Not as much as some grown up guy killing innocent people and a half-sister who didn't even know about him because some woman he never met before didn't immediately welcome him as her son.
Billy started out just wanting Maureen dead. But his issues weren't resolved when she was dead, so he transferred his hate for her onto her daughter and her family. He also ended up liking the taste of killing, and he had a partner who was only in it for the thrill of it. When and how did Roman transition from orchestrating the murder of the birth mother who rejected him to resenting the half-sister who never even knew about him and viciously killing many innocent strangers?
Roman wanted Maureen dead and then her daughter, he didn't turn on his friends or have someone more responsible who he let live for no reason. Hell Roman even killed Milton, the man who technically caused everything.
Wait. Roman killing innocent strangers makes sense, but Billy killing people he or Stu had beef with or who were simply in the way doesn't? Did you miss the major theme of teen violence in the first movie? I have no idea what Roman was a comment on. Bad storylines in soap operas? -
InTheHub — 10 years ago(October 25, 2015 02:57 AM)
Wait. Roman killing innocent strangers makes sense?
He was doing it to try and guilt Sidney out of hiding. Billy and Stu were killing their own "friends". Casey made sense, but Tatum? Randy? His own girlfriend?
The cast of Stab were nothing to Roman.
Bad storylines in soap operas?
It's funny how you always take the soap opera jab at Scream 3. There is an interview with Wes Craven himself from the first Scream stating how much it is like a soap opera storyline, the affair, the murder the revenge.
There's also podcasts out there which state "Scream is a melodramatic overblown soap opera storyline masquerading as a horror film"
Why you have such a beef with the third film in a franchise for stretching is beyond me.
Like I said before, it's as if you think the film suffered no handicapp going in whatsoever.
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
Stratego — 10 years ago(October 25, 2015 04:19 AM)
He was doing it to try and guilt Sidney out of hiding.
So it makes sense that a guy who has personally never killed before starts killing innocent, random people because his birth mother rejected him and he got jealous of the attention the half-sister got for the mess he created himself?
Billy and Stu were killing their own "friends". Casey made sense, but Tatum? Randy? His own girlfriend?
Tatum and Randy were simply in the way. But like I said, there was a major theme about teen violence. Teens getting violent with their friends happens way too much. Randy was never their friend anyway. I already explained why Billy wanted Sidney dead.
The cast of Stab were nothing to Roman.
Stu was a psychopath, why would anyone mean anything to him.
It's funny how you always take the soap opera jab at Scream 3. There is an interview with Wes Craven himself from the first Scream stating how much it is like a soap opera storyline, the affair, the murder the revenge.
And he went into full soap opera-mode for the third film
There's also podcasts out there which state "Scream is a melodramatic overblown soap opera storyline masquerading as a horror film"
The first part of that sentence certainly applies to Scream 3.
Why you have such a beef with the third film in a franchise for stretching is beyond me.
Because it's not a good film. And I have no "beef" with it, I hardy care about it, just like other films that aren't good. But the boards are near dead right now, so on this board I at least get to discuss Scream and keep you in check.
Like I said before, it's as if you think the film suffered no handicapp going in whatsoever
I take those handicaps into account as much as you do with the handicaps of Scream 2. But I don't think Roman's ridiculous motive had anything to do with any setbacks the movie may have suffered. -
Klockard23 — 10 years ago(October 25, 2015 07:28 PM)
So it makes sense that a guy who has personally never killed before starts killing innocent, random people because his birth mother rejected him and he got jealous of the attention the half-sister got for the mess he created himself?
Yes. People in real life have killed for less, and folks often act in ways that aren't entirely rational when they get fired up over something. As mentioned, Billy's ways weren't entirely rational either.
Tatum and Randy were simply in the way. But like I said, there was a major theme about teen violence. Teens getting violent with their friends happens way too much. Randy was never their friend anyway. I already explained why Billy wanted Sidney dead.
Tatum "got in the way" because of the way they specifically planned on how things would go down, i.e. at Stu's house on the one-year anniversary of Maureen's murder. It's not like they absolutely had to do it only one way. I also do think that Stu and Randy were friends, even though Billy and Randy didn't exactly strike me as buds. -
Stratego — 10 years ago(October 26, 2015 04:49 AM)
People in real life have killed for less
Which doesn't make it more understandable. But it's not about his motive hardly being a reason to kill. It's about being ridiculously contrived and not making sense psychologically. As said, I can see him killing Maureen in a fit of rage, I could even see him becoming a serial killer killing random prostitutes or something. But even that, not without some sort of explanation of how he grew up, because most people don't just kill their birth mother because they weren't immediately welcomed by her.
As mentioned, Billy's ways weren't entirely rational either.
No, a normal person wouldn't kill for that reason. But his motive is much more realistic than Roman's.
Tatum "got in the way" because of the way they specifically planned on how things would go down, i.e. at Stu's house on the one-year anniversary of Maureen's murder.
Sidney was staying with Tatum who would not have just left her side, I don't really see how they could've gotten to her without Tatum getting in the way. They also wanted a big horror movie style finale with Sidney and her father ending up dead and them being the wounded survivors, so sneaking into her bedroom and stabbing her without Tatum noticing wouldn't have worked. I don't think they had a choice. Maybe originally Tatum dissing Stu's sexual performance also played a role.
I also do think that Stu and Randy were friend
Hmm, I can't really say I agree. They seemed to be rather antagonistic in the fountain scene. -
InTheHub — 10 years ago(October 26, 2015 05:47 AM)
Like I said, neither motive may be realistic or understandable but it makes "movie sense".
I just think you're applying complete logical and rationality to the third film, and shrugging it off for the first. And if anything, you should be way easier on the third film for obvious reasons.
The third film had a much harder job at coming up with an interesting and believable take for the 5th person attempting to kill Sidney.
I think they were clever to tie it in to the original rather than make it a new person.
I don't think you're giving it any credit for that. Ever. And I find that truly puzzling.
"See it with someone you loveGo by yourself" -
Stratego — 10 years ago(October 26, 2015 08:50 AM)
Like I said, neither motive may be realistic or understandable but it makes "movie sense".
I don't think it makes "Scream sense".
I just think you're applying complete logical and rationality to the third film, and shrugging it off for the first.
No, I don't think I'm doing that. Billy's motive is not rational, I never said it was, but it much more reflects reality and the themes of the Scream series.
The third film had a much harder job at coming up with an interesting and believable take for the 5th person attempting to kill Sidney.
I'm not sure if that's true. I consider those earlier motives I mentioned in a previous post less contrived and more appropriate. But even if what you say is true, then maybe they just shouldn't have made a third movie.
I think they were clever to tie it in to the original rather than make it a new person.
Roman was a new person with a completely new history that was never even alluded to in the previous films.
I don't think you're giving it any credit for that
No, I don't, because I don't think they succeeded in that. I'm not going to give them credit for something I actually consider one of the worst things about the movie. There's absolutely nothing puzzling about that. What IS truly puzzling is that you can't accept that people don't like this movie and have legitimate reasons for that. -
Klockard23 — 10 years ago(October 26, 2015 06:10 PM)
Which doesn't make it more understandable. But it's not about his motive hardly being a reason to kill. It's about being ridiculously contrived and not making sense psychologically. As said, I can see him killing Maureen in a fit of rage, I could even see him becoming a serial killer killing random prostitutes or something. But even that, not without some sort of explanation of how he grew up, because most people don't just kill their birth mother because they weren't immediately welcomed by her.
You clearly know nothing about psychology if you don't think it makes sense psychologically. It makes perfect sense from a real world point of view to anyone who realizes the different perceptions/feelings/etc. people have in regards to particular things that if Roman deluded himself into thinking his mother would accept him and searched for her his whole life that it might indeed turn him for the worse mentally when she told him she wanted nothing to do with him. Now factor in his jealousy/hatred for Sidney (for the obvious reasons) and you have the recipe for a psychopath. Like I said, it's not much of a stretch when you consider people have killed for much less in real life.
No, a normal person wouldn't kill for that reason. But his motive is much more realistic than Roman's.
It matters not to me who had a better reason to kill. Neither was exactly of a 100% healthy mind if they went out and started murdering innocent people to begin with.
Sidney was staying with Tatum who would not have just left her side, I don't really see how they could've gotten to her without Tatum getting in the way. They also wanted a big horror movie style finale with Sidney and her father ending up dead and them being the wounded survivors, so sneaking into her bedroom and stabbing her without Tatum noticing wouldn't have worked. I don't think they had a choice. Maybe originally Tatum dissing Stu's sexual performance also played a role.
lol I'm sure killing her had literally nothing to do with them just enjoying butchering people either, right? It wasn't all about Sidney, hence their enthusiasm for making their own "sequel" later on.
Hmm, I can't really say I agree. They seemed to be rather antagonistic in the fountain scene.
That struck me as friendly banter more than anything. -
Stratego — 10 years ago(October 26, 2015 07:31 PM)
You clearly know nothing about psychology if you don't think it makes sense psychologically.
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.
It matters not to me who had a better reason to kill.
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.
lol I'm sure killing her had literally nothing to do with them just enjoying butchering people either, right? It wasn't all about Sidney, hence their enthusiasm for making their own "sequel" later on.
I already said they developed a taste for killing, so I'm sure they didn't mind. But I don't think they would've killed Tatum if she hadn't been in the way and I don't think Billy or Stu ever cared about her.
That struck me as friendly banter more than anything.
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. -
Stratego — 10 years ago(October 27, 2015 09:46 AM)
No idea. Maybe he took different classes. You have to ask Kevin Williamson. Perhaps he thought he wasn't needed for those other scenes, he was mostly a comic relief character whose main purpose was to provide meta commentary.
-
Klockard23 — 10 years ago(October 27, 2015 11:29 PM)
It wasn't really necessary to involve him in any of the scenes he wasn't in. It may have also been because it makes him further appear as a suspect, i.e. we never see him leave the school building before Principal Himbry is murdered.