u/AdNo7136

This isn't a defense of the film, I saw the same weaknesses others had on top of my own issues. Regardless, I plan to watch it again sometime this week if I can to solidify my opinion.

I really just wanted to make some bullet points after my weekend marathon of the franchise + A Haunted House movies. I also did research on the series and related Wayans stuff for some production insight since SM7 is basically guaranteed with the current box office. Basically I want to share context of why SM6 turned out the way it did.

1. Based on my own viewing, SM1/SM2 still hold up despite dated material. The quality differences with SM6 has less to do with carry over and more to do with Keenan directing them verses Tiddes.

2. The involvement of Tiddes and the heavier proportion of Shorty in screentime are related to the core matter of Marlon being the biggest pusher of Scary Movie "coming back" and in general just being the most active in the niche since SM2. He and Tiddes low budget projects were closer antecedents to SM6 than the streak of the first 2. I really see no one else plausible who were going step up to the plate and claim the franchise.

3. After 50 Shades of Black, in 2016 on Twitter Marlon expresses fatigue over doing parodies and planned on doing other comedies. When Glickman gave him back the rights in 2024, he even expressed that it was likely going to be hard to get "back" into it among other family related events. So there was further stylistic discontinuity.

4. Many disappointed with SM6 bring up SM3 by comparison, many praising it as the best film. Setting aside my bias for the style of the first 2, I still see why. Zucker's approach imo was just cleaner, in terms of the integration of the witty dialogue, the slapstick, gags set ups and punch lines. Even when the Wayans style works there is more of an improv/sporadic feel of it.

5. However, it really pains me to say that I think people's evaluation of Zucker is selective in their emphasis of SM3, when he was just as much involved in SM4 and SM5. In recent interviews he personally holds SM3 and SM4 in similar regards, though he mentioned SM4 was more rushed back when it came out. SM5 had a different director, but Zucker himself choose Malcom Lee to direct and he still write the film with the same group as he had before. The only genuine challenges was how uninspired he felt of Sinister and having to add on additional scenes like the Evil Dead segments (The best scenes imo).

6. SM4, on rewatch, was mainly dragged down due to the Bulk of the Tom Ryan plotline basically being worse than following Cindy and Brenda. SM5 had an even worse issue with Dan's plot being weaker than Jody's. There was worse integration of these plots that helped the pace of the past 2 Zucker films.

7. 2013 provided a test then to compare Wayans verses Zucker in a way then with similar prompts, with IMO A Haunted House being considerably better than SM5. It committed more to emulating the films it was based on and the gregarious nature of the comedy better drove it as well.

8. I will talk more about the streak of the Wayans more, but I want to focus more on Zucker. He commented on the whole situation with him, the Wayans, and the SM franchise. He basically said what happened with the Wayans originally was Hollywood business he wasn't involved in till after the fact, but regardless he felt glad they got the franchise back and wished them success. He also said he thought they were funny, but had choice words for the T**he Naked Gun reboot. He said Seth McFarlane didn't know how to spoof despite thinking he was funny, but never mentioned the actual director or writers for the movie or their backgrounds. Take those comments as you will.

9. Many people upset with SM6 fall into two overlapping camps. One thought they weren't offensive enough, some thought what was done and the marketing comments was stale boomer-humor. Well since at least 2022 Zucker been on this topic where he said that offensiveness he found in the industry since the 2000s held back comedy and gave examples. If you want an example of his later work fighting against such restraint see American Carol from 2008. I will spare the political interrogation, but Zucker's words/actions imo made me more firm that Marlon talking about it was less sincere and more of a marketing ploy.

10. Despite my assessment of HH vs. SM5, don't get me wrong, I was under no impression of the Wayans Bros coming back was a guaranteed win even before it was official. I refuse to watch Dance Flick out of sheer association with the Friedberg/Seltzer Era (I avoided theaters like the plague until High School because of them). I did watch 50 Shades of Black where the unintentional hilarity of the original outdoes the comedy of the parody imo. It just didn't work for me and I don't desire a rewatch. I fall into the camp of SM6 being on the better streak of Marlon's career since I would watch it again.

11. A counterfactual of Zucker back in SM6 is still worth discussing, however it should be remembered why he wasn't even attached to the original plans to Naked Gun 4. The studio rejected his original script and, in general, Zucker doesn't like retreading via direct sequels. This is why he didn't direct the 3rd Naked Gun one, and why his project he tried getting of the ground Counterintelligence focused away from the old continuity. This is all to say that there is a reason why he seems fine working on his independent products. I just don't see him redoing SM3 to audience satisfaction as likely based on his radar alone.

12. My very generous take before my rewatch is that Scary Movie 2026 was Marlon and crew getting their bearings back. I really hope consideration is better for SM7 that he plans on doing. Till then, positive, negative, whatever I still want to hear what others have to say about what they notice/pondered if they watched the film or other creative/production factors that affected the theatrical cut.

So I literally rewatched them yesterday (hold up pretty well imo) in a marathon of the series and the Haunted House Films.

I came across a forum on a different site that lumped both movies as mean-spirited in contrast to SM3 argued to have not "punched down". This was an odd criticism but I decided to reflect on it.

The only things I could think about from SM1 are the scenes that make sense from the context of gravitas the original scenes they parody. While funny intentionally or not at times, Scream and I Know What you Did Last Summer (loosely based on a suspense book btw) had designed melodrama where the protags feel perpetually threatened. This "negativity" exploding in the form of slapstick violence and taking the piss of their constructed adversity imo is a natural spin from irreverence not requiring malice. A more obvious example is Cindy's outburst with Bobby in the hall being over the Spice Girls breaking up than her dead mother like in Scream.

Applying it to SM2, I don't think anything was more mean spirited than Dwight trying to crawl up the stairs and refusing help. I mean they were taking jabs at him throughout the film and one way or another took jabs at each character.

I feel it's weird to remove SM3 from the list when it had Brenda's corpse being mutilated in front of her upset parents, people from the "hood" killing each other over stepping on each other's shoes flippantly, and a scene talking about how boy's umbilical cord cutting was botched in an unfortunate way based on an originally uplifting scene.

Does anyone else feel this way about the "jabs" in SM1 and SM2?

TLDR: Half baked but good vibes. I want a 7th film.

Going in-

I went into this film feeling...challenged. I heard dozens of stories of dead and raving audiences. I heard good, bad, and middle of the road opinions. Every since the first leak I was determined to see it today because I loved the horror movies referenced and the excitement it believed in.

Impressions-

My best description of this movie was that it was like watching Scary Movie 2 in reverse. When I watched them years ago I felt Scary Movie 2 started very strong, but towards the final act it felt weaker (apparently production conflicts factor here). Scary Movie 6 imo started pretty okay, but the follow through before the final act was jarring. Then the final act felt more layered than the rest of the film. There was direction, a "point" rather corny or not that made me think "Scary Movie".

As empty as I felt, it made sense in a weird way. Looking back what carried Scream 5 was the internal turmoil of Melissa's character and the chops of Jenna Ortega imo. Alot of it, especially the Ghostface motives, can be seen as bloated and "legacy slop" you see in H18, Netflix's TCM, and the Last Summer Requel. Here, instead, their counterparts are a mess and there is "some" competition between them and the "OG" characters as focus.

Issues-

Where the intention and wit falls is that they don't do enough with that angle imo. I think the actors they got for the "Legacy characters" were fun but they didn't do much with them beyond their caricatures when they weren't ripping directly on Scream 5. Likewise I think Doofy and Gail should've had more effort, where Doofy more actively struggling more to be relevant only to be killed unceremoniously. Gail likewise feeling insecure as the protag in The Substance does as a media figure, hence why her reports on TV are lowbrow "edgy" topics". It's a compensation tactic. This could've paid off in a single convo at the crime scene.

Changes like this should've been the topic of the April reshoots and not the K-Pop DH bit. That was too bizarre to me and preferred the trailer version where he meet doubles and vibes. With better editing and testing the original trailer scenes it would've been considerably better, and the isolated references to other movies could've meshed better. Before the original trailer I noticed it was only shot in a month so I was skeptical of it's quality. It was so close imo to avoiding the current disappointment.

"Harm"?-

the marketing weighed heavily on offensiveness and poking fun and honestly I always thought this was a tactic on free advertising and "buzz" than an actual priority in the production and it showed. I am aware of many editing differences from Test Screenings but I heard similar criticisms even under those circumstances.

This obviously worked against it based on what many were expecting to "be challenged". Instead the argument shifted (maybe in its favour this weekend?) is where in the Venn diagram of weakness and strengths of the franchise this movie lies? Despite all my mix feelings, I do not feel detoured from watching it again.

Save and Grace-

Something that even alot of negative reviews appreciated, especially from those who were fans of the movie, was that having the "Core Four" back was a delight. What I didn't get in well woven juggling of different Horror movies I did get in enjoying seeing the cast back. This even helped jokes imo that people call "dated" like the COVID, #Metoo, and various Gen Z jokes. I never got the impression of other that these Jokes were bitter or judgemental, rather that they were silly tibits they wanted to throw in to accentuate the gap in time. Some worked, some didn't.

In general I see chemistry between the actors in general in a way that is this film's clear advantage over something like Scream 5. Nothing is felt as an impressionable from that movie within the cast as here. The only real issue is just the prior issues of follow through and full utilization of characters.

Verdict-

You'll get more mileage out this movie if you were a Haunted House(s) Fan than a strict Scary Movie Fan. Same director, many of the same weaknesses, where you will be guided back into unique aspect of Scary Movie through the full cast. That's the simply path to enjoying this film.

It's hard not to see that as a low standard. Things like narrative and "themes" don't need Keenan Wayans directing like many people wanted like in the OG Wayans films. Marlon and Tiddes did Sextuplets which I think had a narrative and a theme and stood out against the other movies the two created. I felt the same way with Marlon Wayans "Senseless" and even "Little Man". My point is, if Marlon wanted to have a stronger narrative, he could've done it. This should've been the priority of reshoots or whatever was the production meddling.

I could go on this tangent forever, and plenty can do the same better than I can. But I simply think that wasn't what Marlon and the Wayans set out to do. I simply think they wanted to have "Haunted House" Fun with the return of the Franchise into there hands now. I wished it was more, but I as I type I get more comfortable with my viewing through that lens.