u/jasonporter

Hey everyone, I'm a super casual fan of the series. My mom was a diehard and I grew up watching it with her and scaring myself beyond all belief. I rewatched Seasons 1-5 as an adult before the "Season 10" episodes came out, and watched all of those as well. I love the first movie and still throw it on now and then. I've never been a part of the online fandom nor do I know much at all about the behind the scenes stuff.

My roommate told me about the new version of the second movie, which I saw in theaters with my mom and all I really remembered about it was that she hated it, and that it made me uncomfortable because I was gay and in the closet at the time, so the main villains being a gay couple AND all the altar boy stuff sort really made me uncomfortable considering I was watching it with my mom.

Anyway - I just watched the new version. Don't have much to say about it, but like, holy shit how on earth did this movie even get made? A new X-Files movie after the series ended, and it ends up being about a pedo priest and a bunch of russain guys trying to Frankenstein a guy's husband back together? I would think a MILLION dudes in suits would have shut this shit down before it even got greenlit.

Is there any backstory on how the hell this movie got the green light? How did the cast feel about it? Basically if there's any interesting lore or backstory about this movie I would love to hear it from the fans who were there when it all went down.

The one good thing about this movie is that it makes me want to go back and watch the whole series front to back now. I still havent seen Seasons 6-9 since I was a kid.

A lot of people have talked about how Scream 7 doesn't have a meta component, or that it doesn't have anything to say about the current state of horror, which has been a franchise staple since the beginning. In order, the movies covered slashers, sequels, trilogies, reboots, requels, and then franchises with Scream 6.

Scream 7's meta-commentary is about the discourse about the franchise itself. They do this by making the entire film a satire of the two biggest discussion points in the fandom at the time:

• Stu is Alive Conspiracy
• Neve Campbell not being in Scream 6

1. Stu Truthers

The movie is initially presented as a satire of Stu truthers. Because this is the longest standing conspiracy in the franchise, the movie plays with this by actually bringing the possibility into the plot of the film. The scene with Sidney and Gale at the table really drives this point because their dialogue is basically pulled right out of discussion threads about it, Sidney says something to the effect of "Stu being alive is too far-fetched, but it does make for the better story." The film wants the audience to be a part of this discussion, and make you think the same things the characters think.

When it is revealed at the end that Stu isn't the killer, one of Jessica's henchmen basically speaks directly to the audience when he says something like, "Of course Stu is dead. If he was still alive, that would be stupid." This is basically the film taking it's stance on the matter after playing both sides the entire time, that Stu is dead, and the people who want him to be some secret mastermind in the shadows, are basically dumb. I personally think this is funny, but I can see how Stu Truthers would maybe feel offended by the movie so blatantly calling them out.

So if the movie decides that Stu is dead and that truthers are wrong, then what motive do you give to the actual killers?

2. Scream 6 Controversy

Once the movie reveals that Stu isn't the killer, it reveals that the motive this time around is about a DIFFERENT topic that heavily impacted the fandom's history. Neve Campbell not being in Scream 6 and the drama surrounding that entry at the time.

The point of Jessica's motive isn't "parasocial fans" like a lot of people keep saying. Jessica's motive represents both sides of the fandom that debated Neve Campell's exit from the franchise in Scream 6.

Jessica initially starts out as the side of the fandom that was upset that Neve wasn't going to be in the movie. She literally said that Sidney was her final girl, was the one who taught her to be a survivor, and that when Sidney didn't show up in New York, she felt betrayed. This is basically as close as you can get to saying "I'm mad that Sidney wasn't in Scream 6" as you can get without breaking the fourth wall. So Jessica starts out as the side of the franchise that was upset that Sidney wasn't in 6, because she's the "face of the franchise."

However, once Jessica snaps, she becomes the other side of that debate. She says that Sidney isn't needed anymore, and that she's past her prime, and that they need to pass the torch to a new lead. In the movie, that person is Tatum, but she's actually representing Sam, because Jessica is now representing the side of the fandom that wanted Sam to be the new lead and be done with Sidney all together. Half of Jessica's dialogue during this scene could have been pulled straight from Reddit when people discussed whether Neve needed to remain the franchise or not.

The movie takes it's stance on this topic and also really drives this point home with Sidney's one liner after killing Jessica. She says "Past my prime? Fuck you." - This line has SO much thematic weight to what the movie is trying to say. This is the movie basically looking directly into the camera and saying: Anybody who thought Neve was too old or irrelevant to carry the franchise, fuck you.

The whole point of the motive is to tell the audience Neve is the face of the franchise - but you need both sides of the argument to understand what they are trying to say. I will admit - I think they dropped the ball a bit on making it clear to the audience this is what they were doing. The entire motive reveal needed a couple rewrites, because I think most of what they were playing with here went over the audience's heads, and I definitely see why. But it's a shame, because I really like the idea that Jessica's motive is about Neve's worth as a final girl in the franchise.

TL;DR

The movie's meta element isn't about horror, it's a satire of Stu Truthers and the Scream 6 controversy. Whether they pulled it off is definitely up for debate. But I think understanding what they were trying to do makes the film make a lot more sense, and makes it more enjoyable on future viewings.

It's kind of hard to explain what I'm asking here - but I really enjoy watching bad movies and bad sequels - not because they are good, or because I like the subject material, but to basically see how a franchise went downhill, or if I can try to understand what the film makers were trying and failed to do, or just enjoy it for being so bad it's entertaining.

Some examples of this are slasher franchises - I love Nightmare on Elm Street, and when I went through the original 7, the sixth entry (Freddy's Dead) is like, objectively a terrible film. But I still enjoyed watching it, because it was fascinating to see what the franchise had become, and I got a lot of entertainment out of how bad it was.

I also loved watching movies like Madame Webb, The Room, or Troll 2 in a group of people because they are all so bad that it's fun to watch and make fun of.

I've always been fascinated by S. Darko because Donne Darko is a Top 5 movie for me. And even though I know it's terrible, and an insult to the original, I'm still fascinated to watch it and just see how bad it is. Is it worth checking out in that regard? I guess the only thing that would make me NOT want to watch it is if it's just... boring? A bad movie that is boring really can't be salvaged in any way. But if it has some sort of interesting angle to latch on to, like being so bad it's good, or making no sense whatsoever, or anything I can sort of analyze or think about to make it entertaining in some way, I kind of want to watch it some time.