Scream Fan Theory Scream 2. As much as you may love the original Scream, you may not enjoy Scream 2 nearly as much. Most fans consider the first superior; it has a 6.1 compared to Scream's 7.2 on IMDb, a 61% on Metacritic to Scream's 63%, and it rarely beats the original in both forums and rankings of the films. (To be fair, it does have 2% higher on Rotten Tomatoes, at 81%, to Scream's 79%.) After all it is a sequel, which deems it a dumping ground for many fans of the genre, including Randy.Randy's argument in Scream 2 is simple: sequels are often paint-by-the- numbers Hollywood cash grabs (looking at you, Friday the 13th Part 2), following the original verbatim, with no original screams or laughs. Scream 2 initially does follow the structure of the original. The victims of the second movie match those in the first movie to a limited extent, leading Gale to invent the copycat theory, which states that the killer is patterning himself after the original film.Williamson is, in the meta style beloved by fans of the franchise, stating that Scream 2 is, prior to his death, inferior to the original. After this point in the film the copycat theory falls apart, as Randy was obviously not killed in the original. Starting at this point, the film becomes far more exciting: all bets are off, as the death of the franchise's most beloved supporting character kicks off a whirlwind building to an epic chase in a theater which comprises roughly the second half of the film.One of the more often discussed points of Scream 2 is that Mickey's love for sequels foreshadows that he is the killer. Sidney believed Billy and Stu killed because they "had seen one too many horror movies"; she may also have believed that Mickey simply took his love of sequels too far, leading him to join the serial killer network described by Mrs. Loomis near the end of the film and promptly join her on the murderous rampage which claimed the lives of eight innocent students. In effect, Mickey symbolizes support for the sequel in the horror genre, and when he kills Randy, who represents disdain for sequels (going so far as to claim they ruined the horror genre), Williamson sends a much-needed "fuck you" to those who, although fans of the first film, disregard the second.Furthermore, as sequels are often deemed unoriginal, enjoying them may imply that sequel lovers are themselves less original. In Scream 2, this is certainly true, as Mickey's motivations are hardly unique, both in that he agrees with the moral majority which believes horror movies create psychos and in that he fills in for Stu's role in the first film, in acting as the sidekick who is first to go. Williamson would be hard-pressed to cite an example of Mickey expanding meaningfully on the Scream mythos as he functions as a killer. In effect, Mickey himself also represents the convention of the horror sequel: a paint-by-the-numbers cash grab (as I described earlier). Thus, Mickey's death essentially represents the death of the unoriginal sequel; much as Scream hoped to end horror clichés such as "I'll be right back" and investigating a strange noise, Scream 2 hopes to end unoriginal sequels.I have heard criticisms that Mickey's character is too on-the-nose, in that he is a film director ranting about the psychological effects of horror films. However, this critique falls apart quickly when we compare it against the incredible reveal in Scream 1, in which Billy states the famous line, "movies don't make psychos, Sid. Movies make psychos more creative". The Scream franchise has never been particularly subtle, ranging from the thinly veiled allusions to Columbine in Scream 3, the aforementioned scenes in both the original and the sequel, and the rant about the increasingly contrived additions to the Stab franchise (time travel is a major plot point of Stab 5) which implies the pointlessness of any Scream film past Scream 3. And I have never heard any of those films criticized for their bluntness.Scream 2 understands the genre deeper than even the original film. Its first major point of analysis is its middle finger to detractors, its second the (naive) death of unoriginal genre sequels. However, there is another key insight.It occurs when Mrs. Loomis shoots Mickey. In order to understand why this death matters, we have to understand what Mrs. Loomis represents. Out of all seven killers within the movie franchise, nine counting the MTV television series, Mrs. Loomis is the only one not affiliated with the genre in some way or form. Billy and Stu are casual fans who took pointers from the genre. Billy mentions The Exorcist, and Stu mentions watching a few horror movies, likely slashers such as Halloween, Friday the 13th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street- and taking notes. Mickey is a film student, obsessed with proving that sequels can be better than the original. Roman is a film director who abandons his in-movie movie Stab 3 for the real movie Scream 3 and set in motion the events of the first film, after creating a "family film" documenting the affair between Maureen Prescott and Hank Loomis, Billy's father. Jill enjoys watching Shaun of the Dead with Kirby. Charlie flirts with Kirby about minute details of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, films everything, and asks his classmates randomly what their favorite scary movie is, awkwardly Ghostface without Piper is familiar with horror tropes, as we learn in her reveal in which she rants about the sexist assumption that the killer had to be the son of Brandon James, and finally, Kieran does not seem to be aware of the genre, but he is a bit of an exception already, having been the only Ghostface to be killed by another Ghostface and be part of 2 separate killing sprees.

bruingal-28746 The beginning scene at the sneak preview of "Stab" is too unreal. No ONE behaves like that inside a theater room; people running around with fake knives, throwing popcorn at the screen, and acting like it's a playground. Second, WHY would a horror film based on real murders allow masks and fake knives inside the theater ? It's common sense. I just find it too unrealistic and cheesy. You don't put people in danger by handing out killer's masks, making it way too easy for actual murders and/or dangerous activity to take place. Don't get me wrong, I love Wes Craven and re-watching 90s flicks, but the only thing making this film tolerable is Gale's character and Deputy Dewy.

skybrick736 The genius of Scream 2 is the callbacks and homage it pays to former horror sequels and to the original Scream. Scream is iconic for its self-reflection, its placement in the horror genre, and the rules, which horror movies abide by. My own set of rules to a great sequel differ than the film. The rules are simple but are sadly not achieved as often as they should be. First, continuity, have a story that follows the events from the original or just limit the plot holes and have it be logical. Scream 2 passes the first rule with a big check-mark. Second, bring back major players, which Scream 2 exceeded at by starring Neve Campbell (Sidney), David Arquette (Dewey), Courteney Cox (Gale), Jamie Kennedy (Randy), and Liev Schreiber (Cotton). The third and final rule is a trickier concept to handle by filmmakers, which is maintaining the same atmosphere that made the original fantastic but to steer the story in a new direction. Wes Craven fulfilled all these rules, especially the third by preserving the character's personality, comedic moments, music theme, film style, and general mood and feeling of the film. Craven also connects the dots perfectly beginning to end on killer identity and motive and concluding with a satisfying ending. For all the reasons above, if I was in a film class and had to name a sequel that surpassed its original, one that would definitely come to mind is Scream 2.

MaximumMadness It's odd how some films in retrospect were clearly ahead of their time. While the original "Scream" is undeniably a classic of both its time and the horror genre as a whole, it's hard not to notice that its stellar first sequel "Scream 2" doesn't command nearly the same level of respect with audiences despite garnering similar critical acclaim. And I do think that in a way, it's because "Scream 2" was ahead of its time.How so? It championed and furthered many elements introduced in the original, and fully realizes the potential of some of the elements introduced by its predecessor. Most notable- "Scream 2" is one of the most delightfully "meta" mainstream films I've seen… but it was released about a decade before the whole "meta" concept became a "thing" that audiences recognized. While today, you can throw a rock and hit something that could be construed (or misconstrued) as "meta"… not so much back in the 90's. I know a lot of people who saw "Scream 2" and its larger focus on meta back in the day as the film just being "confusing" or "sillier" or "weird." Yes, the first film had a lot of meta elements, but it wasn't until this sequel that director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson really went to town and had fun with it. And I think that it went right over a lot of audience's heads when it came out. But especially looking back now, it's easier to see just why this second go is almost as good as the original, and how this stronger focus on self-aware meta storytelling was a great direction to go. Hell, I think it could be argued it even exceeds the original in some ways.The film's opening perfectly establishes this hyper-meta tonality when we start at a public screening of "Stab"- a movie- within-the-movie, based loosely on the events of the original film. It's at this premier that a new "Ghostface" emerges, and takes out a couple film-goers in an opening kill that in my opinion matches the shocking iconic start of the original. Sidney Prescott is now attending college with friend and fellow- survivor Randy, and upon hearing of the new murders, they immediately become suspicious and go on-guard. After being re- united with Dewey and Gale and helping introduce the audience to the newcomer characters, it becomes another fight-for-survival as the new "Ghostface" targets our returning heroes, seemingly in an attempt to make a "real-life sequel" to the events of the original film.Like the original, the heart of this follow-up is writer Kevin Williamson's wonderful screenplay. As mentioned above, Williamson dives into full-blown "meta" territory here, raising the stakes, the laughs and the scares to new level, but always grounded in a self-aware fashion. He also makes the wise choice of giving the returning characters just enough moments of serious character development without bogging down the fast-pacing or feeling out of place. It's one of the most solid scripts for a horror sequel I think has ever been written. And if one pays attention, you can even see Williamson subtly planting the seeds for future sequels and where it may take the story, though done with a sense of class that doesn't just make it feel like sequel-baiting. (It's just a shame the Williamson-less "Scream 3" didn't pay off on these concepts…) I do believe that on the whole, the writing for this film is cleverer and wittier than the original.Craven of course returns, and just as in the original, his classy sense of visual storytelling and direction helps convey the themes, ideas and of course the gags and scares in expert fashion. With the film going as self-aware as it did, I think that in less capable hands, it could have ventured into cartoonish territory. Thankfully, Craven and his confidence in the material keep it from going there, so it's still a blast of fun and has a good sense of tonal continuity with the original.This film also solidifies that the series cast is just wonderful. Neve Campbell is a revelation in this film and brings more life and pathos to her character. Other returning players such as Jamie Kennedy are a ton of fun. Courtney Cox and David Arquette once again steal the show. And newcomers like Jerry O'Connell and Sarah Michelle Gellar fit right in. The best new addition, however, is definitely Liev Schreiber as Cotton Weary, the man Sidney originally suspected of killing her mother before learning this wasn't the case in the original film. Schreiber is a blast as a sort-of sniveling man who is trying to cash-in on his media infamy by forcing Sidney into interviews with him for the news in a hope to gain a bit of fame. It's a very fun part, and Schreiber plays it very well.However, unlike the original... there are some flaws. And they're what's keeping this just shy of getting a perfect 10. And those flaws almost entirely pertain to the script, as despite the level of cleverness and wit displayed by Williamson's writing, it's got some issues. Most notably that it seems Williamson painted himself into a corner more than once, leading to a few awkward scenes where instead of creatively subverting audience expectations like he did in the original... he relied on the horror cliche's and tropes he spent the entire last film lampooning. (A scene inside of a car involving a knocked-out "Ghostface" is a prime example.)These moments are just too contrary to the other, much better written scenes to ignore, so I have to knock off a point.However, despite these problems, "Scream 2" is another winner. It's furiously entertaining, wickedly creative and simultaneously humorous and horrifying.A near-perfect 9 out of 10, and a fine example of a sequel-done- right!