Mickey disappears for most of the movie and what other purpose would this reporter that seems to have a beef with Gale and played by Laurie Metcal (pretty well known from Roseanne) have?
shareI definitely agree. Mickey was the most obvious out of all the killers in the films. Not only the disappearing thing but he kept throwing suspicion on others and he was very chillaxed but also a little too animated. His look and demeanor is just very creepy. As soon as he came on screen, I knew something sinister was at play. He excitedly stated facts about the kills. He was just sketchy altogether.
Mrs. Loomis was for the reasons you mentioned.
Despite that, they were both really great performances and Scream 2 is my favorite.
Mrs. Loomis was not at all obvious -- or at least she was as obvious as any other suspicious looking person. I remember watching it and simply thinking that Gale was just getting a taste of her own medicine.
Maybe you're being honest, but I tend to think that most all the people who post the tired "It was obvious!" posts are just plain old liars.
Almost everyone in the movie looks a little creepy/suspicious (and I mean everyone, including Dewey, Cotton, Randy, Derek, etc.) so I see it as a convenient little catch-all -- just so they can claim they "knew it all along" -- when they probably had the same thought about a dozen other people in the movie.
"My mom and dad are gonna be so mad at meee..." Stu
Mrs. Loomis was kinda obvious. Gale was definitely getting a taste of her own medicine but there was always something more to Mrs. Loomis and you learn that by how her first scene ended with Gale insulting her and she rolled her eyes. Some of the people who post the tired "It was obvious!" posts are just plain old liars to make theirselves look good but not all of them. Almost everyone in the movie looks a little creepy and suspicious but nobody stood out like Mickey and Mrs. Loomis. Debbie Salt kept showing up conveniently and she stuck around too long to just be some sort of side character. I kept thinking she was a killer but I wanted to believe she was just a red herring or or gonna save the day. I suspected Mickey in the film class scene but it was confirmed he was the killer right after Sid and Dewey had their convo and when the group approached Sid, Mickey was too excited while discussing Maureen's death.
shareFair enough. But I have to say: if you figured out exactly who the killers were on your first viewing -- to the exclusion of all the other suspects -- then you are a genius. (not sarcasm)
"My mom and dad are gonna be so mad at meee..." Stu
Thanks! Not bad your self.
shareOf course he didn’t. Nobody correctly guesses the killers to the exclusion of everyone else.
This whole ‘I knew the killers all along’ claim is bullshit willy waving.
What they mean is that they suspected everyone, including the correct killers, as the film went along - which is what everyone does because that’s the game these films play, ‘everyone’s a suspect’.
They then pretend that that means they amazingly guessed the killers and disregarded everyone else before the reveal.
Short of someone proving that they haven’t seen the film, writing down the correct killers before the film begins and then showing they got it right… I don’t believe one of these post-hoc internet ‘geniuses’ at all.
"Nobody correctly guesses the killers to the exclusion of everyone else."
Anybody who noticed Mickey holding a video camera during the press conference in the beginning and latter saw the footage of the crowd during Dewey and Gale's make-out scene could've concluded he was one of the killers. That's how I did it. And it's not because of some special ability of mine that I like to brag about, but simply because of a neat little hint the filmmakers put in the movie that was unfortunately a bit too obvious.
Yes, that’s what I mean, you suspected Mickey would be a killer, so did everyone, but I do not believe that you predicted that Mickey and Debbie Salt would exclusively be the killers.
It's less about guessing who and more about what are their motivations.
shareThat’s a different topic to what we’re discussing here. Yes, the motivations are interesting but they’re often impossible to guess since we don’t have all the information - like we had no idea that Billy killed Sid’s mother for boinking his dad until he confessed it so we couldn’t guess that he was on a revenge mission all along. Similarly, it would be impossible to guess Debbie’s motivation until she revealed that she’s secretly Billy’s mother.
shareUhm, I was 100% sure once I saw that footage that he was one of the killers. I mean, it wasn't even a guess or just a suspicion at that point. I did not believe there could be any other explanation. I would've made a bet on it, actually.
Debbie Salt, not a clue, though.
Yes, again, that’s my point, you suspected him along with multiple other characters, just like everyone else, but didn’t predict that Mickey and Debbie would exclusively be the killers - which is what many internet willy wavers like to pretend.
shareActually, I didn't even suspect Mickey before that point.
Do you even know what scene I'm talking about? When Dewey and Gale are making out in the school at night, Ghostface suddenly starts playing footage on the tv set. If you noticed Mickey holding a camera at the press conference like I did, you actually KNOW he is the killer. I predicted it, I just didn't say it out loud in the theater because people would not have been happy.
Yes I know that bit, but Mickey was probably the series’ most obvious killer because he’s an ever-present side character who then disappears for the second half of the film when Ghostface is running around stabbing people. As Sid’s circle of friends drop like flies it’s pretty obvious who’s left.
Plus, he’s always trying to point the finger at others and he’s creepy from his first scene. The film made no effort to ‘throw you off the scent’ as the first film did with Billy, so it’s pretty unsurpring when he finally unmasks.
Those are certainly things that make him look suspicious (Roman's "death" scene is even more obvious in that regard), but they could've been red herrings. That footage, however, could only have come from Mickey and that's why I think his identity as the killer could've been predicted instead of just being an educated guess.
shareMickey’s absence in the second half of the film while Ghostface is hacking through Sid’s friends is not a ‘red herring’, its strong logical evidence that he will be revealed as a killer.
Him filming a press conference could have been a red herring, but it’s too inconclusive. There are tons of cameras at a press conference.
Lol, first you say no one could've predicted Mickey as the killer and now you say he was so suspicious you could???
Only after the movie is over could one definitel say Mickey's absence wasn't a red herring. Saying he was the killer based on that would've been an educated guess and nothing more. Also, storywise there was no need for Mickey to show up again, there wasn't really a scene anymore where that made sense. He also could've popped up in the finale as an innocent victim like Cotton. Or the whole character could've been a red herring, actually.
As for the footage, that could NEVER have been a red herring anymore at that point. It wasn't even in-your-face enough as a hint. The point is that Mickey's camera scene in the beginning had no other function in the movie except for that scene which tied him to Ghostface. And which other character was at the press conference holding a camcorde? This isn't some intricate movie, it was obvious what that footage meant.
Lol, first you say no one could've predicted Mickey as the killer and now you say he was so suspicious you could???
"No, you still haven’t grasped my point. Pay attention."
You need to pay attention to your own words. You said Mickey's absence was "strong logical" evidence and could not have been a red herring. Well, if that's true, one could safely have predicted he was the killer to "the exclusion of everybody else" (who even claimed that last part since there's still the possibility of multiple killers?)
"In order to qualify as a red herring the film would have to draw attention to his absence"
Sidney to Derek: "What happened to Mickey?"...and we never see him again until the reveal. But my actual point is that Mickey's absence proves nothing during the film, because he could've shown up in any other capacity in the meantime. One doesn't know where the movie is going. I mean, at what point in the movie does one conclude that his absence means he's the killer?
"Mickey filming the press conference could easily be a red herring, "
Nah, you're failing to grasp MY point. Mickey with his camera means nothing in itself, but once the footage of a CAMCORDER is shown, it's obvious what the intention of the filmmakers was. It's not like any other character was explicitly shown holding a camcorder.
I now feel like I’m playing chess with someone who thinks the way to win is to eat the most pieces.
You still haven’t grasped the point I’m making, and have spelled out to you repeatedly.
Now you’re dragging the discussion down absurd and irrelevant blind alleys full of your own conjecture, and it seems this isn’t the only Scream 2 thread you’ve done that on. So we’re going to wrap it up here.
But… I want to be fair. If anyone else reading this thinks I haven’t made my point clearly enough, or thinks that there’s any actual merit to any of Stratego’s points then please let me know and I’ll address them.
Stratego, here’s the gold star ⭐️ you wanted for noticing that Mickey was holding a camcorder during the press conference (pretty obvious), now let’s hope someone out there thinks you’ve made a valid point. Good luck!
Lol, the fact you see this as some kind of game says more about you than me.
But thanks for deflecting by responding only with ad hominem attacks. It just proves my point.👍
"Stratego, here’s the gold star ⭐️ you wanted for noticing that Mickey was holding a camcorder during the press conference"
Hilarious. So many points you're missing and things that go over your head. As I clearly stated:
"it's not because of some special ability of mine that I like to brag about, but simply because of a neat little hint the filmmakers put in the movie that was unfortunately a bit too obvious."
If anything, the filmmakers deserve a 1-point deduction for their mistake. My comment was nothing more than a response to your claim that "nobody correctly guesses the killers to the exclusion of everyone else" and it's just a case of suspecting every character, which I simply disagreed with in regard to the character of Mickey. But apparently your fragile aspie ego won't accept anyone contradicting you.🍆
Didn’t read any of that. If there’s anything relevant and valid in your posts that I haven’t addressed then someone will be along to highlight it.
share