MovieChat Forums > Scream 3 (2000) Discussion > What Is So Bad About Roman's Motive, Exa...

What Is So Bad About Roman's Motive, Exactly?

posted 9 years ago by Klockard23
51 replies | jump to latest

Like most people, I find Scream 3 to be the weakest film of the original trilogy and maybe even weaker than the disappointment that was Scream 4 (actually, scratch that - it's definitely better than part 4.) But one of the main complaints over the movie relates to Roman's backstory and how he's Sidney's half-brother and how he was the original mastermind behind Maureen's murder. I ask, what is so bad about it?

I didn't care about the Hollywood backdrop or her being an aspiring actress who was gang-raped, but the basic idea of him being an abandoned and unwanted child of Maureen's and blah blah blah was fine to me. There was a lot of things wrong with Scream 3, but I didn't find that to be one of them. It was meant to be the finale and so they wanted to tie it into the original film somehow as a way of giving the trilogy as a whole some feeling of closure.

[–] Axle_Starr 9 years ago

Exactly. To me, Roman had the best motive of any killer because I could believe someone being driven to kill for those reasons (I recall reading another poster express that they had some kind of experience with this personally even). It also makes the most realistic sense of any of the killer's motives; it tends to not turn out well when a deranged someone is rejected by the object of their obsession

People just look for things to hate sometimes

I'll take a potato chip...and EAT IT!!

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

Roman's motive was actually one of the biggest problems I had with the movie. It was soapy, unrealistic, contrived, whiny and much too vague. And it tried to tie into the first movie, but it just failed. Roman's supposed involvement in Maureen's murder plan just made it also seem very soapy, unrealistic and contrived.

[–] Klockard23 9 years ago

Well, there's only so many different ways you can tie the third film back into the original. Plus, it's not like the other ideas they had for the third movie were any better. Stu surviving the first movie and masterminding the attacks from prison? A whole group of people being behind the third Ghostface killings, only to reveal at the end that no one actually died and that it was all just a huge prank (i.e. a revision of the twist from April's Fool Day from 1982)? Meh.

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

Those other two scenarios are absolutely awful. But did the third movie really HAVE to tie into the original? It seems pointless now with the fourth movie. I think I even prefer Angelina's motive from an earlier draft, maybe Roman should've had a similar motive as a movie director. I also seem to remember some talk about a scrapped idea (don't remember if it was for 3 or 4) with one of the characters being a former classmate of Sidney who was upset that her mother's death got no attention because of the whole media circus surrounding Maureen's death or something? That actually seems like a better motive to me.

[–] Klockard23 9 years ago

Well, three was meant to be the final one, so they wanted to do something that felt like closure and signified that everything might finally be over for good. Just having a couple of random killers with random motives wouldn't have been satisfying enough unless Sidney was killed at the end (since the Ghostface killings always center around her, her death might have plausibly brought an end to any more Ghostface murders happening in the future.)

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

Well, I'm sure there are far less soapy, unrealistic, contrived, whiny and vague possible motives. It's up to the writer to be more imaginitive than I am.

[–] Axle_Starr 9 years ago

They were IMO because Roman's motive was one of the more purely realistic ones of the bunch

I'll take a potato chip...and EAT IT!!

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

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 9 years ago

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 Sidney...Are they serious????

Did they really want the trilogy to end with Bob the janitor being the killer?

"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

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 Sidney...Are 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 9 years ago

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 9 years ago

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 9 years ago

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.

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

Ofcourse she would feel disdain for a killer, but how much personal weight does it really carry?

[–] InTheHub 9 years ago

No, I think it's the least understandable

Here's the problem...Billy 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 love...Go by yourself"

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

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 9 years ago

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 love...Go by yourself"

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

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 9 years ago

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 9 years ago

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 9 years ago

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 love...Go by yourself"

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

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 9 years ago

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 9 years ago

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.

[–] InTheHub 9 years ago

Randy was the fifth wheel

Anyone wonder why Randy is absent for the whole middle section of the movie? Why he isn't at school?

"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

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 9 years ago

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.

[–] Klockard23 9 years ago

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.

He didn't create the mess entirely on his own, though. He motivated Billy to kill Maureen and that's it. He didn't know it would set off a domino effect of two full-fledged killing sprees where Sidney would end up becoming a global sympathetic victim. It's understandable that he would further resent her over that. And we don't need to be filled in as to why he'd "take the rejection so hard", we can figure that much out for ourselves.

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.

Because Stu deciding to kill just because his best friend talks him into it is so much more realistic than someone hating their sibling for getting the cherished life they so strongly wished/felt should have been their's.

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.

That still doesn't stop them from being legit friends, though.

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

He didn't create the mess entirely on his own

He was the instigator. And it's not like he couldn't have predicted that a brutal murder in a small town would get a lot of attention. Blaming Sidney for something she had no control over is not even in the same category as blaming Maureen for not accepting him.

And we don't need to be filled in as to why he'd "take the rejection so hard", we can figure that much out for ourselves.

Unlike Stu and Mickey, who are just psychopaths, Roman is supposed to have a reason to kill. But your birth mother simply not welcoming you immediately is not a good enough reason.

Because Stu deciding to kill just because his best friend talks him into it is so much more realistic than someone hating their sibling for getting the cherished life they so strongly wished/felt should have been their's.

I think it is. Stu is a psychopath with an admiration for Billy. He's also a teenager, so his comment about "peer pressure" is not that ridiculous. It's one thing to resent your sibling for their "cherished" life (like I've said, slutty Maureen as a mother and media attention for almost getting killed?), it's something else to kill random, innocent people to frame that sibling.

That still doesn't stop them from being legit friends, though.

Okay, then we just see that differently. I think Stu was annoyed and sometimes amused by Randy. But he was a psychopath, so I doubt he could form any real friendships besides the one with Billy whom he more idolized.

[–] Klockard23 9 years ago

He was the instigator. And it's not like he couldn't have predicted that a brutal murder in a small town would get a lot of attention. Blaming Sidney for something she had no control over is not even in the same category as blaming Maureen for not accepting him.

He had no way of knowing it would lead to two separate killing sprees. If it always remained the case that only Maureen had been murdered, Sidney wouldn't have become as famous as she did. And he didn't "blame" Sidney for anything, he just resented that she got what he wanted.

Unlike Stu and Mickey, who are just psychopaths, Roman is supposed to have a reason to kill. But your birth mother simply not welcoming you immediately is not a good enough reason.

To you, it isn't. To me and several others, it is. It's not inconceivable that there are people out there who could become so emotionally shattered (and thus so enraged) by something like rejection from their birth mother that they would want to kill her. Also, Roman just like the others isn't exactly supposed to be of sound mind. None of them are. We're not meant to sympathize or completely understand their reasoning for killing. Billy killed because Maureen was a homewrecker, Stu killed because of "peer pressure", Mrs. Loomis killed Sidney for defending herself against her psychotic son, Mickey, Jill, and Charlie killed because they wanted to be famous...

I think it is. Stu is a psychopath with an admiration for Billy. He's also a teenager, so his comment about "peer pressure" is not that ridiculous. It's one thing to resent your sibling for their "cherished" life (like I've said, slutty Maureen as a mother and media attention for almost getting killed?), it's something else to kill random, innocent people to frame that sibling.

I'm sorry, I just fail to see how Stu doing something as extreme as murdering people because of peer pressure is any more believable than Roman killing for the reasons he did.

Okay, then we just see that differently. I think Stu was annoyed and sometimes amused by Randy. But he was a psychopath, so I doubt he could form any real friendships besides the one with Billy whom he more idolized.

Psychopaths actually can form real friendships and relationships with people, you know.

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

And he didn't "blame" Sidney for anything, he just resented that she got what he wanted.

So he wanted a mother he hated so much he had her killed and attention for being the victim of serial killers? And that's why Sidney (and other innocent people) had to die and be framed for murder? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense at all.

To you, it isn't. To me and several others, it is.

Apparently so, but you asked what was bad about Roman's motive and that's what was bad.

It's not inconceivable that there are people out there who could become so emotionally shattered (and thus so enraged) by something like rejection from their birth mother that they would want to kill her.

I already said that I don't find that so inconceivable. It's everything that happened after that that makes no sense.

Also, Roman just like the others isn't exactly supposed to be of sound mind. None of them are. We're not meant to sympathize or completely understand their reasoning for killing.

But at least with Billy and even his mother we got a brief explanation about what the trauma meant to them. I have no idea if Roman was born a psychopath, if a lack of maternal/parental bonding was the cause, or if he had a sh!tty childhood. Simply saying that his birth mother didn't immediately welcome him isn't good enough for me to explain why he resents his half-sister and years later suddenly starts killing innocent people. Such an uncommon reaction needs more clarification.

I'm sorry, I just fail to see how Stu doing something as extreme as murdering people because of peer pressure is any more believable than Roman killing for the reasons he did.

Because Stu is a psychopath (or at least has some sort of antisocial personality disorder) and a teenager. Just look at youth gangs, it's so easy for teenagers to get caught up in violent crimes just to fit in. And usually with killer duos the dominant person looks for a submissive partner who wants to be dominated and will do what they're told. You won't find many people killing for the same reasons as Roman, he was not like Son of Sam.

Psychopaths actually can form real friendships and relationships with people, you know.

One of the characteristics of psychopaths is that they can't form emotional attachments to others and lack empathy. Stu admired Billy, but I doubt he cared at all for someone like Randy.

[–] Wildstyle26 9 years ago

One of the characteristics of psychopaths is that they can't form emotional attachments to others and lack empathy. Stu admired Billy, but I doubt he cared at all for

Agreed here. A sociopath is the one that can form relationships and attachments to people, though it may be hard. Psychopaths can imitate human emotions like care, empathy and remorse, but that's all it is - an act. They don't genuinely feel those things for people.

Jill was a psychopath. But her mother and friends were none the wiser to her. And it's realistic. Some wackos are among people everyday, and blend right in. The sociopaths are similar, except they can be more unpredictable and throw some clues to themselves.

Stu and Billy were sociopaths. Billy loved his mother, if nobody else. Same for Mrs. Loomis - who loved her son, if nobody else.

Stu seemed to care about his parents', and their opinion of him when he cries about them being mad at him, but he still has his wacko moments before the reveal. Mickey and Jill fall into the pyscho category. They cared about nobody but themselves, and Jill even had her own mother killed.

Roman can be debated I suppose. And maybe Stu, as some probably do not see him as a sociopath.

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

Stu could be a psychopath or a sociopath, it's difficult to say as we don't really know about his background and, yes, I'm a layman. Maybe Stu really cared about his parents, maybe he was just mocking them. Either way, both psychopaths and sociopaths have trouble forming close relationships.

Billy and his mother could be sociopaths or have borderline personality disorder (abandonment issues!). Although both are also very good at hiding their real emotions and putting on a front. They're both calculating and not extremely impulsive (except for the mother killing Randy), which is more typical of a psychopath. In that regard all the killers seem like psychopaths, but I think that has more to do with the movies being whodunnit slashers, they can't give themselves away, ofcourse.

[–] Klockard23 9 years ago

Actually, a lot of psychopaths can indeed have genuine feelings for other people while still hating/intending to do harm onto others. The perception that ALL psychopaths are people who have zero empathy for others is a terrible generalization which in no way can be applied to everybody, and there's proven examples of that.

[–] Axle_Starr 8 years ago

Excuse my abrupt timeout there...and the BUMP...

Stratego, it seems (to me, at least) as though you more have a problem with how the events were executed rather than the motive itself

I'll take a potato chip...and EAT IT!!

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

It's both really. I think the idea of a long lost brother framing bis sister as revenge because she got media attention as the result of the death of her mother which he caused himself only because she didn't immediately welcome him with open arms, is not a motive that suits the Scream series and could never be executed in a satisfying manner. If this was Dynasty, then I would probably find it deliciously entertaining. In this case, just no.

[–] Axle_Starr 8 years ago

Do you feel it doesn't fit the Scream series for being unrealistic (perhaps even in the real-world sense, if applicable) or is it strictly for being a bad fit for the Scream series? Or none of the above?

P.S. - Sorry for getting a bit quizzical, it helps for me to try and see it from the other side of the wall (which is good for cross-checking)

I'll take a potato chip...and EAT IT!!

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

I certainly don't think it's realistic in the real world sense, but I also think it doesn't fit with the nature of the Scream series, which I think is more about real fears and commentary on society than far-fetched, soap-like storylines (which it is to me).

[–] Axle_Starr 8 years ago

I think I see where you're coming from on the Scream series (un)fit. To me, that sums up how I see the Scream series as well, but I feel it isn't an offense given that Roman's motive wouldn't be the only one of the bunch to bend that criteria

I'll take a potato chip...and EAT IT!!

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

I think Roman's motive bends the criteria much more than the others, though. Stu and Billy set the criteria, ofcourse. Mickey is a serial killer who wants attention and uses a well-known case to get it, which seems realistic to me. Mrs. Loomis' motive of a mother wanting revenge and enlisting others to do the dirty job for her doesn't seem a stretch either (I'm reminded of "gang mom" Mary Louise Thompson). I do think that the extent of her plan and her over-the-top behavior is as far as the Scream movies could go. Jill's motive of setting herself up as the only survivor of a serial kiler also seems realistic and fitting for the Scream series. The silliest thing was that she was yet another family member. Scream 3 just took it too far with the long lost brother angle, the unbelievable retcon of Roman having been the instigator of everything and him killing innocent people just to frame the sister he never met because she got attention for the mess he created himself.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

I think Roman's motive bends the criteria much more than the others, though. Stu and Billy set the criteria, ofcourse. One is just crazy and enjoys killing, the other has a VERY personal motive having directly to do with Sidney. Mickey is a serial killer who wants attention and uses a well-known case to get it, which seems realistic to me. Mrs. Loomis' motive of a mother wanting revenge and enlisting others to do the dirty job for her doesn't seem a stretch either (I'm reminded of "gang mom" Mary Louise Thompson). I do think that the extent of her plan and her over-the-top behavior is as far as the Scream movies could go. Jill's motive of setting herself up as the only survivor of a serial kiler also seems realistic and fitting for the Scream series. The silliest thing was that she was yet another family member. Scream 3 just took it too far with the long lost brother angle, the unbelievable retcon of Roman having been the instigator of everything and him killing innocent people just to frame the sister he never met because she got attention for the mess he created himself.

[–] Axle_Starr 8 years ago

Fair enough, Roman does stand out in that sense. That seems to have been them trying to tie-in to the first movie before closing out the series, but it does seem a fairly hit-or-miss (by a mile, apparently) aspect of the film with the audience

I'll take a potato chip...and EAT IT!!

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Yeah, I understand what they tried to do, but it just didn't work for me.

[–] Axle_Starr 8 years ago

I believe you. I know you legitimately dislike 3 and Roman's motive...I don't get that impression from everyone that comes to express disdain for them (respectively, collectively, etc.). That's not your issue or anything, just something I noted

I'll take a potato chip...and EAT IT!!

[–] JupiterStorm 8 years ago

Stratego, the only reason Roman hated Sidney was because she got the family he felt he should have had, it had nothing to do with attention.

I really enjoyed this film. I liked it how the killer had a very personal tie to Sidney.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Stratego, the only reason Roman hated Sidney was because she got the family he felt he should have had, it had nothing to do with attention.

Yes, it did. I'm quoting Roman here: "For the mother, and for the family,
and for the stardom, and for, goddammit, everything you had that
should've been mine!"

If it was only about the family, then he would've left Sidney alone after Maureen was killed. I also think Roman's motive would be worse if he came back years later to frame Sidney and kill innocent people if it was just about the family he felt he should have had.

I really enjoyed this film. I liked it how the killer had a very personal tie to Sidney.

The thing is that it wasn't actually personal at all. Sidney didn't know of his extistence and they never even met before. Billy and Mrs. Loomis, and even Stu and Jill, now THAT was personal.

[–] thehalloweencollection 8 years ago

I, am actually someone who finds this to be the best sequel of the franchise because of its intriguing mystery, BA quotes from Ghostface, etc. Second fave behind the original.

[–] Housefan2 8 years ago

I didn't care about the Hollywood backdrop or her being an aspiring actress who was gang-raped, but the basic idea of him being an abandoned and unwanted child of Maureen's and blah blah blah was fine to me.

A good idea is worthless without great execution. I didn't find it far-fetched that Marueen had other secrets. That was par for the course with her character. I didn't care that the 3rd movie connected back to the first. I didn't even hate the fact that Maureen had another child.

However, where the movie lost me is the poor execution. It's hard to take Roman seriously when he's screaming about Sidney getting his fame when he's famous in his own right too. He's a Hollywood director who has enough clout to ask a major studio for the funds and ability to make a classic love story and they respond with, "sure, but only if you direct this other major motion picture first." Universal Studios did the same thing to Steven Spielberg when he wanted to make Schindler's List. They agreed but only if he made Jurassic Park first. Some newbie director doesn't just walk into a major studio, ask to make the picture of his choice and have the studio agree but only if he directs the third installment of a popular franchise first.

I also couldn't understand why he suddenly decided to go after Sidney either. I can buy why he killed Maureen. He went to Maureen looking for his birth mother. She rejected him so he set up her murder. If he was angry with Sidney for stealing his mother and family, wouldn't he have had Billy and Stu murder her as well? Why wait what year after year after year to go after her? Why wait until she's hiding from the world to go after her?

Lizzie

To love another person is to see the face of God! - Les Miserables

[–] josephdonavyn 8 years ago

I really liked the finale and think the clues dropped throughout the film point to a good motive- my only gripe is because Williamson didn't right this one there was no hint at this in scream 1 & 2. If this had been hinted at least a little bit in 1 & 2 then this would've been a bit more fulfilling instead of coming out of nowhere.

[–] TheFragile99 8 years ago

Well he turned out to be a Hollywood director, so, I don't entirely buy that he's angry he didn't get Sidney's small town life.

But, like Randy says in Scream 2, if it gets too complicated you lose your target audience. I'm happy with killers killing because they're just psychotic, I don't need complicated, implausible motives.

[–] Klockard23 8 years ago

He was pissed that she got the happy family life with a loving mother that he wanted.