"Matthew Lillard has stated that he was originally going to be the killer in Kevin Williamson's version of the script, but that story was scrapped after complications with the script due to the Columbine High School shootings."
How would that be possible since he died in the first one?
As much as I love Matthew Lillard, I'm glad this never happened because it just wouldn't have been believable.
I think he was joking.
shareI think he was joking.
I suppose they could have made out like he survived an electrocution. Though how and why his survival would be kept a secret would have been even more ridiculous so glad they didn't go do that road.
shareI don't think that at all means that he would be playing Stu.
And the flowers are STILL standing!
[deleted]
I read that Williamson's version of Scream 3 involved a group of high schoolers who were obsessed with the Stab movies and were communicating with Stu in jail and following his orders. It was going to be similar to "The Following" with Stu in the Joe Carroll role.
I think not mentioning that Stu was alive at all in Scream 2 would've made it seem cheap and almost like a cheat, but if the story had been good enough, that would have been a minor complaint.
I read that Williamson's version of Scream 3 involved a group of high schoolers who were obsessed with the Stab movies and were communicating with Stu in jail and following his orders. It was going to be similar to "The Following" with Stu in the Joe Carroll role.That was actually Kevin's first idea where they pull the same twist that the movie April Fool's Day did where no one actually dies and that it was all a big prank on Sidney (he came up with the Stu idea later after his first idea was rejected by the studio.) The Stu idea included two teenagers (a girl and a boy) from Woodsboro High being motivated to kill by Stu, and that's why the real-life Columbine high school massacre put an end to the idea... The notion of two high schoolers murdering other high schoolers (teenagers would have made up the majority of the victims just like in the first film) seemed way too controversial in the wake of Columbine.
I think not mentioning that Stu was alive at all in Scream 2 would've made it seem cheap and almost like a cheat, but if the story had been good enough, that would have been a minor complaint.I agree, but if you wanna be absolutely technical, they never actually said he was dead either. They mentioned twice in part 2 that Billy was deceased but never Stu. Obviously we're left to assume he was certainly dead, so it still would have felt cheap to reveal he was alive, but still... share
Well, he would have survived the TV being dropped on his head, duh. Not that it would have made any sense, but that's what they would have went with. The idea is 100% legit and would have been completely awful. Stu is probably my favorite killer of the whole series, but still, the notion of him being this big mastermind from behind bars is almost Scary Movie material...
share