MovieChat Forums > Scream 4 (2011) Discussion > The horrible movie that started the heig...

The horrible movie that started the height inconsistency


And now we all hear from people

"Well it's a stuntman in there. The killers shouldn't be the same height"
No, they shouldn't be the same EXACT height, but for god's sake at least similar height.

But of course this awful movie started the height inconsistency, and now you can't dismiss someone as a killer in new shows because of this. We never heard this stupid excuse in Scream 1-3. Why? Because they had height consistency. All the killers in Scream 1-3 matched up with the stuntman's height, if not similar, not 7-10 inches apart like Jill, and Charlie were in this movie.

reply

I agree. When you're watching a whodunit and are trying to figure out who the killer is, one of the things you look for is height consistency between the killer in the costume and a character you suspect. It's almost insulting that the filmmakers didn't respect their audience and the story enough to have consistency in the film. It's like someone coming up to Wes during the filming and telling him about the height difference and him saying, "The movie is all fkd up anyway. It won't matter."

reply

Height has never matter in movies - look at Hollywood shorties that have appeared to be taller than their onscreen romances... Tom Cruise, and I believe even Pierce Brosnan in his Bond outings were made to appear taller.

reply

You do? I never do that, because I assume they are using a stuntman until the reveal, because it's a movie and things like height consistency don't matter.

Maybe they told him about the height difference and he said: 'Sweet, in this film series that is all about throwing red herrings at the audience, height inconsistencies will make the audience second guess their suspicions about who the killer is!"

reply

"The movie is all fkd up anyway. It won't matter."
- LMAO

reply

While you do have a point...

Imagine if they had some short-ass GhostFace running around the whole movie? In order for the filmmakers to go out of their way to make sure GF matched the height of Charlie or Jill, they would sacrifice our typical scary GF for one that has the audience sort of half-squinting their eyes the whole time, like "am I still stoned from the weed we smoked before we got into the theater, or does GF look... eh I dunno.. SHORTER... than in the first three Screams?".

It just would have been weird.

Additionally, the only way to truly know if the GF on-screen is SHORTER than the GF in first three films, is to have them standing side-by-side on screen. So this whole argument is kind of pointless though I do understand what you're saying.

reply

I don't think of height inconsistency at all, or use stature as a clue to the identity.

reply

I think what bothers me is more the fact that we see this huge killer throwing people around showing great strength etc and then we are asked to believe it was two weak midgets like Jill and Charlie all along

reply

The most implausible is when Jill, out of costume, picks up Sid and launches her into a medicine cabinet in the hospital.

reply

[deleted]

It does if they’re a skinny little school girl.

reply

[deleted]

Eh, no. Skinny little schoolgirls are weak af, they have no muscle mass. No way could one toss a full sized 40 year old woman across the room 🤣

reply

[deleted]

this continued this in part 5
unsure why.. it was stupid in 4

reply

Fair, but I have what I think works well as an in-world excuse.

After the reveal of the original, it's generally assumed that there are two killers. And this will only be noticed if they each attack the same person separately. Also take into account that they wear the exact same thing, and it's black. And that the person who is seeing them is terrified of them and not likely paying attention to something like their exact height.

reply

they DID changed the killer's high at the last part of Scream 6 to made us believe that the killer was Kirby

reply