OK, James...fair enough.

I'm really surprised by all the hate, though...not just from you, but from the general "fans" as well.

IMO, Scream 3 SUCKED for the most part.  Stupid, unbelievable, lame gore, lame deaths, weak plot, terrible script, less than stellar performances...yet...it did $162 Million, 11 years ago.

As far as I could tell, peeps wanted to see more...wanted to see the franchise redeem itself, which it did with Scream 4, but yet, everyone, other than the critics are avoiding it like the frickin' plague.

Oh well...

Scream 3 was trash. I have no doubt Scream 4 redeems itself and maybe the whole franchise made enough of a dent where it deserves to be redeemed. I just can't be bothered with the Scream universe or Craven's wishy washy sensibilities.

I suppose I'm surprised that fans would avoid it as well though. Before it came out, it seemed like everyone was excited about it and the critical response wasn't too bad.

Saw this last night.
I'm not surprised this movie was a boxoffice failure.
It reminds me of why movies like "Star Trek: Generations" don't click.
It subjugates the "new blood" to cater to the older audience.

Sure, the three "survivors" do their thing with a modicum of charm.
But the main reason I liked them is no longer present, conflict.
Gail and Sydney didn't used to get along, now their simpatico. Yawn.
Dewey used to chase Gail and fawn over her, now, they're married. Yawn.
All the fireworks between this trio have been neutered.

New movie goers aren't going to get much out of them.
There's no rekindling of rivalries or a "catch up" sequence to acquaint new viewers.
The new cast members are dullards, save for the Heroes cheerleader.
I like her short hair and big attitude, only one with a pulse of the newbies.

There was some occasional cleverness, the Ghost Face app for your phone, etc.
But, I was shocked at how low budget this film felt to me.
Not one car crash or set piece in the entire film, save for the Stab-a-thon.
Outside of the occasional suffering of stab victims, the deaths were meh.
It's cool they didn't do the CG blood thing, points there.

It's a step up from the number three, for sure.
But the Scream franchise has become the one thing it can't afford to be, dated.

E.D.

I rank them 2 > 1 > 4 >>> 3.

I really liked this.

I am a huge Scream fan, like, so so so huge, love these movies, even Scream 3 even though it is the worst.

But yes, Sidney was badass.  Gale was fierce.  And Kirby was awesome.

However, I did guess one of one of the killers early on.

Regardless, great movie, great slasher saga.

Im a HUGE scream fan too, and 1,2 and 4 are my favorites. 3 was the worst, the characters were awful and the killer was a baby.

Scream - 10/10
Scream 2 - 10/10
Scream 3 - 6/10
Scream 4 - 10/10

I have the whole collection in my shelf and its my favorite horror series. I ejoyed this

Scream 4 was good, but that’s it.  Nothing more.  That 11 year gap doesn’t help much, either.  Sequels to movies that happened ten years or more ago. . . I don’t know.  Some people move on.  I think 4 could have done a whole lot more with what the horror genre left at it’s feet.  Decent sequel -- step up from 3.  Read a tweet or an article or something like that from Wes Craven, concerning fans who want Scream 5 and 6, and it went something like this:  “You guys really want another one???”  Almost as if making another didn’t even cross his mind.

Quoted from James McClung Funny. This is a rare instance where I feel like the studio restricting control would be a good thing. Craven has been jaded and unenthusiastic about his work for a long time and Williamson flat out shouldn't write horror. His films were passable in the 90s because there was a horror drought. He could never stand up to guys like Eli Roth or Rob Zombie. They changed the game and these Scream guys got left behind. As much as I don't care for Scream at all, it was a film that was right for its time and that time has passed for both the series and its filmmakers.

I don’t know about Eli Roth, but Rob Zombie did/does nothing for the horror genre.  The exception to that is The Devil’s Rejects-- great movie.  Terrible, bland script, but wonderful movie.  That’s where Rob really makes up for his terrible writing/ideas -- the final cut of the film.  But that doesn’t mean he always is successful.  Halloween (07) was OK and H2 was a lumbering mess of a movie with an equally lumbering killer who just stabbed and stabbed and stabbed and stabbed, and that was it.  That’s the movie.  I think the only thing redeeming those crappy reboots is Danielle Harris, and her fine lookin’ booty.  

Kevin Williamson could never stand up to guys like Rob Zombie?!  Ha!

Rob Zombie is a mess of a movie maker, his lame attempt at rebooting Halloween is an example of this.  Halloween (07) was alright, and Halloween 2, well the less said about that mess the better.

I agree there was a huge gap between Scream 3 and Scream 4, and it could have done a lot more since lots in the horror genre did happen in that gap.  But I think it did okay.

Has anyone read the script?  The ORIGINAL script Kevin wrote?  The ending was way different, and would have been something new and fresh and epic for us Scream fans.  I thought the ending we got was okay, it was a little new, but overall it just lapped in the "been there, done that" territory.

Also, I think Scream 4 did a lot to keep up with modern times.  Ghostface putting the kills on the interent, for example, I thought was an awesome and fresh idea for the franchise.  Also, all the characters in Scream 4 (with the exception of Hoss and Perkins, ugh) were great.

It blows my mind how anyone could not love the main trio.  Sidney is up with with Laurie Strode as one of the best horror final girls of all time.  Gale is a fierce bitch who has proved herself to have a heart, and we love her.  As for Dewey, well he's Dewey.  I kind of wanted him to die in Scream 4, but that's less of the point.

My point is, that the Scream series might not try to tackle new ground all the time, but IMO it's miles better than any RZ sludge.

Don't get me wrong, guys. I hate Rob Zombie. I thought the Halloween remake was not only bad in it's own right but also totally betrayed everything that made the original what it was. Strangely, I found the Haunted World of Superbeasto to be exceedingly worse and I really hated Halloween. I loved House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects in high school but when I saw The Devil's Rejects last year for the first time since, I had to apologize to my friend for suggesting we watch it. I haven't seen House since high school and haven't seen Halloween 2 at all but I can't imagine they'd fare well for me.

Ironically, I have very high hopes for the Lords of Salem.

What I meant by my comments was that since Scream's heyday, the 90s, horror has gotten much more extreme in multiple respects. I mention Rob Zombie and Eli Roth because I feel like between 2003 and 2006, we got the films that played the biggest part in the new movement like Hostel, Saw, House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, High Tension, and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. Scream is a slasher film so it can't take the PG13 route; it's gonna have to compete with films like the ones I've mentioned above. I haven't seen this one so I can't comment on the gore but I didn't think the other films were all that extreme and as I understand it, pretty much everyone in Scream 4 just gets stabbed in the stomach. Hardly over the top by slasher standards.

I also feel like there're some films that are very much of their time and just feel out of place when studios try to revamp them. Rush Hour was one such film. When Rush Hour 3 came out, it just felt awkward. If they tried to bring back Austin Powers, I imagine it'd be the same problem.

To me, Scream is very much a film of its time, the 90s. The idea of a Scream 4 in 2011 sounds like an old dog trying to learn new tricks, especially when so many other horror movies nowadays play on the whole meta spiel. Scream can't even stand out this time around.

I agree - even though I like Scream 4 - but it could have been a whole better… or a whole lot more “hipper” if that’s a word.

Well, I am happy you're not Rob Sloppy fan then.

And as for the deaths/gore factor, not everyone is stabbed in the stomach, the gore is in plentiful this go around.  People get blasted in the nuts, not to mention what happens to the opening characters, a character also gets stabbed in the skull, and the third character to get killed -- if anyone can recall -- was an utter gore, blood-bath of horror.

The Scream franchise lives and dies based on what is expected of it.  Or maybe better put, what the creators think the expectation is.

I enjoyed Scream 4 when i saw it in the theater and I still enjoyed it when I watched it on a movie channel.  But, let's not kid ourselves, it's definitely not great movie making.

One of my complaints is the lack of gore.  There are definitely alot of ill will brutal kills, but the gore is minimal.  As others noted, the vast majority are simple knife kills, which for me, does get a bit old.

But, at the end of the day, Scream 4 stands head and shoulders above most horror movies and delivers pretty much exactly what is expected of it.

I agree it isn't great movie making.  But for what it is -- a modern sequel, slasher flick -- it was pretty good and miles better than some of the horror garbage that has been thrown at us in the last three years.

I didn't think there was a lack of gore.  I mean, compared to the the others, this is pretty gore-filled.  More than 3, maybe on par with 2, but nowhere near as up there with the original gore-wise.

So, a question, who was everyone's favourite newbie?