Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

SCREAM haters

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Suspense1

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Well, I enjoyed "Scream" and didn't post my opinion on here.
I then disliked "Scream 2" and DID post my opinion several times.

Hating a film due to it being mainstream is ludicrous. Either you like it or
not. You should not care what others think. You shouldn't care if the movie
makes $200 million. You shouldn't care if Entertainment Tonight conducts 'on
the street' interviews for everyone who loved it.

Make a decision.

And, no, there is nothing wrong and hypocritical with the members of this
group.


Mr. Scary

The Gore-met

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

I never praised this film, ever. It has nothing to do with any
popularity this film may or may not enjoy. I think this film is crap
because:

1) Wes Craven is a hack, has been for years. He should be shot for
allowing 8 extra "Nightmare" movies.

2) What a lame concept.

3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
brainless shit for the MTV generation.

4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.

5) The resulting hysteria over "Scream" was pathetic. Need I bring up
the proliferation of "Scream rulez" and "Scream kix azz and takez namez"
posts that polluted this NG for too long. To say this was the best
horror movie ever made, well, I guess I'll just put it down to the
exuberance of youth, but anyone who would make a statement like that
doesn't have a fucking clue.

6) The whole thing was contrived from the get-go. Sequels and all, at
least they had the cojones to admit they were going to make 2 sequels to
milk every dime they could get from people misinformed enough to
anticipate all 3.

Those are reasons enough. I get so tired of people rolling out the "you
just hate it because it's mainstream" argument.

--
"Aliens ain't human, you know"- Fred Dobbs, Without Warning

--------------------------------------------------------
"We have a lifetime to know your flesh..."
Terror! Mayhem! Bloody horror!
The Galloping Gore-met: http://www.interlog.com/~goremet
--------------------------------------------------------

Top Story

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

>3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
>that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
>brainless shit for the MTV generation.
>
>4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.
>
>

I'm in the MTV generation, I'm 17, and I like all those hot stars, they are not
teeny, most of them are in there 20's.
Why do you even watch it if you hate it?

WideScreenPig

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

The Gore-met wrote:
>
> I never praised this film, ever. It has nothing to do with any
> popularity this film may or may not enjoy. I think this film is crap
> because:
>
> 1) Wes Craven is a hack, has been for years. He should be shot for
> allowing 8 extra "Nightmare" movies.

In all fairness, Wes didn't have a lot of control over the direction of
the sequels. His involvement after the first one (until New Nightmare)
swung between mininmal to none wahtsoever. New Line owns the rights to
the Nightmare series and, being the corporate money grubbing bastards
that they are, squeezed the property for all its worth (and continue to
do so - witness this FREDDY VS. JASON garbage). So I don't think it's
fair to blame Wes for the sequels.

As for being a "hack", you are entitled to your own (extremely
well-informed) opinion. My own take on him is that he's made some
pictures for art, and too many for money. As a result the quality of
his output is wildly erratic.


>
> 2) What a lame concept.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion. I'll admit, not the most
original concept (a horror movie about other horror movies), and it's
been handled better in other films (APRIL FOOL'S DAY, Wes's own NEW
NIGHTMARE).


>
> 3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
> that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
> brainless shit for the MTV generation.

No argument here, but that's true of everything, not just horror.


>
> 4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.

KILL THEM!


>
> 5) The resulting hysteria over "Scream" was pathetic. Need I bring up
> the proliferation of "Scream rulez" and "Scream kix azz and takez namez"
> posts that polluted this NG for too long. To say this was the best
> horror movie ever made, well, I guess I'll just put it down to the
> exuberance of youth, but anyone who would make a statement like that
> doesn't have a fucking clue.

YeeeOUCH! Most kids haven't got a critical bone in their body. They
have to wait until they're old farts like you and me. They'll eat any
shit you feed them and they'll tell you it's ice cream (anybody remember
New Kids On The Block? Poison? Vanilla Ice?).


>
> 6) The whole thing was contrived from the get-go. Sequels and all, at
> least they had the cojones to admit they were going to make 2 sequels to
> milk every dime they could get from people misinformed enough to
> anticipate all 3.

It is REALLY overhyped - and that's led to a lot of people to assume
that their level of talent is much higher than it is in reality.

>
> Those are reasons enough. I get so tired of people rolling out the "you
> just hate it because it's mainstream" argument.
>

In the final analysis, SCREAM is a good (not GREAT) movie with some good
bits and in-jokes that lucked out and caught a wave of popularity
because it came out at the right time, but it's not the be all and end
all of horror. In ten years, it's going to look like the minor blip on
the map that it is. But it will revitalize the industry in that the
powers-that-be will once again see horror films as a viable market -
allowing filmmakers to make some decent horror films amongst the sea of
SCREAM wannabes.

Remember Sturgeon's Law - "90% of EVERYTHING is crap."

WideScreenPig
Wishes he knew Neve Campbell

Zachary Houle

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Just a brief bone to gently pick here. (I who kinda liked Scream,
but loathed the sequel.)

The Gore-met (gor...@goremet.com) wrote:
> 3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
> that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
> brainless shit for the MTV generation.

Um, what about Halloween or Friday the 13th? The success of those
films had something to do with horny teenagers flocking to the theatres to
make out with their SOs and get relatively scared at the same time.
In fact, aiming horror at the teeny-bopper crowd goes back
further. What about The Blob or Creature From The Black Lagoon or <fill in
the blank>?
'Tis nothing new, although I feel your frustration.

Zachary Houle -- Journalism IV: The Final Conflict
Carleton University Email address: zho...@chat.carleton.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts: the book
of their deeds, the book of their words and the book of their art. Not one
of these books can be understood unless we read the two others, but of the
three, the only trustworthy one is the last." -- John Ruskin

The Gore-met

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

WideScreenPig wrote:
>
> The Gore-met wrote:

> > 1) Wes Craven is a hack, has been for years. He should be shot for
> > allowing 8 extra "Nightmare" movies.
>
> In all fairness, Wes didn't have a lot of control over the direction of
> the sequels. His involvement after the first one (until New Nightmare)
> swung between mininmal to none wahtsoever. New Line owns the rights to
> the Nightmare series and, being the corporate money grubbing bastards
> that they are, squeezed the property for all its worth (and continue to
> do so - witness this FREDDY VS. JASON garbage). So I don't think it's
> fair to blame Wes for the sequels.
>
> As for being a "hack", you are entitled to your own (extremely
> well-informed) opinion. My own take on him is that he's made some
> pictures for art, and too many for money. As a result the quality of
> his output is wildly erratic.

Well, OK, maybe that statement was a little broad. In all fairness "Last
House..." and the first "Elm Street" are classics of the genre in my
eyes. As for "The Hills Have Eyes" I'd have to see that again as been
many years since I've seen it, but I can safely say the sequel to that
one is warm fecal matter. So pardon me while I just sweep the rest of
his output into the bin along with it. Can anyone say "Shocker"?



> WideScreenPig
> Wishes he knew Neve Campbell

The Gore-met

"The song remains the same"- Led Zeppelin

RM

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Zachary Houle wrote:

> Um, what about Halloween or Friday the 13th? The success of those films had something to do with horny teenagers flocking to the theatres to make out with their SOs and get relatively scared at the same time.
> In fact, aiming horror at the teeny-bopper crowd goes back
> further. What about The Blob or Creature From The Black Lagoon or <fill in
> the blank>? 'Tis nothing new, although I feel your frustration.
>
> Zachary Houle -- Journalism IV: The Final Conflict
> Carleton University Email address: zho...@chat.carleton.ca
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree! Gore-met and others are forgetting in their age that some of
their favorite horror films which they deem "classics of the genre" were
released with the same intentions that "Scream" was released, to rake in
money from teens. Think about it "Halloween", "Nightmare On Elm
Street", "Friday the 13th" all had "teeny boppers" of the day portrayed
in their movies... while the styles may have been bell bottoms back
then, the horror movies today are portraying the styles of the 90's.
Goremet, there are more things "Scream" has in common with some of your
favorite horror movies then you would like to admit.

Jon Dilbert

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

In article <19980116155...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
tops...@aol.com says...

> >3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
> >that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
> >brainless shit for the MTV generation.
> >
> >4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.
> >
> >
>
> I'm in the MTV generation, I'm 17, and I like all those hot stars, they are not
> teeny, most of them are in there 20's.
> Why do you even watch it if you hate it?

I don't think he said "teenybopper" in reference to the actors' age. More
like their following. Can we say "90210"? How many of them are in their
teens?

--------------
Just another useless observation...

Christopher M. Stangl

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, The Gore-met wrote:

> I never praised this film, ever. It has nothing to do with any
> popularity this film may or may not enjoy. I think this film is crap
> because:

> 1) Wes Craven is a hack, has been for years. He should be shot for
> allowing 8 extra "Nightmare" movies.

Agreed. I don't know how Craven managed to put together a film as
slick and well-shot as either of the "Scream" pictures.

> 2) What a lame concept.

What? A jokey pop-culture crazed thriller about stupid teenagers
trying to kill each other? Dunno, sounds fine to me. "Texas Chainsaw" has
a "lame concept" if you say it right. Fat retard chases teenagers with
chainsaw... sounds pretty lame to me.

> 3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
> that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
> brainless shit for the MTV generation.

Sounds like you *are* using the "mainstream" argument here, Gorey.
"Scream" never even claimed to be a horror film anyway.

> 4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.

Sweet fancy Moses, and you said you weren't gonna use that "I hate
it 'cause it's mainstream" argument.

> 5) The resulting hysteria over "Scream" was pathetic.

*Any* hysteria of that nature is pathetic. I hardly blame the film
for it. I don't blame Elvis for his screaming, crying jackassed fans, but
I still like "Return To Sender".

> Need I bring up
> the proliferation of "Scream rulez" and "Scream kix azz and takez namez"
> posts that polluted this NG for too long.

Oh, please don't.

>To say this was the best
> horror movie ever made, well, I guess I'll just put it down to the
> exuberance of youth, but anyone who would make a statement like that
> doesn't have a fucking clue.

I concur once more. But it was a good time at the movies, and it
was clever enough to sustain itself for two hours.

> 6) The whole thing was contrived from the get-go. Sequels and all, at
> least they had the cojones to admit they were going to make 2 sequels to
> milk every dime they could get from people misinformed enough to
> anticipate all 3.

Yeah, well, so was "Star Wars". And if you don't buy that, then
so was the "Three Colors" trilogy. And if that's too artsy-fartsy for
you, then so was the "Three Mothers" trilogy. And I *know* you aren't
gonna badmouth "Suspiria".

> Those are reasons enough. I get so tired of people rolling out the "you
> just hate it because it's mainstream" argument.

> The Galloping Gore-met: http://www.interlog.com/~goremet

Aw, y' old curmudgeon. Let the kids have their fun.
-Chris Stangl


Christopher M. Stangl

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

On 16 Jan 1998, Top Story wrote:

> >3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
> >that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
> >brainless shit for the MTV generation.
> >

> >4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.
>

> I'm in the MTV generation, I'm 17, and I like all those hot stars, they are not
> teeny, most of them are in there 20's.
> Why do you even watch it if you hate it?

Er... You fit precisely into the demographic group he's talking
about, Tex. Not to imply that you're the walking stereotype the Gore-met
would have you as, but as they figure Generations, you missed X by a few
years, and are, like so many others, of the MTV Generation.
-Chris Stangl


Shiflet

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

The Gore-met wrote:
>
> I never praised this film, ever. It has nothing to do with any
> popularity this film may or may not enjoy. I think this film is crap
> because:
>
> 1) Wes Craven is a hack, has been for years. He should be shot for
> allowing 8 extra "Nightmare" movies.

New Nightmare was good, and 3 wasn't bad(although the others truly are
lame)



> 2) What a lame concept.

Horror homage, not original, but still entertaining.



> 3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
> that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
> brainless shit for the MTV generation.

Yes, but I know adults 35-40 and up that like it as well.



> 4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.

Well, every movie has a downside. They actually did better than I
thought...

> 5) The resulting hysteria over "Scream" was pathetic. Need I bring up


> the proliferation of "Scream rulez" and "Scream kix azz and takez namez"

> posts that polluted this NG for too long. To say this was the best


> horror movie ever made, well, I guess I'll just put it down to the
> exuberance of youth, but anyone who would make a statement like that
> doesn't have a fucking clue.

I liked it, but it doesn't "rulez," "kick ass," ect, nor is it the best
horror movie ever made, it was just an entertaining film(to me)

> 6) The whole thing was contrived from the get-go. Sequels and all, at
> least they had the cojones to admit they were going to make 2 sequels to
> milk every dime they could get from people misinformed enough to
> anticipate all 3.

Yes, considering they had it planned from the start, I figured they'd do
a better job on 2.



> Those are reasons enough. I get so tired of people rolling out the "you
> just hate it because it's mainstream" argument.

Me too.



> --
> "Aliens ain't human, you know"- Fred Dobbs, Without Warning
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> "We have a lifetime to know your flesh..."
> Terror! Mayhem! Bloody horror!

> The Galloping Gore-met: http://www.interlog.com/~goremet

> --------------------------------------------------------

Danny Shiflet

Shiflet

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Top Story wrote:
>
> >3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
> >that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
> >brainless shit for the MTV generation.
> >
> >4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.
> >
> >
>
> I'm in the MTV generation, I'm 17, and I like all those hot stars, they are not
> teeny, most of them are in there 20's.
> Why do you even watch it if you hate it?

He didn't know he'd hate until he watched it perhaps?

Danny Shiflet

Chad R Hermann

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to


I feel like I'm making a big mistake here, but what the hell...

As usual, when zealots are shouting at each other, the truth lies
somewhere in the middle.

Though I would gladly do the same to any unfair or unsupported posts on
the pro side, should they so plainly present themselves, I'm starting
here because it's so perfectly laid out for me.

Excerpts from netnews.alt.horror: 16-Jan-98 Re: SCREAM haters by The
Gore...@goremet.com

> 1) Wes Craven is a hack, has been for years.

Reasons? Evidence? Because?

Define "hack."


> 2) What a lame concept.

Exactly how is it lame? Why?

It seems to me, regardless of how well it was pulled off, this was a
concept just dying to happen.

We're all on these threads because we love horror movies. Because we've
seen a million of them. So the idea still so often perpetuated by
horror movies -- that horror movie people always do dumb things that
real life people who've actually seen horror movies, would know much
better than to do -- was ripe for a beating. Or at least a twist.

The first time anyone ever yelled advice to a character on screen, it
seems to me, this concept became clear.


> 3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
> that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
> brainless shit for the MTV generation.

You can be insulted all you want, but that's not the fault of the movie
itself. It's all the mindless lemmings who will now try to imitate it's
success. It never fails to amaze me that people blame a film for the
foolishness and idiocy that springs up after it, as if the film is
somehow controlling people (and liking it).

And -- since this film is clearly aimed at people who've seen and
enjoyed a ton of horror films, assuming a high and familiar level of
knowledge about late 70s and early 80s films, it most certainly was not
aimed at 13-19 year olds. You don't have to like it, Gore-Met, but this
film was aimed squarely at people like you (and me).

It obviously missed the mark completely with you -- and thus, it failed
in at least one significant case -- but that doesn't mean it wasn't
aiming at you.


> 4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.

Other than Neve Campbell, name a hot teenybopper TV star in the film.

They may be hot, hyped, rising movie stars...


> 5) The resulting hysteria over "Scream" was pathetic. Need I bring up
> the proliferation of "Scream rulez" and "Scream kix azz and takez namez"
> posts that polluted this NG for too long. To say this was the best
> horror movie ever made, well, I guess I'll just put it down to the
> exuberance of youth, but anyone who would make a statement like that
> doesn't have a fucking clue.

Totally agreed.

But again, I ask you: how does that reflect on the film?

There are a hell of a lot of people who churn up hysteria over Romero or
Fulci or Argento too -- and I think they're just as pathetic and
misguided. They may be channelling their lunacy at a film you (or I)
like more, but they're still zealots, they're still nuts, and they still
need to get a grip on reality. I'm not going to blame THE BEYOND
because some loser posts FULCI IS GOD on the newsgroup.


> 6) The whole thing was contrived from the get-go. Sequels and all, at
> least they had the cojones to admit they were going to make 2 sequels to
> milk every dime they could get from people misinformed enough to
> anticipate all 3.

Huh?


> Those are reasons enough. I get so tired of people rolling out the "you
> just hate it because it's mainstream" argument.

Actually, they're not.

You never say anything of substance about the film itself, you only rage
against esoterica, then justifiably (if excessively) criticize
overreaction to or slavish devotion to the film.

But until you offer hard, firm, detailed criticisms of the actual movie
-- and not the attendant style and hype -- people will continue to roll
out that argument. It may not be fair, and you may hate it, but you
give them no other choice.


Chad


Top Story

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

>
> Er... You fit precisely into the demographic group he's talking
>about, Tex. Not to imply that you're the walking stereotype the Gore-met
>would have you as, but as they figure Generations, you missed X by a few
>years, and are, like so many others, of the MTV Generation.

Really?? WoW!
So how old do you have to be to be generation X

I'm 17...Generation neXt....

Top Story

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

>I don't think he said "teenybopper" in reference to the actors' age. More
>like their following. Can we say "90210"? How many of them are in their
>teens?

I love 90210, none of them are in their teens.

Christopher M. Stangl

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

On 16 Jan 1998, Top Story wrote:

The dates keep changing. Initially the cutoff was the folks who
are now about twenty six (they were maybe 20 at the time), forward to
people are now in their mid thirties. Slowly it kept moving back until it
encompassed the people who are now about twenty two. By the very most
liberal methods of figuring "Generation X" even includes folks who are now
nineteen, but that's a bit excessive, and most people go with the over-22
figure, I believe.
As for the folks *after* that genereation, I'd pick my own name if
I were you. Generation neXt sounds dumb to me, but your other choices
seem worse:
Generation Y
The MTV Generation
The Nintendo Generation
The Nickelodeon Generation
The "Scream" Fan Generation.
-Chris Stangl


Evil Ed

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

The prosecution rests, Your Honor!

--

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Los QCBB! Arriba arriba! Oil of Olay! Burrito!
http://www.waste.org/~eviled/
Home of the Sock Puppet Slaugher page
evi...@waste.org
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Piper1013

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

>> 4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.
>
>Other than Neve Campbell, name a hot teenybopper TV star in the film.
>
>They may be hot, hyped, rising movie stars...

I do have to contribute on this one point. The only two really well known
people in the film were Neve Campbell, Drew Barrymore & Courteney Cox if you
think about it. (Courteney, I thought was perfect for the part as Gale and the
way I look at it her casting was more of a "The best person for the part", not
a "Look, she's on FRIENDS" kind of thing). Other than those 3 the rest of the
cast was pretty much unknown and could not be considered hot teeny-bopper stars
at that time. Of course, NOW they are all hot rising stars but at the time
they were practically unknowns.

Also, I didn't go see this movie because of Neve or Courteney or Drew at all.
In fact, when I first saw the preview I was completely turned off by it and
didn't want to see it. But after 3 months of hearing from people whose
opinions I trust that it was a 'great' movie, I gave in and bought my ticket.
And when I saw it, it wasn't the performances of these "big" stars that made me
enjoy the film, it was the performances of the unknowns Jamie Kennedy, Matthew
Lillard & Rose McGowan.

<that post was way too long>
Lisa

Proud OBSSE Member, CoC!!, X-Phile, etc. etc.
"I am looking for a dare to be great situation." --JPC, Say Anything
"On behalf of all the women in the world, I seriously doubt this has anything
to do with consensual sex."--Scully, Small Potatoes

Jon Dilbert

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

In article <19980116213...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
tops...@aol.com says...

> >I don't think he said "teenybopper" in reference to the actors' age. More
> >like their following. Can we say "90210"? How many of them are in their
> >teens?
>
> I love 90210, none of them are in their teens.
>

My point exactly. While the actors are not in their teens, they have a
largely teen following. BTW, I wasn't bashing 90210....it's not my cup of
tea...
--
__________________

Just another useless observation by yours truly...

OD99

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

The Gore-met wrote:
>
> I never praised this film, ever. It has nothing to do with any
> popularity this film may or may not enjoy. I think this film is crap
> because:
>
> 1) Wes Craven is a hack, has been for years. He should be shot for
> allowing 8 extra "Nightmare" movies.
>
> 2) What a lame concept.
>
> 3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
> that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
> brainless shit for the MTV generation.
>
> 4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.
>
> 5) The resulting hysteria over "Scream" was pathetic. Need I bring up
> the proliferation of "Scream rulez" and "Scream kix azz and takez namez"
> posts that polluted this NG for too long. To say this was the best
> horror movie ever made, well, I guess I'll just put it down to the
> exuberance of youth, but anyone who would make a statement like that
> doesn't have a fucking clue.
>
> 6) The whole thing was contrived from the get-go. Sequels and all, at
> least they had the cojones to admit they were going to make 2 sequels to
> milk every dime they could get from people misinformed enough to
> anticipate all 3.
>
> Those are reasons enough. I get so tired of people rolling out the "you
> just hate it because it's mainstream" argument.
>
> --
> "Aliens ain't human, you know"- Fred Dobbs, Without Warning
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> "We have a lifetime to know your flesh..."
> Terror! Mayhem! Bloody horror!
> The Galloping Gore-met: http://www.interlog.com/~goremet
> --------------------------------------------------------

Right on Gore-Met. My words exactly. Finally one person who agrees with
me. -And I thought the group was dead.
P.S. Cool web page.

Nick

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

I thought i would add to this endless thread!

--
"Humans are such easy prey..."
Stuart Gordon's "From Beyond"

-Nick
OD99 wrote in message <34BFFD...@total.net>...

The Gore-met

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Top Story wrote:

>
> Danny wrote:
> >He didn't know he'd hate until he watched it perhaps?
> >
> >
>
> It's very evident that he has watched it more than once based on his evaluation
> of the movie, and if he did watch it once and hated it, then why did he watch
> the sequel?
>
> Ugh! People these days.

Oh, if you only knew the truth...

The Gore-met

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Evil Ed wrote:

>
> Top Story wrote:
> >
> > >I don't think he said "teenybopper" in reference to the actors' age. More
> > >like their following. Can we say "90210"? How many of them are in their
> > >teens?
> >
> > I love 90210, none of them are in their teens.
>
> The prosecution rests, Your Honor!
>
> --
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Los QCBB! Arriba arriba! Oil of Olay! Burrito!
> http://www.waste.org/~eviled/
> Home of the Sock Puppet Slaugher page
> evi...@waste.org
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ohmigod, did he
really type that... He did! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! Whew,
Lord have me mercy, nobody's that... Yes they are! HAHAHAHAHAH!!! I
gotta pee!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RM

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Chad R Hermann wrote:
>
> I feel like I'm making a big mistake here, but what the hell...
>
> As usual, when zealots are shouting at each other, the truth lies
> somewhere in the middle.
>
> Though I would gladly do the same to any unfair or unsupported posts on
> the pro side, should they so plainly present themselves, I'm starting
> here because it's so perfectly laid out for me.
>
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.horror: 16-Jan-98 Re: SCREAM haters by The
> Gore...@goremet.com
> > 1) Wes Craven is a hack, has been for years.
>
> Reasons? Evidence? Because?
>
> Define "hack."
>
> > 2) What a lame concept.
>
> Exactly how is it lame? Why?
>
> It seems to me, regardless of how well it was pulled off, this was a
> concept just dying to happen.
>
> We're all on these threads because we love horror movies. Because we've
> seen a million of them. So the idea still so often perpetuated by
> horror movies -- that horror movie people always do dumb things that
> real life people who've actually seen horror movies, would know much
> better than to do -- was ripe for a beating. Or at least a twist.
>
> The first time anyone ever yelled advice to a character on screen, it
> seems to me, this concept became clear.
>
> > 3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
> > that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
> > brainless shit for the MTV generation.
>
> You can be insulted all you want, but that's not the fault of the movie
> itself. It's all the mindless lemmings who will now try to imitate it's
> success. It never fails to amaze me that people blame a film for the
> foolishness and idiocy that springs up after it, as if the film is
> somehow controlling people (and liking it).
>
> And -- since this film is clearly aimed at people who've seen and
> enjoyed a ton of horror films, assuming a high and familiar level of
> knowledge about late 70s and early 80s films, it most certainly was not
> aimed at 13-19 year olds. You don't have to like it, Gore-Met, but this
> film was aimed squarely at people like you (and me).
>
> It obviously missed the mark completely with you -- and thus, it failed
> in at least one significant case -- but that doesn't mean it wasn't
> aiming at you.
>
> > 4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.
>
> Other than Neve Campbell, name a hot teenybopper TV star in the film.
>
> They may be hot, hyped, rising movie stars...
>
> > 5) The resulting hysteria over "Scream" was pathetic. Need I bring up
> > the proliferation of "Scream rulez" and "Scream kix azz and takez namez"
> > posts that polluted this NG for too long. To say this was the best
> > horror movie ever made, well, I guess I'll just put it down to the
> > exuberance of youth, but anyone who would make a statement like that
> > doesn't have a fucking clue.
>
> Totally agreed.
>
> But again, I ask you: how does that reflect on the film?
>
> There are a hell of a lot of people who churn up hysteria over Romero or
> Fulci or Argento too -- and I think they're just as pathetic and
> misguided. They may be channelling their lunacy at a film you (or I)
> like more, but they're still zealots, they're still nuts, and they still
> need to get a grip on reality. I'm not going to blame THE BEYOND
> because some loser posts FULCI IS GOD on the newsgroup.
>
> > 6) The whole thing was contrived from the get-go. Sequels and all, at
> > least they had the cojones to admit they were going to make 2 sequels to
> > milk every dime they could get from people misinformed enough to
> > anticipate all 3.
>
> Huh?

>
> > Those are reasons enough. I get so tired of people rolling out the "you
> > just hate it because it's mainstream" argument.
>
> Actually, they're not.
>
> You never say anything of substance about the film itself, you only rage
> against esoterica, then justifiably (if excessively) criticize
> overreaction to or slavish devotion to the film.
>
> But until you offer hard, firm, detailed criticisms of the actual movie
> -- and not the attendant style and hype -- people will continue to roll
> out that argument. It may not be fair, and you may hate it, but you
> give them no other choice.
>
> Chad


You go Chad!! That is the best rebuttal of Goremet's posts I've read
yet!!.. I'd like to see Goremet answer to that!!!!!

RM

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Top Story wrote:
>
> Danny wrote:
> >He didn't know he'd hate until he watched it perhaps?
> >
> >
>
> It's very evident that he has watched it more than once based on his evaluation
> of the movie, and if he did watch it once and hated it, then why did he watch
> the sequel?
>
> Ugh! People these days.

Sorry about my last post Top Story... I didn't mean to insult your
intelligence. I just got done reading Chad's take on the whole
discussion and then I read your less eloquently stated comments..
anyway, no offense!

RM

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Top Story wrote:
>
> Danny wrote:
> >He didn't know he'd hate until he watched it perhaps?
> >
> >
>
> It's very evident that he has watched it more than once based on his evaluation
> of the movie, and if he did watch it once and hated it, then why did he watch
> the sequel?
>
> Ugh! People these days.


Enough already, Top Story! Your giving all "Scream" fans a bad name
with some of your.. how do I put it... STUPID comments!

RM

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

>
> Right on Gore-Met. My words exactly. Finally one person who agrees with
> me. -And I thought the group was dead.
> P.S. Cool web page.

Read Chad R. Herman's rebuttal to Goremet's rant about "Scream"... I
think it may enlighten you all...

RM

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to


Sure, make fun of the little "90210" lover... Why don't you pick on
someone your own size!

RM

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

The Gore-met wrote:
>
> Top Story wrote:
> >
> > Danny wrote:
> > >He didn't know he'd hate until he watched it perhaps?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It's very evident that he has watched it more than once based on his evaluation
> > of the movie, and if he did watch it once and hated it, then why did he watch
> > the sequel?
> >
> > Ugh! People these days.
>
> Oh, if you only knew the truth...
> --
> "Aliens ain't human, you know"- Fred Dobbs, Without Warning
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> "We have a lifetime to know your flesh..."
> Terror! Mayhem! Bloody horror!
> The Galloping Gore-met: http://www.interlog.com/~goremet
> --------------------------------------------------------


Like I said before... its easy to bash Top Stories comments, but try
taking on Chad Herman's rebuttal to your comments.. Now that will show
some real guts.. (And I'm not talking the kind you watch in "Cannibal
Holocaust")

RM

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

some real guts.. (And I'm not talking the kind you see in "Cannibal
Holocaust")

Shiflet

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Top Story wrote:
>
> Danny wrote:
> >He didn't know he'd hate until he watched it perhaps?
> >
> >
>
> It's very evident that he has watched it more than once based on his evaluation
> of the movie, and if he did watch it once and hated it, then why did he watch
> the sequel?
>
> Ugh! People these days.

Why? I liked it, and I wrote long winded things about it when I first
saw it(and I only saw it once). What's to say someone else can't do the
same thing?

Danny Shiflet

Shiflet

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

I did. I took Gore-met's post differently, ie Craven's a hack=he doesn't
like the direction. Teenybopper stars=bad acting. I thought that's what
he was trying to say, in his explanation of why he didn't like it. I
like the movie, but come on, give it a rest.

Danny Shiflet

tim...@tiptontel.com

unread,
Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98
to

Interesting post, Gore-met. I've checked out your website, and was
very impressed, so when you attack the Scream series I pay more
attention to you than most posters, since you are able to articulate
your views intelligently. Since it's slow around here tonight, and
I've never really joined the (usually) lame Scream discussions, I
threw together a response to your latest Scream post, just to get my
jollies. Here goes:

1) Craven 'allowed' 8 more Nightmare movies the same way that
Carpenter allowed 5 sequels to Halloween.

2) Yep, that slasher movie concept is lame. It will never catch on.

3) Anything written with even the slightest skill is not made for the
13-19 crowd, or at least not exclusively for them. The mainstream
critical establishment, which is just as over-the-hill as me, doesn't
generally leap at the youth market unless they see something worth
while in there somewhere. (if you need it, I'll share my Geritol with
you, hehe)

4) Okay, that pissed me off too. Got me there.

5) To paraphrase the NRA, movies don't make fucking stupid newsgroup
posts, people make fucking stupid newsgroup posts. Worthwhile and
shitty films are equally represented by the moron fringies.

6) Of course it was contrived. Every horror film since Halloween has
had its eye on the sequel money at the end of the rainbow. Greed is
part of the industry. The 'planned trilogy' scam is just the latest
verse of the same old song. But it's not a song that Craven wrote,
he's just singing for his supper, like the rest of Hollywood.

Now, having said that, I would like to add a quick aside about my own
personal opinions concerning the whole Scream phenomenon: Scream was a
very good movie that appealed to teens who watched a lot of horror
movies, as well as critics who felt that its self-referential nature
made it a more intelligent alternative to the usual horror fare. (one
problem with mainstream critics, however, is that they wouldn't know a
good horror film if it bit them on the ass. In my opinion critics
loved Scream for all the wrong reasons) Scream 2, on the other hand,
was a PRETTY good movie that made a lot of mistakes, and got way too
much attention from the media because it was the sequel to the
critics' darling and box-office champ. And incidentally, I Know What
You Did Last Summer was a movie that looked good, sucked big time, and
made all the mistakes of Scream without having any of its good points.
I really liked Scream, but it was a good entry to the genre, not
the be all and end all. Hell, even if it was, would that mean that we
had to talk about it and its sequel for the next two years while we
waited for another entry in the series? Shit, I hope not. You're right
about being tired of defending your position on the film. There aren't
enough intelligent posters to keep the thread interesting, and even if
there were, every point of possible interest has already been driven
into the dirt. Speaking of which, Gore-met, allow me to attend to a
bit of unfinished business with some others for a sec:

(ahem) Randy is fucking dead, people. Craven would have to be a god
damned moron to try to pull a plot twist as lame as bringing him back.
Period.

Sorry, Gore, had to get that out of the way. Now, where was I? Hmm,
actually, I guess that's about it. Again, I don't quite agree with
your opinions about Scream, but I'm glad that you can phrase them
intelligently. Too much knuckle-dragging around the net these days.
You use big words and everything. It's almost . . . SCARY! But then,
that IS the point of this NG, after all, hehe.

--Homer--
aka tim...@tiptontel.com


On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:11:54 -0600, The Gore-met <gor...@goremet.com>
wrote:

>I never praised this film, ever. It has nothing to do with any
>popularity this film may or may not enjoy. I think this film is crap
>because:
>
>1) Wes Craven is a hack, has been for years. He should be shot for
>allowing 8 extra "Nightmare" movies.
>

>2) What a lame concept.
>

>3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
>that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
>brainless shit for the MTV generation.
>

>4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.
>

>5) The resulting hysteria over "Scream" was pathetic. Need I bring up
>the proliferation of "Scream rulez" and "Scream kix azz and takez namez"
>posts that polluted this NG for too long. To say this was the best
>horror movie ever made, well, I guess I'll just put it down to the
>exuberance of youth, but anyone who would make a statement like that
>doesn't have a fucking clue.
>

>6) The whole thing was contrived from the get-go. Sequels and all, at
>least they had the cojones to admit they were going to make 2 sequels to
>milk every dime they could get from people misinformed enough to
>anticipate all 3.
>

>Those are reasons enough. I get so tired of people rolling out the "you
>just hate it because it's mainstream" argument.
>

Top Story

unread,
Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98
to

The Gore-met

unread,
Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98
to

RM wrote:
>
> Chad R Hermann wrote:
> >
> > I feel like I'm making a big mistake here, but what the hell...
> >
> > As usual, when zealots are shouting at each other, the truth lies
> > somewhere in the middle.
> >
> > Though I would gladly do the same to any unfair or unsupported posts on
> > the pro side, should they so plainly present themselves, I'm starting
> > here because it's so perfectly laid out for me.
> >
> > Excerpts from netnews.alt.horror: 16-Jan-98 Re: SCREAM haters by The
> > Gore...@goremet.com
> > > 1) Wes Craven is a hack, has been for years.
> >
> > Reasons? Evidence? Because?
> >
> > Define "hack."
> >
> > > 2) What a lame concept.
> >
> > Exactly how is it lame? Why?
> >
> > It seems to me, regardless of how well it was pulled off, this was a
> > concept just dying to happen.
> >
> > We're all on these threads because we love horror movies. Because we've
> > seen a million of them. So the idea still so often perpetuated by
> > horror movies -- that horror movie people always do dumb things that
> > real life people who've actually seen horror movies, would know much
> > better than to do -- was ripe for a beating. Or at least a twist.
> >
> > The first time anyone ever yelled advice to a character on screen, it
> > seems to me, this concept became clear.
> >
> > > 3) It was made for the 13-19 year old crowd. I'm a little older that
> > > that and am insulted by the fact that all "horror" coming out is
> > > brainless shit for the MTV generation.
> >
> > You can be insulted all you want, but that's not the fault of the movie
> > itself. It's all the mindless lemmings who will now try to imitate it's
> > success. It never fails to amaze me that people blame a film for the
> > foolishness and idiocy that springs up after it, as if the film is
> > somehow controlling people (and liking it).
> >
> > And -- since this film is clearly aimed at people who've seen and
> > enjoyed a ton of horror films, assuming a high and familiar level of
> > knowledge about late 70s and early 80s films, it most certainly was not
> > aimed at 13-19 year olds. You don't have to like it, Gore-Met, but this
> > film was aimed squarely at people like you (and me).
> >
> > It obviously missed the mark completely with you -- and thus, it failed
> > in at least one significant case -- but that doesn't mean it wasn't
> > aiming at you.
> >
> > > 4) Casting all the 'hot' teenybopper TV stars.
> >
> > Other than Neve Campbell, name a hot teenybopper TV star in the film.
> >
> > They may be hot, hyped, rising movie stars...
> >
> > > 5) The resulting hysteria over "Scream" was pathetic. Need I bring up
> > > the proliferation of "Scream rulez" and "Scream kix azz and takez namez"
> > > posts that polluted this NG for too long. To say this was the best
> > > horror movie ever made, well, I guess I'll just put it down to the
> > > exuberance of youth, but anyone who would make a statement like that
> > > doesn't have a fucking clue.
> >
> > Totally agreed.
> >
> > But again, I ask you: how does that reflect on the film?
> >
> > There are a hell of a lot of people who churn up hysteria over Romero or
> > Fulci or Argento too -- and I think they're just as pathetic and
> > misguided. They may be channelling their lunacy at a film you (or I)
> > like more, but they're still zealots, they're still nuts, and they still
> > need to get a grip on reality. I'm not going to blame THE BEYOND
> > because some loser posts FULCI IS GOD on the newsgroup.
> >
> > > 6) The whole thing was contrived from the get-go. Sequels and all, at
> > > least they had the cojones to admit they were going to make 2 sequels to
> > > milk every dime they could get from people misinformed enough to
> > > anticipate all 3.
> >
> > Huh?

> >
> > > Those are reasons enough. I get so tired of people rolling out the "you
> > > just hate it because it's mainstream" argument.
> >
> > Actually, they're not.
> >
> > You never say anything of substance about the film itself, you only rage
> > against esoterica, then justifiably (if excessively) criticize
> > overreaction to or slavish devotion to the film.
> >
> > But until you offer hard, firm, detailed criticisms of the actual movie
> > -- and not the attendant style and hype -- people will continue to roll
> > out that argument. It may not be fair, and you may hate it, but you
> > give them no other choice.
> >
> > Chad
>
> You go Chad!! That is the best rebuttal of Goremet's posts I've read
> yet!!.. I'd like to see Goremet answer to that!!!!!

Well, to do that I'd actually have to watch it then, wouldn't I!

Top Story

unread,
Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98
to

It's so cool when you write things one day and come back the next and people
are talking about you.

:)

BTW: Scream and Scream 2 are my favorite movies!

Criswell

unread,
Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98
to

Chad was saying:

>> > But until you offer hard, firm, detailed criticisms of the actual movie
>> > -- and not the attendant style and hype -- people will continue to roll
>> > out that argument. It may not be fair, and you may hate it, but you
>> > give them no other choice.
>> >
>> > Chad
And someone else put in:
>> You go Chad!! That is the best rebuttal of Goremet's posts I've read
>> yet!!.. I'd like to see Goremet answer to that!!!!!

So The Goremet responded:


>Well, to do that I'd actually have to watch it then, wouldn't I!
>--
>"Aliens ain't human, you know"- Fred Dobbs, Without Warning

So now Criswell, the voice of reason, says:
This thread--I snipped most of it--has become so tangled, it was
impossible to tell for sure what the question was. But as it seems to
have something to do with SCREAM and it's sequel, well, let me tell
you.
I did see both films. I hail the original as a classic of sorts, no
matter what anyone says. And by the same token, I view SCREAM 2 as
one of the most worthless movies ever made. A lot of stink is being
made, by fans of this "series", that Craven had two sequels "planned"
from the very beginning. The reality of the matter, though, is that
Wes Craven is a Goddamned liar. Anyone who's given the sequel a good
hard look, or even a casual glance, can see that the thing was
something thrown together, the most uninspired,
quick-let's-make-another-one-before-everyone-forgets-the-first piece
of garbage since JAWS 2.
At least the shark sequel was scary. SCREAM 2 had no scares, no
memorable lines, no sympathetic characters, and, when the truth comes
down, the only thing it does have going for it is my money, your
money, and the money that everyone else spent on it.
Wes Craven doesn't care about the horror genre. He's probably
sitting back watching a Whoopi Goldberg movie right now, and laughing
at all of us.

Criswell

Top Story

unread,
Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98
to

> I did see both films. I hail the original as a classic of sorts, no
>matter what anyone says. And by the same token, I view SCREAM 2 as
>one of the most worthless movies ever made. A lot of stink is being
>made, by fans of this "series", that Craven had two sequels "planned"
>from the very beginning. The reality of the matter, though, is that
>Wes Craven is a Goddamned liar. Anyone who's given the sequel a good
>hard look, or even a casual glance, can see that the thing was
>something thrown together, the most uninspired,
>quick-let's-make-another-one-before-everyone-forgets-the-first piece
>of garbage since JAWS 2.
> At least the shark sequel was scary. SCREAM 2 had no scares, no
>memorable lines, no sympathetic characters, and, when the truth comes
>down, the only thing it does have going for it is my money, your
>money, and the money that everyone else spent on it.
> Wes Craven doesn't care about the horror genre. He's probably
>sitting back watching a Whoopi Goldberg movie right now, and laughing
>at all of us.
>
>

Go to Hell.

RM

unread,
Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98
to

> So now Criswell, the voice of reason, says:
> This thread--I snipped most of it--has become so tangled, it was
> impossible to tell for sure what the question was. But as it seems to
> have something to do with SCREAM and it's sequel, well, let me tell
> you.

Wes Craven didn't claim to have planned out sequels to "Scream" before
the original's success... It was Kevin Williamson who says he had
written treatments for the "Scream" trilogy when he handed in the
original script.. Get your facts straight. Also, your being pretty pig
headed to say "SCREAM 2 had no scares, no memorable lines, no
sympathetic charaters".. Please!!!!! The opening was excellent, the
spoofs of the original "Scream" were hilarious, Randy's death, the Car
Scene, Dewey's near death.. they all were chock full of suspense and
tension.. (What was so scary in the first "Scream" that "Scream 2"
didn't contain.. other than the opening.. that is classic). Also how can
you say there were no sympathetic characters? Being a fan of the first,
how can you not feel sympathy for Randy when he's hacked up without ever
telling Sydney how he feels... or Dewey always getting crippled just
before he is about to get it on with Gale!! The only thing I agree with
is it did lack some memorable lines that the first had. Although
Dewey's long winded quote to Gale was funny and Randy had some hilarious
lines. I still think the line that divides my opinion with yours is
that I enjoyed the first hour and a half of "Scream 2" enough to forgive
it for the anti-climatic ending, while you could not. And one last
thing... I know "Scream 2" was rushed out do to the success of the first
and didn't follow Williamson's so-called plans for a trilogy... but I
still think they did a hell of a job in the short time they filmed it...
I liked it enough to see it 4 times in theatre, can't say that about any
other movies I've seen. (Except the original of course)

Chad R Hermann

unread,
Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98
to

Excerpts from netnews.alt.horror: 17-Jan-98 Re: SCREAM haters by The
Gore...@goremet.com
> Well, to do that I'd actually have to watch it then, wouldn't I!


Well, gee.

There you go.

True ignorance rears its head.

Chad

The Gore-met

unread,
Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98
to

Should you choose to believe that.


--
"Aliens ain't human, you know"- Fred Dobbs, Without Warning

--------------------------------------------------------

Shiflet

unread,
Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98
to

Top Story wrote:
>
> > I did see both films. I hail the original as a classic of sorts, no
> >matter what anyone says. And by the same token, I view SCREAM 2 as
> >one of the most worthless movies ever made. A lot of stink is being
> >made, by fans of this "series", that Craven had two sequels "planned"
> >from the very beginning. The reality of the matter, though, is that
> >Wes Craven is a Goddamned liar. Anyone who's given the sequel a good
> >hard look, or even a casual glance, can see that the thing was
> >something thrown together, the most uninspired,
> >quick-let's-make-another-one-before-everyone-forgets-the-first piece
> >of garbage since JAWS 2.
> > At least the shark sequel was scary. SCREAM 2 had no scares, no
> >memorable lines, no sympathetic characters, and, when the truth comes
> >down, the only thing it does have going for it is my money, your
> >money, and the money that everyone else spent on it.
> > Wes Craven doesn't care about the horror genre. He's probably
> >sitting back watching a Whoopi Goldberg movie right now, and laughing
> >at all of us.
> >
> >
>
> Go to Hell.

Are you trying to support Gore-met's opinions?

Danny Shiflet
"We plan ahead, that way we don't have to do anything right
now"-Valentine, Tremors

Shiflet

unread,
Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98
to

RM wrote:
>
> > So now Criswell, the voice of reason, says:
> > This thread--I snipped most of it--has become so tangled, it was
> > impossible to tell for sure what the question was. But as it seems to
> > have something to do with SCREAM and it's sequel, well, let me tell
> > you.
> > I did see both films. I hail the original as a classic of sorts, no
> > matter what anyone says. And by the same token, I view SCREAM 2 as
> > one of the most worthless movies ever made. A lot of stink is being
> > made, by fans of this "series", that Craven had two sequels "planned"
> > from the very beginning. The reality of the matter, though, is that
> > Wes Craven is a Goddamned liar. Anyone who's given the sequel a good
> > hard look, or even a casual glance, can see that the thing was
> > something thrown together, the most uninspired,
> > quick-let's-make-another-one-before-everyone-forgets-the-first piece
> > of garbage since JAWS 2.
> > At least the shark sequel was scary. SCREAM 2 had no scares, no
> > memorable lines, no sympathetic characters, and, when the truth comes
> > down, the only thing it does have going for it is my money, your
> > money, and the money that everyone else spent on it.
> > Wes Craven doesn't care about the horror genre. He's probably
> > sitting back watching a Whoopi Goldberg movie right now, and laughing
> > at all of us.
>
> Wes Craven didn't claim to have planned out sequels to "Scream" before
> the original's success... It was Kevin Williamson who says he had
> written treatments for the "Scream" trilogy when he handed in the
> original script.. Get your facts straight.

> Also, your being pretty pig
> headed to say "SCREAM 2 had no scares, no memorable lines, no
> sympathetic charaters".. Please!!!!! The opening was excellent,

I wasn't impressed by the opening in the slightest.

> the spoofs of the original "Scream" were hilarious,

Maybe to some, but again, I was unimpressed.

>Randy's death, the car Scene, Dewey's near death..

Randy's death may have been full of tension had certain assholes not
spoiled it in the header, but I was *hoping* Dewey would die(no
suspense), nor did the car scene fill me with any real tension. I was
just waiting for it to end at that point.

>they all were chock full of suspense and tension.. (What was so scary in the first "Scream" that "Scream 2"
> didn't contain.. other than the opening.. that is classic).

I didn't find the first one suspenseful either, but it was a much more
entertaining movie.

> Also how can
> you say there were no sympathetic characters? Being a fan of the first,
> how can you not feel sympathy for Randy when he's hacked up without ever
> telling Sydney how he feels...

I felt sympathy for Randy, and that's it.

> or Dewey always getting crippled just
> before he is about to get it on with Gale!!

As I mentioned earlier, I was hoping Dewey would get killed, I hated the
character. I felt alot more for the victims in the first, the ones in 2
were just dull.

> The only thing I agree with
> is it did lack some memorable lines that the first had. Although
> Dewey's long winded quote to Gale was funny and Randy had some hilarious
> lines.

Yet another dissapointment, the lack of humor.

> I still think the line that divides my opinion with yours is
> that I enjoyed the first hour and a half of "Scream 2" enough to forgive
> it for the anti-climatic ending, while you could not. And one last
> thing... I know "Scream 2" was rushed out do to the success of the first
> and didn't follow Williamson's so-called plans for a trilogy... but I
> still think they did a hell of a job in the short time they filmed it...
> I liked it enough to see it 4 times in theatre, can't say that about any
> other movies I've seen. (Except the original of course)

I personally wouldn't care to see it again if I had free tickets, I felt
like I was watching a F13 sequel.

Criswell

unread,
Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98
to

Ryan M wrote:
>Wes Craven didn't claim to have planned out sequels to "Scream" before
>the original's success... It was Kevin Williamson who says he had
>written treatments for the "Scream" trilogy when he handed in the
>original script.. Get your facts straight. Also, your being pretty pig
>headed to say "SCREAM 2 had no scares, no memorable lines, no
>sympathetic charaters".. Please!!!!! The opening was excellent, the
>spoofs of the original "Scream" were hilarious, Randy's death, the Car
>Scene, Dewey's near death.. they all were chock full of suspense and

>tension.. (What was so scary in the first "Scream" that "Scream 2"
>didn't contain.. other than the opening.. that is classic). Also how can

>you say there were no sympathetic characters? Being a fan of the first,
>how can you not feel sympathy for Randy when he's hacked up without ever
>telling Sydney how he feels... or Dewey always getting crippled just

>before he is about to get it on with Gale!!

Criswell explains everything:
This opening scene that you think so much of, breaks a major rule
that every writer, director and actor should bear in mind and repeat
to themselves about ten-thousand times a day: "Never believe your own
press releases". It's the mistake that Schwarzenegger (look, I've had
a few beers and can still spell schwarzenegger!) made with LAST ACTION
HERO. The screenwriter, in this case, has jammed a theater full of
hardcore SCREAM fanatics--and it doesn't make any difference that in
the film they're nuts about the "actual incident", because the
vainglorious implications are still clear--sitting there in full
costume, waving glow-in-the-dark knives. The costumes, by the way,
are complimentary--everyone who buys a movie ticket for "STAB" gets
one. Is this where suspension of disbelief is supposed to kick in?
Because those costumes were going for thirty bucks a pop in St. Louis
last October.
Anyway, as for the issue of there being "no sympathetic characters".
Sure, Randy and Dewey were sympathetic. -In the first SCREAM. These
people bore little or no resemblance to the characters in the first
film, however, they were both so frigging flat, it'd be overly
generous to even call them 2 dimensional. And as for Gale, I'd like
to know: When she's shot, near the end, and then pops back up with
just a flesh wound.....Am I the only one who didn't care? Her
character is an annoyance, to put it euphemistically.
I will admit that the car crash scene was rather effective. It
would have been more effective, though, if the screenwriter had done a
little something to make me feel more inclined to give a damn whether
any of the characters lived or died. Someone posted an article here
recently with this advice for SCREAM 3: Kill everyone. I'd have to
agree. At least that'd be something original, something unexpected,
something SCREAMish.
If SCREAM 2 wasn't standing on the shoulders of the first film, it
wouldn't be standing at all.

Criswell


synthuser

unread,
Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98
to

Shiflet wrote:

> I wasn't impressed by the opening in the slightest.

The only part I found interesting was the concept of it
and maybe when she walks up to the stage and everyone in the
theater is finally becoming um less clueless. I had a twinge
of what a better version of this could have been.

> > the spoofs of the original "Scream" were hilarious,
>

> Maybe to some, but again, I was unimpressed.

I think impressed might be the wrong word? I do know
I wasn't laughing...



> >Randy's death, the car Scene, Dewey's near death..
>
> Randy's death may have been full of tension had certain assholes not
> spoiled it in the header, but I was *hoping* Dewey would die(no
> suspense), nor did the car scene fill me with any real tension. I was
> just waiting for it to end at that point.

Randy's death? BFD I was more bummed that Buffy the Vampire Slayer
bit it so early lol!

> I didn't find the first one suspenseful either, but it was a much more
> entertaining movie.

Again JMHO but suspenseful might be the wrong word again lol! The
opening in the first Scream wasn't "suspenseful" to me it was just
damn good. I actually thought wow this is going to be a very
unique flick. And in the end I enjoyed it...

> I felt sympathy for Randy, and that's it.

Really?

> As I mentioned earlier, I was hoping Dewey would get killed,

or go to see a dentist?

> I hated the character. I felt alot more for the victims in the first,
> the ones in 2 were just dull.

The dialogue was much funnier in the first IMHO. I was just comically
disapppointed in the second one...

> Yet another dissapointment, the lack of humor.

See above

> > I liked it enough to see it 4 times in theatre, can't say that about any
> > other movies I've seen. (Except the original of course)