What Went Wrong: Scream 4
By Shalimar Sahota
February 14, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Back when Scream was released in 1996, it moved up and down the chart at the US box office, surviving on healthy word-of-mouth due to the film’s postmodern take on the horror franchise. With the characters sharing knowledge on horror films, it essentially deconstructed itself, telling the audience about “the rules,” and in some cases, breaking them. The Scream films also inadvertently invented their own rule; that you should never watch a horror film while you’re in one. The fresh take spawned a number of imitators.
“It’s been done to death, the whole self-aware, postmodern meta-shit,” says Anna Paquin’s character in the opening of Scream 4. Maybe it should have taken its own advice. I mean, after Scream 3, was anybody really asking for a fourth instalment? Another horror slasher sequel 10 years later just had an aura of ‘what’s the point?’ about it. While the first two films brought in over $100 million at the US box office, Scream 3 managed to earn just $89 million - proof that the formula was probably starting to wane. However, Scream 3 was not well received. Some would attribute this down to the film being written by Ehren Kruger and not by original Scream scribe Kevin Williamson.
Even if it is wholly unnecessary, Scream 4 is still a worthy watch, explaining to viewers what’s wrong with the crop of horror films that have been released during the last decade. At the same time the film’s mere existence means that it has the opportunity to reinvigorate the genre rather than just talking about. Except it doesn’t.
Scream survivor Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) arrives back at Woodsboro to promote her new book, Out of Darkness. Meeting up with old friends Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courtney Cox), who are now married, she also makes an effort to connect with family relations, her cousin Jill (Emma Roberts) and her Aunt Kate (Mary McDonnell). However, someone (or some people) feels that her appearance means it’s only fitting to put on the Ghostface mask and run around killing people, with the full intention of killing Sidney.
After Scream 3 there were always rumors that a fourth film was in the cards. It wasn’t till the summer of 2008 that The Weinstein Company announced that it was definitely happening. Oddly, this was before anyone was even cast and before director Wes Craven had signed on. In February 2009 came news that Scream writer Kevin Williamson was working on a new trilogy for the franchise. A few months later in September, it was Bob Weinstein himself who revealed that they had managed to rope in Neve Campbell (having initially turned down Scream 4), along with David Arquette and Courtney Cox, and hoped that Wes Craven would direct. Craven didn’t officially sign on till March 2010, after he read Williamson’s script.
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly Craven revealed that Scream 4 would “look at horror after ten years of a lot of sequels rather than original films coming up year after year.” He also added that, “we feel it’s time for something new and different, and that’s what this film is going to be.”
With a production budget of $40 million, shooting began in June 2010, during which time actors were still being cast. In July it was reported that while Williamson was working on TV series The Vampire Diaries, Ehren Kruger had stepped in to do a script polish. It’s not been revealed what changes he made, only that some people were unhappy with them. Hayden Panetierre, who plays new character Kirby, was not pleased that her character had been “dumbed down significantly.” During the shoot ,Craven would also tease fans with images, uploading one of a blood stained couch, while another showed him holding a drill, which some assumed would be featured as a murder weapon. It seemed to be his way of screwing with people’s perceptions.
In January 2011, just a couple of months before it was scheduled to open, the film was said to be undergoing reshoots following test screenings. From talking to Entertainment Weekly, Craven cleared up the matter saying how they were merely adding to two scenes. “The two scenes were really good,” said Craven. “But we saw how they could be spectacular, so we thought, let’s just go for it.”
Scream 4 opened on April 15, 2011. As the fourth film in a successful franchise, opening weekend estimates were high, with many expecting it to open to over $30 million. With a weekend take of $18.6 million, it charted at #2 behind the other new entry, Rio. After that it went into freefall, suffering weekend drops of over 60% for the next five weeks. Scream 4 spent just two weeks inside the US top ten. Its domestic gross was just $38.1 million, less than half of what Scream 3 earned over a decade earlier. As another comparison, FilmDistrict’s original PG-13 horror film Insidious opened just two weeks earlier and ended up earning $54 million at the US box office. Scream 4’s gross overseas was $58.9 million. While the previous three films had all managed to earn over $160 million worldwide, Scream 4 failed to even cross the $100 million mark, finishing with a worldwide total of $97 million. Compared to its predecessors, this was incredibly disappointing.
The film opens with teenage girls discussing films with zombies, little Asian ghost girls and Saw IV. Not only is the opening a slice of Kevin Williamson genius, but it was most probably true to life, as on the weekend Scream 4 opened there were most likely numerous teenagers having a similar conversation, discussing whether or not they should watch the film. “These sequels don’t know when to stop, they just keep recycling the same shit,” said Paquin’s character, possibly echoing what they were saying. It was something some critics had already noted. Reviews were mixed, with some of the negative ones remarking on how the film was essentially the same formula they’d seen over a decade ago. Some of the positive ones said that it was still clever and funny.
The Scream name itself should have been enough to bring in the older generation that grew up with the franchise. In an effort to attract the under 25’s, the film included a younger cast, such as Rory Culkin, Erik Knudsen, Hayden Panettiere and Emma Roberts. It seemed to work, for The Weinstein Company’s research showed that 54% of the audience that came out for the film over the opening weekend were under 25. The R-rating probably put a stop to many young teenagers, some of whom might not have viewed the previous films. Or they simply snuck into an R-rated film after purchasing their tickets for a G-rated one, which would certainly explain Rio’s triumphant win over Scream 4. I did come across one report suggesting that this is actually what happened, for during one person’s screening of Scream 4 on opening night their theater was full of teenagers.
Opening against Rio was likely a factor too. Those who were teenagers when they watched Scream in the 1990s probably had children themselves now, and they weren’t going to take their little ones to see someone getting stabbed to the point of visible intestines. Audiences were also starting to get their horror thrills from found footage malarkey such as Paranormal Activity and its sequel and The Last Exorcism, films that actually cost less than Scream 4 yet ended up outgrossing it at the US box office.
Many of the writers at Box Office Prophets have taken a dig at Scream 4, calling it “a missed opportunity” largely because of that ending. There have already been a few pieces published here highlighting the film’s conclusion. This was stressed to the point where BOP even put up that aforementioned review for Scream 4 (Short Version) by Tom Douglass, which discards the conclusion and reviews the first “ninety-four minutes and twelve seconds” of the film, and we seem to agree that this is the film Scream 4 should have been.
If Scream 4 had ended with Sidney finally slain by Jill, then it’s quite possible that the film would be looking at largely positive reviews due to completely breaking the formula. Word-of-mouth would be difficult to ascertain. Audiences would be let down on how the film doesn’t have a happy ending (the Scream franchise has always had them), but they would share that Scream 4 has an ending that people simply will not see coming. Sure it would end on a downer, but it would have been the start of an interesting new franchise. Hell, it worked for Saw and that ended up becoming a seven film franchise! Oh God, I’ve probably just ruined Saw… um… if you haven’t seen Saw… oh, screw it.
The original film tried to teach us that it’s a lot scarier when there’s no motive, but ultimately everyone has their reasons. However, the reason behind Jill’s killings manages to be frightening only because it’s sublimely stupid. Jill wants to be as famous as Sidney. “I don’t need friends,” she says. “I need fans.” Yes, the film tells us that if kids want to be famous then forget hard work and talent, just start killing people (unless you feel that there is a talent to killing). It’s an awful reason from a deranged teenager that tries to appear relevant in the light of today’s reality TV shows and YouTube stars. She even goes so far as to killing her own mother, which she describes as “no great loss.” That’s right Moms, be wary of your fame addicted teenage daughters.
Despite the disappointment, I did enjoy Scream 4. I feel it makes for a nice bookend to the franchise, but in some cases the film seemed more interested in talking about the Internet and celebrity culture along with the current state of horror films rather than being a horror film itself. It raises valid points but they seem to be a substitute for the scares. And to not feature Red Right Hand by Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds? I mean, what’s up with that? Ultimately, if Scream 4 had ended 15 minutes earlier then I probably wouldn’t have written this What Went Wrong and we’d all be talking about the release of Scream 5 instead.