Chad gets held and stabbed like 15 times by two of the killers, he's fine at the end still alive. Mindy gets stabbed in the gut and the knife is twisted, shes fine at the end running around as if she got a paper cut.
Gale's also stabbed in the gut but shes still alive. Detective Bailey gets stabbed literally like 35 times at the end and is still alive until he gets it in the head. Kirby is battered, stabbed and shot and she lives. The one friend in the apartment is literally stabbed in the stomach and the killer pulls the knife up splitting her stomach open, yet continues to stay alive for a long time afterwards, and is crawling across a ladder 5 minutes later, and she doesn't even die by the gut wound, she falls off the ladder....
Its just ridiculous the amount of damage the characters take in these movies now and don't die. In part 5 Tara is decimated in the opening scene, and she weighs like 80 pounds and is like 4 feet tall, shes stabbed over and over again, leg crushed and shes in a cast and in a wheel chair still alive. And in part 6 shes stabbed once again and is perfectly fine afterwards.
No one died from the previous movie at all, they all lived, only new disposable characters died, it was ridiculous.
I actually agree with your argument. It's absurd that the 'Core Four' are able to survive. It makes it hard to suspend disbelief, BUT it's just as well I've already seen the film, because your OP title gives too much away.
Maybe I'm being too sensitive. Funnily enough, if I hadn't seen the film, it probably wouldn't have bothered me, and I'd have thought nothing of the original title.
It takes character shields to an extreme. And as much as I love Gale, her surviving this vicious attack is also absurd. The problem began with the magic blankets in 5, at least, if not sooner. Can only hope it's a set-up for a brutal 7. Except I don't care much about the new characters. I think they thought we'd expect at least a twin to die, a la Randy in 2, so they thought they were being subversive
Like I said in another thread, too many modern filmmakers are way too sentimental about their characters, in which case they should NOT be making Scream (or for that matter, Jurassic Park) films.
Plus, and I hate to evoke 'wokism' or 'anto-wokism', as soon as you introduce significant Black and minority characters you're on a hiding to nothing if you don't present them in a certain way, and killing them off is not going to go down too well.
I'm not instinctively 'anti-woke,' but I do think certain agendas are destroying creativity. My politics are progressive liberal, but when you're too scared to kill Black and/or female and/or LGBTQ+ characters, or even feel obliged to bring them back from the dead, because of an ideological agenda, and because of social media/opinion piece pressure (i.e. bloody Jezebel/The Root/The Mary Sue etc), you're NOT acting in the best interest of *art*.
YES. The character shields are ridiculous. Agreed on JP. I LOVE the JP movies, but hated that aspect of Dominion. Literally only the bad guys die, not a single good one.
Minorities... I see your point. But also I don't recall it being a big deal about killing Jada Pinkett and Omar Epps in the beginning of 2. Granted, I was 12 and living in a rural area, so if that was a major topic, I missed it. But they even address the black aspect of the genre within that scene. But yeah, things are different now.
Also I guess in the third one they were aware of the shields, as Dewey says Gale has more lives than a cat.
Agreed. The internet has made many creatives bow to fan service way too much. I'm gay, and while yeah I want fair representation, if every gay character had a character shield in every horror movie, that would be lame. Kill us too, that's fair representation. But don't kill us too much, "Bury the gays" and all that (which is a thing but becoming much less so).
"YES. The character shields are ridiculous. Agreed on JP. I LOVE the JP movies, but hated that aspect of Dominion. Literally only the bad guys die, not a single good one."
On one hand, it would have been a downer if Malcolm, Alan or Ellie had died. On the other hand, it's a blatant example of character armour, which removes any sense of tension. Plus, I only recall two significant deaths in the new JW film. All the other deaths were of no-name/background characters, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
"Minorities... I see your point. But also I don't recall it being a big deal about killing Jada Pinkett and Omar Epps in the beginning of 2. Granted, I was 12 and living in a rural area, so if that was a major topic, I missed it. But they even address the black aspect of the genre within that scene. But yeah, things are different now."
That's the point though. I was actually bummed out when certain Black characters died in the original films (i.e. Hallie in Scream 2, and Tyson in Scream 3), but the whole point is that some characters we care about *should* die. NO character should have de facto armour. And, as an aside, I do like that Joel the cameraman survived Scream 2 (mostly because he did the smart thing and ducked out of the situation for a large portion of the movie; that's an example of a character's smart actions/thinking logically leading to their survival; Joel didn't live because he had de facto plot armour; he lived cos he was smart).
"Agreed. The internet has made many creatives bow to fan service way too much. I'm gay, and while yeah I want fair representation, if every gay character had a character shield in every horror movie, that would be lame. Kill us too, that's fair representation. But don't kill us too much, "Bury the gays" and all that (which is a thing but becoming much less so)."
A balance has to be struck. If EVERY single Black character was being killed (which was often the case in old movies) that would be bad...
...BUT if only minority and/or 'core' characters are surviving, that also hurts the film, because it robs the film of any real tension.
I mean, I genuinely enjoyed this movie, but in hindsight, it figures that *SPOILERS* the villains would be a white cop and his two kids (although if the villain had turned out to be anyone but Dermot Mulroney's character, I'd have been baffled, since his 'dead son' was a major red flag). It would have taken more guts and been more shocking if a POC had turned out to be the villain.
What I'm saying is that agendas, including an apparently 'woke' agenda, are fatal to these types of films, because they rob the story of any surprises. If you can guess beforehand who is going to live and who is going to survive, where's the fun in that? Sorry, but whilst I hate to be one of those 'anti-woke' guys, in this instance, I truly think there's a genuine argument as to why horror/mystery filmmakers cannot afford to be too woke.
I don’t like the entire “woke” conversation but you are correct - the “identity politics” being played in most tv and movies is just tedious and frustrating at this point. They are only crippling the enjoyment of their film when they throw that in. It’s so bad that there are modern movies that I know when black characters are introduced that they will definitely not be the bad guy .. it’s that noticeable
To be fair the original three (Sidney, Gale and Dewey) took a lot of damage in the originals and always survived. Dewey in particular.
Though I do agree these new films are taking it a bit further with the plot armor. Too many fakeout death scenes. Hopefully they have the balls to kill a few of them off in whatever entry they deam the finale of this little timeline. I wonder if Scream 7 will be the last one, for a while at least, since that would complete a 'new trilogy'. Or if they'll just keep going till the box office drops off hard.
Yeah it’s beyond stupid at this point. Too much plot armor and it’s for characters I couldn’t care
Less about. Chad is a very dull character and the lesbian is a c level ripoff of Randy.