SteveQ

Question: Similar to how the "killer is duplicating Woodsboro" plot point in Scream 2 was left dangling, why exactly did Roman feel it necessary to kill people in the order that they die in "Stab 3"? We know he's out to make "his movie" (he's very theatrical and artistic like Mickey was), but the "movie" he's referring to is his process of orchestrating real-life events to make his half-sister Sidney into a perpetrator, and he into the innocent victim. Sure, he may have been upset about Sidney's public portrayal as a hero in the first two "Stab" movies, but he wasn't out to set the record straight in "Stab 3" (Jennifer was to be the killer in that movie had they continued production). His "movie" was about turning the tables on Sidney in real life, not through some actual film. It's metaphorical: he's a director, and he's manipulating events out of self-pity and revenge. In the end, Roman's revenge fantasy doesn't really have much to do with the actual "Stab 3" movie at all (other than the fact that it happens to be being filmed in the same area Sidney's mother knew and involves some of the same people, so it presented a perfect backdrop for Roman's confrontation with Sidney), so I don't really see the significance of the systematic order of the murders in relation to the film. Did Roman think that the pattern would draw Sidney out of hiding? Wouldn't the photos of her mother (or the fact that the victims were actors in a film concerning her past) have been enough to get her attention? What is the significance of the order? And why was this plot point also left to dangle like in Scream 2? (We don't know if Roman kept following the order because we don't know how the script goes past a certain point).

SteveQ