Scream 3

Question: Was Roman just playing dead in the coffin or was it a dummy? Hard to believe that he could be pretending because Gale checks his pulse.

Chosen answer: No it was Roman. There is a technique you can do where if you apply pressure on the correct artery you can stop the pulse. EXTREMELY dangerous though.

Question: Is there any significance to the code '1288' Sydney uses at her mountain hideaway?

Chosen answer: Not expressly, though it could have been the date of some significant event (December of 1988) but someone as security-conscious as Sydney now is wouldn't be stupid enough to have her code be something that could be guessed.

Question: Is Detective Kincaid the second killer? Two pieces of evidence spring to mind that he could be. One, he borrows Dewey's phone and soon afterwards Sydney is rung up by the killer and two, Roman Bridger has a bulletproof vest.

Chosen answer: No, remember, the detective says something along the lines of "In the third movie, all bets are off." Meaning that you can't expect the same formula (ie two killers) as the first two movies.

Grumpy Scot

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

Chosen answer: In the fax scene, Tom Prinze, the actor playing Stab 3 Dewey, realizes that the killer is literally rewriting the Stab 3 movie, which obsoletes the "script kill order" plot point. This means that Roman is not bothering to kill the actors in the order they die in Stab 3. This is further proven when Roman attempts to kill Gale after Tom's death.

Question: In Randy's recorded message, he says that "Return of the Jedi" and "Godfather part 3" both reveal something that turns out to be a lie. Of what events is he speaking?

Chosen answer: In "Return of the Jedi," Obi-Wan told Luke the truth about his earlier statement, that Darth Vader murdered his father. In "The Godfather Part 3," we learn that Sonny had a son by the woman he'd been having an affair with in the first film.

Question: In the film, is it mentioned why the killer left pictures of Maureen Prescott after each death?

Chosen answer: He's giving hints to who he is. Remember, the killer is Roman, Maureen's illegitimate son. She had him during a time in her life that no one else knew about, so the the pictures are Roman's way of leading everyone to what eventually becomes obvious.

Question: There is an entry saying,'At Roman's birthday party, Roman and Jennifer go off ALONE to find a missing room and end up in the basement. Later, Gale is looking for Roman and goes straight to the basement. She calls his name and gets no answer, but is adamant that he is in the basement and continues down to find him. Why would she think he was down there if she had no idea where he went?' What is this all about, because I don't understand it?

Chosen answer: It's pointing out how ridiculous it is that Gale goes looking for Roman in the basement. She has absolutely no idea where he is, and they're in a large enough mansion - if she called his name and he didn't answer, then there's no reason to think he's down there (since he has no reason, as far as she knows, to hide from her). However, she needs to go down to the basement for the sake of the plot, so she does so even though there's no real reason for it.

Shay

Question: At the beginning of the movie when the killer is about to kill Cotton, he changes his voice and talks about how it was a simple game. Does anyone know who the voice belongs to?

Chosen answer: The "voice" in all the movies belongs to Roger L. Jackson.

Question: Scott Foley's character is called Roman. I wonder if this has anything to do with real life film-maker Roman Polanski, who's wife Sharon Tate was murdered by Charles Manson and his gang?

Chosen answer: Surprisingly it wasn't it wasn't until one of the stars (I think it was Courtney Cox) pointed that out did the director realize.

Share

Follow

Join the mailing list