TonyPH

22nd Feb 2022

Scream (1996)

Character mistake: Sidney asks on the porch why Cotton couldn't prove that he was having an affair with her mom. Tatum's answer is "Well, you can't prove a rumor. That's why it's a rumor." That's quite the preposterous answer, especially since the point she wants to make is that it was not in fact 'just' a rumor.

Sammo

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Tatum isn't trying to argue with Sidney. Tatum agrees that she doesn't know the truth about her mother's infidelity and certainly can't prove anything. Rather, what Tatum is trying to tell her - gently and somewhat indirectly - is that she believes the rumors, which is distinct from knowing the facts.

TonyPH

6th Feb 2022

Scream (1996)

Character mistake: Sid deduces that Billy could be the killer because he could have used his phone call from jail to make the threatening call. However, the deduction has to be incorrect, since if it was really Billy, he could have never used the voice-changing device.

Sammo

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: This will sound pedantic (hey, it's MovieMistakes.com, we're entitled), but I don't think this is what is meant by a character mistake. Sidney isn't presenting an erroneous fact that goes uncorrected, she's explaining an idea that had crossed her mind. Billy immediately gives a plausible response and by the end of the film it's evident who'd called her. The takeaway isn't that Billy could still be the killer but that Sidney can't help but suspect him despite their reconciliation.

TonyPH

29th May 2007

Scream (1996)

Corrected entry: Sidney is talking with Stu and Tatum at the lockers when someone runs by wearing the Ghostface mask. She runs down the hall, bumping into Billy, then goes into the bathroom and meets the killer. We know it isn't Billy because we just saw him, but how would Stu get into the bathroom without passing by Billy and Sidney?

Correction: It was made pretty clear that it was two other kids that ran through the hall. There is a scene with Henry Winkler (principal) who is expelling the two students due to the prank.

Lummie

Yes, and that scene happens before the killer shows up in the bathroom, so it can't be them. Sidney also says that she knew it was really "him", the real killer, and not a prankster, and there's no indication that the movie wants her to be wrong at that time.

Sammo

The "tell" is that the shot of Sidney running out of the restroom has a voiceover from a news reporter talking about pranksters dressed as the killer. Sidney is far from infallible (she even misidentified her mother's killer) and is vulnerable and being psychologically manipulated by Billy and Stu.

TonyPH

The biggest tell would be that he has no knife, but there's nothing prankster-like in that assault, if he tackled her like that he would have hurt her (and he's in the girls' bathroom too?). The newscast about the pranksters establishes that it's the authorities' version, but the dialogue I mentioned happens later, addresses exactly that, and she negates it. I agree that Sidney is not infallible, but the fact that she was wrong (by deliberate misdirection from the real culprit) about Cotton is a specific plot point, she was supposed to be wrong and Gale even picks up on the fact that she deep inside isn't sure about it anymore. Overall the bathroom scene is one of those scenes that don't quite add up but people enjoy making theories about them ("it was all in Sidney's mind", "it was Roman", etc).

Sammo

I agree this is one of the film's weaker moments, but I don't think it's just an accident. The high school section was rearranged from the script and a couple moments dropped, and I believe it was decided during editing to make the restroom scene more ambiguous (adding the "killer's" grunts that sound younger than any of the characters; moving the reporter's monologue to the end of this scene) to make up for an unfilmed scene where Sidney encountered two more masked impostors in the school.

TonyPH

27th Aug 2001

Scream (1996)

Corrected entry: Just after the curfew has been set, Tatum and Sidney go to the store, you can see a reflection of Ghostface but, surely the shopkeeper or anyone would notice a man walk in dressed head to toe like a serial killer with a ghost mask?

Correction: It is possible that the killer brought the costume into the store with him in a bag and changed in the back or something, therefore no one would have seen him come in wearing the costume.

Correction: Someone may well have noticed, but depending on how big the store is and who happened to be up front, the costumed loiterer may not have been confronted as quickly as we might imagine. A customer or store clerk may have taken the time to inform management or security rather than handle it themselves.

TonyPH

16th Dec 2004

Scream (1996)

Corrected entry: Right after curfew is in effect, when Tatum and Sydney are sitting on Sydney's front porch, you see the killer in the bushes in the background. The very next scene is of the video store where both killers, Stu and Billy, are speaking to Randy. The next scene that follows directly is Sydney and Tatum in the grocery store where you see the killer's reflection on the cooler glass. How can the killer(s) be in more than one place if this is all going on at the same time?

Correction: We see two students at the school dressed up as the killer. It is plausible that other students do it too and follow Sidney around as a joke.

One thing is prancing around at school screaming in the corridors in an obvious joke (that got both students suspended, by the way), another thing entirely is stalking someone to their home or in the streets with the police looking out for the suspect. Both scenes don't make sense other than to give cheap scares and throw red herrings.

Sammo

These moments come off silly (the one in the supermarket especially), but it's no mistake. These costumed figures being imposters wanting to harass Sidney for kicks is really the only plausible explanation, and the jaded cynicism and callousness of 90s youth culture is a major recurring theme of the film, so it fits.

TonyPH

I agree that it's the only explanation you have to give to make sense of it, but in this movie and in the next movies in the saga, when they wanna show imposters, they show prancing idiots who do want to harass and be goofs (such as the guy in the hallway in this movie). Sidney never notices those people who do absolutely nothing to be noticed, so they are there to harass the audience, not her.

Sammo

8th Jun 2005

Scream (1996)

Deliberate mistake: When Sidney is typing the message to the police, you can see that there are red lights flashing, which must mean the police are there, 5 seconds after she types. Obviously deliberately done for the humor. (00:29:30 - 00:30:25)

cameron davies

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Contrary to what the entry says, I don't see police lights flashing as she types, nor when she talks to Billy. I do agree that still it's barely a minute before the police arrive in full force on the scene and it's pretty ridiculous (although I am not sure it's deliberate humour).

Sammo

There's a time skip between Sidney encountering Dewey at the front door and Billy being arrested. It's plausible Tatum had sent Dewey to check on Sidney knowing she was going to be late, and so he arrived before the rest of the authorities. Billy did not chase after Sidney and likely reacted calmly to Dewey to look as innocent as he could, he wouldn't necessarily have been arrested right away.

TonyPH

I have to disagree; you see Dewey's car and another cop car with flashing lights the moment she opens the door, and he instantly calls the others in, so they are already there in full force because of the 911 call.

Sammo

2nd Jul 2003

Scream (1996)

Corrected entry: During the final scene in the house after Billy and Stu are revealed as the killers, Billy and Stu showed that they put a great deal of effort in planning the murders and the cover ups. But they seemed to forget their fingerprints. Their prints were on the cell phone and voice distorter they put in Mr. Prescott's coat pocket.

Correction: There are many ways to conceal fingerprints. One common way is to smear Elmer's glue on the tips of your fingers and let it dry. It is not easy to notice and effectively eliminates your fingerprints. Since they had to touch many things while committing the murders, but still had to appear as themselves, they very likely used a similar method.

If they tampered with their own fingertips, that would be found out easily when they are rescued later, and a quick wipe is easier - they didn't need to erase their fingertips from everything, just the more incriminating items.

Sammo

Correction: It is also possible Billy and Stu forgot about it. They were obsessed with their plan they just didn't think it through.

Correction: They may well have planned to wipe the prints off after killing Sidney.

TonyPH

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.