In Woodsboro, more Ghostface attacks are happening, with the victims having something to do with the original killers. As a new group of young people finds themselves caught in doubt and danger, the original survivors are roped back in.
Scream 4 parodied franchise revivals by subverting the continuity reboot idea and depicting a "reboot" squeezed into the original continuity—a new cast denied the chance to shine because the originals were there and carried the film. Nowadays, however, the way Scream 4 did it is the standard for franchise revivals— they're set in the original continuity, with older characters still present, but now "passing the torch" to a new cast. Scream V thus has something to comment upon, but as a result of the accidentally-prophetic 4, it feels like it has less to say.
In terms of re-quels, the film has a title that obnoxiously rehashes the original title rather than being subtitled as a sequel, old characters hardened as mentors to the new cast of the story, having lost their happy ending and now being on the chopping block to promise a transition to the new through severing of ties. The film's Meeks summation of re-quels mentions several films, and, notably, includes the Star Wars sequel trilogy at the end of the list. I don't think it's a coincidence that Gale and Dewey fill the roles of Han and Leia in those films...nor that protagonist Samantha deals with the fear of being the blood of the franchise's progenitor villain.
These are good to copy when discussing modern re-quel trends, but the meta aspect makes it unviable as a re-quel to buy into as a story. Since these discussed trends are such emotional plot beats, the film makes loaded emotional moments into check marks on a meta list so their effects are severely dulled. I can't get too invested in these characters, nor can I feel too bad about the tragedies of the ones I've followed for four films already if I can recognize the tragedies are there to fulfill meta plot beats. It's also hard for me to invest myself in the new cast because I know the film knows it's a re-quel and that the story is manufactured to pass the torch, plus it's hard to go along with the film saying "care about this new cast" right after 4 parodied reboots by saying the OGs would always be foremost in the fans' minds and that a new cast was never going to be successful. Maybe it's also that Tara, the younger sister of the protagonist who spends her entire time injured and in danger, had me more invested than Sam. Tara's acting and fierceness grabbed me more than a wild backstory that came from nowhere.
I think the film was acted well and there are aspects I liked. The core trio was written well as usual, and the imperiled make all the right choices. Entitled fandom hating reboots is well-skewered, and there's notes (I wanted more of) about the trend of "elevated" horror (movies I love). But I'm not hyped for this new story like I hoped I'd be.
A good commentary on re-quels, but is it really a worthy new start?
In Woodsboro, more Ghostface attacks are happening, with the victims having something to do with the original killers. As a new group of young people finds themselves caught in doubt and danger, the original survivors are roped back in.
Scream 4 parodied franchise revivals by subverting the continuity reboot idea and depicting a "reboot" squeezed into the original continuity—a new cast denied the chance to shine because the originals were there and carried the film. Nowadays, however, the way Scream 4 did it is the standard for franchise revivals— they're set in the original continuity, with older characters still present, but now "passing the torch" to a new cast. Scream V thus has something to comment upon, but as a result of the accidentally-prophetic 4, it feels like it has less to say.
In terms of re-quels, the film has a title that obnoxiously rehashes the original title rather than being subtitled as a sequel, old characters hardened as mentors to the new cast of the story, having lost their happy ending and now being on the chopping block to promise a transition to the new through severing of ties. The film's Meeks summation of re-quels mentions several films, and, notably, includes the Star Wars sequel trilogy at the end of the list. I don't think it's a coincidence that Gale and Dewey fill the roles of Han and Leia in those films...nor that protagonist Samantha deals with the fear of being the blood of the franchise's progenitor villain.
These are good to copy when discussing modern re-quel trends, but the meta aspect makes it unviable as a re-quel to buy into as a story. Since these discussed trends are such emotional plot beats, the film makes loaded emotional moments into check marks on a meta list so their effects are severely dulled. I can't get too invested in these characters, nor can I feel too bad about the tragedies of the ones I've followed for four films already if I can recognize the tragedies are there to fulfill meta plot beats. It's also hard for me to invest myself in the new cast because I know the film knows it's a re-quel and that the story is manufactured to pass the torch, plus it's hard to go along with the film saying "care about this new cast" right after 4 parodied reboots by saying the OGs would always be foremost in the fans' minds and that a new cast was never going to be successful. Maybe it's also that Tara, the younger sister of the protagonist who spends her entire time injured and in danger, had me more invested than Sam. Tara's acting and fierceness grabbed me more than a wild backstory that came from nowhere.
I think the film was acted well and there are aspects I liked. The core trio was written well as usual, and the imperiled make all the right choices. Entitled fandom hating reboots is well-skewered, and there's notes (I wanted more of) about the trend of "elevated" horror (movies I love). But I'm not hyped for this new story like I hoped I'd be.