Scream or Star Wars?

Tools    





Registered User
Which do you think has the more substance?
I give the edge to Scream.



Registered User
I'm not really sure what the question is; the two films don't have much in common.


Which tells the greater moral story?



That's certainly not what I thought you were asking when you said "substance." But alright: greater in terms of "has a better message?" or in terms of "has a clearer message, regardless of whether or not it's better"?

Most of these follow-up questions would be answered preemptively if you elaborated on your own choice.



I'm not really sure what the question is; the two films don't have much in common.
They actually do, in my opinion. Kevin Williamson, who created Scream, calls it his Star Wars of horror. Neve Campbell is Luke Skywalker, David Arquette and Courteney Cox are Han Solo and Princess Leia, and then there's the whole family drama thing, right down to the surprise reveals of a parent twist in the second film and a brother/sister twist in the third film.

And then there's the fact that they tried to give Scream a second trilogy, with 4, 5 and 6, but they didn't make the last two.



Registered User
That's certainly not what I thought you were asking when you said "substance." But alright: greater in terms of "has a better message?" or in terms of "has a clearer message, regardless of whether or not it's better"?

Most of these follow-up questions would be answered preemptively if you elaborated on your own choice.


Scream has the deeper maturity, trying to exploring humanity's present condition in a profound way; Star Wars has vision also, but it's arguably far less meaningful.
Nature is a motif in Scream, to the point where just trees and grass is important. In the case of Star Wars one has planets and outer space, but the point of the art is to be detached from those things.



Registered User
They actually do, in my opinion. Kevin Williamson, who created Scream, calls it his Star Wars of horror. Neve Campbell is Luke Skywalker, David Arquette and Courteney Cox are Han Solo and Princess Leia, and then there's the whole family drama thing, right down to the surprise reveals of a parent twist in the second film and a brother/sister twist in the third film.

And then there's the fact that they tried to give Scream a second trilogy, with 4, 5 and 6, but they didn't make the last two.


I didn't think of it that way, but that's an interesting way you look at the two franchises..
I think Sidney Prescott isn't as sympathetic as Luke Skywalker, but at the same time Luke isn't actually more mature as an art.



Scream has the deeper maturity, trying to exploring humanity's present condition in a profound way
How?

Star Wars has vision also, but it's arguably far less meaningful.
Why?

Nature is a motif in Scream, to the point where just trees and grass is important.
How are they important?

I'm not trying to be pedantic: I'm just encouraging you to actually have whatever discussion you're trying to have. You've posted a few times now and I still don't really know what you're comparing or why you chose one film over the other. Please elaborate.



Registered User
How?


Why?


How are they important?

I'm not trying to be pedantic: I'm just encouraging you to actually have whatever discussion you're trying to have. You've posted a few times now and I still don't really know what you're comparing or why you chose one film over the other. Please elaborate.


I don't know how well I can make an argument; it's just a subjective feeling I have toward Scream.


Trees, forests and houses that are heavily surrounded by nature are a motif in Scream - it ought to be meaningful in some way.


Star Wars is a hero's journey - thus Scream is already more mature. The latter deals in social dynamics and the divide between movie and audience.



The Bib-iest of Nickels
This is such an oddball comparison. Also, Scream is far from what I'd call mature, and that's not an insult, "Did you really call the cops!? My parents are going to be so mad at me!" It's a very good comedic horror film series. Star Wars is a very good fantasy science-fiction film series. And, if Star Wars is a hero's journey, how is Scream not a hero's journey, following how Sydney Prescott continues to survive attack after attack from a masked antagonist? It has the same formulaic style to it, a very conventional approach, a good approach.



Registered User
This is such an oddball comparison. Also, Scream is far from what I'd call mature, and that's not an insult, "Did you really call the cops!? My parents are going to be so mad at me!" It's a very good comedic horror film series. Star Wars is a very good fantasy science-fiction film series. And, if Star Wars is a hero's journey, how is Scream not a hero's journey, following how Sydney Prescott continues to survive attack after attack from a masked antagonist? It has the same formulaic style to it, a very conventional approach, a good approach.


Prescott's arc in Scream is nothing at all like Luke's in Star Wars; the former's reality is dealing with keen ideas like society as a social construct, the human condition's link to architecture and images, and the ability of anything in the universe to be twisted.


Stu Macher's quote is actually the very reverse of comedy: it's substance to a T.
Macher and Billy have both done the worst, most adult things living beings could do, yet Macher has the nerve to then act like a child on the phone, worrying about his parents.. He has no right to worry about his parents. In this context he is representing the intelligence that there is no division between teenager and adult - experience belongs to any living being, no matter their age.


Star Wars has heart, but it distinctly doesn't have the soul of substance that the original Scream has.


Scream was wrong to have sequels.



The Bib-iest of Nickels
Prescott's arc in Scream is nothing at all like Luke's in Star Wars, that's correct, and there's no other strand that connects the films either.

And, that line was comedy. You can rationalize it, you can explain it. But the delivery was over-the-top and the line was meant to generate laughter. This doesn't mean the scene didn't have substance, however. Comedy is substantial. This was only an example.

Scream wasn't this in-depth psychological film. The film was, at its core, a slasher film with cartoon-like, over-the-top characters, and although, yes, it does carry interesting themes about the effects that films have on a culture (my favorite line in the film - "Movies don't make serial killers, movies make serial killers more creative," or something to that effect.), at the end of the day, it isn't this really deep insightful film. I think it's a whodunnit that deals with and parodies classic slasher tropes and "the rules" that must be followed in them more than anything else.

The reason this discussion is so awkward, however, is the simple fact that it's such an apples-to-oranges comparison. Star Wars is a science-fiction fantasy with elements of a soap opera, and thereby, doesn't have the same shared demographic. Star Wars' objective is a lot different. Star Wars: A New Hope is the first installment in an intended series, and is the first "Episode" in a series meant to be embraced as a whole. It aims to create a "world" for characters to engage themselves in.

Also, in-general, just because a film doesn't commentate on society or intend to relay underlining themes in it, doesn't mean it lacks substance. A film can have great substance just by being a deeply entertaining, engrossing adventure. It's a different type of film with a different agenda, building a world of escapism and colorful, vibrant characters. Next Topic Idea: Toy Story 3 or The Godfather?



Registered User
Prescott's arc in Scream is nothing at all like Luke's in Star Wars, that's correct, and there's no other strand that connects the films either.

And, that line was comedy. You can rationalize it, you can explain it. But the delivery was over-the-top and the line was meant to generate laughter. This doesn't mean the scene didn't have substance, however. Comedy is substantial. This was only an example.

Scream wasn't this in-depth psychological film. The film was, at its core, a slasher film with cartoon-like, over-the-top characters, and although, yes, it does carry interesting themes about the effects that films have on a culture (my favorite line in the film - "Movies don't make serial killers, movies make serial killers more creative," or something to that effect.), at the end of the day, it isn't this really deep insightful film. I think it's a whodunnit that deals with and parodies classic slasher tropes and "the rules" that must be followed in them more than anything else.

The reason this discussion is so awkward, however, is the simple fact that it's such an apples-to-oranges comparison. Star Wars is a science-fiction fantasy with elements of a soap opera, and thereby, doesn't have the same shared demographic. Star Wars' objective is a lot different. Star Wars: A New Hope is the first installment in an intended series, and is the first "Episode" in a series meant to be embraced as a whole. It aims to create a "world" for characters to engage themselves in.

Also, in-general, just because a film doesn't commentate on society or intend to relay underlining themes in it, doesn't mean it lacks substance. A film can have great substance just by being a deeply entertaining, engrossing adventure. It's a different type of film with a different agenda, building a world of escapism and colorful, vibrant characters. Next Topic Idea: Toy Story 3 or The Godfather?


Comparatively, though I agree that the former isn't "necessarily" of that much substance, Scream has more substance than Star Wars - the relevance is the contrast. Simply that when you contrast something, the more likely you can extract more of its actual identity.


There can be a case that Scream is a deeply philosophical film - as philosophical as 2001 A Space Odyssey.
Wes Craven's storytelling is all about projecting emotion - architecture and environments in Scream are pronounced in their presence, which is the intelligence that human beings are innately connected to their environments. Emotional states depend on architecture.


The very fact that Scream's climax takes place in a kitchen that's white - completely contrasted with the rest of the Macher house is meaningful..
The kitchen's colour contrasts starkly against the rest of the Macher house, and the scene is what elevates Scream to no longer being a genre film - Star Wars is always what it begins as.


What are your thoughts on the kitchen drama, in full?



Scream was wrong to have sequels.
I actually think I kinda "get" you better than the other people reading this thread do (though, I don't think you're really being clear). But I disagree with you here because Scream 2 -- if we're gonna get into the whole business of the films being BIGGER and more important than they seem -- Scream 2 is an important sequel to the first movie. The other sequels weren't so good, but that one was.



Registered User
I actually think I kinda "get" you better than the other people reading this thread do (though, I don't think you're really being clear). But I disagree with you here because Scream 2 -- if we're gonna get into the whole business of the films being BIGGER and more important than they seem -- Scream 2 is an important sequel to the first movie. The other sequels weren't so good, but that one was.


Scream 2 is a good film, but the substance of Scream warranted no sequel; the potential of meaning related to the original could've exploded had there never been any sequel.


I appreciate Agnes Scott College as the setting.. Gothic and stark architecture.


I think we can all agree that the Scream series is primarily preoccupied with architecture and nature - but why?
Beyond visual allure, what is the philosophy in terms of the use of architecture and nature in the Scream films?



Registered User
What the hell am I reading?


Between Scream and Star Wars, which do you think is the greater intellectual story?



I think we can all agree that the Scream series is primarily preoccupied with architecture and nature - but why?
Beyond visual allure, what is the philosophy in terms of the use of architecture and nature in the Scream films?
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion (have you been smoking something?) but I do know that, when it comes to Wes Craven, and the way he thinks, little things in his movies -- for example, as you said, the kitchen being white -- those things aren't always accidents. They can represent something psychological. I've heard Heather Langenkamp, for example, say that Wes Craven told her that the house in Nightmare on Elm Street -- her house/Freddy's house -- is supposed to represent the human mind. When she's locked in her house with Freddy, she's symbolically locked into a mental battle with Freddy.



Registered User
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion (have you been smoking something?) but I do know that, when it comes to Wes Craven, and the way he thinks, little things in his movies -- for example, as you said, the kitchen being white -- those things aren't always accidents. They can represent something psychological. I've heard Heather Langenkamp, for example, say that Wes Craven told her that the house in Nightmare on Elm Street -- her house/Freddy's house -- is supposed to represent the human mind. When she's locked in her house with Freddy, she's symbolically locked into a mental battle with Freddy.


Why is the kitchen white? The rest of the Macher house is brown, and it can't be a coincidence that the entirety of the house is shown to the viewer - even the attic I think is shown, and the garage.
Scream gives the viewer the whole of Macher's house - obviously there's meaning to this.


I've seen Elm Street - I think it's a good film, but not as good as Scream (the latter's progressive politics shines through more).
What about Agnes Scott College, and its own gothic architecture?