Why the Obsession with STU MACHER from SCREAM?

Ever since the original Scream ended, there’s been this debate about whether Stu Macher is truly dead or not. It’s been a constant, familiar, and very played-out conversation over the last 30 years. Literally thirty years.  

His return to the franchise is so legendary in its hope among Scream fanatics that, in my opinion, it overwhelmed the franchise, even topping the last 2 Scream’s, which were meant to reboot the franchise away from Sidney and her story. 

Scream 1996

But fans just cannot let it go. 

They can’t accept the fact that Stu is dead. If the television dropped on his head didn’t kill him, then he certainly bled out from Billy’s stab wounds. 

I think, partly anyway, that Stu’s return is hopeful because he didn’t die by a gunshot, specifically to the head, like Billy. 

Getting your brains blown out at close range is always a good indicator of death. 

And Stu’s death scene was more artistic, more of a metaphor than the direct death of Billy. The TV playing Halloween, specifically as Laurie stabs Michael Myers, is a great parallel to Stu’s death.  

But then there’s the infamous Scream 3 rumor that writer Kevin Williamson supposedly conjured up. He never wrote an official draft, nor did he write an outline, nor a quick treatment of this mythical Scream 3 script that was to, again supposedly, bring Stu back as the now-jailed mastermind behind the new attacks on Sidney.  

It’s too far-fetched. It never would have worked. I’m glad it got scrapped. Although I’m not really impressed with the Roman angle they went with either, it is still a more believable, and I use that word very lightly, angle than Stu’s return.  

Besides, if you think about it, doesn’t it seem like they just shoehorned Stu’s Ghostface involvement? The original Scream would have worked just as fine if Billy were the lone killer. Sure, some scenes would have had to have been rewritten, but it was possible, if not easy, especially for a talented writer like Williamson.  

And I primarily say this because of Stu’s lame ass motive.  

Billy’s motive was great. Revenge. But Stu’s peer pressure motive is, at first, comical because of how he says it. His tone and his reputation for being a goofball throughout the film are even seen as he’s bleeding to death on the phone with Sidney. But I think his peer pressure motive does make sense.  

During the whole story, Stu’s jester-like attitude is secondary to Billy’s seriousness. Billy is constantly reprimanding Stu. He doesn’t have the patience for Stu and is probably worried that Stu will slip up and let it be known of their involvement in the Woodsboro murders. So, there’s certainly a superior-inferior dynamic going on between Billy and Stu. 

Scream 1996

The peer pressure angle isn’t so far-fetched anymore, except when you apply it to actual murder. You’re telling me Stu was peer-pressured by Billy to kill their friend’s mother? 

That takes a certain amount of the story’s suspension of disbelief that I ignore when watching Scream. But it’s the only angle we have, so I guess we’re stuck with it.  

Stu’s motive is important because the rumor was that he was to return in Scream 3. 

But be honest, would you really believe, even for a second, that Stu’s peer pressure was that strong to keep it going? Was his peer pressure extreme enough to enact revenge on Sidney in another sequel? 

No.

Scream 3 was always intended to be in Hollywood, folks. Part 2 was away at college, and part 3 was to include the Stab movies for its meta value. 

And now, Stu is set to return to Scream 7. Whether that is in a flashback or A.I. or as an actual revived character that’s been somehow alive is up for debate. But I have to ask the question: do you really want Stu to return, and are you really going to buy it when it happens? Other than shock value, what does Stu’s return bring? Just bad storytelling, really, and a level of disrespect for the Scream fans. 

Don’t you think it would be an insult to the audience if Stu returns? I do. He was blatantly killed 30 years ago, and now he’s back. I hope not. I really hope not. I know it’ll be a surprise to see Stu appear on screen as a revived character. It will work for the moment, but in the long run, I think, you’ll likely see it as lazy storytelling for an easy cash grab. 

THE VILLAGE is when SHYAMALAN lost his way

It’s safe to say that M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN'S first few movies were something different.

The Village 2004

He arrived on the Hollywood scene with a fresh perspective, good writing skills, and a talent for direction. His first three, THE SIXTH SENSE, UNBREAKABLE, and SIGNS, were great, especially SIGNS. That’s my personal favorite.  

However, it was with his 2004 film THE VILLAGE that we began seeing cracks in the foundation. THE VILLAGE, while beautifully shot and acted—its problems are not in any surface conversation—has its issues within the story itself.  

THE VILLAGE, as a story with a message, not the characters, knows a secret that it keeps from the viewer, only revealing it when ready, thereby treating the viewer, as a result, with disrespect. 

The viewer is treated as a fool because the story assumes the audience is not part of the narrative at play. We're removed beyond the characters themselves, although we're supposed to empathize with them while we follow the story. It's a disconnect, a severe and unforgivable disrespect that railroaded Shyamalan's career away from possible superstardom as a legendary filmmaker. 

It’s only when the twist is revealed that we’re finally let in and, ultimately, disappointed. The supernatural element we’ve been led to believe that has tormented the characters is just a farce. 

The problem is that many of the characters already knew this secret, but acted like they didn't know. Even worse, though, is that the story makes it impossible for the viewer to discover the secret. There aren't any clues that the monsters are fake or that they're living in current times--not, at least, until the story is ready to let us know. 

That's a big mistake in storytelling. 

The story must allow its audience to have the necessary clues to solve the mystery, too. It's not only the characters who are on the journey. It's the viewers, as well.

I don’t hold THE VILLAGE to the heights of THE SIXTH SENSE, of course, but it isn’t a bad film. It’s just a story that’s meant to fool the audience without ever allowing us the proper clues to discover the secret for ourselves.  

But with that said, THE VILLAGE ends on a positive note, just like his previous films, and his next film, LADY IN THE WATER, which Shyamalan absolutely borrowed elements from THE VILLAGE. LADY IN THE WATER is THE VILLAGE 2.0. It's as if Shyamalan read all the hate for THE VILLAGE and decided to go even further with that type of fantastical story. 

All criticisms aside, THE VILLAGE is a decent movie until the twist, which reveals more of Shyamalan's future career than a surprise within the film.