Editorials
‘Scream 3’ Is A Great Trilogy Closer, You Guys Just Hate Fun
At a recent movie screening, I saw someone displaying unparalleled bravery in the audience. I saw someone willing to push back against a tide of indignity that has battered me for too long. I saw someone wearing a Scream 3 Defender shirt.
Yeah, I didn’t think they made those either, but here we are.
Why Scream 3 Deserves a Reappraisal
I mean, there are only like 8 of us out there, so you can’t blame me for being surprised. For the longest time, I’ve had to sit through people going on tirades about how terrible Scream 3 is. How it’s the worst of the franchise, how it ruined the formula, how it retroactively ruins the other films because of its plot twist. But Scream 3 is not a bad film. It’s not even a bad Scream movie. Because as Randy Meeks puts it in his posthumous survival rules tape for Sidney, Dewey, and Gale, Scream 3 is a rare closer to a horror trilogy…that just happened to keep going with films 4, 5, & 6. It was always intended to be the last Scream, and it does its job perfectly in that context.
Spoilers for Scream 3 and most of the other Scream films start here.
Going Beyond Woodsboro and Making It Count
The title might be a bit inflammatory, yes, but it is specifically worded to point out that Scream 3 is fun, not an expertly made film like the first.
I’m not here to argue over the things in the film that don’t make sense; I don’t think that the super high-tech voice changer isn’t dumb (it is), and I don’t think that the gas explosion kill makes any sense on a planning or physics level (it doesn’t). I am NOT here for Gale’s terrible bangs discourse. Scream 3 is far from perfect from a production standpoint, thanks to being subject to plenty of reshoots and 11th hour rewrites, and we can all acknowledge that. Hell, the film does plenty of that with its many in-jokes and references to its own continual script changes, in the light of leaks that were releasing both planted fake and actual material of Scream 3. The production was a hot mess, that in my eyes, pulled off the slightest of miracles with how well the film turned out.
Why Scream 3 Is One of the Most Fun Entries in the Franchise
But what I will argue is that as far as stories go, Scream 3 is the movie that gets best to the essence of the original, and it’s the second most fun in the franchise while doing it. It’s got plenty of messed up dark comedy, it’s got stellar performances, and it’s got the meta-horror commentary we love. It swings for the fences with its bolder ideas, like having a cast of actors portraying characters we’ve seen before as the new retinue of victims, including fan favorite Jennifer Jolie (played by Parker Posey), who accompanies Gale Weathers while trying to act like Gale Weathers. Rest in peace Jennifer, you were the best of us, you were the best of all the Scream side characters.
The cast-within-a-cast brilliance and the humor is a small byproduct of the film perfectly utilizing the Hollywood location; Craven’s directing makes for some joyride sequences. From set pieces like being stalked in a wardrobe room filled with Ghostface costumes, to being chased through a recreation of Sidney’s own house on a soundstage, going beyond Woodsboro really felt like it had more purpose than the environmental rehash that Windsor College ended up feeling like in 2.
Hollywood as the Perfect Backdrop for Meta Horror
Even the finale inside Milton’s old money mansion in the hills is the perfect level of camp while still feeling like uncharted territory. And while some deride it as closer to Scooby Doo than Scream, that’s…the whole point. The film is supposed to be a fun send-off for these characters, including stuff like getting trapped in hidden passageways and secret rooms.
And what really makes it the perfect endpoint for the trilogy is the send-off it gives Sidney.
But First, A Roman Bridger Recap
Scream 3 is a movie about a final girl’s last struggle and triumph, not only against individual violent, delusional men, but the culture that makes them. A struggle that has been going on since the first film, and 3 shows the most how Sidney has grown as a character.
She’s a women’s crisis counselor who works anonymously from an isolated home, with only Dewey aware of her location. She’s still reeling from the last film, having lost most of her friends along the way. But eventually, Ghostface rearing his ugly head forces her to confront her fraught relationship with her mother, and put her fears down one last time. Her arc culminates in one of the best final girl confrontations in all of horror history: Sidney Prescott vs Roman Bridger.
Roman Bridger: The Most Misunderstood Ghostface
That second name caused a lot of groans and eye-rolls amongst fans reading this, I know, but hear me out. Because Roman Bridger is not just a personal favorite Ghostface of mine, he might just be the best Ghostface after Billy Loomis and Stu Macher for what he becomes a symbol of.
Played by the wonderfully talented Scott Foley, Roman is unduly hated for his miraculous and continuity-breaking kill streak (again, not here to talk editing). He is the only canonically solo slasher in the franchise pulling off some impossible feats, and his origins are even more controversial: Roman is the half-brother of Sidney by way of Maureen Prescott, with the other half of his parentage being one of the predatory Hollywood producers John Milton helped in assaulting Maureen.
Eventually finding his mother as an adult after being put up for adoption, Maureen refused to reconnect with Roman since he was too painful a memory of the worst time in her life. Enraged, he began stalking Maureen and filming the affairs she was having around town, eventually catching her with Hank Loomis. Showing Billy the footage as an act of vengeance and spurring him to frame Cotton Weary, the teenager’s plans to kill her were set into motion.
This would eventually lead to the creation of Ghostface, a moniker Roman would claim years later when he tried to lure out Sidney and end the Prescott bloodline for good. Roman is a nasty, entitled, chauvinistic piece of work who really takes the cake as far as Ghostface’s go, and his deluded efforts are rewarded with the beatdown of the century.
Scream 3’s Final Confrontation Is The Crescendo Sidney’s Story Was Building To
When they finally meet in the theatre room of Milton’s mansion at the film’s climax, Roman Bridger is revealed for what he really is: the perfect embodiment of the misogyny and sexual violence that has been following Sidney Prescott her entire life. While there is an intangible specter of Maureen Prescott haunting Sidney’s dreams in this film, the physical representation of that suffering ends up right in front of her. Standing across the room from her is the incarnation of all the misery, bullying, and judgment from Woodsboro and the world at large, placing blame and hatred on innocent women in the name of defending abusers.
From her classmates in the school bathrooms deriding her mother, to Nancy Loomis blaming Maureen for Billy’s actions, to Billy himself, Sidney gets to meet a neatly packaged representative for the culture of misogyny that made her flee into isolation in the first place. Roman Bridger becomes the human target for Sidney to unleash three films of pure rage on, and in their fight, it is cathartic glory. The dialogue they have before they get into it always makes me grin, because we get to watch Sidney finally chew him apart, and by extension demolish every other Ghostface’s terrible motivations.
A Brutal, Satisfying Final Confrontation
It is by far the most brutal of the confrontations that we get until the Radio Silence films when they start throwing bricks and stabbing people 40 times a piece (not that I’m complaining, love me some bloody Radio Silence fare). It’s a pure knock-down, drag-out fight to the death that lets Sidney put her past behind her by physically beating the hell out of a human representation of evil. And it is downright fun.
When Sidney sinks that ice pick into Roman’s heart, it might not be what does him in finally (thanks for the headshot, Dewey), but it is what puts to rest the ghost of hatred that’s lingered all these years. She holds his hand as he dies, which can be read in a dozen different ways, but to me, it always felt straightforward: she had finally put that vigilance, that feeling of anxiety and shame and fear that sent her into hiding to rest, and was giving it a bloodstained send-off. A proverbial goodbye to Ghostface and his reign of terror, on behalf of the audience.
You know, at least until Scream 4 came along.
The Thematic Bow That Is The Roman Reveal
Now, many people hate that Scream 3 “retcons” Billy Loomis and Stu Macher’s motivations as being puppeteered by Roman. Except for a.) the fact that Roman literally states he never knew they were going to do the Ghostface killings, and b.) he makes their actions more realistic.
Roman spurring Billy to become a killer is in and of itself a pretty good commentary on how terrible men doing heinous things create more terrible men who do even worse. John Milton made Roman, even if we believe he never laid a finger on Maureen; he was an awful man who victim blamed and used his clout to avoid consequences. This made Roman, who eventually became a victim, blame his own mother in the same way his “father” did. Then that kid found Billy Loomis, and, you’re smart you can do the math on how that turned out.
The point is, that the cycle of misogyny and violence is propagated from father to son, from friend to friend, and the first three Scream movies were always a pretty prescient commentary on that idea that we now see as commonplace.
The Ending Sidney Prescott Truly Deserved
Roman’s demise and Sydney’s victory is a neat bow that ties up the cycle of violence that followed Sidney and ends with her getting a well-deserved walk off into the sunset. And that walk is scored with triumphant music and bright, warm light that left Sidney at the peak of her victories.
Scream 3 undoubtedly deserves more credit. And do I really think everyone who dislikes it is simply anti-fun? Of course not, there are plenty of legitimate reasons you might find it hard to watch this film. But if it’s been a while since you’ve seen it, and you want to watch it as the end to Sidney’s story, it is more than worth a second chance. The next time you plan on skipping straight to 4 on a marathon watch through to see Emma Roberts dive bomb through a coffee table, think to yourself: do I want to skip the coolest fight Sidney Prescott’s ever been in and miss her one true happy ending?
The answer might just be no. Happy watching, horror fans!
Editorials
Tim Burton, Representation, and the Problem With Nostalgia
Tim Burton was not always my nemesis. In the not-too-distant past, I was a child who just wanted to watch creepy things. I rewatched Beetlejuice countless times and thought he was a lot more involved in Henry Selick’s The Nightmare Before Christmas than he actually was. I was also a huge Batman fan before Ben Affleck happened to the Caped Crusader. To this day, I still argue that Michael Keaton’s Bruce Wayne was one of the best. So when I tell you I logged many hours rewatching Burton’s better films in my youth, I am not lying.
However, as I got older, I started to realize that this director’s films are usually exclusively filled with white actors. Even his animated work somehow ignores POC actors, seemingly by design. This is sadly common in the industry, as intersectionality seems to be a concept most older filmmakers cannot wrap their heads around. So, I was one of the people who chalked it up to a glaring oversight and not much more. I also outgrew Burton’s aesthetic and attempts at humor when I started seeking out horror movies that might actually be scary.
I Was Over Tim Burton Before It Was Cool
So, how did we get to episodes of the podcast I co-host, roasting Tim Burton? I kind of forgot about the man behind all of those movies I thought were epic when I was a kid. In huge part because his muse was Johnny Depp, whom I also outgrew forever ago. I wasn’t thinking about Burton or his filmography, and I doubt he noticed a kid in the Midwest stopped renting his movies. I didn’t think about Burton again until 2016 rolled around.
In an interview with Bustle for Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children, the lack of diversity in Burton’s work came up. That’s when the filmmaker explained this wasn’t a simple blunder or oversight on his part. He also unsurprisingly said the wrong thing instead of pretending he’d like to do better in the future.
Tim Burton said, “Things either call for things, or they don’t. I remember back when I was a child watching The Brady Bunch, and they started to get all politically correct. Like, OK, let’s have an Asian child and a black. I used to get more offended by that than just… I grew up watching blaxploitation movies, right? And I said, that’s great. I didn’t go like, OK, there should be more white people in these movies.” – Bustle
Tim Burton Is Not the Only One Failing
We watch older white guys fumble in interviews when topics like gender parity, diversity, politics, etc., come up all the time. It’s to the point now where most of us are forced to wonder if their publicists have simply given up and just live in a state of constant damage control. However, Tim Burton’s response was surprisingly offensive in so many ways. The more I reread it, the more pissed off at this guy I forgot existed after we returned our copy of Mars Attacks! to the Hollywood Video closest to my childhood home. While I knew I wouldn’t be revisiting Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice, his explanation for the almost complete absence of POC in his work burst a bubble.
We Hate To See It
Tim Burton’s own words made me realize so many obvious issues that I excused as a kid. Like Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent in Batman, it was the only time I remembered a Black actor with substantial screentime in a Burton film. Or that The Nightmare Before Christmas was really named the late Ken Page’s character, Oogie Boogie. As a Black kid, what a confusingly racist image with a helluva song. So, Burton saying the quiet part out loud is what led me to reexamine the actual reasons I probably stopped watching his work. His problematic answer is also why I don’t have the nostalgia that made most of my friends sit through Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.
I love the cast for this sequel we didn’t need. I am also delighted to see Jenna Ortega continue working in my favorite genre. However, from what I heard from most of my friends who watched the movie, I’m not the only person who has outgrown Tim Burton’s messy aesthetic and outdated stabs at jokes. I am also not the only one paying attention to what’s being said about the Black characters on Wednesday. Again, I’m always happy to see Ortega booked and busy. However, I also refuse to pretend Burton has fixed his diversity problem. If anything, this moves us deeper into specific bias territory.
Tim Burton’s Bare Minimum Is Not Good Enough
He will now cast a couple of Brown people, but is still displaying colorism and anti-Blackness. His “things” seemingly “call for things” that are not Black folks in key roles that aren’t bullies. He still feels that’s his aesthetic. If we are still dragging him into the last millennium, will he ever work on a project that truly understands and celebrates intersectionality? Or will he continue doing the bare minimum while waiting for a cookie? I don’t know, and to be honest, I don’t care anymore. I’m not the audience for Tim Burton. You can say my “things” no longer “call for things” he’s known for. In part because I’m over supporting filmmakers who don’t get it and don’t want to get it.
If a director wants to stay in a rut and keep regurgitating the mediocre things that worked for him before I was born, that’s his business. I’m more interested in what better filmmakers who can envision worlds filled with POC characters. Writer-directors that understand intersectionality benefits their stories are the people I’m trying to engage with. So, while Tim Burton might have had a few movies on repeat during my VHS era, I have as hard of a time watching his work as he has imagining people who look like me in his stuff. I will never unsee “let’s have an Asian child and a black” in his offensive word salad. However, I don’t think he wants me in the audience anyways because he might then have to imagine a world that calls for people who look like me.
Editorials
No, Cult Cinema Isn’t Dead
My first feature film, Death Drop Gorgeous, was often described as its own disturbed piece of queer cult cinema due to its over-the-top camp, practical special effects, and radical nature. As a film inspired by John Waters, we wore this descriptor as a badge of honor. Over the years, it has gained a small fanbase and occasionally pops up on lists of overlooked queer horror flicks around Pride month and Halloween.
The Streaming Era and the Myth of Monoculture
My co-director of our drag queen slasher sent me a status update, ostensibly to rile up the group chat. A former programmer of a major LGBTQ+ film festival (I swear, this detail is simply a coincidence and not an extension of my last article) declared that in our modern era, “cult classic” status is “untenable,” and that monoculture no longer exists. Thus, cult classics can no longer counter-culture the mono. The abundance of streaming services, he said, allows for specific curation to one’s tastes and the content they seek. He also asserted that media today that is designed to be a cult classic, feels soulless and vapid.
Shots fired!
Can Cult Cinema Exist Without Monoculture?
We had a lengthy discussion as collaborators about these points. Is there no monoculture to rally against? Are there no codes and standards to break and deviate from? Are there no transgressions left to undertake? Do streaming services fully encompass everyone’s tastes? Maybe I am biased. Maybe my debut feature is soulless and vapid!
I’ve been considering the landscape. True, there are so many options at our streaming fingertips, how could we experience a monoculture? But to think a cult classic only exists as counter-culture, or solely as a rally against the norm, is to have a narrow understanding of what cult cinema is and how it gains its status. The cult classic is not dead. It still rises from its grave and walks amongst the living.
What Defines a Cult Classic? And Who Cares About Cult Cinema?
The term “cult classic” generally refers to media – often movies, but sometimes television shows or books – that upon its debut, was unsuccessful or undervalued, but over time developed a devout fanbase that enjoys it, either ironically or sincerely. The media is often niche and low budget, and sometimes progressive for the cultural moment in which it was released.
Some well-known cult films include The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994), Showgirls (1995), Re-Animator (1985), Jennifer’s Body (2009), and my personal favorite, Heathers (1989). Quoting dialogue, midnight showings, and fans developing ritualistic traditions around the movie are often other ways films receive cult status (think The Rocky Horror Picture Show).
Cult Cinema as Queer Refuge and Rebellion
Celebration of cult classics has long been a way for cinephiles and casual viewers alike to push against the rigid standards of what film critics deem “cinema.” These films can be immoral, depraved, or simply entertaining in ways that counter mainstream conventions. Cult classics have often been significant for underrepresented communities seeking comfort or reflection. Endless amounts of explicitly queer cinema were lambasted by critics of their time. The Doom Generation (1995) by Gregg Araki and John Waters’ Pink Flamingos (1972) were both famously given zero stars by Roger Ebert. Now both can be viewed on the Criterion Channel, and both directors are considered pioneers of gay cinema.
Cult films are often low-budget, providing a sense of belonging for viewers, and are sometimes seen as guilty pleasures. Cult cinema was, and continues to be, particularly important for queer folks in finding community.
But can there be a new Waters or Araki in this current landscape?
What becomes clear when looking at these examples is that cult status rarely forms in a vacuum. It emerges from a combination of cultural neglect, community need, and the slow bloom of recognition. Even in their time, cult films thrived because they filled a void, often one left by mainstream films’ lack of imagination or refusal to engage marginalized perspectives. If anything, today’s fractured media landscape creates even more of those voids, and therefore more opportunities for unexpected or outsider works to grab hold of their own fiercely loyal audiences.
The Death of Monoculture and the Rise of Streaming
We do not all experience culture the same way. With the freedom of personalization and algorithmic curation, not just in film but in music and television, there are fewer shared mass cultural moments we all gather around to discuss. The ones that do occur (think Barbenheimer) may always pale in comparison to the cultural dominance of moments that occurred before the social media boom. We might never again experience the mass hysteria of, say, Michael Jackson’s Thriller.
For example, our most successful musician today is listened to primarily by her fanbase. We can skip her songs and avoid her albums even if they are suggested on our streaming platforms, no matter how many weeks she’s been at number one.
Was Monoculture Ever Real?
But did we ever experience culture the same? Some argue that the idea of monoculture is a myth. Steve Hayden writes:
“Our monoculture was an illusion created by a flawed, closed-circuit system; even though we ought to know better, we’re still buying into that illusion, because we sometimes feel overwhelmed by our choices and lack of consensus. We think back to the things we used to love, and how it seemed that the whole world, or at least people we knew personally, loved the same thing. Maybe it wasn’t better then, but it seemed simpler, and for now that’s good enough.”
The mainstream still exists. Cultural moments still occur that we cannot escape and cannot always understand the appreciation for. There are fads and trends we may not recognize now but will romanticize later, just as we do with trends from as recently as 2010. But I’d argue there never was monoculture in the same way America was never “great.” There was never a time we all watched the same things and sang Madonna songs around the campfire; there were simply fewer accessible avenues to explore other options.
Indie Film Distribution in the Age of Streaming
Additionally, music streaming is not the same as film streaming. As my filmmaking collective moves through self-distributing our second film, we have found it is increasingly difficult for indie, small-budget, and DIY filmmakers to get on major platforms. We are required to have an aggregator or a distribution company. I cannot simply throw Saint Drogo onto Netflix or even Shudder. Amazon Prime has recently made it impossible to self-distribute unless you were grandfathered in. Accessibility is still limited, particularly for those with grassroots and shoestring budgets, even with the abundance of services.
I don’t know that anyone ever deliberately intends on making a cult classic. Pink Flamingos was released in the middle of the Gay Liberation movement, starring Divine, an openly gay drag queen who famously says, “Condone first-degree murder! Advocate cannibalism! Eat shit! Filth are my politics, filth is my life!”
All comedy is political. Of course, Waters was intentional with the depravity he filmed; it was a conscious response to the political climate of the time. So if responding to the current state of the world makes a cult classic, I think we can agree there is still plenty to protest.
There Is No Single Formula for Cult Cinema
Looking back at other cult classics, both recent and older, not all had the same intentional vehicle of crass humor and anarchy. Some didn’t know they would reach this status – a very “so bad, it’s good” result (i.e., Showgirls). And while cult classics naturally exist outside the mainstream, some very much intended to be in that stream first!
All of this is to say: there is no monolith for cult cinema. Some have deliberate, rebellious intentions. Some think they are creating high-concept art when in reality they’re making camp. But it takes time to recognize what will reach cult status. It’s not overnight, even if a film seems like it has the perfect recipe. Furthermore, there are still plenty of conventions to push back against; there are plenty of queer cinema conventions upheld by dogmatic LGBTQ+ film festivals.
Midnight Movies vs. Digital Fandom
What has changed is the way we consume media. The way we view a cult classic might not be solely relegated to midnight showings. Although, at my current place of employment, any time The Rocky Horror Picture Show screens, it’s consistently sold out. Nowadays, we may find that engagement with cult cinema and its fanbase digitally, on social media, rather than in indie cinemas. But if these sold-out screenings are any indication, people are not ready to give up the theater experience of being in a room with die-hard fans they find a kinship with.
In fact, digital fandom has begun creating its own equivalents to the midnight-movie ritual. Think of meme cycles that resurrect forgotten films, TikTok edits that reframe a scene as iconic, or Discord servers built entirely around niche subgenres. These forms of engagement might not involve rice bags and fishnets in a theater, but they mirror the same spirit of communal celebration, shared language, and collective inside jokes that defined cult communities of past decades. Furthermore, accessibility to a film does not diminish its cult status. You may be able to stream Tim Curry as Dr. Frank-N-Furter from the comfort of your couch, but that doesn’t make it any less cult.
The Case for Bottoms
I think a recent film that will gain cult status in time is Bottoms. In fact, it was introduced to the audience at a screening I attended as “the new Heathers.” Its elements of absurdity, queer representation, and subversion are perfect examples of the spirit of cult cinema. And you will not tell me that Bottoms was soulless and vapid.
For queer communities, cult cinema has never been just entertainment; it has operated as a kind of cultural memory, a place to archive our identities, desires, rebellions, and inside jokes long before RuPaul made them her catchphrases repeated ad nauseam. These films became coded meeting grounds where queer viewers could see exaggerated, defiant, or transgressive versions of themselves reflected back, if not realistically, then at least recognizably. Even when the world outside refused to legitimize queer existence, cult films documented our sensibilities, our humor, our rage, and our resilience. In this way, cult cinema has served as both refuge and record, preserving parts of queer life that might otherwise have been erased or dismissed.
Cult Cinema Is Forever
While inspired by John Waters, with Death Drop Gorgeous, we didn’t intentionally seek the status of cult classic. We just had no money and wanted to make a horror movie with drag queens. As long as there continue to be DIY, low-budget, queer filmmakers shooting their movies without permits, the conventions of cinema will continue to be subverted.
As long as queer people need refuge through media, cult cinema will live on.





