Hi all.. I'm new to the board..
I was wondering about the voice changer..is it supposed to able to perform the unreal voice changes because its a reference to how scream is a movie, and therefore the laws of the real world don't apply to the movie's universe?
this meaning that the scream universe has fictional technology..
Or was it really just a goof up?
You're overthinking it.
Sequels have to spice it up a little, they simply gave the killer more of an advantage to raise the stakes.
It was a fun gimmick.
"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"
i agree with u on both counts..awesome movie..but this theory wont leave my head lol
i remember being younger and seeing this film and loving it..but the way ppl bash the voice changer kind of made me rethink it..especially on fansite boards..but then after reading about how tatums death in scream was impossible, due to garage doors not being capable causing of what happened to her..i feel kind of better..sorta bugs me like phils death in scream 2..
none of them are perfect but they have good enough plot and actors/characters to make it enjoyable..
but i feel like they may have had it in mind with all three of those instances i referenced as a way of giving the movies the feeling of existing in their own realtity..
Yes, it was supposed to be able to mimic the voices of other characters in addition to the usual 'Voice'
Given that Roman probably had access to some fairly high-end equipment and that the voice changer has been a stretch in pretty much all of the films (except 4 maybe), it isn't that bad really
I'll take a potato chip...and EAT IT!!
It was just a stupid and unrealistic gimmick.
The deaths of Tatum and Phil are not very likely, but at least they're not complete sci-fi, they don't defy real-world technology.
I read that no garage could lift Tatum in real life back in 96....
and Phil's death came from a fluke..but other than it being a fluke it is certainly possible..
none of these defend the 3rd films flaws..
but since scream's continuity exists in the movie universe and that voice changer exists, it is what it is..
I read that no garage could lift Tatum in real life back in 96....
and Phil's death came from a fluke..but other than it being a fluke it is certainly possible..
but since scream's continuity exists in the movie universe and that voice changer exists, it is what it is..
It's hardly sci-fi.
I think it was really clever.
Take the opening scene, we set up that the killer can manipulate other voices.
So in the next kill scene, we assume Sarah is not talking to Roman, but the killer using his voice.
Jokes on us, it is Roman.
That plays against our expectations far more than anything I could name from the second film.
"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"
It's hardly sci-fi.
I think it was really clever.
This movie is arguably similar to Jason X as both contain technology that doesn't exist..
Maybe the film makers should have embraced and boasted this element of the plot as a small reference to horror movies with fake scifi elements..
This movie is arguably similar to Jason X as both contain technology that doesn't exist..
Maybe the film makers should have embraced and boasted this element of the plot as a small reference to horror movies with fake scifi elements..
He used "movie magic" to replicate the voices of the characters
It was also a plot gimmick to make the audience unsure of whether the character on the phone was the killer or pretending to be someone else and to make the characters suspicious.
Not only did it mean less of the menacing and taunting Ghostface voice
but it just made everything way too easy for the killer.
I do seem to remember two pretty long conversations Ghostface had with CiCi and Randy, though. But what does Scream 2 have to do with it?
I wonder if the stakes couldn't be raised in a more realistic way. If not, maybe there shouldn't have been another sequel.
Yes, I really think that. The other movies had a sense of realism, which made them scarier and effective satire. If they couldn't achieve that again, then they shouldn't have bothered.
It's more than a gimmick, it's a plot device in several death scenes. And instead of building up real suspense, they waste their time on unnecessary misdirection.
Yes, the script is no good. And yes, bringing back Randy (or Stu) would've been even worse. But that doesn't change anything about what the movie turned out to be.
Realism is not an unimportant factor in the Scream series, such a far-fetched sci-fi device does not fit in its established universe.
That's true but the film never tries to capture reality, it's an exaggeration of Hollywood's capabilities.
Considering how quickly the voices change, it is obviously pre-programmed.
He directed the film, he didn't write it. Like I said above, to give the killer different tactics.
It may have ruined the suspense for you but others may have found it more suspenseful.
The harder it is to fight the killer, the more interesting and tense the conflict will be, theoretically anyway. Besides, if it was easy for the characters to survive, then it would be a boring film with no tension whatsoever.
Shame you didn't like it.
"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"
Yes, but that's just the way it is.
shareMight I interject this fair point?
The ghostface voice is instantly recognizable at this point in the series, therefore it's illogical to think that the people would not instantly be on guard at the sound of that voice...They would pretty much hang up and call the police instantly(as Cici, Randy and Rebecca should have done)
This device allowed the victims to be in conversation with the killer and not even realize it until too late, a great way to pull the rug out from under them.
Also a great way of framing people (Christine thought it was Cotton, Sarah thought it was Roman(of course that's a real clever trick because it actually WAS Roman) and Stone thought it was Dewey.
"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"
I'm not sure people would just assume it's a real killer on the phone or necessarily recognize the Ghostface voice. In the first two movies Ghostface didn't even call most of his victims and Randy had a great conversation with him while knowing exactly who he was. But if they felt it was necessary, they could've used real-life technology.
But if the other three movies had the characters act "illogically" for the sake of having the Ghostface voice, then why couldn't this movie? At least they would've left one of the most important aspects of the series intact. They had no problem having the characters act illogically otherwise, like running through the mansion like chickens with their heads cut off instead of sticking together. Or going inside the house to light a match and read a damn fax instead of getting the hell out of there. Or the killer going after Cotton to find out where Sidney is. Or Gale feeling a pulse and declaring someone dead.
Well, Randy assumed he was safe in broad daylight, and he was keeping the killer talking to "distract" him. No one else would really engage and it would put then on instant guard.
It's still intact though, I love that the voice is heavily presnt in the finale(at the pool and in the screening room).
The voice all but vanishes from the second half of the first two films.
They had no problem having the characters act illogically otherwise
They do stupid illogical things like this in all the movies, as I'm sure you are aware.
Like Cotting stalking the empty film school, Sidney running all the way back into the theatre, and Sidney going on stage surrounded by people in masks with knives when she is a murder target.
"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"
Well, Randy assumed he was safe in broad daylight, and he was keeping the killer talking to "distract" him. No one else would really engage and it would put then on instant guard.
It's still intact though, I love that the voice is heavily presnt in the finale(at the pool and in the screening room).
The voice all but vanishes from the second half of the first two films.
They do stupid illogical things like this in all the movies, as I'm sure you are aware.
Like Cotton stalking the empty film school, Sidney running all the way back into the theatre, and Sidney going on stage surrounded by people in masks with knives when she is a murder target.
Jesus Stratego, did this film ruin your prom night or something???
Were you going through a really bad time in your life when it came out?
The Hate is truly a marvel.
what's the problem of having them converse with the Ghostface voice?
They Do. But instead of just repeating what we got in the first two movies, they tried to mix it up a bit. Give the audience a new trick.
Again, if this was an idea of Kevin Williamsons, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It would probably be hailed as "genius update"
And again, I'll quote Ehrhen Krueger, "All of the ideas in Scream 3 are Kevin Williamsons and Wes Cravens."
The idea came from one of the two. And Williamson produced. They certainly gave their okay!
"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"
Just when you seemed to be so reasonable...
Jesus, Guy, did my opinion that the voice changer sucks ruin your life?! You seem to be obsessed with it.
But thanks for AGAIN making personal attacks just because I don't like this movie as much as you do. How sad must an individual be to do that?
Legitimate criticism does not equal "hate". The voice changer is one of the dumbest things about the movie. And all these years I've always been consistent with my criticisms.
They Do. But instead of just repeating what we got in the first two movies, they tried to mix it up a bit. Give the audience a new trick.
Again, if this was an idea of Kevin Williamsons, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It would probably be hailed as "genius update"
I'm being unreasonable????
GHOSTFACE HAS MORE DIALOGUE IN SCREAM 3 THAN SCREAM 2!!!!
Count the friggin lines!!! You're bitching how you "missed the voice" in the movie where he actually gets more dialogue, even competeing with the voicechanger gimmick!
And I'm being unreasonable???
It's like 2 minutes of words in Scream 2, like 3 minutes in Scream 3.
And when did Craven, or Williamson or anybody on the film ever say the voicechanger was a bad idea? Never.
Yeesh.
"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"
Yes, you're being unreasonable. Look how hysterical you're being. Look at the personal attacks you've made. And all over a stupid voicechanger I don't like.
The Ghostface voice was hardly used in the rest of the movie and hardly in the same way as the other two movies with him taunting his victims over the phone. Only a short bit of the conversation with Cotton was like that. And even an unmasked Billy and Stu using the voice changer was more creepy than what Roman did in the finale. And like I said, that's not the only problem.
I don't care if no one involved in the movie said it was a bad idea. *I* do think it was a bad idea. You better learn to deal with it.
YOU CAN think it was a stupid idea.
But you can't tell me "Scream 3 hardly used the ghostface voice" when he actually has more dialogue than in the second film. Because that doesn't make sense.
And personally, I think he sounds creepier in the 3rd film and has way more memorable dialogue. I'll take the call to Sidney in the police station over anything from Scream 2.
"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"
I have no idea if he has more lines, I've never bothered counting them. But what I said is that it was hardly used in the rest of the movie. Most of Ghostface voice's dialogue is in the finale when Roman gives his exposition. It's not over the phone taunting his victims. It doesn't have the same effect.
But thanks for giving me permission to think it was a bad idea. Although I'm not sure what Scream 2 has to do with it.
But thanks for giving me permission to think it was a bad idea.
It doesn't have the same effect.
What does Scream 2 have to do with it?
I was comparing the voice changer with the voice changer in BOTH previous movies to explain why it feels off. "Anything in Scream 2" has nothing to do with it.
I never said it was quantity. I said there was a lack of Ghostface voice taunting his victims over the phone and that it was spread out unevenly.
There are plenty of movies I hate or don't care for and I never think about them again. But those movies aren't part of a movie franchise of which I happen to love the first two movies.
Don't be such a drama queen. I never said I hate the movie or that it's a terribly awful film. I find it a very disappointing film, but otherwise just don't care for it. I simply visit this board to talk Scream.
Before I regularly visited this board, I'd only seen it about two times. Since then I've checked it out a couple of times on tv to refresh my memory so I can discuss it. I don't think I've seen it more than five times. Looking up the transcript can also help.
No, I don't owe a copy. You'd have to pay me some good money to add it to my collection. Paying for it once to see it in the theater was enough.
I certainly didn't owe you an explanation, but I do hope it helps you to move on and accept a different opinion about this movie.
Ditto.
And for the record, the only drama queen is you. "Paying for it in the theatre once was enough".
What-EVER! Nobody buys your indignity here, least of all me.
I don't believe you for a second, I think you have seen it multiple times and would bet my first born you own it.
I love the Halloween franchise, but I hated part 3 and you won't find me on that film's message board ever.
Makes sense.
And yes you clearly hate the film, I've never seen you pass up a single opportunity to remind the world how much it disappointed you.
On any of the films boards.
"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"
You can't take a joke, huh? You're the drama queen because you keep harrassing me and calling me names because I don't like the movie.
Who doesn't buy my "indignity"? You're the only one complaining!
Get ready to prepare those adoption papers because I do not own Scream 3 in any shape or form. And I actually said I've seen the movie multiple times, just not that many.
Too many horrible Halloween sequels to even bother visiting those boards. But if you were just as disappointed with Halloween 3 as I was with Scream 3 (can't understand why, because it was clear it had nothing to do with the previous movies), then go ahead and express that disappointment on the board.
But I made these comments a year ago. If you keep commenting on them, ofcourse I keep coming back to the board!
When was the last time I even brought up Scream 3 on the other boards? It must've been when I told you it was unnecessary to bring up Scream 3 every time...
I thought it was pretty cool. A good way of separating the killer from the other ones in the series. It wasn't far-fetched enough to really bother me.
shareWho says the voice changing technology doesn't exist? I believe it does! It simply digital manipulation. Each voice has a unique digital pattern. Simply takes samples of a voice, then the software creates an algorithm for conversion.
For instance: http://www.nchsoftware.com/voicechanger/index.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiAzZHEBRD0ivi9_pDzgYMBEiQAtvxt-HlJhbx4PJ_ti-5ptbY1WgccoaMb05GqvO2LXdqgKNUaAr8c8P8HAQ