Forums Horror Movie Talk
Ghostface Showdown: The "Scream" Killers, Ranked

To date, dney Prescott has been attacked and tormented by a whopping seven violent psychotics, in Scream through Scream 4. Although dney eventually slipped through each of their bloody fingers, denying them the grand finale they craved, each respective Ghostface managed to rack up a few grisly murders along the way, making audiences scream and laugh in the slasher series of the Millenial Generation. Four films. Seven killers. Which were the scariest? Which were merely violent pawns? As one of the biggest Scream geeks on the planet, I thought I might as well try to answer that fundamental question to the best of my ability. Behold: A ranking of all seven Ghostfaces, from worst to best. My choices are likely to start quite a debate, so everyone is invited to chip in with Ghostface rankings of their own.# 7 Mickey Altieri , Scream 2 : Mickey may have been the most phycally impong of all the Scream killers. He worked up a pretty nister sneer after he'd revealed himself as one of the killers, and he was a film buff, which fulfills essential character requirements for any Scream installment. dney seemed to trust him, so he was succesful at infiltrating her life. He was also batshit crazy enough to attack a cop car with dney and her friend, Hallie, inde it, while said cop car was in the middle of a public street, resulting in one of the most memorable sequences in the Scream series so far. By no means was he a bad horror movie killer. However, his motive pretty much dictates that he end up last on this list. Mickey wanted

the police to catch him. It made sense for his character and it was an interesting twist, but when compared to the other Ghostfaces, all of whom wanted to get away with killing dney and would quite posbly have found a reason to continue murdering people even after, it makes Mickey just a shade less threatening. In the Scream

mythos, this is the type of killer that is very useful right up until the end, when his partner feels the urge to do him in, sacrificing him like the pawn he ultimately is. Which is exactly what happened to Mickey Altieri.# 6 Charlie Walker, Scream 4 : Charlie was a co-conspirator in the goriest killing spree so far in the Scream films, and the one resulting in the highest body count. Like Mickey and other Scream characters, he was a film buff, even acting as predent of Woodsboro High's Cinema Club. He was ideally placed within the school to help act out a new series of murders that would bring the cycle of carnage back to Woodsboro, and he did a damn good job deflecting suspicion from himself on a couple of occaons. However, as clever as Ghostface's plot was in Scream 4 , it's hard to believe that Charlie did an equal share of the planning. After revealing himself as one of the killers, he was quickly dispatched by his partner, whose unmasking overshadowed his own. Charlie was cunning when it came to manipulating those outde the plot and virtually incapable of figuring out what was going on. But he was pretty much a patsy when it came to predicting the actions of his own partner, who saw him as a pawn when he thought they were a team. He rates above Mickey mply by virtue of not wanting to get caught.# 5 Stu Macher, Scream : Stu was one of the killers in the killing spree that started it all. He is one of the characters whose actions are essential to establishing the foundation on which the whole Scream series depends, and he definitely gets his share of Ghostface respect for that. The series of horrific events in Scream

did not result in a body count as high as that of any of the installments that came later. However, that is pretty much a rule of horror franchises - each sequel usually raises the death toll a bit - so I feel it unfair to count major points against the character for that. I also kept in mind that Stu helped plan, and fully supported, something that resulted in the brutal murder of both his current and ex-girlfriends (Tatum Riley and Casey Becker, respectively). Stu ends up relatively low on the list because he definitely fits the "pawn" archetype as described in the descriptions of Mickey and Charlie. Although Stu seemed arguably even more mindlessly obedient to the real mastermind than those two characters, I ranked him above them for a couple of reasons. Like I said, Stu was the first

pawn, and he pioneered that conceit for the whole franchise. Matthew Lillard did a great job portraying Stu as a character that was equal parts fun-loving and unhinged, and it was the very mindlessness of the character that made him a bit scarier than Mickey or Charlie. He would have done anything, or killed anyone, his partner told him to. He only seemed a little bit mad when his partner stabbed him a lot more than they'd planned on to make things look convincing for the cops. He just kind of whined that he thought he was dying, rested a second, and then went back into mindless, violent obedience.# 4 Roman Bridger, Scream 3 :

Roman brought several smart innovations to his reign of terror as Ghostface. Presumably ung technology available to him through his access to Hollywood's state of the art film studios, Roman captured the voices of almost every character in the movie. He then used these voices to lure his intended victims to their dooms. Roman was also the only Scream

psycho not to have a partner, meaning he killed more total people individually than any of the other Ghostfaces. dney seemed to question her sanity to some degree due to his efforts, and he elicited a stronger emotional reaction from her than most of his savage peers. Finally, it was revealed that he was integral to setting the events of the first film in motion. Roman was by no means anybody's pawn, which places him higher in rank than Stu, Charlie or Mickey. However, Roman did employ a conceit that had already been used by a previous Ghostface, when he deliberately had himself brought in for police questioning so that he would seemingly be cleared of suspicion when it turned out his phone hadn't made the dreaded Ghostface calls. And although the fact that Roman had no partner lended Scream 3

an air of the unexpected in its grand finale, he might have actually been successful in killing dney and company if he had found a pawn of his own to distract them in certain key scenes. As someone who sported bulletproof vests himself, Roman also really

should have known to shoot dney in the head rather than the chest.# 3 Mrs. Loomis, a.k.a. Debbie Salt, Scream 2 : Mrs. Loomis' motive for trying to kill dney was as pure and undiluted as they come. As she said herself, it was "good, old-fashioned revenge". dney had killed her son, and Mrs. Loomis was unable to even conder the fact that she had done so in self-defense. What Mrs. Loomis was

capable of doing was creating an alias to give her reason to constantly be hovering around the scenes of murders without drawing suspicion. The Ghostface identity itself may have been enough of a disguise for the other Scream

killers, but Mrs. Loomis also had the mask of Debbie Salt to hide behind, adding another layer of deception for the characters and viewers to peel away. It's also noteworthy that she was the one who murdered Scream survivor Randy Meeks fairly early on in Scream 2, providing an unxpected kill and helping the series maintain an unpredictable edge throughout the rest of its second chapter. She was also ruthless in killing her partner, Mickey, at the exact moment she thought he was no longer useful. However, she was kind of bumbling and clumsy in her movements, and not just when she was pretending to be Debbie Salt. It seems as if it was probably Mrs. Loomis who tripped over a couch in Ghostface's first assault on dney in Scream 2, especially nce once she is revealed as one of the killers, we see how ealy she can give into a psychotic rage in which she just attacks, without really seeming to map out her movements in advance. As soon as dney starts fighting back, Mrs. Loomis seems to begin long the advantage. Her forethought and cunning in planning out the events of Scream 2, including befriending and ultimately murdering Mickey, help Mrs. Loomis rank among the top 3 Ghostfaces. Her tendency to sometimes lose her cool in the final moments before she's achieved her goal, as well as her clumness, keep her out of the top 2.# 2 Billy Loomis, Scream : Billy Loomis was the original Ghostface mastermind, and even after 3 sequels, he remains the killer who got closest to dney Prescott. He even managed to take her virginity a mere few minutes before revealing himself as one of the people responble for the murders of her mother, her friends and her classmates, making that big reveal all the more traumatic. He was the one who committed the infamous garage door murder of Tatum Riley, and the first to have himself officially cleared of all suspicion by the cops after they initially brought him in for questioning. Beyond that, he was pretty good at setting up his own fake murder, complete with corn syrup as prop blood, and he had his partner, Stu, completely in his power. Both Scream and Scream 2 contained subtle hints that Billy and Stu may have even had a sexual relationship, which Billy may have used to strengthen his influence over Stu. Both instances can be interpreted as jokes if dered, but Stu did call Billy "baby" and scream at him to "get it up" during a pivotal moment in the first movie, and in the second, Randy refers to Billy as "homo-repressed". The Scream movies have rightly not made a posble sexual dynamic between Billy and Stu a central part of the series, anymore than any of the killers' sexualities have been main components of the story. However, the fact that it's a little extra mystery fans can wonder and debate about adds depth to the Ghostface partnership of the first Scream, and Billy gets tha majority of the credit for that, as the more influential and vicious of the first 2 killers. Billy was a quietly intense killer with a cold glare who excelled at setting scenes. He was also far more complex than it might first appear. The complexity of this iconic character, as well as the fact that his masterplan set everything in motion for the whole Scream series, help him outpace every other Ghostface...except one.# 1 Jill Roberts, Scream 4 : Rating Jill higher than Billy (even if only barely) might be cause for some controversy, but here's my reasoning: Jill was the mastermind behind the bloodiest, deadliest killing spree yet in the Scream movies. She also sliced dney up more than any of the other Ghostfaces and came the closest to actually killing her. Her ultimate plot was somewhat milar to Billy's. She wanted to cast herself as the survivor, and like all Ghostfaces, she had a plan to point the finger of blame at others. She exhibited control over Charlie that was somewhat akin to the control Billy exerted over Stu. However, as a female who was conderably smaller in stature than Billy and who could commit violent acts without batting an eye before slipping back behind her good girl facade, Jill's story was more convincing to the cops and the media than Billy's would have been. We also got to actually see the lengths Jill went to so that she would look like she'd been in an epic, terrifying fight for her life, from ung her dead boyfriend's hand to pull out her own hair and claw her face to running full speed into a mirror and finally falling backwards through a glass table. In an ironic twist, part of Jill's motive was that she didn't want to work for a living, yet she was clearly willing to work pretty hard to be believable in the role she'd chosen for herself. That role, of course, being a new generation replacement for dney Prescott, which made Jill's motive just a little cker than Billy's. As she said herself, Jill didn't just want to kill dney, she wanted to become her. She came extremely close to succeeding and the media was still eating up the narrative that Jill constructed even while Jill herself was lying dead on a hospital room floor in the final reels of Scream 4. Kudos go out to Emma Roberts for her portrayal of this truly sadistic, crafty killer. Although the reveal of Jill as Ghostface was posbly the most shocking, Emma Roberts did not "ham up" her acting once that cat was out of the bag. She played Jill with almost the same calm, normal demeanor as she had when she was mply catching a ride with her friends to school. That choice made the character of Jill seem like a violent, detached sociopath with an evil, calculating mind who mply didn't want to have to go to school or accomplish anything to get ahead. Jill's whole character represents an incredibly sharp commentary on a society that is increangly dominated by reality televion, and we got to see the inner workings of her twisted mind conderably more than we did with any of the other Ghostfaces. And that makes her the number one Ghostface in my book.What about the rest of you? Feel free to unleash your pasonate disagreements and tell me why you think I'm wrong about any of my rankings. I look forward to all of your thoughts.

ahhh.... an ok list, mine would certainly be drastically rearranged though

Billy and Stu would be 1 and 2 for sure. Jill would be next to last, with Roman or Charlie being dead last.

Really, Roman last huh? See for me its always been either Billy or Roman for the number one slot. I've thought about it alot and I think I'm leaning towards Roman here (I know, it feels wrong just saying it). But he started the whole thing-Billy wouldn't have done anything without him (he even said he gave him "pointers"). I think this makes him smart for getting 2 other people to do his work for him. Plus he's the ONLY Ghostface who did it solo, which makes things twice as hard. And he was Syd's half brother, adding a Halloween angle to it all. Not to mention the seemingly supernatural shiznit he faked with his resources and the smart idea of wearing a vest (not sure why no one else thought of that). Jill was a lame, predictable villan for me and it was just because it was the latest sequel that the body count was so high- would have happend no matter who the killers were. I feel I don't have to make an argument for Billy, we all know he could ealy be the best. But, technically the whole thing, and the bas for the whole series, was Roman- that's even the way it seemed Wes intended it to be (it was orginally just a trilogy, mind you). I also think Jill's motive was weak compared to Roman's as was Billy's (he didn't have to kill Sydney for what her mom did, where as Roman hated and envied her-makes more sense to me). Oh yeah and Jill really didn't have to mess herself up that bad at the end, the cops were already on her de and she was just a teenage girl, never a suspect. And the fact that Roman knew enough about horror movies to actually MAKE them should count for something.

This is all just opinion though, and I'm glad someone brought it up.

Thanks for the comments, Matt and Nick. While I realize that some interpret Jill's motive as weak, it was the very banality of that motive, and Jill's honesty about it, which made it so much more shocking to me. And the fact is, I do believe there are people out there who would kill their own mother just for half a chance to be famous, as Jill was willing to do. The motive was timely and made sense for the "Scream" series to me. I give Roman more props than a lot of people do, but I personally deduct points from him because of the fact that the long lost brother thing had already been done so thoroughly in the "Halloween" franchise. It didn't really seem like dney had all that much that an up and coming film director would be jealous of, so Roman's motive never quite seemed fully developed enough for me. And although I did mention that Jill masterminded the killing spree that offed the most people, I thought i made it clear that the body count of each film was not the primary, deciding factor. If it was, Billy and Stu would rank at the bottom of the list just because of mple math. There is definitely an argument to be made that Billy is the best, but for me, Jill's motive was mply much better developed and I did not suspect her as Ghostface. Lastly, I agree that Jill probably could have stopped after stabbing herself, and didn't absolutely have to crash through the table, but it showed how much she was trying to cover all her bases. And she was trying to stage a story about her killing 2 Ghostfaces bacally nglehandedly, so it makes sense that she'd get REALLY messed up in the process.

Good points there. Each killer did seem to crave some sort of media attention, so it kinda makes more sense that Jill would be that crazy after all the films made. I might have liked her character better if I didn't have such an overwhelming feeling that she'd end up as at least one of the killers, I'm not even sure how I knew. And I do remember thinking when Scream 3 came out that it was werid they did the whole brother/killer thing right when Halloween was coming back in a big way (H20). It's funny really- Scream was influenced by Halloween, and then H20 was influenced by the Scream movies(both owned by Dimenon). It went full circle in a way. I guess if I had to pick a favorite I'd probably go with Billy, just from liking the first one so much. Its interesting watching the first and knowing he's the killer, when everyone already thinks he is through most of the movie- then again that's what made it a surprise in the first place. Your points do make sense though-good article.

i think for me, the biggest problem with "Jill" was the absolutely wretched and horrifically wooden acting offered forth from Emma Roberts. the first time I watched it I thought "ok...she did an alright job at best". The second time i watched it i was just baffled: she didn't do an alright job at best, she was absolutely HORRIBLE, in every sense of the word. There's not a ngle scene in the film in which she comes across natural. She was arguably the worst performer in any Scream film to date: I mean, far, far, far beyond bad. Almost nauseating, to be honest. The fact that you could pinpoint her as the killer within the first 30 minutes only made it that much worse.

IMO, the worst "actor" to set foot on a Scream set to date, and not by a small margin: by a masve crevice. She was so bad i have my doubts I'll ever return to Scream 4, which is saying a lot, because I really enjoy the franchise. But she is hands down the lowest point of any element the series has offered, and that includes the shitstorm that was Scream 3.

Fuck....she was worse than a student actor in their low budget debut.

Debates like this always come down to matters of opinion and I guess different things make acting "good" or "bad" to different people. Personally, I thought Emma Roberts was very natural as Jill, and that she really gave it her all once she was revealed as one of the killers. Two other people I saw the movie with in the theater had the same opinion. But hey, to each their own, that makes this sort of thing interesting. I've heard a great many people voice milar opinions to both mine and yours, Matt, so maybe Jill is just one of those characters people either love or hate, without much middle ground.

Theres no way Jill was the best ghostface, I would put her last, she was a whiny spoilt little brat. Really she just got on my nerves. My list would be something more like Billy Stu Roman Mickey Mrs Loomis Charlie Jill

Billy and Stu were the original, they had good chemistry as killers because they were friends more than anything and I think it made them scarier. Roman was third because Scream 3 is probably my favourite, ignoring some of the horrible acting, it has the best story line. Mickey and Mrs Loomis are third and forth, Mickey was defiantly more effed up and out of all the killers had the least motive which says a lot about his mindset. Then Charlie and Jill come second to last and last. Dont get me wrong I really did like Scream 4 but I just didnt find them believable as killers. Although Charlie did a better job at being the killer.

Lets hope that they learn from mistakes made in Scream 4 and IF they make a Scream 5 the killer(s) do as well as Billy and Stu

They really need to just "break" the rules and kill one of the main three already. I'ts just gotten dumb and expected at this point: Dewey always gets knocked out, always- you think Neve is dead, she ain't- and then comes Gail. "2" kIllers is the norm and it's old and repeated as shit. Plus, Jill and Charlie were about the same ze and height, literally. Two skinny ass, short ass, weak ass, TEENS became the main villians for a group in their 30's now. At least in the other movies there was at least one GUY in their age range as the killer. I mean, they're not even close in height. The middle aged chic from Rosanne from Scream 2 (who at least had a 20-something year old guy helping) made more sense. And that was lame....It's just all FUN and no HORROR, and I think everyone knows it by now....I know they're following a certain formula, but Wes Craven of all people should know at this point that something different brings a bigger crowd.

They really need to just "break" the rules and kill one of the main three already. I'ts just gotten dumb and expected at this point: Dewey always gets knocked out, always- you think Neve is dead, she ain't- and then comes Gail. "2" kIllers is the norm and it's old and repeated as shit. Plus, Jill and Charlie were about the same ze and height, literally. Two skinny ass, short ass, weak ass, TEENS became the main villians for a group in their 30's now. At least in the other movies there was at least one GUY in their age range as the killer. I mean, they're not even close in height. The middle aged chic from Rosanne from Scream 2 (who at least had a 20-something year old guy helping) made more sense. And that was lame....It's just all FUN and no HORROR, and I think everyone knows it by now....I know they're following a certain formula, but Wes Craven of all people should know at this point that something different brings a bigger crowd.

WTF are you talking about?? Rory Culkin is 5'6", and Emma Roberts is 5'3" - both probably 110-130 pounds - thats fucking mindnumingly frightening, uber intimidating and REALLY, REALLY phycally impong shit right there. Ealy the 2 most frightening killers in the franchise

and dont go trying to act like you could fend them off just because they're built like malnourished 6th graders!

Wow that is a list I very much disagree with (but hey, that's the beauty of horrorbid)!

My list would have Stu and Billy at 1 and 2, with Roman dead last (the Scream 3 ending was ridiculous) and maybe at number 3 would be Mickey.

You can't go past Matthew Lillard's performance in Scream 1 in my books and I honestly think Scream 1 and 2 are the only good films in this series. 3 was atrocious and 4 was incredibly forgettable.

Theres no way Jill was the best ghostface, I would put her last, she was a whiny spoilt little brat. Really she just got on my nerves. My list would be something more like Billy Stu Roman Mickey Mrs Loomis Charlie Jill

Billy and Stu were the original, they had good chemistry as killers because they were friends more than anything and I think it made them scarier. Roman was third because Scream 3 is probably my favourite, ignoring some of the horrible acting, it has the best story line. Mickey and Mrs Loomis are third and forth, Mickey was defiantly more effed up and out of all the killers had the least motive which says a lot about his mindset. Then Charlie and Jill come second to last and last. Dont get me wrong I really did like Scream 4 but I just didnt find them believable as killers. Although Charlie did a better job at being the killer.

Lets hope that they learn from mistakes made in Scream 4 and IF they make a Scream 5 the killer(s) do as well as Billy and Stu

This is exactly how my list would have went...

my thoughts on Emma Roberts as Jill when i watched was--- wow shes not doing a good job ---to shes being suspicious, then the reveal happened and i was like damn. then i sorta got it. her character came off as if she was trying hit marks in her own horror story. from having that very forced sounding convo with syd in the kitchen to her being down for the count after just a slash in the arm. (i mean seriously who stays down for that long and doesnt even attempt to help a family member in peril and waits to be noticed by the nearest male.) and of course being WAY too plain jane, who almost fades out of the picture until the big reveal because of how uninteresting she is and how much character she didnt have.

when u go back and u watch, u see this. this forced acting that u dont quite believe and her lack of character are there as a huge hint that this girl isnt doing a hell of a lot and is acting kinda shallow how can she be our heroine, our new sydney. thats because shes not and Emma Roberts breaks out of that shell nicely at the end. revealing her true self which is not that drastically different from her fake self at this point

. it wasnt over the top it was just enough so it was believable. and she manages to own the confidence of a bitch whose in complete control and has a gun. and i have to say i loved every second of it, even down to it becoming ridiculous. her reasons are believable and direct commentary to the youth today. i havent thought too much into whose my favorite ghostface. but i believe its a mix between stu and jill just cause they had that psycho comedy going on. but based on how much damages done to syd it has to be

billy. although roman fucked with syd a lot, we get the sense that by the end of 3 she found some peace in learning more truths about her mother and finally facing this demon in de herself and in roman. roman made syd into a true survivor, able to let go and live out her life. i feel that although roman was behind everything from the beginning, billy left a bigger scar on syd being her bf, taking her virginity, killing all her friends and pretty much fucking her up mentally for life. billy was personal everyone else were people syd didnt really know or just met. i mean there is a reason syds given up on bfs nce 2, billys the reason that bf got killed cause she couldnt trust and it doesnt seem like syds ever gonna let anyone get that close to her again.

LOL. Hopefully, every ngle Ghostface used lifts in their shoes and/or other means of disguing their phycal characteristics bedes just putting on the costume. Do you REALLY think they should restrict posble killers to people who are in the same age and height range as d, Dewey and Gale? That's dumb for a couple reasons. It would seriously limit the amount of characters under suspicion, making the mystery part of the movie weaker. It's also dumb because Neve Campbell herself is actually not that tall, so someone in her height range would be shorter too. Kind of defeats your argument.Also, are we forgetting that Ghostfaces carry knives and usually take advantage of the element of surprise? They don't usually try to beat their victims to death with their fists, so their ze doesn't matter much. Anyway, a small person can still be a good fighter, and can still be crazy, and truly crazy people are known to be extremely strong. I do agree that one of the main 3 should die in "Scream 5" though.

I'm going to just pretend that's not your argument lol

BTW - d, fairly tall for a woman - 5'7"

killers:

Billy - 5'10.5" Stu - 6'3" Mickey - 6' Debbie - 5'6.5" Roland - 6'1"

Take Debbie out of the equation (who's still virtually the same ze as Neve) and every villain is noticeably larger - save for the last 2 little ones in part 4.

BTW, how the hell can anyone dig Jill or Charlie as killers (acting issues ade), when Hayden's character would have been able to beat the piss out of those snot rags - probably even armed with a knife, and even if they were supervillains because they're "crazy"?

there's a reason villains tend to be large, menacing figures: it's more frightening.

In the end, every fuckin killer's story was nothing more than an extenon of Billy's initial motive - which should in all honesty put him at the top of the list by mple default.

Actually, they aren't all in their thirties. Just had to point that out. No offense. I didn't mind any of the killers, I just thought maybe there would be better. Part one kills were obvious from the start. Part two, mickey was as fucking obvious as anything. 3 was a little unsuspected. Then, the motive just seemed whiny. I was surprised in SCREAM 4 that Jill was the killer, and it worked out really good. Although, her plan sucked, and she would have never gotten away with it. If cops are as smart as we wish they were, then, it would have been fucking easy to figure out. Charlie, was surpringly a shocking killer as well. I have heard many rumors and ideas about SCREAM 5, or 5CREAM as I call it, but, I think I already know what will happen. When it comes to killing the characters, it is obvious who they will off first, and last, and so, all three become obvious. If they kill any of them off in 5, I would be fucking surprised. In 6, they'd off them all, throughout the film.

Actually, they aren't all in their thirties. Just had to point that out. No offense. I didn't mind any of the killers, I just thought maybe there would be better. Part one kills were obvious from the start. Part two, mickey was as fucking obvious as anything. 3 was a little unsuspected. Then, the motive just seemed whiny. I was surprised in SCREAM 4 that Jill was the killer, and it worked out really good. Although, her plan sucked, and she would have never gotten away with it. If cops are as smart as we wish they were, then, it would have been fucking easy to figure out. Charlie, was surpringly a shocking killer as well. I have heard many rumors and ideas about SCREAM 5, or 5CREAM as I call it, but, I think I already know what will happen. When it comes to killing the characters, it is obvious who they will off first, and last, and so, all three become obvious. If they kill any of them off in 5, I would be fucking surprised. In 6, they'd off them all, throughout the film.

you didnt call jill as the killer inde the first half hour? REALLY?

She was IMO the most obvious killer of the franchise, I remember tting in the theatre, my wife

and I couldnt have been more than a half hour in when we both looked at each other (cant recall the exact scene that gave it away) and said "she's the killer, how could they make it so obvious?"

Hmm I am a mega scream fan nce back in the day and I always find it interesting how vast a range of opinions there are about questions such as this

I think everyone is going to have their own take and you'd be hard pressed to come up with a list /ranking that a majority would come close to agreeing on.

For me I have never liked Roman maybe because I didn't like Scream 3 and generally

try to forget that it existed. I

know that it is "cannon" that Roman was the one who gave Billy the idea in the first place and yadda yadda but I never accepted that. In fact I found the whole character and story contribed and suspicious I mean the guy said he was dney's brother but there was no

real solid proof I thought it would have made more sense to reveal a mastermind killer who gave Roman a role to play am homage to Michael Mysers the psycho bling and I find it very unrealstic that Roman acted alone and took out as many people as he did especially during act 3 where he was faking his own death while knocking off a chunk of the ridiculous and annoying cast

so Roman would be last in my book by a long shot

# 6

for me would probably be Stu because even though he was one of the originals I think his involvement was very nil he was Billy's lap dog just like Randy said and I think Billy was clearly the one in charge.. and when things were on the line and all hell broke loose in act 3 of Scream 1 Stu turned into a sniveling baby who lost his edge and he just didn't seem to have what it took under pressure.

#5 Mickey

milar in many ways to Stu Mickey comes across as that unbalanced weirdo who plays the pawn for the real killer

Mickey ranks above

Stu im my book because he shined in the reveal

he was intense and focused and savage the way he took out Derek and then said stuff to d like teh stuff about Derek being the kind of guy she could take home to Mom if she had a mom ..twisted plus I think he had a bit more edge somewhat reminiscinct of Billy that Stu was lacking

#4

Mrs. Loomis

Mrs. Loomis very milar to her son is cleary the mastermind/leader her motive for me was quite believable and compelling she was fueled by vengence hatred for dney and her mother, grief and proably some guilt within her self over leaving Billy so I think it's plauble that someone could snap under those circumstances. Plus she is hardcore she didn't just t back and give directions she liked killing and I personally loathe her to this day for taking out Randy but I have to give her props for her murderous skills.

#3 Jill Roberts

she rannks high on the list just because of her cold heartedness and selfish ambition to take d out and to become the new d it's pretty twisted. But I fault her because I think she was mostly just a figurehead I think she had the concept but I think she and Charlie worked the plan out together and I think there is a strong case to be made that she did very little execution of the plan herself. I think Charlie did most the kills and I think he was proably the one who laid out a lot of the ideas about filming the kills etc.. cause he was the horror geek. I also deduct a few points form Jill because she didn't seize the moment with "killing d" she had the oppurtunity to finh her off but instead went on very emoish rant about not feeling special enough

waa waaa waa

#2 Charlie

I know a lot of people are going to totally disagree with me on this but I think Charlie was an execellent killer I find it probable that with his intelligence his savy horror knowledge and such that he most likely helped Jill come up with her plan and I think it is pretty apparant that he did most of the kills we know he did Olivia's , Rebecca's , Robbie and Kirby and let's face it those were some of the most brutal/savage kills in the series. and my god when he reveals himself as one of the killers by stabbing Kirby like that man that is cold and is one of those wow moments in the franchise for me but still in the end though he did some of the best slashing and made a good killer he still fell short by not seeing Jill's agenda and trusting her too much to his own demise.

#1 Billy Loomis

Billy is the defenitive killer he was dominate, vicious and just the way he carried things out I mean he got dney to give up her virginity to him even though he killed her Mom and

then after getting her in the sack tried to kill her. Billy is the one that I think probably haunts d the most. He ranks #1 in my book just beacause of the fact that he tricked dney so well (and me for that matter) and he just set the bar in my opinion his influence reverberated through the susequent sprees and like I said for my money I bet the one that still gets d the most deep down is Billy.

my thoughts on Emma Roberts as Jill when i watched was--- WAY too plain jane, who almost fades out of the picture until the big reveal because of how uninteresting she is and how much character she didnt have.

when u go back and u watch, u see this. this forced acting that u dont quite believe and her lack of character are there as a huge hint that this girl isnt doing a hell of a lot and is acting kinda shallow how can she be our heroine, our new sydney. thats because shes not and Emma Roberts breaks out of that shell nicely at the end. revealing her true self which is not that drastically different from her fake self at this point

. it wasnt over the top it was just enough so it was believable. and she manages to own the confidence of a bitch whose in complete control and has a gun. and i have to say i loved every second of it, even down to it becoming ridiculous. her reasons are believable and direct commentary to the youth today.

[/quote)Thanks for posting this, Lostlife. Your reaction to Jill and her big reveal at the end was more or less in line with my own. Jill hammed it up a lot less than any of the other killers thus far after revealing herself. Instead of spitting, drooling and constantly grimacing, she opted instead for a steady, cold glare. And you're right, she acted much the same as she did before revealing herself, which to me indicates that she can act completely normal after killing a bunch of people because of the mple fact that she feels absolutely no guilt about it.All this talk about the phycal stature of the killers from other posters is somewhat bede the point. The main requirement for a Scream killer has always been their ability to manipulate and predict the actions of others while obscuring their own identity until the right moment, and Jill seemed to master that better than the others. You are also right that the commentary on our society offered by her character is more biting than anything offered by the unmasking of previous Ghostfaces. These are the reasons I listed her first, and I stand by that ranking.

I'm going to just pretend that's not your argument lol

BTW - d, fairly tall for a woman - 5'7"

killers:

Billy - 5'10.5" Stu - 6'3" Mickey - 6' Debbie - 5'6.5" Roland - 6'1"

Take Debbie out of the equation (who's still virtually the same ze as Neve) and every villain is noticeably larger - save for the last 2 little ones in part 4.

BTW, how the hell can anyone dig Jill or Charlie as killers (acting issues ade), when Hayden's character would have been able to beat the piss out of those snot rags - probably even armed with a knife, and even if they were supervillains because they're "crazy"?

there's a reason villains tend to be large, menacing figures: it's more frightening.

In the end, every fuckin killer's story was nothing more than an extenon of Billy's initial motive - which should in all honesty put him at the top of the list by mple default.Matt, I'm assuming you were addresng me with this post, though I sort of wish you had included a quote from my post so I knew for sure, and also so I knew exactly which parts of my argument you are taking issue with. You address some of what I said but not other points. Still, I love talking about these movies, so I will address your points (and forgive me if I am misunderstanding anything you said) to the best of my ability.

The fact that most of the Ghostfaces have been taller in the past is not sufficient reason to require that all Ghostfaces in the future be tall as well. In fact, it is good reason to do something different. Also, though Billy and Stu may have been pretty tall dudes, they were also both quite scrawny. Being tall does not necessarily make someone impong in and of itself. Though shorter, Rory Culkin's body is broader than either Billy's or Stu's. I find him more phycally impong, yet that was not reason enough to put him anywhere near the top of my list. For her part, Jill is a lot scarier than Stu, because he mply does not seem to have much backbone or initiative of his own, nor does he come across as being particularly strong phycally. I actually think Billy and Jill are equally scary (after Jill, Billy is the character who stayed the most in control after revealing himself as Ghostface, and he also did not ham things up as much as some of the other killers). Jill barely edged Billy out for the number 1 slot in my book mply

by virtue of the fact that I conder her motive to be more fully developed and timely than Billy's was. I still think the first Scream is the best movie of the bunch so far, I mply don't think it quite had the best killer.Also, you claim Kirby could have beaten up both Jill and Charlie, yet Hayden Pantierre is shorter than either Emma Roberts or Rory Culkin. You are bacally admitting that it's not all about phycal stature. And it's good that it's not, because Ghostfaces don't target just one victim, they go after multiple people, all of whom have different heights. It's mply imposble to match the height of Ghostface to Ghostface's victims every time out - some of them are bound to be taller, some shorter, some about the same. Unless you are advocating casting every other character first and then casting the killers on the bas of them being the average median height of the rest of the cast, rather than on acting ability or them otherwise being right for the part, I don't see how you expect height to be a crucial sticking point for the casting directors of these movies. Furthermore, knocking off points from Emma Roberts' performance because she is not all that tall (which she can't help) is both unfair and narrow minded. Becoming a murderer is not like hopping on a roller coaster. There's no gn that says "You must be THIS tall to participate". Psychos come in all different shapes and zes. I also stand by the point I made earlier, which is that if you know going in that the killer MUST be at least a certain height, then every character who is not played by a tall actor is immediately cleared of all suspicion and the "who-done-it" element of these movies is

severely weakened.Also, I didn't say any Ghostface has ever been a supervillain. These killers have all had very human foibles ranging from clumness to being manipulated by their partners to having motives that make them want to get caught. Supervillains are typically rather tall in stature themselves, so really, you are the one claiming that these characters should at least look the part of supervillains. I don't think they should look like giants among men once they are revealed as the killers, because that's not what they are. As dney herself said in Scream 3 "He wasn't superhuman at all". As for them being crazy or not...they dress up in costumes and commit murder, I'd say they're crazy, and there was really no need for you to put the word crazy in quotation marks. They are literally insane, and insane people are known to have high levels of adrenaline, which makes people stronger. I'm not saying superhumanly strong, I'm just saying they are at the peak of their own personal strength.Finally, you are technically incorrect about your last point. It turns out that there would have been no initial Ghostface killing spree to begin with were it not for the actions of Roman Bridger, as revealed in Scream 3. If "mple default" was reason enough to guarantee someone the top slot, that top slot would, by necesty, have to go to Roman, not Billy.You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions and your own rankings, and this is all very fascinating to go around and around about, but I very much take exception to your apparent innuation that my arguments for my choices don't make sense, or are somehow ridiculous. Just because you disagree with my rankings doesn't mean they're not based on sound reasoning.

I'm going to just pretend that's not your argument lol killers:

Billy - 5'10.5" Stu - 6'3" Mickey - 6' Debbie - 5'6.5" Roland - 6'1"Who the fuck is Roland?!

Hmm I am a mega scream fan nce back in the day and I always find it interesting how vast a range of opinions there are about questions such as this

I think everyone is going to have their own take and you'd be hard pressed to come up with a list /ranking that a majority would come close to agreeing on. The vast range of opinions about these movies is one of my favorite things about Scream as well, and also one of the most liberating things when writing about it. No matter what you say, you know a lot of people are going to disagree, so you might as well just be completely honest about your opinions.I liked your reasons for the choices on your list, BTW, even if they're not exactly reflective of my own.

I'm going to just pretend that's not your argument lol

BTW - d, fairly tall for a woman - 5'7"Neve Campbell is just a little over 5'5.