Ask JKM a Question #19: Scream: The TV Series?

My friend and fellow blogger, Terri Wilson, writes:

“What do you think about the possibility of bringing the "Scream" franchise to television?”

“While the trend continues to be the other way around, every once-in-a-while someone tries to bring the big screen down-to-size. Does it work? CAN it work? Can we really not have single stand-alone movies that don't spawn entire franchises?”

Those are some great questions, Terri.

I had not heard about the possibility of Scream moving to TV before your e-mail, but certainly there are historical precedents for such a matriculation, including M*A*S*H*, and more recently Teen Wolf.

I’ll say this: in both those circumstances the TV series based on films boasted genuine merit, artistically and entertainment-wise.  In fact, the MTV Teen Wolf is worlds better than the original Michael J. Fox movie.

For me, the primary hurdle involved in transforming Scream into a TV series involves the extraordinary nature of the villain.  I’m not certain it is possible to maintain Ghostface as a mystery figure and icon of terror week-in and week-out, for years. He might work as the villain for one season, perhaps, of thirteen episodes or thereabouts. 

But after that?  Would Scream without Ghostface really be Scream?

Certainly, the slasher format can work artistically -- and amusingly -- on television, as I believe Harper’s Island (2009) proved rather dramatically.  But if that (great) series had survived to a second season we would have seen -- like American Horror Story is now planning -- a new setting and new villain in the sophomore sortie.

Back in the early 2000s, before I made The House Between (2007 – 2009), I actually entertained the idea of creating something along the lines of Scream: The Series, a kind of slasher movie premise adapted to a weekly program. 

So how would it work?  How would you turn a serial killer into…a killer serial?

The answer, from my perspective, was to focus heavily on the Final Girl/Laurie Strode-type character, and make her the emotional crux of the series.  In the idea I conceived back then, the jeopardized lead character fled her job, family, and home town after being hunted by a seemingly-unstoppable serial killer in the first episode. 

Then, week-to-week -- not entirely un-Fugitive-like -- the desperate Final Girl investigated the mysteries of the serial killer’s nature/history/origin, and encountered other supernatural mysteries and entities. The idea was that she needed to know more about her enemy, so she could resume her normal life, and re-connect to her loved ones.  The actual “Boogeyman” serial killer would be reserved for only a handful of episodes  per season (sometimes featured in flashback and dream sequences...) so as to build-up terror and anticipation for strategic re-appearances.

That idea indicates one way to go, perhaps.  But I’m not convinced that Scream would really want to travel down that path because it changes the nature of the pre-existing franchise universe.  At heart, Scream is a commentary on horror movies, a post-modern, humorous one.  The approach I just outlined isn't in line without aesthetic.  

Another path involves the Gale Weathers character investigating many serial killers, across several episodes, a kind of Gale Weathers: The Night Stalker idea.  I can’t say that I find this idea particularly appealing, or interesting.

Lastly, it also seems unlikely that David Arquette, Courtney Cox and Neve Campbell would be willing to sign on for a TV version of Scream, which means re-casting all the central roles.  In theory, I don’t have a problem with that idea.  It was done successfully on M*A*S*H, Teen Wolf, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and others.

I can't gauge what Kevin Williamson’s level of interest in a Scream TV series is, but I would suggest that he might be the one to adapt the material to the small screen.  He invented those beloved franchise characters, and probably has a drawer full of ideas that didn’t make it into the feature films.  Thus, he’s a valuable resource to producers.  I hope they avail themselves.

In response to your final question, I believe it more and more unlikely that we will see many standalone movies.  We’re smack dab in the middle of a “brand name” era in Hollywood, and it’s easier to market names like Scream, Hannibal Lecter, and Dracula than all new Bogeymen. Name recognition could generate significant curiosity viewing in the case of all such programs, and more than that -- good ratings -- given the right media channel. 

In other words, we saw the re-imagination of Battlestar Galactica get broadcast for four years on the Sci-Fi Channel, even though it drew a substantially smaller audience than did the original series on ABC in the 1970s. Yet that tiny audience (comparatively) was enough for four seasons.   If Scream: The Series aired on MTV, AMC, or HBO, it would probably stand a pretty good chance of drawing equally strong numbers. If it airs on Fox, it will be gone in three weeks.

These days, it seems the only films that don’t spawn franchises are those that fail miserably at the box office.  And this is an unfortunate development, because I wouldn’t mind a John Carter movie or TV series…