GRR99 explains why Sidney doesn't need to die in Scream 3.
Here's my Sound off. I would like to address the prevalent desire from certain rumorists or rumorist-wanna-bes to have Sidney killed in Scream 3. People keep mentioning it as if it were a nice move. Well, ITS NOT. Drew was one thing, Sidney is another. Killing Sidney is like stabbing the audience in the back. Her death would bring the whole film down, making it seem like one big Studio gimmick. If you kill the heroine , the story and the audience go down the drain.
It worked with Drew because they were using her STARPOWER (not her CHARACTER) to do something a-la Janet Leigh in Psycho, playing with audience expectations before the film comes out. Now, Scream 3 is furthering characters and plot established in previous films...You see, killing Sidney would be killing Sidney, not Neve...You're killing a character people love and identify with, not a well-established actress who is being marketted as the lead in order to have a twist with her death.
Killing Sid is no twist, it is like killing Scream altogether. It makes no sense. Most of us want to see Scream in order to see what Sid is doing now and how HER CHARACTER will be affected with this new wave of murders, not to see her die in the first 10 minutes (they did that in Friday the 13th part 2, IT DID NOT WORK, believe me).
Another point is that given Neve's statements about not wanting to do it, adding to that Wes' remarks about the END of Scream--people think that the only way to end it is to kill everyone off. Come on, they are far more creative than that. Killling Sidney is expected BECAUSE it is the last scream...Not killing Sidney and still being able to make a sequel that ends the series, now That takes talent, that's a twist!!
If you read the interview in the Definitive Scream site (which nobody here seems to have checked out), regardless of its validity-it shows that there are clever ways to play with Sidney's fate without killing her.
