Shouldn't there be a regulation in Woodsboro against Sydney Prescott returning to town around or on the anniversary of the original 1996 massacre? Oh, and most people don't buzz in before before the entire question is read off on Family Feud, let alone when a psychotic killer is quizzing you over the phone. This is a slightly more stylish and entertaining trailer than the generic teaser that was released late last year. There is a token amount of witty dialogue, everyone looks awfully pretty, and the film seems to be advertising a healthy body count. But, in the end, this doesn't look any less like the desperate cash-in that it probably is. And BOO on the seemingly major spoiler at 1:15, although said performer was obviously far too busy with a lead role on the best comedy on TV and a supporting role on the best drama on TV to join the Scream franchise on a regular basis.
And the arbitrary new rules seem just that: arbitrary. Why must the killer record his murders this time around? Can you think of more than one or two horror movies offhand in the last ten years that involved the villain recording his killings (I can't think of any)? Referencing the Internet doesn't make your movie 'hip' or 'fresh'. And 'expect the unexpected' is not the new cliche, it's merely the mark of any decent horror picture. And as far as 'guaranteed third-act death of a major cast member', that sure was exciting... when the fan-favorite character played by Jamie Kennedy was killed off halfway through Scream 2. Someone is indeed re-writing the rules, but it seems that they're making it up as they go along. As always, we'll see, but this feels far more like the overtly campy and 'in-jokey' Scream 3 than the genuinely scary and compelling Scream 2.