What is up Scream team, Zack Cherry here, and in this video I wanted to give an updated ranking
of all of the Ghostface Killers now that Scream VI is out. And that's another thing, I'm
just counting the official Ghostfaces from the movies. So don't expect to see Jason or Greg, as I
don't really count them as full-fledged killers. I'm also not including any of the killers from
the television series, whether that's the Brandon James variety, or the actual Ghostface ones that
appeared in season three. And I'm not including Danny Johnson, because nobody knows who that is.
This should go without saying, but these are just my personal opinions. There's no need to fly off
the handle if you don't agree with me, however you are free and welcome to comment down below of what
your own personal ranking is. I'd much prefer that, I like to see a variety of different opinions. But
anyway getting right into it, in last place I have Wayne Bailey / Detective Bailey / or Wayne Kirsch, I
don't know what his name is, and really the reason why he's in last is probably mostly due to Dermot
Mulroney's performance. There is a certain level of camp to it, but the contrast between Wayne
as the character and Wayne as the killer is a bit rough. Most of the other killers have a consistent
personality link where you can see when the mask comes off that they're now just a more extreme
version of who they were before. With Dermot it's just like he's now playing a completely
new character. I think also just the fact that his existence and background presents so many plot
holes just in terms of how a police officer was able to change their last name and then be put on
a case involving Ghostface murders when his son was a Ghostface killer. And even when you look at
the motive itself, it's very derivative that it's already a parent coming back for revenge.
We saw that with Nancy, and while Nancy feels like a boss battle in a way of just like the next level
up in Loomises after Billy, the Kirsch family on the other hand, mainly represented by Wayne
here, feels like a downgrade. But anyway in 11th I'm going to say Ethan Landry / Ethan Bailey / Ethan Kirsch /
whatever. This is obviously something that could have been fleshed out more had there not been
three killers, or if Scream VI was able to manage its characters better, but we do get a breadcrumb
of who Ethan is, and that is the son who is not the favorite. With the motivation that he's doing this
more so for the fact that he's trying to gain his father's acceptance, and that's interesting. That's
a trait that makes Ethan innately human and flawed. But again with the same situation with his father,
there's three of them, and they're all eating up each other's screen time, so you lose a lot
of that uniqueness, or just the sense of singular identity from some of them. Mostly I think Ethan
is a victim of terrible writing; the whole bit on the subway car was improbable storytelling just
for the sake of trying to set up the surprise of his unmasking. But it leaves so many more questions
than satisfaction. For instance, why did he not just finish Mindy off? And what exactly went down
after we cut to the next scene where Mindy somehow figured out that he and his father were the
killers. Anyway moving on in 10th place I am going to say amber Freeman. On the positive side I like
the energy and the spunk that Mikey Madison brings to the role. I think that she has a really good
death scene as well. But the problem with Amber is that she's a killer for the sake of being a killer.
She's the least complex of any of them because there literally is no motivation for her to be
doing anything that she's doing. If she is a huge fan of Stab like Richie is, there's no evidence
of that at any point; her fandom does not shine through the same way as Richie's does. Instead they
spent all of her previous screen time establishing this contentious relationship with Sam which is
never brought up in the climax, and has nothing to do with anything, which makes her less interesting
and accessible as a character. Like I just wanted so much more from her, because at least all of the
other killers display some sort of redeeming human quality that has been corrupted, Amber is just a
really awful and misanthropic person. And I mean all of these people are terrible because of
who they are, but I just dislike her a little bit more. She's also not very efficient as a killer. Out
of the two of them, Richie had a much better track record, while a lot of Amber's attacks or attempted
kills resulted in minor injuries. And I am sorry to say, but killing one of the most beloved characters
in the franchise is not something I personally think deserves merit. It's different when it comes
to Nancy killing Randy, since that was personal to her and driven emotionally by revenge, but with
Amber it's just another case of needlessly being an a-hole. In 9th place I'm going to say Charlie
Walker; finally getting his day of reckoning here. Perhaps it took many years and several
more subpar candidates to finally move Charlie out of the bottom spot, but he really is a very deeply
disturbed individual, and that of course makes him inherently more interesting than the previous
three in ranks. But say what you will about him being the lesser of the two killers in his movie,
I see him, I know who he is, and I understand why he's doing what he's doing, and sometimes that's
good enough as a background to create a killer's story. It is also evidenced throughout the film
(you can disagree with me if you want) that Charlie is actually the one doing all of the killing, while
Jill is keeping the blood off of her hands. In that regard he's also very crafty for setting up
certain misdirects, such as the dummy Ghostface hanging on the back porch which is put there to
lure Sidney and Kate to the front door instead. He also has an almost perfect track record just
in terms of the kills. It could be argued that he allowed for Kirby to survive because he
didn't actually want to kill her in that moment, and that's why he left her for dead instead. But
again that presents an interesting and flawed killer, and also a flaw in Jill's plan, and I
think that these are all traits that I would much rather see in my Ghostface killer than for them to
just be a literal killbot. But on the negative side, he is kind of creepy on a very incel level, and
because of that he does have a very repellent personality that is devoid of any sort of charisma.
He's also more or less a glorified henchman to Jill, who is easily manipulated, probably more than
any of the other secondary Ghostface killers. Other than Ethan, he's shown to have probably the least
amount of agency as a killer, and he never gets to have his one last scare moment. He just dies and
becomes another victim. But in 8th place I have Quinn Bailey / Kirsch, and I do think that Quinn is
the most interesting of the Kirsch trio in Scream VI. I also find Liana Liberato's performance to be
the strongest out of all three of them. And also just the fact that she is sort of the closest
one to the Carpenter sisters, it just makes her betrayal sting a little bit more than it does
with Ethan or Bailey. I like that she's also given an identity outside of being Richie's sister, where
we see that she's this sex-positive woman, which I don't think is part of her cover story. I think
that's actually who she is. So she's just sort of infusing her real personality into her family's
diabolical scheme, which I think is hilarious. But it does beg the question as to why she would
sacrifice her unseen hookup, since there was no reason for him to even be there. I mean I wouldn't
put it past her because she does seem to be the most sadistic of that family, Richie included, but
that does open up a whole can of worms which just leads to more of the cons, which really don't have
anything to do with Quinn per se, but rather the writing. Because ultimately, Quinn suffers from
some of the flagrant mishandling and plot holes of the script, the unexplained contrivance of (really)
both the Kirsch siblings ending up as roommates of the core group, Quinn ham-fistedly expositing
the link to Richie in one of her first scenes in the movie, how she really only has one successful
kill, and then just the unceremonious way in which she's fake killed. She's also killed off for
good way too quickly. I would have much rather seen a more physical and drawn out fight between her and Sam.
In 7th place is Richie Kirsch. Richie is the most pathetic killer, but Richie's existence
in the Scream franchise presents an introspective commentary that is unique, and truthful, and
ugly, and therefore it makes this character so much more dense with thematic richness. I also really
enjoy Jack Quaid playing The duality and duplicity of this character, he brings a very nebbish quality
to the role which makes Richie seem even more out of his element than any of the other killers. And
he's just fun, and funny to watch, especially when he fails. But on the negative side that does kind
of present a double-edged sword, because while I do find his motive to be very human and relatable, the
back to the original approach he takes is very derivative. This can also fall under additional
cons for Amber, but his scheme is full of holes. Despite them claiming to have baited the legacy
characters into their respective traps, there's no evidence given that shows they had anything to do
with that. If anything, Sam had more character agency in causing the events to happen the
way they did, so I take umbrage with both Richie and Amber taking credit for that. And then finally
Richie is just not as active a participants as he should be. That's not to say that Amber did all
the work, because I believe that's already been disproven, despite Sam using it as a tactic to goad
Wayne in the climax of Scream VI, but there are many instances throughout the movie where it's
established that one killer is on site doing most of the work. And even if they are taking
turns, they would have been smarter if they had worked together more. But in 6th place is going
to be Roman Bridger, who technically does have the highest kill count, undisputed, since he did it all
by himself. I also do believe that he is the most formidable foe for Sidney in terms of a physical
threat to her. That fight between the two of them at the end of Scream 3; I never felt more scared
for Sidney. I also appreciate his sense of mystery leaving all these clues the way that he does with
the photographs, because he really is playing this cat and mouse game with the characters. He's also
the least monologue-y. Like he obviously says what he needs to say to Sidney, just to fill in all
the blanks, but he doesn't waste a lot of time chatting about it like the other killers do. He
just gets right down to business, and doesn't let Sidney distract him with any fancy talk or
anything. But on the negative side he does have some of the weakest kills of the franchise,
which is no fault of his own, because that is 100% due to the censorship. But as a character
throughout the movie, there really is no setup to him turning out to be the killer. Sidney's long lost
sibling could have almost been any other character in the movie, so other than him announcing that he
was going to be turning 30, we can't really look back on his role in Scream 3 retrospectively to
point out any clever bits of writing where the seeds were planted for his reveal to pay off. So
in that way he's mostly kind of incidental as the killer, and it doesn't help at all that by the end
of the movie him and Sidney have shared absolutely no screen time prior to his unmasking. And finally,
this is more of a conceit of the writing and not really something that can be squarely blamed on
Roman, but the device that has everyone's voice including Maureen Prescott's, and the fact that
there's this glaring plot hole of how he did end up getting Sidney's phone number when he spent the
entire first act of the movie trying to find her. People can stretch whatever theory they want of
this, but at the end of the day we know that Ehren Kruger was rewriting pages of the script mere
hours before filming certain scenes, and this is something that unfortunately got thrown to the
wayside. In 5th place is Jill Roberts, and I love that this is kind of like a business transaction
for Jill, she's just scheming to have people murdered in order to set herself up financially.
It's pretty twisted. But I think that's also why I love it, and it makes one of the most inventive
motives. She's clearly committed to this too, with the levels to which she'll go in order to sell
this story by self-mutilating. She's also probably the smartest killer. Like I alluded to earlier, she
didn't actually have to kill any more people than she needed to, because she knew that her brain was
the most powerful weapon and got Charlie to do all the dirty work. And I think she's also the funniest
killer, probably unintentionally on her part, but I will continue to make the comparison that
Jill Roberts is the Eric Cartman of the Scream franchise, just being this master manipulator who
will probably fail upwards in spite of themselves. But on the negative side, I do have to say that
I think Jill is given way too much credit when people say that she was the only one that most
likely would have gotten away with everything. I think at this point we can see that in the fact
that she was not good at managing her own people, like the way that Charlie was ultimately not able
to kill Kirby. It was also kind of sloppy of her to try and kill Sidney herself, rather than allow
Charlie to do it. And we also know that she's way too egotistical and had to monologue to Sidney, but
even then I think we can see from the hospital scene later on that Jill is someone who would
eventually slip up because she would never be able to keep her story straight. So there was actually
a lot of cards stacked against her, that I don't think that any way that that final scene played
out in Scream 4, she was going to get away with it. Jill also doesn't really happen for me until the
veil is lifted, and we find out she's the killer. When she's just supposed to be this mild-mannered
cousin of Sidney throughout the first two thirds of the movie, she's kind of bland and doesn't
really offer much interesting characterization. Of course that is by design, but it makes a lot of
the earlier interactions with her and the other characters feel a little too routine. In 4th
place is Stu Macher, and all of Stu's personality as we know him really comes from Matthew Lillard's
performance. It's been well established by now that Stu on the written page was kind
of a non-character, or at least just a lackey to Billy, so it's really quite a marvel that Matthew
transformed the character into such a powerhouse of energy and complex emotions, that kind of makes
him the most interesting from the standpoint of an actor's performance. And in spite of the fact
that Stu was just the second in command, he shows a lot more intelligence and agency than I think he's
given credit for. He's by no means the criminal mastermind to the level of which the fandom has
head-cannoned his survival and impending return as a cult leader, but I think there's enough nuggets
hidden throughout the movie to suggest that he has the self-awareness to know what his role is
in the plot, what strengths he brings to the table, and really without his participation Billy would
probably not have been able to get as much done as he would have otherwise, since Stu is kind of using
his social prowess to set up all the players so that Billy can knock them down later on. In terms
of the negative, and I don't really have any to speak of, except maybe that similar to Richie he
was in way over his head. He also wasn't much of a match for Sidney by the end of the movie there. But
otherwise he's just never really been a top three contender for me, and I think that the only reason
for that is because there's just not enough to mine from Kevin Williamson's script. But in 3rd
place is going to be Nancy Loomis AKA Mrs. Loomis AKA Debbie Salt. First of all she is fabulous, and
looks great being evil in that cream-colored power suit. Laurie Metcalf's performance as a scorned and
vengeful mother is one of the best in the entire Scream franchise. I love the hidden-in-plain-sight
aspect of her character, because I never suspected her. I just thought she was this random, pesky
reporter, so if you had seen Scream 2 originally and figured it out, congratulations. I did not
know. I also do believe that of all the killers, she probably would have had the best chance of getting
away with it, but that would have required her to (like most of the other killers) not monologue
more than she had to. Because if she was more laser focused on the plan, she would have made sure that
Sidney and Gale were taken care of first, and then killed Mickey second. But in 2nd place is going
to be Billy Loomis. And I said this the last time I ranked all the Ghostfaces after Scream 5 came out,
and I still stand by it, that there have only been two killers who have really had a profound effect
on their intended target. Whether that be Sidney or Sam (Sidney in both of these cases), and that's
because these killers were the only ones who could get under her skin, which as we saw moving forward
had severe repercussions in her life, and really how she became withdrawn and struggled with her
trust issues. Most of the other killers are usually tossed off as a joke by the end of
their respective movies, but there's a reason Billy Loomis has remained the most noteworthy killer in
the Scream gallery of rogues, and that's mostly because he was able to manipulate Sidney on an
emotional level. And he did a really good job of gaslighting her throughout the entire first movie.
His only downfall, really, was his ego. And whether he underestimated Sidney or overestimated himself,
there was a blatant level of hubris on his part to showboat in front of her with how he and Stu
started to stab each other. Again this comes back to the monologuing; just kill your target and take
care of the minor details afterwards. Who knows? He and Stu might have gotten away with it, but
I think that they probably would have eventually got caught since this was now their second wave of
murders, and they were already anticipating a third one. Otherwise, Billy is top notch. But in number one...
It's still always going to be Mickey Altieri. Like in the way that Billy manipulated Sidney
emotionally, Mickey manipulated her psychologically, which I think is a lot more dangerous. There's
certainly a lot more intent behind what he's doing, where with Billy it seemed kind of accidental at
times. What I think makes Mickey the most dangerous of all the killers, however, is just how detached he
is from everything. He's essentially a killer for hire, and has no problem whatsoever being
friends with these people and then killing them, as I believe he genuinely does like these people.
There's no personal malice behind any of what he's doing, it's just naturally who he is. That also
brings up the suggestion that he has been doing this long before the events of Scream 2, as Mrs.
Loomis does intimate that he was a serial killer on his way up. All of his kills are pretty top
notch as well, with a good balance of brutality and creativity, and a respectable number of casualties.
I don't really consider his lack of screen time a detriment, like a lot of other people do, because
Mickey is still doing exactly what he needs to be doing, even if it makes him more obvious as a
suspect. It's still nice to go back and watch him plant those seeds early on, which as I mentioned
was something that was missing from Roman's pre-reveal edit. My only problem is how easily
he was duped by Mrs. Loomis, considering Mickey is probably one of the most intelligent of the
killers. Obviously that was more so for theatrical purposes, and it did lead to one of the most badass
one-last-scare moments, but it does unfortunately undermine his intelligence just a little bit.
Anyway, that's my ranking. If you want to see even more Scream related content, you can check out
one of these playlists right over here. Until next time, I've been Zack Cherry, and I'll be right back.