• What keeps fans returning to horror movie franchises? 

February saw the launch of ‘Scream 7,’ the latest instalment in the ‘Scream’ horror movie franchise. 

The ‘Scream’ franchise began in 1996 with Wes Craven’s original film, which redefined modern horror by blending slasher tropes with sharp self-awareness. Set around a masked killer known as Ghostface, the films follow a series of murders that often target teenagers and young adults, with each instalment built around a central mystery of who is behind the mask.

At its core is Sidney Prescott, a recurring protagonist who becomes the emotional anchor of the series as she repeatedly confronts new killers linked, directly or indirectly, to past events. What sets ‘Scream’ apart is its ‘whodunnit’ structure and its meta commentary; characters openly discuss horror film rules even as they are caught inside one.

Over the years, the franchise has expanded through sequels and soft reboots, introducing new characters while maintaining connections to the original storyline, allowing it to evolve without fully abandoning its roots.

The newest ‘Scream’ chapter

‘Scream’ has always thrived on its self-awareness. From the beginning, it positioned itself as a horror film that understood horror films, playing with tropes while still delivering on them. The phone rings. The voice returns. The rules, once again, are laid out for a new set of characters who think they understand how this works. By now, the audience does too. 

With ‘Scream 7’, that formula remains intact. The production value is strong. The pacing is steady. The violence is present but restrained, with only a handful of deaths that push into more graphic territory. It knows exactly what kind of film it is trying to be.

That is both the franchise’s strength and the problem. The plot unfolds in a way that is almost entirely predictable, following the same structure that has defined the franchise for decades. By the time the final reveal arrives, especially in this newest instalment – the logic behind the killers feels thin, their motivations lacking the weight needed to justify the chaos they have created. It lands, yes, and there is an ‘explanation’ as to why they went on their killing spree, but somehow it lacks impact.

And yet, there is potential in the way the film looks forward. This instalment shifts its focus towards a new generation, centring on the daughter of Prescott. It is a clear attempt to pass the torch, much like the previous films did with the descendants of Billy Loomis (one of the killers from the very first ‘Scream’ film). 

There is an idea here that could work. If future instalments choose to build on this, placing these two legacies of villain and victim in opposition or alignment, the series might find a new kind of tension to explore.

For now, though, ‘Scream 7’ sits in a familiar space. It is entertaining while it lasts, but difficult to hold onto once it ends. These are not films designed for awards or critical reinvention. They are built for the experience of watching, for the rhythm of suspense and release. The problem is that after so many instalments, those rhythms begin to blur together.

That sense of repetition is something even fans recognise. 

Shamindri De Sayrah, reflecting on the new film, admitted she was not particularly invested in its release. “The movie was not necessary and very predictable with the same plot that has carried on throughout previous films,” she said. Her view touches on a broader fatigue that often surrounds long-running horror franchises.

The horror franchise springs eternal

At the same time, Shamindri acknowledged why they persist. “Most horror franchises, such as ‘Scream,’ ‘The Conjuring,’ and ‘Alien’, have been stretched out unnecessarily to make money,” she said. “That’s not to say some films aren’t entertaining, but some fans tend to lose interest when franchises continue with the same formula and tropes throughout the series.”

It is a tension that defines the genre. Familiarity brings audiences back. It also pushes them away. There is a commercial logic at play. 

Ben Jonathan pointed to the safety of established properties. “Film studios keep building on established franchises as they are known entities and so offer a safer return on investment,” he said, adding that this stood in contrast to what horror audiences often sought.

“The typical horror movie buff wants to leave safety behind for the thrill of the unknown.”

This contradiction sits at the heart of ‘Scream 7’. The film offers exactly what is expected. That is both its appeal and its limitation.

For some viewers, the line is drawn early. Amit Perumal admitted he had not followed the series beyond its earlier entries. “I haven’t seen a ‘Scream’ movie since ‘Scream 3,’” he said. 

His perspective on franchises is measured. “Sequels, yes, if done with proper continuity and plot. Reboots, no.” He added that he preferred contained storytelling. “I miss the days when a movie had a conclusive ending. At most, one sequel. Or a trilogy if there is a substantial enough plot.”

Others remain invested, but with conditions. Umair Ghouse has followed the ‘Scream’ franchise from the beginning, drawn to its distinctive tone. “I have been a fan of the franchise ever since the beginning because of its whodunnit style mystery, meta commentary, and the level of self-awareness the movies have always had,” he said. 

For him, the appeal lies in how the films engage with their own genre while still delivering a sense of fun.

When should a franchise end?

At the same time, he recognises the risk of overextension. “Franchises can be kept alive as long as the movies turn out to be interesting. There should not be an overkill,” he said. 

He pointed out that many modern sequels and reboots were driven by financial motives, but added that audiences would still show up if the films evolved. “As long as they turn out to be refreshing and adapt to the times, fans and general audiences who love to have a good time at the movies will turn up.”

That balance between evolution and repetition is difficult to maintain. Horror, perhaps more than any other genre, depends on surprise. Once the rules are known, the challenge becomes finding new ways to break them.

And yet, some franchises manage to endure by leaning into their core strengths. Shamindri pointed to ‘Final Destination’ as an example. Despite running longer than expected, she felt it continued to engage audiences. 

“It finds a way to stay interesting and stay relevant. It keeps things exciting,” she said, adding with a hint of humour that it also reshaped everyday fears. “It found a way to make sure a whole generation of people avoided trucks filled with logs.”

Others looked to consistency rather than reinvention. Vasanth Kahandawela highlighted the ‘Hannibal Lecter’ franchise as a benchmark. “‘The Silence of the Lambs’ was not about aliens, demons, or monsters. The movie was about a normal man, with the mindset of a demon or monster,” he said. 

What stood out for him was the character’s psychological depth and the way the franchise maintained a coherent identity across different iterations. “The franchise was brilliant for keeping the characteristics of Hannibal Lecter uniform, even played by three different actors.”

There is a lesson in that; audiences do not necessarily reject repetition, they reject inconsistency. A familiar structure can still feel fresh if the emotional or psychological stakes evolve.

‘Scream 7’ attempts to do this through its generational shift, but only partially succeeds. The groundwork is there. The execution, for now, feels safe. 

That safety is perhaps the defining feature of modern horror franchises. They are designed to deliver a known experience, one that balances tension with familiarity. For many viewers, that is enough. It is why people return, even when they know what is coming.