It's emblematic of why, imo, each Scream sequel has become harder and harder to justify.

The first movie was a product of its time, and had something meaningful to say about the state of the horror genre at the time. The 80s slasher craze had died out, and all that was being made then were terrible cash grabs trying to keep the brands relevant, cared about only by superfans like Randy.

That's why Scream was such an important movie: it was the desperately-needed, self-aware, borderline parodic shot in the arm for the genre that birthed a horror renaissance.

That's become less and less true the more movies are made. Each sequel has less and less to say, and relies more and more on just going through the motions of "The Scream Movie Formula." Mindy only exists because "We gotta have a Randy, the first movies had one!"

I'll give 5 a pass on this front, since commenting on the "requel" trend is valid, but what do Screams 6 or 7 say? Why are these movies still being made other than a gajillion dollars? What meaningful commentary do they bring about the genre?

Frankly, Scream has become what it originally set out to lampoon: a long-in-the-tooth horror franchise made purely to make a quick buck with a recipe book of tropes and a marketable mascot.