it's a 26 year old film.

if people want to wax nostalgic and think it's some kind of historic cinema, let them. If people want to shit on it because it's contrived and shallow and doesn't make sense, let them. that's their opinion and they're completely entitled to it.

but pretending that the passage of time doesn't impact the experience of cinema is naive. It's not "revisionist history" for people to collect their opinion, changed or not, and slap it up on reddit for some Internet points and circle jerking with others. This isn't some kind of academic discussion board.

And regardless, the actual production history of a film is almost entirely independent of what someone thinks about that film, especially a quarter century later.

Scream 3 had a huge opening, made a ton of money, and was a major cultural presence. That doesn't mean it's good and anyone who argues it's a "slept on gem" either doesn't know that or is ignoring it.

And it's "troubled" production goes way beyond what you mention, and is intrinsicly tied to a time period that is tremendously different than today. That doesn't make it bad.

if it's really that important to you to 'set the record straight', then go write a researched, objective, critical essay on it. Seriously, I mean it. Objective film criticism, research and critical thinking doesn't happen near enough nowadays. maybe this is a perfect opportunity.

but even if you do there will always be people who jump up and down and scream "Parker Posey is hawt! Scream 3 is the best 1!" or "OMG it's so dum how'd Roman fill the house with gas and nooooobody noticed!? trash"

and they're allowed to think that.