Should Stu Return in Scream 7

TL;DR: Bringing Stu Macher back in Scream 7 would be a fundamental betrayal of what the franchise is and has always stood for.  & here's why I think this: Stu is not ambiguously dead. Scream (1996) goes out of its way to make his death definitive:

·      He’s stabbed multiple times to the point he’s profusely bleeding – to which he explicitly states that he thinks he’s dying,

·      He then continues to fight Sidney — which would tear said wounds open even more.

·      He’s subsequently crushed by a roughly 34-inch CRT television, likely weighing around 70 kg, & then …

·      He’s electrocuted by it, drawing from a 120-volt circuit., which enough for a good shock.

·      & after all of that, he’s left to bleed out until Sunrise.

Whenever Scream has allowed a character to survive a brutal finale, the film makes a point of showing it — victims are wheeled out, acknowledged, or otherwise confirmed alive. There was ample time to do that here, and it didn’t happen. The sole exception is Dewey in the first film, whose survival is immediately addressed, & then the same in the second.

Undoing Stu’s death doesn’t “recontextualise” anything; it tells the audience that nearly 30 years of story no longer matters. If Stu survived, Scream (1996) loses its weight, Sidney didn’t actually finish the job, & the franchise’s core rule — that deaths have consequences — collapses at its foundation. (Quinn doesn’t invalidate this point; Scream 6 didn’t think its twist through, & Roman’s staged death in Scream 3 is easily explained within that film.)

Beyond continuity, Stu as a returning character simply doesn’t work in 2026— because of his age. 1996s Stu only worked because he died young. His manic chaos was frightening at eighteen because it was impulsive, unfiltered, juvenile, & incomplete. Age that character into his late forties, & that same energy stops being threatening & starts being sad, pathetic, &/or unintentionally funny. At least characters like Debbie Salt & Detective Bailey had clear, grounded motives: revenge for their murdered children. A middle-aged Stu still raging about “not finishing the job” 30 years later is not menacing — it’s embarrassing, & it’s a resurrection that might have worked in 2000 but completely fails in 26 years after that.

Attempting to recreate the same persona today would feel like parody, not menace, & it would retroactively damage the original dynamic with Billy Loomis, reframing Billy as someone who was secretly outplayed by his own sidekick decades later.

The greatest disrespect, however, would be to Dewey. 

Dewey stayed in Woodsboro — first as a deputy, then Chief, then a local fixture. If Stu were alive, Dewey would have known, & the idea that he would never tell Sid (or Gail, by proxy) completely dismantles his character. Dewey has consistently gone out of his way to protect Sidney.

In each consecutive Scream film, Dewey is:

1.    He’s at Stu’s House Party – “Guaranteed Third Act Main Cast Blood Bath” – Charlis Walker,

2.    He shows up at Windsor College, & hangs around to protect her & Randy,

3.    He keeps her up-to-date, but also hidden from those trying to find her (he literally removed her file from the Woodsboro Police Station),

4.   He investigates, Police’s, & confronts the Killers when Sid returns to town – then runs to her hospital room when he realises who the actual Killer is, & finally, in…

5.   It’s Dewey who warns her away from Woodsboro when new murders begin (& Sid only returns AFTER he’s killed).

Now, if Dewey knew Stu was alive & he said nothing, rewatching the previous films with that knowledge would turn his entire arc into a lie, & it’s a massive character assassination. Plain & simple.

& then there’s Kirby Reed — now an FBI Special Agent with a stated professional & personal interest in Ghostface Crimes. Between Kirby & Gale, the idea that a living Ghostface Killer from the original murders could exist without their knowledge is laughable. There’s an explicit police-station scene reviewing past Ghostface Killers. Kirby even discusses the television with Mindy — a clear meta nod to the “Stu’s Alive” theory — & nothing more. It’s a joke, not evidence.

& then finally, there’s Sid herself. If Sidney knew Stu was alive, that would be the ultimate betrayal of the audience. You cannot retroactively reveal that the protagonist has known for decades that one of her attempted murderers survived & expect that not to destroy the franchise’s foundation. That would mean the audience has been lied to for 30 years. Only those with the lowest level of media comprehension skills would celebrate that kind of twist. Because this isn’t a resurrection story — this is thee Scream franchise.

The only past Ghostface death that could plausibly work, & be revisited/revived, without breaking the series is Angelina Tyler — & that’s a IYKYK for the real fans as to why,

Now, we need to address the toxicity around this theory & how it’s a real problem. Debate is fine; opinions are fine. But restating the same unsupported claims over & over without backing it up, &/or saying, we’ll see in Scream 7, after saying that in Scream (2022) & Scream VI when nothing happened, isn’t evidence. “Some people survive head trauma” ignores that those people weren’t also stabbed repeatedly, bleeding profusely, & then electrocuted under a heavy objecy.

Comparing Stu to Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers is absurd — one is a human slasher grounded in reality, the others are effectively Supernatural. Introducing that element into Scream in its Seventh instalment & it ceases to be Scream.

The “he wasn’t shot in the head” argument is equally ridiculous. What is he — a zombie? By that logic, Sidney could decapitate him on screen and people would still argue it wasn’t really Stu. Also, Jill wasn’t shot in the head either & neither was Charlie so…

But hearing his voice doesn’t prove he’s alive either. Roman was mimicking voices in Scream 3 before AI was even a concept, and modern AI and deepfakes make that tactic more believable, not less. Ghostface has never had a moral line — murder is fine, but voice replication is suddenly off-limits?

The contradictions pile up. AI is acceptable for Dewey, but not Stu. A television can kill Ethan in Scream 6, but not Stu in Scream (1996). Old scripts, blink-&-you-miss-it cameos, Stab-movie audio, what-should’ve/would’ve/could’ve been Scream 3, & Easter eggs are not proof enough, or good reasons, that he should return. Scream 6 making a meta joke about the theory backfired because some fans took it literally. Really?

Every proposed explanation for Stu’s survival collapses under scrutiny. He didn’t fake his death — no one willingly takes a television to the head while being electrocuted as part of a long con. No one secretly swapped bodies without Sidney, Dewey, Gale, the Woodsboro Police Department, Paramedics, or Forensics noticing (again, Scream 6 wasn’t written well enough to understand this!) & Sidney & Dewey didn’t cover it up — Stu tried to kill her, & HE murdered Dewey’s sister, his girlfriend. His parents didn’t pull strings to hide a criminal mastermind who couldn’t even keep his composure during the finale. A 30-year coma wouldn’t produce a criminal mastermind — it would produce someone relearning how to walk, likely with severe cognitive damage.

If Stu were alive, someone would have said so. Sidney never once suggests it, even when facing copycat killers in Scream 2, 3, 4, & 5. The films consistently tell us the same thing: Stu is dead, & everyone knows it.

If he doesn’t appear in this film, the goalposts will just move — suddenly it’ll be Scream 8. If it turns out to be AI or deepfakes, the claim will shift again. At some point, the theory stops being analysis & becomes denial.

I’ll watch the film when it comes out in late Feb, but if Stu is alive, it’s pure fan catering — & it fundamentally breaks the story, to the point, Scream becomes the exact kind of hollow slasher franchise it was created to critique.

& I’m out.

Joel.