‘Scream 2’ Actor Pushes Back After Backlash Over 1997 Residuals Comment

An actor associated with the Scream franchise drew fresh online scrutiny after discussing low residuals tied to a 1997 film, prompting some commenters to mock the remark and criticize his public stance. The dispute unfolded in a comment thread online and centered on how much the actor said he receives from residual payments for the earlier movie, according to Page Six’s report published June 17, 2026.

Page Six said the actor was “mocked for ‘bitching’ about his low residuals” and that the controversy was sparked by remarks made in connection with the earlier 1997 project, not the later Scream 2 entry referenced in the headline. In the ensuing exchange, the report says critics threw shade at the actor’s comments in the thread.

The actor responded to the backlash by pointing to what he described as his situation and, in the reporting, offered the line “Better than nothing,” framing the residual payments as at least some compensation rather than an adequate livelihood. Page Six characterized the response as a “clap back” at people posting negative comments.

Residual payments are widely discussed in the entertainment industry because they can vary based on contract terms, distribution history, and the specific payment formulas used by studios and rights holders. In public discussion, performers sometimes highlight the gaps between residual expectations and the amounts paid, particularly as older titles continue to be licensed and streamed through new channels over time.

Still, the report provides limited detail on the actor’s exact residual figure, contract structure, or whether the claim reflects payments tied to theatrical reruns, home video sales, streaming licensing, or another category. It also does not specify whether the actor made any formal complaint to a union, guild, studio, or platform, or whether the comments were made under any particular employment agreement or residual plan.

For audiences and industry observers, the episode illustrates how quickly labor-related compensation comments can become a culture moment, with viewers weighing in on social media about fairness, celebrity finances, and how older film work continues to generate income. It also shows that public discussion of compensation can trigger direct backlash, including personal mockery, rather than a purely transactional debate about payment levels.

As of publication, Page Six did not indicate whether the actor’s remarks will be addressed through any formal process or statements beyond the online exchange, or whether additional parties such as studios, rights administrators, or industry representatives would respond. The immediate next step for viewers and industry watchers is continued monitoring of whether similar discussion remains in comments or shifts to more formal labor channels.