Yup, the wedding bells already rang, the in-laws already exploded, and somehow “Ready Or Not 2: Here I Come” still finds a way to make that universe feel even bigger, bloodier, funnier, and a whole lot weirder. The sequel to the 2019 horror-comedy favorite picks up with Samara Weaving’s Grace still very much in the blast radius of her last marital disaster, only now the satanic board game has expanded. What was once one deranged family with a pact and a game night from hell becomes something broader here: a hierarchy of elite occult families, strange alliances, legal puppet masters, and a deeper mythology lurking just outside the mansion walls. Directed once again by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, the film leans even harder into absurdity, spectacle, and viciously funny chaos without losing Grace’s bruised, everywoman appeal.
On this episode of The Discourse, Mike DeAngelo is joined by writers Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy to talk about how they cracked the sequel and why the seeds were actually planted years ago. Murphy said they always knew there was more world beyond the first film, even if audiences only caught glimpses of it. “We already knew that there was a larger world out there that we wanted to explore,” he explained. “And so that kernel of an idea was already baked into the cake. And it was just kind of a question of how to motivate Grace into that larger world.”
For Busick, some of the keys were already hiding in plain sight. “Another family is mentioned [in the first film], the Van Horns. And it’s ambiguous what happened to them,” he said, pointing to one dangling thread. He also cited the mysterious final appearance of Mr. Le Bail. “What does that nod mean? And we talked about the significance of that. But as Ryan said, once we figured out the larger world and the lore, then it was, what is Grace’s emotional journey? And what is the reason for this movie, really?”
That emotional angle proved crucial, because while Grace may now look like a hardened survivor marching back into battle, the writers were careful not to turn her into a full-blown action machine overnight. As Busick put it, “It’s only the next day. So she hasn’t had a lot of time to develop those skills.” The temptation, he admitted, was to push her toward something closer to “Ripley in ‘Aliens,’” but that would have broken the spell. “She has a different attitude. She’s much more cynical. She doesn’t trust anybody,” he said. “But at the same time, there’s a particular fight scene where she’s completely out of her depth. And that’s kind of part of her charm is that she is an every woman.”
That balancing act also applies to the franchise’s tone, which continues to walk a tightrope between horror, satire, and full-body slapstick panic. Busick said the rule they return to is simple: the world can be as insane as they want, but people in danger cannot behave as if they know they’re in a comedy. “As long as the character or characters in peril are not the ones making jokes, then I feel, and there’s like a baseline grounded, emotional reality, and they are reacting as how a real person might in that absurd situation, then we can get away with whatever we want,” he said. “If the characters who are being hunted or in danger are making jokes, then suddenly it’s not the real world anymore and we just stop caring.”
That mix of realism and chaos extends to Samara Weaving, who once again gets dragged through an obstacle course of punishment. Asked whether there is ever a point where they feel like they’re bullying their star, both writers made it sound like the opposite problem. “She literally asks for more,” Murphy said. Busick added, “She’s game for anything. And that’s what we love about her. And what we also love about the character. Grace can take it. Grace can take anything and give it all back.”
The sequel also expands its circle of monsters considerably, bringing in multiple new families and an occult power structure that suggests Grace has only scratched the surface of this cursed social club. Murphy said that was part of the thrill this time around. “You had a family, just a single family in the first one, but for all intents and purposes, they were unified,” he said. “But in this, it’s a no-holds-barred.” That shift opens up a richer, nastier social ecosystem, one where these elites are bound together by ritual but clearly do not like each other very much.
Busick and Murphy also discussed their ongoing collaboration with Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett, a partnership that has clearly developed into a full creative hive mind. “Ryan and I always say they can see into our heads and just pluck out images. It’s uncanny,” Busick said. “When we see dailies, or we go to the set or something, it’s like, how did this happen? They literally can read our minds.” For writers dealing in tonal tightropes and elaborate kill setups, that kind of shorthand is probably worth its weight in sacrificial goats.
The conversation also drifted into another blood-soaked franchise Busick knows well as co-writer of “Scream 7.” There is currently a major point of contention among ‘Scream’ die-hards: some call it a return to form, while many refer to it as the worst one yet. Busick acknowledged the online noise surrounding the new film and said he largely tries to tune it out. “We knew there were some big swings with this one, and people were going to have feelings, and they are,” he said. “So yeah, I try to stay away from that and just go, look, I did my job, I passed the script to Kevin, he took over, and I, you know, I’m proud of the movie, I’m proud of what Kevin did with it. I think Neve’s incredible and Isabel. So yeah, it is what it is.”
He also gave a pretty definitive answer on one long-running fan theory. Many fans, even after the events of “Scream 7,” still believe Matthew Lillard’s beloved killer, Stu Macher, is still very much alive. An alternate ending was even filmed, confirming it. But not for Busick. Stu, in his view, is dead. But Matthew Lillard’s return still gave them a way to have some fun with that obsession and comment on something more current. “He’s dead. I think that was the thing that was like, ‘How do we bring this character back?’ And it was actually not my idea, but I latched onto it very quickly, the AI of it all, we get to comment on something that’s very prevalent in our world right now,” Busick said. “And we get to bring the incredible Matthew Lillard back to the franchise.”
As for whether “Ready Or Not” itself could keep going, Busick sounds both open and cautious. “We put it all out there. We didn’t save anything,” he said. “That said, there’s always fun brainstorming sessions on set or like, what if?” Still, he stressed that they do not want to keep playing with the property until it breaks. That caution feels wise for a franchise whose charm comes partly from how gleefully it keeps painting itself into infernal corners and then clawing its way back out.
“Ready Or Not 2: Here I Come” hits theaters on March 20. Listen to the full Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy interview below.
The Discourse is part of The Playlist Podcast Network, which includes Deep Focus, Bingeworthy, and more. We can be heard on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Soundcloud, and most places where podcasts are found. You can stream the podcast via the embed within the article. Be sure to subscribe and drop us a comment or a rating, as we greatly appreciate it. Thank you for listening.
Entertainment journalist, podcaster, and host of The Discourse and Bingeworthy podcasts, with bylines at Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and IndieWire.
