Talk:Final Destination/Archive 1

Tidal wave
"...and soon-to-be a tidal wave."

What book will this take place in? If it's supposed to be Final Destination: Wipeout, I thought it was going to be about a private plane crashing into a beach. Or is the tidal wave going to be in some other book?

Thanks, JackOfHearts

Oh, yeah, sorry. I fixed that. From the title I thought it was.220.237.16.234 01:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Post production
"In contrast, some of at least two actors from each film have appeared in other films they co-starred on, including She's the Man, the remake of Black Christmas, and Wrong Turn 2. Also, many actors who were all Canadian have starred in the CTV drama, Whister." This doesn't make sense (and is probably not even relevant). Wow, that last sentence just makes this whole section completely irrelevant and a total waste of time. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Statistics
Are all those statistics really important? They seem really trivial.

Oldest character per movie? Average age of actors? Ethnicity? JimmmyThePiep 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. ONEder Boy (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Final Destination thrillogy.jpg
Image:Final Destination thrillogy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Final Destination movie.jpg
The image Image:Final Destination movie.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Final destination two.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries need shortening.
Started looking at these articles after "finding" them while looking for info on the 4th film. While a lot of the content looks good, there's some sections that need trimming. Most noteably is the plot summaries (definately the first and second films). WP: Plot summaries suggests no more than 500 words, which the Plot summary and somewhat redundant "Death's List" sections more than surpass. I can help trim these, as I have seen all three films so can understand what is and what isn't vital to the summary. Furthermore, I think the "Deaths" section in the main series is somewhat pointless, especially considering there doesn't seem to be any specific order to them (why is Clear's death listed before Alex even though she dies after several people in the 2nd film?) -- TRTX T / C 13:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: You can see a rough rewrite example here. -- TRTX T / C 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why trim them? Most films have it as long as Final Destination series. And what happened to the deaths? Why were they removed? Bingowasmynameo (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries are supposed to be somewhere between 300-500 words. The plot summaries for these movies continually grew to extremely excessive lengths to the point where the article is almost entirely plot and nothing else size because of excessive details and unnecessary inclusions. While I believe that the plot summaries could be expanded a bit, I can already see them growing wildly if we add more details than we already do. If they are expanded, it has to be done carefully so as not to invite others to let it grow out of control. As for the deaths? That is unencyclopedic trivia that belongs on a fan-site. This article is about the movie, not about what happened in the movie. The emphasis should be on production, reception, casting, filming, ect. --132 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, "It happens on other articles." is not a good argument for inclusion. Just because other articles have extremely long plot summaries that give away every single detail in a play-by-play script doesn't mean they should. In fact, they shouldn't. Those articles that have extremely long plot summaries need to be drastically scaled down, not used as an example to allow monstrous plot summaries. --132 22:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * M'kay. I'm new to this. Bingowasmynameo (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But, what about Drive-Thru (film)? They have the deaths. What do you say to that? Abc217 (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, "it happens on other articles" does not mean it should be included on this article. It's never a good argument for inclusion, because there's a high chance it shouldn't be included in either article. --132 04:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

my edits were removed stating rules applied in the movies to cheating death. one point i made was that if someone intervenes on a targeted person's behalf, death will temporarily skip them. this appears in all the movies. the argument was, for one of my other edits, was that it was original research. in the second movie, the idea of new life cheating death is introduced. at first it is thought that it was a child being born, but the protagonist realizes its someone dying and being resusitated. after that, her and the remaining survivor are no longer targeted for monthes, only being revealed to die at the end of the third movie which is set several monthes or so later. if im only stating facts, how is it original research? and if im stating a rule that has been present in all the movies, why is it being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoss (talk • contribs) 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's a conclusion you came to and not supported by any reliable source. Interpretations of plot points by editors counts as original research. DreamGuy (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

im going by what the movie said. in the movie, tony todd's character says new life cancels death. her visions lead her to kill her self and be resusitated. everything happens as in her vision. after that death stops going after her for several monthes. it isnt my opinion if im writing how it happened in the movie and im using the movie itself as a source, which can be used in articles about movies. also, its already partiall mentioned in the article, before i mention it (the child's birth is already mentioned in the article) also, the aspect of direct intervention is mentioned in the first and second movie, and shown to still apply in the third, so how am i adding anything based on my own opinions?Largoss (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Original research is not "opinion" so please stop confusing the two. Like DreamGuy said, you are interpreting plot points, which is considered original research (OR). You are also synthesizing. Both of these are strictly forbidden. You are also quite incorrect with the first point and blatantly breaking OR in the second point. I'll address each point now:


 * 1) In the third film, death killed in the order the riders were seated, not necessarily the order they were killed while riding, thus negating that "rule". As for skipping? That is way too complex and tedious to explain here. A brief mention, at best, might be warranted, but not as part of a set of "rules".
 * 2) The baby theory stopping death is already mentioned in that section, so there is no need to repeat it. Further, the resuscitation obviously proves that "stopping death" theory as false because they were later killed, thus, making it irrelevant to this rule (which you have created when, in fact, it is death's design, not death's rules...there is a difference).
 * Besides those issues with the section, and the fact that it is very much the textbook definition of original research, it is way too complex and detailed for an encyclopedia article. This article is about the film, not the plot points of the film. The only people who care about that information are fans of the film and it should not be here. --132 00:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No metioning about 180 at all?
Howcome there is no mentioning about the number 180? It was seen in all four films and is basically the trademark. I there needs to be something related to that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrules4ever (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mentioning themes without reliable sources are considered original research and can't be included, even if it does seem obvious to the average fan. --132 21:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Clear Dies First?
soo last time i say FD2 i could have remembered that Eugene died first cause of the fact that the fire hit him first... just sayin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.213.166 (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Deaths
That section feels a little bit fancrufty to me. Anyone else? Millahnna (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I brought this up at WT:FILM and received several replies agreeing with my choice to remove the list. If anyone has a contradictory opinion, feel free to bring it up here or in the relevant thread.  For now the consensus seems to be that the list is fancruft.  Millahnna (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding section "Ironies and Clues"
Hey, Im new here so excuse me if I don't do this right, but can we add a section named "Ironies and Clues" detailing the many ironic deaths, and clues of foreshadowing and hints leading up? For example, Final Destination is almost exclusively known for the inclusion of Death's ironic deaths, and foreshadowing clues for each coming death, I think it would help if there was a section detailing each instance of comical hidden irony (such as FD5's Isaac Palmer making fun of a buddah, then ultimately being killed by a statue of one while Buddhism's main concept is karma, or FD5's Olivia Castle being killed by a car falling on her in the premonition disaster, and then being ultimately killed by falling on the same type of car). LoneLoon2013 (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)LoneLoon2013
 * No per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. That's something that you would find on the series's Wikia page. — Mike  Allen   01:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Deaths
Guys can we put also their deaths i really like to see though because it is important is the cause of their deaths--112.198.79.240 (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Reccuring theme and motifs + cast
This section really seems irrelevant and a bit to fanfictiony. Anyone agree? If so i'll remove. Is the cast list relevant too? Maybe it should be cut down to primary e.g. Bludworth, Clear, Alex, Carter, Kimberly, Thomas, Eugene, Wendy, Kevin, Julie, Nick, Lori, Janet, Sam, Molly and Peter. It's way to indepth including others not on deaths list which im going to cut out and leave just survivors and Bludworth for now.D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

dates the movies were set
I have noticed that on every final destination page, people keep on changing the years the movies were set. So here are the facts: Flight 180-September 25th 1999 Route 23 car crash-September 25th 2000 Devils Flight Roller coaster crash-2005 Raceway crash-2009 bridge collapse-before flight 180

Final destination 5 was wrong about Flight 180 Lightningalex1 (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are these specific dates displayed in the films? — Mike  Allen   07:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

in the first movie, the lady serving Alex says "September 25 9:25 your birthday is the same as the departure time" at the start of the second movie, the man on tv says "tomorrow marks the one year anniversary since volee air flight 180 exploded and crashed shortly after a 9:25PM takeoff". so the second movie starts exactly one year after the start of the first movie, this is also confirmed shortly before the crash, when the radio says that today is the one year aniversarry of flight 180, it is confirmed again after the crash when Kimberley talks about flight 180 at the police station. in the third movie, Kevin says to wendy that flight 180 happened six years ago. When Wendy visits Jason's tombstone at Ashley's and Ashlyn's funeral, on the tombstone it says that Jason died in 2005. 2005-6=1999 ignore what Final Destination 5 says about Flight 180Lightningalex1 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In part 2, there's a date on the computer that said it's the year 2001, which makes part 1 set in 2000, final Destination 3 is the one with the error, not 2 or 5. also i may add that in part 1 on Alex boarding pass it said it's 2000 on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.189.208 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Final Destination 5 has an error when it had May 13th on Sam's boarding pass. In the first movie, the lady serving Alex says'September 25'. So according to Final Destination 1 and 2 Flight 180 was September 25th 2000. Lightningalex1 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic
could someone put a scale on the metacritic column of the ratings chart, I have no idea what the numbers mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.176.154 (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: There is decisive opposition to moving The Final Destination, and no consensus on what to do with the others, defaulting to no move of any of the pages. Cúchullain t/ c 14:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

– I'm reading an article of the first installment, and I don't see how it might achieve a bigger historical significance than the film series itself. Also, the films, with slight exception of Final Destination 2, do not continue characters at all. Instead, they appear in their own films. It's not like The Matrix or Die Hard. But if "Final Destination" has no primary topic, then the film series, like Star Wars, can be the primary topic at default. As for the fourth installment, its title is confusing because I almost assumed it as the first installment. To let you know, the first film gets more views than the film series, but stats of first film is harder to determine because the rates are about the same as the film series. George Ho (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Final Destination (film series) → Final Destination
 * Final Destination → Final Destination (2000 film)
 * The Final Destination → The Final Destination (2009 film)
 * Support the first two, oppose the last. Overall a reasonable argument, but the titling of the 2009 installment was deliberate, if stupid. --BDD (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support ... I support conglomeration of all the movies into one, very simple, very concise "film series" page. Don't take up too much space on Wikipedia with these movies. They don't deserve individual pages. If this is what the debate's about. If not, I apologize in advance for confusing the issue. 72.129.81.5 (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the first two and oppose the last per BDD. I also believe the titling of the 2009 installment was deliberate. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. No need for any change. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose all three. The titles should be kept simple, the use of 'film series' is consistent to other film series that are on en.wiki. The IPs support would effectively remove all five individual film articles to render this page unwieldy in trying to cover five films (maybe more) in one article, which would be impractical.
 * The Fast and Furious has a similar problem (though with odd titling and subtitles is slightly easier) with the first film being used to name the series, but the information on that page would be impractical on any of the five individual film article pages. The structure of individual films (or sometimes books as with Sookie Stackhouse, Twilight, The Hunger Games or Harry Potter, all of which have film article (or TV) and series pages) which link to the films is an easy one for readers to understand and in most cases only requires one click to take readers to the first film of the series (and usually in the lede).
 * These three moves would not make the use of the wiki simpler. If the proposer does not like the structure he can always take it to the film project. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Fast and the Furious is now a disambiguation page, although I expected it to be either a first film or a franchise (even film series article has more views than the first film article). Harry Potter is a whole franchise, and Harry Potter (film series) is part of the franchise. --George Ho (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * TFatF wasn't a disambig when I posted my comment. And that Harry Potter and TFatF both have pages with the (film series) subtitle makes my point; and there are two earlier F&F films (1939 and 1955) which is not the case for Final Destination. This page is fine where it is and adding (2000 film) and (2009 film) would make the titles of those article more complicated when we should aim towards the simplest article title on en.wiki, both of which they already have. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Film order on the character table
I know that Final Destination 5 was set before the events of the other films, but would it not make more sense to have the films arranged in the order they were released, rather than when they were set? It took place first in the universe of the movies, but it was the latest one for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowyNight1234 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

– Last year's request was too precise, especially for both the 2000 film and The Final Destination (2009). This time, we leave out the 2009 film and deal with just the film series and the 2000 film instead. Sounds good? Last year, the 2000 film may have greater numbers than the film series. However, in the last 90 days, the 2000 film is less viewed than the film series; same for this month (series, 2000 film). Google results show first film, fifth film, and upcoming sixth film in the first page. The film itself isn't as significant as the film series. In fact, the idea/story of characters escaping death and becoming dead in every film is more significant than specific characters escaping from the plane. Per WP:DABCONCEPT and WP:SIA, we can avoid creating a redundant disambiguation page by making the film series a general concept. Perhaps if "Final Destination (film)" doesn't sound good, how about Final Destination (2000 film)? --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Final Destination (film series) → Final Destination
 * Final Destination → Final Destination (film)
 * Support. I would take it as a general proposition that where a film series has a large number of installments, the series itself will be primary, unless one of the installments surpasses all others combined in notability. Absent such a situation, each installment merely supports the notability of the franchise as a whole. bd2412  T 16:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose; Original proposal. While I do agree that the franchise as a whole could arguably be considered more notable and well known that just the first installment, "film series" should certainly not be removed from the article's title. The use of the words "film series" is consistent to almost every other film series that are on Wikipedia and their removal would not make things simpler or more presentable - it would definitely just make it more confusing. Final Destination should therefore be moved to Final Destination (film) and Final Destination should become a disambiguation page. If performing these moves is an issue however, maybe it would be better if things just stayed as they are. --DesignDeath (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can add "original proposal" next to your vote. Then we'll take your alternative into your consideration. --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Per WP:DABCONCEPT, chances of disambiguation page redundant to the page of the broad concept should be very small. Of course, if the film series becomes the main topic, the disambiguation page would not have a chance to be kept. George Ho (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support conceptdab. Red Slash 01:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

So, why was this moved?
From what I've seen a consensus has not really been reached on this page. The use of "film series" is more appropriate since all other film series that are on Wikipedia either have "(film series)" or "(franchise)" in their title, and I have yet to see an article about one that doesn't. This move is very impractical. And actually, the current stats state that the 2000 film's page was viewed more times than the series' in the past 90/30 days. --Christensens (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can try Move review (following the instructions). ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 07:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This user is blocked as a sockpuppet of some user. Also, the stats of the 2000 film is less than half (or three-quarters) of the film series right now. This month, the views number is 17,350 to 4,187. George Ho (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Genre
Isn't this more of a disaster genre than horror? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)