Talk:Final Destination (film)

Critical response section is a mess
This article has many problems but the Critical response section is a mess.

Instead of links to the actual reviews the Critical response section is littered with reference to Metacritic profile page for each critic. This is a serious failure to provide proper references. Better reference needed I'm going to try to start to clean up this mess and add references to the actual reviews. I seriously question how it passed good article review.

The Critical response section includes a paragraph that starts with "Despite the film's general mixed reception, critics praised Sawa's performance as Alex." Then it says "Mr. Sawa's teenage clairvoyant is colorless and charisma-free." This is obviously not praise, and I suspected this contradiction was vandalism but I checked the source, and verified that the quote is accurate, and that is exactly what the New York Times said. At the time of the good article review the article including a different quote from The New York Times "The disaster and Alex's premonitions set up a heavy-handed fable about death and teenage illusions of invulnerability." but again that is not praise for Sawa, that is merely a description of the story (and not even a complimentary one). If the intention is to say Sawa was praised this should be removed. If the intention is to say some praised and some didn't this still needs to be rephrased and reorganized. -- 109.79.171.9 (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make any sense to have criticism of Sawa right after a sentence saying critics praised him, so I've removed it.
 * I previously spent some time replacing generic unhelpful references to Metacritic profile pages with specific references to actual reviews of this film but the section is still a mess and full of problems. The failure to include proper references is so bad I don't think this should ever have passed GA review. -- 109.78.205.46 (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The references throughout this article are a mess for another reason. Some insane person seems to have decided to abuse the citation template and instead of using first and last parameters for names and surnames has instead used those fields for information about publishers and websites/works. I tried fixing some of them but it is such a huge mess I gave up and I'm in no hurry to fix the rest of it. Probably all caused by a weird obsessive with a compulsive need to format references to look a certain way but with a total disrespect for the importance of any underlying semantic meaning. -- 109.79.166.98 (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. You're right: that was a total mess. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the mismatched parameters.
 * Section still a mess because someone thought anything less than a link to the actual review as a reference was acceptable, and repeatedly linked to just Metacritic. Sad. (Cars (film) is similarly poorly referenced.) -- 109.78.214.194 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to add links to the actual review but a lot of the pages such as Cashill's Newsweek review no longer exist on that website, should that sentence be removed then? Ffffrr (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is the link http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/tnw/today/as/mv/mv_f.htm#Final%20Destination Ffffrr (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Macinasron for putting it out of my misery. -- 109.76.130.33 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Disaster horror film
Since the deaths in all of the Final Destination movies are caused by accidents wouldn't that mean that they're disaster horror movies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.7.166 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It might but ideally the WP:FILMGENRE should be reliably sourced, and the lead section should try to stick to the primary genre (horror), not every possible applicable genre. -- 109.76.130.33 (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)