Talk:The Final Destination/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

This film article should be moved to simply Final Destination 4. Just because it is being released in 3D doesn't mean the article title should have 3D in it. It is the fourth film in the series, and should therefore keep in line with the other films.--EclipseSSD (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That depends on what the title of the movie is. If it's called "Final Destination 4 (3-D)" (though unlikely), that should be the title. JPG-GR (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hell, based on the poster, it should be Final Destination IV. JPG-GR (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

On actual set pieces, and logos, and such, the film titles itself as "Final Destination 4 - 3D," so, in my opinion, this page should be titled as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherpattrick (talk • contribs) 09:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - the film poster (and IMDB) suggest that the title of the film will be simply 'Final Destination 4'. Terraxos (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does it say, "She died an hero" on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.118.71 (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a meme... and a pretty lame one. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 08:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ma'tay Williams/Jamaal

Who is he and why isn't he listed anywhere else. Is this a clever joke?199.80.117.25 (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Angela Adams

Not just because she is my sister, but she is listed on the cast list as Mourner #1. She is right after The Cowboy and I do not see why you did not have the decency to add her as well. Why stop at the Cowboy? Because he has a page stating four movies to which he was a nobody? In that case let me add Angela Adams, and then make her a page, and she will remain on the cast like. OK? Thanks Much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.184.3 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are in violation of WP:COI. That list is for main characters only, not minor characters and not walk-ins. Do not spam the list again just because your sister had a minor role, so minor, in fact, that she didn't even have a name. Besides, if we were to put in names for everybody who ever appeared in any movie, the cast list for Lord of the Rings would have hundreds, if not thousands, of names on it. --13² 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, your sister does not even appear on the IMDB page for this movie. Not only is the role so minor, but it's not even listed in the cast list. Thus, there's no way to know if this is actually true and, thus, would be considered original research. Which means, not only would you have to provide a reliable source that states this, but then you'd have to show why she should go in the box. Also, I don't know what should be done about the other characters. They were here before I started editing this page and I am reluctant to remove them as I don't know the reason they were added in the first place. --13² 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok so I'll remove the Racist and the Racist's wife since they have no character name either —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.184.3 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the only reason I removed your sister. Your sister's character is non-notable no matter how you look at it and can't be included. Please stop reading only what you want to in my messages. --13² 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, please stop removing actors and characters in retaliation for your sister being removed. Your edits could be seen as pointy. --13² 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Article name change

Who changed it to "The Final Destination" and where is your proof? I haven't heard anything calling it that, can some citations be made? J4cK0fHe4rt5 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, seen the official poster now. J4cK0fHe4rt5 (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Television advertisements title the movie "The Final Destination: Death Saved the Best for 3D". Perhaps this is an effort to describe this as the final installment in this series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.80.35.162 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting

I feel that this page, and along with the other Final Destination pages should be rewritten. I think that the page should have a plot, (which explains the whole movie) along with a "Deaths" section written at the botttom. Or, we can just leave the characters but just have a good plot writing; Like the way the other Final Destination pages uswed to be written. Having just a characters section doesn't really explain the movie too well. Not that i'm saying I HATE the was this page is made, I just don't like it too well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.52.165 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It will definitely happen in time. How much time, I don't know. I won't be the one writing it either, as I don't believe I'm going to see this movie. But I do agree with you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have little input for this page as I have not seen the film yet. I'm responding, instead, to the "rewriting" and extending plots. Please keep in mind that plots are supposed to be between 300 and 500 words. While the plot summaries (and this includes mini-summaries in the character descriptions) for the articles seem short right now, they have had a tendency in the past to become long, rambling, play-by-play, 1500+ word cesspools for every fan to spam with their own personal tidbits. This is completely unacceptable.

This is an encyclopedia article and the focus should be on the film, not the plot of the film. That means that, by and large, the vast majority of the article should be about filming, casting, production, reception, etc. with the plot taking up a minimal amount of space. If you want to see a long summary that pretty much tells the movie back to you, please go to outside wikis or fansites as this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. If someone wants to expand the plots, but take care to not go above more than about 500 words, then have at it. Thank you. --13² 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always been a fan of, what essentially boils down to, cutting the hell out of plot summaries on WP. I think the current revision is good enough, I'm sure there's a EL at the bottom with additional info should someone require it. I agree with all of the above reasoning and would advise interested contributors to discuss and major addition here first. RaseaC (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It sais that Lori broke her neck after she was hit by the truck at the end but i've watched the film multiple times to know that she was decapitated. It also sais that Jonathan Groves death at the race track if he changed seats is unknown but it is shown in the film. He is crushed against a piller by a flying, buring race car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.175.215 (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Awful Grammar

Is this page really getting away with this awful run-on sentence? "He and his beautiful sweetheart Lori (Shantel VanSanten), who is also one of the survivors and believes him, after tracing every previous disasters of the past decade since the aviation incident at JFK, they realize that they must race against time to find a way to cheat their deaths once more before they reach their final destination."72.219.56.68 (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It is until you change it. Be bold! RaseaC (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is protected from anon edits until tomorrow. I'd change it, but I still haven't seen it and I don't want to run the risk of spoiling myself. --13² 16:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Samantha's kids?

Shouldn't they also die, considering they survived because of the premonition? Depicting children's death in a movie doesn't seem to be a problem, considering the falling window scene in the second one. 212.25.39.222 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure they died in the original premonition? (I don't remember seeing it, but I certainly could have missed it.) Not _everyone_ sitting in that part of the stands was killed. Propaniac (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Samantha's kids (along with her husband) were never meant to die in the premonition in the first place. So they were never on death's list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrules4ever (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Samantha's kids and her husband got out first before EVERYONE in Section 180. Samantha follows them, only to trip in the stairs and be stepped by panicking spectators. Her kids also threw stones to a sign. A lawnmower rushes into one of the stone, sending it flying into the air, impaling Samantha in her left eye. Thus, they never really meant to die at all, but are the keys to Samantha dying in the film. FDJoshua22 (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Racist","The Racist's Wife" & Angela Adams

It's true. The Racist and The Racist's Wife should not be added to this article. It's likely they are minor characters in the film since they don't even have a name! Just because you found more people that are appearing in this film,doesn't mean each of them has to be added. However I am currently trying to figure out what "Andy's Girlfriend" fictional name is. Also that thing with Angela Adams prooves my point. So she was listed as Mourner #1 in the film. Meaning she was either a "walk-in" or a minor character since she had no name. So the racist and his wife have to go. Same thing with The Cowboy. It's like putting "Girl Buying a Hotdog in the background" as a main character. Yes sounds foolish I know. Thats why those other have to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.144.146 (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree with you. I did not remove them when I came to this page because they were already here and already sourced so I wasn't sure if their roles were important or not. I reverted one removal of them, but that was because it was pointy, not because they belonged. The only ones that should be listed are the primary characters (ie: characters that are pivotal to the plot). Walk-on roles should never be included. --13² 22:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I just saw the movie. "The Cowboy" and "The Racist" are both important characters in the storyline, "The Racist" much more so, as he has a significant amount of speaking lines and a central role in a scene of the movie. However I can't really validate "The Cowboy" either way, as he is both important and irrelevant, so I'll let you guys decide. 72.219.56.68 (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who died because they were saved by a premonition should be added, in my opinion. That's how we do it in every other article for this series. Get rid of "The Racist's Wife", though, she wasn't even saved by the premonition. C Teng ^[talk] 19:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, suggesting we do something to this article because it's done in the previous films' articles is not a good way to deal with various issues. Out of all four movies, this one has, by far, the best article at this point. We need to be working on the previous articles to get them to this one's state (or better), not trying to get this one to conform to them. Your point here may be very minor, but it's the general acceptance of the older articles' quality that has caused problems here. --13² 19:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

IP 67.87.154.85's edits

I am not sure who this IP is, but he should follow WP:Consensus. Putting in a long, detailed plot is against consensus. He (I guess this is a he) should also not remove reliably sourced material about this quite possibly being the last film in this series. 72.216.9.149 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Though the current version of "the IP's plot" is shorter than the one he originally tried to reinsert, it still does not need some of the detail it had. I have removed that version of the Plot section, and restored it to a more condensed version (then tweaked it). One problem with the IP's version of the plot is how it starts off:

The film is (presumably) set 10 years after the Flight 180 explosion, 9 years after the Route 23 pile-up, and 4 years after the Devil's Flight roller coaster derailment.

Why is it a presumption? Either that is the correct timeline or it is not. If the film does not specify the timeline, then we should not try to...unless it is very clear.

Final Destination 1 and 5 took place in 2000(read Alex's boarding pass in the beginning of the film), final Destination 2 took place one year later 2001, part 3 took place in 2005. the final destination took place in 2009...so its set 9 years after the flight 180 explosion not 10

And then there is a part of how the IP's version of the plot ends:

Nick is smashed to the café wall where his jaw shatters), thus leaving all connected to the McKinley Speedway disaster and the (presumably) the film series dead.

I am not seeing why mention of the film series presumably being dead should be noted in the Plot section.

Additionally, this IP has messed with the Template:Final Destination more than once, and has been reverted each time on that matter.

This IP should come here and explain his edits, or continue to be reverted on matters that go against WP:Consensus or other Wikipedia polices or guidelines. 72.216.9.149 (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC) ‎

I noticed the issue of "presumably" pop up above, though I don't know who made the message since there seems to be an awful lot of not signing of posts. "Presumably" always equals original research and can't be included. If you want to add it to the article, find a reliable source. Thanks. --13² 06:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in a Sentence

'It is unknown what his original death at McKinley Speedway would have been if he had changed seats.'

Someone change had to hadn't, since he changed seats to avoid getting pwned. --24.145.53.167 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you change it? RaseaC (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No matter how you pronounce the scenetnce its compltely wrong. The film does show how he died if he had changed seats. He was crushed against a piller by a flying, flaming car. It's shown in the film so how is the death unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.175.215 (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How you "prounounce the sentence"? —C Teng^(talk) 02:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Page is a huge mess

Really everything is a mess! And the whole plot being rewritten down was a mistake. Really this page is just a terrible mess. There are also several grammar errors in the page. And whats with the extra characters added to the "characters" section? Doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.144.146 (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow. No kidding. Thanks for bringing this to attention. I've replaced the ridiculously long plot with the super-shortened summary we did have here before. People, please remember that this is an encyclopedia article. Again, this article is about the film, not the plot of the film. When the plot is 1500+ words (which this was), it's too long. The plot summary (and that includes those detailed character descriptions) should be no longer than 300 to 500 words. If you want a play-by-play, please go to an outside Wiki or a fansite. This is just not the place for that. Thank you. --13² 02:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:PLOTSUM if you wish to work on the plot synopsis. It's a really good resource for writing plot summaries. --13² 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT also provides some guidance. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a "List of characters in the Final Destination series" article should be made. The franchise does seem big enough to support one, with four movies and countless books and comics, and it would be a good way to get rid of the overly-large Character sections in the four film articles. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares about the characters in Final Destination. (The people who add these lists don't even care -- they just like adding stuff to Wikipedia, and recounting the plot of the movie they just saw requires about as little effort as anything else they could contribute.) These characters aren't even one-dimensional--they exist to be broiled in tanning beds or decapitated in car washes or smashed through the skull with ladders. A list of the characters would be like making a "List of appliances seen in the kitchen on According to Jim", for all the meaning and relevance that anyone could attach to it.

On the other hand, a "List of deaths in the Final Destination series" (which is all this article's Characters section really is) could be informative, entertaining, and utterly relevant to the franchise. Propaniac (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to give a resounding no to both ideas. A separate character article is not worthwhile because there's no depth to the characters and for the other reasons you mentioned. "List of deaths in the Final Destination series" would be...well..."List of characters in the Final Destination" series because every single character dies. Either page would be 99% plot with very little to no encyclopedic value or "real world" relevance (informative? how? entertaining? not a good reason. utterly relevant? subjective.) and will just be yet another magnet for fan spam. (edit: The fact remains that the character descriptions here or on a separate article need to be far shorter than they are now. The fact that they are "overly-large" is really not a good reason to make a separate article when they shouldn't even be overly-large to begin with.) --13² 23:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the deaths are key to the franchise, while the characters themselves aren't. Yes, it would probably be a "List of characters and deaths in the FD series", but with none of this other crap like "So-and-so is the most emotionally fragile of the characters" that pretends any of them is more than a mechanism to the next death sequence. The deaths are obviously relevant to the series; I'd be surprised if there's a single review of the fourth film that doesn't say something like "The movies essentially exist to provide one elaborate death sequence after another." It's a major film franchise built on a single clear theme; to offer more detail on how that theme is invoked in each of the films isn't arbitrary or trivial. I expect it's possible to find at least a few non-review sources examining the phenomenon that would help to establish the topic's notability. (That being said, while I can clearly imagine the topic as becoming a really good/article list -- at least by the standards of a wiki where List of fictional cat-like aliens has flourished -- I don't think I'll have the time anytime soon to make it as good as it would have to be to have a decent chance of surviving a deletion attempt. So it's really just an idea for now.) (Also, I have no objection whatsoever to deleting the characters sections from all the FD articles; as I said, they're crap.) Propaniac (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just weighing in on this discussion (though I read it before this) to state that this article is clearly no longer a mess; it has not been one for days (though it still had the messy Characters section); one IP even very recently got rid of the Characters section and renamed it as Cast, which is good. If we are going to have a section with more detail about the characters, then it should resemble articles such as Transformers (film) and The Dark Knight (film). But like stated above, the majority of the characters in the Final Destination series are not that deep. 72.216.3.171 (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm really late on the discussion, but after reading what Propaniac had in mind, I have to say I agree. A page like that would be interesting to read. Most people have heard that this movie is about death itself stalking and killing everyone that's meant to die. And the deaths in the film are what makes the Final Destination series so great in the first place. There are several really unique and notable deaths from all four films that most people would like to see. Though some can't, but instead they could come here and read how gruesome and popular some of these deaths have become. Now with a fifth film coming in next year, their will be more people visiting the Final Destination articles than ever before. So I'll probably create the page sometime this week or weekend. So the page can be ready for incoming readers.CloudKade11 (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Any page created has to pass WP:N otherwise it can and probably will be deleted. Because it's cool or because it exists or because some people might like it are not reasons for making or keeping something. Just keep that in mind. --13² 03:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammar and Content

I noticed that the plot has several errors, such as:

Nobody except Lori believe him

If you will write a plot, make sure to check it first.

Also, the cast doesn't contain Lara Grice. I included her once for she has been included in other websites and forums. For example:

The film also has the most number of deaths in the franchise, containing eleven.

How come is she not included? She is Carter's wife nonetheless.

Could also somebody request to protect this page? I think many unregistered users have vandalized the article too much.--FDJoshua22 (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Large portions of this Plot Summary are Copyrighted works anyway. Compare. Alongside a severe need to be rewritten for weasel wording and NPOV, we really need to lose the portion of the Summary ripped off from other places. Thurinym (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Official Title / Introduction to article

"Final Destination 4 (Previously known as The Final Destination)"

The above statement is incorrect. The film remains "The Final Destination", and is only referred to as "Final Destination 4" unofficially. Quickly searching a local and international website, the movie is still sold as "The Final Destination". The film's official website refers to the film as "The Final Destination"

I suggest that it should be rewritten to:

"The Final Destination (also known/referred to as Final Destination 4)

--Happiness in a pill (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

False Information in introductory paragraph and grammar and spelling issues

"It is the only film in the series to not devote a scene to reference the past films; only a news paper clipping of "The Flight 180 Premonition" is seen for a brief second." The above statement is incorrect. In the first chapter of the film, the characters are sitting in Section 180 of McKinley Speedway. '180' is an ongoing theme in the previous three films.

Also, the grammar and spelling in this page is awful, and needs to be fixed. I would fix it myself, but frankly there are just too many errors. One moment the errors are fixed and the next there are more. Perhaps someone should request semi-protection on the page under vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3193th (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Final Destination (film series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)