Talk:Final Destination

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

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)[reply]

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. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: You can see a rough rewrite example here. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

M'kay. I'm new to this. Bingowasmynameo (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, what about Drive-Thru (film)? They have the deaths. What do you say to that? Abc217 (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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".
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)[reply]

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.