Talk:Final Destination 3

Why is this here?

This entry is enormous and totally unwarranted for a completely third rate film! Please see other film entries for guidance. Unless Wikipedia claims to be a movie database (which is does not) why even include completely minor movies like this one? Do they need an entry at all? It is currently longer than the entry for Citizen Kane or Vertigo, which is a quite absurd situation. Balance please!Bobble2 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

Firstly, why do you call it a minor movie? Is a film minor just because you don't like it? Secondly, just because you don't like this film doesn't mean it should be deleted against the wishes of all the other Wikipedia users who do. Thirdly, while Wikipedia on the whole is not a film databse, WikiProject Films is, as you can see on the message at the top of this very page, "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films on Wikipedia". Since, as most will agree, this film qualifies as a film, it belongs in the film registry. Fourthly, this page is only longer than Vertigo and Citizen Kane because of all its trivia and the intricancy of the death scenes, both of which are aspects us users cannot change. Also, if you really want to have balance, then feel free to expand either of those films' pages yourself. VolatileChemical 03:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is quite obviously a minor movie! For a start it is a "3" - that is to say a second sequel and therefore purely a Hollywood profiteering exercise. Do you not know anything about the cinema? This movie adds nothing to the art or history of the cinema and the only reason it has such a huge entry here is because the majority of Wikipedians are geeky teenagers with nothing better to do than to sit in their bedrooms writing about garbage like this! Even a passing knowledge of the cinema world will tell you that surely?Bobble2 13:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

I stand by bobble on this. --Lamrock 07:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow! i love your logic there, yes we all know that a sequal film past 2 is automaticly i cash cow and should not evan be worth our time. Basinsg your opinion on sequals just because they have a number in their name is incredibly stupid and bias IMO.--NobleServent2 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)NobleServent2

Nice typing NobleServant2. You also appear to contradict yourself.Bobble2 15:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

No reason to remove it. 95% of all films, sequels or not, are for getting money from people by recycling the same nonsense, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that they exist. DanPMK 03:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So what if you don't like the movie why take time out of your day to go to the site? If you dont like the movie why even look at this page? Either you secretly like the movie or YOU are the people who have no lives not the people that wrote on this page. It is a horror movie so what if it is a minor movie? People love to see people die, i don't know why but that's how it is. Christina

Unencyclopediac

Please stop re-adding the unencyclopediac "Deaths" section. The film hasn't been released, so there's no way to confirm this information. Beyond that, this is a terribly unencyclopediac way of presenting this information. I will write up a proper plot summary when the film is released, so don't worry about that. Also, please mind WP:3RR.--Sean Black ^(talk) 09:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The death descriptions hav always been written like that. Look at the other FD pages.

Yes, and I've fixed that. It's blatantly unencyclopediac.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

...No, no its not. It describes the main focus point of the whole movie, thats very encyclopediac.

Wikipedia is not a horror fansite. Describe the plot in the plot summary, and that includes deaths, to a reasonable degree. Beyond that, the film hasn't been released- this information is totally unverifiable, so it stays out.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Terminally Screwed

This article is in desperate need of editing. It just sounds like a fanboy ranting about how great the film is.

--That plus the fact that everyone keeps adding random statements to the main page of this article. It's like they think that is where you discuss the movie...very unencyclopediac and more fan boy than it should be.

Yes, I know. However, everytime I revert to my cleaned up version, my edits are reverted. No one "owns" this article, though that'sthe impression I've been getting from these other fellows.--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, this is just awful. Quote: "In the movie, Frankie's recordable camera only made the crash worse. It did not caused the crash. Hydraulics ruptured, causing the wheels to spin off and all of the harness came loose, causing everyone to fall to their deaths, whiched caused the crash. Frankie's recordable camera, which slipped out of his hand and caused the deadly reaction, made the rollar coaster crash happen faster and worser." WORSER? Who the hell wrote this crap? Including all the blatant errors, I've had to redo nearly every section. ESS-Inc 02:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop Deleting The 'Deaths' Section

I don't care if its unencyclopedic. It is true information. I have seen the movie. I can remember correctly who dies, how they die and which order they died. Stop deleting it!

I can't verify that you've seen it. But my major objection is that it's a horrible, horrible way to organize the information. If you want to write a plot summary, that's fine. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a horror film fansite.--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think having the "Deaths" section is pretty cool. It is, essentially, the only reason these movies are made, to show off elaborate, grotesque, Rube Goldberg inspired death scenes. However, that's my personal preference. By the wikipedia guidelines, Sean's right. It's unencyclopedic and doesn't offer anything substantial to the article. If you want to include a link to another page that gives information on the deaths, that, I would think, would be acceptable. But this isn't the place. JComp489

I think it's pretty cool too, actually, because I'm a fan of horror movies :). We should of course describe how the characters die in the plot summary, but not in such detail, and not in a seperate section. In any case, if you want to convince me otherwise, please do so here. Constantly reverting solves nothing.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Deaths

The Deaths are true FYI. A lot of people saw a prescreening and are likely to tell the truth. Cigammagicwizard 23:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's unverifiable, as I've said several times, and that is only a secondary obection to the section's existance.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

O.k. Sean Black, you are getting rediculous. Even I've seen it and it's true. Look at the trailer and it shows the deaths. Why do you have to follow this "not true" rule. FYI, it's very true! Cigammagicwizard 01:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is not the "truth" of this section. I'd ask that you first have look at the guidelines on original research as it is far more eloquent than I. For a quick example: brenneman eats a sausage. I know I've eaten one, I'm sure I could set up a web cam and demonstrate that I eat a sausage. But unless a reliable source prints "brenneman eats a sauasage" it cannot be included in the, uh, sausage article. brenneman^{T}{L} 11:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, people on other websties are saying "They took it down again!" and "I can't find the deaths in Wikipedia now" and "Someone stupid might have changed it" like you guys who took it off. So people will be nicer if you put the deaths back on. Cigammagicwizard 13:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I'm here to build a general encyclopedia, not to provide a resource for horror movie fans.--Sean Black ^(talk) 18:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get why it's such a problem that the death sections are up. People ENJOY to have them there and it makes Wikipedia better by expanding information and providing info that other sites do not. I don't see this as "uncyclopedic". It doesn't make Wikipedia look bad and it doesn't make it into a "horror film fan site". I mean, seriously - There are a bajillion pages in this site and it's not like visitors come here just to read about horror films. AND, if they did, then that should give users more of a right to add/expand information to the film articles. For the "info not correct" issue, the film has just been released, as I have just seen it, and I know for a fact that all the information put on (or had been put on) the FD3 page is true and accurate. I myself, would greatly like to expand the FD3 page. However, what is the point of writing anything, if it would be taken down without notice? This just discourages others from writing anything on Wikipedia. I don't think I am ever going to edit anything on here anymore. True, this is not my site and I didn't make the rules. I will respect that, but I seriously believe that this entire issue about extra info content is very petty and distasteful. I may be just a newbie, but I have been coming to Wikipedia for a while and I liked what I see so far. Jay 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

But it is unencyclopediac. Think about this- what reputable encyclopedia would have this information organized in this way? None, I guarantee you. However, I'm willing to discuss this if you stop reverting to your prefered version and instead discuss the issue here.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's not me, someone else would edit it. This is gonna happen over and over again. I hope what I put up gets to stay at least. And, as you may have known, Wikipedia isn't your average encyclopedia, so why can't it be organized in a different way?

Wikipedia shouldn't get organized in a way that's unnecesary, ugly, and fancruft-y, no.--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not ugly nor is it unnecesary.

How is it necessary? Why must we have this detailed-to-the-point-of-absurdity section when we could just as easily put the information in the plot summary, thus keeping this article consistent with others on Wikipedia, other encyclopedias, and common sense?--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it necessary? Because it is what the people want. If it's not consistent like other pages, then why not a make it an obligation to expand ALL pages? Jay 04:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"What the people want"? Wha? Not all expansion is good expansion. You have yet to deliver a satisfactory argument, in my opinion, but I will ask some other experienced editors what they have to say, if you wish.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sean totally here, just to be explicit. - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the movie and then came to see the page, and nearly all the deaths were somewhat inaccurate. I fixed them, but I kind of agree that the Deaths section isn't really encyclopedic. Also, the bit about Wendy's two friends on the train was blatantly wrong - they were never on the roller coaster; Wendy introduces them as being her roommate and friend. I took that statement out. Also, I'm going to edit the Ending section to - that entire section is horribly written for a Wikipedia article.

ESS-Inc 02:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Put the death section back. It's all we have for a plot right now, and it's how the other two final destination articles are laid out. I don't see why this one should be any different. Lord Oppy 04:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed the death section, because the article exceeded 32 KB, which screws up the viewing in some browsers. All of the deaths are still in, but the clues and false attempts have been deleted. It's the easiest thing to remove to bring the page down to a suitable length, and makes the article easier to read.

Standard of Quality and NPOV

This article officially needs to conform to a higher standard of quality. The style of writing that is constantly being reverted to is absolutely dreadful and does not suit a Wikipedia article so much as it does some fanboy's forum-post, i.e. "holy shti tihs movie is aesome like first this grl like burns in a tanning salon and then this dude named fred gets hit by a truck..." My exaggeration is only slight. This article is horribly written, and the user Cigammagicwizard keeps reverting it back to the same version whenever anyone tries to fix it. As such, I believe this article no longer conforms to a neutral point of view; this user is zealously defending his own work without allowing discussion or editing, a policy which is absolutely tantamount for a Wikipedia article. This is a supposed to be a simple movie article, not an awful horror-movie-fanboy talk page. ESS-Inc 05:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your exaggeration is only slight? Come on, I have yet to see editing that bad. And how can the article not be neutral? It's a not a matter of opinion, it's just an explanation to what happened. I mean, unless someone says "...oh yeah, I think this is what happens, but I'm pretty sure they die like this and that other chick died like that, oh and that stupid guy died like this, but the graphics were horrible..." then THAT would be considered opinionated and not neutral, but like I have said, the edits that I had seen so far are nothing like that. Jay 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been greatly improved since I posted that. Mostly it was just one user consistently reverting to his own writing which, believe me, was quite horrendous. ESS-Inc 11:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been viewing that page almost daily for a month now, and I haven't seen it in that condition. But.. like you guys say, reverts are frequent, so I may have missed it. And yes, the FD pages have greatly improved. Please don't change it.00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Skipped Deaths (What would have happened)

Hi, I joined yesterday and I'm new at this, so if I do a crappy job formatting please tell me how I can improve. Anyway, I think we should rework the Death section so it looks more like the list of how they were supposed to die, so we can include the details of the skipped deaths. Either that or just pile everything up into a plot summary. Lord Oppy 23:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, look above and you'll see that we have a discussion ongoing. We'll see. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a massive cull of unencyclopedic material. It would be helpful if we could have some examples of articles in a simlar genre written in an encyclopedic tone for comparison. - brenneman^{T}{L} 07:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to "un-cull". I agree the presentation is not ideal, but let's take it in stages. -- Netoholic @ 07:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You realise you restored potential copyvio material as well as the massive swag on unencyclopedic stuff? - brenneman^{T}{L} 14:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Subway scene

The Director certainly knew nothing about the NYC Subway, though He tried to imitate it:

1. No "Booth Street" station.
2. The conducter never uses the term "end of the line". They say "XX station will be the next and last stop."

-- Eddie 01:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember that it was specifically said what city they were in. Either way, the use of "Booth" and "Oswald" stations are just more hidden references, in this case, referring to presidential deaths. The film is set in the fictional city of McKinley, Pennsylvania. -- Netoholic @ 17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew it didn't take place in New York, but I recognized that the sign was black, had white lettering with a line across the top, so I knew it was an immitation, thanks anyway. -- Eddie 01:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Since it was set in Pennsylvania, maybe Philadelphia? VolatileChemical 22:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is sure not philadelphia. I live there and there is nothing like that at all in the philly sub station. Christina

UnReaL 21:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Not philadelphia

Linking names of characters to people they reference

I find it to be rather redundant (no offense to anyone who believes otherwise) that in the character descriptions, the names of people that they reference are linked to and then when one hits the Trivia section, those names appear once again. To have them linked prior to the trivia section seems like it would only serve to be confusing to anyone who might curiously click on a link and not be able to piece together why that particular article is linked from this one (people immediately dismissing this possibility need to consider that it happens more often than they'd believe).

I've removed the redundant linking in the description part. Of course, those who believe they know what is best for this article will either simply revert without due inspection or debate and then revert after the fact but such is Wikipedia. The names referenced in the trivia section still have their links intact. 75.2.25.31 05:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WHAT'S WRONG WITH PEOPLE TODAY?

If they saw the rollercoaster crash and also in the premonition, why aren't they including onlookers. I still say they should've gone with 115 minutes version of FD3 like the book. The book as I timed was equivalent to 1 hour and 55 minutes and 12 miliseconds