Talk:Final Destination 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

An additional clue for the tanning bed death[edit]

The roller coaster of love song.. not only does it hint the original plan, but also in that song, the urban legend states that a girl's dying screams can be heard at one point in the song. Ironically, you can here these two girls dying screams while this song is playing. Here's a source for it.

Also, in that same section, meant is spelled incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bickel615 (talkcontribs) 09:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


The film contains no evidence about what kind of music Ian and Erin listen to, making it impossible to make claims as to what "lifestyle" they support. People dress that way anywhere from Slipknot fans to Wiccans, to punk rockers and goths. It's really redundant and unfair to label them this way, so it gets a snip-snip.

this isnt really about their emoness but Ian was never proved to have only wanted to scare Wendy and what indications are there that Erin kind of believed what wendy was talking about.--UberPwnage92 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(comment) Wow, just as I added this comment, some sharp reader went and turned Erin and Ian into goths. I'm not sure that is accurate either. I say you're better off just calling them "Alternative/rock" style.

Why is this here?[edit]

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

Right on, this schlock is definitely on par with Godfather II, lol. This entire entry is just more evidence that Wikipedia will ultimately slowly morph into an extension of MySpace. Sad but true!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

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

Leave that Bobble guy be. He's got his opinion on films, even if they are first, second or third-rate films. The article's here, just deal with it.

So are we deleting information on other films now because some movies that some people consider classics don't have enough information on them. That's sort of a flaw in the progress of Wikipedia. Do you think that since some films may or may not be as good as others they shouldn't have as much information on their pages? I respect your opinion, but if people take the time to find and write the page and the information is valid then there's no reason we should delete it. I agree with volatile, if you want more information for citizen kane or vertigo then go add to the pages. --Xombi p 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


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)

But his is wiki project horror! We SHOULD put it in to emphasise that (Not beig mean just voicing my opinion!) Vitual aelita (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Terminally screwed[edit]

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)

Agreed. I just browsed over to it for a little background and reading through it made my head hurt. chadjanicek 07:49, 25 Mar 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting The 'Deaths' section[edit]

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)
I think that since the sypnosis would've had to have been written by someone who saw the movie, then therefore it is also original research. However, we obviously shouldn't delete it, and we also shouldn't delete the deaths section. Or, if we don't want the deaths on the page, we should create a page with a title somewhere along the lines of "list of deaths in the final destination films" --Xombi p 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


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.

The initial statement "I don't care if it's unencyclopedic" shoots down any possible rationale for the inclusion of these sections. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of fictional tidbits. It's an encyclopedia. (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
A poorly made statement that has nothing to do with the merits of a section does not invalidate or otherwise affect the merits of the section. Otherwise I'd get on TV and speak in favor of all possible wars. --Kizor 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The argument that was made was poor, AND it was only made because there ARE NO arguments for including it. you speaking in favor of war doesn't affect it either way, and in removing the bad argument all that's left are otehr bad arguments, so the section cannot be there. DreamGuy (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You know what? If wikipedia has so many strict rules that it won't allow an article with information (which is basically the point of wikipedia)be posted up why doesn't someone just start up their own wiki based on all the Final Destination movies or just this one if that's what you prefer. You can do that now you know, just create your own wiki. And FYI the information is true and just because it's "not organized" doesn't mean that you should delete a page that someone worked hard to create. It can be fixed, but it shouldn't be deleted. -Knowitall911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Standard of quality and NPOV[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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)
"End of the line" sounds a lot more final. -- Ianiceboy (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2007 (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

ITS A MOVIE TaylorLTD 20:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a pitiful excuse for a movie. But it's funny that people note the issue of the NYC subway and don't note that in the entire series, a whole bunch of deaths are just plain ridiculously contrived and technically impossible. -- 10:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, its a MOVIE! Movies would be boring if everything was as real-life and down to earth as possible.Movies are ment to let your imagination run wild with ideas and if your to up-tight to see fun in film then its your problem. Aslo, let me remind you that wikipedia talk is not the place to discuss topics only to help improve the article. Myspace is that way ->

TaylorLTD 21:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking names of characters to people they reference[edit]

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. 05:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh shut the hell up already. If you're so good, you help them out.

What's wrong with people today?[edit]

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

It could be a trivial issue that doesn't matter to the entire article. If you're that concerned about the running time, just type it and we'll figure it out.

ROCKY: Where do you want me to type it?

Character bias?[edit]

A quote from the Ashlyn Halperin character description:

"All she cares about is winning, looking great, and getting guys."

I'm pretty sure that Ashlyn cares about other things as well. :)

4 Characters who die[edit]

Frankie Cheeks' Secret Upskirt Video

I'm pretty sure no one reads this anymore, but I found a secret upskirt video hidden in the Final Destination 3 movie. I believe this is the work of the movie's character Frankie Cheeks, through out the movie, he records several upskirt shots on his camera, I accessed these scenes and viewed it on my portable DVD player. I have no idea how I unlocked the video, When I tried to reopen it, I failed. I think to unlock it, you must skip scenes back and forth before the main menu. That's how I did it. I do believe i am the first to discover this, I've searched everywhere online to find any evidence of this secret upskirt video existing, but nothing is out there...Good luck!!

Quit deleting the characters name I add. Their names are Charles/Dana, Lisa/Miles.

I'm guessing that most people would think you invented those names for the four others. If you can prove they're true, we'll keep it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 

Fourth Final Destination?[edit]

Hey, are they gonna make another FD or is FD3 the last one? 989 RVD 18:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC):

Well, there's a possibility, seeing as Wendy saw how they died and could have saved them again, but a returning character isn't going to confirm a sequel. Then again, this plotline is highly versatile, therefore easily tipping the scale either way. 00:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus I got an invitation last month to personally try out for the film. 17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If they do, it should be on a cruiseship, no? Yes! -- 16:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a Fourth one planned for Release in 2009, It is currently in Pre-Production

Each movie is spaced out in three years TaylorLTD 21:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Carrie and Jason[edit]

I'm erasing the thing in the Trivia section which suggest that Carrie and Jason are named after horror movie icons.

I don't see why this was removed. It does not suggest that they were named after horror movie icons, which they may be for all we know. It simply states that they have the same name as killers from other horror movies. In fact, many characters in all three Final Destination movies were named after horror movie icons. 17:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


What happened to the section about the differencefrom the novel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Coaster seating[edit]

I propose that the “sitting next to X in the nth row” be removed from the characters section, in favor of a seating chart or something that visually shows where everyone was sitting. I don’t have the DVD, so someone else would have to draw it up. —Frungi 07:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Other deaths[edit]

Who deleted the names I posted about the other survivors? Their names were Charles, dana, Payton, Sean and Joseph. 23:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


What're we going to do about the now non-existant Deaths page? 04:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We should make the "Deaths" on a seperate page, as well as the "Characters" section. It looks awful the way it is.

Neither of those categories of information is notable. (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot length section[edit]

The plot section must be trimmed to a reasonable length. There is no reason for this sequel of a sequel to literally have every single scene documented, nor should its length be 10x that of the original film's Wikipedia plot section. What next, post the entire manuscript? (we are not far removed from that actuality on this entry) Please decide on a consensus on shortening this appropriately

What troubles me now about this article is that the plot section has been trimmed down to what essentially seems to be a summary meant to promote the film in some way. I mean, I suppose its unnecissary to repeat information again and again in both the plot and the deaths section, but shouldn't there be at least some kind of description of what happens in the film in the plot section? I don't have the time or patience to figure out what happened, but I think someone should combine the death section with the plot. I've always had a problem with having a death section in articles because the plot should tell that. With a film like this, the deaths are important, but shouldn't be more important than the plot. -Lindsey8417 02:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive plot hole, possibly worth mentioning[edit]

I just read this somewhere, can't verify myself as I don't have the movie on dvd. "The opening scene has a roller coaster that is sent through a series of malfunctions until finally it flies off the track. The catalyst for all the malfunctions was guy who dropped his camera, and the handstrap of it got caught on the track. Then when the coaster runs over it it severs a hydraulic line and slightly screws with the wheels. This leads to the seat things coming up due to the lack of hydraulics, and eventually the out-of-whack wheels shake the track so much that it breaks a little and the coaster derails.


The main character's premonition causes her to freak out and prevent a bunch of the kids from getting on the train. One of the kids that now doesnt get on the coaster is the kid that had the camera. This means that the coaster never should have derailed and in fact the movie never goes back to explain how it derailed."

interesting huh? Maybe someone can confirm/deny it and then decide if its appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kizeesh (talkcontribs) 21:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

From what I've seen, I've concluded that because the hydraulics were already faulty, the rollercoaster crashed regardless or not of Frankie's intervention.

Actually, this is a clue. The fact that the crash happened regardless was a hidden foreshadowing of the reoccuring FD idea that death always finds a way. The fact that Frankie got off the roller coaster and it still crashes shows that Death improvised; something else would have been the catalyst (a gameboy or something being dropped out of someone's pocket). This, along with the leaking hydraulics, causes the crash. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sequel rumors[edit]

Are there any sources at all about these alleged 'rumors' about what the opening accident would be in such a sequel?--MythicFox 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clues section (original research)[edit]

As written, this section is unsourced and appears to be original research. If that is not the case, we need to provide proper citations to reliable sources. Otherwise, the section needs to go. -- MisterHand 15:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Since its been a week and there have been no attempts to cite the information, I've deleted the section. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit late, but it is definatly not OR as it was specifically stated by the writers of the film. I will try to back that up if you want MJN SEIFER (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Imported Trivia[edit]

  • There are many instances of product placement pertaining to Apple, Inc.'s products. The main character uses a Mac (an Apple Cinema Display sits prominently on her desk displaying the Mac OS X interface) while iPods are shown prominently throughout the film. This is the second movie in the Final Destination series to contain Apple products for product placement.
  • In the Subway car at the end of the movie, Wendy looks on the map where we see the stops named "Booth", "Oswald", "Ruby Drive", "McVeigh", "Hidell", "Tippit", and "63rd". These are all names of well-known assassins. John Wilkes Booth (assassin of Abraham Lincoln), Lee Harvey Oswald (assassin of John F. Kennedy), Jack Ruby (night-club owner who killed Oswald), Timothy McVeigh (terrorist of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995), Alek Hidell (Oswald's alias), J. D. Tippit (slain by Oswald following Kennedy's assassination), and 63rd (referring to a Chicago serial killer known as "The Monster of 63rd Street", Dr. H. H. Holmes).
  • Zac Efron auditioned for the role of Kevin, but lost it. Ashley Tisdale auditioned for the role of Erin, but lost it. Vanessa Anne Hudgens auditioned for the role of Julie, but lost it. They all star in High School Musical and High School Musical 2.
  • Ian's last name, the high school's name, and the town's name, McKinley, refer to President William McKinley, who was assassinated.
  • The choose their fate menu is narrated by Kristen Cloke who played Valerie Lewton in the first movie.
  • The only two references to the second movie are the pictures of the Route 23 pile-up that Wendy shows Kevin, and the Hice Pale Ale truck seen on the freeway that boxes in Kevin’s truck at the burger drive-thru. And still one direct and "hidden" reference was afforded in the DVD version's special features. At the end of the movie, a homeless person is sleeping on a subway bench, blanketed by newspapers reporting the death of the final two people involved in the "Route 23 Pile-up". They were originally meant to die in the train, but the actors couldn't make it to the movie set because of scheduling problems.
  • Wendy Christensen was originally intended to be a cousin of Kimberly Corman from Final Destination 2.
  • The title was previously known as Cheating Death: Final Destination 3 and Final Destination 3-D. 3-D was considered for the film, but it was deemed too expensive and complicated.
  • The Devil's Flight roller coaster featured in the movie is actually the "Corkscrew" at Playland in Vancouver, Canada. In the opening credits, the name Corkscrew is seen up in lights.
  • Ian McKinely and Erin Ulmer's pet names for each other, "Zip" and "Pip," were once the stage names of Elvira and Jenny Lee Snow, who suffered from microphaly and were a sideshow attraction (appearing in Tod Browning's Freaks as being called "pinheads") This hints at Erin's death as well as an ironic statement when she comments to Ian about "pinhead" customers.
  • The names, "Zip" and "Pip," may also refer to one of the oldest U.S. wooden rollercoaster, the Zippin Pippin (now dismantled) that existed at Libertyland in Memphis, Tennessee. It was said to be Elvis Presley's favorite roller coaster, which he spent several hours riding the week before his death.
  • In the original script, Ian McKinley was a female character who tried avoiding her boyfriend. Erin was originally a male character.
  • When Ashlyn and Ashley lie in the tanning beds they listen to the song "Love Rollercoaster" by the Ohio Players, referring to the rollercoaster that could have killed them. A common urban legend surrounding the song is that the scream heard during the song was left in as a tribute to a model murdered by the band's manager while the song was being recorded. [1]. The scream is edited into the tanning salon scene twice, the second time just before the girls realize the danger they are in.
  • The tagline of the movie "This Ride Will Be The Death Of You" is also from a lyric of the song "Queen of Apology" by The Sounds (which plays in the lobby of the tanning salon), "This will be the death of me." Final Destination 3 is a product of New Line Cinema and The Sounds are a product of New Line Records.
  • As revealed in "Kill Shot: Making Of Final Destination 3," the actors in the rollercoaster scene had to ride the roller coaster various times to get it right.
  • Erin's death can be foreseen in the opening credits when we see a picture of a lady with nails in her face.
  • During the scene where Frankie dies, the truck that is reversing into Kevin's truck is the same as the truck in the pile up on the second final destination.
  • In Japan, the film is renamed as Final Deadcoaster.
  • Depending on the 'Choose Their Fate' feature, either Ashley or Ashlyn get a slightly worse death than the other. In the original scene where they are both burned, Ashlyn gets the worse death as Ashley inadvertantly breaks the glass on her tanning bed due to struggling and thus stops the heat. But Ashlyn's bed continues to pump out heat, scorching her worse than Ashley. In the alternate scene, Ashlyn simply gets knocked out by the shelf whereas Ashley is trapped and burned in addition to being electrocuted later on.
  • The song played during Ashley and Ashlyn's funeral is the same song played during the memorial service of Flight 180 in "Final Destination".
  • Writers paid tribute to the band The Ramones in each installment of Final Destination.
  • Kris Lemche had to take forklift driving lessons for two days to learn how to drive one.
  • Helga Ungurait, the script supervisor, referred to Texas Battle as "the king of adding the word 'fuck'" for ad-libbing the word so much.
  • Tony Todd who plays the mortician in the first two Final Destination installments is the voice of the subway conductor in the third film as well as the voice for the Devil at the fair.
  • The music in the opening credits is the same music from the opening credits in the first film.
  • On the roller coaster premonition, Kevin is bisected, but in the final scene when its about to flip over Kevin's corpse is nowhere in the shot despite being next to Wendy.

Above is the Trivia section that has been imported from the article. No attempt has been made to integrate the content into the article, so it's been placed here.Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

More of same


Unlike Final Destination 1 and 2, the main character's premonition in this movie did not reduce the number of deaths in the first accident. Those that did go on the ride after Wendy's premonition were substituted by other people behind them in the line, who were not supposed to die, although it is not confirmed that they did die.

Furthermore, additional deaths were needed in the train accident in the end to kill Julie, Kevin and Wendy (We cannot presume they are killed by Final Destination 4 because it is a separate story from the first 3 movies), so their fate is unknown.

If you notice when Wendy takes a picture of Ashly and Ashlyn there is a red light right when the flash goes off.

In the Choose Their Fate Mode on the DVD, near the end you can choose to read a newspaper that a homeless person is using as a bed. It tells you that the two main survivors from Final Destination 2 died in a freak accident, proving that New Life doesn't stop Death. (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Who keeps changing the deaths?[edit]

who do you think dies first...(despite what wikipedia says)...Ashley or Ashlyn??? Ashley is shown to be the last one screeming so why does someone keep putting that Ashlyn died second??? also the same guys says that wendy was the 15th to die which is not possible since the kids in the roller coaster where 14...

Lewis Romero's death wrong?[edit]

The description for Lewis Romero's death does not match what I saw. In the DVD, vibrations cause the crossed swords to fall off the wall, slicing through cables on a weight machine he's using (military press?). All seems fine, and then when he does the next rep the two massive weights fall towards the center, smashing his head between them. This isn't anything like what's in the article, are there two versions of this scene?

Yes, there are two versions of the scene. On the DVD version there is an option to cause some scenes to happen differently/ MJN SEIFER (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Complete gutting[edit]

Per WP:NOTE, WP:NOR, and most particularly WP:WAF, I just gave this article a major gutting. Any of this material can, of course, be restored, but there would have to be a rationale provided for why the material is notable enough for inclusion in a reference encyclopedia, rather than a fan page somewhere offsite. As it stands, the article is much briefer, but is also in line with other examples on Wikipedia. Feel free to throw popcorn my direction. (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeats - before restoring the trivia, please justify its inclusion here, per the policies above. (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is done[edit]

If I ever come back to this artical and somebody has reverted to that god-awful essay-summary that was there before it will be someone's head on a plate. And if you so dare edit this new summary, if it becomes any longer than it already is, I will gouge your eyes with a pickle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why have you edited? It looked fine as it was. MJN SEIFER (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well get the pickle ready because there were some MAJOR discrepancies in the article and I corrected them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southerngal225 (talkcontribs) 02:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm... This is a bit embarrasing, but I might have thought you're edits where someone elses, sorry if that's the case... MJN SEIFER (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I rewrote the latest plot, the one before didn't say anything and parts about characters are incorrect. I hope you like it. The one that's up now is mine. -- (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Kate

Yeah, it's good. Much more informative than the last one. MJN SEIFER (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


That's what this article is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No it's not, I've rewritten the latest plot. And I own the movie and it's great and if you don't like it, you don't appreciate the art of horror. Someone else try and be more thorough than me. I'm a writer, so I don't know why Wikipedia is saying that it's unclear. -- (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Kate

Frankie's camera[edit]

I would be greatful if members could help me find reliable sources on this statement;

"He is often erroneously believed to be the cause of the accident by some of the fans[who?], because he dropped his camera shortly before the deaths started.[citation needed] However, when one watches the premonition closely, it becomes clear that the roller-coaster was already starting to collapse before he dropped it, meaning it that he only caused slightly more damage to the ride, making the deaths happen slightly sooner than they would have done."

I know it is true, but as this is Wikipedia, I need back up to keep it in MJN SEIFER (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankie dropped the camera because of Ashley and Ashlyn, the two beautiful girls who were burned alive inside their sunbeds. (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Took it out.[edit]

I took out part of the description at the top of the page syaing that this movie was the the final part of this series, because this year they are making a 4th Final Destination. (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. That line did not state that it was the last film in the series. It stated that it was the last film in the series distributed by New Line Cinema, which is correct; the fourth film is being distributed by Warner Bros., not New Line. --132 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


Why don't we put trivias about the movie? Japee (talk) 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:TRIVIA as to why we don't, and shouldn't, have them, except in very rare circumstances (and this is not one of them). --132 16:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in Ian's character description[edit]

Ian was not, I repeat NOT "skiped on purpose to cause Wendy's death" - there is no way Death would ever do that! I watched this film time and time again, and I see that the thing about Ian causing Wendy's death is an ASSUMPTION made by Wendy, because she knows that her clue is that she has a "McKinley" shirt - Ian's last name is McKinley, but it is also many other things in the film - the clue points to her being killed by the sign that said McKinely, but Ian inadvertantly stopped her from going there, so Death made the fire works try to kill her, but she moved, and it completly skipped her, so Ian died. Ian was NOT supposed to be there, as he was meant to be killed in the hardware store a long with Erin. He was not skipped on purpose, why would Death deliberatly ruin its own design? Who ever is admin or whatever the term is for Wiki please edit this now, it is a very comon mistake, and I understand, but it creates the wrong impression of the film. MJN SEIFER (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I so agree with you there. It WAS an assumption of Wendy's i mean the whole town was named McKinley but she just assumed that Ian was the cause of her death. He wasn't skipped on purpose he was meant to die at the hardware store but it just so happens that Wendy intervened, saving him. But i'm not so sure i agree with the part that you wrote about the sign being the original cause of Wendy's death because the sign had those pointy banner things just like in Ian's picture meaning that the sign was meant to kill him not Wendy. Death attempted to kill her with the fireworks but she moved like you said and Death just restarted his list again killing Ian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please rewrite this[edit]

The plot section is terrible. Could someone with better English skills please rewrite it. I don't actually like the film enough to do it myself but someone who can write properly and likes the film must be able to do a better job. (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please modify the Character Portion[edit]

Someone please have the Characters: portion in the table edited. AxiumX (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

...That's a little vague... Doniago (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox - Starring Field[edit]

User: has been editing the infobox Starring field to reflect actors pictured on the poster rather than in the associated credits. Consensus does not support this change. I have pointed the IP to the discussion and they have continued making this change. I have given them an edit-warring advisory and will report them if they continue to make this change without additional discussion. Additional opinions are welcome. Doniago (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The "Starring" field is supposed to be limited, so I agree with having just the two names in the field. The rest of the actors and their roles are easily listed in the "Cast" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. The Starring field should be very modest, with the full detail in the main body of the article. Varlaam (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


somebody got on here on re-wrote the article. can someone fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamzilla666 (talkcontribs) 23:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed an error in the plot summary[edit]

It said "Five years later, the three survivors cross paths aboard a subway train." It is in fact 5 months later, as the subtitle that comes up states clearly "Five Months Later". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannike54 (talkcontribs) 16:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Final Destination 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Snopes