Talk:Final Destination (film)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Final Destination (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Final Destination (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 12, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
June 27, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Film: Canadian / American

	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
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Critical response section is a mess

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

Instead of links to the actual reviews the Critical response section is littered with reference to Metacritic profile page for each critic. This is a serious failure to provide proper references. {{Better reference needed}} I'm going to try to start to clean up this mess and add references to the actual reviews. I seriously question how it passed good article review.[1]

The Critical response section includes a paragraph that starts with "Despite the film's general mixed reception, critics praised Sawa's performance as Alex." Then it says "Mr. Sawa's teenage clairvoyant is colorless and charisma-free." This is obviously not praise, and I suspected this contradiction was vandalism but I checked the source, and verified that the quote is accurate, and that is exactly what the New York Times said. At the time of the good article review the article including a different quote from The New York Times "The disaster and Alex's premonitions set up a heavy-handed fable about death and teenage illusions of invulnerability." but again that is not praise for Sawa, that is merely a description of the story (and not even a complimentary one). If the intention is to say Sawa was praised this should be removed. If the intention is to say some praised and some didn't this still needs to be rephrased and reorganized. -- 109.79.171.9 (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any sense to have criticism of Sawa right after a sentence saying critics praised him, so I've removed it.[2]

I previously spent some time replacing generic unhelpful references to Metacritic profile pages with specific references to actual reviews of this film but the section is still a mess and full of problems. The failure to include proper references is so bad I don't think this should ever have passed GA review. -- 109.78.205.46 (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references throughout this article are a mess for another reason. Some insane person seems to have decided to abuse the citation template and instead of using first and last parameters for names and surnames has instead used those fields for information about publishers and websites/works. I tried fixing some of them but it is such a huge mess I gave up and I'm in no hurry to fix the rest of it. Probably all caused by a weird obsessive with a compulsive need to format references to look a certain way but with a total disrespect for the importance of any underlying semantic meaning. -- 109.79.166.98 (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You're right: that was a total mess. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the mismatched parameters.

Section still a mess because someone thought anything less than a link to the actual review as a reference was acceptable, and repeatedly linked to just Metacritic. Sad. (Cars (film) is similarly poorly referenced.) -- 109.78.214.194 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks to User:Macinasron for putting it out of my misery.[3] -- 109.76.130.33 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster horror film

Since the deaths in all of the Final Destination movies are caused by accidents wouldn't that mean that they're disaster horror movies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.7.166 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might but ideally the WP:FILMGENRE should be reliably sourced, and the lead section should try to stick to the primary genre (horror), not every possible applicable genre. -- 109.76.130.33 (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]