Printable View
I recently brought 'Knowing' on blu ray and one of the adverts on it was for final destination 4,
called...
The Final Destination
It follows the same theme as the previous 3 films, it looks really good.
A new bunch of people (obvs)
Someone has a preminition whilst at a rally race and the cars all fly off into the audience. Killing lots of people ;D
Absolutely and undisputedly moronic title.
In all likelihood it's going to be bad. 3 was okay, and I liked 2. I really dislike the first though, Sean William Scott can only do comedy.
I'm looking forward to this film, the others were quite good.
forgot to mention that the release date for the UK is the 28th August.
Isn't it in 3D too?
I don't like the idea of the rally race thing, it could of been something more dramatic!
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianLove
yeh, meant to be in 3D
3D films rate highly on an epic scale of boring. The gags are the same in every film. Takes you out of the film rather than in.
It's gonna be kind of rubbish in 3D. I saw My Bloody Valentine 3D and the 3Dism was a bit poor.
As was the film. One of the worst remames in a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne
Yeah it was poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Misawa
you can watch it in normal versian too ?
Of course.
I only watch these movies to see how creative the deaths are.
i wouldnt want to run into you in a dark ally. Or anywhere else for that matter lmao
but actually, yeah its fun to see everyone die ;D
my favourite death out of them all has to be the guy in #2 who gets chopped into 3 pieces by barbed wire from an explosion and you see his intestines go everywhere :D
Yeah. Saw adverts for this when me and my mate were talking about the last Final Destinations and looked for new ones and found this. It moves away to a different group of people but keeps the same story line, preminations, death, 1 by 1. But promises to be amazing in 3D. Can't wait for it tbh.
Don't bank on it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xzoid
wayne was it digital 3D?
Cant wait to see it , me and my friends are going the first night to celebrate getting soem of our GCSE Results on teh 27th :D
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1144884/synopsis
Synopsis ^
Never watch a Final Destination, might watch this one.
Yep, but the director has made more money than you probably ever will - the Final Destination series is one of the most successful within the past 10 years and you can't accept that - the films were good. 1 was a break in the narrative structure of films around that time - the plot was good, original, unique. 2 built on that and made a fantastic film. 3 wasn't as good as the other two and concentrated on how much gore they could get away with but was still a good watch and I imagine, with the director of 4 being the same as 2, that this installment will be good and should send off the series with a 'bang' as I imagine this will be the last installment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Misawa
I'm sorry but he has his opinion just like anyone. If anything I think that they are appauling. The plot in the first place wasn't good in my opinion, there were little or no twists and you knew what was going to happen the whole way through. The second and third films did little apart from rehash the same story in different places as I expect the fourth one will. Just because they took large amounts of money, it doesn't mean that they are good. E.G The Phantom Menace is the Top grossing Starwars film and the 6th top grossing film of all time and yet its usually considered the worst in the series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skajo
The first was good because it came out about 7 years ago when I was 11 and I liked it.
two came out a few years later and I liked that one even more.
Three was crap.
Four will be diabolical
Extremely foolish to say that a film that is met with box office success is good. And no, as long as they can milk the cash cow, they will keep on making sequels. Ever heard of Saw? Hollywood horror is dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skajo
I love the final destination films. When it comes out i wont be able to see it cause I'm too young. My fave one is number 3.
I thought one was really good with the whole plane seating death plan idea.
I don't know what it was about two but I thought that was the worst. It just didn't capture like the others. I can't remember it really and I probably watched it about two years ago so for it not to stick in my mind isn't good.
Three I thought wasn't as good as the first but better than the second. The modernised picture death plan was a very good idea I thought.
Hoping four will be just as good as the others.
The main problem with the films is each one is exactly the same. Huge catastrophe to open the film, then the characters find a pattern, see similar events in old newspapers, then try and convince everybody to believe. Then the picture caps off with an "unexpected" death.
Hmm yeahh I suppose that is true actually come to think of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Misawa
It's a great original story, don't get me wrong, much needed in Hollywood horror, but that was the first - the sequels have no other story to tell, and don't go deeper into the story, it's just a situation with different characters.
To be honest, as much as I love the other three movies, I don't think this one is going to be all that great. To be honest, I just think that they could have used something better as a means to cause such a large death count. I don't think seeing people being crushed by cars is really going to be all that thrilling.
I'm just hoping the deaths will be better than the accident causing the premonition to occur.
I do agree that the sequels never faced up to the original however, they made them and people kept seeing them and as long as they see a return and more on their money, the distributors/publishers will carry on funding sequels - if they make money, it's a success. They don't do it to provide the audience with the best experience - admittedly it helps but as long as their balance is in the black, they're not bothered. To me, a film that makes money is a success. No necessarily a great film, but a success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Misawa
Yes, films that make a lot of money are financial successes, but in most cases aren't artistic successes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skajo
Correct, however just because you admire the artistic side to films' narrative etc doesn't mean that it doesn't appeal to anyone. The films have been success and that is why sequels are made. There's a minority that care about artistic success, yourself included, however that's how it will always stay - a minority, unless Hollywood gets disbanded - no chance of such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Misawa
I must disagree. Everyone when they see a film wants to be told a good story. That's almost like saying if they branded a film "The Dark Knight Returns" or whatever, and filled two hours with a black screen, that the audience would go home happy. Storytelling is within the art of film-making. People will see a film because of how it's doing in the box office, but the money it makes has no impact on anyone's opinion. Everybody cares about the quality of a film except for Hollywood execs.
So if you're saying that Final Destination's narratives and the films as a whole were terrible, how come the audience kept coming, paying for and viewing the sequels? In my view, that indicates that the prequels to said films were obviously good enough in all ways (inc. narrative) to bring the audience back - which is what's going to happen with FD4 as once again it will be a box office smash, I can guarantee you that. It's obviously doing something correct.
Transformers 2 was piss poor and yet was a box office smash - the narrative in that was virtually non-existant however it will manage to get into the green because of the Hollywood-effect of bang bang bang smash bash kill kill. Majority's like that. Minority's don't. It's a fact, unfortunately. I, like you, would prefer to see more films concentrate on the narrative and cater for the minority audience as this, given the publicity it needs, could encourage the oppositional audience to appreciate a minority's representation of a 'good film'.
You like the word "narrative".Quote:
Originally Posted by Skajo
I didn't say that I think the Final Destination films are terrible, I said they have problems. The first has a strong, original story, I just didn't like various elements such as the casting. I haven't seen it in a long time, maybe I'll prefer it the next time I watch it, I have the trilogy on DVD. I like 2, and 3 was just okay, so naturally I do not have high hopes for The Final Destination, but I'm willing to give it a chance as always. As I said, the main problem with the sequels is that they have no story - there's no story to be told - there was in the original, but now it's just a situation that's been replicated in both sequels with different characters, deaths and locations. Sure, the deaths are entertaining - and that's exactly why the series is a draw at the box office, because the gimmick of the films is the death scenes, people go because they want to see people die on-screen.
I have no doubt that The Final Destination will be a monetary success, but a box office smash? I can tell you it's certainly not going to break any records, else it'll be a cold day in Hell. The fanbase isn't that strong.
Id say T2's success was more due to the fact that the first film had so many fans...Quote:
Originally Posted by Skajo
And was already an exiting franchise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techno
Of course, both major contributors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Misawa
We'll see. I class #1 at the box office as a box office smash if that makes it any clearer to you. I didn't mean record breaking because I don't expect it to get anywhere close.
However, the same thing happens in sequels. It's a sequel. Jurrassic Park (excuse the Lost World because that was God awful) but both went to an island, dinosaurs chase and kill, they escape, some people die. Harry Potter - one of the main characters wants to be a rebel, Harry uses his magic on the opposition, he wins opposition. There's only so far you can go with NARRATIVES and what's not broken, don't fix (is the idea of the producers/distributors for major companies). Layer Cake wasn't as big as it could've been because of this - it broke the usual NARRATIVE and people didn't like it (because they couldn't understand it - morons). Same as Brick (although other contributions made it unsuccessful ) but it was a good film with a complex NARRATIVE and people didn't like it.
Yes, those sequels are limited in their use of expansion, but not totally constricted. They are at least able to expand moreso than the Final Destination sequels. I haven't seen Layer Cake so can't offer an opinion. And yes, a lot of sequels do mimic the situation of the original rather than further develop the story.