Final Destination 4
- Thread starter James S godzilla
- Start date
livelove123
New member
Plane was just a far off in the distance explosion from what I can remember of the first. The second was far more interesting to watch and intense. As for the third one, rollercoasters don't bother me because I can't go on them now, so since I'm not going on one again, doesn't creep me out thinking it could come off the rails lol.
Royal Blue
New member
The books are great.....
What was the connection to Flight 180 in the second? Other than Ali Larter's character coming back I can't remember that 
Anyway, there was no need for it follow a story - the point is Death comes back to those who miraculously avoid it, hence two new premonitions before accidents and a bunch of people surviving then spending the entire film avoiding "Death"...
As for the second, that was the worst I thought. Really really dull as I remember. Did that get shown at the cinema? The opening was great but not spectacular. The third one's opening was way better because of the horrifying nature of it being a rollercoaster. The special effects were dodgy for obvious reasons but it got the point across. However I thought one's was the best. We saw the accident in more detail in the premonition anyway, but the chilling way the plane exploded in the background as a small ball of fire while they were talking was a really fantastic touch...
A race track for 4 though? That sounRAB pretty dreadful but could be wrong. Something like a collapsing building or a broken river dam would be a different take, not another crash.
Anyway, there was no need for it follow a story - the point is Death comes back to those who miraculously avoid it, hence two new premonitions before accidents and a bunch of people surviving then spending the entire film avoiding "Death"...
As for the second, that was the worst I thought. Really really dull as I remember. Did that get shown at the cinema? The opening was great but not spectacular. The third one's opening was way better because of the horrifying nature of it being a rollercoaster. The special effects were dodgy for obvious reasons but it got the point across. However I thought one's was the best. We saw the accident in more detail in the premonition anyway, but the chilling way the plane exploded in the background as a small ball of fire while they were talking was a really fantastic touch...
A race track for 4 though? That sounRAB pretty dreadful but could be wrong. Something like a collapsing building or a broken river dam would be a different take, not another crash.
supere30m3
New member
A shopping mall collapse would be good.
What made the first films work was how they involved situations that the majority of people can find themselves in. Lots of us fly, Lots of us drive or are driven, most of us will have found themselves on a rollercoaster.
From what I've seen mentioned here, the 'event' involves a racing track and that, I'd imagine, would make it fairly alien to a lot of people. Without the familiarisation that 'I've done that a few times, that could be me' the opening sequence will be fairly tame. Yes, the special effects and gore will still be impressive, but I bet a number of you won't find it makes the same impression.
I'm too cyncial when it comes to 3-D movies. Always think that it's a novelty to draw people in on weak films. perhaps the advanced technology and HD elements mean it's an added bonus and not a substitute.
From what I've seen mentioned here, the 'event' involves a racing track and that, I'd imagine, would make it fairly alien to a lot of people. Without the familiarisation that 'I've done that a few times, that could be me' the opening sequence will be fairly tame. Yes, the special effects and gore will still be impressive, but I bet a number of you won't find it makes the same impression.
I'm too cyncial when it comes to 3-D movies. Always think that it's a novelty to draw people in on weak films. perhaps the advanced technology and HD elements mean it's an added bonus and not a substitute.
