World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc.

Full Version: Boycott Time: Final Destination 5
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I'm kinda shocked by this, actually...


There's a Final Destination 5?!?! Yeah, apparently, the last one was such a 'surprise success' (Which means even their creators didn't think anyone would go watch this) that it apparently was worth it to make yet another. It's pretty obvious that this'll just be a bunch of people defying death once again thanks to some contrived flashforward or vision or something, so basically nothing new.

This is almost lazyness incarnate.

Let me tell you how this movie was green-lighted: "What?! The Final Destination made money?!" yelled an executive producer "Fantastic! Make another one!" "Should we put any effort into that one?" asked a director "Of course not, who do you think you are?!" replied the producer.

Oh and, what do you know, it's in 3D. What a shock. More of that pointless 3D that's only there to boost the price. What's the title, again? Final Destination 5? Why was the last one called "The Final Destination", then?! We have Finale Destination 1, 2, 3, THE FINAL DESTINATION and then 5?! That's just stupid!

This is a great example of what's wrong with movies, nowadays. Lazy sequels that are made just because the last one made money.

I urge you, people, don't go see that movie! You'll only encourage mediocre, pathetic, insipid movies that are way too expensive for what they're worth!

What do you guys think, though? I'm curious, how many of you will go see it? How many of you will waste their hard-earned money on this?
Oh, PLEASE tell me this is a joke. I'm begging you. This has to be a joke thread and you made that poster yourself. Was this movie even needed? Ugh, Final Destination: No matter how much movie producers want you to care, you don't. I agree, nobody see this atrocity.
You think that's bad?

The director for this (Forgot his name, don't really care) said that, if Final Destination 5 was a success, then Final Destination 6 AND 7 would be made back to back.

Get it? It means that, if this one works, two more horrible plague to the world of cinema will be made!

This truly is the moviepocalypse...
...Nuclear bunkers. I will hide in one. Thank GOD that I don't go to the movies often, but if my father goes to see this...he'll drag ME along! And my brothers are excited about this movie, despite my complaints to the contrary. I hope this is a giant hoax by the producers and director. First Jerry Rice and Nitus, and now THIS? What's gone wrong with the media industry?
I actually like final destination and am looking forward to this.
I don't really get why you like it, but I respect your opinion.

The first one was pretty good, to be honest, but the others were the exact same thing. You basically always know that they're all gonna die except maybe the protag and his/her lover, just so they can die in the next one.

It's predictable and stupid. But do enjoy paying money for something very redundant that doesn't have good 3D at all.
Well i'm a horror movie fan so I live on movies which are basically just copies of other movies haha.
I am only seeing this to check what age group lost their intelligence or leeched off of TV and Facebook....

EDIT:

Because a lot of people are just raised without a sense of adventurous taste, and use such principles to sum up the quality of anything that is actually worth a thousand words. Usually those that are not, to be exact.
I've only ever seen Final Destination 2 but I thought the premise was actually very entertaining and actually fuelled suspense incredibly well. I'm surprised it's got so much hate.
Because after that, the series went downhill. The Final Destination wasn't even all that good, it was simply better than the ones preceding it. Blech, no point in reviving a terrible franchise, no? Some franchises need to stay dead. Final Destination is one of them.
The idea of the movie isn't the problem and I can perfectly understand why, by watching only one, you'd think it's pretty good, but imagine that movie repeated four more times (And possibly six more times, now) without any creativity.

It's like if all of the Karate Kid's sequels were basically the same idea, except you switch up the kid and mentor.

It's also the fact that it's gonna be in 3D, which is something that's only there to boost the price to make more money. I can't encourage that for such a weak movie.
(Aug. 13, 2011  1:42 AM)Dude Wrote: [ -> ]The idea of the movie isn't the problem and I can perfectly understand why, by watching only one, you'd think it's pretty good, but imagine that movie repeated four more times (And possibly six more times, now) without any creativity.

It's like if all of the Karate Kid's sequels were basically the same idea, except you switch up the kid and mentor.

It's also the fact that it's gonna be in 3D, which is something that's only there to boost the price to make more money. I can't encourage that for such a weak movie.

Yeah, I actually get what you're saying, haha.

However, 3D surely suits this sort of film perfectly, surely! 8)
It would seem so, but then it would excuse its use in things like "Piranha 3D", so I'd presume the movie was tailored so it would seem so. Besides, I got tired of 3-D in March. Of 2010. It's been used WAY too liberally in my opinion.
The Final Destination was actually one of the few films last year actually shot in 3D, alongside Piranha. It's not one of those films to be complaining about being in 3D, since horror films do benefit from the technology.

As for the title, I just need to remind people that with multi-million dollar films, it's only the last film until the next one. We had "THE FINAL FRIDAY" after all, and still got back slasher sequels after that.

I've never watched one of these movies before, but okay, I guess I'll continue that trend?
Do you guys really go watch movies because they're in 3D?

During the preview for the movie, do you really go "Holy carp, it's in 3D?! I HAVE to watch this!"

We go watch a movie because the premise interests us or because there's an actor we like in it, but I don't know a single person that goes to see a movie because it's in 3D and the 3D usually doesn't look that good (i.e Green Lanter, Pirates of the Cara-something 4, Transformers 3)

It's so obviously there to boost the price. It's a gimmick. I hate gimmicks, that's all.

Also, as it happens, Pirahna 3D was a horrible movie.
Basically everyone except you* agrees that the 3D in Transformers: Dark of the Moon makes a difference, so I'm thinking it's your eyes (especially if you can't tell the difference between post-converts like Green Lantern and native 3D like in TF3). Also FYI, I did just watch Journey To The Centre Of The Earth, and Avatar because they were in 3D, lol.

3D works for certain films. Big budget blockbusters? Assuming they have a competent director who has a filming style- yes. Horror movies? Yes. Comedies? No. Dramas? No. 3D allows the viewer to be more immersed in the world of the film, and feel effects as though they were there.

* and Ebert, but in his review Ebert doesn't mention the 3D at all outside of some projector problems because he hates the technology.
Eh, I simply hate that it's used so often, even in movies that OBVIOUSLY don't need 3-D. On the "Last one until the next one" part, I guess you're right, but it is still insane and plain annoying. Especially if the franchise was going downhill anyway. Definitely continue your trend. It will likely be horrible or VERY predictable, like all the other ones are.

Case in point, The Final Destination-Last Scene

"Wait... What if we didn't change anything?" My thought- Oh, they're screwed.
"What?" Me: Yeah, they're gonna die. 5 bucks says it's because of the ladder thing.
*Camera shows all of the places that someone died in. And the name of the Coffee Shop, which has to do with death, of course* Me: Yup, they're gonna die. Oh, look a trailer. They die in about...now.
*Truck crashes through window, killing all remaining characters.* Me: Thought so. Huh...I'm bored.
Let's not get back into the Transformer 3D debate, shall we?

And did you really go see two movies because they were in 3D? Had there been no 3D, you wouldn't have watched those two movies?

Sorry, but I don't get it.
I'm more likely NOT to see a movie because it's in 3-D. I'm not going to pay extra money for something I see as useless 90% of the time. Transformers, maybe. Piranha only had three scenes where 3-D would even be decent. The wire, the parts of the fish flying when the dude with the Speedboat motor was cutting them, and I think one other scene I forgot. Meh, when I see "Also in 3-D!" I'm like: "Ugh, again?".
I like Final Destination just because of the way they die (it may seem cruel lol.) It's just entertaining to see different ways we could die.

You're right; 3D is a way to get you to pay more money. Look at Spy Kids; that comes in 4D. Kids see that and say I wanna see that in 4D! (I should know; I was one who said that for the third one lol.) This makes parents pay more; movies make a ton; and come with a retarded sequel.
Yes, as Avatar is a heavily cliched film that panders to Cameron I wouldn't have watched it without the visual spectacle. Journey to the Centre of the Earth wasn't a good movie, but one of the earlier recent 3D attempts, and I watched that out of interest in the gimmick. Both of those films grossed as much money as they did because they were in 3D. Heck, Alice in Wonderland is supposedly a garbage film (and this is from a Burton fan), but people came out in droves for that film because it was the first major 3D movie after Avatar. Of course, it had to be a poorly done post-conversion ... Heck, I'd watch a 3D concert film that wasn't just Bieber, the Jonas Brothers, Celine Dion, U2, Keving Chesney, and the cast of Glee. I wouldn't normally watch a concert film.

I must ask, what's your problem with 3D exactly? Do you want stuff flying in your face (which a horror film would provide)? Or do you want it to be subtle, and immersive (which a competently shot blockbuster would provide)? I generally go for the later which both Avatar, and Transformers delivered. I can understand not wanting the flying in your face gimmick, but that would still be in the film with the 2D version. Which reminds me, why are you so angry at 3D versions? 2D versions still exist. Getting angry because people enjoy something you don't when there's a choice isn't healthy.*

* pot calling kettle black here
Because it's usually nonsensical. Avatar and DotM is okay, do 3-D all you want to. But really, some movies do it just to do it, and it pisses me off. In the case of Piranha and Final Destination, I like my movies to have a plot, don't you?
I dislike 3D because it's pointless. Movies were good without them and they would still be. But nowadays (I must sound really old, here) It's like every movie needs to be in 3D. Although some movies did have good 3D, I never felt like they made a movie worth it, it's the story, characters, acting, music and more that define a movie. I don't hate 3D, I find it useless.

And c'mon, you know it's just an excuse to have movie tickets cost more to take more of our cash. That's especially insulting because it's like they don't care, anymore. It's okay to want to make money, I can totally understand that, but when you concentrate on graphics too much, a movie becomes CGI-Porn and is usually lacking in every other field.

3D encourages lazyness. That's why I'll never support it.

Also, as for the regular version, the theatre I usually go to pretty much never has a non-3D version. Yeah, it's not the movie-makers' fault, but it's the concept that I find hilariously dumb.
(Aug. 13, 2011  2:47 AM)Dude Wrote: [ -> ]I dislike 3D because it's pointless. Movies were good without them and they would still be. But nowadays (I must sound really old, here) It's like every movie needs to be in 3D. Although some movies did have good 3D, I never felt like they made a movie worth it, it's the story, characters, acting, music and more that define a movie. I don't hate 3D, I find it useless.

And c'mon, you know it's just an excuse to have movie tickets cost more to take more of our cash. That's especially insulting because it's like they don't care, anymore. It's okay to want to make money, I can totally understand that, but when you concentrate on graphics too much, a movie becomes CGI-Porn and is usually lacking in every other field.

3D encourages lazyness. That's why I'll never support it.

Also, as for the regular version, the theatre I usually go to pretty much never has a non-3D version. Yeah, it's not the movie-makers' fault, but it's the concept that I find hilariously dumb.
This is exactly what I'm trying to say. I mean, did Yu-Gi-Oh REALLY need a 3-D movie?
Yu-Gi-Oh! created a 3D movie...craziness. They make enough money off the TCG.
Pages: 1 2