Final Destination 3 rumor
Colin Fisher said:
Just a heads up, if you plan on taking kids under...ehh lets say 12, maybe 13. Depends what age and grade they start teaching bout them boobies in school (Oh dear), I would say it is Off-Limits to younger kids. Of course its rated R, but there were TONS of kids with parents in the Theater. I saw a few eye covering parents at that tanning bed part.
I love this mindset. Take your kids to what you call "one of the goriest movies" you have seen, but god forbid they see some breasts!
-Nate
The coaster crash was actually the most lame of the death scenes, the others had way more tension.
IMO, nothing can top the pile up in FD2! The deaths in FD3 were definately something else! Death wasn't playing this time around.
So it's ok, in a lot of parents eyes, to let their kids see people kill each other, but God forbid they should see people naked or making love. Nice...
On a different note, the film did not live up to expectations at the theatre I work at, though preliminary Friday grosses nationwide were good. Pic should make roughly $18 million this weekend.
They Live. We Sleep.
coasterdude318 said:
Colin Fisher said:
Just a heads up, if you plan on taking kids under...ehh lets say 12, maybe 13. Depends what age and grade they start teaching bout them boobies in school (Oh dear), I would say it is Off-Limits to younger kids. Of course its rated R, but there were TONS of kids with parents in the Theater. I saw a few eye covering parents at that tanning bed part.I love this mindset. Take your kids to what you call "one of the goriest movies" you have seen, but god forbid they see some breasts!
-Nate
IMO, breasts are worse for a kid to see then blood. But that's just me.
*** Edited 2/12/2006 12:01:12 AM UTC by Colin Fisher***
It's also sad what movies are popular. Big Momma's House 2 and this get huge budgets and grosses. I have seen a number of excellent movies so far this year, yet none have been mainstream.
Colin Fisher said:
IMO, breasts are worse for a kid to see then blood. But that's just me.
Yeah, I'd much rather have my kid see something that's a pretty natural part of the human body - breasts - than have him/her see people being impaled, chopped in half, smashed, squashed, burned, decapitated, gutted, and exploded.
It's definitely okay for kids to laugh at people being murdered in gruesome and graphic ways, but we're facing an apocalypse if kids happen to see a breast or two.
Apparently it's a good thing I don't have kids.
-Nate
I must say that I have strong reservations against the excessive and gratuitious cruelty that is bestowed upon movie characters which is on the rise recently in mainstream cinema.
Not only that there's hardly a movie that seems to get along without at least 10 senseless killings, recent movies such as the SAW series or now Final Destination and a number of others seem only to exist to depict violence and painful destruction of human beings.
I do not believe that watching violence and gore will necessarily turn kids into criminals, but the images for sure linger on in peoples minds and influence their thinking and dreams.
If there is a single viewer of "HOSTEL" who will be incited to use electric drills and welding irons in a similar way - isn't that enough to make this movie a crime in itself?
I thought a lot about the Muslim anger against the depictions of Mohammed - and there has to be a lot of incitement from preachers and politicians to make people burn down embassies and turn to violence, but I must admit that in our western culture, we sometimes do not treat the use of imagery with enough sensitivity.
You may say: We live in a free society, don't go and watch the movie then.
And I won't.
But I see a lot of people going to those movies without even grasping what they are doing to themselves.
And I have to seriously wonder about this whole discussion centered on "nudity" - I think the main point should be "dignity".
I think this whole keeping nudity under the carpet and allowing kids to see closeups of peoples heads chopped of and eyes popped out, screaming, is a pretty bigot affair.
I admit, the whole "cruelty is fun"-Halloween culture is somewhat beyond me as well.
In FD3, the moral justification to kill off the characters is basically "because they suck" - what reason is that? Isn't the desire to kill people "because they suck" something we should teach ourselves to avoid?
The only way we can change the film industry is to not go and spend our money watching these movies.
But are people mature enough NOT to watch a movie rated R?
You may flame back now
*** Edited 2/12/2006 11:42:27 AM UTC by superman***
If there is a single viewer of "HOSTEL" who will be incited to use electric drills and welding irons in a similar way - isn't that enough to make this movie a crime in itself?
If they end up using a drill in that way they have already thought of or carried out similar things. Screwed up people don't use movies for motivation, they use them as an excuse.
The motivation in FD3 is not that the kids suck, its that they got away with escaping death and death still comes for them.
This is the least violent generation in some time. I think it is fair to say that we need to let parents parent, and let adults see what they want to see.
You can quote all the figures you like, and somehow I just don't recall ANY school shootings when I was growing up.
I agree with your assessment that if someone commits a heinous act, they were probably already messed up.
However, we are talking about children, which I doubt anyone would argue are impressionable. I seem to recall more than one incident when a child accidently caused harm, even death, to another child due to some wrestling moves seen on a WWE show. And it makes sense; children regularly try and imitate the adult behavior they are exposed to.
Personally, I'm not for any kid being exposed to material beyond their relative grasp, regardless of the content.
A few years back, when "Halloween H2O" opened, a guy and a small girl approached the ticket window. When the guy asked for "H2O" tickets, I thought he was perhaps confused; the little girl was no more than 6 or 7 years old. He replied that he knew it was R-rated, then turned to his (assumed) daughter and asked "Who are we going to see, honey?". She jumped up and down and up and down while clapping her hands and exclaimed "Michael Myers! Michael Myers! Michael Myers!"
Sickening...
They Live. We Sleep.
Your kid kicking and screaming cause they didn't get to see the movie is better than them seeing bodies flying everywhere and boobs hanging out, right? Just be a parent to your kids, or shutup about the consequences of taking a child to an R rated movie.
Violent? Sorta... but that's the whole basis of Final Destination series. They could see the deaths much ahead of time and are learning the mistakes of the first two by seeing the future through the photographs.
It kind of makes the film predictable because you know whatever clues they find in the photo, it winds up being something completely different that was later found to be a clue in the photo.
The whole amusement park scene & rollercoaster thing definately felt flatter than the first two. In fact the ending was more intense than the beginning crash of the coaster.
It seemed like during the preminition, the coaster went through the same track like 3 times. It went over the bunny hop at least 3 times, the same corkscrew 3 times, and the same loop like 3 times, finally getting stuck in the loop. It just didn't seem as unpredictable & tense as the road crash in Final Destination 2. The deaths weren't as gory or violent, and although the sound was cranked up & loud... it just can't beat a tanker jack-knifing or cars screeching & crashing into one another. I liked it, but it felt like they could have used a better preminition and used the coaster as one of the deaths instead.
Overall, the heads did pop, smoosh, squish, which was quite cool in the end... but again, they were somewhat predictable because you KNOW they're going to try and throw a curve-ball from what it initially may be since we've seen it already done in the first two films.
7 outta 10 for me.
Basically the movie delivered what it promised. It was a complete gore fest and that's why it rocked. I agree with Dawg saying it wasn't as good as the second. One of the reviews said that FD1 = FD3 < FD2. I feel the same way. The opening scene in FD2 was pretty awesome. The rollercoaster scene was good but man, it was like a 10 minute ride (or so it felt). Not to mention when the thing started for real (not the premonition) it had crashed right away. That's just nitpicking on my part though.
Those deaths were gruesome though. Wow. I had forgotten how gory the series was until I saw this one. The movie is what it is. It's a graphic death movie. It's not an award-winning film. It did what it was supposed to and with that in mind, I thought it was worth my money. Not to mention the last movie I saw was "When a Stranger Calls". Don't get me started.
The paper (not sure which) said that the coaster was supposed to be 200' high when in reality it's like 65' high. Still... it felt like a ride that was 5 minutes longer than the longest 200' tall ride in the world!
...and yea, I'm probably going to get the DVD the day it comes out too, knowing me.
Personally, I liked the boobs, prior to them being 'overbaked'... :)
You must be logged in to post
