Editorials
[Special Feature] ‘Final Destination’: Not So Final After All!
Death. It’s the most final of words; even in the thesaurus it is synonymous with words like ‘finish’ or ‘exit.’ To death, there’s no beginning, middle and end. There are no more birthdays, no more promotions at work. And that’s what makes death so damn terrifying- the fact that it’s all unknown. The fact that there really is nothing to look forward to once the clock stops ticking.
I was in high school when Final Destination hit theaters. I didn’t even bother to go and see it; I figured it was another cookie-cutter example of a teen slasher flick. From the sound of it, I was certain it would be some guy dressed as father death slinging a scythe around. Boy, was I wrong. It was an original; not necessarily a masterpiece, but a breath of fresh air amidst masked killers and by the book adolescent cinema. Now, here we are, eleven years later and looking dead in the eyes of ‘Final Destination 5’, the latest installment in the franchise. While most of us had tuned out after the massacre that was 4, those who believed in the idea stuck it out- and, thanks to their perseverance, this one is coming out smelling like roses. Some are going so far as to argue that this film is going to be the best of the series; while others, at the very least, have bestowed best sequel honors on the film. Since I haven’t seen the film yet, I can’t pass judgement- but our very own Mr. Disgusting actually liked it. Knowing how much he loves the series (probably as much as I love Justin Bieber), this is quite the compliment; and certainly a reason for me to be there this weekend.
In honor of Final Destination 5 (review), I took a trip down memory lane with story elitist Jeffrey Reddick, producer Craig Perry, and the man himself, actor Tony Todd; after all, if it weren’t for Flight 180, this bridge over troubled water wouldn’t exist.
![]()
“In death there are no accidents, no coincidences, no mishap, and no escapes.” ~~Bludworth, Final Destination (2000)
“It was fresh and original,” recalled Perry, who has produced all five films in the franchise. “We were given the latitude to explore the ideas.” Perry went on about the original 14 page treatment he helped Reddick complete. “[The film] was the perfect synthesis of what New Line wanted. It was different. It was unique in how it treated its audience. It treated you with respect. And ultimately, it was a way for audiences to explore the things we can’t define, the things that frighten us… and get away with it.”
If the plot isn’t familiar by now, there’s a problem. I’m thinking something along the lines of a residence being under a rock. Basically a teenager has a vision that the plane he’s on explodes and everyone dies. He snaps out of it, realizes he’s ON that plane, and freaks out. After exchanging words with the class jock and causing a ruckus that results in him and a few classmates, as well as a teacher, deplaning, the plane actually does explode, killing those still on board. By saving himself and the others, he ruined Death’s plan, causing a ripple effect that forces Death himself to hunt them down one by one.
And that is the first film in a nutshell.
Director James Wong and writer Glen Morgan’s mark on the franchise began when they were pulled onto the original film. Taking what Reddick had pieced together, they changed it to fit their vision and ultimately ran with it. But it was Reddick who had the ‘ah-ha’ moment. “I was actually flying home to Kentucky and I read this story about a woman who was on vacation in Hawaii and her mom called her and said ‘Don’t take the flight tomorrow, I have a really bad feeling about it,’” said Reddick, who is formally credited for his story creation in both Final Destination and ‘Final Destination 2’. “She switched flights and the plane that she would have been on crashed. I thought, that’s creepy- what if she was supposed to die on that flight?” Originally an X-Files spec script, Reddick, with Perry’s guidance, transformed the script into Flight 180, the movie’s original working title. Though Reddick wrote the entire first draft, eventually Wong and Morgan stepped in, rewriting the script and taking charge.
A lot of things had changed from the first ideas on paper. Initially, the characters had been a group of adult strangers- however, with the wave of teen horror, the characters were changed to fit the times. But the high school seniors were the only common dominator in those films. The biggest difference? The killer wasn’t physical. There was no mask, no weapon- and that’s what made it different. “New Line was very nervous about having a movie with death as the killer,” said Reddick. “What Final Destination has going for it is that death is all around us. It’s not just someone chasing somebody with an axe.”
The nervousness eventually wore off. Though the film only made around $10 million its opening weekend (less than half the budget), it came back to gross over $112 million worldwide when it was all said and done. And it was certainly a big enough return to nudge New Line in the direction of a sequel, even though it wasn’t a necessity. “We could have made no other movies and the first one still would have been a satisfying experience,” said Perry.”But when we were given the opportunity to make a sequel, we jumped at it,”
“There’s gonna be a huge accident. Everybody’s gonna die!” ~~Kimberly, ‘Final Destination 2’ (2003)
Riding off of the success that the crash of Flight 180, er, I mean Final Destination, brought down with it, New Line again approached Reddick to piece together the second installment. “I wanted to expand on the mythology and not just tell the same story over again.”
The story came to him while driving. He saw one of those oversized, overstocked log trucks teetering along, and the highway to hell was conceived. Initially he had been thinking of a hotel fire- but it seemed too simplistic for what would become the franchise’s signature: an elaborate opening that puts other death sequences to shame. Follow it up with some kills to remember and that’s the apparent recipe for success.
“The kills were just great,” said Perry of ‘FD2’, who is fond of the window pane kill of poor little Timmy. “I find it wildly entertaining.” For many, that’s the appeal of these films- the kills aren’t gratuitous. They aren’t overdone, nor can they be classified as ‘over the top’ or to the extremity of ‘torture porn.’ They’re fast, they’re clean, and they get the job done. “The kills are the punctuation of the cinematic sentence that comprises the sequence,” added Perry.
In ‘Final Destination 2’, the log truck loses its load and those in the path of destruction meet a horrendous fate; several escaping when a young woman has ‘the vision’ while driving and causes a traffic-stopping distraction; literally. As in the first film, the pattern begins, each survivor dying in a ghastly way to fit Death’s plan- only this time the deaths were much more elaborate and the film’s tone hit all the right notes. From first glance, it seemed as if New Line had another hit on its hands- and a possible franchise in the making. After all, it’s one thing to make a sequel; it’s another to continue in the name of success.
“Death is fucking complicated.” ~~Erin, ‘Final Destination 3’ (2006)
Final Destination reached franchise level when director/writer duo Wong and Morgan returned for 2006’s ‘Final Destination 3’, a vanilla compound in comparison to the two previous films. This time a horrendous roller coaster accident claims the lives of its victims. Great start, but something that was more of an ‘engine that could’ shot at filmmaking as opposed to a new take on an old concept. The film itself was well made, but it just didn’t fall into place as well as fans had hoped. And don’t even get us started on The Final Destination- its success was measured by 3D ticket sales and not creativity. Audiences far and wide were disappointed in the outcome; and even the filmmakers agree that it wasn’t what they’d hoped it would be.
But redemption is well overdue and the crew behind ‘FD5’ is looking forward to that achievement this weekend when the film hits theaters on Friday.
“We started fresh and brought in a new group of creative people who actually questioned why things happened the way they happened,” said Perry, who feels this film is his favorite of the five. “They were dedicated to making this movie the best it could possibly be.”
Director Steven Quale teams up with Eric Heisserer, the scribe behind The Nightmare on Elm Street remake, for the latest installment. Though Quale may not be a household name, he comes from a strong background in the industry- most notably as Second Unit Director on both Titanic and Avatar, learning the ropes by way of James Cameron. Not a bad place to hail from. “Once the film opens he’s going to have at least ten offers on the table,” bragged Todd.
By way of trailers and whispers, the bridge seems to be the culprit this time around; death sending its victims into muddy waters as the catalyst. “‘FD5’ got the tone right,” said Perry. “It’s serious, but still has humor – gallows humor. It’s not campy but is aware of how potentially absurd the situation is. I think everyone involved saw ‘FD5’ as a chance to redeem ourselves, to say we’re sorry, to say that we figured it out, and to really put our best creative foot forward as opposed to relying on the financial success of ‘FD4’.”
“They took the time to come up with a great twist on this one,” said Todd. And he was right. It’s not the same old formula- now there’s a new rule. If you’re in line to die, and you kill someone, they take your place. Talk about a complicated morality check. “With each of the movies we’ve been trying to establish the perfect vision of what the franchise can be,” said Perry. “With ‘FD5’, we got it right,”
Collapsing bridges, murder or be murdered; the Final Destination franchise has certainly evolved from what was originally supposed to be, as Todd puts it, “… one of those jobs where I was one and done.” Hoping to build off of the potential success, future installments are in the works. While rumors have been circulating for months, Perry put it into the best of words; “We hope to have the right to talk about [another installment] come Monday. It’s up to the audience.”
Death as a Killer
“It wasn’t just some slasher movie,” recalled Reddick. “The whole idea that there is a pattern to death added another level that set the franchise apart.” Perry added, “We don’t have a visible bad guy. The bad guy in some ways is a metaphysical idea, a thesis. Is it fate? Is it destiny? Is it death itself? By not providing a concrete answer, you can bring your own background to the viewing experience. It’s really a reflection of what you believe.”
Horror fans, hell, movie fans, had grown accustomed to physically seeing the attacker. Jason. Michael Meyers. Freddy Krueger. And despite arguments that the Final Destination franchise is not horror, it’s a disagreeable fact; it’s a slasher flick without the slasher. There’s suspense, there’s blood, there’s the dumb girl or boy doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. It’s not what we’re used to, but that’s the beauty of it. And that’s what keeps audiences coming back for more.
Who knows if ‘FD5’ will be a success. Who knows if there will be another Final Destination sometime in the future. My guess is that audiences will flock to it to see what happens next; what’s changed, what’s new. They’ll buy some popcorn, sit back, and cringe as one by one, Death follows the pattern, distributing his plan. Maybe seeing or avoiding this film is a part of your plan; either way, death is ever present, and the Final Destination series stands by its motto; life is short, and then you die.
For more from Andrea, visit her blog, THE ALBIN WAY.
Editorials
Why Mainstream Horror Should Lighten Up
“Elevated Horror.” Of all the combinations in the English language, that one is the most insufferable.
It represents almost a decade of scary movies that, for the most part, took themselves too seriously. Horror responds to the moment, so its “why so serious” lean makes sense as we scuttle through the “worst of times” equation of Charles Dickens’ famous opening lines. But there’s still an opening and a need for a lighter approach; one that not only has fun with its audience but takes the piss out of a genre that is seemingly letting its newfound “respectability” go to its head.
Wes Craven believed devotees see horror films to let out their fears one primal scream at a time. At their core, these movies are roller coasters; they bring us as close to the edge as possible before pulling us back into a safety net of reality. The need for a bigger and badder coaster increases during times when the size of that net decreases.
There’s a thrill that comes from imagining being in a foot race with a madman, or outthinking the hordes of zombies on the other side of the door, plus the scavenger humans coming behind them. There’s even a rush that comes from imagining how one might deal with possession to see good triumph over evil in the end. It’s all about building tension and releasing it through catharsis. That cathartic release usually sounds like screams followed by laughter, which signals relief. Genre heavy hitters over the past 10 years offered very little of that respite when the credits rolled. Films like Hereditary, The Witch, Talk to Me, and even Smile (pick one) keep that tension going after the screen fades to black.

Hereditary
As the genre became obsessed with creating trauma metaphors, that lack of release made sense. Anyone with even a small sample size of traumatic experiences knows those emotions don’t magically resolve themselves in an allotted run time. But how much trauma can one take? Especially when there’s a mess going on outside that few of us can escape from. Movies offer that off-ramp, no matter how short.
Everything can’t be, nor should it be, “elevated.” Audiences need thoughtful explorations of life’s ills via monsters as much as they need murdering masked maniacs with kitchen knives. And no, it doesn’t have to go any deeper than that. Sometimes, a knife is just a knife, and it’s still worth our time and respect. As weird as it sounds, that simplicity is comforting not in spite of the trauma but because of it.
The worst of times should manifest more than just anguish. People need to laugh just as much as they need to think seriously about this moment in time. Even the Scream franchise forgot the meta rock upon which it built its church when the latest foray sacrificed the subtle comedy for serious drama. Scary Movie returned at the perfect moment. It provides the necessary laughs, but it’s not a cure-all.
This isn’t a call for Scary Movie imitators but a return to a mainstream landscape where Killer Klowns from Outer Space sat with The Serpent and the Rainbow, nestled neatly with the latest Nightmare on Elm Street, which took nothing away from The Vanishing.

They Live
Even They Live, John Carpenter’s horror sci-fi satire sandwich, kept its tongue firmly in cheek while discussing serious ideas still relevant in 2026. Yes, a film about aliens taking over the world through subliminal messaging only visible through coded sunglasses is, in fact, a tad silly. Carpenter understood that mainstream horror can’t become so self-important that it never looks itself in the mirror and laughs at that inherent silliness.
The thing is, horror historically excels at poking fun at itself. Most of the Scream franchise, The Cabin in the Woods, or The Blackening show adoration without kowtowing. They recognize tropes and trappings but invert them for an audience already in on the joke, but one that also finds solace in said conventions. This keeps the genre on its toes; once something gets parodied, it’s usually time to evolve. That breeds new ideas and fresh filmmakers, which not only strengthen the genre’s collective voice but also amplify it.
Get Out, as “elevated” as some critics want us to believe it is, is a cathartic, populist scary movie that spoke to an untapped audience rather than speaking down to them. Backrooms is one of the biggest horror hits in years, partially because it’s fine-tuned for modern-day teenagers instead of their parents. Movies like these tell everyone the genre is open for business; open for innovation and, yeah, open for new ways in which people can lovingly poke fun at with a wink and a nudge.
Horror needs dread as much as it needs laughter.
Catharsis is just as important as tension, and pulpy populism has the same merit as more high-brow material. Respectability shouldn’t come at the expense of an experience akin to walking through a haunted house. At a time when joy seems in short supply, horror should look to its past to map out its future, and make things just a tad brighter for audiences.

Backrooms

You must be logged in to post a comment.