Talk:Final Destination Bloodlines

Mark Brandon

Please stop spamming your name to the cast section and in the infobox. You said the press release mentioned you in the main cast. Which press release? The reference in article says " Max Lloyd-Jones (The Book of Boba Fett), Rya Kihlstedt (Obi Wan Kenobi) and Tinpo Lee (The Manor) round out the rest of the cast." I have explained these reverts in the edit summaries. Also read WP:COI. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeAllen (talk • contribs) 15:49, July 3, 2024 (UTC)

Mike, I did not say I was included. I said I was left off. So, I’m not “spamming.” If you worked on the movie too, how would that make you feel? I’m not going to turn this into an unnecessary squabble. People will eventually see my name in the crawl. And that will be the end of this exercise as far as I’m concerned. 2604:3D08:6786:1F00:8C03:2824:C711:38E4 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Per these diffs of adding your name: No one is saying you are not in the film. However, no reliable third party sources mention your name. Read WP:V. Wikipedia does not use IMDB as a source. Read WP:IMDB. Wikipedia is obviously not the final say in credits, the film's end credits are. When that is available the cast section will be reflected in accordance. Mike Allen 17:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

A suggestion is that you could do an interview with websites such as Bloody Disgusting or Collider and speak about your role? Mike Allen 17:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

For listing cast members, we follow MOS:FILMCAST and try to follow specific rules of thumb to ensure that we do not have indiscriminate lists of names. It looks like in March 2024, the trade papers reported a set of names, which is what the article body uses. If we append names to that set, it should be verifiable and discriminate (not just referencing a database like IMDb). By the time the film comes out, we can adjust the cast list based on what reliable sources say at that time, which could be more or less names. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Noteworthy context in first sentence

Per policies and guidelines outlined at WP:FILM1STSENTENCE, the franchise is far more noteworthy than either director. We are not required to put the director upfront every time; nothing at all has ever required this. It has only been "tradition" that can and should be challenged. It's very easy to see this priority for this film. The Hollywood Reporter highlights it being the sixth film long before mentioning the directors. So does Deadline. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to note here as well as in my revert edit summary, "WP:FILM1STSENTENCE" is an essay written by editor Erik, so about as much "policy" and "guideline" as, I don't know, my comment here. I have been actively editing seven years now and I have to say, I have never encountered someone referring back to an essay they themselves wrote as some kind of "must be followed" guideline. I mean... I guess kudos to your insane cojones but, uh, no. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's an essay so I don't have to paste the relevant policies and guidelines here. But if that is necessary, here we go:

• MOS:OPEN: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."
• MOS:FIRST:

• "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where."
• "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence."

• MOS:CONTEXTLINK: "The first sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable."
• WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." (emphasis mine)

Based on these policies and guidelines, and the citations I provided, are you truly insisting that the directors are more noteworthy context than the franchise? And in addition, MOS:FILM never requires the director to be named in the first sentence. Just because you've seen it done doesn't mean it's proper in every single instance. Hence "tradition" in quotes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

And clearly you never crossed paths with TenPoundHammer and his WP:HAMMER. My essay is only intended to consolidate the same policy-based and guideline-based argument I've repeated across numerous topics (because editors erroneously think the first sentence must always name the director, when nothing at all requires this). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No colon

Per the official trailer, website, social media channels, and synopsis, there is no colon in the title. Moving the article to reflect this. This is in line with films such as The Matrix Reloaded, Jurassic World Dominion, Alien Resurrection, Terminator Genisys, and Pacific Rim Uprising. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Mike Allen 17:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Trailer

Hi MikeAllen,

Sorry to have seemingly pissed you off... I'm still not clear why we would include discussion of the trailer info you added. A trailer was released and it was watched. Your edit summary doesn't really explain why you think this is noteworthy. Is it because it was the second most watched horror trailer? If so, well... maybe. But where would we cut that off then? third most? fifth most? this is in general why we don't discuss film trailers unless there's something truly different about them. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

A reliable source reported that it was a second most watched horror film trailer. The article also discussed how it may impact the performance of the film and how social media plays a role (TikTok), which I probably should have included. I doubt it would have been reported if it placed in a 4th or 5th place. I did move it to the release section since a whole marketing section is not warranted. Other comments are encouraged. Also.. I'm not pissed?

Mike Allen 21:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Not pissed: I interpreted WP:FILMTRAILER. Surprise, trailers can be discussed..., specifically the "Surprise" bit, as aggressive/annoyed. Since clearly I do know trailers can be discussed... under specific circumstances.

How social media plays a role: that's for all films these days, so not notable.

How the ad campaign or trailer views may impact the performance of the film: also super-standard.

Regarding a reliable source reporting it as the second most watched: just because something is reported doesn't mean it should be/needs to be included.

So really the only thing I'm seeing here that may make discussing this trailer relevant is its rank in number of views for its genre. Everything else is completely common with any number of other film marketing campaigns. I still think it's borderline but okay. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

So you think I should just remove the two sentences and move on? Mike Allen 21:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

That's what I would do, but I'm not the final arbiter. You think it's more noteworthy than I do, so barring broader consensus, it's just two people with varying opinions. There are more important "battles" 😉 to wage, and I probably default pretty strongly to non-inclusion, perhaps too strongly at times, so I will drop my objection. Thanks for being willing to discuss! —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2025

Aiko Bludworth confirmed character 186.108.154.19 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The Time of the Flashback

The plot section mentions that the flashback is set in 1968. Where is this written or said (and confirmed)? I don't recall seeing or hearing the year at all in the film. In fact, the song that plays in the car in the very opening scene is Bad Moon Rising by Creedence Clearwater Revival. But this song wasn't released until 1969, proving it can't be set in 1968. I understand it's possible the filmmakers could have used just any song from the '60s (as they did with Johnny Cash's Ring of Fire) to obtain not only the '60s vibe but also the "something bad is about to happen" vibe. However, this would make the scene chronologically incorrect. So, I'm thinking it's 1969 rather than 1968. Anyone agree? Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

It is 1969 2001:4643:1C2A:0:D4FA:6C75:B5C0:B8C (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I was also reading the IMDb page. Under the goofs, people have written that the flashback is set in 1962. But again, where in the film does it state that? Or has any of the film crew confirmed this? I can see why this could be true due to Iris' hairstyle and outfit. However, the songs in the flashback were released after 1962. Did people still have early '60s hairstyles and outfits in the late '60s (rather than the hippie look)? I still say it's 1969. What was the year on the penny? Did anyone see? I tried to read it when I saw the film, but couldn't make out the last digit. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I just watched a video on YouTube that showed a close-up freeze-frame of the penny in the film. It does read 1968. So, it must be 1969. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

We have confirmation! In the Behind the Scenes video, the actress who plays the young Iris, Brec Bassinger, states that the flashback is set in 1969 at timestamp 4:25. She refers the '60s scenes as "Movie 1" and the "1969 movie". Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Darlene’s death

I watched the film and Darlene’s death was… expected but done in a darkly comedic way. But I was unable to make out the pole that crushed her. It’s definitely wooden, so it’s not a “lamppost” in the sense that one would think of a lamppost. It looks more like a telephone pole to me, but I’m not sure. Also, I don’t think she was “bisected” like Ian was - she was just crushed. 82.7.111.191 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit: So it was a makeshift light/lamppost that fell, so I was mistaken there. Still not sure about the “bisected” part though. 82.7.111.191 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)