MovieChat Forums > Final Destination 5 (2011) Discussion > Couple flaws in ending

Couple flaws in ending

posted 12 years ago by wayofthejeep
17 replies | jump to latest

These are minor but just wanted to point them out.

At the bar, they were saying that Roy's autopsy revealed he had a brain aneurysm and he would have died any day... why would they do an autopsy on him? The obvious cause of death was being impaled by a giant hook. He also said the company was lucky Roy died in the accident because they saved a lot of money not having to pay for his medical bills for the aneurysm. I am pretty sure the millions they'd pay in the lawsuit for his wrongful death would be way more than medical bills for surgery.

No big deal, just saying.

[–] mojo2004 12 years ago

If a person doesn't die a natural death or hasn't had an long term illness in which they've been under a doctor's care then an autopsy is usually done. Even in the case of gruesome accidents.

Just for the record, I'm not a Dude, I'm a Dudette!

[–] wayofthejeep 12 years ago

I've heard the opposite- that autopsies are rarely done. They are expensive and usually are Oonly done to determine the cause of death- either for suspicious circumstances or to identify genetic defects that could help save other members of the family.

I don't see why they'd spend the time and money performing an autopsy on an obvious death. What would they be looking for?

[–] whitespirit26 10 years ago

That's true Way, but the guy specifically said in the film it was done for insurance purposes.

[–] nrkist2424 12 years ago

A full autopsy would be ordered because the insurance company wouldn't want to pay out. If they can find anything wrong with the guy, drugs, alcohol, existing health condition, they can make an excuse that the accident was a result of one of the above and outside their policy or voided the coverage all together. They were probably looking into the plant for any sort of operational inconsistencies as well. The plant itself had a vested interest in disproving any operational failure to reduce their liability as well.

The thing that DOESN'T make sense is how they illustrated death maintaining the rules at the end. Death is supposed to be this unseen entity maintaining an immutable law, but it obviously cheated when it killed off the couple on the plane (throwback to the original) simply so it could send a jet engine crashing into the bar at the end. Death forced the couples incidental death in the plane crash as an excuse to kill the friend in the bar. Is that why people have visions? They sense Death bending the rules?

[–] Movie_Buff_Brad 11 years ago

"but it obviously cheated when it killed off the couple on the plane (throwback to the original) simply so it could send a jet engine crashing into the bar at the end. Death forced the couples incidental death in the plane crash as an excuse to kill the friend in the bar."

No it didn't. It was killing two birds with one stone. Sam and Molly were meant to die as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cG79lGWyL4

[–] norman-dostal 10 years ago

Sam killed Peter so why didnt he get Peter's extended life he got from the cop? FLAW.
Molly was not supposed to die-she didnt die in the vision. In reality, she died before Sam which makes no sense-it was just lazy writing to tack on the plane ending.

[–] ChipNoirD 10 years ago

We don't know how much life the cop had. Death has a plan for everyone, remember?

Molly could have been destined to be on that plane regardless of whether Peter died or not. He had the tickets in their name. She could have easily taken the trip to Paris in memory of him.

This isn't a case of lazy writing, just a very lazy mind on your part.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (50578328) 11 years ago

It was actually the plane's undercarriage that mashed the guy at the bar.

[–] ShawnaC123 12 years ago

I started a thread discussing this exact thing back when the movie was in theaters. From the medical professionals I know, an autopsy isn't normally done if the person is over a certain age or if the cause of death is obvious unless it is requested by the family.

However, in this movie I noticed upon rewatching it that they said the autopsy was for insurance purposes, so maybe that is meant to tie up this loose end.

------------------------------------
Here's my signature.

[–] wayofthejeep 12 years ago

Doesnt really make sense that the insurance company would want an autopsy with such an obvious cause of death. I could see if they wanted a drug/alcohol blood test to try to deny liability....but what could they possibly be looking for in an autopsy.

[–] jville2 11 years ago

Caner, tumors, etc. The explanation given in the movie makes enough sense in its own universe.

Besides, with myriad serious problems in this movie, THIS is what the OP has to quibble about?

[–] norman-dostal 10 years ago

ok, lets hear them then!

[–] Augustus_Octavian 9 years ago

If he is going to die soon anyway, the loss of quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) is much smaller. The insurance company could argue that this therefore merits a much smaller pay-out.

Same logic as why doctors killing an infant patient is way more expensive than killing an elderly patient, the QALY is very different.

[–] themidgarzolom 9 years ago

Biggest flaw IMO is that when they show Seann William Scott watching the plane explode it looks like its barely past the point of takeoff and it's one HUGE explosion while they are still climbing. In this movie, they are WAY up there and it's a slower destruction process.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (18458242) 8 years ago

it was that way in the first one too. they f ck up the timeline in every one of these movies. the disaster happens slow in the premonitions and almost instantaneously in real life

[–] alexaw9 8 years ago

it was that way in the first one too. they f ck up the timeline in every one of these movies. the disaster happens slow in the premonitions and almost instantaneously in real life

XD XD XD one flaw that has always bothered me! Maybe it's not actually as slow as it seems in the premonition? Maybe it's slow motion for both the audience, so we catch the tension and death signs, and the person having the vision, because it's so surreal and the positive force giving them the vision wants to give them a chance to take in as much as possible?

Haha, just a thought!

[–] dmnmrx 8 years ago

I don't think it was an autopsy that told him that. It was something he was aware of before his death.