MovieChat Forums > Final Destination 5 (2011) Discussion > The ending would have been so much bette...

The ending would have been so much better if....

posted 12 years ago by the_stiff_meister
16 replies | jump to latest

They didn't show the plane catching fire and exploding.

It should have them on the plane, seeing the first film's characters and having us realize they are on Flight 180 in the year 2000, the same plane featured in the first movie.

Then the film should have had the two main characters sitting down and thinking they have escaped death, ending the film on a seemingly "happy note"

But, of course, we know that it isn't really a "happy ending" because we know what happens to Flight 180 from the first movie.

Would have been extremely cool IMO.

Men are guilty of all the good they do not do.

[–] mjn-seifer 12 years ago

That would actually be pretty cool. I like that idea.

Of course, they'll inevitably be at least one viewer who'd feel cheated about not seeing them die. I know a lot of people hated that Alex got an off screen death, but that might be because it sounds lame on it's own (though it could have been more FD like if we'd seen it).

My favorite Final Destination is the 4th – DEAL with it!

[–] RoxyLady21 12 years ago

Your wish is my command. ;) I've painstakingly edited audios/video segments, shortened, shifted around some things at that last plane sequence because I also thought it would be way *beep* cooler hahaha. I'll upload it to my FB so if you have FB, check it out. It should be set to Public though, so even if you have no FB...Check it out. :D

Offended? Get over it. ;)

Update: It's up hahahha, *beep* awesome if I say so myself!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=133025453555779&l=6012517065941089122

[–] alexaw9 11 years ago

Nice edit!
I liked not seeing him look down at the plane ticket, actually. It was already going to be obvious where we were when we saw Carter and Alex fighting. No need to beat us over the head with it.

[–] modest-alchemist 10 years ago

Cool edit!

I like the original ending, but I also like what you did here. Great job!

[–] BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone 10 years ago

So then how does Isaac die?

[–] Suriname86 12 years ago

I disagree. The fiery events of the crash were identical to the guy's vision in the original film. The whole scene was a throwback to 2000 so, I appreciated the reference.

[–] jville2 11 years ago

If you really want to see this version of the ending, just click "STOP" after he reads his ticket. Done.

[–] kkshoda 11 years ago

No.

Because there are still some idiots (like 25% of the audience, not even exaggerating) who can't even tell or realize that the end of FD5 was the beginning of the first movie. Even if they showed the plane explode.

[–] mjn-seifer 11 years ago

How did they not know? Didn't they see the FD1 characters?

[–] modest-alchemist 10 years ago

lol ikr!

[–] luckiest_strike 11 years ago

i was thinking the exact same thing when i saw it. that would have been a much better ending

[–] IrinaOma 11 years ago

No. I liked the fact that we could see their death. It was more shocking & interesting

[–] noirgirl 10 years ago

I loved that they came full circle. And Sam’s pose was just like Alex’s would have been in the firestorm. Cool!

[–] ashedmaniac 10 years ago

The main problem with the ending you've proposed is that it doesn't suit the individual film. The individual film implies that death is coming for them no matter what. If it just ends happily, that seems odd given the tone of the rest of it. As a result, an ending is needed.

Imagine if this was your first Final Destination film. Say you came across it on television late at night or a friend wanted you to watch them chronologically or whatever else and this was their only chance to hook you before you'd decide to watch further. Would you want some sappy ending that ignores the rest of the film's genre and doesn't clarify what's really going on in the individual film's "world" unless you've seen another movie? Of course not.

Sure, the film has a connection to the rest of the series but it has to serve its own narrative and if it just went, "Look, they're on a plane!" (unless you've seen the others)...it would feel like a cop out.

[–] Synetech 10 years ago

Imagine if this was your first Final Destination film. Say you came across it on television late at night or a friend wanted you to watch them chronologically or whatever else and this was their only chance to hook you before you'd decide to watch further. Would you want some sappy ending that ignores the rest of the film's genre and doesn't clarify what's really going on in the individual film's "world" unless you've seen another movie? Of course not.

The non-explosion ending would give you a reason to loop back and watch the first one (or just stop watching movies out of order).

(Response notification is off.)

[–] ashedmaniac 10 years ago

The non-explosion ending would give you a reason to loop back and watch the first one (or just stop watching movies out of order).

But if you haven't seen the movies before, as I put forward...if the story feels over at the end of Final Destination 5 because they're happily on a plane, what reason do you have to watch the first one? You have no context for 5 occurring before the first one so why would you bother? You likely think you've already seen the ending of the whole series and it went out with a whimper so, again, why would you bother?

They need to go out with a bang (for both most diehards and newcomers alike) and perhaps teasing something about another film which has no immediate relationship within their own film is a terrible storytelling choice that feels like sequel bait. Whereas if they show the immediate effects to the main characters, that's a full story. That's a full film. Which is why it only makes sense that it ended the way it did.