Final Destination 2 already established that different major accidents caused different death chains. It's why death was able to go after Clear whenever it wanted, irrespective of the main casts' order. So Final Destination 4 didn't change the rules at all.
@@johnj4471 exactly. In the video, they said that the theater explosion broke rules because it should've added hundreds of people to their order. I brought up clear because she is the only character we have seen on screen, mixed with different survivors.
I would understand Amanda's inclusion on this list if the SAW franchise hadn't gone past the third film. The reason for Amanda breaking Jigsaw's code was because Hoffman had something on her that would destroy the bond she had with Jigsaw, which explains the note she reads that sends her to tears. All of it was Hoffman's attempt to break free from Jigsaw and destroy anything that would incriminate him. All of this is explained in the SIXTH film.
As for Cherry Falls. Th killer lied or killed unrelated people to cover for the real targets. Either people assumed there was a "rule" that really wasn't or....He lied. He isnt a supernatural force bound by esoteric rules. He's a person. And....yep, just checked, we lie.
The only reason Asimov would be rolling in his grave is that The Red Queen’s protocol is too vague, only saying that she can’t kill them, herself. Asimov’s rule was, “A cannot harm a human by action OR through inaction able a human to come to harm.” He, clearly foresaw the loophole.
Amazing video of villains that break their own rules in their own horror movies franchises,fantastic job. I really like enjoy final destination 4 more then final destination 5.
The Red Queen didn't break her own rule. Indirect involvement in killing someone is *_not_* equivalent to killing them. Is a car manufacturer responsible when someone dies in a DUI car crash involving a car they made?
Have never seen that movie, but I don't think they meant just indirect involvement? But more towards indirect assistance/ contribution? For example going back to your example of DUI, what if the car had faulty breaks? It can still be considered contributory negligence?
@@theUserdudex Idk how much that would hold up in court for the defense. The driver still chose to get behind the wheel and drive while they are in no condition to drive. Indirect assistance via information or other guidance wouldn't be going against the programming to "not hurt members of the Umbrella Corporation".
Candyman's requel exploiting the idea that he exists as fiction to wave together the wildly different portrayals was pretty clever, it would have been interesting if applied in the previous movies. As for Hollow Man, they are slasher rules. Michael Mayers in the first movie is just an ordinary man, yet he survives his brain being poked, and any scrawny boy wearing Ghostface's mantle is suddenly made of iron. If it works for them, it works for him (also, the serum didn't make him evil, his ego and entitlement did, there is some nice foreshadowing including his rape joke). As for the Red Queen, well, it actually works. AIs aren't driven by laws or morals, but by programing, they consider murder what they are programed to consider murder (that's why Aasimov added the inaction clause to his robots). If Umbrella's program only stops direct action the workaround is doable, and they can only blame their lack of foresight for it.
The Final Destination movies never made logical sense. Apparently Death was giving the visions allowing people to skip Death thus pissing itself off or maybe Death was just the ultimate psychopath out for giggles
The first time someone got a vision could easily be chalked up as glitch in the system, of sorts. That kid was never meant to see it coming and save those lives, so Death got pissed and went on damage control/killing spree. It happening so regularly after the movie, kind of ruins the whole thing. Too many people are seeing this shit coming and it is giving Death even more work. Now Death sucks in a whole new way.
Can we please stop casually using “schizophrenic” to describe movies? It’s a medical diagnosis and disability, not a punching bag for disjointed movie plots.
The Red Queen from the live-action Resident Evil film series did not break her own rules. Indirect involvement with killing someone is not the same as killing someone yourself. Plus, she was following her programming, so she could only provide little help to Alice in taking down the Umbrella Corporation.
Worse still in hollowman his eyes also do not reflect light and therefore he should be blind as light passes through them instead of reflecting off the optical reception.
in the Exorcist one, if you watched that film and thought 'oh yeah whoever they choose is going to survive, its not gonna be a trick or anything' im sorry but your terrible at watching movies. If you didnt see that coming, I wonder how you manage to evade cars while crossing the street.
Asimov's three laws aren't real. They're just fictional, from a story: they'll never "apply" to anything, so they can't be used to judge a character in a movie.
Resident evil the final chapter was so disconnected from the previous movies you can barely even consider it canon. It was a poorly put together collage of any characters and settings they could still get their hands on from the previous movies and a hastily thought of miracle solution to wrap up the movie franchise.
Aside from The Exorcist 2023 being meh, the disrespect shown to the original really ruined it for me. Ellen Burstyn saying “I couldn’t be in the exorcism because of the partriarchy” was totally unnecessary, those two men died to save her daughter and that’s all that bothers her 🤷♀️
"We don't need trigger warnings" yet I can see your comment history from this channel that you refuse to watch Incident in a Ghostland because it "bothered" you. Yeah, okay.
@@stormborn23 Cool. Go ahead and stalk me. You creep. I can comment on it BECAUSE I WATCHED and I didn't like it. There are some things that bother me more than others. If you enjoy watching people R@p young girls, then have at it. I don't .
@@amandawilkinsontarot7096 that's what the content warnings you're mocking people for, you doofus, so people like you would be warned against the contents you would rather avoid. Real fucking genius.
Final Destination 2 already established that different major accidents caused different death chains. It's why death was able to go after Clear whenever it wanted, irrespective of the main casts' order.
So Final Destination 4 didn't change the rules at all.
@@seankulbeth9614 ? Clear was the last remaining member of the first order. When did it go for her out of order?
@@johnj4471 it didn't. In the final destination, the theater explosion would've been a new accident with a new order as well. Hence my comment.
@@seankulbeth9614 ….. you mentioned her…. Nothing about her broke any rules.
@@johnj4471 exactly. In the video, they said that the theater explosion broke rules because it should've added hundreds of people to their order. I brought up clear because she is the only character we have seen on screen, mixed with different survivors.
You said Candyman 9 times
Does that mean he will die 3 different times? Or does it mean candyman will appear three times as fast?
🥉
@@chickensdone1 Hope not. I like that guy
Did he say it into a mirror 🪞?
You’d have a point if it wasn’t her 7th wish or if she lost all memory of the moment. She still made 7 wishes. If she did it on wish 6 problem solved.
Exactly. They didn't cheat or bend the rules. They stuck firmly to the rules.
I would understand Amanda's inclusion on this list if the SAW franchise hadn't gone past the third film. The reason for Amanda breaking Jigsaw's code was because Hoffman had something on her that would destroy the bond she had with Jigsaw, which explains the note she reads that sends her to tears. All of it was Hoffman's attempt to break free from Jigsaw and destroy anything that would incriminate him. All of this is explained in the SIXTH film.
As for Cherry Falls. Th killer lied or killed unrelated people to cover for the real targets. Either people assumed there was a "rule" that really wasn't or....He lied. He isnt a supernatural force bound by esoteric rules. He's a person. And....yep, just checked, we lie.
Liar!
I guess the 100+ Umbrella Corp employees in the first movie don't count LOL
The only reason Asimov would be rolling in his grave is that The Red Queen’s protocol is too vague, only saying that she can’t kill them, herself. Asimov’s rule was, “A cannot harm a human by action OR through inaction able a human to come to harm.” He, clearly foresaw the loophole.
Some villains just need a hug and be told that they're understood and they're pain is vaild.
Amazing video of villains that break their own rules in their own horror movies franchises,fantastic job. I really like enjoy final destination 4 more then final destination 5.
The escalator scene still traumatizes me till this day. Thanks The Final Destination 😭
Freddy gets a boost of power when people remember him because he can haunt the dreams of more people.
She got seven wishes, demon was just taking payment.
Funny to hear Yao Guai somewhere other than Fallout.
The Red Queen didn't break her own rule. Indirect involvement in killing someone is *_not_* equivalent to killing them. Is a car manufacturer responsible when someone dies in a DUI car crash involving a car they made?
Have never seen that movie, but I don't think they meant just indirect involvement? But more towards indirect assistance/ contribution? For example going back to your example of DUI, what if the car had faulty breaks? It can still be considered contributory negligence?
@@theUserdudex Idk how much that would hold up in court for the defense. The driver still chose to get behind the wheel and drive while they are in no condition to drive. Indirect assistance via information or other guidance wouldn't be going against the programming to "not hurt members of the Umbrella Corporation".
In fact, the entire Resident Evil franchise changes all its rules, not to mention its stories.
Candyman's requel exploiting the idea that he exists as fiction to wave together the wildly different portrayals was pretty clever, it would have been interesting if applied in the previous movies.
As for Hollow Man, they are slasher rules. Michael Mayers in the first movie is just an ordinary man, yet he survives his brain being poked, and any scrawny boy wearing Ghostface's mantle is suddenly made of iron. If it works for them, it works for him (also, the serum didn't make him evil, his ego and entitlement did, there is some nice foreshadowing including his rape joke).
As for the Red Queen, well, it actually works. AIs aren't driven by laws or morals, but by programing, they consider murder what they are programed to consider murder (that's why Aasimov added the inaction clause to his robots). If Umbrella's program only stops direct action the workaround is doable, and they can only blame their lack of foresight for it.
Happy Friday the 13th everyone! 😈🔪💀
The Final Destination movies never made logical sense.
Apparently Death was giving the visions allowing people to skip Death thus pissing itself off or maybe Death was just the ultimate psychopath out for giggles
I honestly walked out of the first one because of what happened with the water in the bathroom. Water doesn't flow backwards!
@@bee-loverofbreakfastfoods Unless controlled a supernatural force
@DivineNaruto Yeah, but I never figured Death would feel the need to hide its tracks
That's what so illogical. Death is apparently stopping itself.
The first time someone got a vision could easily be chalked up as glitch in the system, of sorts. That kid was never meant to see it coming and save those lives, so Death got pissed and went on damage control/killing spree. It happening so regularly after the movie, kind of ruins the whole thing. Too many people are seeing this shit coming and it is giving Death even more work. Now Death sucks in a whole new way.
A wish is a wish 😈 and 7 is 7. Those movies kinda seem deserved after trying to pull a fast one over a demon
Thanks for put the year of films 👍👍👍
Didn't see the movie, but unless the demon specifically said pick which child lives, they don't have to lie, the person choosing simply misunderstood
Can we please stop casually using “schizophrenic” to describe movies? It’s a medical diagnosis and disability, not a punching bag for disjointed movie plots.
The Red Queen from the live-action Resident Evil film series did not break her own rules. Indirect involvement with killing someone is not the same as killing someone yourself. Plus, she was following her programming, so she could only provide little help to Alice in taking down the Umbrella Corporation.
Nothing indicates the "rules" of Final Destination being anything but guesses made by characters, which have been entirely incorrect multiple times.
Does anyone know from what movie is the thumbnail? She looks so similar to my daughter.
Happy Friday the 13th 🖤 🔪
In her Abby gear lol
Worse still in hollowman his eyes also do not reflect light and therefore he should be blind as light passes through them instead of reflecting off the optical reception.
in the Exorcist one, if you watched that film and thought 'oh yeah whoever they choose is going to survive, its not gonna be a trick or anything' im sorry but your terrible at watching movies. If you didnt see that coming, I wonder how you manage to evade cars while crossing the street.
Wow. I actually seem to be first. Neat! Hi, everyone!
👋
🥈
Asimov's three laws aren't real. They're just fictional, from a story: they'll never "apply" to anything, so they can't be used to judge a character in a movie.
Resident evil the final chapter was so disconnected from the previous movies you can barely even consider it canon. It was a poorly put together collage of any characters and settings they could still get their hands on from the previous movies and a hastily thought of miracle solution to wrap up the movie franchise.
Aside from The Exorcist 2023 being meh, the disrespect shown to the original really ruined it for me. Ellen Burstyn saying “I couldn’t be in the exorcism because of the partriarchy” was totally unnecessary, those two men died to save her daughter and that’s all that bothers her 🤷♀️
2nd
@@jaydoubleu3419 Hi!
We don't need trigger warnings. We are adults.
@@amandawilkinsontarot7096 It is considerate, though.
"We don't need trigger warnings" yet I can see your comment history from this channel that you refuse to watch Incident in a Ghostland because it "bothered" you. Yeah, okay.
@@stormborn23 Cool. Go ahead and stalk me. You creep. I can comment on it BECAUSE I WATCHED and I didn't like it. There are some things that bother me more than others. If you enjoy watching people R@p young girls, then have at it. I don't .
@@ericthompson3982 Fair
@@amandawilkinsontarot7096 that's what the content warnings you're mocking people for, you doofus, so people like you would be warned against the contents you would rather avoid. Real fucking genius.