Oddly enough, my visit to the set of “Final Destination 4” wasn’t the first time I heard details about the production.  I briefly spoke with actor Justin Welborn when “The Signal” was being released (ATL represent!) and he mentioned that he had a fun little role in the film and that he was heading down to New Orleans in about a week to film his scenes.  During the visit, I actually got to see some of those scenes and I won’t spoil them (along with most of the other plot details I learned, although I’m allowed to share a few things) but they were as fun as I hoped they would be. 

But that’s getting ahead of myself.  That’s getting all the way to the PACE trailer.  First, we drove to the set and I mention this drive simply because while it’s not totally movie related, I was fascinated to learn how Louisiana’s strong tax incentives and unique landscape much it such a popular destination for Hollywood filmmakers.  As someone who’s familiar with Georgia’s attempts to lure such production, I felt insanely jealous on the behalf of home state.  But it’s hard to feel that jealousy when you remember the name “Katrina”.  New Orleans also offers a moral imperative.  When productions come to this city, they’re not only reaping a financial benefit, but giving back to a community that sorely needs it.  Our driver (who I wish I spoke to more) on the way to the set told us that FEMA was a four-letter word in New Orleans but just by working on one film, she was able to rebuild her home.  There are those still stuck in formaldehyde-rotting trailers that aren’t so lucky.

Once we reach the set, it’s time to do away with real-world horrors and get to the fun, grisly, horror-movie horrors!  Walking through the set, we see lots of extras, some simply dressed in costume (you can tell them from the crew because the crew is moving around the set non-stop) while others are either people desperately unaware that they needed to go to the hospital immediately or just the dead bodies of the current destruction that’s getting filmed today.  I also espy some stock cars, some crumpled, and others pristine.  I’m sure they figure into a scene that will be in no way horrific or disastrous for the film’s main characters.

In “Final Destination 4” you will see a movie theatre get destroyed.  Personally, I find that concept unnerving all by itself.  When you compound it with a theatre showing a movie in 3-D of the movie you’re watching that’s in 3-D, my brain not only implodes, but my balls pack up their sack in leave town in fear. 

But before I can contemplate the meta-horror we’ll all experience come 2009, our group is introduced the producer Craig Perry.  I know it sounds weird to gush over a producer, but you first have to realize that a good many producers are either incompetent or barely competent who don’t understand or don’t have the mind for the logistics required of making a film.  Let me put it this way: in college, I took a class about producing and if my professor had been as magnetic and smart as Perry (instead of just telling stories or pointing out who was a crook in the pages of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter), I’d be a producer (or at least trying to be).

I have over an hour’s worth of tape of Perry talking on various aspects of the franchise and his work as a producer.  That was just when I remembered to turn my recorder on and I’m still kicking myself that I didn’t get him talking about The Chimp Channel or the surprisingly-good “Final Destination” spin-off books.  Here’s a little taste to the full interview we’ll have tomorrow.

So how did the decision come about to do a fourth film?  Was it very easy to decide how to do it or did you want to have a good script?

Craig Perry: Well we endeavored to have a crap script….No! When the third one opened, we had a nice little weekend. It wasn't an immediate, "We have to go make another one!" It took some time. Once all of the worldwide grosses came in, and it was the most successful of the three, and then we had all of the ancillary home and saw how it promoted FD1 and 2, from the studio's perspective, an economic decision. We had looked into making the third one 3-D (which makes sense—Final Destination 3-D). Interestingly, at the time, the technology was there to capture it. But there was limited technology to exhibit it. It didn't make sense to spend an enormous amount of money capturing something that we couldn't exploit for many years on in. What really made it work for us is that the technology and the screens needed started to catch up with each other. And once [the studios] saw how these 3D films preformed on a per screen basis, they thought, “You know what?  This is cool,”

And let’s be realistic: the Final Destination movies have a formula that works. I think why it has worked is that at its core it’s a really interesting central thesis that’s just a bit more existential than a guy in a mask hacking people up. And don't get me wrong—I love those films. I have been watching them since I was a kid. But this particular notion can translate into a whole bunch of other realms. You can do it over and over again as long as the characters are slightly different. I think we lucked out with these first four movies, because you have an interesting fulcrum that you can balance everything on. Having this one in 3D facilitated us coming up with a bunch of scenarios that were fresh, original, and yet, familiar. I think you will all agree upon is that shit happens in your bathroom, in your kitchen.  Granted, it’s becoming harder to find common places that we all go. In fact, there was a sequence in one of the earlier drafts for part four where one of our characters goes to the supermarket. I was like, "Everyone goes to the supermarket!  Sometimes twice a week!" And then we were like, “This blows!” There isn't an enormous amount of instant threat. We were reaching to have a guy putting in long bulbs up top and chemicals mixing and it was crap. David Ellis suggested another place, which happened to be a low hanging fruit that the franchise had yet to pluck. And it really worked out well.