Thanks to his intelligence and his willingness to allow the play of humor with horror, the Final Destination franchise has given us a couple of solid entries that are perfect to sit and enjoy a Saturday afternoon. That said, in 2009, The Final Destination came out and destroyed almost all the goodwill that had accumulated earlier films. It was completely devoid of originality and took what was a fun concept and a way to be boring. With Final Destination 5 was the work of director Steven Quale to get the franchise back on track.
Known to many as the protégé of James Cameron, Quale has worked on many amazing movies, including The Abyss, T2: Judgement Day, True Lies and Titanic, and even worked as visual effects supervisor and second unit director on Avatar. The fifth installment of the Final Destination series, however, marks his feature film debut, and this past weekend I was fortunate to sit with him one by one and talk about their experience. Check out the following interview in which the filmmaker talks about his preparation process, the development of 3D film and how they actually had to stop hazing in the fourth movie.
You obviously have a great experience, who has been working in movies for a long time. This is his first film, I have curiosity, during production, was there ever a point where I really felt like a director for the first time?
It's funny that you mention, but really, no. I do not want to appear selfish or arrogant, but I had been doing this for so long, I actually directed a TV movie for ABC called Superfire, which was a four-hour miniseries, so they had dealt with the casting process, the whole thing. It was only at the TV compared to the level of function, so the answer to your question is no.
Coming from a technical background, would you say to put more emphasis on character and story when they approached the matter?
Well, it's interesting that you mention that because, although I come from a technical background, I come from a filmmaker who covers technology, because unlike the other stunt coordinators who became second-unit directors, who became a second unit director and film director the first time. I went to film school and then worked with Jim Carmeron, and I made the transition to the second drive as I was working on creating concepts and movie trailers. So I have a different direction in the sense that all of the second unit I worked on was technique, but it was more, what are the feelings the characters and how they can elevate the story? How my photos contribute to the story and character and the process? Unlike the action just cool. So I kind of had a different direction in that regard. But, of course, I think one of the keys to a director is not to be laser focused on one small aspect, such as 3D or action or stunts, but you have to have the whole picture involved, and in all aspects, because anything that is not done in a professional home or in a house that works aesthetics will make the rest of the film to suffer, and I think that is the key. So we paid a lot of attention in the deal, and paid a lot of attention in the script, the story, the characters, the staging, making it believable that.
Speaking of casting, one of the things I really like this movie and the franchise in general is that it really is fun and the casting is part of it. You have Keochner David, Miles Fisher, who has a lot of people coming from a background of comedy. Where does the mixture of terror and comedy for you?
That's a hard line and balance to have. I looked at four of the films before I started this and said, well, what works and what does not. I thought the tone of the first worked well, kind of scary suspense, but little sense of humor. The second had a great sense of humor, but maybe it was going too far sometimes, and then after a little more and just kept going more absurd. So I said, if you could combine organically those too, the first and second, while maintaining that balance and the humor is character driven, not driven field, then it was an intentional direction I thought if they involve actors who are good players to start in the first place, but the comic sensibility, then organically can incorporate humor into the movie and play a lot better than trying too hard.
I think a perfect example would be Miles, his character, Peter, really goes well the biggest emotional arc. In that capacity, I was looking for?
So we look at tons and tons of auditions for Miles and nailed only notable for the scene. The scene with the boss who has to talk about the rationalization of what is happening. There was an intensity that I thought this could actually be convinced that "I have to do this. "It's one of the most difficult for the actor to realize that at the end of this film, the transformation does, and his audition tape just convinced me. I was like, this man, to buy, there is a reality to him and had an energy to operate than others not necessarily. That's really what convinced me that it would be good for that part.
Just go ahead with this idea, this film, especially compared with the fourth actually, let's face it, is not a good movie.
At one point the filmmakers kept ragging in the room until he finally said, "Well, the new rule. I will not say bad things about the fourth movie because that's all I do now." Did It kind derailed.
It really is a sharp contrast between these films and why I liked it so much. This really has to be understood that the ultimate failure. I have curiosity, how much of that was on the page, the amount of wine when you were in the day?
It was a combination. Eric [Heisserer] did a really good job with the script, and at the same time, the actors, that is, David Koechner improved some of the lines that the cast hysterical when he did, he just cracks after short scream. Just could not believe it when Dennis comes first and it's like, "What's my name?" And then it's like, "Dennis. Look away." That scene, which was the day. And he told us he would do that. We shot cameras and they did and everyone was coming down later. So it was a joy. But there were others who were very dedicated and scripted and they knew they were going to make people laugh and have worked very hard on that. But trying to keep the tone, one of the things that I was still doing ruling the world in. They wanted to go wild with funny things and take it to that level and really make people laugh, and said: "They laugh as much or tone down anything and a little more believable a penny. "And that was just the conductor of the concert to ensure that all things flow, that's my job when I'm dealing with actors.
What is your rate like? How fast do you prefer to work? How many are usually shooting?
I love to photograph a few shots as necessary to accomplish what you need. On the other hand, I too am a publisher and I know how valuable it is to get coverage and get everything you need, so I will shoot all you can shoot in the time available we have. So do be smart about what you need. Obviously, in an action sequence that requires a ton of coverage, is just a technical thing, you are getting all the angles. But when you're doing a sequence of fun with a pair of actors saying some funny lines, you want to make sure you do not miss anything, and covered in a way that can deal with the editing process to improve time if necessary.
As the process of organization, every day you come to set all out?
I think as a director, a good director, at least I know of no other way to do this, but how do you have to come prepared. If you do not come prepared and do your homework, you're only doing a disservice to all the crew and production. So every day I read the script and pages we shoot and get to my shots. It creates a shot list for assistant manager so you can organize your day and figure the logistics of all, it is very difficult to move the trucks. If you shoot a scene in this sense, all the trucks of the film is here, so after lunch you have to move at all. That's a huge process. You can not just as a whim, they say, "Oh, we have to change and do it that way." So you have to get to what your coverage is and work with your cinematographer. After being director of photography myself, I am well versed in that aspect, so it is a kind of shorthand, so I know exactly what angle we have and what we need. So I came very prepared and planned. But what we can do is that you can force the cast. The cast must have blocking and staging needs to feel organic and natural for them. So do a trial with them and find out how this works, and know where the cameras have to go, and the judges what your day will be. At the same time, you might have an idea, "Well, it would be great to have them well," but then you have to convince the cast which is what would work organically. If this does not work for them have to change your plan because you will be forcing something that will be difficult. Like any manager, it's just going through the process.
And how come 3D in this process?
Well, the thing with 3D at the moment, we are like in the early stages of 3D in the sense that they have these big bulky cameras because we have these new cameras are full frame sensors are great, but because they are heavy and bulky. While Avatar had smaller chambers which were actually a bit more manageable to work. So when you have a camera so great, you just have to plan ahead sooner, because if you have a big camera and has to change the lens, and takes a few minutes to do that, you have two cameras, and what is another camera set up in advance so you can get your next shot. You must be thinking ahead. You can not just, you know, a normal 35 mm film can simply change a lens, shoot, and then there's the closer. In this we have to have the B-camera ready for the foreground, so more pre-planning.
When you're in the planning process, it makes all kinds of nature come second?
Yes, sometimes I change things when you're on set, sometimes things work better that way organically. Just be careful to budget your time.
Do you think there is any risk of being more prepared?
No, actually not. To be honest, you can be more prepared and thus can not be more prepared, prepare for everything. But there is a risk, if you are not to be militant flexible. If the staging and the location and the cast will give you something you just throw everything you have prepared. There were days that totally rejected the concept that originally had, because I had a better idea how to do it, and flew only organically, and everything works. You have to be prepared but at the same time you have to be flexible on what to do in the day.
In this sense, only in terms of throwing away ideas, when ignited, to what extent the script was from the beginning to the final cut?
Well, it's interesting because our great climax at the end of the original script changed, because we could not find a place in Vancouver, which had the train station. Sequence was a large, elaborate train station, and could not find a place, so it was impossible not to shoot. So we thought, and in other places can you do? I have worked closely with Craig Perry and Eric, the writer, and to the point where we changed to a kitchen. Things like that. However the same beats, but it was a different place. There are other parts, there were some deaths that were modified and adjusted, but for the most part, the basic structure remained intact.
Nicholas D'character was August's always going to be a chef?
No, well, the cook was also another interesting because originally, one of the minor characters, Nathan, was the cook. As we advanced in the process, we are so good, it's more interesting if our main character was the cook, because there were too many characters. We had an extra character, so it was a little too much of a whole one too many characters. So in the restructuring of it, we got the idea that the main character of the cook and that dictates that it makes sense for the culmination of being in the kitchen where he works. All these things like that, because it is very difficult, especially when there is death and the order of the deaths, if you start screwing around with that at the beginning of foresight, then everything has to relate and tie back to something else is only a kind of very complex chain of events that you have to keep intact.
I have a curiosity, because you just come to this franchise, is there a written set of rules to follow?
So we must be faithful to the original source, giving the fans what they want, what they expect. They are expecting unusual deaths that come in a horrible house and shock them. What you do in between that is open all the time not alienating. My feeling was allowed to raise it a little more than an aesthetic point of view, let the casting and the actors as good as possible, and organic to the story, you actually have goals and ambitions, in addition to the expected the death of hitting, so you can follow her story and inject some humor in it. But it's something I think is open, there are plenty of things to be open to taking and, you know, my vision and how we'll do. But at the same time, if you give them the shocking moments and the horror that is going to come see for fun.
When you're dealing with exposure, because this is the fifth, people have seen and know what is happening, realize that they were able to kind of ease into it?
Well, you have to explain the concept. My feeling was, we have to do this for someone who has never seen, just to be sure, because you never know if people are going to be new or fans. So I think you have to balance that and make it work. But my feeling has always been minimal exposure you can get in a movie better, but at the same time, I do not want to be confusing, so is balance.
And I'm sure if it helps Tony Todd there.
It was great, fantastic.
That is, only that he is an icon of horror.
And it was fun, too. All the scenes with him were great.
Just to finish, you know what's coming down the pipe?
You mean so far in Final Destination?
Well, as fate goes, the future projects ...
I've been talking, I have all kinds of projects underway, there are a lot of great buzz and excitement. To answer your question about what I do not know, but as a final destination, it's up to the fans. If you embrace this, who knows what will happen in the future.
Would you like to come back?
Sure, I loved it was great.
