Talk:Erik Campbell (Final Destination)

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria.
Please feel free to leave comments.
After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes.

Erik Campbell (Final Destination) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 8, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Erik Campbell (Final Destination) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 June 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the directors of Final Destination Bloodlines "debated the ethics" of a character being killed by an MRI machine?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erik Campbell (Final Destination).

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that in Final Destination Bloodlines, Erik Campbell was initially supposed to die while livestreaming a virtual reality game?

Source: Collider

ALT1: ... that the directors of Final Destination Bloodlines "debated the ethics" of a scene involving a character getting killed by an MRI machine? Source: Today Show
ALT2: ... that a scene involving a character getting his penile piercing ripped out by a faulty MRI machine in Final Destination Bloodlines was the actor's idea? Source: Business Insider
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Price (The Last of Us)

Created by PanagiotisZois (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General eligibility:
New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

@PanagiotisZois: Recently created and QPQ is met. I see no major problems with the article and everything looks to be in line. Good job on creating such a long article on a character from a film this recent. All of the hooks are good IMO. Jon698 (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Erik Campbell (Final Destination)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PanagiotisZois (talk · contribs) 13:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 02:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I will be reviewing this. Expect comments by Friday :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @PanagiotisZois, I have not reviewed the article yet as I noticed that there have been a lot of changes over the past few weeks due to this being a new article. Of course this is fine, but I just wanted to wait until the article was relatively stable before reviewing. I hence wanted to ask if there was anything you wanted to add or change etc before I start with the review, or if you are comfortable for me to start it now? If you are happy for me to start I will do it today or tomorrow. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for the ping @DaniloDaysOfOurLives:. I do admit that there are still a few other (video) sources I'd like to go over to see if there's anything that will fit in the article. Despite that, I do think that for the most part, the page is complete and any new additions won't radically alter it. Furthermore, I don't really plan on going through those remaining sources for some time, so you don't have to worry about the article undergoing changes while you're performing the review. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review:

Hey, sorry for the delay, it has been such a busy and exhausting week! I have just reviewed this article and I have to say you should be so proud - you clearly did so much research and it is well-sourced, well done! Earwig shows no copyright issues and I can't see any major problems. Here are my comments/suggestions for improvement - most of them are about clarity and brief expansions/explanations to help readers per WP:READERSFIRST:

Lead and Creation and casting: Could you please link the producers wanting characters with more layers to Erik's character as I struggle to see the direct link please? It would help readers with understanding

Admittedly, this is a broad statement by Stein and Lipovsky that doesn't relate specifically to Erik. But given this was a statement about the characters in Bloodlines in general, it did indirectly relate to Erik. However, I can remove it if you think it's too flimsy of a connection to make to Erik's character/article.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional character biography - The first few paragraphs contain a lot of details that aren't about Erik - I am aware that some of these details are important for context to explain Erik's role and the movie, but could some of the details be trimmed?

I know what you mean. It's just that if someone doesn't know how this franchise/movie works, I just thought it'd be helpful to lay the groundwork a little bit. I have trimmed a few things, but I worry if I remove more stuff, the section might become difficult to decipher for readers unfamiliar with the character/movie. If you haven't seen the movie, as an outsider, what else can be removed without it being detrimental to the article?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand!! I struggle so much to find the right balance. I think the main thing that can be trimmed is the ways that some of his family members die, but I think it is okay for now so no worries if not 😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creation and casting:

1.) Could you please briefly explain what "Final Destination Bloodlines" is (e.g. "The 2025 movie"...)?

Added that it's a 2025 horror film.

2.) I think there is a word missing from "based on a story by them and Jon Watts" (Created? Written?)

To be honest, I don't fully understand the difference between "Story by" and "Screenplay by" credits with films. Based on what I've read and hear in interviews, it seems that the idea of having the film focus on a family and include two separate timelines was Watts' idea, with Busick and Evans Taylor adding details to it and whatnot. Once that was done, they wrote the script without Watts' involvement. I think saying "based on a story written by them and Jon Watts" would be incorrect. I just went with the wording of the source, but would "coneived by them and Jon Watts" sound better?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think so! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :D Also specified that the story is by Busick and Evans Taylor, plus Jon Watts, as "them" could be inferred to refer to the directors as well. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3.) "then have audiences "discover that there [were] all these other layers to [the characters] that [they] didn't expect"." - Could you please reword this and clarify what "similar starting point" means?

4.) "At one point, it was considered for two members of the Campbell family to be twins" - Could you please reword this (e.g. "Producers considered making two of the characters twins")?

5.) Could you please briefly explain why the above was problematic?

6.) Could you please say who Lipovski and Stein are again?

Characterization:

1.) Could you please link "lockscreen"?

Done.

2.) Could you please write who Busick is?

One of the film's co-writers. It's mentioned in the previous subsection. Or was that too far earlier? I understand that sometimes, it might be good to reiterate information about an individual.

3.) I found the first part of this section a bit confusing because I did not see the link between the character being perceived as unlikable/rude to him being an "emo" - could you please reword/clarify/expand please?

Filming - Can any of this be expanded briefly? E.g. why he used the line "used the line "Fuck, mom. Fenbury got you too?!" instead" or why they asked him to improvise? Or why Jerry is perceived as a loser? No worries if not though

Regarding the improvisation part, based on other interviews, it seems that the directors often let the cast improvise their lines; Stein did call Richard Harmon an "incredible improviser". However, the source doesn't state why they asked him to do so specifically for this scene. As for why Jerry Fenbury is supposed to be perceived as a loser, I guess that's just how it was in the script; maybe the writers/directors wanted to add some humour to the family drama. But again, no explanation. As for the "Fenbury got you too?!" line, as Harmon said, he just wanted to go against script directions one time to see if it worked.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo parlor accident - I think this could be merged with "Filming" as it is to do with filming (also, could you please clarify who Perry is again please?)

Done and done. In my mind, when I created the separate sections, I assumed there would be enough attention/information afforded to both the tattoo parlour and MRI machine scenes independently from everything else. But although that's the case for the latter scene, it's not the case for the former. Merging that with the "Filming" section does make sense.

MRI Machine death - Could you please link or clarify "torso"?

Linked the word torso. I also clasified that it wasn't just a random torso, but one meant to act as a duplicate specifically of Richard Harmon.

Reception:

1.) "with Foreman describing him as "magnetic"" - Who is Foreman?

She's a writer from IndieWire. She's mentioned by full name and publication in the first paragraph.

2.) Could you please reword "managing to toy with" as some readers may not know what that expression means?

Changed it to "subvert". Hopefully that works.

3.) I have removed the "Analysis" subsection as I believed that the paragraph there was more reception and not analysis of the character

Understandable

Other - This article could do with a few more free pictures - maybe you could add one of Lipovsky and Stein?

I'm aware that when it comes to Wikipedia, it's best to limit the use of non-free images as much as possible. I could add Lipovsky and Stein, but neither director has said too much about the conception of Erik as a character or about filming one of the scenes involving him. The one thing that comes to mind is including an image of Stein with the caption that he viewed Harmon as an "incredible improviser" and that he (and Lipovsky) told him to improvise the scene about Jerry Fenbury.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% I agree, however, since the pictures are free pictues I assumed that there were no limits? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. I thought of a way to include both of them and have the caption connect all three; Stein, admittedly, more so. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once these have been addressed I will do a source spotcheck and hopefully pass the article! Please let me know if you have any questions or need any assistance at all! :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @PanagiotisZois, Well done for your changes so far! They look great and you are a great editor to work with :D I have spotchecked Sources #1, #12, #19, #26 and #30. If you could please address the rest of the points (namely 3 to 6 of the "Creation and casting" section), that would be great. But meanwhile, I will pass this article. Well done!! :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.