MovieChat Forums > The Maze Runner (2014) Discussion > So let me get this straight.........

So let me get this straight.........

posted 9 years ago by mitzibishi
21 replies | jump to latest

The earth is scorched and there is a virus and they have an antidote already.

The earth's economy and resources are on its knees and the main threat is the virus and the environment. So they spend millions if not billions of $ creating this massive marvel of a construction a moving maze and within the maze a place that is not effected by the environment. And some Scorpion like bio-mechanical creatures.

There are people immune to this virus.

They placed 2 of those in the Glade with wiped memories, to either build a home and stay forever or run around a maze where they could die losing all information on why their bodies reject the virus.

So instead of collecting blood samples and studying the people that are immune, put them in a high risk situation of figuring out a large puzzle which could take years to solve and could lose the 2 people that are actually immune.

And this would help figuring out why a body rejects a virus?

Even after all this they have an antidote but wont mass produce it?

I know something was muttered about studying the brain in high pressure situations but still, its very very silly isn't it.

These YA films and their dystopia futures that are feather light and crumble at the slightest bit of questioning and scrutiny.

And this is what kids today have to look back on in their adult years, light and fluffy low rent sci fi films that will look like a TV movie in 20 years.

If you want to see fully realised and fleshed out worlds check out how films like these do it, thx 1138, Soylent Green, Westworld, Blade Runner, Brazil, Metropolis, Children of Men, Gattacca, Logans Run, ClockWork Orange, Battle Royale, V for Vendetta, Equilibrium, Robocop etc etc

But kids these days wont be interested unless its new, within the last 3-4 years, have a teenagers in starring roles, these teenagers are good looking and there is or could be a love triangle.

[–] Mattfinbell 9 years ago

well if you read the prequal it goes into why there is a virus and how thomas /STephan and blank blank Teresa enter the maze

Look like Tarzan talk like Jane! HAHA

[–] mitzibishi 9 years ago

Why would I have to READ a prequel book to get the dumb logic of a movie?

I accepted there was a virus, it was just the dumb way they dealt with the virus, you read my post right? But created an answer I didn't need.

A film should be self contained where I dont have to read extra material to explain one of the dumbest plot points I have ever seen.

I was enjoying it until the big "reveal" at the end. Its just oh so silly and no book can fix that.

[–] Mattfinbell 9 years ago

mitzibishi
Why would I have to READ a prequel book to get the dumb logic of a movie?

I accepted there was a virus, it was just the dumb way they dealt with the virus, you read my post right? But created an answer I didn't need.

A film should be self contained where I dont have to read extra material to explain one of the dumbest plot points I have ever seen.

I was enjoying it until the big "reveal" at the end. Its just oh so silly and no book can fix that.

so you understand whats going on why in a movie do they give you everything? Or should they? It was self contained. Dear god your stupid slave idiotic moron why I am wasting my time with you! no wonder you think its dumb! with that stupid profile you have

Look like Tarzan talk like Jane! HAHA

[–] mitzibishi 9 years ago

Its like you didn't read my opening statement.

I was not asking the questions you answered. You plucked things out of the air unrelated to my OP in response.

well if you read the prequal it goes into why there is a virus and how thomas /STephan and blank blank Teresa enter the maze

Thats got nothing to do with anything I have said on here. Who questioned that there was actually a virus? I accepted there was a virus the minute the film mentioned it, viruses happen, there is logic to that.

Its the dumb explanation as to why they need to create a gigantic maze to "test" teens. When they could spend the resources on other things and create a less expensive way to test brain activity under stress. Especially when resources and funding would be scarce with the way the outside world is.

They only wanted to test the people that are immune, but throw in a bunch of them anyway. Just random teens, 1 a month, for no good reason, they want the maximum and fast data from multiple candidates but trickle them in for some strange reason.

Then the teens make only delegate going into the maze to a few people, so 4-5 people are runners and the other 20+ are playing happy homes pretty much stress free so the testing time on those is wasted.

And when they leave the maze the adults proclaim that the teens "passed the test".

Passed what test? aren't they supposed to be studying them for brain activity in high stress situations. Exiting the multi billion dollar compound leaving it useless goes against this testing. It ENDS the testing.

The "testing" was the brain activity, not puzzle solving. The data stops once they leave the maze, keeping them in keeps the data flowing.

They were not there to solve a puzzle, they were merely guinea pigs, mice in a maze. To stay in the maze until the scientists thought there was no more feedback they could get from that particular situation. Then the scientists bring them out and start new tests.

Its just so convoluted and silly. Its not about puzzle solving, its about monitoring brain activity of the immune people. Of which there were only 2, and the whole "test" managed to get one killed.

Also they had antidote for the virus, why have they not started to mass produce it? Why are they testing immunes for an antidote when they have an antidote? Why are they testing normals when the data is useless from them? They have not developed immunities so why bother testing them?

The ending explanation contradicts itself, the whole story and it just crumbles and blows away like sand in the wind.

Everybody on here brings up the silly reveal plot point, it destroys the film.

But I guess you are the only smart one here and everybody else except you and very young teens are the clever ones that see the logic in this "test".

I'd rather have them reveal nothing than reveal that trash. Keeping it mysterious. It would have been much more effective, think the end of Cube, nothing was revealed. They walked out into a bright light, badaboom, very effective.

Its like the writer ran out of ideas and couldn't think of anything good for an explanation.

It was self contained.

But you told me to read a prequel book so that I would "get it", inferring some information about random things I never even mentioned would clear up the logic behind all that test garbage and the logic behind it all.

[–] blackbriar246 9 years ago

That was why the first book was so strong and the movie and sequels were bad. The first book gave very little explanation on what was happening and why. They just learned at the end that they had been put in there as an experiment.

[–] kya1 9 years ago

I came to his film not really knowing much about it, but had heard good things. I was a bit disappointed, to say the least. It wasn't particularly exciting, and didn't make an awful lot of sense.

_________________________
http://youtu.be/GAIJ3Rh5Qxs

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mitzibishi 8 years ago

Your parents said the same about your interests.

Really poor defence. It countered zero of my points.

And in response Star Wars, Jaws, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Terminator ended up being well thought of into my adulthood.

So in the end i was correct and my parents were wrong (even though in reality they also loved those films).

Unfortunately this film will not be well thought of a year from now or even remembered a year from now and into your adulthood will be a feature on MST4000.

So in the end i will be correct again.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mitzibishi 8 years ago

Not really.

They never said anything about the great films I listed. Like i said

(even though in reality they also loved those films).

they said things bad about Garbage Pail Kids, Howard the Duck, Short Circuit 2, Mac and Me etc.

Which this film would fall into the same category. Bad at the time and laughed at years later.

But saying that even I as a child knew those films sucked, you odd people don't even seem to think this one did into your teenage/adult years.

You defend it with all of your heart, you think I defended garbage Pail Kids even though I loved the source at the time? No way.

At least I was under 10 when those films came out, bets are you are almost 20 or over.

What does that say about you?

And still:

you countered zero of my points

So go back to my opening statement and counter my points or walk away silently into the dark shadows you crawl around in.

[–] ColinChapman 8 years ago

To OP. So let ME get this straight:
You scrutinize a sci fi dystopia and claim that it "crumbles at the slightest bit of questioning" but think that doesn't apply to Lucas's THX1138, Soylent Green, Westworld, Logan's Run and Battle Royale.?

Soylent Green - how does feeding humans with other humans make even the slightest bit of sense when you'd need to turn billions into Soylent Green to feed a few million? Have you any idea how much food a human consumes over its lifetime and how many times its own weight it consumes over that lifetime??

Westworld.- guess they forgot to install kill switches in their advanced entertainment androids, what could possibly go wrong? And if you can make advanced human like androids why not use them for something useful like labor or dangerous jobs rather than mere cowboys for tourists?

And now we get to the greatest shock of all, Equilibrium - one of the DUMBEST sci fi copy and paste jobs ever made. Absolutely nothing in it makes even a tiny bit of sense. It's offensively stupid and so embarrassingly detached from human reality it's a perfect litmus test for somebody's stupidity.

Yes, you, mitzibishi. Your whole post just reeks of irony. It does so because you're incredibly thick. You think that dodging bullets because you study statistics makes sense? My god you're a cretin.

The Maze Runner was decent. Is that difficult for you to understand Mr.Pretentious?

[–] mitzibishi 8 years ago

Well time will tell and we will see who will be referencing Maze Runner in 30+ years like you referenced those films.

I bet nobody. It will be forgotten because its not decent at all and has made no impact unlike those films you mentioned.

[–] Rvrgm 8 years ago

Oh but CollinChapman… don't you get it? THose movies were all made in the 70s! Therefore.. they are all greatness!

[–] mitzibishi 8 years ago

don't you get it? THose movies were all made in the 70s!

Thats the point. People still talk about them, reference them and even if they have not seen them know the basic plot or concept.

Maze Runner, 5th Wave etc

in 40+ years nobody will be talking about or referencing them. In 10 years nobody will be talking about them.

Hunger Games yes because so many have seen it or read the book so it will have that "nostalgia" buzz but it wont hold up as a film. Sort of like Flight of the Navigator, it will be seen as that dopey kids film I binge watched as a kid.

Compare that to the original Planet of the Apes 1968. It still holds up as a film.

[–] ines-burkart 8 years ago

ColinChapman's tone was certainly uncalled for, but he's right about one thing: Equilibrium positively doesn't belong in the list with those other films—and neither does V for Vendetta, for that matter.

PS: I agree with mitzibishi with regards to The Maze Runner (though I doubt he's summing up the wanna-be "experiment" correctly), its ilk and target audience.

[–] maxi13 8 years ago

he is right.
this film has one of the most stupid and senseless endings i ve ever seen.

if you think he is wrong
talk about his arguments.
he explained it very well
and those explainations were logical.

instead of talking about those points you are just attacking him...

this movie was somewhat entertaining (NOT extraordinary good, but okay)
till the point they give them explainations.

The other subject:
equilibrium was also not very well,
but the other films were good, indeed.

for all points against those films you can find rational and logical answers in the film.
soylent green (you havent realized what the problem of this world is),
Westworld (which is a very funny trash movie, a real good one... there are some other robots which are not just for entertainment. and why not? entertainment is a cash cow, see hollywood)
just as examples,
but we sholdnt talk about those old classics,
nut about this film

[–] maxi13 8 years ago

but the argument that people just talk about good movies,
is also not correct...
there are a lot of 80s movies which are still very well known
and which are just mediocre mainstream films
and not many are talking about specific ingmar bergman movies
(just an example)

anyway... maze runner was okay (which means entertaining for the moment), to one point, but garbage at the end

[–] maxi13 8 years ago

written with a cell phone ;-)

[–] maxi13 8 years ago

and i dont think that those scifi classics are well chosen examples to compare this film,
except that they are much better then those teen flicks of today.

i think there are even more similarities with "Cube", "Running Man" and "Battle Royal".
Cube - SciFi + laboratory situation
Running Man - SciFi + survival + artificial closed "world"
Battle Royal - Teens + survival + somewhat laboratory situation.
even Matrix has this artificial "lab" situation.
Westworld (and Futurworld) were well chosen examples.

but the best comparisons are those other newer teen-scifi-flicks like Panem, The Giver and Divergent.
and you are right that just Panem will be well remembered in the future,
not just because it was the first of this kind, but also because it wasnt that bad.
(f.ex. was the world outside of this survival setting somewhat cool).
and also because of the zeitgeist of this time.
it was a late adoption of reality shows we have seen on tv some years before that

BUT… its also quite evident that not every film is able to be a alltime classic,
even garbage movies can provide some fun.

those films mentioned above are movies which are targeted for a younger audience
and if they have fun with them, its okay.
they mustnt be masterpieces.

when i was a teen i also watched every teen movie
a lot of them were obviously garbage,
others were also bad, but i fall in love with them,
so i still remember those flicks as funny and good movies,
and even when i see them today, i can have nostalgic fun with them, even though i am now able to realize that they werent good (f.ex. i liked "Hackers" and "Rollerboys", which are, hands down, really bad movies. and though i like fellini, bergman and other demanding films, i still can have fun with those horrible flicks. for me(!) they are still some of the best worst movies or other way round: worst best movies. so what...)

but we, in the 80s, had it also easier, cause the films didnt take themselves too serious.
it was okay when they were just phantastic (Ghostbusters is a good example for an 80s flick. phantastic, just for fun movies were common sense and normal).
today…. the films take themselves serious, so they have to be logical AND realistic.

and thats the problem of this flick.
everything is meant serious but the explainations are just riddiculous.

and those points above were by far not the only points.

1) all those boys remember just their names. its impossible to activate just one thing and let everything else in the dark. just if there is a well known center in the brain where the name is stored. if you would be able to activate just one part of the memory it would be a lot of information and not just one word.

2) they told thomas that the plants never grow to the top of the wall.
2a) how should a plant be like this? if there are some obscure "wall lawn mowers" this guy would have told him about them right after this information, or:
2b) they have told the plants to act this way and they were so intelligent that they obey their order :'D

3b) they were 3 years there? and they havent found any plant which reaches the top?!
thomas found one! when he was confronted with the 1st Griever he climbed up a plant and he was obviously on the top of the wall. so … nonsense anyway! he found such a plant just after 2(?) days?!

3) the world is a mess, it crashed economically… you have already mentioned that its unbelievable that they were able to built such a huge work- and cost-intensive maze. that this idea is absurd. but its not just that, they lived on a place with green plants, a wood and even a rivulet, while outside is just desert. how much water are they using for this "laboratory"?! something which is obviously not just rare in this world, but also one of the most important thing for humans in such a time.
A maze even bigger than the egyptian pyramids, without workers, money and so on? and then a water eating habitat just to stress some kids?! really, there are millions of methods to stress people which are less cost-intensive.

4) someone already mentioned that the helicopter would have also been able to land at their habitat.
the answer was that the helicopter-guy wasnt a "good guy" but a trap for the teens.
yes, sure! that is what we viewers got to know, but thats not what the group of teens know.
and you have to think from their point of view.
they were somewhat intelligent, they found the exit, but they dont think about this?! from their point of view they are rebellions which tried to shut down the lab, so they would have been able to land their helicopter at the glade earlier.
and after 3 years (around 1.100 days) in the maze, it would be a huge coincidence that their attack is nearly at the same time as their escape. so that the heli can wait outside of the lab for them

and so on…

i can understand that some younger people identify with this film,
but that doesnt make it a good one.
nevertheless its okay if some younger viewers have fun with it.
(as i had with my bad youth flicks)

the movie wasnt that bad till the explaination,
the scifi-dystopia setting is somewhat i also like,
i also have no problem if the main protagonists are young,
cause i have been that to, so why shouldnt i be able to identify with them,
but this film has - without any doubt - a horrible ending which destroys everything.

Panem was the best of those flicks,
i even had some fun with Divergent, (which is also not a masterpiece),
Maze Runner is really bad because the ending.
but its still better than the really horrible "The Giver",
which is one of the worst movies i have seen in the last years

[–] gardn24 8 years ago

Two things (direct from the books and only subtly implied in the movie, but maybe it will give you some peace of mind):

They don't have the cure to the virus. They have the cure to a mutated, milder firm of the virus that they created for the grievers to infect the subjects with in the maze.

Wicked did study blood and dna and such for over ten years prior to the maze trials beginning. They took daily blood samples and did all sorts of phydical and mental tests as well on a regular basis. I guess they determined that the cure would come from determining how brain patterns differed in immune vs. non immunes, since that is where the virus was housed in the body. The monitoring they did in regular day to day life wasn't sufficient it would seem, and they started the maze do that they could analyse brain activity relative to specific induced situations that they controlled.