The Cube and The Maze Runner
Did someone noticed the connection between the two movies?
Aside from gender difference, the plot very similar, especially with the third part.
Absolutely.
They are very similar and it immediately reminded me of Cube.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of the inspiration for the books.
"They who... give up... liberty to obtain... safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I believe that the author liked the idea and decided to develop and make it more interesting, because in The Cube there were many plotholes and was somehow unfinished.
Even the final was almost identical with the third part.
But the third part of The Cube is the begining of the hole story :)
I believe that the author liked the idea and decided to develop and make it more interesting, because in The Cube there were many plotholes and was somehow unfinished.
The author did not make it more interesting and this movie has as much plot holes as the cube!
How did he resolve anything?
The story about the scorched earth is pretty nice, but the movie does no explain why/how it happened. The whole experiment sounds totally redundant. A Perfect "green spot" and even a forest in the middle of a desert?
And Gally is one of the most useless and annoying character in cinematic history. He does nothing for the plot and how he got out is another mystery.
And beside the plot, the movie is not written very good, but thats a whole other
story.
The Simpsons is the best thing on american television.
-Steven Hawking- share
The green spot in the middle of the desert is not the problem... You can see Dubai, with the necessary resources, anything is possible.
But I agree with your opinion on Gally, I know more irritating figures in the cinematic history, but definitely is in the top ranking.
In fact, I liked this movie, but I remain a fan of The Cube :)
It was the type movies which can not be forgotten... unlike The Maze Runner.
I like both. None of them are Fellini or Bergman but are fairly entertaining and thought provoking. I don't think maze runner is based on the cube as much as is based on the shining, the goonies, and lord of the flies.
I prefer maze runner because the production value, particularly the score were fantastic and because, unlike the cube, there's an explanation for the killings. Contrived if you want but it's there and it's stated in only one word.
Unfortunately the cube sequels were terrible and I don't have faith in the maze runner sequels. The scorch trials is full of that gratuitous violence and horrible deaths just for the sake of shock that is my only minor complain about the cube.
I prefer maze runner because the production value, particularly the score were fantastic
Totally disagree. If Cube had a 34 million US dollar budget it would have been a much better looking film. Cube was made for 365 THOUSAND dollars Canadian. We get a lot more value for the money from Cube than we do from Maze Runner.
because, unlike the cube, there's an explanation for the killings
Sure, we get an explanation in The Maze Runner, but that explanation makes absolutely no sense. No answer is better than an answer that doesn't make sense.
Contrived if you want but it's there and it's stated in only one word.
I'm sorry, what one word are you talking about? I can't think of a single word that explains the "why" for The Maze Runner.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/ share
The thing is, Cube didn't have a 34 million budget.
You can argue all day about what could've been if it had, but it didn't so that argument isn't relevant.
It's a vastly better film even with a much smaller budget. With the same budget, Cube would have made an already embarrassing comparison even worse. When we talk about production values, we're talking bang for our buck, and Cube has MUCH better production values than The Maze Runner. No question about it.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/
I have to agree, I thought of Cube right away when watching this movie for the first time. And while this movie is ok, the reason I like it is because its similar to Cube. 100 times smaller budget, just goes to say how good Cube really is.
Also I agree with another poster, in Cube everything is left open. In the maze runner they attempt to explain the killings etc and it doesn't make sense. I prefer no explanation to a bad one.
Also like the somewhat pure mystery of Cube (also somewhat of a horror flic, which is always fun), vs all the drama in the maze runner with Gally etc. uhm also how did he make it out at the end.. just to have a villain / little bit more drama at the end lol? anyway..
The green spot in the middle of the desert is not the problem...
Yes, it is. When the entire planet is a desert and this company is able to make a green spot that doesn't seem to require any kind of upkeep, it most certainly is a problem.
You can see Dubai, with the necessary resources, anything is possible.
Yes. With the necessary resources. Which this world supposedly does not have.
But I agree with your opinion on Gally, I know more irritating figures in the cinematic history, but definitely is in the top ranking.
Irritating isn't the issue. He serves no purpose in the story. If he didn't exist, the story would be no different.
In fact, I liked this movie, but I remain a fan of The Cube :)
It was the type movies which can not be forgotten... unlike The Maze Runner.
I'm left curious as to how you keep getting the title wrong for a movie you're a fan of. Cube, not The Cube. The Cube is a game show.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/ share
-The movie told you sun flares burnt the eatch and created the "Scorch"...
-The Maze and Glade was built over the desert location, using futuristic technology. These stories take place in 2200s, fyi.
-Gally shows the side of those who don't want to leave the comfort of the Glade for the unknown. He's the opposite of Thomas.
How he got out is a mystery, which will be revealed in the sequels. That doesn't make it a plot hole.
You people are hating it because is a YA movie, and fail to realize how stupid most of your arguments are.
Nope we hate it because it is badly written.
How does anyone know what a griever is? Nobody has ever seen one because "they only come out at night" and "nobody has ever survived a night in the maze".
The Green part could be due to technology, I get that, but the rain too? I know it is possible to make it rain, but the humidity must come from somewhere. And since the earth is pretty much a desert wasteland (I think), water is scarce.
Where does the virus come from? The solar rays?
I get that Gally is the opposite of Thomas, that doesn't make him an important character. He is only there to create some sort of drama just for the sake of drama and that is lazy writing.
What does the girl do for the plot? She is pretty useless.
And: A bunch of teenage boys trapped there for month/years, then a girl shows up and.... nothing.... Really? But theres another thread dedicated to this question.
Why is there even a maze? Why do the robotic grievers (controlled by the "scientists" I guess) try to kill them since the kids are the only hope for the scorched earth? To test them? For what? How does this solve anything?
It doesn't get explained! Nothing gets explained!
And don't start with: "There is a Sequel" or "it gets explained in the book". That is not an argument, that is stupid.
The Simpsons is the best thing on american television.
-Steven Hawking-
And the cube explains all that?
Cube can get away with no explanations and gratuitous violence just because it doesn't have the YA label?
What you call bad written is not. The movie is part of a trilogy, this is just the initial chapter and more information will come later.
I rate the cube high because for me a plot doesn't have to make sense, hey! it doesn't even has to exist for me to rate a movie with a good rating. But if you use the same anal approach you're using for maze runner to rate the cube then you should lower your rating of the cube. Nothing is explained in the cube.
I don't think maze runner is for everyone, it's okay to not like it, but calling it stupid just because the faults you condone when it comes to the cube only proves you have a bias.
Maze runner has better acting, better cinematography, better acting than the cube, better art direction, better sound effects than the cube. It touches social and psycological themes.
Cube has good philosophical concept and it works well. It's well acted and perhaps manages to present human nature with more depth.
Both are good movies. You don't have to hate one to like the other.
The cube is open for ANY interpretation thats the genius about it.
The Maze Runner is not. It has a constructed/complicated story which is obviouly too big for just one movie.
That nothing gets explained until the 3rd book may work in the books, that does not mean, that it works well in the movie too. These are two different media and a film has to have an coherent story. Thats just basic filmmaking. If you are doing a movie without proper plot, you have to be very delicate about it and must be a very good writer.
You gave the cube a 3. And yet the Twilight movies recieved 4-6 points from you. That alone should be the end of our discussion, but I have more to say.
you use the same anal approach you're using for maze runner to rate the cube
I didn't compare the cube with the maze runner. I'm not OP of this thread, just commented on it saying that maze runner has plotholes which you can fly the ISS through. Check your facts before insulting my "anal approach"
only proves you have a bias
I would not call it bias, when I rate movies with diffenrent style, genre, story and background differently. Thats just common sense.
It touches social and psycological themes
And the cube does not?? You may want to rewatch it and think about it. Really hard!
The Simpsons is the best thing on american television.
-Steven Hawking- share
a film has to have an coherent story. Thats just basic filmmaking
😉
Says who? The Marvel school of filmography? Disney?
Go and say that to Alejandro Jorodowsky. share
What you call bad written is not. The movie is part of a trilogy, this is just the initial chapter and more information will come later.
Yes, it is poorly written. Just like that sentence.
While this is the first of three films, there is no way the following films can possibly explain how it's a good idea to risk the lives of the only people immune to this species destroying disease. "They have to be afraid" is not an acceptable answer as it should be just as easy for them to simulate danger as it is to build this massive structure, genetically engineer the Grievers and implant them with all those cybernetics.
I rate the cube high because for me a plot doesn't have to make sense, hey! it doesn't even has to exist for me to rate a movie with a good rating. But if you use the same anal approach you're using for maze runner to rate the cube then you should lower your rating of the cube. Nothing is explained in the cube.
The plot for Cube does make sense. It doesn't answer all the audience questions, but open questions =/= plot.
I don't think maze runner is for everyone, it's okay to not like it, but calling it stupid just because the faults you condone when it comes to the cube only proves you have a bias.
This argument only shows that you don't truly understand the problems with The Maze Runner. Since the things that really hurt this movie are not present in Cube.
Maze runner has better acting, better cinematography, better acting than the cube, better art direction, better sound effects than the cube. It touches social and psycological themes.
First, you should proof read your posts before posting. You listed "better acting" twice, and you're flat out wrong on that account anyway.
Also keep in mind that this movie had a 34 million dollar US budget, while Cube had 364 thousand dollar Canadian budget. Apples and oranges on the production front.
Cube has good philosophical concept and it works well. It's well acted and perhaps manages to present human nature with more depth.
Both are good movies. You don't have to hate one to like the other.
Both are entertaining, but one of them ruins itself by giving an explanation to the events that makes no sense. And it isn't Cube.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/ share
and you're flat out wrong on that account anyway.
Whether you like it or not, the photography, edition, score, sound effects and the acting of the maze runner are way better. Not my opinion this is a fact that any cinema student around the world can give it to you. Whether it's because the budget or not it doesn't matter. Maze runner still has it better. That doesn't make the cube a bad movie. Not everything has to be about budget, it just seems that you and the other cube fans are incredibly, bratishly reluctant to give credit to maze runner where credit is due.
Both are entertaining,
Finally some credit for bothmovies. None of these movies are anything special or advertise themselves as high quality cinema. Both are good for what they stand for: entertainment with a little bit of dark themes.
but one of them ruins itself by giving an explanation to the events that makes no sense.
In your opinion. A movie doesn't have to make sense to be good. Look at Jorodowsky's, Fellini's movies, plenty of european movie, asian movies. A lot of the times they are more about the visuals and the themes than "making sense". I know that these movies are supposed to be Artsy movies but I don't understand where the "a movie has to make sense to be good" comes from. It's okay if someone doesn't like a movie because for that someone a movie has to make sense. But a movie doesn't have to make sense to be good.
First, you should proof read your posts before posting. You listed "better acting" twice, and you're flat out wrong on that account anyway.
Giving me orders sweetheart? It's not like the people who post on IMDB proofread anything, do they? Besides I'm not English Native speaker, you forget that IMDB is full of people who are native speakers but don't use their language properly or people like me that are not English speakers but still understand cinema better than some right? share
Comparing The Cube to Maze Runner is like comparing Franz Kafka's to some Harry Potter book. One is for a higher level of philosophical and stylistic experience, another is for pure pop entertainment.
And better effects, acting, ... do not equal to better movie. I actually think if The Cube was given a better budget, I would not like it as it is. The fact that the director was free to express his thinking and didn't have to conform to the general audience requirements made The Cube unique and better in every ways. But for the general audience, they may just think it was another cheap horror/mystery movie with no greater meaning than the Saw franchise.
I love Cube, but you're severely overestimating it if you consider it to be of a "higher level of philosophical and stylistic experience"
share> You people are hating it because is a YA movie, and fail to realize how stupid most of your arguments are.
No. We hate it because it is an unfinished movie. Apparently, you have to read the books or view the rest of the trilogy to have any idea what is going on. Without that, viewers are left making wild guesses about how and why things happened.
This is what you call "stupid arguments." But, they only seem stupid to you because you cheated and read the books.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
It is indeed unfinished and you don't have to like it as it's only the first chapter and it gives an incomplete vibe. I don't care about that and if other people do that's okay. But some arguments here are very stupid.
If the cube can get away with no explanations the maze runner should too, the point is the mystery. At least there's a premise that drives it all, contrived if you want and unbelievable at first but it does exist. That's not the case with the cube. Yet some people seem to prefer it even if it has the same "faults" than Maze Runner. Maze runner is better in multiple aspects and if people didn't refuse to give credit to those aspects nobody would complain of stupidity and anti YA bias.
Movies don't have to make sense, or offer answers to be good. Cinema is a visual art. On visuals alone Maze runner deserves better rating than the cube. Concept, themes, composition, artistic aspects, technical merit are other things to rate a movie not just how much the premise (which I admit is very contrived but at least there's an explanation) makes sense to you. Not everything has to be spoonfed or have the kind of kids narrative of Marvel and american animation films to be good.
One of the YA haters even had to browse in my extensive rating list to try to make it look like I'm a twilight fan to prove that my opinion doesn't count That only proves how weak his arguments were.
> If the cube can get away with no explanations the maze runner should too
Not true. The Cube never offered any explanations at all because none existed. In the Maze Runner, those explanations seem to exist, but the viewer will have to pay to find them out, either by buying the books or by paying to see the next two movies. The producers are selling you the answers.
> Movies don't have to make sense, or offer answers to be good.
That's true. But, it doesn't always work in reverse; just because a movie holds back the answers does not automatically make the movie good. In fact, in many cases, the lack of answers is just a result of poor writing and directing.
> Not everything has to be spoonfed or have the kind of kids narrative of Marvel and american animation films to be good.
Correct. But, a movie does need to be complete and fair to the audience. If there is no possible way to figure out what is going on without buying the book, the movie is just a big waste of time.
Good mystery movies will have plenty of solid clues that lead you to the right answers, and sometimes the wrong answers, causing interesting debates over what is really happening. The most common case of that is whether what we saw was a dream or reality.
In the Maze Runner, there don't seem to be enough reasonable clues to figure out any real answers.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
The Cube never offered any explanations at all because none existed
And perhaps that's the whole point of the movie so they didn't have to justify the plotholes. One more time people are more willing to justify lack of answers in an adult film than in a film with the YA label.
In the Maze Runner, those explanations seem to exist, but the viewer will have to pay to find them out, either by buying the books or by paying to see the next two movies.
YOU don't have to. Nobody has to. Not everyone goes to a movie to get answers, some people go for the ride. For the popcorn if you may. For the concept, for the visuals. The movie was never adverstised as a standalone and even though a lot of people are not into cliffhanger/inconclusive/open endings a lot of people don't care. It's okay if you didn't like the lack of answers and you don't see the second movie. That doesn't mean Maze runner is a bad movie. It's not the first or will be the last good movie with a cliffhanger ending and if Hollywood wants to cash into this that's good. Sci-fi movies are getting lower and lower budgets and are getting riskier to produce with the myriad of comic movies out there being the safe choice. I want more big budget sci-fi films and I hope the sequel does good and the director's short film gets into a full length film. I understand why people who wants answers would be disappointed and that the movie is not for them, though.
> Movies don't have to make sense, or offer answers to be good.
That's true. But, it doesn't always work in reverse; just because a movie holds back the answers does not automatically make the movie good.
I never said the lack of answers make it good but it doesn't make it bad. And the books are not very well written but the same criteria that applies to Maze runner applies to the cube. Perhaps the no answer thing in the cube was just to keep things within budget and justify the plotholes.
In the Maze Runner, there don't seem to be enough reasonable clues to figure out any real answers.
If there had been more clues everyone would have predicted what comes next. Then people would be complaining of predictability.
Again not everyone cares for the answers, some people care more for the ride. This was just the first chapter and till the trilogy is complete I can't call anything plothole. Perhaps people who wants answers should stay clear of this one till the trilogy is completed but they would be missing the fun of it.
share
> Not everyone goes to a movie to get answers, some people go for the ride. For the popcorn if you may. For the concept, for the visuals.
Sadly, that is more true today than ever before.
The vast majority of movie goers want to see fast action, chase scenes, explosions, gun fights, and fist fights. They really couldn't care less about a plot or character development; those just get in the way of the exciting chase scenes.
That's why every other movie these days is based on a comic book or a very simplistic plot ("You took my daughter [or killed my dog] so I'm going to kill a thousand of your henchmen getting to you.").
And you are right, Maze Runner falls right into this category. No real plot or character development, just a bunch of chasing and fighting. If it was just that, it would be fine. But, the writers added hints that some much bigger was going on and they weren't going to tell us or give us any significant clues.
> Perhaps the no answer thing in the cube was just to keep things within budget and justify the plotholes.
You can explain answers without breaking the budget, just have one character explain to another character what is really going on. James Bond movies are famous for that, when the villain would explain everything to Bond right before he turned on the buzzsaw.
As for the Cube, I think the plot holes were purposely inserted into the movie without any intention of explaining them. They wanted the movie to be confusing, unfair, mysterious, and unexplainable.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Sadly, that is more true today than ever before.
The vast majority of movie goers want to see fast action, chase scenes, explosions, gun fights, and fist fights. They really couldn't care less about a plot or character development; those just get in the way of the exciting chase scenes.
Says someone who rated Pacific Rim a 10? Mind you I'm a rabid Del Toro fan. I love Pacific rim for what is, a joyful ride for anyone who can turn a 12 year old again. But if I use the same criteria you use to rate movies (providing answers) How much of answers Pacific Rim provided? uh? No plotholes?
Why are you willing to ignore the plotholes for Pacific Rim and the cube and not for maze runner?
It's sad that people have this anti-YA bias and never gives credit to maze runner where credit is due. Specially if they're willing to condone the same faults in movies that don't have the YA label.
The maze runner doesn't fall in the category of mindless pointless action. For all its other faults maze runner offers sociological and psychological aspects for the people who can see beyond the YA label.
share
> But if I use the same criteria you use to rate movies (providing answers) How much of answers Pacific Rim provided?
Oh, I wasn't saying that a movie providing answers is the ONLY criteria for judging a movie. If the rest of the movie is solid, I can still give it a good rating.
> Why are you willing to ignore the plotholes for Pacific Rim and the cube and not for maze runner?
Because in Pacific Rim and The Cube, there were no answers. None existed and that was a big part of the mystery. The viewer was left to make whatever conclusions they wanted to. And, those conclusions would never be proven false since there is no right answer.
For the Maze Runner, which is based on a series of books, the answers do exist, but the writers aren't going to tell you what they are until you buy the next two movies or buy the books.
> For all its other faults maze runner offers sociological and psychological aspects for the people who can see beyond the YA label.
I never saw much in the way of character development in this movie. I suppose because the kids had their minds erased, there really wasn't much character to show the audience. As for the sociological aspect of the movie, we didn't see much of that either. Yeah, we saw different boys doing different jobs, but we really didn't find out how the society worked, other than that the Runners had their own little clique.
And, frankly, I didn't believe the society that we were shown. You throw 30 teen-aged boys together to start a society and things will not go nearly this well.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Oh, I wasn't saying that a movie providing answers is the ONLY criteria for judging a movie.
Exactly my point. Maze runner is good even if some question won't be answered until the sequel.
> Maze runner is good even if some answers won't be answers until the sequel.
Unfortunately, it's hard to tell if this is a good movie or not since it is incomplete.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
It's good. Cinema is a visual art and on visuals alone Maze runner deserves a higher rating than the cube. Add good acting, dark tone, great art direction, great opening scene, decent VF great sound design and you have good first chapter movie. People are so determined to hate Maze runner based on the YA label than they don't even admit plenty of artistic and technical aspects of the movie are well done even if it gives and incomplete vibe.
It's not for everybody of course.
> on visuals alone Maze runner deserves a higher rating than the cube.
Well, it better be. Cube only had a budget of $365,000 and used 1997 CGI. The Maze Runner had a budget of $34 million and used 2014 technology.
> Add good acting,
I didn't see much in the way of good acting. It was average. I was never convinced of any kind of urgency or love or hatred or anything. The kids lived in a grove and did the exact same thing every day for three years.
> dark tone, great art direction, great opening scene, decent VF great sound design and you have good first chapter movie.
And all of that was quite average. I gave the movie a 7. It was a decent movie, but nothing too special.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Whatever the reason, budget or not budget, Maze runner visuals ARE SUPERIOR. and as cinema is a visual art earn it a higher rating than the cube. Even people with an anti- YA bias (Meaning RT critics) praised the acting (the concensus said, strong performances).
And as for the art direction and sound design you might not have paid attention but they're above average. Pretty much sure they got a team of academy nominees or even winners in this category. Most people don't notice this kind of technical / artistic aspects or are too against the movie to give credit were credit is due.
You rated it five which is fine, to each its own but as you said it deserved at least a seven. share
I gave the movie a 7. It was a decent movie, but nothing too special.
> Maze runner visuals ARE SUPERIOR.
Sure they are. But, with superior CGI available to any movie maker these days, I don't give out bonus points for CGI. It is now an expected part of the movie.
> You rated it five which is fine, to each its own but as you said it deserved at least a seven.
Yes. I would have given it a 7, but I have two pet peeves for a movie for which I usually deduct two points. The first is any movie that ends with all the characters -- good or bad -- gathering together for a big song and dance as the credits roll.
The second thing that is normally a two-point deduction is a movie without an end that just expects the viewer to wait until the next movie to see what happens. Someone says, "Let's go that way," and everyone runs off into the woods. Roll credits.
Now, I don't mind self-contained stories within a franchise, like the James Bond or Star Trek movies. But, I don't like watching a movie for two hours and then leaving the theater feeling like I only saw half a movie. And, unfortunately, almost all YA movies have decided to make one long six-hour movie and then break it into three parts, spread out over three to five years.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Visuals don't limit to CGI, I was referring also to art direction, custome design, and photography in which Maze runner is superior and deserves better rating than the cube. The maze itself has a great look which gained good points even from YA movie haters
Again the acting which received high ratings in a usually hateful toward YA dystopia site like rotten tomatoes is decent bordering good.
And your criteria to rate movies is valid and as a first chapter of a trilogy Maze runner is not complete BUT THAT BY NO MEANS MAKE IT A BAD MOVIE. IT'S A VERY SOLID FIRST CHAPTER. good acting, good score, good art direction, good sound design, dark topics, sociological undertones. There's plenty of things to praise when people don't have an antiYA bias. Honestly you ignore all the good things because just one aspect (the incomplete vibe)which makes you look biased against the YA label. It might not be the case but that's the vibe I get from you.
Exactly my point. Maze runner is good even if some question won't be answered until the sequel.
No, it isn't. Because the ending makes everything that came before it turn into nonsense.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/ share
Several specific movies came to mind when I watched this:
bunch of teenage boys marooned in isolation - Lord of the Flies
complicated structure with parts of it moving around - Cube
killer monsters in confined area [+ "they only come out at night" (Newt in Aliens)]- Aliens
There is a whole lot of arguing in preceding posts about comparing Cube plot with this movie, and which is "better", but that's irrelevant - the similarity is the mechanism of the two structures.
Why are you willing to ignore the plotholes for Pacific Rim and the cube and not for maze runner?
I'm beginning to think you don't understand what the term plot hole actually means.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/ share
Pacific rim is full of plotholes. The scorch trials, the sequel to maze runner, is full of plotholes.
share-The movie told you sun flares burnt the eatch and created the "Scorch"...
Which in and of itself makes no sense. Solar flares affect electronics, but they wouldn't "scorch" the Earth. Don't forget that the Earth is 93 MILLION miles from the sun.
http://theweek.com/articles/480177/killer-solar-flare-really-destroy-earth
-The Maze and Glade was built over the desert location, using futuristic technology. These stories take place in 2200s, fyi.
Which doesn't make sense either. They have the resources to build this massive structure where they risk the lives of the only people immune to this extinction level disease, but they don't develop VR where they could run the exact same tests without actually risking the lives of the subjects? *beep*
-Gally shows the side of those who don't want to leave the comfort of the Glade for the unknown. He's the opposite of Thomas.
The glade is comfortable? Not only that, but he DOES leave the Glade and follows them to the control room. Let's not even get into how the hell he even got in there.
How he got out is a mystery, which will be revealed in the sequels. That doesn't make it a plot hole.
At this point, yes it is plot hole. It's a completely illogical that he would even go there after being so insistent that they not leave the Glade. Let alone how he got into the control room. Even if they do reveal that he was working for "them" it still won't make any sense since the scientists wanted the kids to escape. That's supposedly how they pass the test.
You people are hating it because is a YA movie, and fail to realize how stupid most of your arguments are.
No, people are hating on it because it's poorly written and the ending makes no sense at all. Whether it's YA or not, the ending does not make sense.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/ share
It was never supposed to explain anything. You hardly knew any more even by the end of the second book.
The book doesn't even really delve into why the earth was scorched until well into the 3rd book. I swear, most people complain about being spoon fed all information and when a movie doesn't do that, they complain about not having enough. Can't win with some people.
Also, the book had a much different story for how Gally made it into the control room. The outcome was the same and necessary Chuck being killed by Gally but how they got there was different.
However, I think you see Gally holding onto the Griever brain device in his hands, implying that he ended up finding or killing his own Griever and using his own device, made it through just behind them. For all we know, he was lurking in the background watching them fight the Grievers and YELLING out the code. So, perhaps after the main group enters the interior, the whole setting outside reset. Those three walls that dropped may have opened, exposing about 3 dead Grievers.
Gally could have grabbed the brain device and did what he heard the group do, enter the code and the door opens.
I don't think that's too far fetched. In the book, entering the code actually deactivates the Grievers so perhaps once that door closed, the grievers were officially deactivated, giving a hiding Gally an easy path behind their hard work.
I can suspend my belief enough for that to work.
I don't have to be "spoon fed all information", thats for sure. I like movies which hold information back that the audience wonder what exactly happend (which is rare in Hollywood movies). But there is a fine line between holding information back, so that the audience can think about it, and holding information back which are nessesary for the understanding of the plot (this may work too, thus the whole cube discussion, but you have to be an exellent writer to pull that off).
This may work in the books, that nothing gets explained until the 3rd book, that does not mean, that it works well in the movie too. These are two different media and a film has to have an coherent story.
The Simpsons is the best thing on american television.
-Steven Hawking-
There were no plot holes in Cube. I challenge you to list 3.
This is most certainly NOT more interesting than Cube.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/