Maze Runner - The Scorch Trials - Now with Zombies!
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials is the second film in the Maze Runner series. It's perhaps the best of these so far, although that wasn't, and still isn't, a high bar to clear.
What I want to know is, do they explain why WICKED (ugh) is doing this in the most backwards way possible?
I saw the first movie with the correct audience (a pubescent girl) and even she didn't like how the ending was just exposition saying, "We put you in a literal deathtrap to see whether or not you could withstand a virus, because that's how medical research works. The only way to examine your brain is to put you somewhere where we literally can't perform any tests at all, and hope that you don't die from malnutrition, exposure, or just a regular disease."
I saw the first movie with the correct audience (a pubescent girl) and even she didn't like how the ending was just exposition saying, "We put you in a literal deathtrap to see whether or not you could withstand a virus, because that's how medical research works. The only way to examine your brain is to put you somewhere where we literally can't perform any tests at all, and hope that you don't die from malnutrition, exposure, or just a regular disease."
What, you say that as though you were expecting good writing from a movie based on a "Young Adult Novel".
Ugh, I'm so sick of this trend...every last one of these books/movies is exactly the same. "You're the special little snowflake that's going to change the world!"
I believe Cinema Sins put it best with their recent episode on Insurgent: "So this is either Twilight or Hunger Games, I can't remember." *one sin later* "Wait, I remember what this is! It's Maze Runner, isn't it?"
What I want to know is, do they explain why WICKED (ugh) is doing this in the most backwards way possible?
I saw the first movie with the correct audience (a pubescent girl) and even she didn't like how the ending was just exposition saying, "We put you in a literal deathtrap to see whether or not you could withstand a virus, because that's how medical research works. The only way to examine your brain is to put you somewhere where we literally can't perform any tests at all, and hope that you don't die from malnutrition, exposure, or just a regular disease."
If the first movie's adaption of the first book is anything to go by... Then, I'm going to assume that they don't because that info's "only exclusive" to just the view-er I mean "reader", in this case... and the movie's focus is on the info that Thomas and friends know at the time... So, unless they "really deviate" in the third movie, we, the viewers, aren't going to know until Thomas and friends know and/or until we read both the second and third book first, since they basically exposition-dumped what the first book scattered across between chapters in the first movie, kinda... Then again, if my understanding of the third book is correct, since I haven't looked through it myself yet...
then, not even the explanation that book gives makes any in-universe sense when you take it at face value...
OT: Meh... I ended up enjoying the first movie prior to reading the book it was based on, even if the ending made me feel like I was watching the ending to Cube 2: Hypercube again, so I guess I'll end up liking this movie with the possibility of hating the ending...
RJ 17 said:
Ugh, I'm so sick of this trend...every last one of these books/movies is exactly the same. "You're the special little snowflake that's going to change the world!"
I believe Cinema Sins put it best with their recent episode on Insurgent: "So this is either Twilight or Hunger Games, I can't remember." *one sin later* "Wait, I remember what this is! It's Maze Runner, isn't it?"
Which is funny to me because the first book tires to explain
that Thomas and friends are only one of two groups that could hold the key to finding a cure... even if the books/movies only focus on the group with Thomas and friends...
Also, that was a highlight of that Cinemasins video you're referring to...
Your point being? It's still the same premise regardless of if the phrasing is tweaked to "you're one of two special snowflakes that can change the world!"
But by all means, don't let my disgust with these types of books/movies ruin your enjoyment of them. I'm not out to convince anyone that they're terrible stories filled with terrible writing, but rather simply to express that that's how I feel about them in response to a review on one of them. If you truly enjoyed it, then good for you. Apparently your stomach is stronger than mine.
I actually enjoyed the first movie, as stupid as it was, as just another popcorn fest. Everything was pretty crappy about it, except for the environments and atmosphere, which were excellent.
If that remains so for the second installment, I might go and watch it.
Your point being? It's still the same premise regardless of if the phrasing is tweaked to "you're one of two special snowflakes that can change the world!"
More like "you're one of two groups of special snowflakes that can change the world", am I right? *fails at a high five* Oh right...
But by all means, don't let my disgust with these types of books/movies ruin your enjoyment of them. I'm not out to convince anyone that they're terrible stories filled with terrible writing, but rather simply to express that that's how I feel about them in response to a review on one of them. If you truly enjoyed it, then good for you. Apparently your stomach is stronger than mine.
Hay, I wasn't trying to do the opposite... I probably should have said "In conclusion, despite this book series working with a premise that's been done to death already, the movies really wants to make that clear so that it can blend in with the other YA movie adaptations", but I digress... Besides, I did mention in that particular comment that I saw the first movie before even reading the book the movie was based on, so it's not like my stomach is some kind of "special snowflake" in terms of watching movies like these... Then again, I still did not like the first movie's ending and I can't verbally say "Thomas and friends" in terms of this series without thinking of <url=http://archeravenue.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/thomas4.jpg>this all the time...
Do evil organisations ever stop to do a quick check they haven't given themselves an acronym or do you think they jump through hoops trying to pick a good one?
Maybe marketing help them out so they project the right message.
Yes, of course all evil organisations have a marketing department.
They're EVIL, remember?
Case in point, our government over in Britain went and picked COBRA for it's government meetings to deal with (and cause) emergencies.
I always like to imagine David Cameron yelling "COBRA ASSSSEMBLE!" before each meeting.
I'm in favor of "The Special" becoming a term for a protagonist whom everything revolves around despite showing no obvious signs of being all that important. The distinction between that and "Mary Sue"/"Gary Stu" would have to be repeatedly spelled out for people, though. Like how we constantly have to explain why "jumping the shark" doesn't just mean "going downhill".
Mikeybb said:
Do evil organisations ever stop to do a quick check they haven't given themselves an acronym or do you think they jump through hoops trying to pick a good one?
Maybe marketing help them out so they project the right message.
Yes, of course all evil organisations have a marketing department.
They're EVIL, remember?
My favorite is when an innocuous-sounding company or organization has a name that's a "clue" to the fact that they're evil, like something out of a moron's conspiracy theory. LIVEcorp in Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs for example - yes, LIVE is already EVIL spelled backwards, but then they have a logo that uses a lower-case L and an E that's just three horizontal bars so you can literally flip the logo around and have it spell "EVIL". Which one of the protagonists does after having an epiphany, of course.
Do evil organisations ever stop to do a quick check they haven't given themselves an acronym or do you think they jump through hoops trying to pick a good one?
Maybe marketing help them out so they project the right message.
Yes, of course all evil organisations have a marketing department.
They're EVIL, remember?
Case in point, our government over in Britain went and picked COBRA for it's government meetings to deal with (and cause) emergencies.
I always like to imagine David Cameron yelling "COBRA ASSSSEMBLE!" before each meeting.
Is that an acronym for something? Here in the USA, we have the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It has something to do with health insurance, I think.
Here, have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1985
Do evil organisations ever stop to do a quick check they haven't given themselves an acronym or do you think they jump through hoops trying to pick a good one?
Maybe marketing help them out so they project the right message.
Yes, of course all evil organisations have a marketing department.
They're EVIL, remember?
Case in point, our government over in Britain went and picked COBRA for it's government meetings to deal with (and cause) emergencies.
I always like to imagine David Cameron yelling "COBRA ASSSSEMBLE!" before each meeting.
Is that an acronym for something? Here in the USA, we have the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It has something to do with health insurance, I think.
Here, have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1985
Cabinet Office Briefing Room A.
Not all that grand really.
I still like to think he has to wear a helmet and a reflective face mask when he chairs the meetings.
There's more dignity in that than some things recent revelations have shown he's worn in the past.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
