MovieChat Forums > Cube (1997) Discussion > no point to the traps

no point to the traps

posted 10 years ago by blairclaxton
22 replies | jump to latest

The entire cube is a 26x26x26 maze. I thought that this was fascinating enough. If the structure was built to test people why kill them almost immediately? In this movie's maze scenario ( characters ) they have chosen people, when teamed up, ( and assuming they actually find each other) could work together to get out. If they were purposely chosen for their skill sets, why have traps too? seems counter productive and a waste of planning / effort.

ie. " ok, we've spent months searching for candidates who could effectively decode and navigate our super maze. we've kidnapped them. we've put them in the maze and yes, holy smokes, out of 17,500 cubes they've all found each other. We can finally see the ingenuity of of a select combination of minds against the odds of our trillion dollar fun *beep* they all got their faces melted off. oh well.

[–] pammigal 10 years ago

The traps are there so that the group can come to the realization that there is a specific path they have to take in order to get out of the cube alive.The traps must be frightening enough for them to make that realization quickly, which of course they sre. Only when faced with the prospect of a cruel, immediate death will the subjects come together and work as a team in effort to complete the puzzle. If there were no traps, it would just be every man for himself wandering aimlessly from one blank room to the next.The taps are there to help them figure out the path. and that there is a path at all. It's sort of like the game minesweeper. It's largely a game of avoidance.

[–] storm-the-dog 9 years ago

Only when faced with the prospect of a cruel, immediate death will the subjects come together and work as a team in effort to complete the puzzle.

OK, but if the first victim had been the savant schoolgirl, say, then there'd be nobody to work out the numbers. So teamwork to resolve the puzzle was a doomed concept from the start because key members may not survive. The randomness of the tasks made it a game for the lucky, not a game for the most gifted. This was proved by Rennes, who thought he knew every trick in the book when it came to detectors and escapology, but still got caught out.

...it's just another dumb film, get over it.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

nobody said that it was a "fair" concept. ;)

[–] therefdotcom 10 years ago

it depends.

what makes this work is that we dlon't know the beginning, we don't know the background and we don't know the outcome.

the films answers possible reasons and those would come with different reasons for the cube and the trap:

aliens (which was the original idea for the film) - testing the human condition. without the traps, there would be no need for teamwork. they could just individually wonder around.

some sick rich guy - amusement. that's it.

government - same as with the "aliens" background

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

[–] storm-the-dog 9 years ago

what makes this work is...

Whoa there! It doesn't work. That's the problem. IMHO, Cube is simply one of those 'intellectual' films that pretends to be something more than it is and have viewers and commentators filling in the gaps the writers couldn't be bothered to resolve for themselves (ipso facto, which is what you've just done by giving three possible reasons for the existence of the cube and the traps).

...it's just another dumb film, get over it.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

i disagree. the film does not pretend to be anything more than what we see. those people who claim that it is a metaphor for life or anythign else are simply wrong, even the writer said that this was never it's purpose. there is nothing to fill in. worth says everything there is to know and everything that the film has to say. as i said, it was originally done with a purpose in mind, which is ... Spoiler ... aliens. natali cut that from the film, because as he let's his character worth express: in the end, it does not matter. all the purpose that this building had once had been long lost at that moment anyways. it is useless. reason to put people in there? because it exists. otherwise whoever ended up in charge would have to admit that it's useless. that's not pretentious in my book. to me it is pretty clever. i will always chose this kind of ending over a bad explanation at the end. for example i did not like "her", transcendence, coherence, +1 and many others for exactly that reason. sometimes a definitive answer, especially if it does not work, is the worse answer. as for cube, i respect if you disagree, but to me no other outcome in the world could have been better then the one we are served. to me, the explanation given is 100% perfect.

[–] storm-the-dog 9 years ago

We're not really disagreeing. But by removing the "alien" ending they left most viewers wondering what it's all about because it's now incomprehensible - hence all the plot theorisation we see above and elsewhere. It works for you because you know what the ending should have been. I, and I guess most others, viewed it without that knowledge and hence our criticisms of it are perfectly valid.

Cutting out the explanation places, but not elevates, the film into another category - that of pseudo-intellectualism (hey man, this is real deep stuff) from the entertaining (it's a sci-fi/alien story, it kicked/didn't kick my butt). That was my point.

The ending, apart from it being dishonest, inexplicable, unrevealing and pretentious, I have no view on.

...it's just another dumb film, get over it.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

"We're not really disagreeing."

true.

"But they left most viewers wondering what it's all about because it's now incomprehensible - hence all the plot theorisation we see above and elsewhere."

i would not go as far as saying most of them. the film has a huge fanbase of whom all are fine with the film as it is.

"It works for you because you know what the ending should have been."

absolutely not. i accept the answer given by worth in the film. this way the film works for me. natali disregards the alien explanation and so do i. i also disregard both the sequel and the prequel, as they are both not part of natali's vision. as far as i am concerned, this film has an open ending and an open beginning.

"I, and I guess most others, viewed it without that knowledge and hence our criticisms of it are perfectly valid. "

yes and no. to me it is valid to say that one does not like that there is no explanation given and therefore does not like the film as a whole. that's perfectly fine, but i disregard the claim of some that it is a flaw. the proper explanation is given within the film.

"Cutting out the explanation places, but not elevates, the film into another category - that of pseudo-intellectualism "

why? the film claims to be even less than people are willing to interpret out of it. it is about human behavior and the cube itself. nothing more, nothing less. it is not meant to be interpreted any further.

[–] FourthYear 9 years ago

as far as i am concerned, this film has an open ending and an open beginning.

the film claims to be even less than people are willing to interpret out of it. it is about human behavior and the cube itself. nothing more, nothing less. it is not meant to be interpreted any further.

These two quotes summarize the potential brilliance of this film... or how the film ended up just being lucky with how it turned out. By removing the front and back cover of the story, the viewer is left to interpret as they see fit, which can make tihs a brilliant move or just questionable film making.

It's like a painting where books are written to descibe the metaphorical meanings, political insight, and emotional struggling of the working class... or maybe it really was just dogs playing poker.

"Cutting out the explanation places, but not elevates, the film into another category - that of pseudo-intellectualism "

"Pseudo" is the key phrase here to me. If it was intentional to get viewers to think of this film the way many people do, then Cube is in that realm. If not intended that way, then Cube is just a weird movie with a neat premise that means nothing.

Much like my view on Session 9 when arguing over whether it's insanity or possession, one must ultimately come to terms with the fact that movies are an art form, and art is interpretational.

[–] storm-the-dog 9 years ago

It's like a painting where books are written to descibe the metaphorical meanings, political insight, and emotional struggling of the working class... or maybe it really was just dogs playing poker.

If the painting was intended to be just dogs playing poker, then it stands on it's own merit. But if the picture was re-conceived such that it's no longer just dogs playing poker, then the question becomes, why was it changed?

Following the analogy - Cube is "Dogs Playing Poker" modified to become "Dogs Playing Some Game but we're not going to tell you what it is"!

...it's just another dumb film, get over it.

[–] fuzzykids 9 years ago

I love this film, so don't take it that I am putting the film down in anyway. However it is Not an intellectual, pseudo or otherwise. The only thing that could make it so is the sometimes interesting conversations that arise when someone tries to come up with explanations. The film itself does not try and give you some deeper meaning.

I took it from the viewpoint of those in it. They never figured out what it was. Just a scary place with traps. Horror movies for me work best when it leaves a lot to my own imagination. Definitely why this is one of my faves. Just a fun flick, that does not require any real deep thought. There is a difference with leaving things up to imagination and having an actual bigger meaning behind the story.

Anyways, I guess if you want it to have some deeper meaning you can do that, but it doesn't feel that the writers had that in mind.

Today people feel the need to put extra meaning in a just fun horror flick. Try not to take things so seriously all the time. Or find movies that really have what you are looking for.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

exactly.

[–] ncshvdavid-869-476101 9 years ago

The rooms themselves tend to fade in importance after the first two men die, and the group comes together. Its well written and the rooms become secondary to the interaction between the groups, primarily between Quentin and Halloway. The movie actually spends a good bit of its FX budget on the first two deaths, to draw you in, then weaves the group interaction, where it makes its money. If the movie doesn’t make you care about the characters, then the latter 2/3rds of the movie will be boring and dull. To my little group, it wasn’t. The interaction is engaging, and the acting is just good enough to not be distracting, even with the budget. I think this is a solid 7 movie, leaning to an 8, but the ending is just horrible- almost like they just gave up at the end and figured they might get a sequel to explain it. Its either lazy or overthinking- and knocks it back for me. I’m going a 6 here. The ending is just that bad. I know the Cube has two sequels, and to be honest, from what I have heard from my friends on the sequels, I don’t want to see them.
Review from
www.7poundbag.com

[–] TheCommenteer 8 years ago

The movie explains everything actually. The only way it doesn't is if you assume the character explanation is wrong. The same logic could be applied to any movie in which events or issues are explained, you either assume the character is right in their observation or you don't.

The fact that it started out with the premise of aliens is irrelevant.

[–] kittykat_charm 8 years ago

Problem is all films are inherently character studies. Irrelevant of all else we consciously or subconsciously judge why they've written these characters in and not just put in balls of flesh or random speechless blobs. Films like Transformers can get away with having zero character development / decent characters cause it's all just explosions. And don't get me wrong - explosions are FUN but they're essentially just shaking a rattle at a baby.

That's why I don't often appreciate gore films as much as I should cause they bore me. Oh look a guy got mangled / exploded / guts torn out. Here's your 70th predictable jump scare - I think I blinked. The way to have made this more of a plain horror film? Make the deaths more gruesome. Without spoiling anything, none of the deaths were particularly grim or significantly placed were there? We didn't actually see many rooms activate did we? Add more people so you can up the death quota. Add more rooms so we can see more destructive potential. Add more near misses so we have heightened tension. Anything but just put 6 people in unfurnished rooms, watch them interact and have them talk about themselves.

[–] kya1 8 years ago

If the structure was built to test people why kill them almost immediately? In this movie's maze scenario ( characters ) they have chosen people, when teamed up, ( and assuming they actually find each other) could work together to get out. If they were purposely chosen for their skill sets, why have traps too? seems counter productive and a waste of planning / effort.

ie. " ok, we've spent months searching for candidates who could effectively decode and navigate our super maze. we've kidnapped them. we've put them in the maze and yes, holy smokes, out of 17,500 cubes they've all found each other. We can finally see the ingenuity of of a select combination of minds against the odds of our trillion dollar fun *beep* they all got their faces melted off. oh well.

True, but maybe seeing how long they last, or if they get out at all, is part of the fun for whoever created the cube. If the people get killed too quickly, the creators can tweak it to make it easier for the next group.
No one can say what characteristics they were testing for, do older candidates survive longer, etc?

It's a game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAIJ3Rh5Qxs

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cookieman108 8 years ago

"If they were purposely chosen for their skill sets, why have traps too?"

Because it's in the script, silly rabbit.

[–] GreyHunter 8 years ago

I've only watched the first two -- I keep meaning to finish the series, but have yet to get around to it -- so I don't know precisely how the series ultimately explains everything, but is there any reason why the People in Charge can't be monitoring the situation? As such, they can "preserve" people by deactivating specific traps to allow for a certain amount of progress. Kazan, for instance, would likely have died pretty quickly, seeing as he has no concept of the danger in the rooms and no foresight to test each room. So the People in Charge ensure he meets up with others safely.

Another possibility is that all people were placed in adjacent rooms from the start and the rooms filled with some sort of stimulant gas to ensure people all wake up around the same time. Then it's just a matter of assuming people will explore their environs thoroughly, thus discovering each other. If there are no traps in that particular bloc and the rooms aren't yet set in motion, most if not all of the prisoners would be together before the real exploration starts.

[–] bobbydallas (8085) 3 years ago

haha i also wondered if Leaven got roasted early on..

the other 4 were screwed.
Kazan would never been 'found' either.

[–] chrcoluk (64) 10 months ago

The people been near each other (or even starting in same room) is explained with how they got in there.

Logically someone has to put them in there, and logically from that they not going to be far from either the exit room or a maintenance entrance.

If I remember correctly they started in either the exit room or one close to it in the first movie.