I haven't read the original book, I only watched the movie with dog blood.
But I feel that the main point of the movie is not "saving friends or saving the world". The male protagonist did not go to the laboratory because he did not want to save the world, and assuming that the male protagonist went to the laboratory, he might not be able to save the world in the end.
Because even if the bad guys (please forgive me for using such a rough name) have medicine, they can't save mankind. In fact, the moment Jasom shot Ava in the movie already made this point.
In the movie, after the virus swept the world, human society was divided into three factions:
1. The "urban faction" with resources, they monopolize resources, build high walls to protect their resources, and at the same time study antidote; this faction is characterized by a high concentration of power in the hands of a few people, and even loses humanity in order to develop an antidote. ；
2. The "resistance" oppressed by the "urban faction" are led by the madman. They are thrown on the wall by the "urban faction" to fend for themselves. Their hatred of the "urban faction" even overwhelms their desire to survive ；
3. The "peace faction" of the male lead does not want to enter the city, nor do they want to retaliate against the city. Its internal rights are not highly concentrated.
So, even if the people of the "urban faction" work out an antidote, can they save mankind with this pathologically centralized and dehumanized social form?
The point of view expressed in the movie is: No.
Even if researchers such as the heroine want to save mankind, those in power will certainly not. Because they built high walls to protect their own interests, they got the antidote to expand their own interests. (The inhuman treatment received by immunized persons and the inhuman treatment of people outside the wall in the movie have shown his views: this is not Jasom's personal problem, but a system problem. In a highly centralized society There must be someone like Jasom).
Of course, after being treated inhumane by the "urban faction" for a long time, the "rebels" gradually lose their humanity, so they won't be able to save mankind even if they get the antidote.
The point of view given by the film is: "Peaceists" must have an antidote. Only when these two conditions are met can it be possible to save mankind.
The hostess did not realize this. So she was noble (not ironically) to participate in the antidote research of the "urban faction" at the expense of part of her humanity, but the final plot arrangement made her find that she had taken a big detour. But the male protagonist probably didn't think so much, he just protected his friends away from the city and laboratory based on simple intuition.
In retrospect, if the heroine is always by the hero's side, she will also realize that the hero's blood has a therapeutic effect because of Brenda's condition. Since it is possible to gather forces to repair a search ship, it should not be difficult to gather forces to repair a pharmaceutical factory or power plant. The rest is done step by step. Indeed, because of the lack of resources, they will be slow to save mankind. However, the loss of humanity cannot save mankind (think of the three bodies).
However, as for the "antidote" part, this is the most bloody part of the film: originally spent a huge price to build a maze, the serum obtained by torturing the subject failed to solve the problem, and the final antidote to save mankind turned out to be The blood drawn by the male protagonist in a normal state...
Of course, the above is just my opinion based on the movie plots of some dog-blooded movies. If it is to discuss what would happen to human beings in the real world encountering similar disasters, then it is another topic.
View more about Maze Runner: The Death Cure reviews
