Talk:Total Recall (1990 film)

Soundtrack article

There should be an article about Jerry Goldsmith's score, as I've seen that one rather short album was released (Arnold's face is blueish) and later a special edition (Arnold's face is now reddish) of I think one hour long, or perhaps two. Importance? Goldsmith "Total Recall" one of his greatest scores, and his personal favorite. This would then make place for the following:

Total Recall - Most Expensive Film

Acoording to the page on Arnold Schwarzenegger, Total Recall, at that time, was the most expensive film in the world. But it doesn't say anything about that here, is it true or not? And if it is, I think it should be on this page!

No way. Even if it was, it was soon overshadowed by Hook, then Waterworld and subsequently, Titanic. Pictureuploader

Themes section

I edited some of the stuff in the Themes section. Besides the information relating to how Total Recall relates to other sci-fi films, the only issue discussed in this section is whether or not Quaid's adventure is real or not. I figured it could have it's own title in bold, and storypoints which indicate both sides of the argument could be listed. The section is not cohesive at the moment, but the main pro/con points are in there now.

Plot revisions

What happened to all the previous work on this entry? There was a significant section on the plot which was updated after much work and is now incorrect. Whoever did these updates doesn't understand the concept of "facts not in evidence" when writing a plot summary.Aspenguy2 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

What is incorrect? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable sources for "racism", "sexism"...

@Darkwarriorblake I'm not removing these points because I disagree with them. The sound reason for their removal is that a themes section is either meant to reflect elements that the filmmakers intended to explore, or those points where analysis of the film have reached a conclusion about the content.

Accusations of racism and sexism are not thematic to Total Recall, those elements are not explored in the film and were not intended to be explored. So first of all, these points belong in a "criticism" section, if at all.

Then we can move on to the notion of whether the authors of these points are noteworthy enough for inclusion. I believe it's easily concluded that they are not, especially given the radical points they're making which is in the minority opinion when it comes to film critics (the people who actually have credentials in reviewing films).

This is a statement I find incredible that we have on this Wikipedia page: "Many female characters in the film are presented as prostitutes or mutants, suggesting femininity is a source of moral or physical deformity." In what way is this suggested? Why is this a statement of fact rather than a quote from the reviewer? Here's a theory about that which is much more in line with the world Verhoeven was trying to portray: many female characters in the film are presented as prostitutes or mutants, suggesting that social order has broken down on Mars and the lives of women has been adversely affected.

Here's another laughable statement: "he perceived a more conservative subtext in which the white protagonist saves a society of the less well-off who cannot save themselves". This person has no understanding of political categories, clearly. That has nothing to do with conservativism.

Why are we giving so much focus on the opinions of reviewers who have dubious motivations? Just because it's "scholarship" (and the quotes are deserved, it is largely one person's dull problematizing opinions) does not mean it's the consensus.

Everything referenced from "Vest 2009" in this article ought to be either heavily reduced and moved to criticism or just flat deleted.

If there is any point in here that you can find a SECOND reference for then add that second reference and it deserves to be included. If not, then it deserves to be removed as it does not accurately reflect the intentions of the filmmakers or the opinions of the critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessFiends (talk • contribs) 11:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You're confusing what a themes section is for. Themes sections are not for what the writer/director said they were for, but for what experienced people can interpret from them as well. Also we are not in Texas, you cannot remove a valid source because it isn't saying what you want it to say. I completely agree with Vest's opinions on women in the film, any woman on screen is generally a prostitute, slutty, or fat. She's literally called "fat lady" in the credits. Whether intentional or not, it is very easy to discern some misogyny in the film regarding it's treatment of women. One of the reviews refers to Stone as Schwarzeneggers "slut whore wife" so it isn't some fringe opinion. Similarly, American conservatives are all about the white guy, typically American, saving the day, even if that isn't in the official manifesto. Any 80s movie analysis will offer a similar opinion like with Rambo. A second source isn't required to satisfy you personally, but at the same time I don't doubt one could be found either. That said, I'm busy working on other articles so I won't be going fetching one right now either. The general point here is that just because you disagree with their opinion does not mean it is invalid. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

EDIT, also, Vest has written like two full books on the work of Dick. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

In response to "you're confusing what a themes section is for" I will requote what I said above "or those points where analysis of the film have reached a conclusion about the content" which seems to imply that we've already agreed to the definition. In order for something to be qualifiable as a theme it needs to have at least some consensus among those who have analyzed the film. Here there is no consensus about "conservative subtext" or the suggestion that "femininity is a source of moral or physical deformity". In fact here is a quote on this article which goes in direct contrast to that: "Wilmington noted that the violence and mutants never seemed to be depicted out of "sadism or callousness"."

"American conservatives are all about the white guy" - this is your political opinion and bears no relevance to the definition of conservativism, or to the article.

"I completely agree with Vest's opinions on women" - I thought we didn't care what our opinions were on the article? I also agree, I belive there are plenty enough sources from various points to create a section relevant to sexism in Total Recall (although likely not racism), it would belong in the "Criticism" section. However the way it is written about from this particular reference is very overblown in proportion to what the general consensus is and it's presented as factual where it is one person's opinion, so it would require a full rewrite, several references, and if "Vest 2009" features it ought to be written in such a way as to make it clear that we're quoting from them, not directly taking what they say as fact.

"A second source isn't required to satisfy you personally", but it is required to satisfy Wikipedia's reliability.

"I'm busy working on other articles", if you don't have the time to fetch other sources, then the sections should be removed until those references can be satisfied.

ChessFiends (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP article where controversial comments need to be removed pending validation. As per BRD, unless blatantly provocative, a questioned section can stay in place - especially if it's already sourced - while it is discussed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I'm not going to remove it while we discuss. But it seems to me that there are no references that will corroborate this author's far-out opinions in the way they are presently written in the article. ChessFiends (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to respond to all of that, but the guy who played Benny literally threw his script across the room because his character was described as a "black jivester". He's also like the only main black character in the film and I think the ONLY black character in the film? Like I haven't watched it recently but I'm trying to think and it's pretty damn white. We can debate semantics but it's pretty easy to interpret racism in the film, again even if it wasn't intentional. And no the sources don't have to have corroborating sources that share a similar viewpoint. They just have to be opinions by educated and recognized professionals. As for the conservative thing, my response is jokey but I've worked on a number of 80s action articles and the ties to the Republican prominence of that era, particularly Reagan and/or Vietnam, is very common and again not a fringe theory. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This is veering further into your own political beliefs and away from the point. I'm sure you mean well but I hope at some point you reconsider what racism is. If you truly want to ensure that racism is removed from the world (as I hope we all do) you would make sure that the term is used precisely and sparingly so as to preserve the true horror of its meaning. It does not apply here.

There are only a few protagonists in the film, one of them is Schwarzenegger, another is a Hispanic lady, and the other a black taxi driver. All antagonists are white. Even were there more black people in the cast it would not magically make it less racist, nor would it make it more racist if there were no black people in it at all. The only racism would be if a certain race of people were intentionally excluded from the cast. Would you really say that's the case here? From my perspective it would take someone quite obsessive to imagine such a thing without evidence.

"And no the sources don't have to have corroborating sources that share a similar viewpoint. They just have to be opinions by educated and recognized professionals." If you are writing outside of quotes you are making a statement of fact. If these statements of fact are questionable they ought to be referenced from multiple sources. These points about the film are VERY questionable. You might find they have merit, but most read these and see them for the biased opinions that they are.

"it's pretty easy to interpret racism in the film" It's easy to interpret bad faith in any situation. There used to be such a thing as charitable thinking about peoples' motives.

"...ties to the Republican prominence of that era..." You might be right! Reference it from a more reliable source in this article and it will be irrefutable!

Mel Johnson Jr threw his script across the room because he had the previous day attended an audition for a "horrible Black exploitation film" so he assumed the worst on his first take of the script, but quickly realizes he was wrong and describes his character as: "Wow, a fully realized character that he was. Usually it's one or other, this buffoon or this flat-out villain. But that wasn't Benny."

ChessFiends (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I would agree with ChessFiends here - themes should reflect intentional elements put into a work by filmmakers and not what others happen to see, particularly in years well after a film has been released (see WP:PRESENTISM). That type of commentary is part of a film's reception or legacy, but separate from themes. --Masem (t) 19:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I can always count on you Masem to do the opposite of the thing I need you to do. I had to pass both Ghostbusters articles through FA and to do that I had to include themes about pollution and immigration that are interpreted from the film by outside experts. It would be impossible to do a Themes section based entirely on whatever the creator was consciously doing because they're not going to say "oh yeah I was kinda being misogynistic here", "oh yeah, a little racism there". It's no different than the constant analysis of 80s action films as a response to Vietnam, despite the creators not explicitly saying that or even intending that at all. The other name used for the Themes section is Thematic Analysis or Cinematic Analysis. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Also you can both just read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Themes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Right, and here still is where PRESENTISM applies. At the time Total Recall was made, few would have batted an eye at the issues of sexiam or racism at the time. Today I can fully understand why some would see that, but that's because the world has changed. Themes for a film or a work should be presented in the context of the time the work was produced to prevent PRESENTISM issues from coming about. --Masem (t) 19:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

As an example, we don't say "racism" is a theme of Song of the South - as at the time it was made, it was a sad state of how the world mistreated blacks - but it has become a clear example of how films of that period have been identified as highly controversial with better awareness of civil rights and the likes. There's numerous reliable opinions on the racist nature of Song of the South published well after the film's release, but they're included as part of the film's legacy, not its themes because at the time, its seemingly racist nature wasn't seen as racist. Similarly, at the time Total Recall was made, that wasn't seen that way either. --Masem (t) 19:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I find the content reliably sourced. Regarding the section heading, I somewhat see why "Themes" by itself wouldn't be considered the best choice if mixing what was intended versus unintended. I think a layperson understanding of themes would be more about what was intended. So I'm fine with something like "Thematic analysis". For what it's worth, the Featured Article Mulholland Drive (film) writes "Themes and interpretations". For content separate from the filmmaker, I've preferred "Analysis" or "Critical analysis". Oh, just remembered -- American Beauty (1999 film) has "Themes and analysis", and Tender Mercies has "Themes and interpretations". So I think two-word+ options for this particular kind of section provides more flexibility. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Song of the south wouldn't have it as themes because there is external commentary about it. It doesn't need analysing or interpreting, it just is. There isn't an option for that here because Total Recall hasn't been cancelled for these interpretations, they're just viewpoints. I never looked at it that way until reading for this article, but I can certainly see where someone can look at it and see sexism or racism, intentional or not. But as Erik says, renaming the section for clarity might be best. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Find sources at the time the film was made (+/- a couple years) that talk about the film's racism and sexism in a thematic way and then that would be reasonable to include in a themes or themes/analysis section (As per Eric's statement above). But right now, the sourcing is so distant from the film's release and reflects more about criticism of the film rather than themes or analysis that trying to work that into themes is a problem under PRESENTISM. Not that this material can't be included, just not as "themes" but part of the film's later legacy or criticism, clearly identifying that this is something that has come about over time. --Masem (t) 23:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I just don't understand what you mean. Any analysis is going to be post the film's release and people might discover it on home video or streaming. Why do the opinions have to come from a time contemporary to the film? If you look at something like Trading Places, there will be more recent analysis(analysi?) on there about the racist aspects, even if they're covering a similar theme. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's what the Trading Places article is doing that the Total Recall article is not:

• Trading Places has many different references from various journalists, printed pieces and film reviewers to ensure that the points being made have consensus.
• Racism is a theme that is actually explored in Trading Places itself! The film is not being accused of being racist from what I can read, that would belong under "criticism" or "Legacy" IF more than one person actually has levied these complaints at the film.
• There are no statements which flatly copy the tone from the source such as "His repeated references to having multiple children reinforced stereotypes of African American men as irresponsible and promiscuous.." in what way is that a FACT?! (John McClane has multiple children, it's a common trope to get the viewer to more immediately appreciate the good work ethic of the character) "Many female characters in the film are presented as prostitutes or mutants, suggesting femininity is a source of moral or physical deformity" this is not a FACT. "However, he perceived a more conservative subtext in which the white protagonist saves a society of the less well-off who cannot save themselves" this needs to be a quotation from the author or it sounds like WP is in agreement with something most reviewers actually disagreed with (most of them spotting left-wing themes in the movie). "violence is essential to Total Recall's story of individuality and freedom, and as such is the domain of the archetypal white, masculine hero Quaid." This sentence is purely ideological in nature, about as biased as you can get.

There are so many problems with these paragraphs that they ought to just be completely removed. Tone, wrong section, neutrality, only one source (and that source is clearly very biased), and yes also presentism as Masem mention above.

ChessFiends (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't imagine being so bothered about this ChessFiends, you seem bizarrely upset. You've yet to somehow discredit Vest, who at a casual search seems to be more the professional than you or I, so removing sourced information isn't really acceptable. It can be re-worded, it can be segmented into an analysis section, but you've not really justified removal. Again, every woman in the film is a seductress, liar, prostitute or mutant, so I can see his/her point, but it is analysis so again maybe it needs reorganizing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You've not responded to any of the points we've all now made... can you reply at least to how you consider the above four sentences factual enough to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? I don't intend to "discredit" Vest, they seem to do that well enough for themselves. Yes, it can be rewritten into a criticism section, but that would require a full re-write because it needs more quotatons rather than directly stating things as fact, and it would need more references from other sources to establish that there is indeed a number of people who criticized the film for "sexism" or "racism". Like I said above, there's surely enough on the point of sexism, I'm doubtful there will be enough to justify it being called a "racist" movie.

ChessFiends (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)