Is the Western Anime market better now than it was a few years ago?

[Casual Shinji]

I wouldn't know what Japan airs at prime time, but Archer is walking the path many other cartoon shows before it did or still do. It's business as usual.

And? Relevance to the argument?

The relevance being you previously bringing it up as an example of experimental animation, when it's just business as usual for a prime time American cartoon show.


But I think we've come to a point now where you're just going to bring up whatever in comparison as to why anime is shit. Case in point...

*pfft* WHAT?! Now I KNOW you're trolling me, because that's the most ridiculous fucking statement I've heard all year.

How? It's infinitely more charming than the common cut shot dreck that gets pumped out on a daily basis out of animation studios in Japan.

Saying that type of flash animation looks good is already questionable, but saying it looks better than pretty much anything animated from Japan... Yeesh.

Because it does ... 90% Of the Japanese animation industry is pure garbage.

Considering you yourself admitted to spending 6000 bucks on pony merch you'll forgive for not taking anything you have to say on this matter seriously. Certainly not anymore after this weird discussion.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

That Arnie might have dreamt the whole thing, and none of the film after going to Recall might be real? Nice plot twist, but it's hardly a theme.

Total Recall does nihilism actually well. Self-annihilation and reconstruction based solely on environmental factors (like a reconstructed reality)? Moreover, aspects of Total Recall totally 'influenced' sci-fi far more than CB ever did. I would also argue it handled concepts of existentialism not as well as Blade Runner, but still bloody well. It was clever in a way that anyone could interpret, and transgressive of the usual sci-fi schlock themes in ways that were confronting yet mesmerizing.

Total Recall helped solidify, IMPO, probably the best examination of things like augmented and virtual reality themes in sci-fi, and the hypothetical price (in terms of possible sanity loss or social costs or as tools of corporate/government control), in sci-fi to date.

Total Recall borrowed more than a little from things like Blade Runner, but Total Recall had some pretty powerful concepts and discussions it wanted to talk about on its own. Like the nature of existence and memory in the future of neuroscience, the discussion of nature and nurture concerning humans and their interaction with reality, mutation and the threshold of posthumanism... And it did so with slick and gritty visuals and potent (yet clever) action scenes.

Total Recall is a great movie, and pretty clever for your run of the mill action sci-fi flick. All with a slick, claustrophobic presentation.

(Eds) The lovely thing about TR is that it tells a moral that is uniquely uncovered by much cinematic experiences of sci-fi is an actually good rendition of redemption. It's flagrantly existentialist. Arnie does not have 'evil leanings' once discovering the 'truth' behind his actions and why people have been using him. That his uniquely liberated from his weight of sin and even the weight of all his wants simply by excising the anchors of his history that allows him to rebuild himself in a way that truly his own past is dead and meaningless to him. He's utterly unlike the man he was.

All too often, particularly in fantasy and sci-fi, it seems to operate as if 'evil' is as if an essentialist component of human character and behaviour. That Arnie should have, upon 'discovering himself' should have fallen to his own 'nature' ... but the movie flagrantly ignores that trope of such fantasy/sci-fi trope ...

And in that fashion it's even more transgressive and existentialist-bending about the nature of sapience than Blade Runner was. Quaid is slave to none but his own interpretation of history, and that history is liquid and ultimately meaningless in terms of construction once he had been freed from it.

And it's powerful in that respects.

The funny thing is it re-interprets the idea of death and suicide through neuroscience. Let's say 'bad Quaid' (Hauser) didn't believe he was committing suicide by undergoing this operation ... 'good Quaid' himself rebelling against the forces that corrupted his sense of morality and liberty prior to undermine the Martian cause kills that idea of Quaid (Hauser) (and 'kills' himself in the process) by simply refusing that which sought to contaminate and compromise his moral code before.

So you have a definite argument about the nature of morality you often don't see in sci-fi. That there is no good and evil, and life and death is infinitely complex in a universe of utterly constructed and reconstructed interpretations of memory and self.

And it's clever. At least I think it's clever. I haven't read the Phillip K. Dick source material on it so I can't comment just how clever it is a reimagining of the moral and metaphysical argument behind the idea of augmented and virtual reality reconstruction of self and memory.

But Total Recall told a compelling dystopian sci-fi story that was idealistic at its core about how humans can find its redemption ... or perhaps a pessimistic message that there was no excuse for humanity's wickedness depending on what way you want to view it.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The relevance being you previously bringing it up as an example of experimental animation, when it's just business as usual for a prime time American cartoon show.

No it wasn't. I used Archer as an example of common primetime television standards of animation out of the West. You are literally inventing stuff I didn't say.

But I think we've come to a point now where you're just going to bring up whatever in comparison as to why anime is shit. Case in point...

Dude, you're the one inventing arguments. What I considered 'experimental' was things like Where the Wind Blows. Its use of photography, conventional animation, Claymation, and 3D sets to paint a growingly disturbing disconnection of these otherwise normal Britons facing the horrors of a post-nuclear exchange world whereby the hostility of it is beyond the imagination and hope itself to survive.

And I can't think of a single anime feature out of Japan of the time period (mid 80s) willing to spend that money, spend that time, lovingly crafting a scene as if with that level of interpretative meaning physically baked into the animation process of bringing it to the screen.

Considering you yourself admitted to spending 6000 bucks on pony merch you'll forgive for not taking anything you have to say on this matter seriously. Certainly not anymore after this weird discussion.

So I take it you don't have a real argument then?

 

[Casual Shinji]

The relevance being you previously bringing it up as an example of experimental animation, when it's just business as usual for a prime time American cartoon show.

No it wasn't. I used Archer as an example of common primetime television standards of animation out of the West. You are literally inventing stuff I didn't say.

Here you go.

Spoiler

How is it more experimental? It might've been with Adventure Time, but now every damn show is aping that style. All animated shows look like Steven Universe and all animated movies look like Pixar. Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse is the first animated movie in years to have some sort of unique visual flair.

How is it not? Archer (at least the first three seasons) is better than almost anything out of commercial tv Eastern animation. Not only its look, but how actually expressive the faces are. Talking face shapes, eye movements, illness rendition, blood effects ....

Hate to get all quote-y about this, but there it is. But then you do seem to be confusing 'experimental' with 'I just like it better' and 'anime sux', which is what pretty much every arguement you've made thus far has devolved into.

Dude, you're the one inventing arguments. What I considered 'experimental' was things like Where the Wind Blows. Its use of photography, conventional animation, Claymation, and 3D sets to paint a growingly disturbing disconnection of these otherwise normal Britons facing the horrors of a post-nuclear exchange world whereby the hostility of it is beyond the imagination and hope itself to survive.

And I can't think of a single anime feature out of Japan of the time period (mid 80s) willing to spend that money, spend that time, lovingly crafting a scene as if with that level of interpretative meaning physically baked into the animation process of bringing it to the screen.

No, what you consider experimental is apparently whatever you deem experimental to serve as a counterpoint in that moment. Now I guess it's Where the Wind Blows, showing that there's no anime that has money, time, and love spent on it cuz. And if you truly believe that, if you truly believe no anime (from the 80's) has been made with craft, passion and/or a budget then.. well, then that's just incredibly silly of you.

Considering you yourself admitted to spending 6000 bucks on pony merch you'll forgive for not taking anything you have to say on this matter seriously. Certainly not anymore after this weird discussion.

So I take it you don't have a real argument then?

I do, plenty. But you know, 6000 bucks worth of fanboyism is strong enough to repel a lot of common sense.

 

[Hawki]

For shorthand, I'm going to distinguish between "TRO" (original Total Recall) and "TRR" (the remake).

Total Recall does nihilism actually well. Self-annihilation and reconstruction based solely on environmental factors (like a reconstructed reality)?

Um, what environmental factors?

TRO barely touches on any environmental factors. Worldbuilding is practically non-existant for Earth, which more or less appears to be identical to our own standard of living. "Environmental factors" boil down to little more than Quaid being sick of his 9-5 job. TRR is a far better example of including environmental factors because we see how grim life on Earth is, how dead-ended Quaid's job is (and the bias he has to put up with), which give him far more compunction to go to Recall in the first place.

Moreover, aspects of Total Recall totally 'influenced' sci-fi far more than CB ever did.

Examples needed.

I would also argue it handled concepts of existentialism not as well as Blade Runner, but still bloody well. It was clever in a way that anyone could interpret, and transgressive of the usual sci-fi schlock themes in ways that were confronting yet mesmerizing.

I'd argue that unlike Blade Runner, neither Total Recall touches on them at all.

Total Recall helped solidify, IMPO, probably the best examination of things like augmented and virtual reality themes in sci-fi, and the hypothetical price (in terms of possible sanity loss or social costs or as tools of corporate/government control), in sci-fi to date.

When you say "to date," are you referring to the date it was made at, or the date as in the present. If the former, I'm dubious. If the latter, hell no. Even something like Ready Player One has more to say on virtual reality than either Total Recall, and even that was far more concerned with being an adventure movie.

Total Recall borrowed more than a little from things like Blade Runner, but Total Recall had some pretty powerful concepts and discussions it wanted to talk about on its own. Like the nature of existence and memory in the future of neuroscience, the discussion of nature and nurture concerning humans and their interaction with reality, mutation and the threshold of posthumanism... And it did so with slick and gritty visuals and potent (yet clever) action scenes.

Except, that's never actually discussed. Like, ever. Blade Runner dedicates the time and energy to either discuss these themes, or at least conciously touch on them. Total Recall is action schlock first and foremost. The presence of memory technology in a work doesn't mean it has something to say about that technology by default, nor is Total Recall ever presented as some kind of prophetic look at the future of technology. Again, even Ready Player One feels more real to life because the OASIS has real-world parallels in regards to game addiction and virtual reality.

(Eds) The lovely thing about TR is that it tells a moral that is uniquely uncovered by much cinematic experiences of sci-fi is an actually good rendition of redemption. It's flagrantly existentialist. Arnie does not have 'evil leanings' once discovering the 'truth' behind his actions and why people have been using him. That his uniquely liberated from his weight of sin and even the weight of all his wants simply by excising the anchors of his history that allows him to rebuild himself in a way that truly his own past is dead and meaningless to him. He's utterly unlike the man he was.

That...isn't unique. At all.

Also, it's pretty weightless because TRO leaves it vague as to whether anything post-Recall is actually happening or not. TRR comes closer to the phenomena you're describing because not only is it umambiguously real, but there's time taken for Quaid to actually reflect on his past actions as Hauser. TRO gives the revelation no time to breathe because Arnie goes straight into the memory chair and breaks out because...I dunno, he's that strong?

If your premise is "it might all be a dream," it's pretty hard to derive any kind of concrete message from it.

All too often, particularly in fantasy and sci-fi, it seems to operate as if 'evil' is as if an essentialist component of human character and behaviour. That Arnie should have, upon 'discovering himself' should have fallen to his own 'nature' ... but the movie flagrantly ignores that trope of such fantasy/sci-fi trope ...

If you're talking about "evil" as in characters being evil because they're evil, then sure. But the whole "I'm not the person I was before" thing isn't a rarity in the genre. It's certainly been done much better since Total Recall - off the top of my head, Dark City is one of the first examples that comes to mind.

And in that fashion it's even more transgressive and existentialist-bending about the nature of sapience than Blade Runner was. Quaid is slave to none but his own interpretation of history, and that history is liquid and ultimately meaningless in terms of construction once he had been freed from it.

Okay...

Here's the thing. I like TRO. I like TRR as well, if only slightly less. But there's no way I can imagine putting either of them on the level of Blade Runner. Blade Runner takes the time to actually examine the human condition - what does it mean to be human? What is the role of memory in being human? To what extent are replicants human? What effect does mankind's segregation from the natural world play in this? There's a reason why Blade Runner is often a perscribed text in high school English and Total Recall isn't. There's a reason why Blade Runner is so often cited as a source of inspiration and Total Recall isn't. That reason can boil down to Blade Runner being a contemplative look on the human condition and humanity's connection with AI, while Total Recall is action schlock. Fun action schlock, don't be get wrong, but schlock all the same. Since it's been brought up, even Cowboy Bebop has more thematic depth, since it's dealing with themes of loneliness and nihilism. TR is just "here's an action film, where the events may or may not be real." Fun for fan theories, not so good for in-depth analysis.

And it's powerful in that respects.

The funny thing is it re-interprets the idea of death and suicide through neuroscience. Let's say 'bad Quaid' (Hauser) didn't believe he was committing suicide by undergoing this operation ... 'good Quaid' himself rebelling against the forces that corrupted his sense of morality and liberty prior to undermine the Martian cause kills that idea of Quaid (Hauser) (and 'kills' himself in the process) by simply refusing that which sought to contaminate and compromise his moral code before.

So you have a definite argument about the nature of morality you often don't see in sci-fi. That there is no good and evil, and life and death is infinitely complex in a universe of utterly constructed and reconstructed interpretations of memory and self.

First of all, that would have far more gravitas if it could be taken as a definitive statement, and it was given a sense of gravitas. Second, "don't often see in sci-fi?" As in, the idea that sci-fi doesn't often delve into questions of identity and the role memory plays in that? Yeah, okay, if you cut out works like Babylon 5...and Battlestar Galactica...and Blade Runner (both original and 2049)...and Brute Force...and Dark City...and Dark Matter...and Doctor Who...and Dune...and Marathon...and The Matrix...and Men in Black...and Minority Report...and Prisoner Zero...and The Sixth Day...and Sonic the Hedgehog...and StarCraft...and Stargate...and Wing Commander...

Now, you could say that not many of those works devote the time to discussing it that much, and yes, you're right. But neither does TRO - if anything, TRR dedicates more time. But the question of "is man the sum of his memories?" isn't exactly a rare question. And TRO certainly isn't some kind of in-depth examination of it.

But Total Recall told a compelling dystopian sci-fi story that was idealistic at its core about how humans can find its redemption ... or perhaps a pessimistic message that there was no excuse for humanity's wickedness depending on what way you want to view it.

First of all, what's dystopian about TRO (TRR is certainly dystopian)? That Mars is kind of a shithole? Yay. By all accounts, Earth seems pretty dandy in the setting.

Second of all, you're obviously free to take whatever messages you want from it, but I can't see TRO imparting any message, because the entire reality of the film is called into question - by its nature, it can't commit to any message, because we don't know if Quaid is actually making decisions, or is just along for the ride. But even assuming that it was definitively all true, the plot point of "used to be a different person, but I'm not that person" has been done elsewhere, and done better.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Erm...I thought Total Recall was decent sci-fi for an Arnie action movie, but it's an Arnie action movie rather than anything deep. Ask people what they remember about that film and you're more likely to get the 3-breasted mutant woman than anything deep, though for me it was "Hahahahah...you think this is the real Quaid? It is."

Having said that, ask people what they remember about Blade Runner, and you're likely to get the lovely visuals and worldbuilding, not so much about the story or deeper messages. Which weren't bad, just not the movies strength, IMHO.

EDIT: In regards to Total Recall, maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but the doubt about whether or not the whole thing was real seemed a very small and incidental part of the story (excepting one scene where people try to persuade him it's not real)

 

[Casual Shinji]

EDIT: In regards to Total Recall, maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but the doubt about whether or not the whole thing was real seemed a very small and incidental part of the story (excepting one scene where people try to persuade him it's not real)

That and if you take into account this theory as fact the movie basically becomes meaningless once the Recall guy shows up on Mars. 'So Quaid is being lobotimized right now by choosing to kill Recall guy, and from this point on he's trapped in his own delusion.' Okay, so that makes the rest of the plot to stop Cohagen and his evil schemes superfluous, because it's not really happening and none of it references or hints at him being trapped in his own mind.

The idea of this regular schmoe finding out that not only is he a badass secret agent, but an evil bastard working for a corrupt asshole, and that the nice him is just some memory implant, is a way more engaging story arc to me.

 

[Hawki]

There's basically three ways you can look at Total Recall:

1) Take the film as writ, that everything is actually happening.

2) It stops being real the moment Quaid jacks in, and what follows is genuinely delusion

3) It stops being real the moment Quaid jacks in, but all of it is part of a pre-arranged script

Personally, I'm partial to 3. Quaid sees his old girlfriend in his dreams, but does she really exist, or is Recall giving him the ideal version of his dream woman? Likewise, Quaid is basically given exactly what he asks for, and that runs into the realms of the far-fetched - that he can take on all these people and win, that there's an alien device under Mars (...because of course there is), and it operates so damn well that it can make the planet breathable in seconds. Fitting that the film ends exactly where his 'mission' does.

But that aside, Verhoven has stated that either interpretation is valid - it's up to you to decide whether Quaid got his arse to Mars or not. But like I said, while that's a nice plot twist, it doesn't really make it deep - the film is an action movie first and foremost, and other action movies have still managed to explore their themes deeper (e.g. Terminator, Starship Troopers, etc.)

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

For shorthand, I'm going to distinguish between "TRO" (original Total Recall) and "TRR" (the remake).

There's a remake? Legitimately asking ... I didn't even know they remade it. Any good?

Um, what environmental factors?

Environmental in terms of psychology. Essentially by rewriting his associations and memories, you're literally re-writing the environmental consciousness of his surroundings and upbringing. That type of argument of 'environmental' ... you know? Why I bring up the argument of 'nature vs. nurture' and how it's a pretty big theme throughout the movie.

Examples needed.

Such as? I mean, for starters just now you're telling me they remade it. Secondly it was a sci-fi movie that proved that you could make blockbuster sci-fi action movies successful in the post-80s boom for such things. It was a ridiculously expensive production ATT and it scored gangbusters. I would also argue that it basically gave Verhoeven a longer grace period in the industry than he probably deserved.

I would also argue that it helped shape political satire in sci-fi films to come after and reinvigorated both the action schlock and the sci-fi schlock scene and legitimately the first master class Arnie performance ... I mean you can argue Terminator, sure .... though TR was a bigger success story and hate as much as you want I Think it's also a better movie. T2 wouldn't be a thing until a year later.

I'd argue that unlike Blade Runner, neither Total Recall touches on them at all.

But it didn't intend to. It had its own thing going on, and it's a bad critic to pretend like accommodating low satire and action schlock is somehow bad on its own.

When you say "to date," are you referring to the date it was made at, or the date as in the present.

To its release, that is.

Except, that's never actually discussed. Like, ever.

Okay, how is it not?

Blade Runner dedicates the time and energy to either discuss these themes, or at least conciously touch on them. Total Recall is action schlock first and foremost. The presence of memory technology in a work doesn't mean it has something to say about that technology by default, nor is Total Recall ever presented as some kind of prophetic look at the future of technology.

No, the screenplay does all of this. The plot does this. The premise, set up, and the delivery does this. Just because it makes more time for the shooty bang-bang mechanical woman disguise with machine guns-does not mean that the movie was just thrown together by accident.

Again, even Ready Player One feels more real to life because the OASIS has real-world parallels in regards to game addiction and virtual reality.

Haven't seen, can't comment.

That...isn't unique. At all.

Kind of is. The number of times when I see fantasy and sci-fi push an idea of quantifiable evil is annoying. Total Recall actively forces the immaturity of this remark with the immaturity of the response it deserves ... and that's a bullet to the head.

Also, it's pretty weightless because TRO leaves it vague as to whether anything post-Recall is actually happening or not.

But whether it is actually happening or not is immaterial to what it seeks to tell.

If you're talking about "evil" as in characters being evil because they're evil, then sure. But the whole "I'm not the person I was before" thing isn't a rarity in the genre. It's certainly been done much better since Total Recall - off the top of my head, Dark City is one of the first examples that comes to mind.

Not arguing that ... and Dark City is amazing. I never said Total Recall was the greatest movie of all time. It's just pretty refreshing in an sci-fi action schlock movie that everybody can enjoy is conscious at least of moral philosophy arguments concerning its own elements of things like memory reconstruction and implantation.

And you can appreciate it on those grounds. Same way you can appreciate the satire and deeper arguments of Verhoeven's other works.

Okay...

Here's the thing. I like TRO. I like TRR as well, if only slightly less. But there's no way I can imagine putting either of them on the level of Blade Runner. Blade Runner takes the time to actually examine the human condition - what does it mean to be human? What is the role of memory in being human? To what extent are replicants human? What effect does mankind's segregation from the natural world play in this? There's a reason why Blade Runner is often a perscribed text in high school English and Total Recall isn't. There's a reason why Blade Runner is so often cited as a source of inspiration and Total Recall isn't. That reason can boil down to Blade Runner being a contemplative look on the human condition and humanity's connection with AI, while Total Recall is action schlock. Fun action schlock, don't be get wrong, but schlock all the same. Since it's been brought up, even Cowboy Bebop has more thematic depth, since it's dealing with themes of loneliness and nihilism. TR is just "here's an action film, where the events may or may not be real." Fun for fan theories, not so good for in-depth analysis.

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of this. In fact I said Blade Runner was a superior movie. I said it twice. That doesn't mean I can't not like a movie. I'm arguing a metaphysical stance the movie takes as to the nature of a person's thoughts and their moral constitution of a being capable of agency in a world that assumes (or actively seeks to curtail) a true idea of people's ownership of their thoughts and memories.

First of all, that would have far more gravitas if it could be taken as a definitive statement, and it was given a sense of gravitas. Second, "don't often see in sci-fi?" As in, the idea that sci-fi doesn't often delve into questions of identity and the role memory plays in that? Yeah, okay, if you cut out works like Babylon 5...and Battlestar Galactica...and Blade Runner (both original and 2049)...and Brute Force...and Dark City...and Dark Matter...and Doctor Who...and Dune...and Marathon...and The Matrix...and Men in Black...and Minority Report...and Prisoner Zero...and The Sixth Day...and Sonic the Hedgehog...and StarCraft...and Stargate...and Wing Commander...

Garbo.

Now, you could say that not many of those works devote the time to discussing it that much, and yes, you're right.

Why bring up this point if you also find it garbo?

But neither does TRO - if anything, TRR dedicates more time. But the question of "is man the sum of his memories?" isn't exactly a rare question. And TRO certainly isn't some kind of in-depth examination of it.

I disagree ... all too often you get the tropish argument of an idea of essentialist evil as opposed to actual argument of what it means to be greater than the sum of your parts. TR isn't an indepth examination of it, but then again I never argued that. I merely argued that it took the time to explore them (IMO) pretty extensively if only given it's the central premise of the story all while giving us some fun action schlock to keep everybody entertained.

And the box office agrees with me ...

I mean the same arguments you bring up here you could angle at things like T2 released a year later. It hardly ever actually breaks down the idea of 'what makes a man?' ... not in any direct fashion.

First of all, what's dystopian about TRO (TRR is certainly dystopian)? That Mars is kind of a shithole? Yay. By all accounts, Earth seems pretty dandy in the setting.

The fact that a corporation is willing to allow an entire colony of people to die simply to have a monopoly over air supply and it literally requires an alien device in order to liberate humans from the malicious clutches of a ruthless organization that treats them as little more than indentured labourers?

How about the fact that a corporation has so much power and is beholden only onto itself that it accepts personality murder of agents in order to simply root out political dissenters and undermine the cause of improving the Martian condition?

 

[CaitSeith]

There's basically three ways you can look at Total Recall:

1) Take the film as writ, that everything is actually happening.

2) It stops being real the moment Quaid jacks in, and what follows is genuinely delusion

3) It stops being real the moment Quaid jacks in, but all of it is part of a pre-arranged script

4) Quaid dying on Mars at the beginning wasn't a dream, and everything afterwards happened only inside his oxygen-deprived mind during his last seconds of life.

 

[Hawki]

There's a remake? Legitimately asking ... I didn't even know they remade it. Any good?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Recall_(2012_film)

To answer your question, I thought it was pretty good. However, I'm very much in the minorit there.

Environmental in terms of psychology. Essentially by rewriting his associations and memories, you're literally re-writing the environmental consciousness of his surroundings and upbringing. That type of argument of 'environmental' ... you know? Why I bring up the argument of 'nature vs. nurture' and how it's a pretty big theme throughout the movie.

Except everyone is exposed to 'environmental factors' and the idea of rewriting memories isn't particuarly unique in sci-fi. There's nothing really prompting Quaid to go to Recall bar "I'm bored." As for the idea of "nature vs. nurture" being a theme...yeah, sure. If you squint. None of it's really examined in any meaningful form.

Such as? I mean, for starters just now you're telling me they remade it.

In the modern cinema landscape, I don't think a film being remade is that indicative of anything, except level of popularity. I mean, ask yourself this - did the makers of the 2012 film remake the 1990 film because of its testament to filmmaking? Or because "Total Recall" has a lot of brand recognition?

Secondly it was a sci-fi movie that proved that you could make blockbuster sci-fi action movies successful in the post-80s boom for such things.

I'd need a source for that. Also, the original proposition was "influenced sci-fi." If your claim above is correct, you could say technically that it "influenced sci-fi," but I'm thinking more about the genre.

I would also argue that it helped shape political satire in sci-fi films to come after and reinvigorated both the action schlock and the sci-fi schlock scene and legitimately the first master class Arnie performance ... I mean you can argue Terminator, sure .... though TR was a bigger success story and hate as much as you want I Think it's also a better movie. T2 wouldn't be a thing until a year later.

Okay...um...

First of all, RoboCop. Now, never seen any RoboCop movie, but when people mention "sci-fi sattire" in this period, usually that's the one that comes up, especially if we're looking at Verhoven's filmography of the period. Second of all, I don't think TRO really falls in the realm of sattire. It's got cheese, sure, but satire is defined as "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." Under that, what, exactly, is TR criticizing? Corporations? They're an easy target, and the situation on Mars doesn't really have much in the way of real-world equivalents.

Third of all, while I'd absolutely put T1/T2 above TR, neither of those films fall under sattire. But I'd certainly put them as examples of how you can have an action movie with some intelligence in it, but as you can probably guess, I wouldn't put TR in the same category. And if we're discussing Arnie, ask yourself, how many people remember "Douglas Quaid" over "the Terminator?" If we're looking at Arnie's filmography, TR has more in common with True Lies than Terminator TBH.

But it didn't intend to. It had its own thing going on, and it's a bad critic to pretend like accommodating low satire and action schlock is somehow bad on its own.

I never said it was bad. As I've said, I like TR. I think it's "good." It sets out to be a cheesy action movie and in that it succeeds. But I disagree it has anything meaningful to say, and according to you, it never intended to have anything meaningful to say, so...

Okay, how is it not?

Because there's no scene in the film that really discusses the societal or technological implications of inserted memories. The existence of the technology is purely a McGuffin. Again, compare that to something like Blade Runner, where the role of memories is discussed by the characters, and we see the effect this has on characters like Rachel, Leon, and K.

No, the screenplay does all of this. The plot does this. The premise, set up, and the delivery does this. Just because it makes more time for the shooty bang-bang mechanical woman disguise with machine guns-does not mean that the movie was just thrown together by accident.

Need examples other than "does this."

Also, you've said above that the film never intended to touch on wider themes (which I believe), so either it intended to be an in-depth discussion of the idea of artificial memory, or it didn't. If it did, I'd argue that it failed. If it didn't, then any claim of these elements being present comes from independent analysis (i.e. Death of the Author).

Kind of is. The number of times when I see fantasy and sci-fi push an idea of quantifiable evil is annoying. Total Recall actively forces the immaturity of this remark with the immaturity of the response it deserves ... and that's a bullet to the head.

Does sci-fi really do this? Fantasy, sure (how many "dark lords" are there in fantasy?), but sci-fi? Not so much.

Also, Total Recall never delves into it. Cohaagen isn't "evil," he's just a dick. So's Benny. And if we're looking at the whole Quaid/Hauser thing, it never delves into any meaningful examination of it. Within the span of minutes, we go from Quaid learning the truth to somehow being strong enough to break his restraints in glorious Arnie cheese. And this of course depends on us going with the hypothesis that all of this is actually happening.

But whether it is actually happening or not is immaterial to what it seeks to tell.

Which, as you said above, is nothing?

Why bring up this point if you also find it garbo?

Never said I found it garbo. Just those examples are more or less on the same level as Total Recall, or at times, done it better.

I disagree ... all too often you get the tropish argument of an idea of essentialist evil as opposed to actual argument of what it means to be greater than the sum of your parts. TR isn't an indepth examination of it, but then again I never argued that. I merely argued that it took the time to explore them (IMO) pretty extensively if only given it's the central premise of the story all while giving us some fun action schlock to keep everybody entertained.

And the box office agrees with me ...

It being a box office success doesn't say anything other than it being a box office success.

As Thalukian has said, when people say "Total Recall," they're probably going to think of "three breasted woman" more than anything else. Even TRR gets "three breasted woman" in it. A friend of mine who writes (or wrote) cyberpunk included a three breasted woman. That's the legacy of TRO. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does say where it lies in the realm of pop culture - cheesy, sleazy fun.

I mean the same arguments you bring up here you could angle at things like T2 released a year later. It hardly ever actually breaks down the idea of 'what makes a man?' ... not in any direct fashion.

I could, but I wouldn't.

T2 isn't Blade Runner, but it's an example of an action movie with some intelligence/themes behind it. A key difference between T2 and TRO is that T2 takes the time to slow down and examine, or at least touch on its themes, such as:

-Is there fate? Can the future be changed? (reguarly see Sarah's nightmares about the future)
-What is mankind's relationship with technology? What happens when it breaks outside ethical control? What role does the developer have in the application? (Miles Dyson)
-Are humans inherently self-destructive? Can we transcend our nature? IS it our nature? Is self-destruction inevitable (where John and co. see the playing kids)
-How 'human' can artificial intelligence be? Can it value life? Can it better appreciate life? Is it possible to ascribe any aspects of an AI to something beyond programming? (the character arc of the T-800)

Now, T2 is still an action movie first and foremost, but all of these are themes/ideas that it at least touches upon, I'd also point out that there's a world of difference in the style of presentation. TRO is action cheese, which has Quaid gunning down dozens of mooks without a care in the world, and one liners ("consider that a divorce") after killing his wife. In contrast, T2 takes itself seriously, and presents itself seriously. By way of contrast, compare Quaid gunning down corporate mooks to the T-800's initial callousness to human life (nearly kills the bum, and afterwards, uncaring shoots a security guard) to taking steps to preserve as much life as possible (Cyberdyne). Or, compare the 'vibe' of the Martian terrorist attacks (apparently not a big thing) to the nightmarish future that T2 (and T1) presents.

Basically, T2 takes the time to slow down and have discussions/cinematography that deal with these themes. Total Recall doesn't.

The fact that a corporation is willing to allow an entire colony of people to die simply to have a monopoly over air supply and it literally requires an alien device in order to liberate humans from the malicious clutches of a ruthless organization that treats them as little more than indentured labourers?

How about the fact that a corporation has so much power and is beholden only onto itself that it accepts personality murder of agents in order to simply root out political dissenters and undermine the cause of improving the Martian condition?

That says more about the corporation than the setting per se. The idea of a corporation having carte blanche far away from government isn't new. It's even got quite a bit of historical and real-world precedent.

Mars is arguably dystopic, sure, but the setting as a whole isn't. Life on Earth seems to be pretty normal. Again, TRR is a better example of dystopia because not only is life pretty shit for everyone on Earth, but the government barely cares. There's something far more dystopic about security robots being deployed rather than corporate mooks, who are willing to fire indiscriminately and kill the government's own people in a bid to capture Quaid.

Also, again, the issue of what's real and what isn't. What we know for sure is that Mars is facing rebellion. What we don't know for sure is if the corporation is actually keeping an alien device hidden or not.

There's basically three ways you can look at Total Recall:

1) Take the film as writ, that everything is actually happening.

2) It stops being real the moment Quaid jacks in, and what follows is genuinely delusion

3) It stops being real the moment Quaid jacks in, but all of it is part of a pre-arranged script

4) Quaid dying on Mars at the beginning wasn't a dream, and everything afterwards happened only inside his oxygen-deprived mind during his last seconds of life.

...shit.

Guess I gotta hand that one to ya. 0_0

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

There's basically three ways you can look at Total Recall:

1) Take the film as writ, that everything is actually happening.

2) It stops being real the moment Quaid jacks in, and what follows is genuinely delusion

3) It stops being real the moment Quaid jacks in, but all of it is part of a pre-arranged script

4) Quaid dying on Mars at the beginning wasn't a dream, and everything afterwards happened only inside his oxygen-deprived mind during his last seconds of life.

5) It stops being real the moment Quaid jacks in, and the unusual fade-to-white at the end is him either getting a lobotomy or going into some kind of catatonia now that his fantasy is fulfilled.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Recall_(2012_film)

To answer your question, I thought it was pretty good. However, I'm very much in the minorit there.

Hrmmmm I think I saw it listed on Netflix somewhere, so after this thing I'm doing in WA is over I might watch it when I'm not relying on satellite IC. I'm over Perth way for .... technically business...? But honestly the only thing I've done for the last three nights is get funny at Murphy's in Mandurah, get lost somewhere along the way at Lake Preston, and end up going through 6 bottles of plum port and pear wine from someplace called Clifton Wineries.

So I might wait until I'm back in Sydney.

Except everyone is exposed to 'environmental factors' and the idea of rewriting memories isn't particuarly unique in sci-fi. There's nothing really prompting Quaid to go to Recall bar "I'm bored." As for the idea of "nature vs. nurture" being a theme...yeah, sure. If you squint. None of it's really examined in any meaningful form.

Well it underpins the plot ... and the whole thiong of Hauser and Quaid is kind of central to it all. The power of selective memory and enculturation of morality and the will to power. So, you know ... no. It's pretty fucking huge. Hauser is a pretty fucking huge plot point and the examination of Quaid's character is itself at the heart of the story.

You can argue how it was done was middling at best, but you can't say it wasn't important.

In the modern cinema landscape, I don't think a film being remade is that indicative of anything, except level of popularity. I mean, ask yourself this - did the makers of the 2012 film remake the 1990 film because of its testament to filmmaking? Or because "Total Recall" has a lot of brand recognition?

----

I'd need a source for that. Also, the original proposition was "influenced sci-fi." If your claim above is correct, you could say technically that it "influenced sci-fi," but I'm thinking more about the genre.

----

Okay...um...

First of all, RoboCop. Now, never seen any RoboCop movie, but when people mention "sci-fi sattire" in this period, usually that's the one that comes up, especially if we're looking at Verhoven's filmography of the period. Second of all, I don't think TRO really falls in the realm of sattire. It's got cheese, sure, but satire is defined as "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." Under that, what, exactly, is TR criticizing? Corporations? They're an easy target, and the situation on Mars doesn't really have much in the way of real-world equivalents.

Third of all, while I'd absolutely put T1/T2 above TR, neither of those films fall under sattire. But I'd certainly put them as examples of how you can have an action movie with some intelligence in it, but as you can probably guess, I wouldn't put TR in the same category. And if we're discussing Arnie, ask yourself, how many people remember "Douglas Quaid" over "the Terminator?" If we're looking at Arnie's filmography, TR has more in common with True Lies than Terminator TBH.
----

Ehhh, I would say it was pretty important. It was a film squarely smack dab at the birth of the 90s and it was Verhoeven's most influential injection into sci-fi action over, arguably, his entire career. I would argue Robocop ... but .... see, 3 years doesn't sound like a lot but it is. And Robocop was 86/87 ... and that was Verhoeven's as well. Say what you like, the guy had talent for sci-fi action satire.

Robocop, TR, Starship Troopers. Perhaps it's best to say 'Verhoeven was influential to sci-fi action' and shaping the 90s sci-fi scene to come/be, as opposed to just saying TR. But TR did help make Verhoeven a king of sci-fi action and a veritable darling on the screen. Robocop was glorious, and TR almost as if the proof is making lightning twice. you had, surrounding TR and the sci-fi action scene of the 90s things like Universal Soldier for instance.

And that was kind of all parts awful.

Alien 3 ... 1992 as well.

Predator 2 same time as TR.

Jurassic Park was a standout success for big budget sci-fi of the early 90s... but once again that was 3 years after TR, and as I was saying before that three years is kind of a long time for an entire genre that fared well up until the mid 80s to suddenly suffer the drought of good big budget movie releases right up until TR (Robocop did well critically, but not financially) ... TR blew records not just for sci-fi, but all sorts of BO and budget records ATT out of the water.

And unlike Robocop, somehow bloodier, more horrifying and grittier than anything that had out recently.

But Total Recall was the sci-fi movie to watch as a kid. It outdid Robocop and Verhoeven is arguably what helped maintained the idea of the blockbuster sci-fi movie being doable, and it was cool as a kid to watch. It tapped into a mainstream consciousness that wasn't entirely apparent when I was growing up, you and your friends managing to get the 'true' version on VHS and watching it obver a sleepover.

The Teriminator was 1984. Aliens was 86. Mad Max 2 was '81. Beyond Thunderdome '85. Robocop '86.

But TR was the newish sci-fi foray that a lot of people in my age bracket would happen to watch because of that megapopularity through all age brackets, and tapping all the right markets to be consumed and talked about in the age of the pre-internet because of that dry spell of really, really break out successes of big budget sci-fi movies.

Now you can paint that as a subjective influence ... but I Think it's actually a really important consideration for the roughly mid-30 year olds amongst us that TR was the sci-fi any person could consume and had done so ... and it was a big ticket item for those early/mid-30 year olds as kids would think of as 'awesomely gory' and 'not boring' sci-fi entry in what was a pretty big dry spell of big ticket sci-fi movies. A movie that focussed on cross-genre appeal and didn't surround itself with an artificial sense of 'sci-fi cred'.

And the existence of TR in tandem with the first Robocop that Verhoeven was 'the man' for the big budget 'sci-fi w/ guns' anyone could enjoy ... particularly the nascent Millenials like me that were 6+ at the time of its release, and often 9+ by the time you could get your hands on the TR VHS... People that were enculturated by 80s violence schlock action movies, but at the same time wanted something a bit more fantastical.

I'd need a source for that. Also, the original proposition was "influenced sci-fi." If your claim above is correct, you could say technically that it "influenced sci-fi," but I'm thinking more about the genre.

I separated this out from the conjoined comment above because I think it's important enough to talk on its own because it's a subjective opinion, but one I think is actually pretty concordant with a lot of people my age or slightly older. TR as a kid was the movie you snuck into the theatre to watch.

It was the violent movie your parents had on that possibly new VHS that they just had to have. It was even the breakout movie that helped a lot of people like me with an experience only of British sci-fi or Star Trek on the ABC channel that you may first remember and make you want to seek out things like Robocop and even helped build anticipation for things like Terminator 2 (whether because it was for Arnie, or whether because you wanted to see more sci-fi action movies).

There was nothing like it in sci-fi recently, and as a Millenial it was probably the first blockbuster action sci-fi movie you would ever watch. And everybody talked about it. It was a cinematic tour de force. I was about 6 years old when it came out ... too young to have seen Aliens or Robocop, but old enough to sneak into a cinema and watch it with a couple of mates of varying ages.

And whether or not it was T2 or TR, those were the two biggest cinematic experiences of a pre-pubescent kid's life that were the must see cinema to break into a theatre to watch.

TR was the biggest movie release you could hope for.

Okay...um...

First of all, RoboCop.

I was 2 or 3 years old when Robocop came out. And it wasn't 'the movie' to watch. TR was, however, a box office darling in every sense of the word. A tour de force of the cinematic experience of which was impossible to deny and a cultural phenomena of the pre-internet.

They would show it constantly for multiple screenings for up to 12 months after initial release in some cinemas, and eclipsed in the genre only by T2 a year later.

I don't remember much as a kid (due to a TBI) and yet I still remember sneaking into a cinema to watch TR with some mates. That's how much of an impression it left on a lot of millenials to-be in that age bracket of pre-pubescent kids.

Third of all, while I'd absolutely put T1/T2 above TR, neither of those films fall under sattire. But I'd certainly put them as examples of how you can have an action movie with some intelligence in it, but as you can probably guess, I wouldn't put TR in the same category. And if we're discussing Arnie, ask yourself, how many people remember "Douglas Quaid" over "the Terminator?" If we're looking at Arnie's filmography, TR has more in common with True Lies than Terminator TBH.

Right ... but I was only comparing Arnie movies. Total Recall was the biggest Arnie movie and Total Recall was ridiculously successful.

I never said it was bad. As I've said, I like TR. I think it's "good." It sets out to be a cheesy action movie and in that it succeeds. But I disagree it has anything meaningful to say, and according to you, it never intended to have anything meaningful to say, so...

It has good arguments and concepts it wants to play with. It wants to entertain more than anything else, but credit where credit is due; Verhoeven has decent arguments layered into its metrics along the ride. It is the same director as both Robocop and Starship Troopers ... and while Robocop is better and the arguments they make more expressive and layered in Starship Troopers, Total Recall was a tour de force of fantastic visuals and naked brutality.

Because there's no scene in the film that really discusses the societal or technological implications of inserted memories. The existence of the technology is purely a McGuffin. Again, compare that to something like Blade Runner, where the role of memories is discussed by the characters, and we see the effect this has on characters like Rachel, Leon, and K.

But does it need to when the subject of the film's preponderances is already exemplary of aspects of the layered narrative? You get the arguments and experience the conflicts of the technology through Quaid. The personality death, the act of redemption through the death of self, the means by which said technology could undermine and destroy all possible dissent, the means by which it could utterly unravel someone's sanity...

Need examples other than "does this."

Does sci-fi really do this? Fantasy, sure (how many "dark lords" are there in fantasy?), but sci-fi? Not so much.

Star Trek did it, StarCraft did it, Babylon 5 did it, Battlestar Galactica (original, 1980, and remake) did it...

Also, Total Recall never delves into it. Cohaagen isn't "evil," he's just a dick.

That's kind of the point. They're not evil, and Hauser isn't really that awful. And it's not as if Quaid is somehow infected by as if an innate condition of himself to act that way. TR seeks to treat nurture as key and key only to the argument of self and its moral preoccupations. It doesn't wax poetic about human nature, nor does it attempt to channel the mystique of one's 'soul' or as if some categorical imperative of deontology.

It channels a purely cognizant idea of one's will to power, liberated all but from one's self-ownership of the past. And it's kind of a refreshing take.

Which to be fair is probably something they lifted more from Philip. K. Dick than Verhoeven in all likelihood, but I can't say for certain given I Haven't read that story yet.

Which, as you said above, is nothing?

How?

Never said I found it garbo. Just those examples are more or less on the same level as Total Recall, or at times, done it better.

They're pretty poor examples as I can think of numerous examples to say otherwise.

Like Kerrigan in Brood War and as if the artificial, manipulate evils of the Zerg, for instance. They wrote it up as mind control by StarCraft 2 but that makes the assumption the entire storyline was planned even before they started making SC2 over a decade later and after two or three changes of staff over the SC universe development.

Or maybe I'm being cynical?

Not only that most of the examples you gave happened after TR ... so...?

It being a box office success doesn't say anything other than it being a box office success.

Box office says a lot. It tells you just how many people saw the movie. Sometimes quantity is a quality all of its own. Particularly in how it influences Hollywood.

That says more about the corporation than the setting per se. The idea of a corporation having carte blanche far away from government isn't new. It's even got quite a bit of historical and real-world precedent.
Mars is arguably dystopic, sure, but the setting as a whole isn't. Life on Earth seems to be pretty normal. Again, TRR is a better example of dystopia because not only is life pretty shit for everyone on Earth, but the government barely cares. There's something far more dystopic about security robots being deployed rather than corporate mooks, who are willing to fire indiscriminately and kill the government's own people in a bid to capture Quaid.

(eds)

You're making assumptions, however. Clever the world that we see is dystopian. It has common dystopian themes. Mutant underclass, indentured labour ...

Also, for starters, 'niceness' isn't a quality of dystopian. By definition. If you were to create a sci-fi setting of basically a return of feudalism and it shows some people living decently at the expense permanently indentured class of labourers that seek to prop up their lifestyle, still dystopian.

Elysium is a dystopian film, even if Earth is Earth and physically separated from the life of luxury the rich have in high orbit above it. Mars is treated as an authoritarian hellhole where the poor and their very lives are ransomed to corporate culture that has the power to take away their air supply solely for profit. No representation, all of them indentured labour, and a clear separation of class divides that create inexcusably dark and squallid conditions by which the poor suffer greatly simply for being born that way.

Dystopian works. Totalitarian corporate control, indentured labour, cheapness of human life, and all for the benefit of a handful.

That is quite clear, and baked into the setting itself.

 

[Hawki]

And that was kind of all parts awful.

Alien 3 ... 1992 as well.

IMO, Alien 3 is criminally underrated (or at least the Assembly Cut is). I mean, sure, it isn't as good as Alien or Aliens (or Covenant), but I think it's a pretty worth addition.

Predator 2 same time as TR.

Predator 2...not going to defend that too much, although if anything, I kinda find it overrated (in only that people put it above Predators, which I'd call underrated, but whatever). But on the other hand, I'd put TR above it easily.

I separated this out from the conjoined comment above because I think it's important enough to talk on its own because it's a subjective opinion, but one I think is actually pretty concordant with a lot of people my age or slightly older. TR as a kid was the movie you snuck into the theatre to watch.

It was the violent movie your parents had on that possibly new VHS that they just had to have. It was even the breakout movie that helped a lot of people like me with an experience only of British sci-fi or Star Trek on the ABC channel that you may first remember and make you want to seek out things like Robocop and even helped build anticipation for things like Terminator 2 (whether because it was for Arnie, or whether because you wanted to see more sci-fi action movies).

I'll have to take you word for it on the VHS thing, because not only was I born in 89, but I didn't even see TRO until after TRR (still think TRO's slightly better). As for Star Trek...TBH, I saw 'The Galileo Seven', one episode of the animated series, one episode of Voyager, and then never touched Star Trek until the 2009 film. Similarly, I never saw T2 until after T3 was released.

If you're thinking "damn, you're late to the party on a lot of IPs," then, yeah, you're right.

I was 2 years old when Robocop came out. And it wasn't 'the movie' to watch. TR was, however, a box office darling in every sense of the word. A tour de force of the cinematic experience of which was impossible to deny and a cultural phenomena of the pre-internet.

They would show it constantly for multiple screenings for up to 12 months after initial release in some cinemas, and eclipsed in the genre only by T2 a year later.

Fair enough, but I think it's fair to say that Terminator and Robocop have had far more impact long term than Total Recall.

But does it need to when the subject of the film's preponderances is already exemplary of aspects of the layered narrative? You get the arguments and experience the conflicts of the technology through Quaid. The personality death, the act of redemption through the death of self, the means by which said technology could undermine and destroy all possible dissent, the means by which it could utterly unravel someone's sanity...

Short answer, no. Touching on a theme doesn't mean a work is engaging with that theme.

Off the top of my head, The Meg touches briefly on how sharks are killed just for their fins, thrown back in the water, and left to die. Doesn't mean the film has anything meaningful to say on it or is ecologically-minded. It's more an attempt at trying to get the audience to think the film's deeper than it actually is.

Star Trek did it, StarCraft did it, Babylon 5 did it, Battlestar Galactica (original, 1980, and remake) did it...

Don't remember Star Trek doing it.

StarCraft? Well, if you're pointing to the Voice in the Darkness, sure, maybe, but it's not really a "lord" of anything. Amon? Well, technically, but Amon at least gets the benefit of layers and backstory - more of a Morgoth than a Sauron for instance.

B5? Um...the Shadows? Don't think they really count. It's not "we're evil," it's more a clash of ideologies with the vorlons (who are just as big a race of dicks as it turns out).

Battlestar Galactica? Can't comment on the original, but the remake? Um, where? Who's our Dark Lord? Number One/Cavill? Yeah, no. He's pursuing a vendetta out of resentment, that's not dark lord territory.

Like I said, sci-fi uses the trope far less than fantasy.

They're pretty poor examples as I can think of numerous examples to say otherwise.

Such as?

Like Kerrigan in Brood War and as if the artificial, manipulate evils of the Zerg, for instance. They wrote it up as mind control by StarCraft 2 but that makes the assumption the entire storyline was planned even before they started making SC2 over a decade later and after two or three changes of staff over the SC universe development.

Except, they didn't.

I've seen this misconception pop up time and time again, and I don't know why, as Kerrigan states outright in HotS that "he [Amon] never controlled me. A trace of something dark, but long gone." Kerrigan only starts to feel Amon's influence after the Brood War. Now, there's contradictory information as to how much influence Amon is exerting over Kerrigan by WoL,* but it's certainly not mind control as it functions in the setting.

Also, even if Kerrigan WAS being controlled by Amon, doesn't that negate your whole "sci-fi treats evil as something inherent?" Not that StarCraft really subscribes to this anyway, since Kerrigan basically has 3-4 personalities over the course of her character arc, but whatever.

Also, nitpicking, but Blizzard began work on SC2 in 2004. That's six years after SC1, not a decade.

Not only that most of the examples you gave happened after TR ... so...?

Said it had been done better, not necessarily before (though it had regardless).

Box office says a lot. It tells you just how many people saw the movie. Sometimes quantity is a quality all of its own. Particularly in how it influences Hollywood.

Transformers.

Yeah, I know, cliche example, but it's pretty much a stretch to state that box office revenue has a linear relationship with quality.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

IMO, Alien 3 is criminally underrated (or at least the Assembly Cut is). I mean, sure, it isn't as good as Alien or Aliens (or Covenant), but I think it's a pretty worth addition.

I wrote this badly. I Think I'm still a bit tipsy. I didn't mind Alien 3 ...

I was talking Universal Soldier. I wrote it as the final sentence in the paragraph above. I mean I didn't mind it .... but Universal Soldier and Total Recall is kind of the dichotomy I make when comparing good action movies that anyone can enjoy due to its low cerebral buy in and bad action movies for which have a low cerebral buy in but are just silly.

Universal Soldier is kind of the bad sci-fi movie you can still enjoyably watch, but you will not miss a single thing even after you go through a bottle of Teeling with a friend or two while watching it.

Predator 2...not going to defend that too much, although if anything, I kinda find it overrated (in only that people put it above Predators, which I'd call underrated, but whatever). But on the other hand, I'd put TR above it easily.

Kind of the point I was making ... TR and T2 were the big movies of a prolonged drought before and even years after.

The mid 80s were pretty good ... but if you were born in the 80s or late 70s, TR might have been the best and probably the biggest sci-fi movie you may have watched in theatres themselves. Yes, even in comparison to various Star Wars releases. TR was that big a thing with a budget you could (Back then) suffocate an elephant with. And I think you can't downplay its significance it terms of (and in tandem with) something like a T2 in terms of 'making sci-fi great again' ...

And that's the type of theatre environment we're talking about.

I'll have to take you word for it on the VHS thing, because not only was I born in 89, but I didn't even see TRO until after TRR (still think TRO's slightly better). As for Star Trek...TBH, I saw 'The Galileo Seven', one episode of the animated series, one episode of Voyager, and then never touched Star Trek until the 2009 film. Similarly, I never saw T2 until after T3 was released.

If you're thinking "damn, you're late to the party on a lot of IPs," then, yeah, you're right.

Well, more so in the time period we're talking about. I think it's really important when comparing movies of the past to also take into consideration the big ticket movies around it. Total Recall was an amazing sci-fi experience, because for a long time sci-fi action was what was selling ... and Total Recall, right up until T2, had simply done it better and more fantastically than anything recently before.

Total Recall is still eminently watchable now. And you have to put yourself as if in the time frame of someone who grew up then ....

It's kind of like the 'Too Much Ponies' effect of being incredibly late to 'The Herd', and in tandem never having to wait for a new season to release well up and truly until Season 8.

Well, more so an inverse of that... if you can imagine that.

Like Robocop is a better movie, I agree ... but then again Robocop was like three years before it .... T2 was a year after it ... and there was a reason why Arnold became the face of so many sci-fi films of the era simply because of the Terminator and Total Recall for an entire decade.

And when we talk of quality of direction, shot composition, effects, and general flow of the movie and its sense of humour? Tour de force.

Arnold made sci-fi accessible to an entire generation of pre and post-pubescents that at best only had the relative disappointments of things like Alien 3, Universal Soldier, Predator 2 and Robocop 2... But TR and T2 in a year apart of eachother in that early 90s doldrum of a lot of sci-fi that simply failed to live up to its prior releases or its own standards of entertainment...?

Honestly, the only reason why Jurassic Park was considered pretty fantastic sci-fi is because there was little else big ticket items to capture our fancies for 'fantastic science'.

That being said ... having experienced the late 90s in the same way I experienced the early 90s, you can't complain too much I would have thought...?

Plus you guys got to experience the widescreen revolution as if out of the cradle... Try VHS letterbox...

Fair enough, but I think it's fair to say that Terminator and Robocop have had far more impact long term than Total Recall.

Possibly? I think Total Recall and T2 combined, however, made sci-fi reach a level of pubescent mainstream appreciation in the same way that Aliens or Mad Max (in Australia) did from Gen X'ers or Baby Boomers respectively. The Terminator wasn't that big of a success story.

You could argue that Robocop and Predator did 'set up' early 90s sci-fi scene more than TR defined it, however.

]

Short answer, no. Touching on a theme doesn't mean a work is engaging with that theme.

I disagree ... I think Total Recall does what it needs to to lead a viewer to deeper nuances and arguments, all without not forgetting the shooty-shooty-dismembered-limbs-in-elevators that made it appeal to people whichever you bent. I mean, in this thread alone people are pitching in hypothetical arguments as to what Total Recall's plot and actual ending and events were, and arguably that was entirely intentional.

And so while it does not seek to tell a deeper nuanced tale of its themes like Blade Runner, it tells enough to be interpretative on its own and yet never forget the fun of its own construction.

Total Recall is eminently watchable sober or drunk ... where as as much as I Love Blade Runner, watching it drunk would be a problem if you had never watched it before.

And let's be honest here ... yolu can have really good 'drinking' movies and they should be merited as worthy of existence, and worthy of their own construction, in terms of what they set out to do. And Total Recall did not seek to be so smart or deep as it did to be eminently enjoyable ... and it achieves it with aplomb. And the themes it touches on are pretty nuanced and purposefully constructed at that. And its relative balance of seriousness to action fun is balanced for the type of story it wants to tell.

Total Recall, in my opinion, is wone of the cleverest movies to tell a story that you can enjoy drunk or sober... and I think it's a pretty good achievement in terms of a sci-fi story to straddle between glorious direction, fairly deep exploration of theme, and enjoyable chaotic, frenetic action shot in a way that is masterful and clever in terms of its own shot composition and choreography.

I think it's difficult to argue against Total Recall's exceptional nature when you simply make the argument that; "It's as nuanced as it needs to be as an action sci-fi classic that is accessible to everyone. That it achieves what it sets out to do and then some."

And I think it's important to recognize that quality of the film that everything it meant to do, it did. Everything it needed to say, it said. And that is a quality all of its own.

It gave us everything we needed to elucidate, all while giving us an ultra-violence we all secretly crave.

Don't remember Star Trek doing it.

The thing that kills Tasha Yar, for example? The Borg and how they presented the Collective? It took until DS9 to give the Ferengi some basic humanization and even retconned parts of its own mythos to do so given cartoonish ideas of evil. The argumentation of Vulcan philosophy?

StarCraft? Well, if you're pointing to the Voice in the Darkness, sure, maybe, but it's not really a "lord" of anything. Amon? Well, technically, but Amon at least gets the benefit of layers and backstory - more of a Morgoth than a Sauron for instance.

More than a bit problematic ... if anything I liked SC1 and BW more than SC2 if only trying to explain away Kerrigan and the nature opf the Zerg in SC1 was... I mean at least the Zerg just felt like a force of corruption. And as essentialist as the divide between the Protoss and Zerg ... at least there felt like some more grounded ideas of alieness there.

B5? Um...the Shadows? Don't think they really count. It's not "we're evil," it's more a clash of ideologies with the vorlons (who are just as big a race of dicks as it turns out).

More so the nature of souls and reincarnation, and the nature of as if a divine spark itself.

Battlestar Galactica? Can't comment on the original, but the remake? Um, where? Who's our Dark Lord? Number One/Cavill? Yeah, no. He's pursuing a vendetta out of resentment, that's not dark lord territory.

Really? You missed the reincarnation of the soul running through its pages. The cycle of conflict as if predetermined forces irrespective of actual evolution that pit in a biblical sense parents against their children in an unending mess of prophesised conflict that seeks to reinvent itself throughout time as an obligatory disconnect between the flesh and the machine?

Battlestar Galactica starts as if in the midst of the children of humanity seeking its rightful place to replace its forebears, only to end by giving birth to a new age of modern humans on 'Earth' and shows us repeating this cycle in the ending scene through our own escalation and adoption of advanced robotics.

Said it had been done better, not necessarily before (though it had regardless).

Never argued otherwise.

Transformers.

Yeah, I know, cliche example, but it's pretty much a stretch to state that box office revenue has a linear relationship with quality.

And? I mean Michael Bay has influenced transformers. Whether people like it or not, he makes bank on the licence ... and chances are they'll be a longer legacy of Michael Bay behind Transformers than Hasbro licence holders of the past.

And comparing Verhoeven to Michael Bay?

Really?

 

[Hawki]

Honestly, the only reason why Jurassic Park was considered pretty fantastic sci-fi is because there was little else big ticket items to capture our fancies for 'fantastic science'.

I think JP has quite a lot more going for it than "right place, right time..."

Possibly? I think Total Recall and T2 combined, however, made sci-fi reach a level of pubescent mainstream appreciation in the same way that Aliens or Mad Max (in Australia) did from Gen X'ers or Baby Boomers respectively. The Terminator wasn't that big of a success story.

You could argue that Robocop and Predator did 'set up' early 90s sci-fi scene more than TR defined it, however.

Well, let's look at the present day. Terminator has had five films (soon six), a TV series, numerous novels, comics, and videogames, and has been parodied/referenced numerous times. Robocop has had four (soon five) films, various TV/cartoon series, and a smattering of games/comics. I say "Robocop," and people will have at least heard of the concept in general. Predator, along with Alien, is a huge multimedia franchise, and it's one of the most iconic sci-fi movie monsters out there.

Total Recall, on the other hand, has two films, and...pretty much nothing else. It's probably left some kind of impact, and maybe it was as big as you say, but unlike the Terminator/Predator/Robocop franchises, it really hasn't left that much of a mark. Certainly not to the same scale at least.

Total Recall is eminently watchable sober or drunk ... where as as much as I Love Blade Runner, watching it drunk would be a problem if you had never watched it before.

Um, you seem to be talking a lot about playing drinking games right now...

Look, I dunno, because I don't drink, so fine, knock yourself out.

The thing that kills Tasha Yar, for example? The Borg and how they presented the Collective? It took until DS9 to give the Ferengi some basic humanization and even retconned parts of its own mythos to do so given cartoonish ideas of evil. The argumentation of Vulcan philosophy?

We were talking about "dark lords," not general tropes (none of these are inherently fantasy tropes anyway).

If you want to discuss fantasy tropes in sci-fi, then sure, they pop up semi-frequently, but the "dark lord" trope specifically? Not so much. Of that, the only thing that comes close is Armus, and he's hardly a dark lord, more like "I'm evil!"

Doesn't have the granduar or whatnot.

(By extension, this response applies to the rest - dark lords, not fantasy tropes. B5 for instance has its fair share of them.)

And? I mean Michael Bay has influenced transformers. Whether people like it or not, he makes bank on the licence ... and chances are they'll be a longer legacy of Michael Bay behind Transformers than Hasbro licence holders of the past.

Original point was about quality and box office, not level of influence.

Also, I doubt "Bayformers" is actually going to leave that much of an impression. Look at Transformers now, and Bay's approach is the odd one out, from its tone to its aesthetics. And with Bumblebee (the film), it looks like Paramount is trying to move away from it.

And comparing Verhoeven to Michael Bay?

Really?

Not comparing Verhoven to Bay, just commenting on the idea of "box office = quality."

But if we are comparing them, Verhoven's made at least two good films (Total Recall, Starship Troopers). Of all Bay's films that I've seen, none of them go higher than "average."

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think JP has quite a lot more going for it than "right place, right time..."

Kind of? Apart from The Life Aquatic it's the movie that made Goldblum pointful for awhile, I suppose.

Well, let's look at the present day. Terminator has had five films (soon six), a TV series, numerous novels, comics, and videogames, and has been parodied/referenced numerous times. Robocop has had four (soon five) films, various TV/cartoon series, and a smattering of games/comics. I say "Robocop," and people will have at least heard of the concept in general. Predator, along with Alien, is a huge multimedia franchise, and it's one of the most iconic sci-fi movie monsters out there.

----

Total Recall, on the other hand, has two films, and...pretty much nothing else. It's probably left some kind of impact, and maybe it was as big as you say, but unlike the Terminator/Predator/Robocop franchises, it really hasn't left that much of a mark. Certainly not to the same scale at least.

I guess? But Total Recall was a fairly concise world. I mean Westworld had inspired a terrible sequel and a pretty good (fairly good?) tv series (only recently) ... but c'mon ... Westworld.

The difference between Total Recall and Terminator is that there's so much of the world you can examine. The future, the past, the nature of the evolution and design of Skynet itself ... The Terminator is a pretty open-ended world of possible examination.

What exactly can you tell of Total Recall within its established lore?

I mean you can either retell the story completely, or you have to tell a story that solidifies an idea of its own canon. And the thing is it's always going to disappoint enough people (particularly its most ardent of fans that break down every nuance of the movie to come up with wild guesstimations of the 'truth' behind the events of the film) that you're automatically going to piss someone off.

And that goes double if you don't do it particularly well.

See, I always thought Total Recall was basically one of those movies you couldn't retell or couldn't elabourate on without another Futureworld-style mistake. In my brain I just naturally assumed people wouldn't try. But only now I've learnt of a remake...? Retelling...? Sequel...? Don't spoil it, regardless. I'm legitimately interested. I avoided looking up the wiki link you provided just so it doesn't get spoilt.

Um, you seem to be talking a lot about playing drinking games right now...

Look, I dunno, because I don't drink, so fine, knock yourself out.

Look, there's movies you just want to watch with friends and relive your childhood. The drinks are inconsequential as opposed to sharing a moment. Kind of like booting up an old gaming console to play split screen on it. Not necessarily to spend time breaking down its elements, but just to relive a moment.

We were talking about "dark lords," not general tropes (none of these are inherently fantasy tropes anyway).

Well, to be fair ... it was my original point you were bringing into query. I really don't feel like describing the problems I Have in sci-fi when it makes assumptions of essentialist componentry like souls and good and evil. And you'd be surprised how often even sci-fi does this.

My original argument is that Quaid is not evil, nor falls to evil, when discovering Hauser for himself. The idea he is not enslaved to anything but his current ideas of self and his construction creates an interesting idea about what it means to murder one's personality ... what it means to achieve redemption ... concepts of self-annihilation thorough but only one's memory.

By what aspects is one made to be a being of agency and self-designs of their will to power. Particularly in a universe which just treats such things as a triviality, and even expect Quaid to falter morally when confronted with Hauser.

Now the 'dark lord' would be Hauser himself if Quaid then became Hauser upon 'discovering himself'. But he doesn't. Hauser is dead. Quaid kills him.

In a lot of sci-fi this is treated as almost a big deal ... and in a way it is in the movie, but ultimately it's meaningless to Quaid. Hauser is already dead ... he died because of Quaid ... and that's as far as it goes. In a lot of sci-fi this is a bigger deal, when honestly it's refreshing that it simply isn't in Total Recall.

So for your description of the 'Dark Lord' ... Hauser is the Dark Lord. But he's already dead. There isw no yearnings, or needless polemics of striving for control over one's desires or some latent force of 'evil' that exists within. No ... he's just dead. Hauser is dead. Quaid merely deals with his legacy rather than any pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo about Hauser.

This is what I mean by an essentialist idea of evil and self. And Total Recall simply hand waves it away and (refreshingly) treats it as needless garbage rhetoric and treats Hauser as merely dead. And that is often missing in sci-fi ... and is probably a further existentialist remark than Blade Runner was willing to go.

That's all. That was my commentary.

Original point was about quality and box office, not level of influence.

Oh. Possibly?

Also, I doubt "Bayformers" is actually going to leave that much of an impression. Look at Transformers now, and Bay's approach is the odd one out, from its tone to its aesthetics. And with Bumblebee (the film), it looks like Paramount is trying to move away from it.

I guess? I mean money doesn't just talk, it screams. Is Paramount really going to kill a golden goose entirely, or simply build it a prettier roost?

Not comparing Verhoven to Bay, just commenting on the idea of "box office = quality."

I wasn't necessarily saying BO = quality" ... "BO = influence" isn't that much of a stretch, surely?

But if we are comparing them, Verhoven's made at least two good films (Total Recall, Starship Troopers). Of all Bay's films that I've seen, none of them go higher than "average."

Robocop.

Plus Zwartboek is phenomenal ... though not sci-fi.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

There's a whole hell of a lot more light novels being brought over nowadays than even just 2-3 years ago, which is part of the broader "anime culture" permeating everything, which is amazing.


You know ToraDora? That amazing anime that came out like a decade ago? Well, they only recently started translating it's light novels, like this year I believe. And that one was a big name that most people respect, yet they didn't translate them despite having been out for so long.


We're at a new Renaissance now. It's truly awesome. You even have age old closeted anime fans like Elon Musk coming out.

 

[Hawki]

Kind of? Apart from The Life Aquatic it's the movie that made Goldblum pointful for awhile, I suppose.

More thinking it was a landmark film in the use of CGI, plus the film is pretty damn good as an adventure film that also manages to raise pertinent themes about the dangers of science for science's sake and whatnot, but hey, sure.

I guess? I mean money doesn't just talk, it screams. Is Paramount really going to kill a golden goose entirely, or simply build it a prettier roost?

Kill it? No. But it's vague whether Bumblebee shares continuity with the Bay films, or is the start of a new continuity, possibly a shared Hasbro cinematic universe.

Don't particuarly care either way. All I know is that the film looks more appealing than any of the previous live action entries I've seen.

I wasn't necessarily saying BO = quality" ... "BO = influence" isn't that much of a stretch, surely?

In theory, no. But I think there's better ways to measure the scope of influence than box office gross. When you look at the highest grossing films of all time, and find that only 11 of them aren't sequels, then gross tends to come post-influence most of the time. Did the Harry Potter films succeed because they were just that good, or did they succeed because they were adapting insanely popular books?

Dunno. But I can call the HP films influential because after them you get a period of YA adaptations. I think that's a better metric of influence than just BO gross.

 

[bluegate]

There's a whole hell of a lot more light novels being brought over nowadays than even just 2-3 years ago, which is part of the broader "anime culture" permeating everything, which is amazing.


You know ToraDora? That amazing anime that came out like a decade ago? Well, they only recently started translating it's light novels, like this year I believe. And that one was a big name that most people respect, yet they didn't translate them despite having been out for so long.


We're at a new Renaissance now. It's truly awesome. You even have age old closeted anime fans like Elon Musk coming out.

Is there any quality in those light novels?

Mind writing down some examples of this Renaissance?