Talk:Total Recall (2012 film)

Science Fiction

Well, Fiction yes, but "Science" is rather debatable, as the movie overtly has them violating laws of physics. With no atmosphere you could fall through the earth within 40 minutes, not 17 as depicted. With atmosphere it's more like 63 hours. But you would burn anyway some few kilometres down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.143.60.50 (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you implying that the film should NOT be classified as science fiction because it contains fantastic elements? I hope Jules Verne isn't too upset. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Good start

Good start, just a couple of notes in your citations be sure to include the author, date and publisher. Also typically the cast section precedes production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Total Recall.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Total Recall.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Cast

"Douglas "Douglas" Quaid"? - is this correct? Sleepysod (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Remake?

This is not a remake. It is based on the same source material as the original film, but is substantially different than that film. In what way can this be considered a remake? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The trailer I saw before Dark Knight Rises seems to think this is a remake. It was almost entirely composed of scenes where characters spoke lines that are very well associated with the original film. I think only 'get your ass to mars' was missing for obvious plot reasons 86.29.252.223 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should Total Recall (2012) be called a "remake" of Total Recall (1990)? For starters, they share the same title, and much of the same plot and characters. Quaid is a blue-collar worker bee who has fantastic and vivid dreams involving a woman other than his wife. He later learns that his "wife" is actual a secret agent planted to make sure he does not remember his past association with "rebels," and she tries to kill him. He later meets with the woman of his dreams and they later meet with a rebel leader who tries to recover additional information from Quaid. But it turns out that this was a trap set by Quaid's former boss to find and kill the rebel leader. Quaid later escapes before being implanted with his old personality, kills his former boss, and saves the day for the rebel's cause. Both movies also include a triple-breasted hooker. None of this is in the original story, "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" (where Quaid is named "Quail" in the original story). Total Recall (2012) has much more in common with Total Recall (1990) than the original PKD short story. If the producers of Total Recall (2012) had made this movie without the rights to the source material, they would be liable for copyright infringement. A remake does not have to be a slavish shot-for-shot copy. Jjuo (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(few more for the 'Remake' camp) - A freaky looking yellow jacketed woman who says "2 weeks" in the reception area (at least in the first film she had an active role), a drop of body fluid (sweat in the original, tear in this film) convincing Quaid to shoot the guy trying to talk him down. MrZoolook (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Anything else aside, the end credits state "Based on the motion picture "Total Recall". 02:06:25 on the director's cut that's doing the rounds on the torrent scene atm. HD so presumably BluRay. 217.41.43.35 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Place Names

The two warring territories are the "United Federation of Britain" and "The Colony" (Australia). There is no mention of Euroamerica or New Shanghai. (Source: I just watched the movie.) Damon Killian (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I also just watch it and concur.--J2000ca (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ethan Hawke

He's not in the film his scene got cut here's proof: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Total-Recall-Director-Len-Wiseman-Talks-Future-Glowing-Tattoos-Film-Missing-Cameo-32286.html it's an interview with the director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

2084

I've watched the film, it only mentioned that "At the end of 21st century, a global chemical war..." instead of "2084" and "WW3". Also, the UFB only contains the present UK (or Europe, I am not sure, but I didn't see US).

Also, can anyone confirm what is shown for "Cohaagen", "Matthias", "McClane" in the ending roll? (Full name or last name only) Thanks. --TX55^TALK 08:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Having literally just watched the film, I can tell you the UFB consists of the area contained by a pie slice cantered roughly on Ireland, arcing from the southern tip of Portugal, to parts of Scandinavia. Most of North-Western Europe is contained in this area. The intro absolutely shows the US being affected by the fallout of the war/chemical-warfare via time lapse. I would post a screen-grab, but "that's illegal" *sarcastic*

Regarding the credits, only last names are shown for the three you mention. MrZoolook (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Seductive Woman

I deleted her from the Cast, but Rusted AutoParts reverted it with "the character is a well remembered one and the highlight of this overall failure". The character may be a well remembered one, but it not relevant to the story and is just a side track that ends directly. As we disagree with this I want some more opinions to see if she should be kept in the list, or deleted. 81.233.34.70 (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I think the cast listing in most articles is far too long. "Memorable" or not, the role is a small part. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know why so many people on Wikpedia are obsessed with deleting content. The triple breasted whore is listed on the cast list of the original so why not here. PLEASE do not take this as an invitation to delete her from the original. --84.203.70.8 (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

While taking on board the arguments above, it might be worth noting that in the original she had several scenes, and was killed in a relatively memorable cold manner. Here she barely manages 2 lines in her 1 scene. That said, in THIS film, the credits list her as 'Three Breasted Woman' NOT 'Three Breasted Whore'... and in no way is she called 'Seductive Woman' and didn't even manage to be seductive from the viewers POV anyway. If she's going to be included, at least get the name right! MrZoolook (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Country of origin?

The British Film Institute in it's weekly box office figures lists this film as a UK/USA/Canada production, http://industry.bfi.org.uk/article/18137/UK-Box-Office-31-August---2-September-2012, just wondering whether the infobox should be changed?--81.109.72.78 (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange, the film itself lists it as filmed in Pinewood, Toronto with location shots in Toronto. No mention of UK or US. Would cast/crew from the UK or US mean it was a UK/US film? If so, we can add China, Japan, Australia, several European countries, there's probably a Russian or 2 involved there somewhere, and India and the Middle East are emerging into film-making in various capacities, so we should maybe add them just in case. Alternatively, we COULD just accept the end-credits at face value (the people making the film should know after all, one would hope) and just list it as Canadian until a more reliable source turns up. Just a thought mind you! MrZoolook (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Country of production and location of filming are two completely different concepts...but don't that let get in the way of being condescending and smarmy--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Video game

The article mentions that there was a tie-in video game based on this movie for the iPad. Where can readers find this information? Should it be included in this article, or perhaps written about as its own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.144.86 (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Mixed to negative to mixed to negative reviews.

Can we please find consensus as to what to call the reviews the film has received? It seems there is a daily cycle of changing it from mixed, to negative, to mixed to negative, to mostly negative, etc., ad nausaeum. -- Nczempin (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It now says it had mixed to negative, but then highlights the same number of positive AND negative, and for the record, more mixed/average/neutral reviews then both of them put together. Shall we just change the section to read 'The film received reviews' and be done with it, or is somebody going to try and improve it? MrZoolook (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Ending

Hey, I just watched the movie, and I don't know if I have a different cut than everybody else or someone watched a lot closer than I did. I don't think that is the case. The last sentence of the plot says "It's heavily implied to be a dream because the stamp has vanished." Well, I watched the movie and there is no clear angle of the stamp area because it is covered with a bandage. Is there a chance that someone got spoilers or saw something from production press about how it was supposed to end and missed the memo when they changed it, because you literally can't see the spot that they are talking about. I'll leave this up for a little while and then change it if no one mentions anything to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.132.55 (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The directors cut clearly shows there to be no tattoo that was put there as part of the Recall procedure, indicating everything is a dream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.94.105 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I just watched the director's cut too & noticed the ending, where his arm is shown without the tattoo, which implies that everything after the Rekall scene didn't actually happen -- although this raises two contradictions: 1. how could he have had the dream with Melina in it? and 2. The Rekall technology is always identified as something that implants memories, not creates present virtual realities to live in so WTF. This is either intentional ambiguity or sloppy plot contradiction. I'll add a last sentence to the plot section mentioning this difference in the director's cut -- unless someone thinks we need a new section with differences between the two versions. Let me know. Giordanob (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless the human brain drastically changes in the future, he has to experience the memories in order to remember them. Think of it as a computer copying files; they get read and indexed during the copy process. Furthermore, since our perception of time while dreaming or in a dream-like state isn't synchronous with our environment, it's entirely possible the rest of the movie took place during that one moment. As for Melina, the Rekall scene takes place after everything he experienced with her and as he states during the film, it's a moment that can't be erased with technology because of the strong impact it had. IndigoAK200 (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I had added a line about the extended scene a short while ago which someone decided to revert as it caused the synopsis to exceed the word limit. They obviously didn't see that it would have been better to reduce the size of the lengthy synopsis instead. The current state of the scentence neglects to mention that the scene is unique to the Extended Cut, nor does it mention the significance of it, without which the whole thing isn't worth mentioning. As for Melina, I just rationalised that she was in the Rekall sequence because his mind had put her there, similar to how his wife would be there if it was all a dream. His wife obviously wasn't in the implanted memory but his mind had kind of stuck her in or whatever; I figured it would be the same with Melina. I admit it's a bit hand-wavey though; likely a result of the director deciding right at the end that he wanted it to be a dream and forgetting that it had already been set up otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.46.95 (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i agree ...whilst it is heavily implied the chemicals reach his arm before the plug is pulled i feel the last scene in the directors cut is simply a way of expanding on and rectifying this error in the course of the plot especially when on the version i just watched (the none directors cut) when he steps out of the ambulance (and when he wakes up and fights with his wife) their is no bandage on the arm with the tattoo and their is a small round mark where it should be that looks suspiciously like it (the bandage is on the wrong shoulder to the one he was injected and tattoo'd on) Tony Spike (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

So how much did it gross then?

The release says "As of October 13, 2012, the film made $58,877,969 domestically and $119,576,799 outside of the United States for a total of $178,454,768" yet the article intro says "grossing $196 million". So did it gross 178m or 196m? I would chase it up myself, but frankly, I'd rather castigate whoever just adds crap without checking for conflicts. Hopefully, if enough people do that also, the net result will be more QUALITY edits because the bad editors are too embarrassed to show themselves any-more MrZoolook (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

alternate ending

the directors cut has an alternate ending that was mentioned in earlier versions of this article. i don't know who removed it, but it should be reincluded --92.193.54.12 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

nominate for deletion: not notable

the following: "Possible sequel[edit] In July 2012, Farrell mentioned the possibility of doing another film.[50] Producer Neal Moritz said "if the audience likes it, we’ll make a sequel."[51]" Something vaguely worded like this is said about just every movie in Hollywood. Until an actual sequel comes out, this section can be removed. Cuvtixo (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

inaccurate description of the short story

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Unlike...the short story, the setting is on a dystopian Earth, not Mars." The short story takes place on earth; the protagonist wants to go to Mars, and in fact has gone to Mars before the story starts but doesn't remember it, but at no point during the story itself goes to Mars. The source cited for this sentence in the article (an interview) never claims the original short story took place on Mars, but rather talks about how this movie is less like the original movie, which took place on Mars, and more like the short story. I went ahead and removed "the short story" from the sentence, since it's an inaccurate claim both factually and via the source linked, but didn't add anything about how the original short story took place on earth, because I don't know anything about Wikipedia's style policy or how to cite a work of fiction. Sorry if I'm breaking any rules here. 68.117.218.93 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

/* Cast */ Dylan Smith is credited as Dylan Scott Smith in this movie

I researched this actor and found his Wiki entry. So, I updated his cast entry, hopefully this is the correct way to publish it.Aspenguy2 (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Not Confused with ...

Surely this should have the under title link that read should not to be confused with Total Recall (1990 film). 83.100.188.53 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)