Talk:Total Recall (1990 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Vannilla sky reference should be removed

Mentioning Vanilla Sky is a spoiler and should be removed. Only at the very end of Vanilla Sky do you find out what is going on so it really sucks to know in advance, but in something like the Matrix or ExistenZ you know much earlier to question reality and make for better references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.81.3 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Red Pill

Whether coincidence or intentionally done, both this movie and The Matrix have a sequence where the hero is offered a red pill that will symbolically alter their perception of reality from the new one they are experiencing to the one they were used to.

It's not a coincidence, this is a reference to Alice in Wonderland. I changed the text accordingly. Themindset 22:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no "red pill" in Alice in Wonderland, only a magic mushroom.70.25.138.179 20:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

similarity to The Demolished Man?

I have always thought the memory replacement idea of this film was remarkably similar to that in Alfred Bester's novel The Demolished Man, which pre-dates Dick's story by more than a decade. Slowmover 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I just checked it out, and I don't see much similarity, saved for the superficial fact that they change memories. In this film (and in the original short story), a customer can choose to have the fake memories of his choice implanted, with no change to his real memories. In Demolished Man, criminals are forced to have their entire memories erased, and are then re-educated from zero. It's quite different. -- Ritchy 20:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I guess my "recall" of the novel is less than "total"!. Slowmover 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

real/not

How do you account for the scenes where Quaid is not present or Quaid is unconcscious? The presence of these scenes strongly suggest what Quaid undergoes really happened diagetically. What companies sells memories of events you were not diagetically there for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enda80 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Critical opinions

The whole critical opinions section needs source. As it is, it reads like wikieditors opinions, some of them being very weak. Ashmoo 03:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Agreed, especially as they don't seem representative of the film's overall reputation, which is not as weak as a layman would think from this section. --MartinUK 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rekall & Kuato

I've removed the link to these non-existent articles --Yyem 10:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

On my edits

I removed the trivia because trivia is not part of the purpose of encyclopedia articles (this is where they differ from webpages devoted to the film). A scene-by-scene analysis of the film similarly is inappropriate -- a general overview (paragraph-size) would be more appropriate. It is possible (I am unsure) that paraphrasing the film to great detail is legally iffy (copyright), it's certainly not what we want in an encyclopedia. Please discuss things before reverting again. "Personal Taste" does not extend that far when it comes to making an encyclopedia. --Improv 14:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nearly every movie article has a trivia section, and apparently, a lot of editors think that's entirely appropriate (which is why I branded your deletion a "personal taste"). "Encylopaedic" is NOT a synonym for "stuffy and boring". I'm going to revert you again.
Atlant 14:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Those trivia sections are poorly thought of on all articles, and are widely considered worth removing on sight. Personal taste does not default to your preferences (or mine) -- we discuss things by points. Make an argument please. --Improv 18:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, I've heard this, but somehow, editors keep accumulating trivia in articles. I believe your opinion is a distinct minority.
Atlant 23:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My opinion is backed by policy and our goals as a project. You have yet to make any argument along those lines. We're not a democracy -- discussion is how we do things, not by votes or majority. --Improv 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • IMHO, Trivia sections are useful for keeping lots of minor detail that otherwise creeps into article body. I do agree with Improv that the Synopsis section is entirely too long. Reading that takes almost as much time as watching the movie, and anyway people who want that much detail are going to watch the movie. Zocky | picture popups 00:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you arguing that they're a 'second best' to not having them there and are just peanuts thrown to bad editors, or are you saying they're good in themselves? I think we should be aiming at excellence in article quality, even when it's politically difficult. --Improv 00:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • As per Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles, I'm removing the trivia, and I am removing the long summary because it is pretty clearly outside what an encyclopedia is. If you disagree, please base your arguments in policy. --Improv 21:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Do not delete it, and here's the quote directly from the policy you are referring to:

This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections. Instead, consider it a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Seek to minimize it, but meanwhile leave it in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with. However, it is possible to move a trivia section to the talk page to allow other editors to participate with discussing and integrating the information worthy of inclusion in the article.

Once a trivia section is empty, it should be removed, but where such a section is re-added with new content, the integration process should begin again.

Themindset 15:07, September 26, 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, all the info from the Trivia section has been integrated into other sections, and properly sourced. Themindset 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Memorable character

Somehow I noticed that whenever folks mention Total Recall they would always remember the Three breasted prostitute.

Of course.

We need a screen-cap.

I always wondered if it was a tip of the hat to Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy ;) Alastairward 19:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Recall" versus "Rekall"

There seems to be some reversionist debate about whether the business that Quaid visits is named "Recall" or "Rekall". I'm pretty sure I remember it as "Rekall", and this link [1] seems to back that up, but does anyone know for sure? Otherwise, the next time I watch the movie, I'll try to remember to stop in here with the answer.

Atlant 18:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

--Is it "Rekall" or "Recall"? I don't know myself, but the company is named both ways in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.217.105.2 (talk • contribs).

I just checked and the company in the movie is always identified as "Rekall" (actually, "REKALL").
Atlant 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Plot/spoilers

I realise the movie's been around a while, but shouldn't there be spoiler warnings around the plot section? QTachyon 04:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't do that anymore. --70.234.35.138 06:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Recall or Reality?

bad spelling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.62.220 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Director's Cut?

Does anybody know if there was ever a director's cut, unrated version or if they ever released the original x rated cut? USAFAAres (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Open Call

I'm writing this comment in all of the articles about special editions of soundtracks. I suggest to create an article (or a portal if it was needed) with a list of soundtracks that have been expanded in several and more complete editions, as I find interesting to see which scores have been succesful enough that many editions and much more complete versions have been released. Please reply if you agree with me or if there's already something similar. --Surten (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Surten

The guns

i find it rahter interesting that most of the guns in the movie are real:

Calico M960 SMG (belive Richter uses it at the bar)
Goncz GA-9 Assaultpistol (Quaid shoots Dr Edgemar in the head with this gun)
MP5 SMG (Kuato´s men carry it)
Jackhammer Mk3A1 Shotgun (Richter´s uses it and the Police aswell)

the only guns i dont recognise is the assault rifle in the ambush schene and Richters handgun --RaDeus 18:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


That is interesting! Funny I was just watching this, and thought the guns really did look curiously good for a film that had guards running around with scientific calculators on their wrists as props. I was more leaning towards modified versions of existing guns, but interesting to know they are all in fact real.

Hayaku (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Minority Report evolves from Total Recall 2 script?

I thought Minority Report was adapted from Philip K. Dick's short story of the same name.Atticuslai 10:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC) No, Minority Report was based on the (short?) story titled The Minority Report, and it was fairly loosely based. --123.243.236.11 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Real or not?

When questioning whether Quaid's journey is real or implanted, is it worth considering that the film is not told from Quaid's perspective? This would mean Quaid's journey *is* real because we would otherwise not know about events he is oblivious to! Chris Owen 23:16 GMT 28th January 2006

OTOH, if it is a dream, he might dream events for which his dream-self is not present, and not notice the incongruity because it’s a dream. Felicity4711 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


If it was a dream, then the scene where Quaid screams about mars and the woman says "... we haven't implanted it yet" would make no sense. Rekall removed that scene from his memory, so it's not part of any implant. Also, other scenes not featuring Quaid make no sense. Also, who would implant a memory of you being a mass-killer? Honestly, heard of post traumatic stress disorder? And another thing. Why would the implant refer to itself ("you went to rekall, remember?" his friend said)? That would invite a hole in the suspension of disbelief (for Quaid, not the audience). But I guess that last bit depends on how the implanted memory was "experienced". Do you live the memory, or are you presented with a first person finished movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.200.10 (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Yes but what if that whole scene was part of the memory? That the fight at rekall and then meeting his friend who supposedly worked for the agency all along was part of it? If you remember, when Quaid was at Rekall and they were discussing his Mars trip I remember hearing one of the scientists say "Blue Sky on Mars? Thats new" which could mean that it was all part of the memory before they put him to sleep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.80.13 (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Plot or lead section actor names

I was reading through the Plot section, and I thought that someone had vandalized the page by inserting the name "Quaid" where it was supposed to be "Schwarzenegger". Then I realized that the character's name is Quaid. Perhaps this could be clarified by inserting the actors' names after the first mention of a new character name. This could be done in either the Plot section or the lead. Thoughts? — OranL (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the actor's names to several of the named characters. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mons Olympus?

The German Wiki-article on "Total Recall" states that the alien machine sits underneath Mons Olympus on Mars. Is there any indication in the film or in the short story that this is the case, as it is not explicit in the German version of the film?--Rainer P. (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, I need this information for a book which I am writing, on the subject of modern mythology! And there it bears some significance whether that machine is explicitly located inside Olympus Mons or not. It seems it does not say so in the film, and I cannot find the editor of the German article who makes this statement. I’ld like to know if or how it is mentioned in the original story. Anybody can help me? And if it cannot be sourced, I will change the German article accordingly.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Science

The article says something about scientific inaccuracies, but isn't mentioning any of them. I think it would be useful to mention some. Pictureuploader 21:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

When the bad guys are talking on video phone, it's instantaneous. In real life, there would be a substantial time delay from a radio signal between Earth and Mars, IIRC close to an hour depending on orbital position. If this is a special faster than light communications link, this should be explained or at least alluded to. Furthermore, bodies exposed to vacuum wouldn't distort quite like that. Also, mutations from radiation exposure probably wouldn't look like what was depicted. The rest can be generally overlooked under suspension of disbelief. Afalbrig 12:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to swallow the blowouts blowing people out of rooms, or people's eyes popping out of their head on exposure to the Martian atmosphere, or Mars apparently being short on O2 but not cold at all outside, or the air machine apparently rectifying all this in 5 minutes. YMMV.

Well the air machine did instantly heat vast quantities of frozen oxygen (shouldnt the room it was stored in have been cold enough to kill unprotected people?) which went rolling down the hill, people under that would have been able to breathe right away, and they where right next to the machine. The eyes popping out was a bit odd though, Mars does have "air" and therefore pressure. The air just isn't breathable... the effect would be more like smoke inhalation or poisonous gassing than decompression 82.153.230.130 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's all in Quaid's dream, it's a moot point, however. (He didn't appear to me as someone with a Ph.D. in physics.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing about this movie is, you cant prove anything in it wrong. Any "flaws" can be explained away and in a way, already are. All it took was that one scene to explain that this entire movie could just be a dream. Right there you have the answer to every scientific "flaw" also, what if the station on mars somehow used all the air on mars and converted it into something breathable. They probably wouldn't have use for air outside of the dome thing and it would actually make sense for the guy to make the area outside of his "rule" uninhabitable. That way (assuming its not just a dream) he would have complete control. 174.42.206.246 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Caption

Can anybody come up with something better than "A midget with a gun"? It's just too funny to be in an encyclopedia. Maybe, I dunno, a mention of who he's pointing the gun at, or why? JDS2005 00:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC) I'm sure theres a better word to use than "midget" seeing as how thats supposed to be offensive somehow (i would think "little person" sounds even more offensive but whatever) 174.42.206.246 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Irony?

"**An episode of Nickelodeon's cartoon series, Rugrats, is entitled "Turtle Recall" in reference to the film. Ironically, in a Season 4 episode of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Raphael uses the term, turtle recall.**"

How is this ironic? -58.165.51.14 (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC) That's totally ironic, like bubbles in a glass of champagne. Or rain on a wedding, oh wait...174.42.206.246 (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing explanation

"Quaid arrives at the Mars colony disguised as an elderly woman, but his disguise is somehow exposed, and he then avoids capture by Richter and Cohaagen's men"; nothing in the narrative explains why he adopts the disguise he does (although in context, some is better than none), but there is also no explanation of why the elderly woman suddenly "goes bananas" and the disguise falls apart. I realise that it's somewhat unrealistic to expect narrative consistency in Arnie films, but in the absence of an explanation, all we can do is narrate what is seen in the film, without speculation. Rodhullandemu 01:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

General stuff by User:Two halves

Removed " The title comes from the name of the automation software for the SSL brand of audio mixing consoles.", unless someone can come up with some substantiation for this. DJ Clayworth 18:06, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

From the company's website: 1981: The SL 4000 E was awarded the prestigious UK Design Council Award, having revolutionised studio management with Total Recall. Later that same year, SSL received its first Queen's Award for Export Achievement. Through the 1980's SSL continued to expand its range of products, establishing itself as the premier expert in audio technology for the music, film and broadcast industries.

How's that for substantiation? Two Halves who is, by all accounts, not logged in again...

Don't you mean: "How's that for irrelevant nonsense?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.153.254.33 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

symbolism in the number of head shots

Is it significant that so many characters are killed with shots to the forehead? (Lori, Kuato, the doctor etc) Possibly linked to all the talk of lobotomy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.0.20 (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Being shot in the head isn't, in my experience, that different from being shot in the heart. Either is life-threatening. Unless you can find a critical source for this, I wouldn't get that worried about it. Rodhullandemu 01:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
In your experience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.153.254.33 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Below was tagged for needing sourcing long-term. Please feel free to reincorporate this material with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Old page history

Some old page history that used to be at the title "Total Recall" can now be found at Talk:Total Recall/Old history. Graham87 02:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


Question Content

Who was the original author of the movie adaptations?


--Answer Content-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.179.161 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Change Page Name

Should the page name be changed to Total Recall (1990 film) since the new movie is out? -- (Mrja84 (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

Yes, and done. —Lowellian (reply) 12:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Lori is/was not a double agent ('Remake' section)

"Kate Beckinsale was cast in the role of double agent Lori," Lori is an agent, not a double agent.. big difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.112.212 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated. Chaheel Riens (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Terbinium listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Terbinium, which currenttly directs to this article's Plot summary. Editors are invited to participate in the redirect discussion. DonIago (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

I've placed a request for temporary semi-protection of this page at WP:RFP. This re-re-re-reversion business is getting silly. --Alexbook (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong!!!

Total Recall is adapted from a Piers Anthony novel of the SAME NAME dink!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.63.55.207 (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you are wrong - the Total Recall you are referring to is the novelisation of the film. I've got the book in question.[2]

The movie is based on a story by Philip K. Dick, called "We can remember for you wholesale!" Goblinshark17 (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Critical intepretation section

A "critical interpretation" section has been added to the article several times, despite the fact it has been removed on each occasion by two editors expressing concerns about the source. While I have no problem including the viewpoints of Paul Verhoeven and Arnold Schwarzenegger from the DVD commentary, I do not think the Overthinkingit.com article that the bulk of the review is sourced to is a reliable source. The site seems to be a hobby site with very little editorial oversight which anyone can seemingly submit articles to i.e. it is one notch above a self-published blog. Self-published reviews are permissable per WP:SELFPUBLISH if their work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications (i.e. a review from Roger Ebert's personal website would be acceptable, since he was a published critic held in high esteem) but the Total Recall piece is written by Mark Lee, apparently a management consultant. If he is a professionally published film critic then fair enough, but his credentials need to be established before his criticism is incorporated into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur that the source is not appropriate. This film has been scrutinized by more credible parties, and they should be referenced here instead to authoritatively cover critical interpretations. Just a few sources here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8... Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Pinging Koonter. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Edit the section and put a better reference. Clearly the film was made to be open ended and have multiple interpretations, so instead of deleting the whole section edit it yourself to make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The source that you used is not reliable, so per WP:BURDEN, any similar content would have to come from a reliable source. Unfortunately, for this kind of film, the most authoritative critical interpretation is not going to come from a self-published source but one of the academic works I linked above. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't disagree that it is "open ended" or even with having such a section, but the underlying problem is that you added an extensive interpretation of the film that is based entirely on an unreliable source. Erik has provided several high quality sources, which are a good starting point for this type of critical analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Edgemar

Is Dr. Edgemar a director or developer at Rekall? The article contradicts itself Guinness2702 (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No, he's not the president of Rekall! He's not a "Developer" either. Where did anyone get that idea???? He's at most a guy who works for Rekall, and more likely an illusion, sent into Quaid's fantasy world by doctors at Rekall to "talk [Quaid] down" and help him return to reality. At least that's how he identifies himself. He also says "I'm not really here."

I have corrected the PLOT section as it relates to Dr. Edgemar, and also the CAST section as it describes Dr. Edgemar. Goblinshark17 (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: By making these corrections, I have removed the self-contradiction from the article. I am, accordingly, removing the warning flag from the beginning of the article. Goblinshark17 (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

He is the president, or spokesperson or something like that. In the ad that Quad sees on the subway before he goes to Rekall the doctor is the one pitching Rekall and how even people who are "over the hill" can "climb mountains" via Rekall memories. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Dream companion

Quote from the article:

"He is climbing with a companion, but it is not Lori (whom he wakes up next to), but presumably Melina (in fact it is very difficult to identify the companion)."

No it isn't, it's clearly Rachel Ticotin (aka Melina) - there's a clear close up of her entire face looking at him and smiling. So someone needs to change this (I'd do it myself, but I'm very inexperienced with Wikis and don't want to screw anything up). Bertaut (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


I've noticed another error in this section of the article:

"On the commentary both Verhoeven and Schwarzenegger himself share commentary; at every point Schwarzenegger disagrees with Verhoeven on the meaning of the ending."

I've just finished listening to the commentary and I can say that this quote is wrong, Schwarzenegger pretty much agrees with everything Verhoeven says! Bertaut (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, the commentary is a must listen for any fan of Total Recall and it clearly states why the ending is what it is. The fade to white symbolizes a lobotomy. They also through the whole thing keep saying that the Audience is the one who wants to believe it is real but Paul hints that it is a lobotomy. Though this is quite confusing if one is to thing about Total Recall 2 aka the original Minority Report script they worked on was to have Quaid working with the clairvoyant mutants. Also in the article it says that a citation is needed for "the film was rated x and cut to R" or whatever that part is exactly. The citation is the directory commentary. Paul says it himself specifically at the scene with the guy getting shot on the escalator I believe. ZuljinRaynor (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article still says "On the DVD commentary Verhoeven and Schwarzenegger come to opposite conclusions regarding how real the post-Rekall events of the film actually were." I listened to the commentary a month or so ago and, as others have said, Verhoeven and Schwarzenegger pretty much agree on everything, and I believe they both agreed that the events could be interpreted either way (as was intended). KJH17 20:25, 11 December 2009

There is really no question that it's all a dream. If you watch the video monitor where Quade is getting the implants the first time it flashes a picture of Rachel Tikoten as Quade describes his sexual interests. There is no way based on "athletic and demure" that they could generate that picture that exactly matches her. Not to mention if she is a real person the idea that the image they would be creating to place in his brain would be her isn't credible. Also, if you listen to the way they describe the secret agent scenario "Blue Sky on Mars" it's EXACTLY what ends up happening. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Production date

Production date was held and commenced on March 20th, 1989 and lasted until August 23rd, 1989. So it has to be edited.

Kade Klodt (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What's your source? DonIago (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The source came from the website ShotOnWhat. So my source is to edit it if accepted. Kade Klodt (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Afraid I'm not familiar with that site. Maybe provide a URL? DonIago (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Critical interpretation section should be reinstated (See above discussion and link in 2014)

I’m late to the game here as this was discussed above in 2014. I just watched the film again having viewed it several times since its original release (so I’m not late to the game in that respect). I’ve reviewed the deleted critical interpretation section and it seems well written and appropriate. After several viewings of the film, I have come to the conclusion it is simply not possible to determine whether Quaid is remembering his fantasy trip to Mars or whether this really happened. The movie seems to give the impression that it is real, but as the removed section points out, there are plot holes in attempting to support either interpretation. The section mentions several of them, and I could add one in favor of the dream interpretation and one in favor of the reality interpretation. For example, if the events are real then why when Quaid is selecting the parameters of his “ego trip” at Rekall does the woman that the Rekall team comes up with as his love interest look exactly like the “real” Melina? How would Rekall know of this real Melina? (This is before the implantation process begins.) On the other hand, if it is a free form delusion with Quaid making up events as he goes along as Dr. Edgemar suggests, then it would seem logical to have recruited Harry to help talk Quaid out of the fantasy as proof that Harry is not really dead as Quaid "knows" he is. It’s just one of those movies where nothing conclusive can be ascertained. It is, after all, fiction.

Regarding our article on the novel A Separate Peace, I added a section (which many later edited) regarding the oft repeated theory that the two main teens have a homoerotic attraction to each other while noting that the author denied such. If we take the author at his word (and I have doubts about that considering his personal profile and the times they recount (but that is neither here nor there)), then as it too is a work of fiction, albeit based upon he author’s school experiences, there is simply no correct answer to the question. I see the two situations as parallel and for consistency’s sake we should include this section. An even more apt comparison might be the article on the song Puff, the Magic Dragon regarding the persistent allegation that the song is a veiled reference to drugs, which has always been denied by Lenny Lipton who wrote the poem the song was based upon. (In this case, I unequivocally believe him considering the man’s stature in science and technology and the time he wrote the poem.)

Regarding the sourcing, since the plot synopsis is based upon the author(s) of the article simply watching the movie and relating its events, I see nothing wrong with an article author/movie viewer relating that it seems not possible to determine whether the events as depicted were real or the result of implanted memories and a resulting delusion and listing conflicting indicators to support such a view of ambiguity since they too are included within the movie.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The plot synopsis summarizes the basic story. Whether it really occurs or not lies beyond what we can deduce from just watching the film. WP:FILMPLOT tells us "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Now, there are two perspectives one can take from the film—which incidentally I think the article should cover—but this needs to be tackled through secondary sourcing ideally within the context of an themes section along the lines of what is done at the Blade Runner article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I’m sorry I took the time to write this. It is, after all, rather like debating what is the average length of unicorns’ horns. However, the situation does reflect upon an interesting philosophical proposition. The dream interpretation (if one thinks about it) cannot be refuted any more than can solipsism which is basically what it amounts to.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Total Recall (1990 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Plot trimming not an improvement?

I haven't looked at the details of the edits yet, but given that the current plot summary is in violation of WP:FILMPLOT, and when an editor (not me) has attempted to shorten the summary they've been reverted, could I please get a bit more color as to why editors feel the shorter summary is not an improvement? It seems to me that there should be a compromise option available, but I'd like to know what's going on first. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It should absolutely be shorter, the current length is way in excess of what is necessary. Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The current count is 744 words, just slightly over the suggested limit of 700. So, yes, a copy-edit is in order, but the recent trim was, in my opinion, too aggressive, for lack of a better word. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Then I guess the question is whether anyone is willing to take a less aggressive stab at it (I don't have the time right now, but if you poke me about it on my Talk page I can maybe do so). Perhaps work with the editor who was reverted to find a compromise? I don't feel that a wholesale revert that results in the article being in non-compliance is a net benefit unless there's obvious problems with the shortened version. DonIago (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll take a stab at trimming it right now. And then people can tell me what they think. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts here! It looks okay to me, though I might reinsert the year at the beginning to make it clear that the film is (currently, at least) set in the future. DonIago (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is TheOldJacobite being allowed to kill edits s/he considers "too much detail" or other unfounded opinions?

Quaid was "given a suitcase"? I'd say this previous is confusingly brief 50.206.132.34 (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

While Wikipedia does not forbid spoilers, we also don't give every detail ad infinitum. Plot sections are to be summaries only. - BilCat (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

New proposed summary

I think corrections need to be made in this article where the the article "assumes facts not in evidence".

For example -

"and Cohaagen sent her to monitor Quaid" - Lori specifically says "The Agency", not Cohaagen

"Quaid secures Lori and runs off" - secures? He knocks her out, secures, to me, means he tied her up or something

"in their escape they kill Lori." - should be "in their escape, Quaid kills Lori." - right?

"tells him that the alien artifact is a turbinium reactor that will create a breathable atmosphere for Mars, eliminating Cohaagen's monopoly on breathable air." - I've watched this scene multiple times and the recalled memory dialogue doesn't say anything remotely like this, this is a conclusion drawn by seeing the end of the movie and seeing what happens when the reactor rods deploy into the turbinium glacier.

"Benny reveals that he works for Cohaagen, whose forces burst in and kill most of the resistance" - This is backwards, as forces burst in, Quaid, George/Kuato, Melina & Benny escape and then Benny then reveals he works for Cohaagen after killing Kuato.

"...it away, blowing out one of the walls of the control" - no, "...he throws it blowing the tunnel door off..."

"Quaid manages to activate the reactor before he and Melina are also pulled out." - should be "...Melina is sucked out, followed by Quaid after he starts the reactor..."

"Before they fatally suffocate, the reactor releases air into the atmosphere" - assumes that the gas is air. You only realize this when Quaid & Melina recover as the turbinium sublimates and the gas passes over them. Why are you assuming that the gas is air before people start breathing it? Maybe it's a gas for re-animated Martians to wipe out the Terran invaders? You're assuming that the Martians are altruistic and assume the Martians expected Terrans to re-populate Mars at some point in their far future?Aspenguy2 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This is my proposed revised summary which corrects plots points:

In the year 2084, construction worker Douglas Quaid is having troubling dreams about Mars and a mysterious woman there. His wife Lori dismisses the dreams and discourages him from thinking about Mars, where the governor, Vilos Cohaagen, is fighting a rebellion. At Rekall, a company that provides memory implants of vacations, Quaid opts for a memory trip to Mars as a secret agent. However, something goes wrong during the procedure, and Quaid starts revealing suppressed memories of actually being a secret agent. The Rekall employees sedate him, wipe his memory of the visit, and send him home. On the way, Quaid is attacked by his friend Harry and other men, and is forced to kill them. He is then ambushed in his apartment by Lori, who states that she isn't his wife; their marriage is a false memory implant, and "The Agency" sent her to monitor Quaid. Quaid knocks Lori out and runs off, pursued by armed men led by Richter, Cohaagen's operative and Lori's real husband.

After evading his attackers, Quaid is left a suitcase containing money, gadgets, fake IDs, and a video recording. The video is of Quaid himself, who identifies himself as Hauser and explains that he used to work for Cohaagen, but switched sides after learning about an alien artifact on Mars and underwent the memory wipe to protect himself. Hauser instructs Quaid to remove a tracking device located inside his skull before ordering him to go to Mars. On arrival, Quaid finds a note from Hauser directing him to Venusville, populated by people mutated as a result of poor radiation shielding. He meets Benny, a taxi driver, and Melina, the woman from his dreams, but she spurns him, believing that he is still working for Cohaagen.

Quaid later encounters Rekall's Dr. Edgemar and Lori. Edgemar asserts Quaid suffered a "schizoid embolism" and is trapped in a fantasy from the implanted memories, and must take an offered pill to wake up, or will otherwise be lobotomized. Seeing sweat on Edgemar's face, Quaid refuses the pill and shoots him, just as Richter's men burst into the room. Melina arrives to aid Quaid, recognizing Quaid to be truthful, and in their escape Quaid kills Lori.

They flee to Venusville with Benny, and are ushered into a secret tunnel. Unable to locate Quaid, Cohaagen shuts down the ventilation, slowly asphyxiating its citizens. Quaid, Melina, and Benny are taken to a resistance base, and Quaid is introduced to the mutant Kuato. Kuato reads Quaid's mind recalling a discussion with Cohaagen, Richter and some technicians about the Martian artifact. They don't know its purpose. Cohaagen's forces burst in and kill all of the resistance. Quaid, George/Kuato, Melina & Benny escape to an airlock. Benny kills George/Kuato and reveals that he works for Cohaagen. Kuato implores Quaid to activate the reactor before dying.

Quaid and Melina are taken to Cohaagen, who explains that the Quaid persona was a ploy by Hauser to infiltrate the mutants and expose Kuato, thereby wiping out the resistance. Hauser wants his memories reimplanted. Cohaagen wants Melina re-programmed as Hauser's "babe", but Quaid and Melina escape into the mines where the reactor is located. Benny attacks them in an excavation machine, but Quaid kills him. Quaid and Melina outwit and kill Richter and his men lying in ambush for them.

Quaid reaches the reactor control room, where Cohaagen is waiting with a bomb. Melina arrives and shoots Cohaagen, but he starts the bomb timer. Quaid throws it down the tunnel, blowing the door causing an explosive decompression. Cohaagen is sucked out onto the surface, where he suffocates and dies. Melina is sucked out, and Quaid activates the reactor before being sucked out. The reactor rods deploy which sublimates the turbinium glacier. Gas blows out of the mountain. It is a breathable gas, saving Quaid, Melina, and the rest of Mars' population. As humans stand on an outcropping looking at the newly blue sky and breathing the new Martian atmosphere, Quaid momentarily pauses to wonder whether he is dreaming or not, before turning to kiss Melina.

  • For purposes of WP:NOT#PLOT we are not beholden to telling the plot in the exact chronological events if we can cut a few less works. For example, it is not critical that Melina is sucked out first before Quaid triggers the reactor; the order doesn't affect the larger plot, only that before they are sucked out, the reactor has been turned on. Similarly, while technically Quaid kills Lori, it is a combination of their fighting that Lori ends up killed.
On a main point: what the reactor is doing. Kuato in the movie clearly doesn't say much about what the reactor does, but it can be reasonably implied without interpretation from following scenes that Quaid has learned from Kuato what the reactor does (or at least, what Kuato thinks it does). We could be incredibly accurate to the movie, but that adds too many words to the plot. Instead we skim this, knowing what happens at the end of the film to fill in "missing information" that the film doesn't immediately say in the middle of the film, to shorten the plot up. --Masem (t) 16:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, but I think most people would have the same reaction as I did. If you can post "verifiable" statements, isn't that the goal of Wikipedia? I went round and round with another contributor who kept hitting me over the head with "verifiable" vs. "truth". All of my changes can be verified by watching the movie. How does Kuato have any more insight than Quaid's recovered memory tells us what the reactor will do to the turbinium? Kuato is a human mutant, not a Martian mutant with any kind of race memory. In my opinion, although I can't verify it, is the writers and director want to keep you guessing to the end as to what the Martian device does. What does starting the reactor do to the turbinium? If they had stuck in a few extra seconds where the rebels say that heating the turbinium sublimates it to air, the restoration of Quaid's memory of the location of the reactor control room would have been a little more logical. In actuality, saying it's an alien device also creates the question as to whether the Martians built it, but you can logically assume so. The device is only alien from a human perspective but probably isn't alien from a Martian perspective. My summary changes only add 31 words to the summary and puts it under the 700 word max threshold. I don't understand the logic of allowing movie summaries to be presented that fail to properly summarize the sequences in the movie.Aspenguy2 (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd have to rewatch, but I mean, I could see at lease replacing "air" with "breathable atmosphere" for the ending stuff, because, obviously, humans are breathing it. The thing not to get too into are the absence of scientific details in the film. For example, do we know when the hot reactor rods hit those crystalline pieces that that's sublimation? Some vapor is clearly coming off but that could readily be a rapid solid to liquid to gas phase change. Maybe the substance is frozen water, the rods the turbinium stuff (I can't immediately recall if they called the glacier being of turbinium), and the frozen water contains tons of trapped air in the pockets? I don't know, the film is nowhere close to that detail. Just that when the reactor turns on, it rapidly generates a breathable atmosphere across Mars in time to save everyone, for purposes of Wikipedia's summary.
I think we can work with the few changes you made, but I would look to rework some of the last paragraph; we need to stress Cohaagna's fear that the reactor is dangerous which is why he wants to blow it up, and we can avoid some details of the reactor-turn on. (Also we never introduce George, and I don't think there's enough words left or even need to state this, its an element left fine in the cast list). --Masem (t) 17:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"...Maybe the substance is frozen water, the rods the turbinium stuff (I can't immediately recall if they called the glacier being of turbinium), and the frozen water contains tons of trapped air in the pockets?..." - When you watch the recalled memory scene, the technician definitely refers to the substance under the machine as turbinium and is concerned that if the machine is turned on, it could lead to a worldwide meltdown of all of the turbinium.

"...breathable atmosphere..." - OK, but humans breathe 20% oxygen and 78% nitrogen with the other 2% listed as inert gases if I remember my high school science correctly. So, the gas may be a different mix of oxygen, nitrogen & other inert gases which are also tolerated by the human bodies. So, I agree breathable atmosphere would be a valid substitute for "air". I put breathable "gas" as atmosphere refers to the whole planet and it hasn't yet spread all over and I also don't want to use atmosphere twice so close together.

George - I only make reference to the George/Kuato a single time. When they escape to the airlock, George is the one running. When shot, George dies, but Kauto makes one final effort to be dominant and implores Quaid to start the reactor. This agrees with the cast list description played by Marshall Bell.

I just re-watched the rod deployment scene and in my opinion, it's sublimation - solid to gas with no intervening liquid stage. I see some minimal solid pieces spray up as the rods hit the turbinium, but the pieces still look solid to me, not liquid. That's beauty of HD TVs. You can really see the original detail of the movie special effect.

I made some additional changes above, let me know your thoughts...01:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to post the revised article as shown above. I hope you just haven't been too busy with other work, so I'll do it tomorrow 8/2/2019 unless you have further comments or concerns.Aspenguy2 (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I have posted the revised summary. Any questions, please let me know. Hopefully, you'll talk before reverting since this summary is still within the word limit maximum of 700 as agreed in Wiki guidelines.Aspenguy2 (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I've put that in, but made a few small changes otherwise consistent with your points. I still don't think its necessary to bring up George (save that to cast), but did make sure to explain why Cohaggen has a bomb. --Masem (t) 15:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with talking about Cohaagen's motivation for the bomb because he expressed that sentiment in Quaid's recovered memory.

I really think the George/Kuato combo is important. In my reviewing of the scene, Benny shoots George and the "twins" collapse. To me, it's obvious that George is dead, but we know Kuato is alive because Kuato then implores Quaid to start the reactor before Richter shoots Kuato in the head to kill him. Can't we come to some agreement to re-word this so it's more accurate to how it unfolds in the movie?Aspenguy2 (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The main problem I had with how you had George is that he's just suddenly there in the plot, whereas each other major character had some type of introduction. I have added George and kept it to 699 words. --Masem (t) 16:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Great edit! I'm glad we could agree. Yes, I agree about suddenly adding George without an introduction, but nothing is perfect in this world. We'd violate the 700 rule and I don't want to cross that threshold at this point.Aspenguy2 (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I reread it and George is introduced "...conjoined to his brother George." Doesn't this address your concern?Aspenguy2 (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I added that, as you didn't have it in yours, that's what I was trying to say. --Masem (t) 17:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I made a minor edit, you put Cohaagen instead of Richter as the shooter. I fixed that.Aspenguy2 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you overedited the second to last sentence. I changed it to "Breathable gas bursts out of the mountain, saving Quaid, Melina, and the rest of Mars' population. As humans stand on an outcropping looking at the newly blue sky and breathing the new Martian atmosphere, Quaid momentarily pauses to wonder whether he is dreaming or not, before turning to kiss Melina." We could even consider changing "...breathing the new..." to "...inhaling the new..." to get rid of the multiple use of "breath" in different forms?Aspenguy2 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Gee, I've become obsessed with this article and keep reading it my mind like having a song stuck in your brain. I've been thinking about this sentence - "Breathable gas bursts out of the mountain, saving Quaid, Melina, and the rest of Mars' population." I'm thinking it would be better to phrase it like this - "Quaid, Melina, and Mars' population are saved by the breathable gas that bursts from the mountain". They're both 16 words long but is a more "factually" correct wording of the sentence. As I said, obsessed with some bizarre attempt to make the wording of this article "perfect".Aspenguy2 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, nicely written, thanks for the new text.Aspenguy2 (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Production Budget - where did Verhoeven book get their figures?

The production budget section seems to quote pages from a book about Paul Verhoeven. I found that IMDB has a website, Box Office Mojo https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=totalrecall.htm, is a website providing financial information about a movie's production. The site shows a production budget of $65M. What is the source in the Verhoeven book where they get the range of $50-$65 million? Is it a verifiable source? If not, shouldn't this be changed to verifiable source since this is the Wiki standard?Aspenguy2 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is what the book says (accessed by clicking the link in the reference):

The Internet Movie Database estimates Total Recall's budget as $65 million. Bill Florence, in a series of articles about Total Recall that appeared in Cinemafantastique magazine, reports that Carolco Pictures, the production company that financed the film, estimated the budget ranged to be between $50 and $60 million, although the actual costs were, at one time, believed to be as high as $73 million. Whatever the true figure is, Total recall was one of the most expensive films produced at the time of its release.

So the 50–60 figure would seem to come from Carolco itself. Maybe a more pertinent question would be where did Box Office Mojo get their figure from? It seems nobody knows how much exactly it cost. Betty Logan (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I thought BOM used whatever sources they could get their hands on, and not so much insider information. --Masem (t) 21:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know where BOM obtains its budget information from. The assumption that the budgets are as "official" as the grosses is not a correct one though. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

BOM is now owned by IMDB. I expect an inquiry to BOM would be prudent to see where they got their figures. Again, we have the problem of verification. There's probably no one left at the current incarnation of Carolco who can substantiate any figures.Aspenguy2 (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if we emailed them and they told us (which is pretty unlikely I would think) it would still not be verifiable. There are several figures floating around. This is not uncommon for film budgets. Sometimes audited information does come along at some point, but if that doesn't happen we shouldn't cherry-pick figures, hence the range. Betty Logan (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but as my father always said, "...it never hurts to ask...". Film and TV production are notorious for "creative accounting" practices. If you could ask James Garner, he would tell you...Aspenguy2 (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

original story

The original story is available on Internet Archive; it was published in the April 1966 Fantasy and Science Fiction. The protagonist's name was originally Quail, not Quaid. 100.15.127.199 (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Biderman, Shai (2007). "Recalling the Self: Personal Identity in Total Recall". In Sanders, Steven M (ed.). The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. The Philosophy of Popular Culture. pp. 39–54. ISBN 0813124727.
  • Litch, Mary M (2002). "Skepticism – Films: Total Recall and The Matrix". Philosophy Through Film. Routledge. pp. 7–36. ISBN 0415938759.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Real / Dream

What I don't get is why it's assumed if its a dream he would get lobotomized at the end, as the "schizoid embolism" could also be part of the dream (and most likely would be, considering that their plan during the schizoid embolism shown was to erase his memory and dump him, so the only real reason to lobotomize him would be that as a consequence of his "schizoid embolism" [not shown] he had a dream in which we saw the "schizoid embolism" which was shown). Whilst the "doctor" claimed he would be lobotomized, quaid or hauser had these notions in his head and this could have been an attempt to statisfy his subconscious (dreams are meant to do this) [though arguably, it could also be a point against it, as why would they wish to address a topic that would take away from the realism of the experience if it was not to satisfy his subconscious].

However, i think its more likely that it was a dream. for instance, he may have never even gone to recall, it could all be an implanted memory, or he went to recall and they implanted his very visit to recall and before that. that would explain the dreams of the woman before he went there, however the screens showing a blue sky on mars cannot be explained away like that except as a coincidence (they cannot be dismissed as part of an implanted memory, as that is what they argue for). The only con against this theory i can see, is, the reason for inserting the additional non-mars part of the journey would be to convince him it is real, and as such, there would be no reason to insert the woman and especially no reason to implant a memory of going to recall, it would be more prudent to remove that memory entirely.

The only sound point I can see is that the story was told from an external perspective, and when the director seems to have put in thought on making the film be suggest that it could be a dream (though still having it being real a possibility), it seems likely this was an oversight, but still this does indicate its real. Verhoeven deliberately made the movie ambiguous, stating it is up to the viewers to decide if it was a dream or reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.60.6.163 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, the more I think about it, I think I could go on forever... the only point I can't see two sides of the coin for is the external persective... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.190.154 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing being a delusion is really the only thing that makes sense. It was obviously meant to be ambiguous but the idea is purposely put in the movie, not made up later by fans (like the "zion is really part of the matrix" theory) so it really only makes sense that its all part of his mind since the scene with the pill would be completely pointless otherwise. Any other explanation bassicly turns the story into a standard "man against the government" story, something that isn't exactly original or facinating making it pretty pointless to go that route. 174.42.206.246 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

but that dosnt make it nessecarily right, the plot of the film is intentionally meant to let you draw your own conclusions as to what happened to him, the fade to white at the end strongly suggests he was lobotomised and the title of the rekall dream itself (blue skies on mars) suggests that he is dreaming the entire episode, yet scenes like his dream about melina before he goes into rekall heavily imply the opposite ...although it could be argued he pulled her from his first dream to the rekall one as he did with all the other characters in his life their is no evidence that says that he did ....it is all conjecture and varies on the fans perspective thus whilst this is not a fan made up plot element or plot examining it is certainly no justification to say that the "reality" side of things is not what happened because that would make the film crappy or not to your expectations as your phrase

"bassicly turns the story into a standard "man against the government" story, something that isn't exactly original or facinating making it pretty pointless to go that route"

strongly suggests ....some people like that sort of story and i think the fact you can draw your own conclusions adds to the films quality rather than detracts from it

i understand the point you are trying to make and kind of agree but citing "boring movie otherwise" dosnt realy justify as to why this is the case when their is also a lot in favour of the other plot

Tony Spike (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Plot revisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're confusing what a themes section is for. Themes sections are not for what the writer/director said they were for, but for what experienced people can interpret from them as well. Also we are not in Texas, you cannot remove a valid source because it isn't saying what you want it to say. I completely agree with Vest's opinions on women in the film, any woman on screen is generally a prostitute, slutty, or fat. She's literally called "fat lady" in the credits. Whether intentional or not, it is very easy to discern some misogyny in the film regarding it's treatment of women. One of the reviews refers to Stone as Schwarzeneggers "slut whore wife" so it isn't some fringe opinion. Similarly, American conservatives are all about the white guy, typically American, saving the day, even if that isn't in the official manifesto. Any 80s movie analysis will offer a similar opinion like with Rambo. A second source isn't required to satisfy you personally, but at the same time I don't doubt one could be found either. That said, I'm busy working on other articles so I won't be going fetching one right now either. The general point here is that just because you disagree with their opinion does not mean it is invalid. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
EDIT, also, Vest has written like two full books on the work of Dick. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
In response to "you're confusing what a themes section is for" I will requote what I said above "or those points where analysis of the film have reached a conclusion about the content" which seems to imply that we've already agreed to the definition. In order for something to be qualifiable as a theme it needs to have at least some consensus among those who have analyzed the film. Here there is no consensus about "conservative subtext" or the suggestion that "femininity is a source of moral or physical deformity". In fact here is a quote on this article which goes in direct contrast to that: "Wilmington noted that the violence and mutants never seemed to be depicted out of "sadism or callousness"."
"American conservatives are all about the white guy" - this is your political opinion and bears no relevance to the definition of conservativism, or to the article.
"I completely agree with Vest's opinions on women" - I thought we didn't care what our opinions were on the article? I also agree, I belive there are plenty enough sources from various points to create a section relevant to sexism in Total Recall (although likely not racism), it would belong in the "Criticism" section. However the way it is written about from this particular reference is very overblown in proportion to what the general consensus is and it's presented as factual where it is one person's opinion, so it would require a full rewrite, several references, and if "Vest 2009" features it ought to be written in such a way as to make it clear that we're quoting from them, not directly taking what they say as fact.
"A second source isn't required to satisfy you personally", but it is required to satisfy Wikipedia's reliability.
"I'm busy working on other articles", if you don't have the time to fetch other sources, then the sections should be removed until those references can be satisfied.
ChessFiends (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a BLP article where controversial comments need to be removed pending validation. As per BRD, unless blatantly provocative, a questioned section can stay in place - especially if it's already sourced - while it is discussed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Yep, I'm not going to remove it while we discuss. But it seems to me that there are no references that will corroborate this author's far-out opinions in the way they are presently written in the article. ChessFiends (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't have the time right now to respond to all of that, but the guy who played Benny literally threw his script across the room because his character was described as a "black jivester". He's also like the only main black character in the film and I think the ONLY black character in the film? Like I haven't watched it recently but I'm trying to think and it's pretty damn white. We can debate semantics but it's pretty easy to interpret racism in the film, again even if it wasn't intentional. And no the sources don't have to have corroborating sources that share a similar viewpoint. They just have to be opinions by educated and recognized professionals. As for the conservative thing, my response is jokey but I've worked on a number of 80s action articles and the ties to the Republican prominence of that era, particularly Reagan and/or Vietnam, is very common and again not a fringe theory. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This is veering further into your own political beliefs and away from the point. I'm sure you mean well but I hope at some point you reconsider what racism is. If you truly want to ensure that racism is removed from the world (as I hope we all do) you would make sure that the term is used precisely and sparingly so as to preserve the true horror of its meaning. It does not apply here.
There are only a few protagonists in the film, one of them is Schwarzenegger, another is a Hispanic lady, and the other a black taxi driver. All antagonists are white. Even were there more black people in the cast it would not magically make it less racist, nor would it make it more racist if there were no black people in it at all. The only racism would be if a certain race of people were intentionally excluded from the cast. Would you really say that's the case here? From my perspective it would take someone quite obsessive to imagine such a thing without evidence.
"And no the sources don't have to have corroborating sources that share a similar viewpoint. They just have to be opinions by educated and recognized professionals." If you are writing outside of quotes you are making a statement of fact. If these statements of fact are questionable they ought to be referenced from multiple sources. These points about the film are VERY questionable. You might find they have merit, but most read these and see them for the biased opinions that they are.
"it's pretty easy to interpret racism in the film" It's easy to interpret bad faith in any situation. There used to be such a thing as charitable thinking about peoples' motives.
"...ties to the Republican prominence of that era..." You might be right! Reference it from a more reliable source in this article and it will be irrefutable!
Mel Johnson Jr threw his script across the room because he had the previous day attended an audition for a "horrible Black exploitation film" so he assumed the worst on his first take of the script, but quickly realizes he was wrong and describes his character as: "Wow, a fully realized character that he was. Usually it's one or other, this buffoon or this flat-out villain. But that wasn't Benny."
ChessFiends (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I think I would agree with ChessFiends here - themes should reflect intentional elements put into a work by filmmakers and not what others happen to see, particularly in years well after a film has been released (see WP:PRESENTISM). That type of commentary is part of a film's reception or legacy, but separate from themes. --Masem (t) 19:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I can always count on you Masem to do the opposite of the thing I need you to do. I had to pass both Ghostbusters articles through FA and to do that I had to include themes about pollution and immigration that are interpreted from the film by outside experts. It would be impossible to do a Themes section based entirely on whatever the creator was consciously doing because they're not going to say "oh yeah I was kinda being misogynistic here", "oh yeah, a little racism there". It's no different than the constant analysis of 80s action films as a response to Vietnam, despite the creators not explicitly saying that or even intending that at all. The other name used for the Themes section is Thematic Analysis or Cinematic Analysis. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Also you can both just read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Themes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Right, and here still is where PRESENTISM applies. At the time Total Recall was made, few would have batted an eye at the issues of sexiam or racism at the time. Today I can fully understand why some would see that, but that's because the world has changed. Themes for a film or a work should be presented in the context of the time the work was produced to prevent PRESENTISM issues from coming about. --Masem (t) 19:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
As an example, we don't say "racism" is a theme of Song of the South - as at the time it was made, it was a sad state of how the world mistreated blacks - but it has become a clear example of how films of that period have been identified as highly controversial with better awareness of civil rights and the likes. There's numerous reliable opinions on the racist nature of Song of the South published well after the film's release, but they're included as part of the film's legacy, not its themes because at the time, its seemingly racist nature wasn't seen as racist. Similarly, at the time Total Recall was made, that wasn't seen that way either. --Masem (t) 19:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I find the content reliably sourced. Regarding the section heading, I somewhat see why "Themes" by itself wouldn't be considered the best choice if mixing what was intended versus unintended. I think a layperson understanding of themes would be more about what was intended. So I'm fine with something like "Thematic analysis". For what it's worth, the Featured Article Mulholland Drive (film) writes "Themes and interpretations". For content separate from the filmmaker, I've preferred "Analysis" or "Critical analysis". Oh, just remembered -- American Beauty (1999 film) has "Themes and analysis", and Tender Mercies has "Themes and interpretations". So I think two-word+ options for this particular kind of section provides more flexibility. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Song of the south wouldn't have it as themes because there is external commentary about it. It doesn't need analysing or interpreting, it just is. There isn't an option for that here because Total Recall hasn't been cancelled for these interpretations, they're just viewpoints. I never looked at it that way until reading for this article, but I can certainly see where someone can look at it and see sexism or racism, intentional or not. But as Erik says, renaming the section for clarity might be best. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Find sources at the time the film was made (+/- a couple years) that talk about the film's racism and sexism in a thematic way and then that would be reasonable to include in a themes or themes/analysis section (As per Eric's statement above). But right now, the sourcing is so distant from the film's release and reflects more about criticism of the film rather than themes or analysis that trying to work that into themes is a problem under PRESENTISM. Not that this material can't be included, just not as "themes" but part of the film's later legacy or criticism, clearly identifying that this is something that has come about over time. --Masem (t) 23:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I just don't understand what you mean. Any analysis is going to be post the film's release and people might discover it on home video or streaming. Why do the opinions have to come from a time contemporary to the film? If you look at something like Trading Places, there will be more recent analysis(analysi?) on there about the racist aspects, even if they're covering a similar theme. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's what the Trading Places article is doing that the Total Recall article is not:
  • Trading Places has many different references from various journalists, printed pieces and film reviewers to ensure that the points being made have consensus.
  • Racism is a theme that is actually explored in Trading Places itself! The film is not being accused of being racist from what I can read, that would belong under "criticism" or "Legacy" IF more than one person actually has levied these complaints at the film.
  • There are no statements which flatly copy the tone from the source such as "His repeated references to having multiple children reinforced stereotypes of African American men as irresponsible and promiscuous.." in what way is that a FACT?! (John McClane has multiple children, it's a common trope to get the viewer to more immediately appreciate the good work ethic of the character) "Many female characters in the film are presented as prostitutes or mutants, suggesting femininity is a source of moral or physical deformity" this is not a FACT. "However, he perceived a more conservative subtext in which the white protagonist saves a society of the less well-off who cannot save themselves" this needs to be a quotation from the author or it sounds like WP is in agreement with something most reviewers actually disagreed with (most of them spotting left-wing themes in the movie). "violence is essential to Total Recall's story of individuality and freedom, and as such is the domain of the archetypal white, masculine hero Quaid." This sentence is purely ideological in nature, about as biased as you can get.
There are so many problems with these paragraphs that they ought to just be completely removed. Tone, wrong section, neutrality, only one source (and that source is clearly very biased), and yes also presentism as Masem mention above.
ChessFiends (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I can't imagine being so bothered about this ChessFiends, you seem bizarrely upset. You've yet to somehow discredit Vest, who at a casual search seems to be more the professional than you or I, so removing sourced information isn't really acceptable. It can be re-worded, it can be segmented into an analysis section, but you've not really justified removal. Again, every woman in the film is a seductress, liar, prostitute or mutant, so I can see his/her point, but it is analysis so again maybe it needs reorganizing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
You've not responded to any of the points we've all now made... can you reply at least to how you consider the above four sentences factual enough to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? I don't intend to "discredit" Vest, they seem to do that well enough for themselves. Yes, it can be rewritten into a criticism section, but that would require a full re-write because it needs more quotatons rather than directly stating things as fact, and it would need more references from other sources to establish that there is indeed a number of people who criticized the film for "sexism" or "racism". Like I said above, there's surely enough on the point of sexism, I'm doubtful there will be enough to justify it being called a "racist" movie.
ChessFiends (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
As I stated above, the content is reliably sourced. I think there can be discussion about the quantity referenced (not sure if Total Recall has been analyzed by others that warrant incorporating for a well-rounded mix), and perhaps some wording clarified. For example, with the sentence, "The film has been accused of sexism and misogyny," it's not clear to me if only Vest is saying this or if he assessed others' commentary and found this to be a trend. If it is him, say his name. If it was critics and other commentators in the time since the film's release, say so.
Regardless, I really encourage approaching this in a disinterested way. Find sources, determine their reliability, and summarize their content in a balanced way. It seems like if you consider Vest to be unreliable, with your claims of him being biased, then you would not support referencing him at all in the article. Is that right? Then if the consensus is against you about using him as a source, what then? To then try to dictate how much he should be referenced, seems like a rearguard action stemmed in still considering him unreliable. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I addressed your points originally, I'm not re-addressing them over and over, this isn't my job, it's my hobby. I haven't even gone through Google Scholar yet, these sources were just things I found while researching the main article, but I guarantee you it would pass FA with the content as it currently is. I will eventually go through Google Scholar to beef it up but it's not a news article and I don't have to do things based on your schedule mate unless you want to start paying me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Erik As I understand it anyone is qualified to criticize a film as long as they have some background in the subject or related subjects, Vest qualifies for this, but he does not qualify to have statements be taken directly from him without attribution as if they were factual (such as the 4 examples I gave above, and it doesn't end there), especially when the statements are so patently dubious, go counter to a number of other qualified film reviewers, and as @Masem pointed out are clearly looking at the film in a retrospective lens through modern values. The key question I suppose is: if one person (even if well qualified) accuses any film of being racist, does that mean it deserves its own section? It can definitely be put in the criticism section and should largely be within quotations so as to better distinguish opinion from fact.
Another major problem I've just realized is that we don't give any explanation of who is talking, the paragraph nebulously begins "According to Vest..." where we ought to elaborate on who is speaking: "According to Jason P Vest, a Professor of English at the University of Guam...". And then "Linda Mizejewski suggests...", rather than "Linda Mizejewski, a Professor of Women's Studies at the Ohio State University, suggests".. not exactly something that should qualify for FA... This would at least give the reader some ability to evaluate the content in accordance with their respective fields...
@Darkwarriorblake, you seem to be getting a little rattled now, nobody's saying anything about a schedule.
ChessFiends (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I will start that I think Vest's commentary absolutely is appropriate to include, but I agree that we can't use one person's commentary to claim broadly a film is racist or sexist. That absolutely has to be an attributed statement. Even if you had two or three similar statements, that's still something that you'd say "Some found the film racist..." --Masem (t) 01:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake Are you happy with these edits? Although it still only takes from scholars of a very far-left bent where a spectrum of opinion is available, it is at least currently presented with a neutral tone. ChessFiends (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'm always thrilled when I do all the work, write 17,000 words on a topic, and all someone can do is whine it's analysis section is not right-leaning enough for them. Wikipedia - The most unappreciative place on the web. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I guess all on this thread are to take away that you intend to continue writing from a biased perspective in your next 17,000 words. For what it's worth, I'm not right-wing (something you have so many times intimated); I despise Trump and the far-right just as much as the cult of wokeism that's rising on the far left, which these sources emblematize. Those two poles represent the current disintegration of civil society. I'm not American, and I don't want WP to be more right-leaning. I want it to be balanced, as the project was originally intended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU I hope you at least try to understand where I was coming from on this thread, maybe you could learn something from the retrospection. Happy editing. ChessFiends (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes I must be so biased I'm getting all these articles through FA. The difference between us is that I just googled "Total Recall" and wrote about what I found, and you did nothing, turned up once it was done, and then complained that an educated person's opinion should be removed because it doesn't fit into what you believe is accurate. One of us has a bias, and the other is me. Later tater. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I see, sadly restrospection is beyond you. I was glad to see this small slice of what Wikipedia has become. Thank you for your time. ChessFiends (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Budget

Can someone please clarify the budget figures please? In the infobox we have a range of $48–90 million, while the sourced range in the article states $48–80 million. One of these figures must be wrong.

Also, I can't access the book sources so can someone who does have access to these sources clarify the context of the highest figure. The Vest source states this:

"...Cinefantastique magazine, reports that Carolco Pictures, the production company that financed the film, estimated the budget to range between $50 and $60 million."

The $48 million figure would seem to be more or less in line with that, but the $80/90 million figure is way over that figure. Indeed, if it had cost that much it would have made Total Recall the most expensive film ever. Can we clarify the actual wording for the higher figures. For example, does it explicitly state the budget was $80/90 million, or does it just put the "costs" in this range (which could feasibly include marketing. It's just that the upper-bound figure seems very high to me for that period. Betty Logan (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This and this says it was one of the most expensive films ever made at the time, though Terminator 2 beats it out the next year, so that part is accurate.
So that's all I have. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Production (Early History)

I removed incorrect information in the following statement:

The development of Total Recall began in 1974, when producer Ronald Shusett purchased the adaptation rights to science fiction writer Philip K. Dick's 1966 short story "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" for $1,000.[a] Shusett had read the 23-page story by the then-little-known pulp fiction writer in an April 1966 edition of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction.[12]

I stated for my edit reason that Philip K. Dick was not a "then-little-known" writer in 1966. He had won the Hugo Award (by vote of science fiction fans) for the 1962 novel "The Man in the High Castle". PKD was one of the top American science fiction writers of the 1960s, and by April 1966, when F&SF published "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" (an issue I have in my collection) had also published notable 1960s science fiction novels "Martian Time-Slip" (1964), "The Simulacra" (1964), "Doctor Bloodmoney" (1965, nominated for a Nebula Award, voted by the Science Fiction Writers of America), and "The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch" (1965, also nominated for a Nebula Award). It would be reasonable to say the story itself was little known in 1966 (although it was quickly anthologized), but it is not reasonable to say that PKD himself was little known. I protest the reversion of my edit. Hifrommike65 (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It's sourced and his own article says that he was unknown outside of the science fiction community. To say his name recognition is the same as is today would be false. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 13:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Total_Recall_(1990_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1166830338"