Talk:Total Recall (1990 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

General stuff by User:Two halves[edit]

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 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack article[edit]

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

Open Call[edit]

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 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 (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. (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Real or not?[edit]

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 (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 (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Total Recall - Most Expensive Film[edit]

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

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

Red Pill[edit]

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. 20:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Vannilla sky reference should be removed[edit]

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 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

similarity to The Demolished Man?[edit]

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)

Minority Report evolves from Total Recall 2 script?[edit]

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. -- (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Critical opinions[edit]

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)

On my edits[edit]

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)

Rekall & Kuato[edit]

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

Themes section[edit]

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

Memorable character[edit]

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"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs).

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

The guns[edit]

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)


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) (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


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. -- 06:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Real / Dream[edit]

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.

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 (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. (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 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)

Recall or Reality?[edit]

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

Director's Cut?[edit]

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)

Dream companion[edit]

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)


"**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? - (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... (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot or lead section actor names[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

symbolism in the number of head shots[edit]

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 (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 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

References to use[edit]

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. 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 (talkcontribs) 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing explanation[edit]

"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)

Unsourced Material[edit]

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)

Change Page Name[edit]

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)

Old page history[edit]

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[edit]

Who was the original author of the movie adaptations?

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

You are wrong!!![edit]

Total Recall is adapted from a Piers Anthony novel of the SAME NAME dink!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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)

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

"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 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Terbinium listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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[edit]

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)

Dr. Edgemar[edit]

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)

Critical intepretation section[edit]

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 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Production date[edit]

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)