This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, Fiction yes, but "Science" is rather debatable, as the movie overtly has them violating laws of physics. With no atmosphere you could fall through the earth within 40 minutes, not 17 as depicted. With atmosphere it's more like 63 hours. But you would burn anyway some few kilometres down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.143.60.50 (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Good start, just a couple of notes in your citations be sure to include the author, date and publisher. Also typically the cast section precedes production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Total Recall.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC) |
"Douglas "Douglas" Quaid"? - is this correct? Sleepysod (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not a remake. It is based on the same source material as the original film, but is substantially different than that film. In what way can this be considered a remake? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The two warring territories are the "United Federation of Britain" and "The Colony" (Australia). There is no mention of Euroamerica or New Shanghai. (Source: I just watched the movie.) Damon Killian (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
He's not in the film his scene got cut here's proof: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Total-Recall-Director-Len-Wiseman-Talks-Future-Glowing-Tattoos-Film-Missing-Cameo-32286.html it's an interview with the director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean199813 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I've watched the film, it only mentioned that "At the end of 21st century, a global chemical war..." instead of "2084" and "WW3". Also, the UFB only contains the present UK (or Europe, I am not sure, but I didn't see US).
Also, can anyone confirm what is shown for "Cohaagen", "Matthias", "McClane" in the ending roll? (Full name or last name only) Thanks. --TX55TALK 08:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I deleted her from the Cast, but Rusted AutoParts reverted it with "the character is a well remembered one and the highlight of this overall failure". The character may be a well remembered one, but it not relevant to the story and is just a side track that ends directly. As we disagree with this I want some more opinions to see if she should be kept in the list, or deleted. 81.233.34.70 (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The British Film Institute in it's weekly box office figures lists this film as a UK/USA/Canada production, http://industry.bfi.org.uk/article/18137/UK-Box-Office-31-August---2-September-2012, just wondering whether the infobox should be changed?--81.109.72.78 (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions that there was a tie-in video game based on this movie for the iPad. Where can readers find this information? Should it be included in this article, or perhaps written about as its own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.144.86 (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Can we please find consensus as to what to call the reviews the film has received? It seems there is a daily cycle of changing it from mixed, to negative, to mixed to negative, to mostly negative, etc., ad nausaeum. -- Nczempin (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I just watched the movie, and I don't know if I have a different cut than everybody else or someone watched a lot closer than I did. I don't think that is the case. The last sentence of the plot says "It's heavily implied to be a dream because the stamp has vanished." Well, I watched the movie and there is no clear angle of the stamp area because it is covered with a bandage. Is there a chance that someone got spoilers or saw something from production press about how it was supposed to end and missed the memo when they changed it, because you literally can't see the spot that they are talking about. I'll leave this up for a little while and then change it if no one mentions anything to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.132.55 (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The directors cut clearly shows there to be no tattoo that was put there as part of the Recall procedure, indicating everything is a dream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.94.105 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I just watched the director's cut too & noticed the ending, where his arm is shown without the tattoo, which implies that everything after the Rekall scene didn't actually happen -- although this raises two contradictions: 1. how could he have had the dream with Melina in it? and 2. The Rekall technology is always identified as something that implants memories, not creates present virtual realities to live in so WTF. This is either intentional ambiguity or sloppy plot contradiction. I'll add a last sentence to the plot section mentioning this difference in the director's cut -- unless someone thinks we need a new section with differences between the two versions. Let me know. Giordanob (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
i agree ...whilst it is heavily implied the chemicals reach his arm before the plug is pulled i feel the last scene in the directors cut is simply a way of expanding on and rectifying this error in the course of the plot especially when on the version i just watched (the none directors cut) when he steps out of the ambulance (and when he wakes up and fights with his wife) their is no bandage on the arm with the tattoo and their is a small round mark where it should be that looks suspiciously like it (the bandage is on the wrong shoulder to the one he was injected and tattoo'd on) Tony Spike (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The release says "As of October 13, 2012, the film made $58,877,969 domestically and $119,576,799 outside of the United States for a total of $178,454,768" yet the article intro says "grossing $196 million". So did it gross 178m or 196m? I would chase it up myself, but frankly, I'd rather castigate whoever just adds crap without checking for conflicts. Hopefully, if enough people do that also, the net result will be more QUALITY edits because the bad editors are too embarrassed to show themselves any-more MrZoolook (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
the directors cut has an alternate ending that was mentioned in earlier versions of this article. i don't know who removed it, but it should be reincluded --92.193.54.12 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
the following: "Possible sequel[edit] In July 2012, Farrell mentioned the possibility of doing another film.[50] Producer Neal Moritz said "if the audience likes it, we’ll make a sequel."[51]" Something vaguely worded like this is said about just every movie in Hollywood. Until an actual sequel comes out, this section can be removed. Cuvtixo (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Unlike...the short story, the setting is on a dystopian Earth, not Mars." The short story takes place on earth; the protagonist wants to go to Mars, and in fact has gone to Mars before the story starts but doesn't remember it, but at no point during the story itself goes to Mars. The source cited for this sentence in the article (an interview) never claims the original short story took place on Mars, but rather talks about how this movie is less like the original movie, which took place on Mars, and more like the short story. I went ahead and removed "the short story" from the sentence, since it's an inaccurate claim both factually and via the source linked, but didn't add anything about how the original short story took place on earth, because I don't know anything about Wikipedia's style policy or how to cite a work of fiction. Sorry if I'm breaking any rules here. 68.117.218.93 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I researched this actor and found his Wiki entry. So, I updated his cast entry, hopefully this is the correct way to publish it.Aspenguy2 (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Surely this should have the under title link that read should not to be confused with Total Recall (1990 film). 83.100.188.53 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)