SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jan 21 2008 01:18 pm

What do you guys think about Total Recall as a dream scenario vs. it being the true events? I think that the Rekall spokesperson sweating when Quaid refuses to take the pill gives it away that it has to be real. Thoughts?

Random stuff I've considered:

-The director even went so far as to say that he made EVERY scene viewable as either part of the dream or reality.

-I just noticed today that the lab tech at Rekall says something about the new "blue skies over mars" module for the "ego trip". Obviously this supports the dream theory.

-Why is it that Melina was on profile at Rekall as one of the woman profiles to choose from? I really don't get that. We see a pretty clear view of her face in Quaid's dream before he ever went to Rekall, then we see a very clear view of her on the Rekall monitor, and then on Mars she looks exactly like the Rekall monitor image...who the fuck knows.

-Verhoeven said that the white light at the end of the movie could signify the lobotomy on Quaid. I dunno if that's exactly scientifically corroborated evidence. Anyone here been lobotomized that can speak from experience?

I really enjoy this movie as it's both a philosophical questioning of the self and a gore-filled shoot 'em up. The way Arnold handles the first bad guys in the movie in the subway station still makes me cackle with glee every time. Also, I just realized that his friend he wastes is the annoying asshole parking ticket cop from Die Hard 2, yay, that fat fuck gets his neck broken!

Posted: Jan 21 2008 01:47 pm

Pointless Trivia: Armake21's first Games That Suck review was Total Recall on the NES.

I watched it a long time ago, but I thought it was just a dream.

Posted: Jan 21 2008 05:45 pm

As I recall, they changed the fade out. Originally, it was supposed to be a fade to white which Verhoeven intended to signify that Arnie had been accidentally lobotomized at Rekall and that having finished his delusion, he died and/or woke up.

It was then changed to a black fade out because that was more ambiguous.

In the commentary on the special edition, Arnold says he likes it better as a real story than a dream. Verhoeven obviously likes the dream idea better. Audiences seem to overwhelmingly prefer the reality theory as well.

Posted: Jan 21 2008 06:20 pm

Making it a dream would be very disappointing. Makes you feel like wow i just saw a dream. yippy yip.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

I think people in general, including myself, prefer it being reality because it sort of becomes a depressing, pointless story if it's a dream. It seems more exciting if it actually happened.

While I like open interpretations for movies the likes of those directed by Lynch, sci-fi ones like this kind of tick me off. I wish the director would just make it clear - either Total Recall is a dream or not, Either Deckard in Blade Runner is an android or not, etc. Same thing with horror films that end without resolving who survives or wins - like Hatchet (which I saw for the first time last night) ending in black in the middle of a scene.

Posted: Jan 21 2008 06:30 pm

I thought Ridley Scott confirmed that Ford was a robot.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Yes, but nothing in the movie explicitly states that. Meanwhile, Harrison Ford thinks Deckard is and should be human, if for nothing else but because it gives someone for the audience to identify with instead of all the important characters being androids.

Posted: Jan 21 2008 09:23 pm

That's why I like the original theatrical cut of Bladerunner. They don't tease you with the is he or isn't he as much.

However, I did just buy the Final Cut box set. It has the latest finalest version as well as the old director's cut and the US & international theatrical versions.

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

a box set for one movie? how different are all these versions?

I think AVP:R would have ended better if the fade out after the helicopter getting caught in the blast went right to the credits.

Posted: Jan 22 2008 12:12 am

It's a three disc set with four cuts of the movie and then trailers and featurettes and shit. It was like 29.99.

Posted: Jan 22 2008 02:07 am

I have the "original" (edit)Director's Cut I guess? I got it around 2001.

Weren't Blade Runner and Total Recall both based on short stories by the same author?

Posted: Jan 22 2008 07:07 am

Indeed, Philip K. Dick.

Blade Runner was based off a story called Do Android Dream of Electric Sheep? and Total Recall was based off a story called We Can Remember It For You Wholesale.

Minority Report, A Scanner Darkly, Next, and Paycheck are also based off Philip K. Dick stories.

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

And if you like both Total Recall and Blade Runner, I highly recommend hunting down the short-lived TV series "Total Recall 2070" because it merges both into an extremely awesome show.

Posted: Jan 22 2008 04:13 pm

If you remove the "is it a fantasy created by some virtual vacation company or actual happenings?", it kinda loses some of its edge.

Same with blade runner. The distinction between andriods and people is nigh undetectable, except that they're usually better than you and they have a painfully short lifespan. They're even afraid of death, so much that the main robot doesn't kill the main character, just so he can be remembered. Its the perfect way to show that the villian is very human, without having him give some sort of disney speech.

Posted: Jan 22 2008 06:50 pm

I hate horror movies where the bad guy walks away. Makes you think you wasted your time watching it.

Posted: Jan 23 2008 01:06 am

JEW wrote:

a box set for one movie? how different are all these versions?

Ever see Dawn of the Dead? Wink

Posted: Jan 23 2008 06:55 am

I just remembered another funny thing, the Rekall spokesperson tells Quaid that the walls will come crashing down if he shoots him...then, instantly, they do. Heh heh heh.

Posted: Jan 23 2008 07:07 am

The Matrix totally ripped off the pill idea from Total Recall.

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

the matrix also totally sucked.

Posted: Jan 23 2008 09:43 pm

I liked the first Matrix movie. The second and third seemed like bullshit that the Wachowskis pulled out of their asses once the original movie became a hit on the rental market.

Posted: Jan 23 2008 11:48 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

I liked the first Matrix movie. The second and third seemed like bullshit that the Wachowskis pulled out of their asses once the original movie became a hit on the rental market.

Grant Morrison and a woman named Sophia Stewart have both accused the dudes of copyright infringment.

If this was the case, that would explain the gigantic drop in quality and absence of subtlety thats continued on into V for Vendetta.

But, no matter the case, you don't usually have your main character ascend to godhood if you actually planned to have more that one movie.

Posted: Jan 24 2008 05:09 pm

RobotGumshoe wrote:

Grant Morrison and a woman named Sophia Stewart have both accused the dudes of copyright infringment.

Sophia was a con artist and she really lost her lawsuit. (link).

RobotGumshoe wrote:

If this was the case, that would explain the gigantic drop in quality and absence of subtlety thats continued on into V for Vendetta.

V was awesome. Far better than other comic book movies.

Syd Lexia wrote:

I liked the first Matrix movie. The second and third seemed like bullshit that the Wachowskis pulled out of their asses once the original movie became a hit on the rental market.

The Matrix made money in theaters. Also the sequels were awesome. Cool

BTW, their "Assassins" script and "Carnivore" are amazing reads. Fuck you, Richard Donner.

Posted: Jan 24 2008 05:18 pm

Tebor wrote:

The Matrix made money in theaters. Also the sequels were awesome.

Ah, so it did. For some reason, I was under the impression it didn't. I saw it in a theater.

It made most of its money early on, but it also stayed in theaters for five months. Remember those days? Remember when movies were in theaters for more than three or four weeks? Those were good times. It gave the movies a chance to succeed. Take Galaxy Quest for example. It opened Christmas '99 and made $7 in its opening weekend. However, it stayed in theaters through the end of April 2000 and grossed $71 million total.

Posted: Jan 24 2008 05:23 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

It made most of its money early on, but it also stayed in theaters for five months. Remember those days? Remember when movies were in theaters for more than three or four weeks? Those were good times. It gave the movies a chance to succeed. Take Galaxy Quest for example. It opened Christmas '99 and made $7 in its opening weekend. However, it stayed in theaters through the end of April 2000 and grossed $71 million total.

I do miss those days.

And now it's Oscar revival season so all the Oscar flicks are getting released or extended runs. Less time for other movies... Like 27 Dresses!? Woo-hoo!

Posted: Jan 24 2008 05:26 pm

Fuck, I wish it was still like that.