Total Recall (Remake) Ok I'm against this one!

[Advanced Dark]

Ok if you put what Verehoven said aside how can you explain the implant exactly matching what happens after he's implanted. Blue Sky on Mars is not a coincidence. If Paul said that then he filmed in it a way that conflicts with what he intended on doing.

 

[lou2099]

If they base the movie more on the original Philip k Dick short story We Can Remember it for You Wholesale then I won't mind a remake. The original movie was supposed to have Richard Dreyfus in the lead, but he turned it down. When Arnold was cast it was turned into a shoot em up actioner.

 

[Advanced Dark]

In the end Verhoeven states quite clearly in the special edition DVD commentary (on which Schwarzenegger also comments) that Quaid may indeed be on the table at Rekall living out a fantasy. He points out that the imagery on the screen at Rekall show the alien machine, the girl of his dreams that he asked for and a blue sky over Mars. Verhoeven points this out as Quaid is going to sleep. When Quaid/Hauser is confronted by his wife and the Rekall spokesman, Verhoeven is quick to point out that the spokesman goes on to detail the entire second half of the movie. Verhoeven also says that the movie fades to white instead of the normal fade-to-black, due to the fact that Quaid may be about to be lobotomized by the Rekall doctors at that point. Of course, Quaid himself notes that he dreamt about Melina before ever going to Rekall, which is true: in the first scene of the movie he has a dream in which he is climbing on the surface of the planet in a protective space suit, the glass helmet of which later breaks, turning his dream into a nightmare. He is climbing with a companion, but it is not Lori (whom he wakes up next to), but Melina. On the commentary Schwarzenegger disagrees with Verhoeven on the meaning of the ending.

Note from Wipedia

 

[DorkyFresh]

Ok if you put what Verehoven said aside how can you explain the implant exactly matching what happens after he's implanted. Blue Sky on Mars is not a coincidence. If Paul said that then he filmed in it a way that conflicts with what he intended on doing.

it conflicts to you, because you're not accepting that the blue skies on Mars picture are a coincidence. you're making your own rules, that's why you can't believe the whole movie took place in reality. once you put those rules aside and look at it subjectively you'll start to see that it really could go both ways. in the set of rules where it's reality, the scene where the spokesperson for Rekal starts sweating in front of Quaid signifies that the Rekal guy is real since he starts sweating (from wanting Quaid to take the pill), but in the set of rules where it's all virtuality, it doesn't mean squat.

see what i'm sayin'? you're looking at the movie at one way instead of looking at it openly. you're not allowing yourself to say think "maybe"...you just think it "is".

 

[DorkyFresh]

Note from Wipedia

that's pretty much what Verhoeven said in the DVD, i'm not gonna deny it. i even said that's what he said...

...the problem is that you're omitting the word "maybe". you're taking it as "is" and not "maybe". he never said the he DID get lobotomized, he said MAY and MAYBE.

there's no way that you'll ever prove that it took place in Rekal just like i'll never prove that it REALLY took place, because it's meant to be that way.

 

[Midnhtsun]

its been a long time since ive seen the movie so i wont jump into the debate but I ended up looking on bestbuy.com's chaper listing of the movie and the last chapter 30 sec long is titled "not a dream" sorry if this fuels the fire.

 

[fu manchu]

Total Recall in 5 secondst:
[YT]gUGkUQkw_0o[/YT]










IMO, I don't think this movie needs a remake.

 

[Advanced Dark]

it conflicts to you, because you're not accepting that the blue skies on Mars picture are a coincidence. you're making your own rules, that's why you can't believe the whole movie took place in reality. once you put those rules aside and look at it subjectively you'll start to see that it really could go both ways. in the set of rules where it's reality, the scene where the spokesperson for Rekal starts sweating in front of Quaid signifies that the Rekal guy is real since he starts sweating (from wanting Quaid to take the pill), but in the set of rules where it's all virtuality, it doesn't mean squat.

see what i'm sayin'? you're looking at the movie at one way instead of looking at it openly. you're not allowing yourself to say think "maybe"...you just think it "is".

I also don't think everything else is a coincidince like the picture of the girl, the pyramids, and the atmosphere machine on the screens at Recall. I've also seen the movie about 100 times.

 

[Dr. Fate]

A remake of Total Recall is not necessary.

 

[DorkyFresh]

I also don't think everything else is a coincidince like the picture of the girl, the pyramids, and the atmosphere machine on the screens at Recall. I've also seen the movie about 100 times.

i can see that you're not going to open up....so i'm done discussing this with you. i'm not gonna waste anymore time trying to open someone's eyes when they're not willing to see in the first place.

 

[Kanon]

I also don't think everything else is a coincidince like the picture of the girl, the pyramids, and the atmosphere machine on the screens at Recall. I've also seen the movie about 100 times.

mmm, the face of the girl starts as a computarized image of any woman, and Quaid starts seeing the woman in his dream in her as he goes unconcious... If anything, the face of the woman in his previous dream could be an indicator of everything else being real...

 

[DorkyFresh]

don't bother. he's got his own set of rules that he doesn't want to deviate from. that's why he can't see how it could've all taken place in reality....he's not willing to step outside those rules.


but i totally get your point.

 

[Fanticon]

if it aint broke don't fix it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Ummm...this is stupid

 

[Midnhtsun]

if it aint broke don't fix it.

and thats all a matter of opinion

 

[Advanced Dark]

don't bother. he's got his own set of rules that he doesn't want to deviate from. that's why he can't see how it could've all taken place in reality....he's not willing to step outside those rules.


but i totally get your point.

I'm waiting for an explanation on how it could be a coincidince that he goes to recall and:

1) He wants the secret agent implant.
2) The name of the implant is blue sky on Mars.
3) They show Racheal Ticotin on the screen at Recall.
4) They show the aliens on the screen at recall.
5) They show the pyramid on the screen at recall.
6) They show the atmopshere processor on screen at recall.
7) His mission is to go to Mars and save it per the program.

All before the implant. Then he goes to Mars, meets Rachel,learns about the Pyramid and alien artififacts, finds the atmopshere processor, and saves the planet by giving Marvel a blue sky. Then in the end it fades to white instead of black.

I have yet to see an explanation by anyone at all that can explain how all of that could be a coincidince. The odds are a trillion to zero.

Then this from the director:

In the end Verhoeven states quite clearly in the special edition DVD commentary (on which Schwarzenegger also comments) that Quaid may indeed be on the table at Rekall living out a fantasy. He points out that the imagery on the screen at Rekall show the alien machine, the girl of his dreams that he asked for and a blue sky over Mars. Verhoeven points this out as Quaid is going to sleep. When Quaid/Hauser is confronted by his wife and the Rekall spokesman, Verhoeven is quick to point out that the spokesman goes on to detail the entire second half of the movie. Verhoeven also says that the movie fades to white instead of the normal fade-to-black, due to the fact that Quaid may be about to be lobotomized by the Rekall doctors at that point. Of course, Quaid himself notes that he dreamt about Melina before ever going to Rekall, which is true: in the first scene of the movie he has a dream in which he is climbing on the surface of the planet in a protective space suit, the glass helmet of which later breaks, turning his dream into a nightmare. He is climbing with a companion, but it is not Lori (whom he wakes up next to), but Melina.

I'm totally open to the other interpretation but I need some kind of reason to believe it and I seen no explanation other than how it's a coincidince. Just like the guy said who came to save him. So let me get this straight...you dreamed of her before so she's real. LOL

 

[Bishop2]

If they base the movie more on the original Philip k Dick short story We Can Remember it for You Wholesale then I won't mind a remake. The original movie was supposed to have Richard Dreyfus in the lead, but he turned it down. When Arnold was cast it was turned into a shoot em up actioner.

I agree that going back to the source material would be a compelling reason for a remake.

 

[Midnhtsun]

I'm totally open to the other interpretation but I need some kind of reason to believe it and I seen no explanation other than how it's a coincidince. Just like the guy said who came to save him. So let me get this straight...you dreamed of her before so she's real. LOL

The qualifier may is the most important part from what the director says. That makes the biggest difference in the world thats what opens that possibility.

Also like I pointed out that the final chapter of the DVD is titled "Not a dream" aside from that I cant really argue it one way or the other till i watch it again tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Let me know what you think. I honestly have seen this film so many times it's disgusting. LOL I can't find a reasonable explanation on how it could not be a dream. The only possibilities of it being real would be:

1) The director left plot holes in the movie like swiss cheese and just decided never to explain it...and then filmed it to make it look like a dream. Stupid.

2) Everything is a bunch of coincidinces. LOL

When someone here can give me a rational explanation on how it could be real and is willing to be open to debate about it without getting all upset...I'm all for it.

 

[DorkyFresh]

I'm totally open to the other interpretation

no you're not...which is why you're not seeing it. you can't see something you don't want to see in the first place...that's how the mind works.


anyway, like i said...i'm done discussing this with you.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ No. I've watched this film and discussed this with so many more people for so many more hours you wouldnt' believe it. I've already been through this. The problem is you have not given me a rational explanation on why it's not a dream. I have. It's called a debate. Either you can handle it without getting emotional or you can't.

I'm not talking now about solely relying on what the director said. I'm talking about your own interpretation of the film and how YOU think it could be NOT a dream.

Please tell me other than coincidince...how can it be real. I gave you my explanation on why it's a dream and I have nothing from you. I am open but not to just grasping at straws and coincidinces.

So let's forget everything we both discussed above.

Now...tell me how it's not a dream. Then I'll challenge it as best I can.

 

[DorkyFresh]

The problem is you have not given me a rational explanation on why it's not a dream.

no...the problem is that no matter what explanation i give you, either it won't be good enough or you just won't accept it anyway. i've already made a post giving you some explanations and you didn't even reply to it. that shows that you either ignored it or didn't want to accept what i said...


...so a debate with you is pointless since you're not willing to be open. i'm open to debates if the other person, themselves, are open. you, sir, aren't....and that's perfectly fine. not everyone is meant to see both sides of the story. that's why Verhoeven made the movie the way he did.

 

[LexCorp]

This always freaks me out

 

[dark_b]

i read somewhere that they wanted reeve for the part?

 

[Advanced Dark]

no...the problem is that no matter what explanation i give you, either it won't be good enough or you just won't accept it anyway. i've already made a post giving you some explanations and you didn't even reply to it. that shows that you either ignored it or didn't want to accept what i said...


...so a debate with you is pointless since you're not willing to be open. i'm open to debates if the other person, themselves, are open. you, sir, aren't....and that's perfectly fine. not everyone is meant to see both sides of the story. that's why Verhoeven made the movie the way he did.

You keep avoiding the question.

Tell me why YOU think it's real. Give me a rational explanation on why you think it's not a dream based on your viewing of the movie. Not what someone else told you it was. You're telling me I'm stubborn yet you can't come up with a logical explanation from your own point of view. You just break down the conversation and point the finger at me. I'm looking for a rational debate and I've stated my case from my own perspective and you've told me I'm stubborn because I won't consider that it could all be a chain of coincidences. That's ridiculous.