PDA

View Full Version : Total Recall Remake


digitizedboy
01-03-09, 18:07
Damn, I heard the news recently when my mom told me yesterday... and since I love this gem of a 90s movie it totally peed me off!

here's some sites;

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=53284

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Total-Recall-Gets-A-Total-Remake-6302.html

Come on, at least let the movie have two decades before you ruin it with an inferior, inevitably Paul W.S. Anderson directed remake fellas.

I say, not remake it at all... what would be the point? It was a gem of a movie (and not even 20 years old yet), it had the action hero (good old Arnold), the effects were pretty damn amazing for the time and gave an abosolute impression that he was actually on Mars. And what better climax to a movie could you ask for? Oh I dunno, is it really worth remaking? What's your point of view?

Neteru
01-03-09, 18:11
It's far from a perfect films and could indeed be improved in a number of ways. Though it's a favourite of mine too.

"Get ready for a surprise!"

Mr.Burns
01-03-09, 18:12
Hollywood's running out of ideas for good flicks so hey, instead of putting out films with decent storytelling and plots, let's just remake a classic, dumb it down, hype it up for the ADD sex craved generation. We'll make a killing!

Yea, I hope not but it probably will go through.

@Net: True but well executed despite the flaws. Best line from the movie btw :)

Punaxe
01-03-09, 18:13
What is up with all the remakes? :eek: Not saying it couldn't be good, but... You know...

remote91
01-03-09, 18:14
I love this movie, why can't they just leave it alone?! It has absolutely no need to be remade.

TombRaiderLover
01-03-09, 18:14
It seems a remake is announced every week . . .

Goose
01-03-09, 18:37
As if anyone can walk in Schwarzenegger's shoes and pull it off.

Mr.Burns
01-03-09, 18:44
Maybe they'll cast Shia LaBeouf.


G-d, I can't believe I thought of that.

digitizedboy
01-03-09, 20:06
It's far from a perfect films and could indeed be improved in a number of ways. Though it's a favourite of mine too.

"Get ready for a surprise!"


yep, there are flaws to this movie, but with post 80s you can't expect too much. I love that scene btw! :D

Hollywood's running out of ideas for good flicks so hey, instead of putting out films with decent storytelling and plots, let's just remake a classic, dumb it down, hype it up for the ADD sex craved generation. We'll make a killing!

Yea, I hope not but it probably will go through.

@Net: True but well executed despite the flaws. Best line from the movie btw :)


I totally agree. But another greate quote was "consider that a divorce" when he shoots Sharon Stone. :vlol:

As if anyone can walk in Schwarzenegger's shoes and pull it off.

How can you replace the guy? It's his best role, and not only that! he's an action hero. He has that status in movies. Who do we have nowadays who can take on that role? You're completely right.

Neteru
01-03-09, 20:16
I love that scene btw! :DSo do I. It always made me chuckle.

It's odd for me to think of this as a 90's film. I always think of it as an 80's film because it just has that feel for me. Anyway, I think I'm gonna have to put the DVD on tonight now.

Mr.Burns
01-03-09, 20:28
So do I. It always made me chuckle.

It's odd for me to think of this as a 90's film. I always think of it as an 80's film because it just has that feel for me. Anyway, I think I'm gonna have to put the DVD on tonight now.


Well it was made on the cusp of the 80's and 90's so that's not unusual. :)

IceColdLaraCroft
01-03-09, 20:28
Maybe they'll cast Shia LaBeouf.


G-d, I can't believe I thought of that.

:smk::smk::smk:

Shai couldn't fit one shoe let alone both! What a :cen: :cen: idea

Shame on you!

Angelus
01-03-09, 20:29
I haven't seen the original. :eek:

Neteru
01-03-09, 20:33
I haven't seen the original. :eek::eek:

Quick everybody, stone the heathen!

Burnsy, I'm very intrigued to see what the bluray edition is like.

Mr.Burns
01-03-09, 20:41
@Angelus: You deprived man. We insist that you see it at once :)

@Net: It's available at the local Best Buy, I'll swing by there and get it this evening. What I've read the special features are lacking but I'd be interested in how go the transfer is. Those lovely massive nose implants, mutants and eye popping scenes better be good. :)

oocladableeblah
01-03-09, 20:54
I don't think I have seen it either. I wish Arnold was an actor instead of out governor I like his movies at least the ones I have seen.

irjudd
01-03-09, 20:59
Maybe they'll cast Shia LaBeouf.


G-d, I can't believe I thought of that.
:mad:

Mr.Burns
01-03-09, 21:00
:mad:
Could be worse, they could cast Keanu Reeves.


*runs and hides from irjudd*

Neteru
01-03-09, 21:05
^:vlol:

As to the bluray transfer, I've read similar.

TombRaiderLover
01-03-09, 21:10
I haven't seen the original. :eek:

Neither have I, unfortunately. I wouldn't be surprised if I enjoyed it, though. Paul Verhoeven + Philip K. Dick = sexyness.

Neteru = Check bluray.com. It's very likely that they have a review.

EDIT:

Lionsgate implants Total Recall onto Blu-ray disc, and this 1080p, 1.85:1 transfer is a disappointment. The picture is quite grainy and generally lacks fine detail and clarity. An absence of vibrancy and depth is noted immediately after Quaid's nightmare in several shots in both his bedroom and kitchen. In fact, I had to forego posting a screenshot of Quaid and Lori in bed after his nightmare because the picture lacked even basic definition, and you could hardly tell who the actors were. Some scenes show excessive dirt and debris, especially during special effects-heavy shots, and the presence of such meddlesome nuisances is apparent in many scenes, but in a decidedly less-than-intrusive amount compared to the few shots where their presence is undeniably distracting. The random hair and line also pops up on occasion on this print. Many green screen effects are plainly obvious on the disc as there is sometimes a glow around the actors as a result. As mentioned above, detail is fairly unimpressive, although I did note some background objects I'd failed to see before, but that might just be because I'm viewing the film on a substantially larger television set than ever before. Still, background details are hazy, as are some foreground details. Black levels are solid but exhibit a slight bit of crushing. Colors are mostly uninteresting. The red exterior of Mars is predictably weak, but the various interiors of Mars, like the inside of the club where Quaid meets Melina is fairly bright and vibrant with a few neon signs, good lighting, and decent reproduction of the various colors of clothing worn by the cast. A fine layer of grain is present over the image, spiking in a few shots but maintaining a rather consistent, unobtrusive level throughout. Flesh tones never seemed too out-of-whack to bother noting. While Total Recall could look worse, it certainly pales in comparison to most other Blu-ray discs I've reviewed, but then again, it's never been a glamorous, beautiful movie to begin with.

Source: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=85&show=review

digitizedboy
01-03-09, 21:27
Oh gee.. everyone is talking Blu-Ray now.. A technology I haven't even grasped hold of yet. :| you lucky guys! To be honest though someone told me there wasn't much difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. A little quality difference that's all, which is really not that noticable.

Neteru
01-03-09, 21:29
Yes, I think I've read that review before. Doesn't look good. I'd still like to see it for myself though.

EDIT:^ Then the person must be watching on a 1950's TV set. The difference between high definition and standard is amazing.

TombRaiderLover
01-03-09, 21:35
A little quality difference that's all, which is really not that noticable.
I came across a demo of the Transporters Blu Ray in Blockbusters and stood mesmerised at the amount of detail. I could see each individual grain on the screen. I can't wait until I get a HD TV.

digitizedboy
01-03-09, 21:49
Yes, I think I've read that review before. Doesn't look good. I'd still like to see it for myself though.

EDIT:^ Then the person must be watching on a 1950's TV set. The difference between high definition and standard is amazing.


Probably, he's a cheapskate like me.. Doesn't delve into buying the new stuff. But gee.. now you say it, I might get it.

I came across a demo of the Transporters Blu Ray in Blockbusters and stood mesmerised at the amount of detail. I could see each individual grain on the screen. I can't wait until I get a HD TV.

Really? I can't understand it though, do they edit them movies via computers and stuff to make them more outstanding? Damn I really must look at it. I'm curious. But does this stuff only look spectacular if you have a HD TV or something? Seriously though, a movie is a movie.. it's great having all that technology and whatnot, but if the movie is GREAT it doesn't really bother me that much.

Neteru
01-03-09, 21:52
I think quality of image makes a vast difference to enjoyment. I mean, think of it this way, if you slightly detuned your tv, would you enjoy what you watch as much with the degradation of the signal? Surely not. So imagine then improving the image the other way. Consider also, for example, how some fast moving scenes can be a bit confusing sometimes as it all rushes by in a blur. With HD you get much crisper fast moving scenes where detail can still be seen. It does make a difference.

EDIT: And yes, you need a HDTV. No good connecting a HD player to a standard definition TV, otherwise it will just look the same as DVD.

TombRaiderLover
01-03-09, 21:56
Really? I can't understand it though, do they edit them movies via computers and stuff to make them more outstanding? Damn I really must look at it. I'm curious. But does this stuff only look spectacular if you have a HD TV or something? Seriously though, a movie is a movie.. it's great having all that technology and whatnot, but if the movie is GREAT it doesn't really bother me that much.

It has something to do with the number of horizontal scan "lines" that make up the image. The more lines, the more pixels, and therefore there's a greater deal of detail.

Blu-Ray and HD are 1080i. That's the number of lines that the image is comprised of. There are over two million pixels in the image.

I believe standard definition has only 400-500 scan lines, so obviously there's a lot less pixels, therefore less detail.

Watching Blu Ray on a standard definition TV won't do justice to the format. Blu Ray and HD Ready televisions comtemplate each other nicely.

Neteru - Definitely. Picture and sound quality make a large difference to the enjoyment of the film. Especially it a film was shot with wonderful set design and visuals, and you're watching it on a blurry VHS, you won't nearly enjoy it as much. I remember re-buying films I had on VHS, on DVD. It was like watching a different film. It's why I often double-dip, if one of my favourite films is re-released remastered.

Neteru
01-03-09, 21:59
I believe standard definition has only 400-500 scan lines, so obviously there's a lot less pixels, therefore less detail.It depends upon the system used. NTSC, as used in America only has 525 lines. PAL, as used in the UK has 625 lines, which is why so many US programmes look slightly blurred to us - a bit like when you stretch a small picture on your pc to make it a bit bigger and the quality looks bad.

And nodding about the difference seen between VHS and DVD. Same for me. Blurry to crisp. Just like that. But not noticed until the advent of DVD. It's the same with HD now. You really don't know until you see it.

digitizedboy
01-03-09, 22:06
I think quality of image makes a vast difference to enjoyment. I mean, think of it this way, if you slightly detuned your tv, would you enjoy what you watch as much with the degradation of the signal? Surely not. So imagine then improving the image the other way. Consider also, for example, how some fast moving scenes can be a bit confusing sometimes as it all rushes by in a blur. With HD you get much crisper fast moving scenes where detail can still be seen. It does make a difference.

EDIT: And yes, you need a HDTV. No good connecting a HD player to a standard definition TV, otherwise it will just look the same as DVD.


Well it's all good, but it's too much money for my liking. I'd rather spend it on a nice holiday. lol. Seriously though, if I had the money... I'd love to see what the movie "The Thing" looks like in a crisp and clear image. It must be awesome!! Damn, especially that scene where they are testing the blood. :o

It has something to do with the number of horizontal scan "lines" that make up the image. The more lines, the more pixels, and therefore there's a greater deal of detail.

Blu-Ray and HD are 1080i. That's the number of lines that the image is comprised of. There are over two million pixels in the image.

I believe standard definition has only 400-500 scan lines, so obviously there's a lot less pixels, therefore less detail.

Watching Blu Ray on a standard definition TV won't do justice to the format. Blu Ray and HD Ready televisions comtemplate each other nicely.

Neteru - Definitely. Picture and sound quality make a large difference to the enjoyment of the film. Especially it a film was shot with wonderful set design and visuals, and you're watching it on a blurry VHS, you won't nearly enjoy it as much. I remember re-buying films I had on VHS, on DVD. It was like watching a different film. It's why I often double-dip, if one of my favourite films is re-released remastered.

Oh damn, I know nothing of the latest technology whatsover. I feel like a noob. lol

TombRaiderLover
01-03-09, 22:07
It depends upon the system used. NTSC, as used in America only has 525 lines. PAL, as used in the UK has 625 lines, which is why so many US programmes look slightly blurred to us - a bit like when you stretch a small picture on your pc to make it a bit bigger and the quality looks bad.


Ah, I remember Joe (Angelus on this forum) telling me that NTSC DVDs looked worse, only a couple of weeks ago. I was quite surprised to hear that, as DVDs in the US tend to get the superior treatment (not to mention the fact that they have the correct running time.)

digitzedboy - I was just today reading about the Blu Ray release of The Thing. Apparently, the picture is brilliant, though it's rather lacking in the extras department.

IceColdLaraCroft
01-03-09, 22:12
I haven't seen the original. :eek:

what? have you been stuck under a rock on Mars with your fingers in your ears?

I bet you don't even know the meaning of yellow crayon!!!!

irjudd
01-03-09, 22:13
Don't forget about cabling! HDMI to be precise. No use having a Blue Ray player and an HDTV if you don't have the bandwidth to push the pixels through :cln:

TombRaiderLover
01-03-09, 22:15
Don't forget about cabling! HDMI to be precise. No use having a Blue Ray player and an HDTV if you don't have the bandwidth to push the pixels through :cln:

Ah, yes. I just wasn't sure whether or not it applied only to PS3 players.

Agent 47
01-03-09, 22:29
i wonder what the odds are of Hollywood remaking a film that i didn't like :(

damn, i might aswell expect remakes of every film i own :vlol:

Mr.Burns
01-03-09, 23:53
It depends upon the system used. NTSC, as used in America only has 525 lines. PAL, as used in the UK has 625 lines, which is why so many US programmes look slightly blurred to us - a bit like when you stretch a small picture on your pc to make it a bit bigger and the quality looks bad.

And nodding about the difference seen between VHS and DVD. Same for me. Blurry to crisp. Just like that. But not noticed until the advent of DVD. It's the same with HD now. You really don't know until you see it.


It's funny you mention that Boss, because British programming looks a bit fussy over here, or perhaps I need to lay off the rum when I'm watching Dr Who. :whi:

FYI, I just popped the Blu Ray in. So far the opening credits look good but I'll update once I've seen it a bit more.

Ugh, big thumbs down on the transfer. You do see more detail but I've seen older movies look better on Blu Ray. Hell, The Hunt for Red October came out a couple years later and looks WAY better.

Update: Sound's not bad, DTS HD. Still not hot on the video transfer but Kuato looks nasty (in the good way). :) It's a cheap movie, it's worth it especially if you're a fan, but the features are lacking.

Jedd Fletcher
02-03-09, 05:07
I've been meaning to see several all-time Arnie classics but have never really gotten the chance, so I haven't seen Total Recall. However, from the bits and pieces that I know about, it's a very cheesy, hyper-produced 80s-style sci-fi film. I think the only film which gave Phillip K Dick's stories the right treatment was Minority Report. It's a great film, but next to trash like Next and Paycheck, anything is.

interstellardave
02-03-09, 11:07
Hollywood just has to Hollywood-ize Philip K Dicks' works... they have to add in all kinds of chase and fight scenes where none may have been present... and big explosions, of course. Dicks' books were never about all that (although armed conflict did sometimes exist). What almost always gets lost is the deep psychological and philisophical themes that ran through his books. It's too heavy for Hollywood.

IceColdLaraCroft
02-03-09, 13:44
It's funny you mention that Boss, because British programming looks a bit fussy over here, or perhaps I need to lay off the rum when I'm watching Dr Who. :whi:

Lay off the rum ;)

I have a non HDTV (it isn't even flat panel!) and Dr. Who/British shows are perfect. A friend of mine has the whole HDTV set up and I noticed if the programming isn't offered in HD then they do come up fuzzy.

Makes me question getting a new tv.

irjudd
02-03-09, 13:48
Lay off the rum ;)

I have a non HDTV (it isn't even flat panel!) and Dr. Who/British shows are perfect. A friend of mine has the whole HDTV set up and I noticed if the programming isn't offered in HD then they do come up fuzzy.

Makes me question getting a new tv.
The lower the resolution of your display, the less you'll notice compression, imperfections or line screening differences in video. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with an HDTV. You just have to turn the resolution down if it bothers you that much.

digitizedboy
02-03-09, 14:02
Hollywood just has to Hollywood-ize Philip K Dicks' works... they have to add in all kinds of chase and fight scenes where none may have been present... and big explosions, of course. Dicks' books were never about all that (although armed conflict did sometimes exist). What almost always gets lost is the deep psychological and philisophical themes that ran through his books. It's too heavy for Hollywood.

Oh, I knew it was originally a book to begin with. But I think the idea of a guy troubled by dreams and a past of Mars was too much to pass on. I think it worked well though as an action movie despite of the "psychological and philisopical" themes that were missing.

Kamrusepas
02-03-09, 16:31
Never even saw the original (I did watch the tv show that was somehow based on it [for an episode or two] when it aired here), but I love Philip K. Dick's work, so I'll be sure to check this out :)

Chocola teapot
02-03-09, 17:25
Vry Interesting, Ill be sure to check it out. Shame about the recall.