The James Clayton Column: Things we don’t want to see in the Total Recall remake

Feature James Clayton 13 Jul 2012 - 08:21

With the release of Len Wiseman's Total Recall just around the corner, James shares his hopes and fears for the sci-fi remake...

Do you recall Total Recall? You probably do if you went to see it when it was re-released in select cinemas last week. Alternatively you may have it on DVD on Blu-ray disc. If not, you can probably go to Rekall and have it implanted into your memory for a small charge.

You may be led to recollections of Paul Verhoeven’s 1990 flick by the forthcoming release of its remake (due in August) and viewings of the exciting trailer may have the side-effect of nostalgic mental trips back to the quite excellent original. Ah, the vivid orange shades of dystopian offworld Mars; the tension etched into the face of Arnold Schwarzenegger; the scenery-chewing majesty of Michael Ironside; the incredible sight of a woman with three breasts.

It’s a great film, and a large part of that can be traced to its roots in the genius mind of Philip K Dick, for it’s an adaptation of his story, We Can Remember It For You Wholesale.

I have a thing for the Phildickean. I’m a huge fan of the author, and get a thrill out of this sort of cerebral science fiction material. This is why I’m all stoked up to see Len Wiseman’s new Total Recall in spite of my affection for the Verhoeven original. A good story, I’d say, is always worth repeating.

Generally, remakes are understandably and sometimes justifiably viewed with scepticism, antagonism or outright scorn. However, I’m a great believer that they can be a really good thing if they’re done creatively with intelligence, style and good intentions, and I think that Total Recall meets the criteria as a concept that’s worth rebooting.

People, I think, approach remakes from a biased perspective, remembering all that was wonderful about the original and, thus, are susceptible to the danger of closing their minds or getting cut off behind rose-tinted glasses.

If they can even get to the point of acceptance where they’ll allow for the existence of a remake, they can’t extricate themselves from the memories of the first run’s best bits. The experience of the same story the second time around suffers if it doesn’t have those things or at least inferences to them.

I suppose that explains the presence of Bubo the irritating mechanical owl in Clash Of The Titans and its sequel Wrath Of The Titans. Someone thought that the artificial avian was the most excellent aspect of the Harryhausen-and-Harry Hamlin original and decided to drag the silly little critter back for successive cameos.

I don’t tend to agree with this sort of thing, and I’m more of the mindset that we should brush off the past and get radical with re-spins. It’s high time for a significant break, and to return to Total Recall I’m hoping that Wiseman, Farrell et al are serving up something that’s suitably dissimilar to the Verhoeven classic – a film that has no place for clingy nostalgia when there’s optimum opportunity to innovate and channel the fresh spirit of a new cinematic age.

Time will tell, but I’m trusting that this will be the case for the new movie. The divergent aesthetic and tone on display in the trailer, and the fact that there’s no going to Mars this time around are reasons for optimism.

Once again, I really like 1990’s Total Recall, but I can recall aspects that I’m not so keen on, or that I simply just don’t want to see repeated. Here’s my hitlist of stuff that should not appear in the new adaptation...

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Arnie is an action legend, and I will always have a great amount of respect for the Conan The Barbarian and The Terminator icon. He did a good job stretching his range in Total Recall, but his appearance will always be problematic as I struggle to see him on screen and not think, “ah, the Austrian Oak is finding this all very baffling”.

Even more so than being a distinctive Paul Verhoeven joint, the 1990 blockbuster is undoubtedly more of a star vehicle than a Philip K Dick adaptation. This is an excellent opportunity for the story to step out of the vast shadow of Schwarzenegger, so I hope there’ll be no cameo, no subtle allusions to the old Doug Quaid and no “This never happened to the other fella!” moments from Colin Farrell. If I see Arnie this August it should be in The Expendables 2 – not in Total Recall.

Doug Quaid in disguise as a woman

When Schwarzenegger’s Quaid arrives on the Red Planet, he does so in disguise in a sequence I find strangely unnerving. He opts to inhabit the body of a large red-headed female before succumbing to untimely spasms in a malfunction that blows his cover at customs. From there his face convulses horribly, his wig falls off and his fake head breaks down like a filing cabinet for convenient use as a bomb to toss at the shocked guards (“Get ready for a surprise!”).

There’s something oddly jarring about this tech-edged ‘Arnie as a Russian doll in drag’ breakdown and I don’t think I’d like to see Farrell’s Quaid go through a similar ordeal. No clandestine cross-dressing cyborg freakouts this time around, if you please.

A woman with three breasts

Is a woman with three tits really that titillating and attractive? Mary the mutant hooker (played by Lydia Naff) has gone down in geek history as an iconic pin-up thanks to her extra breast, but I’m not sure if her triple-threat should really be appreciated as something exceptionally sexy. The Last Resort brothel’s top draw raises a lot of doubt about nature, love and raises potential performance anxiety for those who’d get intimate with her. For example, between which pair of breasts would one put one’s head? Could you ever buy adequate lingerie for this lady? Would you find it difficult to deal with others’ staring?

No offense to Mary, but it just doesn’t seem natural. I think that Doug Quaid should be concentrate on his memory conundrum and shouldn’t be at all distracted by the appearance of weird cleavage.

The signs for Total Recall 2012 are promising, but there’s still time for reshoots and interference in the edit suite, so it’s not safe to say that we’ve escaped from the aforementioned offensive articles yet. If they do appear I’ll be very upset. I’ll be so upset I’ll have to go and get my memory wiped and have it replaced with a nice imaginary holiday to Mars.

James Clayton can remember it for you wholesale after he’s visited Wikipedia and been promised a vacation to Mars as payment. You can see all his links here or follow him on Twitter.

You can read James' previous column here.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Im sure I saw the woman with 3 breasts in one of the trailers - you could see her cleavage and she was wearing no top and in the same trailer Colin Farrell uses some sort of holo emitter to change his face

Haven't you seen the trailer? It's been out there at least a week and maybe longer.....the woman with 3 breasts is there for all to see. And yes, I was disapointed given that this is meant to be the original story and not a remake of the film!

There are many other great novels and short stories by Dick that have no movie version. Verhoevens' movie was great, so there is no need for this remake (I could understand the need for remake if the first version was s#!t).

I'm still waiting for the "Ubik" movie (although one could make a case that Inception was actually revised version of "Ubik"), "The Man in the High Castle" movie, "Deus Irae" movie etc.

It's all there. The name is that of the original movie, not the novel, the woman with three breasts is there, even the same chair. This is going to be a lame and unnecessary rehash, just like most remakes nowadays.

Nothing about this movie is really exciting to me, form the bits I've seen they are not adding much to the story but just making it more relevant to the present technology and cinematic expectations which usually makes for a very hollow movie. I would be more than happy to be wrong about this though as Dick's ideas are fantastic and could and have worked well on screen and to see some of the source material being used and the over the top action of the original gone would be a welcome thing. (Not that over the top action does not have it's place)

That being said I am all for the triple breasted whore being in the movie. I did not find it exciting or erotic in the first film but it was funny and for whatever reason one of the more memorable scenes in the film for many people. I think when a remake does a quick wink and a nod to it's original it can be really fun, that is if the whole movie is not built on the nostalgia of the first film and is aptly standing on its own two feet. On a semi related note I've always wondered if the original hooker was a reference to the Triple Breasted Whore of Eroticon Six from the works of Douglas Adams.

We already know 2 out of 3 of these. The woman with 3 breasts is there, along with the line "I only wish I had 3 hands" and this time the disguise is a holographic asian man. It's there in the trailer, you see the hologram malfunction revealing Farrells face.

I feel I should add one reminder to everyone dismissing this movie for containing references to the 80's flick as if it can only be a straight adaptation or a remake but not both and that is... John Carpenter's The Thing, it took it's title from the 50's version, right down to it's title sequence, and had many visual nods back to aspects of the Hawks film. It's a remakey/sequely/adaptation, and it's brilliant. What'll make the film good or bad will the film being good or bad, not what name it goes with and having too many/not enough references to Verhoeven.

I don't think I remember this movie as nearly the "classic" that everyone seems to feel recently. sure it was a colourful Schwarzenegger vehicle, but masterful? cerebral science fiction? who are we all trying to kid? more like cheese-tastic.

I'm always up for any stab at translating Dick to film, but I don't feel the original is some hallowed thing i can't see past. If anything, it may have an easier time being a sci-fi story when it isn't also having to be an arnie movie.

Militant Dwarf Hooker? It's the elephant in the room. Questions is. Is it to soon to be reuniting Farrell with an angry person of reduced stature.

Sponsored Links