Talk:Total Recall 2070

message: The article states that the show is based on "Do androids dream..." and "We can Remember it For You Wholesale". Would it not be far more accurate to say that this is based on the film Total Recall, and to a lesser extent Blade Runner? Neither film are particularly close their source material, and this would appear to be closer related to the films than Dick's work. Patch86 15:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to very, very strongly concur, and will make a conforming edit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I have made further clarification and cleanup edits to the lead. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The more closely I watch the show, the clearer it is that it is inspired by (not based on) the film TR and the book DADOES, and visually influenced by BR.  Have updated lead to say that. The  tags remain in place - it must be demonstrated that this is actually the case, but I have to say that anyone who has actually watched this show will agree that the current description is more accurate than the previous, equally-unsourced, one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Based on...?

message: I get the distinct impression this series also was strongly influenced by the writings of Isaac Asimov, with the Farve character seemingly based loosely on R. Daneel Olivaw and likewise his partner Hume appears to be loosely based on Elijah Baley. Read The Caves of Steel and then watch the first episode of this series and you can see the similarities (including the evolution of Hume's/Baley's attitudes toward androids) are damn near (but not quite) plagiarism. It's almost like the show's creators actually wanted to do The Caves of Steel story but then dropped it into the Total Recall/Bladerunner settings for better marketing. All of this is both OR and speculation unless someone has seen some review somewhere (in a WP:RS) that parallels this thinking. 75.80.20.99 (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Another influence...  Isaac Asimov's "Lije Baley" series

message: I removed the new section on spoilers. When I wrote this article, I was very careful not to put in any spoilers because I didn't think such points were necessary to anyone reading the article, and actually a harm to people who were curious about the show and hadn't yet seen it. Spoiler flags are not good enough - even I saw something I did not want to know in the new paragraph, as I hadn't seen every episode yet. But I don't want to seem like the King of Total Rekall on Wikipedia, so if people can present a good argument of why adding spoiler information is a good idea (like "This spoiler fact is needed to explain this thematic element"), I will listen. Spejic 03:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoilers tags are clear enough. Many articles use them. Spoilers are perfectly ok in Wikipedia as long as they're marked as such, and I put the spoiler tag first thing. And I think the spoilers raise interesting plot points. --Andromeda 16:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did nothing except show off that you watched the show.  Your section does nothing to explain what the show is about, and no other description of the show - on the web or in print, professional or otherwise - would include such information.  The spoiler tags do not exist to allow you to post spoilers, they exist to allow to make a point about the show where the only evidence happens to be a spoiler.  I can see saying something about Farve because that speaks to a central theme of the show, but it should be worded as such.  And there is no reason to describe events at the end of the season when the article doesn't mention any other event at all, outside ones that take place in the first 10 minutes of the pilot.  I urge you to reconsider your change. Spejic 07:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was this section still here? It clearly did not add any value to the article. I'm going to remove it again. It would be better replaced by an extended summary of the storyline. 222.225.38.228 05:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andromeda since you inisit on keeping this section despite the discussion here, perhaps you would care to edit it. I would, but I'm guessing you'll just revert my changes. You mention 2 plot twists, but proceed to list 3. The third of these is questionable, just what is there about the last episode that remains unsolved? 222.225.38.228 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Spoiler tags are no longer used.  However, the overall objection in this topic section is very sound, and I have removed the spoiler material with extreme prejudice. It actually pretty much ruined the show for me. I was only on episode 5 and came to this article looking for some production information and had half the plot spoiled for me. That is not the purpose of WP articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the spoiler guideline, spoilers should not get any special treatment. I support that guideline, this is an encyclopedia, not a repository of reviews or teasers, and I feel that it would be unprofessional for an encyclopedia article to have a plot summary which avoids mentioning major plot developments because they happen to be spoilers. On the other hand, I feel that the removed paragraph was inappropriate because of the way in which the information was presented. If the characters get their own entries, I would support the inclusion of that information into those entries, and if the story section gets expanded to cover the major plot arcs, I would support the inclusion of that information in the story section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I agree entirely actually - if the material is developed sufficiently to support it. The problem here is that this article is barely above the stub level, so the normal process of reader spoiler avoidance - reading basic material and not delving deeper into specific characters, plot arcs or episode summaries unless by conscious choice - is short-circuited in an article this short. Even just skimming it threw massive spoilers in the reader's face unexpectedly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: Spejic, what do you think of somehow mentioning that the series was intended to be more than one season?  I'd like to a sentence indicating that the story wasn't concluded in the existing episodes, so potential watchers know they may have unanswered questions.  I'm also curious if more information on the Japanese DVDs might be included (UPC? Japanese ASIN?), to make it easier to find them.  I bought DVDs 1 and 2 off of Amazon.co.jp, and all of them periodically appear for sale used. --GargoyleMT 14:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UPCs or something would indeed be helpful, even if only listed here on the talk page. I think the article already makes it pretty clear that the show was canceled before it fully played out, but I don't necessarily oppose any edits that clarify this even further as long as they are not over-the-top. For one thing, the statement that "the series was intended to be more than one season" is just silly - all series are intended to be more than one season, or the networks would never bother developing them. If something specific about the the show's demise and its loose ends is missing, that is a likely candidate for inclusion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the lead plot section to mention that significant plot points remained unresolved due to cancellation. That should be enough to get the point across. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Series end, and DVDs

message: Does this take place in 2070?. Roger 90 02:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Avt tor 06:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting? 

message: I have removed the following line:
:"The last plot twist, never answered due to the series cancellation, was that the mysterious manufacturer of Alpha Class androids looked exactly like Farve, only older."
In the final episode, the Maker states that Farve's form was an attempt to get the original template of its' own mostly organic android body as close to human perfection as possible, explaining both the Maker's resemblance to Farve and its' aging. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Maker 

message: It appears to be based on air date which is usually indicative of continuity. But this is not always the case (cf. Firefly). In this particular case, the continuity is completely screwed if you watch the show in this order (e.g. Collector's replacement appears as head of Rekall security two episodes before he replaces Collector as head of Rekall security!). Someone with an eye to continuity needs to redo this list in proper order, with the air dates (however goofy they may be) noted in a final column as a point of broadcasting curiosity that most readers frankly won't care about at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 13:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode list order is hosed 

message: What we really need here is for the lead to be leaner, to just mention that the show is loosely based on works by and associated with Philip K. Dick, and then have a section exploring these interactions, which are actually fairly complex. I believe that such a section can be written, with very specific citations to pages and video time codes.  I have already begun gathering this material.  I cannot promise that I will in fact write this section, as my main editing interest is cue sports articles, but if I don't get too sidetracked I may be able to pull it off. The principal tasks would be:
#Identifying how TR2070 relates thematically to TR (I don't think the original "WCRIFYW" short story will be of any direct relevance)
#Identifying how TR2070 relates thematically to DADOES (not particularly difficult; perhaps even easier than #1, since Mars plays very little role in TR2070's plot, but "andys", and cops policing them, are central, as is the theme of cops themselves being androids)
#Identifying how TR2070 relates cinematically to BR (this won't be very difficult either - various scenes can be directly compared, such as fire-spewing refinery smokestacks. Another obvious example would be crowded streets with Asian-language neon and bicycles and steam vents and fans and rice-paddy hats and giant video ads on buildings (including for offworld colonies) and loudspeaker blather in various languages and so forth) 
The main issue is that it'll simply be time-consuming. It might be best to prepare this section as a draft under, say, Talk:Total Recall 2070/PKD section draft or something so that more than one person can work on it. 
I'm not proposing some kind of fanwanking exercise in trying to reconcile continuities (which is simply impossible), but rather an encyclopedic presentation of the relationships between this work and the other relevant ones.
Ideas? Objections?
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PKD section 

message: It should probably be noted somewhere, once we get into more specific episode information, that "Astral Projections" is essentially an adaptation of Event Horizon, and that many notable aspects of both the film and the episode ultimately derive from Solaris, especially the seemingly magical local appearance of a wife who in real life is a long way away. The "save us" messages are also taken directly from E.H.. There's a bit of a Sphere influence as well, with people fighting over access to a stored alien artifact. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Astral Projections", ''Event Horizon'' and ''Solaris'' 

message: Please add a section for "reception", this section will detail how the series did both review wise, and viewer wise.  Thank you.--Kevin1gamer 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  reception 

message: the article states "The 2-hour series pilot" but the one i saw was 88 minutes..
there are no times on imdb, could someone confirm this who owns the dvd's?  —Minusf (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It probaly refers to the total television runtime of the two part pilot, including commercials. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two hour pilot?