Talk:Groundhog Day (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial text

Why is this page title double disambiguated via (1993 movie)? Was there another movie titled Groundhog Day? --mav

What do you recommend? Should it be Groundhog Day (1993) or Groundhog Day (movie)? I was trying to disambiguate it from Groundhog Day February 2. I see that Independence Day (movie) is a close parallel. I supose that is the way to go. Jeff 22:30 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

Yep, if this is the only movie by that name then Groundhog Day (movie) is the best way to disambiguate from Groundhog Day. Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Disambiguation are good places to look at when you are unsure how to best name a page. You can move the article by using the 'move this page' function. Cheers! --mav --mav

Actually, I can't move the page, because I can't get the sidebar to show up while I'm logged in. I can see it until I log in, but then I can't move the page. I've looked around and can't find an FAQ or Help or Bug to explain why this is happening. So please feel free to move the page to Groundhog Day (movie) or give me a hint about how to get my sidebar to show up. --Jeff 23:00 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

Ideas for Additional Topics

  • The difference between the original script and the movie
  • The real real town vs the film town
The real real town has its own Wiki topic already...


Italian remake

Can we add something about the Italian remake called e gia ieri, and featuring stalks instead of groundhogs? Magic Pickle 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"In the original script the author envisioned the character going through the same day for thousands of years." AFAIK, the movie could still take place for thousands of years, although it likely does not. Bill Murray's character once says something like: "Well, it only takes about half a year to learn it correctly.", but there is no way to tell actually how long the time loop lasts. It probably lasts for several years, but there is no way to be sure...

Considering all he reads and learns I think a long time frame is possible. Probably not thousands of years though. I could maybe see a hundred years however. There were also small hints remaining that Rita was experiencing "something", in least a little bit. For example in the "perfect day" he tries to create she says "this feels very familiar do you ever have deja vu" and in the last repetition she accepts his "I love you" even though(as far as she knows) he doesn't know her that well in that day either. (And elsewhere she dislikes him saying he loves her without knowing her) I don't think she was going through repetitions, but I always got the sense a few of them did sense a little something without knowing what. Especially the bartender who seemed somehow "knowing." Anyway it's still Groundhog Day in my time zone so I just watched this film a couple hours ago as I do every Groundhog's Day.--T. Anthony 04:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


For example in the "perfect day" he tries to create she says "this feels very familiar do you ever have deja vu"..... I dont think it hinted that Rita may have some memory of the past days.It was meant as a joke for what Bill Murray was doing in the scene.He was telling her how things will happen after so and so minutes insid the Restaurant.It was a light hearted comment on that. My personal opinion is that at the maximum four-five years had passed in the time-loop.Ofcourse as the Movie doesnt' show the precise timing you can guess any no. of years.But considering how much he was able to learn four-five years seem a fair guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.50.103 (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

the poster being in a thumbnail

I'm just wondering why is the poster on the infobox in a thumbinal view? the thumbinal frame totally doesn't go with the frame of the infbox.. it doesn't look so pretty.. --Amr Hassan 16:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove it.-Steven McCrary 17:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The final section of the article on the "Development of the movie" needs to be rewritten for better style.

MicroBio Hawk 20:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I sorted out the final section a bit, although I'm not sure the last sentence on where the Groundhog celebration actually takes place is really necessary. Also I changed the title on the reviews section and moved it to the bottom of the page. Jezze 21:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Annual

In the first paragraph, I don't think the movie indicates that this is an "annual" assignment. It seems more like this is Murray's character's first time to Punxsutawney and that he's not dreading this as an annual assignment, but indignant at having to stoop to covering it. Tajmahall 22:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually the first paragraph says the celebration is annual, not the assignment. However the film states this is the third year that Phil Conners will be covering the celebration. Cheviot 22:45 13 January 2006

Yeah, he's one of the station's top journalists, and he doesn't want to go out to the middle of nowhere to film a silly tradition of a groundhog waking up from hibernation. 81.232.72.53 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Um, no.
  • Nan: Sounds like a lot of fun. You must really enjoy it; this is your third year in a row, isn't it, Phil?
  • Phil: Four, Nan. Four.
Also,
  • Phil: Then it's the same old schtick every year. The guy comes out with a big stick and raps on the door, they pull the little rat out, they talk to him, the rat talks back, and then they tell us what's going to end.
It was his fourth year in a row, and he was very familiar with the job. --Kjoonlee 09:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Rating

Removed rating from the main article as it does conform to the Films Wiki Project guidelines. --^BuGs^ 19:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Bugs, seems to me there is still a great deal of debate about the inclusion of ratings. I am reverting the edit. Steven McCrary 21:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I added my comments to the WikiFilms page.

Influence on other films and television series

Many editors have claimed that Groundhog Day influenced various films and television shows without providing a citation for that influence. One such claim is this edit, which says Groundhog Day influenced a Star Gate episode. In absence of a reputable source, it seems more likely that the other films and television shows were actualy influenced by Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus. I will revert that edit but look forward to somebody providing sourced claim of the film's direct influence. The Rod 00:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In the DVD commentary, the director, Peter DeLuise, says, "As will become clear, ... O'Neill and Teal'c are caught in a short-term time loop, à la Groundhog Day, which was the inspiration for this episode."
—wwoods 06:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Great. Please cite that DVD commentary in the article. The Rod 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
"In absence of a reputable source, it seems more likely that the other films and television shows were actualy influenced by Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus" how do you figure that? a lot more people watch movies than read philosophy. --dan 06:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ned Ryerson

This edit talked at length about a guess about the origin of the name Ned Ryerson and that guess' subsequent debunking, indirectly citing this page. The post is apparently interesting to somebody, but it is not encyclopedic. The Rod 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

References bug?

Is it just me or does stargate show up twice in the references section? --Kjoonlee 19:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks to info from Wikipedia:Help desk#numbered footnotes. --Kjoonlee 03:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Usage in the UK?

Auximines deleted a comment I added some time ago, that UK usage favours the meaning of Groundhog day as something repeating itself, saying this is Nonsense (in his summary of edit.) I don't agree, and dug around the web for some examples. Here are a couple of links from BBC news articles which show it is in common usage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5388176.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/4456111.stm

The following from Collins dictionary (as of 21 Dec 06) gives a US or Canada annotation for the Feb 2 meaning, but no annotation for the repetition meaning.

http://www.collins.co.uk/wordexchange/Sections/DicSrchRsult.aspx?word=groundhog%20day

I have put the comment back in edited form.

This discussion is here because it was too long to summarise in the edit summary. 81.178.119.63 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article

Remake

According to a private interview with director Tom Shadyac, he has stated he "will think about remaking Groundhog Day". He has also considered having Jim Carrey play the main character. When asked why he wanted to direct he mentioned "Groundhog Day is such a great film. If we are able to reinvent it for today's standards and show it again to modern day audiences, that would be a fantastic goal!" Jim Carrey has not yet commented on this suggestion. {{fact}}

I took this out not only because it lacks references, but to me it seems like borderline nonsense. "today's standards" and "modern day audiences"? Standards have not changed much in 13 years. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So the director suggested he was interested in remaking a film about repetition. Sounds like the director was joking to me (if he actually said what was quoted). sheridan 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

theme?

The "theme" section seems to seriously smack of original research. While all of that stuff is true, none of it is verifiably from a third party source - this is not a venue for essays. I am considering removing the whole section, or at least greatly shortening it.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted it, it was entirely either a) rehash of the plot summary or b) original research/synthesis not drawn from third party sources.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I Got You Babe

There seems to be some confusion as to what exactly is playing on Phil's alarm clock radio when it goes off at 6:00 AM. The song is "I Got You Babe" by Sonny and Cher. The specific lyrics that are sung (just before the DJ banter) are: "And put your little hand in mine / There ain't no hill or mountain we can't climb" which come just before the song's last chorus. This song plays exactly the same every time the alarm clock goes off EXCEPT for the last time when he wakes on February 3rd. On that day, although the song is still "I Got You Babe", the tune begins at a different point in the song. The DJ's joke about this: "Not that again!" "Hey, that's a great song!" See the Wiki page for "I Got You Babe" for more details. Captain Infinity 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

music

It would be nice to have a treatment of the music. We talk about the S&Cher song. Jake 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a previous version of the article mentions the tune Phil hears which spurs him on to learn how to play piano, and the tune he plays at the party, but it seems to have been revised out of the current version. If I have some time I'll look over the history and see if I can find it. Other than that the music seems pretty unremarkable. Your mileage may vary, of course. Captain Infinity 07:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The piano music he heard was Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 15. The tune at the party I don't know about the party, but one of the practice tunes is a variation (I think) on Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini. --Kjoonlee 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed additions

I removed this

Although it previously states that there are 33 repeats of the 'Groundhog Day'. There are considerably more. On the 31st day, when he is convincing Rita, he mentions several of this deaths ( car wreck, being blown up, stabbed, shot, poisoned, frozen, hung, electrocuted and burned). Several of these deaths are not scenes in the movie but should be counted into the number of days. This along with the "8 slaps", bring my total of Groundhog days to 46.

as it is written in first person first off, and secondly is unneeded. Not sure what the "8 slaps" refer to and are the already counted? RoyBatty42 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The 8 slaps means the slaps that Rita gives to Phil after his attempt at making the perfect day. I don't know if they are counted either. But the only interesting number is how many repeats we see any part of (which might be 33, I don't know.) We KNOW there are lots and lots of other days we don't see, and we have no idea how many. So it is not interesting to count how many are referred to (IMHO). --81.178.116.105 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, for the card throwing alone, he says it takes something like six months, so we can assume that there have been at least a few hundred days. That said, I agree that the exact number is unimportant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed, reading this, and indeed the article that this was still here in a bizarre manner "The film depicts 33 different repeats of Groundhog Day)." whith a spurious bracket at the end. I removed this - the number of days is inaccurate anyhow and adds nothing to the article imho. Hope everyone is okay with this... --Baston1975 17:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree, best thing without any sourcing that makes said 33 depictions relevent. RoyBatty42 18:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Details from the film

Isn't this simply trivia? Nshady16 14:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My first thought too. 99.230.55.34 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Trees not in Poems for Every Mood

I have 3 of the poetry books "Poems for Every Mood" and Joyce Kilmer's poem Trees, is not in this book. In the movie, Phil is holding "Poems for Every Mood" but trees is not one of the poems in the book.


12:01 Groundhog_Day

  • 12:01 has a very specific introduction; until that introduction is repeated here, this is an advertizing tract.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Without this sort of comment in the introduction, this is an advertizing tract:

"12:01 PM" is a short story by Richard A. Lupoff, which was published in the December 1973 edition of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. The major plot device is a time loop or time bounce, and bears great similarity to that of Groundhog Day, which was released in 1993. Lupoff was "outraged" by the theft of the idea, but after six months of legal advice, he dropped the case against Columbia Pictures.

The story was twice adapted by Hollywood, first in 1990 as a short film, and again in 1993 as a television movie. Lupoff appeared in both films as an extra.

Main article: 12:01 PM (1990 film)
Main article: 12:01 PM (1993 film)

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 03:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"... does from daily lessons, though the original script had February 2 repeating for ten thousand years.)"

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Groundhog_Day_%28film%29&diff=188818223&oldid=188758405 >.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 17:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

tiptopbistro

This has also closed down... (see website tiptopbistro dot com) 85.227.226.235 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Please sign comments. Thanks, Steven McCrary 16:24, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

"12:01" and "12:01pm" links

"12:01" (1993) and "12:01pm" (1990) are very similar to "Groundhog Day", with one person repeating the same day over and over again. They are worth a look. Here are IMDB links to the two films: [12:01] [12:01pm] 24.195.241.149 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

There is now a wikipedia page for 12:01. Groundhog day, an urban legend about lawsuits between the two films, and the general belief that 12:01 inspired Groundhog Day if it wasn't a direct rip-off are included. It should be referenced to provide a balanced view. Lkchild 00:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Lauren Child

I added mention of the whole 12:01 series in the see-also section of the groundhog day article. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I undid a removal of 12:01 links from the "See also" list of the article. User:WCityMike removed it citing its coverage in the Time loop article as the primary reason. I think it is important to keep it here for several reasons. Primarily because Groundhog Day's script is likely just a "Hollywoodized" version of 12:01. I recall there was even a lawsuit about this. I can't remember the outcome but the two films are forever linked because of it. (I don't think it is an urban legend, Lkchild, but maybe I'm wrong.) In any case, a serious viewer of Groundhog Day would want to see both to make their own decision regarding plagiarism. I will eventually add some citations about this. While loving both films, my opinion is that 12:01 was at least "inspiration" material for Groundhog Day so it would be disrespectful not to at least mention it. Also, both films were early uses of the time loop plot device.... before it become cliche. Therefore 12:01 does stand above the rest in terms of importance and an interested reader is better served by being pointed to it than the general time loop article. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The link in the "See Also" section has been removed, and there is now no mention of 12:01, or Richard Lupoff anywhere in the article

Phil Conners is Phil the ground hog

This movie is very popular and I would just like to clear up the plot line. Both of the phils are trying to decide if the next day will be winter or summer; one literally and one metaphorically. So therefore the day cannot go on with out a decision. Could someone right this into the plot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.230.152 (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because that would be original research. — Val42 (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
how is one to fined research on ...a movie.secondly i thought wiki was undecided about the reference thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.195.16 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"How is one to find research on a movie?"? It's a whole field of academic critique. Trust us, there's been plenty written about movies in general, and plenty on this one in particular. Wikipedia is designed to be a compendium gathering into one convenient site all the useful material already out there on a topic, so if you find reliable verifiable sources with this theory on the nature of the time loop, you or anyone else will be welcome to incorporate those musings into the article. (It would help if the eventual editor learned to distinguish between "right" and "write," as well as "fined" and "find," but it's not essential.) Lawikitejana (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC), who is surprised there's no mention of the recurring love theme from "Somewhere in Time" but will look for good source material on it

Thanks to whoever the person is who cleared up plot- the predictive thing of Phil the groundhog is linked to Phil the human trapped in time loop. Obvious now you mention it. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Economists

The line about perfect something-or-other relating to perfect something-else appears twice. One with a numbered reference and one with blue text and an external reference. Don't know which to keep/delete so if someone can. Tyvm. VonBlade (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The only source here is one article on mises.org, which does not merit a mention in an encyclopedia, especially since there is no peer review. This should be deleted unless another, more reputable, source can be added. Rosedog15 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny

That's hilarious, they repeated the article. They should keep that.BigUns!!!!!!! (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Poem mentioned to man near stairs

I am unsure why some people have missed this but Phil does recite part of the Samuel Taylor Coleridge poem Work without Hope to the man near the stairs. I verified this through Wikipedia's own Coleridge page and linked to the Poetry Foundation website which has the poem here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirolli (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I looked but didn't see any mention to how much time he (is believed) spends reliving the same day. I recalled some estimate that it was ten years, but don't remember who came up with that estimate or why. Should that be included here? dimo414 (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We need a reliable source to state that. It will likely come from the film's makers. --MASEM 06:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking to copyrighted material okay

Someone removed the link to the script. I put it back. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works --John_Abbe (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


top 5 list

if someone actually would read the rest of the top 5 list it's all about films from the 1940s, not all of American cinema —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.123.123 (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Music Lesson

Another aspect of extended time is emphasised in using the theme from "Days of Our Lives" television show as piano lesson and opening "riff" for music when Phil sees Rita enter party. Cute. Day of Our Lives is a show that seems to go on and on and on. And on. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)But is it the theme from Days of Our Lives? It's familiar, but now I'm not sure! Does anyone know? ThanksErn Malleyscrub (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

On Spiritual Transcendence

The legacy of this fine movie can be viewed in many different ways. There are folks for whom the movie is a parable of life's truths, or a metaphor for cycles of reincarnation. Others may consider it just a nice romantic comedy, or about the last decent film that Andie McDowell did.

I'm fine with all of these for legacy. You want to cite the Death and Dismemberment plan, "Don't drive angry," or the astonishing increase in Wrestlemania attendance after this film came out, go for it. Just keep things consistent.

To wit: Ever since a friend of mine came back from deployment overseas in the mid-90s, calling it "Groundhog Day, the same thing over and over" it's been clear that one of the movies remarkable legacies is the connection it made between an otherwise minor American holiday and repeating unpleasantness. When someone says their job is like Groundhog Day, they aren't saying that they're hitting on a gorgeous Southern belle, or avoiding a persistent insurance salesman, or learning how to be a better person every time they go there. They means that a) it's the same thing every day and b) it is not the most fun ever. That's all.

A long time ago, I updated this reference in the Legacy section to describe how this phrase is now a common part of the language. Recently, someone added on "until one spiritually transcends it." This changes the meaning of the sentence, by adding something like clause c) "but it makes me a more spiritually aware person" to a) and b) above. My friend stationed overseas doesn't use it that way, and neither do most of the folks described in the rest of the section. I removed it.

It was soon re-added, with appropriate refs and as a separate sentence. Unfortunately, it now it changes the meaning of the following sentence, since it implies that the UK uses Groundhog Day primarily as shorthand for spiritual transcendence. I only doubt that is the intention because, until that change, the sentence indicated that people in the UK mostly use it to refer to a) & b) above. Again.

I'm about to move that clause to the Philosophy paragraph, where it will make more sense. I'm also going to move the paragraphs around so that those invoking repetitive annoyances are together, and those examining other aspects of the movie are similarly grouped. Not because spiritual transcendence isn't a legacy of Groundhog Day, but that it's a different legacy than the one I'm talking about. Patrickbowman (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The final scene

Do we really need this whole section comprised of nothing but Tobolowsky's recollections of that final scene? Is it really that significant? And is the source reliable? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Legacy formatting

RepublicanJacobite, what appears to be the problem with that edit? In a section titled Legacy shouldn't the most important info come first?----The lorax (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is only your opinion that it is "most important". The previous version was longstanding and the result of discussion and consensus. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I went against consensus, I'm just trying to get the section to flow better. It would seem that the fact that the movie has been influential among religions would trump its usage in lexicon.--The lorax (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's hash it out here before there are any more reversions, ok? The whole section is kind of long, and could do with a trim, maybe some rewording, and reorganization. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality of writing and WP:OWN

The writing is horrible. Portions of sentences like "tries more and more drastically" give the appearance that this was written by a middle school student on lunch break. RepublicanJacobite, from the edit history and talk page, you seem to have longstanding WP:OWNership issues with this article. That wouldn't be so bad if the writing weren't quite so dreadful. My edits improve the quality of the writing. BRD is an essay, not a policy, and not an excuse to block people from improving your favorite articles or changing them from your preferred version. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made additional copyedits, removed sources that fail WP:RS, and placed fact tags on uncited claims. - Balph Eubank ✉ 21:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Shadow Play: Twilight Zone episode

I have not yet found any comparison of Groundhog Day to Twilight Zone episode Shadow Play (Season 2, Episode 62). You can read the wikipedia page or, briefly: "The stay of execution arrives too late, and we discover that Grant was correct: the world was a dream for them and a nightmare for him. Everything vanishes and goes dark. Grant then finds himself in the courtroom being sentenced to death for murder again, with the same people in different roles (e.g., a fellow inmate is now the judge behind the bench)."

Groundhog Day concludes with a credible reality but Shadow Play remains set as a dream. A minor point, I feel. Just run the sequence a few more times.

I suspect that the Shadow Play writers were referring to the shadow world of dreams but there is no denying that "Groundhog" sees his shadow and Grant relives his own "groundhog day" 32 years before the movie and the phrase took on the meaning of living the same thing over and over again.

I have also posted a comment to the Shadow Play Talk pages. Maybe someone will add something to the main pages. AdderUser (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: I added Shadow Play to the Main Article under "See Also" but TheOldJacobite removed it as being irrelevant. I disagree. From the main article: The phrase "Groundhog Day" has entered common use as a reference to an unpleasant situation that continually repeats, or seems to. Shadow Play is about an unpleasant situation (Grant's murder trial, conviction, incarceration, electrocution) that continually repeats itself. And it predates the 1993 movie by 33 years. Anyone reading or writing about Groundhog Day almost certainly would like to know about Shadow Play and decide for themselves whether or not it is relevant, subject to their own critical / analytical specs. AdderUser (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The "see also" section is not a dumping ground for any topic that is vaguely similar to the article's subject. Nothing you have said above indicates there is any connection or relationship between the two topics, and they have only the vaguest similarity. Everything you have said above is interpretation and commentary that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you TOJ for posting. When I saw the re-run of Shadow Play on TV, it immediately made me think of Groundhog Day. I, for one, see the similarity and "an unpleasant situation that continually repeats". Thanks for letting the entry stay for a while on the Main page. Maybe others will comment if they want it removed. AdderUser (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your response and hope other users will chime in. Honestly, it's not a big deal one way or the other, but it would be good to hear some other opinions. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Theme played by Phil on the piano

I just discovered than the theme Phil plays on the piano during the party is Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, which is used a lot in the 1980 movie Somewhere in Time. That would make perfect sense as that movie is about a loop in time. I don't have a reference about that explanation, and I don't know if the DVD commentaries mention it. I thought it was worth saying here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.90.44 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The theme is identified by several sources and even note its use in Somewhere in Time - but there's no mention of this being intentional (it may seem like it is but that's supposition). We'd need a reliable source that affirms the use of that theme was purposely for that reference. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Buddhist connection

While there may be a similarity in the story to that from the Buddhist faith, we cannot state that connection without at least one secondary source that specifically says, roughly "Phil's journey in Groundhog Day is similar to that as in the Buddhist faith". Reiterating the story from Buddhism (with sources) and saying that Phil's journey is the same is synthesis of thought and disallowed on WP. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Groundhog Day (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary

Plot summaries on WP are meant to be concise and not empathic/dramatic, per WP:WAF. So some of the original language (like "It's February 3!" (note exclamation point), is completely inappropriate. Additionally, we seek conciseness (aiming to be under 700 prose words), meaning that we do not need to be scene-by-scene accurate if it helps to condense the summary. So for example, the stuff about him predicting the storm passing at the start, which does happen in the film, yes, is rather useless when the only place it comes to serve (why they are forced back to the town on Feb 1) is in passing. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Other passages, like "confidently reassures", "in desperation", etc. are borderline interpretation. I may err too much on the side of caution, but I try to be pretty factual when writing plot summaries and not describe emotions or motives. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a review of WP:WAF is in order. I would submit that "concise" does not mean "dull", or "poorly written", or "non-descriptive"; and I see nothing "completely inappropriate" about an exclamation point (nor does WAF, as far as I can tell). The fact that the Phil character blew the blizzard prediction is an important plot element; they wouldn't be trapped in the town otherwise. If the plot summary were running long, that would certainly be an expendable sentence; but it's under 700 words with it, so why remove it? I disagree that plot summaries should be devoid of emotions or motives; one of the principal reasons that readers consult plot summaries is to better understand the characters' actions, and by inference, what messages the filmmaker was trying to convey. A dry, just-the-facts synopsis is useless to such readers. I understand that we're not writing promo material, but we shouldn't put everyone to sleep either. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
A key part of WAF is that we are not supposed to provide any interpretation of events of a work, and this is where a lot of empathic writing falls into. There are some feelings that are obvious (in a horror film, a girl screaming and running from the killer is clearly scared), but more subtle feelings and emotions can be a problem, so we should avoid making such guesses; the only time this is allowed is if secondary sources can be used to ascribe those words to the plot. We absolutely cannot try to guess what messages the filmmaker was sending to the viewer without OR. That's why WAF does aim for rather dry, rote plot summaries, rather that something engaging. The plot summary is meant to support the rest of the article about the film, and should not be the focal point. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Groundhog Day (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This is basically ripe for a Good Article nomination

This article pretty much just needs a few things changed and it could be a GAN. Enough said -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 23:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Rita's last name

Andie MacDowell's character is listed as Rita Hanson, but she is never given a last name in the movie. (I searched the subtitles to be sure.) And the credits list her only as Rita. Is this the right place/way to address the issue? Should the name Hanson be removed? Alternatively is there a citation that could be added to clarify why the article gives this as Rita's last name? Billbaldwin2 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

DVD release

The article currently states that the DVD release happened in 2008, but the quoted source does not specify a date. And Amazon lists 2002 as the first DVD release (which seems more plausible). Also this section should mention the VHS release, which presumably happened in 1993. --LukeSurl t c 14:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Groundhog Day (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) 18:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


Assessment

A really strong article. A lot of effort was invested in this. I will try to go into some minor details shortly before the outcome.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Observation

  • I would switch the "Analysis" and "Production" sections. By logic, "Production" should go first, followed by an analysis of the film.

Thematic analysis

  • "In the bowling alley scene, Phil asks two Punxsutawney residents if they understand what it is like to be stuck in a place where nothing they do matters. He is referring to his own trapped situation, but the two men understand the feeling from their own repetitive and seemingly meaningless lives". The NYT source for this goes like this: "The two strangers listen very sympathetically. They didn't have to be trapped by a magic spell to know what he means". Is it therefore justified to extrapolate that they have "repetitive and seemingly meaningless lives"? I think the text should be closer to the original review by Janet Maslin.

Writing

  • "Columbia Pictures re-hired Rubin to assess the script and provide notes". I did not get the idea that he was fired in the first place. I assumed that he worked all the time on the script, without a need to "re-hire" him. I would wish that this could be clarified.

Filming

  • "The budget was reported to be between $14.6 million and $30 million". Source No. 1, Variety, mentions a $28 million budget. Maybe it should be removed in this sentence, since the movie was still being filmed at the time and the budget was not yet fixed.

Critical Reception

  • "The tone was described as inconsistent, and the film poorly paced, with some scenes going on too long". Source No. 90 for this, Variety, is peculiarly dated as 31 December 1992, before the movie was released. How can this be? Is it an error in the date?
  • "Siskel said that she lit up the screen when she was on". There is no source for this sentence.

Lasting critical reception

  • "...was listed as the third funniest on the WGA's 101 Funniest Screenplays list, positioning it behind Some Like It Hot (1958) and Annie Hall (1977)". The source for this, No. 147, does not lead to the said list, but just re-directs to the generic WGA.org website.

Sequels and adaptations

  • Maybe just condense to "Adaptations"?

Conclusion

I think the article meets the GA criteria. I'm promoting it, accordingly.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to do this review!
RE: The analysis quote. Is "He is referring to his own trapped situation, but the two men are sympathetic to his plight without being trapped in their own loop." better?
Rubin wasn't fired, his work was just done as he'd sold his script. I'll see if I can clarify that better.
RE: the variety review. There is a similar situation with Variety and Die Hard, their review is from January 1988. So I don't know if they were reviewing early screenings or it's a flaw in the site design/setup.
RE: the budget. I see your point but I like to have the back up source there if anyone challenges it.
I've included all my edits based on your comments here Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
"He is referring to his own trapped situation, but the two men are sympathetic to his plight without being trapped in their own loop." Yes, that would be better. As for the budget, maybe you can write something like "...by June 1992, the budget was reported to be $28 million while the movie was still in post-production". The Variety review is odd, but I guess we cannot challenge the date of their own articles.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox references

I restored inline references to the Infobox, after they were recently deleted with no explanation.[1] Until recently this was the WP:STATUSQUO. Specifically they were the references for the range of budget figures, and box office gross. It seemed like it might have been an unintentional mistake, I did not expect it was deliberate.

An editor removed them again, this time saying they were redundant. I don't think redundancy is a bad thing, and I think it is better to use WP:ILC inline citations and WP:NAMEDREFS to make sources clearer and easier to WP:VERIFY especially for figures such as the budget and box office gross. I find these figures are often inaccurate, and disputed, or badly sourced (IMDB), so it seems particularly necessary to make they references for them clear and unambiguous.

I understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason by itself but many other film article include such inline references in the Infobox. I think further explanation is needed as to why we shouldn't keep restore the WP:STATUSQUO and keep these extra references. Has there been some discussion about changing this practice for film articles?

I understand MOS:CITELEAD and references are not normally repeated in the lead/intro (but sometimes they are as, and the MOS:LEAD guidelines do it in their own article) but this is the first I've seen someone extend that logic as a reason to exclude references from the Infobox. -- 109.79.65.28 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:CITELEAD certainly does extend to the Infobox, otherwise, in every article w/ infobox (not just film), every line would need to be sourced. As long as the information is properly duplicated and easily founding in a named body section, the referencing in the lede is excessive. --Masem (t) 23:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Problems with the page.

Is there a reason for a section on the films of 1993? Also why does it mention the difficulties of the working relationship between Ramis and Murray twice in the production section. Bob3458 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

What section on the films of 1993? And the working relationship is relevant and at different points in the production, so yes? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The release section has a bit about the films of 1993 which I personally don’t think is relevant to the page Bob3458 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, it's relatively short and provides context. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Darkwarriorblake, it provides some much needed historical context to the film. Dimadick (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • King, Mike (2008). "Groundhog Day, The Apostle, and Vanilla Sky". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 225–227. ISBN 0786439882.
  • Sutton, Paul (2009). "Aprés le Coup de Foudre: Narrative, Love and Spectatorship in Groundhog Day". Falling in Love Again: Romantic Comedy in Contemporary Cinema. I. B. Tauris. pp. 38–51. ISBN 1845117719.
  • Walters, James (2008). "The Search for Tomorrow: Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993)". Alternative Worlds in Hollywood Cinema. Intellect Ltd. pp. 135–154. ISBN 1841502022.

Metaphysics of the time loop

There's an interesting article about the metaphysics of Groundhog Day in the latest issue (141) of Philosophy Now. JezGrove (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

weird gut feeling

I don't know why, but I have this strange feeling that someone chose this specific day to feature this article for a reason 67.167.161.150 (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Well i'm the one that nominated the article for this day on purpose months in advance, to be humorous. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk)
They should have made it the featured article on 3rd February as well. Opportunity missed... :( 109.158.50.106 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Articles don't run twice here. (CC) Tbhotch™ 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Would be hilarious if it ran every February 2nd though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I must admit I didn't expect this. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Time loop

It looks like Phil was not the only one who had a memory travel in a loop. Piano's teacher could have part of her memory which is a memory of Phil being her student travel in the loop, as you can see in the last time, she said "He's my student". Maybe whoever forced Phil in the loop wanted others to be impressed how they can make Phil good at things. Like it wouldn't be right for piano teacher to not be aware that she is the one who taught Phil when Phil was good at piano at the end. And I'm sure he wouldn't kick student out on the last time because then he wouldn't have a perfect behavior, which means he would have to restart the day again. The Channel of Random (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We don’t know, since not everything from every day is shown in the film, and the film gives no explanation of the nature of the loop or what causes it. It’s possible what you’re saying, but it’s also possible that Phil went into her lesson house that day, played flawlessly, and impressed her to the point where she offered him to play at the evening party. --Heymid (contribs) 01:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The joke is that he is her student but by the last loop was basically a master already. She doesn't remember him beyond that loop. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Director commentary

I'm sharing this so others don't have to bother looking it up.

Special:Diff/1022947824 removed "As they kiss, a snowfall erupts, effectively showing that tomorrow is going to be February 3" as OR. I checked the movie and Phil does look up when it starts to snow, looking surprised. But this doesn't really prove anything. So I checked the director commentary track from Harold Ramis. Ramis only mentions that the snow in the shot is fake, but the snow in the wide shot that follows is actually real. (it just started to snow so they didn't have to settle for fake snow for the wide shot) Nothing about the snow indicating that the day will change. So there's unlikely to be anything to this theory. If anyone has other questions that the director commentary might answer, just ping me and I'll check. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

When Phil learns French

The previous version of this page said Phil learned French as part of a self-improvement program. Actually he learned it in order to be the man that Rita wants. In the version of the film screening on Amazon the scenes where he learns French begin at time 48:45 Mike90095 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Everything he does after deciding to better himself, is to better himself. If he was trying to be the man Rita wants that would be the complete opposite of the film's message that he earns Rita's love because he just is the man she wants, not because he is trying to be. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
as the wiki article notes "Phil begins spending loops indulging in binge eating, one-night stands, robbery, and other dangerous activities, using his increasing knowledge of the day's events and the town residents to manipulate circumstances to his advantage. Eventually, he focuses on seducing Rita, using the loops to learn more about her so that he can try to sleep with her. "
Phil learns French in one of the loops when he finds she had majored in 19th Century French Poetry and burst out laughing with "what a waste of time!" In the next scene he has apparently learned French since the prior loop shown since he eloquently recites French poetry and tells her he speaks French.
Therefore the portion of the wiki article that says "Phil decides to use his knowledge of the loop to change himself and others: he saves people from deadly accidents and misfortunes ... and speak French" misconstrues the timeline and the intent behind Phil learning French.
I tried to correct this but an editor reverted the change. Mike90095 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
It's an minor, unimportant detail. If you want to be nitpicky, then you can remove the mention of learning French altogether. DonQuixote (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Extremely Similar: "Doubled and Redoubled" by Malcolm Jameson

See either Unknown (magazine), February 1941 or in The Unknown, D.R. Bensen, Ed. Copyright 1963 by Pyramid Books. I'm not sure whether that belongs here or not, or how to present it, but the story is quite similar, although most details vary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by C.auriga (talk • contribs) 03:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly this story plagiarized Sisyphus. But seriously, unless and until a reliable source makes any such claims or comparisions they should not be added to the article. -- 109.77.197.187 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Intro paragraph question

In the intro section of this article, I found this line

The film has been analyzed as a religious allegory by Buddhists, Christians, and Jews, all of whom see a deeper philosophical meaning in the film's story.

On first pass of this, I took it to mean “every single Buddhist, Christian and Jew sees a deeper philosophical meaning in the film’s story.” Which jumped out at me immediately as pretty funny. I’m wondering if this is grammatically correct, or if it can be reworded somehow.

Iokerapid (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I can see where you're coming from, but I think it's pretty straightforward. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I personally see all as meaning all the groups mentioned not every single individual that is in those groups.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I hope you can see on reflection how your first reading of that sentence was an unlikely interpretation, but nonetheless I made a small adjustment to clarify and make the sentence just a little more specific. I changed it to say that it had been analyzed by "Buddhist, Christian, and Jewish scholars"[2] which hopefully makes it clearer that it wasn't widely analyzed by individual religious followers or even analyzed by the clerical priest rabbi level but rather it was examined by scholars and academics. -- 109.77.197.187 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Australian Cinephile

For any input regarding the following edit: 

During COVID lockdown in 2021, an Australian cinephile watched Groundhog Day once every day over an entire year.

The section does currently mention that a high number of fans watched it all day in Liverpool and that some channels play it on repeat on Groundhog Day also, but I fail to see the notability of an individual who is not notable enough to be mentioned by name and them watching the film daily. If there were some notable outcome to that, maybe, but as it is it's an accomplishment anyone with free time can do and doesn't speak to the legacy or influence of the film itself. My 2 cents. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Groundhog_Day_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1204102381"