Talk:Groundhog Day (film)

Added info

My previous edit was reverted because it was "trivia and excessive details", so I added some of the again. What was reverted: The fact that I included a sentence about how "It's a Wonderful Life" is played at Punxsutawney's only cinema om Groundhog day. Considering how the section mentions Rubin's relationship with the movie, this spesific detail about the script felt right to add. Was it excessive? Perhaps, but there are details that fits the description "trivia and excellsive details" way more. Do we need actual quotes from an early draft rather than just metioning that there was supposed to be a voice over? Or a picture of Anne Rice? Whatever. I also mentioned how the plot idea about a man reliving the same day came from a brainstorming session (one of 50 ideas), because it would explain how he forgot it. Which would have been less likely if that was the only idea that year. Mentioning the working title in the same sentence is such a minor detail that it shouldn't matter. And lastly, there is the part that I have put back in. Like Richard A. Lupoff story 12:01 P.M., Leon Arden's script was based on an already existing story. Lupoff's is from 1972, and Arden's from 1981. Worth mentioning becuase both were published before Rubin's own story concept from mid 80s, even if the similarities are just a coincidence. Rhynchosaur (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this will take a while:

• You are comparing a complete tonal shift from voice over narration to none, to a background detail of It's a Wonderful Life playing in the theater, something apparently not even in the finished film. This detail is added because of a sentence saying Rubin hoped it would become a perennial favorite like that film, but there is otherwise no discussion about it being any kind of influence on this film. Hence, it's trivia. Similarly, the significant difference between Rubin's script and Ramis's rewrite are a little more notable than, again, a background detail of a film playing in a theater, that does not appear in the film. The mention of It's a Wonderful Life, beyond its existing mention is trivia.
• You changed "At this point, Rubin recalled a brief story concept he had written two years earlier which followed a man who would wake every morning to find it was the same day repeating." to "At this point, Rubin recalled a brief story concept he had written during a brainstorming session two years earlier with the working title "Time Machine", which followed a man who would wake every morning to find it was the same day repeating." You have stated that it was necessary to mention this brainstorming decision to explain why he forgot it, but there's no discussion of him forgetting it or need to explain him forgetting it, or that he indeed, forgot it at all, just in the moment he called that idea. So your additions add nothing, just say the same thing in more words. The working title, "Time Machine", adds nothing considering we have a description of the plot right there.
• You changed "Similarly, author Leon Arden also attempted legal action, claiming the film was a copy of one he had unsuccessfully pitched to Columbia Pictures about a man repeating April 15." to "Similarly, author Leon Arden also attempted legal action, claiming the film was a copy of a script called "One Fine Day", an adaptation of his 1981 novel, and which he had unsuccessfully pitched to Columbia Pictures about a man repeating April 15." - So here, we are mentioning a script title, why do we care? Again, we have a brief description of the plot, a man repeating April 15, what does the title add or mention of a novel or that he adapted it from his novel? All that is relevant here is that pitched a similar story to Columbia. That's it. It's giving too much attention to a minor, fairly unrelated subject beyond the word count already allocated to it. It's fluff.
• You've since re-added this as "Similarly, author Leon Arden also attempted legal action, claiming the film was a copy of his novel The Devil's Trill, later turned into a script that was unsuccessfully pitched to Columbia Pictures about a man repeating April 15." So we've again name dropped something except it's the original novel title, not the script, and said adapted in a different way with "later turned into a script". None of this changes, enhances or adds onto the original "a copy of one he had unsuccessfully pitched," it just adds more words and name drops a novel that is so unimportant that it doesn't even come up on the first page of Google results for "The Devil's Trill novel" or The DEvil's Trill arden". It's a meaningless, pointless addition trying desperately to infer it came before Groundhog Day, but then of course it did, how else could he accuse Groundhog Day of being a copy?
• And, unfortunately for you, by your own admission "Mentioning the working title in the same sentence is such a minor detail that it shouldn't matter." Yes, exactly, it's such a minor detail that it does not matter, and does not warrant inclusion. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• There is a misunderstanding about the voice over. I didn't say it shouldn't be mentioned, just that it would have been enough to mention it without quoting from the script and comparing it with the finished one. Assuming we stick to the excessive details stuff.
• I interpreted "recalled" as in suddenly remembering something, but reading it again it is probably about how he suddenly got the idea of fusing the two concepts. Maybe it is not that important to mention the working title, but I can't see it doing any harm either.
• In my opinion it adds a little more substance by mentioning the title, and makes it easier for others to find out more for themselves if interested. It's the same reason why the name of the authors are mentioned instead of writing "two authors accused the studio of having stolen the idea from their own stories".
• The article says "author Richard A. Lupoff threatened legal action against the filmmakers, alleging the film copied his short story "12:01 P.M." and its associated 1990 short film adaptation about a man stuck in a time loop." By mentioning the name of Lupoff's story and that it had been adapted into a short film, and later feature, why not mentioning the name of the story written by Leon Arden too (or remove the info about Lupoff's story)? I reworded the new edit as I felt it explained it better. And as of just now, I did a little research. Turns out the title The Devil's Trill was changed into One Fine Day before publication: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trzsRuyHnvY That title gives more hits on Google. Quote: "It's a meaningless, pointless addition trying desperately to infer it came before Groundhog Day." That is not correct. It's a way to prevent misunderstandings. The script, which was an adaptation, may have been received by Columbia years after Rubin's idea about a man in a time loop in the mid 80s, but the novel itself was published some years earlier. It doesn't mean Columbia stole the story, but it makes it clear it was not written after "Time Machine", which some may assume, considering it is some years older than the actual movie script. And explains why the authors believed they may had a chance in court. Is it important? In that case on could ask if this entire article is important. And to clarify when I said it shouldn't matter; I meant adding it is such a minor thing, as compared to adding a whole chapter or even an extra sentence, that it shouldn't do any harm. Rhynchosaur (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's such a minor thing to mention it's too minor to mention. The article is about the film, the lawsuits are mentioned briefly in passing per WP: DUE, it's not the place to be justifying timelines of novel releases, if people need that they can follow the reference or research it themselves because the article about Groundhog Day is not the article about The Devil's Trill, all a reader needs to know is he submitted something to Columbia and he believed that Groundhog Day copied that. Lupoff's has a tiny bit more text to it because the author, the work, and the adaptation are all notable enough to have their own articles and it was given more prominent coverage in media. That means people can click through to those articles for more information, where adding "The Devil's Trill" or "One Fine Day" offers nothing of immediate value to the article. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 00:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I did leave out the year it was published in the latest edit. But I mentioned the novel, otherwise it looks like the author tried to sued to studio due to some original script. Maybe this line sounds better: "Author Leon Arden also attempted legal action, claiming the film was a plagiarization of his novel "One Fine Day", which he had unsuccessfully pitched as a script to Columbia Pictures about a man repeating April 15." Rhynchosaur (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do my edits keep getting reverted?

I’m just trying to find ways to make this article more concise. Is this like Die Hard where the description is infallible? 67.169.64.53 (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the plot, which on Die Hard went through many variations before a good version was agreed upon. The same thing happened at The Shawshank Redemption and the same thing happened here, each of which were then copy edited and went through the Featured ARticle process involving many further people. So it has been generally agreed upon that what is here works and works well, that does not mean it is infallible but the guidelines of Wikipedia also state that you can make edits and those edits can be undone, copied, pasted, etc, it does not give you the right to be upset about it. So if someone believes a previous version is better, and in terms of this being an agreed upon version, it is, then they can revert that per WP: BRD and WP: STATUSQUO. Of course because you are using different IPs instead of creating an account or logging into an existing one it's not possible to know exactly what you are talking about as your only edits are shown for today regarding this article. EDIT: And your edits weren't undone entirely, I kept the change to the last paragraph because I agree with you, but griping because you believe you have carte blanche to do whatever without others input is not going to get you far. There are over 300 people watching this article. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

1993 was the year of the family film?!

Under "Context," this is the first line, and cites one source. When visiting that source, the only occurrence of the word "family" in that context was this: For all the talk of 1993 being the year of family films, the only true “family film” among the top 10 is “Free Willy.” The only citation for this opening line is a source that doesn't make that claim. Furthermore, on the "1993 in film" Wikipedia page linked at the beginning of this section, there is similarly no discussion about 1993 being the year of the family film. This line should go, unless reputable references to 1993 being termed "the year of the family film" can be added. The problem is that the rest of the paragraph follows this opening line; just deleting it leaves it confusing. Thoughts? Indy (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)