Talk:Groundhog Day (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

References to use[edit]

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. 

Extremely Similar: "Doubled and Redoubled" by Malcolm Jameson[edit]

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.

Plot summary[edit]

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[edit]

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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)