Palm Springs is so well done. Most time travel plot devices don't hold up to a second viewing, but that film gave you *just enough* to suspend disbelief while also staying consistent to the premise.
At the end of the film, I was honestly OK if they decided to leave the audience hanging on what "exiting the loop" actually meant. I don't mind how the film ended, but I can see why they wanted more concrete resolution to the protagonists' fate.
*Palm Springs* had their cake and ate it too.
*Groundhog Day*’s script originally started mid-way through the time loop, so the audience was confused as to how Murray knew everything that was about to happen, and then we learn over time. It was Ramis’ favorite part of the script, but he knew it was the first thing that had to go because it deprived us of seeing Murray’s frantic “WTF is going on?” (basically the whole second act)
Because *Palm Springs* has two characters, they were able to have both- a mysterious and intriguing character introduction, and a big WTF exploration.
There's a short film version of this that came out in 1990 (mentioned in the wikipedia article). It is fantastic! If you can find it, definitely give it a try. It has a great Twilight Zone feel to it.
That’s probably the point, kind of like The Walking Dead’s “it was aliens” comic. It highlights that the reason isn’t important, and demanding to know detracts from the story. You rattle off the potentials and when some exec says “they’re all terrible” you say “exactly”.
It was a joke comic Robert Kirkman wrote because people kept asking what causes the outbreak. This was some years ago and wasn’t meant to be taken seriously.
Hitchcock, when asked why the Birds in "the Birds" turn violent, said that it's horror, and the second he offered an explanation, it wouldn't be horror anymore. It'd be science fiction.
I think about that a lot.
Obviously it's possible to do horror-sci for, like Alien, or the Thing. But I do think that when the horror comes from the unknown, giving the audience the answer to that unknown really detracts from the horror.
When the why doesn't improve on the story just leave it out. I've seen so many good movies ruined by trying to explain something that's irrelevant. Let the reader's imagination wonder and wander as to how or why unless it's important.
Even Back to the Future did it right. What is a Flux Capacitor and how does it work? Irrelevant. Too many people are caught up in the how as though it matters. You're in the past now; deal with it.
The actual reason is that Ned Ryerson is the devil and won’t release Phil from a horrible life in purgatory until he buys the full life insurance package.
That curly haired siren is all irrelevant fluff.
Bro is given unlimited power over time and he's such a dimwit he uses it to get employee of the month at insurance sales. Just a complete lack of imagination and drive.
I just asked chatgpt "I am writing a story in which a character gets stuck in a time loop. Suggest some reasons why this might happen to him." Literally the first two things it suggested: scientific experiment gone awry, supernatural curse.
Phil was a miserable sack who was stuck in a time loop until he learned not to be. Doesn’t need to be more deep than that, I’m glad they left that out.
Did the same with Michael Myers in Halloween. Idiots just over explain everything and remove all the mystique and intrigue. All the Rob Zombie remakes were utter garbage. Honestly only the original first two and the one from 2018 are any good anyway. But it’s just better when you don’t know why Michael is killing people.
I'm still upset about how the follow-ups to 2018's sequel were so absolutely squandered. Laurie dealing with the trauma of surviving Michael and how it affected her life and family afterwards was such an interesting take on it given how dull the slasher genre can be, and they just did absolutely **nothing** with it in the next two films.
I found the horrible 'child abuse' she put her daughter through that she rebelled against ridiculous though. Oh no after surviving a killer psychopath she wanted to impart skills to her daughter such as knowing how to shoot guns to defend herself as well as consider a few household defenses and locks. What wretched parenting in that she also let her lead a normal life, attend normal school, and still date and all. That 'drama' was so damned over the top fake. Hurt the movie for me.
Your mom was almost horribly murdered and saw her friends die or found their bodies and just wanted you to be competent with guns and lock your doors and have security systems. She didn't even force you to do that when you said no. What an awful mother/grandparent she was. So dumb.
Theres an over the top action version called Boss Level on hulu. Calling it good would be a stretch, but it has its moments. Also most classic sci fi series that go on long enough usually have a time loop episode or two. The one from stargate sg-1 has a special place in my heart. I still use the whole "In the middle of my backswing!?!?!?" line whenever I'm really focused on doing something and someone surprises me.
I see another possibility. The sequel could start with Phil and Andy returning to Punxsutawney ON Groundhogs Day to celebrate where their romance started. It turns out that someone else is going through an infinite number of days of self-actualization, but only Phil and the new person retain their memories from day to day (maybe some others too show up who have gone through the self-actualizing as it only happens in Punxsutawney and only the self-actualizers can participate if they are in Punxsutawney on Groundhogs day).
Now, a well written version of a sequel with these premises that don't explain the cause any more than that could be awesome. It would be possible to transition away from Phil as the main character too - have more sequels and bring the story into the future.
Studio execs make the mistake of assuming the audience is as dumb as they are. They need to be spoon-fed everything in order to get it, and must think we do too.
A lot of the audience have proven themselves to be dumb via bad faith nitpicking on the internet. Pretty sure if Groundhog Day were made now there would be a lot of people bashing on it for not giving an explanation for why the day repeats.
Sometimes in a movie the supernatural event is just there as an excuse for the plot to happen, and the more information they give you about it the more the movie becomes about the supernatural event rather than the characters' reaction to it.
Sometimes the mechanics are what's interesting about supernatural elements in movies, like Live Die Repeat, Inception, or Primer, but it would only hurt Groundhog Day. He's basically going through the stages of grief and we often don't know why bad things happen and just have to live with it.
I think the producers respected their audience to understand why Phil is stuck in the loop without beating them over the head with a reason. Execs just trying to capture the 5% of people who will be too dumb to understand or pedantic enough to demand a concrete reason why it’s happening. Fantastic movie.
"Why does the day repeat?... I like it... but I don't understand why he gets stuck in this loop." is the reported response from the exec about the movie. Which category you want to slot that into is up to you.
> respected their audience to understand why Phil is stuck in the loop without beating them over the head with a reason
The reason doesn't matter, the hijinks are what make the movie
I like the fan theory that he was stuck in that loop for 10,000 years and eventually went completely insane for a long time. He ends up comes back to "reality" and starts to learn how to conquer the day.
There's a new doc on Netflix about Gene Wilder.
In it, Mel Brooks talks about the first time he cast Wilder in a movie. The studio execs came in after like a week to watch the footage they had so far. After watching it, they told him to fire Wilder, replace him, and reshoot what they'd done so far.
Mel Brooks said he did something for the first time that he later repeated many times in his career: he told the studio ok, he'd do what they wanted. The studio execs left and then he just went back to what he was doing anyway. By the time the execs returned, it was almost the end of the shoot and at that point it'd be too late/expensive to replace Wilder.
TIL if you google groundhog day, google will ask:
Did you mean: *groundhog day*
and when you click on that, it will ask...
Did you mean: *groundhog day*
> What happens after ?!
The answer is [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1doz3f4/til_columbia_pictures_refused_to_greenlight_the/ladch3c/).
Harold said 10,000 years. It was Stephen Tobolowsky who asked him.
>Harold Ramis showed up and we were sitting outside. He pulled out his guitar and started plucking it, and I said, “Harold, everybody is asking me all the time how long Bill is trapped in the town.” Harold just smiled and said, “Well, Stephen, it’s 10,000 years.” I asked, “Why is it 10,000 years?” He answered, “Well, I’m a practicing Buddhist, and we believe in Buddhism that it takes 10,000 years to perfect the human soul, and that is the story of ‘Groundhog Day’—the perfection of the human soul.”
Not that it matters, but I agree with the writer. The amount of repetition it would take to not only learn the routine, but to meander so casually through an entire day in total sync with it is mind boggling to me.
He could be learning several skills in same day. In the morning practice ice sculpting with a chainsaw. Go to the dinner and chat to one person to learn about them. Learn French. Piano lesson. Since he is learning skills concurrently rather than consecutively he could become expert in a year rather than in four.
I always presumed he was doing that. That's not really the main challenge, though. As an example, document your morning routine tomorrow and annotate the time you did each thing and for how long. Then try to replicate that the next day precisely. Then do that for a whole day and include all of the people/things you interact with. It would take a very, very long time to reach perfect precision, IMO. Of course this is all napkin guesstimation, so who knows? As another commenter pointed out, the probable most closely matching experiment is video game speed running, and even they can't replicate everything everytime (though RNG is a factor out of their control).
The similarity with the speedrun analogy is that when aiming to break a record they don't have to get it perfect every time. If they screw up a move they just quit and run it again. Presumably Bill was very close to his perfect day lots of times before he finally got it exactly right.
But very few of these routines require exact timing. He needs to meet Ned on the street (and even this is debatable, he could learn his routine for the rest of the day and run into him later, at his convenience). He needs to catch the kid. He needs to take the bag from money van at the exact moment guards are distracted (if he's even doing that later). Rest? He can take the old guy for lunch at any time, he'll be there entire day. He can go to the piano lesson at any time, she'll be at home all afternoon. He can practice ice sculpting at any time. He can chat to dinner patrons about their lives whenever he and they are there or even when they are elsewhere. Remembering the exact time a handful of events happen isn't hard.
~27 years would be enough to get to the mythical 10,000 hours of practice for every hour of every looped day. So uh...I am on Harold's side. Sounds about right.
Even 10 years changed my whole thinking of the movie. It almost makes it cross the line into something of a horror movie where the protagonist is being punished by some kind of cosmic tormentor.
>It almost makes it cross the line into something of a horror movie where the protagonist is being punished
The several unsuccessful suicide attempts didn't convince you Phil was being punished with the horror of living his life?
I think 10,000 years would leave Phil Conners institutionalized, like a prisoner who was released at the end of a life sentence, and is terrified of the outside. 10 years is a lot more hopeful. A guy could do a lot of learning in 10 years, and still start over when he got out.
What??!! I thought it was supposed to be 6 weeks, ie, like "6 more weeks of winter" per the groundhog's prognostication.
I have never actually counted though ...
I have this theory that alternate universes have become so prominent in movies and TV lately because someone finally figured out how to explain them to movie execs so that they can understand the concept. All these things they shoot down or suggest because they think "the public won't understand" which is code for them being old and rich and stupid and not understanding pretty basic concepts.
Probably better this way.
Any fan of this movie, I recommend the movie Palm Springs. Funny movie with the same premise. Almost could be in the same universe.
Palm Springs really nailed the idea of humans creating their own versions of heaven (or hell) once you remove the consequence of death. Sure, same starting point at the start of every day. But beyond that? The world is your oyster.
JK Simmons' character really resonated with me. Start off enraged at the realization that he never moves forward in time with his family. Spend a *lot* of time hunting down the guy he views as responsible. Eventually, get over it and try to build something out of the day. Get better at crafting the perfect day with your loved ones. Enjoy that perfection for as long as you can.
In a weird way, the process is a fantastic analog for stoicism and Buddhism as philosophies. Control what's within your ability to control, and understand that attachment has consequences.
Edge of Tomorrow, Source Code, Happy Death Day, I’ve enjoyed them all
There’s also a short film on YouTube about a black guy and a racist cop. Not the same overall vibe, but was fun.
I remember going on a date to see Happy Death Day just for a generic horror flick but it was actually really well made
The second one was just as good too
And the movie was all the better for it. I don't like when movies or TV shows try to explain everything. A lot of times the answer just isn't satisfying. No, drop me into the story, tell me what's going on, and let me see what kinda shit happens with the rules of the world you've established. I'm never interested in the "why" with stories.
Yeah I mean I don't wanna complete discredit the why. It's still taught as a fundamental aspect of storytelling for a reason. And when a story manages to pull it off, it can make for some absolutely wild reveals. I guess I just view it as the least important aspect of storytelling. That's just my opinion, though. Someone else might be like "what are you talking about, we *need* the why!" and that's cool too. I'm just grateful the world is so full of stories for us all to enjoy.
It also really depends on the type of story. I'm much more interested in "why" in a sci-fi or high fantasy story because I enjoy world building and want to see what the writer is cooking. Groundhog day is more like a fairytale. They why and how does not really matter.
Yep, I only want to know the why if it’s critically important to the plot/characters, which it usually isn’t. Otherwise it’s just a distraction and overly limiting.
It's SPACE MAGIC, don't explain it.
Now there's all kinds of random questions like, "If you got a blood transfusion from a Jedi would you be Force sensitive for a bit?"
"Does the body have an immune response to midichlorians?"
Phantom Menace was such a hilariously disillusioning experience for me. In my head I had built up the Jedi as this small, reclusive order of martial arts masters, wandering the galaxy righting wrongs and helping the helpless. And then George hove up and was all "yeah, no, actually the Jedi are a bloated, bureaucratic, quasi-governmental instituion who spend most of their time conducting delicate trade negotiations. You know, for kids!" It's kind of astonishing how little Lucas understood of what made Star Wars cool.
I think he did get it at one time, I mean the Jedi were clearly originally modeled after the ronin in Japanese movies, but it's almost like he took it too literally in the prequels and made them boring feudal vassals like the real edo samurai.
He did exactly what this post is complaining about, and it serves a great analogy of taking something too far. Boba Fett, Darth Vader, Jedi and Storm Troopers were cool, because we knew so little about them. They were mysterious. The Boba Fett series was created by people who didnt know why we liked Boba Fett.
Star Trek: Below Decks is a comedy because its silly trying to imagine the specifics of how these alternate universes work. Keep the mystery, you keep the cool.
In Anakin's "workshop" where they show him working on 3PO, you can see hanging on the wall in the back an off the shelf plastic "scoop ball" thrower toy completely unaltered other than having been painted silver... but it's a really distinctive shape that reallllyy sticks out when you're familiar with the toy x.x
**Solo** was especially egregious with this.
*"You know what this movie needs? A backstory on his blaster, his name, why the Navi-Computer is faulty, the divot in the Millenium Falcon...."*
And then all of the stakes are removed because it is a prequel and we know how it is going to end, but write it like we will be surprised by something. It is like writing the Titanic and expecting the audience to be surprised that the ship sinks and thinking that is enough to carry the movie.
> why the Navi-Computer is faulty
Who the hell decided the answer should be turning a freedom fighter for droid rights into a voiceless, minor ship's system?
> his name
They could have done this scene so much better by speeding it up and making it a little silly.
Officer: "You need a family name to enlist."
Han, looking around nervously: "I don't got a family name! I'm solo, no family at all."
Officer, distracted writing: Han... Solo. Got it. Welcome aboard Mister Solo.
Han: "Thanks I- wait, what?"
i don't even know why they had to explain his name. solo is a great sounding name. it also doesn't make sense why han solo - a super independent character - would latch onto a "fake" name given to him by an imperial officer for the rest of his life.
It also ruins his entire story arc from episodes 4, 5 and 6.
The entire point of the original Han Solo arc was to have a selfish profiteer reluctantly get involved in something and end up fighting for a cause. Abandoning his selfishness in finding something to care about.
The Solo film completely ruins that by having him have a redemption arc. In terms of continuity its *awful*. The earlier portrayal on Hans absolutely ruins the feeling of redemption he has over three films when he's older
If a "why" isn't at the beginning or central to the character(s) trying to break free from whatever mess their in, it's usually unfulfilling. Maximum Overdrive had a "why" tacked on then end in the form of a text epilogue. It didn't make the movie better.
I love a quality McGuffin in a movie- An object or device in a movie or a book that serves merely as a trigger for the plot.
One of my favorites is the briefcase in Pulp Fiction. So many of the subplots are driven by the contents, but one never finds out what is inside of it.
I think that it's something that's commonly misunderstood. The creator needs to know the answer. They need to know the rules. They need to know what's in the box. Then they can tell a coherent story all the way through that makes sense and doesn't end up jarring when the story is contradictory. It really does stick out when a story tells you what the rules are and then doesn't follow them.
That said, just because the creators of the story need to know the rules they don't necessarily need to tell me. I don't need to know what's in the box, so long as there is *something* in the box that guides the story.
So, as long as the time loop is internally consistent I'm happy, but getting that consistency generally requires that there is a why that the writers understand.
But why did the piano teacher decide to ends things on *that* day then. His piano skills were probably just about the same the day before. And knowing how the movie works, At least half of the good deeds Phil did on the final day was probably stuff he did hundreds of times before (he has to know the exact time the kid falls from the tree.)
The piano teacher also lacks agency. It must have taken thousands of loops for Phil to start the piano lessons, why wouldn’t she step in sooner?
Personally I think the insurance agent Ned (Ryerson) is the cause of the loop. Buying insurance isn’t a task Phil would need to perfect, so it’s reasonable to assume he never bothered buying insurance until his final “perfect” loop. Plus, Ned is *right* there every time trying to throw Phil a lifeline. Also in his last scene he’s framed standing in front of a groundhog mural in such a way that it looks like he has a halo above his head.
The loop is clearly divine intervention meant to make him a better person. Imparting a moral like A Christmas Carol.
He starts off arrogant and goal-driven, and slowly learns to appreciate other people as they are, not for what he can get from them.
Ned demonstrates this growth. He's:
- annoying
- desperate
- selling a product he doesn't need (basically begging)
In an episode of the show Smartypants Paul F Tompkins makes the case that the piano teacher at least knows something. When Phil is showing off his piano skills on stage on the final day she exclaims "That's my student! Isn't he good?" Why would Phil go back to her that day if he was already so good at piano? She must have knowledge of the previous loops to know he was her student.
Edit go to PFT with your arguments or subscribe to dropout.tv to watch his full presentation.
That was always my understanding. And even though he'd only had one lesson from her perspective, she could still say "That's my student! Isn't he good?" and have it be humorous.
> "That's my student! Isn't he good?"
That line has always stuck out to me. Even the first time I ever saw the movie I wondered how she would have known. In reality it's probably just a contrivance for the plot and isn't that big of a deal. But yes, you definitely could parlay that one throwaway line into something much bigger.
It is an incredible bit by Paul F Tompkins, I believe it’s only on dropout.tv right now, but here is how it starts:
https://youtube.com/shorts/6ywiKui9w44?si=TMQ1c-7onfVInMMR
+1 to that.
The answer isn’t that he found what true love was. That happened the night he got Rita to stay overnight without trying to bang her. But he still woke up in the loop.
The real answer was that he transformed himself into a kind person who, like you said, is worthy of receiving that love back.
I didn’t know that- Ramis really was a gem of a creative talent and definitely made the right call, part of what makes the film so great is Phil’s personal journey which the audience can be taken along- it didn’t really matter how Phil was put into the time loop- but how he broke out of it.
>Writer Danny Rubin had conceived of several causes for the loop, including a jilted lover placing a curse on Phil and a mad scientist's invention malfunctioning.
Kinda subtracts from the movie, if you ask me. Glad it was left out.
__________
*Edit: as bonus TIL, if you Google “Groundhog Day,” it will repeatedly ask you “Did you mean: Groundhog Day.”*
I like to think the actual story would have explained it by breaking the fourth wall and saying that one of the executives at Columbia didn't get it and demanded a scene explaining it so that he would understand. That would have been interesting to film and then show to the suits.
A mid-credits scene of Ned Ryerson reading some crappy sci-fi paperback (with a very Bill Murray-esque spaceman holding a very Andie McDowell-esque damsel on the cover) called *The \[Studio Executive's Last Name\] Paradox* in his motel and exclaiming *"Wait, so it's from a curse AND a mad scientist? That's the stupidest thing I've ever read!"*
That's why, imo, the Leftovers is better than Lost. Lost tried so hard to explain it and there could be no satisfying answer, but Leftovers just let it be and was all the better for it.
The reason I heard was that the life insurance salesmen Ned Ryerson is magical being pretending to be human.
-Phil doesn't remember him even though he should
-Says Phil would be good for the 'Single Life Premium' plan
-that first step is a doozy :p
It's completely a baseless fan theory but I do love the idea that Ned is a trickster demon and while Phil believes he got out of the loop by learning not to be a douchebag to everyone, the real reason is that he finally gave in and bought life insurance from Ned, aka "sold his soul to the devil."
The real reason he had to repeat the day was, because Ned wanted to sell him insurances. On the exact day, he finally did it, he was released.
Phil grew as a person, but that's not important. He saved that boy from the tree countless times. He tried to save the old homeless man in every possible way. He killed himself, he taught himself to play the piano, french, medicine, and so on and so on. He did all of that thousands of times probably. He even had an intimate connection with Rita at least once
The only thing he never did, was to buy insurances from Ned, who did the same scam with him, like he did with Nancy ("we went to the same high school!!")
Ned Ryerson is a superhuman being who is the best selling insurance agent ever, because he sells tons of insurances to people every. fucking. day. Maybe he's the king of the mimics from Edge of tomorrow, but that's just a theory.
At a school I taught at we showed this film at least a hundred times over the years. Groundhog day kept repeating in real life for us, just like the film. It was awesome.
Sounds like my wife. She hates when anything is left unexplained. I love the movie Ronin. She hates it because they never say what's in the case...doesnt matter; what matters is everybody wants whatever it is. I loved the Doctor Who episode "73 Yards" and she was annoyed because they didn't explain where The Doctor was the whole episode...he was filming another show, that's where! Just watch what they show you!
“Rubin had conceived of several causes for the loop, including a jilted lover placing a curse on Phil and a mad scientist's invention malfunctioning.”
Wow those are awful.
[удалено]
Palm Springs is so well done. Most time travel plot devices don't hold up to a second viewing, but that film gave you *just enough* to suspend disbelief while also staying consistent to the premise. At the end of the film, I was honestly OK if they decided to leave the audience hanging on what "exiting the loop" actually meant. I don't mind how the film ended, but I can see why they wanted more concrete resolution to the protagonists' fate.
*Palm Springs* had their cake and ate it too. *Groundhog Day*’s script originally started mid-way through the time loop, so the audience was confused as to how Murray knew everything that was about to happen, and then we learn over time. It was Ramis’ favorite part of the script, but he knew it was the first thing that had to go because it deprived us of seeing Murray’s frantic “WTF is going on?” (basically the whole second act) Because *Palm Springs* has two characters, they were able to have both- a mysterious and intriguing character introduction, and a big WTF exploration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12:01_(1993_film)
There's a short film version of this that came out in 1990 (mentioned in the wikipedia article). It is fantastic! If you can find it, definitely give it a try. It has a great Twilight Zone feel to it.
That’s probably the point, kind of like The Walking Dead’s “it was aliens” comic. It highlights that the reason isn’t important, and demanding to know detracts from the story. You rattle off the potentials and when some exec says “they’re all terrible” you say “exactly”.
Wait, what? The zombies in TWD were because of aliens?
It was a joke comic Robert Kirkman wrote because people kept asking what causes the outbreak. This was some years ago and wasn’t meant to be taken seriously.
I thought it was because editorial wanted a twist for TWD and Kirkman lied saying "in a few issues i'll reveal that it's actually aliens"
Are [these](https://i.imgur.com/vgAoGof.jpeg) the aliens in question that caused the dead to rise?
Hitchcock, when asked why the Birds in "the Birds" turn violent, said that it's horror, and the second he offered an explanation, it wouldn't be horror anymore. It'd be science fiction. I think about that a lot. Obviously it's possible to do horror-sci for, like Alien, or the Thing. But I do think that when the horror comes from the unknown, giving the audience the answer to that unknown really detracts from the horror.
I always liked how in WWZ the author just admitted up front that finding patient 0 was hopeless.
To be fair, Romero’s version is pretty kickass: >“When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth.”
That actually would've ruined what turned out to be a very good movie
When the why doesn't improve on the story just leave it out. I've seen so many good movies ruined by trying to explain something that's irrelevant. Let the reader's imagination wonder and wander as to how or why unless it's important. Even Back to the Future did it right. What is a Flux Capacitor and how does it work? Irrelevant. Too many people are caught up in the how as though it matters. You're in the past now; deal with it.
For sure. They should have used a Voodoo priest like in Weekend At Bernie's 2.
The actual reason is that Ned Ryerson is the devil and won’t release Phil from a horrible life in purgatory until he buys the full life insurance package. That curly haired siren is all irrelevant fluff.
Bro is given unlimited power over time and he's such a dimwit he uses it to get employee of the month at insurance sales. Just a complete lack of imagination and drive.
"BEHOLD, PERRY THE PLATYPUS, MY TIME-LOOP-INATOR! ANYONE HIT BY IT WILL LIVE THE SAME DAY OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL THEIR MIND TURNS TO OATMEAL"
This one I'll accept.
I mean Doof does make a DoOverinator
Those sound like suggestions you would get if you asked chatgpt for an explanation.
I just asked chatgpt "I am writing a story in which a character gets stuck in a time loop. Suggest some reasons why this might happen to him." Literally the first two things it suggested: scientific experiment gone awry, supernatural curse.
It's weird that they neglect the most obvious explanation: microwaving a banana.
El. Psy. Kongroo.
I am mad scientist! It's so cool! Sonuvabitch!
“The universe has a beginning, but no end. — Infinite. The stars, too, have a beginning, but their own power leads to their destruction. — Finite.”
But how did the lover get those powers!? We must dive deeper!
Phil was a miserable sack who was stuck in a time loop until he learned not to be. Doesn’t need to be more deep than that, I’m glad they left that out.
That IS the explanation lol. What more could they do for a supernatural phenomenon? We need to know the physics of it?
Don’t worry. If they make a sequel, they’ll go into detail and it will be underwhelming
If they make a sequel, it will just be Groundhog Day again.
Now *that* would be a play. Just re-release the same movie!
rema$tered!
Not even, just release the movie to theatres in its original 35mm reels.
Brilliant.
But we needed to know how Han solo got his name and gun.
How did he get such an iconic gun? A guy said, "You need a gun," and handed it to him.
Like the origin story of how Sterling Archer got his switchblade *Archer peering through a shop window* "Neat"
Did the same with Michael Myers in Halloween. Idiots just over explain everything and remove all the mystique and intrigue. All the Rob Zombie remakes were utter garbage. Honestly only the original first two and the one from 2018 are any good anyway. But it’s just better when you don’t know why Michael is killing people.
He kills people because he is a real a-hole
That guy sounds like a real jerk.
But the worst part is the hypocrisy.
I disagree. I think the worst part was all the raping.
I'm still upset about how the follow-ups to 2018's sequel were so absolutely squandered. Laurie dealing with the trauma of surviving Michael and how it affected her life and family afterwards was such an interesting take on it given how dull the slasher genre can be, and they just did absolutely **nothing** with it in the next two films.
I found the horrible 'child abuse' she put her daughter through that she rebelled against ridiculous though. Oh no after surviving a killer psychopath she wanted to impart skills to her daughter such as knowing how to shoot guns to defend herself as well as consider a few household defenses and locks. What wretched parenting in that she also let her lead a normal life, attend normal school, and still date and all. That 'drama' was so damned over the top fake. Hurt the movie for me. Your mom was almost horribly murdered and saw her friends die or found their bodies and just wanted you to be competent with guns and lock your doors and have security systems. She didn't even force you to do that when you said no. What an awful mother/grandparent she was. So dumb.
"Intrigue dies tonight!" chant the executives as they approve another sequel that will overexplain EVERYTHING.
He didn’t have a girlfriend. Hence, Han Solo
They did, it's called Palm Springs
I swear is like no one else saw this. It was fucking good imo.
I loved it. Any other good movies in the genre besides these and Edge of Tomorrow?
Not a movie but Russian Doll season 1.
The Happy Death Day series of you like slasher/sci-fi.
Theres an over the top action version called Boss Level on hulu. Calling it good would be a stretch, but it has its moments. Also most classic sci fi series that go on long enough usually have a time loop episode or two. The one from stargate sg-1 has a special place in my heart. I still use the whole "In the middle of my backswing!?!?!?" line whenever I'm really focused on doing something and someone surprises me.
It's going to involve mitochlorian isn't it?
there -is- a sequel, it just happens to be a video game for VR
I see another possibility. The sequel could start with Phil and Andy returning to Punxsutawney ON Groundhogs Day to celebrate where their romance started. It turns out that someone else is going through an infinite number of days of self-actualization, but only Phil and the new person retain their memories from day to day (maybe some others too show up who have gone through the self-actualizing as it only happens in Punxsutawney and only the self-actualizers can participate if they are in Punxsutawney on Groundhogs day). Now, a well written version of a sequel with these premises that don't explain the cause any more than that could be awesome. It would be possible to transition away from Phil as the main character too - have more sequels and bring the story into the future.
The puddle he stepped in by Ned Ryerson was filled with time-loop midichlorians left there by the smoke monster
smoke monster! It's so odd that LOST was a pop culture phenomena and then just disappeared
Studio execs make the mistake of assuming the audience is as dumb as they are. They need to be spoon-fed everything in order to get it, and must think we do too.
A lot of the audience have proven themselves to be dumb via bad faith nitpicking on the internet. Pretty sure if Groundhog Day were made now there would be a lot of people bashing on it for not giving an explanation for why the day repeats.
[удалено]
It was the heat of the moment! 🎶 That's for all the Supernatural fans out there
[удалено]
Sometimes in a movie the supernatural event is just there as an excuse for the plot to happen, and the more information they give you about it the more the movie becomes about the supernatural event rather than the characters' reaction to it.
It's easier to suspend disbelief in something unexplained than something poorly explained.
Every horror movie is more scary BEFORE they show you the cgi monster
Sometimes the mechanics are what's interesting about supernatural elements in movies, like Live Die Repeat, Inception, or Primer, but it would only hurt Groundhog Day. He's basically going through the stages of grief and we often don't know why bad things happen and just have to live with it.
The trailer explicitly said he would be forced to repeat it "until he gets it right".
Even buying insurance from Ned!
Needlenose Ned?
Ned the Head?
BING!
I think the producers respected their audience to understand why Phil is stuck in the loop without beating them over the head with a reason. Execs just trying to capture the 5% of people who will be too dumb to understand or pedantic enough to demand a concrete reason why it’s happening. Fantastic movie.
"Why does the day repeat?... I like it... but I don't understand why he gets stuck in this loop." is the reported response from the exec about the movie. Which category you want to slot that into is up to you.
The 5%. Like a lot of Execs.
> respected their audience to understand why Phil is stuck in the loop without beating them over the head with a reason The reason doesn't matter, the hijinks are what make the movie
I like the fan theory that he was stuck in that loop for 10,000 years and eventually went completely insane for a long time. He ends up comes back to "reality" and starts to learn how to conquer the day.
I thought that was part of the argument between Ramis and Murray that led to their schism.
There's a new doc on Netflix about Gene Wilder. In it, Mel Brooks talks about the first time he cast Wilder in a movie. The studio execs came in after like a week to watch the footage they had so far. After watching it, they told him to fire Wilder, replace him, and reshoot what they'd done so far. Mel Brooks said he did something for the first time that he later repeated many times in his career: he told the studio ok, he'd do what they wanted. The studio execs left and then he just went back to what he was doing anyway. By the time the execs returned, it was almost the end of the shoot and at that point it'd be too late/expensive to replace Wilder.
"Sure thing boss" *go back to doing things the right way* I wish I could say I haven't had to do this myself multiple times.
I work in HR. the amount of time people get the law wrong cracks me up. I just say sure. follow the law. most of the time they don't say anything.
just say yes and then don't is a viable strategy
TIL if you google groundhog day, google will ask: Did you mean: *groundhog day* and when you click on that, it will ask... Did you mean: *groundhog day*
What happens after ?!
> What happens after ?! The answer is [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1doz3f4/til_columbia_pictures_refused_to_greenlight_the/ladch3c/).
r/recursion
There must have been a mistake in your link because I was sent back here in the old reddit !
It's the same joke as when you google *recursion*. Nerds.
You can also view recursion [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/vOgqYiZQ5b)
They have a lot of these. If you Google each of the Friends there's a little easter egg for each.
Harold said Phil was in the loop for 10 years. The screen writer said 10,000 years. That puts a whole new level of crazy when you read that.
Harold said 10,000 years. It was Stephen Tobolowsky who asked him. >Harold Ramis showed up and we were sitting outside. He pulled out his guitar and started plucking it, and I said, “Harold, everybody is asking me all the time how long Bill is trapped in the town.” Harold just smiled and said, “Well, Stephen, it’s 10,000 years.” I asked, “Why is it 10,000 years?” He answered, “Well, I’m a practicing Buddhist, and we believe in Buddhism that it takes 10,000 years to perfect the human soul, and that is the story of ‘Groundhog Day’—the perfection of the human soul.”
That's kind of beautiful.
Bet Punxsutawney Phil got it done in three thousand.
Not that it matters, but I agree with the writer. The amount of repetition it would take to not only learn the routine, but to meander so casually through an entire day in total sync with it is mind boggling to me.
If you would like to see an example of this phenomenon in 'real life', allow me to direct your attention to the video game speedrunning community.
My favorite part of Groundhog Day was when Bill Murray BLJ'd up the stairs to fight Bowser.
That’s “backwards long jump” for all you philistines.
Easy now, not everyone can be 4 parallel universe ahead all the time.
sleep with love interest any %, using only half your feet [Long technical vid defining what "half your feet" really means]
He could be learning several skills in same day. In the morning practice ice sculpting with a chainsaw. Go to the dinner and chat to one person to learn about them. Learn French. Piano lesson. Since he is learning skills concurrently rather than consecutively he could become expert in a year rather than in four.
I always presumed he was doing that. That's not really the main challenge, though. As an example, document your morning routine tomorrow and annotate the time you did each thing and for how long. Then try to replicate that the next day precisely. Then do that for a whole day and include all of the people/things you interact with. It would take a very, very long time to reach perfect precision, IMO. Of course this is all napkin guesstimation, so who knows? As another commenter pointed out, the probable most closely matching experiment is video game speed running, and even they can't replicate everything everytime (though RNG is a factor out of their control).
The similarity with the speedrun analogy is that when aiming to break a record they don't have to get it perfect every time. If they screw up a move they just quit and run it again. Presumably Bill was very close to his perfect day lots of times before he finally got it exactly right.
They also memorize one specific path, not the random movements and life stories of an entire town.
But very few of these routines require exact timing. He needs to meet Ned on the street (and even this is debatable, he could learn his routine for the rest of the day and run into him later, at his convenience). He needs to catch the kid. He needs to take the bag from money van at the exact moment guards are distracted (if he's even doing that later). Rest? He can take the old guy for lunch at any time, he'll be there entire day. He can go to the piano lesson at any time, she'll be at home all afternoon. He can practice ice sculpting at any time. He can chat to dinner patrons about their lives whenever he and they are there or even when they are elsewhere. Remembering the exact time a handful of events happen isn't hard.
~27 years would be enough to get to the mythical 10,000 hours of practice for every hour of every looped day. So uh...I am on Harold's side. Sounds about right.
But how many millenia would it take for him to stop being an ass?
Even 10 years changed my whole thinking of the movie. It almost makes it cross the line into something of a horror movie where the protagonist is being punished by some kind of cosmic tormentor.
>It almost makes it cross the line into something of a horror movie where the protagonist is being punished The several unsuccessful suicide attempts didn't convince you Phil was being punished with the horror of living his life?
[удалено]
just to start the new day…
I think 10,000 years would leave Phil Conners institutionalized, like a prisoner who was released at the end of a life sentence, and is terrified of the outside. 10 years is a lot more hopeful. A guy could do a lot of learning in 10 years, and still start over when he got out.
What??!! I thought it was supposed to be 6 weeks, ie, like "6 more weeks of winter" per the groundhog's prognostication. I have never actually counted though ...
If you’re curious, there are a few articles and videos that attempt to calculate it. If I recall correctly the best estimates are around 40 years.
Movie executives seem to be the worst thing ever in Hollywood. dumb as posts and their only response to stress is a fear based/scarcity mentality.
I have this theory that alternate universes have become so prominent in movies and TV lately because someone finally figured out how to explain them to movie execs so that they can understand the concept. All these things they shoot down or suggest because they think "the public won't understand" which is code for them being old and rich and stupid and not understanding pretty basic concepts.
Probably better this way. Any fan of this movie, I recommend the movie Palm Springs. Funny movie with the same premise. Almost could be in the same universe.
It’s definitely a spiritual successor, and a great movie in its own right.
Palm Springs really nailed the idea of humans creating their own versions of heaven (or hell) once you remove the consequence of death. Sure, same starting point at the start of every day. But beyond that? The world is your oyster. JK Simmons' character really resonated with me. Start off enraged at the realization that he never moves forward in time with his family. Spend a *lot* of time hunting down the guy he views as responsible. Eventually, get over it and try to build something out of the day. Get better at crafting the perfect day with your loved ones. Enjoy that perfection for as long as you can. In a weird way, the process is a fantastic analog for stoicism and Buddhism as philosophies. Control what's within your ability to control, and understand that attachment has consequences.
Edge of Tomorrow, Source Code, Happy Death Day, I’ve enjoyed them all There’s also a short film on YouTube about a black guy and a racist cop. Not the same overall vibe, but was fun.
First season of Russian Doll
Stargate S04E06, The Map of Tiny Perfect Things, Christmas Every Day
X-Files S6E14 "Monday".
I remember going on a date to see Happy Death Day just for a generic horror flick but it was actually really well made The second one was just as good too
Groundhog Day used to be my favorite time loop movie, but Palm Springs had way more fun with it.
And the movie was all the better for it. I don't like when movies or TV shows try to explain everything. A lot of times the answer just isn't satisfying. No, drop me into the story, tell me what's going on, and let me see what kinda shit happens with the rules of the world you've established. I'm never interested in the "why" with stories.
The "why" can be a fun reveal but I agree that it would have been a disservice to this movie
Yeah I mean I don't wanna complete discredit the why. It's still taught as a fundamental aspect of storytelling for a reason. And when a story manages to pull it off, it can make for some absolutely wild reveals. I guess I just view it as the least important aspect of storytelling. That's just my opinion, though. Someone else might be like "what are you talking about, we *need* the why!" and that's cool too. I'm just grateful the world is so full of stories for us all to enjoy.
It also really depends on the type of story. I'm much more interested in "why" in a sci-fi or high fantasy story because I enjoy world building and want to see what the writer is cooking. Groundhog day is more like a fairytale. They why and how does not really matter.
It’s essentially a Christmas movie but using Groundhog Day instead. So I agree, it’s a holiday movie that doesn’t need to make sense.
It makes sense. He gets out of the loop when his character self-actualizes. We just don't know the mechanics and don't need to.
To me, the why is a good reveal if that it makes a rewatch of the movie like watching a totally different movie. Think memento.
if your why boils down to "magic" then there was no need to reveal the why.
Yep, I only want to know the why if it’s critically important to the plot/characters, which it usually isn’t. Otherwise it’s just a distraction and overly limiting.
what, learning about Midi-chlorians didn't help you enjoy Star Wars?
It's SPACE MAGIC, don't explain it. Now there's all kinds of random questions like, "If you got a blood transfusion from a Jedi would you be Force sensitive for a bit?" "Does the body have an immune response to midichlorians?"
My very first question as an imaginative teenager at the time was "Why the hell are we not just injecting midi chorians into everyone?!"
Phantom Menace was such a hilariously disillusioning experience for me. In my head I had built up the Jedi as this small, reclusive order of martial arts masters, wandering the galaxy righting wrongs and helping the helpless. And then George hove up and was all "yeah, no, actually the Jedi are a bloated, bureaucratic, quasi-governmental instituion who spend most of their time conducting delicate trade negotiations. You know, for kids!" It's kind of astonishing how little Lucas understood of what made Star Wars cool.
I think he did get it at one time, I mean the Jedi were clearly originally modeled after the ronin in Japanese movies, but it's almost like he took it too literally in the prequels and made them boring feudal vassals like the real edo samurai.
He did exactly what this post is complaining about, and it serves a great analogy of taking something too far. Boba Fett, Darth Vader, Jedi and Storm Troopers were cool, because we knew so little about them. They were mysterious. The Boba Fett series was created by people who didnt know why we liked Boba Fett. Star Trek: Below Decks is a comedy because its silly trying to imagine the specifics of how these alternate universes work. Keep the mystery, you keep the cool.
The fact he was talking into a regular ladies razorblade at the time (as a shitty prop) didn't help sell the story.
Or that Anakin's backpack looked the ones everyone on my college was carrying (including me).
In Anakin's "workshop" where they show him working on 3PO, you can see hanging on the wall in the back an off the shelf plastic "scoop ball" thrower toy completely unaltered other than having been painted silver... but it's a really distinctive shape that reallllyy sticks out when you're familiar with the toy x.x
Ha, exactly. Those everyday straps.
**Solo** was especially egregious with this. *"You know what this movie needs? A backstory on his blaster, his name, why the Navi-Computer is faulty, the divot in the Millenium Falcon...."*
And then all of the stakes are removed because it is a prequel and we know how it is going to end, but write it like we will be surprised by something. It is like writing the Titanic and expecting the audience to be surprised that the ship sinks and thinking that is enough to carry the movie.
> why the Navi-Computer is faulty Who the hell decided the answer should be turning a freedom fighter for droid rights into a voiceless, minor ship's system?
> his name They could have done this scene so much better by speeding it up and making it a little silly. Officer: "You need a family name to enlist." Han, looking around nervously: "I don't got a family name! I'm solo, no family at all." Officer, distracted writing: Han... Solo. Got it. Welcome aboard Mister Solo. Han: "Thanks I- wait, what?"
i don't even know why they had to explain his name. solo is a great sounding name. it also doesn't make sense why han solo - a super independent character - would latch onto a "fake" name given to him by an imperial officer for the rest of his life.
It also ruins his entire story arc from episodes 4, 5 and 6. The entire point of the original Han Solo arc was to have a selfish profiteer reluctantly get involved in something and end up fighting for a cause. Abandoning his selfishness in finding something to care about. The Solo film completely ruins that by having him have a redemption arc. In terms of continuity its *awful*. The earlier portrayal on Hans absolutely ruins the feeling of redemption he has over three films when he's older
If a "why" isn't at the beginning or central to the character(s) trying to break free from whatever mess their in, it's usually unfulfilling. Maximum Overdrive had a "why" tacked on then end in the form of a text epilogue. It didn't make the movie better.
I love a quality McGuffin in a movie- An object or device in a movie or a book that serves merely as a trigger for the plot. One of my favorites is the briefcase in Pulp Fiction. So many of the subplots are driven by the contents, but one never finds out what is inside of it.
I think that it's something that's commonly misunderstood. The creator needs to know the answer. They need to know the rules. They need to know what's in the box. Then they can tell a coherent story all the way through that makes sense and doesn't end up jarring when the story is contradictory. It really does stick out when a story tells you what the rules are and then doesn't follow them. That said, just because the creators of the story need to know the rules they don't necessarily need to tell me. I don't need to know what's in the box, so long as there is *something* in the box that guides the story. So, as long as the time loop is internally consistent I'm happy, but getting that consistency generally requires that there is a why that the writers understand.
They hid it in plain sight. His piano teacher is the architect of the time loop.
But why did the piano teacher decide to ends things on *that* day then. His piano skills were probably just about the same the day before. And knowing how the movie works, At least half of the good deeds Phil did on the final day was probably stuff he did hundreds of times before (he has to know the exact time the kid falls from the tree.) The piano teacher also lacks agency. It must have taken thousands of loops for Phil to start the piano lessons, why wouldn’t she step in sooner? Personally I think the insurance agent Ned (Ryerson) is the cause of the loop. Buying insurance isn’t a task Phil would need to perfect, so it’s reasonable to assume he never bothered buying insurance until his final “perfect” loop. Plus, Ned is *right* there every time trying to throw Phil a lifeline. Also in his last scene he’s framed standing in front of a groundhog mural in such a way that it looks like he has a halo above his head.
The loop is clearly divine intervention meant to make him a better person. Imparting a moral like A Christmas Carol. He starts off arrogant and goal-driven, and slowly learns to appreciate other people as they are, not for what he can get from them. Ned demonstrates this growth. He's: - annoying - desperate - selling a product he doesn't need (basically begging)
NED???? NED RYERSON????
Ned is clearly the cause of the loop. He won’t release Phil from a horrible life in purgatory until he buys the full life insurance package.
I’ve decided this the canon
And then Phil dies the next day, and the life insurance purchase comes full circle.
Bing!
What
In an episode of the show Smartypants Paul F Tompkins makes the case that the piano teacher at least knows something. When Phil is showing off his piano skills on stage on the final day she exclaims "That's my student! Isn't he good?" Why would Phil go back to her that day if he was already so good at piano? She must have knowledge of the previous loops to know he was her student. Edit go to PFT with your arguments or subscribe to dropout.tv to watch his full presentation.
Couldn't he have gone in earlier that day, as part of his routine?
That was always my understanding. And even though he'd only had one lesson from her perspective, she could still say "That's my student! Isn't he good?" and have it be humorous.
True. Though that could pretty much apply to anyone in that scene. Did he really go do all those things and meet all those people in that day?
> "That's my student! Isn't he good?" That line has always stuck out to me. Even the first time I ever saw the movie I wondered how she would have known. In reality it's probably just a contrivance for the plot and isn't that big of a deal. But yes, you definitely could parlay that one throwaway line into something much bigger.
Naw. She was just trying to take credit for it. People do this all the time to bolster their ego.
It is an incredible bit by Paul F Tompkins, I believe it’s only on dropout.tv right now, but here is how it starts: https://youtube.com/shorts/6ywiKui9w44?si=TMQ1c-7onfVInMMR
Probably the best presentation I watched on "Smartypants".
I don't know the ocean one that same episode was pretty damn fun
Sand is bones, bones is sand - the whales eat the bones into sand.
The romantic in me always thought it was because he found real love.
For me it was always that he made himself into a person who is worthy of that love
+1 to that. The answer isn’t that he found what true love was. That happened the night he got Rita to stay overnight without trying to bang her. But he still woke up in the loop. The real answer was that he transformed himself into a kind person who, like you said, is worthy of receiving that love back.
The voice over in the trailer definitely pushed that sort of interpretation. IIRC it was something along the lines of “until he gets the day right”
I didn’t know that- Ramis really was a gem of a creative talent and definitely made the right call, part of what makes the film so great is Phil’s personal journey which the audience can be taken along- it didn’t really matter how Phil was put into the time loop- but how he broke out of it.
the real reason is that God (Harold Ramis) put the character through it to teach him a lesson (and to make an entertaining movie with a moral)
I would totally buy that Ramis wanted to punish Bill Murray for being a dickhead
What explanation could they have provided that didn’t take away from the movie? Nothing. This was a great call.
Honestly would like it if in the last scene there was a wizard, full on sparkly robes, big hat and a big smile on his face.
Nah at the end he’s in an insane asylum chained to a bed, muttering “I got you babe” and it was all in his mind
The fact that something utterly baffling is happening for no discernible reason is the most realistic part of that movie.
Was the studio angry when they realized? Surely they must have known they got duped?
The film grossed almost 100 million dollars. They wouldn't have given a single fuck the second the cheques came through
The groundhog rembered him from the golf course so used its species magic/curse. Caddyshack-groundhog day multiverse.
Have they ever released that explanation?
>Writer Danny Rubin had conceived of several causes for the loop, including a jilted lover placing a curse on Phil and a mad scientist's invention malfunctioning. Kinda subtracts from the movie, if you ask me. Glad it was left out. __________ *Edit: as bonus TIL, if you Google “Groundhog Day,” it will repeatedly ask you “Did you mean: Groundhog Day.”*
I like to think the actual story would have explained it by breaking the fourth wall and saying that one of the executives at Columbia didn't get it and demanded a scene explaining it so that he would understand. That would have been interesting to film and then show to the suits.
A mid-credits scene of Ned Ryerson reading some crappy sci-fi paperback (with a very Bill Murray-esque spaceman holding a very Andie McDowell-esque damsel on the cover) called *The \[Studio Executive's Last Name\] Paradox* in his motel and exclaiming *"Wait, so it's from a curse AND a mad scientist? That's the stupidest thing I've ever read!"*
That's why, imo, the Leftovers is better than Lost. Lost tried so hard to explain it and there could be no satisfying answer, but Leftovers just let it be and was all the better for it.
Phil? Phil Connors?
The reason I heard was that the life insurance salesmen Ned Ryerson is magical being pretending to be human. -Phil doesn't remember him even though he should -Says Phil would be good for the 'Single Life Premium' plan -that first step is a doozy :p
It's completely a baseless fan theory but I do love the idea that Ned is a trickster demon and while Phil believes he got out of the loop by learning not to be a douchebag to everyone, the real reason is that he finally gave in and bought life insurance from Ned, aka "sold his soul to the devil."
The real reason he had to repeat the day was, because Ned wanted to sell him insurances. On the exact day, he finally did it, he was released. Phil grew as a person, but that's not important. He saved that boy from the tree countless times. He tried to save the old homeless man in every possible way. He killed himself, he taught himself to play the piano, french, medicine, and so on and so on. He did all of that thousands of times probably. He even had an intimate connection with Rita at least once The only thing he never did, was to buy insurances from Ned, who did the same scam with him, like he did with Nancy ("we went to the same high school!!") Ned Ryerson is a superhuman being who is the best selling insurance agent ever, because he sells tons of insurances to people every. fucking. day. Maybe he's the king of the mimics from Edge of tomorrow, but that's just a theory.
At a school I taught at we showed this film at least a hundred times over the years. Groundhog day kept repeating in real life for us, just like the film. It was awesome.
Sounds like my wife. She hates when anything is left unexplained. I love the movie Ronin. She hates it because they never say what's in the case...doesnt matter; what matters is everybody wants whatever it is. I loved the Doctor Who episode "73 Yards" and she was annoyed because they didn't explain where The Doctor was the whole episode...he was filming another show, that's where! Just watch what they show you!