Talk:12:01 (1993 film)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ. |
Name
[edit]The name of the 1993 film is actually "12:01", not "12:01 PM". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.195.188 (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely when this was shown on Britiish TV it was called "The Time Bounce" ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf Heben (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Running time
[edit]The plot summary of the article states that the film's running time is 94 minutes. The sidebar says it's 92 minutes. Which is correct? 216.158.163.227 (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Plot
[edit]Why is the ending described as a "pseudo-happy ending"? More specifically, why pseudo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu 1977 SEmelb (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyright problem
[edit]The synopsis at IMDB was edited later than the stuff was added here as far as I can see so it may have gone from here to IMDB. But I don't know when the synopsis was first added to IMDB as I have no account there. Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Evidence suggests we copied from them, although it's not conclusive. Note that their version says, "Dr. Thadius Moxley henchmen are also behind Lisas murder". This mistake was corrected just a couple of weeks after the content was placed here, leaving a very short window for them to have copied from us. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
legal action in wrong article?
[edit]Since it was the writers of the original 12:01 PM short film that sued the producers of Groundhog Day, shouldn't talk of that lawsuit be in the article for THAT short film and not this TV movie Especially since while loosely based on the original, this TV movie clearly plagiarized Groundhog DAy since it was far more like that than the original short film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:D500:3D00:6D82:7051:DB9F:6971 (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)