Talk:Somewhere in Time (film)

Bigfoot

The reference to Christopher Reeve being called "Bigfoot" seems very unlikely to me ("Man of Steel", the previous edit, makes more sense) ... but from at least a quick skim of contributor Frecklefoot's other work, he doesn't seem the type to vandalize. Can someone check into this? TimLynch 00:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't when this happened, but I sure didn't mean to vandalize. It might've been lumped together with some reverting? If someone can find the correct refence, please cite it and fix it in the article. Sorry! — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference to the "Bigfoot" nickname is 100% correct. And, while much less frequently used, Jane Seymour was occasionally called "Little Foot". Pt11055 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Automobiles

The paradox about the watch is something. My question though is that if automobiles have not been allowed on the island, how did the elderly McKenna's limosine get there, 1971-72, let alone Collier's vehicle later, 79-80?.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.231.19 (talk • contribs)

That's a good question. I assume they didn't intend on geeks looking up this type of information on the Internet and brought them in specifically for the film. Plus, I don't think there was any intention on the setting for this film to be the Grand Hotel itself, but, rather, a fictional one. In that case, the presence of cars isn't a problem. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In the original book, the hotel was the Coronado in San Diego, but when they decided to make the movie, the Coronado was considered unsuitable because of all the modern surroundings, wires, etc. So Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island was selected. However, the movie never identified any specific area except Chicago...so the "Grand Hotel" and Millfield College could've been anyplace...so because of that, there is no paradox where the vehicles are concerned. According to the book about the making of somewhere in time written by INSITE founder Bill Shepherd, the film crew had to get special permission to have vehicles on Mackinac Island...and they were limited as to how many they could have. Everyone had to get to and from by bicycle or horse. 15.251.169.70 20:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The movie is not specifically set on Mackinac Island, and Grand Hotel's location is never referenced until the end credits. Its specific location is unimportant, but the fact that it was an elegant summer hotel near a body of water, was. If, as a viewer, you didn't recognize the Grand Hotel as being on Mackinac Island, you would wonder why no cars were shown in 1912 when they clearly should be there. That type of viewer was anticipated to be more typical, so cars were included to more accurately set the era. Also add "by foot" and "carriage" to means of transportation during filming. Crew members only rode horses for recreation.Pt11055 (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

INSITE

Someone put information into the entry about a possible closure of the fan group, International Network Of Somewhere In Time Enthusiasts (INSITE). As I am a former member of INSITE, I got concerned and wrote to Jo Addie about this possible closure. According to the e-email I received from her, she says they are still a "go" for 2007, but because they've lost over 50% of their membership, they are struggling to stay viable as an organized club. So they've introduced a tiered system in order to keep afloat. Just figure folks here would want to know.

Ladycascadia 20:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements about possible closure are no longer accurate or pertinent. The tiered membership system worked, INSITE is viable and has been for several years since the concern was published. Fans responded with open hearts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt11055 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just begun an article for the book

I've started an article for the book, Bid Time Return. It is pretty rough at this point, and I will add to it later; I welcome help from anyone else. I recently did a lot of work on the article for Matheson's novel What Dreams May Come. One difference, however, is that with the latter, I liked the novel a lot more than the film. In the case of Bid Time Return/Somewhere in Time, I think the movie was somewhat better. I haven't read Bid Time Return as often as I've read What Dreams May Come, and I haven't read it any time recently, but I do own a copy and can consult it. marbeh raglaim 09:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Paradox - - why didnt' he reach out for Elise?

In the category of "they didn't expect geeks..." from topic #1 on here, perhaps, but two problems I've had with that coin since I saw the film... 1. Why didnt' he tell himself it was a forgey? I mean, it would have been each for a coppersmith to do that, and if tags on his underwear didn't tell him earleir he was from the future,, that coin shouldn't have. (Remember Back to the Future? "You're Calvin Klein...you're name's swen into your underwear." 2. Why didn't he grab hold of elise's hand? If seeing a coin sends him forward in time, it should send forward *anything* he has hold of. Somebody needs to go on fanfiction.net and write an alternate ending under miscellaneous movies about him doing that. Of course, Elise's shock might destroy her, anyway...

Once he sees the coin, he can't do anything about it. His surroundings fade very quickly. In the book, he's described as almost paralyzed; he tries to throw the coin away but can't. It makes perfect sense based on the rules that are set up. In both the book and the film, time travel is achieved by conditioning one's mind to think it's in the past. Since the process is all mental, seeing the coin is what undoes the conditioning. The mere presence of the coin in his pocket wouldn't have made a difference, because his mind wasn't aware of it until that moment. marbeh raglaim (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. Elise's reflexes *still* could have led her to reach out to him, though. Hmmm, and I see fanfiction.net *has* a section on "Somewhere In time."...

I might write something on Elise being transported to 1979 by grabbing hold of him. (Or, by having hold of him at that moment) if I have time. :-) I won't keep Richard in 1912, though. There's this thing called World War One he could get drafted into in a few years, and...well, it might end about the same, except with him dying in the trenches. (Not a problem in the book, obviously, being further back.)209.244.187.155 (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Think of it like when your knee accidentally bangs into the button for turning the computer off, and you watch in dismay as the windows close and the icons disappear. You can move the mouse around, but no matter what you do, you can't stop the computer from shutting down.

Since I read the book first, I have always been struck by the ambiguity as to whether Richard's entire foray into the past really happened or was simply a self-induced hypnotic fantasy. The movie tries to avoid the possibility, but it's still there.

Of course, you are free to interpret the story differently and write the fan fiction the way you please. Just try to be consistent, if you want your readers to buy it. marbeh raglaim (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

True - having not read the book, I hadn't considered the possibility, but it's true. The movie does do a good job of trying to avoid the possibility, though - there has to be some reason for Elise's sudden withdrawal that caused her to give the timepiece...then again, I suppose it's possible tht Richard's presence prevented her from encountering another lover who left her...like you say, it has to be written consistently, and there are enough things to consider as it is...Thanks again.4.68.248.130 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger Ebert, who apparently didn't read the book, wondered in his review if Richard's experience was real. Still, I think that interpretation is a stretch. In the movie, there's no particular reason to believe Richard would hallucinate an entire fantasy, and his experience seems to be corroborated by the old version of Elise. This is in contrast to the book, where Richard has a brain tumor, and he never meets an old version of Elise. He claims to have a memory of seeing an old Elise from afar, and he does see an old hotel register with his signature. But we really can't be sure his perceptions are accurate. The two main differences with the book are (1) he has a brain tumor and is therefore not a reliable witness to what's happening (2) there's no external corroboration to his experience either.

I should note here that although I am a fan of Richard Matheson, I liked the movie more than the book. Because the book is presented as a dying man's private journal, it rambles and meanders a lot, and the movie does a good job of tightening the story. But I find it interesting how the book and the movie deal differently with the underlying reality of the events. Matheson has always been into paranormal stuff, and he deliberately set up the book to have this double reality, where the truth of the events would be left up to the reader to decide. This ambiguity is central to the book, but greatly downplayed in the movie. marbeh raglaim (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have always wondered why he didnt drop the penny. Why would Elise spend so much time on him if she didnt have something concrete. It would have been interesting to see the penny in the Hotel music box. It would have been like the pocketwatch - who gave it to who first?? She gives him the pocket watch in the present and he leaves her the penny in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trashound (talk • contribs) 17:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Jane Seymour

There is a very appealing interview with Jane Seymour on YouTube [1] about this movie. Why not add it to the external links?

Multiple Time Travellers theory

Does anyone have any links to information on the theory that William Robinson is also a time traveller from the future? And if so should there be a section about it? There's considerable evidence (in the movie at least) to suggest it as a possibility e.g. Elise tells Richard that William foretold a lot of things that happened to her ("he knows somehow") including the fact that she would one day meet a man who would change her life forever. Also William tells Richard he knows who he is and that he is there to "destroy" her (which according to her housekeeper is exactly what happened in 1912). I'd write the section myself but I don't have any links, so it'd fall under the category of "original research". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.41.114 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary: 1972 or 1980?

In the "Plot summary" section (too long for a summary) it starts by saying the setting is 1972. But, then says it is 1980 near the end. Also, the "Differences from the novel" says 1980. Which is it? Remember when a film is made is not the same as the setting. Please fix. In addition somebody added a non-neutral tag to the "Differences from the novel" section. This should not be there. It either is fact or is not, either fix it and add references, or remove it. ~ 4.240.117.195 (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The film starts in 1972, when the incident with the old lady and the watch occurs. But notice that the plot summary then says, "Eight years later, Richard is a successful 28-year-old playwright." So it's implied that it's then 1980. marbeh raglaim (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. 4.240.75.118 (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fan club

For every movie ever made, there is far more information we could add then there should be in an encyclopedia article about the film as well as numerous fans and/or haters and/or trivia buffs who want to add various facts. How do we decide what to include? Basically, Wikipedia is in the business of summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a subject. When reliable sources that are independent of the subject discuss something, it is possibly encyclopedic. When such sources do not discuss it, the material is likely trivial and/or promotional.

Such is the case with the fan club for this film. Yes, a band/film/actor/whatever might have a fan club (some have hate sites as well) and they might discuss it to some degree somewhere. Why wouldn't they? The fan club is essentially advertising for the band/film/actor/whatever. Obviously the fan club will discuss itself. All of this is neither unusual nor encyclopedic. More to the point, none of this coverage is independent of the subject. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies in advance, I'm not familiar how to use the right formats here...

The Fan Club section for this article has been included for over 10 years, and only now has it been determined to be superfluous?

Regardless, the existence of INSITE is notable for this film for several reasons:

1. It is one of only 3 film fan clubs for single movies. The others are Gone With The Wind, and Wizard of Oz.
2. The movie failed at the box office, but the existence of the fan club raised its profile significantly by these activities that have had direct impact on the film's position in the film lexicon:

• Gathering the films fans together annually at the location of its making for in-costume events (Somewhere in Time Weekend, Grand Hotel)
• Prompting Universal Studios, through direct contact, to "restore" the film, create new theatrical prints, and engage it in a limited re-release.
• Prompting Universal Studios, through direct contact, to release the 20th Anniversary DVD (which includes several extra features segments about INSITE)
• Funding, through contributions from its membership, Christopher Reeve's Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, an event documented by the media extensively at the time
• Co-funding Jane Seymour's Walk of Fame Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (funding shared with the Dr. Quinn fan club), also a well documented media event
• The continued popularity of the film was attributed to INSITE, specifically its founder and current president, by the film's director, Jeannot Swarc (media clip available).
• The existence and activities of INSITE have been covered in articles in newspapers and magazines many times, but these would not be on the internet.
• INSITE has been in existence for 25 years, a notably longer life-span that is typical for fan clubs.

As to independent references:

* The 20th Anniversary DVD has special segments about INSITE, referenced above, the inclusion of which was unprecedented for any movie.

* There have been numerous newspaper and magazine articles covering INSITE's existence, uniqueness, and activities.

* INSITE has received broadcast coverage, having been featured on live TV and radio shows. These segments were about INSITE specifically, and included no other fan clubs. The media could be made available on-line, but is not currently.

While these would seem to qualify as independent references, none are available on line. How can those references be cited? Are only on-line independent references valid?

While the inclusion of an entire sub-section on INSITE may not be appropriate for the Somewhere in Time article, at some some mention of its existence in the context of it being unique for a :single-film-fan club, and unique for a notably low-budget, low profile film, and at least of these facts certainly would be appropriate, especially in the context of the impact the club has had on :the film's position in the public eye, and that of Universal Studios. Pht7738 (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That the material has been here for years on end is immaterial. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly document that there are only three fan clubs in existence dedicated to single films. (I'd be shocked if there weren't fan clubs for The Rocky Horror Picture Show and I know there was one for It's a Wonderful Life.) I could go on through the list, but the basic issue is that we need independent reliable sources saying these things. We do not have that. The fan club for the film is not an independent source for anything about the fan club (and likely is not a reliable source for anything). The DVD of the film is not an independent source for anything about the film (other than standard film article content: cast, length, etc.).

On-line sources are preferred because they are easy to but are not required. The main idea here is verifiability: Can readers check that the material come from a reliable source and accurately reflects what the source says? Please see WP:CITE for details on how to cite sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you'll have to delete the Production Notes section too then...nothing online to verify much of that either.

Under your criteria, the Reception section would have to be mostly deleted too, as there are no on-line references to budget, and no references cited at all.

Would a published book be sufficient as a reference for any of the above? Pht7738 (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not about the production notes or the reception section. There is probably trivia there that could go. If you wish to challenge any of it, you can remove it as unsourced or tag it as needed citations. If you have a source or sources for any of it, feel free to either add the citations or, if you are unsure if the source is reliable, discuss it here. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a fan club for "The Rocky Horror Picture Show", but it has no organized function, no periodical publication, and has no claims regarding its influence on the popularity of the film. It only provides a free membership card and DIY event guides.

A Google search turns up no current fan club for "It's A Wonderful Life". Can you provide a reference for it?

Typical movie fan clubs focus on a group or series of films (Star Track, Lord Of The Rings), or specific actors. Single-movie fan clubs have been associated with highly successful classic films, again, GWTW, and Wizard of Oz. The Somewhere in Time fan club, INSITE, is distinguished by its influence on the popularity of the film, the films restoration and re-release, the 20th Anniversary DVD and Blu-ray, as well as the club being unique with its association with a very minor film that was a box office failure.

Please clarify why the inclusion of references to special video features about the club on Universal Studios DVD and BD releases cannot be considered independent references. They were produced by Universal Studios, not the club, and include background as well as contact information. DVD special features are highly reliable sources for interviews, production notes, "making-of" features, and background information. Nothing contained in that material could be considered as lacking factual basis. Pht7738 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are probably various criteria that can be added to make this "one of only 3 film fan clubs for single movies." Perhaps Rocky Horror's fan club is the only one for a single movie involving a transvestite. Perhaps we add "in black and white" for It's a Wonderful Life. Eventually, EVERY film ever made is one of a kind. The point is irrelevant. Do we have reliable sources that are independent of the film and fan club for the distinction? The DVD is not independent of the film. The fan club may or may not be distinguished by various factors. Those factors might be 100% true. The sources might be reliable sources. From those criteria,we can pump this article full of every detail from the film: what kind of car did Reeve drive? What model year? Who actually owns the car? Who took hte photo of Seymour used in the film? Who played first violin for the recording of Variations...? After years on Wikipedia, I can assure you that there are obsessive editors who would like to add such information. It is, however, trivial. The best way we have found to suss this out is coverage in independent reliable sources. DVD extras often cover trivia, as do fan clubs, interviews with cast and crew, etc. The material remains trivial. Wikipedia is not here to promote or tear down the film, the fan club or anything else. Any topic discussed on Wikipedia could easily be several hundred pages long. Such articles are useless for the general reader. Those who are interested in your fan club will find it. The overwhelming majority of readers will not care. Details that are of interest to general readers are covered in independent reliable sources, that's how they build and maintain their readership. Material that such sources have not seen fit to discuss goes to sources for interest to narrower groups of readers: blogs, fanzines, DVD special features, fan clubs, conventions, etc. Wikipedia is for general readers. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• There has been a renewed push recently from someone likely affiliated with this club to push POV and promotional content into this article. To be clear, the existence of the club is barely notable and bears only brief mention in this article. Extended prose about the club founders/members and their businesses, books, and promotional ventures, are inappropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Laser_brain#Somewhere_In_Time_.28film.29 for rebuttal to Laser Brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.92.10 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We certainly seem to have enough sources available to discuss the fan club. Unfortunately, three of those sources have recently disappeared.[2][3][4] Of the four sources (the three I cited and the one remaining), all of them are discuss that the existence of the club is unusual because the film did poorly at the box office and was very poorly received by critics. This is not currently mentioned in the article. Instead, we hear there is a fan club that meets at the hotel and the fans dress up. A film that critics hated and flopped at the box office spawned a dedicated fan club 10 years later. That's unusual and discussed in independent reliable sources. - Tefkasp (The Editor Formerly Known as SummerPhD) (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad I saw your signature here—I was taking Tefkasp and SummerPhD as distinct editors. Anyway, I've re-added some of the contextual content and two sources. How is that for a compromise? I am still opposed to including details about club members and their business ventures. I also don't consider American Thinker to be a reliable source. --Laser brain (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Laser Brain, I appreciate your note and your reconsideration. This seems to be an exceptional fan club, unlike others like 'The Wizard of Oz and Casablanca, in that the movie originally flopped at the U.S. box office and became a guilty pleasure until it resurfaced and went to video in the middle 1980s. The club is notable in that it has sway with the film company that produced the film. As result of the club, the film was restored on reel for special showings and it was rereleased with extras around 2000 where the film company acknowledged the existence of the club in a special documentary in the release. Yes, mentioning super fan Jo Addie is not the same as Jane Seymour, but outside the world of Somewhere In Time she has been someone the press regularly talks to. As for the licensed memorabilia and the book, they are not off topic and should be at least mentioned as the Los Angeles Times mentioned in the 1995 article the existence of Shepard's popular making book that actually has been reprinted three times and can currently be found on Amazon. The club also did other interesting things like help the main stars, Reeve and Seymour, to get Stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, but that may be getting away from the movie and into the club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.92.10 (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I.N.S.I.T.E., the fan club we are talking about, seems near folding again as its membership is now very very low. Various cast and crew members died in recent years including author Richard Matheson and musician John Barry putting a damper on the club. The club seems to be trying to stay around long enough to see the story make it to Broadway as producer Ken Davenport has a production in the works. The play should be mentioned as it is a modern part of the Legacy since it was produced in cooperation with Matheson.12.54.92.10 (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)