Lifestyle
Time loop stories aren't all 'Groundhog Day' rip-offs. Time loop stories aren't all…
Here we go again: Time loop stories were around long before the 1993 movie Groundhog Day. So a friendly reminder that one person’s discovery of something isn’t the same as its invention.
Columbia Pictures/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Columbia Pictures/Getty Images
Here we go again: Time loop stories were around long before the 1993 movie Groundhog Day. So a friendly reminder that one person’s discovery of something isn’t the same as its invention.
Columbia Pictures/Getty Images
What if I told you that on Groundhog Day, I am thinking about the way we wind up in a repeating conversation about movies like Groundhog Day that reminds me of the way that, in Groundhog Day, Bill Murray keeps waking up on Groundhog Day? Would you feel like you were reading the same phrase over and over again?
Time loop stories are popular. They go like this: a character lives through some portion of their lives — most often a day — and then they suddenly find themselves back in time, experiencing the same events again and again. Usually, but not always, the character’s struggle is to escape the time loop and proceed with a normal life, sometimes after indulging in many (many) loops to see what happens or to gain knowledge that they retain in subsequent loops.
YouTube
Most recently, I saw a time loop in a Hallmark movie about Hanukkah called Round and Round. (And that was not its first Hallmark incarnation.) The idea was used well in Palm Springs with Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti, and in the Happy Death Day movies, and in the great Netflix series Russian Doll. You could argue that many video games are functionally time loops as you experience them; if you die in The Last of Us, you just start over at the last save point and exactly the same things happen to you, and you try to get it right, and only then can you continue.
YouTube
But the closest association a lot of people have with time loops in popular culture is with Groundhog Day. In fact, on the online index TV Tropes, they call this whole idea “the Groundhog Day loop.”
Which is funny, because … this idea didn’t originate with Groundhog Day! At all! If you don’t believe me, believe the Wikipedia page called “Time loop” that calls out examples going back to a Russian novel from 1915. Much later, in 1992, just about a year before Groundhog Day came out, Star Trek: The Next Generation aired an episode called “Cause and Effect” in which the crew is stuck in a loop. There’s a 1973 short story called “12:01 P.M.,” by Richard A. Lupoff, in which a man relives the same hour over and over.
Language will do what it does; it doesn’t really matter that it goes by “the Groundhog Day loop” as a shorthand; that’s reasonable and sensible, since it’s familiar. But when Palm Springs came out, there were people who called it a rip-off of Groundhog Day, and that’s … unfortunate. Ascribing the invention of an idea to a specific implementation of it can misunderstand as intellectual property what is actually the natural evolution of interesting ideas. Not to overextend the focus on looping constructions, but “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” didn’t invent the idea of a round, and not every round is copying it, even if the handiest way to explain a round might be to say, “You know, like ‘Row, Row, Row Your Boat.’” The idea of the time loop is best understood as folk culture beyond the reach of either official copyright or ethical “rip-off” analysis.
A movie screen at Snappy Burger drive-thru in Las Vegas displays images of cast members Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell during a Groundhog Day celebration on Feb. 2, 2021.
Ethan Miller/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Ethan Miller/Getty Images
More important, though, one person’s discovery of something isn’t the same as its invention. An anecdote: I was a guest on a podcast once, let’s say Podcast A, that had a format that someone immediately announced with great indignation was clearly stolen — stolen, I tell you! — from another one he listened to, Podcast B. But it turned out the one I guested on was using the format years earlier. When this was pointed out, the accuser did not conclude that he had it backwards, and in fact B stole it from A (nor did I). He shrugged and concluded that in that case, it was a coincidence. But he’d had a reflex: I have seen this concept somewhere else, so that’s where it comes from, so it is stolen.
What does this have to do with recipes? I’m so glad you asked. I have my vices, and one is that I love to hate recipe comments, especially in The New York Times. The best-known category is probably the comment that says, “I didn’t have any onions so I used beets, and I didn’t have any chicken so I used hot dogs, and I didn’t have any lemons so I poured Fanta on it, and I have to tell you, this recipe is not good at all.” But there is also a type that says something like, “You stole this from [name of chef], who published almost this exact recipe in [name of publication] two years ago.”
(This is distinct from explaining, by the way, that a food you know well has been stripped of its cultural origins, which is important work.)
But nobody in the last 20 years invented any combination of, say, the 20 most common ingredients for people to have in their kitchens using the most common techniques. There’s little you can do with, say, chicken, butter, salt, pepper, onions, carrots and peas in a saute pan that somebody might not decide is “stolen.” In fact, there are limitations on copyright for recipes, which is a good thing, because who’s going to own the copyright on scrambled eggs? Or even something more involved, like the basic structure of a spinach salad? Recipe development is often about iterating, tweaking and perfecting. The idea is rarely to claim that you have come up with something nobody has ever done before in any form in all of history.
Writing movies or TV can be the same way. The bottom line: a time loop story is sort of like a spinach salad. It’s beyond ownership, beyond association with one particular version. Here’s hoping we all have a good lunch and six more weeks of winter.
This piece also appeared in NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour newsletter. Sign up for the newsletter so you don’t miss the next one, plus get weekly recommendations about what’s making us happy.
Listen to Pop Culture Happy Hour on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
Lifestyle
Video: Prada Peels Back the Layers at Milan Fashion Week
new video loaded: Prada Peels Back the Layers at Milan Fashion Week
By Chevaz Clarke and Daniel Fetherston
February 27, 2026
Lifestyle
Bill Cosby Rape Accuser Donna Motsinger Says He Won’t Testify At Trial
Bill Cosby
Rape Accuser Says Cosby Won’t Take Stand At Trial
Published
Bill Cosby‘s rape accuser Donna Motsinger says the TV star can’t be bothered to show up to court for a trial in a lawsuit she filed against him.
According to new legal docs, obtained by TMZ. Motsinger says Bill will not testify in court … she claims it’s “because he does not care to appear.”
Motsinger says Bill won’t show his face at the trial either … and the only time the jury will hear from him will be a previously taped deposition.
As we previously reported, Motsinger claims Bill drugged and raped her in 1972. In the case, Bill admitted during a deposition that he obtained a recreational prescription for Quaaludes that he secured from a gynecologist at a poker game.
TMZ.com
Bill also said he planned to use the pills to give to women in the hopes of having sex with them.
Motsinger alleged Bill gave her a pill that she thought was aspirin. She claimed she felt off after taking it and said she woke up the next day in her bed with only her underwear on.
Here, it sounds like Motsinger wants to play the deposition for the jury.
Lifestyle
Baz Luhrmann will make you fall in love with Elvis Presley
Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.
NEON
hide caption
toggle caption
NEON
“You are my favorite customer,” Baz Luhrmann tells me on a recent Zoom call from the sunny Chateau Marmont in Hollywood. The director is on a worldwide blitz to promote his new film, EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert — which opens wide this week — and he says this, not to flatter me, but because I’ve just called his film a miracle.
See, I’ve never cared a lick about Elvis Presley, who would have turned 91 in January, had he not died in 1977 at the age of 42. Never had an inkling to listen to his music, never seen any of his films, never been interested in researching his life or work. For this millennial, Presley was a fossilized, mummified relic from prehistory — like a woolly mammoth stuck in the La Brea Tar Pits — and I was mostly indifferent about seeing 1970s concert footage when I sat down for an early IMAX screening of EPiC.
By the end of its rollicking, exhilarating 90 minutes, I turned to my wife and said, “I think I’m in love with Elvis Presley.”
“I’m not trying to sell Elvis,” Luhrmann clarifies. “But I do think that the most gratifying thing is when someone like you has the experience you’ve had.”
Elvis made much more of an imprint on a young Luhrmann; he watched the King’s movies while growing up in New South Wales, Australia in the 1960s, and he stepped to 1972’s “Burning Love” as a young ballroom dancer. But then, like so many others, he left Elvis behind. As a teenager, “I was more Bowie and, you know, new wave and Elton and all those kinds of musical icons,” he says. “I became a big opera buff.”
Luhrmann only returned to the King when he decided to make a movie that would take a sweeping look at America in the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s — which became his 2022 dramatized feature, Elvis, starring Austin Butler. That film, told in the bedazzled, kaleidoscopic style that Luhrmann is famous for, cast Presley as a tragic figure; it was framed and narrated by Presley’s notorious manager, Colonel Tom Parker, portrayed by a conniving and heavily made-up Tom Hanks. The dark clouds of business exploitation, the perils of fame, and an early demise hang over the singer’s heady rise and fall.
It was a divisive movie. Some praised Butler’s transformative performance and the director’s ravishing style; others experienced it as a nauseating 2.5-hour trailer. Reviewing it for Fresh Air, Justin Chang said that “Luhrmann’s flair for spectacle tends to overwhelm his basic story sense,” and found the framing device around Col. Parker (and Hanks’ “uncharacteristically grating” acting) to be a fatal flaw.
Personally, I thought it was the greatest thing Luhrmann had ever made, a perfect match between subject and filmmaker. It reminded me of Oliver Stone’s breathless, Shakespearean tragedy about Richard Nixon (1995’s Nixon), itself an underrated masterpiece. Yet somehow, even for me, it failed to light a fire of interest in Presley himself — and by design, I now realize after seeing EPiC, it omitted at least one major aspect of Elvis’ appeal: the man was charmingly, endearingly funny.
As seen in Luhrmann’s new documentary, on stage, in the midst of a serious song, Elvis will pull a face, or ad lib a line about his suit being too tight to get on his knees, or sing for a while with a bra (which has been flung from the audience) draped over his head. He’s constantly laughing and ribbing and keeping his musicians, and himself, entertained. If Elvis was a tragedy, EPiC is a romantic comedy — and Presley’s seduction of us, the audience, is utterly irresistible.
Unearthing old concert footage
It was in the process of making Elvis that Luhrmann discovered dozens of long-rumored concert footage tapes in a Kansas salt mine, where Warner Bros. stores some of their film archives. Working with Peter Jackson’s team at the post-production facility Park Road Post, who did the miraculous restoration of Beatles rehearsal footage for Jackson’s 2021 Disney+ series, Get Back, they burnished 50-plus hours of 55-year-old celluloid into an eye-popping sheen with enough visual fidelity to fill an IMAX screen. In doing so, they resurrected a woolly mammoth. The film — which is a creative amalgamation of takes from rehearsals and concerts that span from 1970 to 1972 — places the viewer so close to the action that we can viscerally feel the thumping of the bass and almost sense that we’ll get flecked with the sweat dripping off Presley’s face.
This footage was originally shot for the 1970 concert film Elvis: That’s The Way It Is, and its 1972 sequel, Elvis on Tour, which explains why these concerts were shot like a Hollywood feature: wide shots on anamorphic 35mm and with giant, ultra-bright Klieg lights — which, Luhrmann explains, “are really disturbing. So [Elvis] was very apologetic to the audience, because the audience felt a bit more self conscious than they would have been at a normal show. They were actually making a movie, they weren’t just shooting a concert.”
Luhrmann chose to leave in many shots where camera operators can be seen running around with their 16mm cameras for close-ups, “like they’re in the Vietnam War trying to get the best angles,” because we live in an era where we’re used to seeing cameras everywhere and Luhrmann felt none of the original directors’ concern about breaking the illusion. Those extreme close-ups, which were achieved by operators doing math and manually pulling focus, allow us to see even the pores on Presley’s skin — now projected onto a screen the size of two buildings.
The sweat that comes out of those pores is practically a character in the film. Luhrmann marvels at how much Presley gave in every single rehearsal and every single concert performance. Beyond the fact that “he must have superhuman strength,” Luhrmann says, “He becomes the music. He doesn’t mark stuff. He just becomes the music, and then no one knows what he’s going to do. The band do not know what he’s going to do, so they have to keep their eyes on him all the time. They don’t know how many rounds he’s going to do in ‘Suspicious Minds.’ You know, he conducts them with his entire being — and that’s what makes him unique.”
Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.
NEON
hide caption
toggle caption
NEON
It’s not the only thing. The revivified concerts in EPiC are a potent argument that Elvis wasn’t just a superior live performer to the Beatles (who supplanted him as the kings of pop culture in the 1960s), but possibly the greatest live performer of all time. His sensual, magmatic charisma on stage, the way he conducts the large band and choir, the control he has over that godlike gospel voice, and the sorcerer’s power he has to hold an entire audience in the palm of his hands (and often to kiss many of its women on the lips) all come across with stunning, electrifying urgency.
Shaking off the rust and building a “dreamscape”
The fact that, on top of it all, he is effortlessly funny and goofy is, in Luhrmann’s mind, essential to the magic of Elvis. While researching for Elvis, he came to appreciate how insecure Presley was as a kid — growing up as the only white boy in a poor Black neighborhood, and seeing his father thrown into jail for passing a bad check. “Inside, he felt very less-than,” says Luhrmann, “but he grows up into a physical Greek god. I mean, we’ve forgotten how beautiful he was. You see it in the movie; he is a beautiful looking human being. And then he moves. And he doesn’t learn dance steps — he just manifests that movement. And then he’s got the voice of Orpheus, and he can take a song like ‘Bridge Over Troubled Water’ and make it into a gospel power ballad.
“So he’s like a spiritual being. And I think he’s imposing. So the goofiness, the humor is about disarming people, making them get past the image — like he says — and see the man. That’s my own theory.”
Elvis has often been second-classed in the annals of American music because he didn’t write his own songs, but Luhrmann insists that interpretation is its own invaluable art form. “Orpheus interpreted the music as well,” the director says.
In this way — as in their shared maximalist, cape-and-rhinestones style — Luhrmann and Elvis are a match made in Graceland. Whether he’s remixing Shakespeare as a ’90s punk music video in Romeo + Juliet or adding hip-hop beats to The Great Gatsby, Luhrmann is an artist who loves to take what was vibrantly, shockingly new in another century and make it so again.
Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.
NEON
hide caption
toggle caption
NEON
Luhrmann says he likes to take classic work and “shake off the rust and go, Well, when it was written, it wasn’t classical. When it was created, it was pop, it was modern, it was in the moment. That’s what I try and do.”
To that end, he conceived EPiC as “an imagined concert,” liberally building sequences from various nights, sometimes inserting rehearsal takes into a stage performance (ecstatically so in the song “Polk Salad Annie”), and adding new musical layers to some of the songs. Working with his music producer, Jamieson Shaw, he backed the King’s vocals on “Oh Happy Day” with a new recording of a Black gospel choir in Nashville. “So that’s an imaginative leap,” says Luhrmann. “It’s kind of a dreamscape.”
On some tracks, like “Burning Love,” new string arrangements give the live performances extra verve and cinematic depth. Luhrmann and his music team also radically remixed multiple Elvis songs into a new number, “A Change of Reality,” which has the King repeatedly asking “Do you miss me?” over a buzzing bass line and a syncopated beat.
I didn’t miss Elvis before I saw EPiC — but after seeing the film twice now, I truly do.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology7 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics7 days agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT