Editing Groundhog Day (film) (section)

===Writing===
Rubin admitted to becoming defensive about the studio's changes. He was concerned that they would remove what he saw as innovative plot points and turn it into a generic comedy film.<ref name="telegraph interview" /> Ramis supervised the rewrite,<ref name="LATIMesRamis" /> tasked with balancing Rubin's desire for originality and the studio's demand for a broad comedy.<ref name="DOGRubin" /> The pair loosely used the [[Kübler-Ross model]] of the five stages of grief—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance—as an outline.{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|p=49}}<ref name="LATIMesRamis" /> Ramis imagined himself in Phil's situation and the things he would do and feel if in the same cycle of entrapment.<ref name="LATIMesRamis" /> The pair spent weeks revising the script.<ref name="VultureRubin" /> Ramis suggested that Rubin's original ending, with Rita trapped in her own loop, be removed. He felt that audiences would dislike this as it offered no [[catharsis]].<ref name="new yorker" /><ref name="Mentalfloss" /> Similarly, he felt it was important to retain the story's darker elements, such as Phil's suicides, as these compensated for the necessary sentimental moments.<ref name="LATIMesRamis" />

Rubin delivered a fresh draft on February 2, 1991.<ref name="DOGRubin" /> He was contractually permitted to write another draft, but the studio had Ramis take over, bringing Rubin's involvement to an end.{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|pp=16–17, 22}} Ramis took Rubin's new draft and began his solo rewrite.<ref name="telegraph interview" /><ref name="DOGRubin" /> He found the sentimentality and sincerity completely opposed to everything he had learned to do as a comedian, and deliberately tempered the sweeter moments with a cynical and grouchy tone.<ref name="LATIMesRamis" /> Ramis reorganized the script into a mainstream three-act narrative.<ref name="uproxx rift" /> He emphasized Phil's smug attitude as a means of distancing himself from others, giving him a defined story arc as a classic comedic lead character deserving of his punishment.<ref name="Varietyat25" /><ref name="new yorker" /> Ramis liked Rubin's concept of starting with the loop in progress, but associate producer Whitney White suggested starting the film before the loop begins because she thought it would be more interesting for the audience to see Phil's initial reaction to his predicament.<ref name="TheWrapGypsy" />{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|p=16}}

Ramis also removed Rita's boyfriend, Max, and introduced (then removed) Phil's executive producer, Gil Hawley.{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|pp=16–17}} This draft featured more scenes focused on Phil's sexual conquests{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|p=21}} and removed some content deemed more mean-spirited, like Phil asking Rita to be his "love slave." The situation was reversed in the final version of the film, in which Rita buys Phil at the bachelor auction, claiming that she owns him.{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|pp=16–17}} Phil's journeys outside Punxsutawney were excised, as Ramis did not want the audience becoming too focused on what the rules of the loop were and felt that keeping the story within the town made it more claustrophobic.{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|p=66}} Phil's [[exposition (narrative)|expositional narration]] was removed as well.<ref name="telegraph interview" />{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|p=16}} Also excised were more scenes of Phil's later good deeds and the clever methods he used to prevent accidents while making the most efficient use of his time. For example, Phil puts a large rock in a road to stop a truck delivering fish, on which a restaurant patron would have later choked.{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|p=76}} Where Rubin's original script had been more sermonic and deprecating, Ramis made the tone more optimistic.<ref name="TheWrapGypsy" /><ref name="new yorker" /> Two versions of a scene with Phil and Rita in a diner from Rubin's original script and Ramis's rewrite exemplify the shift of emphasis toward both Phil's smugness and the romantic core of the film:<ref name="Varietyat25" /><ref name="new yorker" />

{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}

<blockquote>
'''Rubin's original script'''{{br}}
'''PHIL''' (voice over) "And me and Rita—together—was the most obvious thing in the world..."<br />
'''PHIL''' "Have you ever felt like you were reliving the same day over and over again?" <br />
'''RITA''' "Like déjà vu?" <br />
'''PHIL''' "More like—déjà, déjà, déjà, déjà..." <br />
'''RITA''' "So, you still think you've been here before?" ''Phil nods.'' <br />
'''RITA''' "And how does this evening turn out?" <br />
'''PHIL''' "I'll tell you what I do know. Even in a day as long as this, even in a lifetime of endless repetition, there's still room for possibilities."<ref name="new yorker" />
</blockquote>

{{Col-2}}

<blockquote>
'''Ramis's rewrite'''{{br}}
'''PHIL''' "What are you looking for? Who's your perfect guy?"<br />
'''RITA''' "Well. First of all, he's too humble to know he's perfect." <br />
'''PHIL''' "That's me."  <br />
'''RITA''' "He's intelligent, supportive, funny." <br />
'''PHIL''' "Intelligent, supportive, funny. Me, me, me." <br />
'''RITA''' (thinking) "He's romantic and courageous."  <br />
'''PHIL''' "Me, me also." <br />
'''RITA''' "He has a good body but he doesn't have to look in the mirror every two minutes."  <br />
'''PHIL''' "I have a great body and I never look at it." <br />
'''RITA''' "He's kind and sensitive and gentle and considerate. And he's not afraid to cry in front of me." <br />
'''PHIL''' "This is a man we're talking about, right?"<ref name="new yorker" /> 
</blockquote>
{{Col-end}}

It was Ramis's version that attracted Murray to the project, though Murray and Ramis immediately clashed over its tone. Murray wanted to focus on the philosophical elements; Ramis countered that it was meant to be a comedy.<ref name="DOGRubin" /><ref name="new yorker" />{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|pp=16–17}} The studio was happier with Ramis's draft, believing that his changes made it more appealing to audiences.<ref name="DOGRubin" /> Columbia Pictures rehired Rubin to assess the script and provide notes. Rubin returned the script with pages of honest and sometimes sarcastic notes. In response, Murray recommended fully rehiring Rubin to assist on the script.{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|p=22}}

The studio refused to [[green-light|greenlight]] the project without making explicit why Phil becomes trapped.<ref name="telegraph interview" /><ref name="TheWrapGypsy" /> Producer Trevor Albert described a Columbia executive saying, "Why does the day repeat?... I like it... but I don't understand why he gets stuck in this loop."<ref name="TheWrapGypsy" /> 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.<ref name="TheWrapGypsy" /> Albert and Ramis worked with Rubin to appease the studio, while agreeing to place the scenes too late in the shooting schedule to be filmed—and if forced to shoot it, to simply not include it in the film.<ref name="TheWrapGypsy" />

As the conflict between Ramis and Murray continued, Ramis sent Rubin to work on the script with Murray; he believed it was the only way to stop Murray's constant early-morning phone calls. When Ramis called to check on their progress, Murray asked Rubin to pretend he was not there.<ref name="DOGRubin" /><ref name="new yorker" /> The pair visited the 1992 Punxsutawney Groundhog Day festival to get a better understanding of the event, remaining discreet and not revealing the reason for their visit.<ref name="PhillyPunxVisit" /><ref name="morning call" /> They then spent weeks working together in New York City revising the script.<ref name="VultureRubin" />{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|pp=22–23}} Rubin found Murray's more laid-back approach to writing "frustrating."{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|p=23}} They were still working on the script a month before filming began, bringing it back closer to Rubin's original.<ref name="DOGRubin" />

Rubin and Ramis then collaborated on an additional rewrite. The pair worked on individual sections and then edited each other. Ramis then spent a few days refining it into the screenplay.<ref name="DOGRubin" /><ref name="telegraph interview" /> Rubin recommended that they not include any references to the 1990s or any specific period to allow it to remain timeless.{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|p=23}}<ref name="TheGuardianDirectors" /> Rubin has said that the final film largely resembles his script.<ref name="LATIMesRamis" /> He did regret the loss of a scene between Phil and a 14-year-old boy, in which the child behaves like Phil did at the start of the film, contrasting with Phil's character development by that point in the script.{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|p=73}} A few scenes were written but not filmed, including Phil praying at a church, gambling, and a scene Murray personally vetoed, of Phil stripped naked to force an elderly man out of a swimming pool.<ref name="DOGRubin" /><ref name="LATIMesRamis" /> Although the script was complete, it continued to undergo changes during filming.<ref name="SeattleTimes" /><ref name="NorthWestHerald" />