|You know it makes sense
(Note: Contains spoilers)
It's surprisingly common for two films to appear around the same time with similar basic ideas—the phenomenon is known as "twin films". For example, Armageddon and Deep Impact, both 1998, about impending destruction by a meteor. There are sometimes allegations of plagiarism (as there were with 12:01 and Groundhog Day) but this overlooks a lot of structural reasons. Many films are inspired by recent events or controversies. These aren't necessarily obvious. Only a few years before Armageddon and Deep Impact, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 had collided with Jupiter—a massive strike that excited astronomers and was in the news in 1994. Apart from Armageddon and Deep Impact, Wikipedia lists no fewer than four other films about meteor impact in 1997–8 which were less successful.
The process of film development is notoriously long and slow, and many, many scripts are around that never get produced: thus it is likely that there are plenty of scripts with similar ideas floating round all the time. Also, less tangibly, some ideas are in the air in the film world at particular times. Still, we can't say there is never copying. There is a useful Wikipedia list of twin films which gives more information.
In 1993, two films—both very good—were made with much the same premise: one character finds the day repeating endlessly. At the end of each day he finds himself waking up back at the start of it. No one else is aware of this, and their behaviour, except when affected by the protagonist, is always the same. He can do different things each day, but nothing he does will have any effect in the next loop. Are these two "twin films"?
One of these films is the very well-known Groundhog Day, now considered a classic. The other is the less well-known 12:01. 12:01 was based on a short story by Richard Lupoff (1973), and had earlier been adapted as a 30 minute short (1990). Richard Lupoff and Jonathan Heap (the director of the 1990 version) believed that Groundhog Day was plagiarized from 12:01. (See "Recollections by Richard Lupoff") However, Danny Rubin, who wrote the initial script of Groundhog Day, states that he got the idea in 1990 from thinking about what vampires would do with their time.
I'm not going to comment on that dispute, as I have no special information. However, it's interesting to compare the two films. The remarkable thing is that, despite the similarity of the basic premise, the films otherwise have almost nothing in common.
12:01 is a science fiction film. The repeating day is caused by a "time bounce", the effect of an unauthorized experiment. Thus, the universe is stuck in a loop. No one except Barry, the protagonist, notices, because their memory is reset along with everything else. The protagonist is, uniquely, aware, and remembers previous loops, apparently because he was zapped by a powerful electric shock at midnight. Actually, we don't know that he is the only one, but he works in personnel at the place where the experiment takes place so he's the only one in a position to do anything. In successive days, he manages to find out more, recruit one of the leading physicists (Lisa), and stop the time bounce. Also, he gets the girl (Lisa), so there's a happy ending. The story is essentially mystery/action about solving the problem. There are something like a dozen loops, I haven't counted them.
Groundhog Day is a fantasy. Phil, a weatherman, is stuck in a small town where he went to broadcast a groundhog day festival. There is no explanation for the repeating day, or why one character (Phil) is aware of it. We don't see every loop, and it is implied that there are a huge number of them: for example at one point Phil breaks off to learn French to a high standard. The story is philosophical, and about Phil's gradual development—which isn't straightforward. The loops finally end when Phil reaches a certain stage; though by that point he no longer worries about his situation.
After initial confusion, Phil uses his situation to indulge in pleasures without consequences—food, sex, money. This gradually palls and he turns to trying to seduce Rita, his producer, by learning what impresses her, stage by stage, adding a few seconds to the last day's progress each time. But at the end of it all, she realizes there is an insincerity to what he is doing, and rejects him. Phil goes into a decline, becomes frighteningly angry, and kills himself, but wakes up again as usual. In a state of subdued hopelessness, one day he makes Rita believe in his situation by showing incredible levels of pre-knowledge. She comforts him and suggests that perhaps there is a positive side. The next day, he starts to live more positively. He learns to play the piano. I won't go into all the details here but eventually he spends much of each day helping people out, preventing deaths and accidents, etc. He now accepts his role with something like joy.
Other time loops
Incidentally, the idea of reliving your life had been around for a while. Ken Grimwood's Replay (1986) involves a man who dies in the 1980s (in his 40s) and wakes up in 1963, when he was 18. He is in a loop, though a much longer one. It's well worth reading and I won't give any spoilers here. Another notable exmple is the Star Trek TNG episode "Cause and Effect" (see page on this site), first broadcast in 1992. In this, the Enterprise is caught in a time bounce which is apparently spatially localized. This version is slightly different in that no one remembers previous loops consciously, but for some unstated reason they have growing subconscious memories—it seems there is a very slight residue between loops.
The meaning of Groundhog Day
Groundhog Day can be interpreted in many ways. One quite common interpretation is in religious terms, either Buddhist or Christian. Phil's experiences can be understood as Purgatory: he has to purify himself and escape from his self-centredness and cynicism. Phil's transformation is deep. At the start he avoids a homeless man on the street, then he helps him. In the evening, though, he finds that the old man dies. He tries to save him, and by this time he has moved from shrinking away, to love. But the old man always dies. Phil accepts his limitations. "Sometimes people just die," a nurse tells him.
Rita is in many ways a Beatrice figure. Dante was inspired by falling in love with Beatrice (from a distance). She became, at least by his account, a symbol of the divine for him, and in the Divine Comedy she has helped to bring him to Paradise, and becomes his guide. Similarly, Phil remarks that something changed in him when he first saw her (compare Dante, on seeing Beatrice: "Here begins the new life"). Rita is a rather passive character, but this fits the Beatrice figure: her role is for Phil to journey toward her. His attempt to win her by effort is doomed to failure (Pelagianism?).
At a different level, Phil's evolution shows some Freudian aspects, starting with oral pleasures (eating without restraint—"I don't even need to floss"), moving on to sex, and eventually finding the death-wish.
As you will have gathered by now, the feel and meaning of the two films is totally different, despite sharing the basic plot device. The differences can be set out:
|Why the loop
|Loop is the universe repeating, caused by unwise experiment
|Loop is unexplained
|Nature of story
|Story is adventure: finding and solving the cause (against opposition)
|Story is about development of personality
|Love interest: story
|Hero has chance to show heroine his mettle
|Hero fails in attempt to impress heroine, and wins her only when he gives up on this
|Love interest: significance
|Heroine as partner in adventure
|Heroine as Beatrice figure
|Dangers of irresponsible science?
So—in conclusion, these are radically different films. The comment I have sometimes seen that they are similar shows a failure to look beyond the basics of premise. (I am not commenting on the argument about whether that premise was taken properly or not.) Do they constitute a case of twin films? Formally, but not in a useful sense. (Interestingly, the Wikipedia list of twin films didn't contain them when I consulted it in March 2022.) It is understandable that the makers of 12:01 feel their idea was stolen, but Groundhog Day is so different that it cannot be regarded as plagiarism, whatever the source of the premise. Also, although 12:01 is a good film, it isn't a great film, as Groundhog Day is.
 The energizing effect of this seems to be ongoing, as he doesn't need to be zapped again. Incidentally there is a slight resemblance here to the start of the 1985 SF film The Quiet Earth. [Return]
 Pelagianism is essentially the theory, attributed to the ancient Pelagius, and eventually rejected by the Christian church, that human beings were capable of living perfect lives by their own efforts, rather than being inherently imperfect with sin being inevitable (and God's grace being necessary). Susan Howatch described Pelagius as maintaining that we can jolly well stop complaining and pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, noting that it is appropriate that he was British. What exactly Pelagius taught, as with other ancient heresies, is somewhat disputed. Wikipedia states both that Augustine made it up and it did not really exist as a movement, and that it was a much better movement than orthodoxy and it's a pity Augustine triumphed. Wikipedia is great for science but more caution is needed when you get into subjects like this where contributors have agendas. [Return]