Why exactly do filmmakers have so much trouble filming on site?

I mean, if it's a dangerous place or the filmmakers don't have the budget (Sergio Leone's westerns come to mind, which were great even though Spain looks nothing like the American southwest) But filming the remake of 3:10 to Yuma in NM when Arizona is right next door seems weird. At The Last of the Mohicans being filmed in my home state of North Carolina when it looks NOTHING like the Adirondacks. And don't even get me started on Cold Mountain.

Well I expect the budget often being the reason. After all, it's not just putting up some cameras and say "action!". You have the entire team, all the actors, all the equipment, all the clothes, food for everyone, etc. etc. You'll also need a permit to film, can't just do it anywhere.

And there are places all over the world that specializes in different kinds of moviemaking. You need desert? You got Morocco. Indoor studios? London or LA. Makes sense to localize moviemaking, we're talking about a ton of money!

Or you can be George Lucas and film 3 whole movies with nothing but random actors, costumes, minor props, and CGI... and create complete crap that disappoints all the actors, writers, artists, producers (including Lucas, though he wouldn't admit it), and fans.

One of my less likely goals in life is to make millions of dollars and buy the rights to Star Wars, get actual writers to rewrite them to not suck, and then make them coherently 1-6. It's not so much that the old ones are bad, but they could be redone as a legitimate tribute and the new ones could be redone as to not be . Critically I'd cut the ridiculous blend of children's humor and child murder and decide to make them Star Wars.

Originally Posted by Rebelyell

I mean, if it's a dangerous place or the filmmakers don't have the budget (Sergio Leone's westerns come to mind, which were great even though Spain looks nothing like the American southwest) But filming the remake of 3:10 to Yuma in NM when Arizona is right next door seems weird. At The Last of the Mohicans being filmed in my home state of North Carolina when it looks NOTHING like the Adirondacks. And don't even get me started on Cold Mountain.

You have a strong argument about the ridiculousness of shooting 3:10 to Yuma in New Mexico when Arizona is right there. They used to use Arizona for almost every western. Also, yeah, there was plenty of wilderness in New England with easy access to cities to shoot Last of the Mohicans in. Movie permits aren't very hard to obtain when you have enough cash. Look at The New World, shot by Terrence Malick. He filmed damn near everything on location in Virginia, just across a tributary from the real James River. It's much more intriguing when you see the real places where these people ventured through.

Also, Cold Mountain. Yeah, lets use the Carpathian Mountains of Romania to represent the Appalachians. LOL

Taxes...Taxes taxes taxes. (Tax breaks)

Money is the problem. Hence why you have, say, practically every show on the Sci Fi/SyFy channel made in Canada, specifically the Vancouver area. Although it isn't just taxes but also the Canadian dollar vs American. In the past, you could buy a lot more with the American dollar in Canada than you could in America, so a lot of shows shot there because it was cheaper (X-Files comes to mind). If you watch a lot of shows filmed in that area, you start to notice a trend; same actors, same locations, same effects companies...etc.

Here's another example, about Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy:

The events which take place in Czechoslovakia in the novel were moved to Hungary, because of the country's 20% rebate for film productions. The teams filmed in Budapest for five days.

So money really is the issue! It can even alter an adaption of a novel!

This production video from The Hobbit gives you a good idea of what the filmmakers face in terms of logistics, especially so for these huge movie blockbusters. Don't watch if you're like my friend who doesn't want to see anything of the movies before they are shown on the big screen

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Budget, tax breaks, local laws, etc.

Money and facility. Glasgow has recently posed as San Francisco and Philadelphia in films, because our authorities are opportunistic saps who are quite happy to close off half of the city centre just so Brad Pitt can film a couple of car chases, just to get some publicity for something other than being corrupt layabouts. It was actualyl cheaper to ship in dozens of American cars, film equipment, even shop fronts and traffic lights, than to film in the real place.

Of course, it may have something to do with the fact that both films were disaster movies, so it is obviously better to film in a city that already looks like a disaster area to begin with.

Originally Posted by Copperknickers II

Money and facility. Glasgow has recently posed as San Francisco and Philadelphia in films, because our authorities are opportunistic saps who are quite happy to close off half of the city centre just so Brad Pitt can film a couple of car chases, just to get some publicity for something other than being corrupt layabouts. It was actualyl cheaper to ship in dozens of American cars, film equipment, even shop fronts and traffic lights, than to film in the real place.

Of course, it may have something to do with the fact that both films were disaster movies, so it is obviously better to film in a city that already looks like a disaster area to begin with.

Lol.


That's really sad that it is cheaper to dress up a city as a different city than to use the city that is intended to be portrayed.


Take the show Monk for example. Originally they filmed the show in Canada, and the locations they used as well as the climate actually looked fairly close to San Francisco, where the show takes place. In later seasons, production moved from Canada to the LA area. Anyone that lives in the United States can tell the difference: Los Angeles is mostly flat, sunny, and has a vastly different architecture as well as plants and such (Palm trees for decorative purposes) compared to San Francisco, which is hilly and overcast much of the year. Only rarely did they film parts of the show in San Francisco. Los Angeles used to portray the San Francisco Bay Area was a horrible choice, but SF is generally not friendly towards film production.

Then take a show like The 4400. The show takes place in the Seattle area in Washington, while the production of the show takes in the Vancouver area, less than 200 miles away. Very similar climate gave the show a fairly realistic tone (although at times you could tell it was filmed in Canada, with BC license plates and Canadian companies in the background)

To be honest I was being a little harsh on our council, it is good for our economy, not to mention awesome to have big stars come here. Glasgow has always been a cinema city: it's pretty much the number one thing to do here what with the bad weather. We have one of the highest rates of cinema attendance in Europe, plus the tallest cinema in the world. And you can see why people film here, Glasgow is a very American looking city and we are extremely welcoming.

That reminds me, the movie 'In Pursuit of Honor (an ok movie overall) was supposed to take place along the United States/Canadian border.......it was filmed in Australia.

Originally Posted by Rebelyell

That reminds me, the movie 'In Pursuit of Honor (an ok movie overall) was supposed to take place along the United States/Canadian border.......it was filmed in Australia.

Lol

I loved it in Stargate SG-1 when "Area 51" was being portrayed...The main building was in the middle of a bunch of desert(ish) dirt, but in the not so distant background you can see large trees...Haha

My two cents as someone who has worked in locations and has produced some films and worked for a development company.

The first and largest issue is $. Where can you get the best bang for your buck. Where is it cheaper with the best tax incentives. I think NM made a very large push to get filming into the state which drew many productions there.

The next is convenience. Where are you going to be able to easily support the crew and where will you get the easiest time from the locals. Again this is where the local govs step and and often bend over backwards to get these productions in town.

Yes you want to get as close to the place you are attempting to portray, but honestly, if the audience isn't willing to suspend their disbelief for something as minor as AZ being portrayed in NM (which honestly have some mightly similar features being as they border each other) you have a lot larger problems. As we like to say, 'If the audience is paying attention to that, we've got a problem with our story."

Sometimes locations can be fun to shoot on. I just did two nights this past weekend in an alley in Inglewood Los Angeles. It was cold and dirty, but the location looked amazing once we had it lit. I've also worked on one where we had to carry all the equipment a mile to a beach the director thought looked nice. Took us about two hours to get the gear in place meaning we could only shoot for about 6 hours total since we had to strike for two hours.

Also worked in one place where a neighbor got mad and the police shut the entire production down. We had to wait a week to find another location and then the crew got paid buku OT for tight turn arounds to get the thing in under a deadline.

Bottom line, locations are chosen for many reasons, most of which involve time and money and we all must accept a degree of suspension of disbelief when watching movies. Take Jackie Chan's 'Rumble in the Bronx' for example with snow capped mountains in the background.

Also, FYI, Los Angeles isn't completely flat. There's three mountain ranges running through the city and most of the east side have very steep hills. Its the architecture and where those hills are that are different. If you shoot in Angelino Heights though you can get close to a SF look.

Originally Posted by Ramashan

Also, FYI, Los Angeles isn't completely flat. There's three mountain ranges running through the city and most of the east side have very steep hills. Its the architecture and where those hills are that are different. If you shoot in Angelino Heights though you can get close to a SF look.

Fair enough. But for the most part you can tell. SF is mostly hilly except right next to the bay and LA is mostly flat. With where they shot the show, you can DEFINITELY tell it's LA.

Originally Posted by Gen. Chris

Fair enough. But for the most part you can tell. SF is mostly hilly except right next to the bay and LA is mostly flat. With where they shot the show, you can DEFINITELY tell it's LA.

I actually agree with you. Just commenting to bury the conception that LA is flat.

It really should come down to how you frame your shots. Send your crew out to get some establishing shots and then shoot fairly tight or in areas that look generic. If people put more thought into the composition of the frame then perhaps some of the setting issues could be avoided.

Originally Posted by Ramashan

I actually agree with you. Just commenting to bury the conception that LA is flat.

It really should come down to how you frame your shots. Send your crew out to get some establishing shots and then shoot fairly tight or in areas that look generic. If people put more thought into the composition of the frame then perhaps some of the setting issues could be avoided.

True. It wasn't as bad when some episodes took place outside of San Francisco. And they did film there occasionally.

One of the other problems was when they changed filming locations, and the exterior of the house changed (although they still used a house in San Francisco for the exteriors). At least I'm pretty sure they changed.

It's a common practice to shoot your exteriors in one place and then do your interiors some place completely different.

I can't think of any specific films at the moment, but I've know I've seen things where out side you see a building the actors are walking into and then when they're inside there are windows and features that could not have existed inside from what you saw outside. A good example of this in using an establishing shot of place you never shoot at is The Brady Bunch. The house is obviously one story (maybe there's some room there to the left, but it does not match the layout we see on the show inside)



But anyone who has seen the show knows that there's a stair case going up to the kids rooms, plus an attic where Greg lived. We just never think about it and enjoy the show though.