To be honest, visually, LA is pretty lame. NY is far more visually interesting.

RJSchwarz

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjschwarz

To be honest, visually, LA is pretty lame. NY is far more visually interesting.

---

I've been saying that all along. But LA can have better weather. Actually, the West Coast tends to have better weather than the East Coast.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul
I've been saying that all along. But LA can have better weather. Actually, the West Coast tends to have better weather than the East Coast.

---

If by better you mean warmer then yes. NYC does get very cold winters, but unlike most cities with similar climate (cold winters, hot summers, short transitional seasons), it gets fairly little precipitation and overcast during those winters. The days tend to get short in the winter, but they are so often sunny, with clear blue skies. Most large European cities get gloomy, grey weather throughout the winter, with plenty of monotonous rain and snow. Same thing with continental US (especially north of Mason-Dixon line).

NYC is too cold in the winter and too hot in the summer. San Francisco, like Seattle, is moderate year round, but SF has the potential for earthquakes.

Too hot and too cold is all relative. Rare are the winters where temperature stays below freezing 0° C (about 32° F) for more than a day. You do need winter clothing and it may get windy, but the greatest thing is that you get sunshine and blue skies, much more than elsewhere. Same thing in the summer -- it rarely goes above 40° C (about 100° F) for more than a day, and you get sunshine and clear skies. While there certainly are cities where temperatures are even more moderate, it is difficult to argue you could find visually more attractive (never mind diverse) city for a filmmaker.

No wonder there are currently 23 prime time TV shows shot in NYC (all-time record number).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul
?...but SF has the potential for earthquakes.

---

Those potential earthquakes are statistically significantly less disruptive to film production than any potential precipitation, fog or other weather occurrence. Last such (disruptive) earthquake was many years ago.

I don't understand the question?

A true storyteller would ask what the story was and then set it in the appropriate location.

A Producer with money on his mind is going to look for the location offering the biggest tax bribes and change the script to make it work.

A Director with no power will succumb to the will of the Producer who writes the checks.

So, what is the goal of the question? If it's about VISUAL attributes of a location, then again, what's the story asking for? You could write a script to match ANY location on Earth and beyond and make it work. What am I missing about this question?

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

<<To be honest, visually, LA is pretty lame. NY is far more visually interesting.

RJSchwarz>>

Says who? NYC is just a string of the same tall buildings over and over and over again. You've seen one downtown, you've seen 'em all. Kinda boring and repetitious. LA offers numerous backgrounds including snow capped mountains and beach within driving distance. For the money, and one of the big reasons that the film industry moved from NYC to Southern California, So Cal has much more to offer AND more consistent better weather so that productions are hampered by the threat of rain or snow or too much wind or anything beyond ample sunshine.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

I'm asking the question to see if there's anything I missed. As I said, I have no experience in this business, so I want to know why producers set their film in one city as opposed to another.

It's rare that the producer decides on the city the story takes
place in. That is usually the writer. A producer will choose to
shoot in a city where they get the best deals. It's usually as
simple as that for the producer.

If a producer buys a script that takes place in New York but
cannot afford to shoot in NYC then they often shoot in a cheaper
city and send a second unit to get establishing shots or buy stock
footage.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

That then leads to the question of where the writer would set his stories. If it's arbitrary, then I've got my answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul

That then leads to the question of where the writer would set his stories. If it's arbitrary, then I've got my answer.

---

Yep. It's entirely a story driven thing. Location can be just as much a "character" as any of the character are. Everything on screen says something about the story or about the characters. Everything from what a character wears, to what he/she drives, where he/she lives, the kind of jobs they have, the weather that takes place during the story... all of it shouldn't be arbitrary. EVERYTHING on screen should be intentional with the purpose of imparting information to the audience whether the audience consciously recognizes it or not.

One tiny example of this which comes to mind was in the Dwayne Johnson movie, TOOTH FAIRY. A silly movie, for sure, but they did a nice job painting his character with subtle things. One that really caught my EAR was his car. He plays an aging "has been" hockey player who used to be somebody. So they put him in a 1980s Corvette which speaks to when he did have money...but the key was when he turned the car off... every time, it did that sputter thing that old cars do when their engines are in the throes of death. He's driving an old car that used to be the new hot thing and the engine noise said a lot about the car and about him. It's small thing that likely went right by most people, but guaranteed that whether they consciously heard that noise or not, it helped paint a fuller picture of Dwayne's character, just as much as the apartment he lives in does and the clothes he wears.

So, when you write a story, you use location to help paint the picture. But when it comes to actually filming it, well, that has more to do with things like budget and permits and weather and insurance. The show TWIN PEAKS was set in the Pacific Northwest but FILMED down in So Cal in the Topanga Canyon area and on stages. MASH was set in Korea but filmed in Malibu Canyon. WANTED was set in Chicago but mostly filmed in Prague. FAST FIVE was set in RIO but filmed mostly in Arizona, Puerto Rico, and Atlanta. You get the idea.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by bjdzyak
Yep. It's entirely a story driven thing. Location can be just as much a "character" as any of the character are. Everything on screen says something about the story or about the characters. Everything from what a character wears, to what he/she drives, where he/she lives, the kind of jobs they have, the weather that takes place during the story... all of it shouldn't be arbitrary. EVERYTHING on screen should be intentional with the purpose of imparting information to the audience whether the audience consciously recognizes it or not.

---

So what do you say about setting Hawaii Five 0 in Hawaii? How does the locale tell you anything about the stories?

I know a lot of people are picking some massive places in the states and stuff, but I can say honestly that I'd pick my home town Birmingham, England. An the reason being is that id rather bring the industry home to Birmingham, but even more importantly I prefer to stick with people, places, locations and sittuations that I have a good udestanding of. Also it makes things a lot lot more practical. But hat said my taste in filmmaking differs from most peoples lol.

www.youtube.com/yoursayvideos