Things you're tired of seeing in movies

blewis17

Master Member
Funny you'd mention Tallahassee. They filmed, "Something Wild" there (Ray Liotta's first big movie and it holds up well, not to mention my Dad had a walk on role as a civil war re-enactor) and it takes place in New Jersey and Virginia!

Much of "Flight of the Navigator" was filmed in my old stomping grounds, Ft. Lauderdale. But I consider that Miami by proxy, so...
 

Inquisitor Peregrinus

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Any movie or TV show taking place in Seattle just as an excuse to film it in Vancouver, BC. You'll see a dozen 'B roll' shots of Pike's Place and the Space Needle, then the characters with the Vancouver skyline, which looks nothing like Seattle and is at an angle where there are no docks or beachfronts in Seattle.
As someone who has spent a lot of time in Seattle, it drives me nuts.
What was it, Mission: Impossible III? Or Ghost Protocol? The coda where they meet on the "Seattle Waterfront" and it so very is Vancouver. I mean... Why not just have them meeting in Vancouver in the script?

The worst one I've seen, though, was Rose Red. Good story, good cast, good mansion... But it's in Tacoma. The place they put it in Seattle doesn't look like that or work like that. They have it at 9th Avenue and Spring Street, with shots from the gate looking down Spring toward the bay... Except Spring goes right on through -- doesn't end at 9th, and certainly not at a mansion's gated driveway. There's a church on one corner and a parking lot on the other. And while there were several mansions in Seattle (and a few are still there), they are/were 19th-century mansions. I.e., modest houses by todays standards. Some take up a city block, but none take up two, as the mansion in Rose Red does.

Then there's the egregious establishing shot looking West out over the bay... Except it isn't the bay, it's Lake Union, with the entirety of Queen Anne Hill and Magnolia digitally removed and replaced with water... and Mount Rainer. Majestically off on the Western horizon, somehow magically not South of Seattle as it is in real life. I mean, why?
 

p51

Sr Member
What was it, Mission: Impossible III? Or Ghost Protocol? The coda where they meet on the "Seattle Waterfront" and it so very is Vancouver. I mean... Why not just have them meeting in Vancouver in the script?

The worst one I've seen, though, was Rose Red. Good story, good cast, good mansion... But it's in Tacoma. The place they put it in Seattle doesn't look like that or work like that. They have it at 9th Avenue and Spring Street, with shots from the gate looking down Spring toward the bay... Except Spring goes right on through -- doesn't end at 9th, and certainly not at a mansion's gated driveway. There's a church on one corner and a parking lot on the other. And while there were several mansions in Seattle (and a few are still there), they are/were 19th-century mansions. I.e., modest houses by todays standards. Some take up a city block, but none take up two, as the mansion in Rose Red does.

Then there's the egregious establishing shot looking West out over the bay... Except it isn't the bay, it's Lake Union, with the entirety of Queen Anne Hill and Magnolia digitally removed and replaced with water... and Mount Rainer. Majestically off on the Western horizon, somehow magically not South of Seattle as it is in real life. I mean, why?
Yeah, that makes no sense to me. Movies love showing people going places that aren't connected if you are familiar with the area as well. You'll see someone heading the opposite direction on the 'b roll' to where the characters show up.
I remember seeing a movie where someone was going through Baltimore, heading to NYC. But the problem was it was clear to anyone who'd been there that they were heading south!
The most insane one was the attack scenes in Pearl Harbor where the main characters are trying to find an airfield. In the middle of this, they find themselves driving across Ford Island! That's nowhere near between the two points along their route and I'm pretty sure there was no bridge to Ford Island in 1941 anyway...
 

Riceball

Master Member
What was it, Mission: Impossible III? Or Ghost Protocol? The coda where they meet on the "Seattle Waterfront" and it so very is Vancouver. I mean... Why not just have them meeting in Vancouver in the script?

The worst one I've seen, though, was Rose Red. Good story, good cast, good mansion... But it's in Tacoma. The place they put it in Seattle doesn't look like that or work like that. They have it at 9th Avenue and Spring Street, with shots from the gate looking down Spring toward the bay... Except Spring goes right on through -- doesn't end at 9th, and certainly not at a mansion's gated driveway. There's a church on one corner and a parking lot on the other. And while there were several mansions in Seattle (and a few are still there), they are/were 19th-century mansions. I.e., modest houses by todays standards. Some take up a city block, but none take up two, as the mansion in Rose Red does.

Then there's the egregious establishing shot looking West out over the bay... Except it isn't the bay, it's Lake Union, with the entirety of Queen Anne Hill and Magnolia digitally removed and replaced with water... and Mount Rainer. Majestically off on the Western horizon, somehow magically not South of Seattle as it is in real life. I mean, why?
It's simple, the script is written first, then once it has a greenlight to be shot the director will then send out a location scout to look for filming locations. As to why they don't change the lines to reflect the fact that the filming location doesn't match where it's supposed to be in the script, there are probably union rules about changing the script and who can do it and the rules probably make it so that it costs a lot to get the script writer to change even one word in the script. That and there's probably also fines if someone makes changes (outside of improving lines) without the knowledge/permission of the script writer.

There's also the matter of it not being particularly important to the film if the setting and shooting locations don't match. As long as the script doesn't call for something like the action to go the mountains and the film's being shot somewhere where there's not so much a hill in sight, it really doesn't affect anything. I think that the director and producers are counting on the fact that wherever the film/show is set, the vast majority of the audience watching won't know the difference between what, say, Atlanta looks like vs. Timbuktu.
 

batguy

Sr Member
Yes, the typical geographical issue gets noticed by about 1% of viewers. That's nothing. Hollywood does other goofs with bigger percentages all the time. Medical tech, injuries, computers/tech, vehicles, power tools, etc.
 

blewis17

Master Member
Fight scenes: How about the female lead action star jumps and wraps her legs around the bad guy's neck, spins around thereby twisting his neck, and dropping him to the ground. Yes, I realize this is an actual move that can be effective. But it seems to be a modern crutch, a "cool shot", to help the 120 pound female protagonist drop the 250 pound male baddie. Every. Single. Movie.

For a more "realistic" hand to hand fight scene involving a female lead, see Charlise Theron in Atomic Blonde.
 
Last edited:

The Brahma Bull

Sr Member
Yes, the typical geographical issue gets noticed by about 1% of viewers.
I think the problem is more present when you live in North America.
I've only had it a couple of times that I couldn't stop shaking my head.
In Arrow, a lot of the exterior shots of Frankfurt served as the star city. I thought that was quite nice, at least in the first season. As the quality of the series declined, not so much.

But the worst was the A-Team film, which moved Frankfurt near the Alps. That is, in American terms, as if it could be a short trip by car from Aspen to New York.
 

joberg

Master Member
Fight scenes: How about the female lead action star jumps and wraps her legs around the bad guy's neck, spins around thereby twisting his neck, and dropping him to the ground. Yes, I realize this is an actual move that can be effective. But it seems to be a modern crutch, a "cool shot", to help the 120 pound female protagonist drop the 250 pound male baddie. Every. Single. Movie.

For a more "realistic" hand to hand fight scene involving a female lead, see Charlise Theron in Atomic Blonde.
Yes to Charlize and her fight scene. Best in my book featuring a female character(y) Anyone wanting to see that movie would want to see the behind-the-scene of those fight choreographies:cool:
 

Cephus

Sr Member
Fight scenes: How about the female lead action star jumps and wraps her legs around the bad guy's neck, spins around thereby twisting his neck, and dropping him to the ground. Yes, I realize this is an actual move that can be effective. But it seems to be a modern crutch, a "cool shot", to help the 120 pound female protagonist drop the 250 pound male baddie. Every. Single. Movie.

For a more "realistic" hand to hand fight scene involving a female lead, see Charlise Theron in Atomic Blonde.

That is one of the best female fight scenes in recent memory. It doesn't rely on the absurd idea that a woman is pound-for-pound as strong as a man, it shows how it could have and should have happened and both Theron and the stunt coordinator should be commended for all of their hard work.
 

Treadwell

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
The only episode I've ever seen of Criminal Minds (not my kind of show) I watched because it was set in my hometown Jacksonville, FL. Aside from a couple stock shots, it of course was not shot here. Much of it takes place at the beach, and California has plenty of those, why not shoot local?

Some of the discrepancies, as someone was saying, was just in the writing and set production. It assumes the city limits extend to the beach (they don't), and that the police HQ is a one-story building at the beach with palm trees just outside the windows (it's a 12-story building in the middle of the downtown metropolis 30 minutes away). Doesn't bother me, it's just fun to notice these things.
 

Sluis Van Shipyards

Legendary Member
Hey if Charlize Theron (or Scarlett Johansson, so it's a comprehensive study) wants to jump and wrap her thighs around my neck to see if she can take me down, I'm game. Just like for science reasons though.

Another one I would add is people on shows that would be considered experts in a field that act stupid when are required to use that knowledge. I watched one show where a contractor was looking at some plans while renovating a house and the people wanted to remove a load bearing wall. He just sat there scratching his head going "How do I remove a wall..." Not I'm not an expert, but I know you can do that as long as you shore up the load in another way. They should have had the guy say something like "How do I move that wall while keeping the the house structurally sound?" Anything that doesn't make them sound like a moron.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
Top