Why do filmmakers not always choose to film in correct cities?

A more articulate phrasing of the question in the conversation title would be:

Why is it that sometimes, when filmmakers make a film taking place in a city, they sometimes go ahead and film it in a city other than the one it actually takes place in?

(For example, the 2012 film The Amazing Spider-Man will be filming its stuff in Los Angeles as opposed to New York)

Anyhow, I would like to find out why even big-budget movies like these do things like this. Thanks.

X

edited 8th Dec '11 7:46:00 PM by XRay

Because Hollywood is in Los Angeles?

edited 8th Dec '11 7:45:26 PM by jewelleddragon

Any number of factors. Tax write-offs, shooting schedules, one city having a street that fits a scene better than the actual city, budget, etc.

Budget reasons. Sometimes, exchange rates and union regulations make it cheaper to shoot in Vancouver than Los Angeles or Toronto instead of New York or Chicago.

Other times, it's tax credits. This is why more movies are shot in New Orleans, Atlanta, Detroit and Pittsburgh now.

And its just plain easier in some cities. It's much easier to shut off a street to film in someplace other than New York.

It's already explained in California Doubling, there are hundreds of people involved in a large film crew who not only get paid for their work but will also have living accomodations paid for while on location.

Hollywood itself is a double-edged sword. They have the industry base and crews to manage any film or tv show you want but locations and production houses get very pricey. Take your show or movie to Vancouver, BC, New York City or Miami and you will find lower filming costs but higher transportation and equipment costs as well as a smaller acting pool, forcing you to import guest stars.

Yeah, everyone in this thread has summed it up quite nicely. It bothers me too, but it just can't be helped.

In this case, I feel like the advantage goes to small indie filmmakers who set and film their stuff in whatever city they're living in because it's easiest. But those films aren't going to find a wide audience anyway.

The issue may also be scene by scene and choices for one may impact on another. If you're shooting at Pinewood studios you maybe don't want to have to fly across the Atlantic for a single scene in Pittsburg.

You might as well ask yourself "Why didn't they actually film The Lord Of The Rings in Middle-Earth?" Obviously, not the same issue, as Middle-Earth doesn't exist and New York actually does, but the same principle behind it, essentially. Why would they? As long as the movie looks good who gives a crap where it was filmed?

It's more or less a money issue; if they can film in a good location at a fraction of the cost, a filmmaker will have more money to spend on other ways to improve the film.

Steven Soderbergh is an aversion to the rule. He almost always shoots on location (an example is The Informant, where he really did go to places like St. Louis and Zurich to shoot single scenes that took place in those areas).

edited 12th Dec '11 8:47:41 PM by Buscemi

Not really. The fact that these are real places which you could, at least theoreticaly, go and film was the whole point of the question. Before reading this thread I didn't really understand most of the reasons for doing this either, outside if the fact that it's obviously easier to film in LA than the actual city.

As for the pro's of filming in the correct city? Well for a start there's going to be a lot of people who recognize there's been a switch, and it's going to be a fairly big strain on their suspension of disbelief.

Here's a better question:

In several Hollywood movies shot during the Cold War, Helsinki was a stand-in for Moscow.

I don't quite get why the filmmakers wouldn't just film in the US if they can't go film in Russia.

It's always a balance between artistic integrity and what looks good for the movie. Why fly to New York just to shoot a scene in a hotel lobby? Why bother with international paperwork to find the most generic forest possible? You shouldn't shoot on-location unless you are going to make it worthwhile.

The Bourne Series is an example of making every place they visited into a facinating trip to another country. There are few movies that have such a strong sense of place, using the architecture of the buildings and the culture (the customs, behaviors and clothing style) to their advantage.