Why does L A always get attacked in movies?

Cantona's Collars

From Battle: Los Angeles to this new movie http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46091 The trailer looks ok even if its from the guys that gave us the sh1tfest that was AvP Requiem. Los Angeles seems to get attacked/blown up or otherwise devastated in some way in the movies,is it to feed an American-centric audience or laziness.
If something really happened we'd all think it was a trailer for the next disaster movie.

krudler

Cos after 9/11 having bits of New York blowing up may not be seen as being in good taste.

PhiloCypher

zerks wrote: »

From Battle: Los Angeles to this new movie http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46091 The trailer looks ok even if its from the guys that gave us the sh1tfest that was AvP Requiem. Los Angeles seems to get attacked/blown up or otherwise devastated in some way in the movies,is it to feed an American-centric audience or laziness.
If something really happened we'd all think it was a trailer for the next disaster movie.

Like many of its stars hollywood is a self destructive beast and likes to self harm in the form of annual cinematic annihilations .

It's a cry for help really .

bnt

I suppose it's because all the film-makers live and work there, and enjoy seeing destruction happening to places they know. I remember being quite impressed by Volcano (with Tommy Lee Jones), and the amount of location shooting they did in very busy parts of the city (e.g. demolishing an office building near the Cedars Sinai Medical Center)

Hank_Jones

It's because it has landmarks.

People like landmarks that they can identify with.
Paris - Eiffel tower
India - Taj Mahal
Australia - Opera House
Los Angeles - Holloywood Sign, Golden Gate Bridge, Gruaman's Chinese Theatre, etc etc.
It also has quite an amazing skyline and picturesque is what film makers are looking for.

Nervous Wreck

LA is film-maker friendly. Easy to get permission to close off streets etc for shooting as compared to other big cities. Apparently.

Raekwon

Hank_Jones wrote: »

It's because it has landmarks.

People like landmarks that they can identify with.
Paris - Eiffel tower
India - Taj Mahal
Australia - Opera House
Los Angeles - Holloywood Sign, Golden Gate Bridge, Gruaman's Chinese Theatre, etc etc.
It also has quite an amazing skyline and picturesque is what film makers are looking for.

The Golden Gate Bridge is in San Francisco not Los Angeles

ricero

Hank_Jones wrote: »

It's because it has landmarks.

People like landmarks that they can identify with.
Paris - Eiffel tower
India - Taj Mahal
Australia - Opera House
Los Angeles - Holloywood Sign, Golden Gate Bridge, Gruaman's Chinese Theatre, etc etc.
It also has quite an amazing skyline and picturesque is what film makers are looking for.

Dublin - the spire :rolleyes:

Cantona's Collars

It's gas that certain scenes were removed from 2012 in case they'd offend muslims,how come we can take these things for what they are-pure fantasy and just a movie.If everyone was as sensitive about landmarks being destroyed in movies there'd be no disaster films made again or they'd all be set on another world.
Where would you like to see destroyed in a movie?

Hank_Jones

Raekwon wrote: »

The Golden Gate Bridge is in San Francisco not Los Angeles

Sorry, I was thinking California.

Ohio just isn't good enough.

krudler

zerks wrote: »

It's gas that certain scenes were removed from 2012 in case they'd offend muslims,how come we can take these things for what they are-pure fantasy and just a movie.If everyone was as sensitive about landmarks being destroyed in movies there'd be no disaster films made again or they'd all be set on another world.
Where would you like to see destroyed in a movie?

Limerick.

johnny_ultimate

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

LA is film-maker friendly. Easy to get permission to close off streets etc for shooting as compared to other big cities. Apparently.

This I'd say is a significant factor alright. LA and New York have the infrastructure in place for film-making. Plus, the other states aren't nearly exciting enough.

It's the reason Tokyo is always destroyed too. It's too much trouble to transport Godzilla elsewhere - a surprising amount of ships are unwilling to transport giant dinosaurs. And when they do, it always leads to trouble. Just ask Roland Emmerich.

Cantona's Collars

It's the reason Tokyo is always destroyed too. It's too much trouble to transport Godzilla elsewhere - a surprising amount of ships are unwilling to transport giant dinosaurs. And when they do, it always leads to trouble. Just ask Roland Emmerich.

They should ask Harry-he carries a bucketful of dinosaurs around:)(anyone with kids will know who Harry is)
Couldn't you imagine filming in Limerick instead of L A-people wouldn't notice an difference to everyday life.:D:D

pixelburp

ricero wrote: »

Dublin - the spire :rolleyes:

This is precisely why I have always been against The Spire - it leaves us completely vulnerable to attack by aliens and their anti-monument lasers. Everyone knows they go for the landmarks first.

Anakin.S

I suppose with all the 'top' Holloywood acotors living in LA it means they can sleep in their own beds at night an not some 5 star hotel

bnt

When I was in Toronto in 2001, I walked several miles along one long road (Queen St.) and passed three separate film crews. According to city government stats, production companies spent over CA$877 million filming on location in Toronto. They even have a website listing all the places Toronto has been.

With all the Hollywood productions that are shot there, you'd think they'd try blowing up the CN Tower or something, but you rarely see Toronto on film: it's the perennial urban stand-in. About the only film I can think of that used wide shots of the city was Cronenberg's Crash.

monkeyfudge

You're going to be seeing a lot of New Orleans now. They've huge tax breaks to attract film makers at the moment.

Raekwon

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Sorry, I was thinking California.

No worries man, X-Men 3 was probably what you had in mind there?

seamus

Because it's difficult to tell the difference between L.A. and a warzone anyway, so the amount of FX needed is less.

As said above, L.A. has a lot of tax breaks for filming and it's easier to shoot locations and actors on your doorstep than it is to fly elsewhere.

L.A. also has something of an "any city" quality - it's grey, bland and boring - so a few simple tricks can dress it up and make it look like any other city in the world.

McLoughlin

They took the Dodgers from Brooklyn.

mike65

seamus wrote: »

L.A. also has something of an "any city" quality - it's grey, bland and boring - so a few simple tricks can dress it up and make it look like any other city in the world.

Thats why its so often filmed in Vancover

Dublin will know its not just some poxy capital city and has truely arrived when its featured in a blockbuster getting blown up.

LittleBook

Just talking about this (sorta) on the "I Am Legend" thread, how some of the opening shots were real rather than CGI.

Which led me here:

Filming in New York

where I learned the interesting factoid that a lot of the Burn After Reading, which is ostensibly set in Washington, was filmed on location in New York, "dressed up" to look like Washington. I guess it's easier/cheaper to film in New York than Washington.

Oh sorry, erm ... on topic, when it comes to global invasions, there's nowhere American film-makers like blowing up more than Paris