AARoads Forum

Non-Road Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: roadman on October 04, 2013, 09:38:04 AM

Title: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman on October 04, 2013, 09:38:04 AM
My comment about a Cheers episode in the "You're too old if ..." thread reminded me of a gaffe in that same episode, when the closing scene in It's a Wonderful Life was interrupted by a breaking news alert that "Boston Airport" was closed (it's been called, and known as, Logan Airport for several decades now).

Can anybody recall similar gaffes on popular TV shows or movies?  Note that cases where private brands or properties were deliberately re-branded or mislabeled to avoid possible trademark permission or "free advertising" issues don't count.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Big John on October 04, 2013, 10:02:34 AM
One episode of Picket Fences had this.  (Though not set in Green Bay, was set in a fictional town close to it.) Had a big issue with Green Bay bussing all their minority African-American students to their town.  If you look at Green Bay demographics, you see that native Americans and Hmong are the largest minority populations and blacks make up a very small minority, not enough students in the whole city to fill the school buses shown on that show.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: kkt on October 04, 2013, 01:05:52 PM
My comment about a Cheers episode in the "You're too old if ..." thread reminded me of a gaffe in that same episode, when the closing scene in It's a Wonderful Life was interrupted by a breaking news alert that "Boston Airport" was closed (it's been called, and known as, Logan Airport for several decades now).

That's probably just for familiarity to viewers who aren't from New England and haven't traveled through there.  If Cheers had been set in Atlanta, they would have referred to the Atlanta Airport, not Hartsfield-Jackson.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: spooky on October 04, 2013, 01:20:04 PM
Rizzoli and Isles is set in Boston and consistently refers to an institution of higher learning abbreviated BCU. At first I thought they were going for a combination of BC (Boston College) and BU (Boston University), which would result in a rather anachronistic "Boston College University", but it turns out their fake college is Boston Cambridge University.

Note that cases where private brands or properties were deliberately re-branded or mislabeled to avoid possible trademark permission or "free advertising" issues don't count.

Note that Rizzoli and Isles definitely falls under this heading, since they rebrand many things about Boston - the Marathon, the Red Sox, etc. Plus no one ever drinks Dunkin' Donuts coffee.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: PHLBOS on October 04, 2013, 01:30:20 PM
In the series Spin City which is supposed to take place in NYC; one outside shot was of US 30 Westbound (Admiral Wilson Blvd.) in Camden, NJ that showed a BGS for I-676 North (directing motorsits to the Ben Franklin Bridge & Philadelphia).  I nearly died when I saw that scene, since I used that road and passed by that BGS everyday when commuting from work in Pennsauken at the time.

Another Cheers error was in the episode that involved Sam, Norm & Cliff sky-diving; the opening scene has Sam & Rebecca going through some marketing suggestions for the bar. 

One suggestion Sam read off was for the bar to offer a Happy Hour; Rebecca replied back, "Not legal in the State of Massachusetts.".  Massachusetts is a Commonwealth.

Road-geek Cheers error: when Woody & Sam get into his (Sam's) Corvette (w/Woody behind the wheel) to head north, Woody reads off the I-93 signs not only using an older set of exit numbers (I forget whether the numbers he read were the original ones (25=128) or the ones from the early 1970s) but the first one he reads off (supposedly just after getting on I-93 North from the bar in Boston) off (for Concord Road IIRC) is near/at Wilmington. 

Note: the episode in question was made after 1987 (when I-93's exit numbers changed to its present numbers).

My comment about a Cheers episode in the "You're too old if ..." thread reminded me of a gaffe in that same episode, when the closing scene in It's a Wonderful Life was interrupted by a breaking news alert that "Boston Airport" was closed (it's been called, and known as, Logan Airport for several decades now).

That's probably just for familiarity to viewers who aren't from New England and haven't traveled through there.  If Cheers had been set in Atlanta, they would have referred to the Atlanta Airport, not Hartsfield-Jackson.
The Jackson part of ATL's official name didn't come about until the 2000s well after Cheers ended.  :)

As far your stated reasons for using a generic airport name rather than the actual name is concerned; while there might be some validity to that reason, it's rather shallow... especially since the show was well into its 6th season when this particular episode aired.  One would think the writers would know the proper names for most Boston area features & landmarks by then and use them for authenticity purposes.

If Cheers was set in NYC, would New York Airport refer to LaGuardia or JFK?
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Scott5114 on October 04, 2013, 01:31:42 PM
The first episode of Star Trek Enterprise depicts a Klingon ship crashing in Broken Bow, Oklahoma. Unfortunately, the Broken Bow in Star Trek looks nothing like the real thing; Broken Bow is in hilly, forested SE Oklahoma, while the TV version looked more like Iowa.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 01:40:10 PM
holy crap 555 phone numbers
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Brandon on October 04, 2013, 01:59:40 PM
holy crap 555 phone numbers

That's not an error, it's a feature.  Otherwise, you have people calling the number a la 867-5309 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/867-5309/Jenny).
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: PHLBOS on October 04, 2013, 03:41:46 PM
holy crap 555 phone numbers

That's not an error, it's a feature.  Otherwise, you have people calling the number a la 867-5309 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/867-5309/Jenny).
Or, going back a couple decades; Beechwood 4-5789... the original version done by the Marvelettes.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Indyroads on October 04, 2013, 05:54:04 PM
Rizzoli and Isles is set in Boston and consistently refers to an institution of higher learning abbreviated BCU. At first I thought they were going for a combination of BC (Boston College) and BU (Boston University), which would result in a rather anachronistic "Boston College University", but it turns out their fake college is Boston Cambridge University.

That/'s almost as bad as the REAL college UMUC. "University of Maryland University College" I mean come on couldnt they shorten that to just "Maryland Univ" or "U of MD" or something else.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: DaBigE on October 04, 2013, 10:28:22 PM
Step by Step (from ABC's old TGIF lineup). Lake Michigan looked more like an ocean in the opening credits. There isn't an amusement park in Port Washington, Wisconsin, (don't think there ever has been...the county fair grounds are further south in Cedarburg), let alone one that looks like a Six Flags theme park. IIRC, they did correctly reference taking I-43 up to Green Bay to watch the Packers, and I think they did have the population fairly accurate on the sign in the opening credits.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: lordsutch on October 05, 2013, 03:32:02 AM
That's almost as bad as the REAL college UMUC. "University of Maryland University College" I mean come on couldnt they shorten that to just "Maryland Univ" or "U of MD" or something else.

Technically UMUC is a part of the University System of Maryland that operates nontraditional (distance learning) degree programs. Just to be confusing there are several other "University of Maryland" universities, most famously the University of Maryland, College Park that is home to the "Maryland" D-I athletic teams. See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_System_of_Maryland
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: DTComposer on October 05, 2013, 04:05:30 AM
Psych is set in Santa Barbara yet many outdoor scenes give away its British Columbia filming location.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on October 05, 2013, 09:59:21 AM
I have seen on the 80's sitcom The Facts of Life where Natalie learns to drive on a street in California.  The thing is the show takes place in Peekskill, NY thousands of miles away.

In the filming you will see California mast arms and backplate signaling!  In NYS the official signals are span wires and the few mast arms they have have no backplates!

On an episode of the A Team where the team went to NYC, many street shots were filmed in California and are visibly noticable.

In Kojak, the show is about the Manhattan South precinct in NYC, yet you see Kojak walking around California scenes as well.

I Dream of Jeannie takes place in Cocoa Beach, FL yet you often see mountains in the backround when showing Downtown Cocoa Beach.  In reality Florida does not have any mountain ranges or even a foothill for this matter.

Into the movies, in Smokey and the Bandit (1977 when Coors Beer was illegal to have east of Texas) as the characters traveled through Arkansas you can catch a glimpse of a Georgia route shield in one scene.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 05, 2013, 10:29:10 AM
CBS once had the drama Judging Amy with Amy Brenneman. The show was set in and around Hartford (as Amy is a grad of Glastonbury High School, class of 1982). Except for an exterior building shot or two, I never saw anything filmed in and around this area.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: empirestate on October 05, 2013, 10:34:37 AM
Well, you can just lump together any shows that are filmed in California but take place elsewhere. The Office—Scranton, PA anyone? Actually, I'm impressed at the amount of care that seems to have been put into making CA look like PA, even though it's not a terribly good approximation to those of us familiar with both locales. They avoid showing desert flora or large mountains, shoot scenes in older-looking neighborhoods, and you don't see too many shots of concrete freeway overpasses and so on.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Revive 755 on October 05, 2013, 12:51:41 PM
IIRC, in one of the later seasons of Stargate SG-1 there's a car chase that I think is supposed to be in Colorado, yet the BGS's resemble those in BC.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: PHLBOS on October 05, 2013, 01:13:30 PM
Many of the Alaska scenes in the movie The Proposal were actually shot in Rockport, MA with an mountainous backdrop added/photoshopped.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Thing 342 on October 05, 2013, 03:04:37 PM
An episode of Seinfeld featured a section of freeway allegedly in Ohio, but is very obviously from California, with Bott's dots and Caltrans-spec signage in all. I think that this is a section of I-105, but I'm not sure.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 05, 2013, 03:06:42 PM
Step by Step (from ABC's old TGIF lineup). Lake Michigan looked more like an ocean in the opening credits. There isn't an amusement park in Port Washington, Wisconsin, (don't think there ever has been...the county fair grounds are further south in Cedarburg), let alone one that looks like a Six Flags theme park. IIRC, they did correctly reference taking I-43 up to Green Bay to watch the Packers, and I think they did have the population fairly accurate on the sign in the opening credits.

That is because it was filmed at Six Flags Magic Mountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Flags_Magic_Mountain) in California.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on October 05, 2013, 03:40:28 PM
Both In The Heat of The Night and Dukes of Hazzard were filmed in Covington, GA.  One took place in a fictional town in Mississippi and the other took place in the right state (although you do not hear where Hazzard County is located  and its state's capital city is called "Capital City") as we all could figure out its in Georgia.  Many producers like to film in other places hundreds or thousands of miles away if a town could just about pass.  In the south many towns look a like, so whether MS, AL, or GA you would have the same type of business district or courthouse.

Back to Smokey And The Bandit where the setting was to be Texarkana, Texas.  The primary premise of the movie was that both Bandit Darvill (Burt Reynolds) and Cledus Snow (Jerry Reed) had to drive to Texarkana to pick up Coors Beer as it was illegal east of Texas in the 70's.   In reality the Texas county that Texarkana is located is a Dry County and does not sell alcohol!  That is why the Arkansas side of US 71 is located with many liquor stores to get business from the Texas side of the city.

Many producers can do what they want and will do.  Heck some writers do not know what was written in previous episodes and contradict it in their later writing hence The Odd Couple had two season 3 episodes about Oscar's mom paying a visit with the first one about his mom not realizing that he (Oscar) was divorced and then the second time she visited she was said to be present at the courthouse the day of his divorce.  Then the forgotten son on My Three Sons and the forgotten older brother on Happy Days. Need I say more?
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: english si on October 05, 2013, 04:41:54 PM
Well, you can just lump together any shows that are filmed in California but take place elsewhere.
Parenthood - set in Berkeley and the Bay Area, shot in southern CA - while I don't know the Bay Area that well, there often creeps in things that scream southern CA.

Parks and Rec seems to be good at making Pasadena, CA look like it could be southern Indiana. Mostly by lots of indoor shots in generic buildings (other than the town hall exterior). It's a hard feat to make SoCal look like anything other than SoCal!

The UK office didn't quite get Slough right. They got the soul-crushing nature of the town (come friendly bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Friendly_Bombs) and all that), but there was something not-quite-right. They did it deliberately, probably - it can then serve as a generic - other than the titles and some references to Slough, it could have been Swindon, Staines or any similar place.

Despite higher budgets, any film that doesn't actually use London for London, looks wrong. And quite often the tube is a mess (OK, there's the issue of only having Aldwych and Charing Cross Jubilee platforms to film cheaply - and the Harry Potter 5 solution of closing Westminster station for a day for 10 seconds of footage is just not on). Harry Potter 1 used the facade of next door St Pancras' to play at being Kings Cross, as Kings Cross was ugly then (https://maps.google.com/?ll=51.529964,-0.123909&spn=0.012294,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.529964,-0.123909&panoid=Le3R2pY7TYJl4YnHEixyfA&cbp=12,334.09,,0,4.56) (and the 60s ugliness will be fixed by the end of the year!). They did actually use platforms 9 and 10, even if the photo opportunity (now moved to be behind a pay thing) was not near the platforms at all.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Stephane Dumas on October 05, 2013, 06:06:19 PM
Then the forgotten son on My Three Sons and the forgotten older brother on Happy Days. Need I say more?

The forgotten older brother on Happy Days, it gived us the "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" ;)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChuckCunninghamSyndrome
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Doctor Whom on October 05, 2013, 07:17:11 PM
This is a long-running joke in the DC area, since so many movies and shows are set here and so few get it right.  As one egregious example, Remember the Titans was filmed mostly in Georgia because real Alexandria and Hollywood Alexandria are so different.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Brandon on October 05, 2013, 07:27:31 PM
Despite higher budgets, any film that doesn't actually use London for London, looks wrong.

Likewise in the US for Chicago more than most other cities.  Chicago tends to have very specifically different streetlights and traffic signals to anywhere else in North America.  It's easy to pick out when a producer uses Toronto (as used in Blues Brothers 2000) as a stand in for Chicago (as used in the original Blues Brothers movie).
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Big John on October 05, 2013, 07:46:00 PM
Despite higher budgets, any film that doesn't actually use London for London, looks wrong.

Likewise in the US for Chicago more than most other cities.  Chicago tends to have very specifically different streetlights and traffic signals to anywhere else in North America.  It's easy to pick out when a producer uses Toronto (as used in Blues Brothers 2000) as a stand in for Chicago (as used in the original Blues Brothers movie).
Mostly.  But the scene where they drive off the unfinished bridge was shot in Milwaukee with the then-unfinished Hoan Bridge.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: SteveG1988 on October 05, 2013, 08:34:59 PM
For a movie. Close Encounters of the third kind gets indiana all wrong. they used the former toll booths of the vincent thomas bridge in LA for the ohio turnpike/indiana toll road

Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: nyratk1 on October 06, 2013, 01:20:09 PM
Royal Pains, even though it's set in the Hamptons, does film some stuff there. But most of it is filmed further west on Long Island. Huntington, Oyster Bay, Long Beach and my hometown of Bellport are some frequent shooting locations. And my brother (who works at a local Stop and Shop) met Henry Winkler while he was out here.

That's a lot better than the places that use British Columbia or Ontario for everything. If I see another yellow signal with all yellow backplates on a mast arm...
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 07, 2013, 10:49:37 PM
I have seen an assortment of freeways in California depicted as I-95 and the Capital Beltway.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: kj3400 on October 08, 2013, 12:36:42 AM
Reminds me of Live Free or Die Hard which had a scene in Washington, but was filmed in Baltimore on Calvert St (for some reason the lights were facing the wrong way) and then like the very next scene had it filmed in LA. And then a chase scene that was supposed to be in Baltimore on the Beltway was in California (not sure where). Don't even get me started on where they filmed what was supposed to be the Social Security Administration.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: vtk on October 08, 2013, 06:01:25 AM
Both In The Heat of The Night and Dukes of Hazzard were filmed in Covington, GA.  One took place in a fictional town in Mississippi and the other took place in the right state (although you do not hear where Hazzard County is located  and its state's capital city is called "Capital City") as we all could figure out its in Georgia.  Many producers like to film in other places hundreds or thousands of miles away if a town could just about pass.  In the south many towns look a like, so whether MS, AL, or GA you would have the same type of business district or courthouse.

Back to Smokey And The Bandit where the setting was to be Texarkana, Texas.  The primary premise of the movie was that both Bandit Darvill (Burt Reynolds) and Cledus Snow (Jerry Reed) had to drive to Texarkana to pick up Coors Beer as it was illegal east of Texas in the 70's.   In reality the Texas county that Texarkana is located is a Dry County and does not sell alcohol!  That is why the Arkansas side of US 71 is located with many liquor stores to get business from the Texas side of the city.

I was able to guess Dukes of Hazzard was in Covington based on a route marker seen downtown, and a hunch that a reference to the Yellow River was accurate.  Kind of surprised they never did an episode about Boss Hogg trying to profit somehow from the construction of I-20.

In Smokey & The Bandit, they didn't buy the beer in Texarkana.  They stole it from a Coors warehouse.  I'd say that's still plausible, uunless "dry county" means you can't have a distribution warehouse storing beer either.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Rick1962 on October 08, 2013, 08:11:46 AM
One of my favorite goofs from "Revolution":  the Martins Ferry, Ohio lighthouse!
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on October 08, 2013, 09:26:48 AM
About Smokey And The Bandit, one other thing to mention is the fact that they featured the town to be more sparsely populated as the intersection where Bandit picked up Frog was in a semi rural area.  Now remember this was under Sheriff Buford T. Justice's jurisdiction, so they yet crossed back into Arkansas, so it depicted to be somewhere in between the populated stretch of town and the State Line.

In reality the most populated part of town is along the State Border, as US 71 straddles it north of US 67 & 82 with the Downtown on the actual line as well.  Therefore you could not have the city the way its depicted as in the movie by an almost longshot!

In Dallas, the TV show, you have it depict a fictional Braddock city and county as a suburb of Texas' third largest city.  Technically though you could say that Braddock is supposed to be Plano, and its county is the one where the actual ranch is located just a few miles east of Plano.  Therefore it is common to bend things a little with names in movies and on TV shows including Andy Griffith changing the name of Pilot Mountain, NC to Mount Pilot in his sitcom and even create Mayberry out of nothing, but his actual version of the town about Pilot Mountain itself.

The Dukes of Hazzard though gets things wrong in another matter as with roads.  If you noticed on the show that all rural roads in Hazzard County are not paved.  I think in all counties in the US (except Kenedy County in Texas) have a good road network and if there are non paved roads they're usually back roads throughout rural America.  Kenedy County has US 77 as its only major road while there are no other numbered routes intersecting in its borders as its only connected to the rest of the state road network via US 77.  The situation in Hazzard would actually at best, with the roads that is, be more close to Kenedy County, TX.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2013, 09:50:43 AM
Bones is a show I like for not only showing many DC sites correctly (or relatively correctly...or close enough to get by), but the actors keeping true to their home city.  Booth (David Boreanaz) spent much of his life growing up in the Philly area, as his dad, Dave Roberts, was a longtime weather forecaster on Ch. 6 (ABC).  In several episodes, Booth is wearing sports-related clothing reflecting the Philly teams, not DC teams.

On the other hand, if you try to look for the White Castle in Cherry Hill where Harold and Kumar run into Doogie Howser, you won't find the restaurant, the cliff they fly off of, a rural 5 lane roadway, or acres and acres of nothing.  Kinda strange they even used an actual town name that exists, being that nothing else is remotely close to accurate.

The national news can suck as well.  During Superstorm Sandy last year, I happened to be in Florida.  The news kept showing pictures of the AC boardwalk being swept away.  I noticed though, there were no casinos in the shots.  The reality was the boardwalk that was destoryed was well north of the casinos, was already in bad shape, and the storm demolished what was already scheduled to be demolished (actually saving the city a bit of money on that particular project).  But since it was put into the nation's heads that the entire boardwalk was destoryed, the city and state then had to advertise the city & boardwalk (and many other vacation areas) were indeed open, on the very same channels that mis-reported the news in the first place.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: BamaZeus on October 08, 2013, 11:19:05 AM
Reminds me of Live Free or Die Hard which had a scene in Washington, but was filmed in Baltimore on Calvert St (for some reason the lights were facing the wrong way) and then like the very next scene had it filmed in LA. And then a chase scene that was supposed to be in Baltimore on the Beltway was in California (not sure where). Don't even get me started on where they filmed what was supposed to be the Social Security Administration.

In Die Hard 2, it was supposed to take at Dulles Airport, but when Bruce Willis uses a payphone, it clearly says Denver Bell or something like that.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: vtk on October 08, 2013, 11:35:39 AM
The Dukes of Hazzard though gets things wrong in another matter as with roads.  If you noticed on the show that all rural roads in Hazzard County are not paved.  I think in all counties in the US (except Kenedy County in Texas) have a good road network and if there are non paved roads they're usually back roads throughout rural America.  Kenedy County has US 77 as its only major road while there are no other numbered routes intersecting in its borders as its only connected to the rest of the state road network via US 77.  The situation in Hazzard would actually at best, with the roads that is, be more close to Kenedy County, TX.

I think rural counties had a lot less paved road mileage in the 70s than they do now.  And check out Lenawee, Monroe, and Washtenaw Counties in Michigan.  Just outside Metro Detroit, yet only the most important county roads are what city dwellers would call "paved".  And I'm talking about today.

Of course, if the USGS weren't shut down, we could settle this by fetching 70s-vintage topos of the area near Covington, GA.  Or, pay close attention to the first 5 episodes, which were shot entirely in Georgia.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Duke87 on October 08, 2013, 10:59:24 PM
The Amazing Spiderman from earlier this year has several NYC related gaffes:
1) It shows a Q train "approaching Coney Island" in a tunnel. In the real world that train is above ground long before it gets to Coney Island. The fact that the type of subway car depicted in the movie has never run on the Q line in real life we will forgive since that's firmly in the "only railfans will notice" category.

2) In one scene Spider Man is shown jumping off of what clearly is the FDR Drive in Lower Manhattan. Immediately after he is shown swinging from webs under what is clearly the Riverside Drive viaduct up by 125th Street. Yay teleportation!

3) In the beginning of the movie with Peter Parker as a little boy, you can see a large green street sign hanging from a traffic signal mast arm in the background in one shot. Seems to have been actually shot in NYC but the presence of that sign in the shot is anachronistic: those overhead signs in NYC only started appearing circa 2005 and a young Peter Parker in the timeline the movie suggests would have been more like 15 years ago (~late 90s), so that sign should not be there!

Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: empirestate on October 08, 2013, 11:54:12 PM
The Amazing Spiderman from earlier this year has several NYC related gaffes:
1) It shows a Q train "approaching Coney Island" in a tunnel. In the real world that train is above ground long before it gets to Coney Island. The fact that the type of subway car depicted in the movie has never run on the Q line in real life we will forgive since that's firmly in the "only railfans will notice" category.

2) In one scene Spider Man is shown jumping off of what clearly is the FDR Drive in Lower Manhattan. Immediately after he is shown swinging from webs under what is clearly the Riverside Drive viaduct up by 125th Street. Yay teleportation!

3) In the beginning of the movie with Peter Parker as a little boy, you can see a large green street sign hanging from a traffic signal mast arm in the background in one shot. Seems to have been actually shot in NYC but the presence of that sign in the shot is anachronistic: those overhead signs in NYC only started appearing circa 2005 and a young Peter Parker in the timeline the movie suggests would have been more like 15 years ago (~late 90s), so that sign should not be there!



The sequel was shot recently in Rochester, where the intersection of Main and Clinton stood in for 57th and 8th in Manhattan. They fully redressed Rochester with authentic NYC-issue signage, trash cans, and vehicles, and will probably add a lot of buildings in CGI. Obviously, a lot of care was put into making the location appear authentic, yet so many slip-ups always seem to make it through in these films. I always wonder if the set dressing crews get mad at other departments such as editing, for screwing up all the attention to detail they worked so hard at.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Duke87 on October 10, 2013, 12:15:50 AM
I dunno. Item 1 is more a script/screenplay error than a set dressing error. Item 2 was probably intentional artistic license so they could have both the lower Manhattan skyline in the background and a lofty viaduct to swing under (in the real world it would be one or the other but not both). As for item 3, there is no way in hell anyone who did not grow up in NYC and is not a roadgeek would notice such a thing. Through careful attention getting the present day correct is easy. But getting the past correct is difficult since things like "that spec of sign wasn't introduced until 5-10 years after this is supposed to take place" simply will not get noticed or be known to anyone on the movie staff. As such, trivial anachronisms like this are common.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: NE2 on October 10, 2013, 12:22:57 AM
holy crap Mozart's son was riding a bike before bikes were invented in Monty Python
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 10, 2013, 01:47:52 PM
I was watching an episode of Supernatural the other day (first season, can't remember the episode) but I seem to recall a dusty little two-laner in a forest, supposedly in east Texas, being captioned as "interstate 35". 

I also remember an episode in Missouri receiving a California-style US-6 cutout.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: broadhurst04 on October 10, 2013, 04:23:29 PM
There was an episode of the Andy Griffith Show where Aunt Bee decides to take flying lessons. The action in the series takes place in Mayberry, NC. Mayberry is not a real place, but NC is a real state; however, if you look at that episode the airport scenes were obviously shot in southern California. The mountains in the background are too tall to be in NC.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Scott5114 on October 10, 2013, 08:14:47 PM
I also remember an episode in Missouri receiving a California-style US-6 cutout.

My girlfriend is big into Supernatural, and she paused it to show me the cutout. (Although she said it was Colorado, not Missouri.) It was season 9, episode 1, if anyone wants to check.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 10, 2013, 08:50:10 PM
My girlfriend is big into Supernatural, and she paused it to show me the cutout. (Although she said it was Colorado, not Missouri.) It was season 9, episode 1, if anyone wants to check.

they must've recycled it.  this is from Season 1, Episode 13.

at least Colorado would have used such a sign!

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CO/CO19610703i1.jpg)
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Duke87 on October 11, 2013, 12:06:52 AM
One of the opening scenes of 42 from earlier this year captions a two lane road that Jackie Robinson's team's bus is driving down as "Interstate 69, Arkansas, April 1945".

 That is so wrong on so many levels. :ded:
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: 1 on October 11, 2013, 06:35:51 AM
One of the opening scenes of 42 from earlier this year captions a two lane road that Jackie Robinson's team's bus is driving down as "Intestate 69, Arkansas, April 1945".

 That is so wrong on so many levels. :ded:

With the misspelling, too? Did they really forget the r in interstate in the movie?
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on October 11, 2013, 08:50:39 AM
I like when they use different neighborhoods of the same city and promote that as the one.  For example, the Golden Girls, which is to take place in Miami, uses one of the beach communities of either Dade or Broward Counties in Florida which are in South Florida where Miami is the epicenter of, but it is not Miami proper.   I know its because the average person thinks of the Atlantic Ocean when thinking of Miami, but in reality Miami does not touch the ocean.

Ironically, the first season of the show does have a different opening sequence that shows Downtown Miami as it is more suited.

Another note is the Maude program, a spin off of All In The Family, featuring Bea Arthur (star of Golden Girls), as the liberal female version of Archie Bunker, it shows not only the original West Side Highway when giving credit to Bea, but a trip across the George Washington Bridge to get to Tuckahoe from Manhattan.  The GWB leads into New Jersey where Tuckahoe is on the same side of the Hudson River and is accessible via NY 9A, I-95, and the Bronx River Parkway.  In this case the landmarks of the area are used to depict what the author (Norman Lear no doubt) wants, but is using them out of context.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: NE2 on October 11, 2013, 10:18:18 AM
the liberal female version of Archie Bunker
So she poos all the time and campaigns for Hillary because Obama's black?
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 11, 2013, 11:00:34 AM
There was an episode of the Andy Griffith Show where Aunt Bee decides to take flying lessons. The action in the series takes place in Mayberry, NC. Mayberry is not a real place, but NC is a real state; however, if you look at that episode the airport scenes were obviously shot in southern California. The mountains in the background are too tall to be in NC.

The forested areas around "Mayberry" were totally incorrect for any state in the East. 
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: PHLBOS on October 11, 2013, 02:40:39 PM
One of the opening scenes of 42 from earlier this year captions a two lane road that Jackie Robinson's team's bus is driving down as "Intestate 69, Arkansas, April 1945".

 That is so wrong on so many levels. :ded:

With the misspelling, too? Did they really forget the r in interstate in the movie?
I believe the typo was on Duke87's end.  I was about to comment on that route number fail as well but forgot what number was used.  Adding insult to injury the caption showed up just when the bus was pulling into a single-pump gas station.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: pctech on October 11, 2013, 03:01:35 PM
There was an episode of Charlie s Angels in which the girls  were undercover in a prison located in "Pine Parish" Louisiana. Mountains and palm trees were a dead give away that they were no where close to Louisiana  :spin: Our highest mountain is a whopping 500 ft. or so.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: place-saint-henri on October 12, 2013, 03:19:23 AM
DEGRASSI takes place in TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA and in a few episodes in like season 6 or something the characters were getting ready to go to University and the schools they were choosing were: "Smithdale" and "TU" (Smithdale being York and TU being obviusly UofT). what was funny was that one of the characters (Paige) was going to BANTING wich was supposed to be in KINGSTON where there really is a school called QUEENS. I have no idea why in gods creation they couldnt just use real school names. meow.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: SteveG1988 on October 13, 2013, 09:11:15 AM
DEGRASSI takes place in TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA and in a few episodes in like season 6 or something the characters were getting ready to go to University and the schools they were choosing were: "Smithdale" and "TU" (Smithdale being York and TU being obviusly UofT). what was funny was that one of the characters (Paige) was going to BANTING wich was supposed to be in KINGSTON where there really is a school called QUEENS. I have no idea why in gods creation they couldnt just use real school names. meow.

Licensing, sometimes a school doesn't want to be recgonized. For example in ghostbusters, the opening is obviously columbia university, but they were not allowed to use the name.

One thing that is intersting is when they set a movie in NYC...but don't ever call it NYC by name, it is just heavily implied. Short Circuit 2 was set in a large city that probably was NYC...but was never called it by name. the main human charachter is trying to become a US Citizen in it....Yet it has toronto landmarks in it. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CaliforniaDoubling
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: renegade on October 13, 2013, 10:55:32 PM

I think rural counties had a lot less paved road mileage in the 70s than they do now.  And check out Lenawee, Monroe, and Washtenaw Counties in Michigan.  Just outside Metro Detroit, yet only the most important county roads are what city dwellers would call "paved".  And I'm talking about today.


There are lots of unpaved roads in Wayne County, too ... you'd be surprised at how many.   :hmmm:
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman on October 16, 2013, 07:28:36 PM
The "reason" that Hazzard County had few paved roads was actually explained by the narrator in an early episode.  It was because Boss Hogg had a controlling interest in the local paving company.  As such, if a road didn't go where the Boss needed to go on a regular basis, it never got paved.

As for Boston-related gaffes, a friend of mine recently convinced me to watch a couple of episodes of Smash, which is about a hopefully Broadway-bound play that debuts in Boston.  The opening credits include a shot of the Zakim Bridge, with the northbound diagrammatic BGS photoshopped to read "Downtown Boston" instead of the "US 1 North Tobin Bridge" legend that's actually on the sign.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: 1995hoo on October 17, 2013, 08:01:59 AM
One of the baseball-themed "Major League" movie sequels is allegedly set in Cleveland, but the very prominent B&O Warehouse beyond right field instantly reveals it was filmed in Baltimore.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: thenetwork on October 17, 2013, 09:31:18 AM

I think rural counties had a lot less paved road mileage in the 70s than they do now.  And check out Lenawee, Monroe, and Washtenaw Counties in Michigan.  Just outside Metro Detroit, yet only the most important county roads are what city dwellers would call "paved".  And I'm talking about today.


There are lots of unpaved roads in Wayne County, too ... you'd be surprised at how many.   :hmmm:

A loooong time ago (not sure if it has been upgraded), you could drive down US-24/Telegraph Road between Grand River and I-96.  On one side of the street was Detroit, on the other side was Redford Township.  The latter of the two municipalities had an abundance of "dirt" roads for side streets.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman on October 18, 2013, 06:00:05 PM
A loooong time ago (not sure if it has been upgraded), you could drive down US-24/Telegraph Road between Grand River and I-96.  On one side of the street was Detroit, on the other side was Redford Township.  The latter of the two municipalities had an abundance of "dirt" roads for side streets.
Not pavement, but for many years when the connection between the Tobin Bridge and the Central Artery in Boston was still elevated, you could tell the exact spot where Massport jurisdiction ended and MassDPW jurisdiction began.

Just beyond the Henley Street off-ramp, there was a large concrete bent.  On the Massport side of the bent, the paint on the beams was always fresh and uniform as if the bridge were brand new.  On the MassDPW side, the paint on the beams was faded, cracked and peeling, as if it had never been renewed since the structure first opened to traffic.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on October 20, 2013, 07:27:06 PM
Step by Step (from ABC's old TGIF lineup). Lake Michigan looked more like an ocean in the opening credits. There isn't an amusement park in Port Washington, Wisconsin, (don't think there ever has been...the county fair grounds are further south in Cedarburg), let alone one that looks like a Six Flags theme park. IIRC, they did correctly reference taking I-43 up to Green Bay to watch the Packers, and I think they did have the population fairly accurate on the sign in the opening credits.
Step by Step (from ABC's old TGIF lineup). Lake Michigan looked more like an ocean in the opening credits. There isn't an amusement park in Port Washington, Wisconsin, (don't think there ever has been...the county fair grounds are further south in Cedarburg), let alone one that looks like a Six Flags theme park. IIRC, they did correctly reference taking I-43 up to Green Bay to watch the Packers, and I think they did have the population fairly accurate on the sign in the opening credits.

That is because it was filmed at Six Flags Magic Mountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Flags_Magic_Mountain) in California.

Also, Lake Michigan was dropped into that shot using CGI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_by_Step_(TV_series)#Production
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: OracleUsr on October 20, 2013, 09:43:01 PM
I remember one I am surprised no one has brought up yet.  Beverly Hills, 90210.

During the college years, they talk in the morning at their home about going to classes at "Cal."

That's the University of California...close to 500 miles away from Beverly Hills...
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: mrsman on November 12, 2013, 09:23:18 PM
I have seen on the 80's sitcom The Facts of Life where Natalie learns to drive on a street in California.  The thing is the show takes place in Peekskill, NY thousands of miles away.

In the filming you will see California mast arms and backplate signaling!  In NYS the official signals are span wires and the few mast arms they have have no backplates!


As I grew up in Los Angeles, not only did I recognize that it was L.A., I recognized that it was filmed at the street corner of Beverly and Rossmore in the Hancock Park section of L.A.

As I watch TV, I constantly recognize the geographically errors, but I try to take it one step further and try to get to the very specific location since I know L.A. so well.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 14, 2013, 06:01:32 PM
As I grew up in Los Angeles, not only did I recognize that it was L.A., I recognized that it was filmed at the street corner of Beverly and Rossmore in the Hancock Park section of L.A.

As I watch TV, I constantly recognize the geographically errors, but I try to take it one step further and try to get to the very specific location since I know L.A. so well.

On a related note, one guy that got the geography and the "look and feel" right was Jack Webb in his NBC Dragnet (1960's version) and especially Adam-12 police series.  I have never lived in California, but I know the geography of Los Angeles well enough to find my way around, and even though Adam-12 is pretty dated, I still recognize some of the places where it was filmed.

Another series that did well in terms of geography (also on NBC) was Homicide: Life on the Streets, which was filmed in Baltimore and scripted to take place there.  There was a crime scene involving a bowling ball being dropped onto a car (with fatal consequences), which very obviously was filmed on the freeway section of U.S. 40 (former I-170).  And at least once or twice, the storyline involved I-95 or I-895, which was fun to see.

The various Dick Wolf Law and Order shows were and are pretty obviously filmed in New York City. Across the Hudson River, the outside scenes on HBO's Sopranos were almost without exception shot in New Jersey (anyone remember the great episode where Paulie and Christopher end up lost in the Pine Barrens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Barrens_%28The_Sopranos%29)?).
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: thenetwork on November 15, 2013, 09:02:19 AM
As I grew up in Los Angeles, not only did I recognize that it was L.A., I recognized that it was filmed at the street corner of Beverly and Rossmore in the Hancock Park section of L.A.

As I watch TV, I constantly recognize the geographically errors, but I try to take it one step further and try to get to the very specific location since I know L.A. so well.

On a related note, one guy that got the geography and the "look and feel" right was Jack Webb in his NBC Dragnet (1960's version) and especially Adam-12 police series.  I have never lived in California, but I know the geography of Los Angeles well enough to find my way around, and even though Adam-12 is pretty dated, I still recognize some of the places where it was filmed.


Usually once every 2 or 3 episodes, they would film some scenes on the Universal Studios lot.  Particularly the modern day "Wisteria Lane" which was the setting of "Desparate Housewives".  It was always interesting to see how the set-makers could disguise some of the houses & lots to try and make it look different each time.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: mrsman on November 17, 2013, 08:12:18 PM
A recent example:

Just recently, I saw an episode of the "Crazy Ones" (new show with Robin Williams).  The show is supposed to take place in Chicago and in the lead-ins they typically show scenes of the city, typically focusing on the Trump International Hotel and Tower on Wabash Street (supposedly a stand-in for the office building where the show takes place).  In one episode, Robin Williams took his daughter on driving lessons.  Very clearly, to me, there was a scene involving a left turn that was made at the corner of Constellation and Century Park E in Century City (Los Angeles).

Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: empirestate on November 17, 2013, 10:02:30 PM
A recent example:

Just recently, I saw an episode of the "Crazy Ones" (new show with Robin Williams).  The show is supposed to take place in Chicago and in the lead-ins they typically show scenes of the city, typically focusing on the Trump International Hotel and Tower on Wabash Street (supposedly a stand-in for the office building where the show takes place).  In one episode, Robin Williams took his daughter on driving lessons.  Very clearly, to me, there was a scene involving a left turn that was made at the corner of Constellation and Century Park E in Century City (Los Angeles).

Would it have been obvious to someone not familiar with the L.A. area? In other words, was it very blatantly a California scene rather than an Illinois one, or would you really have to know the specific intersection to know it was out of place?

Point being, I think we can draw a distinction between getting something "horribly wrong" and simply using a location that's recognizable to someone familiar with the local geography. "Horribly wrong" might mean a shot of supposedly-New York City with tall Pacific mountain peaks in the background, versus simply using the corner of Main and Clinton on Rochester, NY as a stand-in for 57th and 8th in Manhattan (real example in the upcoming Spider-Man film).
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Jardine on November 17, 2013, 10:23:19 PM
The Big Bus was supposedly traveling from NYC to Denver, yet most all the terrain sure looked like California!

Still a fun movie.  The bus stole the show.

Kubrick in Full Metal Jacket did a convincing imitation of South Vietnam in merry old England because he didn't like to travel.

Also, he used Going to the Sun road (in Montana as I recall) in The Shining and supposedly that was in Colorado.  (His Overlook was on a soundstage in England)

As I recall, John Waters took pains to have his characters drive off in the correct direction, and made a point of accurately using real Baltimore locations in context.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 17, 2013, 10:29:48 PM
As I recall, John Waters took pains to have his characters drive off in the correct direction, and made a point of accurately using real Baltimore locations in context.

Waters and Barry Levinson both filmed Baltimore "correctly."
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: NE2 on November 17, 2013, 10:35:16 PM
John Waters also filmed the ingestion of dog poo.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: thenetwork on November 18, 2013, 09:00:53 AM
A recent example:

Just recently, I saw an episode of the "Crazy Ones" (new show with Robin Williams).  The show is supposed to take place in Chicago and in the lead-ins they typically show scenes of the city, typically focusing on the Trump International Hotel and Tower on Wabash Street (supposedly a stand-in for the office building where the show takes place).  In one episode, Robin Williams took his daughter on driving lessons.  Very clearly, to me, there was a scene involving a left turn that was made at the corner of Constellation and Century Park E in Century City (Los Angeles).



If you really want to get nit-picky with that scene, the girl attempting to make a left turn (Sarah Michelle Gellar), waited through MULTIPLE light cycles afraid to turn.  Yet the intersection clearly showed the lights were equipped with left turn arrows!!!
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: elsmere241 on November 18, 2013, 09:04:50 AM
Then there were the opening credits to <i>Just the Ten of Us</i>.  They were great at showing scenery from New York City to where I-80 enters California.  But one scene had the family going past the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, which isn't on I-80.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: kkt on November 18, 2013, 10:20:35 AM
Then there were the opening credits to <i>Just the Ten of Us</i>.  They were great at showing scenery from New York City to where I-80 enters California.  But one scene had the family going past the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, which isn't on I-80.

Did they say the took I-80 the entire way?  Diverting to I-70 across the midwest and Rockies would be prettier and keep from getting caught in endless traffic in Chicago.  Just curious; I haven't watched the show.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: elsmere241 on November 18, 2013, 10:43:26 AM
I just thought St Louis was out of place, given that they passed the Great Salt Lake and crossed into California on I-80 (I recognized the sign).  Mapquest says to take I-80 to Reno, then US 395 north and cut across and it takes 46 hours, while staying on I-80 to Sacramento and then CA 20 to US 101 takes 47 hours.  Throwing St Louis into the mix does tack on an hour or two but avoids Chicago, and PA Turnpike tolls weren't as high then.  I guess maybe it would make more sense.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2013, 11:48:48 AM
One suggestion Sam read off was for the bar to offer a Happy Hour; Rebecca replied back, "Not legal in the State of Massachusetts.".  Massachusetts is a Commonwealth.

I'm assuming this is at least a little tongue-in-cheek, because not only is it state (whose name is styled a little differently than most), you're just as likely to hear "state" as you are "commonwealth."  Probably a little more likely.

The biggest inaccuracy in Cheers, of course, is the idea that there's much of anything down those stairs, let alone a very large bar.  The actual article is cramped, has a tiny bar against a wall, and generally contains few if any Bostonians. 
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2013, 08:43:22 AM
I believe that Maude (CBS 1972-77)got one of its closing sequence shots that was not in NYC.  On the end of the extended closing theme song, you will see a building that I have never seen in Manhattan along with an interchange that seems foreign. 

Now I could be wrong, it might be the FDR Drive and a building that has long been gone or in a part of one of the other boroughs that I have never been to, but to my knowledge it is not there!  In fact the house that Maude lived was in a place that uses red curbs as seen in the streets in the sequence!  NYC (or the east coast) does not paint curbs red, so if another area outside of the NYC area could be inserted there, so could one again.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on December 13, 2013, 05:22:46 PM
The last episode of the QM Production The Fugitive where Dr. Kimble finally catches the one armed man who killed his wife takes place in a fictional town someplace in Indiana has the state setting all wrong!

The final scene in the last act, took place at an amusement park in Indiana that was filmed someplace else.  Because there are mountains in the back round, which Indiana does not have, proves that the writers of the show had Indiana as fictional as the town of Stafford, IN.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: NE2 on December 13, 2013, 05:49:44 PM
Indiana has mountains, sort of. http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/4819.htm
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: PHLBOS on December 13, 2013, 06:26:26 PM
Another aviation/airport fail from Cheers:

In the 5th season episode where Carla buys her new house (near the airport (Logan/BOS)) but is reluctant to move in under the premise that it was haunted (hence, the cheap purchase price); towards the end of the episode she & Cliff (who referred her to the house) spend the night there to quell any of Carla's fears are awakened by a loud roar and a blinding light.  Cliff realizes that on certain weather conditions, planes have to land on Runway 2-9er (phrase taken from the 1970 movie Airport aka Runway 29); a runway that supposedly is oriented in line w/Carla's house.  However, there is no Runway 29 at Logan; BOS' runways are:

4L-22R
4R-22L
9-27
14-32
15L-33R
15R-33L

Aerial map of BOS (Logan Airport)
http://goo.gl/maps/SiExn (http://goo.gl/maps/SiExn)

One look at the above-map and one can easily tell that there are no homes located directly after any of the runways; Logan Aiport is bascially a penninsula.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: kkt on December 14, 2013, 05:34:29 PM
Indiana has mountains, sort of. http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/4819.htm

Those are "hills", and not very big ones at that.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: PHLBOS on July 07, 2014, 04:13:35 PM
Forgive me for bumping an old thread, but recently having re-watched the original Smokey and the Bandit movie, there is a reference to an Interstate 82 in Arkansas. 

It's the scene where another trucker (CB handle: Silver-Tongue Devil) warns the Bandit (Burt Reynolds) of a roadblock set-up by two Arkansas County Mounties along Interstate 82.  Looking at a road map; he obviously was referring to US 82. 
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Brandon on July 07, 2014, 04:19:20 PM
Forgive me for bumping an old thread, but recently having re-watched the original Smokey and the Bandit movie, there is a reference to an Interstate 82 in Arkansas. 

It's the scene where another trucker (CB handle: Silver-Tongue Devil) warns the Bandit (Burt Reynolds) of a roadblock set-up by two Arkansas County Mounties along Interstate 82.  Looking at a road map; he obviously was referring to US 82. 

"Interstate" is an old term for the US highways, referring to their interstate status.  Even AASHO discussed them as interstate highways with the Joint Board on Interstate Highways (1925).
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: PHLBOS on July 07, 2014, 04:30:22 PM
Forgive me for bumping an old thread, but recently having re-watched the original Smokey and the Bandit movie, there is a reference to an Interstate 82 in Arkansas. 

It's the scene where another trucker (CB handle: Silver-Tongue Devil) warns the Bandit (Burt Reynolds) of a roadblock set-up by two Arkansas County Mounties along Interstate 82.  Looking at a road map; he obviously was referring to US 82. 

"Interstate" is an old term for the US highways, referring to their interstate status.  Even AASHO discussed them as interstate highways with the Joint Board on Interstate Highways (1925).
While true in principle; by 1976-1977 (when the movie was made & released respectively), the modern Interstate system was around long enough to convey a distinction/difference.

Another aviation-related gaffe: In the movie Catch Me If You Can; during the early part of the movie, the DiCaprio character (Frank Abagnale) makes reference to landing on a Runway 42 at LaGuardia Airport (LGA) while seated on a flight.  Not only is there not a Runway 42 at LGA; no airport has a runway bearing such a number because all airport runway numbers are assigned by compass headings (degrees divided by 10, 1-36).
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: GaryV on July 07, 2014, 07:46:57 PM
How about the GPS ad (Garmin?) that showed a moose on the verge of I-10?
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: english si on July 08, 2014, 06:57:12 AM
This season of 24 has been pretty crazy wrt the spacial geography of London. it starts with Jack in Shepherds Bush Market, getting picked up at the Thames somewhere like Chelsea or Millbank (can't remember what the buildings were. It's a bit far, especially given the time that has elapsed, but vaguely plausible and understandable scene setting). Then they say they picked up x miles SW of London, which would put it somewhere near Hampton Court (totally insane and neither fits the pictures, the time given, Bauer's lack of exhaustion, the fact he hadn't managed to get into a vehicle after 15 miles of running, that he'd have crossed the river twice already and run through miles of suburbia and parkland and avoided capture in these open environments) - totally unnecessary geography fail.

Then there's the idea that you could drive 10 miles across Inner London at non-3am times and take less than an hour!

Perhaps most blatantly awful is the idea that you can exit a station and board the tube at the next stop. Even with a car, that's rather difficult even if the stations were at ground level (you need some sort of junction to slow the train down to do that normally). More so when the next stop (Waterloo) is a massive station with deliberately long distances to the platforms to do some crowd control. It will easily take you, running, 4 minutes (the time the train takes) to get from the entrance of Waterloo station to the northern line platforms underneath (unless you have mastered a route through the maze and there are no people - in which case you could get it down to two) - and I've not factored in the drive or the exit from Kennington.

Oh, and while we're on Waterloo station - showing pictures of it 'busy' as there's an exodus on and it being quiet for Waterloo is rather funny (seriously - it's meant to be 8pm, but those stairs look only as busy as they are at the quieter time of 11pm)...

And that's before I get to residential streets just round the corner from Trafalgar Square, seeing Wembley Stadium so prominently from Dalston/Hackney, etc, etc.

But we can forgive a lot of that nonsense, as the shortened season means a condensed lot of action without the normal amount of over-silly twists, or time spend with characters doing nothing while we wait for people to get places - there's no cougars or amnesiac walks here!
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: vtk on July 09, 2014, 12:39:38 AM
Forgive me for bumping an old thread, but recently having re-watched the original Smokey and the Bandit movie, there is a reference to an Interstate 82 in Arkansas. 

It's the scene where another trucker (CB handle: Silver-Tongue Devil) warns the Bandit (Burt Reynolds) of a roadblock set-up by two Arkansas County Mounties along Interstate 82.  Looking at a road map; he obviously was referring to US 82. 

"Interstate" is an old term for the US highways, referring to their interstate status.  Even AASHO discussed them as interstate highways with the Joint Board on Interstate Highways (1925).
While true in principle; by 1976-1977 (when the movie was made & released respectively), the modern Interstate system was around long enough to convey a distinction/difference.

That doesn't stop people from calling US routes Interstates even in the 21st century.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 10, 2014, 01:32:23 PM
I watched an episode of "Criminal Minds" a couple of years ago that began with the premise that someone had rammed into a building at the Port Huron, MI/Sarnia, ON border crossing. The scene was depicted as a forested land border.

The problem? The Blue Water Bridge is the only way from Port Huron to Sarnia.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 10, 2014, 01:35:15 PM
This season of 24 has been pretty crazy wrt the spacial geography of London. it starts with Jack in Shepherds Bush Market, getting picked up at the Thames somewhere like Chelsea or Millbank (can't remember what the buildings were. It's a bit far, especially given the time that has elapsed, but vaguely plausible and understandable scene setting). Then they say they picked up x miles SW of London, which would put it somewhere near Hampton Court (totally insane and neither fits the pictures, the time given, Bauer's lack of exhaustion, the fact he hadn't managed to get into a vehicle after 15 miles of running, that he'd have crossed the river twice already and run through miles of suburbia and parkland and avoided capture in these open environments) - totally unnecessary geography fail.

Then there's the idea that you could drive 10 miles across Inner London at non-3am times and take less than an hour!

Perhaps most blatantly awful is the idea that you can exit a station and board the tube at the next stop. Even with a car, that's rather difficult even if the stations were at ground level (you need some sort of junction to slow the train down to do that normally). More so when the next stop (Waterloo) is a massive station with deliberately long distances to the platforms to do some crowd control. It will easily take you, running, 4 minutes (the time the train takes) to get from the entrance of Waterloo station to the northern line platforms underneath (unless you have mastered a route through the maze and there are no people - in which case you could get it down to two) - and I've not factored in the drive or the exit from Kennington.

Oh, and while we're on Waterloo station - showing pictures of it 'busy' as there's an exodus on and it being quiet for Waterloo is rather funny (seriously - it's meant to be 8pm, but those stairs look only as busy as they are at the quieter time of 11pm)...

And that's before I get to residential streets just round the corner from Trafalgar Square, seeing Wembley Stadium so prominently from Dalston/Hackney, etc, etc.

But we can forgive a lot of that nonsense, as the shortened season means a condensed lot of action without the normal amount of over-silly twists, or time spend with characters doing nothing while we wait for people to get places - there's no cougars or amnesiac walks here!

I'm still waiting for Jack to go to the bathroom!
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: 1995hoo on July 10, 2014, 04:03:20 PM
Forgive me for bumping an old thread, but recently having re-watched the original Smokey and the Bandit movie, there is a reference to an Interstate 82 in Arkansas. 

It's the scene where another trucker (CB handle: Silver-Tongue Devil) warns the Bandit (Burt Reynolds) of a roadblock set-up by two Arkansas County Mounties along Interstate 82.  Looking at a road map; he obviously was referring to US 82. 

"Interstate" is an old term for the US highways, referring to their interstate status.  Even AASHO discussed them as interstate highways with the Joint Board on Interstate Highways (1925).
While true in principle; by 1976-1977 (when the movie was made & released respectively), the modern Interstate system was around long enough to convey a distinction/difference.

That doesn't stop people from calling US routes Interstates even in the 21st century.

There are also a fair number of people out there who insist that single-state 3dis are not "Interstate Highways" because they don't go into another state. The example that comes to mind is I-440 in Raleigh because someone at the office where I worked there insisted I-440 was "a loop, not an Interstate."
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 10, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
Forgive me for bumping an old thread, but recently having re-watched the original Smokey and the Bandit movie, there is a reference to an Interstate 82 in Arkansas. 

It's the scene where another trucker (CB handle: Silver-Tongue Devil) warns the Bandit (Burt Reynolds) of a roadblock set-up by two Arkansas County Mounties along Interstate 82.  Looking at a road map; he obviously was referring to US 82. 

"Interstate" is an old term for the US highways, referring to their interstate status.  Even AASHO discussed them as interstate highways with the Joint Board on Interstate Highways (1925).
While true in principle; by 1976-1977 (when the movie was made & released respectively), the modern Interstate system was around long enough to convey a distinction/difference.

That doesn't stop people from calling US routes Interstates even in the 21st century.

There are also a fair number of people out there who insist that single-state 3dis are not "Interstate Highways" because they don't go into another state. The example that comes to mind is I-440 in Raleigh because someone at the office where I worked there insisted I-440 was "a loop, not an Interstate."

So what do they say about I-97?
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 10, 2014, 06:44:55 PM
I know people who insist that US-74 was "upgraded" to I-74. The average person is astoundingly uninformed about highways.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on July 10, 2014, 06:59:08 PM
Did the producers of Gunsmoke get their set of historic Dodge City, KS right?  I have been there and nothing the way their main street of Dodge on the show resembled the real Dodge City at all!  In fact Dodge is built on a hillside where the CBS show featured it on a flat ground.  They did at least get the fact right, though, that Dodge City is in Ford County in one of the episodes which I will credit them as many shows come up with fictional county names for well known cities like Dallas does with Braddock, TX in which the real Dallas, TX is not in (or even near) anything named Braddock.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: bing101 on July 10, 2014, 08:30:57 PM
Does anybody remember that CSI Miami was really filmed in Southern California. I remember this reference at some point.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2575988/locations?ref_=tt_ql_dt_6

Or this Silicon Valley TV show is partially done in Los Angeles. I guess this is to resemble the San Jose sprawl?
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 10, 2014, 09:02:40 PM
Cheers was mentioned earlier in the thread so I'll mention something basic here:

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time in Boston, I would NEVER EVER EVER think of driving to the area where Cheers is located. Beacon Street along the Common is incredibly congested, overcrowded and parking is astronomically expensive. Despite these things, you would frequently hear characters talk about going to their car and driving. No one ever mentioned taking the T and rarely was a cab even mentioned. I assume that most (if not all) of the characters lived near or on a commuter rail, bus or a T stop.

Also, how in the hell did Cliff stop in Cheers mid postal route? Where did he park and how much money did he waste in doing so?
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on July 10, 2014, 09:06:13 PM
Cheers was mentioned earlier in the thread so I'll mention something basic here:

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time in Boston, I would NEVER EVER EVER think of driving to the area where Cheers is located. Beacon Street along the Common is incredibly congested, overcrowded and parking is astronomically expensive. Despite these things, you would frequently hear characters talk about going to their car and driving. No one ever mentioned taking the T and rarely was a cab even mentioned. I assume that most (if not all) of the characters lived near or on a commuter rail, bus or a T stop.

Also, how in the hell did Cliff stop in Cheers mid postal route? Where did he park and how much money did he waste in doing so?
Cliff made the US Postal service to be a low paying job which is totally untrue in real life.  Just like on Three's Company where Jack made being a chef look like a bad career choice in general, when in fact Chef's make over 30 grand or more a year in real life.

Hollywood is not resourceful at all when it comes to getting local facts straight.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 10, 2014, 09:16:30 PM
Cheers was mentioned earlier in the thread so I'll mention something basic here:

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time in Boston, I would NEVER EVER EVER think of driving to the area where Cheers is located. Beacon Street along the Common is incredibly congested, overcrowded and parking is astronomically expensive. Despite these things, you would frequently hear characters talk about going to their car and driving. No one ever mentioned taking the T and rarely was a cab even mentioned. I assume that most (if not all) of the characters lived near or on a commuter rail, bus or a T stop.

Also, how in the hell did Cliff stop in Cheers mid postal route? Where did he park and how much money did he waste in doing so?
Cliff made the US Postal service to be a low paying job which is totally untrue in real life.  Just like on Three's Company where Jack made being a chef look like a bad career choice in general, when in fact Chef's make over 30 grand or more a year in real life.

Hollywood is not resourceful at all when it comes to getting local facts straight.

Maybe Cliff spent most of his salary paying to park in Boston.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on July 10, 2014, 09:28:56 PM
Or to get his historic facts wrong by paying the wrong history buff.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 10, 2014, 09:39:49 PM
Or to get his historic facts wrong by paying the wrong history buff.

Cliff's mom was shown to have the same propensity for getting facts wrong. I assumed that he was just passing along BS that he got from his mother.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: ixnay on July 10, 2014, 09:44:27 PM
NYC (or the east coast) does not paint curbs red

Ocean City, MD does.

ixnay
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 10, 2014, 09:49:58 PM
Cheers was mentioned earlier in the thread so I'll mention something basic here:

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time in Boston, I would NEVER EVER EVER think of driving to the area where Cheers is located. Beacon Street along the Common is incredibly congested, overcrowded and parking is astronomically expensive. Despite these things, you would frequently hear characters talk about going to their car and driving. No one ever mentioned taking the T and rarely was a cab even mentioned. I assume that most (if not all) of the characters lived near or on a commuter rail, bus or a T stop.

Also, how in the hell did Cliff stop in Cheers mid postal route? Where did he park and how much money did he waste in doing so?
Cliff made the US Postal service to be a low paying job which is totally untrue in real life.  Just like on Three's Company where Jack made being a chef look like a bad career choice in general, when in fact Chef's make over 30 grand or more a year in real life.

Hollywood is not resourceful at all when it comes to getting local facts straight.

That's because Hollywood is Hollywood.  If they were interested in getting facts straight, movies would be quite boring. 
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 10, 2014, 09:56:42 PM
Cheers was mentioned earlier in the thread so I'll mention something basic here:

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time in Boston, I would NEVER EVER EVER think of driving to the area where Cheers is located. Beacon Street along the Common is incredibly congested, overcrowded and parking is astronomically expensive. Despite these things, you would frequently hear characters talk about going to their car and driving. No one ever mentioned taking the T and rarely was a cab even mentioned. I assume that most (if not all) of the characters lived near or on a commuter rail, bus or a T stop.

Also, how in the hell did Cliff stop in Cheers mid postal route? Where did he park and how much money did he waste in doing so?
Cliff made the US Postal service to be a low paying job which is totally untrue in real life.  Just like on Three's Company where Jack made being a chef look like a bad career choice in general, when in fact Chef's make over 30 grand or more a year in real life.

Hollywood is not resourceful at all when it comes to getting local facts straight.

That's because Hollywood is Hollywood.  If they were interested in getting facts straight, movies would be quite boring.

But they often get local facts wrong where getting them correct would have no impact on the story being told. For someone who knows the area, getting stuff wrong just results in them being unable to suspend disbelief and enjoy the movie/show.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: kkt on July 11, 2014, 12:45:57 PM
Cheers was mentioned earlier in the thread so I'll mention something basic here:

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time in Boston, I would NEVER EVER EVER think of driving to the area where Cheers is located. Beacon Street along the Common is incredibly congested, overcrowded and parking is astronomically expensive. Despite these things, you would frequently hear characters talk about going to their car and driving. No one ever mentioned taking the T and rarely was a cab even mentioned. I assume that most (if not all) of the characters lived near or on a commuter rail, bus or a T stop.

Also, how in the hell did Cliff stop in Cheers mid postal route? Where did he park and how much money did he waste in doing so?

Maybe as a carrier he got to know a lot of people, including someone who paid for a reserved space but was never parked there during the day and told Cliff he'd be welcome to park there?

Quote
Cliff made the US Postal service to be a low paying job which is totally untrue in real life.  Just like on Three's Company where Jack made being a chef look like a bad career choice in general, when in fact Chef's make over 30 grand or more a year in real life.

30 grand is not that much if you live in an expensive city or expect to support a family.

Quote
Hollywood is not resourceful at all when it comes to getting local facts straight.

Mostly they're just not motivated.  People who know the area may laugh at them for getting it wrong, but it doesn't stop them from watching.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 11, 2014, 01:21:37 PM
Quote
Cliff made the US Postal service to be a low paying job which is totally untrue in real life.  Just like on Three's Company where Jack made being a chef look like a bad career choice in general, when in fact Chef's make over 30 grand or more a year in real life.
Quote
30 grand is not that much if you live in an expensive city or expect to support a family.

Today, no.  But back when Three's Company was made, $30,000 was decent money.  And they weren't spending those earnings on cell phones, internet access, cable TV (well, maybe), computers, and all the electronic stuff we have today.  Even if inflation was equal for salaries and expenses across the board, there's simply more stuff today to buy.  Even taxes are greater today than they were back then.

Quote
Hollywood is not resourceful at all when it comes to getting local facts straight.
Quote
Mostly they're just not motivated.  People who know the area may laugh at them for getting it wrong, but it doesn't stop them from watching.

And if anything, it helps spread the word about the movie and why people should watch it.

Personally, car crashes really irk me on movies.  Guaranteed in the same movie there'll be a scene where cars are demolished and the occupants exit without a scratch, and a crash where flames shoot up 10 stories in the air.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on July 11, 2014, 01:28:45 PM
Cheers was mentioned earlier in the thread so I'll mention something basic here:

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time in Boston, I would NEVER EVER EVER think of driving to the area where Cheers is located. Beacon Street along the Common is incredibly congested, overcrowded and parking is astronomically expensive. Despite these things, you would frequently hear characters talk about going to their car and driving. No one ever mentioned taking the T and rarely was a cab even mentioned. I assume that most (if not all) of the characters lived near or on a commuter rail, bus or a T stop.

Also, how in the hell did Cliff stop in Cheers mid postal route? Where did he park and how much money did he waste in doing so?

Maybe as a carrier he got to know a lot of people, including someone who paid for a reserved space but was never parked there during the day and told Cliff he'd be welcome to park there?

Quote
Cliff made the US Postal service to be a low paying job which is totally untrue in real life.  Just like on Three's Company where Jack made being a chef look like a bad career choice in general, when in fact Chef's make over 30 grand or more a year in real life.

30 grand is not that much if you live in an expensive city or expect to support a family.

Quote
Hollywood is not resourceful at all when it comes to getting local facts straight.

Mostly they're just not motivated.  People who know the area may laugh at them for getting it wrong, but it doesn't stop them from watching.

I said over 30 Grand meaning just starting with that amount.  Probably a cafeteria chef gets that, but a Hotel Executive Chef gets almost twice that amount along with big 4 or 5 star stand alone establishments.   Remember a Chef is actually higher in rank than a Restaurant Manager, especially in hotels.  The Restaurant Manager is merely a Wait Staff Supervisor where he has no say what goes on in the kitchen.  The Chef actually has say in both the kitchen and in front of the house.

Places like Red Lobster and Olive Garden do not have chef's and therefore the same management is in front and in back of the house which is deceiving until you work at fine dining.    A chef is actually addressed by all as "Chef" and never called with other titles or by first name in the true field.  It is a recognized title such as Doctor or Maestro for an orchestra leader.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 11, 2014, 02:30:17 PM
Cheers was mentioned earlier in the thread so I'll mention something basic here:

As someone who has spent a decent amount of time in Boston, I would NEVER EVER EVER think of driving to the area where Cheers is located. Beacon Street along the Common is incredibly congested, overcrowded and parking is astronomically expensive. Despite these things, you would frequently hear characters talk about going to their car and driving. No one ever mentioned taking the T and rarely was a cab even mentioned. I assume that most (if not all) of the characters lived near or on a commuter rail, bus or a T stop.

Also, how in the hell did Cliff stop in Cheers mid postal route? Where did he park and how much money did he waste in doing so?

Maybe as a carrier he got to know a lot of people, including someone who paid for a reserved space but was never parked there during the day and told Cliff he'd be welcome to park there?

Quote
Cliff made the US Postal service to be a low paying job which is totally untrue in real life.  Just like on Three's Company where Jack made being a chef look like a bad career choice in general, when in fact Chef's make over 30 grand or more a year in real life.

30 grand is not that much if you live in an expensive city or expect to support a family.

Quote
Hollywood is not resourceful at all when it comes to getting local facts straight.

Mostly they're just not motivated.  People who know the area may laugh at them for getting it wrong, but it doesn't stop them from watching.

Re: Cliff

I don't know if Cliff would know anyone well enough to get a free parking spot in Boston. Go online now and look for a parking spot, particularly near Beacon St. on the Common. In a garage, you're paying at least $40 or so per day. There are people who legitimately buy parking spaces in Boston outright for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even if we buy that Cliff befriended some rich person with a random parking space near the Common (which is a stretch since there was a common joke about Cliff being friendless), we still have to account for how everyone else drove to Cheers. It can be assumed that they were there at least 5 nights/week, if not all seven. If that's true then they were paying at least $200/week to park, which is an incredibly inefficient use of time/money/resources. I'm assuming that these prices were the same (adjusted down for inflation) or even higher in the 1980s - early 90s.

Minor point in the grand scheme? Possibly, but to anyone who remotely knows Boston, it does stand out.

And to be fair on Cliff's job, I think he's the only one on the show (aside from Coach, Carla and Woody) to remain gainfully employed with minimal breaks throughout the course of the show. Everyone else went through bouts of unemployment or unstable work. That's a pretty solid endorsement of the USPS.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on July 11, 2014, 02:38:27 PM
That is another issue you raised about people on Cheers unemployed, as Norm Peterson was unemployed for the longest period and hung out there more than Cliff did.  The bigger question was how he afforded parking considering he could not even pay for his beer as Sam ran him a tab that was in the thousands.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 11, 2014, 02:45:23 PM
That is another issue you raised about people on Cheers unemployed, as Norm Peterson was unemployed for the longest period and hung out there more than Cliff did.  The bigger question was how he afforded parking considering he could not even pay for his beer as Sam ran him a tab that was in the thousands.

Yeah, Norm made no logical sense at all. You could almost excuse Frasier since his job is high paying so he likely just had money to blow. I don't know if they ever had Norm mention driving though. Given the amount of alcohol he assumed, I hope he took the T home.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Big John on July 11, 2014, 05:43:48 PM
There was an opening to one episode where Cliff and Norm were putting parking tickets on each other's vehicle.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 11, 2014, 05:58:17 PM
There was an opening to one episode where Cliff and Norm were putting parking tickets on each other's vehicle.

So, Norm is astronomically rich, unemployed and can handle the streets of Boston while drunk?

VERY realistic.
Title: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 11, 2014, 07:02:14 PM
You do all realize that Cheers was primarily on in the 1980s, right?  And that Boston then was not Boston now, right?

I can't speak for parking, but cost of living here has exploded since then.  The 1990s alone saw an upswing in real estate values that far outpaced the rate of inflation.  The cost of parking has a lot to do with the availability and value of land to park on, and there is less of it now that is worth much more.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman on July 11, 2014, 07:07:00 PM
That is another issue you raised about people on Cheers unemployed, as Norm Peterson was unemployed for the longest period and hung out there more than Cliff did.  The bigger question was how he afforded parking considering he could not even pay for his beer as Sam ran him a tab that was in the thousands.
The writers made a feeble attempt to explain Norm's and Cliff's parking habits in one episode.  In the prologue (before the opening credits), Norm pulls up in front of the bar in a Honda Civic hatchback, and snags an on-street parking space in front of Cliff's postal truck.  He gets out, grabs one of several parking tickets that are on Cliff's truck, puts it under his windshield wiper, and walks into the bar.

Of course, the folly of all this is twofold:  First, in Boston, already having a parking ticket on your windshield doesn't matter - the local revenue agents meter maids will give you another one in a heartbeat if you're in violation.  Second, finding an open on street parking space in that area (let alone two) is nearly impossible, even on a Sunday morning.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 11, 2014, 07:08:55 PM
You do all realize that Cheers was primarily on in the 1980s, right?  And that Boston then was not Boston now, right?

Did the state of parking in the city take a tumble over the past 20-30 years? I can't imagine it being MUCH better back then.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 11, 2014, 07:12:34 PM

You do all realize that Cheers was primarily on in the 1980s, right?  And that Boston then was not Boston now, right?

Did the state of parking in the city take a tumble over the past 20-30 years? I can't imagine it being MUCH better back then.

I edited to explain, but you posted first.  All I can say is there was more vacant land in general then, and it was worth much less, for whatever that means for parking lot costs.

There's also a trend now to demand-price parking, extend meter hours to 8 or 10 pm, and replace individual meters with car-specific tickets (no picking up someone's leftover time). So street parking, at least, is definitely pricier.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman on July 11, 2014, 07:15:04 PM
You do all realize that Cheers was primarily on in the 1980s, right?  And that Boston then was not Boston now, right?

Did the state of parking in the city take a tumble over the past 20-30 years? I can't imagine it being MUCH better back then.
It wasn't.  Since about 1972 (IIRC), there has been an EPA-mandated ceiling on the total number of parking spaces allowed within the City of Boston.  They've since relaxed some of the rules for certain off-street developments, but the total number of on-street parking spaces and "public" garage spaces has remained stagnant.  It's treated as a zero sum gain by the EPA - if the City does street improvements that result in fewer spaces in one place, they are allowed to replicate the spaces they lose elsewhere.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 11, 2014, 07:34:00 PM

You do all realize that Cheers was primarily on in the 1980s, right?  And that Boston then was not Boston now, right?

Did the state of parking in the city take a tumble over the past 20-30 years? I can't imagine it being MUCH better back then.
It wasn't.  Since about 1972 (IIRC), there has been an EPA-mandated ceiling on the total number of parking spaces allowed within the City of Boston.  They've since relaxed some of the rules for certain off-street developments, but the total number of on-street parking spaces and "public" garage spaces has remained stagnant.  It's treated as a zero sum gain by the EPA - if the City does street improvements that result in fewer spaces in one place, they are allowed to replicate the spaces they lose elsewhere.

I forgot all about that parking freeze, probably because there is so much parking built as part of developments it is hard to remember that the cap exists.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 11, 2014, 07:37:23 PM
Yeah, I understand that the cost of living skyrocketed in the 80s because of the development along the Route 128 corridor. I'm sure that Carla's nonexistent house near Logan (if such a thing existed) would be worth six-figures in 2014. :P

The cost of living in Boston is a pain in the ass though and I say that as someone who is actively looking for apartments in the area.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: texaskdog on July 15, 2016, 09:38:16 AM
In order to block out road signs in the 21 Jump Street movie (shot in New Orleans) they are driving on the LEFT bridge.  Watch the chase scene, all the signs are backwards.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: PHLBOS on July 15, 2016, 01:05:10 PM
It wasn't.  Since about 1972 (IIRC), there has been an EPA-mandated ceiling on the total number of parking spaces allowed within the City of Boston.  They've since relaxed some of the rules for certain off-street developments, but the total number of on-street parking spaces and "public" garage spaces has remained stagnant.  It's treated as a zero sum gain by the EPA - if the City does street improvements that result in fewer spaces in one place, they are allowed to replicate the spaces they lose elsewhere.
Did only Boston have such a restriction or was such also applied to other cities?  In the near-26 years I've lived in the Philly area; there has definitely been an increased number of overall parking spaces in Philadelphia (mostly in the form of above or underground garages).

Yeah, I understand that the cost of living skyrocketed in the 80s because of the development along the Route 128 corridor. I'm sure that Carla's nonexistent house near Logan (if such a thing existed) would be worth six-figures in 2014. :P
The episode when she moves in (5th season, early 1987) took place right when real estate prices in the Greater Boston area were skyrocketing.  Cliff's "It's a sellers' market" quote during the episode gives reference to what real estate prices, as a whole, were doing at the time.

The cost of living in Boston is a pain in the ass though and I say that as someone who is actively looking for apartments in the area.
Such has largely been an issue since the mid-to-late 80s.  I remember one local magazine article (it was either from Boston Magazine or Marblehead Magazine) that had an opening headline that read "Where Will Our Children Live?" that commented about the soaring real estate prices effect on young adults leaving their parents' homes (due to marriage, job, whatever).  I.e. more and more of them were forced to move further away.

Fast forward to about the mid 2000s and another article (this time from the Boston Herald) covered the exodus of young adults (ones that actually contribute to the tax base) from the state due to high real estate prices (including apartment rents).

Not much has changed in that (high real estate prices & rents) regard except that it's now expanded well beyond the I-495 corridor now.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on July 15, 2016, 01:06:49 PM
I was watching Kojak last night on MeTV when I noticed that both characters Crocker and Kojak talking on a NY City street corner, with large 12-12-12 traffic signals with back plates on them in the backround. 

New York City uses yellow, mostly 8-8-8, and no back plates.  It was clear that the production company shot most scenes with all the actors to make the one hour long crime drama in LA in hopes to pass it along to viewers that they are in New York.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: jwolfer on July 15, 2016, 03:01:42 PM
Dexter which was set in Miami was filmed in Southern California. They had some outside shots establishing setting in Miami and they seem to do a decent job of avoiding mountains in background. But all the cars have front Florida tags. And Dade tags.. it was changed to Miami-Dade officially in 1997 and there is not even and option for County name any longer in Miami Dade. Standard issue is Sunshine State or In God we Trust
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 17, 2016, 12:26:16 AM
The Purge has a scene where it's showing various cameras from various cities around the US. One that stuck out to me was where it showed a scene supposed to be set in Huntsville, AL, but the street they show has double lines on the side of it, which don't exist here in Huntsville from what I've seen. Not too major of a mistake, but there wasn't much else that I could see, especially since the scene is shot in such a way the street and sidewalk (along with a few parts of buildings) are the only things you can see. Though of course the only reason I was able to know about it was from watching a review of the movie, since I haven't actually seen the movie myself.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: bing101 on July 17, 2016, 01:10:25 AM
Mythbusters on Discovery some of their Bay Area Scenes take place in Vallejo, CA but is sometimes credited for taking place in San Francisco or Oakland.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: djsekani on July 17, 2016, 04:39:53 AM
A minor gaffe in the sitcom Martin. It was set in Detroit and used authentic outdoor shots, but the addresses and street names used were completely made up and don't exist in the actual city. In one episode their apartment building (which is actually in a somewhat upscale neighborhood from the exterior shot) is given an address on the non-existent 128th Street to make it sound like they're in the 'hood.

The cop drama Sirens was set in Pittsburgh, but actually filmed in the far flatter and less claustrophobic city of Vancouver. There's almost no similarity to the actual city.

The Detroit in the original 1984 version of Robocop bears no similarity, not even accidentally, to the actual city. It was filmed in Dallas.

Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: bing101 on July 17, 2016, 08:58:13 AM
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/general-news/20160603/filming-to-begin-next-week-in-downtown-vallejo. 

A Netflix show featuring Selena Gomez was filmed in Vallejo.  My take here is that Vallejo is used as a backup city whenever other cities like San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley are either too expensive to film or the scene they wanted in those cities were denied because of neighborhood complaints in those cited areas.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: Bruce on July 17, 2016, 07:33:26 PM
The Killing is set in Seattle and filmed in Vancouver. That's excusable given the tax incentive, but this is not:

(http://i.imgur.com/QBwrh5n.png)
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: PHLBOS on July 28, 2016, 02:36:38 PM
On a cable channel, I recently saw the miniseries Rich Man-Poor Man (which originally aired on ABC circa 1976); which takes place during the late 50s/early 60s, but little or no effort was made to have things period correct... hairstyles in particular.  Stock footage of outdoor scenes would feature cars much later than the era (late 60s/early 70s cars in a late 50s/early 60s setting). 

The biggest gaffe was one scene where Nick Nolte's character is on a ship heading to NYC and a shot of Lower Manhattan shows the World Trade Center's Twin Towers; such weren't even under construction yet during the setting's era.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: sparker on August 06, 2016, 04:37:37 PM
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the S.F. chase sequence in "Bullitt" -- you know, the one that started down on Army Street, jumped right to Nob Hill, moved to Russian Hill (without crossing Van Ness!), and ended up on the south side of the Presidio -- only to segue directly onto San Bruno Mountain, where it ended in a ball of flame (incidentally, the San Bruno Mountain road had not been opened to the public at the time of filming; McQueen and company were among the first to use it).  Back about 1984 or so, a friend and I took a camcorder around the city trying to replicate the chase by landmarks; it took most of a day to locate about two-thirds of the shooting locations. 
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: 1995hoo on August 07, 2016, 09:31:03 AM
The Killing is set in Seattle and filmed in Vancouver. That's excusable given the tax incentive, but this is not:

(http://i.imgur.com/QBwrh5n.png)

Wow!

That makes me recall a deli that used to be around the corner from my old office. They introduced some new sandwiches and put up a sign about their new "Brooklyn" menu. Problem was, the skyline they placed at the bottom of the sign included the CN Tower and SkyDome.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: jwolfer on August 07, 2016, 08:12:41 PM
The Killing is set in Seattle and filmed in Vancouver. That's excusable given the tax incentive, but this is not:

(http://i.imgur.com/QBwrh5n.png)
At least it's not set in Atlanta..  Seattle and Vancouver at least have similar climate and topography. I guess they figure only people familiar Seattle or Vancouver would be able to tell.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: bing101 on August 08, 2016, 10:34:03 AM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119664/locations?ref_=tt_dt_dt

The 1997 movie Metro with Eddie Murphy. Vallejo was used as a backup city when some scenes could not be filmed in San Francisco for safety reasons.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: roadman65 on August 18, 2016, 06:50:35 PM
Watch Kojack reruns and see how much more LA they get in outdoor locations then they do NY where its supposed to be set.
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: JMoses24 on August 22, 2016, 12:27:09 AM
Mythbusters on Discovery some of their Bay Area Scenes take place in Vallejo, CA but is sometimes credited for taking place in San Francisco or Oakland.

I'm kinda a MythBusters super-fan, and I have never heard Vallejo scenes credited as "San Francisco" or "Oakland", but "Vallejo". The M5 shop is, in fact, located in San Francisco off of I-280 on Missouri Street (it has a Yelp listing (https://www.yelp.com/biz/m5-industries-san-francisco)).
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: VTGoose on August 22, 2016, 02:31:53 PM
I'm surprised that JAG and NCIS haven't shown up here for their gross violations of geography. Since they were globetrotting so much, it would probably be possible to generate a long list of problems. There were a number of scenes, though, where Harm was flying his Stearman from an airport near "home" in Washington, D.C. and the terrain seen in the background was nothing like Northern Virginia. The worst offense was late in the series' run when Harm had left JAG. He flew into "Blacksburg, Virginia" and met up with Maddie, who was running a crop-dusting service. Harm went to work for her, doing crop-dusting on the cotton crops. Minor problem -- cotton doesn't grow in the mountains of Southwest Virginia. While we do have an airport here, it looks nothing like what was shown in the program.

NCIS does a pretty good job of being somewhat true to reality with small details, like Virginia license plates that are correct in look but with a number scheme nothing like that offered by the DMV and with the paint job on State Police cars. But they give a false impression of just how close places are to the Washington Navy Yard. The gang jaunts to Norfolk like it is just across the Potomac River and goes deep into the mountains of West Virginia in no time. Apparently the writers in California don't own any maps.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: bing101 on August 31, 2016, 09:28:29 AM
Mythbusters on Discovery some of their Bay Area Scenes take place in Vallejo, CA but is sometimes credited for taking place in San Francisco or Oakland.

I'm kinda a MythBusters super-fan, and I have never heard Vallejo scenes credited as "San Francisco" or "Oakland", but "Vallejo". The M5 shop is, in fact, located in San Francisco off of I-280 on Missouri Street (it has a Yelp listing (https://www.yelp.com/biz/m5-industries-san-francisco)).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383126/locations?mode=desktop

Sorry I did not include this link of Mythbusters locations
Title: Re: TV shows set in cities that get city features horribly wrong
Post by: jwolfer on August 31, 2016, 12:49:24 PM
But they give a false impression of just how close places are ...

Bruce in Blacksburg

Pretty common on TV. The show "The Glades" about a Florida detective they have them going from Ft Lauderdale to Cassadega for an interview which is around a four hour drive. Not a normal work day trip. It was at least filmed in Florida.

Another thing that bugs me on TV especially is people taking a flight somewhere where nearly everyone would drive ( or train) like New York to Philadelphia