Thjere was one movie where a group of people in a car go over a hill in Tacoma and on the other side of the huill are suddenly looking at Lake Union in Seattle.
Tacoma gets no respect.
TMP DE: Is this a goof?
- Thread starter Mr. Laser Beam
- Start date
Thjere was one movie where a group of people in a car go over a hill in Tacoma and on the other side of the huill are suddenly looking at Lake Union in Seattle.
Tacoma gets no respect.
I don't get that at all...Few movies set in Washington, DC get the city right. Everyone has to have a picture window opening onto the Capitol or the Mall or the Washington Monument, for one thing - even if their office is across the river in the Pentagon.
"X-Files" was the absolute worst with DC area geography. Those folks were sitting up in Canada with some local DC road maps, I think, and none of them had ever seen the city (certainly none had tried to drive around it).
"X-Files" was the absolute worst with DC area geography. Those folks were sitting up in Canada with some local DC road maps, I think, and none of them had ever seen the city (certainly none had tried to drive around it).
Meh, movies never get anything right.
England is nothing like its portrayed in the movies, folks. It aint all Castles and Cucumber sandwiches.
In Robin Hood : Prince of Thieves, they arrive off the boat at Dover (white cliffs) and set off on foot. The next day they arrive at Hadrians wall, several hundered miles away... (and lets not even mention they would have passed Sherwood forest on the way)
England is nothing like its portrayed in the movies, folks. It aint all Castles and Cucumber sandwiches.
In Robin Hood : Prince of Thieves, they arrive off the boat at Dover (white cliffs) and set off on foot. The next day they arrive at Hadrians wall, several hundered miles away... (and lets not even mention they would have passed Sherwood forest on the way)
And then there's Kevin Costner's accent...
I've seen the geography of Manhattan botched pretty badly in various TV shows and movies. The worst offender is Spiderman 2, which has a non-existent elevated train.
^^There are parts of the NY subway system that are aboveground. The Manhattan portion is mostly underground, but it has some elevated portions, such as the Manhattan Valley Viaduct near Harlem.
Spidey 2 didn't "botch" Manhattan geography, it took conscious poetic license with it, exaggerating it with the understanding that it was set in a fantasy universe. The skyline was also enhanced; they built a complete digital Manhattan and exaggerated the height and number of really tall skyscrapers. They were going for effect, the essence of Manhattan as Spider-Man experiences it, not geographical literalness. After all, if the viewer can accept that a spider bite could give super-powers -- or that it's even remotely possible to aim and fire a flimsy strand of webbing hundreds of feet through even calm air, let alone the intense winds around tall skyscrapers -- then how hard is it to accept the presence of taller buildings and more elevated train lines in Manhattan?
Spidey 2 didn't "botch" Manhattan geography, it took conscious poetic license with it, exaggerating it with the understanding that it was set in a fantasy universe. The skyline was also enhanced; they built a complete digital Manhattan and exaggerated the height and number of really tall skyscrapers. They were going for effect, the essence of Manhattan as Spider-Man experiences it, not geographical literalness. After all, if the viewer can accept that a spider bite could give super-powers -- or that it's even remotely possible to aim and fire a flimsy strand of webbing hundreds of feet through even calm air, let alone the intense winds around tall skyscrapers -- then how hard is it to accept the presence of taller buildings and more elevated train lines in Manhattan?
Oh, I know, I used to live next to that track. But it has nothing that resembles the track seen in S2.
To me it defeats the purpose of setting the story in a real city, which is rooting the more fantastic elements of the film in a real, believable environment.
Thanks, but I didn't have to put much work into it. I was able to eyeball most of the locations from my knowledge of the area and screenshots (since the almost always include the bridge...nice that you can see it out of every window in San Francisco), but I don't really have an interest in going through every San Francisco shot in every TV show.
Actually, I did this some years ago, based partly on those very same reference pics.
As long as they get the broad strokes and the feel of the city right, I don't mind if they tweak a few incidental details here and there. Believability doesn't require absolute, slavish literalism, especially not in a visceral medium like film. The goal is to capture the overall feel of it, and filmmakers often use artifice to create the illusion of realism in many different ways. It's like George Burns said: "The key is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
Oh, for the most part I agree with you. But in this case it just didn't work for me. But not enough for me not to enjoy the film as a whole.
Actually, I did this some years ago, based partly on those very same reference pics.
Is the Starfleet Museum there as a nod to Masao, or was a such as museum mentioned somewhere else?
Marian
Thanks, but I didn't have to put much work into it. I was able to eyeball most of the locations from my knowledge of the area and screenshots (since the almost always include the bridge...nice that you can see it out of every window in San Francisco
Actually, I did this some years ago, based partly on those very same reference pics.
That's pretty cool. You should consult on future projects to help Star Trek producers make sure they get it right.
I think your answer makes sense... speaking as a former Navy man... perspective as one looks out upon the water can be confusing... its one reason for sea-sickness.Is it possible that the slope down to the water just isn't really visible due to the angle? I think perspective accounts for the relative height of the bridge, or seems to as I squint.
The ST films are about the FUTURE... they can't be expected to get the PRESENT right! Heheheh!!! ;-)
Bravo! Bravo! How true... Movies would cost 20-40% more to film and be twice as dull if they had to strictly adhere to every accurate detail.
After all... Gene Roddenberry predicted the moon landing to within 1 year... yet folks mention how he "botched" that one...
Okay, I did a little photoanalysis on this and checked the actual specs for the GG Bridge. The problem with the TMP air tram station interior shot is that the perspective is rubbish. I traced various lines out to establish a horizon and the lines don't all jibe with each other, let alone with those of the bridge proper. Even if I use the highest vanishing point of the many in this mess, the height of the roadway at the point where the air tram facility is supposed to be remains above the horizon line as seen in the interior shot. So, yes, the interior angle is too low to match the corresponding exterior.
I used station points on the bridge to plot out where the height of the road deck at the aforementioned point would be. There's no optical illusions going on here. It's just wrong.
I used station points on the bridge to plot out where the height of the road deck at the aforementioned point would be. There's no optical illusions going on here. It's just wrong.
The dullness factor is subjective, but I really don't see how being geographically accurate would be more costly.
Similar threads
