It should have been. We have rockets, spacesuits and space stations. There is no reason Bullock and Clooney couldn't have filmed it in space.
The next thing you're going to tell me is that "Gravity" wasn't filmed in Earth orbit.
What was happening in the Laurentian System?
- Thread starter Praetorian
- Start date
No one has a problem with that. I never one time said I had a problem with stand in locations. The question is using one that actually makes sense and really does work as a stand in. Using the NYC skyline to stand in for Kansas City doesn't work. Not because stand in locations don't work, but because it is laughably incongruous. The Empire State Building is not in Kansas City. Can we agree that would not be defensible by saying "movies have used stand in locations for decades"? Nor would that be complaining just to have something to complain about. It's something that doesn't work, isn't plausible and reflects on the professionalism of those involved in the movie.
But if these guys are ok with Warp Speed supernovas, does anyone think they care about getting Iowa right? They don't give a F. They got their daredevil scene and that's that.
Eastern Iowa is hardly as iconic as the New York skyline. Using Bakersfield/Vermont to represent it is not same as sticking a Kansas City title card on a picture of New York City. You trying to say its the same undermines your argument more than anything I can say. Then trying to call the filmmakers unprofessional because of it places your argument deeper in the ground than any quarry in Vermont or Iowa.
That doesn't make sense at all. I mean in terms of logical argumentation. What argument that I made is now undermined or invalidated? That doesn't follow. Explain this to me. You think the example was extreme so therefore what? What argument doesn't work now and why?
It was an example to show that it's not a matter of stand ins, but getting them right and to show how silly it is to keep saying "it's a movie, doing things that movies have done since movies began." No it isn't. Nor that it is complaining for the sake of complaining.
But your response seems to indicate exactly the unprofessionalism I was talking about. Of just not caring if it's right or not. Not as many will notice the wrong topography as will notice the Chrysler Building being in the wrong place, so F it? That's exactly what I think they did. And why it's so silly and unprofessional. As long as fewer people know what BS it is, then BS passes muster? Awesome attitude! It doesn't matter if fans think that, I guess, but for professionals? Wow.
Last edited:
Just about every argument you've made is wrong or pointless on this issue.
One--it's Iowa in the 23rd century. Who is to say that quarries that are currently somewhat shallow in Iowa will not, by then, be as deep as the one in Vermont that was used for the film? In fact, showing a deep quarry where, at the moment, there are less deep quarries, is an excellent way to show the passage of centuries and impart the sense the story takes place in, you know, the future.
Two--Same applies to the difference in appearance between present-day Bakersfield and present-day Iowa. We have an actual Iowan who points out that the differences are subtle, not gross. And if the vegetation is not exact and the appearance has changed a bit--oh no. Guess what? That is entirely consistent with the passage of centuries. In fact, since Vermont is part of the discussion, try taking a look at photos of Vermont from the second half of the 19th century and compare them to today. In a great many of them, you'd be hard pressed to believe they were taken in the same part of the world (I know this because A) I work in Vermont and know its appearance quite well and B) I occasionally teach courses on Vermont history and have had cause to examine photos taken in different points in its history.)
You might have a point if Iowa in the movie had been portrayed as a lush, tropical jungle--or as a massive Sahara-like expanse. But it wasn't.
As a native of eastern Iowa, I will have to ask both of you gentlemen to step outside.
The trailer for the movie "Cedar Rapids", staring Ed Helms, shows a picture of the CR skyline from the window of an airplane. It's really Philadelphia! The movie was also shot in Ann Arbor, MI. Why? Because Michigan offers film makers huge tax credits on their production costs in the state. The movie was going to be shot in CR, but Iowa had phased out its tax incentives for movie production in state.
"Is this heaven?" "No, it's a tax haven."
All involved are unprofessional and should expelled from the industry.
As a native of eastern Iowa, I will have to ask both of you gentlemen to step outside.
The trailer for the movie "Cedar Rapids", staring Ed Helms, shows a picture of the CR skyline from the window of an airplane. It's really Philadelphia! The movie was also shot in Ann Arbor, MI. Why? Because Michigan offers film makers huge tax credits on their production costs in the state. The movie was going to be shot in CR, but Iowa had phased out its tax incentives for movie production in state.
"Is this heaven?" "No, it's a tax haven."
Eh, not really. I'm just a little surprised to see the "Grand Canyon in Iowa" bit resurfacing, after all this time.
You are reacting to this as if you were part of the production team that scouted out the filming locations and you're offended by the slight.
That's the thing, though: it's not a great line. It never was.
Indeed? Perhaps we could help reunite you with your long-lost password, then. Just say the word.
I didn't just arrive! I had a previous name whose password I have long forgotten. I have been on these boards a loooong time.
Iowa becoming like Bakersfield is not consistent with the passage of time. Nor is Vermont becoming like it. Of course, the actors never set foot in Vermont. They just took footage shot there and digitally combined it with footage from the Bakersfield car chase. The end result is something not found in Vermont, Bakersfield or Iowa, even with the passage of time. So which Iowa quarry is this? None of them. There isn' one like that there. It's not just that the depth is wrong, it's that youre in the wrong part of the continent. It's California with a chuck of Vermont dropped in. That's fine, because this isnt our Earth. We dont have to be concerned. Our Iowa is not and wont likely ever be like that. But it wasnt our Iowa to start with, so it doesnt matter.
We can just disagree on that.
Perhaps we could help reunite you with your long-lost password, then. Just say the word.
My first name was Tlar. It might have been Tlar71, or something like that. But that was many years ago. Second name Tarek71. Now...AirCommodore, which I like better anyhow.
No. It. Shredded. Your. Points. (Iowa.Is.Not.Becoming.California)
All involved are unprofessional and should expelled from the industry.
As a native of eastern Iowa, I will have to ask both of you gentlemen to step outside.
The trailer for the movie "Cedar Rapids", staring Ed Helms, shows a picture of the CR skyline from the window of an airplane. It's really Philadelphia! The movie was also shot in Ann Arbor, MI. Why? Because Michigan offers film makers huge tax credits on their production costs in the state. The movie was going to be shot in CR, but Iowa had phased out its tax incentives for movie production in state.
"Is this heaven?" "No, it's a tax haven."
Ya think? Why? Yeah, the Philadelphia skyline bit is silly. But why is shooting in a different location bad? I never one single time said that. But you did think it would be absurd to have the NYC skyline stand in for KC, right? So even you have some limits, correct? There is a point where something is a bad and silly choice for a stand-in locale. It's a matter of degrees. And there are going to be disagreements about how much is too much. That's fine.
Last edited:
No. It. Shredded. Your. Points. (Iowa.Is.Not.Becoming.California)
Actually, your post read like a bad, early product of Google Translate (hence its lack of sense). Perhaps there was a point in there, but it was hiding pretty well.
This. Makes. No. Sense. (And. It. Entirely. Misses. The. Point.)
No. It. Shredded. Your. Points. (Iowa.Is.Not.Becoming.California)
Actually, your post read like a bad, early product of Google Translate (hence its lack of sense). Perhaps there was a point in there, but it was hiding pretty well.
Nope, straightforward English.
If you'd rather not discuss the content, and just go on with snark and sarcasm, that's ok! But I don't see the point of it.
I've lived in Iowa all of my life, and I can think of at least two quarries that are about the size of the one depicted in the film.
Apparently there are quarries much bigger than the one in Vermont, but not nearly as deep. The ones in Iowa are not newer than the one in Vermont. Some are older. So there is no basis for saying that they just need more time to be as deep.
But to be honest I am not sure it's worth going into comparative Quarrying methods (Open face quarries vs. pit quarries, deep hole, etc. ) or the possible differences between Iowa Limestone quarries and Vermont Granite quarries. Although it's probably worth noting that Iowa Limestone is not likely to become Vermont Granite in the 23rd Century.
I think they just wanted a steep, sheer cliff to run a car off of. That's it. I am certain they put nowhere near this thought into it or concerned themselves with Quarrying methods or rock composition. They wanted a car chase and a cliff, and they got it. Apparently the Bakersfield area didn't have a suitable one so they just digitally brought one from Vermont and splotched it unto Bakersfield.
I think it's ridiculous. This is by no means one the main problems the movie has. But since we are now on the subject, it's worth pointing it out. As I said, for me it's enough to say that this is not our Iowa anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Last edited:
Similar threads
