Why do so many films set in London pretend everyone relies on cars?

[scifisam]

I watched a really good movie yesterday, Polite Society, Sorta slightly hard to describe while doing it justice - genre is mainly comedy. A young woman of Pakistani heritage, who wants to be a stunt woman, suspects there's something nefarious going on with the prospective husband of her older sister. There is quite a bit violence and it's very odd in some parts (mostly the violence TBH) and totally relatable in other parts.

BUT at one point one of the characters says that she was given a car by her dad on "her 16th birthday." OK, fine, he gave her a car she can't drive... But she can drive it. The main character can also drive it, and drive it well. They get from Shepherd's Bush to Docklands without a pause for breath.

There are a few references that make it clear they're in their GCSE year, but even if they were taking their A levels, in Shepherd's Bush very few of them would be able to drive.

The person who wrote the movie is British. I don't really understand why she'd somehow totally miss that the characters would not be able to drive. Not just one, but two of them can drive very well.

It happens all the time. Bridget Jones - we must get to the hospital from this flat just by Borough station, we'll drive there! No.

Notting Hill was the first one I noticed it happening in. They took a car to get to a place that was easy by tube or even a taxi, and, worse, they could have justified it by saying that one of the characters was in a wheelchair so needed a car... but they stuffed her in the car and had her wheelchair hanging out the back of the boot. She didn't have a car, and she was the one most likely to.

It comes up a LOT. Almost any movie and a lot of TV shows will have people driving in London when they just wouldn't. Catastrophe, the TV show, at one point had her driving her kid from her house in Bow to the kids' school in Bow, and then drive straight home. It just wouldn't happen.

Anyone else get irrationally annoyed by this?

 

[danny la rouge]

Well, in Vigil, they had people driving from the West End of Glasgow to the city centre through the Clyde Tunnel! You wouldn’t. That’s the wrong way. But you’re right, they could have hopped on the Subway (making sure they were heading the right direction) and got there much quicker.

 

[weepiper]

I guess because the film industry is largely biased towards an American audience?

 

[scifisam]

Well, in Vigil, they had people driving from the West End of Glasgow to the city centre through the Clyde Tunnel! You wouldn’t. That’s the wrong way. But you’re right, they could have hopped on the Subway (making sure they were heading the right direction) and got there much quicker.

It's not just that - that's a different trope- it's assuming they even had a car in the first place.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's not just that - that's a different trope- it's assuming they even had a car in the first place.

Well, yes. But I know the flat they filmed in and it’s 200 yards from the Subway station!

 

[MickiQ]

To keep the story moving along, the audience doesn't want to watch the protagonist waits goes to the tube station, buys a ticket, catches a train, swaps to another, finally come out of the underground and wanders about a bit looking for their destination. All films sacrifice a certain amount of realism in order to work.

 

[danny la rouge]

Bus chase scenes are few and far between.

 

[scifisam]

I guess because the film industry is largely biased towards an American audience?

For this particular movie, though, it's very British. And a lot of the US doesn't actually allow licences at the age of 16 either, or they're restricted, so they don't necessarily expect it. The age was said out loud, not just implied.

One kid having a car at 16 and being able to drive, illegally or not, was sorta OK, but then the other kid was also able to drive a classic car without even a single grinding gear.

Some of the movie wasn't supposed to be exactly real, but the driving part felt like it was.

 

[scifisam]

To keep the story moving along, the audience doesn't want to watch the protagonist waits goes to the tube station, buys a ticket, catches a train, swaps to another, finally come out of the underground and wanders about a bit looking for their destination. All films sacrifice a certain amount of realism in order to work.

Nah, if that were the case you'd just show them leaving for the tube and then exiting the tube, or even they just mention it. Same as you don't show the entire drive.

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

It happens all the time. Bridget Jones - we must get to the hospital from this flat just by Borough station, we'll drive there! No.

I wonder how much is down to TfL having tight control of who can use the roundel and exerting control over who can film in the tube system. The rest of it I'm sure is down to expectations of American audiences who must always be appeased in a global market.

 

[scifisam]

Well, yes. But I know the flat they filmed in and it’s 200 yards from the Subway station!

Actually, I misread you, and yes, it's the same thing.

 

[Pickman's model]

I watched a really good movie yesterday, Polite Society, Sorta slightly hard to describe while doing it justice - genre is mainly comedy. A young woman of Pakistani heritage, who wants to be a stunt woman, suspects there's something nefarious going on with the prospective husband of her older sister. There is quite a bit violence and it's very odd in some parts (mostly the violence TBH) and totally relatable in other parts.

BUT at one point one of the characters says that she was given a car by her dad on "her 16th birthday." OK, fine, he gave her a car she can't drive... But she can drive it. The main character can also drive it, and drive it well. They get from Shepherd's Bush to Docklands without a pause for breath.

There are a few references that make it clear they're in their GCSE year, but even if they were taking their A levels, in Shepherd's Bush very few of them would be able to drive.

The person who wrote the movie is British. I don't really understand why she'd somehow totally miss that the characters would not be able to drive. Not just one, but two of them can drive very well.

It happens all the time. Bridget Jones - we must get to the hospital from this flat just by Borough station, we'll drive there! No.

Notting Hill was the first one I noticed it happening in. They took a car to get to a place that was easy by tube or even a taxi, and, worse, they could have justified it by saying that one of the characters was in a wheelchair so needed a car... but they stuffed her in the car and had her wheelchair hanging out the back of the boot. She didn't have a car, and she was the one most likely to.

It comes up a LOT. Almost any movie and a lot of TV shows will have people driving in London when they just wouldn't. Catastrophe, the TV show, at one point had her driving her kid from her house in Bow to the kids' school in Bow, and then drive straight home. It just wouldn't happen.

Anyone else get irrationally annoyed by this?

i reckon it's something to do with difficulty with filming on the tube or costs involved with that or something. you often see the metro or subway depicted in films set in eg san francisco or new york or paris. wikipedia lists only 23 films set on the tube so there's probably something in that Category:Films set on the London Underground - Wikipedia

 

[Sue]

i reckon it's something to do with difficulty with filming on the tube or costs involved with that or something. you often see the metro or subway depicted in films set in eg san francisco or new york or paris. wikipedia lists only 23 films set on the tube so there's probably something in that Category:Films set on the London Underground - Wikipedia

Death Line (AKA Raw Meat) looks good-- Donald Pleasance! Christopher Lee!

Spoiler

Cannibals!

 

[Santino]

Something I notice a lot these days is how few people on TV live in small flats compared to how many people in real life do.

 

[AverageJoe]

In Eastenders everyone has a car. They even have a mechanics/repair shop.

But the only time a car is ever used is for some kind of tragic accident.

Or Danny Dyer managing to drive from the Queen Vic to the South coast in ten minutes.

 

[danny la rouge]

Something I notice a lot these days is how few people on TV live in small flats compared to how many people in real life do.

And tidy ones! Wtf?

 

[scifisam]

Something I notice a lot these days is how few people on TV live in small flats compared to how many people in real life do.

Different topic.

Not a general tropes thread. There's another thread that some 16-year-old can drive you over to.

 

[philosophical]

I don’t get how whenever they drive somewhere, like Bexleyheath to Lewisham, they always seem to go past Tower Bridge, Westminster, the London Eye, the Albert Memorial, Primrose Hill, Buckingham Palace and Borough Market.

 

[purenarcotic]

I always assume it’s an artistic license thing. Like how in hospital dramas there’s always a bed and theatre free and nobody waits six hours past their allotted appointment time. Which is particularly laughable now but was laughable and unrealistic when I first spotted it when I was 16.

 

[purenarcotic]

I don’t get how whenever they drive somewhere, like Bexleyheath to Lewisham, they always seem to go past Tower Bridge, Westminster, the London Eye, the Albert Memorial, Primrose Hill, Buckingham Palace and Borough Market.

They’re famous London landmarks innit. I’m sure a lot of films set in New York show unrealistic routes, but as we don’t live there we don’t pick up on it. But we could join the film half way through and go ‘look! It’s New York!’ the same someone would with those landmarks.

 

[Saunders]

Bus chase scenes are few and far between.

More’s the pity

 

[Spymaster]

I watched a really good movie yesterday, Polite Society, Sorta slightly hard to describe while doing it justice - genre is mainly comedy. A young woman of Pakistani heritage, who wants to be a stunt woman, suspects there's something nefarious going on with the prospective husband of her older sister. There is quite a bit violence and it's very odd in some parts (mostly the violence TBH) and totally relatable in other parts.

BUT at one point one of the characters says that she was given a car by her dad on "her 16th birthday." OK, fine, he gave her a car she can't drive... But she can drive it. The main character can also drive it, and drive it well. They get from Shepherd's Bush to Docklands without a pause for breath.

There are a few references that make it clear they're in their GCSE year, but even if they were taking their A levels, in Shepherd's Bush very few of them would be able to drive.

The person who wrote the movie is British. I don't really understand why she'd somehow totally miss that the characters would not be able to drive. Not just one, but two of them can drive very well.

It happens all the time. Bridget Jones - we must get to the hospital from this flat just by Borough station, we'll drive there! No.

Notting Hill was the first one I noticed it happening in. They took a car to get to a place that was easy by tube or even a taxi, and, worse, they could have justified it by saying that one of the characters was in a wheelchair so needed a car... but they stuffed her in the car and had her wheelchair hanging out the back of the boot. She didn't have a car, and she was the one most likely to.

It comes up a LOT. Almost any movie and a lot of TV shows will have people driving in London when they just wouldn't. Catastrophe, the TV show, at one point had her driving her kid from her house in Bow to the kids' school in Bow, and then drive straight home. It just wouldn't happen.

Anyone else get irrationally annoyed by this?

I'd hazard a guess that it's got something to do with the cost of filming on the tube. There aren't many films that have significant portions filmed down there. Also saw a doc about it and it is very expensive. The old Aldwych/Strand tube station has been preserved below ground and is used for films, but I reckon it's just about the cost and convenience of filming scenes in cars v the underground. Plus you can take in loads of landmark scenes and add another dimension to the film for people familiar with London who would recognise the streets etc. The tube's not big on scenery.

 

[scifisam]

Can I clarify:

Driving past touristy places not en route is annoying occasionally but is usually a trope we accept as part of location setting. Occasionally that's still annoying for some people, but it's basically it's "it's a movie"

I am fine with cuts to save time and artistic licence in other respects.

I am specifically talking about stories set in London that rely on people having a car. Even if they're under the driving age or live in zone 1.

 

[Epona]

I agree, it is sometimes a jolt to see people driving around in cars in a film set in London - I can't drive, OH can't drive - actually most of the people I know who spent most of their life in London it's not just that we don't have cars, we just never got a full license in the first place because we don't need one (I kind of wish I had so I could hire a van occasionally to move stuff, or hire a vehicle to go on a road trip type holiday occasionally, but it's a lot of expense for occasional use type stuff). Let alone owning a car, I mean where would I even fucking park it? It's a logistical nightmare when my parents (who live rural with terrible public transport so they need a car) visit, what hours are they allowed to park without getting clamped, will there be a space for them to park, check out the next street to see what the parking hours are there just in case etc.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I guess you'd either have to persuade TFL to let you close a station then recruit thousands of extras to pretend to be passengers, or accept you'll have to do a hundred takes every time because of people making wanker signs at the camera. Car is going to be much easier to control.

 

[Spymaster]

I guess you'd either have to persuade TFL to let you close a station then recruit thousands of extras to pretend to be passengers, or accept you'll have to do a hundred takes every time because of people making wanker signs at the camera. Car is going to be much easier to control.

It's this.

 

[Cloo]

I do get a bit annoyed by bad London geography - I'd never thought about the car driving thing but you are right, no one actually drives in central London that much. But I suppose in drama you often need transit to happen in cars so people can have a private conversation while doing so or other dramatic reasons. And yes, it would be fairly unrealistic for an under 21ish person in London to drive. I think only about 30% of our year, tops, drove by the end of 6th form and if anything that's probably gone down since.

 

[scifisam]

I'd hazard a guess that it's got something to do with the cost of filming on the tube. There aren't many films that have significant portions filmed down there. Also saw a doc about it and it is very expensive. The old Aldwych/Strand tube station has been preserved below ground and is used for films, but I reckon it's just about the cost and convenience of filming scenes in cars v the underground. Plus you can take in loads of landmark scenes and add another dimension to the film for people familiar with London who would recognise the streets etc. The tube's not big on scenery.

For this movie (I think you'd like it), BTW) having the car was necessary. But they made the characters too young to drive and actually said that out loud as part of the movie. They could have adjusted the ages by a single year and made it somewhat feasible, to start with.

When people leave to go somewhere, you don't necessarily have to show every step of the journey. You mainly need to show them leaving the house. No need for any extra filming inside the tube. Also, taxis.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

It's this.

Possibly also branding and rights issues.
L

 

[scifisam]

I guess you'd either have to persuade TFL to let you close a station then recruit thousands of extras to pretend to be passengers, or accept you'll have to do a hundred takes every time because of people making wanker signs at the camera. Car is going to be much easier to control.

No, that's not the sort of thing I'm talking about. I'm talking about someone hailing or booking a taxi rather than having their own car (a taxi would as easy to film in), or expecting hat all of your neighbours has a car, or, in this case, two different 16-year-olds being able to drive perfectly.