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

[Saunders]

Maybe it’s due to some sort of product placement, sponsorship, funding thing

 

[Puddy_Tat]

the holborn - aldwych branch has been used for filming since the 50s at least - it (other than very early years) only ever had a weekday peak hour service.

until fairly recently, there was a train that lived down there that could be poked in to action for filming - i understand it's now been removed and the link to the outside world is going to get cut off.

i can think of a few pop videos (some of madness's and one or two of saint etienne's) that were in part filmed on underground trains / stations other than the aldwych branch, and there was an episode of 'sherlock' that involved a journey on the underground.

but would imagine it's fairly expensive to get it to happen, it has to fit in round the real service and planned maintenance (now more complicated on lines with 'night tube' service)

 

[farmerbarleymow]

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.

Maybe the 16 year olds had been twocking cars and joyriding for years, thus explaining how they could drive at that age.

 

[scifisam]

Maybe the 16 year olds had been twocking cars and joyriding for years, thus explaining how they could drive at that age.

Nope.

 

[muscovyduck]

People who work in the film industry are predominantly car reliant. And people who are car reliant don't seem to understand how many other people aren't.

 

[metalguru]

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

Missing from that list, Stephen Frear's early film 'Gumshoe' has a good chase scene by Underground (scenes filmed on the Piccadilly Line of London Underground at Aldwych, Holborn and Russell Square stations).

And as a bonus it features "the full hat-trick of Liverpool railway termini, in one film" that were open at that time: Lime Street, Liverpool Central. Liverpool Exchange.

 

[Riklet]

Same reason there arent many boring cooking scenes in films and everyone eats out all the time.

Also tbh I think it makes sense for them to drive in Notting Hill. And it is the wheelchair lady's car too. They are seemingly the only ones with a car out of a group of adults which IMO is quite realistic for London no?

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

the holborn - aldwych branch has been used for filming since the 50s at least - it (other than very early years) only ever had a weekday peak hour service.

until fairly recently, there was a train that lived down there that could be poked in to action for filming - i understand it's now been removed and the link to the outside world is going to get cut off.

i can think of a few pop videos (some of madness's and one or two of saint etienne's) that were in part filmed on underground trains / stations other than the aldwych branch, and there was an episode of 'sherlock' that involved a journey on the underground.

but would imagine it's fairly expensive to get it to happen, it has to fit in round the real service and planned maintenance (now more complicated on lines with 'night tube' service)

I think nowadays a lot of it is done with sets and VFX.

Easier to manage than using the real thing but your production would need that budget.

Cars probably seem easier.

 

[moochedit]

Writer/director are either american or live in another part of the uk i guess

 

[scifisam]

Same reason there arent many boring cooking scenes in films and everyone eats out all the time.

Also tbh I think it makes sense for them to drive in Notting Hill. And it is the wheelchair lady's car too. They are seemingly the only ones with a car out of a group of adults which IMO is quite realistic for London no?

You might be right that it's her car, actually. That extremely rich couple who knew one of them was in a wheelchair didn't buy a car that could fit a wheelchair?

But he didn't even need a car to get there in the first place.

 

[alex_]

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.

It’s this plus you can film a scene with a car literally anywhere with hardly any gear, for bus or a tube you need a bus or a tube.

 

[scifisam]

I think I should have rephrased the thread title to be "why don't film-makers assume everyone in London can drive? and then everyone posting here would be posting examples of people using public transport.

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

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.

TfL has a fake station set up precisely for filming, however, its going to be quite expensive.

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

the holborn - aldwych branch has been used for filming since the 50s at least - it (other than very early years) only ever had a weekday peak hour service.

until fairly recently, there was a train that lived down there that could be poked in to action for filming - i understand it's now been removed and the link to the outside world is going to get cut off.

i can think of a few pop videos (some of madness's and one or two of saint etienne's) that were in part filmed on underground trains / stations other than the aldwych branch, and there was an episode of 'sherlock' that involved a journey on the underground.

but would imagine it's fairly expensive to get it to happen, it has to fit in round the real service and planned maintenance (now more complicated on lines with 'night tube' service)

James Bond used Westminster I think. But few films have the sort of clout that 007 does.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I live in Shepherds Bush and while some people here do drive obviously, teenagers absolutely wouldn't. I mean that's one of the good parts of the area, it's zone 2 with good buses and both central and hammersmith lines (plus district if you walk a bit). In fact most people wouldn't bother.

 

[Epona]

This is related to the other thing that grates me about films and series set in London which is the "you could not afford that flat/house on your job" reality stretch.

 

[belboid]

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.

I can't remember the film, but two of the co-stars were standing directly outside Camden tube desperate to get to Heathrow. So they hailed a cab, in the middle of a Saturday afternoon.

It is absolutely nothing to do with TfL or any difficulties closing down a station (which they wouldn't have too do anyway, just show a scene from inside the carriage if you want to show some of the journey), it's to do with......well, god knows really. I guess there is something about non-Londoners not realising how bloody good the tube is and how much quicker it would be than driving, but still, it is often just plain weird and daft.

 

[not-bono-ever]

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

Missed out the bed sitting room

 

[T & P]

Well surely it largely depends on the film’s subject and/or the demographic of the main characters. An inner city crime/ gangster style film featuring enforcers, hitmen or drug dealers travelling by public transport would just look like shit, even if it might happen.

Or it might just be a question of style and glamour. Just as the bridge of attack submarines or a government’s situation room in films look shiny and full of hi-tech digital displays whereas in real life they look pretty much underwhelming and ordinary, because it tends to kill the look, people travelling by public transport in films is not very aesthetically appealing. Unless a plot development takes place in a bus or Tube carriage, of course.

 

[xenon]

Buses and walking aren’t sexy. Basically that. The tube is iconic Metro systems. But only if there’s a chase scene , evading a pursuer by weaving through the crowds whilst trying to look unconspicuous, that sort of thing. but waiting for a bus, or walking. Nah

 

[metalguru]

Well surely it largely depends on the film’s subject and/or the demographic of the main characters. An inner city crime/ gangster style film featuring enforcers, hitmen or drug dealers travelling by public transport would just look like shit, even if it might happen.

The Comic Strip’s “Bullshitters” episode parodying “the Professionals” riffs on this theme, with Bonehead teaching a tv tough guy class on film driving (“no clunk click on this trip”) and Bonehead and Foyle reduced to using a bus pass.

 

[komodo]

Also Black cabs are overused in films and TV shows. Most of us can’t afford them or find one. But easier to film. Don’t get me started on drinking out of mugs with nothing in them and carrying suitcases around with great ease as they’re obviously empty.

 

[scifisam]

Buses and walking aren’t sexy. Basically that. The tube is iconic Metro systems. But only if there’s a chase scene , evading a pursuer by weaving through the crowds whilst trying to look unconspicuous, that sort of thing. but waiting for a bus, or walking. Nah

But that's not what I'm talking about. It's not just about people actually using cars, it's about the
assumption that everyone in London has cars to use. Even if they're teenagers.

I give up. It feels like I could t type random keys and some people would respond out of pure boredom, but that's the the limit.

 

[xenon]

But that's not what I'm talking about. It's not just about people actually using cars, it's about the
assumption that everyone in London has cars to use. Even if they're teenagers.

I give up. It feels like I could t type random keys and some people would respond out of pure boredom, but that's the the limit.

oh okay. I mean I haven’t noticed that specifically but I haven’t watched many films lately. well not any set in London or even in the UK actually. I’m guessing they mangled in a sort of committee script rewriting or something.

 

[xenon]

The things films assume about people, it’s quite a long list to be fair. no one coughs or needs to piss for a start. Unless it’s a plot point.

 

[Santino]

When writing a film, most people will defer to what they've seen in other films, not what is actually true about the world.

 

[xenon]

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

No split second on that list.

 

[Epona]

But that's not what I'm talking about. It's not just about people actually using cars, it's about the
assumption that everyone in London has cars to use. Even if they're teenagers.

I give up. It feels like I could t type random keys and some people would respond out of pure boredom, but that's the the limit.

No I get it. I sometimes feel the same about when I have made a point and everyone talking around it like it's a different subject.
Much love, and carry on posting interesting stuff

 

[xenon]

I only read the OP then posted.
I have read more of the posts now. And it is slightly amusing, sorry Sam, to see the building frustration after the fact.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I just re read it and was amused by the idea of anyone being able to drive from Shepherd's Bush to Docklands at all quickly whether they were a teenager or not