Room (2015)

[AniNate]

It was just unnecessary here, especially since the author is Canadian. Location doubling is as open to criticism as any other technical aspect of a film. You wouldn't try to film a movie about an arctic expedition in Miami

Though my issues here really lie more with the prop coordinators than the location scouts

[filmlover]

14 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

 

It was just unnecessary here, especially since the author is Canadian. Location doubling is as open to criticism as any other technical aspect of a film. You wouldn't try to film a movie about an arctic expedition in Miami

Though my issues here really lie more with the prop coordinators than the location scouts

When a tax credit is involved, the filmmakers will damn well take it. Besides, as has been pointed out, this was an American-set story made by Canadian and Irish companies (and does nothing to take away from the film's power overall).

[AniNate]

I'm looking at the book's Wiki page and nothing indicates that it was "American" in such a way that you absolutely had to get American license plates on your cars even if you couldn't actually film there

Authenticity is well and good but you may as well throw that out the window if you're going to take a tax credit, and it seems it would've been more authentic to make it a Canadian story, anyway.

[Plain Old Tele]

This is certainly one of the more unusual complaints I've seen about a movie.  I mean, out of all the countless movies that aren't filmed in their story-specific locations, this is the one that bothers you?

[AniNate]

Why couldn't this just be set in Canada? No one has given me a convincing explanation. There was nothing particularly Ohio centric about the story that couldn't have happened there too.

You all seem to think my problem is it wasn't actually shot in Ohio. No, it's that it was SET there when it didn't need to be. It was a detriment to the film's authenticity and continuity.

For what it's worth, this is still my favorite film of last year.

[filmlover]

22 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

 

Why couldn't this just be set in Canada? No one has given me a convincing explanation. There was nothing particularly Ohio centric about the story that couldn't have happened there too.

 

Uh...it was where the book was set? As long as the movie still packs a powerful punch (and lord does this pack one), who cares where it's set?

 

Seriously, if you're going to complain about this, then complain about all of the thousands of other movies that didn't opt for on location shooting while you're at it.

[AniNate]

I haven't read the book but if its specific setting were that important I'd think it would've been mentioned somewhere. I googled Emma Donoghue Room Ohio and I'm not coming up with anything.

I don't care where it's set, just that it's consistent about it, like everything else in storytelling.

[Blankments]

TBH, I know you live in Cleveland so you get it more, but as a guy who visits Cleveland twice a year, I just thought "Hm, I might not be remembering the skyline that well" and took it as that

 

(I had no idea where it was shot)

[AniNate]

I've been to Toronto fairly recently too, so yeah... The first thing that came to my mind when Jack woke up in the hospital was "Why did they have to go 250 miles north to get medical care? Are they in witness protection or something?"

[Michael Gary Scott]

This is just a weird complaint about the movie. 

[AniNate]

I wish someone would come up with a better reply than some variation on "You're weird". 

 

If everyone else can overlook it, fine, I'm just saying that the filmmakers didn't have to think as hard about "faking" their setting as they did. It would've been cheaper and less jarring if the cars were licensed to Ontario, that's all. Would anyone disagree with that?

 

The scenes outside the hospital are supposed to represent a newfound feeling of freedom and possibility for Ma and Jack, and if I wasn't thinking about how there were way too many skyscrapers for an Ohio city I would've fully embraced that scene. I probably will still once I get over this, but I can't ignore that it was a source of frustration and detachment on my first viewing.

Edited January 28, 2016 by tribefan695

[filmlover]

35 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

I wish someone would come up with a better reply than some variation on "You're weird". 

 

If everyone else can overlook it, fine, I'm just saying that the filmmakers didn't have to think as hard about "faking" their setting as they did. It would've been cheaper and less jarring if the cars were licensed to Ontario, that's all. Would anyone disagree with that?

 

The scenes outside the hospital are supposed to represent a newfound feeling of freedom and possibility for Ma and Jack, and if I wasn't thinking about how there were way too many skyscrapers for an Ohio city I would've fully embraced that scene. I probably will still once I get over this, but I can't ignore that it was a source of frustration and detachment on my first viewing.

[AniNate]

I gladly would have left it with my initial review, but people keep telling me how weird I am for having this problem and I feel a need to defend it

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

I gladly would have left it with my initial review, but people keep telling me how weird I am for having this problem and I feel a need to defend it

Then say it was a minor complaint (that does nothing to harm the movie's quality) and leave it at that. Seriously, you're making a big deal out of something so trivial. This movie is no more guilty of using locations to stand in for others than the billions of other movies that have done so.

[AniNate]

You're missing the point. They didn't need to "stand in" for anything.

If you think I'm making too much of a deal out of it, stop replying to me

[filmlover]

5 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

You're missing the point. They didn't need to "stand in" for anything.

If you think I'm making too much of a deal out of it, stop replying to me

I already said that was most likely the location in the book (doing a quick search reveals that it does take place in the U.S.- again, this was not an American-made movie), and then you decided to go on and on about it after a perfectly reasonable answer was given to you.

 

Sounds like you're just looking for something to nitpick about. Bye.

[AniNate]

I think that's the main crux of my issues. I tried researching the book myself and didn't see anything indicating it was absolutely set in America, especially since its author is Canadian.

I could maybe understand why they did this if Ohio absolutely had to be the setting, but it's not like any book adaptation is completely faithful anyway, and as far as fan rage goes I'd think a changed setting would be pretty far down the list of complaints, considering Toronto isn't that far removed climate, culture and vegetation wise

[CoolioD1]

i wish voting for the forum awards was still open. this would be a top "best forum moment" contender on my ballot.

[TalismanRing]

They didn't change the story because if every movie that could just throw away it's original location so they don't have to worry about hiding it was filmed elsewhere then we'd have a sea of movies taking place in the same tax rebate cities and locations over and over and over.

 

As it it stands I get a kick out of watching Jackie Chan's Rumble In The Bronx and seeing mountains outside his Bronx window.

[AniNate]

Honestly I wouldn't mind seeing more films set in Toronto. It's a cool city that doesn't get enough silver screen attention.

Cleveland's been on both sides of the setting versus filming. I understand both why the Marvel movies had to be set in New York and Washington while Major League still had to be about the Indians, but here it's just superfluous. The only things that really mattered were that it was a suburb in fall in a North American continental climate.

Anyway, lemme talk about the stuff I loved, which was everything else. The escape scene is going to become one of those iconic moments in cinema that people are going to watch over and over again.