that although a lot of films are made entirely in studios, there are many who use real cities as a backdrop and I suppose that I am talking about Hollywood films now.
I have just watched Speed and a great deal of the scenes were filmed in the city. That means that the producers had to come to an arrangement with the various councils or whatever they are called over there. Clearly, a large amount of compensation would be paid to those city bodies, to line their coffers still further but who suffers?
It is actually the people who use their city for business and pleasure and are stopped from travelling because roads are closed off and that causes massive inconvenience to people but do they get compensation? of course not.
I remember when the film Dr Dolittle was filmed. It was actually filmed in Castle Combe where my toe rag of a brother used to live. The residents of that village were all paid compensation, which seems a fair way of dealing with the inconvenience.
But the man in the street in the US would not receive any compensation and, to make matters worse, would probably not even watch the film.
Take this a step further and it all comes back to the “G” word, greed. The film makers make 100s of millions, the city makes a proportion but the people who are actually inconvenienced get bugger all.
Some of the end sequences of Speed were filmed in an actual airport (but not the bus blowing up scene of course) which would have meant that air travellers would be again highly inconvenienced.
Just think about all of that