View Full Version : Lights, Camera, Actions, and Stay Off My Lawn!
45374539
Dateline: Gotham City, PA -- So, what have a couple of pictures of an old Greyhound bus behind a tow truck go to do with anything?
The latest Batman movie has been shooting in Pittsburgh the last couple of weeks, due to wrap up this weekend. Today & tonight, they're shooting in an alley right up the street from work. So they have almost all of the side streets blocked off, between sets, catering, crew areas, and whatnot.
Imagine a few feet of "snow" in August. Fake biodegradable snow all over the area. That and the barriers to block off access are the most visible signs around the building.
We had trouble getting in. There was actually a Movie Security weenie standing in the company parking lot behind the building, ordering people around. He's out there as I type this, right by our back door, telling people that they can't leave the building. Yeah, I know, they're Shooting A Movie... but the owners declined to rent the production company our parking lot, and specifically were told that we would have unfettered access. That turns out to be a lie, but at least there is access. But -- to stand in someone's back door on their property and tell them they can't leave? (Not an actual Police officer, just someone wearing a Security badge)
What's really annoying is that one of our co-workers had a medical incident this morning, and the paramedics had a little difficulty getting in the alley. Fortunately, one of the real cops moonlighting for double overtime told the security weenies to Get Out Of The Way You !&$*#&!@
So anyway... I got far enough out to snap a couple of pictures of one of the three Greyhound buses that were towed in the other day and are parked in the alley behind us. Rumor has it that there's going to be a spectacular wreck done with these later today or tonight... in the alley two blocks away.
Meanwhile, we have Movie Production & Security People hard at work.
4538
Can't you tell?
And for whatever it's worth... they're all carrying Vertex Standard commercial HT's. KB3ERQ wishes he'd known, he'd have brought his Yaesu with him today and tried to sneak in...
One of the batmobiles is allegedly parked around the corner today. If I can get out of the building, I'll see if I can get a shot of that as well.
NA4BH
08-19-2011, 11:15 AM
Sucks that you can't get out. Go make friends with the rent-a-cop and tell him to go get you some food. Who is playing Batman in the movie?
kb2vxa
08-19-2011, 01:02 PM
What do you mean by IF you can get out? I'd pull a Jim Cary (The Mask) on that rent a cop; "Somebody STOP me!" and raise so much hell they'd have to call the REAL cops, then watch the fur fly with a casual mention of unlawful imprisonment! Batman in Pissburgh? Elizabeth NJ has been the location for filming the LA County courthouse since the Union County double is at 2 Broad Street but now I wonder about familiar landmarks that exist only in New York aka Gotham. Then there are those famous Pittsburgh Steelers trying to pass as the Gotham Rogues as if nobody will recognize them or Heinz Field. <groan> Thomas Tull, the film's executive producer joined the Steelers ownership group two years ago. He helped bring the movie to Pittsburgh and wanted to get the Steelers involved. <double groan>
"Who is playing Batman in the movie?"
Christopher Nolan in The Dark Knight Rises set to be released July 20 next year.
W1GUH
08-19-2011, 01:15 PM
Wanna feel like puking? Compare the budget for that movie (or most movies) to the school budget.
Don't we have wonderful priorities?
What do you mean by IF you can get out? I'd pull a Jim Cary (The Mask) on that rent a cop; "Somebody STOP me!" and raise so much hell they'd have to call the REAL cops, then watch the fur fly with a casual mention of unlawful imprisonment! Batman in Pissburgh? Elizabeth NJ has been the location for filming the LA County courthouse since the Union County double is at 2 Broad Street but now I wonder about familiar landmarks that exist only in New York aka Gotham. Then there are those famous Pittsburgh Steelers trying to pass as the Gotham Rogues as if nobody will recognize them or Heinz Field. <groan> Thomas Tull, the film's executive producer joined the Steelers ownership group two years ago. He helped bring the movie to Pittsburgh and wanted to get the Steelers involved. <double groan>
"Who is playing Batman in the movie?"
Christopher Nolan in The Dark Knight Rises set to be released July 20 next year.Well, one of the two owners got wind of the rent-a-cop. To say that he was less than happy would be a bit of an understatment. I understand that some words were exchanged, and after, people were going in and out the back door during the lunch hour without hassle.
Someone brought in a cup full of "snow" that they scooped off the street. And there have been a lot of pictures taken; we're putting together an internal website, and once that's done I can pass some along. An authentic Gotham license plate off one of the buses, for one.
My big concern right now is that we're supposed to be parking here for the ballgame tonight. That rent-a-cop had better not try and stop me from getting in the lot with the car! I'll go all Gotham Rogue on him... and it won't be acting.
I wasn't aware that the executive producer was one of the new owners of the Steelers. Blame the IRS & the NFL for that. The Rooneys were legitimately concerned about estate taxes, and the NFL was concerned because some of the family had investments in horse racing (that date all the way back to the start of the team under Art Rooney in the 1930's) that, while grandfathered to a degree, were a conflict with current rules regarding ownership in wagering enterprises. The Rooney family still has control, but now there are outsiders... but that's another story.
Everyone locally actually got a kick out of Bill Cowher as coach of the Rogues "coaching" current and former Steelers. No, no one's fooled, it's more of an in-joke. I believe that one of the opponents is played by the Boy Mayor, and most people hope he gets steamrolled in his acting cameo.
Wanna feel like puking? Compare the budget for that movie (or most movies) to the school budget.
Don't we have wonderful priorities?$250 million is reported to be the movie budget.
KG4CGC
08-19-2011, 01:26 PM
$250 million is reported to be the movie budget.
Sounds like the new average. I remember when Water World (Waterworld) was chastised for their budget at the time.
n2ize
08-20-2011, 03:27 AM
I have been confronted by "motion picture rent-a-cops who have come into my area and have tried to tell me where I can walk, whether or not I can enter or leave a store or public place. I basically tell them to "go blow it out their arse" and proceed to go about my business as if they weren't there. So far none of them challenged me. I used to run into them a lot during the 1980's and 90's in NYC.
Friend of mine was telling me a few decades ago they were shooting a movie (The World According to Garp) in a neighboring town consisting of all private homes and residential streets. They were using a specific house for the shoot and I was told that for a stretch of time were telling homeowners that they could neither enter nor leave their homes and properties. I would have told them to "blow it our their a**es". Nobody is telling me I cannot enter or leave the property that I own and pay taxes on.
Oh, and BTW... The World According to Garp" was a sucking lousy movie anyway.
kb2vxa
08-20-2011, 10:00 AM
Hmmm, I've been on the sets of a few movies like The Amityville Horror for one and an episode of The Sopranos and never even saw a "movie cop". Then too nobody had to tell me to stand in the background and stay out of the way either. I know, it was a different situation but the point is if there was security they couldn't be picked out of a crowd. There actually is a reason for what they told you, if anyone gets in the shot one of two things would happen; either the director would re-shoot the scene and waste film or the "extra" would have to be paid "(union) scale" for an appearance in the film. Oh, what is a Garp and what purpose does it serve?
P. S., if they pull an "imminent domain" on you you'll find out real quick you only rent property. (;->)
We went to the ballgame last night (the less said about the top of the 9th the better), and did park in the lot.
First, though, there was a barricade blocking the entrance to Garrison Alley. No rentaweenie, although there was plenty of trash (empty drink bottles and half smoked cigarettes) left on the building's front window. So, I got out of the car and moved it.
Went up the alley, and just by the parking lot entrance, there's one of the Gotham Greyhounds... almost blocking the whole street. There was JUST enough room to squeeze by & pull in, so we did. Two rentaweenies in sight... one on the sidewalk outside the convention center across the street, one perched on our half wall. I decided to simply ignore them.
Someone must have said something, because just after we got out of the car, the tow truck hauling the bus around moved up about 10 feet to clear the driveway entrance completely. Good.
After the game, the alley was still blocked at the entrance, but the back end was open. Bus gone. Rentaweenies gone. There was a GG bus parked in the parking lot across the street, that was taped off with yellow Caution tape and a rentaweenie sitting there. (No sign of damage to the bus, so either they hadn't taped the crash yet, or it involved the other two buses and not this one) We left the back way through the now open alleys, had a mini adventure getting out of downtown... between unannounced blocked roads, missing traffic lights (taken down to accomodate the filming), and road construction, we had a few detours but made it home.
Today's game is at 4, we should be pulling in around 3:30. Could be another adventure.
Oh, FWIW, bumped into K3AIR at the game. (And his almost-fiance wasn't with him; they broke up. Nice girl but a little on the pushy side. I have a feeling that she tried a little too hard to get her hooks into a succesful attorney... but that's another story...) Mentioned to him what had happened, and he confirmed that legally, they can not block us from the lot, or order us around on private property that the movie hasn't rented. Nice to know.
n2ize
08-20-2011, 05:53 PM
There actually is a reason for what they told you, if anyone gets in the shot one of two things would happen; either the director would re-shoot the scene and waste film or the "extra" would have to be paid "(union) scale" for an appearance in the film.
Well, if they want to pay me as an extra I am good with that. :-D Their money is as green as anyone else's. If its just some pissed off director and he needs to use some more film well, he can blow it out his...lower cavity.
Oh, what is a Garp and what purpose does it serve?
A Garp is a type of fish. Oops, I'm thinking of a carp. Well, if the movie made more sense maybe I would know what a "garp" is. Actually Hollywood should bee gratfull I am not suing them for the time I wasted watching that extremely bad movie. Don't get me wrong. Robin Williams is a talented actor and he did some good stuff.. But Garp was just a bad movie.
P. S., if they pull an "imminent domain" on you you'll find out real quick you only rent property. (;->)
True. But I am not going to be imprisoned in or excluded from the property I own/rent by some Hollywood rent-a-copper.
n2ize
08-20-2011, 05:56 PM
"Who is playing Batman in the movie?"
Christopher Nolan in The Dark Knight Rises set to be released July 20 next year.
Don't these fools know. Without Adam West as Batman, Burt Ward as Robin, Cesar Romero as "The Joker", Frank Gorshin as "The Riddler", Julie Newmar/Eartha Kitt as Catwoman you cannot have "Batman" ?
Friend of mine was telling me a few decades ago they were shooting a movie (The World According to Garp) in a neighboring town consisting of all private homes and residential streets. They were using a specific house for the shoot and I was told that for a stretch of time were telling homeowners that they could neither enter nor leave their homes and properties. I would have told them to "blow it our their a**es". Nobody is telling me I cannot enter or leave the property that I own and pay taxes on.
You're right technically you do have that right. And technically you would be a frigging moron for doing it. Now while it might be your right keep in mind that your neighbors have the right to make your life a living hell for doing so. I know for damn sure that if a production crew came to our town with bucket loads of cash to spend and some frigging selfish moron who cant get over himself drove them away because he refused to play nice and cooperate I along with probably a few 1000 other town folk would make his life hell.. You've got to love those we reserver the right to refuse service signs.
I have been confronted by "motion picture rent-a-cops who have come into my area and have tried to tell me where I can walk, whether or not I can enter or leave a store or public place. I basically tell them to "go blow it out their arse" and proceed to go about my business as if they weren't there. So far none of them challenged me. I used to run into them a lot during the 1980's and 90's in NYC.
Your lucky because technically once the city rents them the space and issues the permits it's no longer public property and they can have you arrested on the spot for trespassing. Trust me I spent years in the industry as a stunt driver and have witnessed first hand people get arrested for trespassing onto live shoot location.. There is a lot of money at stake for the local business and as such city's, counties and local business owners take this very seriously and almost always side with the production crew.. Heck I made a butt load of cash off the last move they shot here and was thankful they decided to use this location. I guarantee anyone causing problems for the production crew would have had a lot of angry business owners including me to contend with.
It would be a real shame if your selfish shenanigans resulted in the producers deciding to shoot their next move in a more respectful and hospitable location. You do realize these on location productions pump a hell of a lot cash into the local economy so I'm sure the local business who usually make a small fortune from on location shoots really appreciate your selfishness.
n2ize
08-21-2011, 05:05 AM
You're right technically you do have that right. And technically you would be a frigging moron for doing it. Now while it might be your right keep in mind that your neighbors have the right to make your life a living hell for doing so. I know for damn sure that if a production crew came to our town with bucket loads of cash to spend and some frigging selfish moron who cant get over himself drove them away because he refused to play nice and cooperate I along with probably a few 1000 other town folk would make his life hell.. You've got to love those we reserver the right to refuse service signs.
Your lucky because technically once the city rents them the space and issues the permits it's no longer public property and they can have you arrested on the spot for trespassing. Trust me I spent years in the industry as a stunt driver and have witnessed first hand people get arrested for trespassing onto live shoot location.. There is a lot of money at stake for the local business and as such city's, counties and local business owners take this very seriously and almost always side with the production crew.. Heck I made a butt load of cash off the last move they shot here and was thankful they decided to use this location. I guarantee anyone causing problems for the production crew would have had a lot of angry business owners including me to contend with.
It would be a real shame if your selfish shenanigans resulted in the producers deciding to shoot their next move in a more respectful and hospitable location. You do realize these on location productions pump a hell of a lot cash into the local economy so I'm sure the local business who usually make a small fortune from on location shoots really appreciate your selfishness.
I can understand your sentiments. As a business owner you see an opportunity to make more money so, screw the residents (your regular customers) who are being told they can't enter or leave the homes that they live in. Those properties were NOT rented to the movie industry and those homeowners were not given a bundle of cash or an opportunity to make extra cash. They have to get up in the morning work 9-5 for a living and they didn't appreciate it one damned bit. They were being inconvenienced and told they cannot enter or leave their own homes. From what I was told quite a few of them complained and some defied the orders as it was the only way they could get home. But I guess if you see an opportunity to make money well, then crap on the local residents. They only pay the taxes (including huge property) taxes, maintain homes and spend their money to support businesses. When they are gone go ask Hollywood to pay the taxes and patronize your establishment. One word of advice. Don't hold your breath while waiting.
It would be a real shame if your selfish shenanigans resulted in the producers deciding to shoot their next move in a more respectful and hospitable location.
Yes, it would be a terrible terrible shame. You talk about selfishness yet you have no problem with law abiding, tax paying citizens being told they cannot enter their own homes or that they are imprisoned in their own homes that they bought, paid for, and pay large property taxes on and which the movie-company was not rented to or granted rights to. And all that is okay as long as you can make some extra money. And I am selfish ?
Like I said. As far as I'm concerned when they pull crap like that they can blow it out their ass.
kb2vxa
08-21-2011, 06:28 AM
Well peeps, it all comes down to a strange admixture of there's a time and place for everything and damned if you do, damned if you don't. Basically it's a personal judgement call, look at the possible outcomes or in other words, think before you act. Yup, it all comes down to a given set of circumstances.
Hmmm, interesting responses to my sarcasm (;->) and BTW I did figure out what a Garp is. There are three possible answers, the bastard child of Jenny Fields becoming entangled in the convoluted mind of John Irving, Global Association of Risk Professionals (professional resources for the financial risk management industry) or a loud belch.
I can understand your sentiments. As a business owner you see an opportunity to make more money so, screw the residents (your regular customers)
Counties and cities spend a lot of effort attempting to entice film makers into shooting in their cities and towns. It's not about greed it's abouts survival. Right wing idiots like to claim that tax's and red tape are the biggest hindrance to small business owners. This is unadulterated bullshit! People like you along with corporate America and wall street are a small business owners biggest nightmare. Here we have a large production company in town with bucket loads of cash just waiting to be spent at local business and all you can think about is how it's inconveniencing your boring little life, sheezzz what a friggen cry baby !!
Yes, it would be a terrible terrible shame. You talk about selfishness yet you have no problem with law abiding, tax paying citizens being told they cannot enter their own homes or that they are imprisoned in their own homes that they bought, paid for, and pay large property taxes on and which the movie-company was not rented to or granted rights to. And all that is okay as long as you can make some extra money. And I am selfish ?
Like I said. As far as I'm concerned when they pull crap like that they can blow it out their ass.
Talking about ass, You're so full of shit on this topic that I'd venture a bet your breath smells like farts when you talk :sick: :sick:
Yes, it would be a terrible terrible shame. You talk about selfishness yet you have no problem with law abiding, tax paying citizens being told they cannot enter their own homes or that they are imprisoned in their own homes that they bought, paid for
Oh please!! your just trolling again.
I'm calling shenanigans on this claim I've worked in the industry and I can guarantee no one was ever told they could not leave their homes.
At the very most they were asked to stay in their homes during actually shooting which never lasts for more then a few moments at a time. For continuity purposes I'm sure they were also asked not to move their vehicles after filming began. Furthermore if they did have a vehicle they knew they were going to need then they would be asked to move it out of the field of view before filming began so it would not affect the films continuity. Not only that but they would have been notified about the shoot well in advance with plenty of time for them to contest the permits. If they are to damn lazy to contest the permits then they have no right complaining about it after they have been issued.
who are being told they can't enter or leave the homes that they live in. Those properties were NOT rented to the movie industry and those homeowners were not given a bundle of cash or an opportunity to make extra cash.
Well thats their own damn fault. These people were notified well in advance that fillming was going to take place so If they weren't smart enough to figure out a way of making money when the opportunity presented itself then thats their own damn fault.
They have to get up in the morning work 9-5 for a living and they didn't appreciate it one damned bit. They were being inconvenienced and told they cannot enter or leave their own homes. From what I was told quite a few of them complained and some defied the orders as it was the only way they could get home.
Again these people would have been notified well in advance. Heck I managed to get work as an "extra" every time they shoot around here. Of course I doubt they would have used you as it takes a bit of people skills to get hired off the street and you don't seem to have much in the way of people skills.
But I guess if you see an opportunity to make money well, then crap on the local residents. They only pay the taxes (including huge property) taxes, maintain homes and spend their money to support businesses. When they are gone go ask Hollywood to pay the taxes and patronize your establishment. One word of advice. Don't hold your breath while waiting.
As previously stated, your so full of it that when you speak every one probably has to hold their breath :hyper::hyper:
Anyhow its amazing that you think that you would find any wide spread support for your position.. I hate to tell you this, but only a bunch of crotchety old fools would stand in the way of something that benefits their community as a whole.
It's the crotchety old fools who'd need to worry about repercussions from their neighbors and not me. You see most normal people with families to raise and bills to pay welcome a chance at earning a bit of extra cash or doing their part to ensure an infusion of cash into their community and most people really frown upon those who try and stand in the way.
I hate to tell you this, but only a bunch of crotchety old fools would stand in the way of something that benefits their community as a whole.
So...where are all the shiny new nuclear power plants and wind farms? :chin:
W2NAP
08-21-2011, 09:52 AM
screw hollywood.
screw hollywood.
Or at least some of the less 'tarded actresses.
n2ize
08-21-2011, 11:27 AM
Counties and cities spend a lot of effort attempting to entice film makers into shooting in their cities and towns. It's not about greed it's abouts survival. Right wing idiots like to claim that tax's and red tape are the biggest hindrance to small business owners. This is unadulterated bullshit! People like you along with corporate America and wall street are a small business owners biggest nightmare. Here we have a large production company in town with bucket loads of cash just waiting to be spent at local business and all you can think about is how it's inconveniencing your boring little life, sheezzz what a friggen cry baby !!
Like I said, I can see where you are coming from. If you see a chance to make some extra cash then screw the citizens who live in your neighborhood and bring you business. If some movie company with bucks to spend at your store is in town you could care less if they violate peoples rights and their property. If the movie company, who was not rented the properties or given any rights to those properties decides imprison people in their own homes, or exclude them from their own homes (that they bought and pay huge taxes on) then screw them. Let them go to blazes. As long as I make my pile-o-cash. Like I said, when the movie company heads out of town and the residents/taxpayers move away go ask the movie company to come back and fix things right. Apparently they do more for the community than the people who live, work and pay their dues year round.
Talking about ass, You're so full of shit on this topic that I'd venture a bet your breath smells like farts when you talk :sick: :sick:
Really ?
Oh please!! your just trolling again.
I'm calling shenanigans on this claim I've worked in the industry and I can guarantee no one was ever told they could not leave their homes.
At the very most they were asked to stay in their homes during actually shooting which never lasts for more then a few moments at a time. For continuity purposes I'm sure they were also asked not to move their vehicles after filming began. Furthermore if they did have a vehicle they knew they were going to need then they would be asked to move it out of the field of view before filming began so it would not affect the films continuity. Not only that but they would have been notified about the shoot well in advance with plenty of time for them to contest the permits. If they are to damn lazy to contest the permits then they have no right complaining about it after they have been issued.
Well thats their own damn fault. These people were notified well in advance that fillming was going to take place so If they weren't smart enough to figure out a way of making money when the opportunity presented itself then thats their own damn fault.
Again these people would have been notified well in advance. Heck I managed to get work as an "extra" every time they shoot around here. Of course I doubt they would have used you as it takes a bit of people skills to get hired off the street and you don't seem to have much in the way of people skills.
As previously stated, your so full of it that when you speak every one probably has to hold their breath :hyper::hyper:
Anyhow its amazing that you think that you would find any wide spread support for your position.. I hate to tell you this, but only a bunch of crotchety old fools would stand in the way of something that benefits their community as a whole.
It's the crotchety old fools who'd need to worry about repercussions from their neighbors and not me. You see most normal people with families to raise and bills to pay welcome a chance at earning a bit of extra cash or doing their part to ensure an infusion of cash into their community and most people really frown upon those who try and stand in the way.
That's the way I like it. Classic. When you disagree with someone accuse them of lying and trolling. Toss in a few personal attacks while your at it That is classic. Better than a classic movie.
Actually it wasn't crotchety old fools making a stink. It was the local police, the local residents, and the local leadership who agree'd that the movie company was wrong.
Seems that you also make some money in the movie industry so it is also in your best interests that they have unfettered access to peoples homes, lives, etc. if they want to disrupt a community that's fine, as long as you make your cash. maybe it is not a normal practice to do what was done here, but, that is what I was told by several reputable homeowners who were involved, as well as a couple of police officers who work in that very area and were on the scene to answer the complaints, as well as a local councilman who received many complaints. People were not notified that this was going to happen. Just as the original OP was told that there would be unfettered access to and from the building yet there was a rent-a-cop telling people they couldn't leave. And please, don;t give me that crap that homeowners are stupid or lazy because they didn't figure on a way to make a big bundle out of this. People have a right to live their lives. they put in enough hard work, money, and time to get what little they have in life. That shit doesn't fly with me.
Oh, and nobody stopped them from making their movie. The town made their money. People merely wanted them to go about it properly. which apparently they did not. Apparently whatever was agreed to and what the company did were two very different things.
You want to convince me that the nuclear industry is full of crap but I should believe that the movie industry is on the level ?
< snip >
Your lucky because technically once the city rents them the space and issues the permits it's no longer public property and they can have you arrested on the spot for trespassing. Trust me I spent years in the industry as a stunt driver and have witnessed first hand people get arrested for trespassing onto live shoot location.. There is a lot of money at stake for the local business and as such city's, counties and local business owners take this very seriously and almost always side with the production crew.. Heck I made a butt load of cash off the last move they shot here and was thankful they decided to use this location. I guarantee anyone causing problems for the production crew would have had a lot of angry business owners including me to contend with.
< snip >By the same token, though, some of the movie people took some liberties. As I said, the shoot was actually taking place 2 blocks up from where I work (Exchange Alley between Liberty & Penn Avenues). Their permits permitted them to close the alley behind us (French) and PART of the one along side use (Garrison), but they were required by the permit to leave access to our lot, and also to the underground garage entrance to the building next door (FiServ), both of which were off Garrison. That they didn't do on Friday. They took up the whole street, and gave some level of hassle to our staff, FiServ's staff, and to others trying to access the building. They also had a lot of nerve (to say the least) of standing in our parking lot, which they didn't rent, and ordering people around.
But at least in our case, the rentaweenies backed down every time they were challenged, and those who challenged them knew what they could demand, and didn't demand more than that. So all was well.
Incidentally, Saturday, there were no incidents at the work parking lot. Garrison wasn't blocked, no buses in sight, no rentaweenies in our lot. There were still a couple in the parking lot across the street, guarding some equipment, but that was all. Trip home was also uneventful; we did observe a flat bed holding a "Gotham PD" police card and a "Gotham Cab Company" cab, so it looks like things were being wrapped up.
< snip >
I'm calling shenanigans on this claim I've worked in the industry and I can guarantee no one was ever told they could not leave their homes.
At the very most they were asked to stay in their homes during actually shooting which never lasts for more then a few moments at a time. For continuity purposes I'm sure they were also asked not to move their vehicles after filming began. Furthermore if they did have a vehicle they knew they were going to need then they would be asked to move it out of the field of view before filming began so it would not affect the films continuity. Not only that but they would have been notified about the shoot well in advance with plenty of time for them to contest the permits. If they are to damn lazy to contest the permits then they have no right complaining about it after they have been issued.
< snip >
Now that I can back up. As I found out on Friday, the company was notified weeks in advance that there was going to be movie scenes shot up the street, and the owners were offered a large sum of money to rent our parking lot (which was politely declined) and another sum to close up the building for a few days (also declined). Same was true of many other businesses affected. Anyone who chose to close was compensated, and anyone who HAD to close (being in on the scene) was compensated more.
In our case, when the permits to close streets were issued, they specifically stated that our access would not be affected. (And I got that directly from one of the owners.)
Now we were far enough away that I don't see how we could possibly have affected any of the shots. Still, when people were told that film was rolling, no one entered or exited the building (I guess it's technically possible that you might have seen something WAY down on our end of the alley, if the camera was pointed that way). We're not totally stupid, after all. It was when the rentaweenies tried to exceed what they were allowed to do that things got a little testy.
And they still left a small pile of trash in front of the building. But some people are pigs; can't blame that on the producers, I guess.
screw hollywood.No, thanks.
I prefer girls, and I never was a "Hollywood" Hulk Hogan fan.
n2ize
08-21-2011, 01:24 PM
Now that I can back up. As I found out on Friday, the company was notified weeks in advance that there was going to be movie scenes shot up the street, and the owners were offered a large sum of money to rent our parking lot (which was politely declined) and another sum to close up the building for a few days (also declined). Same was true of many other businesses affected. Anyone who chose to close was compensated, and anyone who HAD to close (being in on the scene) was compensated more.
In our case, when the permits to close streets were issued, they specifically stated that our access would not be affected. (And I got that directly from one of the owners.)
Now we were far enough away that I don't see how we could possibly have affected any of the shots. Still, when people were told that film was rolling, no one entered or exited the building (I guess it's technically possible that you might have seen something WAY down on our end of the alley, if the camera was pointed that way). We're not totally stupid, after all. It was when the rentaweenies tried to exceed what they were allowed to do that things got a little testy.
And they still left a small pile of trash in front of the building. But some people are pigs; can't blame that on the producers, I guess.
That's the point I was trying to make to the gentleman above. If the people granted the movie company the right to use their property and close the street for a while and it was understood that entering or leaving their homes would not be possible during certain times and that is what was agreed upon then, so be it. However, after speaking with police and others who were present the movie company started excluding people from entering or leaving their own premises in a manner that was not agreed upon. That is where people began to take issue and things got slightly ugly.
As far as my own "brushes" with movie makers it was always with wannabee rent-a-cops who were overstepping their bounds and being very disrespectful and arrogant. If they respect me I respect them in turn. But if they come on with an attitude then I will have an attitude in return.
Seems that you also make some money in the movie industry so it is also in your best interests that they have unfettered access to peoples homes, lives, etc.
Oh pulease I most certainly don't have a vested interest in the movie industry. I worked as a stunt driver 30+ years ago when I was young and dumb and now have a bad back and a host of other injuries to deal with. The truth is the best thing I ever did was walk away from that industry. back then I was young and invincible and It was fun while I was doing it but nowadays most mornings I can barely get out of bed as a result of the various injuries I sustained during my short career as a so called "Hollywood stunt driver" Oh and trust me back then the money wasn't that good either hell I had to buss tables and drive limos part time just to get by.. To set the record straight my only interest nowadays is the huge sums of money they infuse into the local economy
That's the way I like it. Classic. When you disagree with someone accuse them of lying and trolling. Toss in a few personal attacks while your at it That is classic. Better than a classic movie.into the local economy every time they film.
Hey if the shoe fits ;) You see most normal people look forward to a production company coming to town to film a major motion picture. Heck one of their largest production problems is dealing with the huge crowed of people showing up to watch the film crews and gawk at stars. More often then not it's the local attention whores and crotchety old fools which nobody likes who seem to be the ones doing most of the complaining. Then again it seems like it's these very same people who aren't happy unless they have something to bitch and complain about. Like I said if the shoe fits :-D
if they want to disrupt a community that's fine, as long as you make your cash.
Hmm Let me fix that for you
"if they want to disrupt a community that's fine, as long as the community makes some much needed cash."
n2ize
08-21-2011, 03:19 PM
Oh pulease I most certainly don't have a vested interest in the movie industry. I worked as a stunt driver 30+ years ago when I was young and dumb and now have a bad back and a host of other injuries to deal with. The truth is the best thing I ever did was walk away from that industry. back then I was young and invincible and It was fun while I was doing it but nowadays most mornings I can barely get out of bed as a result of the various injuries I sustained during my short career as a so called "Hollywood stunt driver" Oh and trust me back then the money wasn't that good either hell I had to buss tables and drive limos part time just to get by.. To set the record straight my only interest nowadays is the huge sums of money they infuse into the local economy
Hey if the shoe fits ;) You see most normal people look forward to a production company coming to town to film a major motion picture. Heck one of their largest production problems is dealing with the huge crowed of people showing up to watch the film crews and gawk at stars. More often then not it's the local attention whores and crotchety old fools which nobody likes who seem to be the ones doing most of the complaining. Then again it seems like it's these very same people who aren't happy unless they have something to bitch and complain about. Like I said if the shoe fits :-D
For the most part people do accommodate movies being filmed on location. Most movies go off with little or no problems. In general, arguing over a movie set or fighting with the staff is not going to bring anyone much attention or fame.. However, there have been increasing reports of incidents involving legitimate complaints from the public. The fact that you seem to stereotype and dismiss anyone who may not come out to "swoon over the stars" or, may have a legitimate complaint as some "grouchy old fool" makes me wonder how much respect you have for people. Just because not everyone responds to a situation in the way you feel they should does not mean they are necessarily wrong or that they don;t have a very legitimate issue.
There are bounds and limits to everything. I remember reading a study that was done a few years ago where two researchers examined the overall impact of on location sets and the overall loses, gains, benefits, and negative impacts of movie production in communities. I remember the report concluding that, while there are some benefits and some financial gains there are also some negative impacts and , on average, communities do not always make out as well as people are often led to believe. It depends on many factors and variables. If I can find the report I will post a link to it. In short it is not the kind of goldmine for everybody that proponents often make it out to be.
That said it is never right to disrupt a community. The movie company is there as a guest and it is their job to act in accordance with what has been agreed upon, and not to go around disrupting society. Now if the company makes it clear as to exactly what they would need access to, for how long, what types of interruptions may occur and the movie company and the community agree to it then fine. I see no major issues. True, some people won't like it either way but as long as an agreement was reached and the production company honors its side of the agreement then so be it. Likewise, the movie company must understand that they are a guest in someone else's neighborhood and they have an obligation to show respect for the community, even if it may inconvenience them at times. The people who own the properties, pay the taxes, and work hard to maintain a community are most important and the company must show them utmost respect. These are the people that will be there to keep the community going, generate the revenue, and, patronize the businesses long after the motion picture company is gone.
Lastly, if the movie company oversteps it's bounds, does not honor their side of the bargain, and or imposes upon the local communities and its properties in such ways that were not part of what was agreed upon then such behaviors should not be tolerated and should be corrected immediately. The movie company is a guest, they are not there to make rules on the fly.
Lastly, if they decide to hire rent-a-cops then at least they should learn to be courteous and respectful of others. I have only told them to go blow it out of their asses when they were rude, arrogant, and disrespectful.
W1GUH
08-22-2011, 02:45 PM
All this money spent...all these people inconvenienced...just so Hollywood can make one more glitzy, shallow, talentless soporific, mind-numbing valueless crap movie that idiots will shell out big $$$$$$ to see because some brain-dead reviewer said they should. So they can sit in a filthy, stinky, possible bedbug-infested movie theater and pretend they have a life.
KG4CGC
08-22-2011, 03:07 PM
All this money spent...all these people inconvenienced...just so Hollywood can make one more glitzy, shallow, talentless soporific, mind-numbing valueless crap movie that idiots will shell out big $$$$$$ to see because some brain-dead reviewer said they should. So they can sit in a filthy, stinky, possible bedbug-infested movie theater and pretend they have a life.
YEAH!
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c79/bebop5/e2415473.jpg
All this money spent...all these people inconvenienced...just so Hollywood can make one more glitzy, shallow, talentless soporific, mind-numbing valueless crap movie that idiots will shell out big $$$$$$ to see because some brain-dead reviewer said they should. So they can sit in a filthy, stinky, possible bedbug-infested movie theater and pretend they have a life.
NetFlix FTW bay-bee! :rock:
W1GUH
08-22-2011, 04:44 PM
NetFlix FTW bay-bee! :rock:
Takes care of the last sentence, anyway.
W1GUH
08-22-2011, 04:45 PM
YEAH!
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c79/bebop5/e2415473.jpg
Naw...they're fun to make fun of.
n2ize
08-22-2011, 08:12 PM
All this money spent...all these people inconvenienced...just so Hollywood can make one more glitzy, shallow, talentless soporific, mind-numbing valueless crap movie that idiots will shell out big $$$$$$ to see because some brain-dead reviewer said they should. So they can sit in a filthy, stinky, possible bedbug-infested movie theater and pretend they have a life.
+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to infinity
W1GUH
08-25-2011, 05:01 PM
Guess not everybody appreciates film crews
ABC Show Asked to Leave Connecticut Town Due to Disruptions (http://tv.yahoo.com/news/abc-show-asked-leave-connecticut-town-due-disruptions-003001433.html)
n2ize
08-25-2011, 05:29 PM
Guess not everybody appreciates film crews
ABC Show Asked to Leave Connecticut Town Due to Disruptions (http://tv.yahoo.com/news/abc-show-asked-leave-connecticut-town-due-disruptions-003001433.html)
Hmmm... They must be old codgers. They don;t swoon for stars and grab the cash. :evil:
Hmmm... They must be old codgers. They don;t swoon for stars and grab the cash. :evil:
I didn't think this story sounded like it would pass the BS test and when you did a bit deeper you realize there is more to the story and that the story doesn't pass the BS test.
When you dig a bit deeper the real reason they were asked to leave becomes all to obvious... It all boils down to what your definition of "disruption" is. Obviously in this town "disruption" is catching it's prominent citizens in morally compromising situations
The show, hosted by John Quinones, sets up morally difficult situations and secretly films people's reactions.
Now isn't that interesting !!! Hmm Now lets combine that with.
While officials in one well-to-do U.S. town said they asked an ABC hidden-camera show to hit the road
Not really a big Hollywood production but rather a small TV production very similar to Allen Funt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Funt)'s Candid camera.
Nonetheless It's all to obvious the producers of this show managed to expose a few hypocrites in this "well-to-do" town. They were probably making waves by exposing a bunch of the towns bible thumping right wingers in morally compromising situations thus exposing them as hypocrites .. and the rest is, well history !!
I for one think I'm going to start watching this show, maybe I might catch this episode and see who they exposed. Obviously it's acceptable to catch poor people in morally compromising situations but how dare they attempt to do the same with the more well-to-do. these Greenwich, Conn hypocrites should be ashamed of themselves. After all if you have nothing to hide why hide from the cameras.
n2ize
08-26-2011, 05:45 AM
I didn't think this post smelled like it would pass the BS test and when you did a bit deeper you realize there is more to the story and that the post indeed doesn't pass the BS test.
When you dig a bit deeper the real reason they were asked to leave becomes all to obvious... It all boils down to what your definition of "disruption" is. Obviously in this town "disruption" is catching it's prominent citizens in morally compromising situations
Now isn't that interesting !!! Hmm Now lets combine that with.
Not really a big Hollywood production but rather a small TV production very similar to Allen Funt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Funt)'s Candid camera.
Nonetheless It's all to obvious the producers of this show managed to expose a few hypocrites in this "well-to-do" town. They were probably making waves by exposing a bunch of the towns bible thumping right wingers in morally compromising situations thus exposing them as hypocrites .. and the rest is, well history !!
Greenwich Connecticut is not particularly known for its bible thumpers..
I for one think I'm going to start watching this show, maybe I might catch this episode and see who they exposed. Obviously it's acceptable to catch poor people in morally compromising situations but how dare they attempt to do the same with the more well-to-do. these Greenwich, Conn hypocrites should be ashamed of themselves.
Just because people are successful in life and they hold good jobs that pay above average does not mean that they should have to accept everything some guy with a camera puts in front of them. These people went to college, they worked hard, they managed to get decent jobs, they bought nice homes on which they pay very high property taxes which yields significant revenue for the community. Why is that something to be ashamed of ? How does being successful make someone a hypocrite
?
The show, hosted by John Quinones, sets up morally difficult situations and secretly films people's reactions.
So you set someone up and then you film them ? Sounds like a cheap shot way to grab some vapid sensationalism. What happened to producing real TV shows with some talent and some real entertainment value ?
After all if you have nothing to hide why hide from the cameras.
Maybe because people like a little privacy ? Maybe they feel the person with the camera should have a little bit of courtesy, respect and integrity ?
Oh and as far as Greenwich Ct. being unfriendly to the TV and Movie production industry, nothing can be further from the truth. There are well over 40+ films that were done in Greenwich...more than half of which were done in the last 10 years. There are also numerous TV shows done there. So, it seems that Greenwich is pretty friendly to TV and Film production. Matter of fact I wouldn't be surprised if a producer or two might make a home there.
Greenwich Connecticut is not particularly known for its bible thumpers..
Just because people are successful in life and they hold good jobs that pay above average does not mean that they should have to accept everything some guy with a camera puts in front of them. These people went to college, they worked hard, they managed to get decent jobs, they bought nice homes on which they pay very high property taxes which yields significant revenue for the community. Why is that something to be ashamed of ? How does being successful make someone a hypocrite ? Oh please !! Nice try at spinning. Much to your disbelief! Wealth, education, hard work and morality aren't synonyms.. Just because someone went to collage and has a good job doesn't mean they are moral people by any stretch of the imagination..
The countries prison system is full of college educated white color criminals who had good jobs, The prisons are full of college educated pedophiles and rapists. Heck Saddam Hussein held a masters degree yet he stole more money and killed more innocent people them any gang banger in US history.
Your assertion that morality is synonymous with hard work and college education is disingenuous at best
You can try and deceptively spin this anyway you like but it won't change the facts
As one person commenting on this story already pointed out this wasn't a big Hollywood production. It's nothing more then a small time television production that's obviously a take off on Allen Funts candid camera.. And I'm sure we all remember how funny that program was. Nothings changed they used to catch people in all sorts of morally compromising situations.
Maybe because people like a little privacy ?
If they want privacy then the need to stay home with their curtains drawn. All the filming took place on public property. You know just as well as I do that you have absolutely no expectation of privacy on public property. That means If you plan on engaging in immoral activity then you cant complain when you get caught on tape doing it.
Oh and as far as Greenwich Ct. being unfriendly to the TV and Movie production industry, nothing can be further from the truth. There are well over 40+ films that were done in Greenwich...
Thank you for proving my point. It's all to obviously that the show must have busted some wealthy Greenwich snobs in morally compromising situations and as a result these individuals unethically used their political influence to have the show kicked out of town in an attempt to avoid further embarrassment.
n2ize
08-26-2011, 06:12 AM
You can try and deseptivly spin this anyway you like but it won't change the facts
As one person commenting on this story already pointed out this wasn't a big Hollywood production. It's nothing more then a small time television production that's obviously a take off on Allen Funts candid camera..
Furthermoreit's all to obviously that the show must have busted a bunch of wealthy Greenwich snobs in morally compromising situations and as a result these individuals unethically used their political influence to have the show kicked out of town in an attempt to avoid further embarrassment.
Sounds like you are making a broad assumption without fact.
If they want privacy then the need to stay home with their curtains drawn. All the filming took place on public property. You know just as well as I do that you have absolutely no expectation of privacy on public property. That means If you plan on engaging in immoral activity then you cant complain when you get caught on tape doing it.
True, you have no expectation of privacy in a public place but what "immoral activity" was specifically engaged in ? You are assuming that because these people make decent salaries and have good jobs that they must be immoral and therefore deserve to get embarrassed on national TV. Secondly, I am not so sure that a for profit network production company can simply coerce you into something embarrassing , film you with a hidden camera and then broadcast it for profit on national TV without your permission. I know that there are certain issues in which release forms may have to be signed before you can use the persons footage and, there are also liability issues. Just because you are filming in public doesn't mean anything goes.
Thank you for proving my point. It's obvious that what happened in this situation is that the show caught the wrong snob with his pants down. Obviously who ever it was had enough political influence to have the show kicked out of town.
You're point wasn't proved. You repeatedly make broad based assumptions and then treat them as fact. Frankly, even if I were not doing anything immoral I don't think I would like the idea of some guy approaching me in public, trying to coerce me into some sort of compromising or embarrassing situation. Filming it with a hidden camera. And then putting it on TV for profit without my permission. Matter of fact I think that under such a situation a person does have some legal recourse and, if I am wrong and they do not well, they should. You seem to feel that as long as someone is part of some sort of a production company they can do no wrong and that they have an unlimited right to wipe the shit off their shoes onto anyone's face they please and the only thing the public should have a right to do is get on their hands and knees and beg them to lick the other shoe.
n2ize
08-26-2011, 06:36 AM
Oh and here is one of the "compromising situations" enacted by this wonderful show...
Town officials said having the show set up in front of stores has a negative impact on business, and Greenwich police added that one of the show's situations -- involving an intoxicated adult who needs to be driven by a child -- caused an alarmed resident to ask a store employee to call police.
So, you have a guy pretending to be drunk pretending to ask a child to drive them somewhere ?? Fortunately a good citizen notified the police. Has it ever dawned on you that maybe crap like this is why Greenwich kicked the show out ?
True, you have no expectation of privacy in a public place but what "immoral activity" was specifically engaged in ? You are assuming that because these people make decent salaries and have good jobs that they must be immoral and therefore deserve to get embarrassed on national TV.,
I'm not making any assumptions you're simply avoiding the obvious because it doesn't support your assertion.. Whether you like it or not the bottom line is the television shows plot is catching unsuspecting individuals in morally compromising situation. Therefore when someones starts complaining about the show it's only reasonable to suspect that they have been caught in the shows trap and exposed in a morally compromising situation..
Obviously whom ever it was had enough political influence to have the show kicked out of town.
You are assuming that because these people make decent salaries and have good jobs that they must be immoral And you are assuming "These people" all make "salaries" while I'm not assuming any such thing.
In fact I highly doubt there are many "salaried" individuals who earn enough to have any type of real political influence, especially in an area as well-to-do as Greenwich. I would venture a bet whoever had enough influence to pull the needed strings had a lot of old dirty money behind them.
Oh and here is one of the "compromising situations" enacted by this wonderful show...
So, you have a guy pretending to be drunk pretending to ask a child to drive them somewhere ?? Fortunately a good citizen notified the police. Has it ever dawned on you that maybe crap like this is why Greenwich kicked the show out ?
Oh puleasee they use the word child to illicit that response and you fell for it hook line and sinker, Its an old skit and I've seen it before, the so called "child" is not some kid off the street its actually an actor and a licensed driver who's simply made up to appear to be a teenager. Both the so called "Child" and the "drunk" are in on the gag and both setup unsuspecting individuals to see what they will do. It's funny as hell when they catch some moron who won't lift a finger to help the kid when the "Child" asked for help. Its actually kind of sad how many people just walk away and ignore the situation. This skit isn't much different then the stuff Allen Funt did years ago and that show was a smashing success..
The only real difference between then and now is we didn't have a bunch of people like you attempting to unethically politicize situations such as this. 30 years ago if Allen Funt caught some wealthy snob with his pants down people wouldn't tolerate that individual unethically using their influence to have Allen show kicked out of town. Of course back then we had a lot of people with integrity people much like myself who don't like it when wealthy people unethically manipulated the government to hide their dirty laundry.
n2ize
08-26-2011, 07:08 AM
I'm not making any assumptions you're simply avoiding the obvious because it doesn't support your assertion.. Whether you like it or not the bottom line is the television shows plot is catching unsuspecting individuals in morally compromising situation. Therefore when someones starts complaining about the show it's only reasonable to suspect that they have been caught in the shows trap and exposed in a morally compromising situation..
Obviously whom ever it was had enough political influence to have the show kicked out of town.
And you are assuming "These people" all make "salaries" while I'm not assuming any such thing.
In fact I highly doubt there are many "salaried" individuals who earn enough to have any type of real political influence, especially in an area as well-to-do as Greenwich. I would venture a bet whoever had enough influence to pull the needed strings had a lot of old dirty money behind them.
Well you can make all the assumptions and suspicions you want , whats done is done and that's all there is to it. being on public land does not give a commercial producer a carte blanche to film whomever they want in an embarrassing situation and then use it as part of a commercial for profit production. So in the event you are right and they did film some super rich guy in an embarrassing situation perhaps they were better off they just got kicked out.
n2ize
08-26-2011, 07:13 AM
Oh puleasee they use the word child to illicit that response and you fell for it hook line and sinker, Its an old skit and I've seen it before, the so called "child" is not some kid off the street its actually an actor and a licensed driver who's simply made up to appear to be a teenager. Both the so called "Child" and the "drunk" are in on the gag and both setup unsuspecting individuals to see what they will do. It's funny as hell when they catch some moron who won't lift a finger to help the kid when the "Child" asked for help. Its actually kind of sad how many people just walk away and ignore the situation. This skit isn't much different then the stuff Allen Funt did years ago and that show was a smashing success..
The only real difference between then and now is we didn't have a bunch of people like you attempting to unethically politicize situations such as this. 30 years ago if Allen Funt caught some wealthy snob with his pants down people wouldn't tolerate that individual unethically using their influence to have Allen show kicked out of town. Of course back then we had a lot of people with integrity people much like myself who don't like it when wealthy people unethically manipulated the government to hide their dirty laundry.
Again.. the description reads
Town officials said having the show set up in front of stores has a negative impact on business, and Greenwich police added that one of the show's situations -- involving an intoxicated adult who needs to be driven by a child -- caused an alarmed resident to ask a store employee to call police.
What is it about that you don't understand ? It sounds a bit different than the skit you are describing. So, are you saying that they are lying ? Do you have any evidence to back up that the press is telling a lie ?
You yourself claim the skit is nothing, just to see who calls the police and who doesn't. Perhaps there is more to the story that you don't know about and that your assumptions don't cover.
Again your making assumptions not me. I never said anything about the police now did I ? That was your assumption! In fact if it was the same skit that I have seen only a true whacker would call the police.
I'm not totally sure its the same skit but it sounds the same, I'm not going to spend all night trying to explain the plot because I'm not that talented of a writer and it would take 3 pages to explain what a good writer could in one. Besides it might not be the exact same gag I saw.
Anyhow the gag I saw on TV was pretty good and I could see how some bitter old fart might get their panties in a bunch after getting caught on the wrong side of this gag. After all it would make them look like heartless pound scum. I often wondered how many times they have to run gags like this. You would think the vast majority of good Christians would do the right thing and help so I would imagine they need to fish for a good while before they catch one.
But then again I didn't think they could find 3 people in the USA who couldn't answer the question "What Nut is most commonly used in the pecan pie" Well thats exactly what a program called Street Smarts managed to do, I about fell out of my chair. Another one that amazed me was that they actually found people who could not answer " Who was George Bush's father" My god, all you had to was say "Mr. Bush" and you would have been right. Yet they actually found tons of people who could not answer that question. I'm sure that program embarrassed a lot of people as well, I guess they are lucky they didn't embarrassed the wrong person in Greenwich because they might have been kicked out of town as well :)
Guess not everybody appreciates film crews
ABC Show Asked to Leave Connecticut Town Due to Disruptions (http://tv.yahoo.com/news/abc-show-asked-leave-connecticut-town-due-disruptions-003001433.html)Hmmm.
The town authorities asked the show to leave for being disruptive, for having a negative impact on business, and because one scenario "involving an intoxicated adult who needs to be driven by a child" causes someone to actually call the police.
The show says the show didn't leave town, but simply changed the subject matter.
Whom do you belive?
And frankly, I can see why a TV show that sets up scenarios of "questionable morality" for hidden camera observations of people who don't know that they are being filmed might be asked to go away. I can certainly understand the local police, for one, finding out that the "child driving" incident involving a "drunk" adult was staged, being more than a little upset.
< snip >
When you dig a bit deeper the real reason they were asked to leave becomes all to obvious... It all boils down to what your definition of "disruption" is. Obviously in this town "disruption" is catching it's prominent citizens in morally compromising situations < snip >I've seen the show.
What they consider "morally compromising" isn't, oh, naughty bits (wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean)
The scenarios are things like: Would you let an obviously intoxicated stranger drive a car? If you saw a boyfriend having an argument in the restaurant in the girlfriend, and he restrains her or looks like he might harm her, would you intervene? If you saw a mother passed out, presumably drunk, and a child going unattended, how would you react?
The point of the show is, I believe, to demonstrate who would take action, who would ignore it, and possibly who would try and take advantage of it, for a given situation.
Not what I personally consider great entertainment. I found it rather distatesful, actually. But that's my tastes.
And with all due respect... imagine someone being "caught" on hidden camera in one of these little skits, who then gets told that because it happened in public (even though it's staged) they can't stop the show from airing it. I don't know if that's the case or not... but if I got caught in one of these little "stings" I wouldn't want to be shown on national TV, even though I'd hope I'd do the right thing.
Besides... imagine that you only have a half hour for lunch. You go to the sandwich shop down the street, place your order, and some greasy cook you've never seen before comes out with a sandwich (but not what you ordered) with a bite out of it, and informs you that's your meal, and if you don't like it, tough. Oh sure, they come out 5 minutes later with the real meal, and then explain that you've been caught on "hidden camera" to see how'd you react... but you just ran out of time. And then, you see on the evening news, 15 seconds of the look of surprise on your face, and get phone calls all night from people laughing at you. People who have nothing to hide may simply not wish to be embarressed on camera. Especially so that the news can get a laugh at your expense. And no, they didn't have me sign a waiver, either.
I've seen the show.
What they consider "morally compromising" isn't, oh, naughty bits (wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean)
The scenarios are things like: Would you let an obviously intoxicated stranger drive a car? If you saw a boyfriend having an argument in the restaurant in the girlfriend, and he restrains her or looks like he might harm her, would you intervene? If you saw a mother passed out, presumably drunk, and a child going unattended, how would you react?
The point of the show is, I believe, to demonstrate who would take action, who would ignore it, and possibly who would try and take advantage of it, for a given situation.
Not what I personally consider great entertainment. I found it rather distasteful, actually. But that's my tastes.
And with all due respect... imagine someone being "caught" on hidden camera in one of these little skits, who then gets told that because it happened in public (even though it's staged) they can't stop the show from airing it. I don't know if that's the case or not... but if I got caught in one of these little "stings" I wouldn't want to be shown on national TV, even though I'd hope I'd do the right thing.
Besides... imagine that you only have a half hour for lunch. You go to the sandwich shop down the street, place your order, and some greasy cook you've never seen before comes out with a sandwich (but not what you ordered) with a bite out of it, and informs you that's your meal, and if you don't like it, tough. Oh sure, they come out 5 minutes later with the real meal, and then explain that you've been caught on "hidden camera" to see how'd you react... but you just ran out of time. And then, you see on the evening news, 15 seconds of the look of surprise on your face, and get phone calls all night from people laughing at you. People who have nothing to hide may simply not wish to be embarressed on camera. Especially so that the news can get a laugh at your expense. And no, they didn't have me sign a waiver, either.
I think this program is great and I wish there were 100's more just like it exposing the huge number of pseudo Christian hypocrites in this country. Far too many people preach one thing and then when in public act like complete assholes simply because they don't think anyone will ever see it.
I know the truth is a hard pill to swallow but Face it, thats why a lot of people don't like these programs! The bottom line is these types of programs force people to take responsibility for their public actions. Now we all know pseudo Christians and certain other groups are always preaching about "personal responsibility" yet somehow they hate the idea of being held to those standards. Program like this humorously exposes those who take responsibility for their actions and those who don't. I for one don't see a problem with that.
Besides this program is mild compared to Candid Camera. Allen Funt used to go to much greater extremes. If you're having issues with this program then imagine you must have been having a conniption fit over Allen Funts gags.
Whats interesting is back then people didn't seem to be so intimidated by the thought of being pranked. Maybe they had more confidence in their morality and integrity, maybe they didn't! Either way I do know that they didn't try and politicize everything.
Like I said Candid camera was a hugely successful show and I find it interesting and really have to question the values or lack thereof of individual who would be intimidated by it. After all its just forcing you take responsibility for your own actions.
K7SGJ
08-26-2011, 09:23 AM
Oh how I wish I were Saintly and always made the right decision. I guess it's alright to preach that everyone should be publicly exposed to ridicule for everything they do, and every decision they make, until it happens to YOU.
Oh how I wish I were Saintly and always made the right decision. I guess it's alright to preach that everyone should be publicly exposed to ridicule for everything they do, and every decision they make, until it happens to YOU.
As I pointed out before Allen Funt was much more extreme and that program was a unprecedentedly huge success. Maybe people had higher core values back then? maybe they didn't? either way they didn't seem to be so intimidated at the thought of being pranked. I really have to wonder why there are so many people so afraid of the possibility of being pranked in a way that might expose a minor laps in integrity.
Personally I wouldn't be embarrassed. First off I never claimed I was perfect and I don't run around preaching "family values" I'm only human and I make mistakes, lots of them. I don't have an overly inflated ego which means unlike a lot of people it doesn't bother me when someone points out my mistakes because as I said before I never claimed to be perfect. If I got pranked and failed a fair test then I would simply accept it. Anyone who is close enough to me for their opinion to matter has already seen me make plenty of mistakes so whats one more.
I'll tell you the same thing I told my son. Never be afraid to make a mistake, Mistakes don't define you, It's what you learn from it and how you deal with it that defines your character. Don't be the type of person who makes mistakes and then blames others, you need to accept them and move on. Obviously the person responsible for getting the show kicked out of town couldn't accept their own mistake and chose to blame it on the program being filmed. To me this indicates a lack of character and integrity.
Now on the other hand I love to watch a better then thou "family values" hypocrite get busted with his pants down exposed for the pond scum they are. I think they should do an underages prostitute gag and target a bunch of these Evangelical preachers. I wonder how many would take the bate?
Theres and old saying "Those who live in glass house's shouldn't throw stones" Well when you run around preaching "family values" and "personal responsibility" then you just built one giant glass house around you. These people are prime targets for programs such as these and they know it, thats why they make such a stink over it.
n2ize
08-26-2011, 10:03 AM
As I pointed out before Allen Funt was much more extreme and that program was a unprecedentedly huge success. Maybe people had higher core values back then? maybe they didn't? either way they didn't seem to be so intimidated at the thought of being pranked. I really have to wonder why there are so many people so afraid of the possibility of being pranked in a way that might expose a minor laps in integrity.
Personally I wouldn't be embarrassed. First off I never claimed I was perfect and I don't run around preaching "family values" I'm only human and I make mistakes, lots of them. I don't have an overly inflated ego which means unlike a lot of people it doesn't bother me when someone points out my mistakes because as I said before I never claimed to be perfect. If I got pranked and failed a fair test then I would simply accept it. Anyone who is close enough to me for their opinion to matter has already seen me make plenty of mistakes so whats one more.
I'll tell you the same thing I told my son. Never be afraid to make a mistake, Mistakes don't define you, It's what you learn from it and how you deal with it that defines your character. Don't be the type of person who makes mistakes and then blames others, you need to accept them and move on. Obviously the person responsible for getting the show kicked out of town couldn't accept their own mistake and chose to blame it on the program being filmed. To me this indicates a lack of character and integrity.
Now on the other hand I love to watch a better then thou "family values" hypocrite get busted with his pants down exposed for the pond scum they are. I think they should do an underages prostitute gag and target a bunch of these Evangelical preachers. I wonder how many would take the bate?
Theres and old saying "Those who live in glass house's shouldn't throw stones" Well when you run around preaching "family values" and "personal responsibility" then you just built one giant glass house around you. These people are prime targets for programs such as these and they know it, thats why they make such a stink over it.
Still making sweeping assumptions and assuming they are fact.
W1GUH
08-26-2011, 10:18 AM
Just an FYI in case it's not generallly known...
Greenwich, CT is an extremely wealthy town.
And, could be that the most prominent reason was that negative impact on business.
Beyond that, this whole thing about an intoxicated adult needing to be driven by a child -- or is it licensed teen-ager. Why does THAT prompt a calll to the police? Sounds like the exactly right thing to do. Maybe I don't know much more detail -- can't get to the link from here so I can't fact check.
As far as, as John put it, not being star-struck, for sure! With the kind of wealth in Greenwich, of-freakin'-course!
Still making sweeping assumptions and assuming they are fact.
And I see your still trolling. "sweeping assumption" Hmm when all else fails isn't that your attack of last resort. It seems to me the only person here resorting to wild assumptions is you and I have pointed it out several times.
Now you do realize that "assumptions" and "observations" aren't synonyms. Although personal interpretations of certain observations may be subjective and thus prone to error..
n2ize
08-26-2011, 10:27 AM
Aren't shows like this supposed to get a release form from the targeted persons before it can be aired on commercial television ? To my knowledge they are, although I could be wrong. A person who claimed they were once on Candid Camera told me that they were requested to sign a release before candid camera could use the material. I would imagine that there are certain legal implication and that the victim has certain legal rights concerning material involving themselves that will be used for commercial entertainment purposes.
Furthermore, I can see many valid reasons why a show such as this might be considered disruptive. I can also see many reasons why persons who have nothing to hide, and who are not hypocrites would consider this type of thing to be disruptive and distasteful.
n2ize
08-26-2011, 10:37 AM
And I see your still trolling. "sweeping assumption" Hmm when all else fails isn't that your attack of last resort. It seems to me the only person here resorting to wild assumptions is you and I have pointed it out several times.
Now you do realize that "assumptions" and "observations" aren't synonyms. Although personal interpretations of certain observations may be subjective and thus prone to error..
Here is what was stated.
Town officials said having the show set up in front of stores has a negative impact on business, and Greenwich police added that one of the show's situations -- involving an intoxicated adult who needs to be driven by a child -- caused an alarmed resident to ask a store employee to call police.
If this is true then the show was cancelled due to its impact on business. And apparently led to a person calling the police which is fully understandable in this day and age.. Those are the FACTS that are available..
Just an FYI in case it's not generallly known...
Greenwich, CT is an extremely wealthy town.
And, could be that the most prominent reason was that negative impact on business.
Beyond that, this whole thing about an intoxicated adult needing to be driven by a child -- or is it licensed teen-ager. Why does THAT prompt a calll to the police? Sounds like the exactly right thing to do. Maybe I don't know much more detail -- can't get to the link from here so I can't fact check.
As far as, as John put it, not being star-struck, for sure! With the kind of wealth in Greenwich, of-freakin'-course!
Yeah somehow I would venture a bet those are all lame excuses. I'm sure the business involved were notified and that law enforcement was notified prior to filming, after all they did have permits so it was all pre approved..
Furthermore didn't anyone else notice that the description of the gag they were filming was purposely written in a manner to elicit a negative emotional response. Notice how they purposely left out any details and resorted to using use key words such as "drunk" "child" and "car" obviously attempting to get the the whackers panties in a bunch. I'm sure I've seen that gag on the show before and agree that its harmless and that only a moron would call the police..
Whats really funny is how effective they are at controlling peoples emotions and opinions using key words... OMG "drunk" "car" "Child" !!!! TOO YOUR BATTLE STATIONS WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN AT ALL COSTS !!!! LOL they got your number and played a bunch of you like a fiddle. I'm amazed out how gullible and easily manipulated people can be.
Seriously talk about assumptions. Exactly what assumptions are you being lead to conclude when you rad "Drive" "Drunk" "Child" and "police with no specific details. Come on people you would think the actual lack of details would clue you into the fact that they aren't telling you the whole story and that you're probably being manipulated. After all If the gag was so bad then why didn't they describe it in detail instead of resorting to innuendos..
We're not talking about Candid Camera here, though. IIRC, Allen Funt didn't do anything that would violate, or appear to violate, the law. And let me be specific, I'm talking about things like (acting out the scenario of) feeding booze to an underage girl, or (appearing to) permit an underage and unlicensed child drive a (supposed) intoxicated adult on a major highway with other traffic.
Nor do I find a lot of entertainment in "punking" innocent people because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Regardless of what town they live, work, or shop in, regardless of their financial background.
So tell me, what's next? The Mao Tse-Tung Hour, starring the Ecumenical Liberation Army? The Suicide of the Week Show, with judges to rate them on composure, style, and originallity?
Or do you wish to be An Angry Prophet Denouncing the Hypocrisies of Our Times?
Here is what was stated.
If this is true then the show was cancelled due to its impact on business. And apparently led to a person calling the police which is fully understandable in this day and age.. Those are the FACTS that are available..
Again nice try but no cigar, I hate to keep bursting your bubble but as a former LEO I have to point out that what you claim are facts aren't actually facts. They are what is known as unsubstantiated claims. It is in "fact" the complete lack of details and the reliance on innuendo that make me seriously question the integrity and reliability of this entire story.
As I pointed out before if the gag/prank was so bad then why didn't they describe it in all its gory detail? I'm sure there must have been plenty of concerned witness's whom they could have quoted. Yet they had no eyewitnesses "quotes"
The bottom line is they didn't have any real description of the gag and they resorted to a collection of innuendos such as "Drive" "Drunk" "Child" and "Police". These were obviously specifically tailored to elicit a negative emotional response from people susceptible to this type of psychological manipulation. In a way you can kinda say you were pranked for putting so much credibility into such a questionable piece of journalism.
Ulitmately, since none of us were there, we don't actually know what happened, what was said, and what got edited out due to space constraints from the newspaper article. It's very possible that there's also a more detailed story out there "somewhere" that no one has come across yet.
I will concede that it's possible the show got kicked out of town (if they really did) for no reason other than someone got embarrassed and swore to get even... if you can also concede that it's possible that the show did get kicked out because they did cross the line. And frankly, pending further details (to say nothing of actual facts) either is possible.
n2ize
08-26-2011, 11:15 AM
Again nice try but no cigar, I hate to keep bursting your bubble but as a former LEO I have to point out that what you claim are facts aren't actually facts. They are what is known as unsubstantiated claims. It is in "fact" the complete lack of details and the reliance on innuendo that make me seriously question the integrity and reliability of this entire story.
As I pointed out before if the gag/prank was so bad then why didn't they describe it in all its gory detail? I'm sure there must have been plenty of concerned witness's whom they could have quoted. Yet they had no eyewitnesses "quotes"
The bottom line is they didn't have any real description of the gag and they resorted to a collection of innuendos such as "Drive" "Drunk" "Child" and "Police". These were obviously specifically tailored to elicit a negative emotional response from people susceptible to this type of psychological manipulation. In a way you can kinda say you were pranked for putting so much credibility into such a questionable piece of journalism.
These are the facts as stated.
Town officials said having the show set up in front of stores has a negative impact on business, and Greenwich police added that one of the show's situations -- involving an intoxicated adult who needs to be driven by a child -- caused an alarmed resident to ask a store employee to call police.
This is as much as you or I know at this time. Everything else is speculation/assumption.
W1GUH
08-26-2011, 12:37 PM
Yeah somehow I would venture a bet those are all lame excuses. I'm sure the business involved were notified and that law enforcement was notified prior to filming, after all they did have permits so it was all pre approved..
Furthermore didn't anyone else notice that the description of the gag they were filming was purposely written in a manner to elicit a negative emotional response. Notice how they purposely left out any details and resorted to using use key words such as "drunk" "child" and "car" obviously attempting to get the the whackers panties in a bunch. I'm sure I've seen that gag on the show before and agree that its harmless and that only a moron would call the police..
Whats really funny is how effective they are at controlling peoples emotions and opinions using key words... OMG "drunk" "car" "Child" !!!! TOO YOUR BATTLE STATIONS WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN AT ALL COSTS !!!! LOL they got your number and played a bunch of you like a fiddle. I'm amazed out how gullible and easily manipulated people can be.
Seriously talk about assumptions. Exactly what assumptions are you being lead to conclude when you rad "Drive" "Drunk" "Child" and "police with no specific details. Come on people you would think the actual lack of details would clue you into the fact that they aren't telling you the whole story and that you're probably being manipulated. After all If the gag was so bad then why didn't they describe it in detail instead of resorting to innuendos..
Well put.
W1GUH
08-26-2011, 12:38 PM
Ulitmately, since none of us were there, we don't actually know what happened, what was said, and what got edited out due to space constraints from the newspaper article. It's very possible that there's also a more detailed story out there "somewhere" that no one has come across yet.
I will concede that it's possible the show got kicked out of town (if they really did) for no reason other than someone got embarrassed and swore to get even... if you can also concede that it's possible that the show did get kicked out because they did cross the line. And frankly, pending further details (to say nothing of actual facts) either is possible.
"The comedy of Allen Funt
Or a nicely shaven leg."
Brian and Stewie singing a lament about the state of entertainment today.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.