Boston "the new Toronto" for movies?
I knew there had been a rush of productions to town since the state ended its film commission gang wars and passed the tax incentives. Hard to miss that the star quotient in Names & Faces has been going up, even if all they ever do is go to the same six restaurants and get their hair done on Newbury Street. But today's New York Times article on Steve Martin - he was here filming a Pink Panther remake - refers to us as "the new Toronto of the film industry." What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? It sounds to me like a backhanded compliment - that we're cheap and hip but, you know, not exactly New York or L.A. Thoughts?




I think Martin's brain is sluggish and that he draws the comparison just because it gets cold here, too.
Posted by: Caroline | November 17, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Cheap? If only.
Posted by: Danielle | November 17, 2007 at 02:15 PM
It is because Toronto had a big filmmaking boom about ten years ago. The City was very friendly to filmmakers and the Canadian dollar was still weak compared to the American dollar. Thus, Toronto was a nice, cosmopolitan, modern, relatively crime-free, and English-speaking stand-in for movies set in New York (e.g. Moonstruck), L.A. and Chicago (e.g.--Chicago). Toronto has all the snazzy shops, restaurants and cafes the stars love, too.
Sadly for Toronto, its days of being "Hollywood North" seem to be over for now.
Speaking as a Canadian, being called "a Toronto" is not an insult. Toronto is much bigger and probably richer than Boston. It is the banking capital of Canada. Its transit system, for one thing, is one heck of a lot better than the T. I lived in Boston for the past two years, so I know whereof I speak.
Posted by: Seraphic Single | November 17, 2007 at 08:20 PM
A lot of films are shot in Toronto. The "Harvard bar" where they expected equations and, em, stuff, to be on the bar in Good Will Hunting was actually in Toronto. In Man of the Year there is a scene where Robin Williams goes up the driveway of a hotel thats supposed to be in Washington DC, but it is on Queens Quay in Toronto. I know because I stayed there once - I want to say it is the Weston Castle.
Posted by: Brian | November 17, 2007 at 09:42 PM
I think it's certainly supposed to mean "reasonable backup that's cheaper than NY/LA." And given the state of the USD/CAD conversion...
*sigh*
If only we hadn't taken several trillion dollars and buried it in the fucking desert.
Posted by: Aaron | November 17, 2007 at 10:40 PM
"Hollywood North" is still booming. You wouldn't beleive the amount of work YYZ gets compared to NY/LA.
Posted by: Badly Drawn Boston Boy | November 18, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Canada gets huge amounts of film & TV work from the US. Indeed Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal all have large stage complexes as a result.
Ever wonder why the future always looks rainy? ‘Cause much of SciFi channels programming is shot in Burnaby, outside Vancouver. It’s cheaper then LA and has a well established support structure (‘50 swarthy musclemen for next week’s shoot? A phone-call away!).
The local benefits are substantial. I’ve an aunt in real estate in Vancouver – she’s sold the same properties multiple times to cast & crew. They get a second home in the area for the few years their shows are in production, then sell them when it ends, call her again.
In Montreal the productions are so numerous they’re annoying.
The park by my house is in use half the summer for one project or another, their trailers near permanently parked along one side of it. Friends in a downtown highrise eventually moved out, annoyed how often the elevators were reserved for productions renting out various blocks of units for filming.
There’s even a drinking game: Spot Canada.
When the pub TV is showing a made in Canada production (as opposed to Made In Canada, a sitcom about film & TV production in Canada) set elsewhere the sport is to spot the give-aways. Toronto trolleycars are distinctive & easy, as are mountains in Vancouver (Chicago? NYC? Mountains?), or French signage from Montreal (crews usually change the street signs, but miss the little stuff on the sides of buildings.)
My best catch? A dramatic police show, where the cop stops a fella on the street and has a heated debate with him. Throughout the whole shot a woman stands off to one side, studiously ignoring them. Aside from her not naturally turning to watch the street theatre she’s also looking the wrong way down the street. Why was she on the set? We realized she was perfectly blocking where the CN Tower (then tallest free-standing whatever in the world) was in the shot.
Naw, being the ‘Merkin TO is something Boston would dearly love to be.
Posted by: Michael Maggard | November 19, 2007 at 11:12 AM