Aren't these the same guys at the moment building, Absolute World, L-Tower, Backstage, and Pier-27..
Castlepoint is involved in the L-Tower and Backstage, but not Absolute World not Pier 27. Cityzen is involved in all of those.
42
|
|
|
Pinewood Studios 2.5 Million Sq/ft development (1000 Condos, Hotel, Retail)
- Thread starter Peepers
- Start date
Castlepoint is involved in the L-Tower and Backstage, but not Absolute World not Pier 27. Cityzen is involved in all of those.
42
Ramako
Moderator
I love this idea. I think the entire neighbourhood would become an instant tourist attraction.
junctionist
Senior Member
Peepers said:
"Stagnant shipping channel" makes it sound unattractive, but in reality that channel makes for one of the most unusual and scenic landscapes in Toronto. It's like a sort of monumental canal, and if the land around it is redeveloped with dense, attractive buildings and public spaces, it could be one of the more interesting areas in the city. Hearn as a powerplant is attractive too, with it's massive red brick facade, setbacks and monumental window sections framed with concrete. See this photo for a reminder.
It's one thing to shoot a film set in another city in a contained environment like a studio, it's quite another to build up a public community meant to evoke other cities in a visible area close to the waterfront and downtown. Chloe and Scott Pilgrim vs The World were quite exceptional for being set here, and given their lackluster box office performance, I'd say we're still not established a box office movie setting. Maybe we're getting close, but at this point those two might still be exceptions. Also, of course I don't gnash my teeth when I see LA making films set in New York. I don't live in LA and have no connection to city, so I could care less about their identity.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
I'd say the "failure" of Chloe and Scott Pilgrim says nothing whatsoever about how established Toronto is as a movie setting.
Chloe was a fairly 'art house' movie to begin with and Scott Pilgrim was a no-star film based on a fairly obscure comic book. Each is successful on its own terms and I find it hard to believe either would have made more money by being set in New York.
Anyway, this whole idea seems kind of silly to me. I guess there are people who will live anywhere but between having a constant stream of movie shoots and/or tourists outside your door I don't know why anyone would want to live on, say, a faux-Soho street, simply for how cute it is. Might as well live in EPCOT or Vegas or something.
Chloe was a fairly 'art house' movie to begin with and Scott Pilgrim was a no-star film based on a fairly obscure comic book. Each is successful on its own terms and I find it hard to believe either would have made more money by being set in New York.
Anyway, this whole idea seems kind of silly to me. I guess there are people who will live anywhere but between having a constant stream of movie shoots and/or tourists outside your door I don't know why anyone would want to live on, say, a faux-Soho street, simply for how cute it is. Might as well live in EPCOT or Vegas or something.
alklay
Senior Member
With respect, I have no idea how one draws a connection to this concept, and the apparently lack of scripts that have Toronto as the location city. There is still plenty of city left for all the stories one feels the need to take place in the city.
If this project leads to more production for Pinewood (and thus more jobs and more money spent in the city), I am all for it. If people want to live on a studio set, all the power to them. We can do worse than a few streets that recreate London or New York. Heck, at least they are not recreating Buffalo.
If this project leads to more production for Pinewood (and thus more jobs and more money spent in the city), I am all for it. If people want to live on a studio set, all the power to them. We can do worse than a few streets that recreate London or New York. Heck, at least they are not recreating Buffalo.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
You are absolutely right: the only thing the film industry sees in Toronto is a cheap and convenient place to make films that are set in London and New York. Though it may offend your sense of civic pride, passing ourselves off as other cities has made Toronto an important hub for international film production.
We have no control over where the film industry wants to set their films, and Toronto is nowhere near as culturally significant on the global stage as NYC or London. Thus, we can either accommodate the film industry, or they will find some other place to pass off as NYC.
All that said, I'm withholding judgement about this particular development scheme until more details come out.
junctionist
Senior Member
True, but it's always some other city than Toronto. There are films set in Philadelphia, Chicago, and many other cities that have been filmed in Toronto. It never seems to be Toronto as Toronto, though, no matter what the city is. Tomorrow, it very well may be Toronto as Cleveland.
It's not just civic pride. The city can make a lot of money with an image more connected with global mass culture. Maybe the government should offer financial incentives for locally-set films.
The surrounding area already does that quite well.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
I think the biggest factor is nationality. American studios typically only want to tell stories about Americans. That's why third tier cities like Cleveland are more likely to get the spotlight than Toronto, Montreal, or even Syndey or Melbourne. European cities only get attention because they seem glamorous to American audiences (e.g. in spy or romance films). I think the best thing Toronto can do is make sure we maintain a vibrant cultural scene and hope that we spawn more Bryan Lee O'Malleys and Atom Egoyans who will eventually get films made about their hometown.
Last edited:
maestro
Senior Member
Is this a long term vision or is it being prepped to be released before the Waterfront Toronto lands and Home Depot are fully realized?
old boy
Senior Member
Toronto is a recent and still minor player on the world stage. It hasn't had the time to build an international identity, but, maybe in 20 or 30 years it will. Having the ability to represent so many famous cities in film, says more about Toronto's versatility and dynamism than about any deficiencies, perceived and otherwise. More investment in the film industry in this city only goes to prove it. I do welcome the day, however, when it's enough simply to say, " Toronto ", without the qualifiers.
Tewder
Senior Member
I can't express how much I hate this idea.... and for the waterfront?! It sounds like something that should be built in Vaughan Mills.
And who wants to live on a film set? That's gonna get old pretty fast when you're putting up with all the inconveniences at all times of day and night.
Yuck. Hope this one dies a fast painless death.
And who wants to live on a film set? That's gonna get old pretty fast when you're putting up with all the inconveniences at all times of day and night.
Yuck. Hope this one dies a fast painless death.
sodapop
Active Member
horrible idea, i hate it how they want to copy these streetscapes, why not build our own unique toronto streetscape with unique structures that will be recognized as something unique instead of some new york/london look alike
old boy
Senior Member
You're right , I doubt there'd be a rush to live on a film set in Vaugn Mills. But this is a very big waterfront area that can take in diverse uses ,and did anyone think it would ever be developed as a set piece. I think some people associated with film making might be quite interestad in living in this new precinct, whatever form it eventually takes. Making this project sound like Disneyland/Hollywood, before it goes through planning and review is premature. It may be a mundane aside to some, but film industry jobs in Toronto will be increased through this investment.
beaconer
Active Member
Bizarre...
I think it's an extremely bizarre idea.
I can't see how anyone who has lived in an urban environment that has been regularly exposed to crews filming where they live would see living on a 'movie set' as appealing or novel.
I find the sense of entitlement that film crews already take when they have their 'permit' with cop in hand:
-lining every free parking spot with a pylon,
-blocking, congesting and closing streets,
-running cables all over the place,
-loading up sidewalks with equipment, extras, catering, etc.
-and a complete squatting by strangers taking over your neighbourhood
a violation of public space.
To live in a neighbourhood where this entitlement would be even stronger or promoted, would be torture.
Quoted from the STAR Article:
I think it's an extremely bizarre idea.
I can't see how anyone who has lived in an urban environment that has been regularly exposed to crews filming where they live would see living on a 'movie set' as appealing or novel.
I find the sense of entitlement that film crews already take when they have their 'permit' with cop in hand:
-lining every free parking spot with a pylon,
-blocking, congesting and closing streets,
-running cables all over the place,
-loading up sidewalks with equipment, extras, catering, etc.
-and a complete squatting by strangers taking over your neighbourhood
a violation of public space.
To live in a neighbourhood where this entitlement would be even stronger or promoted, would be torture.
Quoted from the STAR Article: