Every morning I’m lucky enough to leave my Manhattan apartment only to see a wondrous view of the Empire State Building and the neighborhood bum dancing a jig on the corner. Upon such sights, I can’t help but wonder (Carrie Bradshaw-style, of course): Who could possibly dislike a city that not only boasts legendary architecture, but daily street entertainment as well? No one, right? So why oh why in heaven’s name does all of Hollywood want to destroy my beloved hometown, 2 a.m. gourmet take-out and all? Sure, we’re used to disaster flicks taking advantage of NYC’s distinct skyline to show how devastating a cataclysmic event would be (see: The Day After Tomorrow). But now that the city’s absorbing a one-two punch from I Am Legend and Cloverfield, isn’t it time that we just let the Big Apple be? Not that films are the only perpetrators of such destruction. New York City is having a tough time of late on the small screen as well: Both season 1 and 2 of Heroes set their disaster scenes in NYC. And don’t get me started on all those Discovery Channel shows that chronicle the downfall of New York after some major weather calamity (pan to: me, clutching a pillow, anticipating the Apocalypse with every suspicious noise and high temperature, thanks to those shows’ lovely scare tactics).
So what do you think, PopWatchers? Do you think it’s high time that filmmakers and TV honchos pick on another city? Heck, even season 6 of 24—a.k.a. Worst. Season. Ever.—was creative enough to look to the west coast for a city to destroy. Say it with me, PopWatchers (a la Chris Crocker, of course): Leave New York City alone!
Comments (1-30) of 62 Add your comment
I completely agree! I live just outside NY and Sept. 11 was enough real life horror for me. You would think NYC would be spared more destruction (even fictional)!
Perhaps, but somehow or another I don’t think that a monster running around and destroying the fields of Bumf—, Oklahoma would be as exciting.
I think the reason NYC was always destroyed in movies was because it’s a city with SUCH recognizable landmarks, and when you blow up something like the Empire State Building, it made the scene that much more shocking: “Oh my God! The [asteroid / terrorist / Godzilla] just took out [The Statue of Liberty / Central Park / the Brooklyn Bridge]! That’s just unimaginable!” Except now we’ve actually seen one of those NYC landmarks taken down in real life, so scenes like that are A) Not hard at all to imagine and B) Not as much fun anymore, either.
Everybody outside the east coast loves watching NYC, Boston and DC get wasted. It is the best part of movies like Deep Impact, Armageddon, etc etc.
Keep it up, Hollywood! More disaster movies!
Anyway, why the movies reach only for Tokio, London Bridge, Eiffel Tower, NYC or Russia? I mean, when I saw the totally horrible 11-9 event, I actually thought at first it was a freaking MOVIE!!!
NYC = USA. That’s really it. That being said, sure, let’s waste LA next time. Isn’t it seen as the center of CA, land of freaks, by most red states? Movies don’t consider the heartland because it’s where they deem Mom & Pop America comes from, yet we all know disasters can strike anywhere (Oklahoma City, Columbine, Texas church shootings, etc.).
By the way, I like all the cities and mean no ill will towards NY, LA, etc., so don’t get started on me.
I get your point and it does seem like New York is the setting for most disaster movies. But seriously, what other cities in the US are they going to use? Dallas, Sedona? I think they could make more use out of cities like Seattle or even San Francisco, we have not had enough screen time when it comes to disaster movies if you ask me.
Yeah, but Silv, except for the big Hollywood sign, no one knows what LA looks like. The emotional impact of an asteroid taking out the Staples Center doesn’t compare to seeing the Statue of Liberty in pieces. Of course, though, Jennifer’s right in that we’ve all seen a real-life NYC attack, so it’s not so much fun to see it on the big screen.
I just said the same thing last week after watching the Cloverfield trailer, what’s wrong with attacking Chicago or Seattle once and a while? I think NYC needs a break.
i am both excited and terrified to see cloverfield for this very reason. every time i see the trailer, i think about it actually happening. i’m going to be trapped on the f train trying to get back to brooklyn! actually, that tends to happen without monsters even attacking. sign. still, i’ll be there opening day. because apparently, september 11th wasn’t tramatic enough for me.
A) It’s on a coast, therefore is more accessible to external forces. B) It’s the most iconic American city, by far. C) Get over it, they’re movies. Be more worried about what your former mayor’s gonna do to the rest of the country if he gets elected.
I think Cloverfield has it’s reasons for NYC- particularly that it’s a coastal city, and it’s the first thing that comes to mind when foreigners think of America. I Am Legend made sense too- it’s one of the biggest cities with one of the biggest airports in the world; of course a top scientist is going to live there, and of course it’s going to be quarantined!
I wonder if this is a chicken and the egg issue. Is NYC iconic of America because of all the movies in its setting or is it setted because its an American icon? I think using NYC is a bit on the lazy side of writting. Ask a guy from Boston if they have a skyline or Philadelphia or San Francisco (TV’s west coast NYC) There are other cities around with just as much charm and grime as the Big Apple let them face an asteriod or a giant lizard stomp down now and again. I am Legend needed to be in New York because Manhattan is an island, it enhances the solitude and isolation, but if its just ‘destroy a major metro area’ any city can work if you have the talent.
I agree – I’m just tired of seeing NYC on the screen, whether it’s being destroyed or not. NYC is not THAT interesting, people! I actually hate it a little more every time I see it in a movie or TV show. It’s a big country – set your movies somewhere, anywhere else!
Oooh Oooh Oooh, pick us! Chicago has a fantastic skyline and a wonderful body of water…I’d pay big bucks to see a movie in which that awful new Trump Tower going up downtown gets destroyed!
Contrary to belief, New York is NOT America. There are 300 million people here and New York is not even 10% of that. There are lots of great landmarks around if you want to destroy a city on film. Writers are just lazy. How about seeing a monster rip up L.A.? Step on the hollywood sign?
I wish more films or tv shows would take place in HOUSTON, TX. I love it here and it also has an awesome skyline and tons of freeways and we are near the coast too. . .but you know what i hate most when they pick Dallas over Houston. . .that i just dont get I hate Dallas.
Hey Kate,
Remember that time you forgot that California had been the center of all seasons of 24 and all terrorists attacks?
Season 1, assination on the day of the California Presential Primary.
Season 2, Nuclear Weapon detonated in Mojave desert.
Season 3, Virus released in Los Angelas.
Season 4, Nuclear Reactors melt down of the San Gabriel Island reactor.
Season 5, Nerve Gas attack all over LA and the greater California region.
Season 6, Nuclear Bombs in Cali.
So 24 has never been anywhere near New York!
What would be a good landmark to destroy in Chicago, anyway?
I’m with ChrisChicago. Pick Chicago and knock down the new Spire before it even gets built.
Yes, there are many recognizable buildings and structures in NYC, which makes it a good pick for disaster movies. However, (real-life disasters like 9/11 aside, of course) I think most non-New Yorkers like the idea of New York getting knocked around a bit. I never really hated New York until I moved to Chicago and realized that it has all the positive aspects of New York without the frakkin attitude. So, bring it on, Cloverfield monster. Smack that smirk off the Statue of Liberty’s face.
Barbara – in Chicago you could knock down the Sears Tower, throw that “Bean” sculpture around, and rough up Wrigley Field. I know a few White Sox fans that’s be happy to that.
If you’ll recall Jamie, Houston was once used in a movie and it was literally plunged into nuclear winter. In Independence Day when they decided to try a nuclear bomb against one of the alien ships it was in Houston. How did we know it was Houston? Not the skyline my friend, but sign on the interstate. I’m guessing 4 out of 5 Houstonians couldn’t pick the skyline out of a lineup. If however your movie is in need of disposal of a nuclear device, by all means, choose Houston.
No one is going to destroy Dallas until Jerry Jones builds the ginourmous new stadium in nearby Arlington. But, since Cloverfield is released in January, it will be a huge bomb in whatever city it’s set in.
Vegas, baby. That way you can wreck landmarks like the Statue of Liberty and Eiffel Tower without actually destroying those cities. Plus, y’know, neon.
I lived in New York City from 1994 to 2003. I remember thinking that the summer of 1998 was already overtaken with the disasterous effects of DEEP IMPACT, ARMAGEDDON and GODZILLA. Then the events of September 11, 2001 happened and I watched much of it from the street. Hollywood managed to maintain a level of sensitivity toward the city of New York for only a very short time. It wasn’t long before they were destroying the city again with THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. As for CLOVERFIELD, I have no intention of seeing it. I should also add that I think the movie poster depicted a headless Statue of Liberty and a shot of downtown NY in smoldering ruins is absolutely tastleless and insensitive to those who must live with the horror of 9-11 the rest of their lives. I’ve come to expect those in Hollywood to be greedy, insensitive pigs, but in the case of that poster, they could not have done more harm if they’d walked up to the headstone of a 9-11 victim and SPIT on it!
This is obvious. The only reason why NYC is picked is because people would care if something happened to NYC. NYC is, in effect, a sympathetic protagonist in such stories. Notice how, in your example, in Season 6 of 24, people really did NOT care about the West Coast? Good or bad, I am just stating the facts.
Uh, “people DON’T care about the west coast”??!!
What kind of BS is that?!!
Here’s a concept: People who live on the west coast CARE about the west coast..k?
Personally, i’d rather see the Brooklyn Bridge blasted to bits than the Golden Gate melted down ANY DAY!
On second thought, i did enjoy seeing LA destroyed in ID4 and Day After Tomorrow.. To be honest, LA is the giant boil on the west coast’s butt..
To Eric Friedmann:
It’s a tough sell to label Hollywood insensitive, just because of a few movie posters. I’m sure a few overseers of 9-11 might cringe at that, but at the same time, I think the US is ready to move on from the disaster. Simply censoring themselves from depicting similar events of a disaster after an extended period seems ridiculous to me. After all, if that were the case, we shouldn’t show any kind of presidential assassinations after Kennedy or nuclear holocausts after the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, or planes running into buildings after 9-11 (like Transformers did), even if it’s fictional. Besides, like some others here said, it’s only a movie.