Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

As Vulgarian V noted on the Arrival thread in response to HP's comment on the linguist character's grand home, it's common in films and TV for characters to live in homes which would be way beyond their likely means in the real world. I suspect that is more of a US phenomenon, as all the examples that come to my mind are from the US.

Anyway, anyone up for contributing ridiculous examples?

I'll go with waitress Penny in The Big Bang Theory.

[ad hoc]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

It's not that ridiculous is it? She lives in a small apartment in some unfashionable bit of the LA region (wherever it is based, I'm not entirely sure) , in an apartment building in which the lift never works. Admittedly she's across the hall from two physics professors who live in a massive apartment, but her place doesn't strike me as being that ridiculous.

[Kevin S]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

https://[video=youtube_share;axHoy0h...?v=axHoy0hnQy8[/video]

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

Ad hoc, I'm not v knowledgable on LA residential rental prices I have to confess (and I suppose on reflection that it's likely to be one of the cheaper large US cities to live in given its huge sprawl), and I suppose I was influenced by finding it unlikely that the apartment sizes on that floor of the building would be so asymmetrical.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

Nothing specific but, to British eyes, just about every American sitcom home - particularly where the theme is that the family are struggling (e.g. Roseanne). Having spent my young life to date watching a lot of American sitcoms, the size of my brother's apartment was something of a surprise when I went to visit him in LA for the first time as a teenager.

A British example to throw in is Not Going Out, I've always thought their flat was too big.

I suppose for sitcoms there are practical reasons for all this, in terms of the size of the set required to accommodate multiple cameras and angles.

[gavc23]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

In the oft ignored car crash of a film, Biggles: Adventures in Time, the Peter Cushing character lives inside Tower Bridge. How he's managed to build a house in amongst the lifting equipment is never explained. Though neither is the plot, so it's a minor crime compared to the rest of the film.

[Vulgarian Visigoth]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

Evariste, how do you know my MC name?

[ursus arctos]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

This is a perennial topic here.

The Post decided to investigate: How much would these elaborate sitcom and drama apartments cost in real life? And could their fictional inhabitants ever afford them? We examined 10 to find out.

FWIW, I think that the Post's rent estimates are uniformly low for the current market.

It isn't unusual for US apartment buildings to feature a wide variety of apartment sizes, as it allows the landlord to appeal to a broader market. In New York, it is also very common for row houses/brownstones that were originally built for a single family to have been flatted into up to ten apartments, only for some of them to have now been combined so that you have three to five households.

Putting country house piles to the side, US houses also tend to be much larger than their British counterparts, in part because people are much more willing to live in the middle of nowhere and commute to everything by car.

[Snake Plissken]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

*obligatory "It was his last film, an' all" comment*

I suppose for sitcoms there are practical reasons for all this, in terms of the size of the set required to accommodate multiple cameras and angles.

Blackadders trench was larger than Queenies Throne Room...

On topic post: Every chefs "home" kitchen.

[WOM]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

Apparently the Friends apartments would have been prohibitively expensive (and absurdly large) for three young people back in the day.

[3 Colours Red]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

Hardly grand but the only way that Richie and Eddie in Bottom can afford any accommodation at all is that Richie's aunt is said to pay the rent.

[San Bernardhinault]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

This is something that often drives me mad. Particularly in shows/films set in London, New York, LA and San Francisco.

But it wasn't obviously a mistake in Arrival - they never identified the rainy town that our hero worked. And there are definitely college towns in the US where accommodation is cheap - I particularly thought this the one time I was in Lawrence, Kansas, which is a lovely little town with a proper university. Also true in upstate New York, visiting the father-in-law in Cortland. On US academic salaries, if you're in the right town you probably could afford a nice mid-century/modernist home.

I tend to think about these things too much.

[Giggler]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

Evariste Euler Gauss wrote: As Vulgarian V noted on the Arrival thread in response to HP's comment on the linguist character's grand home, it's common in films and TV for characters to live in homes which would be way beyond their likely means in the real world. I suspect that is more of a US phenomenon, as all the examples that come to my mind are from the US.

Anyway, anyone up for contributing ridiculous examples?

I'll go with waitress Penny in The Big Bang Theory.

See also, any waitress etc in a Richard Curtis film.

[evilC]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

Deadpool

[tracteurgarcon]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

WOM wrote: Apparently the Friends apartments would have been prohibitively expensive (and absurdly large) for three young people back in the day.

I think the writer's explained this in the show by saying that Monica had been left the apartment by her grandmother, not sure whether they bothered to explain Chandler and Joey living across the hall, although weren't they supposed to be "rent controlled" and, I guess, Chandler, was always in, what was assumed to be, a well paid job.

[Vulgarian Visigoth]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

The entertainment industry lied to us. When I was a boy I thought I would get any shite job and live in a nice big house with a garden. Guess what - you can't do that in real life. Had I known this I would have tried harder at school.

[tracteurgarcon]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

Vulgarian Visigoth wrote: The entertainment industry lied to us. When I was a boy I thought I would get any shite job and live in a nice big house with a garden. Guess what - you can't do that in real life. Had I known this I would have tried harder at school.

Depends where you live.

[ursus arctos]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

Here's the Post's analysis of the Friends situation (from the link above)

Monica Geller allegedly inherited the airy, colorful two-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment she shares with Rachel Green at the beginning of the series from her grandmother. It’s across the hallway from a smaller two-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment Chandler Bing and Joey Tribbiani share for much of the 10-season show. Given Monica’s profession as a chef, Rachel’s as a waitress and, later, a junior buyer and Joey’s as an out-of-work actor and odd jobs doer, it’s safe to assume they could never afford prices for a pad that spacious if they were paying market rent. (It’s understood that Monica took on her grandma’s rent-controlled status, but Joey and Chandler wouldn’t have such breaks.) Chandler’s job in IT probably helped boost their collective incomes, but if they were to rent the same spaces today, at least one “Friend” would definitely need a guarantor.

It was cheaper in the ’90s when the show was shot, but what would it cost to live there today? The four friends (and, at times, Phoebe Buffay and Ross Geller, too) lived in the pricey West Village, allegedly at 90 Bedford St. near Grove Street. The last apartment there, recently on the market, was a one-bed, one-bath for $2,950/month (an old-looking, small perch) that tried to boost its status by touting its location “in the extremely sought out Friends building.” Before that, a similarly sized pad went for $3,400.

These rents are low-balling it, likely because the real-life apartments at 90 Bedford are less nice than the “Friends” pads. Citi Habitats’ March 2016 rental report put the West Village’s average two-bedroom rent at $4,030. And that doesn’t even take into account the terrace! It’s fair to say that they’d be paying well over $4,000/month for Monica and Rachel’s pad, the centerpiece of the show, and in the high $3,000s for Chandler and Joey’s.

[Ginger Yellow]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

More implausibly grand because of its location than the wealth of its inhabitants, but the house on top of Mount Rushmore in North By Northwest.

[Hot Pepsi]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

San Bernardhinault wrote: This is something that often drives me mad. Particularly in shows/films set in London, New York, LA and San Francisco.

But it wasn't obviously a mistake in Arrival - they never identified the rainy town that our hero worked. And there are definitely college towns in the US where accommodation is cheap - I particularly thought this the one time I was in Lawrence, Kansas, which is a lovely little town with a proper university. Also true in upstate New York, visiting the father-in-law in Cortland. On US academic salaries, if you're in the right town you probably could afford a nice mid-century/modernist home.

I tend to think about these things too much.

Not that cheap. Her place overlooked the ocean. And I believe they identified her university as Cal Berkeley.

But [spoiler alert] all is not as it seems with her. [/spoiler] Maybe her and her ex-husband got a huge book deal.

Multicamera sitcoms before a live audience have to have a fairly expansive set, so there has to be some suspension of disbelief.

Big Bang Theory is in Pasadena. On I'd think that Sheldon and Leonard could afford their own places if Raj can. But they all seem to be on soft-money/ research-only deals with Cal Tech. I have no idea what that pays, but it can't be too much. They'd probably make more in industry.

Penny's place is probably way too big for a waitress to afford on her own. But now that she's in Pharma sales - last time I watched - it makes more sense.
Her place would probably be between $1,500-$2,000/month, according to Zillow.
http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_rent/Pasadena-CA/condo,apartment_duplex_type/47019_rid/34.181204,-118.091913,34.131273,-118.168817_rect/13_zm/

I wouldn't assume that there's any discount for the broken elevator. Landlords can be real dicks.
Roseanne never seemed too implausible. Didn't they live in a working-class suburb in Indiana or Illinois somewhere?

Friends' explained that the massive apartment was originally Monica's grandmother's.

[ursus arctos]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

Good Call

Some fine background on that towards the bottom of this post.

[3 Colours Red]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

Kevchenko wrote: https://[video=youtube_share;axHoy0h...?v=axHoy0hnQy8[/video]

Yes, Homer has lucked his way through life (and it's quite an old episode now) but working as a nuclear safety technician, he should currently be earning about $75,000 p/a - about 50% above the American national average wage.

[Ginger Yellow]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

Similarly, there's the FLW-y beach house in Hail, Caesar!, but I can't recall if that ended up being owned by a writer (in which case implausible) or an actor (in which case plausible).

[Incandenza]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

The rent for the apartment in Three's Company cost $300/month in the show. A similar apartment in the same location today would go between $5,000 and $6,000 on the market today.

http://la.curbed.com/2015/6/1/9957934/threes-company-apartment

[Sam]

Implausibly grand accommodation in films/TV

San Bernardhinault wrote: This is something that often drives me mad. Particularly in shows/films set in London, New York, LA and San Francisco.

But it wasn't obviously a mistake in Arrival - they never identified the rainy town that our hero worked. And there are definitely college towns in the US where accommodation is cheap - I particularly thought this the one time I was in Lawrence, Kansas, which is a lovely little town with a proper university. Also true in upstate New York, visiting the father-in-law in Cortland. On US academic salaries, if you're in the right town you probably could afford a nice mid-century/modernist home.

I tend to think about these things too much.

There is also a contract with the US government mentioned or at least heavily implied in the film - Forrest Whitaker's character mentions she has two years still left of the agreement which means she's already got the necessary security clearances, when he first talks to her. I assumed there'd be some sort of retainer for that. And also the whole reason she's in the film is that she's not just any linguist, but one of the very top linguists in the English-speaking world. I'd have thought there's a bit more money in that than, say, what my girlfriend gets paid at her translation agency.

Reed - it's a lake, isn't it? Ocean hadn't occurred to me. An inlet or bay, perhaps.

Right now I'm watching Seinfeld. Jerry's flat has always seemed reasonably sensibly-sized to me (especially as he's meant to be a very minor celebrity in the show), but I'd be interested to hear what ursus or FF reckon.