Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Hollywood Avoids North Dakota Again

A helpful reader emailed to point out that a new horror movie coming out this weekend is set on a small farm somewhere in rural North Dakota.  According to The Messenger’s production notes:

In THE MESSENGERS, a thriller starring KRISTEN STEWART as Jess, DYLAN McDERMOTT and PENELOPE ANN MILLER as Jess’ parents Roy and Denise Solomon and JOHN CORBETT as field hand John Burwell, the Solomon family has left the fast paced life of Chicago for the secluded world of a North Dakota farm. Amidst the tranquil sway of the farm’s field of sunflowers, Jess, 16, soon realizes how terrifying seclusion can be when she and her brother Ben, 3, begin seeing ominous apparitions invisible to everyone else. When those specters become violent, Jess’ sanity is questioned – a double jeopardy for the tormented teen. Her troublesome past comes face to face with the past of those who once lived in the house, a perilous confrontation that leaves her believability in question with those she desperately tries to warn before it is too late.

Cool, I guess, except that the movie itself (like Fargo before it, which was actually in Minnesota) shuns North Dakota.  This time in favor of Regina, Saskatchewan.  About 100 miles north of the North Dakota/Canadian border.  Which kind of stinks as it would have been nice to have my home state actually featured, not just referred to, in a movie.

But whatever.  I guess the lure of the cheap Canadian dollar, as well as Canadian subsidies for movies and better relationships with labor unions north of the border, is just too much for those Hollywood producers to resist.

Comments

Rob, many of the outdoor scenes for Fargo were shot in the Grand Forks area.

I get a kick out of looking at the roads in the movie because they’re North Dakota roads, not Minnesota roads as would be correct in the story.


The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on January 30, 2007 at 08:45 pm

No offense to the great state of North Dakota, but I think a lot of people are avoiding North Dakota given it’s relatively tiny population.


Fileitunder.com

Hoodlumman on January 30, 2007 at 09:07 pm
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

Meh, we’re keeping ‘em out with stories about harsh winters and barren landscapes.

Actually, this place is a veritable eden on earth.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on January 30, 2007 at 10:07 pm

No offense to other states, but a lot of us are living here because it’s NOT Texas. 

The world would be pretty boring if everyone were alike.


The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on January 31, 2007 at 01:55 am
Avatar for NC Wood

Only evil spirits I know flying around sunflower fields are blackbirds.

NC Wood on January 31, 2007 at 06:43 am
Avatar for WOOF

Movie production is lots of logistics. Production company offices , caterers , film developers , grips, carpenters, lots of rental cars and trucks , wind machines , mobile generatos, hotels, extras, grips, cranes, the ability to replace broken equipment and talent. All the while burning money.
It’s industrial illusion.
Dollars trump location.

WOOF on January 31, 2007 at 07:09 am
Avatar for ncwood

Regina has about 200,000 people and is the provincial capital, so presumably it has more infrastructure and skilled bodies for movie-making than does Fargo. Still, Fargo’s not THAT much smaller and close enough to the Cities that it should be a reasonable location.

Except I suppose the nice sunflower fields are at least 60 or 70 miles to the west.

ncwood on January 31, 2007 at 07:18 am
Avatar for Brent Jordan

Fargo wasn’t even about Fargo.....it was about Brainard, MN.....One, maybe two, small scenes, lasting a total of less than 5 minutes take place in Fargo.

Brent Jordan on January 31, 2007 at 11:31 am

Don’t forget the lake scenes to which Minnesota has a much greater variety.  I guess it was named Fargo because the movie started there (or Grand Forks) and the name has a nice cinematic ring.


Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

docdave on January 31, 2007 at 11:39 am

The only two scenes in the movie that were supposedly in North Dakota was the original bar scene and the ending motel scene.

The first was supposed to be Fargo (hence the name) and the last was identified as being near Bismarck.

The outdoor road scenes were filmed near Grand Forks as they didn’t have enough snow in other locals.


The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on January 31, 2007 at 11:43 am
Avatar for Andrew

You NoDaks seems to know way too much about the movie Fargo. Fortunately there’s a decent amount of movies based in my area, like the Rocky’s and the M. Knight Shamylan (sp?) flicks.

Andrew on January 31, 2007 at 05:13 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.