Why don't soaps start filming outside of NY & CA?

[Max]

To start off this post, I was wondering just how much cheaper is it to film in California instead of New York. Back in the 1960's and early-70's, creators of new soaps chose to set up shop in Hollywood because there really was a considerable cost savings over New York City. Today, however, remaining in California probably costs just as much (if not more) than the New York area, since it is California that has the nation's highest energy costs as well as the strictest limits regarding employee overtime.

Additionally, I don't see the point for a soap to remain in New York City, either. Historically, of course, the New York soaps benefitted from having the nation's strongest acting talent pool to chose from. Yet sadly, the days of soap legends like Lemay and Marland scouting Broadway to find the finest actors are now long gone. Seriously, does anybody believe that the actors currently in front burner storylines on East Coast soaps are materially superior to their West Coast counterparts?

Thus, what we have today is a situation where it makes little sense for soaps to continue filming in either the New York or L.A. areas, especailly given the fact that soap budget constraints are tighter than ever. Instead, what soaps should be doing is moving their studios to places where it really is considerably less expensive to do business.

If you think about it, many such places are available to soap producers: in the midwest, cities like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and St. Loius would be great alternatives, while southern cities like Houston, Atlanta, or Wilmington (in North Carolina, where "Dawson's Creek" was filmed) are great candidates as well. (It should be stated that there are many American cities that soaps should aviod, because the cost savings really would be minimal. Specifically, I'm referring to Chicago, Miami, San Francisco, Boston, and Philadelphia. Similarily, the Northern New Jersey town where GL is filmed is also not a wise alternative, since that is in the New York area.)

The thing that perplexes me is that soaps have not yet been willing to relocate to these cheaper areas. (And I'm hoping that you folks can provide some insight as to why this is the case.) The only reasons that I can come up with are that (1) the entertainment industry itself is extremely centered on New York and Los Angeles (while choosing to ignore middle America) and (2) many of the soap vets would be strongly against the idea (although I bet that when faced with the alternative of losing their jobs, most would choose to move to another locale).

[bellcurve]

"Another Life," that half-hour Christian soap from the 80's taped in Virginia.

I think it would be interesting to see a new soap tape out of one of those cities, but it would be an absolute nightmare to relocate a NY soap to Toronto or move an L.A. show to San Diego, because that would mean the actors would have to relocate or make long commutes.

Another issue in terms of taping outside of N.Y. and L.A. is whether states will allow union action on those sets? I think some states are "right to work" meaning that an employer can break up any sort of union organization at any time. Non-union work in television gets even less respect than stuff that does. So I don't see anyone guild affiliated wanting to write or direct a non-union show. You see what happened to Tyler Perry's sitcom writers and every animation writer who fights for guild status.

[ReddFoxx]

I think the prospect of the actors having to relocate or commute would nullify any relocation of filming. New York and L.A. are acting and production hubs, the soaps have planted firm roots in both cities and uprooting would certainly be very costly.

[Gray Bunny]

Didn't The Guiding Light broadcast from Chicago back at the beginning of its radio days? Wonder if/how the move to NYC affected the on-air talent. Considering how half the soaps are/were located around the Chicago area, I'm surprised they never even went on location there at some point.

[Dan]

Yesh. GL was produced in Chicago during the first few years, then moved to LA. (The reason Rev. Ruthledge was killed off was because Arthur Peterson didn't want to make the move west.) The quality of the acting in LA was noticeably different, so the show moved again to New York City.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

Even though the notion of a Christian soap has always irked me, from what I've seen of "Another Life" on Youtube, it was BEAUTIFULLY produced and brilliantly acted. The production values on that show would hold up so well today. The look of that show was certainly better than any soap on ABC back in the 80's and even today. Also, I know CBN couldn't have had the money to pour into that show that ABC, CBS, and NBC had/have. I think the show was also taped at CBN's studios in Virgina, which might have meant they had tons of studio space and production costs weren't that high in Virginia.

[SFK]

I agree that relocation would be a disaster, but launching a new soap in a location other than NY or L.A. isn't a bad idea at all. I think it would be wonderful. A traditional 3-camera studio set-up or something more in line with GL's current model would work just about ANYwhere if the writing is there. Tim Reid and Daphne Maxwell-Reid have a studio down in VA, for years now I've imagined them launching a soap for their TV-One network that would be taped there. Look at Baltimore, another great location for a soap, such a great city for great drama and it's cheap cheap cheap... sometimes Baltimore passes for more expensive D.C. in films when D.C. is less than an hour away.

Like The Wire or Dawson's Creek, principal casting would still be done in NY/L.A., with a few more principal roles cast locally (this is usually the case when primetime shows or films shoot on location). Extras and U/5 actors would be picked from the local pool of talent. This could eventually be a problem as there won't be as many locals in "the business", there may be a lot of talent recycling. But a show could find little ways around this, less superfluous hospital or bar scenes for example.

But it does cost money to house your principals for the week and send them home on weekends. Would they even be up to it? Sounds like the sort of idea that would work best with 1. the best local theatre actors who have professional film and T.V. credits, 2. young super talented local newbies, 3. single, swingin' soap vets up for the adventure, 4. soap vets with families who were given iron clad contracts that justified a full-fledged move to the city where the soap taped. You don't have to have big names to make a show a success, but with soaps, a handful of familiar faces would help. Bottom line, such a venture would have to prove itself cheaper than the NY/L.A. alternative.

[Jonathan]

I actually think it's cheaper to shoot the shows in NY rather than in LA. I think the primary reason why Ugly Betty moved from LA to NY was because of the tax advantages they would receive shooting the show in NY.

[bandbfan]

Funny thing about B&B is that it's set in LA. And some of the "new" production model is taking advantage of it.

[Jehosefat]

New York, like Michigan, only recently enacted those tax breaks. And I believe they're already up for review.

It's not so much that it's cheaper to tape in LA (because the labor costs are pretty much the same), it's that there's so much more room. Shows like AMC and OLTL have far less studio space than their LA-based counterparts. They can only put up so many sets in one tape day, and must therefore pay union crews to take them down and put new sets up overnight (depending, of course, on the material).

[DaytimeFan]

The tax breaks in NYC were enacted last year and the money for them has already run out...

It's cheaper to film in LA because that's where the crews and the space is. No show could relocate...but a new show, in a place like Seattle, could work.

[applcin]

"Fringe" filmed its pilot in Toronto, moved to NYC and will be relocating (assuming it gets a 2nd season) to Vancouver for this reason. Other shows that film in NYC are realizing that, while staying in NYC, they can film outside the borough of Manhattan. The town I live in has had various productions, like The Sopranos, come here to shoot some scenes. I read about a current show (can't remember which) using an inn in Staten Island to pass as an inn in Massachusetts.

[BadBoy93]

GH could do an action/adventure storyline in another city.Like the PR Adventure back in the 90s

GH could do an action/adventure storyline in another city.Like the PR Adventure back in the 90s

[alphanguy74]

Well, Queer As Folk taped it's entire run in Toronto, apparently Toronto is quite the haven for cheap TV production. Other cities are used all the time for filming, the Joanne Woodward/Paul Newman movie "Mr. and Mrs. Bridge" was filmed in Kansas City, Alec Baldwin's new movie is curently being shot in St. Louis... and as far as TV series, it's quite doable, as Dukes Of Hazzard was filmed in Georgia. Sometimes filming in california doesn't work as well, even.... such as Little House On The Prairie. That show had such a large amount of outdoor scenes, and 90 percent of the time, you had them walking through the deadest, driest grass you could come up with and scenes where EVERYTHING is borwn, except a tree or two. Minnesota, where the story takes place, is land of 10,000 lakes, they get RAIN, plenty of nice green trees and grass everywhere, but in southern California, the countryside looks like someone dropped a nuclear warhead on it, it's only green about 8 weeks out of the year.