MovieChat Forums > Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) Discussion > Any Londoners confused about the geograp...

Any Londoners confused about the geographical locations?


Bridget runs across Southwark Bridge and ends up in what looks suspiciously like Clapham, possibly Hampstead, even though Darcy says he lives in Ealing - none are walkable from Southwark Bridge. Bridget's flat is in Borough Market - St Guys is 5 mins walk from her front door so when she's pregnant it makes no sense that Darcy wouldn't have called an ambulance - it would have been there in minutes - a passing stranger would have a phone! St Thomas is in Westminster - quick enough if you avoid Waterloo and go straight down Belvedere Rd in a cab - ridiculously quick in an ambulance. But SOMEHOW he walks to Chelsea Bridge going south, and they finally end up in Fitzrovia at the University College Hospital which is bloody miles away in the opposite direction. Great to see London locations being used for such great effect but bloody hell... some consistency would be nice.

It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!

reply

I know what you are doing but you can't do that. I remember some years ago when I was living in the New Orleans area I was watching a movie filmed there and it was easily recognizable that the paths characters were taking to get to various places were bogus, i.e. one would never take that path. The reason is they want to film certain features and landmarks because it fits their vision of what the scene should look like. To them it doesn't matter if the connections are realistic.

Most movies are filmed and edited this way, with no regard for continuity of the actual locations used. There is a term for it, I believe it is called "filmmaking."

Quite different if it were a documentary.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

reply

I worked for Working Title many years back. I disagree, because these guys love this city and have given it a lot of due credit over the years in their films and it has never been this obviously out of whack. Could have been down to other things such as availability of filming locations -they obviously did a stack of stuff around SE1 and given all the road closures around here in the past year perhaps they were limited to how much they could film.

It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!

reply

A great example of this is also seen in Point Break (1991). Keanu Reeves chases Patrick Swayze through the south bay area and then turns a corner and is suddenly in Downtown Los Angeles (about a 45 minute drive away). It's amusing if you're a local, but I don't fault movies for doing this at all.

reply

It might have something to do with permits for filming? I would've said Guys is the hospital to go to also. Orrr it's just to add to the story.

reply

I thought that Mark's house looked like it was in Highbury Fields, not Clapham or Hampstead.

There was also a scene near the end with Bridget and Mark which I'm sure was shot in Smithfield Market, but they come out to a different part of the city, can't remember now which one.

reply

It's in Borough Market - my bank is on the corner :) You can see Hobb's Barber next door and the sign for Borough High St in the background. I'm guessing they did a shedload of filming around Southwark in a short period of time.

It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!

reply

yes (born, bred, and buttered londoner, here!)

but then, i suppose, the majority of people watching it aren't going to be londoners, so i guess us londoners can just smile to ourselves at some of the ridiculousness.

re the baby and the hospital.... well i'm only up to the point where she's told darcy shes pregnant, so i don't know, but she could have elected to have her baby at uclh (i live in battersea, but had an op there earlier this year). if she's gone into labour, yeah, i suppose guys or even st thomas' hospital would have made a lot more sense!

uh, i dunno. it's only the movies i suppose...

reply