Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, I know. I'm just saying that when bourbon street loses its appeal SF becomes a more interesting town... for me cause it's more well rounded.
I haven't lived in either but been to both many times. I love visiting NOLA a lot more than Frisco but from my impressions, I'd probably find more to do in SF once I got settled in.
You can be entertained year-round in New Orleans just like San Francisco, but SF will have more things to do because it's metro area is 6 times larger.
The locals of New Orleans barely ever go to Bourbon Street. There are a lot better music venues, bars, and such in other parts of the city, unless you just really like the strip clubs.
This is true. I've lived in NOLA my whole life and the only times I've ever gone out on Bourbon (which is about 4 times) was when I was 16 years old.
Yeah, I know. I'm just saying that when bourbon street loses its appeal SF becomes a more interesting town... for me cause it's more well rounded.
I haven't lived in either but been to both many times. I love visiting NOLA a lot more than Frisco but from my impressions, I'd probably find more to do in SF once I got settled in.
I still learn about new places/things/events every day in NOLA after living here my whole life. I'm sure SF is the same way.
New Orleans residents drink more coffee per capita than any other metro. Suck it, Seattle!
Anyway, on the question of the film industry, my next-door neighbor is from NY originally and has lived in LA for much of his professional life, along with back home in New York. The guy claims to be a big shot in the camera and lighting field, so take this for what it's worth, but he moved here because it was easier for him to find work than it was back in LA. According to him, there's actually more strictly film (as in non-TV) production being done in Louisiana/New Orleans than there was back in L.A.
I guess that it's important to excel at something---even something as mediocre as coffee intake..
New Orleans also excels in humidity, which is not a strong selling point..
New Orleans residents drink more coffee per capita than any other metro. Suck it, Seattle!
Anyway, on the question of the film industry, my next-door neighbor is from NY originally and has lived in LA for much of his professional life, along with back home in New York. The guy claims to be a big shot in the camera and lighting field, so take this for what it's worth, but he moved here because it was easier for him to find work than it was back in LA. According to him, there's actually more strictly film (as in non-TV) production being done in Louisiana/New Orleans than there was back in L.A.
After a decade of acting, I can say with 100% certainty that your neighbor is either, clueless or simply trying to build the scene in Louisiana to be bigger than it is in regards to "more film" production being done. I don't doubt it's easier for him to find work, because the big 3 are so established, most actors move to those cities, just like me, because thats where the best go, thats where the most work is. However, it's fiercely competitive and much easier to get a job in one of the secondary cities. NOL has ramped up and it's a good location due to changes that have been made to draw more big time film makers to the location, but it's still not even in the top 5 yet or close as this guy sounds like he's trying to paint it. LA is still #1, then New York, then Chicago. Albuquerque New Mexico is probably somewhere in there between 4-6 thanks to all the tax incentives they offer the industry, proxmity to LA makes it cheaper to fly all the Hollywood talent out to the spot. And that's what they do when outside the big 3. Local talent only gets hired for smaller roles. Charlotte, NC and Vancouver have seen an increase as well as Seattle. FWIW, before I hung it up 9 months ago, I was seeing more film casting notices for Shreveport than NOL.
After a decade of acting, I can say with 100% certainty that your neighbor is either, clueless or simply trying to build the scene in Louisiana to be bigger than it is in regards to "more film" production being done. I don't doubt it's easier for him to find work, because the big 3 are so established, most actors move to those cities, just like me, because thats where the best go, thats where the most work is. However, it's fiercely competitive and much easier to get a job in one of the secondary cities. NOL has ramped up and it's a good location due to changes that have been made to draw more big time film makers to the location, but it's still not even in the top 5 yet or close as this guy sounds like he's trying to paint it. LA is still #1, then New York, then Chicago. Albuquerque New Mexico is probably somewhere in there between 4-6 thanks to all the tax incentives they offer the industry, proxmity to LA makes it cheaper to fly all the Hollywood talent out to the spot. And that's what they do when outside the big 3. Local talent only gets hired for smaller roles. Charlotte, NC and Vancouver have seen an increase as well as Seattle. FWIW, before I hung it up 9 months ago, I was seeing more film casting notices for Shreveport than NOL.
Louisiana is #3 behind NY in film production. That production is split between Shreveport, Baton Rouge, and New Orleans. The Baton Rouge/NOLA region is assuredly in the top 5, and surely #3 after NYC.
Louisiana is #3 behind NY in film production. That production is split between Shreveport, Baton Rouge, and New Orleans. The Baton Rouge/NOLA region is assuredly in the top 5, and surely #3 after NYC.
Where are your stats coming from? LA and NY are way above everyone else and there are several areas in the country (as well as Vancouver and Toronto in Canada) that are picking up a bit--and not just Louisiana/NOLA. A lot of areas have offered tax breaks.
I am a film maker and I can say with complete confidence that New Orleans' film production is very close to NY and LA. The production value in New Orleans is higher then Chicago. LA and NY are the most expensive places to film and the most congested with film makers, writers, actors, ext. Most films that take place in LA and NY are not even shot there. You may see LA and NY all over television and on the big screen but they weren't even on location. Most of what takes place in NY and LA are shot somewhere in Cali outside of LA. Even when you see Time Square in the background it's only green screen.
When I was in film school all the students that weren't going to NOLA were convinced by our teachers to move to NOLA. The film industry is becoming decentralized. The big 3 are more like the slightly bigger 3. Vancouver, Miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Austin, and Wilmington's production value is growing. The business aspect of the film industry is mostly in NY and the studios are mostly in LA but when shooting on location it's too expensive to shoot within the city limits of LA and NY. With the advancement of CGI and computer effects I can shoot something in my apartment in Florida, hope on my mac and make you think I was filming in the heart of Manhattan.
Southern California
(Big Drop off)
New York/New Jersey
NOLA
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
