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.
Why just bring up Ferris Bueller's Day Off if you're going to bring up rather old movies, why not bring up Home Alone, The Breakfast Club (close enough right?), The Untouchables, The Fugitive, etc.
Your lack of knowledge is overwhelming,
I did bring up those movies - see further up. I was asking YOU why YOU didn't bring up those movies. I'm going to block you now so I don't have to read you.
I did bring up those movies - see further up. I was asking YOU why YOU didn't bring up those movies. I'm going to block you now so I don't have to read you.
I said, movies that were recently filmed. No one cares.
Why just bring up Ferris Bueller's Day Off if you're going to bring up rather old movies, why not bring up Home Alone, The Breakfast Club (close enough right?), The Untouchables, The Fugitive, etc.
Your lack of knowledge is overwhelming,
first off, Christopher Nolan is not directing any more Batman movies,
second, The latest Batman movie (Batman vs. Superman, directed by Zack Snyder) is being filmed in Chicago.
third, The Dark Knight was primarily filmed in Chicago. The Dark Knight Rises was not primarily filmed in New York...
Fourth, go back to school, because your reading-comprehension needs a little fixin'.
Fifth, please watch more movies...
Every recent Batman movie has been based on the below storyline.
"In 1971, writer Dennis O'Neil and artist Neal Adams came aboard the title and re-infused it with the darker tones of the 1940s.[20] O'Neil and Adams introduced a new villain named Ra's al Ghul,[21][22] and would also revitalize the Joker by bringing him back to his roots as a homicidal maniac who murders people on a whim.[23][24] Comics historian Les Daniels observed that "O'Neil's interpretation of Batman as a vengeful obsessive-compulsive, which he modestly describes as a return to the roots, was actually an act of creative imagination that has influenced every subsequent version of the Dark Knight."[27] Len Wein became the writer of the series with issue #307 (January 1979) and in his first issue, created Wayne Foundation executive Lucius Fox,[31] later portrayed by Morgan Freeman in the movies Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises."
"Batman artist Neal Adams sees the 1940s mobster history of Chicago as the basis for Gotham"
"Christopher Nolan has stated that Chicago is the basis of his portrayal of Gotham, and the majority of both Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008) were filmed there."
You keep bringing this thread off-topic. Anyway, the pop-culture of Chicago exceeds San Francisco greatly.
Yes, all those movie in black are CHICAGO movies. Original, classic, timeless, actually are ABOUT life in Chicago enjoyed by all generations. And . . less than 30 years old.
Yet here you are making a big deal about REMAKES of movies (the Dark Knight) that were merely FILMED in Chicago by an artist that uses "1940 mobster history of Chicago" as the basis for gotham
You are writing those other movies off as "old" yet you are putting stock in an ancient, mythical "mobster" side of Chicago for a movie that was merely filmed in Chicago. Thats about as relevant to the real Chicago as much as gun slinging castle rustling cowboys are to movies about modern day Texas.
You put any stock in a bygone era of Chicago that only exists in peoples' heads (the mobster) while you wrote San Francisco's lead in the counter cultural movements of the 60s.
If you want to talk up to do date, then you should dismiss any movie filmed in Chicago, because a director or writer was inspired by Chicagos mob history. You do realize Al Capone was from New York right?
How do movies being set in a city make it more cosmopolitan? I'm confused as to how we got this deep into a rabbit hole here. By that logic, LA is the cosmopolitan city in the world and nobody would even come close. As a native Angeleno, even I can't say that LA is more cosmopolitan than NYC, London, or Paris.
I said it before and I'll say it again, as have others. SF is more international. Chicago is more cosmopolitan. SF has immense diversity of Asian cultures, people, and languages. But, from what I've noticed, Chicago has a more varied diversity. There are Irish, Italian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Puerto Rican, and Greek populations I can think of off the top of my head. A quick google search and apparently there is Chinatown, Little Vietnam, Little India, and Czech, German, Swedish neighborhoods. In SF, off the top of my head, there's Little Russia, 2 Chinatowns, Japantown, Little Italy, Little Saigon (in the TL), and the Mission. Am I missing any others? I guess you can throw in Daly City as Little(?) Manila? I did a google search and couldn't find much more. Additionally, Chicago has done a lot for the black community, even if the South Side is the Baghdad of America today. And someone was mentioning the music scene. No matter your stance on how good electronic dance music is, there's no denying it's worldwide popularity right now. Chicago is the birthplace of house music, the original genre that led to all the current subgenres of house and electronic music today.
Also, I can't comment on a lot of the ethnic villages in Chicago, but I can on SF's. Chinatown is a giant tourist trap that sells stupid little knick knack things with subpar Chinese food. The true Chinatown is the Inner Richmond. That's where the good Chinese food is. And Japantown is just a few restaurants and stores of Japanese culture with no real Japanese people living there. Little Italy is a collection of Italian restaurants being encroached upon by Chinatown full of tourists with not many Italian residents. Little Saigon is a few Vietnamese restaurants surrounded by crackheads and heroin junkies. The Mission is turning into hipsterville almost entirely throughout now. For real ethnic neighborhoods, you gotta leave the city of SF. The exception would be Little Russia. There really are tons of Russian families and Russian markets and cafes in the Richmond.
Being a little biased, but I also love the fact that Chicago has a Koreatown. I haven't had the pleasure of visiting it yet, but coming from LA, the land of KBBQ and the largest Korean population outside of Korea, the Korean culture is my favorite Asian culture and KBBQ is one of my favorite cuisines.
Actually, I think movies being set somewhere DOES mean a lot to someone. Its something that gives a city its identity to many who would otherwise not know about it.
But my reply is more about the foreign born population and the ethnic communities.
Chicago european ethnic heritage has most definitely been reduced to tourist traps that are mostly restaurants, churches and other offices of heritage organizations. There is little immigration from Europe nowadays to sustain these ethnic enclaves. After a couple generations, immigrants assimilate and disperse, yet still may maintain their ties to their heritage and may go to the neighborhoods maybe for festivals every now and then.
Chicagos Asian enclaves are small relative to California cities.
Chicagos Black community has done a lot for Chicago, not the other way around. Besides, just about city in the eastern half of the country has a Black heritage that is just as rich as Chicago. (Philly, Detroit, NYC, Memphis, NOLA, Atlanta, STL)
Actually, I think movies being set somewhere DOES mean a lot to someone. Its something that gives a city its identity to many who would otherwise not know about it.
But my reply is more about the foreign born population and the ethnic communities.
Chicago european ethnic heritage has most definitely been reduced to tourist traps that are mostly restaurants, churches and other offices of heritage organizations. There is little immigration from Europe nowadays to sustain these ethnic enclaves. After a couple generations, immigrants assimilate and disperse, yet still may maintain their ties to their heritage and may go to the neighborhoods maybe for festivals every now and then.
Chicagos Asian enclaves are small relative to California cities.
Chicagos Black community has done a lot for Chicago, not the other way around. Besides, just about city in the eastern half of the country has a Black heritage that is just as rich as Chicago. (Philly, Detroit, NYC, Memphis, NOLA, Atlanta, STL)
But let's be honest, LA is one of the most cosmopolitan places on earth, but not THE most! That would be either NYC or London. Lots of movies set there too, but not nearly as many as LA.
I had to go to Harwood Heights last time in Chicago and was pleasantly surprised to see a thriving Polish population. As a 3rd generation Polish Jew, I found that awesome! But like I said, never visited the other ethnic neighborhoods. Andersonville still has some Swedish influence. Next time I'm there I really wanna visit the Korean neighborhood. But I feel like Chicago has more European ethnic neighborhoods and less Asian. But SF has almost entirely Asian and nothing European. That's where the diversity part would win for me. Chicago's Asian enclaves may be smaller than those in CA, but they still have them. California doesn't have the European enclaves as much. Though I'd say LA becomes more international than SF in that way. We have Persian, Armenian, Russian, British and maybe other as "European", but also an insane amount of Asian enclaves. LA is really the only city on the West Coast that has European neighborhoods that I can think of.
^^^"British"? Also, SF the city doesn't have a Persian community in its tiny city limits, but has a large (I think one of the largest) in the East Bay. Also, nobody except LA really, has an Armenian community. It's close to Russia, though, and SF has a huge Russian community. SF also has a Croat community in Portrero Hill (also known as "SLovenian Hill") and a French Quarter near downtown (and it's actually French - most businesses from hotels to restaurants to the historic shrine to small businesses are French).
I looked this up and actually the only "British" (from Cornwall) and a "Welsh" community (1 of 4-5) in the US is in the Bay Area, a relic from the Gold Rush that stands today. Grass Valley, CA.
So Chicago definitely has a lock on the "larger" European communities, and is focused on more of the Eastern European and Northern European stuff, however, despite the Italian population there, there is no real Little Italy.
SF has an Italian section (mainly business/tourist oriented at this point than an Italian residential area)
a French section (mainly business oriented, and it is only a small area but noticeably French)
a very large Russian community
a large Croat community
And a pretty solid lock on Asian communities (less Korea)
A large Hispanic area (mainly Mexican)
And outside of the city limits has various Middle Eastern communities, a Persian community (one of the largest), apparently a British and Welsh community, African communities, and more Asian/Hispanic communities.
I'd say the two cities and the two metros are pretty comparable from this standpoint.
You'll find more backpackers and international tourists of all types in SF, though. Lots of Europeans come through both cities, more Asians come through SF.
In terms of cosmopolitan, Chicago has a certain "feel" that SF doesn't have and vice versa. From a nightlife standpoint, even though the two cities are nothing alike, I get more similar "LA" vibes in Chicago and more similar "NYC" vibes in SF. I'd say they are comparable, but different.
Yes. Santa Monica has a high population of British expats. I don't mean exact "ethnic neighborhoods" in that sense. There's no recognition, just a high population. I still though see Chicago as being more diversified in its nationalities/cultures. Not so much on the skin color diversity, but languages and places of birth, yes. In SF, a majority of white people are just "white" with the few exceptions of the Russians and apparently French and Croat as you said which I wasn't aware of. The Asians are diversified more so in SF than Chicago, though. But in Chicago, the "whites" are diversified ethnically from what I saw. There's Jewish, Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Swedish, Irish, etc. communities as well as a few diverse Asian communities. In California as a whole, the vast majority of Latinos are Mexican. Chicago has an established Puerto Rican population in addition to the Mexican population.
One thing about living in SF that surprised me was the lack of a true Jewish neighborhood. In LA, pretty much the whole city is a Jewish neighborhood lol. Santa Monica, Marina del Rey, Brentwood, Westwood, Beverly Hills, Mid-Wilshire, Sherman Oaks, Encino, and plenty more. Chicago's north side pretty much from the near north side up to the north burbs could be considered a giant Jewish neighborhood. NYC needs no explanation.
In the end, it's really just picking favorites between the two. Both have international and cosmopolitan flair to them and two of the most well-known and visited cities in the world. However, IMO, Chicago just seems more cosmopolitan. The later bar and restaurant scene helps that a lot. A lot of SF restaurants close early and nearly every bar/club closes at 2am. Chicago has more late night food options and a later last call more similar to European cities.
Yet here you are making a big deal about REMAKES of movies (the Dark Knight) that were merely FILMED in Chicago by an artist that uses "1940 mobster history of Chicago" as the basis for gotham
You are writing those other movies off as "old" yet you are putting stock in an ancient, mythical "mobster" side of Chicago for a movie that was merely filmed in Chicago. Thats about as relevant to the real Chicago .
You put any stock in a bygone era of Chicago that only exists in peoples' heads (the mobster) while you wrote San Francisco's lead in the counter cultural movements of the 60s.
If you want to talk up to do date, then you should dismiss any movie filmed in Chicago, because a director or writer was inspired by Chicagos mob history. You do realize Al Capone was from New York right?
This is getting a little tiring, and it's very apparent that you choose to read whatever you want without actually reading the entire post. I'm going to break it down one last time for ya so you don't have to "" so much. Pay attention like a good boy.
1) The Dark Knight was NOT a remake. The reason I quoted "1940 mobster history of Chicago", was to prove to someone that New York is not currently (Christopher Nolan's movies) the basis of Gotham. Let's get that straight before you keep going off topic into these random discussions.
2) A movie does not have to entirely have to be about life in that city for that city to become popular. You see, people have ears and can hear about cities through the actors referencing them or being in them at that time in the movie. I really hope you can understand that. It contributes to the popular-culture of that city. An increase of popular-culture, by definition, attributes to a cities cosmopolitan-level. If you take Cosmopolitan by any definition (urban-scape, popularity, fashion, diversity, etc) Chicago will most likely Win. SF is very diverse though. Are you with me still?? Because this next one is important.
3) I said movies filmed/being filmed within 10 years for the 5th or 6th time, not 20, not 30, 10
4) I do realize Al Capone was born in Brooklyn, and I want YOU and your inflated ego to realize that even though someone is born in a different place, doesn't make them any less of an influence on that city. The Chicago Outfit and the Irish Mob weren't the result of/only Al Capone, he was a front-man. Do some research beyond a Google search.
Notorious groups that negatively contributed to Chicago's pop culture:
The Chicago Outfit
Irish Mafia
Outlaws Motorcycle Club
The Latin Kings
and many more.
There are way too many people on this board just assuming factual things and pulling stuff out of their as**s. Put the effort in to actually read what people are saying before you waste your time typing pointless nonsense.
^^^"British"? Also, SF the city doesn't have a Persian community in its tiny city limits, but has a large (I think one of the largest) in the East Bay. Also, nobody except LA really, has an Armenian community. It's close to Russia, though, and SF has a huge Russian community. SF also has a Croat community in Portrero Hill (also known as "SLovenian Hill") and a French Quarter near downtown (and it's actually French - most businesses from hotels to restaurants to the historic shrine to small businesses are French).
I looked this up and actually the only "British" (from Cornwall) and a "Welsh" community (1 of 4-5) in the US is in the Bay Area, a relic from the Gold Rush that stands today. Grass Valley, CA.
And outside of the city limits has various Middle Eastern communities, a Persian community (one of the largest), apparently a British and Welsh community, African communities, and more Asian/Hispanic communities.
Grass Valley isn't the Bay Area at all and is about 150 miles from SF.
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.
Thats about as relevant to the real Chicago as much as gun slinging castle rustling cowboys are to movies about modern day Texas. 
