> Had somebody been able to foresee the popularity and success of ‘Star Wars,’ it would have been crazy not to save the grove where Endor was made and use it as a tourist venue,”
This was the third movie. Star Wars was already extremely popular by the time this as filmed.
Hey that's nasty, it's nice road-trip material, redwoods, coast, historical towns; Mendocino to the south, and Oregon to the north. Some people live there by choice.
You know you've been in SV too long when your first association for 'sequoia' is 'VC' or 'portfolio' not 'tree' or 'forest'.
Wait, what? People travel to see things all the time. The original Star Wars sets in Tunisia, hobbiton in New Zealand, the evil dead house in Tennessee, or even Petra because of Indiana Jones. I guarantee you it would be a tourist attraction today if it still existed.
Also, Humboldt is not really that far from anywhere and is a lovely journey through some incredible forests.
But they only had two films to base it on; they would have had to make that decision a few months after the RotJ scene filming ended but before it released.
And presumably since the forest was privately-owned, somebody would have had to pay $$$ to acquire it then make it a park (and that somebody would have to be the state of CA, not Del Norte + Humboldt Counties).
In those counties the state already had RNSP (Redwood National and State Parks), a complex of one national park and three California state parks (139,000 acres; 560 km2). [0]
This makes me curious about the economics of when are the rare occasions it makes economic sense to use public money to buy and preserve popular movie locations on private property/land (as opposed to paying a premium for sentimental or tourist value). For example the famous 'Friends' apartment exterior in NYC is still private property. 'Shawshank Redemption' on its initial release bombed at the box office.
Scranton, PA has a self-guided tourist trail [1] for the US version of 'The Office'. Only rare places like Punxsutawney, PA [2][3] (the town 'Groundhog Day' is set in, although the film was entirely shot in Woodstock IL [4]) make $. For the hardcore tourists there's Tataouine, Tunisia.
basil-rash|1 year ago
smcin|1 year ago
You know you've been in SV too long when your first association for 'sequoia' is 'VC' or 'portfolio' not 'tree' or 'forest'.
UncleEntity|1 year ago
Takes longer to fly to Las Vegas if you count all the Security Theater and whatnot.
yareal|1 year ago
Also, Humboldt is not really that far from anywhere and is a lovely journey through some incredible forests.
thatfrenchguy|1 year ago
smcin|1 year ago
In those counties the state already had RNSP (Redwood National and State Parks), a complex of one national park and three California state parks (139,000 acres; 560 km2). [0]
This makes me curious about the economics of when are the rare occasions it makes economic sense to use public money to buy and preserve popular movie locations on private property/land (as opposed to paying a premium for sentimental or tourist value). For example the famous 'Friends' apartment exterior in NYC is still private property. 'Shawshank Redemption' on its initial release bombed at the box office. Scranton, PA has a self-guided tourist trail [1] for the US version of 'The Office'. Only rare places like Punxsutawney, PA [2][3] (the town 'Groundhog Day' is set in, although the film was entirely shot in Woodstock IL [4]) make $. For the hardcore tourists there's Tataouine, Tunisia.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwood_National_and_State_Par...
[1]: https://www.visitnepa.org/things-to-do/self-guided-tours/the...
[2]: "Groundhog Day: Punxsutawney’s Million Dollar Holiday" https://nation.time.com/2014/02/01/groundhog-day-punxsutawne...
[3]: Punxsutawney Phil’s town misses Groundhog Day boost (2021) https://apnews.com/general-news-d4a183fdd599322fb9b23a5cb214...
[4]: "Groundhog Days in Woodstock, IL" https://woodstockgroundhog.org/
bbarn|1 year ago
kristjansson|1 year ago