Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

THE BIG BANG THEORY rooftop

2,582 views
Skip to first unread message

anim8rFSK

unread,
May 11, 2012, 1:32:54 PM5/11/12
to
Spoilers for last nights episode


So we got a good look at the rooftop; Canadian screen caps here

http://gallery.me.com/anim8rfsk/100135

Note that as we pull back

4 satellite dishes

3 parents (including Howard's mother!)

2 big A/C units

2 small A/C units

And a couple other regular A/C units on the roof itself.

It looks like the elevator is on the left, with the stairwell door in
that structure on the left. Making Sheldon & Leonard's windows face
north (the structure between them and the street is lower than their
roof) and Penny's place on the south side, which means there's easily
room for 4 apartments on a floor - maybe 6.

I have no idea how they divide up the A/C, much less the satellite.

--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?

Barry Margolin

unread,
May 11, 2012, 4:01:50 PM5/11/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-0F2AB...@news.easynews.com>,
Since the whole point of this was to get into Google Earth, I was
surprised that the producers didn't actually arrange for this in real
life. I tried looking up "howard and bernadette wedding" at Google
Maps, but it didn't find it.

Also, I found a wiki page with their apartment address, and plugged that
into Google Maps. The satellite view looks nothing like this.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

Remysun

unread,
May 11, 2012, 5:58:05 PM5/11/12
to
On May 11, 4:01 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Since the whole point of this was to get into Google Earth, I was
> surprised that the producers didn't actually arrange for this in real
> life.  I tried looking up "howard and bernadette wedding" at Google
> Maps, but it didn't find it.

Whenever a show or movie does this, they usually have a timely moment
of clouds blur the zoom. Given the private residences involved, I
don't think they actually want to encourage the gawking that would
occur at a real location.

anim8rFSK

unread,
May 11, 2012, 7:07:11 PM5/11/12
to
In article <barmar-6B4B27....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <anim8rfsk-0F2AB...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Spoilers for last nights episode
> >
> >
> > So we got a good look at the rooftop; Canadian screen caps here
> >
> > http://gallery.me.com/anim8rfsk/100135
> >
> > Note that as we pull back
> >
> > 4 satellite dishes
> >
> > 3 parents (including Howard's mother!)
> >
> > 2 big A/C units
> >
> > 2 small A/C units
> >
> > And a couple other regular A/C units on the roof itself.
> >
> > It looks like the elevator is on the left, with the stairwell door in
> > that structure on the left. Making Sheldon & Leonard's windows face
> > north (the structure between them and the street is lower than their
> > roof) and Penny's place on the south side, which means there's easily
> > room for 4 apartments on a floor - maybe 6.
> >
> > I have no idea how they divide up the A/C, much less the satellite.
>
> Since the whole point of this was to get into Google Earth, I was
> surprised that the producers didn't actually arrange for this in real
> life. I tried looking up "howard and bernadette wedding" at Google
> Maps, but it didn't find it.

Yeah. Also, could we DO more product placement for Pringles?
>
> Also, I found a wiki page with their apartment address, and plugged that
> into Google Maps. The satellite view looks nothing like this.

Yeah, I did that last time the subject came up; nada. There is a church
across the street though that might match what you see outside Leonard's
apartment window.

Joe

unread,
May 11, 2012, 10:37:04 PM5/11/12
to
Thanks for the screen sequences. I've managed to narrow the are to
215-227 S. Madison ave, pasadena, ca. - i based it on the fact that
the houses adjacent are identical. It's been altered, but i had to
know any way.

BTR1701

unread,
May 12, 2012, 11:42:14 AM5/12/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-0F2AB...@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> Spoilers for last nights episode
>
>
> So we got a good look at the rooftop; Canadian screen caps here
>
> http://gallery.me.com/anim8rfsk/100135
>
> Note that as we pull back
>
> 4 satellite dishes
>
> 3 parents (including Howard's mother!)

Where was she? She was on the roof, but when they did the big zoom out,
there was no immensely fat woman to be seen.

Omar Kammoun

unread,
May 12, 2012, 11:57:45 AM5/12/12
to
On May 12, 4:42 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <anim8rfsk-0F2ABD.10325411052...@news.easynews.com>,
>
>  anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Spoilers for last nights episode
>
> > So we got a good look at the rooftop; Canadian screen caps here
>
> >http://gallery.me.com/anim8rfsk/100135
>
> > Note that as we pull back
>
> > 4 satellite dishes
>
> > 3 parents (including Howard's mother!)
>
> Where was she? She was on the roof, but when they did the big zoom out,
> there was no immensely fat woman to be seen.

this building
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=227+North+Madison+Avenue,+Pasadena,+CA,+United+States&hl=en&ll=34.142049,-118.138367&spn=0.000526,0.00071&sll=34.142152,118.138686&sspn=0.378489,0.727158&oq=227+S+madison+avenue,+pasade&t=h&hnear=227+N+Madison+Ave,+Pasadena,+California+91101&z=21&layer=c&cbll=34.14214,-118.138369&panoid=Xx0a3Bwz7r7cnbIkz5eYTA&cbp=12,272.5,,0,-1.2
but, there are no weeding.

MJV

unread,
May 12, 2012, 4:50:50 PM5/12/12
to
34° 8' 31.2" N 118° 8' 20" W

MJV

unread,
May 12, 2012, 4:58:34 PM5/12/12
to

MJV

unread,
May 12, 2012, 5:00:06 PM5/12/12
to

MJV

unread,
May 12, 2012, 4:59:37 PM5/12/12
to

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
May 12, 2012, 9:20:46 PM5/12/12
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>Spoilers for last nights episode

>>So we got a good look at the rooftop; Canadian screen caps here

>>http://gallery.me.com/anim8rfsk/100135

>>Note that as we pull back

>>4 satellite dishes

>>3 parents (including Howard's mother!)

>Where was she? She was on the roof, but when they did the big zoom out,
>there was no immensely fat woman to be seen.

She can't be seen on tv.

Remysun

unread,
May 12, 2012, 11:05:49 PM5/12/12
to
On May 12, 11:42 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:

> Where was she? She was on the roof, but when they did the big zoom out,
> there was no immensely fat woman to be seen.

She's the red on the lower right, sitting in a chair.

anim8rFSK

unread,
May 13, 2012, 2:09:34 AM5/13/12
to
In article <atropos-4DBC61...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
Sure she is. She's seated at the lower right; Bernadette's parents are
at the bottom center.

https://www.me.com/ro/anim8rfsk/Galleries/100135/The.Big.Bang.Theory.roof
_0003/web.jpg?ver=13367538310001

suzeeq

unread,
May 13, 2012, 9:36:04 AM5/13/12
to
Yep, she's the large red blob in a veil.

Michael Black

unread,
May 13, 2012, 11:12:04 AM5/13/12
to
I liked Howard's line, "only Bernadette can yell at me now".

Michael

Genestro

unread,
May 13, 2012, 11:14:51 AM5/13/12
to
On 13/05/2012 2:09 AM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> https://www.me.com/ro/anim8rfsk/Galleries/100135/The.Big.Bang.Theory.roof
> _0003/web.jpg?ver=13367538310001

The image
"https://www.me.com/ro/anim8rfsk/Galleries/100135/The.Big.Bang.Theory.roof_0003/web.jpg?ver=13367538310001"
cannot be displayed because it contains errors.

How about a link to a file that is actually in JPEG format?

suzeeq

unread,
May 13, 2012, 11:26:47 AM5/13/12
to
Yeah, and she does it as well as mom...

suzeeq

unread,
May 13, 2012, 11:27:39 AM5/13/12
to
Click on the first link - http://gallery.me.com/anim8rfsk/100135 and
look at the pictures in about the third row....

suzeeq

unread,
May 13, 2012, 11:42:49 AM5/13/12
to
Oh it's the 3rd picture in the first row -
http://gallery.me.com/anim8rfsk#100135/The.Big.Bang.Theory.roof_0003&bgcolor=black

BTR1701

unread,
May 13, 2012, 12:23:12 PM5/13/12
to
In article <jookpn$63c$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:
I thought that was a piece of equipment the first time I saw it.

anim8rFSK

unread,
May 14, 2012, 12:39:28 AM5/14/12
to
In article <atropos-A6602D...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
Heh. No, it's a fat woman, dressed to match the bridesmaids.

What doesn't make sense is that she won't come closer because she
doesn't want to fall off the roof, but she's closer to the edge than the
wedding party is.

Remysun

unread,
May 14, 2012, 12:52:11 AM5/14/12
to
On May 13, 12:23 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:

> I thought that was a piece of equipment the first time I saw it.

Howard would agree with you.

suzeeq

unread,
May 14, 2012, 8:58:12 AM5/14/12
to
When did anything about Howard's mother make sense...?

Michael Black

unread,
May 14, 2012, 10:05:52 AM5/14/12
to
On Sun, 13 May 2012, anim8rFSK wrote:


>> I thought that was a piece of equipment the first time I saw it.
>
> Heh. No, it's a fat woman, dressed to match the bridesmaids.
>
> What doesn't make sense is that she won't come closer because she
> doesn't want to fall off the roof, but she's closer to the edge than the
> wedding party is.
>
Then they'd have to show her, which would probably ruin the point of her
character.

But seriously, she probably suffers from something where she feels like
she'll fall if she's not close enough to a wall. It doesnt' ahve to make
sense, many phobias don't.

Michael

Barry Margolin

unread,
May 14, 2012, 8:20:08 PM5/14/12
to
In article
<cbab9eac-5065-4a72...@e18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
But according to http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/The_Building their
address is 2311 N. Los Robles Avenue.

BTR1701

unread,
May 14, 2012, 8:49:50 PM5/14/12
to
Why would they care? It's not like they're ever going to be actually at
that location, so any potential gawkers won't interfere with anything
they're doing.

BTR1701

unread,
May 14, 2012, 9:15:52 PM5/14/12
to
And Dunder-Mifflin is supposed to be in Scranton, Pennsylvania, but it's
really on Saticoy Street in Van Nuys, CA.

Remysun

unread,
May 15, 2012, 12:29:02 AM5/15/12
to
On May 14, 8:49 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:

> Why would they care? It's not like they're ever going to be actually at
> that location, so any potential gawkers won't interfere with anything
> they're doing.

Whoever lives there would care, and whoever owns the property would
should a tourist get injured while there.

anim8rFSK

unread,
May 15, 2012, 1:24:59 AM5/15/12
to
In article
<1851955963358734559....@news.giganews.com>,
The clouds are a technical cheat anyway, to hide the transition between
different elements.

anim8rFSK

unread,
May 15, 2012, 1:26:53 AM5/15/12
to
In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.12...@darkstar.example.net>,
Agreed; I just think they could have written the verbal exchange smarter.

BTR1701

unread,
May 15, 2012, 2:39:44 AM5/15/12
to
In article
<5d1da44b-d1b2-4ada...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Again, why would the *studio* care about any of that?

Remysun

unread,
May 15, 2012, 5:00:07 AM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 2:39 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:

> Again, why would the *studio* care about any of that?

Liability.

Michael Black

unread,
May 15, 2012, 9:40:33 AM5/15/12
to
For the same reason they use 555-xxxx phone numbers, so nobody actually
phones real numbers and ends up bothering those real people.

Michael

BTR1701

unread,
May 15, 2012, 11:44:42 AM5/15/12
to
In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.12...@darkstar.example.net>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

Not really the same thing. They can incur civil liability for giving out
someone's actual phone number. There's no similar proprietary interest
in a city block.

BTR1701

unread,
May 15, 2012, 11:49:21 AM5/15/12
to
In article
<5ca7362e-89bd-4360...@e3g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
And what would that be? There certainly isn't any case law or statute
that imposes liability on someone for making a physical location famous.
If there were then just about all location shoots would be either
legally forbidden or the production would be required to get the consent
of all owners of all property that will appear on camera, even
incidentally.

If you have some legal precedent that requires something like that, let
me know, because 90210 shoots in my neighborhood just about every other
week. My house has appeared in the background on the show several times.
If I'm missing out on cashing in, I need to know.

anim8rFSK

unread,
May 15, 2012, 2:29:18 PM5/15/12
to
In article <barmar-39A145....@news.eternal-september.org>,
You know, I'm not 100% sure that's right.

First, I only recall it being said by Sheldon, who is wrong more often
than not.

Second, I'm not sure if he's ever actually said that as their address,
or merely the name of the landlord's company.

Remysun

unread,
May 15, 2012, 7:19:27 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 11:49 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:

> And what would that be? There certainly isn't any case law or statute
> that imposes liability on someone for making a physical location famous.
> If there were then just about all location shoots would be either
> legally forbidden or the production would be required to get the consent
> of all owners of all property that will appear on camera, even
> incidentally.

IIRC, they're required to get a legal release from the property owner
they're standing on and film permits from the city.

> If you have some legal precedent that requires something like that, let
> me know, because 90210 shoots in my neighborhood just about every other
> week. My house has appeared in the background on the show several times.
> If I'm missing out on cashing in, I need to know.

I really thought you've been trolling me until you brought this up.
You could have raised objections at the film permit approval meeting.
At this point, maybe a gardener who likes his moon to meet the sun or
some other distraction could force some renegotiations.

BTR1701

unread,
May 15, 2012, 9:55:49 PM5/15/12
to
Remysun <remys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 11:49 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> And what would that be? There certainly isn't any case law or statute
>> that imposes liability on someone for making a physical location famous.
>> If there were then just about all location shoots would be either
>> legally forbidden or the production would be required to get the consent
>> of all owners of all property that will appear on camera, even
>> incidentally.
>
> IIRC, they're required to get a legal release from the property owner
> they're standing on and film permits from the city.

Obviously. But the claim was that just showing a location on TV might make
it famous and result in liability for the studio. If that were true, it
would logically require releases not just from the property on which the
production is physically located, but all adjacent properties within view
of the camera as well. Since that's both ridiculous and not even a
consideration for working production crews, obviously showing a
neighborhood on TV doesn't actually result in legal liability after all.

>> If you have some legal precedent that requires something like that, let
>> me know, because 90210 shoots in my neighborhood just about every other
>> week. My house has appeared in the background on the show several times.
>> If I'm missing out on cashing in, I need to know.
>
> I really thought you've been trolling me until you brought this up.
> You could have raised objections at the film permit approval meeting.

Based on what? It's not illegal for them to show my house on TV without
permission, so whatever objections I raised could have easily been ignored
without consequence.

Captain Infinity

unread,
May 15, 2012, 10:28:45 PM5/15/12
to
Once Upon A Time,
anim8rFSK wrote:

>> But seriously, she probably suffers from something where she feels like
>> she'll fall if she's not close enough to a wall. It doesnt' ahve to make
>> sense, many phobias don't.
>
>Agreed; I just think they could have written the verbal exchange smarter.

I think you mean "could have written the verbal exchange more smartlier".


**
Captain Infinity
..."Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle

Remysun

unread,
May 15, 2012, 10:42:38 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 9:55 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:

> > You could have raised objections at the film permit approval meeting.
>
> Based on what? It's not illegal for them to show my house on TV without
> permission, so whatever objections I raised could have easily been ignored
> without consequence.

Not necessarily. The film production is a disruption to the
neighborhood. Streets may have to be blocked off. Crews may be walking
on your easement. Parking will be a bitch. It's not unheard of for
disgruntled neighbors to start blasting stereos and car alarms. If the
residence where they shoot is owned by someone who has several
adjacent properties on the street like a real life game of Monopoly,
it explains why the location was chosen.

If you really want to fuck with them, try a subtle way that makes a
swastika appear from the angle that they view your house.

BTR1701

unread,
May 15, 2012, 11:26:40 PM5/15/12
to
I don't want to fuck with them. I actually enjoy when they come around.
They let all of us in the neighborhood eat for free at craft services.
Plus, you know, lots of hot starlets are wandering around loose.

I was just commenting that if they really did have to secure releases from
every property owner on the block, then there might be some $$$ to be made.

anim8rFSK

unread,
May 16, 2012, 12:47:08 AM5/16/12
to
In article <pt36r716sdpfemk1j...@4ax.com>,
I wrote exactly what I meant to write; I wondered if anybody would call
me on it. :)

Remysun

unread,
May 16, 2012, 1:27:26 AM5/16/12
to
On May 15, 11:26 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:

> I don't want to fuck with them. I actually enjoy when they come around.
> They let all of us in the neighborhood eat for free at craft services.
> Plus, you know, lots of hot starlets are wandering around loose.

Which craft services? Sometimes there are two: one for extras, and one
for cast and crew. If you're eating with the stars, that's really
something.

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
May 16, 2012, 3:52:15 AM5/16/12
to
I dunno. They might sneak peanuts in or something.

Remysun

unread,
May 16, 2012, 9:43:08 AM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 3:52 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> >Which craft services? Sometimes there are two: one for extras, and one
> >for cast and crew. If you're eating with the stars, that's really
> >something.

> I dunno. They might sneak peanuts in or something.

That's East Coast. Out West, I think it's penis.

BTR1701

unread,
May 16, 2012, 10:27:37 AM5/16/12
to
In article
<c0c1178b-bc92-492b...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
Well, I talked to the girls who play Adriana and Annie on one occasion
and the one who plays the rich bitch on another, so it seems to be the
cast kitchen. On the other hand, there was only one setup for food as
far as I could tell, seemed like everyone was going to the same place--
cast, crew, etc. Excellent food, too, for truck fare.

Remysun

unread,
May 16, 2012, 11:57:15 PM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 10:27 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:

> Well, I talked to the girls who play Adriana and Annie on one occasion
> and the one who plays the rich bitch on another, so it seems to be the
> cast kitchen. On the other hand, there was only one setup for food as
> far as I could tell, seemed like everyone was going to the same place--
> cast, crew, etc. Excellent food, too, for truck fare.

Yeah, unless you saw lots of extras, there really wouldn't be the need
for two kitchens.

BTR1701

unread,
May 17, 2012, 1:36:29 AM5/17/12
to
In article
<16bc8209-a91f-4a2b...@ns1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
They don't use too many extras from what I can tell. They just rely on
the natural background foot traffic for a lot of the outdoor shots.

monr...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 18, 2012, 3:32:19 PM6/18/12
to
On Friday, 11 May 2012 07:32:54 UTC-10, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Spoilers for last nights episode
>
>
> So we got a good look at the rooftop; Canadian screen caps here
>
> http://gallery.me.com/anim8rfsk/100135
>
> Note that as we pull back
>
> 4 satellite dishes
>
> 3 parents (including Howard's mother!)
>
> 2 big A/C units
>
> 2 small A/C units
>
> And a couple other regular A/C units on the roof itself.
>
> It looks like the elevator is on the left, with the stairwell door in
> that structure on the left. Making Sheldon & Leonard's windows face
> north (the structure between them and the street is lower than their
> roof) and Penny's place on the south side, which means there's easily
> room for 4 apartments on a floor - maybe 6.
>
> I have no idea how they divide up the A/C, much less the satellite.
>
> --
> So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?

I found the exact satielite image. They overlaid the roofs of two buildings, but if you look at the surrounding buildings, it's exact.

34.142232,-118.13875
199 S Madison Ave
Pasadena, CA 91101 44 ft N

(a comparison image of the maps satellite & a screen shot from the show)
http://i.imgur.com/05WfS.jpg
0 new messages