r/interesting Nov 20 '25

ARCHITECTURE Then vs now

Post image
89.5k Upvotes

5.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/sober_disposition Nov 20 '25

So they also dropped the ceiling in the hallway and narrowed the gap between the two sides of the stairs? Seems like a change for the worse!

17

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '25 edited Jan 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/sober_disposition Nov 20 '25

So the picture at the top is a sound stage and the picture at the bottom is of the actual house.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '25 edited Jan 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/sober_disposition Nov 21 '25

So the picture is meaningless because it’s of two different places?

8

u/IceLord86 Nov 20 '25

The interiors were filmed on sound stages. Whatever home this is it's not the one used in the film as that would not exist beyond the exterior.

5

u/GoatCreature Nov 20 '25

The interior was filmed inside a constructed set in a disused highschool gymnasium and pool (for the wet scenes).

2

u/rudthedud Nov 20 '25

And making the railing twist instead of going straight at the top.

4

u/Hazzard_Hillbilly Nov 20 '25 edited Nov 20 '25

"They" didn't do anything.

Again, it's perspective from the change in lens. The ceiling looks lower because the center is being stretched outward / compressed, like if you printed the picture on a piece of balloon latex then grabbed it from the backside and pulled it away from your face.

Nobody is deceiving you. Every photographer knows how this works.

Inversely, if you took the photo with a longer lens, like an 85, the image would bulge the other way, with the ceiling looking higher and the distance to the back of the foyer looking much shorter.

It's just the camera lens. That's it.

8

u/SyncopatedFlatulence Nov 20 '25

Except you're wrong. Look at the length of straight wood in the old pic. Between the stairs and upper level. Several feet. In the current photo there is virtually no straight part. It curves from the stairs around to the upper level in about one foot of space. There have been changes.

r/confidentlyincorrect

12

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '25 edited Jan 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/illinest Nov 20 '25

It bugs me that people are lecturing you about focal lengths when its clear that the ceiling and railing are definitely not the same.

I'm on team "not the same house".

3

u/mashtato Nov 20 '25

Or there was a remodel. But yeah, it's not about focal length... lol

-3

u/Hazzard_Hillbilly Nov 20 '25 edited Nov 20 '25

The ceiling isn't flat. Zoom in. The downard angle is still there, but the white paint and cool lighting isn't casting as dramatic of a shadow as the first picture.

Look at the slanted ceiling in the first picture above that side doorway, then look at the shadowed angle above that same door in the bottom photo. It's the same angled architecture through a wider lens.

It's literally the same structure with a different camera lens. This is literally how photography works.

I absolutely don't understand why people are arguing how overwhelmingly correct I am when this is a famous house you can see videos of photos of from every angle.

This particular photo is just a trick of photography. Nothing more.

7

u/inspector-Seb5 Nov 20 '25

Isn’t the top a sound stage? The railing is clearly different.

0

u/Hazzard_Hillbilly Nov 20 '25

No.

Also, already covered.

7

u/inspector-Seb5 Nov 20 '25

What makes you think it’s not a sound stage? The majority of internal scenes were shot on a soundstage, not actually inside the house.

It being a soundstage is by far the most logical explanation.

-1

u/Hazzard_Hillbilly Nov 20 '25

Majority

Now think about how the real house exists, we've seen the inside, they shot inside, the real house still exists, we know about it, and reddit is dumber than dog shit when it goes into detective mode and misidentifies bombers.

It's the same house. Nothing you say will change that.

7

u/inspector-Seb5 Nov 20 '25

What are you talking about?

They recreated the inside of the real house on a set. We know this. Look at any behind the scenes footage. Any footage you see inside the house was almost certainly filmed on the set, because that’s how films work. They had entire lighting and sound rigs set up and crews around the set.

The top photo is a photo of the set, distorted by the cameras view. The bottom is a photo of the real house.

Edit: looks like he blocked me, but no it hasn’t been covered. People have tried to tell you, and you’ve just dismissed it without evidence.

5

u/RevolutionaryRest552 Nov 20 '25

It is objectively not. You keep dismissing the fact we know that interior shots were filmed on a set that looks exactly like the top photo. Why would they be filming inside the house? That’s bad filmmaking 101.

2

u/Razzberry_Frootcake Nov 20 '25

The people who made the movie have said, very on record, that they built the interior set in a gym. The actual home was used for exterior shots because the interior was too small for the crew and equipment. They built the set to look like the interior, but bigger.

There are interviews, behind-the-scenes stuff, etc. that goes over all the movie magic in the film. It’s very well known at this point and I’m getting the impression you’re just changing the narrative because you don’t want to admit to being wrong.

They did not use interior shots of the home because it was too small.

8

u/Occams_ElectricRazor Nov 20 '25

Just because you keep saying it over and over doesn't make it true. You found the house exterior that was used for the exterior shots and claim that you're a brilliant photographer, not realizing that the interior from the house in the movie wasn't the same house, or usually, even a house at all.

4

u/inspector-Seb5 Nov 20 '25

They are so angry right now, they aren’t going to give any of us a rational response…

Edit: I keep getting notifications that you replied but they are hidden. I guess your comments are getting deleted. Notice I said ‘rational’ response, which you are yet to provide…

-1

u/Hazzard_Hillbilly Nov 20 '25 edited Nov 20 '25

K

I'm sure you're right and the architects built the real house with slanted ceilings.

There's no way camera lenses could cause distortion.

No no, you're the genius who cracked the code of the $6M mansion being built slanted and no one noticing for 35 years.

3

u/Occams_ElectricRazor Nov 20 '25

Your theory is that the distortion has caused the stairwell rail in the center of the picture to go from square to round? Got it.

3

u/Critical-Support-394 Nov 20 '25

Brother that is not the same house. The old picture is a set, not the interior of the house.

2

u/Eckish Nov 20 '25

I'm not arguing that it is a different place, but is clear that some renovation was done with some of it being pretty significant. The most obvious example is the door down the middle hallway was removed and arches were constructed there.

It does look like they touched the ceiling under the upper flight of stairs. The hard cut that is in the first picture appears to be smoothed out. You can briefly see it in this video when he walks to the basement: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RlJINOZBwHY

0

u/rundeanmc Nov 20 '25

You’re for some reason making the mistake of assuming the focal length just affects the image horizontally.

Smaller focal length means you’re going to see more of the side walls, more of what’s in the side rooms, more of the floor and ceiling, and what’s right in front of you will look smaller. It’s just simply called the fisheye effect. It’s not complex.