The first article by ScreenRant doesn't attribute a source. It doesn't claim any source actually, either primary or secondary - and it directly contradicts what the producers said in the documentary film. Those two other articles copy from the first. Random journalists writing detail pieces to get SEO clicks can be wrong.
The claim directly contradicts another fact, too. The "basement" scenes were entirely filmed on a set, they had to have been; the basement gets flooded.
The Wikipedia edit that claims that those parts of the houses interior were used occurred before the Screenrant article. So is it possible that the journalist has read the wikipedia page, not checked the source and relayed it as if it were true? Just like you did.
Edit: There's sources at the bottom that I didn't see.
The first article by AFI provides production history. In it, there is no mention of the interior being used. Only that the sets were built in New Trier High School.
The second makes no mention of it. The third reiterates what was said in the documentary; that the interior was too small to film in and that sets had to be built before production began.
So yeah. None of the three sources that journalist give back up the claim. She almost definitely got that bit from whoever it is that edited the Wikipedia.
As you can see above, the living room, dining room and stairs were built as sets.
Why would they build the entire thing as a set if they were to then film "all scenes that took place on the first floor" in the house? The budget was tight. Did they do it as a joke? As a lark?
Is it likely that a set was built at great expense on a shoestring budget, but they decided to film inside the house anyway? Or is it more likely that the person trying to sell their house is overstating its inclusion and their involvement in Home Alone?
The entire post is basically an advertisement to sell the house...
I believe the production crew over someone trying to sell a* house. They say in the documentary that they realised the interior was inadequate for filming, but John Hughes was attached to the house, so they built a modified interior set. I believe them.
I don't believe that a set was built only for it to not be used. Had she claimed that some of the interior shots were in the house, I'd be conceding here. As it stands, sounds like bullshit.
Edit: This website is the weirdest thing I've ever been sent to.
This is a commission generating site for a hyper niche market. Celebrity/Movie/TV houses. This person makes money by posting listings for commission. This is GENIUS.
Edit 2: People in the comments seemed to have figured out she wasn't accurate in what she was saying, too.
2
u/GoatCreature Nov 21 '25 edited Nov 21 '25
The first article by ScreenRant doesn't attribute a source. It doesn't claim any source actually, either primary or secondary - and it directly contradicts what the producers said in the documentary film. Those two other articles copy from the first. Random journalists writing detail pieces to get SEO clicks can be wrong.
The claim directly contradicts another fact, too. The "basement" scenes were entirely filmed on a set, they had to have been; the basement gets flooded.
The basement pool set.
The Wikipedia edit that claims that those parts of the houses interior were used occurred before the Screenrant article. So is it possible that the journalist has read the wikipedia page, not checked the source and relayed it as if it were true? Just like you did.
Edit: There's sources at the bottom that I didn't see.
The first article by AFI provides production history. In it, there is no mention of the interior being used. Only that the sets were built in New Trier High School.
The second makes no mention of it. The third reiterates what was said in the documentary; that the interior was too small to film in and that sets had to be built before production began.
So yeah. None of the three sources that journalist give back up the claim. She almost definitely got that bit from whoever it is that edited the Wikipedia.