I’ve seen it portrayed mostly as woods.
I’ve only been to Maine twice, and to the interior once, and I saw a moose. Of course, I went looking for them…
Absolutely. I’m from Texas, and the majority of the state isn’t arid deserts with cactuses and tumbleweeds; rather the eastern 1/3 is lush piney woods, the central part is maybe not quite so lush, but is basically pastures and post oaks. The northern parts and the Panhandle are pretty much prairie, and the south part is flat as a board, but not terribly desolate. Only the western parts of the state (where the population density is staggeringly low) are cowboy-movie Texas.
It’s actually kind of funny that movies set in Texas are sometimes filmed elsewhere (“Texas Rising” in particular), because the actual terrain in the areas where the actual historical events went down would have been relatively flat, and extremely green and lush because it was springtime(after the Alamo anyway, which was in February) But nobody wants to see the Texas Revolution portrayed in a relatively flat, springtime setting…
Sure it was evident. But the Maine I see on TV and movies is not rocky beaches but little fishing villages. Lobster boats, docks, buoys, seagulls.
If you ever want to experience a Maine coastal beach, just rub salt in your eyes and stick your face in the freezers. All that’s lacking are the moose.
(I spend a lot of time on the Maine coast, so there.)
Which reminds me–not even a good place to swim! Brrrr.
A Møøse once bit my sister.
Ever hear of the Australian Drop Bear?
They have them in Maine, too, but Moose.
First, Maine is huge, with a very small population. the interior has vast forest, with small towns. Most of the people live near or in the coastal cities. So, they are only portraying the parts where most maniacs and tourists are.
That’s probably really footage of Massachusetts (as you suspected) being labeled as Maine through the magic (i.e., lying) of Hollywood. 
Seriously though, I’ll agree that the fishing villages aren’t particularly remarkable. Of course I don’t consider the Maine interior remarkable either – it’s that magnificent rocky coast that I was thinking of.
Most of the reality show North Woods Law shows events in interior Maine.
ralph124c writes:
> First, Maine is huge, with a very small population. the interior has vast forest, with
> small towns. Most of the people live near or in the coastal cities. So, they are only
> portraying the parts where most maniacs and tourists are.
Suppose we apply the same argument to movies about Australia. Australia is huge, with a very small population. Most of the people live near or in the coastal cities. So if Australia was portrayed in movies in the same way that Maine is portrayed in movies, you’d expect it to be shown as being mostly big coastal cities. (Sydney is about the same size as Los Angeles. Melbourne is about the same size as Chicago. Australia is actually, for the vast majority of its population, more urban than the U.S. and probably more urban than most of Europe.) And yet that’s not what happens. Maine is portrayed as being like where most of the people live but not like what most of the land is like. Australia is portrayed as being like what most of the land is like but not like where most of the people live. So that rule you’re claiming is true clearly isn’t. Countries, regions, states, cities, and other places are neither portrayed as being like the majority of the land nor the majority of the people. They’re portrayed as being like the clichés about the places.
Maine’s coast is photogenic and the source of its personality. Same for Australia’s Outback. That’s what gets filmed.
Australia’s coast is not photogenic?!? There’s a screensaver image on my Windows 10 of the Great Barrier Reef that says different. (Also, the Sydney Opera House, hello.)
I think what Wendell, and some others, are saying is that people who make TV and movies tend to fall into lazy shorthand to portray certain places in a stereotypical way–and then it just becomes the cliche that everyone else copies. And I think that’s more accurate than all the attempts to excuse or explain away this laziness.
Not distinctively, in a way that immediately tells a viewer “This is Australia”. The Outback does, and so does the coast for Maine.
And because the viewers participate in that laziness, too. Either way, it’s easier and cleaner and even more enjoyable to actually show something photogenic to place the scene than to have a character say “Wow, we finally got to Maine!” or something.
A lot of Australia’s coast is more photogenic than the Outback. The Remarkable Rocks is a lot more photogenic than almost anything in the Outback. (Yeah, I know the Remarkable Rocks are on an island, not the coast itself.) Yes, of course, the choice of what is the standard cliché about any location is formed as much by the audience as the media. The media are not some special people who can manipulate the audience’s feelings in any way they want. They take some feeling that’s already there and magnify it.
I could say much the same for my home state of Texas.
About 80% of the state’s population is located in or around a handful of cities (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin and Corpus Christi), but most Texas movies are set in ranching country, or in the Old West (or both).
This is a bad example. The interior of Australia is where they film all the “Aborigine” movies. The (white) people with money want to live on the coast, for good reasons. The whole socio-economic situation is why movies are made in one part or the other.