Did Bourne Legacy help or hurt PH tourism?

I saw this movie...

I think there are some good points here. Firstly, the movie industry can provide a great income and also promote the country it is set in if care is taken with the right movies and the right scenes.

"Filipinos took enormous amount of pride in the fact that Hollywood film "The Bourne Legacy" was filmed in parts of Metro Manila and Palawan.

But a branding strategist from Singapore believes the film hurt the Philippines' image as a tourist destination.

In a recent interview with ABS-CBNnews.com, Lexis Branding CEO Jacqueline Thng said the Department of Tourism should not have allowed the film to shoot in the country.

"Bourne Legacy, which showed the slums of the country, that's not the face of Philippines. Yet that was probably the biggest advertising campaign the DOT approved... That's a major global film and yet it showcased the Philippines at its worst state. Is that fun? That's not fun," she said, referring to the DOT's "It's More Fun in the Philippines" campaign.

"The Bourne Legacy," which starred Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz, was shot in the gritty streets of Manila, Marikina market and Navotas fish port.

Director Tony Gilroy had said they chose Manila since it "felt so Bourne-ish." "It's just so colorful and ugly and gritty, raw and stinky and crowded," he said.

While the Bourne film showed a side of Manila that may be realistic, Thng said it should not have been highlighted.

"It showed a portion of the Philippines that you do not want to show to the world. I know it's real but it's something you're trying to eradicate. Is that a good representation of Manila? No. You go to Manila, sure there are pockets of this there but it's not how the Philippines is. By putting it on an international film, that's one of the biggest advertising campaigns out there. It beats all of the It's More Fun in the Philippines ads... People believe it's really because it's in the movies," she said.

The Manila scenes in Bourne Legacy may stick in the minds of moviegoers around the world. Thng said tourism officials should be very mindful of how the Philippines' image is being shown around the world.

"You can spend all these millions of dollars promoting how beautiful the Philippines is, and it's true, it really is beautiful but suddenly, people get to see this portion of the slums of the Philippines. It's like showing the same slums people see in India, that make people avoid going to India. I would say you have to be very careful of how the country's image. Every portion matters," she said.

Korea's example

Thng said the Philippines should take note of South Korea's successful campaign, which incorporates K-pop, and K-dramas with tourism.

"They used their entertainment as a means to promote the country. And there's no reason why you can't do that. If you look at the Korean dramas, they're really promoting their culture, places and as a result people are all flocking to Korea," she said.

"The stars of Kpop are now all over the world. The truth is, can Koreans sing better than Filipinos? The answer is no, Filipinos can singer better. But can they market themselves better, yes, they're great in marketing."

The DOT should consider using Filipino celebrities and teleseryes to promote tourism in the country.

"If the government wants to make an effort to promote tourism, they can tap the entertainment industry. Use that because it's an easier way to get into the hearts of the people...(DOT) can collaborate with the network and create a teleserye that promotes beautiful places in the Philippines," Thng added."


http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/06/29/13/did-bourne-legacy-help-or-hurt-ph-tourism

This topic should have been started in "Rants" - because I'm having one.

Who IS this Ms Thng and why is she being so denigrating of both the film and Manila. Manila is what it is - a southeast Asian capital city with a high population of impoverished people - and it is exactly what the film's director wanted. So what's your problem, Ms Thng? Ah, yes, the director didn't choose sanitised Singapore as a setting for this highly-successful film.

Ms Thng should remember that all advertising is good, provided they spell the name correctly, and this portrayal hasn't harmed the country one little bit. And, what's more, it didn't cost the Department of Tourism one Centavo.

Being realistic, though, it's highly unlikely that cinema goers in the US or UK will be rushing to their travel agents to book holidays in the Philippines after watching this film; most won't even know where Manila is.

Its been out for a while now. We saw it in the cinema about a year or so ago. Not the best movie I have seen but worth watching. My wife enjoyed it, partly because the clips of Manila were in it.

The clips with El Nido in were quite brief.

The scenes that were actually shot in Manila are also brief. All the interior shots of the "SteriPacific" factory in Manila were actually shot in the New York Times' printing plant in New York. The train scenes, supposedly in the Philippines, were actually shot in South Korea.

The film portrays a non-stop flight from New York to Manila on board an American Airlines Boeing 747-400. Several problems with that:

• American Airlines has never operated that aircraft type on any route, nor has it ever owned one.
• American Airlines has never ever flown between the US and the Philippines.
• A Boeing 747-400 doesn't have the range to fly non-stop between New York and Manila
• All the interior scenes weren't filmed in a 747 at all but in a 777-200 at JFK airport. The 777's interior is somewhat different and it too doesn't have sufficient range for that flight.

If you liked the other movies then I imagine you will enjoy this one.