This week I finally bought the text book for this subject, so now can include things from the book in these posts, which I was meant to do for all of them... Oh well. I also had about one minute of excitement when I found out that the bookshop had a massive sale and that text books were going out for around $4.50... Alas, the one I needed was at it's original (ridiculous) price of $66.95. I should probably make sure I delete this part of the post before I send it to the lecturer, though, since it's her book we had to buy and she probably was involved in the price setting! Anyway...
Onto today's topic: Travel Writing. Was a pretty interesting topic, I thought. What was most surprising is that books like travel guides, and blogs by travelers aren't said to be forms of travel writing. I wonder who exactly came up with that rule, and whether it is widely accepted. If it is by Fussel, as on the seminar notes, then the date is nearly 30 years old! I have a feeling a lot has changed in that time, that could possibly change the meaning of 'travel book' to encompass more styles. Personally, I love looking through books like the Lonely Planet guides, especially for the vivid, beautiful photos and pictures they always display. One of my favourite books at home is my copy of The Travel Book, by Lonely Planet, which has sort of like a biography for every country in the world. Just reading through the quick snippets of information and a glancing at the few stunning pictures, and I'm ready to go there. But I guess even though it's they're books of writing about travel, they aren't classified as types of travel writing, because they haven't really got a distinctive narrative: there is no voice to the pieces. Though I think that just because they aren't classed exactly as travel books, does not mean that they can't influence people to go to the places they are about.
I think I'm much more partial to the travel writing of today, rather than that of the Victorian age, where all information was conveyed through scientific facts and blatant observations. Although, back then I suppose that a lot of the world was still 'undiscovered' and needed to be cataloged in that way in order for other, non-scientific people to be able to venture out and create their own perspectives on the new places. But, now that the whole world has been 'discovered' so to speak, it's much more appropriate to write about travel through thoughts, ideas, recommendations, or personal perspectives... At least, they're more enjoyable and interesting to read for non-scientific people.
I can also see a vague distinction between travelers who write and travel writers, where travel writers are probably more likely to write to a wider audience, and include reflections on specific places, and perhaps highlight areas that were of particular importance or relevance to them. If I was someone who was writing while traveling, I think the entries would probably read more like a diary, with accounts of what I'd done that day etc, mostly intended for myself upon return and to remember the trip by. Other than maybe family and friends, no one else would ever read what I'd written.
Lastly, I think Bill Bryson is a very talented writer, from the 2 books I've read of his. It seems that he knows how to connect with his audience through the writing, and I think that is very necessary if the end result is to convince people to visit the same places. If not, then people have read an interesting and humorous book about a foreign (or not so well-known) land that might just get them thinking.
Anyway, that'll do again. I can't publish this post til I've written about the previous seminar, cause I skipped one... So hopefully it shouldn't be too long. I'd better get my act together! Hermit-ville starts now!
xox
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Australia (The Movie) and TV Travel
This week's seminar was on the movie Australia, and it's use in promoting the country, as well as the many different types of travel shows that are on television nowadays.
The first thing that struck me about this topic, was the fact that up until the movie 'Australia', the country's marketing bodies decided that it was too complex to promote tourism through films, even though a number of great movies were made in Australia that would have had the potential to entice tourists here. Crocodile Dundee and the Mad Max films were pretty big successes overseas, and could probably have been major draw cards to the country had a tourism campaign for Australia been attached to their release.
Maybe Tourism Australia and the previous marketing bodies before that organisation had just decided they weren't going to pursue tourism campaigns through films, but when a blockbuster movie came along with superstar lead actors and director, and with the actual name of the country as the film's title, the opportunity was just too good to pass up. Especially, I imagine, with all the publicity that the country would get as a result of the film: international eyes on the country and its stars, the country's name repeated multiple times in every interview to describe the film itself, and the fact that most of the stars, director and crew were Australian, and the landmark locations where filming took place.
I felt quite proud when I heard that Tourism Australia is known to be quite innovative in the destination advertising they employ. For all the criticism they get for some of their advertisements and campaigns, at least they are trying new ideas and working out which ones do and don't work. I also think that the way the newest advertisements were done was better than expected. I like the fact that, instead of using clips from the film or the major stars, the ads were based on only one theme of the movie, one that many international markets (and probably many national markets as well) wouldn't have heard of before. Everyone knows to come to Australia to see the kangaroos, koalas, Uluru, the bridge and Opera House, but the concept of the 'walkabout' is probably far less known, and the ability to 'arrive' as one thing and 'depart' as something completely different, might be appealing to many people. I think the use of visual emotional rhetoric is very clever... and if none of these appeal to people to watch the ads, then the fact that they were written and produced by Baz Luhrmann will most likely push them to press play/keep watching the television.
I think the amount of travel shows on TV (whether commercial, combined, incidental or accidental) is amazing. Just watching free-to-air TV on a Sunday afternoon and there are at least 4 different travel shows on, with even more during the weeknights. Then there's pay-TV! The notion is obviously a popular one. People like watching attractive hosts visiting beautiful places, eating delicious food, meeting the quirky locals, and partaking in the great activities that are available wherever they happen to be. I don't think I ever realised just how many different shows there actually are! And they must have the ability to generate sales or at least awareness for the places that they promote, because all of the shows are still airing, and destination are still asking them to come and feature their area on television.
It might be a hard thing to measure, though. Obviously if people call the numbers that are always displayed on the screen at the time of the hard sell (how to get there, where to stay, how much, etc), then that's an easy measure. But how many people would watch the shows, and then forget about the destination until they decide to go on a holiday, and one from the program is on the top of their mind, but they don't book through the same method as was outlined during the show. It seems that they might be more about creating awareness and eliciting curiosity than gaining actual sales straight away.
I also like the idea of movie maps and guide books specifically developed to show people where certain filming takes place or is inspired from. It seems a shame that the Australian version of a movie map developed by Denise Corrigan wasn't the great success it could have been. I think people would be very interested in that sort of thing in Australia. I think it would also be quite popular if the major guide book publishers put out their own version of movie maps, or movie guide books, rather than just leaving the specific movie fans to create their own (even though some of these have been very successful). Maybe an organisation like the Lonely Planet could collaborate with people already very knowledgable about film locations, such as the person behind the 'Worldwide Guide to Movie Locations' website. The creator calls the site a Film Locations Travel Guide, so having the information in both website and actual book form might prove popular and get awareness about these amazing places out into the world.
*On closer inspection, it seems the man behind the website has already produced his own book that does just what I've suggested*.
Finally catching up with these silly journal entries! At least there's a few more I can cross off the list... Not long to go now!!
Back to work.
xox
The first thing that struck me about this topic, was the fact that up until the movie 'Australia', the country's marketing bodies decided that it was too complex to promote tourism through films, even though a number of great movies were made in Australia that would have had the potential to entice tourists here. Crocodile Dundee and the Mad Max films were pretty big successes overseas, and could probably have been major draw cards to the country had a tourism campaign for Australia been attached to their release.
Maybe Tourism Australia and the previous marketing bodies before that organisation had just decided they weren't going to pursue tourism campaigns through films, but when a blockbuster movie came along with superstar lead actors and director, and with the actual name of the country as the film's title, the opportunity was just too good to pass up. Especially, I imagine, with all the publicity that the country would get as a result of the film: international eyes on the country and its stars, the country's name repeated multiple times in every interview to describe the film itself, and the fact that most of the stars, director and crew were Australian, and the landmark locations where filming took place.
I felt quite proud when I heard that Tourism Australia is known to be quite innovative in the destination advertising they employ. For all the criticism they get for some of their advertisements and campaigns, at least they are trying new ideas and working out which ones do and don't work. I also think that the way the newest advertisements were done was better than expected. I like the fact that, instead of using clips from the film or the major stars, the ads were based on only one theme of the movie, one that many international markets (and probably many national markets as well) wouldn't have heard of before. Everyone knows to come to Australia to see the kangaroos, koalas, Uluru, the bridge and Opera House, but the concept of the 'walkabout' is probably far less known, and the ability to 'arrive' as one thing and 'depart' as something completely different, might be appealing to many people. I think the use of visual emotional rhetoric is very clever... and if none of these appeal to people to watch the ads, then the fact that they were written and produced by Baz Luhrmann will most likely push them to press play/keep watching the television.
I think the amount of travel shows on TV (whether commercial, combined, incidental or accidental) is amazing. Just watching free-to-air TV on a Sunday afternoon and there are at least 4 different travel shows on, with even more during the weeknights. Then there's pay-TV! The notion is obviously a popular one. People like watching attractive hosts visiting beautiful places, eating delicious food, meeting the quirky locals, and partaking in the great activities that are available wherever they happen to be. I don't think I ever realised just how many different shows there actually are! And they must have the ability to generate sales or at least awareness for the places that they promote, because all of the shows are still airing, and destination are still asking them to come and feature their area on television.
It might be a hard thing to measure, though. Obviously if people call the numbers that are always displayed on the screen at the time of the hard sell (how to get there, where to stay, how much, etc), then that's an easy measure. But how many people would watch the shows, and then forget about the destination until they decide to go on a holiday, and one from the program is on the top of their mind, but they don't book through the same method as was outlined during the show. It seems that they might be more about creating awareness and eliciting curiosity than gaining actual sales straight away.
I also like the idea of movie maps and guide books specifically developed to show people where certain filming takes place or is inspired from. It seems a shame that the Australian version of a movie map developed by Denise Corrigan wasn't the great success it could have been. I think people would be very interested in that sort of thing in Australia. I think it would also be quite popular if the major guide book publishers put out their own version of movie maps, or movie guide books, rather than just leaving the specific movie fans to create their own (even though some of these have been very successful). Maybe an organisation like the Lonely Planet could collaborate with people already very knowledgable about film locations, such as the person behind the 'Worldwide Guide to Movie Locations' website. The creator calls the site a Film Locations Travel Guide, so having the information in both website and actual book form might prove popular and get awareness about these amazing places out into the world.
*On closer inspection, it seems the man behind the website has already produced his own book that does just what I've suggested*.
Finally catching up with these silly journal entries! At least there's a few more I can cross off the list... Not long to go now!!
Back to work.
xox
Monday, September 21, 2009
Film Studio Theme Parks & Runaway Productions
This week's seminar was on film studio theme parks, and the frontstage/backstage components of the parks.
Theme parks always used to be so exciting and wondrous when I was young; they seemed to be places where dreams came true, and where you could be anything you wanted. Of course, back then, I had no idea of everything that was behind the building and running of theme parks. Nowadays, I like to think that I'm at least a little bit smarter (!), and so can understand all the different elements of a theme park, such as staff dressed up as characters, and the whole 'staged authenticity' of creating a dream world, while keeping the tourists in the main areas, and not letting them see what goes on behind the curtains. Somehow, I sort of wish I still wasn't able to comprehend all that operational side, because it definitely takes away from the magic of the place. Although, maybe once you're there, it's much easier to get swept up in the excitement and forget that people have directed your every move.
The concept of front stage and back stage elements at a film studio theme park becomes very complex and almost confusing to someone who's never thought about it before... There are so many different types of encounters, especially when considering the nine classifications by Pearce, that I wonder if even the staff of the parks understand the complexity of it all, and can identify which area they are working in at all times.
I also find it tricky to come to terms with the concept that film studio theme parks are built as a way to show outsiders what goes on inside the walls of the studios, but the majority of the attractions within the park aren't real at all. It's the whole idea of the theme park being a real-life representation of something that was fantasy in the first place. I wonder if maybe sometimes, it's better to leave things like that to the imaginations of people, rather than try to tell or show them how it would be in real life, if the fantasy world exists.
I also think that theme parks must have a close tie with the film studios that run them. I think it's amazing that a number of films were written and created to support rides and attractions that already existed at Disneyland.
Secondly, I think the concept of runaway film locations is a tricky one. On the one hand, it makes sense to film something in a different location to where the story is set if the actual location cannot support what the film needs, either financially, or logistically. But then again if there is no real reason to film in an alternate location then I think it's a little unfair to the original destination, especially if the film could result in tourist dollars for the location. It might just be me, but sometimes I feel a bit cheated when I find out that a movie that I think has been filmed in one place, is actually in another, especially if I felt some sort of connection with the scenery I saw. At the same time, though, I know that films are very rarely authentic, especially those that are more the blockbuster type than the historical type.
Another thought I had about this issue, is if there is any tourism as a result of the film, where would they visit... the actual location that the movie was filmed, or the destination that was named/portrayed in the film? I'm not sure which I'd choose... It would probably depend on whether I was more attracted to the storyline, or the scenery shown throughout.
I think I'll post this now, because it's been hanging around for ages, but I'm pretty sure that I'm meant to be reading the text book too, and talking about things from there, which I haven't bought yet :S So I'll do that maybe next week and then I can complete these next two posts properly!
Peace.
Theme parks always used to be so exciting and wondrous when I was young; they seemed to be places where dreams came true, and where you could be anything you wanted. Of course, back then, I had no idea of everything that was behind the building and running of theme parks. Nowadays, I like to think that I'm at least a little bit smarter (!), and so can understand all the different elements of a theme park, such as staff dressed up as characters, and the whole 'staged authenticity' of creating a dream world, while keeping the tourists in the main areas, and not letting them see what goes on behind the curtains. Somehow, I sort of wish I still wasn't able to comprehend all that operational side, because it definitely takes away from the magic of the place. Although, maybe once you're there, it's much easier to get swept up in the excitement and forget that people have directed your every move.
The concept of front stage and back stage elements at a film studio theme park becomes very complex and almost confusing to someone who's never thought about it before... There are so many different types of encounters, especially when considering the nine classifications by Pearce, that I wonder if even the staff of the parks understand the complexity of it all, and can identify which area they are working in at all times.
I also find it tricky to come to terms with the concept that film studio theme parks are built as a way to show outsiders what goes on inside the walls of the studios, but the majority of the attractions within the park aren't real at all. It's the whole idea of the theme park being a real-life representation of something that was fantasy in the first place. I wonder if maybe sometimes, it's better to leave things like that to the imaginations of people, rather than try to tell or show them how it would be in real life, if the fantasy world exists.
I also think that theme parks must have a close tie with the film studios that run them. I think it's amazing that a number of films were written and created to support rides and attractions that already existed at Disneyland.
Secondly, I think the concept of runaway film locations is a tricky one. On the one hand, it makes sense to film something in a different location to where the story is set if the actual location cannot support what the film needs, either financially, or logistically. But then again if there is no real reason to film in an alternate location then I think it's a little unfair to the original destination, especially if the film could result in tourist dollars for the location. It might just be me, but sometimes I feel a bit cheated when I find out that a movie that I think has been filmed in one place, is actually in another, especially if I felt some sort of connection with the scenery I saw. At the same time, though, I know that films are very rarely authentic, especially those that are more the blockbuster type than the historical type.
Another thought I had about this issue, is if there is any tourism as a result of the film, where would they visit... the actual location that the movie was filmed, or the destination that was named/portrayed in the film? I'm not sure which I'd choose... It would probably depend on whether I was more attracted to the storyline, or the scenery shown throughout.
I think I'll post this now, because it's been hanging around for ages, but I'm pretty sure that I'm meant to be reading the text book too, and talking about things from there, which I haven't bought yet :S So I'll do that maybe next week and then I can complete these next two posts properly!
Peace.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Asian Film-Induced Tourism: Hallyu - The Korean Wave
This week's topic was Asian film-induced tourism, focusing on The Korean Wave, and a little on Bollywood and Indian film and tourism.
This seminar was a bit of an eye-opener, as I guess I'm fairly ignorant in noticing that other countries and cultures have their own popular cultures. Sometimes I think that because Australia is so heavily influenced by American culture, media, films, TV shows, news, information etc, that all the other countries are as well. Which really shows my lack of thinking, I think. Of course Asia is going to have a different culture, different media, and different celebrities to idolise.
I actually really like the name of the Korean Wave to describe the pop culture that is so popular in Asia, although the original name from the Chinese media of cold wave seems more negative as opposed to a positive and accepted pop culture. I also really enjoyed watching the episode of 'Winter Sonata', especially since I'm the type of person who is easily sucked into a new storyline, and can see why the series was so popular throughout Asia. I think it's also interesting to be able to watch a TV show that displays another culture acting out their day-to-day activities, since Australian free-to-air TV pretty much only shows the one culture over all of the hundreds of television series that are aired every year.
I'm just visiting the official site of Korea tourism now, and one of the links under Sights, Activities & Events, takes you 'filming location tours' which gives you the option to look at either drama sets or movie sets, both of which have over 20 different sets to choose from that show comprehensive information about the films and shows, stills from filming and matched locations. I don't think many other official tourism destination websites would base information so heavily around the popular culture TV series and films that are produced within the country.
I think for the tourism website to be able to post photos from the films and series', then they would have to have a good reciprocal with the TV and film studios, since sometimes they may want to keep filming locations secret to keep the mystery of the program. In Australia, the USA or the UK, it might be more difficult to negotiate with the studios to display such extensive information about the shows on external websites, especially if the websites give away plot details or have the potential to 'spoil' the show or film for future watchers, which the Korean site does.
Anyway, that'll do for this week. We don't have a seminar next week, so I probably wont write here, though I think I have to for the actual assessment piece. I think we're also about half way through the semester, which is scary... I have so much more work to do in a short amount of time. Better get my act together. Until next time.
Xoxox
This seminar was a bit of an eye-opener, as I guess I'm fairly ignorant in noticing that other countries and cultures have their own popular cultures. Sometimes I think that because Australia is so heavily influenced by American culture, media, films, TV shows, news, information etc, that all the other countries are as well. Which really shows my lack of thinking, I think. Of course Asia is going to have a different culture, different media, and different celebrities to idolise.
I actually really like the name of the Korean Wave to describe the pop culture that is so popular in Asia, although the original name from the Chinese media of cold wave seems more negative as opposed to a positive and accepted pop culture. I also really enjoyed watching the episode of 'Winter Sonata', especially since I'm the type of person who is easily sucked into a new storyline, and can see why the series was so popular throughout Asia. I think it's also interesting to be able to watch a TV show that displays another culture acting out their day-to-day activities, since Australian free-to-air TV pretty much only shows the one culture over all of the hundreds of television series that are aired every year.
I'm just visiting the official site of Korea tourism now, and one of the links under Sights, Activities & Events, takes you 'filming location tours' which gives you the option to look at either drama sets or movie sets, both of which have over 20 different sets to choose from that show comprehensive information about the films and shows, stills from filming and matched locations. I don't think many other official tourism destination websites would base information so heavily around the popular culture TV series and films that are produced within the country.
I think for the tourism website to be able to post photos from the films and series', then they would have to have a good reciprocal with the TV and film studios, since sometimes they may want to keep filming locations secret to keep the mystery of the program. In Australia, the USA or the UK, it might be more difficult to negotiate with the studios to display such extensive information about the shows on external websites, especially if the websites give away plot details or have the potential to 'spoil' the show or film for future watchers, which the Korean site does.
Anyway, that'll do for this week. We don't have a seminar next week, so I probably wont write here, though I think I have to for the actual assessment piece. I think we're also about half way through the semester, which is scary... I have so much more work to do in a short amount of time. Better get my act together. Until next time.
Xoxox
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The Effects of Film Tourism on Host Communities
This week was a continuation of thinking about the film industry, and the effects of filming in small communities.
We started talking about communities, and all the different types of people that can be affected by film tourism. The point was raised that non-residents are still an important part of a community and can be affected by impacts just as much as those who live there. That's a thought I kinda never considered, that the people who regularly visit or stay in a place are going to be affected by change too. That made me think of a place that my family goes every single year over the Christmas holidays... It's the most beautiful caravan park on the beach that is hidden away from everything, so much that only people researching that very area for places to stay would find out about it. Personally, I would hate it if suddenly the area became highlighted by a movie or tv series, and start to change in atmosphere and population.
I think the copyright issue is also an interesting one. It just seems so greedy of film companies to not allow some towns to use the name or develop their own merchandise to roll off the popularity of whatever movie or show was filmed there. As was talked about, I think it's much more important for small towns and communities to be able benefit in some way from their region being used for mass media.... If they want to. I think this is more of an issue than we have talked about. I mean, some places would absolutely love to have more visitors and their town showed on a national or international scale, but what about the places that don't want more people to come visiting? Are they the ones who refuse to allow film companies to shoot in their region? Is that something they can control, or can studios go over a local council to get approval from a higher governance if they really want to? Maybe this is where the social responsibility comes in. I'm guessing film companies are always very careful to make sure nothing bad about them comes out in the media, so maybe they would just accept if a town refuses them permission to film there.
In regards to community support from tv and film companies, for those regions being negatively impacted on by film-induced tourism, I think that the studios need to understand that they are the reason for the increased tourism. They are the influence for people to visit in the first place, and so need to provide ongoing community support, long after they have finished filming and started on the next project.
This seminar definitely highlighted the real importance of tv and film companies promoting corporate social responsibility, and providing support for communities that may not be able to handle film-induced tourism. I think in the long run, if these multi-billion dollar companies are seen to be helping not just themselves, but also those places that have helped them become so successful, then people will have a positive feeling towards them and the film or tv product that they create.
We started talking about communities, and all the different types of people that can be affected by film tourism. The point was raised that non-residents are still an important part of a community and can be affected by impacts just as much as those who live there. That's a thought I kinda never considered, that the people who regularly visit or stay in a place are going to be affected by change too. That made me think of a place that my family goes every single year over the Christmas holidays... It's the most beautiful caravan park on the beach that is hidden away from everything, so much that only people researching that very area for places to stay would find out about it. Personally, I would hate it if suddenly the area became highlighted by a movie or tv series, and start to change in atmosphere and population.
I think the copyright issue is also an interesting one. It just seems so greedy of film companies to not allow some towns to use the name or develop their own merchandise to roll off the popularity of whatever movie or show was filmed there. As was talked about, I think it's much more important for small towns and communities to be able benefit in some way from their region being used for mass media.... If they want to. I think this is more of an issue than we have talked about. I mean, some places would absolutely love to have more visitors and their town showed on a national or international scale, but what about the places that don't want more people to come visiting? Are they the ones who refuse to allow film companies to shoot in their region? Is that something they can control, or can studios go over a local council to get approval from a higher governance if they really want to? Maybe this is where the social responsibility comes in. I'm guessing film companies are always very careful to make sure nothing bad about them comes out in the media, so maybe they would just accept if a town refuses them permission to film there.
In regards to community support from tv and film companies, for those regions being negatively impacted on by film-induced tourism, I think that the studios need to understand that they are the reason for the increased tourism. They are the influence for people to visit in the first place, and so need to provide ongoing community support, long after they have finished filming and started on the next project.
This seminar definitely highlighted the real importance of tv and film companies promoting corporate social responsibility, and providing support for communities that may not be able to handle film-induced tourism. I think in the long run, if these multi-billion dollar companies are seen to be helping not just themselves, but also those places that have helped them become so successful, then people will have a positive feeling towards them and the film or tv product that they create.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The Film & Tourism Industries
This week's seminar was based on the structures of both the film and tourism industries, as a way of determining how different they are and the many levels to go through when working together.
It was funny how the class initially found it fairly difficult to identify how the tourism industry is structured and where their funding comes from, since we pretty much all just finished a business in tourism degree. I dunno, maybe I didn't pay enough attention in some of our undergrad classes, but I sorta found it hard to think of the different organisations and activities that happen under the Public Sector and the Industry Sector. But as soon as government activities were identified as the public sector, it was easy to think of the types of jobs the government does. Often that annoys me a lot, where I have no idea of the right answer to a question until I get a fairly large prompt or clue. I think it's a weakness in my learning skills, since I can't come up with an answer from my own head without help. It makes me more frustrated with others in the class are really good at that kind of thing.
Anyway, I was pretty interested in learning how the film industry is structured, because it's not something I often think about... It's more about the particlar films that come out of the studios, rather than how they came to be. I also had no idea that the distribution companies have so much power: they pretty much can decide whether a film is going to be a blockbuster, or a flop.
Was also interesting to hear that often distribution companies can dictate to filmmakers the type of content that is to be shown in the movie...
In the case of the Swedish films that were most popular in Germany. We talked about how the distribution companies over there demanded that all films coming out of Sweden have a very Swedish feel to them, with lots of scenic views and particular Swedish landmarks identified, since they were the things that Germans loved most about the films. It did make me wonder if the Swedish people seeing the finished products ever got sick of always seeing the same landmarks or countryside portrayed in the film.
I know that when I see an Australian movie, I tend to get sick of always seeing the same scenes over and over, like the Opera House, or Sydney Harbour Bridge, or Uluru. Instead, I like to see places that I have been before that aren't hugely prominent, but that are still great representations of the country I live in. I think that showing all different locations in films is a much better way of showcasing a country, even if it is in a film that isn't actively trying to promote a destination in any way. It's better than always seeing the same icons or places, and having audiences thinking that they're all a country has to offer.
The idea of film and tourim also helping each other out is another one that makes sense. Tourism bodies or organisations located in destinations are going to know the most picturesque or scenic places to shoot a film, and can probably find a destination within their region to fit most aspects of a film, whether they need beachfront, forest, jungle, alpine areas, urban settings or any number of other options. Therefore, tourism organisations can help find these areas in conjunction with the film location scouts, and might also be able to help them get council approval or after-hours access to attractions.
In return, film crews will know how to best display the destinations that they have been provided with, and can probably help to create marketing opportunities for a region, particularly if it's a smaller city that doesn't have a huge budget or knowledge of tourism marketing.
Anyway, I think I'm rambling a bit here, which I'm not meant to do. Hopefully I'll be able to clean these up a bit before submitting them for assessment.
Until next seminar...!
Xox
It was funny how the class initially found it fairly difficult to identify how the tourism industry is structured and where their funding comes from, since we pretty much all just finished a business in tourism degree. I dunno, maybe I didn't pay enough attention in some of our undergrad classes, but I sorta found it hard to think of the different organisations and activities that happen under the Public Sector and the Industry Sector. But as soon as government activities were identified as the public sector, it was easy to think of the types of jobs the government does. Often that annoys me a lot, where I have no idea of the right answer to a question until I get a fairly large prompt or clue. I think it's a weakness in my learning skills, since I can't come up with an answer from my own head without help. It makes me more frustrated with others in the class are really good at that kind of thing.
Anyway, I was pretty interested in learning how the film industry is structured, because it's not something I often think about... It's more about the particlar films that come out of the studios, rather than how they came to be. I also had no idea that the distribution companies have so much power: they pretty much can decide whether a film is going to be a blockbuster, or a flop.
Was also interesting to hear that often distribution companies can dictate to filmmakers the type of content that is to be shown in the movie...
In the case of the Swedish films that were most popular in Germany. We talked about how the distribution companies over there demanded that all films coming out of Sweden have a very Swedish feel to them, with lots of scenic views and particular Swedish landmarks identified, since they were the things that Germans loved most about the films. It did make me wonder if the Swedish people seeing the finished products ever got sick of always seeing the same landmarks or countryside portrayed in the film.
I know that when I see an Australian movie, I tend to get sick of always seeing the same scenes over and over, like the Opera House, or Sydney Harbour Bridge, or Uluru. Instead, I like to see places that I have been before that aren't hugely prominent, but that are still great representations of the country I live in. I think that showing all different locations in films is a much better way of showcasing a country, even if it is in a film that isn't actively trying to promote a destination in any way. It's better than always seeing the same icons or places, and having audiences thinking that they're all a country has to offer.
The idea of film and tourim also helping each other out is another one that makes sense. Tourism bodies or organisations located in destinations are going to know the most picturesque or scenic places to shoot a film, and can probably find a destination within their region to fit most aspects of a film, whether they need beachfront, forest, jungle, alpine areas, urban settings or any number of other options. Therefore, tourism organisations can help find these areas in conjunction with the film location scouts, and might also be able to help them get council approval or after-hours access to attractions.
In return, film crews will know how to best display the destinations that they have been provided with, and can probably help to create marketing opportunities for a region, particularly if it's a smaller city that doesn't have a huge budget or knowledge of tourism marketing.
Anyway, I think I'm rambling a bit here, which I'm not meant to do. Hopefully I'll be able to clean these up a bit before submitting them for assessment.
Until next seminar...!
Xox
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Tourism and the Media
Hmm, I think I'm getting sick... Great timing considering I just finished holidays and am back at uni. Boo-urns.
Anyway, that's not what I'm here to talk about. For the tourism and the media class this semester, one of the assessment pieces is to write a reflective journal each week. It's worth 40% of our overall mark, which is kind of awesome, because I tend to be good at writing reflective things. As long as I pay attention in classes and actually have something to think about.
So I will start with today, which was the first class, and probably more brief than other seminars will be. I'm just going over the slides now, to refresh my memory (even though the class was only this morning!)
We started out with a discussion of media, and how some of the world's greatest pilgrimage and tourism sites were established through the written, illustrated and oral media. I guess this makes sense, especially in the ancient times, before there were advertisements and TV and the internet to let people know what was out there. All people had to inspire them were the stories and experiences that were shared upon the return of travellers. I guess no one really knew what was outside their own cities, until someone else went to find out, and then came back to tell of what they'd seen.
I think the quote about popular culture is also an interesting one:
We wondered whether mass media might be a better term for popular culture, instead. Whenever I hear the term popular culture, I always think of really big brands, for some reason, it's always Nike... I know there is so much more that the term refers to, but I just always think of the 'popular kids', going around, drinking coke, and wearing their Nike shoes... Actually, looking at that sort of seems more like something that would fit the late '80s or early '90s! I guess nowadays, they'd be walking around with their iPhones on Facebook wearing scarves and vests and stuff and drinking Red Bull... I dunno.
Other things we talked about were the aspects of 'Beauty, Wellbeing, Aesthetics & Art', and how, maybe not so much today, but in the 18th and 19th centuries, people would travel to a destination just because they saw a beautiful painting or read a lovely poem that represented that place. I think it seems amazing that people were so trusting of the author or painter, who may have had their own style of writing or painting that represented the place incorrectly, or enhanced what would have been an ordinary scene, into one that promotes travel.
I think now that photographs exist, it's a bit easier to tell what a destination looks like for real... Although that does prompt me to think that it might not be true... especially with the existence of photo altering programs like PhotoShop, where people can digitally enhance a photo that might be a bit bland in colour, to the brightest and happiest looking scene possible. Perhaps the truest representations of scenes were from authors and painters, who probably wouldn't have thought to change the entire feel and look of the scene they are influenced by...
I must admit, though, I am one to look at a photo and immediately be attracted to a destination, even if I'm certain it's been doctored or enhanced for that very reason. Most of the time I think that if a photo is worth taking of a place, then it's probably worth me visiting it, although some people take photos of the strangest things while on holiday, so maybe not...
Okay, well I think that's enough for this week's journal. I'm not sure if we have to comment on everything covered in the seminar, though I'm guessing not. Sorry to the one person who actually sometimes reads these, but this post is pretty much only for me (well, and my lecturer when I post it in the actual part we're supposed to).
I'll write again next week, I guess!
xox
Anyway, that's not what I'm here to talk about. For the tourism and the media class this semester, one of the assessment pieces is to write a reflective journal each week. It's worth 40% of our overall mark, which is kind of awesome, because I tend to be good at writing reflective things. As long as I pay attention in classes and actually have something to think about.
So I will start with today, which was the first class, and probably more brief than other seminars will be. I'm just going over the slides now, to refresh my memory (even though the class was only this morning!)
We started out with a discussion of media, and how some of the world's greatest pilgrimage and tourism sites were established through the written, illustrated and oral media. I guess this makes sense, especially in the ancient times, before there were advertisements and TV and the internet to let people know what was out there. All people had to inspire them were the stories and experiences that were shared upon the return of travellers. I guess no one really knew what was outside their own cities, until someone else went to find out, and then came back to tell of what they'd seen.
I think the quote about popular culture is also an interesting one:
"Popular culture is a dangerous category as it implies the existence of another culture which is either unpopular, or elitist, or both"
We wondered whether mass media might be a better term for popular culture, instead. Whenever I hear the term popular culture, I always think of really big brands, for some reason, it's always Nike... I know there is so much more that the term refers to, but I just always think of the 'popular kids', going around, drinking coke, and wearing their Nike shoes... Actually, looking at that sort of seems more like something that would fit the late '80s or early '90s! I guess nowadays, they'd be walking around with their iPhones on Facebook wearing scarves and vests and stuff and drinking Red Bull... I dunno.
Other things we talked about were the aspects of 'Beauty, Wellbeing, Aesthetics & Art', and how, maybe not so much today, but in the 18th and 19th centuries, people would travel to a destination just because they saw a beautiful painting or read a lovely poem that represented that place. I think it seems amazing that people were so trusting of the author or painter, who may have had their own style of writing or painting that represented the place incorrectly, or enhanced what would have been an ordinary scene, into one that promotes travel.
I think now that photographs exist, it's a bit easier to tell what a destination looks like for real... Although that does prompt me to think that it might not be true... especially with the existence of photo altering programs like PhotoShop, where people can digitally enhance a photo that might be a bit bland in colour, to the brightest and happiest looking scene possible. Perhaps the truest representations of scenes were from authors and painters, who probably wouldn't have thought to change the entire feel and look of the scene they are influenced by...
I must admit, though, I am one to look at a photo and immediately be attracted to a destination, even if I'm certain it's been doctored or enhanced for that very reason. Most of the time I think that if a photo is worth taking of a place, then it's probably worth me visiting it, although some people take photos of the strangest things while on holiday, so maybe not...
Okay, well I think that's enough for this week's journal. I'm not sure if we have to comment on everything covered in the seminar, though I'm guessing not. Sorry to the one person who actually sometimes reads these, but this post is pretty much only for me (well, and my lecturer when I post it in the actual part we're supposed to).
I'll write again next week, I guess!
xox
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)