"Hangover II" No Headache For Thailand

[webfact]

"Hangover II" no headache for Thailand

by Janesara Fugal

BANGKOK, June 23, 2011 (AFP) - With scenes of drunken sex in sleazy strip clubs, raucous bar fights and close shaves with gangsters, you might think Thai tourism bosses are worried "The Hangover Part II" will be bad for business.

But the only surprising thing about reaction to the worldwide box-office hit in Thailand, where it is set, seems to be that nobody seems very, well, surprised.

"After seeing the movie... Ummm.. This is how foreigners see Bangkok... it's so true!" according to a post on Thailand's biggest web discussion board Pantip.com which summed up the general feeling of viewers.

The production, the sequel to a 2009 blockbuster which made stars of comedian Zach Galifianakis and actor Bradley Cooper, follows a group of friends on a drunken bachelor night out through Bangkok.

It follows the same formula as Las Vegas-based "The Hangover" as Stu, Phil and Allan wake up to discover the brother of Stu's fiancee missing and try to remember what happened during their alcohol-fuelled exploits.

The governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand is confident viewers will realise the film paints an exaggerated -- if not wholly inaccurate -- picture of a city famed worldwide for its wild nightlife.

"Nobody wants to see the negative side of their country, but we have to admit that it is true. If we could choose we wouldn't show that in a movie," Suraphon Svetasreni told AFP.

The film is not all about rolling around in the gutter -- it also features scenes in the stunning seaside setting of Krabi on Thailand's Andaman Coast, as well as roof-top bars in Bangkok and boat rides along the Chao Phraya River.

"I think this movie might be good for Thailand. It may help draw more tourists to Thailand after they saw those beautiful scenes in Krabi," said Suraphon.

For sure, some of the wilder sights such as a cigarette-smoking, drug-dealing monkey are not things most visitors to Bangkok are likely to encounter.

But the city's red-light districts -- where scantily-clad girls dance on stage and touts compete to lure visitors into shows involving bananas and ping pong balls -- are firmly on the tourist trail.

And groom-to-be Stu -- played by Ed Helms -- is unlikely to be the first man to have unknowingly had sex with one of Thailand's infamous "katoeys", or "ladyboys".

"Obviously the film looks mostly at the dark side of Bangkok, but pretty much everything portrayed does happen here, so in a sense it's not inaccurate," said Joe Cummings, author of the Thai edition of the Lonely Planet guidebook.

"Few visitors would see all of that in one visit but as I recall the filmmakers did the same thing for Las Vegas in the first film. I wouldn't expect a dark comedy such as this to do anything less," he added.

Some tour groups are already offering "Hangover II tours" including a boat trip along the Chao Phraya River as well as the temple and sky bar featured in the film, rounded off with a visit to a strip club.

An optional extra is to walk a tiger like boxer Mike Tyson, who had a cameo role in the production.

One reason why Thais might not be particularly offended by the film is that the shady characters, such as go-go bar owners and gangsters, are foreign, whereas the main Thai characters are relatively wealthy and successful.

It's a contrast to another hit movie which ruffled a few feathers with locals -- Tokyo-based "Lost in Translation" -- which portrayed many of the Japanese characters as somewhat weird.

While "The Hangover Part II" did receive some critical reviews in Thailand, the main concern for some is the geographical inaccuracies, which see the stars speed on a boat from Bangkok to the Andaman Coast, which in reality would require a long journey around the Malay Peninsula.

"I'm worried only about one thing... foreigners may misunderstand that they can ride a boat from the Chao Phraya River to Krabi!" wrote one viewer.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-06-23

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Finally, At least the TAT dude gets it!

There is hope.

[jonclark]

I never got what the fuss was all about As Thai films generally focus on similar themes, sexual innuendo , fights, and taking the piss out of those on the fringes of society (ladyboys, dwarfs and farangs).

[Nisa]

Yes, this is the way people view Bangkok ... just as they view Las Vegas as a place you can steal a cop car, ride it on the side walk, park in the hotel valet, be involved in a shooting in it and destroy it, and not go to jail or end up in the intensive care at the hospital from the serious beating the police would give you..

[DP25]

The governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand is confident viewers will realise the film paints an exaggerated

Uhh no they won't, in America at least. In American minds Bangkok is straight up dangerous hellhole where you are lucky to escape alive, and this movie just reinforces it. The movie went out of it's way to portray it as backwards and dangerous as possible, from saying that there are frequent power outages (what???) because the country can't produce enough electricity, that the main industries are rice and shoes (in 1985 sure), showing mainly Chinatown where everything is old and no skyscrapers, kidnappers, gangsters, ladyboy rapists etc. This is the first time most young Americans have ever seen Bangkok and Thailand, and most have never met anyone who has been here, so this film is going to be their perception of the country for the next decade or two. There's a reason Ebert said this film might be a good advertisement for a rival tourist city, like Singapore.

[SAffer]

The governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand is confident viewers will realise the film paints an exaggerated

Uhh no they won't, in America at least. In American minds Bangkok is straight up dangerous hellhole where you are lucky to escape alive, and this movie just reinforces it. The movie went out of it's way to portray it as backwards and dangerous as possible, from saying that there are frequent power outages (what???) because the country can't produce enough electricity, that the main industries are rice and shoes (in 1985 sure), showing mainly Chinatown where everything is old and no skyscrapers, kidnappers, gangsters, ladyboy rapists etc. This is the first time most young Americans have ever seen Bangkok and Thailand, and most have never met anyone who has been here, so this film is going to be their perception of the country for the next decade or two. There's a reason Ebert said this film might be a good advertisement for a rival tourist city, like Singapore.

Oh please... Americans hardly travel abroad anyway. And when they do, Thailand is a favourite destination. I have met more Americans here than in any other of the 40 countries I have visited. Don't Americans think every other country is backward anyway??

And, let's face it, this isn't Singapore.

I think people who come here generally want to have a wild experience or 2, unlike Singapore... so the movie is a good advertisment.

[sirchai]

But the city's red-light districts -- where scantily-clad girls dance on stage and touts compete to lure visitors into shows involving bananas and ping pong balls -- are firmly on the tourist trail.

Does the "No Hand Bar" still exist? :jap:

[Bkkorupcountry]

The governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand is confident viewers will realise the film paints an exaggerated

Uhh no they won't, in America at least. In American minds Bangkok is straight up dangerous hellhole where you are lucky to escape alive, and this movie just reinforces it. The movie went out of it's way to portray it as backwards and dangerous as possible, from saying that there are frequent power outages (what???) because the country can't produce enough electricity, that the main industries are rice and shoes (in 1985 sure), showing mainly Chinatown where everything is old and no skyscrapers, kidnappers, gangsters, ladyboy rapists etc. This is the first time most young Americans have ever seen Bangkok and Thailand, and most have never met anyone who has been here, so this film is going to be their perception of the country for the next decade or two. There's a reason Ebert said this film might be a good advertisement for a rival tourist city, like Singapore.

It's not a bad idea to keep someone with no knowledge of the world outside their borders at home, safe and sound. We don't want to be frightening any young, innocent and naive Americans now, do we?

[hellodolly]

The governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand is confident viewers will realise the film paints an exaggerated

Uhh no they won't, in America at least. In American minds Bangkok is straight up dangerous hellhole where you are lucky to escape alive, and this movie just reinforces it. The movie went out of it's way to portray it as backwards and dangerous as possible, from saying that there are frequent power outages (what???) because the country can't produce enough electricity, that the main industries are rice and shoes (in 1985 sure), showing mainly Chinatown where everything is old and no skyscrapers, kidnappers, gangsters, ladyboy rapists etc. This is the first time most young Americans have ever seen Bangkok and Thailand, and most have never met anyone who has been here, so this film is going to be their perception of the country for the next decade or two. There's a reason Ebert said this film might be a good advertisement for a rival tourist city, like Singapore.

Oh please... Americans hardly travel abroad anyway. And when they do, Thailand is a favourite destination. I have met more Americans here than in any other of the 40 countries I have visited. Don't Americans think every other country is backward anyway??

And, let's face it, this isn't Singapore.

I think people who come here generally want to have a wild experience or 2, unlike Singapore... so the movie is a good advertisment.

I have to agree the movie is a good advertisement. I live here in Thailand and when they showed scenes of the islands in the south I think Krabi I wanted to grab a plane and head down there.

As for the rest of the movie it was just very entertaining and in my opinion any one who thinks Thailand is really like that are the kind of people it would attract any how.

Actually more Americans visit Mexico than Thailand.

[MaiChai]

Most Thais live in denial about what goes on. I mean everyone knows about the night life and what is available (and if you think the service provided to farangs is large; its very small compared to what is available to Thais). Thus most Thais go around pretending they don't know what goes on, but everyone knows. This land is a lawless land, and if the Thais can't live up to the reality, then they are living in a dream world. So I would say the film fairly represents what is here.

[Tibo27]

I did not like the move that much, such a fan of the first one, I was really looking forward for this one especially living here in Bangkok myself.

The only thing that is for sure is that they did not exagerated on what can happen in Thailand. Though their trip is physically impossible when you know Bangkok enough, going from this side of the city to the other side in 5min, then go back again for coffee on the Chao Praya.. But that is not important, just details.

I agree with you when you say Thai people usually pretend not to know what happen but are, indeed, totally aware. The nightlife farangs enjoy is quite different than what thai wealthy male enjoy but it is a big business too.

Good for Thailand if that movie can draw more tourist here, though I don;t really see how this movie is a good advert. Not saying it is like a warning, but I keep thinking the image they give isn't so nice overall.

[exbelg]

they forgot to include in the movie : all the scams thailand is rich off, starting at the airport... they might have included a fake theft for some tourist going outside the kingpower line and ending up paying 100.000 baht to some local croocks, paying tea money when making a questionable offence on the road, tuk tuk and taxi maffia, phuket and pattata jetski maffia, etc etc... a yes and flying out of a hotel room on the 10th floor and pretending it is another farang commiting suicide

[khaowong1]

C'mon people, remember, this is a movie, hollywood, they pretty much exaggerate everything, and what more fun is it to blow up the goofy things that happen in Bangkok and surrounding touristy areas. Remember "Bangkok Nights" with Cage. That was the most ridiculous movie he's ever made. It pretty much had nothing right in it about Thailand. Well almost nothing right.

[NowImEasy]

One has to laugh when hearing the comments about the movie not showing the real Bangkok. It's a MOVIE, and not a documentary. If the filmmakers showed typical American tourists on a night out in the Big Mango, it would be boring.... I want to see it but my son told me to see Hangover I before I see II. He's 23 and been to Las Vegas and Bangkok. I took him here last year and Soi Cowboy was on the list of things to see, and we did. So TAT has nothing to worry about. Las Vegas is really not like the movie, and Bangkok may benefit from young Americans and other westerners visiting. All those poor young working women who support their families back in Issan would most definitely prefer a young drunk farang than an old drunk farang