Bangkok Reports

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1588782]Of course you have already bought your alcohol in a conveniently close by 7-11 on the 10th as well.

Ah, that reminds me what an easy life it is not to be dependent on any alcohol to enjoy myself.[/QUOTE]I am also not dependent on Alcohol to the extent that, while I know Thailand has strange laws where a 7-Eleven can sell alcohol only certain hours of the day, I don't know what those hours actually are. Perhaps someone can mention the allowed alcohol sales hours.

No alcohol. No problem.

[quote=wolvenvacht;1588808]really, "hangover 2" gave bangkok a negative image? perhaps in the prudishly filthy minds of some movie critics who never left their mom's basements. you really have to stop believing such nonsense: did "hangover 1" or "ocean's 11" (original and remake) make even a little scratch on the image of las vegas' gambling and hospitality industry? do the tourists shy away from japan because of the godzilla movies? was tourism in australia dealt a killing blow after "crocodile dundee 2" was made?

"bangkok dangerous" was a much better movie than "hangover 2" and did a much better job of painting a very dark image of bangkok (you call it "appealing": we must have seen different versions of that movie then. from memory, i remember an assasination on a busy crossroad, pickpockets, someone being drowned in his (or a hotel's) swimming pool, a garish murder on the floating market after a boat chase that left lots of damage in its wake, a bargirl from a g-club tortured in a back room of the club, failed assisination attempt in a quiet street in the evening, wholesale slaughter in an industrial estate). and still i doubt if anyone changed their travel plans because of any of these (or similar) movies.[/quote]the ruling government seems to believe film images matter. now whether such movies increase tourism or decrease tourism, is anther matter. in regard to mega box office hit hangover part 2, it seems in america most people (especially **** 30 "millenials") have watched this movie, and in fact seems to be their primary(if not only) reference point of knowledge about bangkok. in contrast in regard to bangkok dangerous, i have never known or talked to a single person in the west who has actually seen this movie. its therefore not part of the popular culture in america the same way for example hangover part 2 is.

in reference to the tourist issue impact of hangover 2, probably the best known film critic in america at that time (the late) roger ebert stated it this way " "the hangover, part ii" plays like an anti-travelogue paid for by a rival tourist destination singapore, maybe."

here is his review.

[url]http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-hangover-part-ii-2011[/url]



roger ebert.

may 24,2011.

is this some kind of a test? "the hangover, part ii" plays like a challenge to the audience's capacity for raunchiness. it gets laughs, but some of them are in disbelief. as if making sure no one was not offended, it has a montage of still photos over the closing titles that include one cruel shot that director todd phillips should never, ever have used. the mpaa's elaboration of the film's are rating says the movie has "pervasive language, strong sexual content including graphic nudity, drug use and brief violent images. " also other stuff. maybe their space was limited.

it's not that i was shocked. this is a raunch fest, yes, but not an offense against humanity (except for that photo, which is a desecration of one of the two most famous photos to come out of the vietnam war). the movie has its share of laughs. there's a wedding toast that deserves some sort of award for deliberate social embarrassment. and alan (zach galifianakis), the character who stole much of the original 2009 film, walks off with a lot of this one, too.

if you saw that earlier film (which grossed $485 million, so you may have), there's not much need for me to describe the plot this time. it's the same story. director todd phillips seems to have taken "the hangover" screenplay and moved it laterally from las vegas to bangkok while retaining the same sequence of scenes: call to bewildered bride to be, flashback to wedding plans, ill-advised bachelor party, four friends waking up with terminal hangovers in unfamiliar hotel room, ominous signs of debauchery, desperate quest to discover what happened, etc.

as the film opens, a few years have passed. the dentist stu (ed helms) is now the prospective groom. he's engaged to a beautiful thai woman named lauren (jamie chung). her father (nirut sirichanya) is not happy. his son, teddy (mason lee), is a brilliant 16-year-old pre-med student at stanford, and the father tells stu: "in this country, we do not consider a dentist a doctor. " at a pre-wedding feast, he calmly and implacably offers a toast comparing stu to a flavorless rice pudding.

then the lads go down to the beach for one (1) beer, and the next thing they know they're regaining consciousness in a sleazy bangkok fleabag, stu has a facial tattoo, and young teddy is missing, except for a severed finger wearing a stanford class ring. that sets off their search through the city's underbelly for people who might be able to help them reconstruct the missing hours? days? let me just observe that no search of the bangkok underbelly that involves ping-pong balls is going to be altogether reassuring.

their adventures are punctuated by a series of behavioral eruptions by alan (galifianakis), who links passive aggression with clueless trouble-making. these interventions have a certain charm, but alan's funniest scene takes place in his own bedroom, before he ever gets to thailand. describing himself as a "stay-at-home son," he issues commands to his mother through a speaker system and seems determined to remain a fanboy for life. this character, as seen in this scene, could inspire a movie of its own that i would pay good money to see. (galifianakis should regrow his hair, however; i like him looking like a shaggy bear more than like the bouncer in a biker bar.).

i'm no expert, but i've been to bangkok, and while the city no doubt has a seamy side, let it be said that much of "the hangover, part ii" plays like an anti-travelogue paid for by a rival tourist destination singapore, maybe. some of its surprises would shock only those who know little about the city's sex workers, but others are truly unexpected, including the appearance of paul giamatti as a crime boss, and nick cassavetes as a tattoo artist. the gangster mr. chow (ken jeong) is back, still in need of serious tranquilizing.

while many weekend comedies these days seem too timidly in search of the pg-13, "the hangover" embraced its are, and "part ii" seems to be testing the mpaa's patience. i wonder if there will be an unrated director's cut. the sequel repeats the medical miracle of the first film, in that the characters are able to regain consciousness after horrifying debauches and quickly return to the land of the living. in real life, they'd check into themselves into an emergency room.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1588808]Really, "Hangover 2" gave Bangkok a negative image? Perhaps in the prudishly filthy minds of some movie critics who never left their mom's basements. You really have to stop believing such nonsense: did "Hangover 1" or "Ocean's 11" (original and remake) make even a little scratch on the image of Las Vegas' gambling and hospitality industry? Do the tourists shy away from Japan because of the Godzilla movies? Was tourism in Australia dealt a killing blow after "Crocodile Dundee 2" was made?

"Bangkok Dangerous" was a much better movie than "Hangover 2" and did a much better job of painting a very dark image of Bangkok (you call it "appealing": we must have seen different versions of that movie then. . And still I doubt if anyone changed their travel plans because of any of these (or similar) movies.[/QUOTE]There is an opposite effect from 3 Stupid Men, which was a Chinese made movie, partly funded by Thai tousism, which featured, as would be obious, 3 stupid men, the standard and expected tranny, a train trip from BKK to Chiangmai and a lot of stupid slapstick type humour that the Chinese found appealing. Thailand believes this movie alone doubled the number of Chinese visiting Thailand, even though it didn't feature much of Thailands more popular places or culture / imagined culture.

[QUOTE=Western787;1589010]The ruling government seems to believe film images matter.[/QUOTE]I didn't understand it that way. The chief of staff uses this to attack the actual isssues of trafficking in sex and drugs, corruption, loss of Buddhist values, and such. Which is entirely according to the book of "How to sell your coup to the middle classes and the foreign correspondents". He does not say these movies are bad for Thai tourism: his admonitions go "deeper"; if there is no filth and debauchery, then Thailand would not get this treatment in the movies.

[QUOTE=Western787;1589010]In reference to the tourist issue impact of HANGOVER 2, probably the best known film critic in America at that time (the late) Roger Ebert stated it this way " "The Hangover, Part II" plays like an anti-travelogue paid for by a rival tourist destination Singapore, maybe."[/QUOTE]With all respect to the (to me totally unknown) Roger Ebert, he doesn't know what he is talking about and has no proof of what he is saying, at least as far as the tourist impact of this movie is concerned. Even considering Singapore as a "rival tourist destination" to Thailand is laughable.

As far as movie critics go, I have hardly ever read one that could merit to hold my attention for longer than a few seconds. They seem all to be made up out of hot air and political correctness; or outright eating out of the hands of the big media companies and movie theater companies. And if they go out of their "narrow field of expertise", duck and cover! But perhaps in Europe our movie critics are worse than those in the USA. Whatever. . . I don't think anyone wishing to come to Bangkok or Thailand (and especially if they want to experience the more "hot" side of it) was put off by any fictional view shown in a movie, or even by any well researched documentary.

[QUOTE=FreebieFan;1589017]There is an opposite effect from 3 Stupid Men, which was a Chinese made movie, partly funded by Thai tousism, which featured, as would be obious, 3 stupid men, the standard and expected tranny, a train trip from BKK to Chiangmai and a lot of stupid slapstick type humour that the Chinese found appealing. Thailand believes this movie alone doubled the number of Chinese visiting Thailand, even though it didn't feature much of Thailands more popular places or culture / imagined culture.[/QUOTE]A very good comment! It seems every time I come to Thailand this movie is playing on some of the channels on the hotel TV, so it is really popular. And although I don't understand a word of it, 99% of the attraction is the absurd slapstick and eternal chases and running around back and forth. Of course the background (Thailand) is entirely irrelevant to the story, but it shows all the "usual suspects" of tourist destinations.

Who said "It doesn't matter what they say about you, as long as they keep talking about you"? 'Nuff said.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1589026]With all respect to the (to me totally unknown) Roger Ebert, he doesn't know what he is talking about and has no proof of what he is saying, at least as far as the tourist impact of this movie is concerned. Even considering Singapore as a "rival tourist destination" to Thailand is laughable.
[/QUOTE]It seems SG tourism is quite dependent on Thai tourism, but they want to change that:

[URL]https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-tourism-hit-mh370-mystery-thai-crisis-071001323--finance.html[/URL]

I'd suggest tourism to SG has certain advantages over LOS. For one, legal casinos. Also VN, PRC, PI gals. BTW I'm surprised you chose a VN girl when you were there, as forum reports here indicate many find them mechanical. OTOH PI females are renowned for your prefered GFE.

Recently I read a long thread comparing SG with KL, with superb tips on what to do in SG & how a non perverted tourist can have a lot of normal fun there:

[URL]http://www.tripadvisor.com.sg/ShowTopic-g298570-i7008-k6853587-Singapore_vs_kl-Kuala_Lumpur_Wilayah_Persekutuan.html[/URL]

"I spend quite a bit of time in Hong Kong which is one of the World's great cities but can be very hectic. Singapore is a great contrast to Hong Kong and other bustling Asian cities, and a welcome relief".

This one's for the huge ISG Nana Parking Lot lover contingent:

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mB06h-VyvA[/URL]

Or any others who dare look.

[QUOTE=Syzygies;1588987]I am also not dependent on Alcohol to the extent that, while I know Thailand has strange laws where a 7-Eleven can sell alcohol only certain hours of the day, I don't know what those hours actually are. Perhaps someone can mention the allowed alcohol sales hours.[/QUOTE]IIRC retail stores like 7-11/ Family Mart / Foodland / Villa Mart sell alcohol from 11 am to 2 pm, and then again from 5 pm to midnight. I think the premise of the law is not to allow alcohol sales in the morning when kids are going to school and in the afternoon when they are returning from school.

SL.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1588808]From memory, I remember an assasination on a busy crossroad, pickpockets, someone being drowned in his (or a hotel's) swimming pool, a garish murder on the floating market after a boat chase that left lots of damage in its wake, a bargirl from a G-club tortured in a back room of the club, failed assisination attempt in a quiet street in the evening, wholesale slaughter in an industrial estate). And still I doubt if anyone changed their travel plans because of any of these (or similar) movies.[/QUOTE]I've only seen part of the Nicolas Cage remake, which wasn't bad, has anyone seen the original? Kevin Bacon did a movie called Elephant White, also based in Bangkok, a few years ago. I quite liked that. Similar sort of theme to Bangkok Dangerous, not quite a gruesome though.

[QUOTE=Kerrstar;1589075]I've only seen part of the Nicolas Cage remake, which wasn't bad, has anyone seen the original? Kevin Bacon did a movie called Elephant White, also based in Bangkok, a few years ago. I quite liked that. Similar sort of theme to Bangkok Dangerous, not quite a gruesome though.[/QUOTE]I have seen both films. The Thai original is better IMHO. It's characters are more complex and the plot is less obvious than the remake. You can get it from Netflix.

[QUOTE=Sunlover2;1589071]IIRC retail stores like 7-11/ Family Mart / Foodland / Villa Mart sell alcohol from 11 am to 2 pm, and then again from 5 pm to midnight. I think the premise of the law is not to allow alcohol sales in the morning when kids are going to school and in the afternoon when they are returning from school.[/QUOTE]IME over the last 7 years, only 7-11 regularly enforces this. None of the others.

At 10 you can be cock blocked at 7-11, then walk across the street to FM at 10:01 & empty out the store.

[QUOTE=PinkPearl;1589068]BTW I'm surprised you chose a VN girl when you were there, as forum reports here indicate many find them mechanical. OTOH PI females are renowned for your prefered GFE.
[/QUOTE]Actually I was looking for a pinay (as I never had one and heard many good things about them) but I did not find one in Orchard Tower's Ipanema bar. And when this beautiful and friendly VN girl approached me, I could not resist.

She did all the right things, I had great sex with her. She was not "cold" or "mechanical" nor did she work according to a script. And yet, I missed a certain spark that I have experienced with all my Thai companions. For lack of any better explanations I blame Singapore's cleanliness.

[QUOTE=Wolvenvacht;1589026]I didn't understand it that way. The chief of staff uses this to attack the actual isssues of trafficking in sex and drugs, corruption, loss of Buddhist values, and such. Which is entirely according to the book of "How to sell your coup to the middle classes and the foreign correspondents". He does not say these movies are bad for Thai tourism: his admonitions go "deeper"; if there is no filth and debauchery, then Thailand would not get this treatment in the movies.

[/QUOTE]To the extent movies reflect reality, yes they are attempting to make substantive improvements including rounding up "criminal ladyboys", a great idea in fact.

[QUOTE=Western787;1589426]To the extent movies reflect reality, yes they are attempting to make substantive improvements including rounding up "criminal ladyboys", a great idea in fact.[/QUOTE]Hopefully they can get rid of the overly aggressive African ladies on Suk as well, they are pretty annoying IMHO.

The reality is that most women grow out of sex by about 30, and many men do not. Part of this is because we get close to 100% orgasm rate and get about a 20%. This mismatch is answered by financial handcuffs, frustration or P4 P, overt or covert. It is certainly the case in the West and in Asia, given the number of Asian mongers I come accross. I think its part of the human condition. Sure, the demands of children / career creep in, but the typical male still wants it and does not get it. Women assume their lack of urge is the same as ours. A fatal error.

So rather than starve, we hunt, and hence this forum. It's natural, and few percent of women have catered to that need for thousands of years. Eventually the male gets smart and realises marriage is a con, or they don't have go without. We often deceive to segment real emotions. And often guilt mistaken for love. From a very real physical need that is unmet. Its not just going to a restaurant for a change: its a question of starving and no food at all.

This duality and tension is why women hate P4 P: power, freedom of the male and clarity of what relationships really mean if they fail to meet basic needs and we are not enough of a priority. The P4 P girls are catalysts for this epiphany. That is an existential issue and so why their reaction is so strong.

Like so many here, I'm transitioning from the fairytale that underwrites female power to being a free agent, real friends for emotional and intellectual needs where I find them and P4 P other bits, decoupling the notion a female can cover it all. Some might, but the majority do not.

Let's celebrate our freedom and choice. Tell the feminazis to sod off with their jedi mind games. Enough said, time to focus on hotties having their tonsils massaged and skin tingling pleasure. We only live once.

[QUOTE=Syzygies;1588987]
No alcohol. No problem.[/QUOTE]Yes it is possible to have fun without alcohol. But why take the risk, LOL.