Balamory revisited: An evaluation of the screen tourism destination-tourist nexus

Film tourism – Evolution, progress and prospects

“…While film-making practices focus on the manipulation of reality through editing and cinematography, the result of which is the moulding of viewer consciousness, the resultant "movie-awakened sensibilities" (Schwartz 2004: 344) culminate in the consumption of a particular place or space. As Butler (2011) observes in the title of a recent paper, "it's only make believe", in that the appeal of a real location shown in a film may be greater than the actual place, which creates considerable dissonance in relation to the tourist experience as noted by Connell (2005bConnell ( , 2009. On the contrary, as Hills (2002) points out, some film tourists, and particularly real fans of a particular production undertake detailed research to locate precise on-screen locations, whereby it is the authentic sites which form the object of consumption.…”

“…A visit to a film site by a film fan may result in enormous satisfaction or disappointment. Knowledge and experience of a film location, filming set and associated props may change an individual's perception and level of enjoyment, and while just being there can be all a fan wants to experience (Couldry 2005) this may not always be positive if the experience is not as good as perceived from the small or big screen (Karpovich 2010, Connell andMeyer 2009). Experiencing the 'authentic' filming location takes several forms, but there is a major dividing line between commercialised tour experiences where the experience is formal and structured, and the unofficial, real place that simply presents itself as a place or space with no formal or commercial structure for film tourists.…”

“…tourists and a subsequent lack of understanding of "how screen tourists perceive, interact and relate to the destination", especially compared with the early emphasis on destination impact related aspects. This remains an emerging area of work that would benefit from further empirical studies that delineate, illustrate and evaluate the nature of film tourism and the marketing and management implications for destinations, particularly in terms of how dedicated film tourists can be catered to, as argued by both Connell and Meyer (2009) and Peters et al (2011).…”

“…Despite some insightful studies by Roesch (2009), Macionis and Sparks (2004), Connell and Meyer (2009), Carl, Kindon and Smith (2009), Buchmann, Moore and Fisher (2010 and Kim (2010Kim ( , 2012, the research on the film tourist experience remains an emerging area of informed study. Recent research into the psychology of film tourism and media consumption (Buchmann, Moore and Fisher 2010;Kim (2012) A feature of much of the film tourism motivation, experience and destination image research is that it is has the potential to inform, but because studies are often exploratory and experimental, based on a small, discrete population, only do so on a limited basis.…”

“…Some critics (e.g. Connell and Meyer 2009;Fernandez-Young and Young 2008;Olsberg|SPI 2007) have suggested that the umbrella term screen tourism is more useful as it encompasses both media of film and television, reduces the cumbersome use of the dual terms and reduces potential misinterpretation of the wider phenomenon (i.e. it may be unnecessary to distinguish between film and television as it is not the form but the effect that is of interest).…”