Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR
I say that isn't much of a parameter for a city to be iconic. Case in point, today the city with the most theaters (or is it museums?) in the world is Mexico City. Is it more iconic than NYC or London? At least in the United States, most know that London is a highly developed major city while it takes some work convincing people that much of Mexico City is quite developed too. If Mexico City was the same icon as NYC or London, this issue wouldn't exist.
Also, the number of movie studios is a moot point too. For one thing, NYC appears as the setting of many movies that in fact were filmned mostly or entirely somewhere else. Nowadays the Dominican Republic is a hotspot for movie filming, increasingly from Hollywood. A good movie studios infrastructure and lower costs are the main drivers behind this recent boom. Guess what? Very few movies made in those studios actually have a Dominican Republic setting. There was one movie I think it was titled "Miami Vice" that was entirely or almost entirely filmned in Dominican Republic and yet, the movie setting was Miami.
I say there is no comparison with the amount of movies with a NYC setting and those with London. I could think of all the movies I have seen and can count on the fingers of one hand that had just a partial London setting, let alone one set entirely in that city.
Between NYC and London, I reiterate that NYC is ahead.
|
My answer wasn't meant to be all encompassing and no where did I suggest theatre as the only metric. It was used to show how LONG London has been around, to become more iconic, especially in the western world. London started with the Romans. London was instrumental in creating the English language.
Also it's not about Mexico...London and NYC are the topics. Miami Vice? LOL