In a globalized urban setting, more and more Generic cities appear to be in conformity around the world. They are blank concrete jungles that loss of cultural context, significance, and identity, or “absence of character”, as mentioned by the author. Therefore, we use logos and images to preserve and promote the city’s values. I agree that film is polychronic and polychromatic, which allows infinite imaginations and explorations. Ironically, it may bring confusion and delusion of a real city because of its high authenticity.
When people just learn cities through images and films, certain stereotypes will be created as a result and the meanings of cities in the reality will no longer exist. Hence, they will become cinematic cities. For example, streets with Chinese lanterns, rickshaws, cheongsam are still depicted in some Hollywood films nowadays to represent modern Hong Kong. I reckon that it is lamentable and inescapable that Hong Kong will become a part of the cinematic and generic cities in globalization.
Reference
Abbas, M. A. (2003). Cinema, Cities and the Cinematic. In Global cities: Cinema, architecture, and urbanism in a digital age (pp. 142-156), edited by Krause, L., and Petro, P. New Brunswick, NJ; London: Rutgers University Press.
—Law Vanessa Lok Tung 3035825095
As you correctly pointed out, some elements have represented the city well in the past (maybe too well) that they got carried away to the present. On the other hand, as city branding strategies are part of city marketing, which have been one of the urban design and development aspects for decades, the cities are renewing themselves times and again. To better situate your argument, you could also reflect upon the role of films in representing the city. For example, would there be any underlying (or maybe even subconscious) reason behind the romanticisation of Asian cities in Hollywood (or other western) cinemas? How would the depiction/representation differ from Asian (or Hong Kong) films?