The runaway success of the film "The Man Who Lives with the King" triggered a sudden rush of visitors to Cheongnyeongpo in Yeongwol county, Gangwon Province (Cheongnyeongpo is the historical exile site of Danjong, a 15th‑century Korean monarch).
Within weeks of release, tens of thousands arrived and local businesses felt immediate change.
Official counts show visitors to Cheongnyeongpo and Jangneung rising several times over compared with the year before.
This column reviews the phenomenon, its causes, its benefits and harms, and practical steps for managers and policymakers.
A single film reshapes a town: Cheongnyeongpo today
Summary
Film and travel met at scale.
Since February 2026 monthly visits to Cheongnyeongpo rose to 38,223, while Jangneung recorded 26,578 visits.
These shifts go beyond a short marketing spike; they have cultural and economic ripple effects through the region.
The film reinterprets a 1457 exile story for modern emotions, which drew viewers to the real site.
As a result, hotels, restaurants and traditional markets experienced immediate demand; some accommodations reported full occupancy.
However, the rapid surge also exposed gaps in site operations and public safety management.
Why it spread
The story resonated.
"Danjong’s story struck a chord with many viewers, and the landscapes on screen prompted real visits."
First, the movie’s strong narrative encouraged emotional identification. Therefore, audiences wanted to visit the places they had seen on screen.
Second, the film’s release coincided with a holiday travel peak, amplifying demand.
Meanwhile, social media accelerated the effect through photo posts and route recommendations.
Visitors sought out filming locations, photographed them and posted images and itineraries; that content went viral and turned into what researchers call screen tourism (when film or TV inspires travel to real locations).
Consequently, large numbers of visitors concentrated in a short time in a limited area.
Arguments in favor: culture and the local economy
The economic impact is clear.
Proponents make three main points.
First, direct spending increases.
Visitor trips translate quickly into restaurant sales and higher hotel occupancy, and then spill over to traditional markets and local services.
Moreover, short‑term demand can become repeat visits or lead tourists to explore nearby attractions, creating follow‑on spending rather than a one‑time bump.
Second, the place’s brand value rises.
When a film highlights a site, that site can become a cultural icon.
Yeongwol, known historically as Danjong’s place of exile, can now link that story to other local assets—such as trilobite fossil displays and limestone caves—to create multi‑theme itineraries that appeal to a wider audience.
That opens opportunities for new tour routes and hands‑on experiences.
Third, the episode can justify longer‑term tourism infrastructure investment.
Local governments can use the spike as evidence to upgrade signage, expand parking, and improve public transit connections.
If authorities co‑design plans with residents to keep tourism sustainable, the short‑term boom can become a stable revenue base.
Tourism, when aligned with local resources and strategy, can become a durable engine of growth.
Looking at other cases, some places turned early visitor waves into lasting brands by introducing clear guidance systems and curated experiences.
Hence, with careful planning and management, the current influx could be converted into a sustainable opportunity.
Arguments against: safety and overload
The downsides are weighty.
"If crowd control and safety checks are inadequate, cultural gains can flip into social costs."
Critics focus on safety, environmental damage and impacts on residents’ quality of life.
Large crowds create traffic congestion and parking shortages, increase waste‑management costs, and generate noise complaints.
First, safety is immediate and urgent.
The Cheongnyeongpo ferry landing and nearby boarding points have seen far more people than usual, which strains structural safety, raises the risk of accidents, and tests emergency response capacity.
Local officials arranged temporary parking and added security staff, but those measures are stopgaps.
Second, excessive tourism can damage cultural sites and fragile natural areas.
When visitors cluster at heritage locations, wear and tear accelerates; managers must balance access with conservation.
Third, residents’ daily lives can suffer.
If daily routines are disrupted, local opposition can grow.
Residents may face road delays, noise and reduced access to public services, creating social tensions that can undermine long‑term support for tourism.
Therefore, policy should go beyond simple celebration or condemnation and rest on resident participation and agreed rules of use.
Past examples show that unprepared tourism surges often generate short‑term gains followed by longer‑term burdens.
Without management capacity, budget allocation and regulatory frameworks, cultural value erodes and economic benefits may not last. If left unchecked, the present situation could become the start of new social problems rather than a lasting success.
On‑the‑ground responses and institutional challenges
Responses must be systematic.
Local government has operated in emergency mode—opening temporary lots and deploying extra safety personnel.
However, in the medium term managers need to forecast visitor numbers, expand infrastructure, and set conservation policies.
First, implement visitor‑distribution strategies.
Yeongwol can link other attractions—trilobite fossil displays, limestone cave tours, and eco‑programs—to spread visitors across time and place.
Second, use reservation systems or timed entry to prevent overcrowding.
Online booking and strict time slots can smooth peaks and reduce pressure on sensitive sites.
Third, design benefit‑sharing models that involve residents.
Reinvesting part of tourism revenue into local conservation and community services, or running resident‑led experience programs, increases local acceptance.
Fourth, strengthen rules and monitoring for heritage protection.
Clear guidelines and regular inspections will help preserve the places tourists come to see.
Finally, adopt data‑driven demand forecasting and flexible operations.
Real‑time monitoring of visitor flows and quick responses—such as extra transit service or temporary shuttles during peak hours—are necessary.
Combined, these measures can turn screen tourism from a short windfall into a sustainable growth driver.
Conclusion
In short, opportunity and risk coexist.
The success of "The Man Who Lives with the King" brought an immediate surge of visitors and clear economic effects to Cheongnyeongpo and the wider Yeongwol area.
At the same time, it exposed shortcomings in safety, environmental protection and daily life management.
Policy responses must pair emergency measures with long‑term planning.
Visitor distribution, reservation or timed entry systems, resident‑participation revenue models, and stronger conservation norms should be pursued in parallel.
Without such balance, cultural success can quickly become a social cost.
The key is sustainability.
Yeongwol can use this moment to protect its cultural and natural assets while boosting the local economy. In other words, thoughtful, sustainable tourism design will turn this temporary success into enduring value—a point worth remembering.
When a single film causes a sudden tourism surge in your community, which management priorities would you set first?
