Am I wrong for condemning Cocoon?

In this week's St. Petersburg Times, there was an article, talking about the movie Cocoon, made in St. Petersburg 25 years ago. The article talks about Cocoon, and how it was a big deal for St. Petersburg, and blah, blah, blah. Well, I say that silly little movie is the downfall of the cinematic community of St. Petersburg, and 25 years later, we're still feeling the effects of the type-casting of that movie. Am I wrong?

When that movie was made, it showed a St. Petersburg that was very young, and as a result, looked very old. The city was going through a bit of a change, and still had that old people feel that has haunted the new modern St. Pete for years. Ron Howard just happened to capture that fleeting moment in time, for all to see, and as a result, cemented the stigma of St. Pete as death's waiting room.

If you ask any St. Petian "what cinematicly has your city contributed in the past, oh, say, 30 years," they will all point to one, and only one film, Cocoon. Don't get me wrong, there are dozens of other movies that have used St. Pete for their backdrop, but none of the name or reputation that goofy sci-fi movie about a fountain of youth in a pool has.

So, I say Cocoon is the reason why you don't see many blockbusters using our humble abode as a backdrop. Sure, you can blame it on the Film Commission, but the secret is, it goes back 25 years.

Am I wrong?