Wulong Karst National Park may sue 'Transformers'
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail CRI, July 3, 2014
Representatives from Wulong Karst National Park have said they are considering suing "Transformers: Age of Extinction", according to a report from qq.com released on Tuesday.
 |
|
Wulong Karst National Park [Photo/baidu.com] |
The fourth installment of the series used many Chinese actors and elements but the UNESCO World Heritage site in Chongqing was the only natural scenery spot in the film.
The representatives are unhappy because they say it was agreed that the name of the park would be used in the film and feel the location was misrepresented as Transformers seems to indicate that it is located close to Hong Kong, when it is in fact more than 1200 km away.
However, Mr. Liang, in charge of the film from m1905.com explained that "Wulong should have paid Paramount Pictures the pro ratio money last November. Without money, they could not decide what kind of effects company would present. This was delayed for five months due to various reasons, which led to production time being very limited." Liang added that this delay directly led to the production team misunderstanding that Qinglong Bridge, another scenic spot in Chongqing, was part of Wulong Park because they did not know Chinese and they worked under high intensity.
Obviously, representatives from Wulong Karst National Park could not accept the explanation. They said it was because their counterparts did not show them the supplementary contract which was supposed to give detailed information about implanting the scenic spot in the film. They had been waiting for agreement. Representatives from Wulong Park are now in Beijing to talk to m1905.com. They said, "If we're not content with the result, we would not rule out using legal measures."
The film was released in China on June 25th. It broke box office records both domestically and internationally, nabbing more than 700 million yuan in China after its release, the biggest debut in the county's movie history.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)