-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney should go after Hunger Games
- Thread starter captainkidd
- Start date
Yes, because a future where our military is evil and tries to destroy life on other planets so it can use the natural elements native to that planet for it's own use is much more Disney-like.
As for Hunger Games, you have to be kidding. Teens killing other teens is totally up Disney's alley.
Again, have you see Avatar? Disney seems to have no problem getting behind that movie.
FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
Better when it was called Battle Royale. And both really don't belong in Disney.
I agree, it doesn't belong in Disney, but neither does Avatar. Disney seems to be all about the hype these days, so why not go for it?
Cmdr_Crimson
Well-Known Member
Yeah..I can see one good reason marketing would have a HUGE Problem with this..:lookaroun
Have your kids be the selected few to be a part of Disney's newest attraction The Hunger Games Experience. Be selected to support your disctrict in a All out man slaughter in KILLING each other! It's a fun experience you will never forget your Kids will thank you for allowing them to be Sacrificed at their will if they survive (The Walt Disney Company is not responsible for lives taken during or after the Experience). All to be a part of The Hunger Games Experience...:brick:
This is as about as retarded as the Rumor awhile back of a Twilight Musical for the Universal Parks that never happend.
Have your kids be the selected few to be a part of Disney's newest attraction The Hunger Games Experience. Be selected to support your disctrict in a All out man slaughter in KILLING each other! It's a fun experience you will never forget your Kids will thank you for allowing them to be Sacrificed at their will if they survive (The Walt Disney Company is not responsible for lives taken during or after the Experience). All to be a part of The Hunger Games Experience...:brick:
This is as about as retarded as the Rumor awhile back of a Twilight Musical for the Universal Parks that never happend.
FTR, I was being kind of sarcastic. I loved the books (and the movie), but no, I don't really believe Disney could do anything with it. I was just curious to see the reaction people would have considering so many are behind Avatar, which depicts our planet in just as evil a way as THG.
What should they do with Avatar:
Have your kids selected to be part of a mission for the US Marines where they invade an innocent planet, kill it's inhabitants, and steal it's natural resources for themselves. Whoever kills the most blue creatures wins!
flynnibus
Premium Member
Avatar is about commercial greed destroying everything in it's path to get it's goal. The army in Avatar are mercenaries.. not 'our military'. Big difference between 'earth or our society trying to rape and pillage other planets' and the idea of commercial exploitation. Notice in the film they never talk about unobtainium being essential to life on earth - just that it was some insanely valuable mineral worth exploiting another planet/race to get. The story of Avatar is recognizing that the exploitation isn't 'ok' and the rise of the basic to overcome the might of the exploiters.
But back on topic... is there anything in Hunger Games you think would fit Disney - or just the fact it's a blockbuster out of the gate? Even if it were deemed fitting, don't you think that horse has already left the barn?
Based on my understanding of the plot - I don't see anything Disney about this at all, or anything to celebrate from the film either. The setting, the premise, the vehicle of the film, are all very dark and violent. I have not read the book yet (its here in the house.. but I have others to read first) but based on the synopses I've seen... no. Blockbuster is not the sole definition Disney should be chasing for it's theme parks.
KeithVH
Well-Known Member
And for all of you John Carter haters out there, think of this. Some of these recent stories that the mindless public just adores. Think about their staying power. It's been 100 years since ERB wrote Princess yet it finally saw the light of day. Because of the story. As someone else said, and I will generalize, so much of the rcent stuff is just a fad. Doubtful anyone will remember Twilight, Hunger or Avatar in 40 or 50 years.
If you really think Disney needs a new property based on scifi (or fantasy), there is a huge list of possibilities that fits the company ethos (admittedly some of it more than 50 years old) and would be a better story than most anything on the big screen in the last 10 years.
If you really think Disney needs a new property based on scifi (or fantasy), there is a huge list of possibilities that fits the company ethos (admittedly some of it more than 50 years old) and would be a better story than most anything on the big screen in the last 10 years.
MarkTwain
Well-Known Member
...And this is the constantly reoccurring problem with Disney relying on outside properties for future lands. Most modern non-Disney franchises are, in fact, too non-Disney in their values and subject matter to work well in a Disney theme park. Occasionally you have the franchise that seems like something Disney themselves could have dreamed up - Harry Potter and Indiana Jones both work like this IMO - but most don't. Sheer financial success is insufficient argument for why something deserves a themed attraction.
Ravenclawdia
Member
I think those insisting that the Hunger Games are a fad and will be soon forgotten are vastly underestimating the series and its fandom. Look at Harry Potter-- in a few months, it'll have been a year since the first era of the series has reached its conclusion, but the Wizard Rock tours/album sales haven't slowed down a bit, the second phase of WWoHP is drawing anticipation, the charity in Harry's name is going stronger than ever (and has just launched its first non-Potter campaign in tribute to, you guessed it, the Hunger Games), and the fans are as devoted as it's ever been.
Granted, the Hunger Games series and fandom are nothing compared to the Harry Potter ones in terms of most everything, but it's still a phenomenon not to be underestimated. I still think giving it a theme park attraction would kind of... sully it? It's such heavy stuff that to make it something for entertainment and not entertainment and discussion/commentary, as the novels and movies lend themselves to, would be contradictory to the messages and themes of the story.
Potter had heavy stuff, too, but a few of its core themes do lend themselves to a theme park. Hunger Games? Not so much.
Granted, the Hunger Games series and fandom are nothing compared to the Harry Potter ones in terms of most everything, but it's still a phenomenon not to be underestimated. I still think giving it a theme park attraction would kind of... sully it? It's such heavy stuff that to make it something for entertainment and not entertainment and discussion/commentary, as the novels and movies lend themselves to, would be contradictory to the messages and themes of the story.
Potter had heavy stuff, too, but a few of its core themes do lend themselves to a theme park. Hunger Games? Not so much.
AswaySuller
Well-Known Member
Really? I'm not sure it made much of an impact over here in the UK/Europe.
I saw little in terms of marketing or merchandise?
And @magic lamp... I was being sarcastic!
rustysgirl
Active Member
please, NO! :hurl:
Mr_Incredible
Well-Known Member
Maybe Disney can bring a Scarface land on board also.
MarkTwain
Well-Known Member
Harry Potter was also different in that despite some of the tragic and heavy events that happened in the series, all of the environments they take place in (Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, Hogsmeade, etc.) are places that just about anybody would love to visit in real life. And as people in the Avatar threads point out, it's the environment that truly matters in a theme park, not so much the story. Conversely, I hope I never, ever see a place like Panem in real life.
Villains0501
Well-Known Member
"Tangled" and "Princess and the Frog" are on that list because they are not, and should never be, considered classic Disney films. They may follow the typical Disney Princess formula, albeit with a few twists and tangles here and there--pun intended--with "Tangled" being the more prevalent example, but both films lack the depth and quality of most other Disney fairy tales. Neither of the two films possess an exceptional score, and both films lack a compelling antagonist--unlike, say, Sleeping Beauty's Maleficent or Little Mermaid's Ursula. And don't even get me started on Disney's detestable casting decision for Rapunzel. Mandy Moore? I mean, come on!
Sorry for the ranting. I was just trying to lend some support to AswaySuller's previous point. Carry on!
Cmdr_Crimson
Well-Known Member
Tigger1988
Well-Known Member
Merchandise here is a huge seller, as I said she's easily the most popular princess right now.
What exactly was wrong with casting Mandy Moore?
And perhaps you should learn to let things go.....