Lionsgate has vision for theme parks based on its franchises, including Hunger Games

Posted | Contributed by Jeff

Three years ago, as the first “Hunger Games” movie was breaking box-office records, Jon Feltheimer, the chief executive of Lions Gate Entertainment, asked his lieutenants to investigate ways to turn their hit movie into a Disneyland-style ride. His team thought he might be off his rocker: The film’s titular games involve children killing children for the amusement of a futuristic society.

Read more from The New York Times.

slithernoggin's avatar

I didn't even know there was such a thing as Now You See Me....


Life is something that happens when you can't get to sleep.
--Fran Lebowitz

How is it that Star Trek has only spawned a (now defunct) Las Vegas attraction and a (now de-themed) roller coaster (that was themed after relocation)? That is a timeless series with countless characters that has been successful for generations...


But then again, what do I know?

OhioStater's avatar

Nerd.

rollergator's avatar

I thought Banksy's Dismaland already had the dystopian genre covered?


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

slithernoggin's avatar

There was going to be a Paramount theme park in Spain -- Paramount Park Murcia -- that was to have Star Trek themed area, but the project appears to have stagnated.

It sure does seem like Star Trek-themed rides and attractions would have a smart move. But Six Flags had the WB cartoon and DC characters, KECO had the Hanna-Barbera bunch, Disney had the Mouse, Cedar Fair had the Berenstain Bears, then the Peanuts, and none of them any vested interest in promoting Star Trek as a property.

When Paramount bought KECO, they had reason to bring their various properties into the parks. They just did a really crappy job of it (if you ask me). See the Aurora, Illinois-themed Hurler areas, for example. I remember a visit to Kings Island. They could have created a Star Trek-themed coaster or ride, a Guinan's Lounge restaurant, any number of things. What they did at KI, instead, was to plop down an Enterprise -- statue? -- near the Tower and have Romulans wandering Rivertown, glowering at guests. (And Next Generation Romulans, not Original Series Romulans, at that.)

So the company with the vested interest in using the parks to promote other company brands just did a really poor job on execution.

The company has made several curious choices. The parent company, Viacom, wanted to follow the Disney Store/WB Studio Store lead by opening a store on Chicago's Michigan Avenue. With all the great brands under the Viacom umbrella at the time -- Star Trek, Nickelodeon, Nick at Nite, I Love Lucy, MTV, VH1, the Paramount Studios name and historic films -- they named the store the Viacom Entertainment Store and it closed within two years. I knew there was Star Trek stuff inside, but most people had no idea what a Viacom was or why it might be entertaining.


Life is something that happens when you can't get to sleep.
--Fran Lebowitz

OhioStater's avatar

I like Star Trek a lot (that was a joke, Shane). But I would have to say avoiding it as a theme-park staple is probably a move based in part of what I mentioned. It's just not very fun. Sure, there are a few light-hearted moments (i.e. tribbles), but the series and franchise as a whole takes itself very, very seriously. It's not particularly kid-friendly (other than the "space is cool" attraction). Who wants to go play on Vulcan and solve some difficult logic problems? How about travel to the San Francisco of the future to save some whales? I think Star Trek is a great example of a wonderful franchise that just doesn't translate well into family theme park material.

Last edited by OhioStater,
slithernoggin's avatar

I think there are elements that would lend themselves to a theme park attraction. That Spanish Paramount park was to have a Warp Drive coaster, for example. And a ride simulator would be a no-brainer. A shuttlecraft ride through a Klingon/Federation battle, for example. Like Star Wars, Star Trek is sufficiently well-known that even non-fans who've never seen an episode or a movie have a basic familiarity with the characters. ("Oh, yeah, that's the show with Dr Spock and TJ Hooker!")

To me, at least, Star Trek is far more translatable than Hunger Games.


Life is something that happens when you can't get to sleep.
--Fran Lebowitz

OhioStater's avatar

Oh I am with you there. That said, Star Wars has achieved something Star Trek had failed at; connecting to kids.

My girls just got done watching the Lego Star Wars Yoda Chronicles; there is just very little connection to the younger generations with Star Trek as it all seems aimed at a more mature audience.

Well known yes, but to kids? I'm not convinced, and that's important when it comes to theme parks.

Last edited by OhioStater,
slithernoggin's avatar

I think a similar argument could be made about Cedar Fair and Peanuts, though. I've always thought a large part of the appeal of Peanuts at CF parks is not to the kids, but to the adults. The kids respond to what are to them engaging cartoon characters, but the adults are more likely to have the emotional connection to the characters.

That said: Harry Potter can support an entire themed area (well, two of them, actually). Star Wars will be able to support an entire themed area.

Star Trek, I think, could support a themed ride and a nearby themed shop or food service outlet, but not a themed area.


Life is something that happens when you can't get to sleep.
--Fran Lebowitz

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2024, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...