Give each person in the theatre a set of headphones that will overlay a randomised track with different in-head personas talking for each person watching. A slightly different experience every time.
I played the game back when it originally came out. Like any media based on a book, it was slightly frustrating for a while that the graphics didn't match the visuals I had imagined whole reading the book. I still have the discs somewhere, might see if I can get it running somehow. I suspect I'll find the game mechanics to be clunky but today's standards.
Other people who've read it and who I've talked with seem to be split over whether the first book is better than the sequels, or the other way around. I prefer the sequels, my wife prefers the original. Do you have a preference?
A bucket of dehydrated water, which you have to reconstitute by adding water, in order to put out an invisible fire. No idea what kind of game you're making, could be a very odd addition to something like a racing sim.
As an aside, the 'ever trustworthy' Google AI suggests, 'completely ionizing a human body would require an energy output similar to a very small nuclear explosion'.
Disclaimer: I have nothing more than a secondary education level of physics and a keen interest in physics in general.
It's common scientific belief that all physical forces are backed up by a field, for example, magnetism by the electromagnetic field, gravity by a gravity field. It would follow that the strong and weak nuclear forces also have corresponding fields.
For a disruptor to work as seen in fiction, you'd probably be looking to disrupt the weak nuclear force, and would need a mechanism to locally change the properties of the corresponding weak nuclear field.
I don't know if there is such a mechanism available to us currently. Hopefully someone else has a definitive answer.
It is the horseshoe crab of trees