TV & Film Hunger Games Vs. Battle Royale

[KillGill]

Hi there! I wanted to know your opinions on the current "Hunger Royale" debate going on around the internet. For those of you who don't know what Battle Royale/Hunger Games are here is a quick synopsis.


Battle Royale (2000)


In this Japanese book written by Koshun takami and the film directed be Kinju Fakasuku the Japanese government kidnaps a group of ninth garde students and sends them to an island. The students are given a bag containing food,water, and a random weapon. These weapons range from machine guns to cloth headbands. The students are given three days to kill each other. If by the end of three days there is more then one student alive, metal collars around there neck explode killing them all leaving no winner.


Notes: Both film and book were so graphic they were banned in many countries. It was banned in the U.S. until 2010.


Hunger Games (2008)


In this 2008 book and 2010 film, the country of America has been damaged by war and has been split up into twelve districts and a capitol. The capitol hosts an event in which two children, a male and a female are taken to an arena and forced to fight.


Notes: Unlike in battle royale the government uses the game as a form of entertainment. In Battle Royale the program is a form of punish ment.


Few questions


Do you think Hunger Games ripped of BR?


Which do you think has a better story?


Which do you prefer?

 

[KillGill]

I defiantly think Suzanne Collins ripped off BR. There are way to many similarities. Such as taking winners from past games and putting them back in. In both stories we have psychopaths who sign up just for the pleasure of killing.


I think BR has a better story. Not only does it have a great plot, you have 42 kids and you care for them all. In the hunger games 1/3 of the contestants die within the first ten minutes. In BR we get a back story and at least a full chapter with all 40 students. Not only that but in the Hunger Games none of the players know each other. While in Battle Royale they all know each other and are friends,making each death even more shocking disturbing.


I much more prefer BR over the hunger games. Battle Royale takes the washed down pg13 teen romance and kicks it up to an R rated tear jerker/ all out slasher flick.

 

[Grey]

I would be very reluctant to believe HG ripped off BR.


I haven't read HG, but the story sounds appropriately topical if poorly executed.


Having only read one I can't really make a decision.

 

[Stick to Your Guns]

Battle Royal is definitely better imo. I just felt the characters were more fleshed out. I do tend to prefer foreign cinema, it's just how they approah film. Films like the hunger games are just too dumbed down and all for the money they drawn in.

 

[Alexandra95]

I haven't seen or read BR, but Hunger Games is completely ok to me. The second and third book focus more on the national uprising in the country, however, than the games themselves. That might be what makes them different?

 

[KillGill]

I haven't seen or read BR, but Hunger Games is completely ok to me. The second and third book focus more on the national uprising in the country, however, than the games themselves. That might be what makes them different?

As well in BR shuya nanahra continues to lead a rebellion against the country on Japan.

 

[Alexandra95]

[QUOTE="David Parks]As well in BR shuya nanahra continues to lead a rebellion against the country on Japan.

[/QUOTE]
Aha, they do seem very similar then.

 

[Ethan Grant]

I'm a big fan of Hunger Games when it started I always watch this movie with my brother we really enjoy watching this.


Thanks

 

[KillGill]

tax liens investment[/URL] we really enjoy watching this.
Thanks

have you ever read Battle Royale? ITS AMAZING.its grittier, bloodier, and ALOT sadder.

 

[BAPE]

Battle Royale was definitely much better. It's just so much more...evil. In Hunger Games the kids know that they will be fighting each other in a death competition, so they try not to get too attached with each other. Battle Royale, however, has a class that has known each other possibly for years are forced to fight each other, or they will all die. The instructor thinks they're lesser than dogs, and even kills the some of the students either as punishment or just for the enjoyment of it. I didn't read the manga, but I surely did watch both movies, and I can say that even though I don't watch the movies, the most minor character's death will still hit you in the heart somewhere.

 

[genestarwind34]

Overall they could be called creative in the way the story is presented. You get more from the characters in battle royal while the competition is going on while hunger games build up the characters at the beginning to hook you and relate to you. Honestly for me i like battle royal because it has more of a realistic approach in that the situation seems more likely to happen and even though the acting for the movie was a little hammy it still showed a realism compared to the overactive drama from the hunger games. To me both are ok movies but if i had to choose which one is better i would say battle royal

 

[Uncultured]

Disclaimer, I've only seen the movies and I think BR > HG for all reasons, especially plagiarism, which seems to be the origin of HG imo.


Hunger games simply makes no sense at the core. The whole plot is founded on an insane principle that kidnapping peoples kids and putting them on reality tv as a bloodsport will pacify the oppressed, which makes no sense. When a government kills innocent people, they create martyrs, when Mumia Abu-Jamal is executed by the US government, black empowerment groups will have a martyr, they wont just sulk and say, "oh well, you got it US government" they will be more angry than before. So killing peoples kids every year seems kind of counter intuitive as it would only serve to create martyrs and piss off parents and communities. Instead, real life evil governments try to pacify people by, you know, not killing peoples kids. What pacifies people is a short and simple list.


1. Cults of personality, see the love and adoration you will find around the world for really shitty despots throughout history. The funeral lines for such benevolent leaders such as Stalin, Mao, Kim il Sung, Kim Jong-il etc. were miles long, and they weren't mandatory. Cults of personality are propaganda campaigns that make leaders look superhuman. According to NK media, Kim Jong-il invented the hamburger, and he's the best golfer in human history, notching a 38 under par with five hole in ones, 25 par under the current record holder.


2. An illusion of control mixed with distractions on a personal level, see the US


3. Widespread police/military state action and oppression


4. Organized religions that dictate financial levels, i.e caste states such as pre modern India


5. Pervasive and crushing mediocrity, insane poverty creates revolution, so on the financial front, keep everyone sad and depressed but not POed


6. Having a perceived "enemy" that unites the people


7. A widespread lack of education, this is the reason why slaves who could read and/or write were killed in the south during the era of slavery. If you don't know you're being oppressed, if you don't know oppression is bad and if you don't know that real freedom is a thing, then you wont rebel, so keeping people in the proverbial dark about freedom and life in general works like a charm while oppressing masses of people.


8. Low levels of social mobility, i.e the job of the father is the limit on the job of the son. This still goes on around the world. In many countries you could be a hardworking genius but if you're the son of a farmer you're considered lower class and not worth the time of day and not worth the opportunity of real success. This was a big reason why Feudalism worked for so long in Europe.


Lets look at the one real dystopian and sci-fi movie-like government in the world, North Korea. Out of the list aforementioned they meet #'s 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and you could take their ban of religion as a form of organized religion as well so they sort of half meet #4. Think realistically, if I put, "kill peoples kids" at number nine it would stand out as unrealistic and kind of insane. It would be out of place to say the least.


A state with ultimate power and control over its people is being redundant and stupid if/when they decide to start a kill your kid reality TV show, it seems to me that the leaders of the HG world are asking for a rebellion to happen when they should be giving out free xbox consoles and making celebrities idols of worship, or perhaps they should start a cult of personality i.e NK or maybe invent an enemy i.e 1984. Think on it, what would you do if your kid or your sibling was kidnapped and sent to the kill your kids reality tv show, I doubt people would be sitting quietly for years. Don't give me the "they're rebelling" excuse, how many years did it take them and why would this gov do this stuff in the first place. HG is made for pre teen/teen literature that is designed to sell big with kids. It's not as egregiously bad and retarded as Divergent (dumbest plot base of all time) but it's bad. Harry Potter, while decently written, still falls in that made for pre-teen/teen group but I can forgive it, but Divergent is down there with Twilight.

 

[Mesia]

The premise might be similar but the execution of the idea was done way differently. So I would say no, but it did take an idea or two from Battle Royale.


To be honest though, what exactly is original now-a-days?

 

[Absinthe]

I think BR is the better written book but I enjoyed HG more. I don't think Colins copied BR. Inspired by it? Sure.