Hunger Games vs. Battle Royale

E

ElBell

Guest
Well this is a once again raging war between the two franchises thanks to the release of Mockingjay: Part 1, and I'd like to hear the opinions of Iwaku about these two similar books/films.
 
There's a difference??!?!??!!?

I guess Hunger Games is 75% less rape and murder.
 
If you try hard enough, you can find similarities between almost anything. Common ideas stay in pop culture, it's a thing and has been a thing since the beginning of pop culture. I don't see why we keep claiming x copied y when we could just be enjoying similar scenarios played out slightly different.
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: Dervish, ElBell and (deleted member)
Cpt Toellner said:
If you try hard enough, you can find similarities between almost anything. Common ideas stay in pop culture, it's a thing and has been a thing since the beginning of pop culture. I don't see why we keep claiming x copied y when we could just be enjoying similar scenarios played out slightly different.
Click to expand...
What this person said.
 
When The Hunger Games was first becoming a thing, I had this very conversation. And while I haven't read the book, based on what people have told me about them, The Hunger games is more about breads and circuses, gladiator combat/reality TV mix to distract the people in the districts. The purpose of The Program is a spoiler, but I assure you it's different. And the majority of the book deals with issues of trust between unprepared students forced to kill one another.

So, from what I understand, it's a case of similar premise but different theme and story. So... I don't really care about Hunger Games upstaging or stealing from Battle Royale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElBell
Personally?

I'm a Battle Royale man. Both the book and the film are fucking brilliant, though the book gets away with more and thus manages to paint a far uglier, more compelling picture.

That being said, I've always felt a bit sorry for The Hunger Games getting saddled with the comparison, because from what I understand they're two very different stories that happen to have some common elements (namely, kids murdering each other because reasons). I seem to remember Ozzie and I having a conversation about how Battle Royale is used as a comparison way too much these days.

"OH, YOU MEAN AT SOME POINT IN THE PLOT KIDS AND/OR TEENAGERS FIGHT AND MURDER EACH OTHER? THAT'S EXACTLY LIKE BATTLE ROYALE! BOO, I SAY! BOO!"

No it fucking isn't, you mongoloid.
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: Astaroth, Dervish and ElBell
Good to see people on here who aren't morons with their heads in their asses! ^.^ I personally see the smiliraities a lot, but as pointed out some differences are obviously there too. I won't get too into them really since I think we all know what they are (and I'm lazy), but like what was said earlier, you always can dig those things up and compare nearly anything to anything else. Sure they both involve kids killing kids, but from what I remember reading Battle Royale long ago, it doesn't go too far beyond the killing whereas the killing in the Hunger Games really only serves as a starting point for later events to take place after in the plot. I do know BR mentions the survivors being wanted for murder and showing flaws in the government system, but it didn't show any rebellions or anything that were in the second half of the Hunger Games series.

Well that got longer then planned lol
 
Grumpy said:
No it fucking isn't, you mongoloid.
Click to expand...

Made me laugh WAY too hard.

The problem is though, the basic story structure of having a group of kids murder each other in the middle of the wilderness, orchestrated by The Powers that Be, is almost too specific of a story structure. They'll, no matter what, get compared to one another. Battle Royale has the bonus of coming way earlier.

They are different monsters, but unfortunately I've only seen the films and not read the books. From what I can gather, one is more dramatic and focuses on the decline of civility (something akin to Lord of the Flies), while the other branches off into a Row Row Fight tha Power! kind of story.
 
The comparisons are inevitable, aye, but they're all still pretty different in terms of style and theme.

'Battle Royale' deals with issues of distrust and disconnection between different generations. 'Lord of the Flies' is about man's inherent animalistic and savage nature that lurks beneath a civilised facade. 'The Hunger Games' has all those dystopian, 'fight the power'-fantasy elements that are apparently popular amongst THE YOOF right now, but it has some cool allegories with Roman gladiatorial systems and other such shenanigans.

There's no such thing as a wholly original idea: some bastard has probably done something similar to you at one point in time or another.

What matters is what you do with the idea, what you explore and discuss with it.
 
What the fat Scottish Cookie Monster said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grumpy
Hrrrm.... Battle Royale is on Netflix. Perhaps I shall take a peek.
 
Personally I like Battle Royal more, since I find it cooler and less of a teenage fandom thing (If that makes sense). While Hunger Games made us want to like the characters, it ultimately has a satisfying ending. I was terribly disappointed by the ending of Battle Royal (and about half the movie)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElBell
I know Mockingjay has been banned in some places just because of fear t could provoke uprisings and rebellion. That to me makes this movie more than just a movie, but that may just be my opinion!
 
Nah, it's just that more totalitarian-minded states always try to filter out media that discusses stuff like revolution and government criticism. It's been happening to George Orwell's books for decades.

Delicious culture bleed.
 
Yup. North Korea is a good example; they filter a lot of stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back