I've read the original Battle Royale novel (but not the manga), saw the movie, read the Hunger Games novels, saw this first movie. Are there
similarities? Yeah, there are, but guess what: Battle Royale didn't invent people fighting to the death at the whim of governments. And just because
they're young people doesn't mean anything. You have to go somewhere with ideas? Elderly people fighting to the death would be entertaining, but it
wouldn't be very exciting.
Just because things have similar plots, doesn't mean they're the same and doesn't mean they don't have their own merits. The author said she didn't
know about Battle Royale, I'm willing to believe her. Why? Because, and I'm stereotyping here, cult Japanese movies and novels aren't usually on the
radar of 40-year-old women. Maybe she ripped off "Running Man!" Maybe it's like she said and she based it off gladiatorial games.
I don't like rip-offs any more than the next person, but I've noticed this stupid trend of people not allowing things to be similar or to pay
Hunger Games was born out of a fast growing genre. I don't like the idea of Young Adult or Teen fiction, because it means young people are being
coddled instead of being given more challenging things to read. Battle Royale is much more challenging than Hunger Games, but Hunger Games still has
It has a strong, capable, active female protagonist. Always a nice thing in my opinion. It's a quick, exciting, pulpy read. And most importantly, it
brings up issues of government control and morality to young people. Especially, TEENAGED GIRLS who are eating these books up. Now, how can it be a
bad thing that young women are being given a strong role model, are READING (and reading a genre they probably wouldn't be willing to read (sci-fi))
and are being given situations that they might not think about otherwise? Hopefully, it will spur them on to better, more challenging books.
And who are these people who are going "Ugh, character development!" Yeah, I sure hate it when I know who people are and what there situations are
like. You know what has character development and back story? The novel Battle Royale. And not just about the main characters, about a bunch of them.
We learn the stories of what are basically future corpses. I know, the movie doesn't have it. So, i guess, the movie's a watered down version of the
book. And, I guess that makes people who like the movie a bunch of dummos, right? Or not, because that's a stupid and narrow way to look at things.
I wonder how many people have read/watched Battle Royale and also read/watched Hunger Games. There's a lot of difference once you get past the similar
premises. Also, the Hunger Games books get further from Battle Royale as they go on. They're separate things that look the same. All cars look the
same, they do basically the same thing, but if you get in the driver's seat you'll notice the difference.
And before anyone says it: No, I'm not some angry Hunger Games fanboy. I read and saw Battle Royale years before Hunger Games. Battle Royale is a
better book about the subject, more brutal, less hope. Hunger Games builds a more interesting world and is a more entertaining read, but pulls too
many punches. If I had to choose which movie to watch, I'd go for Battle Royale. As for the Hunger Games movie, it's good. One of the most faithful
adaptations I've seen, well acted, did what they could with the PG-13 rating. The books are a bit better.
So, yeah, that's basically what I think of the Hunger Games movie.
edit on 3/30/2012 by SaulGoodman because: (no reason given)