So recently there has been a huge hype about Hunger Games and to my embarrassment, I had no idea what it was about till today, and it turns out it's plot is very similar to Battle Royale which was released almost a decade earlier. I loved BR and I think it's a little unfair that HG is having such a huge success on what is essentially copied work! I haven't seen it yet so I may be jumping to conclusions, but just from the plot summary alone I can pretty much deduce it's almost a carbon copy. What's your guys' opinion either about the copying or either movies

I think its "borrowing" from more than just battle royale
but that one is the most obvious

as long as its done in a good way...i think its ok i guess?
battle royale is not really childfriendly so there is no way to really exploit it

BR was more of a deathly bleak oh my god seinen kind of story

this seems ALOT more tame and childfriendly
BR-light=MONEY

i have not read the books nor have i seen the movie
and i dont think i am going to
[i think the girl playing the MC is damn ugly...i cant stand her face and its EVERYWHERE and have been now for weeks]

I haven't read the HG either and this hesitance comes from the similarities to BR. But yeah, I don't think it's a carbon copy, and THG is probably aimed at a younger audience. There's also more focus, I think, on the love triangle between Katniss, Gale, and Peeta. I know their names because, well, my friends have read it.

I'd watch it for JHutch though

Hunger Games is Battle Royale for teenage girls. It was an enjoyable enough read, but it wasn't terribly mentally stimulating. It doesn't have anywhere near the same themes as Battle Royale does.

There are more blatant BR ripoffs in the world than The Hunger Games, anyway.

I like both Hunger Games and Battle Royale. If you've only read or seen one, I don't think you can really say one rips off the other.

There's a whole article here that talks about why one is not the other, as well as the author/filmaker responses.

I think the important point is that the whole idea of a death-match-till-only-one-is-left is an ancient (literally) concept, and apart from that fact that both have children as the opponents, HR and BR aren't the same to me at all.

Thats what I told my cousin after he got a copy for his birthday. I don't think he ever read it

Hunger Games is a watered down version of Battle Royale.

That said, thats not necessarily a bad thing. Battle Royale was pretty goofy in its narrative and setting, in typical Japanese storytelling fashion. (How the hell is forcing kids to fight it out deathmatch style on a deserted island supposed to do anything other than satisfy urges to see gratuitous violence?)

Hunger Games is definitely a lot more tame, but it has more purpose and better structure. If you want a STORY, Hunger Games is worlds above Battle Royale. If you want straight-up action-gore, Battle Royale is going to be king of the hill for a longggggggggggg time.

I, on the other hand, haven't read BR, but because of the hype that was lately caused by Hunger Games I decided to give the trilogy a chance and it's a good read. Of course it's not some kind of philosophical masterpiece, but books are really nice (in spite of the fact, that the main heroine is kind of annoying in the second and third volume ;p) and written from the interesting first-person-perspective. Also the last-man-standing battle is the main plot basically only in the first book, so if they want to screen the other two, you will see that it deviates from this topic quite a lot.

I can't say anything about the movie, because I haven't watched it yet, but it's probably less darker than books (PG13 or something) that have their own share of blood and gore (but of course not so much as BR, which I heard is really violent).

It's just that I would give it a chance - I have male friends that liked it, so I wouldn't call it "for teenage girls only" just because it has some romance in it

________________

they both suck
battle royale was very entertaining at the beginning but after a few chapters it went downhill. i disliked it because most characters were unbelievable and unrealistic, and i hated how some characters(like the sadist with the pokerface...gah i forgot his name) supernaturally survived situations were a normal ninth grader would be completely helpless. in my opinion, battle royale had a very original idea but the execution was terrible.
and hunger games is a fluffy rip off off battle royale, i disrespect the author for copying someone else's idea and claiming it to be her own

To be fair, Battle Royale had it's cult following back in the day. It may not have been as big as Hunger Games is today, but with this movie being a multi-million dallar affair with huge advertisement campaigns vs. the low-budget movie and eventual licensing and translation of the series, I think Battle Royale did well enough.

Great series, by the way.

I like Battle Royale better, it's a lot more intense.
Hunger Games was a good book (the first one anyway, the other two I felt was totally axed) but it really is too mild, and I wish the characters went a littttle more berserk. Then again, it's aimed for youngsters.

Do people who have read Battle Royale read the actual novel or the manga?
I'm guessing the manga, which I've heard sucks in comparison, which is what keeps me from reading it.

________________
"I'll shut your mouth~~~~~ with mine~~~"

二息歩行

They are both great.



*Sigh* Haven't even read Hunger Games when you're accusing it of copying Battle Royale? Seriously? \:

Having read both, they each have original qualities, but their targeted audiences differ.

I find it annoying when people accuse a decent (but in my opinion, good) series of having copied something else. Sure, they're similar, but that does not mean Hunger Games is a copy.

Everything I said in the Hunger Games thread goes for this thread. -_-;;

And this still annoys me.

Yup,
Pika.

________________

It is not just Battle Royale. The whole survival game theme has been done quite a few times, especially in movies: Death Race, Gamer, and The Condemned are the first that come to mind in recent years. I am sure there are a lot more.

________________
Banana Gecko!!

[B]

The Battle Royale similarity specifically surfaces because it adds the "nightmarish reality show used by a fascist government to cement legitimacy" element, which is clearly the central presence in both.

@Pika: Having read both, it's probably a copy to some degree. I find it more likely that she read it somewhere down the line and the entire story about her conversation with the editor was a sham- seems like a big PR mistake to admit to the general public that you have something that similar to influence you. But that shouldn't matter. Writers copy all the time. When there are as many similarities as we have here though, it's pretty hard not to draw an obvious parallel.

Interestingly, there was actually an article in the New Yorker about this last week. The tagline was "“Battle Royale” is to “The Hunger Games” as punk is to emo," which struck me as rather accurate, though obviously there are pieces which predate both. The article is really about the films, and the writer clearly has an agenda, but the comparison is solid and well-reasoned.

________________

Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
Your awesome!!! - Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...