Is The Hunger Games so different from Battle Royale?

[techmec21]

Ok, this is just me wanting to get a general opinion from the strongly-opinionated people of the Escapist Community. As I'm sure many of you are aware, The Hunger Games movie released today/tonight. For those of you who don't know the plot, it focuses on a bunch of kids being thrown together (by their government) and told to kill each other in order to earn supplies for their respective villages. I read it, didn't like it because it focused less on fighting/killing and more on the romance between characters, along with the politics behind the "game" itself.

On the other hand, you have Battle Royale. The plot of the story is... there are a bunch of kids who are thrown together (by their government) and told to kill each other in order to survive. Last person standing wins. In the book, it's described as originally being a way to keep down the population, while also being a source of sick televised entertainment. A movie was made based off the book, but it received a relatively poor reception. They even made a sequel, which did worse.

Now, to me, these books seem really similar. I liked Battle Royale significantly better than The Malnourished Games. However, with all the hype due to the upcoming movie, everyone's fanatic about it. Barely anybody I talk to has even heard of Battle Royale. I feel that it should have more recognition, especially if such a similar movie is so popular. So, my question is: what's so different about the Hunger Games? If there is no difference, how'd it get so popular? Escapist Community, any thoughts?

tl;dr : Hunger Games and Battle Royale are really similar. So, how did Hunger Games get so popular, especially when Battle Royale is better?

 

[VaudevillianVeteran]

I can't really speak much for The Hunger Games as I have yet to see the movie or read the books, but I get the general gist of it.
I wasn't aware that Battle Royale was unpopular to be honest, I've seen the movie and read the manga and I thought it had a reasonably good cult-following.
But I think they are different movies, The Hunger Games seems to have a different fixation on the relationships and not simply the game, while Battle Royale is a very violent film which has a big focus on the game and survival. Not to mention that The Hunger Games is a 12A-PG13 and Battle Royale is a hard 18, The Hunger games is more accessible to younger people basically.

That's what I can tell at least.

 

[5ilver]

I didn't like the books for the same reasons you mentioned, though I'm not sure the word "romance" is appropriate, considering how indecisive the protagonist is.
Maybe that's why younger readers like it-get an excuse to watch a "relationship" without it ever getting serious or real.

 

[Vault101]

being similar does not making somthing a rip-off

is fallout a rip off as mad max? NO they both just happen to use the "desert wasteland" theme

 

[ShadowStar42]

The Hunger Game and Battle Royal both took their core concept from Greek myth, so calling either a rip off doesn't really seem fair (unless you really want to go back to whoever wrote the story of the minotaur). Personally I really liked The Hunger Games precisely because it does focus on the politics of the situation and on the relationships between the characters.

 

[LauriJ]

I think they are different since Hunger Games has less blood. At least that's how it looks like to me.

 

[Queen Michael]

The Hunger Game and Battle Royal both took their core concept from Greek myth, so calling either a rip off doesn't really seem fair (unless you really want to go back to whoever wrote the story of the minotaur). Personally I really liked The Hunger Games precisely because it does focus on the politics of the situation and on the relationships between the characters.

I don't get it. What's the minotaur story got to do with Battle Royale? A hero killing a monster isn't exactly the same as school kids forced to kill each other. I mean, yeah, killing is involved, but apart from that...

 

[lapan]

Now, to me, these books seem really similar. I liked Battle Royale significantly better than The Malnourished Games. However, with all the hype due to the upcoming movie, everyone's fanatic about it. Barely anybody I talk to has even heard of Battle Royale. I feel that it should have more recognition, especially if such a similar movie is so popular. So, my question is: what's so different about the Hunger Games? If there is no difference, how'd it get so popular? Escapist Community, any thoughts?

tl;dr : Hunger Games and Battle Royale are really similar. So, how did Hunger Games get so popular, especially when Battle Royale is better?

It's simple, they have the bigger budget and it's a western novel. While the Battle royales movie wasn't bad it still had a much smaller budget and never got really popular outside a cult following. And it couldn't compete with the book or the manga.

Same reason why the american Ring and Grudge movies did better than their asian counterparts over here.

 

[JohnDoey]

While I am not a fan of either franchise if you want to start the rip-off game then they both rip elements straight from Greek mythology and are take offs of the gladiatorial match's.Battle Royale focused on the fighting and is extremely violent,Hunger Games pay more attention to romance and politics.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Just to be clear I haven't read nor do I want to watch the Hunger Game film. I had have a summary of it on Wiki. So whatever I say about the Hunger game is not to my fullest knowledge of it.

Battle Royal was unpopular? I mean yeah the sequel was terrible but I do remember that film was recommended in this dvd review magazine.

As for the differences well for one thing as you already mention the school kids are fighting for survival while those kids in the Hunger Games are fighting for their villages (even when they don't want to in it at all). Sure Battle Royal had a romance or two (the main characters in the film and those other kids aswell) but the Hunger Game is huge on romance. Also from the trailer were the two kids who repersent their village have a skill toward something like that girl is good with a bow and arrow while the kids in Battle Royal weapons is whatever in their bags.

I can probably name a few more but I rather not due to my igornances toward the Hunger Game.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

They feature a similar framing device, but are in the end very different books. Also, I personally don't buy the idea that the novel has a huge focus on romance, considering the romance is largely survival tactics for the first couple books. Relationships and politics being important to Hunger Games I'll buy, but the romance was always secondary. I will admit that Battle Royal seems to be the more violent work, but Hunger Games isn't necessarily tea time with grandma. The damn mutant bees still scare me.

Edit- also, better is a subjective statement. Personally, I like the focus on the politics and relationships over the framing device. For me the framing device is just one part of what winds up being a greater whole, though I'll admit I am not all that well aquatinted with Battle Royale. The lessened focus on violence also makes it more accessible I suppose, which isn't always a bad thing.

 

[Trivun]

I've heard that Battle Royale was incredibly successful, at least the book was, in Japan, it's native country. I reckon it's just the fact that Japanese stuff, JRPGs and certain 'kids' anime aside, tends to be popular there and hidden away in the West, except to geeks and nerds like us. Not to mention it was somewhat influential, and Stephen King recommended it a few years ago as a book worth reading. Otherwise, I can't really comment, as I've not read the book or manga nor seen the films, so I have no real right to an opinion.

 

[Marxaeus]

I agree that The Hunger Games focuses largely on romance and politics, but I always considered the romance more of a tactical advantage rather than the characters genuine feelings, at least from Katniss' point of view. The whole love aspect to her was really just there to gain the most popularity with the crowd and sponsors who would give them better equipment.

 

[Ninjat_126]

Never seen or read either. They seem disturbingly similar, but I think they're separated by a decade or so, come from different sides of the world, and are targeted at different audiences.

 

[Wereduck]

I've been wondering the same thing as the OP.

Regarding greek mythology: people were sent by their villages to face the Minotaur as tribute to King Minos but that's where the similarity ends. They were a tribute to an openly hostile foreign government (not their own nation), nobody was ever expected to survive and all of the villages who sent tribute were rewarded (by not having war with Minos' army). The story has a bit more in common with gladitorial combat but it's still pretty thin and gladiators are neither greek nor mythical.

 

[Girl With One Eye]

I haven't seen the hunger games yet, but when I heard about it the first movie I thought about was battle royale!! Most people haven't heard of battle royale though, and apparently the hunger games books were popular. When I see it I'll have a more substaintal opinion.

 

[Hoplon]

tl;dr : Hunger Games and Battle Royale are really similar. So, how did Hunger Games get so popular, especially when Battle Royale is better?

Battle Royale is basically horror, a government imposing something horrific on their youth.

Hunger Games isn't really about the death match but rather oppression (since none of the capitals children ever have to go though this) Media in war, the how war effects people (over the trilogy anyway)

Are they the best books ever? no, pretty average. they are however another instance of genera fiction not just aimed at men and that important in and of it's self since there isn't a lot of that about.

 

[Smooth Operator]

That is how popularity works, you don't win with quality you win with marketing.