Poll: I just watched Battle Royale for the first time

[4RM3D]

Battle Royal sucks less than The Hunger Games. Thus Battle Royal is better. Boy, that sounded kinda negative.

Okay, so I have watched Battle Royal and I don't find it anything special. It's a fun little movie. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Hunger Games is a different story... that movie just plain sucked, badly. And for the love of God I can't understand why so many people liked The Hunger Games.

The first part of the movie (the build up) is still decent. A bit over the top, but it has a kind of flair. When the games start is when the movie gets crappy. The whole game scenario just doesn't work. It is stupid, silly and flawed on so many levels and the movie only makes things worse. I am going to give just 1 example (out of many). Katniss is in trouble, poisoned; then conveniently a package drops with a salve to save Katniss. Okay, fine. Then Gale (was his name I think) gets into trouble also, but he gets a can of soup and then Katniss has to get the medicine from a bunker and has to walk right into a trap. Because it wasn't possible to drop the medicine instead of the soup?

I know the movie is based on the book, so the book might do a better job in, well, everything.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well I disliked Battle Royale less, because it was an original idea after all and they get to the point.

Hunger Games however is your standard good concept wrapped in hollywood cheesy bollocks, I'm sure the idea was to establish characters but because they use such a horrid "in your face" approach I just wanted to see those motherfuckers bleed.

 

[WindKnight]

I haven't yet read or seen the hunger games, so its not fair to judge it.

But I consider Battle Royale to be a really great movie that I nevertheless never want to see again. Some bits were just heartbreaking for me.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

When I finished the Hunger Games I literally hurled the book out of my window. It's still sitting outside in the grass, slowly becoming mulch. It's one of the worst examples of literature I have ever read, and I read the first Twilight book.

I consider the Hunger Games to be worse than Twilight, that is the single most damning review I can give of it.

When I finished Battle Royale, I turned to the front and started again. The political undercurrent being an actual undercurrent instead of 'I'M SATIRISING CURRENT WORLD EVENTS LOOK AT HOW CLEVER I AM!' The characters being people I actually like instead of amoral sociopaths (hey Katniss, how's that complete lack of empathy or emotion working out for you?) A true and accurate representation of how horrific and gory this situation would be, and actually keeping it grounded in some sort of reality despite being basically a sci-fi dystopia make it a far superior product in every conceivable way.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

Haven't read The Hunger Games books, but I've seen the movie.
I actually share a similar opinion to the OP, in that I thought The Hunger Games did a much better job of developing its characters, as well as having a better build up to the games themselves. Battle Royale just sort of threw all these characters together and made them kill each other almost instantly- I had a hard time telling who was who because of this. That said, I do slightly prefer Battle Royale. It had more of an impact on me, and was an original idea at the time (I think). Plus it didn't have any over-usage of annoying shaky-cam, and its level of violence reflected its tone (as opposed to The Hunger Games, which had an incredibly dark and depressing tone, yet the violence was extremely teen-friendly; I had a bit of a problem with that. It seemed hypocritical to have such dark subject matter, yet at the same time, have such non-explicit violence).

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

The thing is though, the book and manga of Battle Royale beat both movies by a lot.

Yes, yes, yes and yes! This!

The Manga and the book (especially the book) were brilliant!

And surely neither story is original? Putting people in an environment and making them fight to the death is what used to happen in the Roman times and is also in Greek Myth. (The minatours maze anyone?)

 

[Trucken]

Haven't watched or read The Hunger Games, but I'm a big fan of Battle Royale. The movie was brilliant, but I don't think quite as highly of it now. That's just because I read the manga which blew me away. Seriously, you get to know almost every character. Some you get to know really well, which makes it that much more shocking when they inevitably fall.

Sooo, I guess I'll have to say Battle Royale. I honestly don't think The Hunger Games will be able to beat it.

 

[Frybird]

Battle Royale for me.

I am one to quickly defend The Hunger Games not being a BR rip-off. After all, even Battle Royale is not a wholly original idea and many geeks largely overestimate the popularity of the manga/book/film in the West.

And actually, i was very interested in Hunger Games mainly BECAUSE of the differences to Battle Royale, aka that it actually builds a world around the games, how it is a huge media event that is actually televised and how the candidates get actually prepared for the Deathmatch.

So i saw the movie and i was actually pretty disappointed. I hear the book does slightly better with it, but i found THG skipped over many interesting aspects of the premise (Like the process of actually gathering Sponsors, or the significance of the games to the upper class not directly involved in the games themselves), as well as heavily toning down every potentially controversial thing about the games other than "These are Kids killing each other!".
Like, pretty much every Kid in the game was either "good", "evil" or had no lines before it got killed of. Any "good" character was conveniently killed off by "evil" characters, and the protagonists always killed to defend, not to attack.

Spoiler

Also, switching up the rules to please audience expectations could've been clever, but felt very sloppily used in the film

All in all, it very much felt like "The Running Man": There's definitely some social commentary and world-building, but in the end it's just a wrapper for a much more clear-cut film.

-----

Battle Royale on the other hand might be far from perfect, and at least the movie is far less ambitious, but it does well what it sets off to do: Capturing the utter insanity and horror of Kids being forced more or less unwillingly to murder each other.

 

[Deathlyphil]

I agree with MelasZepheos. If throwing away my copy of HG didn't mean throwing away my Kindle, I'd do it.

The major differences between the films is context. HG does a much better job of showing off the world that has created these games. The fact that the world is badly thought out, and makes no sense is another matter.

BR is much better at creating characters that you actually care about. With 42 (I think, 21 boys, 21 girls) contestants, they cover almost all of the stereotypes. The star-crossed lovers, the ice queen, the psychopath, the one out for revenge, the ones trying to take down the system, the betrayer, and so on. Somewhere in that group you will find someone you care about or can associate with. BR is darker, and more satirical than HG, and so to me it is the better book and film.

Also, as a final note. I've seen a few places say that Katniss is a great female lead character. She isn't. She makes two decisions in the whole story, the first to save her sister, and the second to eat the berries. Absolutely every other decision is made for her, or she is put in a deus ex machina situation. That is not good writing.

 

[Wintermoot]

only seen Battle Royall but from what I understand THG is a toned down/less thrilling version of BR (in BR it,s ambiguous who "plays" and who doesn't "play") considering teen and guns would hit a sensitive key with some US people.
PS
I think that one of the reasons people prefer BR over THG is that these are classmates and not random people that have to kill each other the "players" in BR know each other and are maybe even friends with each other.

 

[Deathlyphil]

Haven't watched or read The Hunger Games, but I'm a big fan of Battle Royale. The movie was brilliant, but I don't think quite as highly of it now. That's just because I read the manga which blew me away. Seriously, you get to know almost every character. Some you get to know really well, which makes it that much more shocking when they inevitably fall.

Sooo, I guess I'll have to say Battle Royale. I honestly don't think The Hunger Games will be able to beat it.

Think of the Hunger Games to Battle Royale is like Harry Potter to Lord Of The Rings. Similar ideas, but aimed at a much different crowd. Plus, Harry and Katniss never actually take charge of their own destinies. They both win by deus ex machina.

 

[Deathlyphil]

Comparing The Running Man to The Hunger Games. Dammit, why didn't I think of that? It's much better than comparing BR to THG...

 

[IamQ]

I prefer Battle Royale to The Hunger Games, because BR doesn't take it self seriously, which it shouldn't, because this isn't a serious scenario. It's extremely silly, and it knows this, and sadly, The Hunger Games don't.

Also I like meself some gory killing unlike in THG when everything is off-screen.

 

[lapan]

I actually share a similar opinion to the OP, in that I thought The Hunger Games did a much better job of developing its characters, as well as having a better build up to the games themselves. Battle Royale just sort of threw all these characters together and made them kill each other almost instantly- I had a hard time telling who was who because of this

As i said with the op:

Where do you get any development of characters from? Did you watch the same movie as me?

Of the combatants of the hunger games we get to know Katniss well, her "friend" from the same district a little. District 1s peope and their group get a little personality, if only as almost ruthless and proud murderers. Then there is the little black girl which dies shortly after she meets Katniss and... that's pretty much it. The rest gets offscreen deaths.

 

[maninahat]

Hunger Games:
-closer focus on an individual's journey
-stronger story arc for that character
-More relatable and easier to care for protagonist

Battle Royale:
-broader look at a large group
-more brutal imagery
-more cynical

Both are trying to demonstrate how terrible the situation is for the kids, but both go about it in different ways, and with different results. Because Hunger focusses on only one character, a lot of the other competators get cast as one note villains and psychopaths - which makes the viewer happy to see them die - undermining the message. Meanwhile, Battle's broad approach tries to make almost all of the characters sympathetic; even the violent and evil ones. That makes you feel bad for all of them - to the story's credit.

In summary, I think Hunger is better by closely following a single relatable, sympathetic character, but I think Battle has a lot to teach Hunger about humanising the children, who are all victims.

i.e. they're both good for different reasons.

 

[draconiansundae]

What is the point of having a poll when at least half of the people here voted for Battle Royale when they explicitly admitted they haven't even seen/read The Hunger Games? Just curious.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

I actually share a similar opinion to the OP, in that I thought The Hunger Games did a much better job of developing its characters, as well as having a better build up to the games themselves. Battle Royale just sort of threw all these characters together and made them kill each other almost instantly- I had a hard time telling who was who because of this

As i said with the op:

Where do you get any development of characters from? Did you watch the same movie as me?

Of the combatants of the hunger games we get to know Katniss well, her "friend" from the same district a little. District 1s peope and their group get a little personality, if only as almost ruthless and proud murderers. Then there is the little black girl which dies shortly after she meets Katniss and... that's pretty much it. The rest gets offscreen deaths.

I'll agree, the character development isn't amazing, but I felt it was still felt it was better done in The Hunger Games than in Battle Royale; developing a handful of characters is better than developing next to none before the games themselves. But one thing I think The Hunger Games did do extremely well was have a satisfying build up to the games- I have to admit I was pretty pumped by the time the clock started counting down and the games were just seconds away (then of course my excitement was somewhat diminished when the kids all started to run at each other and then the shaky-cam ensued.)
So yeah, I apologise that I didn't state better in my first post that I believe the character development, while definitely not as deep as it could've been, was still handled slightly better in The Hunger Games. However, I still firmly believe that the build up to the games themselves was done MUCH better in The Hunger Games than in Battle Royale. Just my opinion though...

 

[Mysterious Druid]

You know what they call 'The Hunger Games' in Japan?

Spoiler: Hilarious Punchline Here

Battle Royale With Cheese.

 

[Souleks]

I watched Battle Royale
I read Hunger Games years ago

personally I think they were both alright I think however Battle Royale would be much more close to reality.(Not everyone is out for blood and the interaction between characters is more interesting seeing as they have history with one another.)
I think Battle Royale was better however I never saw the Hunger Games movie so it wouldn't be fair for me to call it on that.

 

[xplosive59]

Considering Battle Royale is one of my all time favourite films and I didn't like The Hunger Games I think the answer is obvious!

Battle Royale didn't start the entire game for survival idea though, The Running Man came out before it which kinda had the same concept although still very different.