Project_Xii said:
I can unfortunately only ever see it as a less hardcore version of Battle Royale
They were originally going to remake that in America too, if I remember. Then that kid shot up a school, and that was the end of that. I always assumed Hunger Games was kind of a loop hole way of getting the same basic premise back out there.
See, now that's the type of attitude I just can't agree with, and here's why.
A Japanese concept taken out of context and put into an American setting, disregarding a few cultural points and switching some motivations around - Sounds like the what the the Hunger Games has done, right? So the logic you're following is that it mustn't be any good because of that?
But you can also apply the above to the film The Seven Samurai, when it got remade into The Magnificent Seven, and The Magnificent Seven is a fantastic film. Just because two things have the same premise doesn't that the second iteration will automatically be terrible.
OT: I only ended up reading them because my sister bought me the set and having read Battle Royale before, I din't expect I'd think much of them in comparison, but I really quite enjoyed them. They're not brilliant, but they were quite diverting.
Whilst there are a lot similarities with Battle Royale, there are some pretty significant differences too, such as the fact everyone watches the Hunger games on TV and being able to participate/sponsor their favourite candidates. It puts new elements into the same basic scenario, and I think it comes out pretty well.
I think the main thing that differentiates the Hunger Games and Battle Royale is how far the concept is taken, as Battle Royale only shows the event and its immediate bookends, whereas the Hunger Games takes the concept much further, and to a more fulfilled end point. The actions of the government have far more characterisation and greater consequence in the Hunger Games.
