Did you like Battle Royale or Hunger Games better?
The Hunger Games
4.3% (8)
4.3% (8)
Battle Royale
62.9% (117)
62.9% (117)
Neither
3.8% (7)
3.8% (7)
Haven't seen or read one or both
28.5% (53)
28.5% (53)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: I just watched Battle Royale for the first time

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

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.

lapan:

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...

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

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.

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.

Well, a mysterious druid up there stole the joke I was going to make, so I guess I'll have to actually say something of worth.

I thought the hunger games was a terrible let down. They took an idea that should make you think and feel, and they turned it into generic good v evil bullshit. Yes, Battle Royale had that one, super evil, psycopath but there was still a lot of middle ground confusion. Hunger Games wasted a cool idea, Battle Royale capitalised on it.

And I wasn't automatically biased against it, I saw Hunger Games first, in the cinema, I had high hopes for it, and actually enjoyed the first half, before the actual games begin. Then I was let down, so watched Battle Royale to see if they handled it better. They did. Much better.

Also grit, a film with kids murdering eachother, without grit, is a bit baffling.

I saw Battle Royale well before reading Hunger Games, but I honestly didn't even think of the connection until much later. As I was reading the whole series, I thought it was more like Gladiator (I'm sure there's an even better comparison, but I know that one fits better than Battle Royale).

Really, I'm not a huge fan of either, but they're all right.

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.

Actually, to the writer, the story was very serious because similar events surrounded his young life after WWII

I really need to watch Battle Royale. I didn't botter with The Hunger Games though. I read a few reviews about how it hides most of the brutal deaths and whatnot out of camera shot....which is fucking stupid. If you're trying to show off a bleak world with kids put into a brutal situation, why the fuck bother holding back?

I've read both and seen the Battle Royale film. Have to say I prefer Battle Royale more.

i have only seen BR..i let you know when i see HG...BR did rock my world, actually if i had the chance i would make BR little more extreme.

kman123:
Hard to tell if you think Hunger Games came first or just trolling or legitimately comparing...

I disliked both really. Battle Royale was...alright. Hunger Games was pretty awful, outside of a couple of really well done scenes.

I know Battle Royale came first. I was just comparing them in general and thought Hunger Games was an overall better movie/story because I thought it did several things very well, better than Battle Royale.

Hunger games tried WAY to hard to be a deep story and just didn't work for me on any level. Battle Royal came off as campy, which I like.

I misread the thread at first, thought it was Casino royal (the james bond movie) and was like...... the fuck is the OP comparing casino royal to hunger games for ? 0_o

I'm not going to vote, it's not something comparable. Despite seemingly coming to the exact same setting independently (I believe Susan Collins when she says how the idea came to her) they are doing very different things.

In Battle Royale, it mostly a Lord of the Flies affair, about what humans become when civilisation is taken away and the restraints are put on them. The focus is on how the characters change and the alliances form.

And it's entertainment, the deaths are played as funny or exciting or dramatic, etc. There's a clear hero, a heroine and a villain.

The Hunger Games on the other hand, has the conceit that humans are no different in or out of the arena, in the situation every person does what their nature is naturally inclined to anyway. Instead the focus isn't on the change of behaviour of the people in the arena, but on the nature of humanity that we allow horrific things to happen as part of the status quo.

In short, it's attempt is to convey the brutal reality of the setting and as such, the deaths aren't exciting, but traumatic and the action is obscured because it's not what you're meant to enjoy. In fact in doesn't try to make you enjoy anything, instead it's much more about exploring than making the audience happy. It's protagonist is broken and wrong, sharp defensive, aggressive and morally incorrect. There is no clear villain and the clearest villain is only the human dicator twisting things to serve his power and removing him isn't as easy as expected. It's acknowledged that life is more complicated, that things aren't suddenly over when Katniss wins. But it still has optimism, there are people like Rue who are good and for the rest of us imperfect people trapped in a harsh uncompromising reality, we can take hope in at least sacrificing ourselves to protect the innocent.

I can't compare them. Battle Royale is more fun, but the Hunger Games isn't aiming for fun. The Hunger Games has a much firmer and interesting grasp on reality but Battle Royale isn't trying to be realistic. Both have interesting social commentaries, but on different attitudes, if I had to say which one was more correct, I'd tend towards the Hunger Game. Yes society keeps us normal, but the person who you bring into the arena is yourself and society at large commits atrocities every day by not caring enough about the people who are dying right now.

I can't even say which deserves to stand the test of time. Which would I prefer to watch? Depends on how I'm feeling.

I think I'd just rather have both

EDIT: The Hunger Games is far more introspective than Battle Royale and because it doesn't use story tropes, or at least tries to follow them, even if they appear, although the film is good, there is a lot missing from the book and I'm probably clouded by reading the books. For example every practical complaint in this thread is integral in the book and so woven in that it doesn't feel like an explanation, just how things work. Specifically food packages are the focus from the very start and it's established that they're based on popularity and get more expensive as time goes on to make the games interesting. Whats more Hamish's relationship with Katniss is expressed through the packages and he's guiding her by using them. Peeta doesn't have the star power, they don't have the money, he's signalling to her that she needs to play up the romance etc... Finally Peeta from the very start had planned to use his romance idea and ability to convey an audience to create the social pressure that would make the results of the Hunger Games feel like a bad story to the viewers if both of them died and so as was his intent from the start, with the help of Hamish (who is more connected than he seems) to force the gamemakers into a position where they would at least make it seem like Peeta and Katniss don't have to compete. Then Katniss outmanouevered them at the end.

Casual Shinji:
I only ever saw Battle Royale, but I've never been a huge fan of it.

It was okay, just nothing that really stuck in my mind about it.

The only thing I remember is Takeshi Kitano being in it and he's the most badass dude in Japan.

Of course. He had his own castle, and made people try and conquer it just so he could humiliate them for his enjoyment. And then again for American enjoyment in the mid 2000s.

Even though I understand and acknowledge that Hunger Games is better written, acted, and set up... I can't get over my deep affection for the absolute RIDICULOUSNESS that was Battle Royale. It's a terrible movie, but it is just so charmingly awful, I have to love it.

Frybird:

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.

Actually, Battle Royale is publicised and shown on TV. Its explained near the end of the book

I watched and read all the battle Royale stuff, and I liked all of it. From what I've seen, though, of the Hunger Games the protagonist is amoral and unsympathetic. Battle Royalecovered the whole spectrum, with actually likeable main characters.

Bobic:

I thought the hunger games was a terrible let down. They took an idea that should make you think and feel, and they turned it into generic good v evil bullshit. Yes, Battle Royale had that one, super evil, psycopath but there was still a lot of middle ground confusion. Hunger Games wasted a cool idea, Battle Royale capitalised on it.

Actually, I don't think Kurimo (or whatever his name is) is evil. He's a pychopath, yes, but it's suggested that its that he can't understand the difference between right and wrong - he kills everyone that he meets due to a coin toss, not for enjoyment, but because those were his two choices and they are equal in his eyes. Just my interpretation.

Battle Royale also suffers compared to the HG by being translated, and had a much, much lower production value. So yeah, the playing field isn't even in this aspect.

Battle Royale, while it didn't focus as much on a single individual as THG I think it's better for it. In BR we see the people and their interactions with each other and I cared more about them than about one girl that gets through on pure deus ex machinae.

I've read and watched The Hunger Games, and watched Battle Royale. I preferred THG; somehow I feel like I didn't quite "get" BR. It seemed like a strange mishmash of grittiness and bizarreness, which was jarring.

I preferred the Hunger Games book to the film, so I'll probably read Battle Royale as it might be a similar case. There were two areas I think the THG film suffered in compared to the book; one, it had to avoid really showing the brutality of the violence in order to avoid a higher age rating, and two, you don't have Katniss' internal thought process the way you do in the first person book meaning that some things, like her relationship with Peeta, don't work quite as well.

On the subject of the violence/bloodiness though, I don't think pure gruesomeness makes the violence more compelling. The part in THG when

has a brutality to it that comes not from being bloody or gory but by being primal and animalistic. That's not to say that goriness can't help give the violence emotionally impact, just that it's more complex than that.

GiglameshSoulEater:

Frybird:

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.

Actually, Battle Royale is publicised and shown on TV. Its explained near the end of the book

Only seen the movie (and looked into some chapters of the manga), where it always seemed like there are reports about it (as shown in the beginning of the movie where theres a huge media spectacle about the previous winner), but it never seemed to me like the contestants were being filmed.

I had no doubt about it being publicised and shown on TV, but from what i've seen it never looked like it was anything like the The Hunger Games or The Long Walk or Running Man

I never got the love for Battle Royale I thought all the characters were such blatant stereotypes that they never felt like real people so I never gave a fuck about them and the antagonist had me rolling my eyes the whole time. There's two scenes in the movie that are really amazing to me and that would be the scene in the light house and the scene where one boy and one girl decides to kill themselves. Other then that the movie wasn't that interesting to me.

Hunger Games on the other hand atleast made an effort to explain the world and the politics of the game and seeing that kind of future was atleast interestign to me at least.

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.

Well, even if you ignore half the votes for Battle Royale, it still seems to be the people's favourite...

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked