I realize I'm adding a ninth one just by pointing this out, but seriously why do people care about this so much? The Battle Royale people haven't sued Suzanne Collins or anything, so they must not give a sh-t. Did anybody even know about this random Japanese book/movie until that first guy noticed the similarities and pointed it out?
Reportin' live for Black TV: White folks are dead, we gettin' the f*@# outta here!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Considering foreign movies and older films take a back seat to whatever's hyped up at moment on this site.
Yeah right, I'm sure the Seven Samurai board is probably seeing as much traffic as, say, Christopher Nolan's Interstellar at present.
(>^_(>O_o)>
[deleted]
Hunger Games is just a Hollywood version of a masterpiece.. Just like The Ring, The Grudge and all other awesome Japanese movies copied by Hollywood...
share
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.
Your beloved battle royal isn't a classic stand alone first masterpiece. It also has similarities to the running man. Not as many but same kinda totalitarian government, he's forced to compete in a survive for your life event that's watched by the public etc. and the running man coincides with a lot of events and general themes of the Roman Empire with their coliseum gladiator events.
share[deleted]
then why would collins do a copy if br2 was no good?
(>^_(>O_o)>
Note: Jennifer Lawrence & Josh Hutcherson did ALL THIER STUNTS in Hunger Games. When you see Jennifer running, climbing, falling, that is ALL HER, no double.
(>^_(>O_o)>
[deleted]
[deleted]
BR2 was before the days of green-screen as well, thus it always have a more "gritty" feel about it. Something real about it that CG effects have yet to capture. Anyone else looking forward to what they're going to do with the CGI Heavensbee? Or maybe that's just a false rumor (?)
(>^_(>O_o)>
BR2 was before the days of green-screen as well
Battle Royale 2 isn't as popular as Battle Royale and many fans of the book, manga and film wants to keep it that way as it's far from being good as the first one.
share[deleted]
Isn't it obvious that The Hunger Games movies clearly ripped off Battle Royale and Battle Royale II: Requiem?
Hunger Games is no different to Battle Royale, all she has done is take the story of Battle Royale and then just go through it systematically changing every element, i.e the Japanese future to post apoplectic society, 40 Jap Kids to 24 kids for the districts, change in aesthetics, environment/world, from third person to first person, add in/take out characters, tweak characters, edit/make changes here and there, etc,etc. The main story is essentially the same, it uncanny and the underlying similarities with Battle Royale shows this method was used. You just don't get a story follow that closely to another story by chance. The tosh about it being similar to Gladiator, Bladerunner, Greek mythology, etc is all just a smoke screen to distract from the real source Battle Royale 2. Its an often successful formula to follow, take a book that had a certain success level systematically create a version, edit out stuff that didnt work well, make it as relevant to today's society/age group that can relate and your book then stands a good chance of being at least successful if not more so, as if the original had a certain success level then your insuring yours will as well.
If its any consolation Battle Royale 2 suffered from the same issues. I guess they were banking on JLaw's star power and nothing else. Why else would they attempt to remake the poorly received Battle Royale sequels?
shareI wouldn't exactly call myself a fan of the books, but I did enjoy Hunger Games, despite it's tweenie appeal. I'm a sucker for these kinds of things. Maybe it's the Battle Royale and Lord of the Flies fan in me. I did enjoy the first movie. It was a very well done adaptation. However, having read the entire trilogy, I feared that adapting the rest of the material would result in something similar to the books: terrible follow ups. As someone who takes the content of these books and the things that themes and stories they are trying to tell just a bit more seriously than the target age group might, I groaned and moaned throughout the novels, especially the last one. However, the film has done something I didn't think it could do: not suck.
Yes, people heard of Battle Royale before Hunger Games came out. However, none of that makes Hunger Games "plagiarism". It takes a lot more than a similar premise to consider something plagiarism -- premises can't be copyrighted.
Suzanne Collins had not heard of Battle Royale (no big surprise, since it was not released in the United States), however, her publisher had. It's her publisher's responsibility to check for plagiarism, and she has done that.
Both books were intentionally derivative of Steven King's novel "The Running Man" as well as the contemporary reality television mentality. Outside of that, the similarities are superficial to anyone who can distinguish between to independent pieces of work.
That's why eight of the first ten threads all exactly the same subject -- people complaining about lack of originality. A little hypocritical, don't you think?
I know something you don't know ... I am ambidextrous!
[deleted]
Only Battle Royale/Hunger Games is about the youth of a totalitarian society forced to fight in a battle royale to the death in an arena like environment where there can be only one last person standing,You write this like I don't know what the stories are about. Except that I don't think you have a good idea what Hunger Games is about -- they don't even get to the arena until halfway through the story. The reason is because it is more about what is going on in the one character's head as she prepares (to battle and meeting the PR needs of the Capital.)
I couldn't even finish the first movie, now I see they made a second. The first was trash, same ol tired formula, dystopian future crap. The trailer for catching fire makes it look like its gonna be action packed but most scenes copied from BR2. The lead actress is not even hot, at least BR2 had Noriko.
shareOne can safely and accurately decide that you have no clue what you're talking about due to your description of characters. The comparisons to twilight are absurd to say the least.
Your description of Peeta and Gale is completely wrong. As is the comparison of Bella and Katniss considering the latter is trying to save her family, then Gales family, and Peers while the former is putting everyone in danger.
In conclusion, you're an obvious fanboy of Battle Royal and cannot fathom that Battle Royal is not the first movie of its kind. Battle Royal is such an obscure title the book store I managed didn't even carry it- we carried all the top Japanese manga and novels translated into English. as a matter of fact, nobody ever came in looking for it. I'm not saying it's a terrible book or movie because I haven't read or seen it, but the stance that it is a unique idea is utterly idiotic.
[deleted]
Maybe IMDB will free up space on their servers at some point by deleting repetitive posts that aren't relevant to the site they're on.
As far as I know the irreverent topics just sort of go away by themselves due to lack of traffic and are eventually self-deleteing. I guess BR is still a hot topic despite being over a decade old.
shareNo, it has one very deicated fan-boy who has about 50 sock accounts. But I'm not sure he has ever seen the BR, well who has in all fairness. He just gets so much wrong.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. And I have groupies, Atomic Girl said so.
No, it has one very deicated fan-boy who has about 50 sock accounts.At least Battle Royale II: Requiem can be said to have more fans than the Hunger Games, then.
But I'm not sure he has ever seen the BR, well who has in all fairness. He just gets so much wrong.It was playing alongside the 1st Hunger Games movie on ABC family last nite, so I guess we can include those viewers who tuned in for the "BR2 vs THG Marathon".
[deleted]
As a fan of both franchises, I do have to agree that Battle Royale will always win for me. The Hunger Games seems to take the base idea (teenagers killing each other) and break it down into easily digestible, bite size pieces. That’s why it was able to be more popular than Battle Royale, which wasn’t even released by American publishers until after Hunger Games came out.
Battle Royale forces you to face the horrible truth of teenagers killing each other, especially teenagers who all know each other (by taking fifty classes a year according to the book) and don’t know they’re going to participate until they are in The Program. No training, no sponsors, just “Here you go, hope you have a good weapon, hope you live longer than the other 41.”
And with the movies-I had no trouble watching Hunger Games (admittedly this was a few years after watching Battle Royale), but it took two tries to be able to watch Battle Royale. The movie had disturbed me so deeply (which is what I believe a movie should do) that I had to stop. Hunger Games did make me think, but only for a short time compared to Battle Royale.
In short-I’ve read the Hunger Games a couple times, normally reread before a movie comes out. But Battle Royale stuck with me so well that I’m still rereading it a few times a year, 9 years after I first read it.
Why was this movie made? This, and other movies of its "caliber" should be teaching tools on how not to make a movie. Children may like it, but anyone over 10 may or will disapprove.
share[deleted]