Forums » Reading Corner » Read Thread

Just thought I'd mention it 'cos every time The Hunger Games is mentioned, Battle Royale always comes up. Obviously the two are very similar, but just curious, which one does everyone prefer and why?

Never read Hunger Games, but I thought Battle Royal was fantastic.

Never read Battle Royale, but it seems interesting. Hunger games was not very good on the whole, as the third book seemed sub par to me, and that ruined the whole series. The first book was not bad, the second was not as good and the third book killed the series.

never read battle royale but the hunger games kicked ass

Uh... In the third book Katniss' sister died, for no reason. What reason could there be to kill the sister at the end of the book? Also, the last part seemed rushed.

I personally haven't actually read either of the books, I've only watched the films, so I'm cheating. Personally I liked Battle Royale better. I thought the setting for Hunger Games was awesome in the futuristic world where the people in the poorer districts are pretty much slaves to the rich people in the capital. Still, the reason why I liked Battle Royale better is because it told the story from lots of different characters view points. You got to see all the different students reactions and how some of them wanted to win at all costs and others just wanted to win because they were scared and some people just wanted to help all the others or protect one particular person and others were just trying to survive. The Hunger Games is all about Katnis though, so from the beginning none of the other players really stand a chance and they're all just disposable.

I'll always prefer Battle Royale for two reasons. (Even though I very much enjoyed the Hunger games despite its flaws.) ps. forgive my rambling a bit but 13.5 hours and counting at work today so I'm loosing it a bit.

1. It was the first book I read, and one of the first written of the 'Stick unprepared teens or kids in a fight for their lives situation, but actually explore what happens to them, their feelings, their ideas and their friendships along the way' Genre. There have always been the "Captured Heros must fight to the death" or "Unprepared people/teens in a brutal bloodbath" types but none really seemed to explore how people would realistically react and feel. BR obviously caricatured it slightly but did an amazing job and holds its cult status for a reason. Also the movie is great, the sequel not so much but kinda fun all the same.

2. While I did enjoy it and the new twists on the Genre, like the sci-fi element, new take on the post-apocalyptic scene and her having to go in twice I sadly had a few issues with HG. I should firstly say I have no issue with female authors and love a lot of their work, but they do have a kind of problem with male romance originality. While Male authors often fall into either the damsel in distress or hard female warrior that warms up to the male protagonist safety net, at least half the time I pick up a book by a female author which stars a female lead they have the same male romance option between two guys. One slightly more risky/ assy or dangerous, the other being the quieter and more caring one. I've just grown tired of predicting this love triangle and finding it in the book... also as others have said the 3rd book was somewhat of a letdown compared to the others and I wish more about the others had been included, more real reactions and emotions etc. rather than "ok they are so gonna die, and there they go!"

I agree with you, Xt. Prim (Katniss' lil sis) died so that Katniss will have a motive(?) or a somewhat good reason to kill President Snow...

HG the movie isn't really the same as the book. If you haven't read the book, you'll be having a hard time catching up with the movie. The cast selection was not that good too. I don't have anything against JLaw, but it's just that the book states that Katniss has olive skin and dark hair (which are not JLaw's characteristics.)

Katniss already had a motive but the last book just made it redundent and had a final destination feel. Personally, The last book ruined the series.

wow Xt, WHAT A SPOILER.

I agree.

I've never read battle royale but it sounds better than HG if not just because to me the third book sucked and was pretty rushed with no reason on many things already stated. and agree with most of what was stated.

I think (unfortunately) Battle Royale wins.

Hunger Games had a lot of tropes and stereotypical crap in there, but Battle Royale was, a bit fresher.

It sounds like I will have to admit defeat and read battle royale 

And watch the movie, which is very well done.

would you find this movie at Hasting's?

I bought it online, not sure where would stock it but most large movie stores I've been in do

Hmm okay (I am going to read the book first they are usually better than the movie just for the better details if nothing else. Gotta add hunger games movie was disappointing in my eye's.

Battle Royale for me. Even though I read Hunger Games first, I still like Battle Royale because I thought that it was more original and way more interesting. Hunger Games is pretty good too, but the third book sucks.

I am not giving an opinion here, but I will state a fact: Battle Royale was the original.

Even if we occasionally make a story better by re-creating it, I occasionally get annoyed when I see America blatantly steal an idea from Japan. >.> Even stuff like "The Lion King"

The Lion King? What do you mean? 

The original concept of The Lion King does not belong to Disney. It was based off the series "Kimba the White Lion." If you don't believe me, look it up, or just watch the show. There is even a site dedicated to proof that Disney stole it. (As I cannot find the site, feel free to browse this cracked! article: http://www.cracked.com/article_17299_6-famous-characters-you-didnt-know-were-shameless-rip-offs.html )

I will also list some facts here anyway: Aside from the obvious name similarities, the original adds for The Lion King had Simba's fur color as, yes, white. The voice actor for Simba stated that he came in honestly expecting a remake of that series. The main villain of the lion king? Simba's uncle. One of the main villains of Kimba the White Lion?

Kimba's aunt. How does Simba have a big, life-changing revelation? Seeing his daddy in cloud form in the sky. Kimba has an almost identical moment, but over a different issue. And just to assure you that Kimba is the original, not only was it made first, but Disney tried, prior to making the Lion King, to get the rights to the actual show for YEARS, but the owner refused...

So what did they do? Screwed around with the plot just enough to claim innocence. They still wanted to keep Simba's fur white, but one of the developers was quoted saying "C'mon, guys, not even OUR lawyers are THAT good." (Cracked will also point out to you that Simba's life is -also- based on Hamlet, so even the changes that -were- made to make it "original" were not original.)

But you know... I'm surprised if this shocks anyone. Most of Disney's "classics" are not original stories. They're fairy tales that have been around for years. Disney just dolled them up in pretty morals and made them kid-friendly. (And if you don't realize that fairy tales were not originally for kids due to their once incredibly violent, bloody, dark, and emotionally scarring nature... well, research the original versions at your own--childhood's--risk. Rape and dismemberment are among the reasons.) 

Ooh, another way for me to get addicted to cracked!

On the original subject, I did find Battle Royale much better, even though I've seen and heard very little of it.

The Hunger Games is over-hyped 9-16 year old craptacular pulp, if you ask me. Just like Twilight. Sure, republican dictatorship, Auchwitz, and the Roman colliseum are fun for while, but as a whole, it was poorly exectued kissing-up to English teachers who stand up in front of their classes and blab about the sensory details. Yeah, it has them. Does it have anything else besides a mash-up of cliches? No. I mean, come on, she had to go BACK into the friggin' Hunger Games. Is that the only slightly original post-apocalypse theme you can come up with? The Fallout plot has better sci-fi themes then you do, Suzanne, if that's the goddamn case. That is all. (YEAH! I WENT THERE... I compared the favorite book of millions of children... TO A FIRST PERSON SHOOTER RPG!)

I found the first book ok, the rest were POOP.

The friggin' movie was better, even if they did squash the first hundred pages into 15 minutes. If you ask me, they needed it. At least the fan-service bullshit only took about an hour of your life away, rather than a 10-hour novel reading.

It takes me less time to read the book, than how long the movie is. I havent watched the movie though.

Disney ruins a lot of fairytales.

The originals were way better.

Eg. The Mermaid Princess

Disney- the mermaid princess (what kind of name is Ariel) gets married. The end (plain)

Original-the mermaid princess was about to kill the human, but because she loved him, she couldn't. Ending much more complex.

I Agree with you Vics Disney sure ruined a lot of fairytales i mean the brothers grimm is way better!

So gory and fantastic :D

Erm...Kiel, Battle royale was based on Lord of the flies, a british book.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies

Japan stole the idea from Britain, and USA stole the idea from Japan. So that's not really the best way of arguing that, seeing as Japan stole the book idea too.

In lord of the flies they aren't battling to the death until the end . . . and it wasn't a free for all, it was systematically hunting down that one character (no spoilers from me =P) that was not in line with the rest of the group.

*Spoiler, I guess?*
AHHH poor Simon!!  x_x

*SPOILER*

Poor Simon indeed! Shity time to come bursting out of the forest having a seizure =(

"That was Simon. That was murder."

Battle Royale wins a million times over. I understand this is a generally unpopular opinion, but I found The Hunger Games pretty....well, awful, overall. I think the premise was fantastic but it was very poorly executed. The writing isn't very good. The subplots are incredibly overdone and cliche. There isn't much serious character development, and the characters tend to be very black and white as well. It seemed to me like just another book to be discarded into the "young adult" section and never read again.

The Hunger games were good books. BUT THE FILM WAS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE.

I've never really read Battle Royale but it sounds better then the Hunger Games.

I thought Battle Royale 1-2 was very good but Hunger Games seemed better to me.

(Even if it is a blatant rip off)

Hmm, let's see. Battle Royale is more targeted towards older people and had the initial idea, but I saw more development in the Hunger Games. Dunno, a tie.

Really guys? Don't revive a thread if it's past 6 months old unless you actually have something substantial to add.

:P It comes up every time because Battle Royale was the original. The Hunger Games was reportedly based on (re: a rip off of) it. 

Ah, thread necroing. I didn't even notice it myself.