The Hunger Games; I just don't get it...

[klaynexas3]

While I will agree with you on that they both take similar situations but run in different directions for them, I still think it's a very valid comparison, and that Battle Royal was still better. Granted, I've only seen the movie, and only read the first two Hunger Games books, but the one Battle Royal movie was better than the two Hunger Games books. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Hunger Games, they just aren't great or anything.

Ender's Game was a better book to. My point is that you can compare anything to Hunger Games and say if it's better or worse, but using Battle Royal (especially because it is the go to "Hunger Games ripped it off" movie) as a comparison of quality tends to give the impression of "did the same thing but better" at which point people will argue, that it was not actually the same thing at all.

It wasn't the exact same thing, there were some major differences, but it's still a bit more valid than saying something such as Ender's Game(Unless it's Peter's story in the Shadow series, as that did have a lot to do with the individual rising up and being able to take on and even beat the corrupt society. Somewhat, though still many differences, like Hunger Games) because there was simply more similarities between Battle Royal and Hunger Games than differences. The people that say it is the same thing but better are full of it and clearly didn't read one or the other well enough to understand what the writer was trying to get across. My only point is that it is still a valid enough piece to be used in a side by side comparison, like comparing a red delicious apple to a granny smith. They both have they're differences, but they're both still apples.

 

[BrotherRool]

What I appreciated about The Hunger Games is how undeniably real it is, I've never seen a story before that held less to narrative conventions than to portray events(in a fictional setting) exactly how they would play out with the people involved. Nothing happens it feels because its got good narrative purpose, but instead because thats what Katniss would really do. It catches people out, MovieBob when reviewing the film assumed the districts would eventually rise up and overthrow their oppressors and made fun of the Capitol for deliberating training people in the art of war. This does not happen. The book makes it clear the first thing that would happen if this was tried is that everyone would die because the Capitol have space-age weaponry and the districts have sticks.

But it made me wonder, this is good and it acheives everything it aimed to do (to show exactly how brutal and horrific this situation would be with the permanent long-lasting trauma). But why would I want to read it if it's trying to create an awful emotion?

It took me a long time to think about this question but eventually I came across it in the very last paragraph of the last book

(Contains no plot spoilers but it is the culmination of what this series was about)

Spoiler

I'll tell them how I survive it. I'll tell them that on bad mornings, it feels impossible to take pleasure in anything because I'm afraid it could be taken away. That's when I make a list in my head of every act of goodness I've seen someone do. It's like a game. Repetitive. Even a little tedious after more than twenty years. But there are much worse games to play.

This is what elevates it above any teen novel, and really almost every novel I love purely for entertainment value. It's a message I'll take away, and not accept, but think about and whenever the cruelty of the world is getting me down I can think about this, and it might not solve my problems, but it might be a starting point

Hate to be this guy... but I liked the Japanese Version better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale

I tried, but all I could think about was how this feels like a stupid SciFi version of Battle Royale, and couldn't get into it. That is all.

I agree, to me, the Hunger Games felt like it was trying to trivialize actual events by turning it into what it is - basically a sci-fi version of gladiators but with children

I was going to quote the person you're quoting but I figure you give a more advanced launch point that is quite interesting.

Still this is still pretty copy and pasted and I might become a little lazy because this is a pretty common discussion, I was thinking about counter-arguments before I'd got to the end of the first book because it was pretty clear it would come up. Also as a starter, I would also like to note that it appears that Susan Collins came upon the idea separately rather than drawing inspiration from Battle Royale. It's not really that wacky of an idea and I believe her, because she doesn't seem the sort of person who would enjoy watching weird ultra violent Japanese films. (Note I haven't read the manga). Lord of the Flies runs with the same concept.

So without more ado

Why The Hunger Games isn't Really Comparable To Battle Royale Even Though It Seems It Should Be
The core idea my argument relies on is that the theme and intent and 'genre' of the book are far more important that the setting and apart from setting, Battle Royale and The Hunger Games share almost nothing. You can like one more than the other, but to directly compare them is akin to saying 'In my opinion, bacon is far superior to apples'. If you disagree with this part, you can pretty much ignore the rest and we'll talk just about this because the rest will be explaining how they share almost nothing in common.

Since we're gamers, this is the easiest tl;dr. Battle Royale is CoD4 (the good one). And The Hunger Games is Spec Ops. The same setting, outwardly the same events. Total different experiences and the latter is pretty much trying to make you feel bad about the same sort of things the former does to make you feel good.

Battle Royale is an exploration of how society breaks down, when certain social boundaries are removed and other enforced, with children in the place of adults both for shock value and the more clearly established social connections you get in a school. It asks the question, how would you change in this situation? It's basically Lord of the Flies with guns. When you watch it, there is a lot of humour and the lot of the violence is over the top and very very cool. It's main purpose is to entertain, but to have depth behind that entertainment because it's interesting all the social intrigue and machinations that come behind such a situation.

The Hunger Games is an exploration of the inate cruelness that lies in all humanity, but of a much more subtle and realistic kind than we'd associate with that term. The cruelness that The Hunger Games focuses on is the apathetic cruelness that allows us to ignore situations and let things slide which we're not personally connected to. Whereas the BR uses the arena to explore how people would change in it, the Hunger Games has the conceit that basically, people don't change in the arena. They bring in exactly what was always with them and instead of asking how we change, it asks who we really are in life? And it's much more focused on people than society at large, in BR it's about alliances and reflections of anarchy and society, in the Hunger Games its about people and how people really behave in general.

Now this is the most important distinction (worth a new paragraph at least =D). Battle Royale sought at it's heart to entertain. This is not the objective of the Hunger Games. The Hunger Games aim is to convey just how brutal this situation would be. It's aim for the same type of engagement as a Holocaust film, rather than being about fun, it's about learning about an uncomfortable aspect of humanity and understanding it a bit better. When someone dies in Battle Royale, it's basically meant to be fun, or stylish or funny etc. The Hunger Games purpose is to make you feel how bad someone dying would actually be and study the trauma that that would cause in people.