Jump to content

whats better the hunger games or the avengers?

Aizenberg

By Aizenberg
in Far from the Forest...

Recommended Posts

Lux Aeterna Newbie

Lux Aeterna

Posted
Posted

*cough cough* Before there was ever Hunger Games, there was Battle Royale *cough cough*

No. I'm going to just put this in spoilers.

Everyone who implies that the Hunger Games stole from Battle Royale is a friggin' moron. First of all, let's compare:

Hunger Games (operating under non-quarter quell rules):

-2 tributes, one of each gender, from each district. A total of 24 tributes.

-The victor of the Hunger Games goes home to their district and lives a life of luxury and tutors further tributes.

-There must be a victor.

-The purpose of the Hunger Games is to remove hope from the districts and keep them subservient to the Capitol.

Battle Royale:

-50 third-year junior high school classes compete (beyond 1950). A total of... a /lot/ more subjects.

-The victor... lives. Nothing else.

-There isn't necessarily a victor. If no one dies in 24 hours, all collars detonate and everyone dies.

-The purpose of this is to conduct research.

Basically, the most they have in common is that they're both survival ideas put in an arena. You know what? You could say Battle Royale stole from the gladiators. But no one stole from anyone. These are basic ideas with which a person can base their story around.

Both Battle Royale and the Hunger Games had their own individual ideas with what to do with this stock concept. Battle Royale focused on survival. And, if you read all three books of the Hunger Games (or even looked closely at the Hunger Games), you would realize that the main goal isn't survival. Remember what Peeta said? "I just wish I could show them... they don't own me." It's not about survival for them. It's freedom. And once you get into the third book,

it's about the districts rebelling against the Capitol. Although overall Katniss' main goal is still to protect those she cares for.

So that's why you can't imply that the Hunger Games is a copy. But to your credit, at least you're not claiming that the Hunger Games is like Twilight, unlike some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Original Alear Collaborator

Original Alear

Posted
Posted

No. I'm going to just put this in spoilers.

Everyone who implies that the Hunger Games stole from Battle Royale is a friggin' moron. First of all, let's compare:

Hunger Games (operating under non-quarter quell rules):

-2 tributes, one of each gender, from each district. A total of 24 tributes.

-The victor of the Hunger Games goes home to their district and lives a life of luxury and tutors further tributes.

-There must be a victor.

-The purpose of the Hunger Games is to remove hope from the districts and keep them subservient to the Capitol.

Battle Royale:

-50 third-year junior high school classes compete (beyond 1950). A total of... a /lot/ more subjects.

-The victor... lives. Nothing else.

-There isn't necessarily a victor. If no one dies in 24 hours, all collars detonate and everyone dies.

-The purpose of this is to conduct research.

Basically, the most they have in common is that they're both survival ideas put in an arena. You know what? You could say Battle Royale stole from the gladiators. But no one stole from anyone. These are basic ideas with which a person can base their story around.

Both Battle Royale and the Hunger Games had their own individual ideas with what to do with this stock concept. Battle Royale focused on survival. And, if you read all three books of the Hunger Games (or even looked closely at the Hunger Games), you would realize that the main goal isn't survival. Remember what Peeta said? "I just wish I could show them... they don't own me." It's not about survival for them. It's freedom. And once you get into the third book,

it's about the districts rebelling against the Capitol. Although overall Katniss' main goal is still to protect those she cares for.

So that's why you can't imply that the Hunger Games is a copy. But to your credit, at least you're not claiming that the Hunger Games is like Twilight, unlike some people.

In both Hunger Games (book) and Battle Royale (film), there is only supposed to be one winner but there end up being 2, with some sort of romantic plot existing between the survivors. I haven't read the BR book(s?) or seen the Hunger Games movie, or read the 2nd and 3rd Hunger Games book.

Also, jumping down on an implication that exists/can be inferred from something someone said when you can just as easily infer "the Hunger Games is similar to Battle Royale" is kind of funny :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lux Aeterna Newbie

Lux Aeterna

Posted
Posted

In both Hunger Games (book) and Battle Royale (film), there is only supposed to be one winner but there end up being 2, with some sort of romantic plot existing between the survivors. I haven't read the BR book(s?) or seen the Hunger Games movie, or read the 2nd and 3rd Hunger Games book.

Also, jumping down on an implication that exists/can be inferred from something someone said when you can just as easily infer "the Hunger Games is similar to Battle Royale" is kind of funny :P

And that still makes the two the same? Major spoilers ahead:

The Hunger Games was a simple, yet effective act of rebellion: they both are about to eat nightlock, until the Capitol declares them both victors. Battle Royale was a complicated, elaborate method of freeing the victors from the collars. The victors in the Hunger Games had tension between them, with Peeta in love with her, and Katniss irritated with him for that fact. As for Shuya and Noriko, they're just last seen running off together.

Battle Royale has a lot of adaptations. The film does a sequel which some might attempt to say is a continuation that is the same as Katniss' fight under District 13 against the Capitol, but... Not really true, either. The "Wild Seven" from Battle Royale II: Requiem is a terrorist organization, while District 13 is an organization of trained soldiers that seeks liberation of all districts. People could try to connect the two through loose threads such as "fighting for justice" and "fighting for freedom," but the two become so vastly different at that point. For example, the "Battle Royale" system is used similarly when the students are sent on the island to fight, while it's simply a chosen fight for the soldiers of District 13.

For each similarity, there are at least five more differences.

And, no, it's reasonable. The "*cough*" and the context of this topic pretty clearly insinuate "Battle Royale came first and Hunger Games is just a carbon copy." What is he going to say otherwise? "Battle Royale is very similar and should also be considered in this comparison."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aleph Newbie

Aleph

Posted
Posted

You're right HG is nothing like BR because Battle Royale is actually good

sequel not so much

Speaking of bad sequels,

e558e9ec337eac83229c29e2bb3b6af7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluedoom Collaborator

Bluedoom

Posted
Posted

I haven't watched the Hunger Games but...

The Avengers is cool for an action movie. its got Dr.Bruce Banner in it.

And who doesn't like the big, friendly Hulk? Hell the guy's funny even when he's not the Hulk. xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Loki Laufeyson Newbie

Loki Laufeyson

Posted
Posted

I thought the Avengers was great. I thought Hunger Games was just ok.

this.

Hunger Games is like Twilight where its so freaking popular and all the kiddies are going apeshit. Except Twilight was bad. Really bad. Hunger Games is just ok. Never more than just ok.

Avengers was pretty gr8mazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...