Battle Royale.... - The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) Discussion

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

'Battle Royale' is considered as a great film, but its sequel is poorly-received.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

Oh, it was quite well-known outside Japan, just not very well known in North America.

reply

[–] qianzhengyi 10 years ago

Hunger Gamest trilogy of books and films is a rip off of Battle Royale both in story line and premise. Everyone out there go and watch Battle Royale 2 (the sequel)-its almost identical to the trilogy of books.

reply

[–] TrueViet 10 years ago

In the Theseus and the Minotaur, the Battle Royale itself was only a small fraction of the plot, and was actually a maze or labyrinth in which was hidden a monster. It was used to paint the larger picture. In this maze, Theseus, the legendary king of Athens attemps to subdue the beast by unwinding a ball of yard in order to find his way back out. In fact, the maze game didn't start until about 1/2 or 2/3 in. There were a lot of more going on outside of the games (a maze with a sigle guy lost in it). Overall, the hunger games story (book) was about a girl navigate herself through a series of event that revolutionized the world she lives in (Penam). The love triangle and the games were merely subplots of the larger picture. There were other equally (or more) important subplots such as political propaganda, the hunger, detailed descriptions of the world...etc.

You can find the source for all that in battle royale 2. The whole game (if you call it that) was already over and the ensuing uprising is the whole plot. Almost everything happened in the "maze". The focus was about survival. Through struggle for survival, human characteristics such as "love", "trust", "friendship" were presented to the readers.

(>^_(>O_o)>

reply

[–] qianzhengyi 10 years ago

Hunger Gamest trilogy of books and films is a rip off of Battle Royale both in story line and premise. Everyone out there go and watch Battle Royale 2 (the sequel)-its almost identical to the trilogy of books.

reply

[–] turdbadge 10 years ago

I can say Battle Royale 2 (unsurprisingly) remains far far far superior. The Hunger Games is not bad, but that is nothing to do with Francis Lawrence, more to do with the strength of the original material still shining through. I mean given the money and a copy of Battle Royale 2, I could have made this film to the same standard.

Performance wise, well I think it is all just a whole load of imitating the original. Josh Hutcherson's best performance to date without a doubt, but that really says very very little. Woody Harrelson was ok.

I am giving it 5/10, and all 5 still just because of the original.

reply

[–] Mahmood-Buttrumps 10 years ago

I've read both books for this topic and find Battle Royale to be far superior for me. In other reviews, people complain that BR is just a gorefest and has no world building. That's not true, they discuss the government and how the world is split into two major dystopic societies, much like the novel 1984 does. It really comes down to what you prefer. If you like the dystopia of the horror/dark genre, BR is amazing. If you like the Twilight book series where they take horror/dark themes and then beautify them with romantic subplots, you'll like Hunger Games. Being a fan of horror and true dystopic worlds with all their grim oppression and disregard for the common man, I prefer BR2.

reply

[–] summerinertia 10 years ago

What I find so funny is that no one seems to realize that BR2 is not about children killing each other. It`s a sort of criticism of Japanese society. Don`t speak up, don`t stand out, follow the rules and so on... The story of children killing each other as some sort of teaching them a lesson is just a overstylized way of bringing the message across.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mahmood-Buttrumps 9 years ago

I'm a real BR2 fan. I've know this movie all by heart since 2004 or something. And I loathe The hunger games idiotic take on it. I don't care if Collins ripped BR2 of. It's a good story to ripp of and I hope other people will ripp it of to so I can see more interpretations.
Just don't go hating on BR2 or it's real fans just because those "fans" here are so annoying.

reply

[–] summerinertia 9 years ago

I take it you are from America then, thats pretty much the only place where Battle Royale 2 ahas been suppressed by corporate powers.

reply

[–] ikissedaguru 9 years ago

How is The Hunger Games: Catching Fire allowed to rip off BATTLE ROYALE 2? Just because they stretched the plot out to three movies and added a Twilight subplot, doesn't make it any different, except for the fact that they casted white people instead of Japanese...

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] riekondoh-116-326404 9 years ago

Why did Collins axe all the political subtext when she copied Battle Royale 2: Requiem?

reply

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

That's also why Battle Royale 2: Revenge was such a big hit in Japan.

But also a critical flop at the same time. Mind you.

reply

[–] sflowers539 11 years ago

Battle Royale was a great film, as is this series. The cool thing for me is that I saw Battle Royale in 03' before 99% of Americans ever heard of it, in college a Asian kid told me about it and I initially though he was messing with me or greatly exaggerating. I bought it on eBay for $10, and wow, it did live up to the hype and I'll never forget it.

reply

[–] MattSmithsBowTie 11 years ago

Same. I watched it pretty much a decade ago! Dressed up as one of the girls for Halloween (made my own collar as well) and nobody had a clue who I was.

You had me at apple

reply

[–] jeffer23 11 years ago

The "Battle Royale" message board never gets any traction with comments regardless of all the internet discussion (after the arrival of Hunger Games). The trolls are doing their posts on this board as well which shows that the movie is nothing special (except perhaps in Japan). Some people are fanboys of it simply because they don't like Hunger Games.

I watched it and thought the entire idea behind the Battle Royale law is ridiculous regardless of how bad kids revolt against attending school. The movie isn't Science Fiction so the actions of the people in the movie are suppose to relate to modern or past history. Many of the kids in the movie act like psycho killers instead of people who know the people they are shooting.

reply

[–] MealWorm897 11 years ago

During it's initial run Battle Royale had just as much as traffic as any other newly released feature. Come back here in ten years, after the hype has died down, and you will find nothing but cobwebs and perhaps a truly die-hard (insane) fan or two.

Battle Royale won four Oscars so I think that speaks for how "special" it is, based on the shockwave novel by Koushun Takami, which was a #1 bestseller on the New Yorl Times reading list for more than year, and which has become very controversial in a very short time (and it is really easy to understand why), and was in the IMDB Top 250 from 2001 to 2011. The plot is relatively simple (a class of junior high school students are forced to kill each other on a coastal island, the last survivor wins and can go back home), but it is this simplicity that makes its strength.

No need for a very long prologue before we enter the main act. Each of the 42 pupils involved in this "hunger game" are not volunteers (no one would be..,), and of course they are forced to kill their best friends /girlfriends in order to survive this horror. The personalities and characteristics of each of the participants are of course very contrasted and even if there are some cliches, well, the worst has been avoided. There are even quite "realistic" (even if it is very difficult to judge what can be realistic with such a plot) moments. The transcription of the inner thoughts of the characters, which is one of the strengths of the book, is averagely well retranscripted.

Violent. Ultra-Violent. And bloody. This is for sure. The book has to be read for a more complete description of the hesitations and fears, but the movie restranscripts very well the book is the sense that it is all "absurd". There is no real meaning to this violence. The students know this, but it can not be avoided. It is quite sad that the movie dropped an essential background element of the book (the story in the book takes place in an imaginery Japan which would have not lost WWII, and the movie takes place in a slightly modified modern Japan), but I guess that making this happen in the "real-world" shows that there is no need to go to an imaginary world to see to what extreme behaviors humans are capable of. Compared to the original THG comes off as cheap fluff and I've no doubt will be relegated to cultural obscurity within a decade or so.

Hope this helps...

reply

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

'Battle Royale' won four Oscars? Are you sure you're talking about a right film???

reply

[–] jeffer23 11 years ago

Come back here in ten years, after the hype has died down, and you will find nothing but cobwebs

Since many more movies will come out by then I am sure there will be far fewer people on the "Hunger Game:Catching Fire" board. But you won't find any of us wasting our time creating lies and crying over a dated movie that we liked because some newer movie happens to be similar. We will likely be on the newer movie board enjoying discussion about it instead.

Battle Royale won four Oscars

That is a lie. It was not even nominated for an Oscar or Golden Globe or any big award (much less winning one). It arrived in the US on Netflix on TV if I understand it correctly.

which was a #1 bestseller on the New Yorl Times reading list for more than year,

Perhaps you should provide the year in which it was a best seller. "The Hunger Games" entered the New York Times Best Seller list in November 2008 where it would feature for over 100 consecutive weeks.

EDIT* Fixed a typo

reply

[–] MealWorm897 11 years ago

That is a lie.

No it isn't. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266308/awards

reply

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

That's a Japanese Academy, and it didn't "win" four awards from there.

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

During it's initial run Battle Royale had just as much as traffic as any other newly released feature. Come back here in ten years, after the hype has died down, and you will find nothing but cobwebs and perhaps a truly die-hard (insane) fan or two.

It was never released, ever before last year on DVD. It showed at a couple of minor film festivals on the West Coast. That was it. It had no hype.

Battle Royale won four Oscars so I think that speaks for how "special" it is,

It might if it had ever won any kind of Oscar. But for it to be nominated, it would have to be released. No release, nothing to be nominated. It wasn't even presented at Cannes.

You know the rest of your points 'might' be worth considering if these points were not blatant lies. But keep telling yourself that THG will fade. You probably need something to cling, but a sinking ship is not going to last for long. 'Battle Royale' didn't even last a month on the DVD charts. They can be checked.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

Japanese Academy Award started from 1978. You were saying???

reply

[–] ibrarules 11 years ago

HINT: Japan's acadamy award was called 'oscar', nine years before the Americans ripped off the name

I mean comeon. That's pretty weak boring trolling aint it?

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Well come back when you can find a movie that actually played in the US and then complain about the lack of nominations. What movies qualified for the German equivalent of the Oscars in 2001-2010? Russia? Holland? Italy? Australia? New Zealand (well that's easy, Lord of the Rings). You are so busy complaining that Americans don't know what happened in Japan 10/15 years ago, do you know what happened in Spain or South America 10/15 years ago? Unless =you know right now this minute what was nominated in every single country in the world, what films were nominated in their National awards...Keep your mouth shut about what other people don't know.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Well better late than never with this I suppose. The Academy Awards were started in 1929 and gained the nickname in 1931. Academy Award librarian and future Director of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Margaret Herrick. The story goes that when she first saw the statue in 1931, she said that it looked like her Uncle Oscar. According to Emanuel Levy, author of All about Oscar: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards, columnist Sidney Skolsky was there when she said this and would later write that “Employees have affectionately dubbed their famous statuette ‘Oscar.’”

The oldest Japanese film award is The Academy Prize and it was founded in 1946.

Research people, do your research.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

the collars

False. There is no collar in 'The Hunger Games'.

the bags

False. Bags are given out to students in 'Battle Royale'. In 'The Hunger Games', tributes have to get backpacks from Cornucopia.

the danger zones

False. No such thing exists in 'The Hunger Games'.

the surviving couple

False. In 'Battle Royale', that surviving couple doesn't actually win the game.

It's a rip-off of the highest caliber.

Points you've made above have been proven false.

Your argument falls flat.

reply

[–] Jeremiahsouras 11 years ago

The collars have been replaced by tracking implants. Practically the same thing except the implants don't explode.

The bags are randomly assigned in BR, in HG all the bag is found at "Cornucopia" or whatever, not really much of a difference as its all based on what you get: if you get crap in HG like a pot lid or binoculars, you don't have a chance; If you don't get your preferred weapon in HG then you don't have a chance. The point he was making is there are bags full of equipment for each player.

Instead of danger zones in a grid format, its in the shape of a clock and can be seen in the sequel of Hunger Games.

In Battle Royale the couple survive and breach the rules stating there is only one survivor, just like Hunger Games. The fact that two people survive instead of one is very similar.

Also you missed one point; the morality calls.

In BR the deaths of all of whom have died are called out over speakers with classical music in the background. In HG:CF, the people who have died are displayed in the sky with music and what not.

His argument doesn't fall flat, most of his points of which he didn't even elaborate on in the first place remain pretty intact as the similarities are very easy to spot.

reply

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

The collars have been replaced by tracking implants. Practically the same thing except the implants don't explode.

The bags are randomly assigned in BR, in HG all the bag is found at "Cornucopia" or whatever, not really much of a difference as its all based on what you get: if you get crap in HG like a pot lid or binoculars, you don't have a chance; If you don't get your preferred weapon in HG then you don't have a chance. The point he was making is there are bags full of equipment for each player.

Instead of danger zones in a grid format, its in the shape of a clock and can be seen in the sequel of Hunger Games.

In Battle Royale the couple survive and breach the rules stating there is only one survivor, just like Hunger Games. The fact that two people survive instead of one is very similar.

Also you missed one point; the morality calls.

In BR the deaths of all of whom have died are called out over speakers with classical music in the background. In HG:CF, the people who have died are displayed in the sky with music and what not.

Well, the problem is, some of the idiots tried to "prove" that 'Pacific Rim' is a ripoff of 'Neon Genesis Evangelion' by using that kind of logic.

reply

[–] jeffer23 11 years ago

Arena event movies will always share some common items. "Battle Royale" is not a reality TV show. "The Hunger Games" is a reality TV show. Everything that is similar would be expected for use in any fighting arena reality TV show and has been used before on other reality shows and arena movies in the past (not just "Battle Royale").

"Escape from New York" (1981) used a tracking implant that was exactly like what is used in "The Hunger Games". "The Running Man" (1987) uses a tracking implant exactly like the Hunger Games. Tracking devices have been in use for prison inmates for ages. Any reality show is going to use multiple cameras and methods to track the competitors. "The Running Man" and most reality TV shows have multiple cameras throughout the environment to provide the TV audience a show. Battle Royale copied the same thing "The Hunger Games" copied. BR has no TV audience and used its TV cameras for completely different purposes.

The bags are randomly assigned in BR, in HG all the bag is found at "Cornucopia" or whatever, not really much of a difference as its all based on what you get: if you get crap in HG like a pot lid or binoculars, you don't have a chance; If you don't get your preferred weapon in HG then you don't have a chance. The point he was making is there are bags full of equipment for each player.

This is false. There are huge differences. In "The Hunger Games" there is a blood bath where everyone is making a dash for any weapon of choice, each other, or the woods. BR releases people one by one into the arena area with one bag containing unknown items. There is no option to grab a different bag. BR provides more modern items like machine guns, stun guns, cross bows, pistols, etc. Hunger Games only provides ancient weapons like those used in Roman arenas. In Hunger Games there are no stupid pot lids or bad items. In "The Hunger Games" everyone has a full opportunity to get any item of choice they desire. In BR there are no choices.

"The Hunger Games" is a great movie that was created using "Lord of the Flies", "The Lottery", "Theseus and the Minotaur", and a few other old dystopian novels as an influence. Battle Royale is a movie with bad acting and unrealistic plot that is different. Hunger Games is a science fiction movie. "Battle Royale" is not science fiction and is more like a horror movie with lots of gore.

EDIT* Corrected wording error

reply

[–] Jeremiahsouras 11 years ago

I realise all this, I was trying to make a point that the differences he sees aren't as different as the are in reality. I do agree with you on all these ideas as well as the whole "bag" concept.

Battle Royale is a movie with bad acting and unrealistic plot that is different.

I disagree that Battle Royale has bad acting with an unrealistic plot. I believe the plot is far more realistic and viable than the plot in The Hunger Games, and the acting is rather incredible especially coming from 15-18 year olds. The only difference here is the plot in Battle Royale is better.

Hunger Games is a science fiction movie. "Battle Royale" is not science fiction...

I believe it is a science-fiction film: the book depicts the turn of the century going into haywire from the 1996 perspective, whilst the movie being made in 2000 explains it more like a parallel universe. Either way, the film has many science-fiction elements and I think enough to carry that tag.

...and is more like a horror movie with lots of gore.

Both films are action thriller just Battle Royale shows a bit more violence and gore. Just because a film is gory and the scenes are darker and more twisted, it doesn't mean it is a horror. Look at Ichi the Killer, its setup to almost be a horror, but it never is, and the gore is way over the top.

This is my opinion so feel free to rebut it.

reply

[–] jeffer23 11 years ago

IMDb does show the genre of "Battle Royale" as science fiction, action, and thriller but it is incorrect. Using a definition of science fiction as shown below

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life.

"Battle Royale" does not qualify for any of the items in the above description. "Battle Royale" occurs either in the present or the past. There is nothing futuristic about it. In fact one could believe that the Battle Royale law has been instituted in current times which seems very unrealistic and not plausible. No modern government would institute such a ridiculous law.

You said

Both films are action thriller just Battle Royale shows a bit more violence and gore. Just because a film is gory and the scenes are darker and more twisted, it doesn't mean it is a horror.

Actually the films aren't even comparable on the gore. "The Hunger Games" only shows a small wound for Rue, Katniss, or Peeta when they are injured. All of the other competitors are hardly even shown fighting and we mainly just see bodies on the ground with almost no blood. "Battle Royale" shows numerous acts of violence and blood is common in the movie.

In a thriller the main focus is suspense and tension whereas a horror film is trying to elicit fear, disgust and horror from its audience.

"Battle Royale" becomes horror because of a combination of reasons. We have teen class mates who know each other attacking one another. Blood and violent deaths are common in the movie. The acting also shows psychopathic actions where they look like they have lost their mind during the fights. People will act like they are possibly trustworthy and suddenly attack one another.

reply

[–] Jeremiahsouras 11 years ago

The quote you used is on the wiki for science-fiction, but if you scroll down just a tiny bit you will find:

The settings for science fiction are often contrary to consensus reality, but most science fiction relies on a considerable degree of suspension of disbelief, which is facilitated in the reader's mind by potential scientific explanations or solutions to various fictional elements. Science fiction elements include:
A time setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record.

Battle Royale is set in an alternate timeline therefore it is science-fiction. Stories do not have to be set in the future to be a sci-fi, they can be set in any time period.

Yes Battle Royale is far gorier than that seen in The Hunger Games, however they both remain action thrillers. I think this can be scene in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire when that old guy gets shot in the head at close range, Katniss looks at the Peacemakers or whoever carrying him away and there is literally not a drop of blood in sight.

Too correct what I'm trying to say, Battle Royale is an action thriller with sci-fi and horror elements, it isn't "more like a horror movie with lots of gore". That's condescending to what it is, making it more comparable to a slasher film with no plot and meaning.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jag85 11 years ago

Battle Royale is considered one of the greatest films of the past two decades, by filmmakers such as Quentin Tarantino, for example. I don't think either Hunger Games or Catching Fire can touch it.

Nevertheless, at the very least, I'd say Catching Fire is a better sequel than Battle Royale 2. While Catching Fire improved on its predecessor, BR2 was a convoluted mess that failed to live up to the standards of its predecessor.

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Well to be impressed with that, I would have to be impressed with Tarantino. Not much to tell the truth. Have you checked out his 'City on Fire', oh wait, that was the film he ripped off to make 'Reservoir Dogs'. See 'Reservoir Dogs' is a rip off, you should watch 'City on Fire' and listen to the dialogue Tarantino used in 'his' film. Why are you not on the Reservoir Dogs' page complaining about that? That really is a case of blatant plagiarism, but I suppose Hong Kong movies don't count.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] Jag85 11 years ago

I think your comment is misguided... I wasn't even complaining about plagiarism.

I have no doubt that Tarantino's debut feature Reservoir Dogs was indeed plagiarized, but it's not like that's the only movie he made. He also made True Romance, Pulp Fiction (#4 on this site's top 250), Inglourious, Django Unchained, etc. Even Battle Royale itself had a few Tarantino-esque moments, so it's no surprise that he loved it so much.

Personally, I think inspiration is a good thing, as long as credit is given where credit is due. It's only bad when you refuse to give that credit, something I believe both Quentin Tarantino and Suzanne Collins are probably guilty of doing at some point in their careers.

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

To give credit to 'Battle Royale' Suzanne Collins would first have to have heard of it, and as she says she didn't...she doesn't have to give any credit it to it. Unlike Tarantino who did not give credit till he was forced to admit he had heard of 'City on Fire' and Let's face it, Hong Kong movies have always been more popular than Japanese movies in the US. 'City on Fire' starred Chow Yun Fat for crying out loud.

I myself always have reservations about calling someone a liar, even obliquely. When there is absolutely no proof that the person did lie.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Oh I agree with you, BR really was a poor movie. Thank goodness it was never released in North America. It wouldn't have been that popular anyway so maybe it saved the producers the expense of trying to fid venues who would have been willing to show the film. The book did have qualities, but again are we talking about the first version that was so badly tranlated and didn't sell, or the second one that was published after THG?
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

To give credit to 'Battle Royale' Suzanne Collins would first have to have heard of it. As she says she didn't I wouldn't even obliquely call her a liar. Because let's face it, 'Battle Royale was never released in North America and it's hard to hear of a film that was never shown. Tarantino did not give credit till he was forced to admit he had heard of 'City on Fire'.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffer23 11 years ago

No. Battle Royale gets almost no air time on TV in the USA even now. When she wrote her novel, it was probably only available on the internet or movie rental stores.

Even now, the movie is not getting people interested. It is getting compared to the Hunger Games movies so people who watch the Hunger Games movies may look it up. But people aren't getting excited about it.

EDIT* I don't watch a lot of TV, but I have never seen Battle Royale listed for viewing on TV here in the US.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

Where were you 7 years ago? If you were in the U.S., there was no way you could've watched that film in a legal way.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

That copy could've well been a bootleg copy.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

U.S. version is not censored. You were saying?

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

That remark just told anybody who knows about research that you are not a writer. Writers research facts, not fiction.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

That is just so desperate, it would be funny if it wasn't pathetic. You are letting the trolls down here. C'mon, it isn't even worth defending the bridge with that poor excuse for an attack on Collins.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] Jag85 11 years ago

Wait, let me get this straight...

On the one hand, you are hating on Quentin Tarantino for not giving credit to City on Fire, a film that's way more obscure than Battle Royale...

And yet on the other hand, you're trying to defend Suzanne Collins for not giving credit to Battle Royale?

Uh, hypocrite much?

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"

reply

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

She gave credits to Stephen King, so...

reply

[–] Jag85 11 years ago

When was that? Last I checked, she claimed her inspirations were the Iraq War and reality TV...

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summerinertia 10 years ago

The Plagiarism of orators is the art, or an ingenious and easy mode, which some adroitly employ to change, or disguise, all sorts of speeches or their own composition, or that of other authors, for profit and acclaim cheifly, or their utility; in such a manner that it becomes impossible even for Collins herself to recognize her own work, her own genius, and her own style, so skillfully is the whole plot of Battle Royale disguised. But we can perceive it right off, as fanboys.

reply

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

Why Dippy, that sounds almost profound. Who did you rip it off of?
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. And I have groupies, Atomic Girl said so.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

I knew it, Dippy/Clirby/Atomic Girl could never come up with something like that on his own.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. And I have groupies, Atomic Girl said so.

reply

[–] CharlesTheBold 10 years ago

Reminds me of the most famous "Bad review" in literature. The reviewer was Samuel Johnson, and the name of his victim has mercifully been forgotten.

"Your work has some good passages and some original passages. Unfortunately, those passages which are good are not original, and those passages which are original, are not good."

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

The big difference is Tarantino had motive and opportunity to know about 'City on Fire. Suzanne had neither motive nor opportunity to know about BR. The fact that BR was popular in Japan years before she wrote THG,does not put the film/book in her hands to watch. Tarantino actually worked in a video store where he had access to foreign films, Suzanne Collins was a stay at home working mother with two infants who lived in a small village in Connecticut. She didn't live and work in Los Angeles while trying hard to break into the movie business, like Tarantino. Tarantino is a great visual artist, unfortunately he not very original. Every film he makes has scenes and dialogue 'inspired' by other films. And most of that inspiration comes from rather obscure foreign films. But what he does make very clear is how ' unknown' Japanese films are in the US. The big exception in the Japanese output of films shown in the West is Kurosawa's.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] Jag85 11 years ago

Battle Royale wasn't as obscure outside Japan as you're making it out to be. The film was released here in the UK, for example, and was even shown on TV quite often. A lot of my friends at school back then had either seen it or were at least familiar with it. And it was also released in many other Western and Asian countries.

Even if the film wasn't officially released in the US (apparently because of the Columbine shootings), it still had a sizeable cult following there, since it was easily accessible through the internet or through imports. Even if Collins herself hadn't heard of it, chances are some of her friends or family probably did, or she could have easily read the plot on internet sites (like IMDb, for example).

Also, both the original novel and the manga comics were translated and released in the US, and they also had cult followings among both novel readers and manga/comic fans there. As a professional novelist, Collins had plenty of opportunity to have heard about the novel, at the very least.

Compared to City on Fire, which in the early 90's was only available in video stores specializing in Hong Kong movies, Battle Royale was way more widely available, through several different media (and the internet), in the 2000's. Compared to Tarantino's case, Collins had way more opportunity to know about Battle Royale, even if it was unintentional.

And finally, Tarantino isn't just known for being a visual artist, but more so for being a great original script-writer, with unique naturally flowing dialogues you don't often see in Hollywood. While he may have failed to give credit for his debut film Reservoir Dogs, he made so many other classics afterwards that it's just not such a big deal anymore. But if you don't like Tarantino movies much, then it's understandable why you might not like Battle Royale's somewhat Tarantino-esque style much either.

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

BR was shown once on Film 4 about 7 years ago. The Film 4 website will confirm this. As a dedicated watcher of Film 4 I am familiar with the way it shows films. It runs them a lot for about a month. 'The Last Wagon' was shown about 7 times the first two weeks in December, I know because it is one of my favourite Westerns. BR played in 11 theatres in total in the UK, most of them in England before 2003. It also had a short showing at the Edinburgh Film Festival, can you hand on heart name the films that played at the last Edinburgh Film Festival without looking it up? BR is a film that is spoken about by cult film fanciers, but very few of them have ever actually seen it. Because it's never been shown that often. Last year (2012) I had it requested on Netflix for 3 months and I'v yet to see it on there. I finally watched it on YouTube. I am a big film fan and I quite like Japanese and Asian films. I'll admit I like Chinese films more than Japanese, well except for Kurosawa's films. He was a masterful filmmaker. Tarantino did not see BR in the US, he saw it in Japan. And I will confess, he's not a filmmaker I go out of my way to watch.

Suzanne Collins lives in Sandy Hook, you can look it up. In the early 2000 she had small children and was in the middle of writing her Gregor the Overlander series. If Sandy Hook had a video shop in 2000-2005 I would be very surprised, it is tiny. If she had time to go out looking for a non existent DVD/video then, I would be even more surprised. What you have to remember is that there was no legal way to see the film in North America. It was never released in any format there. You could 'maybe', find it at illegal car boot sales or you could order it from Hong Kong. But only if you knew about it. It just isn't that well known. There was a release here in the UK, but never in the US and I know I never heard of it before I started posting on this board. Then I did a lot of research on the matter. Because believe it or not, I hate plagiarism.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] Jag85 11 years ago

I've went to the Film 4 website and I don't see anything about when Battle Royale was shown there. Maybe that may have been the last time it was shown, not the only time? Because I specifically remember watching Battle Royale on Channel 4 around 2004, long before the '7 years ago' showing you're referring to. And before that, I watched it on DVD in 2002. And before that, I had mates at school recommending it to me in 2001. Maybe it depends whereabouts you lived, but here in South London, I had a lot of friends and classmates who were very familiar with it. Not saying it was mainstream or anything, but it certainly had a large cult following in the early 2000's.

As for Suzanne Collins, there are several major flaws with your defense:

1. There is this thing called the "internet", where you can easily download or stream movies online.
2. Even if your bandwidth is so limited that you can't download or stream movies onlone, there are sites like Wikipedia and IMDb where you can read plot summaries of even the most obscure movies without having to watch them.
3. Battle Royale wasn't just a movie, but it was originally a novel and then a manga comic, both of which were translated and released in the US, and could therefore be found in book stores or comic stores there legally (and, of course, on the internet).

In other words, Collins could have either found the Battle Royale novel in a book store, the manga in a comic book store, the movie in an import DVD store, the movie/novel/manga on the internet, read about the plot on the internet, or heard about the plot from someone who had seen the novel/manga/movie. That's at least six possible ways I can think of for her to have known about Battle Royale's plot, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

And finally, unlike some BR fans, I'm not accusing her of plagiarism. For it to be plagiarism, it needs to be intentional. And for both Collins and Tarantino, I don't think it was intentional. I don't think they went out of their way to plagiarize, but they simply remembered certain plot elements from works they had seen or heard of years ago, only for those same plot elements to resurface in their own debut works, without realizing where the inspiration for those plot elements came from. And I know this from my own experience of trying to write my own stories a long time ago, only to realize that I had unintentionally borrowed heavily from something I had seen years before, but couldn't quite remember. More often than not, that's how inspiration works.

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

It was there when I looked at it last April. All I can say is if you want to prove me wrong try and find out the /first/last time it was shown. You can of course call me a liar, I can't stop you. Just as you can't stop me from thinking you are a typical BR troll, clutching at straws. Because the fact still remains Suzanne Collins does not live in the UK so the entire question of when Br was last broadcast on Film 4 is moot. So she wouldn't know what you and your mates got up to in 2004, now would she?

Yes, there was/is the Internet. Now let us look at it in a reasonable manner. The film is out. It was never released in the US and Suzanne Collins could only have seen it by illegal means. I hope this can be agreed on, because I will be frank with you. Trying to apply British availability onto the availability of the film in the US is just stupid. I would be more impressed if you would concentrate on the book.

That was available in the US. So let us look at the publication history of the book. It was not sold by B&N, at that time the largest book chain in the US. It was sold by Amazon which between 200-2005 was trying very hard to get established. It was sold in speciality shops that sold comic books and manga, somehow I don't think there are many of those type of shops in Sandy Hook. Now maybe you don't remember this but Amazon nearly went under in that first 5 years. I worked in retail and I did pay attention.. So you can look at the customer reviews on Amazon which sold the book worldwide in that period. It was first released in the US in 2003. during 2003 and 2005 you can check Amazon.Com for the customer reviews. There are not that many of them. To this day there are only 174 reviews of the book...worldwide. This is not a great huge customer response frankly. Maybe because the book is so poorly translated. I have the book and it is. That first version of the book was not a great seller overseas, you can check the best selling lists if you don't believe me. Takami pulled that first version, rewrote and expanded the book into it's present version...which was published after THG.

What does all of this prove really.
1. The film was never available for Collins to see, that is a matter of public record.
2. Suzanne Collins does not and never has lived in the UK.
3. The present version of the book was published after her book.
4 The first version of the book was not successful and there is no proof she ever read it.

So you can't put Collins in a bookshop or a cinema where she could have been exposed to BR, and I have nothing but common sense and experience to tell me she never was exposed to it.

Because, and this for me is the clincher, she did not commit any kind of intellectual theft. Her book features one similarity to BR. Her protagonists are minors. And even there they differ from BR, they range in age and they are a group of strangers. In BR the protagonists know each other very well and they are all the same age. That's it,I'm done.
This is boring beyond belief.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] Jag85 11 years ago

Right, so I'm a "typical BR troll" just because I bring up facts that you're having trouble responding to. I can't be bothered to engage in childish name-calling (although I'm not surprised, given the average age of the THG fanbase), so I'll just ignore it and continue responding to your flawed defensive arguments.

Firstly, when was I ever saying she flew to the UK? I was just pointing out that it was released in many other Western countries, in the English language (subtitles, that is). If there is anything "stupid", it is your straw man argument.

Secondly, it is not illegal to import movies/books/comics, or download movies/books/comics that haven't been licensed for release in one's own country of residence. So no, I don't agree with you about it being illegal to import/download it in the US at the time. It is now, but it wasn't back then.

Thirdly, it appears you're "grasping at straws" when it comes to the novel, by unnecessarily bringing up the revised translation from 2009, acting as if the first translation from 2003 didn't tell the same story. Even if the first edition wasn't as well translated, that didn't stop Stephen King from giving the first edition a highly positive review in the Entertainment Weekly magazine (and website) in 2005. As for Amazon, it was already a multi-billion dollar business by the early 2000's, so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that it was "trying to get established", when it had already established itself in the late 90's. Also, I don't recall them "nearly going under" in the early 2000's, unless you have evidence for this assertion.

Fourthly, the numerous similarities between BR and THG have already been documented at great length. It's not just the protagonists being minors, but many other similarities, even down to minor details: Minors are forced by the government to murder each other in a game of death (which doesn't even make sense in an American cultural context like it does in a Japanese cultural context). The median age of the contestants in both works is 15 years old (i.e. all 15 in BR, and 12-18 in THG). The random selection of participants. Each participant is given their own unique weapon. There are no-go zones where you get killed if you stay in those areas for too long. The rules only allow there to be a single survivor. The TV crew interviewing the winner. The romantic angle, with the triangle involving two guys liking the same girl. The first movie/book ending with two survivors, a boy and a girl. The antagonists being adults. The protagonist leading a rebellion in the sequel. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I find it highly unlikely that, considering the large number of striking similarities between the two, for it to be mere coincidence.

And finally, all of this is simply a response to the self-contradicting argument claiming that Collins was never influenced by BR while at the same time accusing Tarantino of plagiarizing City on Fire, and trying to defend that by claiming he had easier access to foreign movies, when common sense dictates that accessing foreign movies was way easier in the post-digital age of the early-mid-2000's than it was in pre-digital age of the late 80's to early 90's. If you say that Tarantino plagiarized City on Fire in the pre-digital era, then claiming Collins was never influenced by the far more easily accessible BR book/comic/movie in the post-digital era is self-contradictory and illogical.

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

1. It is hardly a strawman argument to point out that she doesn't live in the UK or Europe. If something is popular on this side of the pond, it does not mean that a woman living in a very small village in Connecticut knows about it. Especially when that film was not released in her country. I don't know why you are having a problem with this simple premise. After all how familiar are you with the films that I, a UK resident saw in 2001-2003?

2. Umm, yes it is illegal. I do believe that quite a lot of bittorrent sites have been closed down recently because of this very factor. An illegal download means that the people who hold the rights to the film are not getting paid. That amounts to theft.

3. I can't help it that Takami rewrote his book and reissued it after Collins published her's. Though it does raise the question of who tried to cash in on who.
And the first book was very badly translated and it did not sell well. The figures are still on theNet.

4. Oh good heavens, you imported a list. I used to love the lists but now they are just so old. But here goes.

The Deathmatch, no one is denying that there is a Deathmatch.

Minors, Suzanne Collins writes for the YA market, of course her main protagonists are going to be minors.

The country is not America, it is Panem and it makes sense that a dictatorship would use the cruelest means possible to oppress it's people. This dictatorship uses children. Hitler's Germany and Pol Pot also used children to oppress the populations. And the Theseus myth that Collins used as her principal inspiration uses children as a means of punishment for an ancient wrong. This is not a new concept, it wasn't even new for Takami.

If you are trying to say that featuring an age range of 12-18 is the same thing as have protagonists the same exact age is the same thing, I have news for you...it isn't.

Being given a bag containing a weapon as you are shoved out of the door--one at a time is not the same thing as trying to get anything while fighting for your life...it's not the same thing either. There are no no-zones in THG and there are no force-fields in BR. The Arena is divided into a clock but you are not blown up for going into any of the zones. You willed be killed by the traps set by the gamemakers at the right time. There are no traps in BR comparable to the traps in THG. This is somewhat different from having your head blown off with an explosive necklace. A device I first saw in a film called 'Wedlock' made in the 90's.

All the Tributes are interviewed on the biggest show in Panem, they are not interviewed on a late night TV news program. The Games are broadcast to the nation. Everybody in Panem sees every minute of the Games. The Tributes have no chance of cracking into the mainframe computer unknown to the people running the show.
There is no romance in THG, there is a fake 'showmance' that is used to get the audience rooting for Katniss and Peeta. This is very different from the romance in BR. Mainly because nobody even knows that the two have feelings for each other.
You really have to start paying attention. BR2 was not written by Takami and like BR1, it was never released in the US. Either way, Katniss is not the leader of the revolution.

5. Again, I can't help that Collins never heard of BR or that Tarantino did indeed rip off 'City on Fire'. I can't help that you lose the argument.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] Jag85 11 years ago

1. The point is that there was an English-subbed version available, both through imports and through the internet.

2. Makes no difference. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of BR's American fanbase was introduced to it either through the internet or through imports. If you're suggesting that makes Collins, or whoever told her about BR's plot, a "thief", then so be it.

3. Takami never rewrote BR. It was Viz Media that published an English re-translation of the book, a common practice for works originally written in a foreign language. Get your facts straight.

4. No, I was just listing off similarities off the top of my head, but if you want me to "import" a list, I can do that too...

http://www.jonathanlack.com/2012/03/hunger-games-versus-battle-royale. html

And now to refute each of your flawed counter-arguments:

*Not just any deathmatch, but a deathmatch that is specifically about adults forcing minors to murder one another until the last one is left standing.
*Yes, a YA novel is obviously going to be about minors. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
*Panem is set in a post-apocalyptic North America. Either way, the comparisons to Hitler, Pol Pot, and Theseus, are all off. None of them involved children being forced to fight each other to the death until the last one is left standing.
*Of course it's not the same thing, but the fact that the contestants in both BR and THG even have the same average median age just makes it all the more suspicious.
*Doesn't change the fact that each of the contestants have their own unique weapon, both in BR and THG. The only difference is that the weapons are given out randomly in BR, while the contestants choose their own weapons in THG.
*The only difference between the danger zones in BR and THG is that in the former a neck device explodes while in the latter you get caught in a trap. The only difference is the method of execution, but the concept is the same.
*Doesn't change the fact that both use a reality TV concept, with the difference being BR is more in line with 90's reality shows (i.e. before Big Brother) while THG is more in line with 2000's reality shows (i.e. Big Brother).
*In the first THG, it's shown as a one-way romance, with the boys having some feelings for Katniss, but not the other way around. That's hardly much different to BR, where it's shown the boys have some feelings for Noriko, but rarely do we see it the other way around.
*Maybe not the leader, but still part of a revolution against the government. Of course BR2 isn't anywhere near as well known as its predecessor, but the fact that both the sequels even involve a rebellion against the government only makes it all the more suspicious.

5. The fact is that we've already covered almost a dozen so-called "coincidences" between BR and THG, and even that's nowhere near as much as what the article I've just posted above covers. That's more similarities than what exists between City on Fire and Reservoir Dogs, yet you continue to accuse Tarantino of plagiarism even though Collins' THG has even more similarities to BR. Once again, all you're doing is just contradicting yourself, and the moment your arguments start becoming hypocritical and self-contradictory, then that just means that, yes, you're "losing" the debate... Not that I care about "winning" or anything. The point of a debate is to engage in dialogue and learn something from it, not to "defeat" your opponent. But if "winning" means so much to you, then at least try to present an argument that is logically coherent and doesn't contradict itself. Logic 101.

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

1. So what? To get she would have to know about it and have to go looking for it. As she knew nothing about it, she had no reason to go looking for it.
I read Jonathon Black's 'essay', and I refuuted his points. =Would you like a site where you can read an essay supporting me?

I'm not going to go through your post because to tell the truth I don't have to. Everything comes back to the fact that the last thing 'Battle Royale' was was original. Collins has stated her influences and they can be seen right there in her story. The fact that you may or may not have known about the 'Battle Roayale' film means absolutely nothing. I know how to tatt, do you?
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

The moment he used 'Battle Royale 2: Requiem' to validate his point, his entire credibility was thrown into questions. That film was actually poorly received. Mind you.

Also, that "execution" excuse was commonly used by similar kind of trolls when they tried to "prove" that 'Pacific Rim' was a ripoff of 'Neon Genesis Evangelion'.

reply

[–] Jag85 11 years ago

And what does BR2's reception have to do with anything at all? If you honestly believe something so irrelevant validates your point in any way whatsoever, then you never had any credibility to begin with... Not to mention your even more irrelevant comparison with Pacific Rim and Evangelion. That's some fine "trolling" right there, mate.

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

OK, I don't speak *beep* BR2 is irelevant because it was never a book and it was never shown in the US, ever. Also, it's crap. A really lousy excuse for a film. Actually I am surprised that Takami did not take the filmmaker's to court. That cheap piece of exploitation was ripped off from his book and deserves to have every last copy burned in a probably smallish bonfire. I don't think I ever met anyone who had a good word to say about it, actually I've never met anyone anywhere that actually saw it. You will have noticed I hope that I have not said anything bad about BR, either the book or the film. The translation was lousy but Takami had definite things to say about what he saw as the spiritual death of a generation of schoolchildren in Japan. The film, while not my cup of tea was stylish and well made. The schoolteacher standing up and answering the telephone after taking a burst from an automatic rifle was a bit of a joke, but I've seen more improbable things in Western films. I still firmly believe that Collins never heard of BR, but I think she would agree with me, the work has merit.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] Jag85 11 years ago

Well, I already said what I had to say about BR2 in my first comment in the thread:

"While Catching Fire improved on its predecessor, BR2 was a convoluted mess that failed to live up to the standards of its predecessor."

BR2 had some interesting ideas regarding the whole 'War on Terror' theme, but the direction and execution of those ideas was terrible. The reason for this is because BR's legendary director Kinji Fukasaku died as soon as filming began, leaving his inexperienced son Kenta Fukasaku to direct the film in his place. It could have been a good film if only the elder Fukasaku was still alive to direct it himself.

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Why are you even bringing up BR2 in the first place. BR2 had nothing to do with the BR book or movie. You may think it had some good points, that doesn't stop it from being a exploitative mess that the son of the director of the first film rushed through to make money in Japan. BR2 is a 'rip-off'. An embarrassing one at that, which was never released in the US. What is it about the fact that this film and BR were never released in the US that you have such trouble with? Do you really see a middle-aged working mother trailing around illegal trade shows (if she knew about such shows in the first place) looking for these films? Why is common sense never even tried? OK, I liked 'My Fair Lady'.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] Jag85 11 years ago

I thought you didn't want to continue this discussion any further? Have you changed your mind now?

As for BR2, what do you mean by "in the first place"? Do you mean the comment I first made, saying BR2 is a disappointing sequel, or the reply I later wrote to you, listing its revolution theme among the dozen other similarities I pointed out between BR and THG?

Either way, it's a bit silly to call BR2 a "rip-off" when it is the officially licensed sequel to BR, for better or for worse. A "rip-off" is when you copy something and then refuse to credit it or license it (i.e. like what some BR fans accuse THG of being). That would be like calling Superman IV a "rip-off" of Superman just because it was a bad sequel by a different director. You might want to use some of that "common sense" you're referring to.

Anyway, while BR2 was a convoluted mess of a film, knowing Kinji Fukasaku's background as someone who lost loved ones during World War II, I can understand why he wanted to take on the 'War on Terror' theme with BR2. If he was alive, I feel he could have made it a good film, but his death led to his clueless son ruining it.

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

I'm polite, when I get a message I usually answer it. But it's Hogmanay and truthfully you are just going around in circles. BR2 had nothing to do with BR1 and Collins could not have seen either of them. That's it. Have a nice New Year, goodbye.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

I'm polite, when I get a message I usually answer it. But it's Hogmanay and truthfully you are just going around in circles. BR2 had nothing to do with BR1 and Collins could not have seen either of them. That's it. Have a nice New Year, goodbye.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jag85 11 years ago

Well, if you don't want to continue the discussion, then that's fine by me.

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM???!!!!!"

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sjohnson20 11 years ago

Netflix was renting Battle Royale years ago in the red envelopes before they started their streaming service. They were sending out the korean import.

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Then they were doing it illegally because 'Battle Royale' could not be legally shown in the US. Does Netflix often break copyright laws?
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] jeffer23 11 years ago

Battle Royale wasn't as obscure outside Japan as you're making it out to be. The film was released here in the UK, for example, and was even shown on TV quite often. A lot of my friends at school back then had either seen it or were at least familiar with it. And it was also released in many other Western and Asian countries.

The UK isn't the US. Television in the two countries is quite different.

"Battle Royale" is unrated and full of violence meaning that it would have likely been shown only on cable TV in the US. Local station networks must adhere to FCC regulations which controls use of profane language and subjects that will cause issues for a younger audience.

Most cable TV networks put known winners on during prime time to insure a viewing audience would be available to give them a profit. "Battle Royale" also requires subtitles which puts it at a disadvantage when competing for an audience.

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

See it's simple, Tarantino actually did what every so-called BR troll is all to happy to accuse Collins of. Only she didn't do it in the first place. Just like Tarantino didn't hide his 'inspiration', Collins didn't hide her's. And it's not 'Battle Royale'.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

We don't have to, all we need to do is revel in it's huge success. Don't you wish that 'Battle Royale' had anything like it? It didn't even get much success on THG coattails last year. The DVD got all the way up to No50 and then faded. THG was the biggest seller.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Block-Busted 11 years ago

Umm... no. Except for Japan, 'Battle Royale' is pretty much obscure.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]