Every story is similar to another. It doesn't matter if a story has been done before, it's really about the characters and their problems. You could have the most original story ever made on the entire planet and it could still be bad if you don't care about the characters.
Not having read or seen Battle Royale myself, I can't comment much on it personally, but from just the summaries I've read, I don't see all that much similar between the two except for 'kids forced to fight each other for a corrupt government'. The differences goes way beyond just the world they're in. The whole concept in Battle Royale is that it's a military program with a group of kids from a school to terrorize the public, while in Hunger Games it's televised entertainment for the people in Capital City while simultaneously a reminder to the 12 Districts they lost the war. And being from different Districts, none of the tributes even knows who any of the other kids are except maybe the other kid from their District. I could go on, but I don't want to potentially spoil anything for anyone that hasn't seen The Hunger Games yet.
The whole, honest to God truth right here. Anyone who believes the Hunger Games is "A Blatant Ripoff" obviously hasn't paid attention to what they're reading. No offense, but that's just the way it is.
I finally got to see it it was pretty close to the book, yes i read the book. the only part i was mad about was the fact that Madge wasn't the one to give Katniss the Mockingjay pin. it made me sad.
I won't say I actually counted... but Madge couldn't have had even ten lines over the course of the books right? Spoiler She gives Katniss the pin... and... she did something in Catching Fire... was she the one who brought medication to the Victor House after Gale got whipped? And then she died... That role isn't big enough to justify the time and money spent on putting her character in the films. It might be upsetting, but think of it this way: Madge not being included is and has given more time to explore on other elements. Right?
I didn't say blatant. Collins changed too much for that. But Hunger Games isn't as original as everyone makes it out to be.
Aside from the need to find something to bash about, I really don't care if it is a blatant rip off or not.
Was anybody else disappointed that Spoiler we didn't actually see a Mockingjay? Heck, we didn't even really get to hear them... they whistled... but they're kind of supposed to sing. That disappointed me.
Nor is Battle Royale. And by the logic that Battle Royale is a rip off of The Running Man. Any way despite similarities there are significant differences with each one from Battle Royale, Running Man to Hunger Games. Anyway, The concept of People killing each other for the entertainment of the corrupt isnt even new it's actually as old as civilization itself. The only significant simialrity between the two is the fact people are forced to kill each other for the pleasure of a corrupt goverment, Other than that there are different plot points, Characters, And motivations..
Is it cool if I copy this and paste it whenever somebody (undoubtedly) comes up with this accusation? Nothing but truth here, peeps.
To everyone saying that this is a rip off of Battle Royale, that is basically like saying Firefly is a rip off of Star Trek. Both shows have a spaceship in them with various characters on them. Other than that, they are completely different. You can have a similar premise or set up for a movie and you can still make it original by developing the characters and allowing the story to progress. Battle Royale and The Hunger Games are both about kids who are forced to kill each other, but they are still very different from each other. In fact, The Hunger Games has a few elements from the story of Theseus and the Minotaur in Greek mythology such as volunteering to fight in someone's place.
Finally saw it. Good film... not great tho. There are many things that the film didn't illustrate. However, I would have liked to see the Spoiler Mockingjay's... since they are a important part of the mythology . Not only that, but weren't the Spoiler trackejackets larger in the book? In the movie they were just noral sized bees.[ . And finally, the Spoiler muttations. In the book I imagined more of a werewolf type creature. These wwere just glorified pitts/rotts. Never mind that we could have seen how sinister the Capital was by incorporating facial feature of the fallen tributes into the mutts. . I thought a lot of things in the film were rushed- particular the end. However, I don't see this as a book vs. film: I see the film more as a supplement to the book. At least the film showed a lot of stuff behind the scenes that he book didn't.
That is a great way of looking at the film, while it may not show some things that are in the book, because the film is not Kaniss narrating it allows them to show other interesting stuff like the Snow and Seneca, the Games control room and the few scenes of Haymitch watching things.
Yeah, looking at the movie as a supplement rather then a end-all-be-all adaption is a good way of looking at it.
Finally saw it today. I thought it was a really good adaptation of the novel. There were a few things that weren't quite how I pictured them, but nothing too major.
I'd probably like the books a lot cause I dig the themes and the setting, but that movie was trash. Over half the movie was outside the games, and I still learned nothing about any of the competitors enough to care when any of them died. I feel like the first 3/4 of the movie just dragged and didn't leave enough time for the actual games. And seriously this was PG-13 and couldn't show any gore that The Walking Dead gets away with on cable? C'mon now. From what my wife was telling me they took a very good book and shit twilight on it to appeal to the audience. I may read the books eventually but I'm not getting dragged into another one of these movies again.
