SPOILERS!

Welcome to my rant on THG. This is a full on rant (not a review). If you're into Hunger Games, please get ready for some serious bashin' and thrashin' of the franchise (mainly the first film, and yes, I have read the books but it was a long time ago).

This house believes that The Hunger Games is just an insulting, watered down version of Battle Royale with a love triangle thrown onto the plate, which was then thrown into a volcano where it withered away further until it became the franchise we have now.

Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating. No, you know what? I'm not.

I REALLY hate The Hunger Games.

I used to love it. When I read it for the first time (I must have been 10 or 11) it captivated me. The idea of children being forced to kill each other had intrigued me— it was such a horrendous situation to be in, I began to think 'what would I do if I was in this situation?' I loved the film too. But then, I grew older. And I watched/read Battle Royale.

I mean, really? Battle Royale asks the question (which is also the slogan)— Could you kill your best friend? I mean, could you? It's an entire class of kids killing each other. The stakes are so much higher, and when I read it for the first time, I began to think about what would happen if it was my class forced to fight to the death. Think about it— in The Hunger Games, you'd mainly want to look out for yourself. You may establish some positive relationships with others, though it's likely you might want to avoid them since you know you both wouldn't be able to survive. Battle Royale, on the other hand, forces you to go against people who you have known for years, people who you would have established powerful relationships with already (unless you are a new kid, or aren't friends with anyone in your class).

If forced to pick, would you rather be forced to fight to the death against strangers, in a death game with no set time limit, or would you rather be forced into a death game where the opponents are your classmates, with a set time limit*? Obviously, I would go for the former.

*In the film, if there is more than one survivor by the third day of the game, their collars (which act as tracking devices) will explode and kill them. In the novel, if 24 hours pass without any casualties, the collars explode and everyone will die. Oh, and there are also danger zones which form to keep the students moving around the island— if they end up in a danger zone, their collar explodes.

The characters in the film go to school together, and it adds a whole new layer to the idea of a death game. Hunger Games just pits stranger against stranger, and only really focuses on Katniss, Rue, Peeta, and maybe a bit on Cato. Apart from them, YOU LITERALLY GET BARELY ANYTHING ABOUT THE OTHERS TRAPPED IN THE GAME. Hell, more than half of them don't even have NAMES. In the Wikipedia article, the only named contestants of the 74th Hunger Games are Katniss, Peeta, Marvel, Glimmer, Cato, Clove, Foxface, Thresh, and Rue. Everyone else is just 'Tribute boy district 10' or 'Tribute girl district 4'. In Battle Royale, ALL 42 STUDENTS HAVE NAMES. Hell, most of them get screen time and you see what they're going through (the book even gives most of them backstories!). I mean, come on.

And I'm sorry, but the Hunger Games cinematography (of the first film at least, don't remember much about the second one and I didn't bother with the last two) is literal shit. Shaky cam? Seriously? I know you want to keep your 12/PG-13 rating, but come on. Come on. This is just insulting. You are making a movie about KIDS KILLING KIDS, if you want to refrain from showing all the violence, there are better ways to hide it. Meanwhile, my pal Battle Royale over here HAS ENOUGH BALLS TO SHOW THE HORROR OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING. The violence is shocking, but it's not just for shock.

And yes, I know The Hunger Games book was more violent than the movie— I definitely agree that it's better, and I do have a some nostalgic value towards it because I read it when I was a kid, and I loved it. But I tried to re-read it a little bit later, and I just couldn't. The target demographic is clearly teenagers, so the writing was a bit too simplistic for my taste. Battle Royale, though, has an older demographic.

Since Hunger Games is aimed at tweens and teens, is anyone surprised by the love triangle? I hate love triangles with a passion (though I was guilty of getting into one in Wings of Fire, which ended so catastrophically that half my brain cells committed suicide. Don't worry though, I grew them back). Does Battle Royale involve some love? Of course, they're teenagers! But there aren't any love triangles. The love featured in BR are little crushes which you would expect around that age. However, focus on Peeta, Katniss, and Gale's love triangle was just so pandering, and completely pointless. Just get Katniss with Peeta, don't build pointless tension between Peeta and Gale when the love triangle clearly only exists here because just a cheap fad.

There are a few things I like about the Hunger Games, though. I like the world of Panem (as well as its anthem, the one part of the soundtrack I like), I like the commentary on class disparity. Some of the characters are charismatic (I like Cinna), and I appreciate the build-up to the games. Part of me has an attachment to the book and even the film, mainly because of the memories I have with it. However, as seen, I do criticise it a lot, since I found Battle Royale to have similarities, yet executes them much better. 

Some Similarities Between BR and THG

- They are both about a death game that employs children to fight to the death.

- Both games are in place due to an authoritarian government.

-Dystopian setting.

-Game/Programme exists to prevent rebellion.

- Tracking devices.

- People control the game from behind the scenes.

- Danger zones (in BR and THG: Catching Fire).

- Crazy dude who is sadistic and is the most dangerous competitor.

-Oh, and there's also a crazy girl who is also pretty darn violent.

- Before the game, participants are given/can get bags which have food, water, randomised weapons, etc.

- In the Battle Royale Manga, it introduces the idea of the games being televised.

- People eventually respond with a rebellion (admittedly, this was in the absolutely terrible Battle Royale sequel. I couldn't even finish the film because of how bad it was.)

-The kids/class chosen to participate in the game/programme are decided through a randomised lottery.

-It is possible to volunteer to be in the game.

-One boy and one girl survive the game, despite the rules stating only one can survive.

Conclusion

Still think THG is shite, and BR is a God on this Earth. 

I also found a really ridiculous article that said that THG focuses on the contestants while BR just kills them off... did we watch the same movie? Or is the writer of the article a jellyfish? We may never know.

Let's just say I didn't cry during Rue's death, but there was one scene that got me in Battle Royale, even though it was pretty darn cheesy.

PS- To the people who say Suzanne Collins said that she has never heard of Battle Royale, you do realise that people lie, right? (If this sounds rude, it's because I'm being passive-aggressive towards certain people I have come across, so you may or may not be one of them). Don't know about you, but I honestly think there are just too many similarities for this all to be a coincidence.

PSS— Also, even if it's not a rip-off, they do share lots of similarities— and I for one think Battle Royale executed it all much better. 

PSSS— I love the soundtrack for BR, but Hunger Games... I think you all know what I would say at this point (with the exception of one track).

PSSS— okay, I'm writing this a week after I wrote this in draft. I'm a little reluctant to publish this because it's just so... ranty. But honestly. Who cares? Not me.

Also I just realised that there was another love triangle I REALLY got into, and it was between Kaname and Zero in the manga/anime Vampire Knight. Before you ask— no, I do not like Twilight (but I really like vampires).