Battle Royale discussion

i don't know about you guys but i preferred Battle Royale, it seemed more realistic to me. Hunger Games had love and it was more like a reality game. In hunger games, the winner gets to be pampered with so many things ,but in Battle Royale they only get a signature from the Dictator. For me Battle Royale was more interesting and less predictable. What about you guys? Battle Royale or Hunger Games?

I read Battle Royale several years ago and the plot really stuck with me. I picked up Hunger Games based on a recommendation - knowing nothing about it. I thought that Hunger Games was very well written and I enjoyed it a lot. But Battle Royal is the original. The nature of the plot twist at the end of both books is so similar...it is hard not to think of Hunger Games as a rip-off. I loved the detail and intricacies of Battle Royale. My only critique of Battle Royale is that I wish it wasn't quite so graphic - I could do without the gore. But overall, I agree. I think Battle Royale is better.

Battle Royale. Hands down. I have yet to pick up Hunger Games, but I can remember every emotional moment and gorey instance in Battle Royale. It was a book that stuck with me to this day. Not to mention one of the only 2 books I have ever read twice in my life time besides Mercedes Lackey's Firebird.

Nicole wrote: "Battle Royale. Hands down. I have yet to pick up Hunger Games, but I can remember every emotional moment and gorey instance in Battle Royale. It was a book that stuck with me to this day. Not to me..."

Nicole wrote: "Battle Royale. Hands down. I have yet to pick up Hunger Games, but I can remember every emotional moment and gorey instance in Battle Royale. It was a book that stuck with me to this day. Not to me..."

Same here;) I have read Battle Royale twice because it was so amazing and had so many details ,but the second time i read it i could picture things better and some scenes i imagined different

Amna wrote: "Nicole wrote: "Battle Royale. Hands down. I have yet to pick up Hunger Games, but I can remember every emotional moment and gorey instance in Battle Royale. It was a book that stuck with me to this..."


Yep. Nothing like teen angst, bloodshed, and unrequited romances...nope...not a thing... lol

I love both, but Battle Royale is my favorite. I think I prefer it because it feels darker and slightly more plausible/realistic than the Hunger Games. Also, even though both are about very similar age groups, The Hunger Games feels more mainstream and like it's for a younger audience than Battle Royale. I think it's kind of hard to compare them because of that.

Definitely Battle Royale.

Battle Royale for sure. Like Edantes said BR is the original.

Battle Royale. 100% and all the way.

Battle Royale. It is the original.

I have not yet read Battle Royale but I've read Hunger Games. How is Battle Royale?

David wrote: "I have not yet read Battle Royale but I've read Hunger Games. How is Battle Royale?"

just let's say it is amazing... way better than hunger games... Battle royale is more brutal and there is alot of killing.. imagine 42 students trying to kill of each other on an island.. its sad.. its def worth reading and it is a page turner... i have read it twice

sweet. sounds awesome. I love battle books with tons of violent content and blood and gore lmao.

David wrote: "sweet. sounds awesome. I love battle books with tons of violent content and blood and gore lmao."

Then HECK YOU WILL LOVE IT!

score!!!
I just gotta find it at the library and I'm good to go.

David wrote: "score!!!
I just gotta find it at the library and I'm good to go."

At a lot of libraries its not available, i would check ur library county site and if it is not there, then if you have a 1/2 price book store near you then you can go get it there for 5 dollars which is cheap comparing to the normal which is 10$ or more.. if you don't have one you can bookswap it

Battle Royale easy. Hunger Games was good. I think if you have not read Battle Royale Hunger Games would be almost great but a lot of the scenarios and scenes fell like Battle Royale. There is the Japanese culture as the back drop for B.R. It really is a fun fun read. Love the book

I havent read Hunger Games mainly because to me it sounded like a Americanised version of Battle Royale. I thoroughly enjoyed Battle Royal because of the intricate plotilines, which the use of different viewpoints complimenting the tension of the story. I might someday give the Hunger Games a read but I can't help but think that an Americanised version of BR wouldn't stand much of a chance.

I don't know if it's a blatant ripoff (though my eyebrows are certainly raised), but I do believe that The Hunger Games tries very hard to achieve what Takami did with Battle Royale -- and only succeeds in achieving a very thin, figuratively bloodless duplicate that misses a great deal of the point Takami set out to make, and cheapens what it does manage to carry through. Battle Royale was not bubblegum-horror, young-adult entertainment, romance, or shock-value fiction; it was very much a social commentary.

I saw the movie before the book, but the book is amazing and much better than The Hunger Games. Battle Royale is a must-read for Hunger Games fans.

Battle Royale any day.

For sure Battle Royale. That book was INTENSE.

Amna wrote: "i don't know about you guys but i preferred Battle Royale, it seemed more realistic to me. Hunger Games had love and it was more like a reality game. In hunger games, the winner gets to be pampered..."

Totally agree. Definitely Battle Royale for me.

Battle Royale.

Why is this a question!?

Battle Royal for one very big reason: The kids are being forced to kill their friends and watch the people they love die. That made it ten times more painful for me to read than Hunger Games.

The death and violence in The Hunger Games was gross and surprising, but it didn't effect me beyond "Ew, that had to hurt." While reading Battle Royale I felt sick for the kids. I know Collins tried to make me feel something for the people dying in her books, but because Katniss didn't know or care about them I didn't either. It's hard to be affected by fictional character's death when the only thing you know about them is their name.

Sorry to burst you guys' bubble, but while The Hunger Game isn't original, neither is Battle Royale. The general premise of the two novels was actually done a long time ago, several times, and will be in the future.

BATTLE ROYALE most definitely!!! I have no intention to ever read The Hunger Game nor see the movie.

Sana wrote: "Battle Royale.

Why is this a question!?"

Agree with you :) This question should not even been asked...as the answer is only one.

I wish I could make a fair comparison, I have never read "Hunger Games," but I will say that "Battle Royale" is, by far and away, the best book I have ever read. Dark & twisted while maintaining it's humanity, it's not just about the violence, it's about survival. (But the violence is fucking awesome!)

I haven't read Hunger Games. I think it is hard to compare a young adult book to a clearly adult novel. Obviously Hunger Games has stole the premise but I agree with an earlier comment that Battle Royale is a social commentary. It was pretty specific to Japan and it's social structure. Two different books for two different people I think. (I'm a bit late I know)

I'm as late as Lisa, and I admit that I read "Battle Royale" because it is so often compared to the "Hunger Games". I for my part prefer the "Hunger Games", but saying this, I need to point out that I speak about the whole "Hunger Games" trilogy. My main reason is that don't liked the unnecessary, gory details of death descriptions in "Battle Royale".

Like Thorsten, I read Hunger Games before Battle Royale. And although I rated them both with 5 stars, I like Battle Royale more because like so many people said here, it's more realistic and, for me, has more depth than Hunger Games. Plus, I was kinda disappointed with Hunger Games when I noticed that it has SO MANY similarities with Battle Royale X)

A bit late to the party here. I've yet to read The Hunger Games, mostly because I've been put off by the seemingly blatant rip-off of Battle Royale.

Is there anything at all in The Hunger Games that can compare to the lighthouse scene in Battle Royale? I still go back re-read that part sometimes (and that scene in the movie adaptation was brilliant as well).

Hanis wrote: "A bit late to the party here. I've yet to read The Hunger Games, mostly because I've been put off by the seemingly blatant rip-off of Battle Royale.

Is there anything at all in The Hunger Games t..."

No. Not at all. That scene is sad, and brilliant, and shows so much hysteria and just how much these games have messed these poor kids. There's nothing like it in the Hunger Games.

Koushun Takami has a much better grasp on human psychology than Collins does. He understands how this kind of thing would affect the children, and how some people would be hysterically paranoid, some would kill themselves, some would look for an escape, and some would throw themselves into the violence. Collins tries to do that, but fails miserably. She doesn't realize how people who are starving would act (hint: they don't stay in a fenced in area when they are well aware that there is a huge forest filled with food al around them), She doesn't see how much killing someone, and realizing your killed someone could seriously screw someone up. She has no idea how to write a believable tyrannical government (hint: They shouldn't actively give people a reason to rebel against them). Her book doesn't hold up to Battle Royale because it doesn't know how humans and society work.

if they hadn't killed off (view spoiler)[shogo (hide spoiler)], i would have liked battle royale better.

Battle Royale without a doubt! I really wanted to like Hunger Games, but it just felt too soap opera-ish. My only complaint with Battle Royale is that having read the book, I can no longer watch the film! It simply pales in comparison.

I kinda like the movie. The lighthouse scene (it should be *slightly* obvious by now I love that part) was done really well. The whole thing was campy, but in a fun sort of way.. They can't compress all the backstories into a single movie, making the chief villains less colourful than they really are, of course..

Hanis wrote: "I kinda like the movie. The lighthouse scene (it should be *slightly* obvious by now I love that part) was done really well. The whole thing was campy, but in a fun sort of way.. They can't compres..."

You're right there. I think my preference for the book stems from my love of deep backgrounds for characters. Perhaps the film is worth a research. Hmm..

Sweet god. Battle Royale ALL THE WAY. I read BR after stumbling across the movie, and it made it's way into my top 10 EASILY. Hunger Games was recommended to me by a friend after discussing BR. I have a sneaking suspicion that Suzanne Collins read Battle Royale and was like, "Hmmm. What a smashing idea. It's Japanese... I bet not a lot of people have read this.." and just went gonzo and wrote her Battle Royale With White People Minus the Character Building and Less Gore.

Seriously, the characters in HG are so forgettable. Ever be in the middle of reading a book and suddenly realize "wow, I have no idea what the main character even looks like"? That's what HG did to me. In fact, the only thing I can recall about the main character was that she kept her hair in a braid. I can't even remember the bitch's name, that's how much less of a shit I could give about her.

I had a hard time remembering the names of all of the people in BR, but there's 42 of them so I guess that's all right :) The only problem I had was that they were trying to develop each character which left me feeling like I didn't really know Nanahara, Shogo, and Noriko that well because there wasn't a lot of time.

Hunger Games brings up an interesting moral situation because the Games are televised worldwide, and citizens are forced to watch them. Because of this, citizens have a different morality from ours - they think the Games are okay, and so do the tributes who fight each other in the games. The "villains" in the story, the Careers, were brought up from birth to be sadistic killing machines. They didn't become evil by their own doing; instead, they were twisted by the society they grew up in.
So it'd be hard to compare the suicides and paranoia and hysteria from Battle Royale to the "I'm-going-to-win" mentality all the tributes hold in Hunger Games, especially since every child grows up knowing that they may well be participating in the Games. In BR, the Program (if I remember correctly) is kept secret to the public.

Hunger Games also has a different focus than Battle Royale. You know the Capitol, right? Where everyone obsesses over gossip and media and looking pretty? It's basically an exaggeration of our own MTV-ish culture, where everything is publicized and gossiped and shoved down everyone's throats. Considering that we already watch reality shows where we're told to be entertained by heartbroken women (The Bachelor), something like the Hunger Games doesn't seem like a long way off. It's the reason why a third of the Hunger Games book details Katniss's dresses and makeup and papparazzi. Half of what makes the Games so sickening is that it's shoved down everyone's throats and seen as entertainment by the Capitol and the first four or so districts.


In short, two different books with two completely different aims.

I read BR as a young adult, and HG as an old adult, i guess. Man alive, BR was so much better. They are different. HG has a lot of active media behind it where BR is more implied. Bottom line BR. All the way. Seriously, it's like the difference between your favorite band when they are young and hungry, or after their most talented member met Yoko, just saying. Battle Royal, leave that love shit to the children, or people who didn't get enough of it, we'll call them 'sad children'.

Sana wrote: "Battle Royale.

Why is this a question!?"

I Agree with you!
What kind of stupid comparission is it?
Battle Royale is a REAL story and not a bandwagon crap as HG.

Cristina wrote: "Battle Royale. Because it's like a war feature report. And the war is scary, and gory, and undiscriminant merciless. No need to avoid it, to embellish it. I mean, don't tell me that in an extreme s..."

That's the way people see it in the occident, but almost none knows about HG in Asia, in fact, people there don't care so much about occidental literature (I say this because I has been living in Japan some time).
Battle Royale in Japan is like a classic and there it has a lot of advertesiment. The marketing creates an illusion about the possible populaity about some books (or movies, etc) and makes us to believe that HG is more popular than Battle Royales, but, between the people who is very into the literature (as me) knows that Battle Royale is indeed superior in narrative, context and story than HG and I don't see it as a "man vs. woman" war, that's irrelevant. The real thing is: which one of the writers have written their stories in a better way and how. *cough* And don't even mention which of them was first into write the original idea (Takami sensei)...*cough*
I don't like Ms. Collins's literature, is pure marketing crap. Absolutely dislike it!
Takami sensei is the greatest (for me).

BATTLE ROYALE = EPIC!!! First of all, the kids in BR are CLASSMATES! They all know each other which makes it a lot more horrific and suspenceful having to kill their friends. Also there is a lot more description with the killing. I personally enjoy reading action and violence and the Hunger Games didn't do as sufficient of a job as BR. Of course, HG was still good and the only major similarities was kids killing each other and a government controls them. Also, many people say that BR was badly written. If you found this to be the case, it is because of the translation from Japanese to English and those languages are very difficult to translate because they have absolutly nothing in common. I thought that the translation was fine but that's just me. I thouroughly enjoyed both series but Battle Royal was most certainly superior.

Ginger wrote: "I've read both of them.

Hunger Games wasn't to bad, but I like Battle Royale more. Not just because it was first or it was more violent or it didn't have a sappy and pointless love triangle, altho..."

I completly agree!

also, i forgot to mention that the Hunger Games is extremly popular and is loved by many people while Battle Royal was almost banned in Amarica because of it's violence and seemingly 'brutal' ideas... BR is the original and people arn't seeing that it is the more realistic and more expressive story compares to HG... what i'm getting at is that I feel like BR is under-rated and HG is over-rated.

Brian wrote: "Hunger Games brings up an interesting moral situation because the Games are televised worldwide, and citizens are forced to watch them. Because of this, citizens have a different morality from ours..."

I totally agree with this one. That's why I don't really like comparing the two. For me, the theme with only one survivor in a killing game and with a totalitarian government is only one of many other themes in dystopian novels. It's just that (as far as I know) these two are the only novels that tackle this theme and people can't help but compare them.

I can like these books both for what they are without comparing them, but they do have a similar central idea, and with that it falls into a sort of genre-comparison, more so than stacking them up neck-to-neck for every idea.

I have yet to finish the Hunger Games, but I managed to read Battle Royale in about three days, which says a lot for me because I usually can't get that engrossed in any book that I like. I've had a hard time getting into The Hunger Games, the writing style and insanely high popularity probably being a part of it...I think it's a good young adult novel, but nothing especially incredible.

I think Hunger Games gives a better scope of the government and the world they live in, so if you prefer backstory, that one provides it, and it's necessary to set the scene for the two following books, I'm assuming. Battle Royale is more ambiguous with this, but gives you enough information to process the story.

I liked how Battle Royale switched perspectives, and get to know a lot of the characters, if only for a few pages. This is something that, before even picking this book up, I found myself desiring in The Hunger Games. The potential deaths of characters there, minus Rue, Katniss, and Peeta, were not very emotionally-jarring; we're biased as to which characters the author wants us to like. Battle Royale, while having three 'main' characters, gives us the liberty of at least somewhat identifying with other characters. I especially liked the female student who was convinced she operated under the messages of some goddess, and attempted to attack Kazuo near the end. She only appeared for maybe 5 or so pages, but you got a glimpse of her personality and personally I got a laugh. I like being able to identify with the minor characters to some scale, and BR definitely executes this better than HG.

Also, the fact that in BR the students are all classmates makes the story more emotional and relatable. It's much easier, in this sort of survival game, to kill a nameless someone; it's easier to isolate oneself from that individual, since you don't have to view them as such. In BR, there are memories, of school, sports, hang outs between the characters, and this causes a hesitation; I found myself wondering, what if this was me and my closest group of friends? Would we stay together? For how long? In that regard, BR appealed to me more emotionally.

And finally, with this subject of emotion, I think BR was more natural. I never really found that there was anything to press--the 'romance' between Shuya and Noriko wasn't even that; it was mostly two human beings intent on the love of fellow man that motivated them and that tossed them together to be the 'tramps born to run'. The government we're clearly not meant to like, but I felt Katniss was always shoving hate of it into the reader's face, and I got annoyed with that early in the novel. The trusting of someone like Shogo, and the sacrifice he makes to two people he barely knows, is again very humanitarian, very much for the general love of the belief in the goodness of mankind. Perhaps after I finish reading HG, as I've mostly just gone off of the 1/4 I have read and the movie, I might think more of it, but for now I felt BR was more natural, had less of an agenda and wanted to tell a very violent and yet hopeful story.

And the ending 'But of course they are part of you now'...those sorts of endings always get me, ha. There are, therefore, as many students remaining as there are readers, and in a way it made them immortal. This is the feel of this eternal hope in youth that the theme of the rock music and random snippets of past scenes throughout the story generated for me, and here they welded together. This really touched me, and that I have yet to experience for HG, but I'm hoping that I do. And I'm definitely grateful that it became so popular, because otherwise I would have most likely never read Battle Royale.

Battle Royale, Hands down! The Hunger Games is less violent, less suspenseful, less developed vision of Battle Royale with a love triangle thrown into the mix. I liked the characters and events in Battle Royale much more than in the Hunger Games. Battle Royale was a lot more fearful too. Battle Royale just has more meat on it, therefore making it more enjoyable. I still liked The Hunger Games, but Battle Royale did much more for me. Battle Royale= Epicness!