Both BR and HG rely heavily on advanced technology to monitor, create and police their games. Without the exploding collars permanently attached to each child on the island in BR , there would be no real threat.
While the technology utilized in The Hunger Games is infinitely more diverse than BR the Gamekeepers can create walls of fire, and control herds of flesh hungry monkeys it's still a very important part of the their world.
The second book in the Hunger Games trilogy seems to poach quite directly from Battle Royale , when the tributes are made aware of various "danger zones" that they must move out of at certain times for fear of death — which is something that BR did first.
So while the technology is infinitely different, it's still used in an exceptionally similar manner. Yes they are both kids, but let's look past that. Actually, the makeup of the Students versus the Tributes is the biggest difference between the two series. First and foremost, the tributes in Hunger Games are given training.
They have a small amount of time to try and learn to defend themselves how to use weapons, how to use hide, hunt, fight etc. They know that their death is approaching, and they have to deal with that, so it makes for a fun read. On the flip side, the students in Battle Royale are just gased and dropped off on an island. There they're handed a weapon maybe and told to kill each other. It's brutal. But because it's so abrupt, you get horrible humanizing twists like suicides and paranoia panic attacks that cause a pack of best friends to shoot each other to pieces over misplaced poison.
Almost every character in Hunger Games at least tries to defend themselves, but it's a much more tangled mess of emotions over at Battle Royale , because these people used to be friends. The BR Act happens entirely off camera, and in the book they say The Program is for military research.
Meanwhile in Panem, The Hunger Games are used as a visual whipping post for the entire world. The tributes spend weeks in front of the camera, so the whole country can get to know them, and then watch them die. As mentioned earlier, BR and HG both have their own collection of lunatic volunteers who happily sign up to kill other children.
The love triangle in Hunger Games is possibly one of the larger selling points of the series. Other than one news bit early on with a reporter naming a previous victor, television isn't brought up again in "Royale.
No, the murder of children is by no means humorous; however, the exaggerated blood spurts and ways in which some of the students die is laugh inducing.
See girls wielding guns aimlessly. And, don't even get us started on the cheesy lines offered between students. When we saw the film, most of the audience had a chronic case of the sniffles after Katniss sang to the dying Rue in her arms.
Collins provides background stories for a majority of the "Hunger Games" characters, so when they die, we actually feel something, as opposed to the quick offings of the children running around in "Battle Royale. After 74 years of giving two dozen tributes up to sacrifice their lives in a game for the government, the citizens of the districts have had enough.
You don't get a sense of this in the first film—save for a brief scene of one of the districts uprising; however, as Collins' series progresses, you see there's much more at stake in the countries than Katniss and Peeta's lives. Think of the children! None of the kids appear interested in fighting back against the government as Gale does in "The Hunger Games.
Their parents—some of which are dead—don't even know their kids are missing. Even with this knowledge, they don't have time to consider forming an alliance to overthrow the government's ridiculous act, they're too busy coping with the news of having to kill their schoolmates while simultaneously dodging axes, gunfire and bloody corpses. Perhaps this will lead to rebellion one day down the line, but for now, there's no guarantee. In a sequel, one of the characters from the first film is hunted down as a murderer by a selected group of kids.
In the "Hunger Games," tributes have the luxury—for the most part—of killing strangers. It's a trite different when children in "Battle Royale" are forced to kill people they've grown up with their entire lives. The ones who don't want to fight give up almost immediately by committing suicide jumping off cliffs, hanging themselves, et al. Murders break out over simple things—trust issues between friends, girl quarrels over boys really or just by accident.
Sure, some of the "Hunger Games" crew becomes blood thirsty, but the main characters hold onto their identities and the victors can return to civilization without taking lives. In "Battle Royale," we're hard pressed to find someone who hasn't become a killing machine, save two main characters. That's because you've most likely seen or heard this before. Remember "Lord of the Flies"? You know, the book by William Golding that follows a group of British boys stuck on a deserted island.
No one is forced to fight one another to the death; however, the book—and film adaptation—are filled with bloody combat. After surviving a plane crash, the boys are left to either thrive together or battle for survival amongst one another.
Guess which conquers? Hint: they don't form one giant, happy tribe "Lost" style. Primal instincts of savagery win out any chance of a budding civilization and the children begin killing each other—memorable character Piggy has a boulder thrown on him. How's that for bloody "Battle Royale.
We can thank Stephen King 's "The Running Man" which was turned into a film of the same name five years later featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger. Here's a brief description of the film: "A wrongly-convicted man must try to survive a public execution gauntlet staged as a TV game show. Scrap "wrongly-convicted," and that's exactly what Katniss and Peeta and the school gang from "The Hunger Games" and "Battle Royale" respectively are attempting to do.
The one big difference is that in "The Running Man," all of the convicted killers are running for their lives from professional killers. The unfortunate winner gets stoned to death in front of the village. If anyone begins to step out of line or question the government, they need but one prescription of the hallucinogen "soma" to slip back into oblivion.
This is very similar to how the people in "The Hunger Games" Capitol act. In an early scene, two earnest girls stand on a bluff, using a megaphone to suggest that everyone put down their weapons, get together, and make a peace pact; they are machine-gunned from behind, and their killer uses the megaphone to broadcast the agonies of their death to the entire island.
This, the film suggests, is what the adult world is really like: it starts with a period of longing and uncertainty, in which you wish, pointlessly, that things were otherwise; it progresses through a series of literally gut-wrenching and heart-stopping betrayals and compromises; and then it culminates in a slow, painful, lonely, and humiliating death.
Near the end, an intertitle offers some very sincere advice to the teen-agers in the audience. In a conversation with Steve Rose of The Guardian , Fukasaku explains that, as a boy during the Second World War, he worked with other kids in a munitions factory; when Allied bombs fell, they would use each other as human shields, then work together to clear the bodies afterwards.
0コメント