Sometimes, I like to dig around the IMDB message boards to get a feel for movie trends. I look through the list of popular films on the front page and wade through all the trolls to see what big ideas are being bandied about. When a bunch of people are digging into an idea I’ve thought about for a while, I know I have to write about it before the topic has lost its weight.
The subject is Battle Royale versus The Hunger Games and I’ve been trying to write about it for real since January. The reason it’s taken so long to get here is simple: reading The Hunger Games completely reversed my thinking on the subject. I wouldn’t dream of writing a real critical piece without actually reading the source material, but that doesn’t mean I don’t start to think of arguments based on research and what I know for sure.
The issue at play here is one of plagiarism versus parallels. How can we tell if intellectual theft has occurred when the core of the idea has been around for centuries? It’s a tricky topic because it places the intentions of the author against the finished product that can easily take on a life of its own.
I can firmly say that I do not believe Suzanne Collins intentionally did anything wrong. I’m willing to take her at her word that she has not read Battle Royale or seen the film. The inspiration she cites–reality TV, the Iraq War, the Vietnam War, and the myth of Theseus–add up to the story she told. Do I think that, at some point, she might have heard about the popular Japanese property? Is there a chance it influenced her on a subconscious level? Yes.
But that’s no different than any other writer. We experience things–life, media, reviews, theories–and they eventually come out in unexpected ways. If she didn’t set out to steal ideas and approached the story in such a radically different way, she didn’t plagiarize Koushun Takami’s work.
Do similar bold, graphic, representational covers mean the stories are the same?
The threat of brutal death delivered under the public eye has been a common literary and cinematic device for decades. Shirley Jackson famously played up the random victim of public spectacle in “The Lottery.” Running Man, both Stephen King’s novel and the film, predicted the kind of reality TV content that became enough of a cultural zeitgeist to inspire modern writers to criticize the form with televised murder again and again. Both versions of Death Race as well as Videodrome take the spectacle further, punishing anyone who tries to silence the system with mandatory participation in the games. Even Series 7: The Contenders predicts teenagers being thrown into these games with the inclusion of a high school student in the “win three seasons to earn your freedom” kill or be killed reality show. Did all these films and novels steal from each other? Or did the creators all arrive at a similar concept to explore vastly different issues?
The reason The Hunger Games and Battle Royale get lumped together is children. Specifically, they’re the two most recent novels/films to have children fight to the death for public spectacle. On paper, the similarities are damning. Here are boilerplates for the two novels. See if you can tell which is which.
#1:
In a post-apocalyptic future where all of the world’s major societies have fallen, the government has decided to keep the people in line by having entire classes of students fight to the death on a live broadcast. They are randomly assigned weapons in an ever-changing arena filled with traps that punishes those who break the rules or fail to pay attention. The winner is the last child standing, who is taken on a whirlwind publicity tour to show the power of the government. However, in the latest game, two students team up to beat the system and hopefully make it out alive.
#2:
In a post-apocalyptic future where all of the world’s major societies have fallen, the government has decided to keep the people in line by having randomly chosen children and teenagers from all over the country fight to the death on a live broadcast. They are trained to use randomly selected weapons in an ever-changing arena filled with traps that punishes those who break the rules or fail to pay attention. The winner is the last child standing, who is taken on a whirlwind publicity tour to show the power of the government. However, in the latest game, two children team up to beat the system and hopefully make it out alive.
Do twisted men controlling a youth bloodbath mean Battle Royale and The Hunger Games are permanently linked?
In Battle Royale, Koushun Takami writes a deeply satirical novel of the Japanese government’s efforts to force children to stay in school until they graduate. The Battle Royale program is instituted as a scared straight program. Until truancy rates drop, each month, a different classroom full of students will be taken away to fight to the death. The program has no effect on the education system. Families are scandalized and Battle Royale only happens to keep the people in line with government thinking. Fight against them and you will be executed for interfering.
Takami writes a unique series of third person episodes. Once the children are in the arena, their individual stories are told one after the other. You’ll see who lives, who dies, and what they are thinking about the program, their classmates, and what they’ve accomplished with their lives. Some children choose honor through suicide, while others hope and pray that maybe the government will see the light and free them. Still others have been forced into the game to punish them for winning in the past or being uncontrollable wards of the state. The result is a gut-wrenching novel of absurd violence and biting satire that will haunt you for years.
Suzanne Collins takes a very different approach in The Hunger Games. The entire story is told from the perspective of Katniss Everdeen, a poor teenager in a mining district. She has learned to hunt with a bow and deadly force for her family’s survival. Here, the games exist to remind the districts that the Capital controls every aspect of their lives after a failed rebellion years before. Only two children are taken from each district–one boy, one girl–and Katniss volunteers at 16 to save the life of her 12 year old sister. Katinss is buffed, polished, painted, and prepped to be a reality TV icon for the greedy Capital. She becomes a favorite to win the Hunger Games because she surprises the controllers of the game with a shocking display of archery skills. Her prep team plans a story arc behind her back, allowing her fellow district tribute to declare his love for her the night before they enter the arena.
Collins’ first person prose is a trick used to engage a younger reader. Katniss feels real, so you’re willing to follow along with the absurdity of the concept. Collins is not aiming for satire, but a tangible understanding of the ravages of war. The children are the focus so the YA audience can empathize with their struggle. They are trained to fight to the death by a government obsessed with controlling people to parallel the power-motivation for war. The lens of reality TV, the fancy futuristic technology, and the romantic angle exist only to soften the blow of the violence.
Are forest settings and fighting children enough to cry plagiarism?
The Internet makes life immediate. These grand parallels between a Japanese property that never received a proper US release and a blockbuster YA trilogy pop up because you can search “novels like The Hunger Games” and have Battle Royale pop up as a result on Google. IMDB is even a major player in the phenomenon. You can search for a plot detail and find hundreds of films that may or may not be connected beyond a shared keyword.
With seemingly all the information in the world available in a few seconds, it becomes easy to let cynicism rule in the wake of coincidence. You can find this superficial parallel in an instant. Therefore, it must be [insert assumption here].
I fell for it since The Hunger Games was released. Someone actually told me it was Battle Royale for teenagers. I read the Wikipedia page and couldn’t see any alternative. Suzanne Collins stole one of my favorite modern novels and whitewashed it for a younger audience. I was determined not to read the novels because how could they possibly hold up to the original.
I was wrong. The approach, the style, even the narrative are so different that I felt foolish for ever questioning the merits of The Hunger Games. There are discussions to be had about the content of the book and the film. Is that level of violence really appropriate in a YA novel? Does Collins push her war allegory too far into a specific political ideology? Does adapting the trilogy into a series of films glorify the level of violence that Collins is criticizing?
What shouldn’t be the driving force of discussion is claiming The Hunger Games rips off Battle Royale. It’s an oversimplification of two tightly-executed novels that deserve better. Comparative analysis would be appropriate, but not diatribes on who stole from who or why you refuse to read one because of the fans of the other.
Fiction is not a zero sum game. You can like one, both, or neither. You can even make the argument for how similar the properties are. Reducing a discussion of literary/cinematic merit to “you stole my toys so I’m going home to cry to Mommy” is a disservice to whichever property you prefer.
If The Hunger Games and Battle Royale teach us anything, it is the value of cooperation. Shared goals can be achieved even in the face of extreme opposition if you are willing to actually work together. You might not achieve everything on your own, but you can make more progress with a partner than you can on your own. If the novels themselves are not a case for accepting the cultural cache of both novels, I don’t know what is.
Thoughts? Love to hear them.
Thats all great and written well. But strip away all the hooplah – and simply look back at your #1 & #2… Same movie. The fact this lady is claiming she never saw or read Battle Royale and people buy into it is hilarious. Its the SAME story at its core.The only actual point you make they arent the same is because of the way they were “told” more or less??? So Battle Royale would have been a totally different movie if it was told from say Shogos point of view with more background? LOL, youve gotta be kidding.Thats like saying Charlie and the Chocolate and Willie Wonka are entirely different movies.
Regardless of what anyone reaches for to try and defend this lady who stole someone elses work you cant change the facts. They are the same at the core,period, right down to smaller details.The first time I saw the commercial for the Hunger Games and saw kids running to book bags all I thought was “oh look they made a American Battle Royale movie.”
I thank you for taking the time to comment on the site. Unfortunately, there are only so many stories to tell in the world. More cynical critics and theorists claim there are only seven story types in the world. Form and style account for major differences even when story details are similar.
I could make that case that Koushin Takami stole the myth of Theseus and the Minotaur without crediting that myth. That was the original “send children into an arena to die in order to control the people” story. I could make the same argument for stealing from Running Man, Series 7: The Contenders, and The Most Dangerous Game. The reason I wouldn’t is because the way the stories are told is very different.
Yes, Battle Royale would be a very different novel if it was told entirely from Shogo’s point of view. We would know nothing about most of the 42 victims beyond who died in what time block. How a story is told defines a story as much as the actual details of the plot. In fact, I would be more willing to believe that Suzanne Collins is lying if Battle Royale only told one student’s story. Then the factor that best separates the two–a matter of perspective and narrative discipline–would be non-existent.
I would love to see one person rationally explain how Shuya and Katniss are the same character with the same motivations. I don’t think it can honestly be done. The only reason romance exists in The Hunger Games is strategy. The reason romance exists in Battle Royale is because the characters are actually in love. That makes a world of difference in motivation. Katniss is more than willing to kill everyone else in the game to win. Shuya refuses to voluntarily pick up a weapon and feels tremendous guilt over his one kill. The only person Katniss is trying to protect is her sister. Shuya wants to save everyone. Katniss has to be coerced for a long time before she thinks of helping a revolution against the government program. Shuya jumps at the opportunity to beat the BR Act. Katniss acts entirely on survival instincts. Shuya actively plans his entire game strategy from the moment his best friend is killed.
I rewatched Battle Royale last night and was shocked by how different it was from The Hunger Games. That viewing cemented how philosophy, form, and style make the two properties inherently different even if they involve children fighting to the death. Trying to judge the two as identical without at least reading both novels is foolish.
You have not read the Battle Royale book… or if you have, you have got it all wrong. But that is all immaterial since the key plot is what has been blatantly plagarised with make up and a bit of window dressing for the young adult market.
I totally understand that two people in different parts of the world can come up with the same concept independently, but, when one of them does so close to 10 years after the first one becomes a cult hit….hmmm
Battle Royale has been one of my favorite novels since I picked up the paperback when it was released in America. I have even written academic papers in senior level university seminar courses using the book. My last rereqd of the book was the end of December in anticipation of reading and reviewing The Hunger Games. The focus and intention of the two novels could not be anymore different considering their shared mythological basis in the myth of Theseus and the Minotaur.
To accuse Collins of blatant plagiarism is to say the equivalent of the following: The Legend of Hell House is a blatant rip off of The Haunting of Hill House. Similar plots, very different writing styles, philosophies, themes, and overriding narrative purposes. It’s also hard to take a claim like that seriously–despite Matheson’s admission that his novel is a response to Jackson’s–because both novels use the same concept as Northanger Abbey. Ignorance of common source material does not excuse baseless accusations of plagiarism.
First of all let me set this straight, the author of Hell House himself said that he wrote it in response to Shirley Jackson’s work and that he used the plot and took it to where he felt she should have taken it.
So, as far as Matheson is concerned there is no common source material for inspiration, but you feel that it is not so. I am sure that you are right.
Plagiarism in writing is not about the same characters falling in love or eating the same food or jumping off the same tree at the same time. It is about the Key Plot or Story Idea or Core Concept or whatever else you may want to call it. Lots of protagonists are falling in love in probably all the books ever written, but, what made it different and the reason for the success of the book, is the setting in which it happens and this quite clearly is exactly the same as Battle Royale.
Also, we have 2 possible sources 1)Thesues and the Minotaur, where 7 boys and 7 girls are sent to be devoured by the Minotaur + a reality show + Iraq war & 2)Teenagers are forced by the government to fight to the death in a islandish jungle setting, with only one victor allowed to emerge alive and the main three protagonists having a love triangle and …….
Koushun Takami was honest in acknowledging King’s contribution and inspiration to Battle Royale. It just feels slightly odd that with all the possible inspirations for her to come up with the book, she stated the ones which will grant her maximum originality.
Lets think on it a bit; We have 2 possible sources 1)Thesues and the Minotaur, where 7 boys and 7 girls are sent to be devoured by the Minotaur + a reality show + Iraq war & 2)Teenagers are forced by the government to fight to the death in a islandish jungle setting, with only one victor allowed to emerge alive and the main three protagonists having a love triangle and ……. Which one would you believe??
Please understand that I more or less enjoyed the book, but the mushiness perfectly packaged and focused on the female teen and tween demographic did chafe a bit, and I do feel that she is a decent writer,(though the third one was pedestrian)but, you have to give credit where it is due.
I am sure that she worked very hard at this series and would hate to have to share any proceeds or accolades with anyone else.
Peace…
I’ve read both the BR novel and Manga (and film), and the HG trilogy. I think you’re largely correct that the two are the same basic premise with a few rather important differences. To go off of what you said, I believe these to be: 1. The games are to instill fear, not for entertainment, both are used to control the populace, and show them that the government is in charge, but that difference remains. Both are intended to keep society in check.
2. HG gives tributes time to train and learn something about the competition, which is very different than just waking up in the program. On the other hand, BR has the students from the same class, so they do already know about their competition, so to speak. There are people who “volunteer” in both.
3. First person perspective versus third…which is part of why I think BR would make a better Western movie, so much is in Katniss’ head.
That being said, I really don’t think it’s enough. Some extremely strong parallels: Traps controlled by the game masters to get the combatants into conflict. Killed combatants are publicly listed. When only 1 is supposed to win, a quasi romantic pair wins. Protagonist goes on to lead a revolution based on motivations gained in the early installment. I know you argue that how they get to each of those points is different, and I don’t deny that the protagonists are different, but I think they’re two pretty obvious archetypes that arise in this plot. I think it could be argued that one is Japanese and the other American.
I think I buy that the similarities are coincidental, but I’m still surprised someone hasn’t gotten sued. I’m pretty sure intent does not factor into copyright claims. They’re just way too similar in premise, even if the execution is different, which it is. You could change a couple things, and it would be very difficult to tell if the Hunger Games was just a very loose translation of one of the stories in Battle Royale.
author has a prob. lists off a number of books and movies that have similar themes.
thing is, ms collins never has.
despite the lottery being taught in school since…forever, that short story never crosses her lips
neither does, the most dangerous game, the seventh victim (i believe the first fight to the death in front of cameras…with sponsors) the long walk, the running man, series 7….etc
no, she came up with the midas myth and channel surfing
btw Takami made his influences quite clear…and one of them included king (specifically, the long walk) did you know the name of the high school is translated into castle rock?
now lets see…where did ms collins begin her career? as a writer of kids tv
and what do we know about tv….they steal popular ideas from each other and other media…and not just ideas, but whole story lines
in the 50s….everything was a western
there are two storybook fantasy related shows on the air right now….were you aware that a comic called fables was in development to be a show for years, then just recently was killed? and up popped once and grimm….oh, both showrunners will deny up and down that they ever heard of fables….but there is no such thing as coincidence
more damning evidence. ms collins first series of ya books, she claims, was based on alice in wonderland…many accuse her of making the ya version of gaiman’s neverwhere….hmmmmmmm
say what you want….there are just too many plot points shared by both books to say that its coincidence
and she only heard of the book when she delivered the manuscript? you mean she and her editor dont talk regularly? wow
guess we will find the truth pretty soon
smart for Takami and his attys to stay quiet till now…..movie is now a hit….he will get a bigger cut
Although I agree with the author that there are vast differences in the main characters, style and plot, one cannot ignore the key similarities.
At the very beginning of BR, a news reporter is shown in hysterics over the winner of the latest BR- much like how in the HG, the winner is celebrated in a media-frenzy and praised as a hero and a champion for killing their peers. That was the first thing that caught my attention.
Secondly, Aiden is correct in stating that though the characters are different, the HG and BR’s main characters are based on the same prototype. A love triangle between the 3 main characters could be coincidence, since it’s used as a plot device in many stories, so lets overlook this. However, Shuya, like Peeta, has the main goal of protecting the one he loves in the games. Peeta and Shuya also share many of the same personality traits, which is even more suspicious.
With all respect to the author, the similarities are just too many and too specific to be considered a coincidence (there’s even a scene in BR where Shuya and Noriko are in a cave together; one of them is injured and the other nursing them back to health). Little plot details like having the dead announced at the end of each day is just not something I can allow myself to believe that Suzanne Collins came up with on her own, considering how these two stories resemble each other so closely.
So basically, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the HG is a BLATANT ripoff of BR, but I do believe it to be dishonest and damaging to Ms. Collins’ reputation that she wouldn’t even admit to BR as being an inspiration. If she would have just been honest, I wouldn’t care about all of this plagiarism talk.
[...] could also read this post about the whole kerfuffle. I found it [...]
Hello there, simply turned into aware of your blog thru Google, and found that it is really informative. I?m gonna watch out for brussels. I will appreciate if you continue this in future. A lot of other folks will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
photographe professionnel recently posted..1
Did you make the comparison using all 3 battle royale franchises (novel, manga, film) or just the novel?. You do know that the BR manga is more developed than the BR novel, and the BR film was actually badly adapted? If you compare all 3, (which was done way before hunger games) to hunger games, the similarities are just too eerie.
The main thrust of the analysis was the novel. I was as careful as I could not to let the films play into the post as The Hunger Games was not out yet and the Battle Royale film made major changes to plot and character focus. I’ve only read a little of the manga so I didn’t feel comfortable rolling that in.
There’s also the issue of availability. If Collins did steal from Battle Royale, the novel was the most readily available. The Manga was available sporadically at Borders and a few other small chains, but the novel was given a huge push after all the press the film received. I remember the novel being on every big display table in NYC for a few months.
For me, the tone, character development, and satire focus are what clearly set them apart. The first Hunger Games book is all about mocking the spectacle surrounding the event and showing the devastation of war. Battle Royale is all about government overreach and survival.
This is the perfect website for anyone who wants to learn about this topic. You understand very much, it’s practically hard to argue with you (not that I actually will want…HaHa). You surely put a new spin on a topic thats been overdone. I’m still not sold that Collins didn’t steal from Battle Royale.