Very different because one has a plot, emotion, character development etc.
OK, har har, but I'm defending The Hunger Games as an independent story, rather than a rip off of Battle Royale, which it's not. The motivations of the gamesmakers are completely different in the two stories are completely different, and so are the experiences of the children "playing" in the games.
The Running Man said:
The other is a shell of a film.
It's not the best adaptation, sure.
The Running Man said:
Any reason why or how the main characters district buddy joined the bad guys or how the bad guys recruited 4 people or why they even went together?
What, you can't infer why it might be wise to form temporary alliances in that sort of situation? I'll grant you it's better explained in the book, but it's hardly a mystery.
The Running Man said:
Or how or why he got away
He got away in the chaos of the tracker jacker attack, when we last saw him.
The Running Man said:
or who the guy was who saves the girl near the end and says 'that's for...' k(I forget the name). How did he die?
It was for Rue, the little girl in the trees. That side of things is much better handled in the book. I imagine he was killed by all the monsters who turned up.
The Running Man said:
Was there any hunger in these games? Who puts a load of mines in their food?
There's plenty of hunger in the home districts, where they're struggling for food. Again, it's not well demonstrated in the film.
The Running Man said:
CGI animals being factored in? Made no sense it was just drivel tbh.
To be honest, the "CGI animals" bugged me in the book, because they were a total deus ex machina and came out of nowhere to provide some drama at the end.
Maybe my judgement is coloured from having read the book, and so knowing the back story, but I don't think it's a bad film, even if it's not a great adaptation of the book.
Anyway. My point was that it's a very shallow analysis to look at it and say it's the same as Battle Royale.