mbl said
And I'm glad that you recognize the fact that I didn't voice any complaints about HG being a ripoff of BR, I simply saw both have basically the same premise with different settings and compared the two. One I liked and one I disliked. I wouldn't agree with what you're saying about HG's premise for the games being any more believable than BR, I'd say both are equally unbelievable because both are the same fucking premise, using arena deathmatches with children as a means of preventing rebellion. Stopping populations from rioting by constantly keeping them focused on brutal combat. It's an illogical concept that couldn't possibly work in realistic application. The difference between BR and HG is that BR embraces the ridiculousness of the concept where HG puts all this work into creating a reality where it would succeed while still failing to address the ultimate flaws of the concept.
Yeah, that's totally cool. Everyone's got different opinions and preferences.
I don't remember Battle Royale going for the political side of things in the same way Hunger Games did. Could be poor memory, but I recall the explanation in Battle Royale being, "You kids are spoiled snots (for wearing clothing or being 20 years younger than the showrunner or some shit) and we adults here hate you, so time to die motherfuckers." I imagined it as those people who used to say "Don't trust anyone over 30" changing to "Don't trust anyone under 30," to the extreme end of assholedom.
And, I don't recall it getting broadcasted the way Hunger Games did, to everyone else.
The Roman Colosseum was used the same way, it was real, and I assume it worked to some extent, unless tradition and really morbid tastes just kept it in style. They didn't each
everyone how to fight and brutally murder people, or teach how to gather into a strong military/militia force to fight against the dominant force, they just took the people they didn't like and wanted society to not act similar to or be and put 'em to the death in a way that entertained and warned the masses simultaneously.
Similarly, with both movies, the set-up is only one survivor that ever gets out, and knowing more about how to kill, on their own or in small numbers of others, doesn't suddenly amass into a giant threat. I assume in Hunger Games, it also helped that the winners could live pretty comfortable afterward as reward. Easier to take the reward than fight against a major power with no organized system to do so.