Tarantino Calls The Hunger Games A 'Ripoff' Of Battle Royale. Here's Why It Both Is And It Isn't

Believe it or not, but I've actually written about every Quentin Tarantino movie on this website (yes, even Death Proof), so I think it's safe to say that I love his work as a director.

That said, I sometimes think Tarantino has some cockamamie hot takes. One recent one concerned Paul Dano being a “weak” actor, and the other concerned his criticisms concerning The Hunger Games, namely that it “ripped off” Battle Royale.

And, seriously? Are we really having this debate again? Our very own Eric Eisenberg once argued all the way back in 2012 how The Hunger Games isn't Battle Royale, so it’s not like this is some new debate. However, here's the thing. While I don't agree with Tarantino about Paul Dano, I do agree with him on The Hunger Games being “a rip-off” of Battle Royale…well, sort of. I'll explain.

Why It’s "A Rip-Off": Both Stories Are About Kids Killing Each Other

Now, the word “rip-off” is interesting in that it implies that somebody took somebody else’s idea, and then made it their own. And, even though The Hunger Games’ author, Suzanne Collins, has claimed that she never heard of Battle Royale prior to her writing her novels, we’re just going to have to take her word for it…even though the Battle Royale novel DID come out 9 years prior to the first Hunger Games book, and the movie version came out in 2000. Even so, let’s just assume that Collins is telling the truth.

Well, similar to how Christopher Nolan’s Inception has plenty of similarities to 2006’s Paprika, the connections are kind of surface-level. In both Battle Royale and The Hunger Games, young people are forced to kill each other. In Battle Royale, an authoritarian Japan kidnaps a class each year, and then leaves them stranded in a remote area to murder each other.

In The Hunger Games, there are different districts, and two children are taken from each to kill each other for the amusement of the wealthier class. In both stories, there’s an ultimate winner (or at least there's supposed to be), and in both stories, this has been going on for a number of years, and people have just accepted it. So, The Hunger Games is an obvious rip-off of Battle Royale, right? Well…not entirely.

Why It's Not: The Reasons Why They're Killing Each Other In Both Stories Are Vastly Different

In a recent article with Variety, The Hunger Games and Five Nights at Freddy’s star, Josh Hutcherson, had this to say:

And you know what? I’m cool with that answer. Because even though Collins has said for a long time that she never heard of Battle Royale, I’ve kind of never bought that. I mean, I WATCHED Battle Royale long before The Hunger Games came out, and a lot of people I knew watched it. It was considered “a cult movie,” but not in the same way as, say, Six-String Samurai, or Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!. No. A lot of people were talking about the movie Battle Royale when it came out because it was SO controversial.

Even so, as Hutcherson says, “Everyone borrows from everyone,” and the reason why the kids are killed in both stories is vastly different. In The Hunger Games, they mostly fight because they’re of different economic statuses, and if they win, they can help their districts (I mean, it’s called “The Hunger Games” for a reason. These people are HONGRY, and they’re fighting just to feed their families while the rich are well-fed and place bets).

In Battle Royale, the Japanese government wants to instill fear in its populace, so they hold these events as a means of control. So, yes, kids kill each other in both stories, but for different reasons. In that way, not a rip-off.

Why It’s "A Rip-Off": They're Both Dystopian Stories

Dystopian stories go way back. The first is probably 1924’s We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, and since then, we’ve gotten everything from the Mad Max series, to Battle Royale, to The Hunger Games, and uh oh. It looks like we have another similarity here.

Now, as I said before, dystopian stories go back a ways, but there had been a lull in the genre by the ‘90s when Battle Royale first came out. Yes, we had stuff like The Giver in ‘93, but things seemed a bit more hopeful back then, at least when it came to the dystopian genre. However, Battle Royale brought it back in a big way (as I said, the movie was well-known at the time), and kind of reinvigorated the dystopian genre. But then, The Hunger Games took it into the stratosphere in the 2000s.

Which is why the parallels between The Hunger Games and Battle Royale as dystopian stories are hard to ignore, as they both feature tropes from the genre, such as authoritarian governments trying to force people under their will.

In this way, since The Hunger Games is very much a dystopian story, it seems even closer to Battle Royale. Again, rip-off!

Why It's Not: One Is Based More In Horror, The Other Is Young Adult

I love Japanese horror movies. There’s just something so distinct about them that makes them different from any other form of horror. And, that’s just it. Battle Royale is distinctly a horror story. It’s super gory, and it’s meant to be unsettling. In the film, the victims acquire different weapons, with some of them being as useless as a fork (Though, Squid Game showed just how dangerous a fork can be), and some being as powerful as firearms. In this way, the horror involves the helplessness of being trapped with possible sociopaths.

The Hunger Games is distinctly NOT horror, though, and that’s a HUGE difference. In fact, it might be the biggest difference. There’s a reason why Battle Royale is still considered a cult movie in the states, but The Hunger Games blew up, and that reason is because the former is a violent horror movie, while the latter is a palatable (though, surprisingly violent) Young Adult series with sci-fi elements.

Battle Royale feels like it’s meant to shock you, while The Hunger Games feels like it has a message attached about capitalism run amok, and how that dehumanizes people on both ends of the economic spectrum. Battle Royale feels distinctly Japanese, whereas The Hunger Games has a much broader message that I think would resonate with more people.

And, this is why I think Battle Royale, even though it is KNOWN, is still nowhere near as popular as The Hunger Games, at least stateside. They are for two completely different audiences, which is why someone like Tarantino likely sneers at The Hunger Games. It’s not for him.

In The End, There Are Similarities Between The Two, But Also A Number Of Differences

So, while yes, as somebody who has read both Battle Royale and the first three Hunger Games novels, as well as watched the movies for both, I can say that there are definitely similarities, but I honestly find more differences than anything.

Unlike Tarantino, I like both Battle Royale and The Hunger Games, but for different reasons. I love the griminess of BR, and how self-contained the story is, but I love the war aspect of The Hunger Games (I know I’m in the minority, but Mockingjay is my favorite book and movie(s) in the series).

So, yeah. The Hunger Games might be a “rip-off,” but if it is, it’s a damn good one.

What do you think? Do you also like both? I’d love to hear your thoughts.