Racist Hunger Games Fans

Our genetics do tell us to like certain features more then others, so I don't agree that it's only the environment that's playing a part. So I think it's pretty much the same thing.
It's one thing thinking someone is hot because someone is black/white/asian/nordic/russian. Because this is just as true as thinking someone is hot for any other physical features.
It's another thing thinking someone is retarded or less of a human because of their looks as this is not true.

It's no offence taken, but I think most people would approve of racism if we went by your definition. I would.

I would say environment takes the most factor into what we find attractive and acceptable. How often we're exposed to certain types of racism makes that kind of racism seem more acceptable.

I ask you, if I said I found black people to be animalistically ugly, whereas white people are perfectly beautiful, would that not be racist? If not, I'm confused as to what makes one a racist. And if so, where do you draw the line of aesthetic preference in regards to racism?

Dictionary.com, Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

"determine cultural or individual achievement" is the main point to be highlighted. One's personal preference towards another person based on their race becomes racist when it degrades the other person's rights and disregards the fact that they are on the same level as yourself. You would be considered racist if you felt that a black was "animalistically" ugly because it is no longer just a preference. It has become a belief that they are less human then you are. Another point to add is that one may be more drawn or attracted to a certain race, but is still very much able to appreciate the beauty in other races they are less attracted to.

With skin colour you're probably right. Good looking faces, beards, breast size, waist/hip ratio definitely goes into the genetic category though.

I think when it comes to sexuality everything is excused. I fail to see the difference between thinking someone is hotter because their skin is a certain colour or because their boobs have a certain size. I don't actually know if you can change your sexual preferences by thinking about it but even if you can I kinda enjoy the world where people like different things and no matter how you look you'll find someone that thinks your attractive.



To answer this clearly. When it becomes a problem. Someone refusing to sit next to a black person at a bus because he/she is disgusted by their looks then is a problem. Some guy who doesn't get as big of a erection with a black girl as a white is not a problem.
Or would you say that say someone is a racist because he likes thinks a girl is more attractive in the summer when she has a tan then in the winter when she is paler? Where do you draw your line?


Also. If a person has never had any contact with a certain "race" then it's not exactly racism in my eyes if he has some problems dealing with them. because for example facial expression various a bit depending on how you look like. I've been in a university for the last 5 years and until very recently there was no fees for so we've had quite a share of Asians, Indians, the rare African etc etc. And there's quite a lot of misconceptions if people doesn't say things verbally. Took me like 2 years before I could communicate properly with Bangladeshi


I don't really mind your racist definition but as I said, racist stops being a bad word and becomes a pretty pointless term.

I personally liked battle royale better
Hunger games is mediocre. But what pisses me off is the author. She "claims" to never have heard or read of Battle Royale when she wrote hunger games (A impossibility). Considering how similiar the 2 books are, it is impossible for her to not have encountered it. It even pisses me off further how she likes to say she was inspired from age old myths and tales, something so vague. What a bunch of bullshit. Hunger Games is not that bad, but the authors arrogance..

I would like to know about some similarities between the two, besides the whole "killing is entertainment" obviously.

Use google. Their is plenty of news articles and reviews comparing them.

Read several and it looks like "The Hunger Games" is a "light" version of "Battle Royale" and that is putting it nicely.

Yes, that is about right.
Still, I feel how its bullshit that the author clearly denies never hearing or reading of BR, while writing for Hunger games. One google search on the topic would immediately lead to BR, it's pretty much inevitable to encounter it when you are writing a book that have similar premises.

The publisher knows it too, but they went along with playing dumb. Money. Did the author really need to play dumb and say she was inspired from some ancient tale or myth? I mean, REALLY?

Oh, heres a list someone else posted.
*Dystopian future society, check.

*Teenagers chosen by lottery, check.

*Forced to kill each other for entertainment, check.

*Game designed to keep society in check, check.

*Characters voluntarily join the game for other&s sake, check.

*Contestants must forge alliances yet also betrayals, check.

*Social and political commentary plays out, check

Many authors play dumb so they don't let others suspect of them copying ideas.

People these days just don't have any fantasies and barely use their imagination.

If BR and Hunger Games are really similar and the author says that she didn't know, then it must be one hell of a coincidence which I highly doubt myself.

I can understand this, since u already have a visual of what the characters were it just isn't the same when you see other actors with different skin tones. For fans of the show, it was the worst thing they had seen (I feel the same way) but for those who had never seen the show it wasn't to bad.

Its not that impossible. I myself had never heard of battle royale until The Hunger Games movie came out. I don't see how it would be so weird for it to be the same with the author. Besides, who cares if she is lying or not? Does it change anything at all...? If you like the books/movies, you'll like them regardless, and the opposite is also true...

I'm a big fan of Battle Royale, too.

I kid, I kid. I hear it's pretty well done and has just the right amount of gruesome without going over the top (even though I go over the top occasionally myself). Nice to see a fanbase rising for a series that isn't braindead.


As likely numerous people have already replied, the biggest issue here is discerning between racism and fandom. Just because they felt nothing for the dead protagonist of the adaptation because she was casted as black doesn't necessarily mean they're racist. It could just mean they're stubborn.

Let me tell you a story: During my English 102 class we had a day where our prof told us he would choose one of our short stories acted out by members of the class. My story, a bitter tale where a man ride a subway train to commit suicide but ends up committing murder to help a woman who ends up being horrified by his murder of her abusive boyfriend, was chosen.
_However, none of the men in my class wanted to be the protagonist. I got one to be a passerby, one to be the abuser, but no one wanted to be the lonely, sullen, introspective protagonist.

Except for one person: A woman.

I was apprehensive at first about letting her take the role, going so far as to speak privately with my professor to protest the idea and find another solution. Yet my professor assured me that sometimes "switching up the nonessential can lead to the favorable". I went with it, and ultimately was floored by her performance. She captured the role beautifully, even though she wasn't physically the same as I'd written the character.

In the end, the change led to a slew of thematic questions just because the protagonist was changed to being a woman.

What I learned from this exercise was that there are certain details in characters that can be changed and won't alter their core being, and when changed, the character can become even more interesting than before.

Of course, the point is that the "nonessetial" is just that. It's why most readers get tired of paragraphs detailing attire and physical appearance when none of it factors into who the character is.

The color of the protagonist's skin must not have been essential to her character or the plot for you to be alright with this change. The reason others are angry (aside from the actual racists) is because this change of the nonessential wasn't made in the source material, but in the adaptation. The difference being that the change wasn't made before the character was already physically established, and the readers already have a clear vision of who the character is and what they look like. Seeing any changes to that effect would disconnect them from both the character and the story.

They wouldn't be racist. They'd just be stubborn. They don't want to give this change of the nonessential a chance because they feel like the character won't be the same. Much like myself in that story I told, they have the established character in their mind and don't want to see any changes to them. Being stubborn about not wanting to see what they hold dear changed, they feel cheated that the adaptation they were looking forward to went ahead with said change, and ultimately this leads to fan backlash against what could be a very faithful adaptation.

It's wrong of them, sure, but it's not hard to understand. Lots of people would be angry if Spike Speigel was casted with a black actor, or if an American adaptation of Death Note had a black L or Light Yagami...
...Just gave myself a shudder by thinking of an American adaptation of those animes...
Ugh

...Still, even with this backlash, fellow fans and even the author (especially the author) shouldn't feel angry in return. A bit disheartened, maybe, but not angry or fully depressed. It just means that the story and characters are so well loved even the smallest change in detail gets some fans mad.

My opinion: Ignore the actual racists, give a passing sigh at the stubborn fans, but know that in the end everyone one of them truly adores and respects the story you adore and respect, just in their own stubborn way (except the racists. Screw them). Angry fans are not things to be proud of for anyone, especially authors-
-Unless they're angry because they treasure the story and characters that deeply.

EDIT: I don't know a thing about the author or the books. Just speaking as a writer about a subject I'm familiar with.

You are a average reader, not a author writing a book. Yes it is impossible, especially when your writing a book like Hunger Games. The publisher also knew of it. The author knew it.

Their is a major problem. For example, if I make a movie called "Avotor" and had a similar plot to the movie "Avatar", and said I was not inspired from "Avatar" at all, and I have never heard or seen the movie, and I was inspired from Spartan tales.

I for one don't care at all, one way or the other. There are plenty of movies and stories with each of those elements you checked. Just because one reunites all of them in a single thing, doesn't mean its a copy of battle royale.

Also, I can't really get behind your example, unless "Hunger Games" was mentioned as a term or something in Battle Royale.

If anyone cares, Cinna never even got a description. Thresh and Rue are pretty much stated as black. I don't see the fucking problem with them being black.

They are mad because if they like a character, they want that character to be EXACTLY like them. Skin colour, race, country etc.

Lemme add:

"Racist Hunger Games" Fans.

Lemme compare, as summarized by (the unreliable) rotten tomatoes

• HUNGER GAMES

Every year in the ruins of what was once North America, the evil Capitol of the nation of Panem forces each of its twelve districts to send a teenage boy and girl to compete in the Hunger Games. A twisted punishment for a past uprising and an ongoing government intimidation tactic, The Hunger Games are a nationally televised event in which "Tributes" must fight with one another until one survivor remains. Pitted against highly-trained Tributes who have prepared for these Games their entire lives, Katniss is forced to rely upon her sharp instincts as well as the mentorship of drunken former victor Haymitch Abernathy. If she's ever to return home to District 12, Katniss must make impossible choices in the arena that weigh survival against humanity and life against love

• BATTLE ROYALE

In a future where society is on the verge of collapse, the government takes drastic action against the problem of rebellious teenagers in this violent sci-fi opus from Japan. In the year 2002, Japan's economy has taken a dramatic turn for the worse, and massive unemployment and inflation have thrown most adults into a state of chaos; the nation's youth culture responds with unprecedented violence, delinquency, and truancy. Desperate to restore order, the Japanese parliament responds by creating the Millennial Reform School Act, in which groups of junior high students are selected at random, sent to an isolated island, and forced to play a rigorous war game, in which all but one of their number are killed. Kitano (Beat Takeshi) is an embittered school instructor who guides the 44 students of the Zentsuji Middle School's Class B through the deadly game known as "Battle Royale," as they struggle to survive against the elements and each other. Battle Royale proved to be both successful and highly controversial in Japan, where it set box-office records and prompted political leaders to call for stricter controls on violence in Japanese entertainment; the film was initially rated R-15 (no one under 15 admitted), unusual for violent films in Japan, though director Kinji Fukasaku later prepared a re-edited version that earned a more lenient classification.

---

The point here is: There are two possibilities:

• Suzanne really never saw Battle Royale. It's just coincidence that they are a little bit similar. She used racism to add a spark to her work and be talked about.

• The author modified the Battle Royal to look like it's her own work. And to cover up the similarities, she used racism to cover up this mark.

Sadly, though, it's pretty obvious that they are really the same in terms of concept. But then Hunger games is racist as others said it.

Coincidence? I think not.

(Not-so-serious-but-you-get-my-point opinion below)




And also,



Shouldn't this be in the Entertainment section?

Post-apocalyptic settings are like zombies. You don't need to have read every work out there to make a setting similar to something already existing. Just take the archetypes, run with them, and you are bound to end up in a very similar place, all things considered. Also, it is possible she heard word-of-mouth about Battle Royale, and people (beta readers, proofreaders, whatever) even commented on it, polluting her mind with ideas that would lead people to think exactly what you are thinking. Finally, both (whats the plural of synopsis?) are really not that alike. From the comparison, Hunger Games comes across as more simple and straightforward. I'd think that if it was meant as a copy, it'll actually take some more elements, not just the universal ones.

Anyway, I am just stating an alternative. As I've said countless time, I don't see how it adds anything whether she had heard of it before or not. Likers are gonna like. Haters are gonna hate. Phoenixs Wrights are gonna object.