Talk:Battle Royale (novel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article title

Shouldn't Battle Royale be under Battle Royale (movie)? Why is it under (film) when most Hollywood movies are, well, under (movie)? Shouldn't there be some consistent method used? -- Tlotoxl 03:53, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There is only a redirect at "Battle Royale". Shouldn't this be moved to "Battle Royale"? WhisperToMe 02:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It should, IMHO. Parentheses should only be used when there is significant ambiguity in the base term and other uses are used about as much. I'll move the page right away. — David Remahl 02:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be strange if their was a dubbed version because the actors are Asian, and you can get the normal version anywhere but the special edition you have to order online

Banned in the USA?

I hear on the HK radio, that both version 1 and 2 are banned in the USA, but user User:M123 believe this is not the case. Michael

According to this fan page, it was actually shown several times in film festivals, but never "commercially" (with never-ending ads everywhere, etc). Also according to that page, it was the Japanese company that refused American company to commercially harvest it in US with reason unknown to the fan page -- so it's probably just baseless rumour. --Menchi (Talk)â 13:40, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It just hasn't been released here in the U.S. yet. I find this rather odd, since it enjoys quite a bit of popularity among cult-cinema fans here. The novel was even published in an English translation a year ago. Also, I should point out that it's almost impossible for a film to get banned here (even huge nasties like Salo aren't illegal in most states). neckro 12:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to the Battle Royale official website the reason it was never released was that the company that made it in Japan wants far too much money for it. The number is in the multi-millions just for the rights to release it. None of the big name American distributors want it for that much and any small company that does doesn't have the money. It has never been officially banned by the US government or anyone else. I personally have a copy that is in Korean with English subtitles that I bought off Ebay. JesusSaves 20:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why people can't just buy a version of Battle Royale out of Japan or E-Bay, and switch it to English subtitles. That's how many people prefer to watch japanese movies and anime. You can't tell me that you'd rather watch Ju-On with the English language translation on. Voice overs are pure horror. Trance 10:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Meh, I think a lot of it is that it makes evangelizing difficult. How do you tell people to go and watch the movie if the only way to acquire it is to order it as an import, or find a very obscure video shop who has it? -Fuzzy 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Trance, there has never been a dubbed version of the film, aside from the heavily criticised and butchered German version, and probably never will be. What everyone else is saying that it would be better if it were on general release in American video stores. As a Brit I've got easy access to it and it would be good if Americans did too. addy (but cant be bothered logging in, yet again) 14.55 24 March 2006

What a joke. My friend bought it at Wal-Mart from the bargain bin, and you can get anything online.

I haven't actually seen any versions, but reading the artichle, I feel it should be split into several artichles, or at least have one "main" version used for desciption, with differences shown somewhere else in the artichle. I have no idea if this is how you comment.

New edits regarding effects

I'd call an NPOV here. He's got a good point about how the lighthouse scene doesn't translate well, but the way he states it makes it sound like it's a cultural fault that American viewers "don't get it." I'm not making an edit on it right now, because I'm not sure if I'm seeing things that aren't there. Opinions? Maybe we could add a section for it along the lines of "Reasons for non-acceptance in American markets" or "Errors in translation"? -Fuzzy 16:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That was not the intent. In Japanese society you can hear many people using these polite terms and words that the girls started off using and it's almost a cliche that they do so (and out of place in the movie at that point). Similarly the rough words they use later are typical of tough-guy movies and I don't recall off the top of my head, but I believe they were almost vulgar. It was quite entertaining in a satirical sense but I too had to watch the lighthouse scene twice as first time through I was distracted by the sub-titles which seemed outrageously inept, however you could pick up the general feel in the girls' intonation as well. Although I do not live in the U.S., I rather thought that speculation as to the reasons for its long period of not being released in the U.S. was of encylopaedic value and that if one were to want to get the most out of it whether it got a bad review or a good one, it was important to realize the nature of the satire and its subtlety (or just difference) in Japanese in the lighthouse scene. It is obvious from my choice of words that the comments are coming from outside the U.S., but other than that, was there anything particularly incorrect? Since I do understand some Japanese, I found the lighthouse scene something close to astonishing, but that's POV, isn't it. -Author of change [I find this movie too controversial to want to sign my wiki id at this point] 1 Feb 2005

{nods} Honestly, I agree with you about the lighthouse scene. Again, I don't speak Japanese, but the combination of the tones of voices and then the subtitles, it made sense. I particularly liked how the lighting at the beginning was cheerful and bright, then got more dim as they started into their fight. As for the reasons for the movie not being distributed in the US, I was going to say that the reasons for it were clearly documented in the article, but I now see they aren't. You can find an explanation at the link at the bottom to the Battle Roale fan site. Basically, it's a combination of the controversial nature of teenagers killing teenagers, plus some apparently unreasonable licensing requirements by Toei. I will likely incorporate that into a re-write of the article. As I said before, it's not so much the content of what you said as in how you said it. You do indeed have good points. -Fuzzy 14:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

What does CTHG-size mean? — Gwalla | Talk 02:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon Jok2000 03:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adaptation versus Translation of Comic Book

I'm curious... what exactly is the distinction here? Are they changing the dialogue? The artwork? Or is this something which never existed in Japanese format and is being released in English because mangas are "in" currently? -Fuzzy 19:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keith Giffin apparently made a number of changes to the plot and dialogue, which is why it is being referred to as an adaptation rather than a straight translation. Manga/anime fan definitely pay attention to the distinction. A translation is a translation - no alterations whatsoever (except for obvious tweaks required for grammar and sentence structure). From what I understand, the difference is not as great as, say, the Japanese vs. American versons of Sailor Moon, but they are there. I have read the original novel, but not any sort of straight translation of the Manga (only the Giffen version), but maybe someone out there who can read Japanese can describe the changes in detail. As far as I can tell the plot is pretty much the same as the book, so Giffen's changes might be more dialogue-related. I do know he spells Shuya's name Shuuya in his adaptation for some reason. Also, there is explicit sexual content in the book, and presumably changes had to be made for legal reasons since in the original storyline the characters are all 15-16-17 years of age, and it's not legal to have nudity and sexual situations involving minors in an American publication (this is of particular concern with the character of Mitsuko). 23skidoo 20:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keith's changes are mostly in dialogue. He used his own judgement for which lines of dialogue sounded "too bland" for a comic. For example, in the scene where Mitsuko slits another competitor's throat while she (the competitor) hugs her under the assumption she's not out to kill her, and gushes blood over the entire room,definitely in the original version she said "I had to kill you before you killed me" in the American edition of the manga she says "Red is definitely not your color". killridemedly 16:43, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I believe the US Supreme court overturned the ban on minors being portrayed as having sex a few years back. The law was too vague, and, as one Justice noted, logically it would have prohibited movies like Titanic and other works of fiction exploring teenage sexuality.

Shuya was changed to Shuuya to indicate the long "u" sound in Japanese.

-ToothingLummox 12:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Giffen's most egregious (at least in the eyes of some fans, myself included) change to the manga consists of presenting the story as if it were a "reality show"--none of the Japanese versions have this element (only the announcement of the winner is televised; in Battle Royale II the rounding up of the students is a major press event, but that's because it was a unique situation), and, more importantly, the original Japanese manga doesn't have it. Characters are talking about being on TV and being part of the show when there are clearly no cameras following them.

-User:Mikejonas 2:46, 29 January 2006

Spoilers

I noticed that a lot of really critical plot points are given away, it seems like a book like this, that relies so much on tension, should probably have a much shorter (if any) plot synopsis.

Please sign your comments using 4 ~ symbols. There are plenty of plot synopses out there that are far more lengthy and detailed than this one. 23skidoo 19:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Knowing what the story involves as a whole by it self could be considered a bit of a spoiler itself - I was lucky enough to have been introduced to the movie with no prior knowledge of what it was about, and it had a lot more impact because of that, and now that I have the DVD I tend to lend it to people with the cover turned inside out so they can enjoy it in that manner as well. But that's quite a particular case, so perhaps a simple relocation of the spoiler warning would be enough. Loona 16:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Loona. I also saw this film having never heard of it (I watched it a film night with a friend, and it was his suggestion at first I thought it was a martial arts film based on the title!) which I loved - I didnt realise the importance of certain characters for example for a long time into it. But I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a synopsis - any is a spoiler of sorts, which is most unlike films generally, but then again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such must have some sort of plot descriptor present. I don't read them for films I've yet to see, I generally just read the overview at the top of the article to find out what I need. As such I don't mind seeing every little detail of the plot described - I actually like to read that. So as long as the spoiler tag is present right at the top of the plot synopsis I see no reason not to keep it. addy 16:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with the Kazuo Kiriyama article

I'm admittedly unsure on this issue - Battle Royale, at least in the original book and manga versions, has quite a bit of character development, and as a whole even works as a metaphor for a competitive society, so developing on each of the more proeminent characters and certain scenes would make some sense to an extent. However, such development should cover at least a handful of character in the actual BR article before they'd move on to the actual pages pages of their own. The problem with Kiriyama is that the movie version (in it for kicks, pretty much a sadist - an outsider who's death on legs, no other purpose beyond twisted "fun") is radically different from the other ones (practically a cold, calculating machine with an almost super-human ability for learning and improvising - doing what he's told with little to no question with maximum efficiency, and he was in the same class as all the others all of the time) - this makes a world of a difference in the more symbolic meaning the story can have, since while movie Kiriyama can be seen as a plot device, the original book version can be an extreme example of what distant employers may want from their employees, for example. Suggestions for other character-based articles that could be included associated with the BR article, either in or outside it: Hiroki Sugimura, Mitsuko Souma, Shogo Kawada, Yuko Sakaki. Loona 16:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I also agree, but I strongly doubt that Yuko Sakaki deserves her own article. She was just a troubled girl, nothing more. I will create a "Yuko" section in my upcoming Shuya Nanahara article.

-Mephistopheles

• I agree. Instead of merging the articles, the main characters should be expanded into articles of their own. Saberwyn 00:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'm of two minds on this. Certainly notable characters in TV series have their own articles, as well as recurring characters in, say, the James Bond books. But whether characters who appear in only one venue (be it the manga, novel, or movie) justify their own separate articles, I don't know. I think there's a guideline on this in WP:FICT. 23skidoo 02:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think that guideline was the one about characters that are referred to in other media - in that case a separate article was reccomended, as the character's supposed to be famous enough to be referred outside its own fictional world. Can anyone think of any such case regarding Kiriyama? Loona 09:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. Certainly he is iconic, although until the film gets a general American release (if that ever happens) he will remain a cult figure only, much like the other characters. However, I would certainly not oppose the creation of articles for the main 7 or so: Shuya, Noriko, Kawada and Kazuo as has been done, Mitsuko, and maybe Hiroki, Chigusa, Utsemi, and one page for the three teacher characters (film: Kitano, novel: Sakamochi, manga: Kamon). The latter could certainly be of relevance. Yuko however does not deserve a seperate page. However, I do think this article needs a page for the rest of the characters - as for many TV shows etc (see The Simpsons for one example), perhaps a page each for the major characters, such as those I listed, and one other page for everyone else, with each character getting a section. addy 13:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiaki Kuriyama

I'd like to add a trivia item that Chiaki Kuriyama was cast as Gogo in Kill Bill because of her appearance in BR. I'm pretty certain Tarantino has stated this (although Chiaki only appears briefly in the film). Does anyone else remember this comment? I'd like to provide a source before I add it. 23skidoo 06:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I found an even better tidbit and will add it as a trivia item. 23skidoo 19:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Prisoner reference

Has anyone heard whether BR was influenced by The Prisoner? I did get a sense of the "who do you trust" paranoia that infuses the older series. The use of a prominent piece of music from the series for the first loudspeaker announcement made me wonder if that wasn't a nod to the TV series. I also felt the end with Noriko and Shuya also was reminiscent of the finale of The Prisoner. Any ideas? 23skidoo 01:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Kill List

That list that was seleted from the page was the entire plot of the book. That is the simplified version of the events that unfold.207.159.182.47 02:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you want it back? Does it add anything to an encyclopaedia entry?Jok2000 02:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)