6. Violence
Here the two films depart from each other and we discover why one of these films is a better film, and the other is a more successful film. The chief reason the several attempts at an American remake of Battle Royale failed, is that in an American setting, the imagery of Battle Royale begins to evoke school shootings. The Hungers Games omitted Battle Royales guns and school uniforms, and in doing so, somehow managed to achieve mainstream acceptance. Evidently, children killing each other is palatable for American audiences so long as they wear sportswear and use antiquated weaponry (Side note: The two films make an interesting case-study for how the MPAAs favouritism and hypocrisy).
To me, theres something oxymoronic, and strangely offensive about a PG-13 movie on the subject of children killing each other in gladiatorial combat. The Hunger Games shoots around the action and is euphemistic in its depiction of violence. Battle Royale is frightening and sickening in its depiction of violence, and in a way, shouldnt it be? Shouldnt violence be confronting? Effective storytelling puts you in the shoes of its characters. The characters in both films are in a horrifying situation, but only Battle Royale is willing to similarly horrify its audience. And lets not bullshit each other here. The violence is just so much fun. 1000 points to Battle Royale.