The "Hannibal' Series

I don't think there's an actual official name for these four books and movies but since it seems like Lecter is easily the most popular and well known character in them, why not just call it that.

On a related note, right now I am reading Red Dragon and it must have been the next book that catapulted Hannibal to stardom because I'm on Chapter 35 and he's barely in it. I'm enjoying it well enough though, kinda scared for poor Reba.... I don't see this ending well for her even if she doesn't die. Graham is a neat protagonist because I can't quite figure him out. Did he intentionally look chummy with the shitty reporter so that Dolarhyde would think they were on good terms and target him? Graham just seems to have a lot of...unnerving tendencies.

But yeah, I posted this in the film section in hopes it would get more attention and also to ask about how you think the books compare to the movies. I plan to read all the books but should I see any of the movies besides Silence? Which adaptation of Red Dragon is superior?

I'd say both adaptations of Red Dragon are worth looking into. Manhunter has the edge in terms of film making, and has a superior Will Graham, but Red Dragon has a much better Tooth Fairy in my opinion.

I can't speak for the other films as adaptations, but Silence is definitely one that lives up to the hype. Hannibal and Hannibal Rising were both very bad films, and are only worth watching if you have a morbid sense of curiosity or are a die hard completionist.

Now, I love the new TV show. It perfectly captures the spirit of the books and adapts the characters rather well.

Yeah, Thomas Harris came up with Hannibal as a side character to give the hero some psychological insight into the killer. It worked so well that he expanded Hannibal's role in doing the same in Silence of the Lambs. Interestingly enough, Hannibal was based on a real-life character. Thomas Harris went to interview a serial killer in a jail who was reputed to be an extremely horrible person (he wasn't really. His "killing spree" was a matter of getting drunk and killing several people he was angry with that night) and learned that said prisoner had been operated on by "the doctor". After interviewing said doctor, an extremely creepy sort with very little visible emotion, he learned that it was not the prison doctor, but another inmate, a former surgeon, who had learned that his wife was cheating on him and mailed her and her love in "an amazingly small package".

And, as has often been tossed around, Hannibal Rising was written in protest. The movie studios told Harris that they planned to release a third Hannibal movie, and since they had the rights to the character, if he didn't write a book and script a movie for them, they'd get some other two-bit hack to do it.

Yeah, I haven't touched the book or film of Hannibal Rising. Lecter doesn't really need a backstory IMO, so I just stuck the first three books and movies (and Manhunter).

I don't think there could ever really be a good Hannibal film though. The book starts of really good but the end goes into What-in-all-That-is-Sacred-Just-Happened?! territory and Harris seems to have been fanboying Lector a bit too much when he was writing it. He kinda feels like the bastard child of Jesus and Charles Manson, perfect and repugnant. I mean it's interesting, but nothing Hollywood could stomach. Hence why they rewrote the ending.

The series is pretty awesome though. I really hope they get all the way through. I would love to see Mads Mikkelsen's Hannibal match wits with a Clarice.

edited 16th Mar '14 6:53:33 PM by Sisi

From what I've heard. Hannibal turned out the way it did because Harris really didn't want to write a third book, but was contractually obligated to do so. He decided the best course of action was to dial up the camp and the WTF factor. As for the movie, I spent the whole time wondering why a movie with deformed Gary Oldman for a villain was So. Freaking. Boring.

Don't forget the piggies.

I wish I could.

I found Manhunter to be far superior to Red Dragon. Both Will Graham and Francis Dollarhyde's actors were able to turn in performances that were equally chilling. If anything, Graham as played by William Peterson was more ruthless - exemplified by the way he set up that shitbag sleazy reporter, Freddy Lounds, for slaughter.

As for Hannibal? Hopkins was far too showy in the role in Red Dragon, verging towards over over-acting. In comparison Brian Cox was terrifyingly low-key and matter-of-fact in his portrayal of Doctor Lecktor.

From what I have seen of the new telly show, the Hannibal in that is channeling Hopkins rather than Cox and I think that they are making a mistake on that.

They're not channeling Cox because, quite frankly, hardly anyone remembers Manhunter. Besides, Hannibal in that particular book had not been developed yet. He's literally just a minor character. It wouldn't make sense to just look to that when there's several more books' worth of character to draw from.

I bet you good money the makers of the series know all about Cox. Manhunter was far more popular than some people give it credit for. It wasn't Silence of the Lambs popular for some reason. Even though the acting was far better in Mann's film than Scott's. William Petersen in particular is fucking terrifying as Will Graham. It really doesn't take much imagination to work out just how horrifying a killer Graham would be if the switch in his head that had "Be a Serial Killer/Catch Serial Killers" settings flipped in the wrong direction. In the later remake, Edward Norton, who is a fine actor in other roles, just seemed constipated.

Oh, I'm sure Fuller knows about Manhunter. He's even referenced Hannibal Rising a few times, so it would be weird if he didn't. I just think it's a bit weird to base a series on a characterization that itself was based on roughly 5-10 pages of the original novel.

And I mentioned above that I split the Red Dragon adaptations like this: Manhunter has the better Graham, while Red Dragon has the better Tooth Fairy.

edited 11th May '14 4:22:45 PM by GrandmasterKiramidHead

If Mads Mikkelsen is channeling anyone, it's Satan. He's said himself he views Hannibal as a fallen angel Lucifer type. He's quite different from both Cox and Hopkins, IMO. Hugh Dancy is DEFINITELY channeling William Peterson though, at least a little. As are the writers, now that I think of it.

Also, I agree with the above poster. Peterson is the better Will Graham, but I like Ralph Fienne's Dollarhyde better. He's closer to the character in the book, I think. Noonan was too obviously grotesque for me (I mean he looks so creepy, it's obvious he's the villain). I always had thought Dollarhyde was supposed to be handsome to contrast with his view of himself as ugly. Maybe I just associated his obsession with fitness with good looks *shrug*

The Nostalgia Critic actually did a very good Old vs. New of Manhunter and Red Dragon.

edited 12th May '14 6:25:19 AM by Sisi