Dr. Lecter Invites you to Dinner. The ''Hannibal'' Thread - Part 4

[slimshady247]

Yeah, I thought about it and then I realized that we've never actually seen him [BLACKOUT]drink like that before.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[antsman41]

Wow, that was amazing.

This finally intrigued me into the Red Dragon plot, I hated the movie.

 

[James]

Richard Artmitage was great. It was cool seeing Will use his powers again, and I really enjoyed Alana's scenes with both Hannibal and Chilton.

My only complaint with what was otherwise a fantastic episode, is the return of the Tweedle twins doing their forensic blah blah blah. I've said this since season 1, it's like they accidentally wandered off of another show -like CSI or Bones or something- and into something way better. I don't know why they bought them back, they're so out of place, even more now that we're three seasons in and the show has established it's style and tone a lot more. At least there's only two of them now.

 

[Matt]

Richard Artmitage was great. It was cool seeing Will use his powers again, and I really enjoyed Alana's scenes with both Hannibal and Chilton.

My only complaint with what was otherwise a fantastic episode, is the return of the Tweedle twins doing their forensic blah blah blah. I've said this since season 1, it's like they accidentally wandered off of another show -like CSI or Bones or something- and into something way better. I don't know why they bought them back, they're so out of place, even more now that we're three seasons in and the show has established it's style and tone a lot more. At least there's only two of them now.

This show desperately needs some levity to get past the pretentiousness. That said, I agree that these particular characters are a bit out of place.

Good episode, at any rate. Personally, I wish it didn't take over 20 minutes to get to Will though. Time felt wasted on Chilton and Alana's scenes. I would've rather seen the impact of the Red Dragon killings. I would've liked to see the FBI's failed attempt to figure it out. I would've liked to feel the need for Will prior to Jack just showing up and saying, "we need you or people will die."

I say this because Jack broke Will, destroyed his life. Jack Crawford is a manipulative character. It is how Harris wrote him. But he isn't completely apathetic. Yet that is how he comes off on the show. If we saw a truly desperate Jack, before he resorted to going to Will...it would've made the character feel a bit more human. Instead he just pulls Will back into something that he knows can destroy him, manipulates Will's wife to get him to do so, and does it without it ever really being earned or feeling totally necessary. We should've seen that the FBI was at a total road bump before Jack pulled the prodigal son out of his happy life.

As for the institution scenes, it feels like Hannibal is going to kill Alana somehow (probably resulting in Chilton taking over the institution again). I dunno...I really don't need to see this. I know they need to find something for Lecter to do, he is the title character...but I feel like less is more. They've already made the character basically omnipotent. He didn't even get caught. A reduced role in the story (true to the source material) would've been fitting, IMO. Red Dragon is not Hannibal's story. It is Will and Dolarhyde's. That is the story I'd like to see...but that is just me.

Side note, I watched Silence of the Lambs for the first time in years last night. I forgot how good it is. People can say what they will about Hopkins, he certainly hammed it up in Hannibal and Red Dragon...but in Lambs...Mikkelsen has got NOTHING on him. It is one of the most masterful performances of all time.

 

[slimshady247]

Oh, you again.

 

[James]

As for the institution scenes, it feels like Hannibal is going to kill Alana somehow (probably resulting in Chilton taking over the institution again). I dunno...I really don't need to see this. I know they need to find something for Lecter to do, he is the title character...but I feel like less is more. They've already made the character basically omnipotent. He didn't even get caught. A reduced role in the story (true to the source material) would've been fitting, IMO. Red Dragon is not Hannibal's story. It is Will and Dolarhyde's. That is the story I'd like to see...but that is just me.

Side note, I watched Silence of the Lambs for the first time in years last night. I forgot how good it is. People can say what they will about Hopkins, he certainly hammed it up in Hannibal and Red Dragon...but in Lambs...Mikkelsen has got NOTHING on him. It is one of the most masterful performances of all time.

Your second paragraph kind of ties into the first. Hopkins is only on screen for a relatively short amount of time in Silence of The Lambs, but his presence is felt throughout. The same could be done with the show. My favourite scenes with Hannibal have always been when he's behind bars, screwing with people.

(Silence of The Lambs was my favourite movie for years)

 

[Matt]

Your second paragraph kind of ties into the first. Hopkins is only on screen for a relatively short amount of time in Silence of The Lambs, but his presence is felt throughout. The same could be done with the show. My favourite scenes with Hannibal have always been when he's behind bars, screwing with people.

(Silence of The Lambs was my favourite movie for years)

The only reason I think they ought to be weary about how much Hannibal's presence is felt, is that from a narrative perspective, Red Dragon was never Lecter's story. Silence of the Lambs is a story of Clarice and Hannibal, their relationship and how it affects Clarice's arc. Buffalo Bill is very much an incidental supporting character. He isn't a character in and of himself. He is a supporting character who helps drive the Clarice/Lecter relationship forward (much like Crawford, in a way).

Meanwhile, in Red Dragon, it is a story of Will Graham and Francis Dolarhyde. Hannibal Lecter is very much a minor, supporting character whose actions have a big impact only in how they affect Dolarhyde's actions. Basically he is a supporting character who plays a role in forwarding another character's story. But it is not his story. Nor is it a story of Will and Hannibal.

Toward the end of the Italy arc, the Will/Hannibal relationship was so ****ing played out. Hannibal turning himself in to stay in Will's life? Ugh. Such a trite twist that completely goes against the character.

I am praying that Fueller lets Hannibal play this arc out as a supporting character, nothing more. I really hope he does not turn the masterful story of Red Dragon into yet another way to cram Will/Hannibal shipping down our throats.

 

[Eddie Dean]

I don't see how Hannibal turning himself in goes against his character at all. It denies both Will and Jack any victory. Will in letting go of Hannibal and Jack in catching him.

 

[James]

The only reason I think they ought to be weary about how much Hannibal's presence is felt, is that from a narrative perspective, Red Dragon was never Lecter's story. Silence of the Lambs is a story of Clarice and Hannibal, their relationship and how it affects Clarice's arc. Buffalo Bill is very much an incidental supporting character. He isn't a character in and of himself. He is a supporting character who helps drive the Clarice/Lecter relationship forward (much like Crawford, in a way).

Meanwhile, in Red Dragon, it is a story of Will Graham and Francis Dolarhyde. Hannibal Lecter is very much a minor, supporting character whose actions have a big impact only in how they affect Dolarhyde's actions. Basically he is a supporting character who plays a role in forwarding another character's story. But it is not his story. Nor is it a story of Will and Hannibal.

Toward the end of the Italy arc, the Will/Hannibal relationship was so ****ing played out. Hannibal turning himself in to stay in Will's life? Ugh. Such a trite twist that completely goes against the character.

I am praying that Fueller lets Hannibal play this arc out as a supporting character, nothing more. I really hope he does not turn the masterful story of Red Dragon into yet another way to cram Will/Hannibal shipping down our throats.

While I definitely appreciate where you're coming from, and even prefer your version, it might be wishful thinking. The show is very much it's own creature, relying on the previous incarnations of the stories for broad strokes. Will and Hannibal's relationship is a core element of the series, it's very doubtful they're going to scale it back for any reason.

Incidentally, I also agree with you about Jack. We've seen from his relationship with Bella that he's not completely inhuman, it definitely would have been nice to see him be a little more conflicted over reaching out to Will again.

 

[Matt]

I don't see how Hannibal turning himself in goes against his character at all. It denies both Will and Jack any victory. Will in letting go of Hannibal and Jack in catching him.

Hannibal values his freedom above all else. It is one of (if not THE) most well defined motivation of the character. There is nothing Hannibal resents more than being locked away.

Plus, while Hannibal is egotistical, he is not stupid or so prideful that he would turn himself in to deny someone the victory of catching him (especially when he could've just...y'know, escaped and denied them that pleasure).

While I definitely appreciate where you're coming from, and even prefer your version, it might be wishful thinking. The show is very much it's own creature, relying on the previous incarnations of the stories for broad strokes. Will and Hannibal's relationship is a core element of the series, it's very doubtful they're going to scale it back for any reason.

Incidentally, I also agree with you about Jack. We've seen from his relationship with Bella that he's not completely inhuman, it definitely would have been nice to see him be a little more conflicted over reaching out to Will again.

Yeah, I definitely think it is wishful thinking. I am just sad that it means rather than getting a proper adaptation of Red Dragon (which really is Harris's best work, superior to Silence of the Lambs in every way), we will once again be denied in favor of some Hannibal/Will slash fiction.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Hannibal values his freedom above all else. It is one of (if not THE) most well defined motivation of the character. There is nothing Hannibal resents more than being locked away.

Plus, while Hannibal is egotistical, he is not stupid or so prideful that he would turn himself in to deny someone the victory of catching him (especially when he could've just...y'know, escaped and denied them that pleasure).

Hannibal, like any great Chess player, thinks of the long game. Backed into a corner, he got victory in the only way he could. Captivity is temporary, the emotional damage done to Jack and Will is not.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Fuller did say that Dolarhyde gets as much screen time as Will these next few episodes, so at least we'll be getting his story with the attention it deserves.

 

[Matt]

Hannibal, like any great Chess player, thinks of the long game. Backed into a corner, he got victory in the only way he could. Captivity is temporary, the emotional damage done to Jack and Will is not.

I call bull ****. I'm sorry, but I call bull ****. He escaped. He was free to go. There was absolutely no reason to turn himself in. It would be one thing if the cars were driving up to Will's house right as he walked out. But time passed. He had plenty of time to make a run for it. And before you say, "the FBI was looking for him," they were in season 2 also. Right after he cut up a house full of agents. Yet he still got to Italy. Hannibal could've ran. And instead he turned himself in, for no reason other than furthering the Will/Hannibal pseudo-romance that Fueller is intent on writing. Will should have caught Hannibal. Having Hannibal surrender is a HUGE misstep that spits in the face of the character, IMO.

 

[Matt]

Fuller did say that Dolarhyde gets as much screen time as Will these next few episodes, so at least we'll be getting his story with the attention it deserves.

My concern isn't how much screen time he gets in relation to Will. Its how much time we are going to have to devote to Hannibal, the going-ons between Alana and Chilton, BeDelia, etc.

 

[James]

I think debating whether or not Hannibal would turn himself in is a little two-sides-of-the-same-coin. In the books and films he wouldn't do it, but in the version we're shown in the TV series, I think he would -purely to screw with/stay close to Will. It's a very different take on the character, again only taking broad strokes from the previous versions.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Why do you even watch this show, Matt?

 

[Matt]

Why do you even watch this show, Matt?

So I can log onto Superherohype.com and piss off Eddie Dean by posting a valid opinion that he disagrees with.

 

[Eddie Dean]

A good enough reason as any.

 

[Matt]

A good enough reason as any.

Seriously, the show is very good and well acted. But it isn't flawless. A huge flaw is the fact that Fueller has decide to throw out any subtlety and basically turn the show into Will/Hannibal slash fan fiction. Yes, the show has always been about their relationship, but this season it has felt oddly romantic. A big part of that comes from adapting Hannibal, which is, in essence, a love story between Lecter and Clarice. Only they replaced Clarice with Will, without adapting the character roles. IMO, that has hurt the narrative quite a bit, as it has made both do inconsistent and/or eye roll inducing things.

In fact, the only thing the Emmy Academy got wrong is not nominating Mikkelsen. The show doesn't deserve a best drama award. It just tries too hard at times and that leads to it coming off as incredibly pretentious. There are times when it feels like a spoof of a high brow, art house TV show than an actual serialized prestige drama.

So what I am saying is, I watch it because it is good when Fueller isn't getting lost in his own hype or believing the rabid fans who treat this show as if it is perfection.

 

[James]

In fact, the only thing the Emmy Academy got wrong is not nominating Mikkelsen. The show doesn't deserve a best drama award. It just tries too hard at times and that leads to it coming off as incredibly pretentious. There are times when it feels like a spoof of a high brow TV show than an actual serialized drama.

I think this has been especially prevalent in season 3. They got a little too full(er) of themselves, especially in the earlier episodes. At one point I felt like I was just complaining too much, I asked a friend (who loves the show) "How many slow motion shots of wine being poured into a glass is too much?", but I wasn't entirely convinced. Then at one point Inspector Pazzi is making a call on a pay phone, and we're shown the coin slowing rolling down into the inner workings of the phone -come on! After two seasons I really feel they took their own hype to heart a bit much. Hannibal has always been a beautifully shot show, but sometimes less is more.

 

[Primal Slayer]

That opening.....was sweaty.

 

[slimshady247]

Seriously, the show is very good and well acted. But it isn't flawless. A huge flaw is the fact that Fueller has decide to throw out any subtlety and basically turn the show into Will/Hannibal slash fan fiction. Yes, the show has always been about their relationship, but this season it has felt oddly romantic. A big part of that comes from adapting Hannibal, which is, in essence, a love story between Lecter and Clarice. Only they replaced Clarice with Will, without adapting the character roles. IMO, that has hurt the narrative quite a bit, as it has made both do inconsistent and/or eye roll inducing things.

In fact, the only thing the Emmy Academy got wrong is not nominating Mikkelsen. The show doesn't deserve a best drama award. It just tries too hard at times and that leads to it coming off as incredibly pretentious. There are times when it feels like a spoof of a high brow, art house TV show than an actual serialized prestige drama.

So what I am saying is, I watch it because it is good when Fueller isn't getting lost in his own hype or believing the rabid fans who treat this show as if it is perfection.

You seem very threatened by the idea of a male-male romance.

And it's Fuller, not Fueller.

Also, rabidly nitpicking the show isn't really any better than rabidly thinking it's perfect.

You say that the show is very good, but I don't think I've ever actually seen you do anything other than complain about it. Not to mention you seem to equate having an opinion that's well thought out with one that has a lot of words.

But anyways, I guess I'm just too rabid to understand.

 

[Matt]

That's not called for. There is nothing wrong with male-male romance. What I dislike is a pseudo-romance between two heterosexual characters that often results in the characters acting outside of their characterization. I would feel the same way if a gay character suddenly started a pseudo-heterosexual relationship at the expense of his characterization.

 

[slimshady247]

Oh, it's definitely called for. I'm also glad that that's apparently the only part of my post you felt like addressing.

And the characterization in the books/films does not equate to the characterization on the show. It's a separate adaptation. Are you seriously not able to get past that?

Then again, maybe you aren't considering that you think that Silence of the Lambs should never be adapted again and said you were glad this got cancelled so that it wouldn't.

 

[Eddie Dean]

I'd say Hannibal's sexuality has been ambiguous at best.