Ive never read the Hannibal Lecter series, just watched the films, the films seem to suggest that it was his own patients that eventually drove him mad, is this explored further in the books???
Printable View
Ive never read the Hannibal Lecter series, just watched the films, the films seem to suggest that it was his own patients that eventually drove him mad, is this explored further in the books???
I've never read any of the book. I just want to add that that last movie (Hannibal Rising) was crap. Poor choice for young Hannibal.
Yes...didn't like the movie at all, and as well felt it was a poor portrayal of a young Hannibal. The material was there I believe...but those are some big shoes to fill in Anthony Hopkins. It fell well short of doing it for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxingGorilla
Ive only read Hannibal, seen each of the films with Hopkins. I like them all.
Not seen the latest one, dont particularly want to going from what Ive heard.
read silence of the lambs & red dragon, loved both of the books & films but prefered manhunter to red dragon as a movie
I only read Hannibal. But in that one he lays some groundwork for Lecter's backstory. It was far more compelling than what they did in the Hannibal Rising movie. And Hannibal has been nuts from the start. Essentially, his sister was eaten. There was a very specific reason Lecter was obsessed with Clarice and it makes sense in an insane manner. Clarice made him think of his sister. Years before meeting her Lecter had read something by some genius type about how we know time is moving forward. I'm paraphrasing heavily because it's been many years since I read the book, but the writer wrote something about a glass falling and breaking and remaining broken is how we know time is moving forward. Lecter had a theory that time could move backward and he would regularly push glasses off tables and stare at the shattered glass to see if it would reform and jump back up on the table. The only circumstance in which he would kill Clarice is if that glass jumped back on the table. Because to him that would mean he could slide his sister's mind/spirit into Clarice's body. I don't have any clue how a sane person comes up with that concept, but maybe Thomas Harris isn't sane.
Oh and the ending of Hannibal was total shit. Hannibal would never have cut off his own hand. He was much too much of a survivor. They had to change the end because fanboys couldn't help but blab about how the novel ended. It's also why Jodie Foster said she wouldn't reprise her role because Hannibal was a master at getting in people's heads. After Clarice had been shot and he'd escaped the nefarious doctor who wanted to feed him to those killer hogs (they eliminated the rich guy's body builder lesbian sister much to my chagrin) Hannibal had already taken over that house he fried that dude's brain up in before he'd been captured and he'd misrepresented himself as a conservator or family member of the Starlings' and had her father's body excavated. While she was heavily sedated he brought her into the room where her father's body was and had her say 'goodbye' to him and then inserted himself as the dominating male figure in her life. When he served up that guy's brain Clarice ate some of it and they were last seen somewhere in South America.
I've read them all, and seen all the films, infact Hannibal, and Red dragon are my favourite books of all time.....Hannibal Rising was a hard book to get into though.
The books are completely different from the films.
In the books - the contributory factor to lector becoming a 'bit mixed up' happens during World war 2 when he is a small boy. Lector's family are Lithuanian nobility and they have to flee their castle to avoid the germans ..... they are then captured by partisans, who kill and eat his beloved sister, Misha. Lector himself partakes of the meat as he is starving.
Yes and the ending of the film Hannibal was completely different to the book, in which he keeps Clarice drugged up and lives in a relationship with her.....shame.
And the ending of the film Manhunter is a bit of a let down, the books ending is much better, think thats why I prefer the remake of it, Red dragon.
If anyone's read the book i'd like to know in Silence Of The Lambs, how does Hannibal get that pen top ? remember just before he is being transferred. He sees a pen and looks at it, but i have no idea how he would be able to get it.
Because he was strapped up in that thing, but you see later when he's in that cell that he's got it and he uses it on the cuffs to escape. So how the hell does he get it ?
Never thought about that, might just have to watch the DVD again tonight, try and find out
So obviously the books and films have very different vibes,because in the films,it has a feel like it was his injured sensibilities from dealing with the dregs that sent him over the edge
Yea i haven't watched the film in awhile but i don't believe they show you. How he actually gets it i heard in the book they explain more about it, so maybe i'll check it out when i get time.Quote:
Originally Posted by fantasyphil
Yes they have different vibes....Hannibal see's killing as a service to society.....he kills the "rude", think he calls the free range rude in the books
I've read a few of them, but didnt like Hannibal at all. The Silence of the Lambs - as a book - is far superior, and so is Red Dragon btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
You should give them a shot - good stuff, indeed.