I mean, Hannibal's most important characteristic is ommited in this. Don't get why people here seem to love this movie over Red Dragon,it was mediocre at best. And man...could that ending have been more cheesy???
shareIn the novel Red Dragon, Hannibal Lecter was not described as a cannibal, and he was a relatively minor if interesting character, so his "most important characteristic" was not ommitted. Rather, the film Red Dragon retrojected this into the story along with making Lecter a centerpiece of the story as a cheap effort by the talentless Rattner to ring up the cash register on the whole Lecter franchise.
shareIn the novel Red Dragon, Hannibal Lecter was not described as a cannibal, and he was a relatively minor if interesting character, so his "most important characteristic" was not ommitted. Rather, the film Red Dragon retrojected this into the story along with making Lecter a centerpiece of the story as a cheap effort by the talentless Rattner to ring up the cash register on the whole Lecter franchise.------^ this... x100
In the novel Red Dragon, Hannibal Lecter was not described as a cannibal, and he was a relatively minor if interesting character
I strongly recommend reading it, in my opinion it's the best of the Hannibal books. Silence of the Lambs is good as well and the other two books have their moments but Red Dragon outshines them all
~~~
I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me...
rayvio.wordpress.com
In the book Red Dragon doesn't he bite off a nurse's nose? Or was that mentioned as a side note in Silence of the Lambs? It's been about 18 years since I read them. Though I guess you could bite off a nurse's nose & not be a cannibal.
shareI just finished Red Dragon a few days ago. Definitely no nose biting in it.
shareI'm reading Red Dragon right now, and he's referred to as "Hannibal the Cannibal" in the first chapter, but that's probably the most they'll be bringing it up as I continue reading.
"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm fine. Just ask my other heads!"
It's been a while since I've read it, but as I recall, the book never mentions Lecter eating his victims, just mutilating them and killing them in strange and "creative" ways. Perhaps he got the nickname because it rhymed with the first name and he was cutting people up, then in the sequels Harris decided to take the moniker literally and run with it?
share