Guys help, i am from Philippines and I can’t find books from the bookstore I really want to read the book

não tenho costume de assistir nada gráfico, mas gosto de ouvir podcasts de casos reais e não acho pesado

Ridley Scott's Hannibal was one of the first movie I've ever saw in theaters in 2001, I didn't have any idea about the character's, I wasn't even 18, many people where I used to live back then saw it out of ignorance, since the previous summer's Scott's Gladiator was a "historical" movie and people thought it was too about the general who defied Rome. Anyway, I really liked the character and Hopkins performance and went left and right to know things about it. One of the things I remember reading was an interview with Hopkins in a French Magazine called "Le Cinema SFX", where he is asked what is his opinion about the movie's ending that is very different from the book's (I didn't know it was based on a book), he said that it might be the topic of a future movie. When the following year's "Red Dragon" was released, I had high hopes, then anything involving a sequel is nowhere to be found. Given Scott and Hopkins ages (87 in 2025), do anyone thinks that we get to see that sequel? Was there some attempts that didn't work?

Here is the post I posted once in this forum but my account is suspended so I repost here to get a more discernible explanation.

And I also add some details to clarify

Well, i must say i dont understand what going on wth her in the last 4 chapters of the novel, and here are some questions (sr my english is not good enough)

1. She is drugged and lose her mind totally?

• It is mentioned that she is drugged intentionally by Dr Lecter because he want to replace her with Mischa (idk if he want to kill her or just brainwash her to be Mischa, but the second one is more logical)
• She herself aware that "She was awake and not awake. ... so far was she from herself." I think she has lost her mind (?) because after that she act like a child and even eat Krendler's brain without being terrified.
• Actually I dont understand why she ate Krendler's brain tho

BUT when Dr Lecter talk about replacing her and Mischa, she tell him she can have her dad in her mind, and so can he. And this quote too:

"The drugs that held her in the first days have had no part in their lives for a long time"

This is the most confused part tho

2. Is Dr Lecter really give up the idea of replacing Mischa and Clarice?

In the last chapter, the novel said that

"Occasionally, on purpose, Dr Lecter drops a teacup to shatter on the floor. He is satisfied when it does not gather itself together. For many months now, he has not seen Mischa in his dreams.

Someday perhaps a cup will come together. Or somewhere Starling may hear a crossbow string and come to some unwilled awakening, if indeed she even sleeps."

He ACCEPT the fact that Mischa cant return to life, but the narrator said that maybe he WILL replace Clarice someday (the crossbow is related to the hunter'dead in chap 70s)

"Someday perhaps a cup will come together. Or somewhere Starling may hear a crossbow string and come to some unwilled awakening, if indeed she even sleeps."

Why the narrator says "someday"? Someday in the future (well we all know it is 99% impossible), when a cup will come together - when the time can be reversed, he will kill Clarice "hear a crossbow string, ... unwilled awakening"? If not Clarice, then who will Dr Lecter kill then, I think the crossbow one is related to the death of the hunter Donald Barber previously mentioned "shot by a crossbow"

Chap 48: He portrayed a picture of her with Mischa" hair color

"Dr Lecter, in perfect command of himself, took some hotel stationery from his breast pocket and began a letter to Clarice Starling. First, he sketched her face. The sketch is now in a private holding at the University of Chicago and available to scholars. In it Starling looks like a child and her hair, like Mischa's, is stuck to her cheek with tears. ."

Chap 73: When he see Clarice on TV

"Dr Lecter's maroon eyes opened wide at the sight of her and in the depths of his pupils sparks flew around his image of her face. He held her countenance whole and perfect in his mind long after she was gone from the screen, and pressed her with another image, Mischa, pressed them together until, from the red plasma core of their fusion, the sparks flew upward, carrying their single image to the east, into the night sky to wheel with the stars above the sea. Now, should the universe contract, should time reverse and teacups come together, a place could be made for Mischa in the world. The worthiest place that Dr Lecter knew: Starling's place. Mischa could have Starling's place in the world. If it came to that, if that time came round again, Starling's demise would leave a place for Mischa as sparkling and clean as the copper bathtub in the garden."

Chap 95:

"Did that mean room for Mischa within Starling? Or was it simply another good quality of the place Starling must vacate?"

3. What is the meaning of the detail Breastfeeding Hannibal?

Question for the group:

If you were given the opportunity to take and own only one piece of memorabilia from the first three seasons of Hannibal (costume, furniture, food, crime scenes, etc.), what would you ask for and why?🦇🖤

No, actors are not included 😂

I’m reading my way through the books and I finished Silence of the Lambs. I thought it would look really cool to have Hannibal dressed as a vampire lol

When I was reading “Hannibal” I didn’t get why Hannibal Lecter thought that Clarice was holding a place for Misha in that world. Did it mean that he was about to kill Clarice to open this place? How would it work? I need your thoughts on this topic guys

Would the FBI really consult incarcerated serial killers about an active case? Does this actually happen in real life in the way it's portrayed?

We all know they've been interviewed and researched by the FBI to build their behavioral sciences, profiling etc.. but that's a little different.

At a guess I’d say classical psychodynamic psychoanalysis but I don’t really know.

I don’t see him being a humanist 😂

I've just started watching the Hannibal series on Netflix. Series 1,episode 7 (Sorbet), Dr Lecter has a patient comes to him, who then goes on to say he wants them to be friends.

During this scene, the patient says he was listening to Michael Jackson the night before, and talks about the saddest thing about MJ dying.

Yes, through the series they use cell phones etc, but that just kinda stood out for me as an oversight. If this was supposed to be in the 80s and before SOTL, then that would out Michael Jackson around his Thriller and Bad era.

Hello! My name's Artemis, I'm looking for anyone who wants to join a Roleplay team on Discord. It's based on the Hannibal Lecter universe, mainly on the novels, keeping canon stuff like ships and that. I specify that it's based on the books mainly because of Clannibal stuff... DM me if you're interested!

Silence of the Lambs is of course a masterpiece, deserving of the Oscars they received. Anthony Hopkins' performance in this film is the definitive portrayal of Hannibal that couldn't be topped (not even by himself). Clarice Starling is a wonderfully well written protagonist, very multilayered and beautifully performed by Jodie Foster. The dynamic between Hannibal and Clarice is so intriguing, but also disturbing, not your typical hero and villain dynamic at all. Also Ted Levine as Buffalo Bill is amazing.

Manhunter I feel was underappreciated and is just as much a masterpiece as Silence. Brian Cox makes a great Hannibal plays it more straight than Hopkins making you hate him, he's so effective with even far less screentime than Hopkins. Will Graham is a fascinating protagonist, almost an antihero from his traumatic past, William Peterson's performance is so convincing as someone who's barely on the right side of sanity. Tom Noonan is pretty terrifying as The Tooth Fairy.

The key of these two films is they're psychological detective thrillers that puts the main focus on the detective characters of Clarice and Will, their investigation techniques, their relationships personal and professional, their backstories and how the case drives their character arcs, while the villains Hannibal, Buffalo Bill and The Tooth Fairy are given plenty of screentime to be threatening and interesting but limited enough to keep them mysterious.

This is where I feel the following films fail, among other things they're more interested in the villains, particularly Hannibal, and less on the heroes.

Red Dragon obviously capitalised on Anthony Hopkins' popularity as Hannibal, while Hopkins commits to the role, they just couldn't recreate what made his performance in Silence so effective. I love Edward Norton but his version of Will feels watered down compared to Peterson's, I never felt Norton's Will was on the edge of sanity and he relied too much on Hannibal for the investigation to the point Hannibal ironically feels like a secondary protagonist. While The Tooth Fairy has a sad backstory I feel they reveal too much to make him more sympathetic than scary. Also the dragon tattoo that extends to his butt and eating the painting was too funny to watch than threatening, kudos to Ralph Fiennes however who commits to his performance.

Hannibal had the disadvantage as it was based on a controversial book which Jodie Foster obviously hated so she declined to comeback. Julianne Moore is a good replacement but Clarice's character is nowhere near as interesting as she was in Silence especially because they changed the ending. The book's ending was controversial so I don't blame the film for changing it, but the new ending they chose was so generic that ultimately makes the whole story pointless. Maybe when Foster declined to comeback, instead of recasting they should've just dropped Clarice's character from the story and focus on Inspector Rinaldo Pazzi. The cat-and-mouse dynamic with Hannibal and Pazzi was the only interesting part of the story, Hopkins and Giancarlo Giannini have great chemistry and I was certainly engaged in those scenes. Problem was it ends about halfway through and is never brought up again. Also the insane gore especially the brain scene is unintentionally funny.

Hannibal Rising as a standalone story could've been fascinating but as a Hannibal origin story it doesn't work. I didn't buy it all, I couldn't tie it to Hannibal's character at all and just ruins the mystery of his character.

Please, sit down and enjoy your meal.

Spoilers, obviously.

I'd love to hear your thoughs on your vote in the comments.

View Poll

Anyone know what was happening in Nevada? It’s very briefly mentioned, was hoping Harris might have mentioned it at some point in an interview or was it ever documented somewhere?

Thanks!

I hate him so it kinda sucks that I keep making banger pieces of him

For anyone who read and enjoys the book, did you pause and notice the use of “We” by the narrator, which directly engages the reader, drawing them into the story. I love its use in the introduction to Hannibal’s study in Italy and when entering the complex inner world Hannibal created as a way to escape the world of being bound in an asylum.

Any thoughts on this literary technique?

I couldn't stop associating this song with Hannibal and juxtaposing these seemingly different aesthetics with the common cannibalism 💀

Hope you like it

Hey so I have never seen anything with Hannibal in it and I am kinda confused. I heard that he is this sort of legendary Jason Voorhees type of character( not personality but fame) and I saw that he is in shows and movies and played by different people and that TSOL was a sequel to the book? is there like a canon for his story and where do you start?

A couple months back I was listening to a podcast by Thomas Harris that was dedicated to talking about writing the perfect murder mysteries. In this podcast, he discussed the weapon of death, time of death, how to choose the right weather even for the story even, among other things. I can't seem to find the podcast now. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Can anyone recommend some good scene packs? I want to try video editing, and while I have a few for the NBC show, I would like some for the films. I'm especially struggling to find any for Hannibal Rising. It would be a bonus if they were high-quality!

Thanks !!

Just finished a re-read of Hannibal, and one of those tiny little details stuck with me this time. (Massive over-analysis follows!)

In his letter to Clarice after the Feliciana Fish Market shooting, Hannibal writes:

Do you have a black iron skillet? You are a southern mountain girl, I can’t imagine you would not. Put it on the kitchen table. Turn on the overhead lights.

Mapp had inherited her grandmother’s skillet and used it often. It had a glassy black surface that no soap ever touched. Starling put it in front of her on the table.

Harris, Thomas. Hannibal: A Novel (Hannibal Lecter Book 3) (p. 33). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Even the first time I read the book, that assumption struck me as odd, almost silly. Hannibal knew about her father's death, about her moving to her cousin's sheep and horse ranch, and about her landing in the Lutheran orphanage. Did he imagine that, of the few belongings she took with her, one of them was a nine-pound cast iron skillet?

You could argue that the Doctor was alluding to the notion that she would have included a cast iron skillet in her adult kitchen setup, almost instinctually, as a "southern mountain girl," but he then writes:

Look into the skillet, Clarice. Lean over it and look down. If this were your mother’s skillet, and it well may be, it would hold among its molecules the vibrations of all the conversations ever held in its presence.

So, he's at least entertaining the thought that she still has her mother's old cast iron skillet. Could it be something he thought she might have inherited later? We don't see any evidence that she was ever in contact with her mother again.

I bumped on this, originally, because the assumption seemed like a stretch for Dr. Lecter, the kind that he rarely makes in the novels.

I can understand his desire to offer Clarice a thoughtful lesson through the lens of the skillet, but this felt like one of those jigsaw puzzle pieces that almost fits, but not perfectly.

Then again, the game of deduction is not an exact one. Maybe I should cut Dr. Lecter some slack.