Imagine, for just one brief, horrible moment, a version of Hannibal starring John Cusack as Hannibal Lecter—if you can manage to stop laughing long enough to do that, which is logistically impossible. First of all, Hannibal would not vape. He would murder vape enthusiasts. But as detailed by series creator Bryan Fuller during a recent interview with Collider, the dinguses in charge at NBC wanted John Cusack—of all people—to play Hannibal Lecter. And if not Cusack, they wanted Hugh Grant, probably because he’s British and those Brits are all about etiquette. Or maybe someone at NBC rightfully sensed early on that Hannibal was actually going to become one of the greatest TV love stories of all time (in which case, promote that person). The role ultimately went to Mads Mikkelsen, who pulled off an impressive feat, delivering a version of Lecter that has arguably become every bit as indelible as Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of the serial killer in The Silence Of The Lambs.
But as Fuller explains, there was a bit of a “casting kerfuffle” with NBC over who should take the title role in his macabre imagining of the Thomas Harris stories. NBC, Fuller says, “wanted somebody that was much more poppy, much more mainstream, much more American” than the extremely European Mikkelsen, a former dancer from Denmark. “There was some resistance to Mads Mikkelsen because he was European, because he was somebody who you could look at and go, ‘Yeah I buy that he eats people,’” says Fuller. He credits NBC exec Jennifer Salke for defending the casting of Mikkelsen, though once the choice was made, Fuller says the network’s marketing department became much less interested in pushing Hannibal—which was canceled by NBC after just three (very well-reviewed but poorly-viewed) seasons. Says Fuller:
They sort of gave up on it a little bit because we were casting a European guy as the face of [a show] they wanted to be more accessible. I felt that they were right for their reasons but wrong for my reasons. And so the gift of that, the gift of casting Mads Mikkelsen, is that their investment in the show became dramatically decreased, and so that allowed us to do a lot of things that we wouldn’t have been able to do if they were saying, ‘No this show needs to get 10 million people watching it every week.’ Then we would have to really be tied down to certain parameters of storytelling that were going to mesh with a mainstream audience.
As Fuller explains, Mikkelsen’s casting and NBC’s subsequent disinterest in the series was ultimately something of a blessing, allowing the showrunner to push more boundaries. Hannibal recently moved over to Netflix, which is now streaming all three seasons of the series—a move that has revived speculation about a potential fourth season.
109 Comments
I think a lot of you are going to be very surprised when they dig up John Cusack’s crawlspace……
That show was brilliant, but blaming bad marketing or lack of network support seems a tad off the mark (three seasons isnt giving up on a show because a european starred in it.)I think that realistically it was probably too graphic for a big audience. I liked it, but there was at least one part per episode which would cause me to physically flinch. It embraced a beautiful but completely grotesque aesthetic
Hannibal went out well. It ended on a literal cliffhanger, but it was a more than fitting end for the story. The red dragon stuff wasn’t perfect, but on a visual and performance level the third season was firing on all cylinders. I can’t imagine Bryan Fuller is too annoyed about the cancellation, and if he is, he shouldn’t be. A network show allowing three seasons of ridiculously gorgeous, surreal, artistic and experimental tv is nothing to sneeze at.
At the end of every episode I would be sitting there going ‘how the hell is this on nbc?’ Like, amazing episode, but NBC just aired an episode where a man ate part of his own face on broadcast tv
Which is why a Netflix season (or more) would be deluxe.
I agree that it ended on a great note and I think at that point the character performances and mix between plot and visuals was firing on all cylinders. I can’t imagine a better ending and NBC gave it a huge amount of creative latitude that they didn’t give other shows, poor “Constantine” didn’t even get to have bisexual characters or smoking.
Throwing your leads off a cliff is quite a way to end your series, but the entire final season was so bad I can’t really say it “ended well”. None of the characters were following any internal logic or had any consistency, they were instead just being pushed around by writing worse than Fuller had previously seemed capable of.
The only reason they kept it around is because they didn’t have to pay as much for it. It was part of a partnership and it’s clear the partners backing it were much more interested in keeping it going.
I think the biggest irony is the show missed its audience because it was on NBC. Hannibal, esp at that time was a very NOT NBC show. I disregarded it immediately just because it was a network TV show. A friend had to beg me to watch it, saying I’d love it, which I did. I couldn’t help saying to myself “THIS was on NBC????” in the middle of each episode.
“NBC: Now Boasting Cannibals”.
Absolutely insane that it aired on network TV.I always praised the show’s sound design, though I came to regret it and my home theatre setup when it came time to listen to a man cough up an ear.
For me it was when that guy ripped himself out of the mural he’d been sewn into. Watching it, forget about it, but even the sound of it was teeth-clenchingly ghastly.
That was actually the first thing I thought of, but I figured no one else would remember it! I feel seen.
I watched the movie Midsommar alone over the weekend, and my husband marveled at that, saying he’d heard it was brutal … but honestly, I saw worse things on Hannibal all the time.
I am in the middle of re-watching this for the first time since it ended and I forgot how graphic the show was. I remember watching it at the time and thinking, “how the hell is NBC getting away with this” but there have been a couple of scenes that I must have blocked out because I don’t recall them being THAT graphic.
Weird that a show whose title character is literally known for methodically murdering people are carefully preparing their remains for consumption might decide to use a “grotesque aesthetic.”
It was always a minor miracle that a show that fucked up and disturbing and brilliant ever made it to network TV. So much so that I always forget that it aired on NBC and not some prestige cable network until I’m reminded otherwise.
I agree, plus it was allowed to end with a wonderful finale that I think was very fitting for the show. And it had exhausted all the source material they could legally use (Silence of the Lambs was something they couldn’t get the rights to) so a fourth season would be up to their imagination and I can sort of understand NBC not wanting to risk a lot of money on something that was already very abstract and artistic. Though don’t get me wrong, I trust Fuller and Mads and fancy Dancy with anything.
The CEO of NBC himself said the marketing team want the show to be canceled every time they had a meeting because they didn’t know how to promote the show. I mean, that was the literal reason as why it was cancelled.Fuller had 7 seasons pre-planned, and NBC paid for each season like 150k dollars for the streaming rights.Please learn the facts 😀
He wasn’t blaming bad marketing on the show getting cancelled. That’s not what he’s saying at all. He’s saying that once they didn’t cast a name, that enthusiasm for promoting the show faded, which allowed for more freedom with the storytelling.
At the end of season 2 NBC stated that they were proud of the show and, despite poor viewership, fully supported it.Then season 3 debuted at 10pm on Friday night. For all intents and purposes they killed it then and there.
John Cusack would…not have worked, but I think Hugh Grant could’ve pulled it off, actually.
Grant would have had the talent and the material was certainly there. The biggest road block would have been how famous he is, because much of the haunting appeal of Mads Mikklesen was how he was relatively unknown in English speaking countries, so we could click into his surreal vibe almost immediately.
I’m guessing though that the executives pushing Grant were pushing him purely because he was a famous British guy and after Hopkins, they thought the role had to be played by another famous British guy. Mads is much closer to the surreal European satanic figure from the books, which is far more what the show was drawing on than the films.
(It’s also why I adore that they eventually cast Eddie Izzard, a famous British guy to play a character pretty blatantly referencing Anthony Hopkins)
“I ate a census taker once. I had his liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti. It made my list of top five ever meals … with a bullet.”
I love Hugh Grant an enormous amount and think he’s a hugely underrated actor who is slowly getting the respect he’s due with things like A Very British Scandal and Paddington 2 (and yes, I am serious about that last one), but I cannot imagine him as Hannibal in a million years and whoever put his name forward must have been insane.
Hugh Grant can very much be on fire when he wants to be. Don’t feel shame about loving Paddington 2, because that movie was awesome and Grant was magnificent in it.
He’s also very good in Cloud Atlas where one of his many characters is ironically a cannibal.
I’m sincerely glad they went with Mads Mikklesen, because he was perfect, but I can imagine an alternate reality where Grant may work out in the role.
I’m 100% with you on Paddington 2, it’s one of my favourite films of the last decade. I guess I just phrased it like that as sometimes there’s a bit of snobbery about performances in comedy, and they’re very rarely nominated for any awards despite often being a huge amount more difficult to pull off than a serious role.
And I now want to see your alternate reality version of Hannibal, start a kickstarter and I promise to donate to it!
I honestly cannot think of anyone that didnt think that Mads was perfect for the role. Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but I feel like foresight would be pretty good for most people familiar with Cusack’s and Grant’s previous work. I mean even if you weren’t just putting those three head shots together should be enough.
I think what’s most irritating is that media executives wouldn’t be excited about having Mads as the star of a television show. Any reasonably entertainment-informed person should have heard his name and said, “Oh, he’s awesome!”
In a world where nobody had seen Mads Mikkelsen as Hannibal, I’d have been interested in what a Hugh Grant version of the character would be. But living in a world where Mads Mikkelsen DID play Hannibal…no thanks.I’m sure Hugh Grant would’ve done interesting things with it. But come on, NBC. Mads is inspired casting.
“I, I, I’m t-terribly sorry, I know it sounds just, just ghastly, but I’m afraid I, well, I’m going to have to eat you. Sorry!”
Nah, I don’t see that. SIDEBAR: Would’ve liked to have seen Jimmi Simpson take a crack at it.
I could see Jimmi Simpson as one of those other serial killer weirdos who Hannibal kills in season one after toying with for a bit back when they were experimenting with ideas and plots that weren’t from the books.
He basically played that kind of person in the first season of Hap & Leonard.
Oh yeah, I remember now. He seemed a bit more flashy and less psychologically unsettling than most of Hannibal’s cast. Then again, the show he was on aimed more for that sort of thing. Would be down for a Hap & Leonard & Hannibal crossover.
Hap & Leonard had a very different tone from Hannibal. On the other hand, Hannibal started out treating death very seriously (particularly in the first season), only to completely betray that by treating it like a joke in the final season.
If they’d been pushing for Cusack in the Will Graham role I could have sort of seen it. I mean, not in 2013. But late 90s, Grosse Pointe Blank John Cusack could have done a good job with that part.
So they new Mads was a dancer and didn’t have him dance atleast once. Hannibal could have done a classy waltz or tango.
He danced when they were in Italy I’m pretty sure. Him and Gillian Anderson.
I forgot I tend to only watch sitcoms a second time. I rarely rewatch dramas even ones I liked.
Hannibal is a tremendously re-watchable show. Especially when you know how its all going to go down, you can really soak in the brilliant performances and all the incredible detail put into the production.
He had at least one insane fight scene per season that was basically a surreal murder dance.
I would argue that Mads is a better Hannibal Lecter. Anthony Hopkins is great but he’s so … over the top. With Mads he’s all oozing class and etiquette and charm and you completely understand why people fall under his spell.
Mads was perfect on every level. You could imagine how people would fall into his dreamy, seductive orbit and eventually start killing people just to please him. He was almost like a vampire, luring people in before feasting on their flesh.
Mads was so perfect for the role because you understood how he was able to fool so many people. Hopkins just seems too obviously evil, like of course he’s a serial killer.
Mads was so perfect for the role because you understood how he was able to fool so many people.Do you? I’m with the network execs on this one: you take one look at him and go “yeah, that guy’s a cannibal.”That was really my biggest problem with the series: it seems absurd that Will Graham or anybody else in the FBI doesn’t catch on early in season 1 that his partner is a serial killer. (What with all his symbolic dreams, you could argue that Will does realize but suppresses the knowledge, perhaps because of his own subconscious bloodlust, but the rest of the bureau doesn’t have that “excuse.”)
Hopkins is really only in a handful of scenes in Silence of the Lambs, something like 20 minutes of screen time altogether, so I can see why he went big with it. When he became the main character, it just read as hammy. Mikkelsen underplayed it enough to where he could be in almost every scene and the performance never became grating.
I agree, though the movies in which Hopkins got to have main character levels of screen time “Hannibal” and “Red Dragon” were also inferior adaptations than “Silence of the Lambs” so some of the hammy nature could go to lesser direction and not be the fault of Hopkins. Whereas the show Hannibal was on point all the time with style and direction and atmosphere. I have a soft spot for movie Red Dragon though, even if it is just kind of above average.
For sure, but remember that the first Hopkins version of Lector was when the illusion had been shattered and he was already in jail for his actions and everybody knew he was dangerous. So he could ham it up a bit and it was understandable that in a facility like that under Chilton’s abrasive supervision he’d revel in any chance to be over the top.
For most of the NBC show Mads gets to play it both ways in such a seductive and surreptitious manner, it isn’t until late in the game that he gets exposed.
So in essence Hopkins and Mikkelson were aspiring to very different sides of Lector and I think each performed accordingly.
Oh, sure, they’re very different works, with different directors, in different worlds and made in much different time periods. But even when Mads’ Hannibal was in prison he was still understatedly dangerous. Anyway, it’s an observation, but you can argue it’s not fair to directly compare them.
That was the point I was trying to make, that it isn’t fair to directly compare them. Or rank them, I should say. Comparing Mads and Hopkins is actually very fun and I love doing it, but it wouldn’t be fair to say which one is better. That also raises the problematic question of if it advantageous to have three seasons full of like ten hour long episodes vs. a few movies, the first of which Hopkins only got twenty minutes of screentime. Like, the debate is fun but drawing serious conclusions is not exactly fair in my opinion.
It’s just a random comment on an internet article, I’m hardly the arbiter of All Things Entertainment. I guess it would be fairer to say that I think Mads’ depiction has become the defining Hannibal Lecter, because he’s more sophisticated, subtle and seductive. But again, I’m just a random Person on the Internet 🙂
The one bit we can directly compare is when they’re doing the same material from Red Dragon. And on that criteria, Brian Cox clearly delivered the best performance.
And he wasn’t really THAT over the top. Most of the creep factor from his scenes came from him staring calmly and silently at whoever was trying to manipulate him. His mocking of Clarise is mannered, but intentionally so. Every one of his scenes has been viewed so many times, and then there were the unnecessary sequels, that turned him into a characature. Not to mention all the copycat films. It’s hard to remember how frightening the performance was when the movie was first released.
Mads had the benefit of doing his thing after Hopkins’ work in Silence of the Lambs, which is something that’s fashionable to bag on as overrated now, but was a really revolutionary performance that changed significantly changed how people acted in movies (like Ledger’s Joker? I’m pretty sure that performance doesn’t happen without Hopkins’ work in Silence to lead the way). Mikkelsen also had the benefit of Hopkins’s cash-in performances as Lecter, which dragged the character down considerably.I think the key to what Mikkelsen did with Lecter was that for the first time, Hannibal Lecter sounded like a real psychiatrist. Mads made great use of the way psychiatrists and psychologists are trained to talk with a very neutral tone (so that they don’t cue patients to an expected or desired response), which made everything he said sound extremely reasonable and persuasive, even when he was saying crazy shit. I think the moment I fell in love with the series was when he delivered one of Lecter’s monologues from Red Dragon—a deranged Lecter rant in both of the cinematic versions of the story—as a completely rational bit of therapeutic advice to Will.
Hopkins was very effective in the short amount of time he had in Silence. Then he came back and he was too hammy & with too much screentime.
cough..Brian Cox..cough
Remember that Hopkins was a Lecter that had been locked up and deprived of social contact for 5 years when we first see him on screen. Probably made him a little crazy.
When the show originally aired, I had a hard time seeing Mads as Lector (always Hopkins in my head). but after the first season that perception flipped. Mads is/was perfect.5 years later I’m still upset the show was canceled.
Hugh Grant calling Garrett Jacob Hobbes:“Er, Hello…sorry to, well…bother…it’s just, umm…I mean…how do I say this. They, well…they know… it seems.”
I cannot remember any of the Minnesota Shrike’s actual dialog. So maybe you’re right!
“We need an actor who can play a genteel reptilian cannibal with a European accent and the general demeanor of an ancient vampire who has read every book in the world.”NBC: “Didn’t hear a word you just said, but: John Cusack.”
(Though, to be fair, that whole vibe might have come from Mads’ portrayal. I haven’t read the books, but I understand that Mads does not look at all like Hannibal is described by Harris. I don’t see Cusack fitting either archetype, though.)
The vibe may well have come from Mikkelsen but if I remember correctly, the character is indeed supposed to be European (which is to say, the continental landmass part, not the UK)— one of the Balkan countries perhaps? I don’t remember the specifics. I don’t know how much of that was in the original Silence of The Lambs book as opposed to the shittier Hannibal sequel though.
Hannibal’s Lithuanian.
Huh. I might have known that before, but definitely forgot it. Hannibal Lecter is not at all even close to a Lithuanian name.
One day we’ll get another prequel explaining how it was Hannibalas Lečetrukas but it was changed during the immigration process…
The backstory of him surviving the war in Lithuania pissed me off. Hannibal was terrifying because of what he says to Clarise in Lambs; nothing happened to me to make me this way, I just am. People surviving war, freezing and starvation, going on to emigrate to the U.S., becoming nationally renowned psychiatrists and using that platform to entrap cannibalism victims is much less unnerving than a guy who is just born wrong. The latter can come from anywhere.
According to Wikipedia, Hannibal is a Lithuanian count
Hopkins in Silence is much closer to the vague physical outline of Harris’ Hannibal in age and size (Brian Cox was a little bulky for the book description) but nobody’s really tried to match the complete Otherness of Harris’ description, and for good reason: Hannibal has red eyes and six fingers on his left hand. This plus the improbably physical prowess in a compact frame and the otherworldly sense of smell are meant to conjure basically a sense that this guy is something other than human.I have some issues with the show (which I liked a lot for most of its run) but Mikkelsen’s interpretation as the Devil in his most charming human guise is quite unlike Harris’ description (aside from Mikkelsen having a very different physical presence), but it suits the needs of a plot that is blatantly excluded by Harris’ backstory (how could this guy have worked with the people trying to catch him for so long?).
Yeah, I’m not going to claim I have a better idea of what Hannibal ought to look like than the author does, but his description in the books seems heavy-handed to me. I can’t say Mads is a loyal portrayal to the books, but I think he’s a better fit than, say, a red-eyed, polydactyl Joe Pesci would have been—especially given his seductive nature in the show.
Right. Part of this is that books can slather on details to cement an idea in the reader’s imagination without needing to live with the consequences of a literal representation. (One example on the top of my mind – Daario from the A Song of Ice and Fire books dresses very flamboyantly, and George RR Martin describes his presentation in enough detail to make sure you get it: this guy dresses ridiculously flamboyantly … but what he’s actually described is so impossible to take seriously that, like, there’s no accurate fan art of it. The show “handles” it by saving some of Daario’s behavior but making him look nothing like the description, with two different actors!)The other part is that Harris (in the early books, at any rate) doesn’t need Hannibal to blend into a social situation. Him being caught is already the backstory, so you don’t need to imagine how people would have responded to him before knowing he was a cannibal, and he certainly didn’t have to survive the scrutiny of the FBI; there was neither a social or working relationship, Will Graham just interviewed him for the exact reason Miriam Lass did in the show, and figured it out, and survived Hannibal’s assault.
It’s wild that you bring up GoT. I very nearly compared book Hannibal to book Tyrion, since Martin made him far more grotesque than the handsome Peter Dinklage with a distinguishing nose scar we got from HBO (i.e., different color eyes, missing nose, etc.). It’s a bit like the descriptions are of pilot-episode cartoon characters (like 1989 Homer Simpson), rather than what they develop into as the they grow.
I thought about using Tyrion! I pivoted because the thing is that while book!Tyrion’s supposed ugliness (and eventual facial disfigurement) is easy to gloss over in print, it’s neither unimaginable nor unrealistic. You can make a calculated decision that a television audience won’t want to LOOK at that for 80 hours, but it’s not *silly* the way Daario’s multicolored beard and “all the shades of yellow” clothing are.
I actually thought the first actor they got to play Daario Naharis better fit the sort of shallow, flamboyant veneer of a human being than the second one did. I’ve never gotten the impression that we are meant to be particularly impressed with book Daario and that Martin meant to portray her girlish infatuation with such an empty shell to be one of Danaerys’ ‘flaws.’
I agree. From what I’ve seen in other roles, Michiel Huisman is probably a better actor than Ed Skrein, but Skrein slid perfectly into the “vacant but lethal pretty boy” mold in a way that Huisman didn’t. Part of it for Dany is probably that Daario can be seen as a hollow echo of Khal Drogo, and part of it is that she’s about 15 when she meets him, so we shouldn’t expect her to be a mature judge of character.
NBC follow up: “And if we can’t get Cusack, how about Jerry O’Connell?”
Fuller might have been alright with Jerry O’Connell. After all, he did cast O’Connell in his dark, gritty reboot of The Munsters, Mockingbird Lane. And I daresay, the fat kid from Stand by Me brought some nuance and pathos to the role of Herman Munster, a man haunted by memories of the men he used to be.
one of the funniest parts of Hannibal being on NBC was that they got this whole ‘fun, scrappy team of behind-the-scenes techs that banter with each other and help the detective’ in the show, like on every single shitty network TV procedural, which seems like it was 100% to mollify the network brass or hell… it might have been an actual mandate from the topbut then they mostly abandon them after a couple episodes, and certainly after the first season. we hardly knew ye, Scott Thompson’s character, whatever his name was
For what it’s worth, the scrappy forensics team are all from the books. The character Thompson plays has a small but important role in Silence of the lambs. Maybe they were mandated by the network, but the characters certainly didn’t materialize out of thin air.
oh huh, that’s a big mea culpa on my part then, never read the books
They don’t really have a big role in the books, and none of them are ever together or interact at the same time. I’ve seen the show a few times but hadn’t read the books until late last year. It was kind of remarkable how much incredible content they lifted straight from the books, and I mean that as compliment both to Harris and to Fuller.
RIP Beverly Katz
Beverly Katz had a rather notable role, but it did seem like she was basically forgotten after a while.
If he was unknown to someone at that time it was their own fault. Casino Royale had already been out for a while and Mikkelsen was fantastic in that masterpiece.
Let’s not forget these same execs also refused to let any hint of Margot’s homosexuality into the second season beyond an amusingly oblique line about “button stitching.” Then Fuller gave them a rather awesome “Fuck you” in the third season when she starts sleeping with Alana.
Uhmmm…
Did you COMPLETELY forget the line where she said “I was born with the wrong parts. And the wrong… proclivity for parts…” ?
Or the times that that line was repeated?
haha yeah they did sort of repeat that ad nauseum. You could put a drinking game to that and how Graham says “meat” in the 2-3 seasons.
Isn’t there a line during one of her sessions with Hannibal where she mentions she has a “preference” (or similar word) for the wrong kind of genitalia to ever have children?
I think they were alright with references to her lesbianism, but not a phrase like “muff diving”.
Why the hell would they have an American star as Hannibal Lecter, someone who was born and spent their early childhood in Lithuania, and then went to boarding school in Paris?
Also, way back when the show was announced, I knew Hannibal was going to be great because of Mads. After all, he played the best (and best-acted*) Bond villain in series history.
*Except possibly Raoul Silva
LE CHIFFRE GANG, WE OUTCHEA.*Silva’s pretty great too.
I think Waltz did a lot with what he was given in Spectre. Like, he was definitely thrown in there as type casting after his glorious other villain roles. I can’t help but think what could have been if Waltz had been given the type of role support and direction that happened in films like Skyfall and Casino Royale. Ah well.
Why didn’t they pick an actor who was a serial killer? Why in hell do we have all those Europeans playing Americans? Maybe because actors play characters that aren’t exactly the same as who they really are.
As far as I’m aware psychopathy is a recognised mental illness and while Mads Mikkelsen did a passable imitation, I feel that its important both in terms of representation and to help erase the stigmas around mental illness that they should have cast someone from the psychopathic community – preferably one with experience in cultivating a charming and sophisticated facade to hide a metaphorical abattoir of horrific behaviour. Also, I’m quite sure that having Tom Cruise in the titular role would have gone a long way in shielding the show from Studio meddling and cancellation.
“There was some resistance to Mads Mikkelsen because he was European, because he was somebody who you could look at and go, ‘Yeah I buy that he eats people,’”There’s so much going on in this comment lmao- the back-handed(?) compliment to Mads
– the thought that looking like a cannibal would be a turnoff for the producers of a show about a cannibal
– the casual listing of Mads’ defining traits as “European” and “looks like he might eat people”
I choose to believe some NBC executive had a deeply terrifying and formative experience during a study-abroad semester in Europe that followed them forever.“Oh, yeah, they have that European look to them, you know? That look, like they kill and eat people. You know what I mean.”“…that’s Marion Cotillard.”
OK, so a couple of weeks ago I went through the first and most of the second seasons again, I haven’t gone on to the third, but I guess I’ll say that when I was watching the third season I felt like the show crawled up its own ass and started rotting. Like Brian Fuller threw all restraint to the wind and wound up with tumblr GIF sets meant to fuel somebody’s fan fiction.Hannibal’s increasingly romantic fixation on Will I don’t care for but I can accept and believe it. In my memory (haven’t rewatched how this develops, remember!) Will’s growing reciprocal fascination with Hannibal pissed me off endlessly and felt like a betrayal of the character to that point.
The third season starts with a lot of navel gazing and mind palaces etc. but once it moves on to the “Red Dragon” storyline things really pick up I promise you.
I agree, and even think that the second season has a shortcoming in that it tries to create some ambiguity over whether Will has really gone over to the dark side. Even with someone he hates like Freddie Lounds, it’s just not plausible.
Mads is irreplaceable but … I would love to see John Cusack holding some dude’s head up high Lloyd Dobler style while serenading Will.
Mikkelson was perfect and I’m glad he was cast. I love Cusack but he doesn’t seem right for the role. Hugh Grant, however, has completely surprised me with his career transformation to character actor. He might not have been as ideal Mads, but he would have been interesting.
I think Cusack could pull it off (as long as there’s no attempt at any kind of accent), but Hugh Grant?“Oh, I would like to eat you, but I’m just so charmingly befuddled, I can’t seem to work up the courage to slaughter you, you see…”
I think Grant can play other character types. I haven’t seen The Gentlemen, but by all accounts the character isn’t at all bashful.
I’m a big fan of Mads’ brother, Lars. He has a lot of the same energy as Mads, but with some mischievous wildness thrown in on top. If Lars had played a cannibal, he’d be the type to turn people into Flamin’ Cheeto Coated Ribs and eat them with a 2 litre bottle of Mountain Dew.
Well I’m a psychology student and in my opinion “Hannibal” was great.I dont have any information that when the new Netflix season will come out and if the actors are the same or they’ve changed…. But i gotta say,I loved mads, he’s not a actor that can play all kind of characters as good as this one , but in he’s own kind of way, and when he plays characters dark and special like hannibal, he plays it like a true legend… , as always, beside the fact that hannibal ended almost great, i hate TV’s and channels that only think about money, and don’t give a damn about art and deep meaning in this series, (if you have information about the hannibal on Netflix pls reply on this message)And to all the people who just look at the appearance of a show and say “oh its to dark , it’s to harsh because they kill people in it” next time try to look deeper and find the art and the meaning behind every sequence, reall world is much worse…I hope to see more of this show with the same characters specially mads as hannibal… 😉
Hugh Grant would have nailed the role.
It’s tough to beat Mikkelsen, but I could see John Cusack. He can do suspense and weird. Didn’t anyone see 2003’s Identity?Anyone? Anyone?
If you are out and about and you see John Cusack in public DO NOT approach him. Seriously.