Talk:Hannibal Rising (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

"Although IMDb had reported that Anthony Hopkins would provide voice over narration for the film, it was later reported to be false.'

I cannot find a source anywhere. Literally every where I have read, it lists Hopkins as voicing in this movie. What's the source?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.205.8 (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Where'd you find out that it was false?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.4.225 (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw a prescreening in early december, and there was no Hopkins voice over.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.101.195 (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

5th Hannibal Movie?

The article says:

Hannibal Rising (2007) is the fifth film about Dr. Hannibal Lecter. A prequel to Red Dragon, The Silence of the Lambs, and Hannibal

but isn't it the 4th? there's only three others listed. 208.251.68.76 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also Manhunter, which while not featuring Hopkins, was still based on a Hannibal book.--CyberGhostface 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, as the article points out, Manhunter was also an adaptation of Red Dragon 69.209.144.242 09:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)TheRoyalWe

Ulliel vs Hopkins

The article claims that Ulliel "based" his performance on Anthony Hopkin's portrayal of Lector. But in an interview he clearly states otherwise, "I think I didn’t want to try to copy or imitate Anthony Hopkins. I tried to work on my own with some readings and other films. Obviously I knew that the audience would look for some similarities with Anthony Hopkins, so one part of the preparation was to observe Anthony Hopkins. But the idea was more to just pick a few details in his performance and then add it to my own character.” http://movies.about.com/od/hannibalrising/a/hannibalgu12907.htm— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.48.85 (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I intend to work on a revision of this article to deal with the "confusing" tag. Everyone please let me know if this is a problem or if there is something I should worry about with it. SkepticalGal (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dog

For the trivia section: What kind of dog approaches the young Hannibal when he arrives at his aunts manor hous?--Agrofe 18:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Harris' note after the novel, it is a mastiff in reference to S. T. Coleridge's poem Christabel SkepticalGal (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a prequel to "Manhunter"

The way the article is currently written is best.

It acknowledges that it's the fifth Lecter film yet it goes on to establish the connection to the Hopkins films. It can't be a prequel to both films and since we all know that Ulliel based his performance on Hopkins it can't be said that it's connected to "Manhunter" in any way cinematically, their only connection is that they're based upon related books but in reality they're no more connected than, say, any two Dracula, Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes productions.GuruAskew 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, for the sake of having no edit war and your apparent unconvinceablility (sorry if that's not a word!). I will say, however, that it doesn't mean that it can't be a prequel to Manhunter because Hopkins was Ulliel's performance source (I can't think of a better term, though there probably is one). Harris worked on the film and according to his website Manhunter is an official adaptation. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But Manhunter is in a far looser continuity to the rest of the Hopkins series. Its an official adaptation in that its authorized, which is why Harris links it, but its far from faithful to the source material which is why I consider it to be in a seperate canon from all the other films.--CyberGhostface 21:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Lecter (or that oh-so-annoying Lecktor) is certainly not a fully (or even a necessarily correctly) developed character in it. He is treated as he is in the book: minor (until later). However, it has many scenes that were removed from Red Dragon (the film) and many scenes were changed from the book and first movie, plus it is Lecter LOADED. It also has many more composite characters and, in my opinion but not necessarily truly correct, quite darker. Red Dragon does have quite a few changes, they just aren't as noticeable as in it (unless you are obsessed with finding them like I am LOL). Dr. Hannibal Lecter 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think we should stick to what Harris has authorized as canonical adaptations. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But he hasn't. He's listed it under filmography as its an authorized adaptation, but he's never said Hannibal Rising fits its canon.--CyberGhostface 23:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Manhunter" is the official one: http://www.amazon.com/Hannibal-Lecter-Collection-Manhunter-Silence/dp/B00000G3R0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1269072856&sr=1-1. Xnacional (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that's a reliable source. It doesn't explain your continued removals of valid content, or your inability to accept a compromise version that lists both versions, with the proper context. Stop vandalizing the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

At least I have provided a source. Do you want another one? Just ask... Xnacional (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

XNacional, both adaptations of the novel Red Dragon, i.e. the films Red Dragon and Manhunter were produced by Dino De Laurentis who re-obtained the rights to the character of Lector after Lambs was produced, eventually producing a second version of the novel that was: a) more faithful to the novel (Red Dragon the film is closer to the novel than Manhunter especially vis-a-vis the ending) and b) had Anthony Hopkins as Lector in continuity with the previous two films. Once he had that, it is arguable that Red Dragon superceded Manhunter as the official version of the novel, although I confess I remain puzzled why 5 years after the release of Red Dragon, a boxed set of Lector films with Manhunter instead of RD was released (The set with your Amazon source was released in 2007.) Maybe Dino needs to still milk some profits from Manhunter which initially did far more poorly at the box office. although it got better reviews.

Personally, I think Manhunter to be the overall superior of the two films (in spite of its greater liberties with the novel's plot), so it is tempting to wish that Mh was the official version. But the bottom line is Dino De Laurentis produced both Manhunter and Red Dragon as well as Hannibal Rising, and RD has the two traits I mentioned.

The current compromise edit mentions Manhunter as an earlier version, giving it some due. I have removed the sentence saying the DVD set was released before Red Dragon. I was mistaken.

Try to observe WP:Consensus.

MikeWazowski, it is arguable that Xnacional's edits can be described as disruptive and tendentious editing, but they do not at all fit the official WP definition of vandalism, and in fact probably do fit the definition of WP:good faith in spite of other vices. Try to choose your critical words more judiciously.

--WickerGuy (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok WickerGuy, you have conviced me. Thank you for your assistance. Xnacional (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WickerGuy, I will respect YOUR edits, not MikeWazowski's, who keeps harassing me by reverting a lot of my edits all over Wikipedia. Xnacional (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet my edits were to restore WickerGuy's version. If you don't wish to be "harrassed" don't make WP:POINTy edits that violate consensus or WP:MOS. Make an edit that's uncontroversial or proper, like this one, and you'll be left to your own devices. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical errors

Firstly in USSR they would never leave an abandoned house like that in the forest it would´ve been burnt down and erased. Why? The wanted to control the population, not leaving hiding places in the woods, farmers were put into kolchos/sovchos on the country side to gain controll of them. As for a French citizen walking around freely during the 1950ies-1960ies in Lithuanian SSR? I doubt that seriously, especially someone who escaped from USSR earlier. RGDS Alexmcfire (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, lots of inaccuracies. Lithuania was invaded and occupied by the Soviets in 1940 after which the German Wehrmacht liberated it in 1941 as part of their preemptive strike against the Red Army. It is highly unlikely that the Soviets would have allowed aristocrats to reside in their castle during that period. --41.151.115.193 (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Food Channel

Anyone know the source for the allegation about the 'Food Channel' refusing to air ads for the film? -Grammaticus Repairo 06:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Now we're gonna season the sweetbreads with four cloves of garlic and three ounces of red wine..." LOL! I have no idea. In a way it would make sense because the movie does depict cannibalism. Doesn't want to give people ideas I guess... --Majinvegeta 07:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ma kasam its filmy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.110.114 (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

This article is not that well developed and is missing information on the film's production which should be added to the article. Also the reception section needs to be expanded and reviews from notable critics added to it. All of this needs to be done in order to cover the complete scope of the film like the articles on the previous films have done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

commercial success

The article says "Hannibal Rising was neither a critical or commercial success. It was met with a mostly negative critical response. The film opened at a distant #2 in the United States with $13.4 million, barely one-third of the $33.7 million opening of Norbit [1]." Hmm, any movie which ends up at #2 in the American box-office must be counted as a commercial success. Maybe not if you compare it to the other Hannibal movies, or the one at #1, but if you compare it to every other movie, it's a commercial success. Should this not be mentioned somehow in the article? Bib 13:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because it was #2 doesn't mean it was a great commercial success. The success comes from the box-office money. SkittlzAnKomboz 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

shouldn't commercial success depend on what it costed to produce the movie and what the movie brought in? If both numbers were available one could figure it out. 142.165.59.39 (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly how you gauge the success of a film. Of course there are no hard deliniations between what counts as a success (>10% profits? 25%? Anything more than breaking even?) vs not a success, so that part is still subjective based on what was promised to the investors, backend cuts to the various staff (which are almost never made public) so even with knowing just the amount it took to produce the film vs how much it brought in. I will say that a $13.4mn opening for a production as large as this one would be seen as a bomb by almost anyone in the film industry, including the longtime film production CPA I spoke to about this very question a while back (not pertaining to this film, just in general). I did ask some others I know in the industry about this specific film after seeing this talk page, and it lost money hand over foot (initially at least--its cult following has gotten it to the break-even point over the years) according to them (but I cannot quote them directly, otherwise I'd update the wiki). Ironically, Norbit has an even lower RT score than HR, yet fared far better. Proof that there really is no accounting for taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysonknight (talk • contribs) 06:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The Song in Hannibal

Several times in Rising, a children's song is used which the Nazi aparently sang when they were killing Misha. At one point, after decapitating the Nazi which he had tied to a tree, Hannibal quotes a portion of the song saying "... indeed". Does anyone know what this line from the song that was quoted means? It has been driving me crazy since I saw it. One little subtitle would have been nice. 69.209.144.242 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)TheRoyalWe

According to the book, the song was a favorite of Mischa. When Hannibal was interrogating/torturing the man he forced him to sing the song to prolong his life. The song lyrics can be found at: [1] and [2]. 66.41.165.38 02:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've been able to find out, the song is called Ein Mannlein steht im Walde.

The lyrics in German are:

Ein Mannlein steht im Walde ganz still und stumm, Es hat von lauter Purpur ein Mantlein um, Sagt, wer mag das Mannlein sein. Das da steht im Walde allein, Mit dem purporroten Mantelein.

Roughly translated, it's saying a boy stands in the forest silently wearing a purple coat. So when Hannibal kills the man and gets blood on him, he says 'little purple coat, indeed.' The poem was added to Hansel and Gretel the play or something like that.

Does anyone know what`s the name of the openingsong from this film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.81.82 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the leads, I, too had this sung stuck in my head and was looking for its context. To fill in a few more of the dots: The song is indeed called "Ein Männlein steht im Walde" ("There's a little man in the forest"), the German Wikipedia has a page on it. The children's folk song was written by August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben, author of the German anthem. It was later featured in the opera Hansel and Gretel by Engelbert Humperdinck, his most famous piece. Of course I cannot know, but if I were to hazard a guess, this may well be how Harris was familiar with it.

The German article goes on to describe the song as a so-called "riddle song," with the solution to the little man with his purple or lilac coat and black cap standing silently in the forest on one leg being the rose hip, as revealed in the final (spoken) stanza, apparently added later by Hoffmann, the listener having first been put on the wrong foot by the initial stanza, suggesting the fly agaric, instead. It is suggested the song was itself based on an older folk tune, known since circa 1800; it gained widespread popularity with the Hänsel und Gretel adaptation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.38.75 (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

ps The opera in the English-speaking world is commonly performed in English; in it, a rendering of the song runs as follows: "There stands a little man in the wood alone,/he wears a little mantle of velvet brown./Say, who can the mankin be,/standing there beneath the tree,/with the little mantle of velvet brown?/His hair is all of gold, and his cheeks are red,/he wears a little black cap upon his head./Say, who can the mankin be,/standing there so silently,/with the little black cap upon his head?/With the little black cap upon his head!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.38.75 (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)