Talk:Hannibal Lecter

Books vs. movies

There are differences from the books and movies. The article mentions the storyline in the movies and not the books. cgl. --205.211.237.189 03:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Yeah this still needs to be changed 213.104.247.28 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Modus Operandi

The section asserts three different supposedly distinct aspects of Lecter's M.O., but where do these three come from? Are they cited in the novels? Or were they the interpretation of the editor who wrote them? If the latter, then it's clearly non-NPOV, since the distinction between the three is arbitrary. For example, why are retribution and discourtesy seen as mutually exclusive? "Retribution", after all, is Lecter's motive for a killing, but discourtesy is the offense that Lecter feels was commmitted against him or others. The offense committed by a serial killer's victim is not an "m.o." This is underscored by the fact that Lecter's killing of Paul Krendler is mentioned in both sections. Similarly, "poetic justice" is neither the offense or the motive, but the style in which Lecter killed some of his victims. This needs a rewrite, or a citation of sources from the novels. I've read most of Red Dragon, for my part, and don't recall this breakdown of his murders. Nightscream 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC) How many people did Hannibal kill in the four novels? I think that would be quite interesting to know. I can remeber 18 off hand. If someone could check that would be helpful.

It has been checked in an archived discussion, it is 28. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 22:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the number of his victims be added somewhere in this page? --(Unsigned)

Well, it's not exactly certain how many people he's killed. So no, also the number of people that he's killed is not important. He's a serial killer, that's all people really need to know. --VorangorTheDemon 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

uncertain

Noticed this: "He simply describes himself as being evil, stating that psychiatry is "purile", and wrong to categorize different kinds of evil as different behavioral conditions. Lecter then supports this by stating that the inconsistencies in his behavior are traits of pure evil, and that he does not possess a behavioral abnormality." and wasn't convinced by it from reading the books. He asks Starling whether she thinks he is evil, and when she says she thinks he has at least been "destructive" he agrees with her, but he doesn't seem to have enough of a sense of right and wrong himself to classify himself as evil or good particularly. I don't know what anyone else thinks? CO.

To me it seems strongly implied. I just don't understand a possible alternative why would he ask her if she thought that he was evil; and then upon hearing her answer about how he wasn't, counter it? In other words, what I picked up from that is him asking her if he was evil, she said she didn't believe in evil, he pretty much told her she was wrong. That to me suggests that he thought of himself as evil, and told her indirectly that he believed that he was. However, I could be wrong, but that's how I interperated it when I read the book. Perhaps a re-word of that paragraph would be more appropriate, feel free to do so. --MajinVegeta 20:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think he is actually evil, he was warped due to hs childhood trauma though at the end of hannibal is showen to be tamed by love. He also only mostly kills people wo greatly disturbe him or are a danger to him. So (l think) hes really just a fucking screwball who asks Starling what she thinks to mess her up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.64.4 (talk) 22:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Hannibal Lecter or Dr. Hannibal Lecter?

I'm somewhat divided on this one, what should the name in the opening paragraph be? I know frequently Harris referrs to him as "Dr. Lecter" or "Dr. Hannibal Lecter", but not in Hannibal Rising. He is just referred to as "Hannibal Lecter". Any suggestions? --MajinVegeta 05:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this is an issue. He wasn't referred to as "Doctor" in Hannibal Rising for the simple reason that he wasn't a doctor yet. Technically, he's "Count Hannibal Lecter." Since he is a doctor in all the other stories that take place later in the timeline, that's why he is properly referred to as such. Nightscream 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I asked is because I've edited it several times to just Hannibal Lecter, and someone always switches to "Dr. Hannibal Lecter". I'm switching it back, thanks for the opinion. --MajinVegeta 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't noticed one way or the other on WP, so I'll ask: is it policy to not include such titles in the Intro? Nightscream 23:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why Lady Murasaki Left

Just finished Hannibal Rising, and I'm pretty sure that Grutas revealing that they fed him the broth from cooking his sister while he was unconcious wasn't why she disowned him... She calls Grutas a liar, and tells Hannibal to turn him over to the police and come away to Japan with her, and then he adds "your lips were greedy on the spoon", and Hannibal snaps and starts carving Ms into Grutas face and body, and turns back to her covered in blood. She stares in horror, he says "I love you", and she throws herself off the boat. Later, she goes to visit him in the holding cell, and senses he's completely shut off inside. She writes him a letter, enclosing a burned twig from Hiroshima her father had given her, and returns to Japan. I'd consider revising, if there's no argument, as the article is currently misleading, suggesting some kind of disgust on her part for what was forced upon him as a child, rather than what he'd chosen to become as a young adult. 140.185.215.122 12:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Steve

In fact, I just read the summary for the film, and it is far mroe accurate. I have made some changes, i hope they are acceptable. 140.185.215.122 13:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Steve

She leaves Hannibal because of what he becomes. She sees him as so overcome by his obsession that there's nothing left in him to love. I will veiw the changes that were made, and perhaps revise them where it seems fit. --VorangorTheDemon 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your take and mine seem inline. I just disagreed with the "He is shocked to find out that he ingested her remains in the broth they fed him. Lady Murasake leaves him when she finds out." 140.185.215.122 16:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Steve

Well, I think I recall it being subtlly stated in the Book of Hannibal Rising. --VorangorTheDemon 23:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There is a section commencing; Hannibal was a model patient for his first year. I think it may be good to mention something about his activities in prison, such as painting and his use of the memory palace. I think these are elements that are important to the character. DanCartar 08:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Willgraham.jpg

Image:Willgraham.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article about a fictional character is not up to standards for a wide array of reasons. The article treats the character like a real person, establishing a "biography" section for him (which is still unwarranted despite being identified as a fictional character in the section heading). What needs to be done instead is to write an out-of-universe section which details the character's appearances in the books, films, and what-have-you. Furthermore, the Infobox details Lecter as a real person, filling out certain attributes appropriately; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes and succession boxes for more information.

The "Diagnosis" section consists of original research (disallowed on Wikipedia), as it is apparently written from an editor's perspective. Such a section needs to be backed by independent, secondary sources that meet both verifiability and reliable source criteria. (Academic studies of the fictional character would be best.)

I would suggest researching this fictional character more based on interviews, credible reviews, academic studies, literature. Go to the film articles in which Lecter has appeared to see if you can retrieve any references that are Lecter-centric for usage. Also, please take a look at the following fictional characters' articles: Jabba the Hutt, Palpatine, Jack Sparrow, and Jason Voorhees, for an idea of what is appropriate for a high-quality article about a fictional character. For the record, I consulted with Bignole to critique this article for ways that it needs to be improved, and his recommendations have been included in this review. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact either of us. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Another note: This is not a comprehensive review; only the major issues have been broached here. There are other issues with the article as well, such as the insufficient rationales for the non-free images and the selection of external links. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I can see why it failed. The article's changed quite a bit since the last time I edited it. I added most of that stuff that Erik stated but it's since been removed. I majorly cut down the bio a while back too, but it seems that people have since reverted those edits and added it all back. Also I will say it's really hard to get info about the origin/inspiration of Hannibal Lecter because Harris is not an interview person. VERY, VERY few interviews have been done with him. Plus I totally agree with the diagnosis section being WP:OR; completely, not only partially. Harris stated that Hannibal had no diagnosis because he wanted him to be unique. Beyond that, there's really not that much interview/review/literature info on him. But I do remember reading somewhere that his last name "Lecter" reflected his love for books. In RD, he's originally seen to have a serious obsession with Books, but it kinda shifts focus afterward. --VorangorTheDemon 23:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Character Plausibility?

I’m not going to sabotage the article, but I do have a recommendation. Could someone who’s interested (and hopefully qualified) post a section discussing the actual plausibility of the character in light of historical precedents? Hannibal Lecter annoys me because he’s so far-fetched and implausible, and either despite or because of this the public just loves him. His ability to murder and cannibalize implies a failure to properly internalize social norms and mores, a process that may well continue into the formative years outlined in the fourth novel. I’ve had experience with intense mental aberration, so I can say that someone of Hannibal’s psyche would have a very reflexive awareness of how convoluted his mind is. Hannibal is just another Raskolnikov, only much more far-fetched in his failure to properly come to know himself.

I think it’s of note that two commonly-cited inspirations for his character are Albert Fish and Ed Gein, both perverts and, IMO, morons. I think the Leopold and Loeb case would be relevant. -Sethomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.15.9 (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course the character is far-fetched and that's the fun of the novels. Just a suggestion but maybe you shouldn't be characterising Hannibal as a serial killer. He's a brilliant child who had the extraordinary opportunity to be personally tutored by a great scholar. If the war had passed without incident he would have doubtless become a dazzling polymath and great connoisseur of art, music, cuisine etc. He would have probably married and continued the Lecter line and ensured Mischa was married to a good husband. His capacity to love was destroyed by the horrific trauma of losing his family and his inability to prevent Mischa's murder and consumption coupled with the neurological damage sustained when flung aside trying to save her. TheMathemagician (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall Gein or Fish ever being legit inspirations for Hannibal. Gein probably inspired Buffalo Bill (for obvious reasons) but as for Hannibal? I don't see the comparision.

Unless you have documented sources, arguing about Hannibal's realism in the article would count as original research and POV]. (BTW, I don't see how Hannibal is 'implausible' just because he doesn't fit the norm of other serial killers. There are dozens of serial killers with vary intelligences and psyches.)--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mistake on his childhood

i corrected a mistake that i found appalling i am sorry if you guys do not agree but Hannibal Lector being my favorite fictional character in the world i think his story should be correct after killings Grutis he did not go to the united states he went to Alberta Canada to kill the final member of the Russian soldiers and then proceeded to go to the united states to study psychology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Po0ners01 (talk • contribs) 03:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Well you're right ... but i think you were taking the text too literally. He did journey to the US to study and then work and live. The trip to Canada was just a little a diversion to resolve some unfinished business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.63 (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Aliases

Was Lloyd Wyman an alias? I thought he was simply some poor sap Lecter wasted in the airport underground carpark after killing the ambulance staff. Lecter may have checked into the hotel using the name Lloyd Wyman but that was just impersonating a real person whose wallet he'd stolen, not technically an "alias". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.63 (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is considered an alias because Lecter used it as his own name (willingly or unwillingly), that's what an alias is. I don't know if he ever introduced himself as "Lloyd Wyman", but he probably did for business circumstances. --VorangorTheDemon 08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Film Section Cleanup

The film section contains two references that need citation and are poorly written. I have tagged the beginning of the section in question with {cleanup-section} and {unreferencedsection} The information needs to be removed, or it should be rewritten if sources are cited. A rewrite is dependent on whether the information is relevant and verifiable. -- OranL (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

More on Lady Murasaki

I have just re-classified her from "Step-aunt" to "aunt-by-marriage" under the "relatives" section if that's alright by everyone. Not050 (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Not050

"Mouthpiece" -> "Mask"

In "most of these parodies feature the character wearing Hannibal's infamous mouthpiece", changed "mouthpiece" to "mask".
None of the definitions at mouthpiece seem to correspond to the item shown.
I'd like to be a little more specific as to what kind of "mask" (or "mouthpiece", if that is correct) Lecter is wearing, but I don't know what to call it.
-- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's a bit of a muzzle.Myscrnnm (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • yea, its literally called a muzzle in the book — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:1580:9600:71F3:DA14:1EA0:143B (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Not Fair Use?

Licensing Image:Heyes.jpg: ...This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots: for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents Lưu Ly (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Hannibal a narcissist?

The article states that he considers himself superior to the rest of humanity and he himself makes reference to him and Graham being different to "those other poor dullards" in Red Dragon. Also in Red Dragon Graham states that Hannibal couldn't bear to part from the message Dolarhyde sent him because it was full of compliments. Does this mean he's narcissistic? It would make sense. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I would further add that I am not in the habit of being ignored. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, are you a narcissist, 'Jupiter Optimus Maximus?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.100.47 (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC) + LOL, are you a narcissist, 'Jupiter Optimus Maximus?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.100.47 (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignore that comment, Yes, Hannibal lector is a Narcissist, after all, he is a Psychopath(obviously) and part of Psychopathy is The feeling of Superiority to others, if a person is a true psychopath, then nothing can break their ego, because the prefrontal cortex part of the Psychopathic brain dosen't work, resulting in a psychopath not having the ability to get worried asbout things and Ponder on weather they should feel pirde or shame, Psychopaths always think highly of themselves, they don't have the abililty not to.

Ignore that comment, Yes, Hannibal lector is a Narcissist, after all, he is a Psychopath(obviously) and part of Psychopathy is The feeling of Superiority to others, if a person is a true psychopath, then nothing can break their ego, because the prefrontal cortex part of the Psychopathic brain dosen't work, resulting in a psychopath not having the ability to get worried asbout things and Ponder on weather they should feel pirde or shame, Psychopaths always think highly of themselves, they don't have the abililty not to.

If I might give my two cents, I'm not so sure Hannibal's a psychopath. He shows lots of empathy, for his parents, for Mischa, for Lady Murasaki, for Clarice and for Mason's sister. He certainly has serious issues with empathy as well as a tendency to view others as one dimensional objects rather than actual people which would suggest that (like the character he was based upon), Hannibal is in fact a malignant narcissist. --86.182.51.216 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.188.158 (talk)

My personal thoughts are that Hannibal is either a child, or an immortal. Please don't take those words literally. He IS most certainly a narcissist. For good reason as well. His mental development can be warped for the purpose of a story to whatever is needed. This is what makes Hannibal such an amazing character. His ability to know you and understand you because when it comes down to it, his character is in every way better/worse than everyone in this world.

In the way of a child, we go around in life and explore, touching and feeling and hurting sometimes. We go through our childhood ignoring the fact that we can get hurt and we are not invincible. The traumatic event could have possibly scarred a character like Lecter enough to the point where his ability to feel guilt and shame are quite nonexistent. (Also, a child is known to soak up every bit of information around like a sponge. If one were to surround himself with as many psychological studies as he, wouldn't one without remorse delve even deeper where the bounds of morality prohibit modern psychologists from going?)

As an immortal you can see everything before you, and you soak up all of the knowledge brought forth unto you, until eventually you grow bored with the normal things going on in everyday life. Thus experimentation is born: Murder, crime and any other sort of activity that produces a rush. A man with nothing else to gain indulges in every pleasure mankind has to offer.

Thus in these ways, he's a man that sees himself as much more important, and immensely powerful compared to anyone else that has ever existed.

Pardon me for saying so, but I almost find it interesting that people with such a blind yet powerful mind exist. The blindness not to see the error of doing wrong, but the mind powerful enough to wrap their thoughts around things that would certainly perplex me.

As a final pair of thoughts: One has to wonder about the psychological state of the author who made such a character. As well, am I the only one who chuckles when Hannibal makes an ass out of the long haired doctor from that prison? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.46.1.46 (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

M.D. vs. PsyD

Is the character a Doctor of Medicine or a Doctor of Psychology? In all accounts I've seen he is referred to as a psychiatrist, but the wikipedia article lists him as a M.D. Which is it? Sottolacqua (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Psychiatrists are M.D.s- they train as doctors first before doing their specialist psychiatric training. The same way in which other specialists like oncologists or rheumatologists are also Doctors of Medicine. 86.2.35.39 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatrists are M.D.'s. Psychologists hold either a PsyD (Doctor of Psychology) or a PhD or even an EdD (Doctor of Education). In some jurisdictions, one can be licensed as a Psychologist with a Masters degree. Hannibal Lecter is a Psychiatrist, and as such, a Medical Doctor. 67.252.78.181 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Post nominals relate to degree rather than profession, lecter earned an MD in France, and this is what he puts on his signature. Also I don't think the box should say "Dr Hannibal Lecter, M.D." the M.D. stands for the Latin degree title, so Doctor is really being used twice here. AleXd (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that last bit, and have removed the superfluity. StAnselm (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if it was at all possible that a reference to the title of Dr. Lecter's thesis for his M.D. could be found in the literature? Alenardates Kubatexter (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

South Park reference odd

Not that this is very important, but why is South Park listed without capitalization and in quotation marks? All the other shows are listed in proper grammar, I just thought it was kinda weird that South Park isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbednar88 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In literature

In the alternate history novel Back in the USSA, set in a world where America has a communist revolution instead of Russia in 1917, Hannibal Lecter appears as director of the Department of Health(source is wikipedia article on Back In The USSA) Sbednar88 (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sitation Missing for Dino De Laurentiis' comments

'Dino De Laurentiis (owner of the cinematic rights to the Lecter character since Manhunter) announced that he was going to make a film (with or without Harris' help).'
Where does this information come from?

I recall it being in an Entertainment Weekly article. I think the Hannibal Rising article has it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was right; It's from the February 22, 2007 issue of Entertainment Weekly, I just checked.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy over the ending?

The article says "The ending for the film was changed from the novel due to the controversy that the novel's ending generated upon its release in 1999:" but doesn't cite or explain this controversy.76.21.120.118 (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-fictional character??

Either I need to get away from the computer for a while, or the first sentence refers to Hannibal Lecter as a "non-fictional character". I'm pretty sure the entire series is fiction, so how is Lecter a non-fictional character? Jedikaiti (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I think whoever originally made that must have forgotten the difference between non-fiction and fiction. Hannibal is a fictional character, meaning he isn't a real person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.133.225 (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no information, except for a comment in the fan book written about Hannibal Lecter by David Sexton, on William Coyne. He may be fictional altogether. No other references except Sexton's book exist in regards to William Coyne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.188.211 (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Film series

I removed the following information from the article because none of it has anything to do with the character. The only crew or cast information that is relevant is the different actors who played the part of Dr. Lecter, and the different directors of the different films. All of this is already covered. The amount of money the films made is not relevant to the character at all, and such information is already available in the articles about the respective films. Can someone give a good reason we need these charts in the article? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Film	Director	Writer(s)	Producer(s)
Manhunter (1986)	Michael Mann		Dino De Laurentiis Richard Roth
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)	Jonathan Demme	Ted Tally	Kenneth Utt Edward Saxon Ron Bozman
Hannibal (2001)	Ridley Scott	David Mamet Steve Zaillian	Dino De Laurentiis Martha De Laurentiis Ridley Scott
Red Dragon (2002)	Brett Ratner	Ted Tally	Dino De Laurentiis Martha De Laurentiis
Hannibal Rising (2007)	Peter Webber	Thomas Harris	Tarak Ben Ammar Dino De Laurentiis Martha De Laurentiis

Box office

Film	Release date	Box office revenue			Box office ranking		Budget	Reference
		United States	Foreign	Worldwide	All time domestic	All time worldwide
Manhunter	August 15, 1986	$8,620,929		$8,620,929	#3,658
The Silence of the Lambs	February 14, 1991	$130,742,922	$142,000,000	$272,742,922	#252	#258	$19,000,000
Hannibal	February 9, 2001	$165,092,268	$186,600,000	$351,692,268	#153	#160	$87,000,000
Red Dragon	October 4, 2002	$93,149,898	$116,046,400	$209,196,298	#473	#370	$78,000,000
Hannibal Rising	February 9, 2007	$27,670,986	$54,498,898	$82,169,884	#1,953		$50,000,000
Total		$425,277,003 (e)	$499,145,298	$924,422,301			$234,000,000 (e)
List indicator(s) A dark grey cell indicates the information is not available for the film. (e) indicates an estimated figure based on available numbers.

Well to put it quite bluntly, its pretty damn convenient for the random man searching through Wikipedia. I've had a fairly slow internet connection before, so not having to switch pages and wait two minutes to load for something is trivial as the above information is actually a rather nice, although small, luxury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.46.1.46 (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the character, though. An article on the franchise would be a better home for it. Do we actually have one of those? Might be a good idea, given that there's, what, four books and five films? GRAPPLE X 14:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

True. I don't actually know. There's information about the films and books scattered along individual pages, but I really don't know if there's a "Hannibal Collection" or something. At any rate, I think its time I finally made an account >.> Speaking of which, how do you sign these things? Four squigglies right? Luke747184.46.1.46 (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

~~~~ GRAPPLE X 18:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A film series or franchise article needs to be created, just as with the other top-grossing horror franchises. —Mike Allen 09:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

References

critique of the concept

Some critique of the character concept and biography is missing. --41.151.115.193 (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

what Opera is played as he listens to the music and eats the brain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.91.149 (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeopardy

This is an interesting tidbit- Hannibal Lecter was the answer to today's(3/2/2012) final jeopardy. The clue was something along the lines of "this villain was first seen in a jail cell reading le grand dictionnaire de cuisine". The category was book villains. This could be some trivia we include in the article. --70.246.143.78 (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism/Suggested Protective Lock

Suggesting a lock on this page. Multiple attempts at vandalism. Mwolvesto50 (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Should we rewrite these sentences?

The first line below "hannibal lecter MD" says: "Lecter was introduced in the 1981 thriller novel Red Dragon as a brilliant psychiatrist and cannibalistic serial killer." The first line under the "Novels" heading reads: "Hannibal Lecter is introduced in the 1981 novel Red Dragon as a brilliant psychiatrist and a cannibalistic serial killer."

I've been trying to come up with a good way to change one of the sentences so it sounds less silly, but I'm never good at opening statements, and couldnt think of anything. So I thought I'd mention it, incase someone else had something better. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hannibal Rising Adaptation quandary

In this article it states: "In late 2006, the script for the film Hannibal Rising was adapted to novel format."

Where as in the Article for Hannibal Rising it states: "The film is an adaptation of Thomas Harris' 2006 novel of the same name..."

Can we actually get some citation on these, so we know which is a true statement? Did the story exist as a novel first or a film script? I feel it important to point out that this is not a question of which came out first, on numerous occasions, when film has been adapted to novel, the novel has pre-dated the film in it's release.124.170.73.178 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The wording was changed back in late December of '07, and was never fixed. It is fixed now. Thanks for pointing this out. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Psychopath/sociopath

We have to be careful about the use of these terms. In the novel, Dr. Chilton says "sociopath," but in the film, he says "psychopath." Depending upon whether we are discussing the book or the film, we have to distinguish the terms. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

New pic

I found a good Blu-ray screenshot of Hannibal from Silence that I think works better. I'll be uploading it shortly but any comments are appreciated.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Error in Intro/Summary

The first portion of this page briefly summarizing and explaining the character of Hannibal Lecter is actually copied from the summary/intro section of the Hannibal, Carthaginian commander who lived in 247 BC, Wikipedia page

76.97.48.72 (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Television section

The section of this article devoted to the tv show is getting out of hand. The tv show has an article, so most of these details are completely unnecessary here. This article is only about the character, not the show itself. I suggest trimming it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, these plot summaries on character articles tend to get out of hand. I think some users can sometimes lose sight of what character articles are for. I've always been of the opinion that character articles should focus more on how the character is interpreted in the media, rather than primarily focusing on summarising the plot (which can lead to making the sections much longer than they should be). DarkKnight2149 03:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hannibal being Will's love i:nterest

In the actual canon of the show Hannibal and Will were never gay. Yes there was a pretty clear homoerotic subtext as confirmed by Fuller but stating outright that they were love interests is incorrect.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

In the show, Hannibal is textually stated to be in love with Will. Which makes Will 100% his love interest. Hannibal himself says he loves Will two times, not to mention leaves a heart for him which Will calls a Valentine. Furthemore, Bryan Fuller has confirmed it more than once, calling Hannibal pansexual and Will straight with Hannibal being his exception. K.S.Morgan (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Show me where Bryan Fuller said Hannibal Lecter and Will Graham are actually love interests in the romantic sense. Or that Will Graham had sexual feelings for Hannibal.

Because here he says "I’m not sure about Hannibal. I think Hannibal is a very broadly spectrumed human being/fallen angel, who probably is capable and interested in everything humanity has to offer. Whereas Will Graham is very definitely heterosexual, but that does not necessarily prevent us from a homoerotic subtext."[1] Which goes back to what I said -- homoerotic subtext but not "these two characters are actual love interests who are sexually attracted to one another". --CyberGhostface (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-8wVnApglI - Direct question in canon and direct answer to it. 'Will: Is Hannibal in love with me? Bedelia: Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for you and find nourishment at the very sight of you? YES.' It's more than enough to classify Will as Hannibal's love interest. Bryan Fuller: '"It felt like we had to s–t or get off the pot, ultimately, because there had been so much going on between these two men that when Will asks, “Is Hannibal Lecter in love with me?” it is very much about death and the romance between these two men." http://tvline.com/2015/08/29/hannibal-series-finale-will-lecter-cliff-bryan-fuller-interview-season-4/ Not to mention his numerous tweets, which confirm Hannigram many, many times over. http://fragile-teacup.tumblr.com/post/158895648154/for-stupidape-3 K.S.Morgan (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That line is not "more than enough to classify Will as Hannibal's love interest" and Bryan Fuller's quotes go back to what I've been saying, that the show is deliberately homoerotic but that it's not sexual in nature. All your proof so far would count as WP:OR or fail WP:RS. I can bring this up to other editors but they'll likely reaffirm what I've been saying.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Love interest means that one person is in love with another. I pointed more than enough evidence about it to you. We are talking about romance, not sex. Will is not Hannibal's lover. Not yet. He's a love interest. And if you are so interested in sexual aspect, then yes, it is in subtext and in Bryan's words. He mentioned their attraction to each other, implied they kissed and had sex between the scenes, and even said that they 'flip' in bed. And it happened way later than the interview you provided. But again, we are talking about *romance*. And romance doesn't have to be sexual now and here to classify as one. Hannibal is in love with Will, it is textually confirmed - how is not making Will his love interest? K.S.Morgan (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

How does an actual scene from the actual show not count as a reliable source? 3x12, The Number of the Beast is 666 textually confirms that Hannibal is in love with Will with a direct statment. That is not subtext. If an interview from Bryan Fuller talking about that scene and his tweets don't count as sources than the show itself most certainly does. TypicalHer (talk • contribs) 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for you and find nourishment at the very sight of you?" is not the same as "Yes, Hannibal loves you." C'mon.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you finish watching that scene? Bedelia gives an answer after that phrase, 'Yes'. K.S.Morgan (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Even if it was "He DOES feel a stab of hunger for you" as opposed "To yes it's possible" is still not the same "As yes, Hannibal is in love with you". And even if she did say "Yes he does love you" that is no more an objective fact than Freddie Lounds calling them 'murder husbands'. --CyberGhostface (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You are being very homophobic, to be honest. Bedelia doesn't say that 'Yes, Hannibal feels a stab of hunger for you'. She answers Will's question. If I ask you, 'Are you cold?', and you say, 'Am I turning blue and shivering, feeling on the verge of being frozen to death? Yes', then what does 'yes' refer to? It answers the initial question. Please stop trying to twist the canon words to your liking. The text is clear on that, and the interview I linked you to confirms this intent once again. K.S.Morgan (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

LMAO I'm a Hannigram shipper myself. Doesn't mean "Hannibal is Will's love interest" is an objective fact for Wikipedia. But whatever I'm going to bring this to the attention of other editors as this is going nowhere.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I wonder what they'll say to you when you continue to ignore direct canon facts. And please stop confusing characters. We are talking about Will being Hannibal's love interest, not the other way around.K.S.Morgan (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Typically, when you're talking about "love interests", it's a mutual thing, not one person's interest in another. I don't see Fuller saying that Will was interested in Hannibal that way, whether Hannibal's love for Will is sexual or not. It's not reciprocated, which really doesn't make Will a "love interest". Additionally, as far as an infobox goes, Will and Clarice are not "relatives". Love interest or not. If you're going to discuss the idea of Will being a love interest, that should be in prose in the body of the article with reliable sources (not simply youtube clips that can be taken down and unverifiable). If you have to clarify the role in the infobox, then it clearly is not "essential to understanding the character", which is a requirement for the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Fuller called it a romance between these two men in the interview I provided. Will is also in love with Hannibal, which is in scene that I linked to. This 'youtube' clip is a scene from the show. I have official DVD discs - how can I extract scenes from them? Also, this phrase is repeated in the interview where Fuller explains Hannibal and Will share romantic interest. And I apologize, but Clarice in books and movies shows next to zero romantic interest in Hannibal. It is never stated she is in love with him, she just offers him sex one day when she is under the influence of drugs. If we remove Will from love interest, then Clarice should be removed as well - Will loves Hannibal by himself, while Clarice's mind is compromized. Hannigram is something confirmed in the show and by the creator many times, it is universally known and can be found in the scene and interview I provided. K.S.Morgan (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, if you have to explain the relationship in the infobox, then it isn't essential. No one needs to have Lois Lane's relationship to Superman explained. Secondly, I cannot find anywhere outside of the infobox that these relationships are discussed. The infobox is a summary. There should not be anything in it that isn't discussed somewhere else as well. So, the long story short, if you include "significant relationships" in an infobox, you should not have to (nor should you try) leave qualifiers as to why that relationship is significant. That's for the body of the article, with reliable sources discussing it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I can add the section with their relationship if needed, it's not a problem. More than that, Hannigram is already mentioned in Wikipedia with LGBT characters list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dramatic_television_series_with_LGBT_characters. It's not a side fact - it's the essence. Everything Hannibal does in the show is connected to his romantic feelings for Will and vice versa. Should I add the section with Hannigram, with the links to interviews and episodes where romantic love is discussed?K.S.Morgan (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, then you should always look to expand articles. This shouldn't be an "if", if there are reliable sources discussing the event. But be careful to keep fan terminology and synthesis out of the section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'll get to it tomorrow and I'll check how to cite reliable info, including the episodes of the show. K.S.Morgan (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The two characters were never engaged in a romantic bisexual relationship, which is why this has been removed multiple times. Despite whatever overtones, Bryan Fuller's description of it being a "bromance" does not equate to the relationship that some users seem to think the characters had (Which is actually a rather ridiculous misinterpretation of the material, almost as much as the people who think Jason Voorhees resurrected himself in Freddy vs. Jason). DarkKnight2149 23:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Accessed it finally. And I'm going to repeat what I said. By category I mean section entitled 'Relationship between Will and Hannibal'. It has links to official interviews with Bryan Fuller, the creator of the show, and to the episodes themselves. To quote some: "Fuller mentioned: "It felt like we had to s–t or get off the pot, ultimately, because there had been so much going on between these two men that when Will asks, "Is Hannibal Lecter in love with me?" it is very much about death and the romance between these two men. There is a quality to connections that go above and beyond sexuality. You can have this intimate connection with somebody that then causes you to wonder where the lines of your own sexuality are. And we didn't quite broach the sexuality. It was certainly suggested, but the love is absolutely on the table.""

Also, "Remembering how the song for the finale of the series was created, Fuller said: "It was interesting. She [Siouxsie Sioux] was like, "I want to write this song, and what are the things I should really be thinking about?" And I was like, "**this is a love story.** A love story between a full-fledged psychopath and someone who has nascent psychopathic abilities.""

There are many more. I couldn't include everything because Wikipedia apparently doesn't consider Youtube or Twitter as reliable sources even when the creator's identity is confirmed there, but just FYI, here's Bryan's wonderful 2017 shirt that he wore to official NY screening https://twitter.com/Moondancer1626/status/872997811499003904/photo/1, Bryan teasing sexual side of Will and Hanibal's relationship back in 2014 https://twitter.com/bryanfuller/status/467531271963279360?refsrc=email&s=11&utm_source=Save+Hannibal+Newsletter&utm_campaign=9197646a41-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_08_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4d209ed06e-9197646a41-174138365, Bryan hinting that Will might be gay https://twitter.com/bryanfuller/status/627710001285476352, Bryan discussing their sexual positions post-fall http://fragile-teacup.tumblr.com/post/157736534579/whos-the-top-and-whos-the-bottom-the-answer-is (he also has it on his Twitter but I don't want to look for it now). That's just Bryan. Those are just some of the words/tweets/facts. There are a lot more, and it's not including the show itself, where everything is beyond clear. K.S.Morgan (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And you continue to misinterpret statements from the showrunner to fit your POV. There was never an explicitly sexual relationship between Will and Hannibal, and if you thought Fuller was being serious about the sexual positions, I honestly feel sorry for you. There was definitely homoerotic subtext and a connection (or "love") between Will and Hannibal, but no, it wasn't a romantic or sexual love as you continue to assert and to edit war. In fact, most of the links you just posted (including T-shirts) were jokes poking fun at it. At this point, we might as well say that Mads Mikkelsen and Hideo Kojima are in a gay relationship, and so are Batman and the Joker for that matter. After Hannibal ended, Fuller also stated in an interview that Will and Hannibal aren't in a gay relationship, but then joked something along the lines of "after a few beers, who knows where it might go?" You have now been reverted multiple times by multiple people for over a year, and you just violated the three revert rule. If you feel this strongly about it, open a larger community discussion. The consensus does not appear in your favour. DarkKnight2149 00:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

CyberGhostface posted a very pertinent quote above that pretty much spells it out: "I’m not sure about Hannibal. I think Hannibal is a very broadly spectrumed human being/fallen angel, who probably is capable and interested in everything humanity has to offer. Whereas Will Graham is very definitely heterosexual, but that does not necessarily prevent us from a homoerotic subtext." The rest of the sources provided talk about the connection between Will and Hannibal, and they correctly liken it to a love story. Stating that they are in an explicit homosexual relationship is an oversimplification, and I have a hard time believing that you don't realise this. And if you want to get technical, they were never in a true relationship at all, given that they spent the entire show plotting against one another, despite their chemistry together. This assertion that they are in a sexual or romantic homosexual relationship simply isn't the case. The article itself mentions that their bond transcends sexuality and even the List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters page specifies that they aren't in a romantic relationship, and that Will is heterosexual. DarkKnight2149 00:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"After Hannibal ended, Fuller also stated in an interview that Will and Hannibal aren't in a gay relationship, but then joked something along the lines of "after a few beers, who knows where it might go?" - I just dug up the interview. There's an entire paragraph where Fuller discusses the relationship between Will and Hannibal:

"there was a fine line to give the hardcore audience exactly what they want in terms of this actually being a homosexual relationship between these two men, and what is authentic for the characters in that final moment. I mean, it’s not “Brokeback Mountain.” Mads isn’t gonna be spitting on his hand and getting to work. (laughs) We felt we had to keep it genuine to the tone of the relationship as we’ve been telling it in the series, and even in that moment when Will asks if Hannibal is in love with him, and Bedelia says, “Of course he is, ya big queen!” Even in that moment, it’s not quite dipping into the physical passions that would be the case if they were both homosexual. But I feel one is ominisexual and one is heterosexual and there’s a lot of influence going back and forth, who knows with a six pack of beer what would happen."

There you go right there. They aren't in a gay relationship. DarkKnight2149 01:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Guys, Hannibal is canonically in love with Will, its that simple. And to quote Hannibal creator Bryan Fuller, "There is love between these two men, and confusion between these two men. We had to articulate it, and the idea for a [potential] Season 4 was an interesting continuation of that, as well as a subversion of it at the same time." This means their love is SHARED. Therefore, they are absolutely love interests.

Hello. I’d like to contribute here. On Twitter, when someone brought up the change to adding Will Graham as a love interest, Bryan Fuller responded with “oh yes.” I can find and link it. He has also continuously tagged hannigram in many posts asking his fans to ask questions and interact, expressing approval for the relationship. I can also give you some more insight on the matter being that I’ve read all the books and watched all the adaptations, not saying you haven’t, but it does give a more helpful viewpoint on their relationship. In the books and adapted into several of the movies, there are many lines spoken by characters about or to Clarice referring to her romantic relationship with Hannibal. If you want me to, when I have more time, I can write them all out for you and cite the book source. My point is in NBC’s Hannibal, all of these lines were adapted to be spoken about or to Will instead, inserting him into Clarice’s role as Hannibal’s romantic interest. I can cite these instances well. This is on top of and even includes the obvious “is Hannibal in love with me” scene, where Bedelia actually answers with a line that was originally spoken about Hannibal’s feelings for Clarice in the books. In this way, the show has taken Clarice’s role as Hannibal’s significant other and given it to Will instead. Even in the last book, Clarice runs away to Europe with Hannibal as his lover, something that’s also referenced in the show; Bryan Fuller has also said that if season 4 was renewed, it would pick up with Hannibal and Will on the run in a similar manner. Like I mentioned before, if you really need it, I can cite all of these lines in both book and show to properly show how this was done, and I can also cite Bryan Fuller’s tweet concerning the Wikipedia entry. If you don’t want these citations/reject the idea entirely, I’m going to assume you’re just homophobic, since Clarice is there (and like I said, the show put Will in her place) and Lady Murasaki’s incestuous relationship was given more weight being that it permitted to stay while Will was not. For comparison, Lady Murasaki in the books shared one kiss with Hannibal and they had one-two romantic lines about each other, while Will and Hannibal in the show were given every romantic line about Clarice from the books. Ughicantdothisrn12 (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Old Spice

The Old Spice edit was not vandalism, it was an honest edit based on the novel and the two film adaptations. Since you didn't respond to me on your talk page, I'll repost message here in full:

Just noting it. Probably doesn't need the original reference to his heightened smell, in addition to the Lambs one. But it was not vandalism. That is the aftershave brand referenced to as "the one with the Sailing Ship on the bottle". It was an honest edit.

Here is the scene in the 2002 film: youtu.be/4fwQKF64AWY

Same exact dialogue, directly referencing Old Spice, is used in Manhunter and taken word for word from the original book. I would like to know why you believe it shouldn't be mentioned that Lecter's smell sense is so good he picks up the fact Will Graham is a loyal Old Spice customer without having to sniff through the holes like he does in Silence Of The Lambs.

I can understand if you think the Lambs example was "enough" though. I'm asking because you labelled it as vandalism (when it was a Good Faith edit, not vandalism), and gave no other reason. Colliric (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

youtu.be/djAhwNzf8Qs

Here's the Manhunter scene. Colliric (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I edited it down and re-added it since you didn't give an explanation for it's removal. Colliric (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"Character in a series of novels"

The lead sentence currently says: Dr. Hannibal Lecter is a fictional character in a series of suspense novels by Thomas Harris.

I believe it is misleading to restrict the basic definition of Hannibal Lecter to "a character in a series of suspense novels". This is because the character is at least as notable (and almost certainly much moreso) as a character in film. I changed it to "character created by novelist Thomas Harris".

VictimOfEntropy reverted this saying "Look at the article for Count Dracula—it is worded the same way". I think whatever the Count Dracula article does is irrelevant as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the Hannibal Lecter article is not bound by whatever the Count Dracula article does. Popcornfud (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not wrong—that is what Hannibal Lecter is. Adaptations will never matter as much as the original work. And I only mentioned Count Dracula as an example of that. Your opinion that the films are more notable has no place in an informational article about a literary character. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

All of the films were adaptations of novels which came before them. It is right to talk about the novels first. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hannibal Lecter was created for the literature. The films are only adaptations of the novels which preceded them. If you look at the page of any character from literature that has been adapted, I’m sure you’ll see it’s written the same way there. I really don’t understand why I have to waste my time defending this. Hannibal Lecter deserves the same treatment as every other literary character on this site. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's just a matter of what makes the subject of the article most notable, in basic terms.

Lecter is best known - and most celebrated - as a screen character. Coverage about the character overwhelmingly focuses on the film and television versions (especially Hopkins' performance). This is supported by the rest of the lead, which cites various "best villain in cinema/television" lists. (Before you jump on the EW list, it specifically cites "The Silence of the Lambs and its sequels" which indicates it means the movies, not the books - which began before Silence of the Lambs.)

So all I propose is that we avoid defining the subject, in the first sentence, as a literary character, just as I would argue we should not define the subject as a film or television character. "A character created by novelist Thomas Harris" does this. We can then go on to explain the novels, films and television depictions in the next sentences. Popcornfud (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No, because “most notable” is only your opinion, and this is not a popularity contest, anyway—this is a database, meant to educate people, so even if it is the case that more people are aware of the films than are aware of the novels, that would just be an argument for how much more important it is for this article to educate them about the novels. And Harris isn’t just a novelist.

This article deserves the same treatment as every other like it. Count Dracula, for example, was made famous by Béla Lugosi’s portrayal—the novel was a total flop—and yet, he is still defined as “the title character of Bram Stoker's 1897 gothic horror novel Dracula”, because *that is what he was created for*. And the Harry Potter films are far more notable than the novels, but Harry Potter is still defined as “the titular protagonist in J. K. Rowling’s series of eponymous novels”, because *that is what he is*, no matter how many adaptations have been made.

Hannibal Lecter is a character in a series of novels by Thomas Harris. The info box already states that he was created by Thomas Harris, and also lists every other character with that name that has ever appeared on-screen, and will certainly be updated with any new versions that may appear in the future. There are going to be many more portrayals of the character, but there will always be only *one* original form of him—the character in the series of novels written by Thomas Harris.

I guess I will take this chance to finally correct the second paragraph, though, after years of staring at it and knowing it was wrong but not wanting to risk stirring anything up, since things have already been stirred now. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

“Most notable” is not "only my opinion" but based on what the article + sources say. Popcornfud (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a fairly meaningless discussion. The difference between these two versions each of you proposes are very subtle, and don't change the meaning overall. That said, let's look at a bunch of similar cases: Jack Reacher, Count Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, James Bond, Harry Potter, Frodo Baggins, Katniss Everdeen, Vito Corleone, Rick Deckard, Willy Wonka, and Jason Bourne. Most of these start with the characters related to their respective novels, as is with the original version of this article. James Bond takes a similar approach to Popcornfud's version, stating: Commander James Bond is a fictional Intelligence Agent created by the British journalist and novelist Ian Fleming in 1953. Two of these examples, Vito Corleone and Jason Bourne, put the books and films in an equal level of importance, stating, Vito Corleone is a fictional character in Mario Puzo's 1969 novel The Godfather and in the first two of Francis Ford Coppola's film trilogy and Jason Bourne is the title character and the protagonist in a series of novels and subsequent film adaptations, respectively. So we have somewhat of a precedent for any version you propose, but most of the examples do it in VictimOfEntropy's proposed way, which is the current status quo for this article. The burden of proof here rests with Popcornfud, to provide evidence for changing it to something like James Bond's case, or even Corleone's and Bourne's case if they wish to. If you have reliable sources, cite them here. If there's something you think shows Hannibal Lecter's case is more similar to Bond's than all the rest, state it clearly here. I would also advise you both wait for more editors to weigh in instead of continuing discussion between you two. El Millo (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

As I say above, with the examples of best-of lists, I believe the lead as it stands already indicates the character is at least as notable as a screen character. That is my argument. Popcornfud (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why the phrasing "created by novelist Thomas Harris" should be controversial; it is a factual description. It would also be possible, though a bit unnecessarily verbose, to write "created by novelist Thomas Harris for a series of suspense novels" or something along those lines. All in all, I agree with Popcornfud here. TompaDompa (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Inspiration stomping grounds

In the Inspiration section, it talks about Alfredo Ballí Treviño and that, "He was also suspected of killing and dismembering several hitchhikers in the Ballí outskirts during the late 1950s and early 1960s." As far as I can tell, there is no place named Ballí. However, I found a website about the Ballí family that states: "In the late 17th century the honorable, Francisco Ballí Villarreal was the chief justice of the Nuevo Santander Province. The region is now the northern states of Mexico (Tamaulipas & Nuevo Leon) bordering Texas along the Rio Grande." https://balli.org/ I am wondering about how we can make this more clear and less confusing, but I am not sure about the sourcing of such a website. Please comment with your thoughts. Kirby777 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Kirby777, yeah, it looks like some confusion got introduced there, possibly by me. Looking at the sources it doesn't seem super clear how it relates to the text so it needs some fixing. Popcornfud (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Some sources

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/real-hannibal-lecter-psychopathic-doctor-inspired-silence-lambs/
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unmasked-doctor-who-was-real-life-hannibal-lecter-m67hzfp5svq
• https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/silence-of-the-lambs-anthony-hopkins-real-inspiration-hannibal-lecter/
• https://psychotherapy.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2002.56.1.100#:~:text=Hannibal%20Lecter%20is%20also%20brilliant,order%20to%20escape%20from%20jail.
• https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89472698
• https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/hannibal-lecter-a-character-retrospective/

Just a few links that could be used to flesh (mmm...) this article out a bit more. JOEBRO64 01:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 update Will Graham as Hannibal's Significant Other

I would like to start this by making it extremely clear that the pervious discussion was extremely Acephobic. I would also like to say that being a 'Significant Other' does not infer having a sexual relationship with that person. And that is what the subcategory is labeled as, so that is what we will be talking about here. Sex, nor sexuality, does not come into it. Will Graham is without a doubt, one of Hannibal's significant others. Not only is he (and their relationship) the center of the entire series, it has been confirmed in the show several times. Over and over again Bedillia remarks that Hannibal is in love with Will, and challenges Will's love for him. The sticking point in these situations is that Will never argues to the contrary. As a character, Will is not one to admit his feelings, if at all, so simply not being able to argue a statement is enough evidence that a man like Will Graham does not disagree with it. To quotethe show: "Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for you and find nourishment at the very sight of you? Yes. But do you ache for him?" And yes, Will cannot respond, but his silence is more telling. If he disagreed, he would have voiced it, that is his character. And if you do not know that then you clearly do not know this show well enough. And again with, "You're the bride of Frankenstine." "We've both been his bride." Will finds himself unable to respond, which tells us far more than a worded answer would have. Will Graham as a character is not one for dealing with his own emotions. When confronted with questions or statements such as these, his only answer is silence, because he simply cannot open himself up enough to answer. They are extremely significant to one another. That is a plain fact. So to say that he is not a significant other purely because of a lack of sexual contact is not only closed minded, but damagingly Acephobic. And if you want word from the creator, Bryan Fuller, on the subject of Hannibal and Will's relationship as Asexual characters, then all you would need to do is watch the nerdist livestream reunion from 2020 where Bryan discusses this in person. Sadly I cannot link it as adding YouTube clips, however accurate and credible, has been used to discredit people in the past on these threads. And I would like to add that there is a section in the Hannibal Lecter Wikipedia article we are discussing this on dedicated to Hannibal and Will's relationship. So to say that it is not relevant to the article as a whole is also inaccurate. Thank you for you consideration. 92.0.81.78 (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

And in case this is listed as un credible due to it being an IP account, I would like to say that I didn't realise creating an account was an option, so this is my account now. TwainXavier (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

A significant other is someone who you are in a *committed* relationship with. It cannot be forced upon someone. Will never consented, and the show ended with him attempting to kill Hannibal. You cannot claim that Will was essentially raped into a romantic relationship. The presence of feelings is not the presence of consent. If a season 4 that shows them in a consenting, established romantic relationship—kissing, etc., no need for anything sexual—happens (as unlikely as that is), *then* you can add what you want to add when it does, when that happens on-screen, as that would make it part of the actual show. Until then, you need to stop disrupting this page and misrepresenting the show. I am an asexual and homoromantic person myself, and this is not acepbobic. This is a matter of you not being able to *force* Will Graham into a significant other relationship. Also, it needs to be noted that neither Lecter nor Graham are asexual. And, no, this page is *not* “dedicated to their relationship”—that is only part of the TV series, and this page is about the Hannibal Lecter character of the novels and films as well. I wish that everything related to the TV series and the films and the novels could be moved to different pages, since there are such differences between the characters portrayed in different mediums, though. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, frankly, it’s homophobic that you’re even trying to argue for this. Aside from the fact that it’s just factually inaccurate, it’s also horribly abusive, with probably the most extreme physical abuse and emotional abuse and psychological abuse that could ever exist. There is no love here, and this is not what significant other relationships between men are like. And the line that you quoted was copied from the 2001 film Hannibal, by the way, and is about the relationship between Hannibal and Clarice, which is also not listed here—you’ll notice that she’s only listed as his significant other in the novels, not the novels *and* the films, because, just like TV!Will, Movie!Clarice never gave her consent to a committed relationship with Hannibal. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The show ended with him attempting to kill Hannibal *again*, I mean. It’s probably more grammatically correct for me to specify that. Or should I have said “again attempting to kill Hannibal”? Is that clearer? Yeah, let’s make it “and the show ended with him again attempting to kill Hannibal”, because the other way kind of makes it sound like Hannibal might’ve died before that. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

And you need to stop speculating. You cannot read Will’s mind, and it’s rude and extremely rapist-like for you to act like you can. I hope that you would never try to force yourself on someone without their verbal consent. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You’re claiming things about Will that you absolutely cannot know, and lying about Bedelia, too. The words “over and over again” show that YOU are the one who clearly does not know the show. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

--

Please follow the wikipedia guidelines and avoid making personal attacks, VictimOfEntropy.

I wanted to add a couple of points to this discussion and address some of the points VictimOfEntropy made.

The last time this discussion was on here was way back in 2017. Plenty of time has passed and Bryan Fuller, the creator of the Hannibal TV series, has only reinforced the concept of an intended romantic relationship between Will and Hannibal. It is no longer just subtext that we can brush aside.

No matter which way you look at it, Will Graham is the most "significant other" that TV Hannibal has in his life. "Official" relationships are not a requirement for this - neither is sex. Hannibal practically admitted that he was in love with Will in a conversation with Bedelia, and Bryan and Mads Mikkelsen (actor for Hannibal) have both said that Will is the person Hannibal loves the most.

In addition to all that, you have the 2020 Nerdist cast reunion quoting Bryan:

"The nature of the relationship between Will and Hannibal has been at the core of much of the fandom. One of our Fannibals asked whether or not there was a potential of seeing their hypothetical romance become canon in a new season. Fuller had a lot of thoughts. “We were definitely driving towards that in the third season. I love that scene with Hugh and Gillian where in the midst of the nonsense there’s this moment of clarity, ‘Is Hannibal in love with me?’ From the very first meeting with Mads he has redefined the character for me, because he was like, ‘He’s the Devil.’ And, to me, the devil is pansexual. I do think Will Graham is a heterosexual character, but sexuality is fluid and I think it would have to be a conversation where we would have to find, ‘What is the most authentic version of their relationship now?'”

Notice how he opened up the possibility of Will being fluid with his heterosexuality. And how Hannibal was already a character who was open to the idea of a same-sex relationship.

In a 2021 Vulture interview, Mads outright said that he almost kissed Will during the finale. He and Will's actor (Hugh Dancy) were both up for it. And Mads also responded to this question:

"[Did you see his relationship with Hugh Dancy’s character, Will, as a romance?] Yeah, but not necessarily something that would become physical."

Thats a big YES to the romance angle, especially if we are looking at this page from the perspective of Hannibal's view on significant others. Hannibal Lecter, specifically the version in the NBC adaptation of Hannibal, is romantically interested in Will Graham. And if the evidence here wasn't enough, today (november 19 2021) fans asked Bryan Fuller on twitter if he agreed that Will Graham should be listed as a significant other on the Hannibal wikipedia page. His answer was "Ohyes."

Now to address some of the points VictimOfEntropy brought up.

1. "A significant other is someone who you are in a *committed* relationship with. It cannot be forced upon someone."

This is not true. According to wikipedia, a significant other is "is colloquially used as a term for a person's partner in an intimate relationship without disclosing or presuming anything about marital status, relationship status, gender identity, or sexual orientation." Also according to wikipedia, an intimate relationship is defined as "an interpersonal relationship that involves physical and/or emotional intimacy. Although an intimate relationship is commonly a sexual relationship, it may also be a non-sexual relationship." Intimate relationships are NOT inherently positive, and significant others (as listed on wikipedia) are NOT limited to only positive relationships. Following your logic, Hannibal would have zero "significant others" because you could argue that none of them are totally moral/good/etc.

2. "it’s also horribly abusive"

See my response to #1 - this is not a criteria when determining significant others on Wikipedia. We are discussing the merits of adding Will Graham as Hannibal's romantic interest, not whether their relationship is toxic or not. That is irrelevant.

3. "And the line that you quoted was copied from the 2001 film Hannibal, by the way, and is about the relationship between Hannibal and Clarice"

Often in adaptations, lines are reused and/or referenced. This quote was actually in BOTH works, and it referred to different characters. In the movie, it was Clarice; in NBC Hannibal, it was Will (many of Clarice's references were absorbed into the character of Will because they did not have the rights to Silence of the Lambs). Please actually rewatch that NBC Hannibal scene before you accuse someone of taking lines from a different work.

4. "...relationship between Hannibal and Clarice, which is also not listed here—you’ll notice that she’s only listed as his significant other in the novels, not the novels *and* the films, because, just like TV!Will, Movie!Clarice never gave her consent to a committed relationship with Hannibal."

I have mentioned how consent (or really "positive relationships") doesn't play a role into determining that a relationship *exists.* If there is evidence in Silence of the Lambs that there is a romantic interest between Clarice and Hannibal, then I would ALSO add that as a romantic interest. However, the movie does not go where the book does -- Clarice only enters into a relationship with Hannibal in the book. That's why it is only listed there - not because they had a "better" relationship, but because they actually HAD a romantic relationship.

5. "And you need to stop speculating. You cannot read Will’s mind"

Of course we can't, and you can't either. What we DO have is something that is not speculation - the creator of NBC Hannibal admitting that the NBC version of Hannibal is in love with Will, and that alone is enough to justify the inclusion of Will as a significant other. Sunflowersnail (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

--

> Also, frankly, it’s homophobic that you’re even trying to argue for this. Aside from the fact that it’s just factually inaccurate, it’s also horribly abusive, with probably the most extreme physical abuse and emotional abuse and psychological abuse that could ever exist. There is no love here, and this is not what significant other relationships between men are like.

This would be true if this was a factual series about real people who exist in the real world. However, it is rather a David Lynch and Stanley Kubrick inspired surrealist series in which serial killers are Nietzschean transcendental men (ubermensch) who have undergone Nietzschean Becomings.

The gist of the series, starting with episode 5 specifically mentioning Becoming as a mechanism, is that Will is one of these potential killers. Hannibal performs medical torture on him (MK-ULTRA protocol medical torture, even). However, the reason he performs this is because he believes Will is a killer (the mongoose he wants under the house when the snakes slither by) and that he is helping Will achieve a potential that Will's empathy inhibits.

There's a whole seduction arc (of Will seducing Hannibal) in Season 2 in which Will changes how he dresses and has dates with Hannibal fantasizes about Hannibal's blood spraying over him like ejaculate and swallows birds whole together with him in which they function as a couple. Will completely blinds Hannibal, yet stands teary-eyed over the naïve Hannibal gazing down at his back after he maneuvers him into his trap. Hannibal learns Will may betray him, but doesn't care and decides to propose eloping over dinner instead. Their breakup comes because Will rejects Hannibal's offer to leave for Europe together, with Hannibal vowing he isn't seeking anything but Will's companionship and Will telling Hannibal he's not offering Hannibal forgiveness because he wants to see the monster he believes Hannibal to be and also, specifically, to see who he himself is, leaving Hannibal teary eyed behind his wine glass.

It turns out who Will really is is a man who warns Hannibal to run when Hannibal's life is actually in danger. But it's too late, because he demanded to see the monster and a wounded and crying Hannibal leaves him eviscerated on the floor. Yet in S3 first thing we see is Will discussing with himself (remember, Abigail isn't real) that he wanted to run away with Hannibal and it would have been the right thing to do. He later affirms to Jack that he wanted to run away with him and also that he still wants to.

Will Graham beat a man to death with his bare hands and enjoyed it, snapping his neck with a crazy smile. He torments Chiyoh and has her kill her prisoner out of curiosity. He gets Chilton set on fire. He cuts Dolarhyde's stomach open with a maniac grin. This is not a dude who's made of 100% better angels here, even though he's got plenty of a decent and even good side.

Alana is listed as Hannibal's significant other, but Hannibal had sex with her under false pretenses in order to drug her specifically to use her as an alibi to free Will from prison. While he does care for Alana (who he's known since she was in graduate school) and offers her her freedom, this is a non-consensual relationship in which Alana is in complete ignorance. That there exists abuse and a total absence of ethics can't be an argument for not including someone as a significant other in that column.

There's even a dinner scene in which Alana recognizes Will is closer to Hannibal than she is and isn't quite sure they're not having some kind of affair together. She's then horrified to learn that their relationship is, in fact, a courtship, when she sees the Shiva murder tableau made from what Hannibal believes is Freddie Lounds' burnt body.

This isn't particularly ambiguous stuff. Will and Hannibal are as much a couple as Alana and Hannibal in the second half of Season 2, only Will is fully aware of what's going on and capable of full consent and Alana is not in any way either of those things. Aurorastation (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Also I am in full understanding this really isn't the place to walk someone through understanding the television show. There's a great Reddit forum for discussion and debate. I just don't see how else to draw attention to the weird disparity between Alana being included as a significant other and not Will when one of them was never capable of consent and the other spent two seasons in genuine, informed and explicit debate with himself over if he was going to become a serial killer's life partner or not while continuously engaging in courtship behavior. Bedelia is also listed as a significant other, and she is fake married to Hannibal with the only confirmation of sex between them being a tweet by Bryan Fuller. Otherwise her relationship to Hannibal is identical to and often paralleled with Will's (except, as she says, less passionate). It's all intellectual gravitation and fascination and an indulgence of her own urge to crush people like baby birds. Aurorastation (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I don’t agree. I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what a “significant other” is and what a “couple” is, as well as about many other things. Like, for example, you’d probably disagree with me saying that the show was misogynistic trash. But I’m willing to allow Will Graham to be added to the significant other column if it will stop edits like the one that apparently happened an hour ago, where someone replaced Bedelia’s name with Will’s, because I’m just tired. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to thank both Sunflowersnail and Aurorastation for bringing valid arguments to this discussion. VictimOfEntropy, though I am thankful for Sunflowersnail and Aurorastation defending me and my points of debate, your personal attack on me will not go unaddressed. I would like to begin by saying that I too am Asexual, and your decision to assume I was not from zero evidence is simply more damnning to your opinion than the heaps of evidence piling against you. To assume the sexual orientation of others based on your own opinions if far more damaging than myself assuming I know the mind of a fictional character. To be able to analyse a fictional character is not mind reading, it is inference and deduction, and to discredit those as genuine methods of understanding a person, fictional or otherwise, is to discredit the field of psychiatry entirely.

As well as this, your description of a relationship needing to contain "kissing etc" and describing that as non-sexual is again Acephobic. To be asexual yourself is not a good enough defence to not also be Acephobic. If you deny the possibility of being Ace as a spectrum that includes both your view on sex, and other views on sex that would define kissing as a sexual act said person would not wish to partake in, then that is, by all accounts, Acephobic. To be Asexual yourself does not give you the right to discredit the feelings of others, nor their personal relationship with sex. As well as this, your statement that these characters are "not Asexual" is completely baseless and has no valid argument to support it. To have had sex in the past does not automatically mean you cannot be Asexual, and to think so is completely closed minded, and again, Acephobic.

As for describing my analysis of Will's character as "rapist-like" I would wonder whether you would describe the field of psychiatry to be "rapist-like" as well by default? To analyse the evidence presented and draw a conclusion about a fictional character's mental state has absolutely nothing to do with the very real world issue of rape. And to bring such a thing into a discussion such as this shows how little merit your arguments truly have.

And finally, I would like to clarify that I absolutely did not state that this entire page was "dedicated to their relationship". This is a complete miss-quotation of my actual point, which was that there is a *section* of this page that is dedicated to explaining the relationship between Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter, which describes it as a romantic relationship, so for his character to be missing from the Significant Other box is an oversight not just for the TV Series, but for this page also. I find it amusing that you would wrongly accuse me of miss-quoting the show, something which has already been confirmed as false, only to then genuinely miss-quote my argument yourself.

I would suggest that next time you attempt to form a counter argument, you take the time to read through and understand the original argument, before firing off baseless and inaccurate accusations that have no relevance to the discussion. Thank you. TwainXavier (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like it made clear that this is not an attempt to vandalise this article. It is an attempt to make it more accurate not only within itself, but by the will and confirmation of the Hannibal TV Show's creator as well. To ignore his opinion on the subject matter is dammning to the credibility of this page. I would also like to make it clear that I do not wish to vandalise or remove anyone currently listed as a Significant Other, I simply believe it to be an oversight to not include Will Graham on this list as well. TwainXavier (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

References