Why did the Anthony Hopkins Hannibal Lecter portrayal become the main one people recognize instead of the Brian Cox...

npc's can't handle mann's superior version of the story in general not just the portrayal of lecter

I've not seen Manhunter before, but I think I like him more already, god damn.
>the conversational tone he asks for will's home number
>drops the ruse when he sees will didn't take the bait
"You know how you caught me, Will?"

The producer of Manhunter was in some kind of legal battle with film distributors or theaters at the time of Manhunters release.
Because of which, manhunter only got a limited release before disappearing.
CSI guy, and Brian Cox are also way better known now, and Michael Mann is recognized for basically defining one of the main looks of the 80s because of Miami Vice.

His phone call scene's the best.
youtube.com/watch?v=Zi3AVgzf52k

"Hello, Clarise."

oh wait...was he a great big fat person???

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 11K)

kino, holy fuck

Yea his portrayal was more calculated and manipulative. Hopkins was written more over the top.

that fuckin frame rate is killing me. i know people who have it as the default on their TVs too, and they don't even watch sports.

Because Manhunter isn't a very fucking good film why do you lot pretend otherwise?
>Veteran FBI agent with a gun sees criminal holding victim hostage with a knife
>Sees criminal let go of victim
>Runs full speed into the glass window that the criminal is now standing in front of instead of training his gun on the criminal
>Jumps INTO the criminal's arms, gets his fucking face chopped up due to his idiocy
And let's not forget that academy award worthy editing of three instant replays of Graham falling to the floor, or the criminal getting fucking shot. I swear none of you have seen this film.

Attached: 1.png (569x802, 525K)

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO REDDIT!!!

So the ending was a little shaky, Thief had that as well with the terrible blood effects.

>that fuckin frame rate is killing me. i know people who have it as the default on their TVs too, and they don't even watch sports.
What do you mean by it's killing you? Like it hurts your eyes? I've never been able to tell the difference between any of the different frame rates of TV shows and movies online. I don't get why it matters except for some vague idea I've heard of the high frame rates supposedly being better quality.

Petersen is a better Will than either Norton or Dancy

the movie wasn't shot at 60fps and that video has been digitally interpolated into 60fps so it looks weird

60fps is the standard for televised sports. 24fps is the standard for film and most television. when you play a movie at 60fps it gives it this weird, fast, cheap look, like a soap opera.

Mate it's the film. Or are you going to sit there and tell me that Graham running down the spiral walkways of Lecter's penitentiary is compelling filmmaking:
youtu.be/djAhwNzf8Qs?t=301
and not silly and fucking hilarious.
This is true, though. Norton was horribly, horribly miscast.

Try reading the thread, everyone knows about the ending:
It's still comfy as fuck. The occasional goofy action shot is the tradeoff for beautiful immersive / hypnotic 80s color palette.

Brian Cox is easily the best Lecter. If you've ever spent time around gay sociopaths (like OP), you'd see they have nearly identical demeanours.

It's painful, because rewatching Hopkins after Manhunter, makes him come across as a parody with comic book villian luck/super-powers (the escape scene with the face switch is eye-rolling).

The end of that scene which they cut off is actually pretty neat. It does a first person perspective shot of Will's vision going from blurry back to clear again after he takes off his tie and calms down, and the fuzzy view of his panic attack meshes really well with the movie's overall style with the water by their home and that sleepy blue lighting used for Will and his family.

Hopkins is a goofball saturday morning cartoon tier depiction of a sociopath. That much can't be argued.

Hopkins' take taunts people. He acts like he thinks they believe a cannibal would act. Whenever he's being "real" he's calm and in control. Or at worst, amusing himself with his conversational bullshit.

The guy in manhunter comes across as an unrefined brute with no manners. The kind of person Lecter would probably kill and eat.

The draw of lecter as a character is that he's always charming. At a dinner party over coctails, at a crime scene over a corpse, at the dinner table over another corpse and even in his cell. He never drops the fecade and acts like freak, unless he's trying to get a rise out of you.

The guy in Rising got this, Hopkins got this, Mads fucking nailed it, but the guy in Manhunter just played him like an unlikeable brute.

Sorry, but you know it's true.

nobody really saw manhunter but everyone saw SOTL. Also Hopkins has more screen time and hammed it up for every minute

IIRC they had to throw the ending together last minute instead of what happens in the book, where dollarhyde fakes his death, attacks will and his family in their home, slashes will's face up and his shot to death by his wife

Based.

I don't know why out of all the adaptations done nobody really wanted to do the actual book plot with Will ending up disfigured to the point of looking like a Picasso painting.

Mads actually modelled his early performance after Cox. It's very obvious in the pilot.

There’s video from some documentary I saw, maybe on cannibalism, where some footage is an interview with some southern US serial killer.
The serial killer enthusiastically talks about cutting a girls vagina off and frying it and starting to eat it, while another of his victims watched. He said the other girl peed herself when she saw what he was doing.
Hopkins may have been over the top, but he wasn’t as creepy as this guy.

Nah Dancy was my favourite

Was that really because he had creepy mannerisms though or was it just the content of the story he told that was creepy?

>It's the thinking man's Thomas Harris adaptation.
This.

>where her whole savior hangup is something she just throws out there to cave into Lecter and try to get his help
Fucking what? How the fuck did you glean this from that scene? Holy shit.

>mads

spotted the redditor

Hopkins was 100x better and Manhunter is kind of boring.

Hannibal Lecter is really just like me. Intelligent and nihilistic, but with a wicked sense of humor.

That's what happens. She really wants Lecter to tell her how to stop Buffalo Bill so she caves in and tells him her lamb story even though Jack specifically told her not to give Lecter personal information like that.

The serial killer who ate the womens vagina was fucking creepy.
It wasn’t just the story, it was his enthusiasm for the story, and the effect it had on people.
Just telling the story seemed to give him a smile.
He also said the Vagina tasted like fatty pork.

You're grossly simplifying what happens. Clarice and Hannibal already established their quid pro quo method of information exchange prior to the lambs scene. Clarice, under Jack Crawford's direction, gives Hannibal a phony deal ensuring his release and relocation to a tropical island. The plan unravels, and Clarice, on her own, visits Hannibal because "if she can save just one." It's not just "thrown" out there, the film had been building up to this with Clarice's flashbacks to her father. How is any of this lost on you?

Holy shit. I never believed people when they said Cox did it better.

it also mentioned that the .44 bulldog will used as a sidearm lit dollarhyde on fire

Attached: charter arms bulldog.jpg (1600x1028, 293K)

Hopkins had the look. Cox looks like a mob enforcer.

link or source?

The whole ending sequence was dumb as a shit. Cops charge into the house individually and come to a dead stop to do that stupid 1980s cop shooting pose hunched over both hands on the gun with it extended out as far as their arms can reach and Dollarhyde casually blows them away in stupid television style editing.

As for why SOTL Lecter is more remembered, there's just more going on. Manhunter Lecter is a very boring encounter. He's dressed in casual prison whites in a sterile white cell, relaxing on his bed. He looks like a surly teenager being lectured by his teacher.

Contrast with SOTL. The build up is huge. The security procedures run through establishes that Starling is in danger just entering Lecters lair is dangerous. She descends into an unsettling dungeon-like row, walking past deranged criminals. Notice how animalistic they are? Miggs climbing across his bars like a monkey, the fat man slumped on his bed like some kind of pig. The whole atmosphere has a nightmare abattoir feel to it. Then at the end she approaches Lecters cell, unlike the others. He stands stone still, merely watching her arrival. His face is very reptilian, and he does not blink, and when he smells her his whole head moves with the motion, his tongue seeming to press out just the little bit as of he's tasting her on the air. Can you think of any animal that is kept in a cage with solid glass walls, which lays still and seems to just watch unblinkingly, as if waiting for the moment to strike?

TLDR Manhunters Lecter scene was realistic and boring with no themes or allusions below the surface. SOTL Lecter scenes are surreal and multilayered drawing on primitive human fears.

I believe the serial killer was Arthur Shawcross.
It looks like I was wrong about him being from the south, he was born in Maine and liver and killed in upstate NY.
IMDB has three listings for him.
The Serial Killers, 1995.
Most Evil, from 2006.
And Interview with a Serial Killer, 2008.
Most Evil was probably what I saw but I’m not certain.
Also from this.
thoughtco.com/profile-of-serial-killer-arthur-shawcross-973145
>There is no definitive answer as to why Shawcross seemed to embellish the stories of what he did to his victims and what had been done to him throughout his childhood. He could have remained silent, yet it seemed he wanted to shock his interrogators, knowing that they could do nothing to him, regardless of how he described his crimes. ...When discussing the murders of the two children in 1972, he told the detectives that Jack Blake had been bothering him, so he hit him, killing him by mistake. Once the boy was dead, he decided to eat his genitals. ...He also admitted that he anally raped Karen Ann Hill before strangling her to death.
>While in Vietnam, along with killing 39 men during combat (which was a proven lie) Shawcross also used the venue to describe in grotesque details how he murdered, then cooked and ate, two Vietnam women.

Most serial killers are bullshitters. Murderers yes, but they almost universally exaggerate both the depravity of the killings and number of victims. The only ones who have any evidence to their brutality are ones who recorded their murders, and in most cases they had a partner or ners joining in, so it's very likely they were excessively cruel to show off. Even hardcore cartel and Isis videos show that the murderers are really reluctant to just get in there and manhandle their victims. Take the danish beheading video for instance: one guy puts his foot on the girls head instead of a hand, and the other is reaching in with the knife instead of being up close taking a controlling position.

Killing is an extremely hard act for the vast majority of people to do, even serial killers.

>Manhunter's comfier
hard cringe for me

>Holy shit. I never believed people when they said Cox did it better.
Cox makes you believe he 100% he could pull off serial killing while blending in with normal people. Hopkins is like a cartoon person, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but he definitely keeps the action on a melodrama level.

>innagaddavida begins playing

Silence of the lambs was the better movie