Hannibal S3 |OT| Man Destroys God. Hannibal Eats Man. Hannibal Inherits The Earth.

I really hope this show picked up some good word of mouth in between seasons. I'm not expecting a Breaking Bad style jump in viewers but it would be nice if the show got the attention it deserves.
 
I really hope this show picked up some good word of mouth in between seasons. I'm not expecting a Breaking Bad style jump in viewers but it would be nice if the show got the attention it deserves.
Breaking Bad's popularity spike was all Netflix, though, and Hannibal unwisely missed that boat.

Hardly anyone knows/cares about Amazon or Hulu nowadays. I expect even worse ratings, if anything, because 10pm + summer + awful promo* = not good ratings.

It's time to accept that the show will slowly spread through word of mouth (heck, I started watching S2), but will probably shed viewers at the same rate that it gains them because of the new scheduling, making the ratings a net wash.

* I haven't seen a single commercial for Hannibal, and the online promos are too tongue-in-cheek for their own good. Aquarius spots, on the other hand, are all over the place.
 
Boo, I'm usually out on Thursdays and home Fridays. DAMN YOU NBC SCHEDULERS!

I've been re-watching The X-Files lately too, it's wall-to-wall Gillian Anderson!
 
The One Who Knocks: Before I respond, I would like to stress that I don't want to overemphasize my point, lest my comments be misread as a very negative appraisal of the show or something. I mean, even if I knew all the narrative beats and minutiae of the third season, the storytelling and the formal éclat are such that it wouldn't significantly compromise the experience (this is the advantage of any work of aesthetic ambition). So, just to be clear, I'm a great admirer of the show, and the issues I'm bringing up aren't egregious. I just wanted to note my own preference. I like to read interviews from show runners before and during any new season of television, but Fuller's interviews need to be avoided because he reveals so much.

In comparison to the shows you have mentioned such as Breaking Bad where the most we knew from the beginning is that Walter would have a visible decline (or alternatively would slip into who he always was), or Mad Men where we could have assumed it would cover most of the decade, the viewer is in a much more knowledgeable position and Fuller doesn't have the same luxury.
Yes, this is true. Although, as someone who is only familiar with Demme, Scott, and Ratner's respective films, I'm not as well-versed in Hannibal lore as others. I wasn't familiar with the Minnesota Shrike, for instance (am I forgetting something from the films?).

Part of the draw of Hannibal has always been that we know more or less where it's going to go, and have a rough idea of what's going to happen, but Fuller, aware of the knowledge we have going into the show, is able to subvert expectations, offer surprises by playing on those expectations, and build huge amounts of tension all the while pushing us towards a conclusion we more or less know.
Sure, yes. Although, I would qualify your assumption that everyone watching this show shares your level of familiarity with the character and his world (as it has been presented in literature and in cinema).

This doesn't really contest my central point, though. The appearance of Mason Verger was an inevitability, perhaps, but the specific timing of that event ought to have been a surprise. Did the fact that we knew when it was coming rob us of the performative qualities and the precise way that storyline was deployed? No. But it seems like Fuller keeps unnecessarily preparing us for these events (he even broke down the whole series, season by season, way back when, right?). Verger's appearance, among other things, shouldn't have been a telegraphed event. I can't recall; was Will's exit from prison also specified way in advance?

At the same time, I have to accept responsibility for the fact that I knew about these things because I read interviews. I should have adopted a more abstemious approach to spoilers. I'm trying to be more careful this time around.

Consider, for example, the end of the second season. We knew Hannibal was going to get caught before it began, yet there was still tension and shocks over what actions Will would take, when and how people would find out, what Jack knew, DuMaurier's role, how the Verger's would play into the conclusion, and who would die in the fight.
Yes, of course. This is good. But it's also distinct from what I'm talking about. Even though we know more about the major events of this world than, say, with Mad Men, which is uncharted territory in many respects (which is a weird thing to say about a show that takes place in the 60s, but I hope you get what I mean; I'm referring to character arcs, rather than our foreknowledge of real life events), I still think that we shouldn't know about when those events are going to come into play. We shouldn't know if certain developments or characters are imminent. That's my view.

I mean (read at your own risk; although it seems like a lot of fans already know about this),
why did Fuller disclose that Raúl Esparza would be returning later on? This is more along the lines of what I'm talking about. Did we really need to hear that? That would have been an awesome surprise. Instead, it's like, "oh, yeah? Chilton? He's not really dead."

Most importantly, however, by knowing about the fight (but not when it would happen, which builds tension early on too as it doesn't need to happen in the final episode), and noting Will's absence, Fuller is able to play upon the idea of Will betraying Jack in the latter half of the season much more strongly than he otherwise could have, as we are always considering (while Hannibal is seducing Will and vice versa) why, exactly, Will is absent from the fight, whereas without it a betrayal from Will, while credible, does not have as much evidence that it has happened.
Fair point. Yep.

We also must consider that we knew that Hannibal would have to be caught at some point in the second season based upon the first if the show were to remain anyway credible (in the context of the show not being dragged out), so why conceal that when we all knew what was coming for no purpose?
I disagree, but again, my problem isn't with the show itself telegraphing future events. So far, that has been fine. The example you're discussing, from the premiere episode of Season 2, is OK. I'm referring exclusively to Fuller going into too much detail about the structure and details of upcoming seasons. We've seen Hannibal before, but this is Fuller's mobilization of Hannibal, and that's unique. So, there's still an element of surprise here, and I don't think that should be compromised with too much prerelease talk.

As I type this out, though, I'm wary of chastising Fuller. I would just prefer the radio silence approach, but I guess this is a trifling matter in the end (i.e., I can just be more diligent in my avoidance of interviews and such). The only issue is when fans absorb all of this knowledge and take it for granted that others are familiar with the same things (I'm not referring to the books and existing films, but again to Fuller's comments, which specify structure, character appearances and plot details).

Fuller could certainly adopt a Matthew Weiner-level of radio silence if he desired, but it would seem rather pointless because as soon as viewers recognise a character who already exists in the Hannibal universe, we are going to know exactly where he's going with it so it's rather pointless.
For reasons that are probably clear by now, I don't agree with this point.

makes it notable how much of a passion project this is for him (even if, of course, for other showrunners and a guarantee that he won't mess up the material by dragging things out far longer than is feasible (knowing the outline of last season, for example, we knew that Will wouldn't be in the cell for the entire season and thus wouldn't wear out it's welcome).
So, he did let us know that Will would be out of the cell before the end of the season. I disagree on this point as well. I think I remember reading that, but I don't want to know these kinds of things. I want a season long incarceration to be a distinct possibility. It's not a colossal deal, but I just don't like being kept abreast of stuff like that.

acknowledge that we aren't stupid and know roughly where things are going to a much more accurate degree than we do in other shows
He's acknowledging that wide swaths of the fanbase are familiar with the character and his world. There are surely many folks who aren't as familiar, of course. Either way, this is Fuller et al's presentation of that world, and it's already been inflected accordingly. The creative friction between this version of Hannibal and other versions is partly what's interesting about this show. A certain degree of secrecy is still of value, even in a context where many of us have already been introduced to certain events and characters.

Read ahead for examples of Season 3 details that have been already divulged:
Why did we need to know that Lady Murasaki is showing up in Season 3? Why did we need to know that the first episode of Season 3 is going to be exclusively about Bedelia and Hannibal? Why did we need to know that Francis Dolarhyde is appearing near the end of this season? We've already seen him, too? Why are we already confident that Alana is alive and well? I mean, come on.

Again, we can return to my the reasons I already provided: this is done because it consolidates the existing fanbase and caters to fans who are very much immersed in a culture of anticipation and/or are already familiar with these events and characters. This is important, especially given the show's arguably tenuous existence (with regards to being renewed, I mean). So, I can understand why he's doing it. Again, I don't want to overstate my claim as I know the experience of watching the third season will likely be exhilarating, even with foreknowledge of certain events. Still, I just wish I didn't know certain things and I wish I hadn't read a single interview. It's my fault, really.
 
God damn, the hype is real. And I thought S2 gave us Hannibal unhinged, or at least unleashed.

I'M MELTING

Me too man

I've ignored everything

Geez, looking at the op did any actually die in the finale? Except for the girl that should've been dead anyway. Kinda sucks :/
On the positive side, everyone involved in the finale plays trauma really well. I'm sure their survival can only lead to great character moments and a richer plot further down the line.
 
Den of Geek did an interview with Bryan Fuller about season 3, Red Dragon and American Gods, it's slightly spoiler-y for those concerned but it is a very good read.
It has insights such as:
Can you take us back to the precise moment in production for season three when you realised that the show needed more time?

You mean why it was pushed back? Essentially what happened is that the show, which was only able to be produced in the first two years with eight days of main unit shooting and a couple of days of second unit shooting and a considerable amount of overtime, was then reduced to seven days of shooting, no second unit and no overtime. It was horribly misguided and not particularly smart and the shows were incomplete.

When, in December I sat down to go through and edit the first part of the season, so many themes were missing and so many shots were not picked up. We would have scenes that had footage on both sides of the access line, but the shot that actually connected the access lines to make it cut together was lost because the producers didn’t want to go into overtime, and it hurt the show incredibly.

For four months there was a refusal to move off this approach to producing the show and for four months we were crying out to the studio for help to try to get the show on track. We were haemorrhaging money because of bad decisions, and sets were being built at the very last minute, so they cost three times as much as what they should have cost, so it was really kind of a horrible confluence of bad ideas in terms of how to approach producing a season of Hannibal.
but more importantly:
It’s interesting that you mention James Bond. You once said that Hannibal’s plastic kill-suit was a deliberate Dr. No reference.

Yes!

So this is one in a long line of Bond references in Hannibal?

I am a big fan of James Bond and there have been a couple of references to Bond in Hannibal, not least of which is the Dr. No kill-suit. The idea of this gentleman killer, which is exactly who James Bond is, being impeccably dressed, going to fancy affairs and moving amongst prey is something that felt like it resonated with this arc for Hannibal Lecter, so we embraced a little bit of the Bondian ‘I’m undercover and I’m also deadly’.
 
That part was pure lunacy. I always got the impression of Hannibal being a rather cheap show that happened to be gorgeously shot, but that kind of penny pinching is just surreal in its veiled arrogance.

Like, "hey, this Fuller dude made one of the best shows on TV on a shoestring budget. Maybe we could cut it lower and we'd still have an above average product, right?".
 
Man, if I wasn't already, the transparency and palpable excitement Fuller has when talking about this show and the behind the scenes shenanigans has made me a life long fan of his.
 
whatever happened to tagging spoilers from books and other movies?
I'm not sure what's the policy here, but the show barely resembles the books at this point.

For starters, Hannibal's origins will have to be vastly different in the show since his infancy took place during WW2 in the books (it goes without saying that Mads is too young for that), and Clarice won't show up due to licensing issues. I think tagging would be the polite thing to do, but don't sweat it.

At this point it is going to be difficult to be spoiled by anything but some character names.
 
Yeah, I mean, that could be tagged, but at this point, the show is so different I don't know if that specific post really counts. "Character shows up later in the books" doesn't necessarily mean the same for the show :)
 
This show is especially weird since it deals with a character whose very existence in the popular culture is a very specific form that the show hasn't even gotten to yet (see example 1, example 2, example 3), which in itself is kind of a spoiler but also not since that is the image that permeated and stuck itself in film history, even for those who have never seen the movie or read the books.

It's a popular series of books, that became a popular series of movies, and the TV series is playing very fast and loose with how it is adapting the various versions of the source material. Fuller himself is very open about "spoiling" things about the show, confirming certain characters fates or laying out a very specific plot progression for the season/series, etc.

I usually hate this logic, but with this show it's especially true: Knowing a "spoiler" as it regards to the plot really doesn't hamper your enjoyment of the show, since the execution is so marvelous. It's not the "what" but the "how" that is so surprising and engrossing. Especially if that "spoiler" comes from the source material (either book or film), since there's no guarantee they will follow that exactly and half the fun of the show is seeing just how they twist and utilize elements from the book and make them their own unique things in the show.
 
I usually hate this logic, but with this show it's especially true: Knowing a "spoiler" as it regards to the plot really doesn't hamper your enjoyment of the show, since the execution is so marvelous. It's not the "what" but the "how" that is so surprising and engrossing.
I wrote an article about this once, specifically in regards to this show. I really do believe Fuller is running the show, and introducing aspects, that really only fully pay off if you know about the books and the previous movies. Subverting/playing off those previous installments is absolutely part of the reason this works the way it does. Not to say it doesn't work on its own, without any prior knowledge, but this show is absolutely structured to work even though most people have already been (technically) "spoiled" by the story of Hannibal Lecter.
 
I wrote an article about this once, specifically in regards to this show. I really do believe Fuller is running the show, and introducing aspects, that really only fully pay off if you know about the books and the previous movies. Subverting/playing off those previous installments is absolutely part of the reason this works the way it does. Not to say it doesn't work on its own, without any prior knowledge, but this show is absolutely structured to work even though most people have already been (technically) "spoiled" by the story of Hannibal Lecter.
Nice article. I don't recall if I had read that last season and just internalized it, or if this is the first time I'm reading it and just came to a very similar conclusion worded almost identically :p
Because merely knowing they appear doesn’t spoil the "why" of their being there, or the "how" of their effect on the story.
But yeah, I agree. It's why a gag like the Freddie fakeout last season is so fun and effective, because anyone familiar with the book or movies knows what the flaming wheelchair is.
 
I wrote an article about this once, specifically in regards to this show. I really do believe Fuller is running the show, and introducing aspects, that really only fully pay off if you know about the books and the previous movies. Subverting/playing off those previous installments is absolutely part of the reason this works the way it does. Not to say it doesn't work on its own, without any prior knowledge, but this show is absolutely structured to work even though most people have already been (technically) "spoiled" by the story of Hannibal Lecter.
Huh. I must have read this article without looking at the byline, or I would probably would have realized it was you. Well, now I just feel oblivious. D:
 
This show is especially weird since it deals with a character whose very existence in the popular culture is a very specific form that the show hasn't even gotten to yet (see example 1, example 2, example 3), which in itself is kind of a spoiler but also not since that is the image that permeated and stuck itself in film history, even for those who have never seen the movie or read the books.

It's a popular series of books, that became a popular series of movies, and the TV series is playing very fast and loose with how it is adapting the various versions of the source material. Fuller himself is very open about "spoiling" things about the show, confirming certain characters fates or laying out a very specific plot progression for the season/series, etc.

I usually hate this logic, but with this show it's especially true: Knowing a "spoiler" as it regards to the plot really doesn't hamper your enjoyment of the show, since the execution is so marvelous. It's not the "what" but the "how" that is so surprising and engrossing. Especially if that "spoiler" comes from the source material (either book or film), since there's no guarantee they will follow that exactly and half the fun of the show is seeing just how they twist and utilize elements from the book and make them their own unique things in the show.
Dancy indeed confirms that there will be changes to the story (doesn't go into specifics, obviously).
 
I've thought about this a lot, since the probable survival of Alana and Jack and - obviously - Will means that out of the four devastating near-deaths of beloved characters in the season 2 finale, only one is (likely) to actually come to pass. Most shows don't get away with faking a single death, let alone three, without it feeling like a cheap and unnecessary move. (Abigail must be, of course, deader than a doornail, but then her prognosis was never very positive from the first episode on down.)
Not that I disagree with the rest, but I think something here that also needs to be considered is that the show has already employed quite a few fake dates (Abigail the first time, Miriam, Chilton, Freddie, and Dr. Gideon; while some of these are a case of no official statement being made about their death, it's a similar case to the final of the previous season) so if Abigail is the only one to die it could understandably be viewed as the show being too non-committal in making big decisions with the primary characters (as Abigail was, for all purposes, a minor character by the time the episode aired). As you say though, season 3 will really have to carry the burden of making the impact of Mizumono stick even with the knowledge of what is to follow it. I must admit that I'm quite surprised myself that they've allowed both Jack and Alana to survive, even if I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing depending on where they go with it.
 
Also:
I have to ask because it’s such a great idea, how far did you get in discussions with bringing David Bowie in to the cast?

The trick with David Bowie right now is that he is so incredibly busy. He’s got a new musical that he’s plotting, he’s got new albums that he’s plotting, so he’s simply not available right now. We’ve reached out and he knows that we would love to do something the moment he has any room to do something. We just hope our calendars schedule. We’ve had several conversations with his people and the feedback is always that David loves that we’re approaching him and to keep approaching, and hopefully the stars will align. Right now, between his new musical and new batch of songs, he is maintaining radio silence as far as any other projects are concerned, which I applaud because I can’t wait to see the musical and I can’t wait to hear his new music because he continues to be a vibrant and modern voice in song.

So you’d be flexible about which character he could play should he become available in future?

Even if he has a day… What I would love to do is collaborate with him and craft a role that uses his skillset as a comedian, because his comic timing is so good. I would love to write a very dark comedic role for him.
 
I've thought about this a lot, since the probable survival of Alana and Jack and - obviously - Will means that out of the four devastating near-deaths of beloved characters in the season 2 finale, only one is (likely) to actually come to pass. Most shows don't get away with faking a single death, let alone three, without it feeling like a cheap and unnecessary move. (Abigail must be, of course, deader than a doornail, but then her prognosis was never very positive from the first episode on down.)

Whether this taints the legacy of Mizumono after the fact remains to be seen and is one of the weights on season 3's shoulders, but I've also sort of realized as I crawl through the series again that the real and greatest impact of that episode wasn't the physical violence, but the careful orchestration of every character (finally, Alana!) realizing or acknowledging that they understood the truth of Hannibal. The show had been premised for two whole seasons on the idea that they either didn't know or wouldn't acknowledge that they were all seduced by the charm of this satanic character, something that was shattered completely by that finale.

A great part of what made this work so well, and what made it so wrenching and devastating, was that we the audience were taken in as much as the in-universe characters are by Mads' presence and magnetism. His rare little moments of menace in the plastic suit brought this into sharp relief for me several times, as watching him tear someone's jaw open or admire the art works of a mass murderer given to sewing bodies together for the viewing pleasure of God (or Lucifer) so thoroughly breaks the carefully built illusion of Hannibal the charmer, someone that could co-exist with people without poking and prodding and eating and tearing at them. It's the reason why the frankly ridiculous idea of a cannibal serial killer in bed with the FBI works, and why Will's betrayal of Hannibal and his punishment, in turn, of Will, is so weirdly upsetting beyond simply seeing people we like being cut and stabbed, and why seeing Bedelia make the opposite choice - to run off to Europe with the violent, intelligent psychopath who has wormed his way into her mind and her life - is both understandable and deeply intriguing rather than merely insane.
I think the show has done a good job of training us to not automatically assume any character is dead after something that normally would kill someone happens (off the top of my head: Abigail, Gideon, Chilton, Miriam). Just happened too many times to too many characters where I think it's a little less cheap to have three of the four survive.

Chilton is, of course, the MVP here.

That, and I think they'll make it very clear that Hannibal killed exactly who he wanted to kill and expertly wounded exactly who he wanted to wound, which also fits his character well enough to keep survivors from coming across as cheap.

Edit: I see this has been somewhat discussed a little farther into the thread, but leaving it anyway.
 
Damn, bottom of page:

Five bucks says Chilton returns looking like this:



Maybe they'll give him an eyepatch! The more he's injured, the more his swag magnifies!



"Jack... I'm already a demon."