- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is it just me or is Mads Mikkelsen....
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 4/8/20 at 9:27 pm
A better Hannibal Lecter than Anthony Hopkins?
Way more understated. More calculated. Smarter. More interesting and layered.
And even more evil and gruesome.
Way more understated. More calculated. Smarter. More interesting and layered.
And even more evil and gruesome.
This post was edited on 4/8/20 at 9:29 pm
13
Posted on 4/8/20 at 10:04 pm to Freauxzen
Just you and a couple others here and there
Posted on 4/8/20 at 11:40 pm to Freauxzen
Brian Cox never seems to get credit for laying the framework for that character
Posted on 4/9/20 at 12:03 am to Corso
quote:
Brian Cox never seems to get credit
Posted on 4/9/20 at 12:32 am to Freauxzen
Mads as Hannibal is as formidable a TV antagonist as I've seen. That show is excellent.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 12:53 am to Corso
I was in the Cox was equal to Hopkins camp. Different take but as effective.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 6:37 am to Freauxzen
He played that role extremely well.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 8:59 am to Freauxzen
quote:
A better Hannibal Lecter than Anthony Hopkins?
This is more of a "look at me buck the trend" take than a legitimate one. Hopkins' Lecter is an iconic character, one of the most iconic ever in the history of cinema. While others may give good performances as well, to say any of them are better is just trying to be "that guy"
Posted on 4/9/20 at 9:03 am to Midget Death Squad
quote:
Hopkins' Lecter is an iconic character, one of the most iconic ever in the history of cinema. While others may give good performances as well, to say any of them are better is just trying to be "that guy"
The amazing thing is he only had like 15 mins of screen time. Mads is fantastic as well, but Hopkins is legendary.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 9:04 am to RLDSC FAN
quote:
Mads is fantastic as well, but Hopkins is legendary.
exactly.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 9:09 am to Freauxzen
He's more believable as someone who could do those things.
Hopkins may have "Sir" in front of his name, but Mikkelsen's Lecter makes Anthony's Lecter seem campy.
Never had trouble sleeping after The Silence of the Lambs. I quit watching the series after that totem pole episode. Took a week's hiatus for me to start it back.
quote:
Way more understated.
Hopkins may have "Sir" in front of his name, but Mikkelsen's Lecter makes Anthony's Lecter seem campy.
Never had trouble sleeping after The Silence of the Lambs. I quit watching the series after that totem pole episode. Took a week's hiatus for me to start it back.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 10:07 am to chinese58
quote:
This is more of a "look at me buck the trend" take than a legitimate one.
Not really, see above, I've long said Cox is at least as good as Hopkins.
quote:
Hopkins' Lecter is an iconic character, one of the most iconic ever in the history of cinema.
I wouldn't disagree with general sentiment, hence the thread. But just because a lot of people like Hopkins, doesn't mean it's actually a good take. Popularity =/= quality. Mostly because of this...
quote:
Hopkins may have "Sir" in front of his name, but Mikkelsen's Lecter makes Anthony's Lecter seem campy.
Never had trouble sleeping after The Silence of the Lambs. I quit watching the series after that totem pole episode. Took a week's hiatus for me to start it back.
Which I agree with. I love B movies and camp, I don't like it in things that aren't supposed to be campy, or when it goes too far.
Hopkins may be more iconic, due to a few scenes, and due to access and awards, but there can be a performances that are better and not just to be that guy. I just haven't seen a Hannibal thread on here and I'm just watching the show, which ended up being a binge because he's that good to watch.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 10:15 am to Freauxzen
It's probably because one is an actor who played Lecter in a serial TV drama while the other is an actor who played him in a movie with roughly 16 minutes of total screen time. That's how big of an impact Hopkins had on that film with his performance. He's barely in the movie but each time he appears he owns the scenery.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 3:13 pm to Freauxzen
I haven't seen this show, but Mads Mikkelsen is great in every role I've ever seen him take.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 3:42 pm to Freauxzen
Mikkelsen's televison version of Lecter is truer to the book version than the movies.
After the movie Silence of the Lambs. The movies that followed made Lecter a sympathetic character and at times merciful.
In literature, he's never sympathetic and never merciful. Nor is he in the TV series. And although the TV show nailed him, they completely fricked up the Will Graham character and turned that whole relationship into something needlessly fricking weird.
After the movie Silence of the Lambs. The movies that followed made Lecter a sympathetic character and at times merciful.
In literature, he's never sympathetic and never merciful. Nor is he in the TV series. And although the TV show nailed him, they completely fricked up the Will Graham character and turned that whole relationship into something needlessly fricking weird.
This post was edited on 4/9/20 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 4/9/20 at 3:44 pm to Presidio
I really like both of them in the role. Their performances are products of the time that they came out. When SOTL was released in 1991, it was considered gory and intense. In many ways, the TV series blew by every aspect of what was done with Hopkins and Foster in an R-rated movie.
Mads brings subtlety to the show version, but the greatest disparity is that even when comparing Ed Norton's Will to Hugh's, we never saw Will so immersed that in the former that reality was absolutely bent. That was a dimension that also formed Hannibal's mystique in the TV version...the lens of how Will perceived him.
Mads brings subtlety to the show version, but the greatest disparity is that even when comparing Ed Norton's Will to Hugh's, we never saw Will so immersed that in the former that reality was absolutely bent. That was a dimension that also formed Hannibal's mystique in the TV version...the lens of how Will perceived him.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 3:45 pm to Corso
quote:
Brian Cox never seems to get credit for laying the framework for that character
This is true.
As brief as his appearance was in Manhunter, he left a tremendous mark.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 3:49 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
This is more of a "look at me buck the trend" take than a legitimate one
No it isn't.
I've read every book and the Mikkelsen version of Lecter is truer to the character than the Hopkins version.
Minus Lambs, the movie version of Lecter ruined the character. The TV version nailed him from beginning to end.
This post was edited on 4/9/20 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 4/9/20 at 4:14 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
It's probably because one is an actor who played Lecter in a serial TV drama while the other is an actor who played him in a movie with roughly 16 minutes of total screen time. That's how big of an impact Hopkins had on that film with his performance. He's barely in the movie but each time he appears he owns the scenery.
Yeah, there's a reason why a large majority of the great television actors have primarily only been supporting characters and character actors in movies. It's significantly more difficult to be an impactful actor on the big screen. Movie actors only have a finite amount of time to make an impression on the audience while lead actors in TV series literally have dozens of hours of screen time.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 4:20 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
It's probably because one is an actor who played Lecter in a serial TV drama while the other is an actor who played him in a movie with roughly 16 minutes of total screen time. That's how big of an impact Hopkins had on that film with his performance.
He had an impact because he nailed the literature version of the character. So did Bryan Cox. But the subsequent version of Hopkins' Lecter was terrible and it was terrible because the writers got away from who Lecter really is.
This is why the Mikkelson version of Lecter is so good and in my opinion the best. He's consistently true to who Hannibal really is.
In other words, you get the character right and anyone could've been legendary in Silence of the lambs.
Jonathan Pryce for instance would've been excellent in Lambs.
This post was edited on 4/9/20 at 4:22 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News