Why did the sequel take so long?
-
leader-7 — 10 years ago(October 11, 2015 11:57 AM)
It took a decade because Thomas Harris, who owned the rights to the name, the franchise, everything about Hannibal, hadn't written a sequel. the man is 75 years old, and has published 5 novels.
His first novel, in 1975, called Black Sunday is the ONLY book he's written that isn't Hannibal related.
He then wrote Red Dragon (1981); Silence of the Lambs (1988); Hannibal (1999) Hannibal Rising (2006).
So, the movie couldn't happen without the sequel being written.
Hope this helps. -
leader-7 — 9 years ago(April 17, 2016 02:36 PM)
and as far as I'm concerned, he ruined the character in Hannibal. The book (that I did read) was even more grotesque than the movie, that itself could easily have been "modified" from its sheer grossness to something that would have translated on the screen as vile, but not 'as' vile. too many scenes were unnecessary and gratuitously disgusting.
-
Blue Wave — 3 years ago(June 05, 2022 05:44 PM)
I am not too fond of "Hannibal" the book less because of its' gore - which is to be expected lets' face in a story about a cannibal - then because of its' continuity problem. As I remember the first two books "Silence" took place in 1983, and Hannibal takes place mostly in 1997, but Thomas Harris makes the mistake of saying Hannibal is set 7 years later rather than the 14 years it actually is.
-
Cult_of_Kibner — 9 years ago(July 22, 2016 10:20 PM)
I think both posters are a little off. Harris owns the LITERARY rights to the Lecter franchise, so no more books can be written without his approval. The FILM rights are a different story, and the owner of those (not the publisher of the books) went to Harris and told him they were going to make another Lecter movie with or without his involvement. That's how Hannibal Rising came about. Not sure about Hannibal.