Oh yeah? See my little friend here?
He disagrees with you
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0

Then the music video beats the brilliant thriller in this case.
Just because I'm not on THEIR side, doesn't mean I'm on YOURS.

manhunter was like a music video; silence was a brilliant thriller
The Fearmakers Blog
https://thefearmakers.blogspot.com/

Buffalo Bill is portrayed as a pathetic doofus who kidnaps women.
But neither movie is realistic. In reality criminal profilers are not cognitive empaths who are one step away from being a serial killer themselves. They also don’t use their near-magical analytical and profiling skills to solve the case or apprehend the suspect on their own. No one would want to watch a movie of some psychologists/forensic scientists in a data room building a profile over many months and then anti-climatically faxing it over to the detectives.
If thrillers were 100% realistic then no one would watch them. Saying Hannibal Lecter is too much like a supervillain is like saying Star Wars has too much magical force powers. Hollywood genre films are all fantasy.

Nailed it in a nutshell!

This is the reason I prefer Manhunter. Brian Cox's portrayal of Hannibal is much more realistic. He's not a pantomime, he's just some doofus in a jail cell.
Just because I'm not on THEIR side, doesn't mean I'm on YOURS.

I have read the same thing regarding serial crooks like Charles Manson. I have read what people like John Douglas have written about them which is that they are perfectly aware of what they are which includes the knowledge that they are playing up certain things about themselves as they know they are not that charming in real life.

Can't get more real and direct than that (they're nothing but piles of crap worthy of nothing but a flush)
He didn't actually mean it like that - he meant that for cops, psychopaths are an obvious and simple problem, like a blocked toilet to a plumber.
Another example could easily have been used. And they obviously aren't such a simple problem, if the FBI believes it necessitates the establishment of a large BSU dedicated to solving it.

the thing with psychopaths/sociopaths is, once you figure one out, you've figured all of them out.
also, they need us. they can't survive without the rest of the population. on the other hand we can do perfectly well without them, better in fact.

With all due respect you are kind of arguing two different points.

1. the intelligence level of serial killers
2. what they bother to learn or not learn.
   There have been indeed serial killers that have hit above 130 on the IQ test. Ted Kaczynsk sure a bomber injured many and killed 3, his IQ was 167. Rodney Alcala had a 160 IQ. Charlene Williams was also 160.
   However, all that aside, yes there can be smart serial killers, there can be dumb ones. Serial killers simply succeed because they are obsessed and driven to do what they want and they plan meticulously. Their first kill is generally not perfect, but they learn from it and change to improve their ways and methods.
   But sure some serial killers have been intelligent enough to never be caught, The Zodiac killer comes to mind.
   What serial killers bother to learn or not learn is their own choice. It has no bearing on their level of intelligence.
   ((Damn the remakes, Save the originals.))

SoTL's Dr. Lecter is largely responsible for the myth of the genius serial killer.
The small grain of truth behind this myth is the fact that serial killers are significantly more intelligent than the average criminal (as opposed to the average person). The mean IQ of most prison inmates is in the 80's. Serial killers stand out by having IQ's in the high average range (e.g. both Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy had IQ scores around 120, manyother prominent serial killers had IQ's of 100-110: competent but nowhere near "genius"), which goes with the territory because someone with an IQ of 80 wouldn't be able to carry out multiple murders for so long without getting caught.
That doesn't mean that most (or any) of them were brilliant Renaissance men who mastered all fields of science, savored the fine arts, and learned a dozen foreign languages when they weren't busy torturing and murdering. Those who think otherwise never learned to separate entertainment from reality.

Even trolls aren't what they used to be

Exactly. It's too bad the OP believes a film representation is trying to say everyone with the same label is like lector. I think some people just shouldn't watch fictional films. They tend to confuse them with real life.
I just threw up a little in my mouth.

I'm a police officer. Sixteen years in October of 2016. I've had lots of contacts with those folks who have various emotional and mental conditions. Some are dangerous, some are tedious, some are pathetic, some are sad, some make you angry.well you get the picture. Lector is a fictional creations. The uber villain. That's all. I think he is a very effective creation. I like all the movies.

1. This film doesn't suggest that they are.
2. This film suggests Lector is, which he clearly is.
3. And this should be completely obvious, but a film with a character that is labeled something doesn't suggest that everyone in the real world who is labeled the same thing has the same characteristics as the character in the film. If you think that it does, the world must be tragically disappointing for you.
   If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush

Hun, troll all you want, but no one is really black and white. Even the most bland and generic person has some sort of secret or mindset that you don't know about. Quit pretending you know everything.

This is a generic juvenile bigoted view that usually comes from people who don't want to delve into why a person would do these kinds of things. Bundy Ramirez Gacy etc. were people who chose to do evil and enjoyed it. Calling them crap isn't going to make the hundreds of others just like them dissapear and cease being a threat to us.
Superman & Wonder Woman

This message has been deleted.

The active interest in these types of characters is due to the desire to prevent these types of crimes from happening. That's why the FBI's BSU exists. Of course the average cop on the street is going to say they're nothing but a piece of beep - yeah they are but beep we want behind bars, not loose on the streets.

What about those that manipulate others into doing their dirty work. i.e. those that pull the strings, the puppet masters etc?

This message has been deleted.

But what exactly did (author Thomas) Harris 'fall' for? If he wrote a phenomalally popular novel, turned into a even MORE popular movie, then clearly he knew what he was doing.

This is NOT an "ordinary" psycho, that is the whole point. Like the oversized shark in JAWSHe was thinking at a genius level and had lots of time on his hands to use that super brain for evil pursuits.

If Ted was "a common or garden psychopath", how come he's the most infamous one
By your own logic then, why is Hannibal such a point of interest?
Just because someone is evil or a criminal doesn't mean they aren't complex or mysterious.
It doesn't mean they ARE either, mind you.