I can see your point and when you put it that way it makes alot of sense. I guess I've always been one to like what most people hate

Im in total agreement that the film's ending is more satisfying than the book's, more faithful to the spirit of the character of Starling, especially from Silence of the Lambs.The movie also ignored what people wanted to know, basically some of what makes Lector tick, which the book had but the film ignored in favor of making it a chase film.

Was this novel a best seller? Or was it considered a failure?

Is there a way to tell what each book grossed?

1) Red Dragon
2) Silence of the Lambs
3) Hannibal

Both, I guess.

It sold really well. (Which, after all, isn't unexpected. The sales had nothing to do with how good -- or bad -- the book was. I'm sure it sold millions on the first day alone.)

But most critics and even 'regular folk' disliked it. At least that was the impression at the time... I don't know if that'll change as time passes. I personally loved the first two books, but felt that the 3rd one was weak and cartoonish. None of the characters felt right.

Count me among those who enjoyed the book's ending to the movie ending. The book actually tried to give us a conclusion of sorts - the movie was just trying to set up a sequel.

Foster didn't play Clarice because of the Hannibals ending. After 10 years we were given the finger. Screw Harris.

I'm about half way through the book now, and I'm thoroughly engrossed and am enjoying it immensely. Now whether or not I'll buy the ending, that's another story. But...so far, so good. I'm at the point now where Hannibal's on the move again after murdering Pazzi.

The movie ending is what I liked.

Can someone spoilerize what happened to Barney in the book? I'm very curious. thanks.

A great scene

I was talking about the movie ending with a friend and he wondered why...

Thanks for the Barney info.

dhmac - in the book, Hannibal has 6 fingers on his hand. A thumb might not have done it. The ending may have been the same.

But I thought he had the thumb removed before the events in Hannibal?

Hannibal had six fingers, and he had one removed upon his escape to Italy. By the time he got handcuffed (in the movie), he had only the five fingers. Yes, the removal of the thumb would have been more logical than the entire hand. Perhaps, under the pressure, Hannibal isn't so sharp, eh?

I don't know. It's the hand that keeps one cuffed not just the thumb. Unless someone has a really small hand the cuffs are on wrong there's no reason to believe they can escape without doing what Hannibal did.

Plus, cutting a whole hand off is far more sensational for the book and the movie.

Boy, oh boy! Talk about history repeating...! This is 2007, and the same thing just happened. I finished reading Silence of the Lambs (again), and my interest in Hannibal Lecter was rekindled (again). This time, I picked up Hannibal in a hurry, and enjoyed the hell out of it.

Now, with just a quarter of the novel left to read, I placed an order for Hannibal Rising, hopefully it will arrive before I finish.

I have no illusions about Hannibal Rising - but what the hell. It can't be absolutely terrible...can it?

Anyway, Hannibal is an excellent read.

Just wait.

I wonder why Thomas Harris didn't team up Clarice Starling with Will Graham (from Red Dragon) for the Hannibal novel? That would have been interesting...

...and for those of you who think its over...its not. It can't be. For as long as life and strength run through Thomas Harris, and as long as there's $money$ to be made, there will be another installment to the Hannibal Lecter legacy.

Maybe this time, Will Graham will make an appearance, in order to recapture both Dr. Lecter and Clarice Starling. Starling's friend Ardelia Mapp is also looking, so maybe Mapp and Graham...Graham and Mapp...?

Hannibal left us hanging...Hannibal Rising (even the title is stupid) was filler...I'm waiting for what happens next...

The thing is, based on the performance of "Hannibal Rising" in both book and movie form there ISN'T "money to be made".

There was an article in Entertainment Weekly detailing the complete financial failure of "Hannibal Rising". The movie lost money and the vast majority of first-run hardcover copies of the book sit unsold in warehouses across the world.

This must be distressing to Harris's new publisher - Bantam Books.
From Wikipedia.org:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Harris

...In 2004, Bantam Books signed Harris to an eight-figure, two-book contract. The first of these books, Hannibal Rising, chronicles the early life of the young Hannibal from age 6 to 20. The novel sheds more light on the circumstances of the death of his family during World War II, with a focus on Dr. Lecter's memories of his younger sister, Mischa, and was released on 5 December 2006. As of yet, no details have been released on Harris' sixth novel, although it is suggested that it will be a continuation of the Hannibal Lecter series, taking place after Hannibal Rising.

I wouldn't say that Hannibal Rising was terrible. I found it to be a modestly diverting read. It's just nothing like the others. Most of all, I wouldn't go into it expecting it to be a thriller, as it's not.

There's absolutely no indicator as to whether his next book is a Lecter book or not. I'm surprised that comment hasn't been deleted from Wikipedia.

Are there any differences between the book & movie of Hannibal Rising?

Questions about Hannibal, book & movie:


I also didn't really care for Hopkins' performance in the movie. In SOTL, he was a terrifying predator ready to pounce, but in the sequel he was playing HL almost like a comedic pop culture icon.