I was watching the supplemental extras on the Hannibal disc and couldn't help but notice how they mention that Jodie and Demme decided not to do the sequel(obviously), but they spend little time telling us why they pulled out.

It is hinted that Jodie felt that the Clarice character was betrayed in the sequel, but there's not much further than that. But Demme's decision to withdraw from the project is even more of a mystery to me, as he appeared to be on board right up to when they first script was written. I would like to know if he has stated publicly his reasons for pulling out. Does anyone with any inside knowledge have an idea as to why? I'm just curious.

And on that same token, has Demme or Jodie ever stated what he/she thinks of Hannibal?

I believe it's because neither of them liked how nutso the novel was.

I've heard the same thing, but I thought the movie ending was much truer to the Starling character than the book's head-scratching ending.

Yeah, that's why I never understood Foster's reasoning. I keep wondering if anyone ever bothered to show her a final draft of the script. And this is the same lady who thought the screenplay to Flightplan made sense!

I know a lot of people do not appreciate the movie Hannibal. But if Foster was in it, I think it would stand up as one of those rare sequels that is just as good as the original. Hopkins minus Foster just lacks something.

I'm probably one of the few who really enjoy Hannibal (though granted, if they had kept the book's ending, I wouldn't have). Oddly enough, while I thought Foster was Superb in SotL, I feel like Julianne Moore was better suited to this newer, older, "grizzled" and battle-worn Clarice.


-Doc

I'm with you.. I really enjoyed Hannibal and I thought Moore fit the part wonderfully. I do have a sick desire to have wished that they had released it with the book ending just because it's rare to see a mainstream release go THAT screwy (though I will agree the movie ending is probably better).

she didn't want to get pregnant. *offensive joke of the day*

I think Hannibal would have been more enjoyable for me if Foster were in it. She is Starling and to see anyone else playing it just doesn't feel right. She would have been the essential ingredient to make the film work. As it stands now I think it's a pretty good movie, but it probably would have been great had she come back. It would have been nice to get Demme back, but I can't say he would have done a better job than Ridley Scott. Demme is good, but he's no Scott.

I don't miss Demme as much as I missed Foster but either way I thought it was a good movie. Ridley made the film feel lush and intimate, whereas the previous film felt cold and clinical. It is a good contrast.

Absolutely.

I think by the time they had decided to change the ending it was too late and Foster was committed to other things.

I third that.

...since I've never read the book can somebody spoil this wacky ending for me.

I thought I read that Hannibal had drugged Clarice (and kept her drugged) and they went off together to be in looooooooove. Did drugs play no part in it? If so, then it's even wackier than I thought. I never read the book.

You should probably spoilerize that.

I like Hannibal, but still it's just a good thriller while Silence of the Lambs is a masterpiece. I think Demme knew it'd be this way and wisely decided to be remembered as 'Lambs' director and not 'Hannibal Lecter movies' director.

Even after seeing The Brave One?


She should've dropped those "other things" and do the sequel. I mean, we're talking about the sequel to a blockbuster hit she won an OSCAR for FFS!

Yeah more or less... It's been a while since I read it and I could swear it was the other way around. Wiki has that same ending but Wiki isn't always 100%.

Anyway, I guess I'm one of the few who totally enjoyed Harris' 'Fuck you world' ending from the book. The movie ending was pretty good, but the book was better. I suppose everyone seems to want their bullshit-by the numbers-fairy take ending so most people hate the book ending.

Meanwhile, those same folks will tell you "The Sopranos" shitty fade to black ending was Artistic Genius.

Harris built up the Clarice character with a certain moral center. He betrayed it. He has every right to do that with his own creation. But why should people like it and why would it be a "bullshit-by the numbers-fairy tale ending" to be true to Clarice's character? Harris may have gotten satisfaction from his "fuck you world" ending and if that's what he wanted, at the expense of consistency, he's welcome to it.

No, that sucked.

the thing I don't get about the movie ending is,

I am glad Foster didn't do Hannibal. I don't think her Clarice fit this story at all. I would've been madly pissed off had she been in the movie. Without her, the movie was just disappointing. With her, I would still be complaining about it to date.

I remember watching Hannibal when it first came out and was disappointed...partly, because the movie was missing Foster's performance as Starling. However upon a recent 2nd viewing, I thought it was pretty good with Moore in the role.

I think you've convinced me not to touch the Hannibal book. I've read the SotL book which was along with the movie made everything come together.

See, I've never understood that. Who are we (you, me, Jodi Foster, etc.) to say this? Why should we presume to know the character better than its creator, Thomas Harris?

The character of Clarice Starling was written a certain way for most of two novels, and then there was a complete 180 at the very end of the second one.

Regardless of the change to the ending, the script was pretty bad. As was the source novel.