I don't know why everyone is going on about this not being on cable...
I wouldn't have minded this being on premium cable. Then I wouldn't have to worry about ratings so much and all the damn commercials.
The ratings issue is precisely why people wish this were on cable. And not even premium cable. If Hannibal were on basic cable -- like AMC or FX -- it could have a long run with ratings that would, and probably will, get it cancelled on network TV.
I don't know why everyone is going on about this not being on cable. I just watched the second episode and I don't see how it would be any better if it were on HBO, for example.
Do I need expletives in every other sentence? Do I need gratuitous nudity? Granted violence isn't lacking, even on NBC. People say that it needs to be on cable to take creative risks but I say that this show pushes itself further than other shows on network television.
I wouldn't have minded this being on premium cable. Then I wouldn't have to worry about ratings so much and all the damn commercials. Yes, it probably would have been great but then I bet people would also complain about it being too graphic.
Also, it seems that people think just because a show is on cable it will automatically be good. That's not always the case. Bryan Fuller said he chose NBC because they'd let him do what he wanted.
Anyway, I guess I'm in the minority here but the first episode sucked me in and the second was no different. I think the cast is fantastic. I'm also very impressed by Hugh's American accent.
This makes me want to watch Bryan Fuller's other shows.
I heard an interview with Bryan Fuller in which he talked about the restrictions NBC had put on him. It's was something like you could show someone having there guts cut open, and you could show the guts on the floor, but you couldn't show the guts falling out. Or something ridiculous like that?
I don't know why everyone is going on about this not being on cable. I just watched the second episode and I don't see how it would be any better if it were on HBO, for example.
Do I need expletives in every other sentence? Do I need gratuitous nudity? Granted violence isn't lacking, even on NBC. People say that it needs to be on cable to take creative risks but I say that this show pushes itself further than other shows on network television.
It's not simply about language and nudity though, networks will also have a strong say in content of all kinds and those with advertisers to worry about will be much more cautious about everything, which in turn limits where/how far a story can go. Which can be a real problem with a show of this nature.
MoreTears: It's not only the threat of cancellation that people seem to have a problem with, it's the stifling of creativity. So far, in that regard, I don't think it's doing too badly. Sure, I'd love it if it were on cable but shows on cable get cancelled too. One good thing about NBC is that it's doing so bad that they keep some shows on that would've been cancelled if it were on another network. Take Community for example (even though it's a shadow of its former self). But that's down to firing Dan Harmon.
theonlyweeman: I haven't actually watched any interviews with Bryan Fuller, but I'm sure that's true. I don't know how they deem what's appropriate to show and what isn't. It does seem a bit silly to me. Especially considering the only thing that NBC asked him to cut from the pilot was a nipple. :rolleyes:
Thunder Lips: You are absolutely right. Networks ruin shows by thinking they know what's best. I hate it! But I can't help that Hannibal is on NBC. I'll support it as long as they don't f*** it up somehow, either by getting rid of Bryan Fuller or changing the show in any way from what the original people wanted. That is, if it lasts that long.
theonlyweeman: I haven't actually watched any interviews with Bryan Fuller, but I'm sure that's true. I don't know how they deem what's appropriate to show and what isn't. It does seem a bit silly to me. Especially considering the only thing that NBC asked him to cut from the pilot was a nipple. :rolleyes:
It's show about a cannibal and they think the nudity's going to cause a problem? Seems odd...
I found the interview, a few minutes in he is asked if it's tough to get things past NBC. He said they weren't too bad, and that they had shots of intestine removal and were told they should show the cavity and the intestines, but they couldn't show them coming out...
The show is focusing on the wrong things: Will Graham's mental state just isn't that interesting and its representation is clunky at best. There's a reason Manhunter didn't dwell on it too much. The supporting characters barely register and the tracking down of the mushroom guy was a bit rushed, to say the least. Perhaps the director thought unnecessarily lengthy, lingering close-ups of rotting bodies would be more interesting.
Also Laurence Fishburne should never be allowed to smile: it's just too scary.
I really enjoyed the second episode, the guy playing Will didn't annoy me as much as he did in the pilot and i thought that the overall "case of the week" was pretty good (the mushroom corpses were suitably disgusting:o). The Lecter scenes were great too, especially his "You've been terribly rude, Miss Lounds. What's to be done about that?" line.
The ratings for the second episode actually went up as well (a 1.6 rating for the pilot to a 1.7 rating for the second ep in the all important Adults 18-49 demographic) so that's an encouraging sign. I'm still wary to get attached to it given the channel, timeslot and fairly graphic violence (for a network show) which could cause more squeamish viewers to turn it off, but if it stabilises around it's current ratings i can see it getting renewed.
Finally, got round to watching the pilot, I'm about 10 mins in.
Is Will actually supposed to have Asperger's (or was he lying?) because nothing about his portrayal even suggests he has. He says "That may require me to be sociable", which is fair enough, but he appears to be making eye contact with Fishbourne's character whilst doing so (which an autistic person probably wouldn't do)
Finally, got round to watching the pilot, I'm about 10 mins in.
Is Will actually supposed to have Asperger's (or was he lying?) because nothing about his portrayal even suggests he has. He says "That may require me to be sociable", which is fair enough, but he appears to be making eye contact with Fishbourne's character whilst doing so (which an autistic person probably wouldn't do)
Funny you should write that "10 minutes in," because the eye contact thing is addressed later on in the episode.:) Will's problems relating to other people are more pronounced with new people, and that is not at all uncommon in people with Asperger's, though Will didn't say he has Asperger's -- he is just on the autism "spectrum," and is closer to Asperger's than some other things.
Funny you should write that "10 minutes in," because the eye contact thing is addressed later on in the episode.:) Will's problems relating to other people are more pronounced with new people, and that is not at all uncommon in people with Asperger's, though Will didn't say he has Asperger's -- he is just on the autism "spectrum," and is closer to Asperger's than some other things.
After being distracted, I've finally finished the pilot. Admittedly, I wasn't hanging on it's every word, but I don't recall a single reference to the eye contact. Must've missed something
...I don't recall a single reference to the eye contact. Must've missed something
When Will and Hannibal meet for the first time, Hannibal remarks on the fact that Will doesn't seem to want to make eye contact with him, and Will explains why he doesn't really like looking at other people's eyes.
When Will and Hannibal meet for the first time, Hannibal remarks on the fact that Will doesn't seem to want to make eye contact with him, and Will explains why he doesn't really like looking at other people's eyes.
I've watched the scene again and it still doesn't explain why he was making eye contact with Jack Crawford at the beginning. Crawford questioned his position on the spectrum, he could almost certainly have got away with not making eye contact, so why bother?
I think I'm reading too far into the whole Asperger's thing, but it does seem to suggest they have perhaps thought the whole thing through.
I've watched the scene again and it still doesn't explain why he was making eye contact with Jack Crawford at the beginning. Crawford questioned his position on the spectrum, he could almost certainly have got away with not making eye contact, so why bother?
I think I'm reading too far into the whole Asperger's thing, but it does seem to suggest they have perhaps thought the whole thing through.
He knows Jack Crawford; he is comfortable with him in a way he clearly isn't when we see him meet strangers on the show. And when I said the "eye contact thing" is explained later in the episode, I didn't mean his making eye contact with Crawford is explained -- I meant his eye contact issue in general is talked about (ie, in the context of his not making eye contact with Hannibal).
My wife didn't like the first episode but I did. I started watching the second one on my own, and as soon as the field of bodies showed up she got interested, so I had to rewatch from the beginning for her. She likes it now.
My wife didn't like the first episode but I did. I started watching the second one on my own, and as soon as the field of bodies showed up she got interested, so I had to rewatch from the beginning for her. She likes it now.
I wasn't sure whether I liked this after the first episode, but episode 2 was a lot better. I still felt the finding of the "farmer" was a little bit rushed though.
I think this show can be a hit, if the producers carefully manage how much screentime they give to Dr. Lecter. He needs to be very much a secondary character for me with the bulk of the focus on Will, which could be a problem as I'm not 100% sold on that character yet. Less is more is a mantra that I think always applies to villains. Too much exposure and the character becomes less scary.
It's a testament to MM's acting that I haven't once thought of Hopkins while watching him. He was always going to have to portray his own Lecter, and he's managing to be suave yet creepy at the same time. His facial expressions are excellent. I was expecting him to devour that female journalist's face after he called her rude, but I'm glad they seem to be building him up slowly. I did have a slight issue understanding what he was saying in the first episode when he spoke too fast, but no problems in episode 2 so maybe I'm getting used to his accent.
It's show about a cannibal and they think the nudity's going to cause a problem? Seems odd...
I found the interview, a few minutes in he is asked if it's tough to get things past NBC. He said they weren't too bad, and that they had shots of intestine removal and were told they should show the cavity and the intestines, but they couldn't show them coming out...
The thing about cable shows that network shows lack- a part from expletives and nudity- is the freedom (for the most part) to carefully craft their characters. Networks shows, again for the most part, tend to have very enjoyable two dimensional characters, with hardly any layers to them. And when they do add some complexity to them, the networks run scared because they want certain characters to appeal to certain demos to get the ad revenue.
Premium cable, and increasingly basic cable, tend to let the writers get on with it. They (cable networks) don't get their knickers in a twist when there are a few quiet slow burning episodes, they are allowed to grow. Networks are solely driven by ratings, so they almost need every episode to have STUFF happening in it- not always but it does seem to be the case. Which is why you sometimes have, in a 22 episode season, a random unrelated storyline pop up and disappear without a trace because they need to fill up their season.
A show like Breaking Bad would never make it to network tv due to its subject matter. It might do now, mainly because AMC have made it commercially viable, but network tv would never take the risk solely by themselves. Cable has nearly always broken the mould.
Although funnily enough, extreme violence seems to be ok on network tv?
The thing about cable shows that network shows lack- a part from expletives and nudity- is the freedom (for the most part) to carefully craft their characters. Networks shows, again for the most part, tend to have very enjoyable two dimensional characters, with hardly any layers to them. And when they do add some complexity to them, the networks run scared because they want certain characters to appeal to certain demos to get the ad revenue.
Premium cable, and increasingly basic cable, tend to let the writers get on with it. They (cable networks) don't get their knickers in a twist when there are a few quiet slow burning episodes, they are allowed to grow. Networks are solely driven by ratings, so they almost need every episode to have STUFF happening in it- not always but it does seem to be the case. Which is why you sometimes have, in a 22 episode season, a random unrelated storyline pop up and disappear without a trace because they need to fill up their season.
A show like Breaking Bad would never make it to network tv due to its subject matter. It might do now, mainly because AMC have made it commercially viable, but network tv would never take the risk solely by themselves. Cable has nearly always broken the mould.
Although funnily enough, extreme violence seems to be ok on network tv?
AMC didn't make it commercially viable though. Mad Men and Breaking Bad renegotiated amazing deals and The Walking Dead had it's budget slashed as a result.
The second season was incredibly slow (almost tediously so) nearly lost a lot of viewers as a result, and the show lost it's showrunner, Shawshank's Frank Darabont. With Breaking Bad wrapping up and it's continued success they appear to have been able to increase The Walking Dead's budget back to what it was previously (but it lost another showrunner, for reasons unkown to me)
The second season was incredibly slow (almost tediously so) nearly lost a lot of viewers as a result
Ratings actually went up quite drastically during Season 2, and then increased yet again throughout Season 3. The slowness of Season 2 didn't seem to affect ratings at all from what i can remember.
Ratings actually went up quite drastically during Season 2, and then increased yet again throughout Season 3. The slowness of Season 2 didn't seem to affect ratings at all from what i can remember.
Ratings did go up, but a lot of people were pissed off with how long it took for so little to happen. I remember reading on this forums quite a number of people pissed off at how they'd managed to pad about 3 episodes worth of content into 13 episodes with the "character study" excuse...
Ratings did go up, but a lot of people were pissed off with how long it took for so little to happen. I remember reading on this forums quite a number of people pissed off at how they'd managed to pad about 3 episodes worth of content into 13 episodes with the "character study" excuse...
Yes because forum opinion really reflects facts. Forums even criticise The Sopranos.... Which is still doing quite well with DVD sales.
Comments
The ratings issue is precisely why people wish this were on cable. And not even premium cable. If Hannibal were on basic cable -- like AMC or FX -- it could have a long run with ratings that would, and probably will, get it cancelled on network TV.
I heard an interview with Bryan Fuller in which he talked about the restrictions NBC had put on him. It's was something like you could show someone having there guts cut open, and you could show the guts on the floor, but you couldn't show the guts falling out. Or something ridiculous like that?
theonlyweeman: I haven't actually watched any interviews with Bryan Fuller, but I'm sure that's true. I don't know how they deem what's appropriate to show and what isn't. It does seem a bit silly to me. Especially considering the only thing that NBC asked him to cut from the pilot was a nipple. :rolleyes:
Thunder Lips: You are absolutely right. Networks ruin shows by thinking they know what's best. I hate it! But I can't help that Hannibal is on NBC. I'll support it as long as they don't f*** it up somehow, either by getting rid of Bryan Fuller or changing the show in any way from what the original people wanted. That is, if it lasts that long.
I found the interview, a few minutes in he is asked if it's tough to get things past NBC. He said they weren't too bad, and that they had shots of intestine removal and were told they should show the cavity and the intestines, but they couldn't show them coming out...
http://www.kevinandbeanarchive.com/audio/
April%2004%20Thursday
/13b%20Bryan%20Fuller-2013-04-04-Writer-Producer-TV%20Show-Hannibal.mp3
Also Laurence Fishburne should never be allowed to smile: it's just too scary.
The ratings for the second episode actually went up as well (a 1.6 rating for the pilot to a 1.7 rating for the second ep in the all important Adults 18-49 demographic) so that's an encouraging sign. I'm still wary to get attached to it given the channel, timeslot and fairly graphic violence (for a network show) which could cause more squeamish viewers to turn it off, but if it stabilises around it's current ratings i can see it getting renewed.
Is Will actually supposed to have Asperger's (or was he lying?) because nothing about his portrayal even suggests he has. He says "That may require me to be sociable", which is fair enough, but he appears to be making eye contact with Fishbourne's character whilst doing so (which an autistic person probably wouldn't do)
Funny you should write that "10 minutes in," because the eye contact thing is addressed later on in the episode.:) Will's problems relating to other people are more pronounced with new people, and that is not at all uncommon in people with Asperger's, though Will didn't say he has Asperger's -- he is just on the autism "spectrum," and is closer to Asperger's than some other things.
When Will and Hannibal meet for the first time, Hannibal remarks on the fact that Will doesn't seem to want to make eye contact with him, and Will explains why he doesn't really like looking at other people's eyes.
I've watched the scene again and it still doesn't explain why he was making eye contact with Jack Crawford at the beginning. Crawford questioned his position on the spectrum, he could almost certainly have got away with not making eye contact, so why bother?
I think I'm reading too far into the whole Asperger's thing, but it does seem to suggest they have perhaps thought the whole thing through.
He knows Jack Crawford; he is comfortable with him in a way he clearly isn't when we see him meet strangers on the show. And when I said the "eye contact thing" is explained later in the episode, I didn't mean his making eye contact with Crawford is explained -- I meant his eye contact issue in general is talked about (ie, in the context of his not making eye contact with Hannibal).
Your wife's into mushrooms? Cool.:D
Haha, yeah. She said something about growing her own mushroom garden too, so i'm thinking I should stop taking any medication she gives me.
I think this show can be a hit, if the producers carefully manage how much screentime they give to Dr. Lecter. He needs to be very much a secondary character for me with the bulk of the focus on Will, which could be a problem as I'm not 100% sold on that character yet. Less is more is a mantra that I think always applies to villains. Too much exposure and the character becomes less scary.
It's a testament to MM's acting that I haven't once thought of Hopkins while watching him. He was always going to have to portray his own Lecter, and he's managing to be suave yet creepy at the same time. His facial expressions are excellent. I was expecting him to devour that female journalist's face after he called her rude, but I'm glad they seem to be building him up slowly. I did have a slight issue understanding what he was saying in the first episode when he spoke too fast, but no problems in episode 2 so maybe I'm getting used to his accent.
Heh, yeah. I guess it's an American thing? I don't know who would have been offended by that nipple but it wouldn't be me.
Thank you for the link! It was an interesting interview and I enjoyed it.
So far, for me, the gore hasn't been too bad. But I do think that leaving things to the imagination can sometimes be more effective.
This had me laughing out loud.
http://www.tvwise.co.uk/2013/04/sky-living-sets-uk-premiere-date-for-hannibal/
Premium cable, and increasingly basic cable, tend to let the writers get on with it. They (cable networks) don't get their knickers in a twist when there are a few quiet slow burning episodes, they are allowed to grow. Networks are solely driven by ratings, so they almost need every episode to have STUFF happening in it- not always but it does seem to be the case. Which is why you sometimes have, in a 22 episode season, a random unrelated storyline pop up and disappear without a trace because they need to fill up their season.
A show like Breaking Bad would never make it to network tv due to its subject matter. It might do now, mainly because AMC have made it commercially viable, but network tv would never take the risk solely by themselves. Cable has nearly always broken the mould.
Although funnily enough, extreme violence seems to be ok on network tv?
The second season was incredibly slow (almost tediously so) nearly lost a lot of viewers as a result, and the show lost it's showrunner, Shawshank's Frank Darabont. With Breaking Bad wrapping up and it's continued success they appear to have been able to increase The Walking Dead's budget back to what it was previously (but it lost another showrunner, for reasons unkown to me)
Ratings actually went up quite drastically during Season 2, and then increased yet again throughout Season 3. The slowness of Season 2 didn't seem to affect ratings at all from what i can remember.
Ratings did go up, but a lot of people were pissed off with how long it took for so little to happen. I remember reading on this forums quite a number of people pissed off at how they'd managed to pad about 3 episodes worth of content into 13 episodes with the "character study" excuse...
Yes because forum opinion really reflects facts. Forums even criticise The Sopranos.... Which is still doing quite well with DVD sales.