Adam3000
-
Let's be reality. There's only one right answer.
Yep, no doubt. After 20 hours of piff, Mads has secured that title easily.
who is the best Hannibal Lecter
- Thread starter Blaze500
- Start date
Yep, no doubt. After 20 hours of piff, Mads has secured that title easily.
Mads is LIGHTYEARS ahead of everyone else...he redefined that role and it will cement him as a tv legend if they can get 2, maybe 3 more seasonsYep, no doubt. After 20 hours of piff, Mads has secured that title easily.
I AM WARHOL
Veteran
This hyperbole tho. Silence of the Lambs is one of the greatest movies of alltime with AHop playing the perfect Hannibal Lector. Mads is a beast too but come on playboi
"Silence Of The Lambs" is one of the greatest movies of all time but that has nothing to do with anything. If you want to argue Hopkins is the superior actor, cool....or even, he's the more iconic Lecter, ok....but better?
The question is "who is the best Hannibal Lecter"....Mads is far closer to the original character than Hopkins, due to the amount of time invested in the character. Hopkins version is basically a 2 dimensional, truncated version of who Hannibal Lecter is.
If Hopkins was given comparable time to develop his Lecter, I'm sure he'd be just as good if not better than Mads. But you can't develop a character over the course of 1 movie....or even 3 movies....like you can 20+ hours of television. You just can't....it's impossible.
Fred.
Mads. Hopkins is the easy pick but Mads is the true winner
There's something about this board and always picking the newer portrayal of something over the classic version
Sometimes the newer version is just better. If you did a similar poll with Ledger/Nicholson portraying The Joker, Ledger would win fairly easily.
The only reason Hannibal is a topic of contention is because the show isn't a pop culture mainstay like the movies. I seen the movies when they came out, Hopkins did his thing, but again there's no way you can put a comparable amount of detail into a character, or accurately represent them, in 3 hours vs 26 hours. There isn't an actor dead or alive that could do that.
And I'm
at half the votes in here....I don't remember seeing 90% of these people in the "Hannibal" thread. It's possible they watched and never spoke on it....but I have a feeling Hopkins is getting votes just off GP. The dudes that I know for a fact watched the show, voted for Mads.Fred.
Exactly. Anyone that has watched the Hannibal show will never vote for anyone but Mads...he disappears in that roleSometimes the newer version is just better. If you did a similar poll with Ledger/Nicholson portraying The Joker, Ledger would win fairly easily.
The only reason Hannibal is a topic of contention is because the show isn't a pop culture mainstay like the movies. I seen the movies when they came out, Hopkins did his thing, but again there's no way you can put a comparable amount of detail into a character, or accurately represent them, in 3 hours vs 26 hours. There isn't an actor dead or alive that could do that.
And I'm
Fred.
KalKal
Superstar
i'll go with the man who won the oscar with the least amount of screen time ever
Giving Hopkins more screen time in the later movies worked against him. Turning him into an anti-hero that just eats the "rude" puts Hopkins behind Mikkelson in my mind if you consider all of the movies.
