waaaah, people don't deserve to like this thing if they don't like it in the same way I do!
why is one adaptation (the movies) fine to make but a tv series isn't? should red dragon not have been made because manhunter was enough? or would the show be fine as long as the actors weren't pretty (to which i add: edward norton is damn pretty, and i've never seen mads mikkelsen considered widely attractive before this)?
you're the one on the butthurt high horse, here. you don't decide who deserves to be a fan and who doesn't. and guess what, despite the existence of the tv show, the books and movies are still there. go read/watch them if the existence of a new thing hurts you so much. i can understand the argument of not wanting a certain group of people in the fandom, but just judging anyone who got into it through the tv show at all? is fucking stupid, just like all the people who whine about the integrity of the original games whenever a new version of pokemon comes out.
there are plenty of reasons why someone may not have discovered the books and movies until now. the only reason i did was because i had parents that let me watch r rated movies at a young age. even then, the movies and books were at their peak popularity when i was in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, and i'm in my mid-20s. so take the "i'm superior because i liked it before it was cool/pretty" stick out of your ass, please.
Edward Norton and Hugh Dancy are both attractive. Yes, Hugh Dancy is appealing to the 'scruffy hipster nerd culture' that's really in with the demographic now, but I actually really like his take on the character, because his personality is completely off-putting despite his good looks.
And I think Mad Mikkelsen has about as much physical appeal as Cucumbersnatch, which is none at all. He's not even a younger take on the character, because Brian Cox was roughly that age when he played Hannibal. Anthony Hopkins is just the default mental image for Lecter for most people, so most assume he's older when he's not really.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: HANNIBAL
(Anonymous) 2013-04-10 04:13 am (UTC)(link)why is one adaptation (the movies) fine to make but a tv series isn't? should red dragon not have been made because manhunter was enough? or would the show be fine as long as the actors weren't pretty (to which i add: edward norton is damn pretty, and i've never seen mads mikkelsen considered widely attractive before this)?
you're the one on the butthurt high horse, here. you don't decide who deserves to be a fan and who doesn't. and guess what, despite the existence of the tv show, the books and movies are still there. go read/watch them if the existence of a new thing hurts you so much. i can understand the argument of not wanting a certain group of people in the fandom, but just judging anyone who got into it through the tv show at all? is fucking stupid, just like all the people who whine about the integrity of the original games whenever a new version of pokemon comes out.
there are plenty of reasons why someone may not have discovered the books and movies until now. the only reason i did was because i had parents that let me watch r rated movies at a young age. even then, the movies and books were at their peak popularity when i was in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, and i'm in my mid-20s. so take the "i'm superior because i liked it before it was cool/pretty" stick out of your ass, please.
+1
(Anonymous) 2013-04-10 04:50 am (UTC)(link)And I think Mad Mikkelsen has about as much physical appeal as Cucumbersnatch, which is none at all. He's not even a younger take on the character, because Brian Cox was roughly that age when he played Hannibal. Anthony Hopkins is just the default mental image for Lecter for most people, so most assume he's older when he's not really.