I am wondering if anyone can answer this, why is it that they changed the names around for the movies? In the Novels "Red Dragon" is the first one, but it is the same story as "The Silence Of The Lambs" film, then "The Silence of The Lambs" is second and has the same story as the "Hannibal" film and Hannibal came last but has the story of the "Red Dragon" film. They switched the names around and I am wondering why.

What?
Silence of the Lambs, the book, is the same as Silence of the Lambs, the movie. Hannibal, the book, is the same as Hannibal, the movie.

I haven't read Red Dragon, the book, or seen Red Dragon or Manhunter.

Oh I thought I red differently, ok then why did they make the films in the wrong order then?

They didn't, the first one to come out was Manhunter, which is the movie of Red Dragon, then Silence, then Hannibal, and then they realised that Manhunter was terrible, so they made Red Dragon as a prequel (which also turned out to be pretty crap).

Huh...So that's how you spell it.

I'm a huge fan of the series and it pains me to admit that I didn't know it was a series of novels before movies. I'm definitely going to pick them up.

The movies are amazing though! My favorite 'horror' movies ever.

Yeah, Solid has it right. I didn't think Red Dragon was bad, though. And I like the one that shows Hannibal as a youngster.

Him young was my least favorite of the video series. Red Dragon, although not a great Hannibal movie, was an amazing detective movie, in my opinion.

Do the books show more detail about the psyche of Hannibal?

I think I like it because it shows a lot of the why he is the way he is. And I've only read Red Dragon, which deals more with that killer's stuff.

Manhunter was the first film in the series, but it wasn't untill Silence of the Lambs that Sir Anthony Hopkins played the role of Hannibal.

EDIT: I have read all of the books in the series and yes they do delve into Hannibal's mindset a lot more than the films.

The director changed too. I consider the real "trilogy" as Silence, Red, and Hannibal. Hannibal Rising was ok...but no Anthony no party.

I've also read all the books. I love them.

Red Dragon isn't as good as the other two, but certainly not bad. Definitely way better than Manhunter.


I never watched Hannibal Rising, but that doesn't surprise me one bit; Anthony Hopkins' amazing acting is what makes Hannibal so great. A Hannibal film without Hopkins is like a Terminator film without Schwarzenegger.

I agree with you. Red Dragon was the 'worst' movie of the three, despite having both Hopkins (ofcourse) and Edward Norton. I do think it's the best book of the series though.


Also agreed. This one svcks, don't watch it.

Hannibal Rising is an origin story.

If you want to know why Hannibal is the way he is, you want to watch the movie (better still, read the book).

Exactly, Hopkins had me rooting for Hannibal. I was just fascinated with this character and his way of doing things, the way he is always multiple steps ahead of everyone else. How he is such a gentleman about everything. His over all presence is just mind blowing.

Maybe I'll read the book, but I'd rather avoid the film. As was said, no matter how good the actor that portrays him, after Anthony Hopkins he can only disappoint.

Also, I don't believe that Lecter necessarily needs an origin story. Keeping a good character's past a mystery can add greatly to the atmosphere of the story.