or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Hannibal on NBC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hannibal on NBC - Page 2

post #31 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

While it's only been one episode, it definitely appears to be much better than The Following, the writing alone looks to be far more intelligent and the acting is more nuanced. The Following is just another "24" only with a different story driving it, fun to watch but check your brain at the door.

No doubt. My only experience with Hannibal Lecter is Silence of the Lambs, not having seen any of the other assorted movies & TV shows or read any of the books about this character. This looks smart & serialized, which is usually enough to get me in the door.
post #32 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by vfxproducer View Post

I don't understand this comment, since it costs exactly the same to do a wider shot vs a tighter close up. Same crew, same cameras, same lighting, same actor, same set or location, same set dressing, same hair and makeup, same everything. I think you misunderstand why people shoot closeups. It's not about cost.
Maybe you weren't even born when I was told this by a couple of people, the LaGarde twins, whom I toured with and appeared in an episode of "Star Trek" and "Daniel Boone". biggrin.gif

I know in production that ways to cut costs were always an option so it makes total sense to me. The twins were musical entertainers not actors. They mentioned that the work was so easy because they didn't have to do any real acting. They barely had any lines in that episode but I also later knew the two female twins in that episode who did. So explain to me why I don't see these kind of closeups in British produced shows? In fact the first time I noticed was in 1968 with "The Prisoner" which was filmed more like a movie. I've also heard that these close-ups worked for the now by-gone days of people watching on like 17" 4:3 TVs. Today's 17 incher is a 32" LCD panel which cost about the same as those 17" sets did then.

I also have an arts background and think those closeups look awful unless warranted for some effect. But they aren't used that way. BTW, I didn't come up with "a closeup only a dentist would love" it was often used on forums such as this. The recent UK series "Utopia" was even presented in 2:35:1. I can imagine all the whining from Joe Six Packs if US shows started doing that but it was a nice canvas for that show.

Regarding "Hannibal" I was a bit pleasantly surprised and found it better than I expected. At first I thought the cop extras looked a bit stiff but that went on throughout the show as if to make the whole thing look a bit dreamlike. In fact David Cronenberg came to mind watching the first episode and of course it is a Toronto production. This might actually work and it looks to be stand alone episodes not a serial.
post #33 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

He did save her life. I suspect it's to show he does have a certain humanity, or "code" of some sort, or perhaps to further ingratiate himself with Will and the FBI, or maybe just to make the audience sympathize with him. It was an interesting choice, for sure.

Contrary to what I posted above, I think I'm "in" with this show. It does seem superior in many ways to 'The Following', which I'm watching and trying to defend, without much success. tongue.gif

In sharp contrast toThe Following, which made my eyes glaze over, I loved the Hannibal premiere, despite coming in with extremely high expectations. The combination of Hannibal's murderous brilliance and Will's uncanny ability to penetrate the minds of psychopaths like Hannibal bode well for an interesting series. I like both Hugh Dancy as Will Graham and Mads Mikkelsen as Hannibal Lecter. I have admired Mikkelsen's work ever since his wonderful turn as the creepy Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. I would like Dancy if for no other reason than his taste in women (Think Claire Danes.smile.gif) but he has also done good work professionally, particularly in Black Hawk Down.
post #34 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

This might actually work and it looks to be stand alone episodes not a serial.

If it turns out to be just another cop procedural, no matter how well done, I'm out. Don't care for them; life is too short.
post #35 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

I know in production that ways to cut costs were always an option so it makes total sense to me. The twins were musical entertainers not actors. They mentioned that the work was so easy because they didn't have to do any real acting. They barely had any lines in that episode but I also later knew the two female twins in that episode who did. So explain to me why I don't see these kind of closeups in British produced shows? In fact the first time I noticed was in 1968 with "The Prisoner" which was filmed more like a movie. I've also heard that these close-ups worked for the now by-gone days of people watching on like 17" 4:3 TVs. Today's 17 incher is a 32" LCD panel which cost about the same as those 17" sets did then.

I'm not going to discuss the merits of the extreme close-up, or why they are more common on US shows than UK shows. I'm merely pointing out that they are not done for cost savings. How much the actor's face fills the screen in one shot or another doesn't have any impact on the costs involved. I can honestly say that in none of the 55+ TV shows and movies I've worked on, were extreme close-ups ever used as a cost saving measure. They are used purely for stylistic reasons. Whether or not that works for you is subjective and up to personal taste.
post #36 of 312
So what was the meat content in the egg dish Hannibal served? eek.gif
post #37 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ridgefamus View Post

So what was the meat content in the egg dish Hannibal served? eek.gif

lol. eek.gif
post #38 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ridgefamus View Post

So what was the meat content in the egg dish Hannibal served? eek.gif

Me thinks a little leftover lung.....I loved the littel pause Hannibal gave he said it was delicious biggrin.gif

I liked it but am keeping a distance....Not sure how I feel on the CSI look of the show either...I have it on my season pass and I am giving it a shot however...If this show turns out to be good and gets canceled I can always hope someone like TNT picks it up to match with Southland wink.gif
post #39 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph8te View Post

Not sure how I feel on the CSI look of the show either...I have it on my season pass and I am giving it a shot however...If this show turns out to be good and gets canceled I can always hope someone like TNT picks it up to match with Southland wink.gif

I normally never wish that shows fail, given the large number of people on the crew who have to pay rent and feed their families. But I have to admit that I am troubled by shows like this and Dexter. I had a friend who was tortured and murdered by a serial killer. So I won't be disappointed if this show gets an early cancellation. The less we look at serial killers as entertainment, the better of we are as a society, in my opinion.
post #40 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by vfxproducer View Post

I normally never wish that shows fail, given the large number of people on the crew who have to pay rent and feed their families. But I have to admit that I am troubled by shows like this and Dexter. I had a friend who was tortured and murdered by a serial killer. So I won't be disappointed if this show gets an early cancellation. The less we look at serial killers as entertainment, the better of we are as a society, in my opinion.

I am sorry to hear that, its never easy when we are touched personally by something that gets "fictionalized" and it will always be more "real" to us. I understand your POV on this subject and in real life this shouldnt be taken lightly. I did a report for a psychology class on Serial Killers and Masss Murderers so I am aware of the "numbers" involved as well as some of the other things......Regardless of if we ahve these shows around those types of people will be "around" us, and IMO its not the shows but the "NEWS" agiencies that trigger much of this, but that is a different argument for a different thread and forum......

Im of the viewpoint that we cant shy away from these things but rather do a better job of educating everyone on the signs and triggers that occur. regardless of what we do however, there will always be people whom ignore the signs and allow these types of people to actually come out and act on thier feelings....then there will always be the real life shows making these people out to be "celebrities" instead of trying to focus on how to "fix" the problem......
post #41 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by vfxproducer View Post

I normally never wish that shows fail, given the large number of people on the crew who have to pay rent and feed their families. But I have to admit that I am troubled by shows like this and Dexter. I had a friend who was tortured and murdered by a serial killer. So I won't be disappointed if this show gets an early cancellation. The less we look at serial killers as entertainment, the better of we are as a society, in my opinion.

I hear you. If I had been as close as you were to someone who died at the hands of a psychopath, my attitude toward the Hannibal Lecter legend would no doubt be considerably less fond than it is. I confess that I became fascinated with Hannibal when I read Red Dragon and found him more interesting as a result of reading The Silence of the Lambs. Hell, Hannibal even loves one of my all time favorite recordings, Glen Gould's 1981 recording of Bach's the Goldberg Variations. Although this doesn't mean that I sympathize with serial killers or cannibals, it does mean that I am glad to see Hannibal back for an encore.
post #42 of 312
Finally got around to watching it on the DVR tonight. Liked it a lot, but it made me feel "dirty". It was a feeling I liked before I had kids, but now I'm not really liking it as much. Really well-made show though. I'll probably watch a few more, but as someone else said, if it turns out to be a procedural, I'm out. I'm really over those.
post #43 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyehill View Post

Finally got around to watching it on the DVR tonight. Liked it a lot, but it made me feel "dirty". It was a feeling I liked before I had kids, but now I'm not really liking it as much. Really well-made show though. I'll probably watch a few more, but as someone else said, if it turns out to be a procedural, I'm out. I'm really over those.

I can live with the police procedural aspects of the show if it also shows us what Hannibal does behind the authorities' backs and reveals Will's growing suspicions of him. I thought the premier episode did a good job of showing us who Hannibal is. Hannibal called the first week's villain on the phone because he thought doing so would be fun. He didn't, however, worry at all about the lives that would be lost because of what he did. Such conduct is vintage Hannibal.
post #44 of 312
Interesting episode last night, especially the human mushroom garden eek.gif

The female blogger storyline was confusing for me. I guess she's not a criminal, just blogs about crime.
post #45 of 312
THis show is already about 3 light years better than The Dumbass FBI & The Crazy Professor....err..I meant The Following.
post #46 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Young C View Post

Interesting episode last night, especially the human mushroom garden eek.gif

The female blogger storyline was confusing for me. I guess she's not a criminal, just blogs about crime.

She is also in Hannibal parlance, "free range rude", and thus soon ... dinner.
post #47 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post


Will is a "Special Investigator" for the FBI because his quirky psyche disqualified him from becoming a special agent. Although Will isn't exactly an agent, he is nevertheless authorized to carry a gun. Jack Crawford recognizes Will's unique gifts but Will's oddness makes Jack wary of him, nevertheless.

 

Maybe in the TV world, but never in real life.  Though I will admit it's not one of those over-the-top types of believability issues that I find so annoying, it is not accurate.  As for the show in general, I have watched the 1st one and have the 2nd one recorded to watch soon.  I thought it was very made and acted, though occasionally I lost a word or two from the Hannibal character due to his heavy accent.  I'm no fan of procedurals, but if this one continues like the first, I will stick around.  In fact, I have already added it as a series based on what I saw.

post #48 of 312
Just got to watch pilot as my DVR punted it last week. I was impressed w/ it overall. Hope they continue w/ the same quality.
post #49 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by vfxproducer View Post

I don't understand this comment, since it costs exactly the same to do a wider shot vs a tighter close up. Same crew, same cameras, same lighting, same actor, same set or location, same set dressing, same hair and makeup, same everything. I think you misunderstand why people shoot closeups. It's not about cost.
Well....yes and no.

While the main purpose isn't to save money, it can do exactly that.

The wider the shot, the more extras, props and standing set you need to fill the scene. On location, that means blocking more sidewalk, street or other area for a longer time. On a set, shooting wider means having to possibly move the flyable walls for multiple angles instead of being able to pull everything except what's needed to be seen. In theory, this can also reduce the need for a lot of extra lighting since it wouldn't have to cover as much of the set. Very close-up shots can also potentially yield less need for audio sweetening in post by allowing the boom mic to be closer or lavs to not be hidden under clothing. Further, ECU shots usually don't involve the "walk and talk", which allows the actor to concentrate more on the dialog. This can reduce retakes. Also, those really tight shots usually won't be dolly or jib shots and can even be done hand held if the DP chooses. This means less gear rental by possibly not needing those more expensive mounts. Finally, if the shot involves CGI or other effects, that's all the less area to cover and potentially less rendering needed.

So, you're right, it's not the motivation, but it can be cheaper to avoid mixing tight shots with wider shots - or using multiple wider angles.

Of course, the same can be said of doing everything on master shots to avoid moving the camera around. The extra expensive of more background elements being needed is made up by not needing to turn everything around for reax.
Edited by NetworkTV - 4/12/13 at 12:47pm
post #50 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Well....yes and no.

While the main purpose isn't to save money, it can do exactly that.

It could do that. But my point is, in the hundreds and hundreds of times I've been on set, never once, ever, did somebody propose a closeup to save money. Not once.

Sure, you don't need as many extras for a closeup. But you are going to need them for your wide master anyway, so when you go tighter for coverage, you didn't save any money. The comment about not renting gear if you do closeups also doesn't make sense. Show's usually have a style - either a nice smooth studio dolly look, or they want the hand held cinema verite look. If they are a dolly show, they are going to be shooting almost everything on a dolly. The wide master is shot on a dolly, and then they zoom in tighter or move the dolly closer for coverage - the closeup does't save you equipment costs. And sure, doing a closeup on VFX might save you some money by not rendering a big CG mackground, but never once has anybody proposed that on any visual effects I've supervised. More likely, the discussion will be about maximizing the amount of shooting that can be done into a practical sent to avoid green screen / CG costs entirely.

So yeah, in theory, you could save money by doing closeups. In practice, however, that's not at all why they are done. They are done because people want to see the actor's faces.
post #51 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

She is also in Hannibal parlance, "free range rude", and thus soon ... dinner.

Ha. Right. We'll see what happens next week.
post #52 of 312
Subtitle: Monk Gets Serious


...and that ain't no fun at all.
post #53 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

She is also in Hannibal parlance, "free range rude", and thus soon ... dinner.

Well that character does get killed in Red Dragon, they just made her a woman in this series.
Edited by sa - 4/13/13 at 7:35am
post #54 of 312
I liked episode two even better. It played more like a European series that even a Canadian or US produced episode. This one reminded me of Argento's work. The dumb thing is I forget to set the DVR for a series so wound up watching it OnDemand on Comcast. First off they only presented it in stereo for some reason not 5.1 (yes this was the HD version) and two they disable fast forward. Here's how to get around the latter to reduce a 60 minute episode back to 44 minutes: use the 5 minute skip they provide as soon as the commercial break starts. Since commercial breaks are long these days you'll wind up about 1 minute or two on the other side. Rewind isn't disabled so you can rewind back a minute or two to where the rating shows in the upper left corner and press play (or up).
post #55 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

She is also in Hannibal parlance, "free range rude", and thus soon ... dinner.

Exactly what I thought when he started mentioning how rude she was......

I am enjoying this show, I try to look beyond the subject matter and focus on teh acting, which has been suprisingly good....Im not sure I agree with the "serial killer of the week" storyline, but alas they need something to drive the show I guess....Ill be staying for the ride right now, hopefully they continue to improve....Im still not sure I like the "high contrast" flashy scenes reminds me too much of the CSI shows which I HATE wink.gif ...
post #56 of 312
Enjoyed the first two episodes but not a fan of the whole head trippy thing. Will stick with it for awhile to see where it goes.
post #57 of 312
Ratings dropped 20% from Week 2. That seems more than normal for a show in Week 3 but I am not sure if it is very telling of its future.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/ratings-community-parks-hannibal-dips-beast-steady-big-154535449.html
post #58 of 312
If anything, HANNIBAL is 100x the "serial killer" series that FOX's incredibly stupid THE FOLLOWING is. And yet I give FOX's series better chances of long term survival.

After watching & loving things like LOST or FRINGE, it is amazing how much a series based in "reality" like THE FOLLOWING can push me well past my suspension of disbelief threshold. I know...wrong thread. But HANNIBAL is head & shoulders times 10 above what has got to be the biggest waste of Kevin Bacon's talent ever produced.
post #59 of 312
I just read that NBC isn't showing the 4th episode due to the "cultural climate". Not postponing it, just skipping it and never showing it. http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/nbc-pulls-episode-4-of-hannibal-in-wake-of-newtown-boston-bombings-1200390579/
post #60 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeakybirnbaum View Post

I just read that NBC isn't showing the 4th episode due to the "cultural climate". Not postponing it, just skipping it and never showing it. http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/nbc-pulls-episode-4-of-hannibal-in-wake-of-newtown-boston-bombings-1200390579/
It's distributed in 7 other countries so it will be interesting to see if it airs in those locations.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Hannibal on NBC