Talk:Red Dragon (2002 film)

Old messages

To the recent editor: Thank you so much for vastly improving this article. I wrote it very quickly off the top of my head initially because it was a most wanted article. Needless to say, you have improved it beyond measure. Pcb21| Pete 21:06, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I changed the word 'unwordly' in "Lecter treats Starling as an unworldly student but Graham as a fellow professional (though not an equal)." to unworthy, as it appeared to be a typo. Please revert this if I am mistaken. Unworthy doesn't seem quite the right word to me, perhaps on his outer ways it does, although his thoughts are otherwise internally (been a while, so I don't dare attempt to write anything on the complex relationship between Clarice and Lector). MardukZero 03:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS: I would also rephrase the sentences to less confusing grammar in the latter parts of the synopsis (around where Graham confronts Dolarhyde while he is holding Graham's son hostage), but my mind is not in a proper state to do it correctly right now. MardukZero 03:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Synopsis is so far off that I do not believe a simple edit can fix/cover everything. While it gives a passing fair account of events, its shallow conclusions and wayward intimations quite horribly miss the point of the novel.--HungryHippo 08:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the synopsis is so far off in the context of the simplistic story given in the film(s). However I feel that this article blurs the line between novel and book, and in that way miss the point of the novel. Perhaps separate articles for film(s) and novel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiansnyder (talk • contribs) 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

The assertation in the trivia section is absurd - "This film is unique in that it is an adaptation of the Red Dragon novel, while at the same time being a remake of Manhunter." There have been countless novels which have been filmed more than once (think A Tale of Two Cities!) and in each case the second film has been both an adaptation and a remake. I will remove this piece of non-trivia in a week, unless someone shows good reason why this film is different in kind to other remakes of adaptations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmc29 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"Oysters"

Early in the movie, Norton's character says "The tenderest part of the chicken is the oysters ... on either side of the back". Which cut of the chicken is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.2.63 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's probably the kidneys. Afalbrig (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WRONG; it is definitely NOT kidneys which are neither tender nor 'on either side of the back' Oysters are two small, round pieces of dark meat on the back of poultry near the thigh. Some regard the "oyster meat" to be the most flavorful and tender part of the bird, while others dislike the taste and texture. It is referenced in the films Amélie and Red Dragon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.16.89 (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lecter's identity

The line that states Will Graham to be co-agent and friend of Lecter is possibly incorrect on both facts. Lecter was not an FBI agent, and most probably was never a friend of Will Graham. I will remove this sentence from the plot in a week's time unless good reason is shown for its existence. Treason of isengard 05:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Hannibal Lecter films

Template:Hannibal Lecter films has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --CyberGhostface 22:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

We've got two conflicting statements:

"This film is set to be followed by Hannibal Rising, though this film precedes Red Dragon* in the Hannibal Lecter chronology."

"Red Dragon is, in both publishing chronology and story order, the first story in the Lecter trilogy."

I imagine the intent was to have the * be Hannibal Rising, but being that I don't know, I just figured I'd bring it to someone's attention. 65.190.120.48 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Disembowel

he didn't stab him randomly.The term dissembowel isn't apropriate.he new what he was doing,he is a doctor,he tell's him "your in a shock ...",i'm guessing he was aming at his splean, in order to blead him to death.--87.65.171.194 02:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Repetition of painting information

The difference in paintings is mentioned in full twice in this article. Once in the introductory paragraph and then once in an Error section.

Does anyone else feel like this is redundant? --65.189.245.127 08:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't totally redundant as the error section mention actually addresses it as an error. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Raspail issue

I posted this a year ago on the Hannibal Lecter talk page. It's a response to the Raspail confusion:

"It's actually an inconsistency in "Hannibal" only. In the books Lecter killed Raspail and Gumb killed Klaus but "Silence" screenwriter Ted Tally condensed the two characters into one. For the record, the literary Raspail was killed by Lecter but the cinematic Raspail was killed by Gumb.

The problem with "Hannibal" is that it wasn't written by Ted Tally. Tally passed on the project along with Jonathan Demme, Jodie Foster & Scott Glenn. Unfortunately the screenwriter of "Hannibal" (Stephen Zaillian) apparantly paid no attention to the changes Tally made in the previous film as he not only failed to reflect the changed Raspail situation in his screenplay but also included a scene from the original "Hannibal" novel (that was ultimately deleted for good reason) between Clarice and a mental hospital patient that makes no sense within the movie as it cannot be understood because the character was introduced in an unfilmed scene from the "Silence" novel.

A further continuity issue regarding "Hannibal" as it relates to "The Silence of the Lambs" is that the timestamp on the nurse video in no way matches the date that Chilton says that the incident took place on. I don't remember the two dates off the top of my head but if you go back and watch those scenes you'll see that the actual shown tape in "Hannibal" is literally YEARS off of what it should be, though it's likely that this was a mistake from someone else in the production as such a minor detail probably wouldn't be included in the screenplay. In any case, it demonstrates that continuity wasn't important to the makers of "Hannibal".

In any case, it's apparent that continuity IS important to Ted Tally because the Tally-written "Red Dragon" dances around the mess "Hannibal" made of the continuity. Those familiar with the Lecter books will notice that the opening scene of Tally's script details the story of the literary Benjamin Raspail but a more subtle fact is that the character modeled after Raspail in "Red Dragon" is NEVER identified by name in the movie, the screenplay or the credits. He is merely "flautist". Furthermore, he is completely bald whereas the head of Raspail in "Silence" has shaggy, curly hair. Since Raspail is never described as a flautist in "Silence" there are no continuity issues in regards to Benjamin Raspail when watching the two Tally-penned films. The continuity in "Hannibal" may be all messed up but at least Tally got it right.

The literary Lecter did indeed kill a flautist named Benjamin Raspail and served him to the symphony board but the cinematic Lecter of Tally's films did not kill Raspail, though he did kill an unnamed flautist identical to the literary Raspail in every respect but name.GuruAskew 09:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)"

Perhaps the best way to address this confusion is to start a page for the Benjamin Raspail character that deals with this confusion because it's too long and complicated to go into on all applicable pages.GuruAskew 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Red Dragon movie.jpg

Image:Red Dragon movie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Willandgram.jpg

Image:Willandgram.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Differences between versions

I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:

The story of Red Dragon has been filmed twice. The first film, released in 1986 under the title Manhunter, was written and directed by Michael Mann and focused on FBI Special Agent Will Graham, played by William Petersen. Lecter (renamed Lecktor) was played by Brian Cox. Manhunter leaves out Dolarhyde's backstory and has him die at Graham's hands during the climactic scene. Lecter in Ratner's adaptation appears numerous times, and even the opening sequence was filmed specifically to show the audience how he was caught by Will Graham (in a version modified from the book).
At the end of the film version of Red Dragon, the family is together as Graham reads a letter from Lecter and throws it into the ocean in disgust. The book ends with Graham in the hospital recovering from Dolarhyde's attack, and Jack Crawford intercepts the letter before Graham ever learns of its existence.

This is entirely unreferenced, not to mention original research, and should not be readded to the article without sources. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Creative merit

I would like to add a personal thought about Ratner's adaptation. If anyone has any concrete references, then this can be added to the main article. In my opinion, Ratner's adaptation has limited creativity and the film follows Mann's storyline; admittedly, Ratner adds some interesting new material, but the majority appears like duplication -- I'm surprised there was no lawsuit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.191.207.186 (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that they're both based on the same book, and that the Ratner version is actually more faithful to the original text?--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete

InfamousPrince, since you added the "incomplete" template, can you please explain what you feel is missing from this article? Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is just to short if you compare it to the other Hannibal Lecter film articles, it only has "Reception" section bellow "Cast". It needs to be expanded so that there is at least "Development" or "Release" (which includes "Box-office performance" and "Accolades" sections with "Reception" that is already there). If you don't agree, then remove the template.  InfamousPrince  15:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Remake?

why "should it not be considered as a remake"? this is absurd - please can someone give a good explanation? --Diogenes2000 (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

- it should be considered as a remake because it completely is.. --217.131.5.187 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Who does not consider it a remake when it is identical to the earlier film. I mean every scene is in the same order, the script the dialog is largely the same. So did the directors not see it as a remake, did Hollywood not technically see it as a remake.?--Inayity (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a remake of Manhunter. It is just a film based on the same source material. And no, it is not practically identical to Manhunter. While there are certain scenes in the film that were used in Manhunter (again, because they are based on the same book), there are major differences in the plot. The film is closer to the book than it is to Manhunter (it is also closer to the book than Manhunter was). Visually and stylistically, Red Dragon has more in common with The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal (which it is a prequel of) than it does with Manhunter. Aside from being based on the same novel, Red Dragon and Manhunter have very little in common aside of featuring a few of the same scenes (which, once again, is unavoidable because of the source material). Darkknight2149 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Very different films with completely different "feels" - and you'll be hard-pressed to find Iron Butterfly playing in Red Dragon.50.111.2.50 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Not helpful?

User:TheOldJacobite, could you please explain how a link to FBI, mental illness pathology, and alternate personality isn't helpful in a movie about the FBI trying to catch someone with an alternate personality. I did remove the full moon link though (I had meant to see if there was a section on FM triggering psychotic episodes but forgot). Also the capture of Lecter was during the 1980's. The '80s is a distinct era in western culture, before the computerization of police databases such as VICAP and many others. If you disagree I would propose we ask a neutral party. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The link to FBI is a redirect, so that's not helpful. The year in which the film takes place is not stated, so saying it was the 1980s is a guess, and is not relevant unless it's importance is stated in the film. And the pathology would also have to be clearly stated, which I do not believe it is. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The year of the film is written right at the start of the symphony. And I have fixed the FBI link. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, even if stated, what is the relevance of the year? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The FBI is one of the key plot elements of movie. However , I am intrigued by your opinion that the link to FBI is "wrong" .I am by nature non-confrontational, so pls do not take the next sentence as any sort of escalation, But please tell me why it is "wrong." 50.64.119.38 (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have inserted a piped link on FBI in the lede, which is sufficient. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Date of first scene of movie.

The movie came out in 2002. Silence of the Lambs came out in 1991. By including the year at the start of the movie the director pinpoints the date of Lecter's capture. Even if this was useless information, which I assure you it is not, by showing the date at the start of the very first live action scene, the director has shown it is of import (some would say crucial) to the setting of this scene. I vote we let the director have the last word on this subject. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Page move

This page was moved from its current, and longstanding, title to Red Dragon (2002 film) without discussion and without consensus. Though I am sure the editor who made the move was well-intended, such page moves should be discussed here first. The disambiguation between this film and the 1965 film is unnecessary as, between the two, I am sure a strong case can be made that this is the main topic for which people search. All this is necessary is disambiguation between the film and the original novel. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: It was I that moved Red Dragon (film) to Red Dragon (2002 film), and it was reverted by you. I proposed the page move at the next section. We may discuss there. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Pages moved as per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Red Dragon (film) → Red Dragon (2002 film) – Red Dragon (film) should be moved to Red Dragon (2002 film) because there is another article Red Dragon (1965 film). According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), "If one film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without any means of disambiguation. For the other films (or all the films, if none of them are the primary topic), add the year of its first verifiable release (including film festival screenings)". This 2002 film is not the primary topic for "Red Dragon", which redirects disambiguation page Red dragon now. Please note that if this 2002 film is the primary topic, then it should be named without any means of disambiguation, i.e., the article title should not be added a "(film)". A relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Independence Day (1996 film)/Archive 3#Requested move (2013), which indicates how editors, after two failed title requests, finally came to the conclusion that Independence Day (film), which also seems to be the primary topic among the same-title films, should be moved to Independence Day (1996 film). Neo-Jay (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per the guidelines. Unnecessary to have a hierarchy beyond a primary topic and the set of secondary topics, all of which should be disambiguated from each other. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support — no such thing as a partial primary topic. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Taylor Trescott: Actually, the most prominent exception to your point is Thriller (album), given where it redirects. (I'm just pointing out that exceptions exist; I'm not debating your point as my opinion of how disambiguation should be set up mirrors your statement.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Given that the page's name is Thriller (Michael Jackson album), I wouldn't exactly say it's a partial primary topic. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCF and then redirect to the dab page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCF and then redirect to the dab page, verbatim. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Connect the dots

Oh come on. We know it was Clarice Starling that Lector was gonna be meeting, at the end of the movie. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)