Talk:Hannibal (TV series)

Show description

While consistent with the on-screen credits, "...based upon characters and elements appearing in the novel Red Dragon by Thomas Harris" omits the fact that many major characters and elements were drawn from other novels in the series. For example, the Verger family is never mentioned in that novel. I think it would be more accurate to say "…based on the Hannibal Lecter series of novels by Thomas Harris."

Mason Verger

In the character's description I added that Verger is a pedophile. I have not read Hannibal (the only novel Verger appears in) but I did watch the film and seem to recall Verger having a taste for children. NBC does not mention this factoid on the show's homepage. Is my description wrong? Any insights? - Mdriver1981 (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's stick to sources on the TV show. --SubSeven (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Episode titles

I have further episode titles on my fansite with references if wanted:

http://eattherude.blogspot.ie/p/episode-guide.html

Damiantgordon (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but there are a couple of problems. The titles "Ceuf" and "Coquille" don't come from reliable sources, so they can't be used. Also the source listing the title and director (David Slade) for "Verrines" actually states that it's episode 5, while earlier updates say Peter Medak is directing episode 5. Probably just a typo on the part of DDLC (they have previously states that Michael Rymer was directing episode 8, when they meant episode 7, but this was later clarified) but we can't make assumptions.

You run a good site, though! I visit all the time to check for updates. Keep it up. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Your fansite is excellent. You deserve a Pulitzer, or at least the Nobel. And by the by, Dr. Lecter does a great service to our planet by murdering rude people. Mdriver1981 (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fishburne's billing

Okay, so that's done. Fishburne is a regular. Two episodes have aired now, and the second one actually had an opening sequence. Nothing has changed; the regular cast of this show is Hugh Dancy, Mads Mikkelsen, Caroline Dhavernas, Hettienne Park and Laurence Fishburne. Out-dated magazine articles no longer apply. All the others are billed as guest stars, though I realize they are thought of as regulars. However, since this is an encyclopaedia and not a fan site, I am going strictly by what the opening credits say. They are verifiable, and far more current than an almost one-year-old magazine article. I also removed the references for characters that have already appeared, since the only reference that matters now is the series itself (because it's aired now). You don't see references included for shows that have aired elsewhere on this site, so they don't belong here. I did, however, leave the references for actors that have not yet appeared.--Old Soldier (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that sources reported that Laurence Fishburne would be a recurring character on this show. However, the pilot has now aired and he is CLEARLY billed as a regular. Whoever keeps moving him back to recurring status needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Soldier (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't. The source is The Hollywood Reporter, and very reliable. The opening credits for the pilot are not indicative of who is main cast or who will recur. The pilot is a one-shot production used to sell the show, and final billing won't appear until the second episode. You are interpreting the billing as cast status, which WP:OR. I'm going by a reliable source. To put Fishburne in the main cast, you need to supply a reliable source that main cast billing is correct. (BTW, you're doing this selectively; several others still listed as recurring were billed in the same way as Fishburne. What goes for one goes for them all, so be consistent.) --Drmargi (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The pilot only lists Dancy, Mikkelsen, Dhavernas, Park and Fishburne as regulars, so, no, I'm not. And frankly, no source is as reliable as ON-SCREEN EVIDENCE. You have arbitrarily decided that Fishburne is a recurring character, when the series says otherwise. I'll be moving him back to regular status every time you move him. We'll see who gets tired first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Soldier (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Threat to edit war duly noted. That sort of conduct will get you blocked in a rush around here. As I noted before, the pilot billing covers that episode only, and is not a reliable indicator of later billing. See the pilots of most televisions shows, and you'll see what I mean. There's nothing arbitrary in what I've done. You can't have it both ways. If you want the billed cast listed as regulars, you list them all. Moreover, I have the NBC website as back-up. Go look at it. Please stop while you're ahead and familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:OR. We recognize sources such as Hollywood Reporter as having primacy over observer interpretation of screen credits. --Drmargi (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine, let's just let a few episodes air. Your choice; either leave Fishburne in the regulars listing and move him later if you're right (in which case, I will gladly eat crow), or move him now and I'll move him later (in which case, I hope you'd be willing to eat crow as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Soldier (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

For now, he has to go where the source says he belongs, and that's recurring. We can address the main cast issue if/when it's needed. I'll pass on the crow either way; this isn't a competition. You really should bear in mind that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and might find you'd enjoy a fan wiki more. --Drmargi (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, you challenged me to go look at the NBC site. I did. He's billed as a regular. I'll concede that perhaps in the second episode Scott Thompson and Aaron Abrams may be moved up to regular status, but I still say there's no reason to believe that Fishburne won't continue to be credited as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Soldier (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's because this is an encyclopaedia that I wish to see accurate info here. It bothers me to no end when TV series listing on Wikipedia lists regulars as recurring or vice-versa. There is absolutely nothing to imply that Fishburne isn't a regular (other than a magazine listing, and all magazines can get info wrong, including The Hollywood Reporter); he's playing one of the most prominent characters in this world's canon; the only one, in fact, to appear in all the novels (other than the prequel). There's been no notice given by NBC that he only shot the pilot and won't be around for the series. If he's filmed other episodes and was billed as a regular for his first appearance, why wouldn't he be for the others? Your position, "A magazine said it so it must be true", is an untenable one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Soldier (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I never said he would be in the pilot and no other episodes. That's not what a recurring character is. HR is a major Hollywood media publication, not a just a magazine, and it gets its information from the horse's mouth. You can poo-poo that all you wish, but WP:RS governs how we source, and the community considers HR to be highly reliable, along with Variety. The lines between main cast and recurring get pretty blurry sometimes, and I'm not convinced the distinction is really all that meaningful in some cases, but we've got to go with what we can source reliably, not glean and interpret from the pilot's screen credits. Odd as it sounds, accuracy isn't the key criterion for an edit, verifiability is. Oh, and please sign your posts with four tildes, or use the signature button at the top of the edit window. --Drmargi (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I never said you did say that. I said that if he's going to be appearing throughout the season (and he is), and the pilot bills him as a regular, why WOULDN'T the series? You would have a stronger argument that The Hollywood Reporter is infallible and never gets its facts wrong if there was literally ANY other evidence that it didn't. But for all your talk about how reliable a source it is, my own eyes tell me something quite different. If we can't take the series itself as a credible source, then no source is credible! Your argument that pilot billing is different would only hold water under the following scenarios: Fishburne was ONLY hired for the pilot, and then recast or his character not included for the remainder of the series, or, Fishburne was initially hired only for the one appearance and the pilot billed him as a guest, but then later he was hired permanently and bumped up to regular. However, as the pilot DOES bill him as a regular, and we know he's been hired for the season, not just the pilot, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to assume he's just a recurring character other than your obstinately sticking with the idea that Hollywood Reporter never, ever, under any circumstances, uses an improper word.

The fact is that these series credits Fishburne as a regular, that's all the source we need. It is very common that recurring actors are promoted to the main cast during pre-production. If Fishburne is demoted in later episodes we can move him to recurring then, not before.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I really don't get this "I don't care what my eyes tell me, Hollywood Reporter is my God now" attitude. NBC calls him a regular. The pilot bills him as such. ALL promotional material calls him such. But no, Hollywood Reporter is infallible!--Old Soldier (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter was correct at the time the article was published, but things have obviously changed since then.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That, again, is very likely true. I wonder how many episodes have to air before Drmargi lets me make this one simple change?--Old Soldier (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Just an amendment to Drmargi's earlier comment about the pilot. Hannibal never had an official pilot. It was ordered directly to series months before anything was shot, even before casting had begun. The credits for the pilot should, therefore, be pretty indicative of the credits that will follow in later episodes. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

They ordered the series without a pilot, but they still made one. Every series has one for insurance and other production purposes. Until someone has a reliable source that Fishburne and Park's cast status changed from recurring to main, I stand by my reliable sources in accordance with WP:VERIFY. The credits for the first episode are simply not sufficient to outweigh that. BTW, Old Soldier, I'm not your mommy and I don't give other editors' permission to make edits on Wikipedia nor do I view a source as some sort of deity. That's utterly silly. I simply follow the guidelines established by the community and let them guide my decision-making. You've blown this way out of proportion, and should probably step away until you can gain some perspective on it all. --Drmargi (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You think I need perspective? That's funny. All I did was change the listing of who was regular vs. recurring based on what the pilot showed. That's pretty standard; nearly all articles on TV shows do the same. For the record, when I first listed the Game of Thrones cast, based on the pilot, no busybodies came along and said no. In this case, all I did was put Fishburne in the regular cast. You came along and undid that based on ONE magazine article, acting as if the mere fact that months ago they used the phrase "Fishburne will recur as..." is an infallible representation of how this series will go about billing him. I replied that I wanted you to stop moving him back to recurring, and you made a federal case out of it. Perspective? You have NONE. It is you, not I, that has blown this out of proportion. Facts are facts. In my corner there is 1) the fact that promo material shows Fishburne as the third most major character (he's on the poster ON THIS VERY PAGE). 2) NBC.com lists him among the regular cast. 3) The opening credits of the show have him billed among the regulars! In your corner: One magazine, months upon months ago, idly used the word "recur" instead of "appear regularly", likely just to save space, but clearly NOT to imply that he will appear irregularly or would not be part of the regular cast. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you're coming across? At this point I don't even care; fine, put him where you want. This is obviously very important to you. Next week, when he's still billed in the main cast (and he will be), I will move him back to where he belongs. Will I be hearing from you then? I'll bet I'll keep hearing from you until the first season is over!--Old Soldier (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that Fishburne is billed as a part of the cast on the NBC site and it is far too soon to say who is main/reoccurring, I have removed main/reoccurring sections under the cast list. Especially given that it is FAR too soon (only one episode has aired) to dictate who is main/re-occurring. MisterShiney ✉ 22:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I should also point out that per MOS:TV, that regardless of external journalistic sources, cast should be listed in order of billing and therefore, having literally just watched the opening credits, the current listing as it stands is incorrect and should be changed to reflect this. Which if anyone is interested is:

• Mads Mikkelsen
• Caroline Dhavernas
• Hugh Dancy
• Hettienne Park
• Laurence Fishburne

MisterShiney ✉ 23:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Given what is said on the official website, I have rearranged the cast accordingly. MisterShiney ✉ 23:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Shiney, the MOS section governing order of cast as order of credits is for the infobox only. Believe me, we recently had a long, long discussion on that point elsewhere. That same MOS section also says no red links in the infobox, just in the main article. --Drmargi (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect – otherwise that would be in the infobox. Even if that was the case, it would still be reflected in the cast section of the article. Otherwise what is the point of having a seperate mos for info boxes and a article sections. I was involved in a discussion over on Revolution (TV series) when it first came out when I first started editing and was informed unanimously the cast were listed in billing order or that of the official website. I should also point out that MOS also says that the cast section should only be divided if appropriate – it's hardly appropriate after one episode is it? MisterShiney ✉ 10:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, MisterShiney, it is very appropriate because the series used distinctions in the credits. The pilot separated the main cast from the guest cast, and that is all we have to go by. So, as far as we know, the cast is set in stone. If that changes in later episodes, we can change the article later on, to reflect that. Caringtype1 (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't. Having watched the opening credits for this show very carefully last night, the characters were listed along the bottom and the final actor to be listed in the opening credits was Fishburne with no mentioning of him being a recurring. The official website has the cast list in one section. The only names that are current. Every other source appears to be out of date, in particular the source about Fishburne recurring is dated back in July last year. Revolution took over half the season before characters were split into main/re-occurring. Point is, unless the studio themselves are making the distinction at this point in time (namely after the first episode) we shouldn't be. Especially with out of date sources. MisterShiney ✉ 21:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Fishburne is definitely not recurring. That's what I'm saying, he is listed as starring in the credits. Also I have no idea what you mean about Revolution, that cast was set from day one.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Œuf or Ceuf or both

Ceuf or Œuf is the name for the unscheluded episode?--RicHard-59 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's Œuf, the french word for egg. Ceuf is most likely a misspelling because non-french speakers/computers are unfamiliar with the whatever its called.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The episode is indeed named after the french word for egg, "Œuf". The first character in this word is the ligature Œ which could look like CE to people unfamiliar with it, while it is actually a contraction of O and E. This is the origin of the meaningless Ceuf spelling. A correct alternative spelling without using the ligature would be "oeuf". Not only newssites and bogs but even the show's producers and the show's website refer to the episode as "Ceuf", a clear misspelling. Since the episode now seems to be better known as Ceuf then as Oeuf I think it would be worth it to mention this mistake somewhere in the article. Renetus (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Each episode is not a type of french cuisine. I know some french and what i read from each name of episode is that are names of food or names of plates you eat in a meal, like lunch or dinner and plates to. In my country when i go to a restaurant or other country in Europe, the lunch or dinner they serve the starter, next the main course and then dessert. Egg in french writes oeuf. Sorbet is a ice-cream but made only from ice and some juice or flavour.

I think you have to rewrite, because is not only plates but also names of food in french. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.46.126 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Episode order following US cancellation of episode Œuf

One editor is insisting that the table of episodes should be in broadcast order. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to be in plot order? Now there is also a disconnect between the table which says Œuf is episode 5 and the text which says it is episode 4. Cited sources also call the cancelled show episode 4. As the USA is not the only country in the world, the order of airing there seems an arbitrary determining factor. Also I would expect future DVD releases of the show to use episode numbering based on the story arch, not air dates. 88.112.41.6 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Episode lists are universally ordered by the sequence in which the episodes aired. We would only re-arrange the episodes to reflect the production order if they are re-arranged for the DVD/Blu-ray home releases, which isn't very likely. There is no point in speculating on what the network may or may not do with a DVD, since we're probably six months or more from having any solid information in that regard. Since the series is a US production, US dates take precedence. By your logic we would then also have to arrange "Amuse-Bouche" to be episode three, since it was produced third, even though the script was written with the intention of it being 2nd. That would mess up your whole "plot order" thing. For now the best course of action is to list the episodes by their original broadcast date and wait and see what happens with the DVD. Besides, there's nothing to say that the episode won't be re-scheduled later. It's not likely, considering the circumstances, but NBC might choose to air "Ceuf" was episode ten or eleven. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I still think there is an order to the episodes, which is not the production order (please do not put words into my mouth with "by you logic", I never claimed production order was relevant), or the broadcast order, but the order of how the overall plot develops. These are not individual shows, there is a story arc to the show, and censorship of one episode in one country does not change that. Oh, and also, cited sources systematically name the cancelled episode as episode four, WP:OR is rather relevant. 88.112.41.6 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Bryan Fuller is an American so his production company's participation in the show does give it some 'Made in America' connexion but so much of the information is assumed or presented in quite misleading terms. The studio behind the show is the Los Angeles subsidiary of one of the biggest names in French cinema. According to the sources cited it is pure assumption to say the project was in development with NBC since 2011. It is quite common for non-American broadcast announcements to be delayed and to be presented as additional or complementary to the American broadcast regardless of who actually commissioned or made the show. The show is actually made in Canada. It isn't that unusual for a show to be set in the USA but commissioned and made by non-Americans. Many Canadians love Bryan Fuller. The same thing happened about a year ago with The Firm (created by an American who took it to the Los Angeles offices of a Canadian production company who agreed to make it, a 22 episode season was commissioned by Sony for AXN, the production company got it to be Canadian Content by partnering with Shaw Media and all the other t crossings and i dottings, set the show in the US but other than some establishing shots was filmed around Toronto, sold broadcast rights dirt cheap to NBC well into production, then Shaw announced they were involved, and most everyone still thinks it is an NBC series because NBC is the US broadcaster). Americans seem to be turning to Canadian production companies to get shows made like they never thought of before. With Hannibal they turned to a French production company. AXN covers some pretty big markets so the only surprise is that it took Sony so long to get into commissioning any programming. What NBC does really shouldn't be getting the coverage that it is. Surely there is some point about undue weight to things. The problem is these AXN shows are commissioned for broadcast in markets where English is not necessarily the primary or even a popular language and so the broadcasts by the commissioning broadcaster are not really to be covered in Wikipedia per the 'non-English' clause.
FYI, the Indian broadcast of Œuf was actually 30 minutes past midnight of the 26/27 April. Some call that the 'late night' of the 26th and tv schedule grids often list that with the preceding day but 00.30 on Saturday morning is still Saturday not Friday. It then repeats a little before 6 am Saturday.
I say it is about as likely that NBC will broadcast the episode at a later date as it is that they will admit they totally screwed up the title of the episode. :) delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 02:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Synopsis

How about hide the synopsis' using Template:Hidden like this? Then the whole list becomes shorter.

Synopsis

FBI Special Investigator Will Graham (Hugh Dancy), who is haunted by his ability to empathize with serial killers and mentally re-create their crimes with vivid detail, is drawn into the investigation of a series of missing college girls by Special Agent Jack Crawford (Laurence Fishburne), who has special interest in Graham's ability. Crawford and Graham interview the parents of the latest girl to go missing, only to discover that her body has been returned to her bedroom and Graham suspects it is an apologetic gesture on behalf of the killer. As Graham struggles to create a profile, Crawford enlists the help of noted psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Mads Mikkelsen), who takes a keen interest in the case and particularly in Graham, in whom he senses a like-mind. Another girl is found, mounted on top of a deer's head in an open field with her lungs removed and Graham is convinced it is the work of someone else, a negative to show him the positives of the other crimes. Dr. Lecter is shown preparing himself a meal with meat that looks like lungs. Dr. Beverly Katz (Hettienne Park) finds a shred of metal from a pipe-threader on the clothes of the returned girl, which leads Graham and Dr. Lecter to a construction site that employs one Garrett Jacob Hobbs, who fits Graham's profile. Dr. Lecter makes a phone call to Hobbs, warning him that the FBI is onto him and he and Graham arrive at Hobbs' house just as Hobbs kills his own wife. Graham shoots Hobbs dead, but not before Hobbs slits his daughter's throat. Graham and Lecter sit with the unconscious girl in her hospital room.

--RicHard-59 (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Why would it need to be shorter? -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look how I did it in fi-wiki.RicHard-59 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The summaries are well within the guidelines set down by Template:Episode list, which states that summaries should be between 100-300 words. Even if all 13 episodes are eventually given summaries that long there still would be no reason to hide them. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I hide them because the series is not shown in Finland yet and don't want to spoil excitement from those who haven't seen them yet. That's my point even here. RicHard-59 (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPOILERS, we don't hide spoilers or provide warnings on articles. It is entirely up to the reader if they read the article. -- MisterShiney ✉ 14:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

US TV ratings

I've been reading around that this show is cheap for NBC, and gets a lot of funding from international deals: so could it be wrong to have the US ratings in the infobox? Of course it's an American TV show, but as a production it's internationally minded to gain revenue. Is it biased to have the info there, should it have more ratings (as they come) or no ratings or am I wrong? --occono (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be biased to not show the ratings. --SubSeven (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

But I don't see the intention to show foreign ratings. Only the US ratings are highlighted. For most shows this is important, but this may be a show whose production is as much as or more dependent on all the ratings it gets, which is why I wonder if maybe it should be changed to show all the ratings or none (covering them in a section instead) in the infobox. The ratings are important to note, I'm just saying this might be a show where they aren't especially important. That being said, some or many countries may not have publicly known ratings. I'm just wondering whether the infobox shows US ratings because it's a US show, because the ratings are most important to its production, because the show is considered most important to American readers, or just because US ratings are easiest to find. --occono (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The US ratings for this show are as important as any other. If it tanks in the US it'll be canned, no matter how many people are watching in France or Canada. That is the main reason for using the US ratings, so that people can track the viewership numbers that most directly affect the survival or cancellation chances of the show. There would also be a problem of which international ratings to include. If we put Canadian ratings, someone will want to include the British ones as well. And if we're including the British ones, why not the Australian ones? Restricting the ratings information to the United States ensures that only the most relevant data is included without clogging the article with half a dozen other countries. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically, the ratings are from the original broadcast. Regardless of the country. Although it is standard practice to use the ratings from the country of origin. That is my understanding. Perhaps User:AussieLegend could shed some light on this...? (Lets see if the new notification system works properly) -- MisterShiney ✉ 23:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay then. Though should I try and dig up the Indian ratings for the unaired episode, if they're available? --occono (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Occono, please read what SchrutedIt08 said. I do not watch this series, but read this article. I am one who does not like extraneous information, such as other countries' ratings (the DVR additions are a bit much, in my opinion, too). If you wish to have your countries' ratings, create an article for your country. Thank you. — Wyliepedia 08:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want my countries' ratings. I was asking if the US ratings are "extraneous" as you put it due to how the show is financed. I read what Schrute said so my question is answered, no need to condescend me.--occono (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Recurring cast?

Demore Barnes was only in two episodes, Garrett Jacob Hobbs have been seen in almost all so far?--RicHard-59 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Demore Barnes should never have been listed here. He was a guest actor and considering how the last episode turned out, it's highly unlikely that we'll be seeing much more of either him or Franklin. As for Garrett Jacob Hobbs, his only significant role was in the series premiere. Since then he has played an extremely minor role in either short flashbacks or dream sequences and doesn't really qualify as a recurring character, since he's dead. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't want to remove Demore from the list without discussion.--RicHard-59 (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ratings

Are the ratings good or bad? It should be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.174.61 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

UK

When is season 2 being aired in the United Kingdom? Why has it been delayed and why does the article make no mention of this outrage? --86.182.42.82 (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Bryan Fuller says series may be renewed as feature film.

Here are sources: source 1 and source 2. Npamusic (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

He hasn't confirmed there will be a feature film, he just hinted that it might be renewed as feature film. So, for now, it's just a speculation. I think it'd be better to wait until a confirmation that a feature film is in production. -- Chamith (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Genre

An IP added "crime drama" as a genre - which was quickly reverted. I've restored this edit, mainly due to the nature of the awards Hannibal has been nominated for, which place it squarely in the "drama" category: "Critics' best guest performer in a drama (Richard Armitage)", "Critics' best drama actor (Dancy)", "Satellite best drama series" and "drama actor (Mads)", Michael Pitt as EWwy's "best drama guest", and Online's "best drama actress (guest, Anderson)". TV Guide also refers to Hannibal as a crime drama [1]. My revert has since been re-reverted by the editor claiming it isn't a drama. Sigh. --Unframboise (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverted again without discussion. Please, CTRL+F search the page for the word "drama" - there are literally dozens of references. It was commissioned by NBC's head of drama. I can't cope with this arrogant ownership. --Unframboise (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Try to put your petty spite aside for a minute and AGF. Ever hear of a edit conflict? As I attempted to add my comments while you were rushing to judgment, I can see adding drama, just not the duplicative crime drama, which is more suited to police procedurals. This was added by a disruptive IP with multiple blocks, no sources, and no understanding of categories. --Drmargi (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. "Crime drama" is perfectly acceptable. Just because it was added by a disruptive IP editor doesn't mean it can't stay in the article. More sources: [2][3][4][5][6][7]. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources seem to suggest that this is an acceptable label, so I've re-added. If editors wish to dispute this, then they can feel free to do so on this discussion, and not via edit warring. Thanks for your input, guys (Drovethrughosts and Drmargi)! --Unframboise (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources support drama, yes. Crime drama, not so much, but you boys do what you want. --Drmargi (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

But... It's a drama series about crime. Many of the episodes (especially in season one) also take on a procedural style. What would you suggest? "Best friend drama"? "Scary drama"? "(Really) drama(tic)"? - come up with a suitable alternative and we could alter it. If not, then que sera. --Unframboise (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I provided six sources that support crime drama, did you not see that? Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

There was a similar issue over at Mr. Robot a while ago, if I recall. There hasn't been a reversion in a while, so I'm assuming that's a consensus among users. Hopefully. I don't have the time or energy for a prolonged battle of will. --Unframboise (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Promotional posters fail fair-use criteria

I have nominated the three posters for each season for deletion as their use in the article fails fair use criterion 8: they can only be used if seeing them would contribute significantly to readers' understanding of the topic, which usually requires that they be in the article alongside reliably sourced commentary about the images. I don't see that here. They seem to be used in a purely decorative fashion.

The uploaders seem not to be editing much, if at all, anymore. If anyone involved with this article wants to keep them, please make the relevant edits and pipe up at the FFD. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)