Whoa, that's a quick turnaround. Three months from book to screen... it takes Harry Potter 18 months. Anybody remember when Universal convinced Michael Crichton to write "The Lost World", because they wanted to make a sequel to "Jurassic Park". Even though he didn't want to, he did (I assume they threw a fatty book advance his way). But then when the movie came out, the only part of it that was in the book was the scene with the trailor hanging over the cliff??? Man, that was a waste of studio money and paper in general. (Oh, and "Hannibal" sucked the fat one. "Red Dragon" was alright. And the best thing about "Silence of the Lambs" was that it inspired Dana Scully's character on "The X-Files")

I take that back. "Silence of the Lambs" wasn't half-bad.

But then again, it was no "Carpool"... You know, Tom Arnold just does it for me.

"The Lost World" at least was a rather decent piece from Crichton, even though he's done far better works. But yeah, basing it off his book, while completely changing around the entire plot, most of the characters, and adding that preposterously stupid Godzilla sequence in San Diego.... I'm shocked Crichton didn't ask to have his name removed from the credits. It was so insulting to sit through. Personally, I don't know why the new Hannibal flick can't simply keep the "Hannibal Rising" title from the novel. The whole "Young Hannibal" sounds alot less like a suspense thriller if you ask me.

I enjoyed the book Hannibal until the last 50 or 60 pages. Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs were terrific novels. I'm hoping Harris has crafted a good story and is not just collecting a paycheck with Hannibal Rising.

I read somewhere else that the book was supposed to come out awhile ago but he delayed it. I'm guessing he did that so he could write the script before the book was out. Ergo creating the "quick turnaround".

I with you Dalton. I was so pissed about Lost world. I enjoyed the book, and was really looking forward to the movie. The gymnastics was so lame. Spielburg really blow that.

Is the story of Hannibal Lecter still a cash cow, or is this kicking a dead horse? The author can't be THAT strapped for cash. * cough cough sellout cough cough *

The real question guys, is who will play Hannibal? Obviously there will be some obscure child actor for his early years, but who will be the coming of age Lecter? It will need to be someone with real acting chops to fill the huge shadow cast by Hopkins? I don't know why, but when I picture a young Lecter, I see Jude Law, he looks young enough to fit a mid twenties Lecter and he and Hopkins, share a simular facial structure. For those who are fans of the earlier films and novels, this could go in many interesting directions. Harris has really tried to romanticise Lecters character by making him a twisted anti hero of sorts. I have a feeling much of this story will be spent explaining, or justifying, why Hannibal finally snapped and became a killer. His blood lust against the decadent, his hunger for flesh, I think this story will be used to make a victom of Lecter. Only time will tell. Who else could pull a young Hannibal off?

How about Edward Norton? He is an outstanding actor, and that last scene from Primal Fear has always really given me the creeps.