fannibalcascade - Tumblr blog

[fannibalcascade]

This is edited ! :)

The more I think about it, the more pissed off I get about the C2E2 panel.

Yes it had some very cute Hugh and Mads moments. But.

It felt like every Supernatural panel where they sidestepped and watered down any talk of Destiel. Except this time, they were closing off any talk about a CANONICALLY QUEER RELATIONSHIP!!!

The late announcement that Hugh was joining Mads at the con now feels like just a money grab by whoever set the panel up. It felt like just an easy way to take advantage of the Hannibal fandoms interest without actually having to put in any effort into acknowledging WHY we are so interested in Hannibal.

I mean, the hotdog question?? Really?? We all know that Hannibal would rather starve than willingly buying some unidentifiable ground meat off the street.

It even felt like Mads was having to keep his responses under wraps. I mean, we all how much he supports the romantic aspect of Hannibal and Will's relationship, so it just feels very icky.

I didn't really have any set-in-stone expectations, but I thought that acknowledging the main themes of the piece of media that the con was set up for would be the very least they could do.

Phew im gonna go drink like five cups of coffee to go chill myself out

[fannibalcascade]

The reason we are so neutral is that no series from that era ever established a queer relationship. Supernatural was queer-baiting af. I'm not saying Hannibal falls under the same category, but they left the relationship ambiguous for a reason. We think the blame falls on the crew too because of their encouragement; the shipper community grew with wishful headcanons. But our blog is there if anyone wants to look at the series with a neutral lens, without fan service."

The more I think about it, the more pissed off I get about the C2E2 panel.

Yes it had some very cute Hugh and Mads moments. But.

It felt like every Supernatural panel where they sidestepped and watered down any talk of Destiel. Except this time, they were closing off any talk about a CANONICALLY QUEER RELATIONSHIP!!!

The late announcement that Hugh was joining Mads at the con now feels like just a money grab by whoever set the panel up. It felt like just an easy way to take advantage of the Hannibal fandoms interest without actually having to put in any effort into acknowledging WHY we are so interested in Hannibal.

I mean, the hotdog question?? Really?? We all know that Hannibal would rather starve than willingly buying some unidentifiable ground meat off the street.

It even felt like Mads was having to keep his responses under wraps. I mean, we all how much he supports the romantic aspect of Hannibal and Will's relationship, so it just feels very icky.

I didn't really have any set-in-stone expectations, but I thought that acknowledging the main themes of the piece of media that the con was set up for would be the very least they could do.

Phew im gonna go drink like five cups of coffee to go chill myself out

[fannibalcascade]

have you seen the panel , didn’t it feel very weird , I mean the vibe was off

Yeah, we caught it yesterday. Surprisingly, it was pretty early, so only I and @melancholymournia were wide awake. We didn't see a new season announcement coming at all. We think that chapter is closed. The atmosphere between Hugh and Mads felt right, they are buddies and they met after a long time but we were really curious about the questions being asked and how they'd answer them.

We held onto our skepticism, given it was a reunion after a decade, knowing any hint about the relationship would stir up the fandom and potentially bring backlash our way for our ongoing doubts. But here's the kicker: not a peep about Hannigram, and the whole vibe felt like a blast from 2013- especially how they still can’t mention the relationship, it’s like they are still in the bro-code era and maybe they are .

Despite Mads' captain-of-the-ship reputation, even his answers were ambiguous and not very convincing about the future of Hannigram, And a little question for the shippers: ever find it odd your beloved pairing consistently skirts around the series' core theme, despite claiming it's integral? If so, why the silence? Not to rain on your parade, but given your Hannigram fantasies, it seems the cast's vision isn't quite in sync. Now, we're dead certain the relationship wasn't going anywhere ,a 'Murder Husbands' season was just wishful thinking.

[fannibalcascade]

Whenever your group gets active, why does my feed suddenly become so chaotic?

Oh, yeah, that's probably because we're just naturally controversial like that.

[fannibalcascade]

if they couldn't film hannigram at least kissing due to censorship from the network then how come we got lesbian sex scene?

Are you familiar with the concept of fetishism? I'm a bit puzzled as to why you're inquiring about the "Hannigram" kiss, considering we don't view the relationship as established. Perhaps you've mistaken us for someone else. However, to put it plainly, male/male relationships often face disapproval from broader audiences, whereas female/female relationships are sometimes objectified and perceived as harmless, even utilized to attract more viewers using the eye candy strategy to appeal to certain interests.

[fannibalcascade]

But a woman sleeping with a man AND a woman is Bisexual by definition. I am not an anti but Bryan was wrong there and he is called out for that also he is a disgusting pro-shipper . Twitter literally hates him except for the few fannibals but even if we enjoy Hannibal, that doesn't mean we should support the wrong person too .

Yes, by definition, that person would be bisexual. However in the show, Margot's sexuality was not explored on a deeper level similar to Alana's. In my post, I am not supporting Bryan; I did mention that his tweet that he asked his straight crew about Margot sleeping with Will was a bit insensitive. As for the pro-shipping thing, I don't know what that is, so I have no opinion about it. You are not the first person to question the relationship between Margot and Will; I read older posts from Fannibals from 2014, and even then it was a topic of debate. As I have mentioned, there were arguments for and against the scene. I am rewatching the series with a group of friends, and some of them were uncomfortable, so I guess now that we have more information about the LGBTQ+ community and people are more accepting, the questioning is bound to happen. Margot Verger in Harris’ text is exceptionally masculine in her gender presentation. Margot is heavily muscled, and Starling even wonders to herself if Margot “tapes down her clitoris.” Margot also heavily abuses steroids and hormones, pumping up her muscles to the point that she has rendered herself infertile. Some read the character as trans in the same disbelieved vein as Buffalo Bill. Others view her as a lesbian, as her canonical romantic and sexual relationship is with another woman. The exact nature of her identity is left deliberately ambiguous. This change was Fuller’s attempt to restore a queer voice in the narrative.

Margot Verger is drastically different in Bryan's series . He didn't rely on her sexual abuse to make her queer.

In a 2014 interview with Collider, Fuller states:

"In the book, Margot is a lesbian character, but it’s not clear if she is transgendered, or if she is just so pumped full of steroids and hormones that she’s become more masculine in her appearance. So, what I didn’t want to do is say that being transgendered or being gay is a direct result of horrific sexual trauma, because it’s not. I think being transgendered and being homosexual are natural things that occur in the creation of biological beings."

While many female romances on-screen are either fetishistic or overtly chaste, Margot and Alana’s sex scene is both beautiful and bizarre.

[fannibalcascade]

I really felt like leaving the fandom because they can't seem to accept differing views but now I feel I can share my views with you and not get judged.

Oh, dear, we empathize with your sentiments. We've experienced similar situations, but we've developed thicker skin over time. So, please don't worry; feel free to share whatever you'd like to express about 'Hannibal' here.

[fannibalcascade]

Is it bad that I feel Hannigram was romantically one sided?

Ofcourse not , it's a very valid interpretation.

We share the same perspective. If you browse through our blog, you'll find posts where we discuss Will's emotions towards Hannibal. We acknowledge that it's a complex show with subtle nuances. Even though Will struggled with his feelings, he was determined to regain his control, to rid himself of Hannibal and the emotions tainted by him. I believe the crucial question is how one defines love. Certainly, "Hannigram" doesn't fit the conventional definition of love due to its abnormality, so they won't conform to the typical standards of a romantic relationship. However, considering the current fandom environment, the analyses often seem cringeworthy as they reduce "Hannigram" to a simplistic college romance. In our perspective, the relationship remains ambiguous.

[fannibalcascade]

Tbh as much as I love shipping but I still can't shake off the feeling that "Hannibal" is queerbaiting and Bryan was successful to keep it that way and gain followers because people crave representation.

It all comes down to how you define "queerbaiting." There are numerous examples of series engaging in queerbaiting, with one of the most notable being "Supernatural." While I wouldn't categorize Hannibal as blatantly queerbaiting, I would describe it more as a fan service series, catering to its audience. Hannibal brought Bryan success, fame, and a large fandom, and any savvy media person would leverage that to continue making money and staying relevant. However, our argument is that he fell short in clarifying certain aspects

[fannibalcascade]

You know what bothers me the most the blatant homophobia from Bryan being a gay man he should understand how lesbians are fetishized by cus straight dudes but no , he had to involve a hetero sexual scene in the already homophobic environment just for pleasure of man . It's sick🤢 and even more sick that you can't point it out in the fandom because "oh she was just trying to have a baby" or "oh but Will didn't climax" I mean stfu can't y'all hear yourself, it sounds so homophobic and it makes me vomit .

We have talked about this issue and you are right , that involvement was sick and homophobic. Bryan lost our respect after that . I am all for inclusion in the LGBTQ community but certain words have meaning. What Bryan showed was an example of corrective r@pe and conversion therapy .

[fannibalcascade]

Something that bothers me is how Bryan took pretty much every moment between Clarice and Hannibal in the book but inserted Will instead... I understand if you want to make a different version but at least try to write your own scenes

I am not a Clannibal shipper, but my friend @lecterlure definitely adores the pair. When I first watched the show, I missed how the lines were similar to those in the book. I think Bryan did this because Hannibal is his fanfic; he wanted to alter the characters and their core dynamics and relationships. 

[fannibalcascade]

Wait so when the actors confirm the cannon relationship between the characters on multiple occasions and openly support it and the director does too and has confirmed it that doesn’t matter and we should look at it through the larger narrative,

but when one of the actors makes and ofhand comment that can be interpreted multiple ways then that’s valid? Be so fr

It's wonderful how the actors and director are fully immersed in their interpretation of the characters' relationship, isn't it? However, it's important to remember that just because they endorse a particular viewpoint, it doesn't preclude us from exploring alternative perspectives. We value critical thinking and holistic understanding. While their insights hold significance, they're not the sole determinant of our interpretation. We prioritize delving deeper into the narrative and forming our own opinions, embracing a multifaceted approach rather than adhering rigidly to a single viewpoint.

[fannibalcascade]

It's refreshing to see new LGBT content emerge, offering audiences genuine representation without the need for them to rely on queerbaiting tactics. Authentic portrayals help dismantle harmful stereotypes and provide audiences with narratives that resonate on a deeper level.

Absolutely! But I would like to add that the media has always had LGBTQ representation. For example, look at "Brokeback Mountain." The two straight actors delivered exceptional performances, embracing the romantic nature of the relationship and showcasing intimacy without hesitation. Additionally, there are '90s movies that avoid harmful stereotypes or the 'bury your gays' trope. This is something "Hannibal" failed to do because, despite claims of it being canon, the relationship remains ambiguous, with many unanswered questions. People still question the nature of their relationship, often interpreting it as platonic due to the lack of clarity.

[fannibalcascade]

It's honestly so refreshing to see a blog that doesn't glorify Hannigram and doesn't reduce Hannibal to the "relationship" he has with Will, as a huge fan of the novels it makes me very mad that a character as complex as Hannibal is reduced to this obsessed lovesick puppy that loses his mind over Will

The portrayal of Hannibal feels like a major letdown for me. How can such an iconic character be reduced to just fancy attire, lavish dinners, and romantic longing? If the intention was to elevate Will as the central figure, transparency from the start would have been appreciated. It wouldn't have been an issue if it were a different story altogether. It seems evident from the narrative that Hannibal's demise was looming, a conclusion that would naturally bring closure. However, it feels like Bryan exploited the fervent shipper fanbase for engagement, rather than staying true to the narrative integrity. Presenting alternative viewpoints has become increasingly challenging amidst today's hyper-sensitive fandom culture. It's disheartening.

[fannibalcascade]

Oh my god , look who's back 😂

@melancholymournia @lecterlure

[fannibalcascade]

Hugh also said it was platonic so...👀

Hugh and Mads both and don't forget Bryan himself said Hannibal is queerbaiting. And called Will heterosexual and his series , "a friendship between two men" .

[fannibalcascade]

Buddy you’re crazy the hug was literally confirmed by Hugh dancy to be genuine like

If you believe what actors say about a story, that's okay. But it's important to know that actors just interpret the story, like storytellers. To really understand what's going on, it's better to focus on the text in the story instead of what people say about it. That way, you get a clearer picture of what the story is trying to tell.