fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2217 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2217 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12. [ns]

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Early because sick, sorry.

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 097 secrets from Secret Submission Post #317.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

14. http://i.imgur.com/HTSNgMO.png

Agreed.

I haven't seen this in a while, but wasn't that the point of the movie? Nobody was a traditional "good guy" and all the characters were flawed. However, when your "moral code" results in innocent people being murdered for no reason, I think that's pretty bad. Worse than being in it for the money.

Hannibal Lecter wasn't in it for the money either. Doesn't redeem shit.

Hannibal Lecter's not a bad guy, so your comparison is flawed.

Eating people is okay? Really?

Depends who you're eating. Pretty sure people like Mason Verger have it coming.

There are people who would argue that eating animals is wrong, so...

Those people don't have opinions that matter.

The simple fact of the world is the human is superior to all other known fauna on this planet.

Thus the life of a human is greater then the life of an animal.

And our teeth and digestive system say it's right.

Edited 2013-01-27 23:07 (UTC)

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-27 23:10 (UTC) - Expand

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-01-27 23:11 (UTC) - Expand

ariakas - 2013-01-27 23:44 (UTC) - Expand

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-01-27 23:53 (UTC) - Expand

ariakas - 2013-01-27 23:56 (UTC) - Expand

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-01-27 23:57 (UTC) - Expand

ariakas - 2013-01-28 00:23 (UTC) - Expand

inkmage - 2013-01-28 01:57 (UTC) - Expand

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-01-28 03:29 (UTC) - Expand

inkmage - 2013-01-28 04:28 (UTC) - Expand

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-01-28 05:21 (UTC) - Expand

greenvelvetcake - 2013-01-28 00:49 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 01:07 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 00:56 (UTC) - Expand

ITT: BABY EATER

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 02:37 (UTC) - Expand

... he eats people.

In one book, he helped a sexual abuse survivor get over her trauma and when she killed the person who raped her, he publicly took the blame for it so she would be able to live her life in peace. Hardly the actions of a horrible person.

visp - 2013-01-27 20:30 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-27 20:33 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 03:45 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 04:39 (UTC) - Expand

greenvelvetcake - 2013-01-28 00:59 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 02:06 (UTC) - Expand

greenvelvetcake - 2013-01-28 02:08 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 02:33 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 02:59 (UTC) - Expand

greenvelvetcake - 2013-01-28 03:10 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 03:32 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 03:50 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 04:04 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 04:18 (UTC) - Expand

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-01-28 05:24 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 05:27 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 06:05 (UTC) - Expand

thezmage - 2013-01-28 08:21 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 15:39 (UTC) - Expand

thezmage - 2013-01-28 16:08 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 18:21 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 20:13 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 03:52 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 04:21 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-28 04:54 (UTC) - Expand

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-01-28 05:26 (UTC) - Expand

He has his own moral code. Like when Mason Verger's sister killed him because had molested her, and Hannibal took the blame so she wouldn't get in trouble.

1. that book was crap.
2. He made a deal with her that she killed Mason and he got away - it wasn't exactly a spontaneous action of goodwill.
3. Even if he made her flowers and a card with "sorry you were molested, hope you feel better," on it, it wouldn't negate his being an insane murderous cannibal.

He made a deal with her that she killed Mason and he got away - it wasn't exactly a spontaneous action of goodwill.

Not true. When he was a psychiatrist, he helped her for no ulterior motive except that he empathized with her. The reason why he made Verger cut off his face in the first place was was because he was offended by what he had done to her.

Margot really didn't do much in the way of rescuing Hannibal-- that was Clarice. Hannibal had no reason to help her after.

that book was crap.

No it wasn't. Hannibal Rising was though. :(

otakugal15 - 2013-01-27 22:05 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-27 22:16 (UTC) - Expand

otakugal15 - 2013-01-27 22:18 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-27 22:26 (UTC) - Expand

otakugal15 - 2013-01-27 22:48 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-01-27 23:11 (UTC) - Expand

otakugal15 - 2013-01-27 23:14 (UTC) - Expand

1. Says you.

2 and 3 have been explained, of which I agree with the others.

1. the book was fucking awesome, one of the best reads I've done in a long time at the time I read it

2. There were some shreds of decency in Lecter twisted up with the evil in him, which makes him compelling.

His haircut was not ambiguous, though. That was a Haircut of Evil.

Ahaahahahaahahahhahhaaa.

You win the thread.

Wasn't he just... a physical representation of death and/or the inevitability of your own bad choices catching up to you? Was he really supposed to be a legit dude?

Huh, that's not how I interpreted it when I watched it.

Maybe but my interpretation of him getting injured at the end was supposed to signify that when all is said and done he wasn't infallible.

...he was a murderer.

BUT HUMANS ARE AWFUL AND STUFF SO IT'S OKAY LOL I HAS LOGICS.

I can't say that I have seen this film but if he is better then the other characters but still kills people he is still bad. Having the best motives does not make you particularly good if your actions aren't good

idk should I watch this

It isn't the road to heaven that's paved with good intentions...