TO THINK I TRUSTED HUGH DANCY'S BEAUTIFUL FACE AND HE WAS PLAYING US THE ENTIRE TIME. That shit kept saying stuff in interviews like how the ending would 'make a splash', and how it was platonic and the entire time he KNEW. We know now he even collaborated with Fuller for that romantic ending. How he pretended otherwise for so long with such a straight face I don't know. So much respect.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I’m going to kind of go on a tangent starting from your comments.
Yes, he’s a troll, with his “jumping off point” for a new season and all that. He once said he’s a terrible liar because his emotive face always gives him away, but he did a fine job here.
No, I don’t think he was trolling the audience with his statements that the relationship was platonic. He always explained it as it’s a deep love, but they don’t want people thinking that it’s just about genitals (as Bryan Fuller might say) instead of a deep spiritual, emotional and intellectual bond. I’ve been saying that this is neither a lessening of the relationship nor a lessening of the romance of the relationship since forever, and that he’s the last thing from “no homo,” and very few people listened to me because it was so much more fun to get upset and to make fun of him, and so no, I’m not going to join this sudden parade of people who are now jumping on the bandwagon to say that he was trolling all along because isn’t that a fun way to think now.
Of course he collaborated on that ending. He’s been collaborating on every scene he could, all along, because he’s a passionate and invested professional, not just some schmuck putting in his time.
Bryan said they wrote the ending about a month before getting done with the season; by that point in time, as far as I can tell, he’d ceased using the word “platonic” at all and had started using the word “romantic” (existingcharactersdiehorribly first pointed this out, I think, and it seems right to me, but I’d be lying if I said I went back to all of his interviews to check). I do remember the fandom “you can’t have it both ways” fuss/nonsense a few months ago.
I don’t think Hugh anticipated that it would become so overtly romantic, back in season 1, and even through a great deal of season 2. He said, bold as brass, “I don’t see their relationship as romantic,” back at SDCC 2013 (”but I’m not going to take it away from you” was the rest of the statement).
You know, there’s a lot of fandom talk about the Hanngram relationship “taking over the show” and whether or not it’s fanservice-y, or whether the show was “always” about the relationship between the two men, and whether this was “always” their intent to have the relationship become romantic. And there doesn’t seem to be any recognition in this conversation of the organic nature of storytelling, especially collaborative storytelling. This show was always about Hannibal and Will and what they meant to each other, but honestly I doubt if in Bryan’s first seven-season plan he really had any true intellectual grasp of the enormity and depth of what Hannigram would be, as a thing in and of itself.
This doesn’t make the fact that it became so intense a matter of fanservice. If you’ve got a clearly defined mission statement, as the show always has had (Hannibal is about the relationship between Hannibal and Will) and not just one but a whole bunch of gatekeepers passionately dedicated to this mission (Bryan Fuller, Hugh Dancy, Mads Mikkelsen, Steve Lightfoot, all the other writers, the directors, the editors, Martha de Laurentiis, etc, etc), it’s going to amp up and up and up just organically. We’re most of us writers here, and we know that sometimes characters take a life of their own and insist on taking the story where they will, plans be damned. (Especially with these two characters, who have no chill about anything.)
Hannibal always had a direction it was going, but I don’t think Bryan Fuller or any of the stakeholders involved really calculated the feedback loop of momentum that they would provide each other to go plunging over the Hannigram cliff. But they’re all of them wise enough storytellers not to fight it, but let the story pull them where it wanted to go. (That said, I agree with Don Mancini that Bryan Fuller has always been wise to keep the tension somewhat unresolved and undefined, because resolution is just another word for the end. And while I can live with this ending, I don’t want to have to.)
But I don’t expect my opinion of this issue to get very much fandom traction, because, compared to getting righteously angry or fist-pumping excited, it’s just not that much fun.