MovieChat Forums > Hannibal (2013) Discussion > Mason Verger was ATROCIOUS

Mason Verger was ATROCIOUS

posted 8 years ago by tuomas_gimli
11 replies | jump to latest

Honestly, he was godawful. The character, the actor, the dialogue, everything. Why in the hell did the director go with this godd4mn caricature? When the whole show otherwise exists in an almost hyperreality that doesn't abide by the laws of our logic and characters deliberately act stilted and talk in strange patterns that no human being would, this buffoon acting like some Loony Tunes character written by Clive Barker goes about as much against that as possible. His scenes in season 2 ranged from laughable to insufferably irritating, and he only became less intolerable in season 3 thanks to the prosthetic the actor was wearing, which helped tone down his downright cartoonish expressions and speech. I never felt he was threatening or ominous, and perhaps the only scene I enjoyed him in was towards the end of season 2. Seriously, he was terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, awful.

Was this character like this in the book, or was he invented for the show? I haven't read it.

[–] M_ish4 8 years ago

No.

Died Tragically Rescuing His Family From The Wreckage Of A Destroyed Sinking Battleship

[–] El_Gallo_LOCO 8 years ago

he's supposed to be detestable, also you realize it was two different actors who played him in seasons 2 & 3... pleople like to say Joe Anderson ripped gary oldman off but i preffered him to michael pitt.... never liked michael pitt

[–] tuomas_gimli 8 years ago

Whoa, I didn't even think that it was a different actor in S3. I don't know if that's a good thing considering how awful he was, but it's an accomplishment.

And dude, I do realize a guy who's neck deep in shady corporate corruption, talks about feeding people to pigs, eating them, removes his sister's uterus as an act of revenge and wants someone's face cut off is supposed to be detestable. In fact the character's actually a rather well done detestable. It's the way he's played I take massive issue with. He doesn't fit in the series at all.

[–] arkayenether 8 years ago

In the book, he was more ridiculous

[–] DeAd_MiKe_187 8 years ago

No. He was a complete caricature in the novel. This portrayal was a lot more 'realistic' than the original character.

The actors who played him were great. Michael Pitt was completely over the top in season 2, but that's the character, and it was fun to watch.

[–] ForbiddenArms 8 years ago

He's worse in the book.

[–] magicmtn 8 years ago

He was one of my favorite parts of the show , wtf you mean

The show has a very off-beat, dark sense of humor , so his outlandishness fits in the way that it doesn't fit... if that makes any sense, lol

[–] big-pizza-pie 8 years ago

I strongly disagree. I believe Michael Pitt did a stand up job as Mason Verger. Specifically because he is a detestable character, and he performed the part as such, to a 'T'. Agreed the he rubs against the grain of the previous episodes and characters very harshly, but up to this point Bryan Fuller and team have beautifully and specifically constructed this world and atmosphere for a very specific end. I highly doubt they would have made a mistake as huge as you are insinuating.

[–] sleeperx9 7 years ago

Couldn't agree more, he stood out in the worst possible way, and it was a miscast above all else. Yet, while the 1st guy was way out of his depth, the season 3 replacement goes a long way to correct that, in fact he's at least passable in every scene - Phew!