A special feature brought to you by

Universal's hesitation at this point is more directly related to Demme's departure and less about "Hannibal's" unwieldy and unbelievable plot. Though Delacorte has kept the novel under wraps even from reviewers, a six-page encapsulation of the complex plot made available to this writer seems to indicate that it will not be easy reading -- nor will any movie made from it be easy viewing. Humans and human parts are fed to eels and swine. Hannibal Lecter devours his enemies with incredible regularity. And -- gasp! -- even that nice FBI agent Clarice Starling turns cannibal. Given the country's moralistic climate, it's hard to imagine a movie where the public is expected to root for two killers who fall in love after dining on the brains of one of the FBI's lawyers, even if the attorney is a nasty dude.

Even supposing that the story itself is not the main obstacle to a green light, sources say that Universal is looking hard at the bottom line, despite the fact both Demme and De Laurentiis have deals at the studio. Without Demme's budget-conscious involvement ("Silence of the Lambs" was made for a mere $22 million and grossed more than $60 million), no one is sure that "Hannibal" won't develop fiscal flatulence. For one thing, Hollywood was anticipating that Demme would use his personal relationships with Tally, Foster and Hopkins to keep their front-end money demands within reason. All involved would gamble on big back-end profits in order to get the sequel made. Absent that, the price tag of the movie could be astronomical for a film without significant special effects: It's been estimated that above-the-line costs could easily top $80 million before a frame of film is shot. "The studio hopes Jonathan changes his mind," said an informed source about the behind-the-scenes talks going on.

Will he? Demme was known to be hotly anticipating Harris' delivery of "Hannibal." Now, the word around Hollywood (for public consumption) is that Demme found the new book too violent in a post-Columbine environment. The other story going around is that, "upon reflection," he decided that having created a minor masterpiece with the first movie, he didn't feel the need to try to top himself with the sequel.

But all that is, frankly, hogwash.

The real reason is that Demme was left out in the cold when the deal for the book was struck. Harris' literary agent, Mort Janklow, and his movie agency, Creative Artists Agency, sold the sequel to De Laurentiis. (Ironically enough, CAA represents Demme as well.) At the end of the negotiating, Demme found himself without creative control -- something any director, much less one of his reputation, would have to be nuts to forgo whenever the over-the-top De Laurentiis is involved. "Jonathan didn't like the way the book was sold," said an informed source. "The truth is Jonathan is OK about moving on. If Jonathan weren't OK about it, there'd be hell to pay."

But why would a director of Ridley Scott's talent and reputation even be interested in a De Laurentiis-controlled "Hannibal"? The always-interesting force behind "Alien," "Blade Runner" and "Thelma & Louise" is in something of a slump -- he was responsible for the disasters "1492" and "White Squall." But that's expected to change with the release of "Gladiator," a big-budget actioner being made by Dreamworks SKG and overseen by Steven Spielberg and his producing team of Walter Parks and Laurie MacDonald. Scott certainly doesn't need, and surely couldn't want, to be Demme's stand-in. That's a role usually given to an up-and-comer.

Another issue unresolved is whether Demme's exit will affect Foster or Hopkins' enthusiasm for the project. In these depressed times in Hollywood, when fewer films are being made, bigger paydays are highly prized. Representatives for both stars would love to make mega-deals. And Hopkins, at least, is expected to stay. His presence is seen as essential to the continuity of the project, and the fee should bag him enough cash to see him well into retirement.

But rumblings in Hollywood insist that Foster is a definite question mark with De Laurentiis' interference and without Demme's involvement. (The actress herself is filming in Malaysia at the moment.) Already people close to the project are spinning her out of the movie, arguing that FBI ingénue-turned-agent Clarice Starling doesn't really make her presence felt in the book until the three-quarter mark. But the plot synopsis clearly shows that is sheer nonsense; Starling is as important a character in the sequel as Lecter. That they don't see that Foster was as vital to the success of "Silence of the Lambs" as Hopkins and Demme were is just more evidence of what lunkheads run the movie industry. Typical of the thinking now taking place, one source commented: "By the time this sequel comes out, it will be 10 years after the original. Who's going to remember that Jodie originated the role?" But what actress in her right mind would dare to follow in those Oscar-winning footsteps?