11–20 of 105 posts
> Sources say Goyer was also adamant that “The Sandman” not be “dumbed-down” and that it be “kept weird,” and any attempts to make it “formulaic” were rejected by Goyer and Gaiman. That's funny since I found it formulaic to the extreme, which is a shame. Being a fan of the comics, I was saddened by the potential that was squandered in this adaptation. Regardless of what Gaiman says, I can't see this series as anythin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it was a pretty good adaptation! What didn't you like about it?
well, let's see: bog-standard cgi, overbearing music that sounds like music in any other big recent(ish) "fantasy" production, stilted dialogue laced with awkward exposition, nobody among the cast seems to know how to fucking act (except the guy playing John Dee, he's excellent though also exactly the same as everywhere else, so he just steals every scene he's in), that stupid raven, shall I go on. still watchable, w…
I really hope that he can leverage any success in getting American Gods a final season. It deserved a ending
> Sources say Goyer was also adamant that “The Sandman” not be “dumbed-down” and that it be “kept weird,” and any attempts to make it “formulaic” were rejected by Goyer and Gaiman. That's funny since I found it formulaic to the extreme, which is a shame. Being a fan of the comics, I was saddened by the potential that was squandered in this adaptation. Regardless of what Gaiman says, I can't see this series as anythin…
Except he didn’t, he sold the rights to a lot of his stuff, saying it was “money for old rope”.
> Sources say Goyer was also adamant that “The Sandman” not be “dumbed-down” and that it be “kept weird,” and any attempts to make it “formulaic” were rejected by Goyer and Gaiman. That's funny since I found it formulaic to the extreme, which is a shame. Being a fan of the comics, I was saddened by the potential that was squandered in this adaptation. Regardless of what Gaiman says, I can't see this series as anythin…
I thought it was a pretty good adaptation! What didn't you like about it?
I could read the book at my own pace but I have to wait for the pace of the show when watching the TV adaptation. Like trying to swim upstream through mud. I understand that they needed to start with this, but "scrawny naked male protagonist being sullenly mute while locked in a bottle and narrating" is... not great.
Several complaints online about "forced diversity" on the casting, many relating it to Netflix's influences.
[1] https://ew.com/tv/neil-gaiman-defends-the-sandman-casting-no...
Several complaints online about "forced diversity" on the casting, many relating it to Netflix's influences.
> Sources say Goyer was also adamant that “The Sandman” not be “dumbed-down” and that it be “kept weird,” and any attempts to make it “formulaic” were rejected by Goyer and Gaiman. That's funny since I found it formulaic to the extreme, which is a shame. Being a fan of the comics, I was saddened by the potential that was squandered in this adaptation. Regardless of what Gaiman says, I can't see this series as anythin…
I thought it was a pretty good adaptation! What didn't you like about it?
The setting is less creative/weird than the comic (a night club in the original), a demon character is gone (probably to simplify the story), and the battle is shortened from the comic books while, simultaneously, stretched with a pep talk from Morpheus' raven that's only there to add drama.
I accept that maybe the episode is better due to these changes - as I said, haven't seen it yet and I could very well be wrong. But when I saw the trailer I got the exact same impression than the OP: formulaic, conventional, and dumbed down.
I feel that Sandman makes such good use of the medium that it may very well be impossible to faithfully adapt to live action. And maybe this is the best version anyone could realistically make. I just wish someone would once in a while say "let's keep this exactly as weird and nonsensical as it was in the original".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comic was transformative and iconoclastic. It made you think but also forged new ground in graphic storytelling (and let's not forget that the artists that worked on it were at least as important if not more so than Gaiman). There is none of that in this adaptation. It plays it safe on every possible level. One can easily imagine the corporate bean counters slapping Gaiman on the back, a firm nod of approval.
Maybe you're right, but I have no way to tell from your comments, because both of them are very generic. A lot of handwaving dismissal, but not actually describing any of the aggrieved wrongness. Lobbing "formulaic" but not giving a formula, "safe" but not explaining the safety. What you've done is, ironically, formulaic and safe. Statements that fit well into the typical potshot pattern of people on the internet wan…