Live data from Hacker News

How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

variety.com

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#61
post #47

The issue with this season is that while the comics are beloved, the first book is quite weak; Gaiman was still finding his voice, still experimenting with what the books were going to be, and constrained by editorial requirements from DC. The first several issues are full of cringey tie-ins to other DC IP, and the horror elements are forced (The Sandman is not a horror comic series). If you're not a Sandman stan, my…

I remember having the same impression 20 years ago. My housemate had the whole series of books, and would rave about how brilliant they are.

After reading the first book, it was such a "meh" experience I didn't bother reading any others. Some occult guy traps the dream guy in a glass pot, dream guy escapes and wanders around getting his stuff back, also, his sister is a hot goth chick who happens to be the grim reaper. Later I understood it was peppered with references to other cartoon books, but that eluded me at the time.

Not sure what I'm missing but I just don't get the appeal.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#62
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The demons are gone because they weren't actually Gaiman's; they were DC IP. The show is going out of its way to cut ties with the rest of DC IP; there are things (like Johanna Constantine) done I think solely for the purpose of disentangling Morpheus from the DCU. Later Also, can we as adults with the books in far in the rear-view mirror (I mean, for those of us who'd say that) all not agree that the demon "contest"…

There were quite a few Demons in the show tho playing mostly minor roles. I was actually surprised they didn’t changed it even further considering how it conflicts with Fox/Netflix’s Lucifer which according to the blogosphere departs quite a bit from the source material but it was quite a fun show, and despite things getting a bit old at some point especially when it moved away from its monster of the week format it’…

>>Fox/Netflix’s Lucifer which according to the blogosphere departs quite a bit from the source material

That's the understatement of the century :) "Lucifer" was a fun show to watch but it has NOTHING to do with the comic books except that it reuses few main character names, and the fact that Lucifer runs a bar/club in LA. It was created by Tom Kapinos, the same guy who made "Californication", and is one part that, one part "Analyze This", and one part "Miami Vice".

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#63
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link hasn’t totally been severed. Constantine is still present. My only two gripes are a bad 2.0 sound mix - too much dynamic range, even with compression turned on - and Lucifer was lackluster. Too much “corporate CEO” and not enough fallen angel. Should have pulled in the TV show actor. But Death, Desire, Matthew, Lucien, even Morpheus himself all rock.

The Constantine of the series isn't the Constantine of the book; the Constantine of the book is the protagonist of Hellblazer, and he isn't hundreds of years old. The Constantine of the series has a thru-line going back to Hob Gadling; she's entirely contained in the Sandman story.

The two Constantines are two different people, even though they’re played by the same actress. Morpheus explicitly calls out working with her ancestor, who is the one we saw in Hobbs story.

More importantly she doesn’t recognize Morpheus despite working with him.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#64
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like writing about things I haven't seen (not a Netflix subscriber), but since this is the Internet after all I'd like to discuss the "Morpheus vs Lucifer" scene that was uploaded yesterday [1] and that no one should watch unless they like their episodes spoiled. 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 th…

The demons are gone because they weren't actually Gaiman's; they were DC IP. The show is going out of its way to cut ties with the rest of DC IP; there are things (like Johanna Constantine) done I think solely for the purpose of disentangling Morpheus from the DCU. Later Also, can we as adults with the books in far in the rear-view mirror (I mean, for those of us who'd say that) all not agree that the demon "contest"…

[deleted]

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#65
post #47

The issue with this season is that while the comics are beloved, the first book is quite weak; Gaiman was still finding his voice, still experimenting with what the books were going to be, and constrained by editorial requirements from DC. The first several issues are full of cringey tie-ins to other DC IP, and the horror elements are forced (The Sandman is not a horror comic series). If you're not a Sandman stan, my…

I’ve not read the comics (in fact, despite loving his books, I was wholly unaware he wrote comics until recently).

We watched 1-5 last night and will likely watch 6-10 tonight.

5 was AMAZING. What tension, what dread. All of them are shot brilliantly, with fantastic acting and excellent dialogue.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#66
post #34
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder if it has anything to do with reading the comic in your 20s and watching the adaptation in your 40s.

Or could it simply be “the book is better.” In my experience of the dozens of books I’ve read which have had movies made of them there are only two in which the book is good and the movie is better or even as good as the book - “The Shining” and “The Godfather”. I find it’s a very rare and hard thing to do.

I'd add The Princess Bride. In some ways the book is better than the movie, in other ways the movie is better than the book.

And in the case of The Hunt for Red October I like the movie better than the book.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#67
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to guess that a bunch of people don't like the choice for Death. But the thing about Death is that she's such the archetype that from then until now you could never move at a goth club for all the women who are sure they're Death. Like, try announcing from the DJ booth, "Has anybody lost a silver ankh?" and watch like two dozen women glance down between their boobs to check theirs is still hanging around th…

Death is the most faithfully adapted character in the whole show, so if someone's complaining about that, they're telling on themselves. They nailed Death. I was pleasantly surprised by that; there's a (somewhat well-regarded) audiobook adaptation of the books, with James McAvoy as Morpheus and Kat Dennings (the older daughter in 40 Year Old Virgin, and, by appearances, a straight-out-of-central-casting choice for De…

I've enjoyed both. Curious what makes the audio not work for you.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#68
post #67
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Death is the most faithfully adapted character in the whole show, so if someone's complaining about that, they're telling on themselves. They nailed Death. I was pleasantly surprised by that; there's a (somewhat well-regarded) audiobook adaptation of the books, with James McAvoy as Morpheus and Kat Dennings (the older daughter in 40 Year Old Virgin, and, by appearances, a straight-out-of-central-casting choice for De…

I've enjoyed both. Curious what makes the audio not work for you.

I thought it was simultaneously kind of over- and under- acted. But I've only gotten through Preludes and Doll's House.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#69
Since no one mentioned, I was a bit confused. I had heard of the Sandman, had some awareness that it was an oldish popular and well-regarded comic leading to a popular graphic novel. I must have seen imagery of Sandman somewhere. But then I watched the series I was utterly confused by the goth imagery and a lot of other elements.

A little research revealed I was certainly confused. The Sandman I had in mind was the original Sandman, Wesley Dodds, a novel creation of Gardner Fox (writer) and Bert Christman (artist) for DC comics, and who's popularity languished in the 1940's, but must have come back into style for (I can find no reference to but have seen) the 1980's graphic novel, large format, grey cover featuring Dodds as the Sandman.

The dip in popularity in the 1940's led other creators to steal the name and ideas and use for other unrelated comic characters. But then those characters have been forgotten and Dodds returns, only for Gaiman (also for DC) to capitalize on the popularity of the original Sandman (Dodds) just a few years later by creating the god Sandman (Morpheus), and retconning Wesley Dodds as being given his powers by Morpheus.

Science fiction has always been a pioneering genre for fairly representing minorities. But Gaiman turned everything goth, maybe a little steampunk, and gratuitously gay. I don't think there is anything wrong with giving a little of this and a little of that for the various groups of viewers and consumers, especially minorities, but, with a ham fist, Gaiman overindulges, belabors and vastly over-represents alternative lifestyles, who happen to all be white but for a single exception, a black woman. No Finns, no Danes, no Pols, no Hindus, no Japanese, no Filipinos... mostly just gay white male characters, and a couple few black men and women.

I don't like to criticize a work in this way, because it is not all that matters, but I am nearly certain that Gaiman intended to shock, and I expect wants discussion on it. My feelings are that gay and lesbian characters were avant garde in the late 1960s, but now they're used kind of like too much ketchup. Everything is drowning in ketchup.

Re: How (and Why) Neil Gaiman Finally Adapted ‘The Sandman’ for TV

#70

Since no one mentioned, I was a bit confused. I had heard of the Sandman, had some awareness that it was an oldish popular and well-regarded comic leading to a popular graphic novel. I must have seen imagery of Sandman somewhere. But then I watched the series I was utterly confused by the goth imagery and a lot of other elements. A little research revealed I was certainly confused. The Sandman I had in mind was the o…

> But Gaiman turned everything goth, maybe a little steampunk

Have you read the comic? It’s very, very goth and steampunk.

As for “there are only gay blank women” point… what? There are like three black women in the show for more than an episode or two that I can think of.

The main character is a god played by a white guy, the main antagonist is a non-human nightmare played by a white guy, the secondary antagonist (ruby guy) is a white guy, his mom is a notedly straight white woman, Constantine is a write woman, Lucifer is a white woman, and while Stephen Fry may be gay in real life, his character doesn’t really have a sexuality.

Aside from Rose Walker, the majority of people that move the story forward are white folks.

Post reply on HN