Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 105 posts

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

#81

Post by routerl »

Maursault wrote: post #76
braingenious wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (r…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

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

#82

Post by tptacek »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #73
jasonladuke0311 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

24 hour diner followed a bunch of nobodies and a side character for 40 minutes. That is not in any formula that conventional shows would follow.

It’s a comedy trope. Seinfeld is probably most famous for the formula with back-references throughout the series. Arrested Development dabbled in it, and Community took it to the extreme of whole story arcs. Brooklyn 99 and New Girl revel in it. A less comedy-specific example, Buffy, created a role for the throw away character (Spike) because he was so well received, then went on to do several more episodes along a s…

It's not a comedy trope here (it also predates Seinfeld by several months). It's more a trope of the Sandman comic, of finding excuses to tell slightly-edge backstory narratives and doing little character studies, then knitting all the characters together to make something happen. Basically all of Sandman works that way.

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

#83

Post by jimmux »

tptacek wrote: post #50
probably_wrong wrote: post #19

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"…

I think the anti-life bit was about entropy, but avoided the word for some reason. Could be for simplicity, poetic reasons, who could say.

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

#84

Post by mihaic »

I feel it's ironic to say this for The Sandman, but for me the standard woke changes to the source material hurt the story, as they forced Dream to be a much weaker character. Johanna Constantine for instance starts off rude and dismissive towards Dream, since this is the sort of behavior writers use to telegraph strong female character nowadays -- which ended up making the main character feel weaker when he's not taken seriously. Lucien's change was of no importance to the story, but just threw me off a bit from how I pictured mentally the comics.

Episode 6 on the other hand was the highlight of the season as it completely stuck to the source material. Death now being black still felt completely natural, since her personality was the same, and the Endless are not bound to any form.

I'm fine with changes made to adapt a work to a new medium, but changes without any reason just confuse me as a fan of the original work, as I'm subconsciously expecting a reason for the change that never comes

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

#86

Post by tptacek »

taeric wrote: post #80
tptacek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Certainly fair. I'm guessing I like it more just for how surprised I was that it was a good audiobook.

Sure, it was interesting how little it turned out to need the artwork!

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

#88

Post by nottorp »

snoopy_telex wrote: post #2

I really hope that he can leverage any success in getting American Gods a final season. It deserved a ending

Well, the trouble with American Gods is they streeeetched the original material so much that I stopped watching somewhere at the beginning of the 2nd season.

Felt like the Hobbit - if you cut off 2/3 of it it may be a great movie but as it is it's a bore.

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

#90

Post by justinclift »

Maursault wrote: post #74
yazboo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not enough Danes? He’s not doing demography, he’s telling a story. Should Nick Cave be playing more ragtime? Where are the Italian neorealist films of Guillermo del Toro? Complaining about Neil Gaiman over representing gay goths is like complaining about Kenny Rogers over representing gamblers.

You've missed the point and constructed a straw man. The point I made was any minority representation on television is good. Art should reflect life. Unless it is a cultural work, which The Sandman is not , vastly over-representing a minority, and one that is already recognized as over-represented in the industry, is obsessive and indulgent. If it was essential to the story, that is one thing, but almost none of it h…

> Dreams are inherently sexual ...

To me, that's a really weird statement.

Perhaps it's more a reflection of how you dream?

Post reply on HN