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

31–40 of 105 posts

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

#31

Post by bryanrasmussen »

metroholografix wrote: post #3

> 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…

part of playing at that level of media is talking up the product, if he didn't say these things people's jobs and livelihoods would be effected, and essentially he would probably end up the next Alan Moore and there would less money coming in. So I expect he says the things that would alleviate people's fears, assuming he thinks it is not a total shit show, and then hopefully more than half of the people who see it will think that was good and that's good enough.

all that said I like to imagine Neil Gaiman asked why he finally adapted The Sandman would snort like Frito in Idiocracy and reply I like money.

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

#32

Post by tialaramex »

greymalik wrote: post #17
htk wrote: post #13

Several complaints online about "forced diversity" on the casting, many relating it to Netflix's influences.

Gaiman has been pretty vocal [1] about his support for the casting: “Desire's nonbinary identification is so textual that one supporter asked Gaiman if he thought critics of these castings had even read The Sandman. "I don't think so, no," the author responded. When another asked, "Wasn't Desire… always non-binary…??," Gaiman replied, "Well, yes. But you'd have to have read the comics to know that. And the shouty peo…

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 their neck.

In the comic book you can just draw a goth chick, and a million women say "That's me" and you move on. But if you actually cast any of the women who'd like to think that's them it's not going to make anybody happy. She ceases to be "Everyman" well, every-goth-chick and becomes a specific individual.

So I think you probably specifically don't want to cast Death for resemblance to that image, much more than his other siblings. Actually I'd be tempted to cast Brad Pitt, and be like yeah what? But Brad is a bit old and a bit expensive, and that involves rewriting some stuff, so, sure, Kirby Howell-Baptiste, why not? Personally I think Brad's accent would have thrown me off more than Kirby not having pasty white skin.

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

#33

Post by bryanrasmussen »

yewenjie wrote: post #26
metroholografix wrote: post #3

> 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…

Totally agreed. They made it an emotional drama while the story is far more than mere emotions. With forced cliffhangers and petty emotional dialogue, it just feels so fast - whereas the original often gives you space and time to ponder upon the deep ideas it plays with.

space and time are, I believe, more easy to achieve in a comic book where you will often reread a page multiple times in looking at the pictures.

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

#34

Post by JackFr »

varjag wrote: post #23
metroholografix wrote: post #6

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.

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.

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

#35

Post by ubermonkey »

metroholografix wrote: post #3

> 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…

Are you serious? It seems astoundingly faithful and definitely very much in keeping with the tone of the source material.

Of course, this is HN, where there's always SOMEONE who needs to be contrarian, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

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

#36

Post by kleer001 »

tialaramex wrote: post #32
greymalik wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaiman has been pretty vocal [1] about his support for the casting: “Desire's nonbinary identification is so textual that one supporter asked Gaiman if he thought critics of these castings had even read The Sandman. "I don't think so, no," the author responded. When another asked, "Wasn't Desire… always non-binary…??," Gaiman replied, "Well, yes. But you'd have to have read the comics to know that. And the shouty peo…

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…

Huge fan of the comics since they were released and have bought both seasons of the audio dramas and my only complaint is the apparent older age and no-fun-ness of Death in the trailers.

I thought the original author's intention was to have a young and indefatigable character play the embodiment of the end of all things as a light irony and existential cotton candy balance to the grim reality of the job.

But I'll hold my real opinion until I see the whole show.

If I don't hear a bubbly "Peachy-keen!" I'll probably just sigh and roll my eyes. It's only TV. If I want the old thing I'll just reread the comics again.

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

#37

Post by fritztastic »

FWIW, (in my opinion) it does seem like a "not-bad" adaptation. It's not a disaster, and I've enjoyed it so far. I don't think there would ever be a perfect time or a perfect way to adapt the source material, but I am very glad Gaiman was involved and it has been made into a series instead of someone trying to condense it into a film (even with the prospect of expanding into sequels). I think it does contain a lot of the important themes, but is missing some of the vibes- probably because the setting of the comics took place in a very 80s/90s reality. Though there are branching storylines sprinkled in different times. I haven't finished watching the episodes, but it seems like a decent adaptation- it's good, not. I think it's missing something, though I'd have to read the comics again to articulate precisely what that is. Then again, it is no easy feat to translate the comics into a video medium- and I'm happy to be able to watch the story, so I do have that bias.

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

#38

Post by kuramitropolis »

varjag wrote: post #23
metroholografix wrote: post #6

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.

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

Or the comic being made in the 80s/90s and the adaptation being made in the 2020s.

The work was progressive for its time; today its ideals have been captured by managerialism.

> "Our predecessors were so wrong! Of course your otherness is worth celebrating! It's so much easier to extract value from your labor that way!"

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

#39

Post by metroholografix »

simonh wrote: post #15
metroholografix wrote: post #3

> 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…

> At least Alan Moore had the courage to tell Hollywood where to go. Except he didn’t, he sold the rights to a lot of his stuff, saying it was “money for old rope”.

He sold the rights early in his career, in the 80s, before the shitshow adaptations started coming out. Once he realized the travesty they had made of his life's work, he vowed never to work with Hollywood ever again and even stopped accepting royalties, telling the studios to pass them on to the artists that had worked on the original comics instead.

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

#40

Post by mark_l_watson »

I have watched the first three episodes so far and like it. I never followed Gaiman's comic strip Sandman, so I did 10 minutes of web browsing and reading before starting. I also watched part of an interview with Gaiman on YouTube about the new series.
Post reply on HN