Anyone else been watching this? I’ve been a fan for a bit now, and was worried they’d muck it up. So far though it’s been really entertaining, and a lot of their changes have worked out well. Also, the casting has been great.
For those of you into them the audiobook recordings are fantastic as well.
I also recommend Neil’s Norse mythology audiobook. He jas such a great voice and it’s a really enjoyable listen.
8 Likes
it was good. idk anything about NG’s work, but i enjoyed it. that one episode about the 100 years guy was really amazing, probably one of the best tv episodes i’ve seen this year.
2 Likes
Huge fan of all his book-books, only ever had read one Sandman graphic novel, but always wanted to consume more.
Recently listened to Neverwhere and still loved it, had read it with my eyeballs before. I even liked the kinda’ campy BBC show.
American Gods and Anansi were both great, never saw the show.
Love all the kids books too.
Stardust is still one of the the only things resembling Princess Bride for a certain part of the “childhood magic” portion of my brain… actually that movie Hugo kinda’ makes its way in there too.
I’ll be sure to check out the Sandman show, pretty excited. Thanks for the reminder!
2 Likes
It’s a good show, and an OK adaptation of the first few stories.
My expectations were low and so I wasn’t too disappointed…but wasn’t really that happy overall - lots of changes, some poor pacing and some not great acting - there is a lot of very earnest line readings that I guess are intended to ensure the audience understands what’s going on, but isn’t necessary IMO - you wouldn’t get that level of info-dumping and explanation laden dialog in a show that wasn’t an adaptation.
I HIGHLY recommend the comics - I guess you’d have to pick up the tradebound collections these days. I bought every issue as they were being published and they’ve remained vivid in my memory.
I hope Gaiman gets to finish his MiracleMan run
2 Likes
I am happy it’s out there and hopefully it draws people into the universe, but am somewhat befuddled by the story changes. I get that stories have to be compressed…but fundamental alterations to the underlying structure of a story - especially one like the Sandman where small interdependencies are so crucial - seem unnecessary. The Corinthian…just such a weirdly different role, and why? I had low expectations going in, yet still find myself disappointed.
2 Likes
Thought the 1st episode was great! Looking forward to watching the rest.
2 Likes
Yup I liked the first ep too. I loved the comics and I think the adpatation is good so far.
1 Like
I think The Sandman is a classic work of fiction and it was a balm for my angsty, weird, misunderstood, teenage ass.
After finally getting over my outrage that it would not be stringently faithful to the comic (“Are those tears in Dreams eyes? Tears?!” “That was Jessamy? Pft.”), I’m seeing it now (finished episode 3) as an ok series, but still not very good. I agree with @goldfarb in every way, and want to add that the amount of unnecessary exposition totally throws off the comics tight writing, and some scenes are overtly sentimental. And the acting seriously suffers - Patton Oswalt and Charles Dance are fine actors given the right situation (David Thewlis is amazing anytime).
But then I remember Netflix is lead by content churning cowards and let it go.
I do like the diversification of the characters, tho. And at least they don’t fumble a great premise and story given to them on a silver platter. I’ll finish it.
3 Likes
I’ve watched episode one so far.
Waaaaaaaaay too much exposition, makes it feel a bit cheesy at times, not to mention a little patronising.
I’m not someone that needs things to stay true to the source material, a lot of things that work on the page don’t work on the screen, so I don’t think that’ll be a problem for me, but I hope they slow down on the hand holding, it’s killing the vibe for me completely.
7 Likes
I’m gonna be honest and say the first episode didn’t appeal to me. I’m not familiar with Gaiman’s work but it feels like this is a teen drama rather than a mature work of fiction. Narnia Vs LotR if you will. Charles Dance was amazing as always though.
Also seems they have a lot of stuff in there to appeal to a young modern audience such as the gender-bending character played by the marvellous Gwendoline Christie (Brienne of Tarth/The Big Woman from GoT) so lots to like if you’re into this sort of thing.
The Sandman comic was pretty progressive for the 90s re gender/sexuality so that casting (and others) is within that spirit. Not, however, on race, mind, so it’s nice to see it come correct.
For the comic fans, Simon Spurriers recent run with Hellblazer (tragically cancelled) was fantastic and James Tynions current run with The Corinthian (“Nightmare Country”) is really good.
3 Likes
Ah I thought the original material must have had some pretty progressive concepts in it, was hoping they hadn’t just shoehorned it in for the modern audience. Seems a perfect time to transition the work to the screen.
Ah I’ve heard great things about Hellblazer, I love the name. That’s Constantine isn’t it? The film of that was really good, and I loved Tilda Swinton as the androgynous Gabriel. There was a hilariously poor game based on that film as well.
2 Likes
Yes. Fantastic character. The Spurrier run is the best thing I’ve read in comics since Tom Kings Mister Miracle run. I think Johanna is being setup as amalgamation of John Constantine and a witch with whom Dream had a thing and comes to play a pivotal role later in the comic series. But that’s excited, geek speculation.
3 Likes
Johanna Constantine | Sandman Wiki | Fandom Yeah, Gaiman’s contribution to the character.
First ep so far is okay, my problem with comic book adaptations seems pretty consistent in that I prefer my visual imagination to CGI spectacle in every case. Casting is fine I guess, as clickbait goes the vloggers making the biggest stink didn’t read the comics.
3 Likes
All the gender bending and racial crossovers are entirely consistent with the attitude and feel of the graphic novels, it’s kind of my favorite part of the series.
I always just find it bizarre when stories are so fundamentally altered. So far it feels to me that it was written by a committee, at least partly populated by executive producers who worried that it would be too slow and confusing, and so insisted on loads of exposition and preliminary explanation, telling instead of showing; an instant and clear “villain” with the Corinthian, who isn’t really a villain at all in the comics, is simply true to his nature; the expansion and embellishment of minor characters to make a “human” connection, such as the lengthy focus on Alex Burgess and Ethel Cripps.
Visually it’s pretty great, and is decently acted, I just wonder why they feel the need to make so many alterations to the story structure.
3 Likes
Netflix, broader audience. TBH I wasn’t super into Good Omens either even though I liked the casting.
American Gods was a bit of a different adaptation as well, but I’m a huge fan of Bryan Fuller’s work so the changes were at least enjoyable to me.
I’ll give Sandman a shot, and it’s definitely not the worst of the possible adaptations I heard rumors around, but I don’t think I’ve found much in the way of good Vertigo adaptations these days.
1 Like
Yeah I didn’t like Good Omens much either, I couldn’t even finish it.
What’s odd about the desire to appeal to a broader audience is it so rarely seems to work, and it tends to alienate the fans of the original.
I am on the whole enjoying it, it just feels to me like a missed opportunity. Sometimes those films and shows that could have been amazing but were just meh can seem worse than stuff that’s just outright bad.
2 Likes
I think the desire for gratuitous CGI gets in the way of proper fantasy, of the emotional aspects of these stories.
I’d much rather see smaller scope, in-camera effects, smaller stories than the largesse and financing that requires storytellers shift the audience for mass “content” appeal.
I’m trying to figure out what would be more my liking and not just rejecting IP-milking outright.
Maybe some of these could hit harder staged closer to a theater production?
6 Likes
I’m assuming Netflix demanded an obvious antagonist, in addition to the patronizing exposition. Because it has so little faith in its audience, and doesn’t dare risks losing anyone’s attention in what is already a pretty risky endeavor (for them).
3 Likes
Despite the financial successes of film and TV adaptations of comics at large, the medium just does not transfer in any satisfying manner. The reason, as far as I can tell, is that it removes the active participation of the consumer that comics require.
Comics have a visual and verbal combination that requires assembly by the reader. This means anything not explicitly provided by the author or artist is created by you! Once that it taken away then all the awesome things about the medium are sort of reductive. No film or TV show could account for all our individual imaginations.
For example, Dream has a voice that sounds completely different to everyone who has ever read the Sandman. This is just one small detail of millions of opportunities that exist in any comic.
I submit the following panel from Scott McCloud’s Underatanding Comics as an example
There is an implied death here but every detail about the violence with which it happens is all on the reader and their own imagination.
Finally, no, I have not watched any of this show and am a bit disappointed such a thing was done. Gaiman himself was on record for years that it wouldn’t ever be done because he didn’t think it could be. If we’re all being honest, how could it be!? I guess they must have ponied up enough cash for him to allow it. To each their own I guess.
3 Likes