# The Sandman | Netflix Adaptation



## Jiehfeng (Sep 25, 2021)

An adaptation of the comics Sandman of DC Comics by Neil Gaiman. It's apparently produced and scripted by him. Personally I've never read Sandman but this looks great, there's an Audible version of the comics that's amazing as well apparently. Hopefully they do it well, will be keeping an eye on this.


----------



## Spectro87 (Sep 26, 2021)

I'm going to start Audible version soon. Seemed like it was definitely worth a credit. Hopefully there are less issues than American Gods had.


----------



## duwen (Aug 8, 2022)

Probably an okay show for anyone that never read the comics... but it's a travesty to those of us that did.
Netflix has reached a new low recently with it's poor adaptations of existing IP's, but this one hurts a little more because Neil Gaiman was heavily involved in the shows development.

Light spoilers ahead...

As a fan of the comics (having bought the whole run from the day issue one hit the comic shop through to it's conclusion) it's frustrating to see glimpses of how good this could have been if they'd just done a straight adaptation (no woke pun intended) of the source material.
Most of the 'woke' changes didn't bother me; shoehorning in queer sexuality wherever a characters sexuality wasn't implicitly defined and doing so has no effect on the story, and swapping ethnicities of major supporting characters really didn't bother me (aside from just thinking, "why?", as it changes nothing in terms of the story and just feels sort of like an exploitative farming of 'woke' points). The non-sensical gender swaps were what really grated - particualarly John Constantine becoming Joanna, apparently due to licensing, but ffs it would've made more sense to replace the character with the one black character they cut from the source material, Papa Midnight. Gender swapping Lucien also makes no sense. It just felt like "here's another white male that we can make a black female".
Most importantly, the restructuring of the story doesn't work imo. Having Corinthian free before Dream is imprisoned just seemed like a cheap way of introducing the character earlier than the story needs.

Dissappointing, but hopeful that more people will discover the brilliance of the source material via the Netflix introduction.
3/10


----------



## Marc_LFD (Aug 8, 2022)

duwen said:


> Probably an okay show for anyone that never read the comics... but it's a travesty to those of us that did.
> Netflix has reached a new low recently with it's poor adaptations of existing IP's, but this one hurts a little more because Neil Gaiman was heavily involved in the shows development.
> 
> Light spoilers ahead...
> ...


Sounds like an utter mess.

Typical of Netflix.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Aug 8, 2022)

Marc_LFD said:


> Sounds like an utter mess.
> 
> Typical of Netflix.



It's a Warner Bros show.


----------



## duwen (Aug 8, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> It's a Warner Bros show.


Which is partly why the claims of licensing issues over John Constantine feel more than a bit bizarre.


----------



## Cyan (Aug 8, 2022)

I don't know the comics, and liked the show. I know only the illustrated book from Yoshitaka Amano, dream hunters.
knowing DC universe a little, I also found weird that Constantine was a women now :/
same with Lucifer (is that a woman in the comics?)

I would have been nicely surprised if they hired cast from previous DC shows (mazikeen from lucifer, Constantine from whichever existing movies/series, etc.)
Licensing is weird, because they have the right over the universe, but not characters in it 
I also don't understand all the gender/racial changes from original story, that's like censorship to me. I know that's only to prevent class actions suite for hurt people who feel not represented in today's shows.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Aug 8, 2022)

duwen said:


> Which is partly why the claims of licensing issues over John Constantine feel more than a bit bizarre.



I really like the actress, I loved the look and I enjoyed the few minutes she had in the second or third episode. Sadly, I'm reaching the end and she hasn't appeared anymore outside of a very weird cameo. I'll post my thoughts on the show and read yours once I finish it.

Warner Bros has been a mess in managing licenses lately. I just hope that doesn't intrude on the next Dune and Batman movies.


----------



## duwen (Aug 8, 2022)

Cyan said:


> I don't know the comics, and liked the show. I know only the illustrated book from Yoshitaka Amano, dream hunters.
> knowing DC universe a little, I also found weird that Constantine was a women now :/
> same with Lucifer (is that a woman in the comics?)
> 
> ...


No, Lucifer is a male, but I'm okay with him being depicted by a woman (Tilda Swinton portrayed him in the Keanu Reeves Constantine).
But I agree, it would've been great to have Lucifer and Mazikeen from the Lucifer show (which was a direct spin-off of those versions of the characters from Sandman), as well as the TV version of Constantine.


----------



## Veho (Aug 8, 2022)

According to Neil Gaiman: "Lucifer, while inspired by the Lucifer in Sandman, is so far away in terms of Sandman continuity by the end of [the show], that it's easier on everyone to go back to the version in the comics. And this way you don't know what our Lucifer is going to do."

I suspect the same applies to Joh(a)n(na) Constantine. It is not the same character as the Constantine from Hellblazer, or the Constantine movie or series.

What irks me more is the Constantine/Rachel relationship in the show, and how much (more) of a dick Johanna is compared to the comic version. 



Cyan said:


> I know that's only to prevent class actions suite for hurt people who feel not represented in today's shows.


Has this ever happened?


----------



## duwen (Aug 8, 2022)

Veho said:


> According to Neil Gaiman: "Lucifer, while inspired by the Lucifer in Sandman, is so far away in terms of Sandman continuity by the end of [the show], that it's easier on everyone to go back to the version in the comics. And this way you don't know what our Lucifer is going to do."


If only he'd gone "back to the version in the comics" for all the characters... 
And in terms of Lucifer (if Netflix persevere for at least another 4 seasons), he/she will end up on Earth... the same as the 'spin-off' Lucifer.


----------



## duwen (Aug 8, 2022)

Veho said:


> I suspect the same applies to Joh(a)n(na) Constantine. It is not the same character as the Constantine from Hellblazer, or the Constantine movie or series.


I want to believe that... except they gave HER the 'Newcastle' backstory via her nightmare.


----------



## Cyan (Aug 8, 2022)

Sorry this is offtopic.



Veho said:


> Has this ever happened?





Spoiler: offtopic



I don't know in other countries, but I feel that's the reason we have forced representations in remakes and new shows, even ads, etc., this is just to show they care about current claiming "groups" (lgbt, feminism etc.)
Every show now needs at least a white, black, Chinese, gay, (don't worry, black and Chineses die firsts in action movies), if not a mix of them right from the first scenes. first scene in 4400 tv series remake? it wasn't present in the original, it was about people with powers, not inter-racial gay people sleeping together !
I personally feel Inuits are under-represented in medias, I'm feeling so bad for them, they have to be the next !

In France there is a regulation group, called CSA, which receive every years thousands of complaints from people feeling outraged by ads, movies, radio, VOD, etc. regarding this issue, and allow or ban broadcasting. (And netflix had to sign few agrements to be allowed in France)
To prevent having a fin (up to 3% of turnover) or ban sanction, it's a judiciary process, the creators have to think ahead and integrate everything current society expect, and remove what could do any harm to them and prevent anyone report something.
it goes from racial to sexual and religious orientation, gender biased depiction, animal to human dignity, insults to hate incitation, unauthorized product advertisement, lying, missing viewpoints diversity, etc.

an ads can't show a woman in a kitchen anymore, it has to be a man, for feminism. isn't it against equality? they should both be there, while women could even be there alone without people crying for matchism, equality means women too, not man only. white people should be film's hero without black feeling inferior, etc. (oh, wait, that's currently the case, there are almost no black main characters in movies or series...)


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Aug 8, 2022)

Cyan said:


> Sorry this is offtopic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But does it only bother you because you're aware that it's intentional? Does it make a difference to you? In performing arts, the gender and race and other aspects have always been fluid. No two high-level productions of Hamlet are the same.


----------



## Cyan (Aug 8, 2022)

only when it's changed from the initial work (book, movies, etc.), I have no issue when it's done intentionally from the start.
To me, it feels like censorship. maybe I'm over-reacting, but I dislike work and author's vision butchering.

You can argue that the TV series creator did it intentionally from HIS/HER start , that's his/her vision, and I'll agree. But if it's only to prevent having issues, and not a "vision", that's different because forced to follow a trend. not work of art.

Here, they decided Lucifer would be a woman. fine, that's a vision 
if they switch a white male to black woman, or added queer sexuality to a character who was not in the original art just to be trending and avoid issues from the LGBT community, it's questionable.
If they chose the actors based on their performance at the casting event, then even better ! that's also who it should happen, hire actors for their job and capability, and not to fill an amount of checkboxes.

I have nothing against the performance, the actors, the fact they are queer, gay, whatever skin color or origin. I just feel bad if it's a forced decision to fit in today's mold.
Like I said I didn't know the original work, never read the comics, and I liked all the shows and the performers.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Aug 8, 2022)

Cyan said:


> only when it's changed from the initial work (book, movies, etc.), I have no issue when it's done intentionally from the start.
> To me, it feels like censorship. maybe I'm over-reacting, but I dislike work and author's vision butchering.
> 
> You can argue that the TV series creator did it intentionally from HIS/HER start , that's his/her vision.



I really doubt gender and race are major characteristics of these characters. They're probably just there because something had to be. Did you posit this question in a thread for a Witcher game, or a Lord of the Rings movie? You can just use "their", it has been used for that purpose for hundreds of years, it's not a made-up pronoun.


----------



## duwen (Aug 8, 2022)

My issue with these kind of alterations - ie, reimagine a character for the sole purpose of "representation" - is that it doesn't solve anything. At best it shoehorns in a sexuality to appease that particular minority, where it's not required to know what orientation any specific character is to serve the story at hand.
Relatability is more important than Representation. I've never seen an accurate representation of myself in a story (nor would I want to), but I've been able to relate to countless story characters - regardless of their gender, race, or sexuality.
The minorities demanding representation are forcing an undermining of relatable character writing... and writers have become lazy enough to run with it.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Aug 8, 2022)

duwen said:


> My issue with these kind of alterations - ie, reimagine a character for the sole purpose of "representation" - is that it doesn't solve anything.



But it does. Minorities want to see more people that look like them, act like them. Before, we had a very uniform representation that ignored the existence of these minorities. It's also good to help normalize them in the eyes of the public. If relatability is more important than representation, then one wouldn't mind that representation exists - and what damages relatability is the skill of the writers, which would be a factor anyway.


----------



## Cyan (Aug 8, 2022)

then it should be written from the start in the vision of representation, not changing existing stories.

I'm not against minorities support and representation, just not forced representation when not needed. This forced representation is starting to hurt the industries more than anything, I see and hear more and more people criticizing and having ENOUGH of seeing gay people in movies and ads, and in the street's ads, and everywhere. it's forced representation, not representation.
really, it's starting to hurt movies and series. people (around me) have enough.


----------



## duwen (Aug 8, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> But it does. Minorities want to see more people that look like them, act like them. Before, we had a very uniform representation that ignored the existence of these minorities. It's also good to help normalize them in the eyes of the public. If relatability is more important than representation, then one wouldn't mind that representation exists - and what damages relatability is the skill of the writers, which would be a factor anyway.


I'm a fair bit older than the average members here, but I've grown up watching a massively diverse selection of films and television from literally all over the world. I'm not put off by themes or characters that are massively removed from my own personal ideologies or beliefs. I've loved films from everywhere. Films where there wasn't a white European face in site. Films where every character was of a different sexual persausion to myself. Films with political or religious stances massively different than my own. Yet it's the relatability of the characters or the situations that makes those films universally appealing.
Even within the mainstream there's a history of minority issues being subversively tackled within film, television and literature. I can point to strong female characters, positive representation of PoC and gender/sexuality politics in films across almost the entire history of the medium.
Were those minorities EQUALLY represented? No... but they certainly were never ignored.
Whenever I'm told that I've not been shown a wide enough representation of minorities in the media I consume I can't help but laugh. The current push for representation feels more like an agenda to force poorly written two dimensional stereotypes of various minorities into the mainstream - and I can't believe that minorities are applauding these woeful efforts that are at best borderline exploitative... it's almost like they don't want to see good representation, and in fact don't care that the representation is for the most part, bad... but hey, if they can get away with writing a male character that they end up casting a female for and they get applauded for their "strong female rolemodel", what incentive is their to do better?
The representation/diversity issue has been generated by a minority that were too narrow minded to go looking for what they said didn't exist and perpetuated by an industry that has exploited it for their own gain at the expense of the artform.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Aug 8, 2022)

Cyan said:


> then it should be written from the start in the vision of representation, not changing existing stories.
> 
> I'm not against minorities support and representation, just not forced representation when not needed. This forced representation is starting to hurt the industries more than anything, I see and hear more and more people criticizing and having ENOUGH of seeing gay people in movies and ads, and in the street's ads, and everywhere. it's forced representation, not representation.
> really, it's starting to hurt movies and series. people (around me) have enough.



I disagree with you, I think it's paramount that representation of minorities is inserted into existing stories. I don't understand the concept of "forced representation", because I read it as intentional representation, and all representation and all art production are intentional. It's not being forced, it's being given.

@duwen please, age is just a number. I've seen countless movies from all USA/Europe/Asia from all ages, there was a clear predominance of white people and man/woman couples, most representations of minorities were marginal and prejudiced. If it weren't so, society would be past this constant consternation about different ethnicities and homossexuals being represented in the pictures. You can point movies? How nice, from that perspective I can also point that the main character of this show is a white male and that somehow nullifies all the rest. But do tell, which specific representations of minorities ruined this series in particular?


----------



## duwen (Aug 8, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> I disagree with you, I think it's paramount that representation of minorities is inserted into existing stories. I don't understand the concept of "forced representation", because I read it as intentional representation, and all representation and all art production are intentional. It's not being forced, it's being given.



Even when it undermines historical or factual accuracy? Or alters the source material without adding any new facet to it's meaning?



Dark_Phoras said:


> @duwen please, age is just a number. I've seen countless movies from all USA/Europe/Asia from all ages, there was a clear predominance of white people and man/woman couples, most representations of minorities were marginal and prejudiced. If it weren't so, society would be past this constant consternation about different ethnicities and homossexuals being represented in the pictures. You can point movies? How nice, from that perspective I can also point that the main character of this show is a white male and that somehow nullifies all the rest. But do tell, which specific representations of minorities ruined this series in particular?



The Endless in the Sandman comics are literally beyond ethnicity, and are almost alien in how devoid of colour their skin is. And as was the case in the comics, they took on the ethnic appearance of those that viewed them (as seen in the scene with Nada in hell). Yes, they're white, but white in such a way that makes them as ethnically different to you or I as if they were green.

And to answer your question, there is no specific representation of minorities that ruin this series... it's an accumulation of many changes to the source material that ruin this series.

As I said in my first post on this thread, "Most of the 'woke' changes didn't bother me" - even when I initially thought that they might. I was fine with the ethnic changes of Cain and Abel, the Walker family, the Hecate, and even Death. And the LGBTQ+ casting of Mason Alexander Park as Desire is perfect.
If I have to point the finger at some of the 'woke' choices that are part of the accumulation that makes this adaptation bad, it's the previously mentioned "write a male, cast a female" gender swaps that were nonsensical and pointless, and the historically inaccurate representations of minorities in the scenes that are set a century or more ago. Add to that, the only straight white couples depicted in the show are depicted as either abusive or out and out evil, compared to the queer or mixed race (or both) relationships only being depicted positively.
...but those things alone aren't why it's not a good adaptation. Most of it stems from the adapted structure undermining the story beats, and it's self-distancing from all the ties the source cleverly weaves with a wealth of DC comic history.

I'd advise anyone that thinks they may like it to go and read the comics first, as watching the show first definitely reduces the impact of how the initial pair of story arcs unfold.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Aug 9, 2022)

Now that I've finished watching the series, I can share my opinion. There will be spoilers. I've read about Sandman as this great work of fiction, so I was keen on this lauded show, with the general consensus about it being a legitimate and faithful adaptation. However, what I found is only an average story typical of comic books, that doesn't try to reach the heights I imagined. This isn't an epic tale with the scope that the introduction promises; the concept of the realms of the dreaming world, the waking world, Hell, and all the other kingdoms ruled by biblical legends and anthropomorphized deifications of common human feelings; wielders of magic hunting demons and monsters.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the books were unfilmable for the large scope of its tale, adventures through wildly imaginative designs and vertiginous events. But what we have in the series is an assortment of small encounters common in comic books, characters with small depth and even smaller development, people and events that are dropped when they start and don't add anything to the overall plot. There's a dissonance in the aesthetic feeling, where dark and elaborate settings are soon replaced by the sunny and mundane. The beautiful interiors and interesting clothes give place to the blandest hotel you can imagine, the blandest diner, where a disproportionate amount of time is spent with secondary generic characters just talking and walking.

The first two or three episodes, that are very good and build-up to a very pleasing tale, end up being mostly contained and I think what comes after shouldn't be the same show. The main character, known as Dream, barely appears from this point forward, and he almost always looks shoehorned in, out of place, functioning as a deus ex machina. Johanna Constantine could have been a great partner in his quest to find the stolen hallowed objects that contain or enhance his magical powers; but she disappears just as soon as she arrives. We lose entire episodes and hours worth with uninteresting stories of unimportant characters that don't add anything to the overall plot.

And herein lies the main issue, which is that there barely is an overall plot. The Sandman is a semi-episodical, disguised procedural, mostly dull and unimaginative. But the first few episodes are very good, with only bits and pieces of magic scattered between what remains. I doubt the comics are any better, because the issues with the show are probably imported from the comic books that inspired.


----------



## duwen (Aug 9, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> Now that I've finished watching the series, I can share my opinion. There will be spoilers. I've read about Sandman as this great work of fiction, so I was keen on this lauded show, with the general consensus about it being a legitimate and faithful adaptation.


It's being lauded? I've seen nothing but upset for what a poor adaptation it is.



Dark_Phoras said:


> However, what I found is only an average story typical of comic books, that doesn't try to reach the heights I imagined. This isn't an epic tale with the scope that the introduction promises; the concept of the realms of the dreaming world, the waking world, Hell, and all the other kingdoms ruled by biblical legends and anthropomorphized deifications of common human feelings; wielders of magic hunting demons and monsters.


That's the thing - the comics actually ARE exactly that epic tale you describe, created from weaving existing literary, mythical, and religious tales into a fable that surpasses it's medium. There's a very good reason why the comic is so revered.



Dark_Phoras said:


> And herein lies the main issue, which is that there barely is an overall plot. The Sandman is a semi-episodical, disguised procedural, mostly dull and unimaginative. But the first few episodes are very good, with only bits and pieces of magic scattered between what remains. I doubt the comics are any better, because the issues with the show are probably imported from the comic books that inspired.


Visually they nailed it, and certain scenes and episodes definitely had the vibe of the comics (episodes 5 and 6 particularly), so I'd disagree that it's unfilmable. All they needed to do was produce it as closely as possible to how it was originally written/drawn and they'd have had a classic on their hands.
Unfortunately, they felt the need to cram in the first 2 major story lines of the comics (that lasted close to two years when originally published), as well as some story diversions from much later issues and annuals, and rearrange all the key elements to try to make it a coherent season... while simultaneously either downplaying important events or just omitting them entirely (such as the way DC's Golden Age Sandman is cleverly explained), but also kept referrences that only really make sense to those of us that were reading all of DC's Vertigo titles as they were released (like the referrences to the "Family Man" serial killer, who was unable to be at the 'cereal' convention due to being in a Hellblazer story at the time).


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Aug 9, 2022)

duwen said:


> It's being lauded? I've seen nothing but upset for what a poor adaptation it is.



You must be in a bubble, then.


----------



## duwen (Aug 9, 2022)

Dark_Phoras said:


> You must be in a bubble, then.


Hardly, I just don't take rotten tomato scores seriously, and certainly don't put any value in them or other "audience rated" metrics. Actual reviews are all over the place, but the majority have it rated average at best and point to it's poorly adapted structure for why it fails to live up to expectations.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/enter...ew-netflix-show-gorgeous-failure/10213781002/

https://www.indiewire.com/2022/08/the-sandman-review-netflix-neil-gaiman-1234748199/

https://www.vulture.com/article/the-sandman-netflix-series-review.html

https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/netflixs-the-sandman-review-what-dreams-may-come/1900-6417932/

...I could go on...


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Aug 9, 2022)

@duwen you could go on, but you are cherrypicking. In general, the show was well received by critics and audiences, which was what's meant with "lauded show" and I don't see how else that can be interpreted.


----------



## duwen (Aug 9, 2022)

Taking a literally random selection of the first reviews that pop up when entering "sandman reviews" into a search engine is hardly cherry picking... if I'd cherry picked them it would be only negative reviews, or I'd have just searched "sandman negative reviews", which wasn't the case.
Agragate score sites are worth viewing if you only want to know what zoomers and millenials rate... thankfully I don't, because I don't presume to believe that the latest Marvel film is better than anything made by Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Bergman, Kubrick... etc

Whatever, from your own review, and the comments from others here that have seen it, it's pretty obvious that it's not as widely regarded as you were led to believe. Regardless, we shouldn't be arguing about it as our opinions on the show line up for the most part.


----------



## Dark_Phoras (Aug 9, 2022)

duwen said:


> Agragate score sites are worth viewing if you only want to know what zoomers and millenials rate...



More prejudice, how expected. So, the series can't be considered well received because the younger generations are represented in the opinions of the critics and public in general and their opinions don't count. Because there's people of all ages in both the critics and the public, it's undeniable.


----------



## duwen (Aug 10, 2022)

All I'm saying is that agragate score sites are skewed to an under 40 year old demographic - that's just the nature of them. Over 40's are far less likely to post review scores on such sites, and that leans towards "almost never" when you get to the over 60's demographic. It's hardly prejudice to point out that the majority of people that are creating the agragate scores on places like RT are largely only represenative of one demographic.
People like myself that were in our late teens when The Sandman comics first came out are statistically far less likely to be adding to agragate scores... if that were to change I imagine you'd see a dramatic drop in the Netflix Sandman's score.


----------



## Cyan (Aug 24, 2022)

I just saw Netflix added an Episode 11 to this show.
It contains two short stories.

The first one is about a cat, dreaming of a different life.
It's an animated, cell shaded rotoscoping effect which gives a real nice living effect.

The second one, Calliope, is a new episode with real actors.


----------

