The Sandman | Netflix Adaptation

Jiehfeng

The One
OP
Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,498
Trophies
2
Age
21
Location
netti netti.
Website
www.youtube.com
XP
6,925
Country
Sri Lanka


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

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
123
Trophies
1
Age
31
XP
282
Country
United States
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jiehfeng

duwen

Old Man Yoshi
Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
2,840
Trophies
1
Location
Bullet Hell
Website
www.exophase.com
XP
3,539
Country
United Kingdom
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

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2021
Messages
3,408
Trophies
1
Age
32
XP
4,615
Country
United States
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
Sounds like an utter mess.

Typical of Netflix.
 

Cyan

GBATemp's lurking knight
Former Staff
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
23,724
Trophies
4
Age
44
Location
Engine room, learning
XP
15,469
Country
France
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

Master of Hounds
Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
359
Trophies
0
XP
770
Country
Portugal
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

Old Man Yoshi
Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
2,840
Trophies
1
Location
Bullet Hell
Website
www.exophase.com
XP
3,539
Country
United Kingdom
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 :(
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyan

Veho

The man who cried "Ni".
Former Staff
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
10,623
Trophies
2
Age
41
Location
Zagreb
XP
22,344
Country
Croatia
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.

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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyan and duwen

duwen

Old Man Yoshi
Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
2,840
Trophies
1
Location
Bullet Hell
Website
www.exophase.com
XP
3,539
Country
United Kingdom
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.
 

Cyan

GBATemp's lurking knight
Former Staff
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
23,724
Trophies
4
Age
44
Location
Engine room, learning
XP
15,469
Country
France
Sorry this is offtopic.

Has this ever happened?
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

Master of Hounds
Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
359
Trophies
0
XP
770
Country
Portugal
Sorry this is 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, 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 !

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...)

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

GBATemp's lurking knight
Former Staff
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
23,724
Trophies
4
Age
44
Location
Engine room, learning
XP
15,469
Country
France
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.
 
Last edited by Cyan,

Dark_Phoras

Master of Hounds
Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
359
Trophies
0
XP
770
Country
Portugal
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

Old Man Yoshi
Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
2,840
Trophies
1
Location
Bullet Hell
Website
www.exophase.com
XP
3,539
Country
United Kingdom
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyan

Dark_Phoras

Master of Hounds
Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
359
Trophies
0
XP
770
Country
Portugal
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

GBATemp's lurking knight
Former Staff
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
23,724
Trophies
4
Age
44
Location
Engine room, learning
XP
15,469
Country
France
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duwen

duwen

Old Man Yoshi
Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
2,840
Trophies
1
Location
Bullet Hell
Website
www.exophase.com
XP
3,539
Country
United Kingdom
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.
 

You may also like...

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo: Lol