Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN adaptation for Netflix

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

18 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

What I said was that the show also includes invented sex scenes between Marsh and the Gary character. Correct me if that is wrong, but that to me is an addition.

The is no “gary” character in the comic.  And yes the sex scene is added.  However, I said way up thread that I find the comic version of 24 hours more disturbing.  That is in part because Marsh’s character isn’t having purely consentual sex with an adult.  He’s having paid for sex with a desperate homeless teenager.  That seems worse to me.

[Maltaran]

2 hours ago, Calibandar said:

John Constantine's character is replaced by Johanna Constantine...and of course, she too is gay.

John Constantine is bisexual in the comics, so that part is not a change

[Darryk]

Well, having just finished it, I thought it was a superb adaptation.

It's refreshing to have an adaptation so true to the source material.

I read the graphic novels 20 years ago so I wasn't as bothered by changes to the plot as I don't remember the exact plot so well, I remember the overall story arcs.

But I tried reading the first volume after finishing the show and found I actually wasn't enjoying the novel as much as the show. Tom Sturridge makes the character so much more likeable.

Gregory was onscreen for about five minutes but his death still made me cry.

Episode 4, 5 and 6 were particularly good.

By the way you can't accuse Sandman of being "woke", the graphic novels were woke long before wokeness was even a thing. They were so ahead of their time in terms of having diverse representation.

[Iskaral Pust]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Wow… what an unimaginative and rather nihilistic view of this story.  I disagree.  I’ve always believed we are more than mere meat.  We’ll all find out in the end… or not.

Scot, you and I have debated religion vs atheism (I would say rationalism) many times here over the years.  I can fully enjoy the fun of this story while still wishing that it could be more sophisticated/thoughtful than magical thinking.  Not all fantasy is equal and the presence of dragons doesn’t have to mean that silliness follows.

For example, we could set aside naive notions of the significance of sleeping dreams and have a story that considers the full spectrum of hope (if we consider that a waking “dream”): resolve, ambition, positive visualization, aspiration, wishful thinking, abdication of agency, passive inaction and even self deception.  Hopes and dreams are not unambiguously good or virtuous, and that creates room for a much more nuanced consideration of the human condition — which I hold to be one of the important roles of art.

Just like we can have a story about how the situation/conditions into which we are born has a huge effect on our lives without resorting to astrology.

[Darryk]

9 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Dreams are such a literary conceit.  Sleeping dreams are not our hopes or our search for home or the driving force of the human condition.  They’re just the random flailing of the amygdala while the pre-frontal cortex is switched off — they’re meaningless

You must be fun at parties.

[VigoTheCarpathian]

58 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

For example, we could set aside naive notions of the significance of sleeping dreams and have a story that considers the full spectrum of hope (if we consider that a waking “dream”): resolve, ambition, positive visualization, aspiration, wishful thinking, abdication of agency, passive inaction and even self deception.  Hopes and dreams are not unambiguously good or virtuous, and that creates room for a much more nuanced consideration of the human condition — which I hold to be one of the important roles of art.

I’d say aspects of the story addresses all of the above - the dreaming is a big part of the story framing but the best parts involve the power of fictions/dreams we create in our minds, even in the first season (which go more in depth later in the books)

 

Spoiler

 - Lucifer and the concept of hell without dreams

- Corinthian/serial killers and the dissolution of their delusions/daydreams to “see” what they really are

- Jed’s real trauma and escaping into his mind, separated from other people

- Lyta and her grief

- Desire/despair and their rivalry with dream (which elaborates in one of my favorite comics, “Three Septembers and a January”, about the Emperor of the United States)

 

[IFR]

4 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Scot, you and I have debated religion vs atheism (I would say rationalism) many times here over the years.  I can fully enjoy the fun of this story while still wishing that it could be more sophisticated/thoughtful than magical thinking.  Not all fantasy is equal and the presence of dragons doesn’t have to mean that silliness follows.

For example, we could set aside naive notions of the significance of sleeping dreams and have a story that considers the full spectrum of hope (if we consider that a waking “dream”): resolve, ambition, positive visualization, aspiration, wishful thinking, abdication of agency, passive inaction and even self deception.  Hopes and dreams are not unambiguously good or virtuous, and that creates room for a much more nuanced consideration of the human condition — which I hold to be one of the important roles of art.

Just like we can have a story about how the situation/conditions into which we are born has a huge effect on our lives without resorting to astrology.

You're kind of arguing against the crowd here, but I can understand your perspective.

There is a physical mechanism that generates our thoughts and identity, and it requires no supernatural input to function. There are mysteries wrt the details of this mechanism, but nothing suggestive that any part must be extraordinary.

An interesting cognitive dissonance often is emergent when some people are confronted with this notion, as it goes against a narcissistic desire to believe that they as humans (or living creatures) are an elevated existence somehow, and not simply matter and energy in a universe of matter and energy.

The premise of Sandman is that there is something extraordinary in the function of cognitive beings. Which for me is a finely established fantasy, and I think is fairly handled in the fairy tale that Gaiman chose to write.

[Werthead]

7 hours ago, Calibandar said:

Does this show have any straight romantic relationships?

Hector and Lyta, Dream and Nada, Roderick and Ethel, Barbie and Ken, Clarice and Barnaby, Unity and Desire (kind of). John Hathaway and Hob Gadling have off-screen wives. 

[polishgenius]

 

1 hour ago, IFR said:

You're kind of arguing against the crowd here, but I can understand your perspective.

 

 

I understand Isk's perspective and am also generally firmly of the opinion of 'let people dislike things', but I do think it's an odd position to take about a story like this. In the sense that it's perfectly fine to prefer stories engaging with dreams or hopes or whatever to be more practical and less mythical, but asking that this one not be about the mythical and mystical nature of dreams is essentially asking that it not exist. 

 

In any case many people down the years clearly have found that Sandman engages with human themes in a way that matters to them, regardless of the fact that we probably aren't met after dying by a chilled-out goth lady. 

[Corvinus85]

Finished it and I liked it. Episodes 5 and 6 were the best, the first ones were good as Dream looked for his artifacts, and the last ones were the most bingeable on account of the cliffhanger endings, though not necessarily the strongest. The Corinthian was a strong villain. I am glad for all the comic book readers who consider this a faithful adaptation. Always a good thing when the source material is respected.

In terms of the castings, most were good or even great. The highlights for me were Kirby Howell-Batiste, Boyd Holbrook (which was a surprise) and of course, David Thewlis. The biggest misses, OTOH, where the actors for Rose Walker and Lucifer. I agree with those that say Christie doesn't show much range. (maybe she does in other productions)

This Lucifer is the same as the one Tom Ellis played in Lucifer, no? Comic book wise. So everything from the costume (why not feathered wings) to the acting didn't strike me as that strong. Man or woman, doesn't matter, but a bit more charisma was needed.

I am also confused about the nature of the Endless. So searching online I found a bit what they are, but why just these grimm aspects of life? What about love, hope, optimism, etc? Or why Desire and Despair exist when everything the show told us about what dreaming is suggests they should just be incorporated into Dream's world. Is that why Desire seems to hate Dream? The show didn't really establish why.

 

[Quijote Light]

I know it was never likely to happen, but my preferred casting for Lucifer would have been Tilda Swinton. 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

 

I am also confused about the nature of the Endless. So searching online I found a bit what they are, but why just these grimm aspects of life? What about love, hope, optimism, etc? Or why Desire and Despair exist when everything the show told us about what dreaming is suggests they should just be incorporated into Dream's world. Is that why Desire seems to hate Dream? The show didn't really establish why.

 

Because Neil gaiman is a goth emo fuckboi, basically. There's even one endless that is actually about things that are great and they turn into insanity.

Plus their names didn't start with a D in English and no one could come up with a synonym for hope with a D so that's what you get

[VigoTheCarpathian]

22 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Because Neil gaiman is a goth emo fuckboi, basically.

I stand by my description of the boardinghouse Rose stays in as “The Real World: Tim Burton Edition”.

[Jaxom 1974]

Why was "The Sound of Her Wings" one episode? The structure seemed to be two distinct parts.  Unless the specific issues went that way?

[polishgenius]

4 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Comic book wise. So everything from the costume (why not feathered wings)

 

Lucifer doesn't have feathered wings at this point but also 'comic book wise' this is technically based on the same character that Ellis' version is based on, but that one bore almost no resemblance to the comic, even the later Lucifer comic it purported to be directly adapting. This one is way more faithful a portrayal, despite being played by a woman.


 

3 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Why was "The Sound of Her Wings" one episode? The structure seemed to be two distinct parts.  Unless the specific issues went that way?

I'd guess because they had two issues that were in no way long enough  to sustain a whole episode no matter how you padded them. And they're just close enough in theme that they could pair them off. In the comic the Hob issue came in the middle of the Doll's House arc, so them moving it to before that made sense too (especially since they connected that story more cohesively into one arc where the original was very much a two-parter).  

 

[Darryk]

9 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Finished it and I liked it. Episodes 5 and 6 were the best, the first ones were good as Dream looked for his artifacts, and the last ones were the most bingeable on account of the cliffhanger endings, though not necessarily the strongest. The Corinthian was a strong villain. I am glad for all the comic book readers who consider this a faithful adaptation. Always a good thing when the source material is respected.

In terms of the castings, most were good or even great. The highlights for me were Kirby Howell-Batiste, Boyd Holbrook (which was a surprise) and of course, David Thewlis. The biggest misses, OTOH, where the actors for Rose Walker and Lucifer. I agree with those that say Christie doesn't show much range. (maybe she does in other productions)

This Lucifer is the same as the one Tom Ellis played in Lucifer, no? Comic book wise. So everything from the costume (why not feathered wings) to the acting didn't strike me as that strong. Man or woman, doesn't matter, but a bit more charisma was needed.

I am also confused about the nature of the Endless. So searching online I found a bit what they are, but why just these grimm aspects of life? What about love, hope, optimism, etc? Or why Desire and Despair exist when everything the show told us about what dreaming is suggests they should just be incorporated into Dream's world. Is that why Desire seems to hate Dream? The show didn't really establish why.

 

It is the same Lucifer but the Tom Ellis one is far removed in tone and plot from the Sandman and from the Lucifer spin-off that Mike Carey wrote.

Desire basically resents Dream cause he thinks he's better than the rest (except Death and Destiny whom he acknowledges as more powerful). Despair sort of just goes along with what Desire does, cause Death and Dream have such a good relationship and Despair feels she needs an ally to counter that.

Hope, love, optimism do feature as aspects of dreaming throughout the series, maybe not so much in the first book although there were glimpses of it, such as when Dream tells Lucifer she can't defeat hope. Also in the Diner scene Dream points out that the waitress' dreams gives her something to hold onto.

[Nictarion]

I’m through episode 7 at this point, and between 24/7, The Sound of Her Wings, and the Stranger Things episode: Dear Billy, Netflix has put out a few of the best hours of television I’ve seen all year. 

[karaddin]

On 8/13/2022 at 9:45 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is called “the Oldest Game” for a reason.  Would the first game be really complicated?

That's exactly why I felt that way, I thought it was good lamp shading of it.

[DaveSumm]

Quite intrigued by all the discussion of this series. I’ve seen 7 episodes now, and I think it’s fair to say it’s an excellent adaption of some slightly uneven material, which seems to be the consensus of the early Sandman stuff (I’ve read Preludes, nothing more).

A can’t quite manage to declare it a phenomenon as some people seem to feel though, there’s just too much missing when it comes to an actual season of television as we’d usually think of it. So far, we’ve seen very little of the stakes if Dream doesn’t do his job. He didn’t do it for a century, and some people went to sleep and some people couldn’t sleep. But life went on apparently? So are we rooting for this guy? What exactly is it he does anyway? Death escorts souls to the other side, what’s the Dream equivalent? 

What’s the actual story? He retrieved his things and gained some classically-nebulous “power”. So that he can … well we don’t know. Be Dream I guess. And now he’s wandering around semi-involved in some other stuff. In almost every TV show I can think of, in some way, there are characters who intrigue you, for whom you want to follow and see what happens to them. Good characters, bad ones, good events, bad events. I just don’t see that here. I’ll definitely keep watching, as it’s very good television, but it almost feels like each episode may as well be the pilot for a new show you’ve decided to watch and you’re still finding your bearings with. There’s not really a through line of story, or of character, or of theme. 

Which all sounds quite harsh, but I really think it’s very good. I’m just wrapping my head around how it manages that when it’s eschewed so many aspects of what we’d normally consider a story. It borders on being more of a Black Mirror style series, just with Dream as a familiar face each time. But it also doesn’t have the impact of Black Mirror episode to episode, it’s not quite confident enough yet in what’s it’s actually saying.

[Mladen]

I am hearing a lot about "wokeness" in this adaptation and while I am aware of the changes, I can't say I am bothered one bit by them.

Here is a thing. The criticism about "woke" is on aesthetic level, if I may say that way. Or visual. The criticism I am reading is focused more on the fact that Lucifer is not male, or Death is not while female etc. I haven't seen much of saying that anyone actually failed in what they were supposed to do - bring these fantastical beings to the screen. Contrasting this to Game of Thrones where visual aspect was always pleasing, but the substance was lacking, here we have that some people find that aesthetical, visual aspect lacking or inappropriate, while they don't delve too deep into whether these changes affected the narrative of the series.

Lastly, this is a modern adaptation helmed by a modern, and if you please, woke, author. He seems to be perfectly content to adapt his work into a modern TV adaptation. I don't see anything political or even problematic about it. I mean, if works like these don't give us opportunity to "play" with roles and even focus more on certain intangible aspects of casting and not just visuals.

And as I have written on Twitter, it seems we will need George R.R. Martin to return the favor and proclaim "N.G. is not your b**ch"