Jump to content

Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN adaptation for Netflix


Werthead
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Quijote Light said:

Actually, they did have parents. Time is their father and Darkness is their mother. I think. It’s been a while since I read Overture. 

Fair enough, I don't remember that at all (but then it's been the best part of 30 years)

 

Actually, if it's in overture, then I never read it in the first place (when they circulated my school, the main story hadn't been finished, to the best of my knowledge)

Edited by Which Tyler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I can remember reading the comics back in the early 1990s and thinking about how far they pushed the envelope for the time.  @Werthead is absolutely correct that the time to complain about the “wokeness” of “the Sandman” was during the comics run in the early to mid 1990s.

Yeah, if Sandman (the comic) came out today, there would be people complaining about how "woke" it is, but since it came out over 30 years ago, it gets the Star Trek treatment instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Yeah, if Sandman (the comic) came out today, there would be people complaining about how "woke" it is, but since it came out over 30 years ago, it gets the Star Trek treatment instead.

30 years ago this stuff might have been edgy and interesting, but in 2022 it’s the same message being pumped out by Disney and Amazon.. hardly pushing boundaries or fighting back against society.
 

That’s one of the reasons why the term ‘woke’ has long since stopped being about being some sort of anti bigot, and has come to mean a sort of puritanical, preachy form of virtue signalling. 

Edited by Heartofice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

30 years ago this stuff might have been edgy and interesting, but in 2022 it’s the same message being pumped out by Disney and Amazon.. hardly pushing boundaries or fighting back against society.
 

That’s one of the reasons why the term ‘woke’ has long since stopped being about being some sort of anti bigot, and has come to mean a sort of puritanical, preachy form of virtue signalling. 

"Woke" means, to put it bluntly, whatever you want it to fucking mean. It has become an empty term where people can pour all of their petty complaints.

What exactly is "woke" about Sandman as an adaptation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2022 at 10:51 AM, Iskaral Pust said:

The Nada/Unity resolution was even more eye-rolling than the duel with Lucifer

I don’t get the issues with the Lucifer contest that a number of people have raised. Is this a comic vs adaptation thing?

Spoiler

Not having read the comics, my interpretation was that the contest had three tests. The ability to withstand your opponents blow, the ability to think of a counter to your opponents form, and the strength/ability to make the transformation. The contest escalated quickly, but unless you wanted to spend a LOT of screen time on it that was to be expected. 
 

Both the options Dream and Lucifer took, especially the end, are true to the characters. Lucifer was the destroyer. Dream created worlds and is hope. I thought the contest was brilliantly done, enjoyable, and true to the story.  
 

I also thought their battle armour was cool. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ants said:

I don’t get the issues with the Lucifer contest that a number of people have raised. Is this a comic vs adaptation thing?

  Hide contents

Not having read the comics, my interpretation was that the contest had three tests. The ability to withstand your opponents blow, the ability to think of a counter to your opponents form, and the strength/ability to make the transformation. The contest escalated quickly, but unless you wanted to spend a LOT of screen time on it that was to be expected. 
 

Both the options Dream and Lucifer took, especially the end, are true to the characters. Lucifer was the destroyer. Dream created worlds and is hope. I thought the contest was brilliantly done, enjoyable, and true to the story.  
 

I also thought their battle armour was cool. 

 

I didn’t read the comics so I have no quibble with adaptation.  It’s that the contest itself is childishly simple, with pointless intermediate escalation steps — which is why it was originally in Disney’s animated movie The Sword In The Stone.  The Sandman version looks like it is 80% plagiarized from that …  
 

Spoiler

…with the final stage adapted so that they each use their own persona as their ultimate hand of rock-paper-scissors.  And then we have a twee Harry Potterish conclusion that hope defeats death.  Who refereed that?  If that was an objectively agreed hierarchy, then the duel was pointless because they both knew beforehand that hope triumphs over death, even the death of the entire universe when nothing remains to hope.

It’s a flimsy platform to play with fun visuals and proclaim a self-important aphorism masquerading as deep, eternal wisdom.  Enjoyable as a spectacle but childish writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I thought the childish/simple nature of it was intentional and didn't have a problem with it

That’s fair.  Gaiman’s fantasy is generally a child-like wonder, with American Gods perhaps the least childish of his novels.  I just suspend my disbelief and enjoy it for what it is because he’s a good storyteller.  But sometimes I still roll my eyes.

That eye-rolling is probably obvious too from how often I use the adjective “self-important”.  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.  So this entire premise that the waking world would be destroyed without the dream world is like claiming destiny is real and is governed by astrology.  I can go along with the fun story but it’s still tough to accept when it tries to take itself too seriously.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished ep 10 with my wife, who’s never read the comics, and she thought it was really fascinating and well done.  She’s making noises about buying the trade paperbacks, wanting to know about the backstory and what happens next. Trying not to spoil it for her…

As a devoted reader, I thought the changes made a lot of sense for the format.  The visuals and casting were good.  Probably in my top 3 best comic adaptations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the comics that scene plays more smoothly because it's presented as a battle of wits and when Choronzon loses it's not necessarily because 'hope' is definitely inherently more powerful than the end of worlds, it's just because Choronzon goes 'wait what? I dunno'. Switching Choronzon to Lucifer made sense in a lot of ways but it probably made that approach unworkable because Lucifer is supposed to be... well, not unflappable, but not in that particular way - but tbh the key thing that made the battle the least effective part of the episode for me was the good couple minutes of Dream laying down going 'uuuuh' and being given a pep-talk by Matthew. In the game as originally presented he would have lost.

 

ps for comics readers who haven't read Overture: that comic adds a bit of depth to that scene. That is actually a lot slyer than it seems at first glance- the first time I read Overture I did in fact kinda roll my eyes at the relevant moment but in fact (overture spoilers)

Spoiler

it's not just a cheesy echo that her name comes to him and saves him with her heroism again all unknowing- with Overture being in canon, someone called Hope did in fact very literally save the universe from, and after, its destruction.

 

 

But ultimately yeah the meat and bones of it is  the same. If the whole premise of it didn't land for you in the show, the comic probably won't change that. 

 

39 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

So this entire premise that the waking world would be destroyed without the dream world is like claiming destiny is real

 

Oh noooooooooo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I’m looking forward to the introduction of distant cousins Derring Do, Due Diligence and Dutty.

I was kind of surprised it was such a close adaptation because I’ve seen Gaiman talk about finding his early writing crude (in the 30th anniversary introduction maybe?) but they seem to have transposed most of the dialogue and plot lines, while mainly altering the overtly horror tone of the early issues, which was never going to fly on Netflix anyway. It has tended to make it feel more grander and fantastical, which does edge close to silliness, that seems to be most people’s complaints, I thought it skirted that line quite well. It’s a show about the relationship between archetypal storytelling and human existence so by design it’s going to use some of the more obvious ways of telling a story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

 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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Durckad said:

"Woke" means, to put it bluntly, whatever you want it to fucking mean. It has become an empty term where people can pour all of their petty complaints.

What exactly is "woke" about Sandman as an adaptation?

I mean, its fairly obvious, but I get that here on this board a lot of posters will not want to see it or care about because for them a show cannot possibly be woke enough. 

The reason its called very woke is because woke is often described as " being largely associated with ideas that involve identity and race and which are promoted by progressives" .

I'll list a few examples. which I am 100% confident will be dismissed even though they do show why this show is more woke than the original. 

Rose Walker and Jed Walker are white characters. In the show, they are black.

Death would be expected to be played by a white actress. In the show, she is black.

Lucifer would be expected to be played by a male actor considering his character in the comic and DC universe, in the show, its a female. If Lucifer was a female in the comic and now played by a male actor, that would have been found an irritant by many here, but now its fantastic of course. 

The show has a few long extended drag queen scenes with Hal, which is not in the comics. It might be in character though, but still, deciding to use several of these and to that extent is obviously them flaunting it.

In the comics, Lucien is the Librarian, a white male. In the show, he is played a black actress. Its weird.

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

In the comics, Bette is not gay, in the show, she is.

The gay scenes between Marsh and Gary are invented for the show.

The Corinthian is now an openly gay character with various gay sex scenes and according to Holbrook has a buffet of queer lovers.

The portrayal of Desire.

Rose's roommate Sam is an invented character, gay.

Does this show have any straight romantic relationships? There is clearly much more gay sexuality and relationships on display than straight, and thats at least remarkable.

I find the question of whether this was faithful an adaptation not very interesting considering Gaiman himself is fully involved with it and he is the author and creator. If this is how he wanted to to be then its faithful.

Edited by Calibandar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

The gay scenes between Marsh and Gary are invented for the show

In the comic the “Marsh” character paid for gay sex with the “Bette” character’s son with a pack of cigarettes.  FYI.

The portrayal of the Corinthian is perfectly consistent with the comic.  He’s never shown in a straight relationship.

The portrayal of Desire is also entirely consistent with the comic.  Desire is always portrayed as gender fluid and is referred to several times as “sister/brother” by the other Endless.

Lyta and Hector are a straight couple who produce a child.  Rose is shown as heterosexual later in the series.  Dream appears to be heterosexual.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In the comic the “Marsh” character paid for gay sex with the “Bette” character’s son with a pack of cigarettes.  FYI.

 

Yes, the tv show also has Marsh saying he enjoys fucking her son and that her son loves to fuck him when she is not looking.

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.

I dont agree that the portrayal of the Corinthian or Desire ( just because that character is also gender fluid in the comic) is " consistent"  with the comic. More like a highly sexualized 2022 version of it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I remember much about the game from the comics, other than the demon in stockings and the odd art style. But my take from watching it in the show is that something was a bit off about it, I assumed it was meant to illicit a sense of primeval archetypes, building blocks of dreams and reality, something old and eternal.. thats how I would imagine someone like Dream and Lucifer would battle. But as I was watching it all I could think is 'why would you bother doing a bird when you could just go straight to the anti life death of the universe', just bring out the big guns first! Just explain the rules mate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Calibandar said:

I dont agree that the portrayal of the Corinthian or Desire ( just because that character is also gender fluid in the comic) is " consistent"  with the comic. More like a highly sexualized 2022 version of it ;)

How is the portrayal of Desire different.  The scene of the Corinthian leaving his lover, eyes torn out, is straight from the comics.  You never see the Corinthian interacting romantically with a female.  Not once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...