How (Not) to Adapt Source Material | The Sandman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 лют 2023
- I, Enfixed. talk about How (Not) to Adapt Source Material | The Sandman. Going into detail as to what I believe makes a good adaptation in media. I talk about Films & TV Shows such as The Batman, The Boys, Netflix's Daredevil and The Punisher. Most importantly Netflix's adaptation of Neil Gaiman's graphic novel, The Sandman. Delving into why I don't believe it is a very Good Adaptation. In this Video Essay I will be focusing on how close it sticks to the Source Material, how Faithful it stays to the Source Material as well as the Good and Bad Deviations & Innovations the Netflix Series makes. Talking about characters like Dream of The Endless, John Dee/Dr Destiny, The Corinthian.
---------------
Watch my Glass Onion video essay here: • Why Glass Onion FAILED...
---------------
#thesandman #netflix #thesandmannetflix #videoessay - Розваги
It's like walking a tightrope. It's all about balance. I agree with everything you said. I think too many times, especially when adapting source material, people feel adapting it verbatim is either impossible, or unnecessary, because, if you want a direct translation of the source material, comic, anime, etc, you might as well just watch, read the source material. So, any adaptation seems to diverge from the source. Sometimes it's too much, they'll take the main characters and put them in a totally new and unrecognizable story. Other times, if they try to be too faithful, it gets messy, trying to flesh out things that just don't translate well in an attempt to stay true to the source material.
You can definitely take liberties and improve on source material without sacrificing the story. They key is balance. You want to distill the story to its key elements, find ways to pay tribute to the source material and what makes it special, tightening up the story and making subtle corrections to improve it, with a sprinking of fan service 😅
The Last of Us pretty much negates your entire argument and is the best TV show of the year, maybe of the last 5.
@@matthewmcguirk5287 Its an exception to the rule, sure
@Matthew McGuirk I would say the Last of Us found the right balance. They maintained the aspects of the story that worked and changed the story where they felt it could be improved.
Im watching it myself, although, I never played the game. So my perspective is a little different since I'm not familiar with the story of the game and how it differs.
Well written
@@Enfixed And did the "Exception to the Rule" tribunal vote on that?..... This is all subjective. There are some viewers that hate The Last of Us. So basically it is like what you like. Don't what you don't......... Most do that anyway.
gaiman did not create everything that was in Sandman. Destiny existed for decades like Cain and Abel as a horror host for their anthology series. The Sandman series had ties to the mainstream DCU at that time and a lot of the concepts and ideas gaiman used were already present.
Something I'd like to add: Dream seeming more social wouldn't be out of him being interpreted by a human? Hear me out, it'd be the same reason why Despair couldn't be shown naked like the one from the comics: they're being interpreted by living humans and aren't able to be as cartoony in a sense like in the original material. Dream feels human because we see a human, while the comics brought the sense of disbelief that he could just be made out of cardboard and it'd be fine
They removed a lot of nudity from the comics when adapting it to a television series. I don’t think those two things are really comparable
Dream, because of the nature of the screen, HAD to be more outgoing. I found that one of the more interesting aspects of the adaptation is how they got around the DC things he couldn't use (and the strangeness that Cain, Abel, Gregory, the Kirby Sandman, and Matthew *were* available to him). They couldn't use John Constantine, but Gaiman created Johanna. John D had to be changed somewhat for the same reason. Hector is no longer the son of Hawkman, as Lyta is not the daughter of Wonder Woman. I'm curious how that will work when we get to Destiny.
The changes to John Dee were incredible!
Johanna is a character in the cómics later though, so establishing the character early allows for more development. Netflix also does not need to pay for another actor.
Regarding the relationship between Dream and death I like the adaptation in the series because dream in the comics was too much of a loaner how can someone like that be guaranteed to give you good dreams if he didn't have someone to socialize with he'd run mad and just make nightmares and also given the fact that he's been captured for over a 100years I'm sure he'd miss his sister and want to actually talk to her
I thought the same thing. If I was captured in a ball for over 100 years, the first interaction with someone close to me wouldn't be distant, given that distance was something I've had enough of.
@@Roman-gy7pr I don't think a being older than time thinks like you, so there is no point bringing up a comparison. Dream has existed for eons, 100 years for him is a blink of an eye.
It also has to do with limitations of the medium. In the comic, you can easily stretch out a panel, but to achieve the same effect on a screen, you can only get poorly filled widescreen shots. That's the same reason why we get the introduction of Matthew much earlier, so there's no more reason for monologues, but they're replaced with dialogues to explain things. We can't expect Dream to narrate everything, but if you introduce a substitute for the audience, you can explain things this way (and still withhold information)
Sin City tho...they used the graphic novel as scripts and storyboard. It's one of the best adaptations ever. Like watching a motion comic.
Sin City should've been a TV series instead of a movie.
You do know this is Neil Gaiman, the author’s adaptation, right? He didn’t just sign off on it, he was there for casting, he wrote the first episode, he was a part of every single decision made.
I concede that I did indirectly place blame in the video, I don’t think Gaiman’s involvement in the series really outright debunk my criticisms. That’s just an appeal to authority fallacy.
@@Enfixed it’s not an appeal to authority strictly speaking because the comic was an adaptation of the vision Gaiman had as well he is the architect of this story, so with his involvement being so direct it’s literally a perfect adaptation to a different medium if he says it is, because whether it’s screen or paper the source material is the vision in his head and subsequent iterations are just various adaptations.
@@jackhovatter that’s incredibly stupid.
@@Enfixed what a concise cogent counter argument. Like your a real fucking prick. I was just trying to have a discussion about the nature of Creation as it pertains to creators intent, and posing the question a what juncture does an appeal to authority in an argument not apply because the “authority” referenced is responsible for the larger context. Gaiman himself tackles these concepts in American Gods & Sandman, the nature of creating or creation as it pertains to those who believe and how that shapes the creation. But why would you as Hottake McEdgelord want to actually delve into that. Your response is to insult your audience. Fuck you man
@@jackhovatter if I had actually insulted you, I’d understand why you were so mad but I didn’t insult you. I insulted what you said, not you yourself. However, you’re using the author’s involvement as a way to dismiss anything and everything that I’ve said in this video which would be appealing to authority.
Enfixed coming in with another BANGER! 🔥
I disagree with virtually all of your points regarding the series, though I agree with some of the points you made about adaptations overall. And the comment section is a sludging trod through a racist and sexist cesspool (but that's youtube comment sections for you, I can't hold the ignorance of others against you.) I think that you simply don't know enough about the series itself, its history, its creator, and its themes in order to criticize the adaptation accurately. BUT, the most important thing to me is that you clearly put thought into your interpretation, and you kept things civil. That's unfortunately uncommon these days. So, while we fundamentally disagree on the conclusions drawn and assumptions made, I'm grateful that you're out here sharing your take and sharing it intelligently. Keep on doing you, dude.
Thank you for voicing your disagreement in both a civil and supportive way. That’s a rare commodity when it comes to making critical content. I’ve recently began reading further into The Sandman post the release of this video.
Bro, your editing is fire. I laughed multiple times throughout the video. Bravo!
Glad you enjoyed!
Ironically, the problem here is that you didn't understand the adaptation. Dream becomes more of a "character" in the show versus the comics because Dream is who we are going to follow through the whole series (if they adapt all the books). Similarly, the reason they humanize Morpheus more in the series is that his arc of development is VERY slow in the source material, and tv audiences need a character arc they can see on an EPISODIC basis.
Fair enough, I do personally wish that I’d delved more into what the comic lost when it came to the transition from comic to tv
@@Enfixed the real irony is that I agree with the fundamental theme about good versus bad adaptations... but disagree with almost every example. For example, I would say John Dee in the diner isn't just the absolute high-point of the season, but the best adaptation of the source material. And I would say Pattinson's take on Bruce Wayne is the weakest take specifically because he's not a socialite playboy - the secret to Batman is that it's not the Bat costume that's his disguise... it's Bruce Wayne. The socialite playboy is a costume.
@@MichaelJohnson-kq7qg Fair enough, we just fundamentally disagree lol
@@Enfixed ironically, only on the details. Somehow.
@@MichaelJohnson-kq7qg Idk if I'd say his take on Bruce Wayne is the weakest because there is a reason for it. (ignoring the idea that Bruce is the mask cause both are equally a part of his life) Pattinson's public persona as Bruce Wayne barely exists. He is Batman pretty much all of the time. He's not doing philanthropy work or going out to parties or anything. He's consumed by vengeance and his need to be Batman. Which is not a good thing, the entire movie is showing how him being Batan all the time isn't making things better. He even says something to that affect in his opening monologue.
Good video! I think the deviations were pretty conscious and intentional and did after all involve the author himself in the decisions. Based on interviews, it appears that Gaiman was a heavily involved producer and not just an honorific one. A lot of things were seeded earlier in the TV show then they were in the comics (both plot and character development), given that the author was only discovering things about the characters as the stories were originally being written. On a separate note, my take on John Dee is that, for a variety of reasons, he lacked a nuanced understanding of life. He saw things strictly in terms of truth or lie, in part based on his frustrating relationship with his mother. I think we see his difficulty with nuance in how he talks about his mother and how he hangs back, carefully observing when he's talking to people. As a result, I don't think he really understands the roles played by hopes and dreams, which aren't lies but they're not quite truth either. If you strip out all nuance between truth and lie, you lose both of these and life becomes unbearable.
You guys know Gaiman signed off on all of this, right? Like they literally couldn’t do anything he expressly disliked because he had a veto on all of it. The series is a pretty pitch perfect adaptation of the comics and after the series dropped I reread it. Adaptation brings change but we see Dream realised effortlessly. Sturridge creates the perfect blend between inhuman and deeply emotional to a stunning degree. Even his voice manages to fill the way he is written in the comics. And Gaiman is no stranger to adoring his work. A lot of his work including Coraline, Good Omens and so on (including the Sandman audiobook) have seen translation through his assistance.
Doesn't mean folks have to like it just because Gaiman approved it all. I thought it was weak, but then I don't know the source material so I was just watching fresh to the tv adaptation.
@@ArtByEmilyHare As an adaptation it’s basically pitch perfect. My only real complaint is the fact a lot of the black humour in the original comic was stripped for American audiences. They did keep my favourite joke though, where a guy tries flirting with Death where she says she’ll see him later and then he just dies.
There were things about Netflix's adaptation that bothered me that I couldn't quite define. But you nailed it for me. If I had made the show, I would have emphasized Morpheus's isolation. He is not human, but an Endless. I would have liked a deeper exploration of the differences between humanity and the personification of an ideal. Enfixed made a great point about missed opportunities using blocking and camera angles with Death to emphasize Morpheus's isolation, but the writers could also have utilized Shakespearen siloquies and monologs. Once Morpheus reunited with the Dreaming, I would like him to be a reoccurring character who would make a commentary on what the audience would see or had just watched in a manner similar to Rod Stirling's "The Twilight Zone."
woah while watching the video, which was beautifully made and with funny clips and narration, I glanced at the subscriber and i was shocked. i guess more people may need to know about your channel.
Glad you enjoyed it!
First video of yours that ive ever seen and while i loved the netflix's adaptation i agree in every point u make
My first thought seeing the title was, "Oh no, it's another one of those 'gOnE wOkE' rants", but turns out it's actually a well thought out analysis. Good job.
ur first thought is “oh no another gone woke rant?” doesn’t that mean it’s a trend that so many shows have declined in quality due to the political minefield we live in now
@@ddemonboy No, just a trend in fragile egos whining about it.
@@adampoll4977 well the amount of shows cancelled after going woke begs to differ. numbers speak and most if not all shows in that vein are cancelled now
@@ddemonboy I suggest you go back to the dark corners of the web where you guys believe all that. And hey, I thought it was only the "woke" who cancelled things, not the other way around. Make up your mind!
@@adampoll4977 oh i don’t care one way or the other if they’re cancelled or not. but if a show isn’t doing well and is eventually shelved because of its propaganda i think that’s evident that it’s more than just a trend. business > personal bias
I feel like thr best way to do an adaptation is to animate it, that way you have the comic feel and you can use animation to tell your own version of the story. Live action feels limiting because we are limiting, we can only do so much until CGI is used.
You’re spot on!
I feel cutting the journey of dream in helll would have made fans pissed because thanks to the journey we actually got to see what hell looks like on the big screen and didn't miss out that awesome scene from the comics
I didn’t say to fully cut it out, ideally it should be shortened in montage of sorts. Showing off hell while also moving the story forward.
@@Enfixed they do show hell, and progresses the story... wtf do you propose to cut out exactly.
@@jackmeowmeowmeow2177 the dialogue between Morpheus and Matthew. If you had watched the video, you’d know this :)
@@Enfixed tldr so about 1 or 2 15 second scenes... lmao you’re a case
@@jackmeowmeowmeow2177 they’re both 30 second scenes lol. Thanks for your contribution
FYI Constantine got himself a sex swap not for the usual 'woke' reasons that are in at the moment, but because JJ Abrahams was developing a Constantine movie (prior to Keanu expressing a desire to return). As such the powers that be or JJ managed to put a block on him appearing in the show.
It was a rights issue obviously
That whole blocking concept is still a very dumbass concept. A character appearing somewhere else would if anything make people a bit more aware of said character. Instead of like "no my ball" type thinking when they're dragging ass themselves.
@@ExeErdna heres the thing, by making him 25% different (in this case black) JJ would have gotten merchandise rights over that version of the character. If things went to plan & henceforth that became the established version (like the race swap Sam Jackson Nick Fury) it could be very very lucrative.
waouh, only 255 subscribers? Well I'm pretty sure this number is gonna go up pretty fast. Great job! Greetings from France!
Thanks for the sub!
At first I was pissed because the Corinthian arc didn't have the context of the Golden and Silver Age Sandman's, but then the change clicked when I saw how it was done. "Oh!" I said. "This is _better_ than what the comic did."
My biggest problem with the Corinthian is that he is the most interesting character and as I found Rose and family really annoying (which wasnt the case in the excelent audiobook version) I was willing him and his fellow collectors (i forget the term for the convention attendees) to win. I also never really could believe whatsiface as Dream. I just never got the sense that he is an eons old timeless entity capable of uncaring and fickle evil. I dont know what i would be expecting really. But as a comparison when a good actor is playing the Doctor you can/should/do the sense of an eons old entity who is capable of......and so on.
John Dee was addicted to the gem and confined by his inability to dream. He was a Justice League villain in the comics who could control dreams via a gem. He was confined in the comics by his external context that wouldn't work in the show in a way that ironically it would have had they stuck to John Constantine because we have had so much Constantine love in TV lately and they could reuse clips from other shows
They don’t have the rights to those clips. But good observation about Comic John.
One thing you missed, and for me something that while, technically not a big deal, I found rather jarring, was the fact that by setting the story in present day, 30+ years after the comic first came out, while keeping the start point the same, and keeping those family connections, it made some of the ages of characters super wonky
I think you have presented a very thorough critique,but,it seems critical for the sake of being critical.All the points can be perceived as true as presented, but in this instance with all of the examples, it seems opinion utilized as some secret formula only you know where and when things work and they dont.We can have throngs of fanboys just liking it because it was made,and others hating it for ANY deviation at all. You've okayed specific deviation and poopooed where it stays too close. I'm a bit dizzy by your reasoning ,but fully applaud you on the well made content nonetheless. I read them years ago,and made sure I Didn't rush out to read them again right before seeing this adaptation lest I be tempted to become a scientist and breakout my microscope and analyze it to death.I compared it to and was reminded of its source material and was able to get a fresh take. For the impossible task of bringing it to ANY screen, I think overall it was a solid rendition appeasing the fanfolk,as well as the newbies alike. The parts that you were dogmatic about " not working" didn't work for YOU and what you were looking for.Maybe if you would have" helmed" the project,you would have nuanced things to " work" better for you.I found fault here and there, but, once again, all in all,to me,it was well done.
You said you’ve read what is the amount of the first two TPBs of Sandman. It’s awesome.
But as Gaiman once said, when we’re telling a chapter history, then you have to plan it very well. Because if you don’t put a knife in the drawer in chapter one, then you don’t have how to kill the villain in chapter twelve.
Maybe think about it. Sandman is ALL about the hidden knifes.
My dad hid a knife once, then he went to prison :(
No prison necessary here. But what I was trying to say is that Sandman series goes a lot of ways around and often references back something from the beginning or earlier stuff. That’s part of the magic of the comic book series. There’s a lot of subtle stuff that’s going to be developed further in future issues. So maybe that’s why they’re being so close to the original material. There’s no ground to big adaptations and diverging from the source when they’ll have to use the source again in the future.
Plus Sandman comics (and Gaiman’s work in general) have a huge fandom who’d complain mountains about big divergence from the original.
Also take from other fandoms. The Witcher series is suffering A LOT from fans being discontent about “creative adaptations”. Rumor has it they even lost their protagonist (Henry Cavill) because HE was unhappy with the direction the series was going.
@@Allyonora I’m joking lol
That is the main problem with live action adaptations, things have to be paced much faster. You only have a few minutes of screen time to convey ideas that would have been explored far more thoroughly in the source material. Some things don't translate as well IRL as they do on paper and Sandman is an existential story, filled with abstract concepts and ideas. I still loved this adaptation and hope to see more in the future.
Looks good and I liked it. Just felt it should have been more visually sumptuous with preferably Bryan Fuller attached. But you know, budget.
As soon as that cast list came out i never checked back in again. And i have a Death tattoo😅 Neil seems like a good guy too and I dont blame him.
Right.
I think you also overlooked the fact that this story was created 35 years ago and the comic book as well. The comicbook places the present action in 1988-1989. The story was originally wirtten in 1987. The adaptation come almost 4 decades later. Of course they would be changes to ensure is fitting in current day. Neil, the writter supervised this entire adaptation and was deeply involved with the enotre process. He saw over 1000 auditions just for the role of Dream alone, as an example. He was on the set, on chosing the actors, on adapting the story to current days. Of course he wanted to please the comic fans too, but he was careful to adapt this story on screen. If he chose to focus on dream as main character he had a good reason. Also, i think is rather you misunderstanding the relationship between deth and dream. Neil himslef said death and dream have the closest relationship as sibling between their family and it makes sense. Reading the comic i also got the feeling of closeness between them. Death deeply care for him in multiple occasions. I sugfest you read again the comic. I think their relationship was best adapted on screen faithfully to the comic as well.
I definitely agree with you.
I like to think of the Netflix Adaptation as an alternative version to the comic, it had its moments I enjoyed but I think the books are better and that the adaptation made changes that weren't really needed and changed the stories in ways that bring conflict with the source. I'm glad it got a 2nd season for people who enjoyed it but I don't think its going to survive in order to bring the whole series to life.
I honestly loved 24/7 it is an incredibly well done episode to me and I like how it works as a bottle episode
Me too. I was surprised that was one of the complaints in the episode. Honestly, the way the 24/7 episode was handled, is what truly reeled me into the series and by proxy made me start reading the Sandman comics. I feel sticking to the source material is what makes the show so good in my opinion.
I thoroughly enjoyed almost all the directorial choices except the diner, that was just trailed on forever… pacing. I personally likely the episode dealing with issue 13 because it had more charm and effect than the original comic, it has more perspective imo than the comic, however I agree with the concerns over Death and their interactions, I think it missed the mark
I hate the girl boss that take away Constantine. 😒
When adapting a work from one medium to another changes have to be made because of the different needs of the media but changing stuff just to change it and "be creative" is annoying to the fans of the original. If you want that sort of artistic freedom then avoid adaptations and only do original work. What's the point of adaptations then? The point IS that different media have different strengths. I love seeing these characters in live action. I was amazed at the skill shown in recreating certain panels of the comics in a live action show. I was in the minority in not liking the artwork in the comics a lot of the time and it's nice to experience the story in a visual medium that I can enjoy. Having voices for the characters adds a lot of depth to them. I didn't agree with all of the choices made but on the whole I felt it was a great adaptation and I'm looking forward to seeing more.
A well thought out opinion. There are no rules in adaptations. It is up to the auteur to decide how they will interpret the source material. it is too often that fans want to see a replica of the source material in a different medium but then that strips the creator from a little thing called, "artistic license". Step into the world of theater where the transference of execution from literature to stage performance began. Every theater company and directors gave their interpretation to the source material. The source material is nothing more than a guide. Some adaptors are purist while others like to experiment. There is no right or wrong just well-executed or not. Btw, Neil Gaiman had his whole body in this so I find it interesting how the author of the source material is being judged for not adapting his own material with authenticity.
4:06 I don't agree that when the movie is too close to source material, it's a bad adaptation.
Sin City(2005) is as close as possible to the comic. Also The Watchman (2009)
Never said that.
@@Enfixed.
And what did you sey in 4:11?
@@SvetlyootSofia I said it’s a bad adaptation, not a failure.
@@Enfixed O.k. I edit my comment and I think the movie Sin City(2005) and Watchman(2009) is NOT bad adaptations.
It`s a good adaptation.
What's your thoughts?
I haven’t seen either, it’s a very nuanced subject, there’s no one size fits all thing.
I genuinely think the first season of Sandman was a perfect adaptation so far.
It's kind of like another story added onto the many facettes of Dream. The same character but told through yet another lens. Things change and had to change for this translation to work, but the story, themes and characters are all perfectly retained. Pretty much all changes are there to fit the narrative into a completely different medium with different conventions of storytelling.
The only thing I miss is the wider universe. And perhaps in another world where WB and DC had their shit together by now that could have worked. But at the same time I think the story filled the holes that removal created in a rather satisfying manner. If you didn't know it's originally part of the DC universe, you'd never notice there are entire plot-points and characters that were removed.
Does make me a bit sad though, since many screen-only audiences might never know that this beautiful story is part of DC, which already has a bad rep on account of all the horrendous comic movies they made. People should have been able to see that that universe has some excellent stories inside it and it's mostly Warner Brothers fault for not showcasing the right ones.
My perspective has changed a decent amount and I'm considering a follow-up video
What is the name of the song you play in the ending of the video????
for the endscreen, it is Unexpected Call by Cismu
Obviously Neil wanted the show on netflix, so of course there was (slang) cow tailing.
wasn't the original author, Neil Gailman, involved in the production of the show? How are they deviating from his vision when he is also there?
Fair point, I do believe I misplace blame a lot
Why does this video about comic books have so much breaking bad clips randomly appearing out of context?
Funny
Brekkin bad
Sandman isn't a graphic novel. It was a comic book series that was followed up with a graphic novel, an illustrated prose novella, and a comic book mini-series. Graphic novels don't "run."
It is listed as a graphic novel on the New York Times bestseller list :)
@@Enfixed Thank you for taking them time to respond. The NY Times bestseller list has a category called "Graphic books and Manga", which is a catchall for pretty much anything in the comics medium published in book form. This includes original graphic novels, works of graphic nonfiction, anthologies, and books collecting individual comic books. The Sandman was originally published as individual monthly comic books (mostly 24 pages in length), plus an oversized "special" outside of the normal series numbering. These were collected into books after they were published, which is most of the Sandman stuff you see on the NY Times bestseller list. What ran from 1989 to 1996 was a comic book series. Hope you're not bothered by quibbling over such an inconsequential matter.
4:17 what in the vibranium is that axe made of to where it can slice into CONCRETE when dropped????
Breaking bad
Omg new vid
It was the very worst thing a Sandman adaptation could have been: OK. I'd have been happy with a glorious failure, and the more straightforward, cinematic stories that could be adapted shot-for-shot were fine, but it's patchy, campy, flat, lacking visual texture, not scary, a lot of the actors feel like 'a famous actor doing a bit' (love Gwendoline Christie, but her pantomime villain Satan was awful) others are just bad actors (Death in particular felt like a drama school kid). It doesn't feel like Sandman, it feels like a Sky TV Christmas special, or an inoffensive, mid-budget Netflix fantasy series, like a thousand other forgettable TV shows. _EDIT: Also where the hell was the Dave McKean imagery?! His covers are WORKS OF ART_
One thing I really didn't like that they gave a crucial part of John Constantine's origin story to Johanna C., specifically the Astra incident wich is a very fundamental and personal event in John Constantine's background thus making her just a g-flipped John Constantine. They've missed the chance of making something original out of the comics original Johanna C. like making her the actual ancestor of John that is somehow still alive after hundreds of years and make her archetypically close to a classical victorian/high end detective as opposed to John's hard boiled/down in the rough detective archetype. But nope they did a supergirl again and just basically turned her into a gndr flipped John Constantine.
Well Johanna is quite literally a gender flipped John Constantine and that was only done due to Netflix not having the rights to the John Constantine character.
that's exactly what she is tho, they didn't have the rights to John so they used Johanna
Neil Gaiman said that he intentionally wanted a Johanna Constantine before knowing that he couldn't get the rights ua-cam.com/video/3e54llvV_tc/v-deo.html
I personally don't mind Johanna Constantine, if only because hearing Clara Oswald swear a blue streak is ten times funnier than David Tennant doing the same in _Fright Night._
Huh. And I absolutely LOVED The Sandman adaptation. 🤷♂️
After seeing what was done to the Wheel of Time, and then Rop. I had no hopes for this.
And thats Not Death.
Edit Overture is Fantastic ❤
I gotta say you had me in the first half, I thought you were one of those regressive video essayists speaking obsessively about Source material. However on the fact that we care too much about Dream, I say we kind of have to because people aren't going to watch a show about someone they don't care for. And Netflix is all too cancel happy nowadays, especially with its most expensive shows, including but not limited to The Sandman. We may have all the other characters but as a pop culture public we're not there mentally to understand how complex his presence would be on that level in a story.
I enjoyed the show, but then I have no experience of The Sandman outside of the TV version so I can't really compare it to anything.
This was one of the best screen adaptations I’ve seen.
No
Controversial takes here.
I think if anything Sandman does well in what it's trying and sometimes you don't need to get too crazy with a story when the plot is already very well set. Imagine how good the witcher could be if they stuck to the book instead of trying to translate it to television. Sandman has falls, yes, 24/7 is definitely not an episode for everyone but I don't think it's a flawed adaptation, it's a tame one, which isn't bad.
This could have been way way worse! Bringing Sandman into the movies or tv was going to be a challenge. This was a good adaptation for the budget they had. This kind of subject matter is nearly impossible to adapt, anything that leans into the metaphysical realms always will be. Netflix did an excellent job, other then the little girl being the ultimate power of the dreamland I found that kinda silly even in the comics. Other then that good stuff.
The live action adaptation depends in the manner of execution. Stray too much and the fanbase will hate it.
I feel like the rules for how close you should stick with source material all depends on what you adapting.
With lots of comicbook characters unless you are adapting a particular story, sure you can get away with relatively lose adaptations mainly because lots of comicbook stories are tied into previous adaptations.
Ala Ohh you want to adapt the clone saga... but in order to do that you need to establish the Green Goblin, Gwen stays death, Miles Warren and his first couple of clones oh and those other heroes also makes and appearance and plays quite the prominent role so you also need to establish those.
Suddenly you are not just having a trilogy you also have to adapt all those other heroes and because the original comicbook run had multible writers you are left with loads of plot threads that goes no where or leads into other comicbooks.
So sure i can run with a "looser" adaptation if its the universe itself you are adapting and not a particular story.
However i personally feel like that once it is a particular story where the story has a beginning middle and end, you wiggle-room becomes FAR smaller.
Sure there are some things that might prevent you from doing a 100% faithful adaptation things such as rights, budgets and unless you want to spend a shit ton of money on expensive CGI (in which chase you should just make it animated instead) you can only get so close to the characters appearance with live actors.
Ala lets take Vampire Hunter D, sure we have artwork of him, but the stories write him as very attractive, that even straight males find him attractive.
It is mention several times in the book.
Yeah good luck adapting that YOU might find him beautiful but i sure as hell do not.
Same with the reverse ala Nobby Nobbs from Discworld he is described as so ugly that he has to go around with a card confirming that he is human.
Yeah.. same here ugliness is in the eye of the beholder and people might say well he isn´t THAT bad certainly not to the extend of what is described in the books.
However all that set aside you should strive to stick as closely to the source material as possible otherwise why bother adapting it in the first place, why not just make your own story?
You are making an adaptation of something so actually adapt it, not just make your own story.
Lets take Alita as an example many are saying ohh its so faithful to its source material and all i can say is... can i please watch the movie you are seeing?
Because apart from their appearances, and to a certain extend the intro, a few scenes here and there, and that she know Panzer Kunst.
NOTHING in the movie was even remotely true to the source material.
In fact the movie to me was a little like if LotR had been done this way
Frodo sets out with sam to cast the magic ring into mount doom all the while Bilbo is out with the 12 dwarfs to fight in the battle of the white city, that is under siege by Smaugh who is a lieutenant of Morgoth who works under Sauron.
Sauron then sends his 9 black riders out to retrieve the ring that he believes Smeagul, has who is current making his way under the misty mountains.
Meanwhile Gandalf is fighting in the mines of Moria against the Ballrock.
While Aragon and Boromir are fighting side by side to defend the city of dale against a siege of mountain trolls.
The movie ends with Frodo throwing the ring into mount doom and is then escorted back home by a group of Valar just in time for Bilbos 111 birthday.
Yeah that movie would have been a mess it takes characters from all over the story and before and messes up the events.
Same with Alita.
First off lets take how she ended up in the junkyard we are never told that in the original comic, in fact apart from a single flashback we are never told ANYTHING about her background.
So it shouldn´t be there in the first place.
Then there is her berserk suit in the movie she finds it in the same ship she arrived to earth with.
Again we know NOTHING about her background and given what we later learn in Last Order she most certainly would NEVER have arrived with a ship.
Then there is the whole thing with her being into Motorball Ummm no she wasn´t in fact there was a huge plot point about how she only joined up to drown her sorrow of the loss of her first love.
Then we have Desty Nova being the bad guy from the start and being a sort of king pin with his hands in everything and Alita knowing him from the start and it was an assault on Triphares to get to him, that made her lose her original body.
Again NO, Desty Nova was hinted at in the beginning, but apart from him making Makaku into a cyborg, we never really learn much about him until WAY later.
Also him taking off his glasses... that´s like Batman using a real gun to threaten people.
Desty Nova only ever once in a moment of weakness removes his glasses after that point in time he keeps them on and NEVER takes them off.
Also the whole price about if you win Motorball you get a trip to Triphares was bullshit.
The only ways you could get to Triphares was either ahh running up alongside the cables hopping the rotating knives wouldn´t cut you to pieces or if your cells where taken to Triphares and you where regrown up there.
Other than that no Triphares is off limit and no one is allowed up there.
Alita was more so based on the OVA from my perspective than the manga
I read the books and i don't have a singe complained, they will never get it 100% right, but i was glad that at least they give it a chance and it wasn't bad at all
Everyone bitching and complaining about Sandman being to to Woke and not following source material obviously did not pay close attention to the actual comics which was pretty woke in it self and since Neil Gaiman produced the show himself he has the right to any change what he wants, so get over it! Besides leaving the DC Universe clear of this was a brilliant idea.
Of course he as the right to change plot points and people have the right to disagree with those choices lol
The show was good but the novel was much better. I thought the show could've been faster if they didn't waist time explaining certain characters to much. That made me like some episodes and feel others were waisted.
I watched 3 episodes because of the production quality. I never developed empathy with any character and found it overall, boring. The first Star Trek movie suffered from an overindulgence in special effects when it could have developed the story. Rhythm and flow are more important than money spent on astonishing production.
I absolutely agree that Sandman was improperly adapted, and I appreciate you pointing out that it's because of where it picks and chooses to be a one to one adaptation and where it diverges. That said, I think I disagree on where you think it directly adapts. I think 24/7 is personally one the of worst adaption errors of all time. I think the issue it's based off of is one of the best horror comics in the medium's history, and one of the very few scenes of real palpable tension in the entirety of the original Sandman run. The Netflix adaptation sticks closely to the narrative device, but in changing John from the creepy, manipulative, little nebbish to someone who "wants the truth", it strips the entire sequence of menace.
To me it's the worst of both worlds. We're given a direct adaptation that is stripped of any of the effects the source material had. We see that as early as when John doesn't kill Rosemary at the end of the episode. If they were going to change John in such a drastic way, I'd rather they fully commit and just change the narrative entirely. The tense car ride loses tension for me, when we know John isn't an unstable sociopath. The existential horror of the diner sequence is lost when we know John isn't being purposefully malevolent. I'm fine with changing the character, but the story HAS to change as a result. Frankly, I'm fine with a direct adaptation as well (even though I agree it's a pointless uncreative endeavor), but it needs to recapture what the source material evokes or it's worthless as an adaptation.
So did the show get orders from up high to never use any sort of dc characters at all?
I would have loved to see this comic world actually adapted and yet for as much as this goes on and on about how the show sticks to close to the source I struggle to find many things that do beyond a simple surface level.
The whole dollhouse stuff caught me so off guard because watching an entire show where nothing looks remotely whimsical or mythical the fucking Disneyland killer looks ripped straight from the comics more than anything else in the entire series.
Hell they even manage to make the endless look boring as oppose to ethereal beings contrasted by how normal they act.
It was a rights issue as to why they couldn’t use them, I personally think it’s better that way.
Complete nonsense. It's a terrific adaptation, that stays faithful whilst expanding on the original comic series.
I only got through the first couple episodes before I decided to save myself from more disappointments. It just felt like it had all its edges sanded off. The Sandman comics for me were always this epic cosmic horror that felt HUGE. The world and characters so fleshed-out that its universe felt almost more real than reality. I felt like I could lose myself in its pages and its story for eternity. Most importantly, it felt like it was mine. A freaky tale for the freaks like me. The show feels like the Kidz Bop version.
I know that Neil has a young son who he is an excellent and attentive father to and I can't help but feel like a lot of the real, digging horror of the story was smoothed out in order to help the show appeal to a broader audience and to be more pallatable to younger people. I understand the desire to do that and it's certainly a smart financial move but for me, the show doesnt come close to capturing the nuance and the magnitude it needed to.
Hah sanded off
Disagree. My only gripes with the Netflix adaptation were casting, pacing, and some of the dialogue writing. If anything they could've stayed closer to the graphic novel. Probably a better director would've been enough to make it a "good" show, in my eyes it's just "okay".
I thought the casting was one of the best parts, Tom Sturridge, David Thewlis, Gwendoline Christie, and Boyd Holbrook were brilliant
That’s rough man, you must not be comic book fan. The closer to the source material, the better. Some filler is needed.
Plus, that whole episode with Lucifer vs dream was amazing.
I feel like your add-ons you recommend is what has consistently making comic book movies bad.
We just inherently disagree, it’s called an adaptation for a reason. Because you have to ADAPT the material into a different medium.
@@Enfixed adapt, as in drawn to live action.
I think this is why anime is significantly better than animated comic book movies. Anime tries to be as close to the source material as possible where as animated comic book movies ignore them.
I skipped through a few episodes and what I skipped the most were Dream's scenes. The total opposite of my behaviour with the graphic novels. I'm not a huge comic book fan but what I knew of the story intrigued me enough to borrow them from the library. I liked Dream in them and never really enjoyed the rest of the cast.
In the TV series, the only thing that vaguely annoyed me about the supporting universe was the John Constantine switch. There is a wonderful Joanna Constantine character in the graphic novels, John's great great... grandmother. Why gender switch John? But Jenna Coleman was fine. She was the one I could stand looking at, not Dream. But, I didn't have high expectations since the Audible original dramatization wasn't much fun either. I'm an audiobook fan and I did have high hopes for that.
I don't blame NG for losing what made him special. He's so insanely famous now and he has to keep up his awesome public persona. It could be the money too, but my guess is it's the fame and adulation that ate away his genuine strangeness. And age, of course. I'm not reach or famous and changed a lot with age.
It just seems like you're nitpicking I disagree about the Batman the reason why Bruce Wayne acts like a socialite its a cover a shield Bruce Wayne persona is basically like Superman glasses
There’s a bit more to Clark Kent than the glasses lmao. And I can’t imagine Battinson being Batman for that long, I imagine it would take time to have the Bruce Wayne persona built up.
Enjoyed the comic enjoyed the TV show.
'You might as well read the source material'
You might but people on the whole won't
Good!
Dream and Death have the closest relationship amongst all the siblings.
Yes, because it develops lol
I very much liked actress playing Constantine.... but on the other hand... fuck, give me the Constantine or change the characters name?!
I don't think you understand the source material, like at all. I will chalk this to you not having read the whole 75-issue run while you were writing this, so you get a pass, but it would be beneficial for your future videos if you leave the analysis of a material, especially concerning adaptations, until after you've fully understood the source material.
You said Death and Dream's relationship in the comics wasn't close, when this couldn't be further from the truth. Among the Endless, Dream considers Death to be his closest sibling. Where he considers Destiny as the stand-offish older brother (like most eldest brothers are), or Delirium as a younger sister he just tolerates, Death is the older sister that he can just let himself go. He does not have any pretenses or defenses around her, and this makes their conversation in The Kindly Ones arc at the end of the series that much more poignant. Because then, Dream has finally changed, and he did so in the presence of the sibling he loves and respects the most (not that he had any choice in the matter, if you know what I mean).
Secondly, you mentioned that the second half got worse because it focused more on Dream, instead of the humans and characters he interacts with. But that is actually the whole point of the series: that it is all about Dream and how anyone, even an Endless, can change (and not just in the iterative sense). Dream has always been the by-the-rules, stand-offish authoritarian figure, who takes his job seriously above all, to the point that everyone in his realm is scared of him, save perhaps Lucien. He is also very petty and vindictive when he feels he is slighted. However, this changed when he got captured and held imprisoned for 70 years. After that, he returns to a destroyed kingdom and found out that, in the process of rebuilding it and getting in touch with various people and entities, that he found himself needing to change if his realm and the aspect of dreams is to survive. This started in Brief Lives, which forced him to reconnect with Orpheus, which ultimately caused the happenings in The Kindly Ones. If you follow the events across those arcs, you will see exactly how much Dream changed from how he was at the beginning of the story, which is ultimately what the whole thing is all about.
Thanks
I see pros and cons to the show
But one thing many see as a con I don't (nor do I see it as a pro)
The race and gender swaping
Like I personally dont care one way or the other
It's the same characters but not the same universe as the comics
If we can have an alligator loki in marvel we can have a woman constantine lol
It's not an issue with me
Besides she's the 2nd best live action constantine we have ever had lol
Edit: BTW brilliant video
I get the suspicion that you like Breaking Bad 🤔🤔 idk why tho
Wait until you see my most recent video lmao
I'm still mad about sex change of a fan favorite character 😒 ✝️
Dude your lucky there's no dislike button
Why’s that?
@@Enfixed yup definitely lucky, thats why Sandman is the best DC adaptation
Interesting...but I would have liked you to go into more detail, and elaborate
Did you watch the video?
@@Enfixed yes
Have to disagree at least in personal view Sandman was saved to me by sticking as close as it could to the source unfortunately with no DC material due to copyrights sadly thats understandable. I was so afraid when I saw the cast it was gonna be a woke disaster with Lucifers gender bending ( still not a fan of it ) and to a lesser degree Death’s casting thought she wasn’t gonna be the spunky smiling pale goth girl I love in the comics but Kurbi killed it in the role a characters design is just as much a part of it and I like to see that aspect translated as close as possible too loved. If it wasn’t for the beat yo beat shoots I saw in the trailer I would have probably missed out on the show and re reed the comics. Again im someone who went you want to adapt like for only the very little details we’re you can find wiggle room to I think they handled it very well to reinterpret the story without the DC elements they could adapt cause of the copyright issue like with John Constantine but then again thats just me. However I get you’re 2 cent on it and agree there are moments where more focus on other people or elements would have made some moments better and John Dee,s rework to his character to make more compelling plus a small refresher of John Constantine well Johanna Constantine here backstory is a nice touch for fresh audience. Still having the plots the shoots and dialogue mirror the source will always be a plus for me.
Sandman was beautiful adaptation and you can definitely rest easy knowing your opinion is just that....
I mean, beautiful doesn’t equal good but we can agree to disagree :)
@@Enfixed beautiful literally means of excellent quality…by definition…but, as you said, we can disagree.
Actually, it means "pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically" according to the oxford dictionary :) With the synonyms of the word being 'attractive', 'pretty', 'handsome', etc.
@@Enfixed actually that’s only the first definition and you left out the one that I mentioned on purpose
@@GarrellWoods this guy can't take any disagreement, criticism, can he?
If you really want a lesson in how NOT TO ADAPT SOURCE MATERIAL ... watch DISNEY Star Wars, or DISNEY MARVEL TV Shows, or DISNEY MARVEL MOVIES since END GAME, or DISNEY Live Action Remakes, or Disney... on and on and on
Just you wait :)
i thought the show was pretty cool, but i had NOT read any of the og Sandman stuff
The show was good up to the end of dreams mission to get his jewel back. After the friend meeting every 100 years episode it just got too strange. Hammering all the AGENDA pushing, who the F was in charge of character design/edits/alteration 🤦🤦
The Lord of the Rings source material and it is better than every movie out there
I adored the first half exept johnna constatine of course. The second half really went off the rails.
What’s wrong with Johanna Constantine?
@@Enfixed
I don't know waynesst's reasons but in my case is that I really didn't like that they gave a crucial part of John Constantine's origin story to episode three's Johanna C, specifically the Astra incident wich is a very fundamental and personal event in John Constantine's background thus making her just a g-flipped John Constantine. They've missed the chance of making something original out of the original Johanna C from the comics, like making her the actual ancestor of John that is somehow still alive after hundreds of years and make her archetypically close to a classical victorian/high end detective as opposed to John's hard boiled/down in the rough detective archetype. But nope they did a supergirl again and just basically turned her into a gndr flipped John Constantine.
@@agm5424 At the time they couldn't use John Constantine because of copyright so they used Johnanna instead. So it was not a gender-swap Neil did not create John Constantine but did create Johnanna his ancestor. So Neil Gaiman just combined the two. So get over it's a moot point by now!
man i hate the coloring in the trades for sandman.
worst re-color ever along with the incal, 80s thor and killing joke
Episode 6 finished me know nothing about the comics i know i really enjoyedthis and cannot wait to see what season 2 has inshore
I'm kinda upset we didn't get Tom ellis was Lucifer but I get why they didn't for sandman
Batman doesn’t kill 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That’s true
@@Enfixed Batman has killed people in every Batman movie except the cringe 1960’s Batman. Even Robert Pattinson Batman killed people plus he brutally disfigured people.
@@bigrooster6893 who did Robert pattinson kill?
"A lack of deviation means a lack of creativity." I emphatically disagree. Relegating any and all creativity to merely birthing new story or character elements is incredibly reductionist and narrow minded. Creativity encompasses the creation of things more broadly, including the ideas required to translate and adapt a piece of art from one medium to another and the execution of said ideas working in concert with one another to result in a successful adaptation. In short, adapting a work successfully is creative in and of itself, and that requires faithfulness to the source material. Thus, faithfulness is indeed a requirement for a successful adaptation, whereas deviation is not only not so but often results in working against that end, particularly when the artists behind the project are either hamstrung or have their vision completely negated in favor of that of the studio executives or studio-hired committees, as so often happens these days.
I’m not being mr objectivity, I was trying to lay out what I think makes a good adaptation based off of adaptations I’ve seen and enjoyed. Sure that sentence you cited lacked nuance.
Episode 4 is my best or the series edit Because it was better than the comic itself.
The comic does a hope in hell a lot better than the show
@@Enfixed how's that so?
@@Leonardo_No_Cardio it’s a lot more focused, I think the only thing that the show does better is it’s thematic portrayal of hope. Since Dream is literally fighting Lucifer. One of the strongest beings in existence. Whereas in the comics, his bout is with some random demon.
@@Enfixed ...the only thing the show done better...I believe you fail to see its worth
@@Leonardo_No_Cardio I meant in context of that episode, silly
I think your faithfulness and deviation are too vague and nebulous. You need to be more specific. For instance is West Side Story a good adaptation of Romeo and Juliet?
First of all did Shakespeare write musicals? Maybe West Side Story isn't an adaption, maybe it's just a good musical with no relationship at all to Romeo and Juliet. Unless, of course, you think that Shakespeare owns the copyright on tragic, young love. No reference at all to the Greek story of Orpheus and Euridyce?
Secondly you fail to be specific about what the adaption is being faithful to or deviating from. You fail to give more cogent categories such as emotional impact, setting and time, specific moral, or lesson being conveyed.
You have valid concerns I just think they could have been distilled more. I don't think you conveyed whether or not the show remained faithful to your first impression of the comic or whether it remained faithful to Gaiman's ideas in the original comic. Whether your ideas about what Sandman should be are different than what Gaiman's ideas are or what the director's ideas are.
My first impressions about things are my own. Over the years they change, as for instance when watching an old Twilight Zone episode. The gag into "To serve man" isn't as shocking anymore. Obviously you can't be surprised by the same twist twice, but what if you changed the setting and characters? Make it a musical, set it in Brooklyn, let it be about the first encounter between Puerto Ricans and Irish-Americans?
It is hard to judge how to make old material you are familiar with cogent to a new audience. Ideas are like memories, they can be specific or they can be general. Depending on what they are they can easily translate to any new context or they can be difficult to translate into a new context. Cannibalistic Irish delinquents?
Thanks.
you had me until you do the whole matt reeve is the best batman...
Lol
I know rage bait when i see it
Clearly not
I loved the show Lucifer.
Nah fam. The imbalance is the thing, making it ausum.
The adaptation's two stuff are faithful and really divergent create a counterpoint.
I think this video really fails to describe why not deviating from the source material is bad. I much prefer a faithful adaptation, and while, sure, I suppose a few things are a bit more drawn out then they need to be, I think this did a well above average job by just not changing it too much for the sake of changing it.
Similarly, Sin City changed as little as possible, and it was excellent. The simple transference to a new medium will offer a gifted director the ability to add their own creativity without over doing it.
I hope to see far more screen adaptations simply use the comics as a storyboard and keep super faithful.
You failed to describe how I failed to describe why not deviating from the source material is bad.
@@Enfixed it's your premise, thus the burden of proof is on you. You've also asked me to prove a double negative, which is foolish.
I'm not looking to be a dick about it, I just think your premise is flawed and you built an argument on a weak foundation. I think you can do better if you want to.
You're making an argument thats backed by 'oh but another adaptation did this.' It's not a one size fits all kinda deal, buddy.
@@Enfixed other examples is a form (one of many potential forms) of evidence.
If you're going to take this seriously you might want to look into debate theory and how to construct an argument, because you've demonstrated a real lack of those skills here.
Again, do what you want, but learning to be better and make better content will certainly get you further than half baked arguments you back up by acting butt hurt in the comments.
@@daveherz998 you’ve yet to demonstrate how my argument was half-baked lol. Also why are you getting butt hurt over me getting butt hurt?
Your example of the Riddler is a bit of a wash, they’ve revamped him a fucking billion times. For a good reason… like gun to your head name 3 definitive riddler stories… I’ll wait
you do know that Gaiman himself said that he didnt want a direct adaptation of his books made by anyone , right ? Its like Comic fans cannot accept any direct translation unless everything they want to see in a film or show is there b4 they see the show .
Nobody gives a shit what Neil wants, he’s not as big of a fan of his work as the people who read it. It’s the audience they should be pleasing, Neil comes second.
Unpopular opinion. Invincible is a bad adaptation. Turned Mark into a whiny simp, the power scaling was inconsitent(Can deflect an asteroid with his barehands no problem, but struggled for like 2 minutes to stop an ejected pilot seat), the changes of Omni-Mans character and background(he was a high ranking legendary Viltrumite commander/unit leader in the comics reduced to a grunt in the show) for contrived dramatic effect, Amber...ETC
I disagree but I haven't watched or read Invincible in awhile.