SHP Forums

Not sure if there's any "Sandman" fans (the comic) or Neil Gaiman fans... or even Eric Kripke fans... But in the event this might interest any of those parties...

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/article/tv-new ... us_sandman


"The Sandman," the Neil Gaiman-written comic book series considered a seminal work in the medium, is in the early stages of being developed into a TV series.

Warner Bros. TV is in the midst of acquiring television rights from sister company DC Entertainment and in talks with several writer-producers about adapting the 1990s comic. At the top of the list is Eric Kripke, creator of the CW's horror-tinged "Supernatural."

"Sandman" told the tale of Morpheus, the Lord of the Dreaming, a deity who personifies dreams. The book began in the horror realm but quickly made its mark in fantasy and mythology as Gaiman introduced the Endless, a group of powerful brothers and sisters named Destiny, Death, Destruction, Despair, Desire and Delirium (as well as Dream).

The book helped establish DC's Vertigo imprint and won several awards. It also was one of the few comics that segued from the comics crowd, entering the intellectual and art worlds, winning over a large non-comics-reading audience, particularly a devoted female following.

A movie version of "Sandman" has been in development since the mid-'90s, with an early version involving "Pulp Fiction" co-writer Roger Avary. The movie version cooled earlier in the decade, with the thinking moving to the best way to tackle an adaptation is the TV route. Up until a few months ago, DC was in talks with HBO and James Mangold to develop a show minus WBTV's involvement, but that never coalesced.

Gaiman was not officially involved with the HBO attempt, though he and Mangold held several rounds of talks surrounding characters and story. The author is not involved in the new developments, though since it is early in the process, that may change. In fact, securing Gaiman will prove key for the project to go forward.

Kripke has been described as interested in tackling an adaptation but cautious because the comic book has such a passionate following and is held in such high regard. It's the kind of series where each production decision, from casting to script to design, would be scrutinized by devotees.

Still, Kripke has managed to create and sustain "Supernatural," which week in and week out deals with fantasy, mythological and horror elements. He also displayed a certain amount of creative integrity when he stuck to his guns by not returning as showrunner when the network renewed the series for a sixth season after he completed his planned five-season story line.

While I don't know if Kripke is indeed the right guy for Sandman - somehow I imagine him in more a western, almost hard-boiled type of setting -, I strongly believe that he could do the comic book justice. And see Sandman on TV would be, obviously, amazing.

While I haven't read the Sandman series, I am familiar with it. That's exactly the kind of cool thing I'd love for a TV show, if they can do it justice.

I just recently rented the Neverwhere DVDs from the library and thought it wasn't bad for a low-budget mini-series. I really loved the Stardust movie as well. It seems like some of Gaiman's work make's the transition to screen fairly well. Hopefully a great series will come out of this. If it's on HBO at least it has a better chance staying true to it.

The graphic novel series I really like is Fables. There was a rumour that it was being adapted for TV at some point, but I think that has died. It's probably for the best, since I don't think it was going to be on NBC.

I can't imagine Sandman being done well by American network tv. Too many restrictions.

Maiandra wrote:The graphic novel series I really like is Fables. There was a rumour that it was being adapted for TV at some point, but I think that has died. It's probably for the best, since I don't think it was going to be on NBC.

I agree.

I got Maia into Fables a while ago when she was visiting me in Houston (before we got together permanently) and she wanted something to read before bed. As it turns out, Fables (and Y The Last Man) are among the top favorite graphic novels women like to read.

I can understand that. Most "regular" comics include overly sexualized women and men who look like they've taken far too many steroids. Plus, just about everything in the DC and Marvel universes is settled by fighting.

therogue wrote:I can't imagine Sandman being done well by American network tv. Too many restrictions.

It's the same deal with Y The Last Man. It's an excellent graphic novel mini-series, but it wouldn't work right as a TV series on American television. Although that'd still be better than a movie made of it.

As an American, it pains me to say that TV in the US is far too censored and restrictive. I do think there is a time and a place for censorship (for instance, we probably shouldn't have Big Bird presenting the Kama Sutra on Sesame Street), but the US often goes too far.

I'm still surprised by the content shown on Canadian TV after 9PM. That's the cutoff time, when supposedly the kids have gone to bed. Whether or not that's realistic is another story, but the point is that there doesn't need to be censorship all the time.

BBC also puts the watershed at 9 in the evening.

I think most Americans would be suprised at what is acceptable on telly in these parts.

therogue wrote:I can't imagine Sandman being done well by American network tv. Too many restrictions.

I think it would be fine on HBO, from what I've seen of their TV shows so far, but most other networks would probably ruin it.

As for Canadian TV after 9pm, they usually have content warnings at the beginning of the show and at the end of every commercial break. I much prefer that to outright censorship. That way the viewer has some warning, but the choice is still up to them.

Unfortunately, it's the parents groups ("we must protect the children!") that ruin TV for everyone in the US. I understand they don't want little Johnny watching anything that's R-rated, but maybe that responsibility is up to the parents themselves and not a TV network.

It's the same bullshit with video games. The responsibility is that of the parents (or any other caregiver) and not the game developers.

Hmm. I haven't read Sandman, but I've read other things by Neil Gaiman (including Good Omens, an absolutely fantastic collaboration with Terry Pratchett) and I must say, it's fairly obvious that his stuff is for adults or (at the very least) mature teenagers. That means that if there are any children (I define this as roughly ages 0-12) watching any of his stuff, and their parents thought "This would be good for the kids"... then I'm sorry to be blunt, but the parents are morons.

Rath Darkblade wrote:Hmm. I haven't read Sandman, but I've read other things by Neil Gaiman (including Good Omens, an absolutely fantastic collaboration with Terry Pratchett) and I must say, it's fairly obvious that his stuff is for adults or (at the very least) mature teenagers. That means that if there are any children (I define this as roughly ages 0-12) watching any of his stuff, and their parents thought "This would be good for the kids"... then I'm sorry to be blunt, but the parents are morons.

Unfortunately, people still think media like comic books, cartoons and even video games are for kids. Some are, but there are definitely many examples of comics, cartoons and video games made specifically for adults (or at least the older teen demographic).

Comic books are still seen as "for kids" mostly due to the previous generation having read them back when the Comics Code Authority was around. The CCA basically eliminated the chance to have more adult-oriented (not p0rn) stories. This reduced the content to such silliness than only young kids could stand to read it. The CCA still exists today, but the restrictions have been relaxed and some comic books don't even acknowledge them anymore.

Cartoons face this problem a lot, too. Justice League Unlimited was an animated series developed for older teens and adults. But because it was a cartoon and had DC superheroes in it, parents thought: "this must be for my little Johnny!" Well, it wasn't and because of that, some parents complained. JLU was then shown exclusively on The Cartoon Network and whatever the equivalent was in other countries.

One instance of the whole "cartoons are for kids" issue really ticks Maia off. The Last Unicorn was originally a book and it was not intended for little children. An animated movie was made of it, but because a unicorn was the main character and it was a cartoon, people (who hadn't read the book) figured it was for children. Even worse, the new 25th anniversary edition censured the word "damn." That's idiotic since kids have heard much worse on TV and online.

And finally video games... well, I don't even need to go into that one.

DeadPoolX wrote:

Rath Darkblade wrote:Hmm. I haven't read Sandman, but I've read other things by Neil Gaiman (including Good Omens, an absolutely fantastic collaboration with Terry Pratchett) and I must say, it's fairly obvious that his stuff is for adults or (at the very least) mature teenagers. That means that if there are any children (I define this as roughly ages 0-12) watching any of his stuff, and their parents thought "This would be good for the kids"... then I'm sorry to be blunt, but the parents are morons.

Unfortunately, people still think media like comic books, cartoons and even video games are for kids. Some are, but there are definitely many examples of comics, cartoons and video games made specifically for adults (or at least the older teen demographic).

Comic books are still seen as "for kids" mostly due to the previous generation having read them back when the Comics Code Authority was around. The CCA basically eliminated the chance to have more adult-oriented (not p0rn) stories. This reduced the content to such silliness than only young kids could stand to read it. The CCA still exists today, but the restrictions have been relaxed and some comic books don't even acknowledge them anymore.

Cartoons face this problem a lot, too. Justice League Unlimited was an animated series developed for older teens and adults. But because it was a cartoon and had DC superheroes in it, parents thought: "this must be for my little Johnny!" Well, it wasn't and because of that, some parents complained. JLU was then shown exclusively on The Cartoon Network and whatever the equivalent was in other countries.

One instance of the whole "cartoons are for kids" issue really ticks Maia off. The Last Unicorn was originally a book and it was not intended for little children. An animated movie was made of it, but because a unicorn was the main character and it was a cartoon, people (who hadn't read the book) figured it was for children. Even worse, the new 25th anniversary edition censured the word "damn." That's idiotic since kids have heard much worse on TV and online.

Yikes. The word "damn" was censored? WTF - has someone invented a time-machine and sent us all back to be stuck in 1939, to be stuck in an endless loop (a la "Groundhog Day"), where the endless loop has us watching and re-watching the end of Gone with the Wind, when Clark Gable says the word "damn" and everyone gasps "Oh dear! We've never been so shocked in our entire lives!" - and nobody noticed any of this?

(There, the run-on sentence to beat all run-on sentences).

I mean, seriously, people. If you hadn't read the book, at least wiki for it to see if it's for kids or not. And if you don't want your kids to hear the word "damn", here's a thought - get a babysitter, leave your kids at home, and let the rest of us enjoy the DAMN movie! GAH.

Sorry to get so worked up about this. I just HATE ignorant people ruining stuff for the rest of us.

DeadPoolX wrote:And finally video games... well, I don't even need to go into that one.

Four words and a number: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. 'nuff said.