The Sandman (coming to Netflix)

arknor said:
why would it be weird? they are filmed for a mostly western audience since that's where the majority of netflix users are


Sranger Things had way too less black people as well and almost no LGBTQ representation.

just one lesbian and one two gay I think? disgraceful how unrealistic
Click to expand...
Because Korea is 99 percent ethnic Korean and if there was a drama say in a school and half the kids were white it would look weird.
 
banbom44 said:
Interesting you say that because the BBC and Channel 4 did a report on the lack of diversity in the England's women team they interviewed some Black girls and they said they could not get behind the Team because there was no one who looked like them but if a white person said i can't get into Basketball because there is not enough white people playing there would be outrage.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There would be nothing wrong with that statement as it's not being offensive to anyone. It's similar to Eminem, for an example. I'm sure Eminem inspired a whole wave of young white kids who picked up a pen because they saw someone like him doing something in a genre where they may not have felt welcome before.
 
Just finished binge watching all episodes. Really enjoyed it, extremely close to the comics, pretty much spot on with the casting, Tom Sturridge was excellent, kirby as death worked (never heard of her before), I even liked Jenna Coleman as Constantine despite thinking Matt Ryan was born for the role!

Roll on season 2 (There better be a season 2)!!
 
Junglist said:
Fiction, however, is where things get interesting. If you're able to accept fictional works with a personification of Death and dealing with demons and so on, then I find it bizarre someone isn't able to get past having a few black characters. If the actors are doing a good job and the writing is done well, why does it matter? How can you accept all the other bits but a black/minority/LGBTQ character is a step too far?

It's even worse in the LoTR thread. People can accept wizards, dragons, walking trees and various made up races and have a good time. Make one of those made-up races black or a powerful woman and suddenly the fantasy is shattered and it must be torn apart.

So in short; if something is non-fiction and based on real events. You owe it to the story and to the viewers to be as realistic as possible. If something is based within fantasy and not trying to be 'real' then it doesn't matter who is being cast for what as long as the story is told well and the writing is good.
Click to expand...

Fiction generally though is a mix of stuff based on established reality and entirely invented concepts. And the show makes no attempt for instance to establish it is based in a world similar to ours but with a different representation beyond throwing in a significantly higher representation of black/minority/LGBTQ characters whether it is an appropriate situation for them or not while still trying to portray something close to our world - so it just comes across poorly. Some of which are clearly there to tick certain boxes rather than in any way doing something advantageous - which is especially disappointing given there is both plenty of scope for representation in appropriate sections* and a rich level of diversity in the source material - which is well portrayed where it is realised on the screen (for example the character of Desire).

Honestly a lot of people need slapping around the head if they (a) can't see this or (b) just write the whole thing off as woke.


* Franklin for instance some might complain about the race swapping but it is an appropriate place for it and actually tends to work better given the contemporary circumstances of the setting (and a white guy really doesn't pull off that top LOL).
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
Take Sandman for instance and the gender swap of Constantine, no reason for it other than ideological purposes
Click to expand...
It may be that DC are keeping tighter reins on the John Constentine IP because there is another film (or possibly series) in development...
www.imdb.com

Constantine 2 | Action, Fantasy, Horror

Constantine 2: Directed by Francis Lawrence. With Keanu Reeves, Peter Stormare. Reeves will reprise his role as supernatural exorcist and demonologist John Constantine. Who, in the original is dying, but sticks around to save his soul by keeping demons in hell from breaching earth.
www.imdb.com www.imdb.com

When I first read The Sandman, I read them out of order. I read books with Lady Johnanna Constentine earlier than I read Preludes and Nocturnes. I didn't know the character John Constentine until later, and then with the Keanu film, and the (bloody brilliant) Matt Ryan TV role(s). So I'm not bothered that it's not modren John Constentine as such, but I do think it's potentially a little confusing for new viewers that she has the same name and face in both modern times, and in the past.
I know who Lady Johanna Constentine is, and how she is important to the Sandman story, which I think most people criticising her are not aware of her being a character created by Gaiman for The Sandman, as an ancestor of John C, and are just saying "gender swapped, oh it's so woke!!!". In the new TV series it's more confusing because modern Constentine also interacts with Mad Hettie, who is 280 years old, but then at the same time (modern) Johnanna Constentine doesn't believe in Dream of the Endless, at least to start with. But we also have Lady Johnanna Constentine accosting in the pub. Just change her name to a modern spelling. Make 2020's Constentine Joanna, Jane or something, and go with older spelling for her ancestor, when she's in Paris getting a little head (oh matron). But to be honest, keeping John Contentine as John Constentine, and Lady Johnanna Constentine as Lady Johnanna Constentine would have made it clearer that they aren't the same character, albeit they are distantly related.
 
seabiscuit said:
When I first read The Sandman, I read them out of order. I read books with Lady Johnanna Constentine earlier than I read Preludes and Nocturnes. I didn't know the character John Constentine until later, and then with the Keanu film, and the (bloody brilliant) Matt Ryan TV role(s). So I'm not bothered that it's not modren John Constentine as such, but I do think it's potentially a little confusing for new viewers that she has the same name and face in both modern times, and in the past.
I know who Lady Johanna Constentine is, and how she is important to the Sandman story, which I think most people criticising her are not aware of her being a character created by Gaiman for The Sandman, as an ancestor of John C, and are just saying "gender swapped, oh it's so woke!!!". In the new TV series it's more confusing because modern Constentine also interacts with Mad Hettie, who is 280 years old, but then at the same time (modern) Johnanna Constentine doesn't believe in Dream of the Endless, at least to start with. But we also have Lady Johnanna Constentine accosting in the pub. Just change her name to a modern spelling. Make 2020's Constentine Joanna, Jane or something, and go with older spelling for her ancestor, when she's in Paris getting a little head (oh matron). But to be honest, keeping John Contentine as John Constentine, and Lady Johnanna Constentine as Lady Johnanna Constentine would have made it clearer that they aren't the same character, albeit they are distantly related.
Click to expand...

IMO this is the problem with some of the changes done for reasons other than the what works best for portraying the show on screen - you then get stuff, where there are good reasons, etc., like this mired down with it.
 
Shocky-FM said:
3% for both in reality, although based on the representation on TV, some people might actually believe it's 50/50..
Click to expand...
We have far more South East Asians in Britain Indian's Pakistani's and Bangladeshis than Black people but they don't get anywhere near the representation its like the TV executives and media have decided that black people will be the dominant minority culture.
 
I really enjoyed this.

Yes some of the virtue signalling shoe-horned in there was a bit cringe but for the most part, a highly enjoyable series well acted by the main cast.
 
I'm finding it a slog.

Started it last week with the wife, watching an episode of 2 a night. Got two left, but while she's enjoying the "world building" as she put it, I'm bored of the crap dialogue and filler scenes.

When it gets a move on I'm finding it good, but not really enjoyed it since the diner episode though.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like this is pretty good?

I have no prior investment in this. So hopefully should be a good watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom