Why Netflix's 'The Sandman' Failed. [41:36-46:38]

Netflix's Sandman just can't seem to make up its mind. Is it a sequential narrative, or is it an anthology? Is it just Dream Story, or can we switch protagonist? Is Dream capable of change, or would he rather die? Is it faithful to the original, or is it reinventing this story for a new medium? It feels like we haven't fully escaped the creative differences, which kept Sandman in development for so many years. How do you make Sandman commercially viable without compromising what Sandman fundamentally is? Fair enough, this adaptation actually made it to air, and without feeling the need to add mechanical spiders. Despite all my belly aching, I can't say it entirely fails to recapture the spirit of the comics. Many of my favourite moments are brought to life wonderfully, inspired by the original, but more than just a carbon copy. I've mentioned 24-7, but there's also the sound of her wings, Dream of a thousand cats, the scenes with hobgaddling, the demon jewel and Lucifer quitting hell, reading Heinberg talk about his work on the show, makes it clear he has a genuine passion for this story, and that passion is clearly visible on the screen. However, that passion is hampered by convention, not just the convention of TV in general, but the convention of Netflix adaptations. Netflix has taken on a bunch of unadaptable comics and anime, and made a formula out of adapting them. So long as the adaptation looks kind of similar to the original and recreates its most memorable moments, it'll get the fans talking, and in this post-Internet age, fanbases have more of a voice, which means they're a valuable marketing tool, and they can generally be appeased by appealing to nostalgia. Or even if the adaptations bad, fans will still tune in, intrigued by the audacity of adapting the unadaptable. The strategy relies on exploiting the cultural cache of the source material. That's hardly new for adaptations, but instead of targeting casual audiences who vaguely heard of the original, it targets those who will most recognize it. That's why it has to be so faithful, but only on a surface level, because it's not about recapturing the spirit of the original, it's about reminding people how the original made them feel. But here's the thing, even the original Sandman comic wasn't exactly a commercial smash hit. Sandman had gained notoriety by winning some awards, but the audience was small. It only became the best-selling comic of its time because the mainstream industry went into decline. Publishers had gone all in on selling to collectors, oversaturating the market and causing the bubble to burst. So while Superman and Batman sales plummeted, Sandman sales remained the same. Sandman was never intended for a large audience. It was only given to Gaiman because DC wanted to publish another comic he'd written, but were concerned he didn't have any name recognition, so they gave him a monthly comic to write whatever he wanted, and what he wanted to write was a weird indie comic. It's only through a perfect storm of circumstances that Sandman gained the prestige it did. So if you ask me, I'd say the Sandman comic is unadaptable, but less because of the inherent differences between comics and TV. Rather, it's because we live in a capitalist hellscape. It's not that I think there's no artistry in adaptation. I've made a bunch of videos about that, but often the reason an adaptation even gets made is because the source material comes with an inbuilt audience, and a reputation which makes it easier to sell to new audiences. Often the skill of adaptation is finding a way to be creative without harming marketability. Sandman can't do that. It's just not the sort of thing that'll ever appeal to a large audience. It's not going to cut through to the casual viewer. It's never going to be the sort of moneymaker that lives up to the comics reputation. Any attempt at adapting Sandman is always going to suffer this tug of war between art and profit, and either it will change or it will die. Netflix as Sandman kind of does both. And this is normally the point where I would say ignore the adaptation and go read the books instead, but obviously Gameman is not an artist I'd recommend supporting right now. Instead, I encourage you to find other indie artists and support them, not just because they benefit more from your support, although yes, not just to challenge the corporatisation of art, although yes. But personally, I much prefer a story that appeals to a small audience very, very well, than a story that appeals to a large audience just fine.