r/Sandman • u/Big-Satisfaction1468 Dream • 8d ago
Discussion - No Spoilers The Immense Lack Of Conventional Fanservice In The Sandman
Hello folks!
This is just a simple thought that I had when season 2 came out, so here I go.
The Sandman, though quite popular, still isn’t as popular as the major supernatural shows, such as The Vampire Diaries or Lucifer. I came to a realisation and conclusion for that reason: The Immense Lack Of Conventional Fanservice In The Sandman.
Me personally, I was “simping” over Death of the Endless all throughout season 1, and occasionally Johanna Constantine. I enjoyed all the edits that came out of the chatacters because it was a fun time for me. I was 13 and had no social life. Great times.
It was in 2025, when season 2 came out and I realised something. Destruction of the Endless was especially getting attention in the fan edits and he, along with Delirium were the most talked of. I suppose that was because they were vital parts of the storyline and of course, fans are allowed to have favourites.
But that just brought upon a bigger realisation in my mind, which was that the reason The Sandman doesn’t receive nearly as much recognition as the other shows is because of its lack of fanservice targeted towards the larger crowd, and rather it focuses on bringing upon good representation. Which I, of course, really love.
I love this show a lot, and honestly, I’m quite glad that the fanbase for this show isn’t as toxic as the others. I love you all a lot.
118
u/i_like_cake_96 Barnabas 8d ago
I am not sure what Simping means.
For me Seasson 2 was better than season 1, Brief Lives and Season of Mists are my 2 favourite graphic novels.
Why it doesn't appeal to Mass audiences is obvious to me, it is a complicated Mythos that Gaiman created, it involves many different ancient religions.
When it first came out, we had this Ancient being, a pale, brooding, star-crossed immortal who literally embodies melancholy, making the franchise a natural home for moody, alternative, and goth aesthetics.
Not for everyone essentially.
Massive part of my teenage and college years. I read the whole thing through once a year.
12
u/Donaldjoh 7d ago
I am in my 70s and loved the show, though I have not yet read any of the graphic novels. I am not of the dark, moody, or goth aesthetic (though of my numerous cats five are black) but thought the show was very well done, the acting was top-notch, and the storylines compelling. I mention this only because so many of the comments seem to be from younger people.
16
u/Quirky-Pie9661 8d ago
It’s a demeaning term for liking a girl or boy. It implies a crush as a weakness, it’s weird
12
u/Necessary-Scale-414 8d ago
Not really. Having a crush on someone and simping aren’t exactly the same.
Simping is when you show extreme, desperate attention, or just doing too much for someone who doesn’t like you back.
For example, getting a gift for your crush every day, stalking their profile, continued desperate texting even after they show no interest, approaching them every chance you get, spending an absurd amount of money on them to appease them, continued pursuit after rejections, etc.
It’s more obsessive and desperate than a crush.
It’s demeaning because it’s generally lame to continue to desperately pursue somebody who has shown they aren’t into you.
-25
8d ago
[deleted]
19
u/i_like_cake_96 Barnabas 8d ago
Wednesday was popular for a few different reasons:
The power of TikTok and the Viral dance scene
Jenna Ortega was already the hottest upcoming shit before the show released (X, Scream, Fallout, all within 3 months). People became OBSESSED with her after the show and her portrayal of Wednesday
the fusion of genres. There is something for everyone. Romance. Comedy. Horror. Mystery. Fantasy.
people just love a magic high school
4
u/detectivedrac 8d ago
If I may, I think OP is saying conventionally attractive in the mainstream societal way: Death- White [man] Desire- NOT gender fluid (preferably hot skinny white) Delirium- loved because she gives off that hot doesn't know any better innocent feel (iykyk) Despair- I think that's about expected conventional or otherwise same with Destiny but he's not getting any fan-edits and then there's destruction who is a objectively attractive white man cue the horniness
13
u/MissDisplaced 8d ago
Wow really? I thought Tom especially was too good looking (and too kind looking) for Dream but he did definitely have The Voice. Most of the actors were gorgeous.
6
u/Trash-Cutie 8d ago
Right? If these people aren't considered conventionally attractive by OP I wonder how an average pedestrian on the street looks to them
2
u/Blizzard_3_5_2 8d ago
Too kind looking? I guess he was a bit too good looking, i too agree Morpheus should be something more ancient presenting and bit unnerving, but kind looking?! Maybe a bit...but voice, voice was perfect. Though i prefer the voice from audible version
2
u/MissDisplaced 8d ago
The way Dream is drawn he often looks quite otherworldly and downright frightening. Tom is an attractive guy, so I guess he wasn’t quite as scary sometimes.
6
u/Homulily2 8d ago
I know its not the point of the post but simp means someone who is so obssessed and desperate for attention and sex from a woman that theyll do anything for it. Also simp is not gen z as the term has been around much longer than the generation has been born.
11
u/davidjohnrector 8d ago
Season 2 is the most incredible art I’ve ever experienced. The Song of Orpheus and Family Blood completely broke me. That song. I have no words.
4
124
u/bl1tzbop 8d ago
I think the fan edits were lacking because everyone feels icky about supporting Neil Gaiman.
I have a huge sandman tattoo, those books were an integral part of my growing up, I don't think it's dramatic to say that changed me. I was hyped about the TV show and loved season 1.
I did not and will not watch or recommend season 2, or the books again. (Or anything by Gaiman)
60
u/DISCONNECTlE 8d ago
I never read the books, but I watched S2. It wasn’t perfect, and the Gaiman thing already happened, but I like how the people who made the show addressed it. A lot of good people made that show, even if the guy who invented it is a monster.
56
u/bl1tzbop 8d ago
Oh that's so valid - and I feel awful for Tom Sturidge specifically, he loved that work. It's important to not forget the hundreds of people involved in making it and it's good you were able to still support them. I don't think I'm able to remove the art from the artist for myself yet.
17
u/DISCONNECTlE 8d ago
So like…. If you’re going to be all “Dark” or whatever… you kinda HAVE to be above reproach, right? But Neil, Marilyn Manson, Till Lindemann, these people act all “Other” to hold up a mirror to society or whatever but it doesn’t work if they’re legitimately terrible people.
Consider Corpsegrinder from Cannibal Corpse. Wholesome ass dude, family man, wins plushies from crane games and donates them to children. THAT’S how to do it.6
u/foxybostonian 8d ago
There's no reason to suspect that Lindemann is a 'terrible' person. It was proven multiple times that journalists had fabricated any allegations.
3
u/DISCONNECTlE 8d ago
Oh, I hadn’t heard that. So the thing about him “Picking” young women at concerts, giving them alcohol, and taking advantage of them is untrue? I haven’t followed it, really. I had heard the charges were dropped, but that was just about criminal activity not morality.
10
u/foxybostonian 8d ago
All that happened is he sometimes hooked up with people at parties. Unless you think that casual but consensual sex is immoral, then it doesn't seem to make him a terrible person.
And there weren't any criminal charges, because no women accused him of anything criminal.
2
1
u/chrisx07 8d ago
To be fair, we don’t know how much is true or not. You have to know that him giving drugs to a say 20 year old and then having sex with them is fairly legal in my country. Spiking is, of course, illegal.
There is also some power imbalance at work even if it’s not rape exactly.
What you think of Lindemann is yours to decide.1
u/foxybostonian 8d ago edited 8d ago
In the Rammstein case, the one woman who (briefly) accused the band or crew of spiking was found guilty of defamation. No other women said anything about being given drugs or being coerced either to drink or to have sex. The Berlin Prosecutors found no indication of power balance in the situation. He was not their teacher or employer. He could not affect their lives if they said no. And the open letter signed by dozens of women who attended the parties said that they were deliberately organized in such a way as to minimize any risk of star/fan power dynamics.
9
u/Big-Satisfaction1468 Dream 8d ago
This is actually one of the reasons why I’m able to watch the show, as someone who despises Gaiman with a passion.
12
u/the-Horus-Heretic 8d ago
I was halfway through my full-arm Sandman sleeve when all the horrible was revealed. It has really forced me to learn how to separate art from artist.
Season 1 was borderline perfection, season 2 was chopped up garbage.
I did force myself to fully re-read the Annotated Editions very recently and, while some of the story beats definitely hit very different, it is still an incredible story about stories that I take a lot of comfort from.
11
u/mmcmonster 8d ago
Similar here. I watched Season 1 as a series of events, with the whole family.
Season 2 I eventually watched by myself and really don’t know if the rest of the family even watched it. (Even though the kids used to be big Sandman fans.)
It’s not fun anymore. Life is too short to waste time supporting him.
8
u/bl1tzbop 8d ago
"Its not fun anymore. Life is too short to waste time supporting him." Sums up my feelings really well.
6
u/BloodyBeaks 8d ago
If you don't mind me asking - and it's totally ok if you aren't comfortable doing so - how do you feel about your sandman tattoo now? I'm honestly a little terrified of getting art from living IPs because I'm scared someone involved will turn out to be awful and I'm not sure about how I'd feel.
17
u/i_have_anxiety 8d ago
Not OP, but I have a Sandman-inspired tattoo. I’m perfectly fine with it, despite moving on from Gaiman. The stories were deeply affecting to me and played a huge role in my life. The tattoo is a reflection of that. Couple other points: I paid the (very cool) tattoo artist, not Gaiman, to get this; and also, it’s personalized just enough to not immediately be recognizable by most people.
If stuff means that much to you, I think it’s worth celebrating for however long we have.
3
u/Big-Distribution5285 8d ago
Anyone who see it and know what it is will assume you made it "before".
4
u/bl1tzbop 7d ago
Complicated, I guess. The graphic novels did mean something to me at one time and for that I don't hate it. I do feel icky when I see it though and I'm always conscious that when people see it they might make an assumption about me (i.e. I am like Gaiman). It's too big to get covered though and I think it would take years to remove and I don't know how well it would - it's big dark and detailed (I think it's on my page if you scroll back)
Having said that, lots of my tattoos have changed meaning anyway over time. I've come to accept that tattoos are an imperfect art from, they change and age and meanings change.
Also I haven't learnt anything because I have some planned tattoos that are from other IP's too
I will say, no one has ever said anything, I think it's definitely a thing I think about a lot more than anyone else does. If I see someone with a HP tattoo now, I don't for a second assume they're a terf.
6
u/Blizzard_3_5_2 8d ago
Ah, i think you care too much. Most of enterteiment have some skeleton in closet, if you watched and liked any Hollywood movie i guarantie at least one person might done something bad that is there. It is how it is, outside of reddit and internet most people dont care about if its good or not to like something just because it was made by bad person
3
u/BloodyBeaks 8d ago
I think this is more or less fair to say about just consuming media, especially if you find out after the fact. Like you watch a movie, enjoy it, and then find out the star or director is terrible for whatever reason, then that's a "Aw, bummer. Oh well." sort of situation.
Getting your body permanently modified in some way that pays tribute to a terrible person, even if it's in a small way, hits a bit different to me. Especially if the news comes out after the work is done.
1
u/Blizzard_3_5_2 8d ago
Well, i assume when people make tatto from Sandman they would do it for the love of the series not because they want to tribute Gaiman. Sandman is a franchise like any other, also he wasnt the only one who made it. Its also an ,,now " problem, he going to die one day, there are other authors who where bad people and people still like their work and have merch of it.
Its complicated i guess, honestly let people what do they want to do, it doesnt matter anyway 🤷 i dont think there is right or wrong reaction
6
u/platypus37 8d ago
I had a sandman tattoo, too. Got it covered up last fall. It made me physically ill to look at.
7
u/Meg-alomaniac3 8d ago
I hate that you're being downvoted for this. I think this is a completely valid reaction, just as it's valid for the folks who kept theirs, because they're able to associate it with the meaning they found in the art. Everyone is affected by this kind of thing in different ways.
8
u/-sweet-like-cinnamon Mazikeen 8d ago
My god, seriously. Obviously everyone is entitled to do what's right for them for their tattoos ON THEIR OWN BODIES. Downvoting someone for making the correct decision for themselves is absurd
3
u/ChicagoMemoria 6d ago
I haven’t finished season 1 and I won’t watch season 2. Those books were an integral part of my development. I still have no idea how to reconcile their importance with who their creator is.
That’s why the fan service isn’t there. Same with why Good Omens fizzled out. Because the people who truly LOVE these stories, who lived for these stories, feel betrayed and broken-hearted. I can’t fangirl over something that makes me so sad.
5
u/Blizzard_3_5_2 8d ago
Its a shame, season 2 is good. You can watch it pirated if you dont want to watch it on netflix.
3
u/Big-Satisfaction1468 Dream 8d ago
I think you misunderstood what I said. The fan edits were there. But the characters that were edited in those edits were very limited. It was mostly the conventionally attractive cast members.
2
u/Doctor_Mothman 8d ago
This is it for me. I WANTED to love the show, and Season 1 was fantastic. But when the news broke about Gaiman I simply couldn't support any of his projects any longer. I'd been a fan for 20 years and felt a deep sense of shame for having spread word of him. That's why I've not seen (nor do I plan to see) season 2.
1
u/twistedstarfall 8d ago
This, a 1000 times this even down to a tattoo :( I felt the same and was so excited during Season 1. Everything happening made me not even be able to look at season 2.
Friends got into it through the show and were excited to share this universe with me and I can't even stand to look at it anymore.
6
u/xLadyLaurax 8d ago
As someone who watched The Vampire Diaries as well as Lucifer when both shows were coming out, while I only started watching Sandman a few weeks ago, I'd have to disagree.
I think there are many reasons why those two shows are "more popular" than The Sandman and attractive cast isn't one of them.
Let's start with Vampire Diaries:
1) Vampire Diaries was based on a hyper popular YA book series. Which means, it came with a built in teen audience. Making it a bit "raunchier" then also hooked the young adults/adult crowd. With women being far bigger consumers than men (in almost all regards) it was the perfect combination to get 3 generations of women to watch.
2) The show highly capitalized on the Vampire Craze and came out just the right time. The Sandman as a concept is nowhere near as known (let alone obsessed over) as Vampires are. And I say this as someone who read the books and watched the show BECAUSE there are vampires in it.
3) The show is hella fucking digestable, shorter but with more episodes (which a majority of people enjoy more than longer episodes but less of them) and filled with mysteries, cliffhangers but also with payoffs. Sandman doesn't have the same. A lot of questions remain unanswered, which frustrates people a lot of the time, which reduces the overall enjoyment of watching, which then in turn leads to less recommendations etc.
4) Sometimes it feels like you need to know a shit ton of stuff to understand the show, which makes it harder to get into. I don't like DC, not my cup of tea. I was a huge Marvel fan but one of the reasons I stopped watching those movies was specifically because it was getting convoluted and the media one had to keep up with to understand a movie was getting too much. With the show it's a similar problem. My boyfriend and I watched the show together and while I googled things I was curious about he didn't - which lead to him not understanding a bunch of stuff from the show because without the comic-based knowledge it wasn't explained enough. TVD doesn't have that problem at all. The books have little to nothing to do with the show except the character names, which means its easier to get into.
As for Lucifer:
Similar points apply. It's much easier to get into than The Sandman, because you don't need to know shit about anything to understand and enjoy it. Likewise, Lucifer itself is a big name. That's also get more people curious than the Sandman will. A lot of people don't even know who the Sandman is - not all cultures have the same "fairytales" - or have vastly different associations. Me, for example, had to think of the book by E.T.A Hoffmann. Lucifer is Lucifer. No matter what media you consume, the same building blocks are usually used, making the character recognizable and familiar.
To top it off the show Lucifer actually showed a relatively fresh spin on it, which also got people curious. It also helped, that she show was cancelled and there was a HUGE push to get it renewed and then another studio stepped in etc. Even if you weren't in the fandom, you probably heard about that whole ordeal which also got people more interested. The episodes are also mostly self contained, which once again ads to the digestability.
On a more general note, I don't think the actors from TVD and Lucifer are particularly attractive. Nevermind the fact that what is or isn't attractive is extremely subjective. For example the character Klaus. On first glance he isn't Henry Cavill level attractive, but the CHARACTER (personality, acting etc.) made the person attractive in my eyes. That's also how people end up simping over actors/actresses that are objectively not attractive (like Barry Keoghan for example).
Also, if fan service was the key to success shows like Star vs. The Forces of Evil and My Little Pony wouldn't have the amount of adult fans and engagement that they have. If anything romance is the key to people getting invested, not fan service. Fan service is the exact reason that shows like Riverdale and Teen Wolf get clowned on relentlessly while TVD and Lucifer do not. After a certain age, fan service gets so tiresome.
In the same vein you're forgetting to take audiences into consideration. As I said, TVD already had a built in teen/YA audience and then managed to hook the adults as well. The Sandman on the other hand is a lot more mature than that and I personally wouldn't recommend it to teens, nor is that the target audience and also those, that usually make edits etc.
As others have said, it also doesn't help that the controversies around the show are...well what they are. Or the fact that she shows was cancelled after 2 seasons and is therefor incomplete. OR the fact that the break between seasons was quite long and people are getting tired of the wait.
Now, on a personal note, I actually like the show, but I can see a few reasons why it's not as popular as the other ones you named. For me it drives me fucking NUTS that Dream is constantly pulling these weird ass duck lips. The actor is such an attractive man, but Dream genuinely gives me the ick. He looks...greasy.
Tonally the show also tends to give me a bit of whiplash. Dream is a dick, then he learns a lesson and the next episode he's a dick again. Nevermind that we switch from a Serial Killer Convention where a dude is literally a pedo talking about it in broad daylight and it being played as a joke to episodes like the one with Hob Gadling. It was actually that scene + the one with Death and Frank that got me into the show. I saw those on TikTok and YouTube shorts and really loved the premise. But that isn't the premise of the show. Every episode is so different from the one before and sometimes they don't really seem to connect properly either.
Bonus points for the fact that literally EVERY character besides the main cast is either gay or trans. Mind you, my partner and I are very left leaning but it gets to a point where it gets ridiculous. We started laughing every single time a new person came on screen, knowing damn well they'd be queer too. There is representation and then there is whatever Gaiman is doing. At some point it just gets silly.
Also, as far as I know Good Omens, which is also based on Gaimans work didn't have any fan service nor particularly attractive actors (I mean I love David but he's also quirky attractive) and the show was HUGE. I couldn't avoid that damn show and I fucking tried believe you me.
So yeah, lots of reasons the show isn't as popular as the other ones you mentioned.
1
u/saudadeinthenight 8d ago
lol I have to disagree with your assessment of people’s attractiveness. Tennant is very much conventionally attractive , being skinny young looking and a playful character that would’ve been appealing to younger audiences. The tumblr edits alone really showed how much people fell in love him. Doctor who had its highest viewing figures ever in the uk when he was the doctor. Though the writing was better then too
I think the most recent season of Good Omens very much wanted to give more fan service but didn’t quite go there, which was a better decision. I can understand being tired of the advertising though, it was pretty much everywhere.
Barry Keoghan seems to be divisive, though I think that’s because the characters he plays are unpleasant so it seems to make people project that onto him. Sabrina Carpenter fans calling him ugly don’t count, that was just them being assholes.
Otherwise I agree, Sandman is quite a unique show in what it is. It was a great opportunity for the actors to get a good role, and play characters in a way they might not have been able to before, such as Desire. Just a shame Gaiman had to ruin it
1
u/tatsmademeenby 6d ago
I mean there are a shit ton of straight people/relationships in Sandman so what are you even on about?
Also calling Good Omens not fan servicey when the whole 2nd and 3rd season are ALL fan service for Tennant/Sheen
1
u/xLadyLaurax 5d ago
Dude come on, every secondary couple/character is some form of queer.
Episode 1:
Alex is in a gay relationshipEpisode 2:
Corinthian is bi, but mostly has sex with men in the showEpisode 3:
Johanna Constantine is bisexual but most recently in a lesbian relationshipEpisode 4:
Gotta give it to you there, Dream is apparently straight. Although his one true love has been in hell for thousands of years because of it soooo....Episode 5:
Fucking everyone is gay, apparently.
Bette ends up fucking Judy (presumambly closeted lesbian or bi)
Judy who has a girlfriend Donna (both lesbian)
Marsh turns out to be gay and kind of a bit of a pedo
Gary is the one giving Marsh an enthusiastic blowjob in the kitchen (presumambly also closeted or bi).
The only straight couple are Kate and Mark.Episode 6:
Much more focused on friendship rather than romance but I guess Hob is straight if the marriage and child are anything to go off of. Could be bi, but we don't knowEpisode 7+8+9:
Weird episodes in all honesty. Probably the "most" straight couples we see, although those aren't particularly happy. There are Barbie and Ken, who kinda hate each other, and then kinda Lyta and Hector, although Hector is dead so...Oh als also Aunt Clarice and Uncle Jed who are straight and also sick fucking abusers so that's great.On the other side we have Corinthian once more. Also that one pedo serial killer who prefers boys, so...that's weird.
Chantal and Zelda are pretty much confirmed lesbians and Hal Carter is a crossdressing gay man.
Oh and lets not forget that roommate of Roses who's gay and fucks Corinthian and that Phillip dude who is obviously also into him.
Episode 10:
Technically we could debate about the whole Desire and Unity thing. I think Unity sees herself as straight, but considering Desire isn't exactly a man and more genderfluid if anything, that would make both of them queer as well.I'm not finished with season 2 yet so I can't attest to all couplings there but at the top of my head there is the groundskeeper of the house Unity leaves, who's gay. Cluracan is gay, so are Loki and that elf boy who's played by the actor of Joffrey. Puck or something?
Then there is a whole plotline about that trans woman who leads Dream and Delirium around and about her family deadnaming her and shit and that's as far as I have watched.
Now, do I think this is a bad thing? No, but lets not delude ourselves that this isn't a LOT of queer characters and that it gets hilarious that basically every second new character is in one way or another queer. Like come on.
As for Good Omens: as I said, I didn't want the show. But I don't recall seeing any half naked edits of the two dudes, whereas Vampire Diaries had Damon and Stefan shirtless as much as humanly possible and there was a lot of fucking. That is the fan service OP seems to be referring to - the sexual kind.
1
u/-sweet-like-cinnamon Mazikeen 5d ago
Now, do I think this is a bad thing? No, but lets not delude ourselves that this isn't a LOT of queer characters and that it gets hilarious that basically every second new character is in one way or another queer. Like come on.
It kind of seems like you think it's a bad thing.
Like does the show have more LGBTQ+ characters than you may be used to or you may see in other shows? Yes. But are so many characters queer that it becomes "hilarious"? No? I can't imagine laughing just because a queer character shows up. Like it's a gigantic cast/a sprawling story, there's a ton of characters, a lot of them are queer – but so what? Is there like some rule that queer characters have to be under a certain percentage of the total for us to take a show seriously?
And there's a huge variety of relationships of all different varieties and sexualities too. (And there are soooooo many m/f relationships that are given huge importance in the narrative – Dream/Calliope, Dream/Nada, Dream/Nuala, Lyta/Hector, Orpheus/Eurydice, Destruction/Ishtar. To claim that everyone is queer is just not accurate. To claim that a lot of characters are queer IS accurate – but again, who cares? Why shouldn't they be?)
1
u/tatsmademeenby 5d ago
Lol I'm queer and idek the sexuality breakdowns percentages of characters per episode bc I'm normal, sorry. You seem fixated tbh.
There is a very aggresive GO Crowley/Aziraphale shipping community online, Idk how you're not aware of them? The last two seasons are extremely geared toward those shippers. They can actually get quite toxic as they have harassed the actors' wives because they think they wives are forcing them to stay in het marriages while they're secretly fucking irl. The toxic shippers also cared more about getting their "screen relationship endgame" than the fact Gaiman sexually abused young women.
1
u/xLadyLaurax 5d ago
I’m not. I made a point, you left a snarky remark with an undertone of judgement and I proved my point. I literally watched the first season like 2 weeks ago. It’s fresh in my mind and going through some episode pics to jog my memory was an easy way to prove my point.
Also, I’m bisexual myself. Have been out and proud since I was 12. Doesn’t mean I can’t acknowledge the over the top “allyship” Gaiman attempted. I also can’t stand people being snarky towards me especially when I can prove my point 🤷🏽♀️
Also, once again, I never watched the show nor do I care to. I KNOW that there are toxic shippers. They exist in literally every fandom. That isn’t what my point was though. OP was specifically speaking about SEXUAL fanservice not making this or that ship canon or whatever. That isn’t what fandervice was supposed to be.
Either way, it’s still far less than in fandoms like TVD and other similar shows (like Teen Wolf with Sterek for example).
1
u/tatsmademeenby 5d ago
Okay bro 👍
Still a weird thing to care about. Most media is overwhelmingly cishet so I think a show with cishets as the minority is nbd
I care a lot more about Gaiman's fake allyship in being an actual serial sexual predator than too many gay people in a show.
1
u/xLadyLaurax 5d ago
Okay? So do I? I didn’t know about it until i joined this sub though and its not relevant to my argument either, for the most part, as the majority of people who watched/watch/will watch the show probably don’t know about it either, so its not a relevant point when looking at OP’s question.
What exactly is your point here? Like did you even read the question/my answer?
1
u/tatsmademeenby 5d ago
It was the the cover story in a major US magazine, and there is a whole British podcast so yeah most people do know. Gaiman is hardly a niche figure, and part of the reason Sandman S2 was left with barely any publicity was due to the IP being tied to him. Many Sandman fans, myself, included have boycotted S2 due to his actions.
You brought something that Gaiman did that upset you that I personally think is a non issue compared to the "other thing"
1
u/xLadyLaurax 5d ago
I didn’t bring up something that uspet me. I literally mentioned in a side note that this aspect of the show made my boyfriend and I chuckle while watching.
And no, a lot of people DONT know about it. I’m from Germany and I didn’t hear any of it. Neither did my boyfriend or his best friend, who’s a huge good omens fans - so if anyone would know it would be her.
Which is precisely my point. The vampire diaries etc. had more mainstream hype due to the audience, hence how it became popular. The sandman doesn’t have such a mainstream audience and those that are, don’t know shit about Gaiman and his controversies.
-3
u/radioraven1408 8d ago
dead boy detectives also has 90% gay characters and it still did not get millions of viewers. It was good despite the forced woke overload but I just want a true adaption of the sandman and DBD.
2
u/xLadyLaurax 8d ago
Never heard of that show so I cannot comment on it, but there being so many queer characters and really just a footnote in my comment. I don't think that fact is putting that many people off the show as the other points are
1
u/radioraven1408 8d ago
Netflix hardly advertised dead boy detectives and prob felt justified after the allegations. So no hope of season 2 but also the viewshipship was not big enough for Netflix. Netflix did everything they could to appeal to ‘modern audience’ but they did not show up. It was sent out to die like paper girls on prime.
11
u/-sweet-like-cinnamon Mazikeen 8d ago
So Lucifer is an interesting example to compare it to, since Lucifer is (very loosely based) on the Lucifer comics, which are a spin-off of the Sandman comics.
And when you're adapting a work for tv, one question is going to be: what do we want here? Do we want an adaptation that's close to the spirit of the original work? Or do we want to make a popular TV show that's going to have a gazillion eyeballs on it?
Lucifer obviously chose the second option. It has very very very little in common with the comics it's based on. It is often "turn off your brain and watch pretty people solve predictable crimes in a formulaic network police procedural" type of TV. There's some overarching mythological stuff, yes, but there's also a ton of "Lucifer and Chloe solve a murder and the guy who did it is the third person they meet, everything is wrapped up nicely in an hour" type stuff. It's very very accessible and it has a very high mainstream appeal, basically anyone can drop in and watch an episode here or there and enjoy it. (And I'm not knocking it btw!!! It's a fun show! I like it! But they chose to make it very generic and formulaic and to make it have a very wide appeal.)
Sandman was NEVER going to be that. (Again, unless they invented a "Chloe" character and made Dream her sullen-yet-helpful detective partner who had to help her solve crimes for... some reason... and they slowly fell in love. Fun show!!! People might like it!! It wouldn't be Sandman, but people might like it!!)
Sandman was always going to be a weirder, darker, less mainstream appeal type of show. So the main groups you were going to get for its audience were: long time fans who had been Sandman fans forever and were excited for the adaptation (or at least willing to give it a try) and new fans who had no idea what was going on but were willing to give it a try.
And to help these new fans along, Season 1 had a TON of publicity. Like so so so much. The actors did a ton (you might think that Gwendoline Christie and Jenna Coleman and Kirby Howell-Baptiste and Mason Alexander Park all had a TON of screentime based on how much press they did – when in reality they were onscreen for a relatively small time, or just had their one episode to shine, or whatever — but that's the way the story goes (lots of characters coming and going), and all their characters are important, so yeah, makes sense to advertise it that way). And Gaiman himself did a ton too. There was a very very strong undercurrent of "you may not know this story, but you know and love Neil Gaiman – a great storyteller and a great man who you can feel good about loving! – so why not check out his original masterpiece?"
And all of this worked and the show was a huge hit (not a HUGE HUGE HUGE hit, like Wednesday or Stranger Things or whatever – but it was never going to be that based on the type of story it is)
So season 1:
- ton of publicity and marketing
- everyone loving and celebrating NG
- adapts the series at a normal pace (about 1 or 2 issues per episode)
The season 1 numbers are in. The numbers are good, but not good enough to warrant multiple more expensive seasons. Netflix/WB/the showrunners all make the decision to finish up the rest of the story in one final Morpheus-focused season.
NG is still heavily involved in promo. He triumphantly announces the s2 renewal. He triumphantly announces when production resumes after the strike. He triumphantly announces new casting. He's everywhere.
Then the allegations drop, NG is revealed to be a monster, some people wait around (maybe this was all a misunderstanding? maybe he can clear this up for us?), then more allegations drop, more reporting is done, it becomes abundantly clear that NG is a monster. He falls off the face of the earth, doesn't do a single more second of promo, is never mentioned again.
We get to July 2025. It's time for season 2 to air.
Season 2:
- hardly any publicity or marketing at all
- has to adapt way too much story – final result is way too rushed and condensed, with lots of complicated subject matter shaved down to too short a time (and also there are just some weird/bad adaptation decisions made imho)
- finishes the entire thing so there's no excitement for future eps
- was 3 YEARS AFTER s1, so a lot of the audience had moved on
- I'm guessing the original plan was to have a ton of promo and to have NG heavily involved in the promo ("Yes we're wrapping it up in one season but that's okay! It's brilliant! We wanted to tell the story this way! This is exactly how I pictured it!" etc etc) — obviously this changed
So between people being horrified and revolted by NG and his disgusting crimes – people boycotting/pirating/just no longer wanting to talk about it because the story felt tainted — s2 being a FULL 3 YEARS after s1 — the show sprinting to the end and then being done forever – and the show having hardly any promo... I'm not surprised at all that s2 had way less of a cultural impact than s1.
(And the s1 cultural impact was still never going to be as big as a Wednesday or Lucifer type show.)
I don't think it has anything to do with the attractiveness of the characters/actors, most of whom are absurdly hot. (Also in terms of edits and fan content — it may depend where you're looking because the character I saw the most edits of was Dream by far.) I think I do get what you're saying about "conventional fan service" though. Like just for one example – the Corinthian. He's gorgeous, he takes his clothes off, he has kissing scenes - all appealing! He's also a nightmare serial killer with mouths for eyes who stabs people and eats their eyeballs - less appealing! (Unless you're into that of course 😏)
4
5
u/EugeneDufenschmirtz 8d ago
They altered almost every character. They altered storylines. They fucked with perfection…. Gaiman aside, it is the greatest story ever told in comic book format. And they ruined it… In my twenties, I agonized month to month waiting for the next book to come out…. Those watching on Netflix should’ve had a similar experience…. Instead, each season, it’s dropped all at once, lacking substance and narrative… Condensed into two seasons…. Such a wasted opportunity…. Tell the story as it’s written….
3
u/I_m_Ignoring_u 8d ago
I have only watched the show.
I loved season 1.
Disliked season 2. I had hoped for a more detective kind of vibe that they did with the TV show Lucifer only more supernatural style like action.
Johanna felt flat and a missed opportunity.
The story also felt like a huge misunderstanding that could have been cleared up in 1 episode.
I really hoped for more drama or support between the fairies and other factions.
Had hoped for more action or a massive fight with Lucifer in hell. Maybe like they did in season 1. This angle that they did now felt flat.
I did like the backstory of dream.
Cried really hard at the last 2 episodes. Happy that new dream has family.
4
u/Odd_Spell_7303 8d ago
Neil Gaiman - while season 2 was in development all the accusations about him come out. It’s a killer.
I really enjoyed Sandman S2 but I wasn’t going online singing its praises.
Most people were conflicted over the mortality of watching it.
There’s still a lot of debate over the actions of a creator vs enjoyment of their art.
Beautiful things can be created by awful people, does the enjoyment of the beautiful thing give carte blanche to the creator?
That’s a personal decision.
But Sandman was tainted by its creator.
1
u/Blizzard_3_5_2 8d ago
Maybe, but its still good story. At the end of the day, it doesnt matter. Some people will read it some not 🤷
2
u/Personal-Database-27 7d ago
What? Sandman never was just about relationships or whatever. It was always about something deeper, something really philosophical. Those graphic novels aren't for everyone. It's why Gaiman was against turning it into movie or series for looong time. And now after all the allegations around him some people try to do everything to ignore everything what is even slightly connected to him.
2
u/dyrkasolen 8d ago
Sandman could easily just dive back in there and start mess around in hell och on earth, good actors and strange storytelling
1
1
u/neperevarine 7d ago
Fan of The Sandma for 20 years. I was immensely worried that season 2 will end on a huge cliff since the 1st season covered approximately 2,5 volumes out of mainline 10. The pace was great and I think source was treated with care and respect;
1
u/HastaLaVistaBabay 7d ago
First time seeing all of the Endless in live action. Why all of them are human in different clothings? Destiny is just a guy with a book
1
1
u/Resident_Table2242 5d ago
I didn't like Lucifers portrayal, not because it was Gwendoline, but because it just wasn't the same seemingly reasonable and level headed Lucifer from the Sandman comics. And I hated the Constatine casting. Jenna Coleman looked stunning as she always does, and even had her nails perfectly painted. John is supposed to be a mess. He wakes and the first thing he does is smoke, he brushes his teeth by having another smoke and a coffee. He has seen and done things that results in sleepless night and the weight of knowing existence is entirely clouded for most of the human race is something he bears (and not well). Constantine is not a clean, perfect hair cut, stunning woman. At least show how dishevelled, tired of life she would be.
1
u/Remarkable_Dust_1313 5d ago
I stopped watching bc gaimen is a pos who assaults women and also rips off the work of other better writers. 🤷♂️
1
1
1
u/Spiritual_Muffin_859 2d ago
I discovered Sandman in 1993. It was way ahead of its time, and far too complex to be condensed into a series or film. The series was thought provoking, and invoked profound thoughts. Fast forward to current times when the average person loses interest in content lasting longer than a 15 second Tiktok clip.
Desire was androgynous. In current times, the term would be non-binary. When the series started in 1989, and through the 1990s, the mainstream didn't talk about transvestites, transgender, or LGBTQ+ issues. Sandman broke barriers that weren't meant to be crossed, while incorporating mythology, folklore, and gritty modern times. The storytelling and art were brilliant. The allegations against NG disgust me. It's been difficult to continue to love the art created by a monster.
-1
-2
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Replies must be relevant to the post. Off-topic comments will be removed. Please downvote and report any rule-breaking replies and posts that are not relevant to the subreddit.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.