'Dancing With The Stars' Season 14 Dream Casting
'Happy Endings' Scoop: James Wolk On Being Max's Valentine
Why Bringing Neil Gaiman's 'Sandman' to TV is a Bad Idea
by Maureen Ryan, posted Sep 2nd 2010 1:00PM
Battle stations, comic-book nerds: A possible TV adaptation of Neil Gaiman's 'The Sandman' is in the works. This is probably a bad idea.
Of course, this adaptation is still in the early stages, and as is the case with most properties being developed for television, it's entirely possible (if not probable) that the project will never get made.
Still, there are quite a few reasons to treat the idea of a TV version of 'Sandman,' which tells the story of the Dream (or Morpheus) and his similarly powerful siblings, with extreme caution. I say that despite reading that 'Supernatural' creator Eric Kripke may take the lead role in the development of the 'Sandman' series.
Those who've read my work in the past will know that I'm a serious 'Supernatural' fan, and whatever ups and downs that show may have had over the past five seasons, Kripke's ability to mine the moral and emotional potential of genre fare has proved to be exceptional.
So it's not that I think Kripke (who isn't officially on board yet) isn't the right guy for the job. It's just that I'm not sure the job can or should be done. After the jump are just five of the reasons why I think a 'Sandman' adaptation is probably a bad idea.
1. Money. The world created by Gaiman and the artists he collaborated with is imaginative, exotic and downright strange, and despite the fact that special effects budgets have come down and many visual flights of fancy are now achievable on TV budgets, I can't see any broadcast network putting up the kind of dough this project would require. If they did, they'd probably ensure that 'Sandman' was changed beyond recognition ("This week on 'Sandman,' Morpheus investigates the murder of two attractive, scantily clad co-eds who once dreamed of kissing each other!"). Cable networks might be willing to take a chance on this kind of distinctive fare, but it would probably be too expensive for any network aside from HBO, which already has a pricey fantasy series in the works (George R.R. Martin's 'Game of Thrones' arrives in 2011). And it's worth noting that a previous HBO attempt to make a 'Sandman' series foundered.
2. Format. 'Sandman' is essentially an anthology of different tales, many of which build on what came before, but the tales it tells vary widely and ramble across time and space (and that's just part of the appeal of the story). Would a TV network take a chance on an anthology-style set of stories rather than on a straightforward, linear tale? I doubt it. If 'Sandman' were jammed into the latter mode, it would choke off a lot of the digressions that make it so interesting. AMC has bet big on "The Walking Dead' -- that comic-book adaptation, which arrives Oct. 31, has already gotten a second-season pickup before a single episode has aired. But from what I understand of that Robert Kirkman tale (which I haven't read but hope to soon), it's more straightforward than the trippy 'Sandman.'
3. Expectations. The fans of a classic novel or comic book probably already have the dream version of that story in their minds (that's one reason that 'Game of Thrones' fans are avidly following -- and worrying about -- the HBO adaptation). For every successful adaptation, a la the Peter Jackson 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, there are dozens of page-to-screen translations that fall flat. Sometimes that's because what works spectacularly in one arena may just not hold up in another -- many of the qualities that made 'Watchmen' a classic graphic novel just didn't translate in the film version that came out last year. 'Watchmen' was long thought unfilmable, and Zack Snyder's hamfisted, literal-minded attempt to tell that multi-layered story didn't exactly put that theory to rest.
4. Courage. Even if the writing staff, directors and actors were on board to make the most kick-ass version of 'Sandman' possible, network executives, most of whom are quite risk-averse these days, would still likely quake at the thought of actually making this weird story about super-powerful beings and their odd adventures. I was actually relieved when a television adaptation of Bill Willingham's amazing comic-book series 'Fables' died on the vine. To make that story of fairy-tale characters locked in an increasingly terrifying war, you'd have to really commit to the idea of Goldilocks as a homicidal revolutionary. I couldn't see ABC -- or any other network -- being OK with that.
5. Characters. Like most nerds, I love the 'Sandman' series -- visually and philosophically, it raised the game of the entire comic-book medium. But Morpheus as the lead character of a television show? I'm not sure I see it, unless it involved the casting coup of the century. Don't get me wrong, the character works well as the anchor of the unconventional 'Sandman' universe, but he's also by turns grumpy, dreamy, haughty and selfish. His sister Death is a whole lot more perky and endearing (no, really) and I could easily see her starring in a series of her own, but hoping for that is probably the silliest dream of all.
What do you think? Would you like to see what Kripke (or possibly another writer) would make of 'Sandman' on the small screen? Do you think it can -- or should -- be done? Sound off in comments.
12 Comments