I would have been totally cool with that. The Asian market is the biggest consumer demographic of media on the planet too. At any rate I'm mostly upset about the casting because Death is inspired by a real life person, and had she'd been black there would have been large public outcry. This is just like Domino, completely phoned in on trying to capture the source material.
If the show doesn't care enough to cover her in white goth makeup, I don't care enough to watch such cheap and lazy crap. Same if Dream doesn't have those weird black voids with white dots for eyes.
>wait for that one butthole on twitter who'll complain that making a POC the representation of death and dying is in poor taste and offensive to the mortality rate of blacks
Remember we had people saying how fricked up it was that WandaVision had the visual of black women being shot by cops.
It sort of makes sense. Would be better if death was a black teenage male who just runs around sucker punching white boomers in the back of the head. That would be spot-on.
I get it's illegal not to have at least half the cast be black now adays but couldn't they have at least kept the goth look? The whole point of the character design is Death ironically looks young cute and harmless unlike the usual old man or skeleton depictions and is dressing in a subcultures fashion that's critics often say is trivializing death. Now she's just generic 30something stern black women you see in every other show who's only discernible style is a leather jacket.
Reminder that Gaiman is a sellout and a woke numbskull.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy his comics or books, they're still great. But don't expect any adaptation to stick to the source material. Personally, I won't pay first market price for anything from him anymore.
I am (socially) left wing myself, but I'm not a sellout nor woke. You see, being pro-lgbt or incorporating those themes is not necessarily woke, and his work for the longest time was a living testament to that.
Don't tell me I didn't understand his writing for calling out his ass.
I also love Pratchett's work. Again, I don't consider it woke in the slightest.
Woke works require a few qualifiers. Themes of dominant group guilt, group responsibility, equity over fairness, anti-individualism, critical theory and above all it preaches a message without allowing the audience to get to their own conclusion, more often than not to the detriment of the work's quality.
In that sense, neither Gaiman or Pratchett's work was ever "woke."
However, a person can "become woke" and endorse those ideas after the publication of their work. An indicator of this is a lack of good faith engagement, retroactively changing canon to fit modern interpretations, defending institutions regardless of whether they're doing good or bad, rallying behind bad actors simply because they're on their side... Gaiman did all of those recently by calling those who dislike Death's casting "racist", defending the corporation that wrote him a check and supporting Mark Waid of all people.
>Woke works require a few qualifiers. Themes of dominant group guilt, group responsibility, equity over fairness, anti-individualism, critical theory and above all it preaches a message without allowing the audience to get to their own conclusion, more often than not to the detriment of the work's quality
Is that an academic definition or an opinion? IMO if you squint hard enough you could apply that to almost anything, like Dreamwork's Prince of Egypt
2 years ago
Anonymous
I mean, obviously not an academic definition. But I'm trying to define "woke" in a more compelling way that isn't the idiotic "hurr all lgbt/slightly feminist/slightly racial stuff is woke" definition. >Dreamwork's Prince of Egypt
Funny that you mention it. Prince of Egypt is a religious story meant to demonize a group and victimize another, justifies the suffering of the innocent to punish the guilty and portray the belief system of another group as illegitimate. Woke or not, it can be easily classified as propaganda. It looks and sounds great, but still.
Whether it's woke or not I don't know for sure, as you point out, maybe the definition I provided is too wide as "woke" is supposed to have a left wing bias, even though some works, groups and individuals do the exact same with a right wing bias. However, I will say the following: I'm starting to consider "wokeness" as some sort of non-theistic religion and when you put woke stories and creators next to their religious counterparts... well, the similarities are too big to ignore.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>"woke" is supposed to have a left wing bias, even though some works, groups and individuals do the exact same with a right wing bias
Personally I think "wokeness" refers to lefty stuff in a modern sense and when applied (almost exclusively) to modern works, but the general idea is far older than that and is not necessarily aligned with left vs right. There have always been ideas of how the world ought to be, how people ought to behave, what is good and what is evil. Arc of the universe and all. A lot of religions tend to be these things too so it isn't surprising that there should be similar themes
I don't care for it because it feels too arbitrary and relative. Like that Captain Planet episode about anti-AIDs discrimination would've been considered woke in its day, even though it's a moral no-brainer now. Who the frick knows, maybe in 100 years from now "woke" ideals will be normalized and people will think us monsters for spending money on funny books and funko pops while children starved
Hes a spineless flip-flopper like Stephen King who has contradicted himelf on stances dozens of times ever since the Trump era; you can tell they have opinions that the left wouldnt like but they would never dare actually go against the grain.
I feel like he's more just canny about the trends and movements of his audience, and makes sure to keep them happy.
Like
I am (socially) left wing myself, but I'm not a sellout nor woke. You see, being pro-lgbt or incorporating those themes is not necessarily woke, and his work for the longest time was a living testament to that.
Don't tell me I didn't understand his writing for calling out his ass.
said, he's always tackled sensitive subjects about LGBT, trans, whatever, stuff that's now autoclassified as "woke" the moment you bring it up. He wrote about that shit in the 90s, and it was always handles well, it didn't pander, it had something to say. So fast forward to present day and that movement has radically changed from 30 years ago, and a lot of people in that movement are loyal readers, who pay for his meet and greets and talks and whatever. His actual modern works (books mostly) never seem woke, they have the same quality of handling sensitive or fringe topics as he's always had. It's just when it comes to adaptations, where there's a lot more visibility, he's probably just happy with the money, and when they cast whoever as death, doesn't feel compelled to fight it. I know he's said that stuff about keeping with the visual fidelity of a source material, but at this point why bother upsetting the vocal fanbase when you could just rake in the money
>he's probably just happy with the money, and when they cast whoever as death, doesn't feel compelled to fight it. I know he's said that stuff about keeping with the visual fidelity of a source material, but at this point why bother upsetting the vocal fanbase when you could just rake in the money
So he's a sellout.
>But don't expect any adaptation to stick to the source material by which I mean any type deviation from visual similarity IS WRONG!!!! >Oh but if the story changes even a little? Who cares. I just want to jerk off to my waifu. That's faithfulness.
some jap cosplay chick on twitter. she is perfect. too bad Hollywood sucks dick and ruin everything they touch. the worst is that Gaiman is an obvious sellout, ding this for the paycheck.
The thing that partly annoys me about the Death debate is that I liked the aesthetic. It isn't superficial to enjoy an aesthetic, comics as a medium are words and pictures, far too many people praise the "superstar" writers and forget it is also a visual medium. I would read a comic with good art and bad writing far more than one with good writing and bad art. Some might call the black and white design "basic". But Death felt like a person and was based on a person. I understand adaptations change things, but I remember even Gaiman talking about adaptations and how they can go too far and lose something.
It just annoys me that he turns around and attacks that notion, it feels hypocritical. I wouldn't have minded most of the Endless being of various races, but getting rid of the look of Death just felt silly. And most trolls or baiters will say it is because of the actresses race, but it isn't. Why adapt things and change them too much or too far so they lose all the pieces that made them up?
cuz he was probably told to change and to include black people in the show. and he agreed disregarding all he said and did before. as you say, that makes him both a sellout and a hypocrite. we dont really know how much power he welds over the show. Sandman isnt owned by him anyway but by DC.
Thats why I will disregard the show. it will be shit anyway. Constantine is a woman and not even with blond hair? Forget this BS.
Well obviously there was going to be changes and he claims it was colourblind casting and she was the choice they went with because she was the best choice. To what degree he has been giving to have a say or consult, none of us know. I lament what has happened but still it is inevitable. Adaptations always do this and authors are fickle. I remember how the Percy Jackson author was massively annoyed that a character didn't have blonde hair in the movie. In the movie sequel they dyed her hair blonde to fit the character. And then in the new Percy Jackson series, the girl is now played by a black character and he is fine with it. It is how it goes.
>Constantine is a woman and not even with blond hair?
She is meant to be Johanna Constantine who appeared in Sandman albeit in the past and not present. For me I don't really care because Constantine as a character has been battered already by his DC comics post-Hellblazer and the fact that every animated movie has to remind us he is bisexual and fricking King Shark or w/e. Constantine as a character is pretty much in the dirt but I still have Hellblazer at least.
I just wish they would realise that without somethings the adaptations feel eh.
Me too. I was simply relaying their general argument.
Honestly this mostly. I'm interested in a character that I not only read, but saw illustrations of over 80 issues. It's not like she's predominantly defined by just her clothes either, they point out how pale she is several times. I've got a mental picture of the character that I've become invested in, which is directly backed up by the source material art. So when they cast someone who doesn't match that mental image remotely, it's just jarring and off-putting. Like if they got some fatass to play Morpheus, and I was told that my complaints about inaccuracy weren't valid because of body positivity
>over 80 issues
Sometimes it feels like thinking about the art has become a dirty word. Like I said, this is a medium between picture and word. Aesthetics and designs matter and make up a world. Would Spider-Man have succeeded not for his designs, his villains and their make up and the world drawn by Ditko? Go on any forum, including this one, and people will mention a writer or name like Hickman, but not who is drawing that current series. These designs are important and sometimes they so callously toss them aside even when they have meaning to them. And nowadays they constantly denigrate them. I am not a fool to think there won't be changes, but half the time they really stick it to you when they do change things, and for no real reason.
>Would Spider-Man have succeeded not for his designs, his villains and their make up and the world drawn by Ditko?
None of the villains look anything like Ditko's designs in the movies except Sandman and literally nobody gives a shit about Sandman in Spider-Man 3. Yet you don't shit on Raimi movies while foaming from your mouth.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>None of the villains look anything like Ditko's designs
Doc Oc isn't very different, and people b***h about "power rangers" Green Goblin.
Because they don't have the right to Constantine, you fricking idiot. Same reason they won't show JLI era Justice League. So they're using Johanna instead of John wnd expanded the role to suit thr series, because Gaiman created her in Sandman and thus can use her.
https://i.imgur.com/WPRMidR.jpg
Well obviously there was going to be changes and he claims it was colourblind casting and she was the choice they went with because she was the best choice. To what degree he has been giving to have a say or consult, none of us know. I lament what has happened but still it is inevitable. Adaptations always do this and authors are fickle. I remember how the Percy Jackson author was massively annoyed that a character didn't have blonde hair in the movie. In the movie sequel they dyed her hair blonde to fit the character. And then in the new Percy Jackson series, the girl is now played by a black character and he is fine with it. It is how it goes.
>Constantine is a woman and not even with blond hair?
She is meant to be Johanna Constantine who appeared in Sandman albeit in the past and not present. For me I don't really care because Constantine as a character has been battered already by his DC comics post-Hellblazer and the fact that every animated movie has to remind us he is bisexual and fricking King Shark or w/e. Constantine as a character is pretty much in the dirt but I still have Hellblazer at least.
I just wish they would realise that without somethings the adaptations feel eh.
>For me I don't really care because Constantine as a character has been battered already by his DC comics post-Hellblazer and the fact that every animated movie has to remind us he is bisexual and fricking King Shark or w/e. Constantine as a character is pretty much in the dirt
This really highlights the hypocrisy and completely superficial nature of "fans" who can be always found whining about actual accurate depiction of the character (what happened to sticking to the source material being a sacrament?) like John's bisexuality, but then they turn and act like religious zealots about superficial visuals.
John's bisexuality has been a thing since Hellblazer #51 where it was introduced as a natural part of the character's development. You probably weren't even a bugle in your dad's ball sack at that point.
2 years ago
Anonymous
i love issues like that >john just sat thinking to himself nearly having a mental breakdown because of some old women
Honestly this mostly. I'm interested in a character that I not only read, but saw illustrations of over 80 issues. It's not like she's predominantly defined by just her clothes either, they point out how pale she is several times. I've got a mental picture of the character that I've become invested in, which is directly backed up by the source material art. So when they cast someone who doesn't match that mental image remotely, it's just jarring and off-putting. Like if they got some fatass to play Morpheus, and I was told that my complaints about inaccuracy weren't valid because of body positivity
You are being superficial when you judge everything solely on superficial visuals and call any changes or differences automatically bad and then claim the entire project itself is bad because it looks different.
You getting your feelings hurt when the author says it's the character's personality and actions that matter, now how they look just further shows your deep vanity and how little you care about anything except how someone looks.
>And most trolls or baiters will say it is because of the actresses race, but it isn't.
Kinda funny how you make it entirely about her race and how she looks then.
>Why adapt things and change them too much or too far so they lose all the pieces that made them up?
It's time to grow the frick up and understand adaptations change things all the time and especially on TV they need to accommodate to budget limitations, etc. And change is never automatically bad unless you're a neckbeard. You more than likely love countless adaptations where you never saw or read the source material and were cool with it how the movie/tv show ended up because you were being entirely open qnd objective instead of completely autistic and biased little nerd.
Reactionary people like you are such fricking idiots they would be throwing tantrums over Jackie Brown the second the casting decision was announced and write off the movie as "woke" and keep b***hing about it for months without seeing a single frame of film.
>You are being superficial when you judge everything solely on superficial visuals and call any changes or differences automatically bad and then claim the entire project itself is bad because it looks different.
It's not because it looks different, it's because it looks nothing like what it is supposed to be adapting, which is particularly wrong considering that it is a visual adaptation of a visual medium. almost all adaptations are somewhat different in some ways but the difference is whether or not one can look at them at recognize what it is that is being adapted
>You getting your feelings hurt when the author says it's the character's personality and actions that matter
They completely matter, but it's not like looks don't. don't you recognize people by how they look? don't you associate certain visual characteristics to those that you know and grow attached to them? looks matter, especially when they are as iconic as Death's, plus it isn't like you can't get one without the other, many adaptations in the past have accurately portrayed both the character's appearance and their personality
>Kinda funny how you make it entirely about her race and how she looks then.
The issue literally is about how she looks
>It's time to grow the frick up and understand adaptations change things all the time and especially on TV they need to accommodate to budget limitations, etc. And change is never automatically bad unless you're a neckbeard
it is when it changes the main aspects that make the character who they are, it would be like showing Judge Dredd's face for no reason and, oh wait, the have already done it and people hated it, because fans know that Dredd's face is never shown, and if you can't accurately bring core characteristics of whatever character you're adapting, then where's the joke then? just because a ceratin adaptation was limited in some way, it doesn't make it any better of an adaptation, so why do it in the first place?
If she was Asian the show will have zero discussion and get memory holed. Nobody cared about sandman or it being true to the comic. Even if she was white the Netflix adaptation won't be accurate like every comic to video medium.
The only true comic book fans that care about accuracy is Superman fans.
>If you don't cast Death as a white woman it's woke garbage! Respect the source material and do not deviate from it! >Oh but you absolutely could cast her as Asian because I have a yellow fever so who gives a frick about the source material
Everyone in this thread is a giant culture war waging moron and a hypocrite with a capital H
You are being superficial when you judge everything solely on superficial visuals and call any changes or differences automatically bad and then claim the entire project itself is bad because it looks different.
You getting your feelings hurt when the author says it's the character's personality and actions that matter, now how they look just further shows your deep vanity and how little you care about anything except how someone looks.
>And most trolls or baiters will say it is because of the actresses race, but it isn't.
Kinda funny how you make it entirely about her race and how she looks then.
>Why adapt things and change them too much or too far so they lose all the pieces that made them up?
It's time to grow the frick up and understand adaptations change things all the time and especially on TV they need to accommodate to budget limitations, etc. And change is never automatically bad unless you're a neckbeard. You more than likely love countless adaptations where you never saw or read the source material and were cool with it how the movie/tv show ended up because you were being entirely open qnd objective instead of completely autistic and biased little nerd.
Reactionary people like you are such fricking idiots they would be throwing tantrums over Jackie Brown the second the casting decision was announced and write off the movie as "woke" and keep b***hing about it for months without seeing a single frame of film.
god forbid you make it what people actually liked.
>He looks nothing like the Ditko villain design.
The casting does.
>And that's why you are called being superficial.
Well, we're visual creatures, anon. Keep pretending looks and designs mean nothing, when they're amongst the most important in any visual medium.
>And that's why you are called being superficial.
yes people want actors to have some sort of a likeness to the characters they portray
why is this a problem
>He's just a guy in a trench coat. He looks nothing like the Ditko villain design. Even wears sunglasses instead of goggles.
He does look somewhat similar, he's still recognizable, because most the main visual aspects are present, the 4 arms, the glasses/googles, somewhat fat, it's still recognizable (although I do agree it's somewhat of a poor adaptation, ps4 spider-man did it better). It's one of those cases where certain changes have to be made so that the character doesn't feel out of place or silly, like the CW's reverse flash suit, it has some black added to balance out the yellow so that it looks decent, later they introduced a full bright yellow suit that, while closer to the comics looked ridiculous on screen. Pretty much nobody has problems with changes made to the characters in order to be adapted when the main visual aspects are respected, take Batman for example, he has white eyes in the comics but not in the live-action movies but no one has a real problem with it, because you can still see them and go "oh, that's Batman, I recognize that character" because the main visual aspects that make up the character's iconic look are still present. The problem is for most people, when the changes made include changes to the core aspects of the character's look, making them unrecognizable, like Beast Boy in that Titans show or Death in the new Sandman tv serial. Death's look is iconic, yes she really doesn't have an actual body and changes shape all of the time, but every time something new came out, she had her iconic chalk white goth design, because that's her look, that's how people recognize her and that's the look people grew attached to, more when one of the most interesting things about her design was the high contrast between black and white and her style which is now gone, thus making it unrecognizable , and if the visual adaptation of a visual medium isn't recognizable visually, doesn't that mean that it isn't a great adaptation?
On the bright side, the new design is so incredibly bland it'll be forgotten. How many people do you think will ever remember the Netflix version of Faye Valentine, for example? Or anyone else from that Cowboy Bebop attempt of theirs, for that matter. This is just outrage marketing, because it's easy as hell and makes anyone that doesn't like it, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, automatically fall into the "chud" territory.
I think the visuals are completely secondary concern that does no make or break a good adaptation, while acting and story do.
The Japanese Full Metal Alchemist live action movie was utter garbage despite being faithful visually because the story was a compressed mess trying to force way too much material into two hours and the acting was cartoonish. Thomas Jane's Punisher is shit because the story is a hodgepodge of Punisher comics stapled together, Frank having dark hair and skull shirt or the Russian looking accurate doesn't make it good. Same way Bullseye wouldn't be any better in Affleck's DD if he wore a comic accurate costume. Meanwhile Michael Clarke Duncan played Kingpin well, and the entire issue with the movie not being good were cut out scenes and editing, most of which was fixed outside of Bullseye in the far superior Director's Cut. Batman Returns is good despite changing almost everything down to the way Penguin and Catwoman look and their origins because the core story and performances were good. Liam Neesom's Ra's al Ghul looks nothing like the comic version but works well. Batman and Robin's Ivy and Bane are accurate but don't save the movie being shit because their visuals are just that, superficial tapestry around horrible toyetic live action cartoon and nonsensical writing. The Batman's Riddler is almost nothing like the comic version down to his motivation but it's still great movie and fun use of the character. The Singer X-men movies are fun despite the costumes being entirely bland and forgettable and people like Toad, Iceman, Lady Deathstrike, etc. being unrecognisable. Liev Schreiber was great as Sabertooth despite not looking anything like the part and was one of the few things in an otherwise shitty movie.
You need to grow up and start to accept juvenile "it's doesn't look exactly the same!" is shit tier criticism and doesn't actually say anything about whether or not the adaptation is good outside of fanboy pet peeves.
>I think the visuals are completely secondary concern that does no make or break a good adaptation, while acting and story do.
I disagree visuals are as important as other elements if we are going to judge an adaptation as an adaptation, this being the transfer of something from an art medium to another. if it fails to transfer this elements it is a bad adaptation because it doesn't do what an adaptation is suppossed to do, transfer elements. However, just because something is faithful doesn't automatically mean it's good, I do agree with that, by that logic Green Lantern with Ryan Reynolds would be a great movie, but it isn't, it is a good adaptation but a bad movie overall >Thomas Jane's Punisher is shit because the story is a hodgepodge of Punisher comics stapled together, Frank having dark hair and skull shirt or the Russian Thomas Jane's Punisher is shit because the story is a hodgepodge of Punisher comics stapled together, Frank having dark hair and skull shirt or the Russian looking accurate doesn't make it good
I've never said that it would, you seem to believe that it's one or the other, while I see both as equally important and something that we should strive for (plus, the frankenstein storyline is just another example of failing to adapt something)
>Batman Returns is good despite changing almost everything down to the way Penguin and Catwoman look and their origins because the core story and performances were good
The Burton Batman movies are good movies, not good adaptations
>The Batman's Riddler is almost nothing like the comic version down to his motivation but it's still great movie and fun use of the character
then it isn't the Riddler, Gotham did a more grounded adaptation pretty decently that respected the character (well, before everything went nuts after season 3)
Basically I agree that good adaptations do not equal good movies, but that doesn't mean that we as consumer shouldn't expect good movies to also be good adaptations when there have been many movies that have shown us that the two are possible, like Dredd 2012. I like Dredd 2012 because it's a good example of a good movie that's also a good adaptation of a comic book, which despite it's small changes (Dredd for example does not have comically big shoulder plates) the fans of the comics love it, because not only does it convey Dredd's character almost perfcetly, it's also a solid and fun movie, which is what I want in my adaptations, a faithful adaptation that is also a good movie , because if it a good movie but not a good adaptation, then it isn't a movie about the stories and characters that I enjoyed
>You need to grow up and start to accept juvenile "it's doesn't look exactly the same!" is shit tier criticism and doesn't actually say anything about whether or not the adaptation is good outside of fanboy pet peeves.
I don't need adaptations to be 1-1 in every aspect, because of that I don't mind Dredd's smaller shoulder plates and body armour in Dredd 2012 or Batman's lack of white eyes (which in the end TDK showed us that they looked kind of silly any way, I just want them to be good adaptations AND good movies, which movies in the past have shown us that is possible
>anything about whether or not the adaptation is good outside of fanboy pet peeves.
An adaptation is the transfer of elements from one medium to another, if they fail to transfer these elements (or just don't want to), but yeah I admit it, I'm a fan, I care about these stories and I'd love to see them brought to life in another medium, which is why I don't like when the so called adaptations don't have these stories and instead just have completely different people that just share names with the characters.
>I think the visuals are completely secondary concern that does no make or break a good adaptation, while acting and story do.
I disagree visuals are as important as other elements if we are going to judge an adaptation as an adaptation, this being the transfer of something from an art medium to another. if it fails to transfer this elements it is a bad adaptation because it doesn't do what an adaptation is suppossed to do, transfer elements. However, just because something is faithful doesn't automatically mean it's good, I do agree with that, by that logic Green Lantern with Ryan Reynolds would be a great movie, but it isn't, it is a good adaptation but a bad movie overall >Thomas Jane's Punisher is shit because the story is a hodgepodge of Punisher comics stapled together, Frank having dark hair and skull shirt or the Russian Thomas Jane's Punisher is shit because the story is a hodgepodge of Punisher comics stapled together, Frank having dark hair and skull shirt or the Russian looking accurate doesn't make it good
I've never said that it would, you seem to believe that it's one or the other, while I see both as equally important and something that we should strive for (plus, the frankenstein storyline is just another example of failing to adapt something)
>Batman Returns is good despite changing almost everything down to the way Penguin and Catwoman look and their origins because the core story and performances were good
The Burton Batman movies are good movies, not good adaptations
>The Batman's Riddler is almost nothing like the comic version down to his motivation but it's still great movie and fun use of the character
then it isn't the Riddler, Gotham did a more grounded adaptation pretty decently that respected the character (well, before everything went nuts after season 3)
1/2
2/2
Basically I agree that good adaptations do not equal good movies, but that doesn't mean that we as consumer shouldn't expect good movies to also be good adaptations when there have been many movies that have shown us that the two are possible, like Dredd 2012. I like Dredd 2012 because it's a good example of a good movie that's also a good adaptation of a comic book, which despite it's small changes (Dredd for example does not have comically big shoulder plates) the fans of the comics love it, because not only does it convey Dredd's character almost perfcetly, it's also a solid and fun movie, which is what I want in my adaptations, a faithful adaptation that is also a good movie , because if it a good movie but not a good adaptation, then it isn't a movie about the stories and characters that I enjoyed
>You need to grow up and start to accept juvenile "it's doesn't look exactly the same!" is shit tier criticism and doesn't actually say anything about whether or not the adaptation is good outside of fanboy pet peeves.
I don't need adaptations to be 1-1 in every aspect, because of that I don't mind Dredd's smaller shoulder plates and body armour in Dredd 2012 or Batman's lack of white eyes (which in the end TDK showed us that they looked kind of silly any way, I just want them to be good adaptations AND good movies, which movies in the past have shown us that is possible
>anything about whether or not the adaptation is good outside of fanboy pet peeves.
An adaptation is the transfer of elements from one medium to another, if they fail to transfer these elements (or just don't want to), but yeah I admit it, I'm a fan, I care about these stories and I'd love to see them brought to life in another medium, which is why I don't like when the so called adaptations don't have these stories and instead just have completely different people that just share names with the characters.
2/?
cont.
>You need to grow up and start to accept juvenile "it's doesn't look exactly the same!" is shit tier criticism and doesn't actually say anything about whether or not the adaptation is good outside of fanboy pet peeves
Why is it that we fans are supposed to be okay with the so-called comic book adaptations that have nothing to do with the things they are supposed to be adapting just ecause they might be decent? I don't go to see an adaptation for it just to be decent, I go to see the characters that I have grown to like brought to life in a solid medium, if it wasn't this way, then why would I go to see the adaptation in the first place? Is it so much to ask from big daddy corpo to make a good adapttion of a character that's also a good piece of media in general? Hell it's been done before, many times and some of them recently, Deadpool 2 had a Cable that both looked and acted like Cable, same with Juggernaut in the same movie, Dredd in his movie, the cast in Captain America and The Winter Soldier, I want to see more of those, adaptations that faithfully bring these characters to life and are good while at it, why should I settle for just one half of the deal, is it too difficult for Mr.corpo to do that? and if so, should I consume it's product even if it's not good at what it says it's doing, that being a comic book adaptation?
cont.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>"it's doesn't look exactly the same!"
I don't need the characters to look exactly the same 1-1, I just want them to be the characters whose names they carry, again, that's why I don't mind the slight changes in Dredd's outfit or Batman's because the core elements of the character itself, both in visuals and in writing are present, and they aren't just present, they are well executed. The small changes do not matter that much if the main elements of the character, both visual and psychological, are respected and well executed, but when you change those, like changing an iconic look like that of Death's, which is the staple of her character much like the S in Superman's chest or the helmet in Dredd's are, or changing major elements of the character's whole, uh, character and stories like that Injustice animated movie, then those characters and stories are not the ones you are supposed to be adapting, and if that is that is case of a comic book adaptation, then I have no reason to see it
2 years ago
Anonymous
>like changing an iconic look like that of Death's
All you need as a visual cue for Death is the ankh. Everything else doesn't matter. You people are always trying to argue the entire character is just her skin color and then write off the entire show and refuse to watch it because you cannot like something if the actor's got black skin.
That is why nobody takes you seriously no matter you how much you try to play mental gymnastics and handwave other major changes in other adaptations as being different but I still watched it and liked it , while insisting Sandman now sucks automatically and is irredeemable because you just don't like the casting. Boil it all down it's just stupid fundie waifu mentality that you try to disguise as some kind of principled stance despite people laughing at you when you try to claim the Batman's Paul Dano Riddler is not the real Riddler and instead is a horrible adaptation because the depiction doesn't meet your entirely made up and utterly arbitrary standards.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>All you need as a visual cue for Death is the ankh. Everything else doesn't matter.
Ah yes, because when you tell a sandman fan to think abut death the only thing that comes to their mind is a chick with ankh, no goth no pale white no nada, that's why we're in a thread of Sandman fans filled up with pale goth girls ,that's why in (almost) everything Sandman related they bring back Death's characteristic pale skin and goth style, that's why they put that pale goth look in T shirts and merch, not just some random chick with an anhk, you see a dude in the street with an ankh T-shirt and you think "hmm, must be a Sandman fan", you see a chick wear an ankh collar and you think "she must like Death", and as a true fan of Sandman you don't recognize the character in the shirt in pic rel until you see the ankh
>. You people are always trying to argue the entire character is just her skin color
I don't argue that, I argue that a character's look is part of the character itself and shouldn't be neglected just like other aspects of the character shouldn't be neglected either
>cannot like something if the actor's got black skin.
I deeply enjoyed Shaft and Luke Cage season 1 thank you. In Death's case it isn't particularly because of the actor having dark skin, but because of them not giving Death her characteristic pale skin, those are two different things, IF they had Death have her classic look and then shapeshift into someone like this
https://i.imgur.com/KKyIo0B.jpg
>blabla the race of the endless doesnt heckin matter!
Ok but couldn't they at least still make her a cute goth? Why they insist on unappealing black women?
(while giving us doses of her classic look every now and then of course) then I wouldn't have a problem
>That is why nobody takes you seriously no matter you how much you try to play mental gymnastics
Who's nobody? are they here? if not then I don't care, and if they were I wouldn't care either, I don't manage my opinions in the basis of whether or not the internet peoples agree with me or not
cont.
2 years ago
Anonymous
cont. (forgot pic)
>despite people laughing at you when you try to claim the Batman's Paul Dano Riddler is not the real Riddler
whatever
>and instead is a horrible adaptation because the depiction doesn't meet your entirely made up and utterly arbitrary standards.
yes anon, I must admit that my standards are made up...by the people that wrote the characters, when they wrote the character and gave it it's own unique characteristics that make the character who they are in the first place
2 years ago
Anonymous
>by the people that wrote the characters, when they wrote the character and gave it it's own unique characteristics that make the character who they are in the first place
And then you cry they're sellouts and hacks when they say they're cool with this type of open casting because to them thr characters are more than their appearance. Once again proving how your superficial obsession about looks supercedes everything else.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And then you cry they're sellouts and hacks when they say they're cool with this type of open casting because to them thr characters are more than their appearance
You skipped the part where I mentioned the core things that make a character the character that it is, if this is disrespected, then it's not the same character as I have already argued, and if the creators endorse this, they are endorsing a bad adaptation
https://i.imgur.com/MUz5Qz1.jpg
[...]
god forbid you make it what people actually liked.
>Once again proving how your superficial obsession about looks supercedes everything else.
You keep misrepresenting my argument as "hurr durr, it has to be eggsacktly the same", which is not true since I have no problem with the changes to characters like Batman or Dredd that I've mentioned many times, I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story, that these elements vary from the way the character is written to the way it looks, that the looks, while not being the entirity of a character, are a part of the character and therefore should not be neglected and that iconic designs do exist. Now, Gaiman knew exactly how Death's iconic style looked, for that reason in everything he wrote Death always came back to that particular style,why? because he knew that it was Death's iconic look. Now, why would he endorse the neglect of this aspect of the character when he knew that it had become iconic, distinct to Death and loved by the fans?
https://i.imgur.com/GszNOjn.jpg
The thing that partly annoys me about the Death debate is that I liked the aesthetic. It isn't superficial to enjoy an aesthetic, comics as a medium are words and pictures, far too many people praise the "superstar" writers and forget it is also a visual medium. I would read a comic with good art and bad writing far more than one with good writing and bad art. Some might call the black and white design "basic". But Death felt like a person and was based on a person. I understand adaptations change things, but I remember even Gaiman talking about adaptations and how they can go too far and lose something.
It just annoys me that he turns around and attacks that notion, it feels hypocritical. I wouldn't have minded most of the Endless being of various races, but getting rid of the look of Death just felt silly. And most trolls or baiters will say it is because of the actresses race, but it isn't. Why adapt things and change them too much or too far so they lose all the pieces that made them up?
two words: sell-out
(cont...)
2 years ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/mony96H.jpg
cont. (forgot pic)
>despite people laughing at you when you try to claim the Batman's Paul Dano Riddler is not the real Riddler
whatever
>and instead is a horrible adaptation because the depiction doesn't meet your entirely made up and utterly arbitrary standards.
yes anon, I must admit that my standards are made up...by the people that wrote the characters, when they wrote the character and gave it it's own unique characteristics that make the character who they are in the first place
Why aren't you upset about the decades of inaccurate changes from the comics that influence story? Why are you trying to pretend you care about characterization when almost all of MCU and DCU are different from the comics and the average people who work on the movies never read a comic?
Death can be a pale white teenage human in a high-school setting and you probably won't care because all you care about is race and only race. Don't pretend otherwise. I will never watch a shitty Netflix adaptation with a TV budget, but you homosexuals will flood my catalog with the same predictable routine.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And then you cry they're sellouts and hacks when they say they're cool with this type of open casting because to them thr characters are more than their appearance
You skipped the part where I mentioned the core things that make a character the character that it is, if this is disrespected, then it's not the same character as I have already argued, and if the creators endorse this, they are endorsing a bad adaptation
[...] >Once again proving how your superficial obsession about looks supercedes everything else.
You keep misrepresenting my argument as "hurr durr, it has to be eggsacktly the same", which is not true since I have no problem with the changes to characters like Batman or Dredd that I've mentioned many times, I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story, that these elements vary from the way the character is written to the way it looks, that the looks, while not being the entirity of a character, are a part of the character and therefore should not be neglected and that iconic designs do exist. Now, Gaiman knew exactly how Death's iconic style looked, for that reason in everything he wrote Death always came back to that particular style,why? because he knew that it was Death's iconic look. Now, why would he endorse the neglect of this aspect of the character when he knew that it had become iconic, distinct to Death and loved by the fans?
[...]
two words: sell-out
(cont...)
(cont)
>Why aren't you upset about the decades of inaccurate changes from the comics that influence story?
I don't feel such a distaste for older dumb changes because the consumer's reaction won't have an effect on them since they have been out already for a while and the costumers of that time already dealed with (see Superman: Red and Blue, folks hated that and within a year it was normal Superman again), which isn't true for modern changes given that now the consumer's opinion has more power than ever thanks to social media and now it can directly affect the outcome of these changes, see Cowboy Bebop by netflix
>Why are you trying to pretend you care about characterization when almost all of MCU and DCU are different from the comics and the average people who work on the movies never read a comic?
I do care, the reason Dredd 2012 came out how it is is because the people involved in it were actual fans of 2000AD, from the director to the producer to Karl Urban (Dredd's actor) and the rest of the cast. It was Urban who approached the studio to play Dredd due to how much he liked the character and he made sure to let everyone know that Dredd would keep his helmet on, to which everyone agreed because the crew understood Dredd's character. Then you get western mainstream shite like James gun stopping John Cenna from reading the Peacemaker comics so that way he could butcher the character however he liked, that's why most productions of today are garbage, the people making them don't have any love or passion for the stories they are adapting, thus stripping them of any love or passion. At least the corny super hero flicks of the early 2000's had some love put into it, see Nicholas Cage talking about Ghost Rider
(cont...)
2 years ago
Anonymous
(cont...)
>Death can be a pale white teenage human in a high-school setting and you probably won't care
Yes I would, blonde, black or blue, if it neglects the iconic look then it isn't a good adaptation. But I would be okay with it if they kept her look and just had her shapeshift as I have already explained in (this of course if they respect the other aspects of the character, having Death acting like Death)
>All you need as a visual cue for Death is the ankh. Everything else doesn't matter.
Ah yes, because when you tell a sandman fan to think abut death the only thing that comes to their mind is a chick with ankh, no goth no pale white no nada, that's why we're in a thread of Sandman fans filled up with pale goth girls ,that's why in (almost) everything Sandman related they bring back Death's characteristic pale skin and goth style, that's why they put that pale goth look in T shirts and merch, not just some random chick with an anhk, you see a dude in the street with an ankh T-shirt and you think "hmm, must be a Sandman fan", you see a chick wear an ankh collar and you think "she must like Death", and as a true fan of Sandman you don't recognize the character in the shirt in pic rel until you see the ankh
>. You people are always trying to argue the entire character is just her skin color
I don't argue that, I argue that a character's look is part of the character itself and shouldn't be neglected just like other aspects of the character shouldn't be neglected either
>cannot like something if the actor's got black skin.
I deeply enjoyed Shaft and Luke Cage season 1 thank you. In Death's case it isn't particularly because of the actor having dark skin, but because of them not giving Death her characteristic pale skin, those are two different things, IF they had Death have her classic look and then shapeshift into someone like this [...]
(while giving us doses of her classic look every now and then of course) then I wouldn't have a problem
>That is why nobody takes you seriously no matter you how much you try to play mental gymnastics
Who's nobody? are they here? if not then I don't care, and if they were I wouldn't care either, I don't manage my opinions in the basis of whether or not the internet peoples agree with me or not
cont.
>all you care about is race and only race
I care about the characters and their stories, including all the aspects of these
>Don't pretend otherwise
I'm not pretending
>but you homosexuals will flood my catalog with the same predictable routine.
Mean, plus this is a free board
>I will never watch a shitty Netflix adaptation with a TV budget
Good, don't, they're garbage and don't respect the source material
2 years ago
Anonymous
I guess your not aware with how much you contradict yourself. Like is there any changes you find unacceptably beside race? I have a feeling that if they turn Sandman into a brain dead toddler show but made death white you will enjoy it
2 years ago
Anonymous
>
(cont...)
>Death can be a pale white teenage human in a high-school setting and you probably won't care
Yes I would, blonde, black or blue, if it neglects the iconic look then it isn't a good adaptation. But I would be okay with it if they kept her look and just had her shapeshift as I have already explained in (this of course if they respect the other aspects of the character, having Death acting like Death)[...]
>all you care about is race and only race
I care about the characters and their stories, including all the aspects of these
>Don't pretend otherwise
I'm not pretending
>but you homosexuals will flood my catalog with the same predictable routine.
Mean, plus this is a free board
>I will never watch a shitty Netflix adaptation with a TV budget
Good, don't, they're garbage and don't respect the source material
I guess your not aware with how much you contradict yourself
how >Like is there any changes you find unacceptably beside race?
yes >Sandman into a brain dead toddler show but made death white you will enjoy it
no
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I guess your not aware with how much you contradict yourself
explain then
>Like is there any changes you find unacceptably beside race?
Many, mostly failures to adapt important core elements of the character in all it's aspects, like character assassination and the neglection of iconic designs, I don't love Judge Dredd with Sly Stallone for the opposite reasons of why I love Dredd 2012
> I have a feeling that if they turn Sandman into a brain dead toddler show but made death white you will enjoy it
>Basically I agree that good adaptations do not equal good movies, but that doesn't mean that we as consumer shouldn't expect good movies to also be good adaptations when there have been many movies that have shown us that the two are possible
2 years ago
Anonymous
Gunn's version of Peacemaker was great though. A really good modern reinterpretation of the character and how to redeem him from a psychopathic killer to someone with deep personal issues but developing conscience.
>And then you cry they're sellouts and hacks when they say they're cool with this type of open casting because to them thr characters are more than their appearance
You skipped the part where I mentioned the core things that make a character the character that it is, if this is disrespected, then it's not the same character as I have already argued, and if the creators endorse this, they are endorsing a bad adaptation
[...] >Once again proving how your superficial obsession about looks supercedes everything else.
You keep misrepresenting my argument as "hurr durr, it has to be eggsacktly the same", which is not true since I have no problem with the changes to characters like Batman or Dredd that I've mentioned many times, I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story, that these elements vary from the way the character is written to the way it looks, that the looks, while not being the entirity of a character, are a part of the character and therefore should not be neglected and that iconic designs do exist. Now, Gaiman knew exactly how Death's iconic style looked, for that reason in everything he wrote Death always came back to that particular style,why? because he knew that it was Death's iconic look. Now, why would he endorse the neglect of this aspect of the character when he knew that it had become iconic, distinct to Death and loved by the fans?
[...]
two words: sell-out
(cont...)
>I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story
Yet you already condemn Death as bad purely because you don't like that she's played by a black actor, without seeing anything about how the core characteristics are depicted in the show.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Gunn's version of Peacemaker was great though
I wasn't arguing whether or not it was bad or not, I was just pointing out how that's how things are run in the industry >Yet you already condemn Death as bad purely because you don't like that she's played by a black actor, without seeing anything about how the core characteristics are depicted in the show.
Her iconic look is a core characteristic, plus I don't dislike her because she's black but because they have neglected Death's iconic look, as I've said before, if they had done this
>All you need as a visual cue for Death is the ankh. Everything else doesn't matter.
Ah yes, because when you tell a sandman fan to think abut death the only thing that comes to their mind is a chick with ankh, no goth no pale white no nada, that's why we're in a thread of Sandman fans filled up with pale goth girls ,that's why in (almost) everything Sandman related they bring back Death's characteristic pale skin and goth style, that's why they put that pale goth look in T shirts and merch, not just some random chick with an anhk, you see a dude in the street with an ankh T-shirt and you think "hmm, must be a Sandman fan", you see a chick wear an ankh collar and you think "she must like Death", and as a true fan of Sandman you don't recognize the character in the shirt in pic rel until you see the ankh
>. You people are always trying to argue the entire character is just her skin color
I don't argue that, I argue that a character's look is part of the character itself and shouldn't be neglected just like other aspects of the character shouldn't be neglected either
>cannot like something if the actor's got black skin.
I deeply enjoyed Shaft and Luke Cage season 1 thank you. In Death's case it isn't particularly because of the actor having dark skin, but because of them not giving Death her characteristic pale skin, those are two different things, IF they had Death have her classic look and then shapeshift into someone like this [...]
(while giving us doses of her classic look every now and then of course) then I wouldn't have a problem
>That is why nobody takes you seriously no matter you how much you try to play mental gymnastics
Who's nobody? are they here? if not then I don't care, and if they were I wouldn't care either, I don't manage my opinions in the basis of whether or not the internet peoples agree with me or not
cont.
I wouldn't have a problem > In Death's case it isn't particularly because of the actor having dark skin, but because of them not giving Death her characteristic pale skin, those are two different things, IF they had Death have her classic look and then shapeshift into someone like this
https://i.imgur.com/KKyIo0B.jpg
>blabla the race of the endless doesnt heckin matter!
Ok but couldn't they at least still make her a cute goth? Why they insist on unappealing black women?
(while giving us doses of her classic look every now and then of course) then I wouldn't have a problem
read my replies
2 years ago
Anonymous
>because they have neglected Death's iconic look
No, they haven't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Gunn's version of Peacemaker was great though. A really good modern reinterpretation of the character and how to redeem him from a psychopathic killer to someone with deep personal issues but developing conscience.
As I have already argued, good adaptations don't equal good movies and good movies don't equal good adaptations, and both can and have been achieved at the same time
>And then you cry they're sellouts and hacks when they say they're cool with this type of open casting because to them thr characters are more than their appearance
You skipped the part where I mentioned the core things that make a character the character that it is, if this is disrespected, then it's not the same character as I have already argued, and if the creators endorse this, they are endorsing a bad adaptation
[...] >Once again proving how your superficial obsession about looks supercedes everything else.
You keep misrepresenting my argument as "hurr durr, it has to be eggsacktly the same", which is not true since I have no problem with the changes to characters like Batman or Dredd that I've mentioned many times, I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story, that these elements vary from the way the character is written to the way it looks, that the looks, while not being the entirity of a character, are a part of the character and therefore should not be neglected and that iconic designs do exist. Now, Gaiman knew exactly how Death's iconic style looked, for that reason in everything he wrote Death always came back to that particular style,why? because he knew that it was Death's iconic look. Now, why would he endorse the neglect of this aspect of the character when he knew that it had become iconic, distinct to Death and loved by the fans?
[...]
two words: sell-out
(cont...)
>I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story
>Yet you already condemn Death as bad purely because you don't like that she's played by a black actor, without seeing anything about how the core characteristics are depicted in the show.
> I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story, that these elements vary from the way the character is written to the way it looks, that the looks, while not being the entirity of a character, are a part of the character and therefore should not be neglected and that iconic designs do exist
at least quote the whole thing
>because they have neglected Death's iconic look
No, they haven't.
yes they have? bro what are you talking about, are you trolling?
https://i.imgur.com/pnqsHVq.jpg
Eh, he could be worse.
Just to be clear, this dude's not me lol. As I have already stated I would have no problems with black Death if they hadn't neglected her iconic look by making Black Death the default, they could have had the iconic look and the black Death by just using her ability to shapeshift, everyone's happy
>because they have neglected Death's iconic look
No, they haven't.
No she doesn't look "exactly like in the comic" her skin color and features are totally different. You went from "Comic look does not matter" to "but she looks just like in the comics!", bro?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The only real difference is that her skin color. So you directly admit it's entirely about her race that bugs you even though design wise she looks like the comic counterpart with iconic black top and ankh look.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The only real difference is that her skin color.
are you clinically moronic or just trolling?
she looks nothing like Death even if you ignore her skin color
2 years ago
Anonymous
She looks like Death whose skin color happens to be dark instead of bleach white.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nah, she's not a goth, simple as.
2 years ago
Anonymous
When have I stated otherwise? I told you from the beggining that she didn't have Death's look, which is pale goth
>You are being superficial when you judge everything solely on superficial visuals and call any changes or differences automatically bad and then claim the entire project itself is bad because it looks different.
It's not because it looks different, it's because it looks nothing like what it is supposed to be adapting, which is particularly wrong considering that it is a visual adaptation of a visual medium. almost all adaptations are somewhat different in some ways but the difference is whether or not one can look at them at recognize what it is that is being adapted
>You getting your feelings hurt when the author says it's the character's personality and actions that matter
They completely matter, but it's not like looks don't. don't you recognize people by how they look? don't you associate certain visual characteristics to those that you know and grow attached to them? looks matter, especially when they are as iconic as Death's, plus it isn't like you can't get one without the other, many adaptations in the past have accurately portrayed both the character's appearance and their personality
>Kinda funny how you make it entirely about her race and how she looks then.
The issue literally is about how she looks
>It's time to grow the frick up and understand adaptations change things all the time and especially on TV they need to accommodate to budget limitations, etc. And change is never automatically bad unless you're a neckbeard
it is when it changes the main aspects that make the character who they are, it would be like showing Judge Dredd's face for no reason and, oh wait, the have already done it and people hated it, because fans know that Dredd's face is never shown, and if you can't accurately bring core characteristics of whatever character you're adapting, then where's the joke then? just because a ceratin adaptation was limited in some way, it doesn't make it any better of an adaptation, so why do it in the first place?
>The issue literally is about how she looks
One of the things that made her visually attractive was the high contrast between her ash white skin and the black of her clothes. and no, it isn't because she's black, but because by having darker skin it misses that visually appealing element of the iconic look, which I wouldn't mind if it had not been neglected and was present in the show, but it isn't, anything less than overtly pale just doesn't cut Death's look, and instead we en up with a poor attempt at replicating the look while losing one of it's most visual characteristics, thus making her less recognizable and a bad adaptation of the source material. Also, why do you suddenly care about it being comic accurate now? I thought that it didn't matter as you said
plus, as anon pointed out, the actress doesn't really look like Death at all, something I have already mentioned
Gunn's version of Peacemaker was great though. A really good modern reinterpretation of the character and how to redeem him from a psychopathic killer to someone with deep personal issues but developing conscience.
As I have already argued, good adaptations don't equal good movies and good movies don't equal good adaptations, and both can and have been achieved at the same time
[...] >I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story
>Yet you already condemn Death as bad purely because you don't like that she's played by a black actor, without seeing anything about how the core characteristics are depicted in the show.
> I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story, that these elements vary from the way the character is written to the way it looks, that the looks, while not being the entirity of a character, are a part of the character and therefore should not be neglected and that iconic designs do exist
at least quote the whole thing
[...]
yes they have? bro what are you talking about, are you trolling?
[...]
Just to be clear, this dude's not me lol. As I have already stated I would have no problems with black Death if they hadn't neglected her iconic look by making Black Death the default, they could have had the iconic look and the black Death by just using her ability to shapeshift, everyone's happy
[...]
No she doesn't look "exactly like in the comic" her skin color and features are totally different. You went from "Comic look does not matter" to "but she looks just like in the comics!", bro?
>her skin color and features are totally different
https://i.imgur.com/KKyIo0B.jpg
>blabla the race of the endless doesnt heckin matter!
Ok but couldn't they at least still make her a cute goth? Why they insist on unappealing black women?
this chick looks more like Death than the actress
and even then, a race change is still a huge departure from the visual characteristics of the visual medium this other visual medium are supposed to be adapting, especially with a character who's visual appeal relies so much in contrast. Yeah, you could say that it's just "that difference" (it isn't) but it would be like giving Superman a yellow and purple suit in a new movie and then defending it by saying that "the only difference is the color scheme" when people criticize it for straying away form the iconic look
(and yes, Death's original look is iconic and part of her character see
>All you need as a visual cue for Death is the ankh. Everything else doesn't matter.
Ah yes, because when you tell a sandman fan to think abut death the only thing that comes to their mind is a chick with ankh, no goth no pale white no nada, that's why we're in a thread of Sandman fans filled up with pale goth girls ,that's why in (almost) everything Sandman related they bring back Death's characteristic pale skin and goth style, that's why they put that pale goth look in T shirts and merch, not just some random chick with an anhk, you see a dude in the street with an ankh T-shirt and you think "hmm, must be a Sandman fan", you see a chick wear an ankh collar and you think "she must like Death", and as a true fan of Sandman you don't recognize the character in the shirt in pic rel until you see the ankh
>. You people are always trying to argue the entire character is just her skin color
I don't argue that, I argue that a character's look is part of the character itself and shouldn't be neglected just like other aspects of the character shouldn't be neglected either
>cannot like something if the actor's got black skin.
I deeply enjoyed Shaft and Luke Cage season 1 thank you. In Death's case it isn't particularly because of the actor having dark skin, but because of them not giving Death her characteristic pale skin, those are two different things, IF they had Death have her classic look and then shapeshift into someone like this [...]
(while giving us doses of her classic look every now and then of course) then I wouldn't have a problem
>That is why nobody takes you seriously no matter you how much you try to play mental gymnastics
Who's nobody? are they here? if not then I don't care, and if they were I wouldn't care either, I don't manage my opinions in the basis of whether or not the internet peoples agree with me or not
cont.
)
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're reducing the entire character to just her skin color, racist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Blacks have more rounded, exaggerated and childish facial features than whites. It's immediately and distractingly obvious. It's not just the topical color of their flesh.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I am acknowledging differences between the character and the adaptation, my perspective is just that she doesn't cut the role, and by acknowledging how the character look doesn't mean that I'm reducing it, just that I am validating other aspects of the character. Again, this is about fidelity to the source material, I have already explained how to have black Death while also respecting her iconic comic look. It simply is a bad adaptation since it falis to transfer the visual elements from the visual medium
>You are being superficial when you judge everything solely on superficial visuals and call any changes or differences automatically bad and then claim the entire project itself is bad because it looks different.
It's not because it looks different, it's because it looks nothing like what it is supposed to be adapting, which is particularly wrong considering that it is a visual adaptation of a visual medium. almost all adaptations are somewhat different in some ways but the difference is whether or not one can look at them at recognize what it is that is being adapted
>You getting your feelings hurt when the author says it's the character's personality and actions that matter
They completely matter, but it's not like looks don't. don't you recognize people by how they look? don't you associate certain visual characteristics to those that you know and grow attached to them? looks matter, especially when they are as iconic as Death's, plus it isn't like you can't get one without the other, many adaptations in the past have accurately portrayed both the character's appearance and their personality
>Kinda funny how you make it entirely about her race and how she looks then.
The issue literally is about how she looks
>It's time to grow the frick up and understand adaptations change things all the time and especially on TV they need to accommodate to budget limitations, etc. And change is never automatically bad unless you're a neckbeard
it is when it changes the main aspects that make the character who they are, it would be like showing Judge Dredd's face for no reason and, oh wait, the have already done it and people hated it, because fans know that Dredd's face is never shown, and if you can't accurately bring core characteristics of whatever character you're adapting, then where's the joke then? just because a ceratin adaptation was limited in some way, it doesn't make it any better of an adaptation, so why do it in the first place?
>It's not because it looks different, it's because it looks nothing like what it is supposed to be adapting, which is particularly wrong considering that it is a visual adaptation of a visual medium. almost all adaptations are somewhat different in some ways but the difference is whether or not one can look at them at recognize what it is that is being adapted
>blabla the race of the endless doesnt heckin matter!
Ok but couldn't they at least still make her a cute goth? Why they insist on unappealing black women?
>everything about this is a monsteosity >still gonna watch this trainwreck >me and millions of others watching out of curiosity means netflix will call it a success
Now b***h about how Charles Dance doesn't look like Roderick at all. Oh wait, you don't care about that at all and just want to whine when it's someone with dark skin. But you're totally not a racist, it's purely coincidental.
>a moron
cute ad hominem, are you upset? >where Roderick looks nothing like the comic.
that's Netflix for you - cheap as frick production value, everything looks plastic and lazy, but it's woke so rave reviews from critics are guaranteed
Sorry but asians are too successful these days so they rank lower then blacks who sit need to be up lifted which will probably never happen on the oppressed meter or how ever blackrock calculate it esg scores.
Hollywood producers don't care about minorities that aren't black.
I swear, you Anti-SJWs overreact to everything even worse then you say SJWs do.
definitely not the kind of thing an sjw would respond with to any comparison to anti-sjws
Say hello to your new Death, Cinemaphile
I would have been totally cool with that. The Asian market is the biggest consumer demographic of media on the planet too. At any rate I'm mostly upset about the casting because Death is inspired by a real life person, and had she'd been black there would have been large public outcry. This is just like Domino, completely phoned in on trying to capture the source material.
>character skin is GHOST WHITE
>turned black.
how do you frick up so hard
If the show doesn't care enough to cover her in white goth makeup, I don't care enough to watch such cheap and lazy crap. Same if Dream doesn't have those weird black voids with white dots for eyes.
are you fragile white incels tired of losing yet
Would've preferred something like this
because it actually looks like the source material...BUT I do have a a bit of a bias for black women sooooo
>wait for that one butthole on twitter who'll complain that making a POC the representation of death and dying is in poor taste and offensive to the mortality rate of blacks
Remember we had people saying how fricked up it was that WandaVision had the visual of black women being shot by cops.
It sort of makes sense. Would be better if death was a black teenage male who just runs around sucker punching white boomers in the back of the head. That would be spot-on.
>in the end even Death can come down with a case of neck-knee
Kino.
I mean, it kinda works?
I mean, I can see it.
>we are trying to get to the other side of this very inconvenient interruption
Black person fatigue in a nutshell.
dropped. Frick Gaiman
I fricking love black women. Why couldn't they have gotten a pretty black woman instead of that plain jane?
She did a great job in Cruella. She's a very talented actress.
shut up shill
I get it's illegal not to have at least half the cast be black now adays but couldn't they have at least kept the goth look? The whole point of the character design is Death ironically looks young cute and harmless unlike the usual old man or skeleton depictions and is dressing in a subcultures fashion that's critics often say is trivializing death. Now she's just generic 30something stern black women you see in every other show who's only discernible style is a leather jacket.
It doesn't matter, I was never going to watch it
America love blacks too much to consider another minority.
They could have made her a lightskin spainiard latina 🙁
>They could have made they a lightskin spainiard latinx
Reminder that Gaiman is a sellout and a woke numbskull.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy his comics or books, they're still great. But don't expect any adaptation to stick to the source material. Personally, I won't pay first market price for anything from him anymore.
You forgot hypocrite
Gaiman was always very leftist, you saying he is a sellout and that NOW he is woke means you are didn't understand his writing
I am (socially) left wing myself, but I'm not a sellout nor woke. You see, being pro-lgbt or incorporating those themes is not necessarily woke, and his work for the longest time was a living testament to that.
Don't tell me I didn't understand his writing for calling out his ass.
Terry Prattchet(RIP) will have words with you, all his family is behind Gaiman.
Terry Prattchet was a fricking gay.
I also love Pratchett's work. Again, I don't consider it woke in the slightest.
Woke works require a few qualifiers. Themes of dominant group guilt, group responsibility, equity over fairness, anti-individualism, critical theory and above all it preaches a message without allowing the audience to get to their own conclusion, more often than not to the detriment of the work's quality.
In that sense, neither Gaiman or Pratchett's work was ever "woke."
However, a person can "become woke" and endorse those ideas after the publication of their work. An indicator of this is a lack of good faith engagement, retroactively changing canon to fit modern interpretations, defending institutions regardless of whether they're doing good or bad, rallying behind bad actors simply because they're on their side... Gaiman did all of those recently by calling those who dislike Death's casting "racist", defending the corporation that wrote him a check and supporting Mark Waid of all people.
>Woke works require a few qualifiers. Themes of dominant group guilt, group responsibility, equity over fairness, anti-individualism, critical theory and above all it preaches a message without allowing the audience to get to their own conclusion, more often than not to the detriment of the work's quality
Is that an academic definition or an opinion? IMO if you squint hard enough you could apply that to almost anything, like Dreamwork's Prince of Egypt
I mean, obviously not an academic definition. But I'm trying to define "woke" in a more compelling way that isn't the idiotic "hurr all lgbt/slightly feminist/slightly racial stuff is woke" definition.
>Dreamwork's Prince of Egypt
Funny that you mention it. Prince of Egypt is a religious story meant to demonize a group and victimize another, justifies the suffering of the innocent to punish the guilty and portray the belief system of another group as illegitimate. Woke or not, it can be easily classified as propaganda. It looks and sounds great, but still.
Whether it's woke or not I don't know for sure, as you point out, maybe the definition I provided is too wide as "woke" is supposed to have a left wing bias, even though some works, groups and individuals do the exact same with a right wing bias. However, I will say the following: I'm starting to consider "wokeness" as some sort of non-theistic religion and when you put woke stories and creators next to their religious counterparts... well, the similarities are too big to ignore.
>"woke" is supposed to have a left wing bias, even though some works, groups and individuals do the exact same with a right wing bias
Personally I think "wokeness" refers to lefty stuff in a modern sense and when applied (almost exclusively) to modern works, but the general idea is far older than that and is not necessarily aligned with left vs right. There have always been ideas of how the world ought to be, how people ought to behave, what is good and what is evil. Arc of the universe and all. A lot of religions tend to be these things too so it isn't surprising that there should be similar themes
I don't care for it because it feels too arbitrary and relative. Like that Captain Planet episode about anti-AIDs discrimination would've been considered woke in its day, even though it's a moral no-brainer now. Who the frick knows, maybe in 100 years from now "woke" ideals will be normalized and people will think us monsters for spending money on funny books and funko pops while children starved
gaiman for years was against adapting his comic in fear of it getting fricked up but then he does this shit
Hes a spineless flip-flopper like Stephen King who has contradicted himelf on stances dozens of times ever since the Trump era; you can tell they have opinions that the left wouldnt like but they would never dare actually go against the grain.
I feel like he's more just canny about the trends and movements of his audience, and makes sure to keep them happy.
Like
said, he's always tackled sensitive subjects about LGBT, trans, whatever, stuff that's now autoclassified as "woke" the moment you bring it up. He wrote about that shit in the 90s, and it was always handles well, it didn't pander, it had something to say. So fast forward to present day and that movement has radically changed from 30 years ago, and a lot of people in that movement are loyal readers, who pay for his meet and greets and talks and whatever. His actual modern works (books mostly) never seem woke, they have the same quality of handling sensitive or fringe topics as he's always had. It's just when it comes to adaptations, where there's a lot more visibility, he's probably just happy with the money, and when they cast whoever as death, doesn't feel compelled to fight it. I know he's said that stuff about keeping with the visual fidelity of a source material, but at this point why bother upsetting the vocal fanbase when you could just rake in the money
>he's probably just happy with the money, and when they cast whoever as death, doesn't feel compelled to fight it. I know he's said that stuff about keeping with the visual fidelity of a source material, but at this point why bother upsetting the vocal fanbase when you could just rake in the money
So he's a sellout.
He didn't sell out
He BOUGHT IN
>But don't expect any adaptation to stick to the source material by which I mean any type deviation from visual similarity IS WRONG!!!!
>Oh but if the story changes even a little? Who cares. I just want to jerk off to my waifu. That's faithfulness.
this is like 90% of modern western creators; the Trump election broke their brains
>The Trump election broke Americans' brains.
Ftfy.
>broke english speakers brains
Fixed, thank god asians don't give a shit about any of this.
>Gaiman
He's also a literal cuck.
no big deal OP. The show will die a quick death after 1 season, netflicks will see to it.
some jap cosplay chick on twitter. she is perfect. too bad Hollywood sucks dick and ruin everything they touch. the worst is that Gaiman is an obvious sellout, ding this for the paycheck.
Bachalo's Death was the best. This is my actual t shirt.
The thing that partly annoys me about the Death debate is that I liked the aesthetic. It isn't superficial to enjoy an aesthetic, comics as a medium are words and pictures, far too many people praise the "superstar" writers and forget it is also a visual medium. I would read a comic with good art and bad writing far more than one with good writing and bad art. Some might call the black and white design "basic". But Death felt like a person and was based on a person. I understand adaptations change things, but I remember even Gaiman talking about adaptations and how they can go too far and lose something.
It just annoys me that he turns around and attacks that notion, it feels hypocritical. I wouldn't have minded most of the Endless being of various races, but getting rid of the look of Death just felt silly. And most trolls or baiters will say it is because of the actresses race, but it isn't. Why adapt things and change them too much or too far so they lose all the pieces that made them up?
cuz he was probably told to change and to include black people in the show. and he agreed disregarding all he said and did before. as you say, that makes him both a sellout and a hypocrite. we dont really know how much power he welds over the show. Sandman isnt owned by him anyway but by DC.
Thats why I will disregard the show. it will be shit anyway. Constantine is a woman and not even with blond hair? Forget this BS.
Well obviously there was going to be changes and he claims it was colourblind casting and she was the choice they went with because she was the best choice. To what degree he has been giving to have a say or consult, none of us know. I lament what has happened but still it is inevitable. Adaptations always do this and authors are fickle. I remember how the Percy Jackson author was massively annoyed that a character didn't have blonde hair in the movie. In the movie sequel they dyed her hair blonde to fit the character. And then in the new Percy Jackson series, the girl is now played by a black character and he is fine with it. It is how it goes.
>Constantine is a woman and not even with blond hair?
She is meant to be Johanna Constantine who appeared in Sandman albeit in the past and not present. For me I don't really care because Constantine as a character has been battered already by his DC comics post-Hellblazer and the fact that every animated movie has to remind us he is bisexual and fricking King Shark or w/e. Constantine as a character is pretty much in the dirt but I still have Hellblazer at least.
I just wish they would realise that without somethings the adaptations feel eh.
>because she was the best choice
>doesn't have the visual characteristics of the character from the visual medium
I'm so tired of that argument
Me too. I was simply relaying their general argument.
>over 80 issues
Sometimes it feels like thinking about the art has become a dirty word. Like I said, this is a medium between picture and word. Aesthetics and designs matter and make up a world. Would Spider-Man have succeeded not for his designs, his villains and their make up and the world drawn by Ditko? Go on any forum, including this one, and people will mention a writer or name like Hickman, but not who is drawing that current series. These designs are important and sometimes they so callously toss them aside even when they have meaning to them. And nowadays they constantly denigrate them. I am not a fool to think there won't be changes, but half the time they really stick it to you when they do change things, and for no real reason.
>Would Spider-Man have succeeded not for his designs, his villains and their make up and the world drawn by Ditko?
None of the villains look anything like Ditko's designs in the movies except Sandman and literally nobody gives a shit about Sandman in Spider-Man 3. Yet you don't shit on Raimi movies while foaming from your mouth.
>None of the villains look anything like Ditko's designs
Doc Oc isn't very different, and people b***h about "power rangers" Green Goblin.
That's... bait right? It probably isn't, knowing Cinemaphile, no one's read the actual comic
Johanna Constantine is in the original Sandman run, she's an ancestor of John Constantine, and helps Morpheus during the French revolution
NTA but for some reason she is in the present in the trailer and talks to Hettie instead of being from the past.
Because they don't have the right to Constantine, you fricking idiot. Same reason they won't show JLI era Justice League. So they're using Johanna instead of John wnd expanded the role to suit thr series, because Gaiman created her in Sandman and thus can use her.
>For me I don't really care because Constantine as a character has been battered already by his DC comics post-Hellblazer and the fact that every animated movie has to remind us he is bisexual and fricking King Shark or w/e. Constantine as a character is pretty much in the dirt
This really highlights the hypocrisy and completely superficial nature of "fans" who can be always found whining about actual accurate depiction of the character (what happened to sticking to the source material being a sacrament?) like John's bisexuality, but then they turn and act like religious zealots about superficial visuals.
>like John's bisexuality
You mean a retcon?
John's bisexuality has been a thing since Hellblazer #51 where it was introduced as a natural part of the character's development. You probably weren't even a bugle in your dad's ball sack at that point.
i love issues like that
>john just sat thinking to himself nearly having a mental breakdown because of some old women
Honestly this mostly. I'm interested in a character that I not only read, but saw illustrations of over 80 issues. It's not like she's predominantly defined by just her clothes either, they point out how pale she is several times. I've got a mental picture of the character that I've become invested in, which is directly backed up by the source material art. So when they cast someone who doesn't match that mental image remotely, it's just jarring and off-putting. Like if they got some fatass to play Morpheus, and I was told that my complaints about inaccuracy weren't valid because of body positivity
>It isn't superficial to enjoy an aesthetic
You are being superficial when you judge everything solely on superficial visuals and call any changes or differences automatically bad and then claim the entire project itself is bad because it looks different.
You getting your feelings hurt when the author says it's the character's personality and actions that matter, now how they look just further shows your deep vanity and how little you care about anything except how someone looks.
>And most trolls or baiters will say it is because of the actresses race, but it isn't.
Kinda funny how you make it entirely about her race and how she looks then.
>Why adapt things and change them too much or too far so they lose all the pieces that made them up?
It's time to grow the frick up and understand adaptations change things all the time and especially on TV they need to accommodate to budget limitations, etc. And change is never automatically bad unless you're a neckbeard. You more than likely love countless adaptations where you never saw or read the source material and were cool with it how the movie/tv show ended up because you were being entirely open qnd objective instead of completely autistic and biased little nerd.
Reactionary people like you are such fricking idiots they would be throwing tantrums over Jackie Brown the second the casting decision was announced and write off the movie as "woke" and keep b***hing about it for months without seeing a single frame of film.
>You are being superficial when you judge everything solely on superficial visuals and call any changes or differences automatically bad and then claim the entire project itself is bad because it looks different.
It's not because it looks different, it's because it looks nothing like what it is supposed to be adapting, which is particularly wrong considering that it is a visual adaptation of a visual medium. almost all adaptations are somewhat different in some ways but the difference is whether or not one can look at them at recognize what it is that is being adapted
>You getting your feelings hurt when the author says it's the character's personality and actions that matter
They completely matter, but it's not like looks don't. don't you recognize people by how they look? don't you associate certain visual characteristics to those that you know and grow attached to them? looks matter, especially when they are as iconic as Death's, plus it isn't like you can't get one without the other, many adaptations in the past have accurately portrayed both the character's appearance and their personality
>Kinda funny how you make it entirely about her race and how she looks then.
The issue literally is about how she looks
>It's time to grow the frick up and understand adaptations change things all the time and especially on TV they need to accommodate to budget limitations, etc. And change is never automatically bad unless you're a neckbeard
it is when it changes the main aspects that make the character who they are, it would be like showing Judge Dredd's face for no reason and, oh wait, the have already done it and people hated it, because fans know that Dredd's face is never shown, and if you can't accurately bring core characteristics of whatever character you're adapting, then where's the joke then? just because a ceratin adaptation was limited in some way, it doesn't make it any better of an adaptation, so why do it in the first place?
If she was Asian the show will have zero discussion and get memory holed. Nobody cared about sandman or it being true to the comic. Even if she was white the Netflix adaptation won't be accurate like every comic to video medium.
The only true comic book fans that care about accuracy is Superman fans.
>If you don't cast Death as a white woman it's woke garbage! Respect the source material and do not deviate from it!
>Oh but you absolutely could cast her as Asian because I have a yellow fever so who gives a frick about the source material
Everyone in this thread is a giant culture war waging moron and a hypocrite with a capital H
god forbid you make it what people actually liked.
>I just like visuals
And that's why you are called being superficial.
He's just a guy in a trench coat. He looks nothing like the Ditko villain design. Even wears sunglasses instead of goggles.
>He looks nothing like the Ditko villain design.
The casting does.
>And that's why you are called being superficial.
Well, we're visual creatures, anon. Keep pretending looks and designs mean nothing, when they're amongst the most important in any visual medium.
So in the end it's just about him being white rather than being faithful to the actual way Doc Ock's villain costume design was under Ditko.
>And that's why you are called being superficial.
Bro, it's a visual medium
>And that's why you are called being superficial.
yes people want actors to have some sort of a likeness to the characters they portray
why is this a problem
>He's just a guy in a trench coat. He looks nothing like the Ditko villain design. Even wears sunglasses instead of goggles.
He does look somewhat similar, he's still recognizable, because most the main visual aspects are present, the 4 arms, the glasses/googles, somewhat fat, it's still recognizable (although I do agree it's somewhat of a poor adaptation, ps4 spider-man did it better). It's one of those cases where certain changes have to be made so that the character doesn't feel out of place or silly, like the CW's reverse flash suit, it has some black added to balance out the yellow so that it looks decent, later they introduced a full bright yellow suit that, while closer to the comics looked ridiculous on screen. Pretty much nobody has problems with changes made to the characters in order to be adapted when the main visual aspects are respected, take Batman for example, he has white eyes in the comics but not in the live-action movies but no one has a real problem with it, because you can still see them and go "oh, that's Batman, I recognize that character" because the main visual aspects that make up the character's iconic look are still present. The problem is for most people, when the changes made include changes to the core aspects of the character's look, making them unrecognizable, like Beast Boy in that Titans show or Death in the new Sandman tv serial. Death's look is iconic, yes she really doesn't have an actual body and changes shape all of the time, but every time something new came out, she had her iconic chalk white goth design, because that's her look, that's how people recognize her and that's the look people grew attached to, more when one of the most interesting things about her design was the high contrast between black and white and her style which is now gone, thus making it unrecognizable , and if the visual adaptation of a visual medium isn't recognizable visually, doesn't that mean that it isn't a great adaptation?
On the bright side, the new design is so incredibly bland it'll be forgotten. How many people do you think will ever remember the Netflix version of Faye Valentine, for example? Or anyone else from that Cowboy Bebop attempt of theirs, for that matter. This is just outrage marketing, because it's easy as hell and makes anyone that doesn't like it, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, automatically fall into the "chud" territory.
I think the visuals are completely secondary concern that does no make or break a good adaptation, while acting and story do.
The Japanese Full Metal Alchemist live action movie was utter garbage despite being faithful visually because the story was a compressed mess trying to force way too much material into two hours and the acting was cartoonish. Thomas Jane's Punisher is shit because the story is a hodgepodge of Punisher comics stapled together, Frank having dark hair and skull shirt or the Russian looking accurate doesn't make it good. Same way Bullseye wouldn't be any better in Affleck's DD if he wore a comic accurate costume. Meanwhile Michael Clarke Duncan played Kingpin well, and the entire issue with the movie not being good were cut out scenes and editing, most of which was fixed outside of Bullseye in the far superior Director's Cut. Batman Returns is good despite changing almost everything down to the way Penguin and Catwoman look and their origins because the core story and performances were good. Liam Neesom's Ra's al Ghul looks nothing like the comic version but works well. Batman and Robin's Ivy and Bane are accurate but don't save the movie being shit because their visuals are just that, superficial tapestry around horrible toyetic live action cartoon and nonsensical writing. The Batman's Riddler is almost nothing like the comic version down to his motivation but it's still great movie and fun use of the character. The Singer X-men movies are fun despite the costumes being entirely bland and forgettable and people like Toad, Iceman, Lady Deathstrike, etc. being unrecognisable. Liev Schreiber was great as Sabertooth despite not looking anything like the part and was one of the few things in an otherwise shitty movie.
You need to grow up and start to accept juvenile "it's doesn't look exactly the same!" is shit tier criticism and doesn't actually say anything about whether or not the adaptation is good outside of fanboy pet peeves.
>I think the visuals are completely secondary concern that does no make or break a good adaptation, while acting and story do.
I disagree visuals are as important as other elements if we are going to judge an adaptation as an adaptation, this being the transfer of something from an art medium to another. if it fails to transfer this elements it is a bad adaptation because it doesn't do what an adaptation is suppossed to do, transfer elements. However, just because something is faithful doesn't automatically mean it's good, I do agree with that, by that logic Green Lantern with Ryan Reynolds would be a great movie, but it isn't, it is a good adaptation but a bad movie overall
>Thomas Jane's Punisher is shit because the story is a hodgepodge of Punisher comics stapled together, Frank having dark hair and skull shirt or the Russian Thomas Jane's Punisher is shit because the story is a hodgepodge of Punisher comics stapled together, Frank having dark hair and skull shirt or the Russian looking accurate doesn't make it good
I've never said that it would, you seem to believe that it's one or the other, while I see both as equally important and something that we should strive for (plus, the frankenstein storyline is just another example of failing to adapt something)
>Batman Returns is good despite changing almost everything down to the way Penguin and Catwoman look and their origins because the core story and performances were good
The Burton Batman movies are good movies, not good adaptations
>The Batman's Riddler is almost nothing like the comic version down to his motivation but it's still great movie and fun use of the character
then it isn't the Riddler, Gotham did a more grounded adaptation pretty decently that respected the character (well, before everything went nuts after season 3)
1/2
2/2
Basically I agree that good adaptations do not equal good movies, but that doesn't mean that we as consumer shouldn't expect good movies to also be good adaptations when there have been many movies that have shown us that the two are possible, like Dredd 2012. I like Dredd 2012 because it's a good example of a good movie that's also a good adaptation of a comic book, which despite it's small changes (Dredd for example does not have comically big shoulder plates) the fans of the comics love it, because not only does it convey Dredd's character almost perfcetly, it's also a solid and fun movie, which is what I want in my adaptations, a faithful adaptation that is also a good movie , because if it a good movie but not a good adaptation, then it isn't a movie about the stories and characters that I enjoyed
>You need to grow up and start to accept juvenile "it's doesn't look exactly the same!" is shit tier criticism and doesn't actually say anything about whether or not the adaptation is good outside of fanboy pet peeves.
I don't need adaptations to be 1-1 in every aspect, because of that I don't mind Dredd's smaller shoulder plates and body armour in Dredd 2012 or Batman's lack of white eyes (which in the end TDK showed us that they looked kind of silly any way, I just want them to be good adaptations AND good movies, which movies in the past have shown us that is possible
>anything about whether or not the adaptation is good outside of fanboy pet peeves.
An adaptation is the transfer of elements from one medium to another, if they fail to transfer these elements (or just don't want to), but yeah I admit it, I'm a fan, I care about these stories and I'd love to see them brought to life in another medium, which is why I don't like when the so called adaptations don't have these stories and instead just have completely different people that just share names with the characters.
2/?
cont.
>You need to grow up and start to accept juvenile "it's doesn't look exactly the same!" is shit tier criticism and doesn't actually say anything about whether or not the adaptation is good outside of fanboy pet peeves
Why is it that we fans are supposed to be okay with the so-called comic book adaptations that have nothing to do with the things they are supposed to be adapting just ecause they might be decent? I don't go to see an adaptation for it just to be decent, I go to see the characters that I have grown to like brought to life in a solid medium, if it wasn't this way, then why would I go to see the adaptation in the first place? Is it so much to ask from big daddy corpo to make a good adapttion of a character that's also a good piece of media in general? Hell it's been done before, many times and some of them recently, Deadpool 2 had a Cable that both looked and acted like Cable, same with Juggernaut in the same movie, Dredd in his movie, the cast in Captain America and The Winter Soldier, I want to see more of those, adaptations that faithfully bring these characters to life and are good while at it, why should I settle for just one half of the deal, is it too difficult for Mr.corpo to do that? and if so, should I consume it's product even if it's not good at what it says it's doing, that being a comic book adaptation?
cont.
>"it's doesn't look exactly the same!"
I don't need the characters to look exactly the same 1-1, I just want them to be the characters whose names they carry, again, that's why I don't mind the slight changes in Dredd's outfit or Batman's because the core elements of the character itself, both in visuals and in writing are present, and they aren't just present, they are well executed. The small changes do not matter that much if the main elements of the character, both visual and psychological, are respected and well executed, but when you change those, like changing an iconic look like that of Death's, which is the staple of her character much like the S in Superman's chest or the helmet in Dredd's are, or changing major elements of the character's whole, uh, character and stories like that Injustice animated movie, then those characters and stories are not the ones you are supposed to be adapting, and if that is that is case of a comic book adaptation, then I have no reason to see it
>like changing an iconic look like that of Death's
All you need as a visual cue for Death is the ankh. Everything else doesn't matter. You people are always trying to argue the entire character is just her skin color and then write off the entire show and refuse to watch it because you cannot like something if the actor's got black skin.
That is why nobody takes you seriously no matter you how much you try to play mental gymnastics and handwave other major changes in other adaptations as being different but I still watched it and liked it , while insisting Sandman now sucks automatically and is irredeemable because you just don't like the casting. Boil it all down it's just stupid fundie waifu mentality that you try to disguise as some kind of principled stance despite people laughing at you when you try to claim the Batman's Paul Dano Riddler is not the real Riddler and instead is a horrible adaptation because the depiction doesn't meet your entirely made up and utterly arbitrary standards.
>All you need as a visual cue for Death is the ankh. Everything else doesn't matter.
Ah yes, because when you tell a sandman fan to think abut death the only thing that comes to their mind is a chick with ankh, no goth no pale white no nada, that's why we're in a thread of Sandman fans filled up with pale goth girls ,that's why in (almost) everything Sandman related they bring back Death's characteristic pale skin and goth style, that's why they put that pale goth look in T shirts and merch, not just some random chick with an anhk, you see a dude in the street with an ankh T-shirt and you think "hmm, must be a Sandman fan", you see a chick wear an ankh collar and you think "she must like Death", and as a true fan of Sandman you don't recognize the character in the shirt in pic rel until you see the ankh
>. You people are always trying to argue the entire character is just her skin color
I don't argue that, I argue that a character's look is part of the character itself and shouldn't be neglected just like other aspects of the character shouldn't be neglected either
>cannot like something if the actor's got black skin.
I deeply enjoyed Shaft and Luke Cage season 1 thank you. In Death's case it isn't particularly because of the actor having dark skin, but because of them not giving Death her characteristic pale skin, those are two different things, IF they had Death have her classic look and then shapeshift into someone like this
(while giving us doses of her classic look every now and then of course) then I wouldn't have a problem
>That is why nobody takes you seriously no matter you how much you try to play mental gymnastics
Who's nobody? are they here? if not then I don't care, and if they were I wouldn't care either, I don't manage my opinions in the basis of whether or not the internet peoples agree with me or not
cont.
cont. (forgot pic)
>despite people laughing at you when you try to claim the Batman's Paul Dano Riddler is not the real Riddler
whatever
>and instead is a horrible adaptation because the depiction doesn't meet your entirely made up and utterly arbitrary standards.
yes anon, I must admit that my standards are made up...by the people that wrote the characters, when they wrote the character and gave it it's own unique characteristics that make the character who they are in the first place
>by the people that wrote the characters, when they wrote the character and gave it it's own unique characteristics that make the character who they are in the first place
And then you cry they're sellouts and hacks when they say they're cool with this type of open casting because to them thr characters are more than their appearance. Once again proving how your superficial obsession about looks supercedes everything else.
>And then you cry they're sellouts and hacks when they say they're cool with this type of open casting because to them thr characters are more than their appearance
You skipped the part where I mentioned the core things that make a character the character that it is, if this is disrespected, then it's not the same character as I have already argued, and if the creators endorse this, they are endorsing a bad adaptation
>Once again proving how your superficial obsession about looks supercedes everything else.
You keep misrepresenting my argument as "hurr durr, it has to be eggsacktly the same", which is not true since I have no problem with the changes to characters like Batman or Dredd that I've mentioned many times, I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story, that these elements vary from the way the character is written to the way it looks, that the looks, while not being the entirity of a character, are a part of the character and therefore should not be neglected and that iconic designs do exist. Now, Gaiman knew exactly how Death's iconic style looked, for that reason in everything he wrote Death always came back to that particular style,why? because he knew that it was Death's iconic look. Now, why would he endorse the neglect of this aspect of the character when he knew that it had become iconic, distinct to Death and loved by the fans?
two words: sell-out
(cont...)
Why aren't you upset about the decades of inaccurate changes from the comics that influence story? Why are you trying to pretend you care about characterization when almost all of MCU and DCU are different from the comics and the average people who work on the movies never read a comic?
Death can be a pale white teenage human in a high-school setting and you probably won't care because all you care about is race and only race. Don't pretend otherwise. I will never watch a shitty Netflix adaptation with a TV budget, but you homosexuals will flood my catalog with the same predictable routine.
(cont)
>Why aren't you upset about the decades of inaccurate changes from the comics that influence story?
I don't feel such a distaste for older dumb changes because the consumer's reaction won't have an effect on them since they have been out already for a while and the costumers of that time already dealed with (see Superman: Red and Blue, folks hated that and within a year it was normal Superman again), which isn't true for modern changes given that now the consumer's opinion has more power than ever thanks to social media and now it can directly affect the outcome of these changes, see Cowboy Bebop by netflix
>Why are you trying to pretend you care about characterization when almost all of MCU and DCU are different from the comics and the average people who work on the movies never read a comic?
I do care, the reason Dredd 2012 came out how it is is because the people involved in it were actual fans of 2000AD, from the director to the producer to Karl Urban (Dredd's actor) and the rest of the cast. It was Urban who approached the studio to play Dredd due to how much he liked the character and he made sure to let everyone know that Dredd would keep his helmet on, to which everyone agreed because the crew understood Dredd's character. Then you get western mainstream shite like James gun stopping John Cenna from reading the Peacemaker comics so that way he could butcher the character however he liked, that's why most productions of today are garbage, the people making them don't have any love or passion for the stories they are adapting, thus stripping them of any love or passion. At least the corny super hero flicks of the early 2000's had some love put into it, see Nicholas Cage talking about Ghost Rider
(cont...)
(cont...)
>Death can be a pale white teenage human in a high-school setting and you probably won't care
Yes I would, blonde, black or blue, if it neglects the iconic look then it isn't a good adaptation. But I would be okay with it if they kept her look and just had her shapeshift as I have already explained in (this of course if they respect the other aspects of the character, having Death acting like Death)
>all you care about is race and only race
I care about the characters and their stories, including all the aspects of these
>Don't pretend otherwise
I'm not pretending
>but you homosexuals will flood my catalog with the same predictable routine.
Mean, plus this is a free board
>I will never watch a shitty Netflix adaptation with a TV budget
Good, don't, they're garbage and don't respect the source material
I guess your not aware with how much you contradict yourself. Like is there any changes you find unacceptably beside race? I have a feeling that if they turn Sandman into a brain dead toddler show but made death white you will enjoy it
>
>Death can be a pale white teenage human in a high-school setting and you probably won't care
Yes I would, blonde, black or blue, if it neglects the iconic look then it isn't a good adaptation. But I would be okay with it if they kept her look and just had her shapeshift as I have already explained in (this of course if they respect the other aspects of the character, having Death acting like Death)[...]
>all you care about is race and only race
I care about the characters and their stories, including all the aspects of these
>Don't pretend otherwise
I'm not pretending
>but you homosexuals will flood my catalog with the same predictable routine.
Mean, plus this is a free board
>I will never watch a shitty Netflix adaptation with a TV budget
Good, don't, they're garbage and don't respect the source material
I guess your not aware with how much you contradict yourself
how
>Like is there any changes you find unacceptably beside race?
yes
>Sandman into a brain dead toddler show but made death white you will enjoy it
no
>I guess your not aware with how much you contradict yourself
explain then
>Like is there any changes you find unacceptably beside race?
Many, mostly failures to adapt important core elements of the character in all it's aspects, like character assassination and the neglection of iconic designs, I don't love Judge Dredd with Sly Stallone for the opposite reasons of why I love Dredd 2012
> I have a feeling that if they turn Sandman into a brain dead toddler show but made death white you will enjoy it
>Basically I agree that good adaptations do not equal good movies, but that doesn't mean that we as consumer shouldn't expect good movies to also be good adaptations when there have been many movies that have shown us that the two are possible
Gunn's version of Peacemaker was great though. A really good modern reinterpretation of the character and how to redeem him from a psychopathic killer to someone with deep personal issues but developing conscience.
>I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story
Yet you already condemn Death as bad purely because you don't like that she's played by a black actor, without seeing anything about how the core characteristics are depicted in the show.
>Gunn's version of Peacemaker was great though
I wasn't arguing whether or not it was bad or not, I was just pointing out how that's how things are run in the industry
>Yet you already condemn Death as bad purely because you don't like that she's played by a black actor, without seeing anything about how the core characteristics are depicted in the show.
Her iconic look is a core characteristic, plus I don't dislike her because she's black but because they have neglected Death's iconic look, as I've said before, if they had done this
I wouldn't have a problem
> In Death's case it isn't particularly because of the actor having dark skin, but because of them not giving Death her characteristic pale skin, those are two different things, IF they had Death have her classic look and then shapeshift into someone like this
>blabla the race of the endless doesnt heckin matter!
Ok but couldn't they at least still make her a cute goth? Why they insist on unappealing black women?
(while giving us doses of her classic look every now and then of course) then I wouldn't have a problem
read my replies
>because they have neglected Death's iconic look
No, they haven't.
Gunn's version of Peacemaker was great though. A really good modern reinterpretation of the character and how to redeem him from a psychopathic killer to someone with deep personal issues but developing conscience.
As I have already argued, good adaptations don't equal good movies and good movies don't equal good adaptations, and both can and have been achieved at the same time
>I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story
>Yet you already condemn Death as bad purely because you don't like that she's played by a black actor, without seeing anything about how the core characteristics are depicted in the show.
> I argue that a good adaptation respects the core elements of a character and/or story, that these elements vary from the way the character is written to the way it looks, that the looks, while not being the entirity of a character, are a part of the character and therefore should not be neglected and that iconic designs do exist
at least quote the whole thing
yes they have? bro what are you talking about, are you trolling?
Just to be clear, this dude's not me lol. As I have already stated I would have no problems with black Death if they hadn't neglected her iconic look by making Black Death the default, they could have had the iconic look and the black Death by just using her ability to shapeshift, everyone's happy
No she doesn't look "exactly like in the comic" her skin color and features are totally different. You went from "Comic look does not matter" to "but she looks just like in the comics!", bro?
The only real difference is that her skin color. So you directly admit it's entirely about her race that bugs you even though design wise she looks like the comic counterpart with iconic black top and ankh look.
>The only real difference is that her skin color.
are you clinically moronic or just trolling?
she looks nothing like Death even if you ignore her skin color
She looks like Death whose skin color happens to be dark instead of bleach white.
Nah, she's not a goth, simple as.
When have I stated otherwise? I told you from the beggining that she didn't have Death's look, which is pale goth
>The issue literally is about how she looks
One of the things that made her visually attractive was the high contrast between her ash white skin and the black of her clothes. and no, it isn't because she's black, but because by having darker skin it misses that visually appealing element of the iconic look, which I wouldn't mind if it had not been neglected and was present in the show, but it isn't, anything less than overtly pale just doesn't cut Death's look, and instead we en up with a poor attempt at replicating the look while losing one of it's most visual characteristics, thus making her less recognizable and a bad adaptation of the source material. Also, why do you suddenly care about it being comic accurate now? I thought that it didn't matter as you said
plus, as anon pointed out, the actress doesn't really look like Death at all, something I have already mentioned
>her skin color and features are totally different
this chick looks more like Death than the actress
and even then, a race change is still a huge departure from the visual characteristics of the visual medium this other visual medium are supposed to be adapting, especially with a character who's visual appeal relies so much in contrast. Yeah, you could say that it's just "that difference" (it isn't) but it would be like giving Superman a yellow and purple suit in a new movie and then defending it by saying that "the only difference is the color scheme" when people criticize it for straying away form the iconic look
(and yes, Death's original look is iconic and part of her character see
)
You're reducing the entire character to just her skin color, racist.
Blacks have more rounded, exaggerated and childish facial features than whites. It's immediately and distractingly obvious. It's not just the topical color of their flesh.
I am acknowledging differences between the character and the adaptation, my perspective is just that she doesn't cut the role, and by acknowledging how the character look doesn't mean that I'm reducing it, just that I am validating other aspects of the character. Again, this is about fidelity to the source material, I have already explained how to have black Death while also respecting her iconic comic look. It simply is a bad adaptation since it falis to transfer the visual elements from the visual medium
>It's not because it looks different, it's because it looks nothing like what it is supposed to be adapting, which is particularly wrong considering that it is a visual adaptation of a visual medium. almost all adaptations are somewhat different in some ways but the difference is whether or not one can look at them at recognize what it is that is being adapted
>ITT: People who don’t realize how hard Hollywood is anti-Asian despite the media they consoom.
They fear the chinaman superiority
As long as her skin is actually WHITE like milk white, idc.
nope
her hair doesn't even look like it either
>blabla the race of the endless doesnt heckin matter!
Ok but couldn't they at least still make her a cute goth? Why they insist on unappealing black women?
Diversity is when dumpy fat black woman.
She looks exactly the same as in the comic, see
The only difference is her skin color.
>She looks exactly the same as in the comic
>I guess I'll just lie
I accept your concession.
>But, but... she's black!
But you're totally not racist.
Eh, he could be worse.
>Diversity is only okay if I can jerk off to it
Fixed
>everything about this is a monsteosity
>still gonna watch this trainwreck
>me and millions of others watching out of curiosity means netflix will call it a success
"Diversity" just means "more blacks" in Hollywood speak.
Ah, the Chinese abortions have gotten that bad, huh?
>mfw it's all moot since I won't be watching it.
it's not just Death
here's you Lucien bro
He was a ginger, you knew it was inevitable.
weve yet to see delirium and shes a redhead sort of
It'll be a troony.
Thats Desire youre thinking of
Now b***h about how Charles Dance doesn't look like Roderick at all. Oh wait, you don't care about that at all and just want to whine when it's someone with dark skin. But you're totally not a racist, it's purely coincidental.
>Now b***h about how Charles Dance doesn't look like Roderick at all.
But he does.
>it's someone with dark skin
and gender bendered as well
Frick off.
Once again a moron posts a random publicity photo and not actual screengrab of the trailer where Roderick looks nothing like the comic.
>a moron
cute ad hominem, are you upset?
>where Roderick looks nothing like the comic.
that's Netflix for you - cheap as frick production value, everything looks plastic and lazy, but it's woke so rave reviews from critics are guaranteed
Both a genderswap and Blackwashing being a fan of Lucien is suffering
Black Death Matters
Asian Death would’ve been Kino
they're not trying to make the show popular, bub. It's all about outrage
Sorry but asians are too successful these days so they rank lower then blacks who sit need to be up lifted which will probably never happen on the oppressed meter or how ever blackrock calculate it esg scores.
why not a latino death? they have a close cultural relationship to death as it is