The Sandman - Netflix

Although I'm a big Neil Gaiman fan, I've never read The Sandman, as I just can't relate to comic books and graphic novels. I'm not a very visual person, and I like a story to contain (far) more words. Nonetheless, I was aware it was considered something of a big thing in the genre, so watched the Netflix version with interest.

The first episode is distinctly on the slow side - I know at least one person who gave up part way through - but it's worth persevering to make your mind up, as things certainly change gear after a while. However, I do think the series has an underlying problem in the way it has apparently been painstakingly based on the individual comics. This gives an extremely episodic approach, making it almost impossible to produce a really top notch drama series.

The problem is not having mostly separate stories in each episode - I like that. But if a series is take that approach, it needs two other things to support it - a group of good recurring characters and a strong story arc across the series. It's even better if it can also incorporate humour despite the subject matter - that's why Buffy the Vampire Slayer was so brilliant. That had all these elements. But The Sandman lacks most of them.

I really thought things were improving with the introduction of Jenna Coleman's character in the third episode. Johanna Constantine is a perfect foil for Tom Sturridge's well played, but frankly morose Dream/Morpheus. There was enjoyable interaction between main characters and that humour gave useful contrast with the darkness elsewhere. And then she was gone for the rest of the series (except a cameo as her ancestor). I also wanted to see far more of Vivienne Acheampong's excellent librarian, Lucienne. Unless Netflix fixes this with more recurring characters that appear in most episodes, this series won't hit the spot.

It's not that there can't be one-off episodes dedicated to a specific event and key character. Episode 6, featuring Dream's sister Death and a human who the pair grant a free pass from death in the fourteenth century, who Dream meets up with once every hundred years, is brilliant. But, for example, the fifth episode, primarily featuring a secondary character in a diner is just dull. And when a continuing story kicks in across episodes 7 to 10 (still not a proper series story arc) it has too much material not set in the real world, is convoluted and lacks the humour and energy of the Constantine episode. It's plodding by comparison.

Overall, the CGI is okay, but lightweight in places. The buildings in the Dreaming never looked real, and though you could argue that's how they should look in the Dreaming, it didn't appear to be intentional. The biggest CGI disappointment was the gargoyle Gregory in the Cain and Abel sequence of episode 2 - it was good in close up, but when flying it looked like something out of a video game. I do have one other moan on the visuals - the nighttime sequences, of which there are a lot, are very low contrast - even with my TV in dynamic mode it was sometimes difficult to make out what was going on.

Overall, interesting concept, occasional good episode, but needs a serious overhaul.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog