The Sandman: Netflix users divided over JK Rowling reference - Viewers aren’t sure how to take it

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Netflix users have been left divided over a JK Rowling reference in The Sandman.

On Friday (19 August), two weeks after the Neil Gaiman adaptation was released, two bonus episodes were added to the streaming service, causing excitement among fans of the show

In the second part, which was written by Catherine Smyth-McMullen, the Harry Potter author is referenced in a scene occurring during the book launch of fictional writing [sic] Richard Madoc (Arthur Darvill).

The scene, set in August 2020, reveals that “every major studio wants a piece” of Madoc, with the author set to work with ‘whoever lets him write and direct” the film adaptation of his novel.

One character then says: “They won’t even let Jo Rowling write and direct,” to which the other replies: “Jo Rowling needs a new agent. Tell her to call me.”

In recent years, Rowling has made headlines for sharing her views on transgender rights. She was first met with a backlash in June 2020 after calling out an article’s use of the phrase “people who menstruate”. “I’m sure there used to be a word for those people,” she wrote, adding: “Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

The scene was set two months after the controversy, which led to her being criticised as “anti-trans” and “transphobic”.

Some viewers read the reference to Rowling needing “a new agent” as a dig at Rowling.

“OOOOOOH MY GOD THE DIG AT JK ROWLING, I’M HOWLING,” one of the many tweets read, with another reading: “Not Neil Gaiman shading Jo Rowling on Sandman.”

However, others called out the show for the reference; some believed it to merely be a nod to the author’s success, while others felt the mention of Rowling detracted from their enjoyment of the series.

98dfbf05ab110510dfad2ee2f61e5a4a721c469b.png

Tom Sturridge in ‘The Sandman’
(Netflix)

“New Sandman episode passingly mentions JK Rowling in a positive light,” one fan wrote, adding: “They did not need to do that lol, holy s***.”

Rowling has recently found herself involved in a high-profile argument with author Joanne Harris after claiming she didn’t support her when she received death threats over her views on transgender people.

The author’s accusations centred around Chocolat writer Harris’s position as head of the Society of Authors union and Rowling’s controversial opinions on trans politics, and came after British-Indian author Salman Rushdie was stabbed on stage in New York on Friday (12 August).

Article Link (the Independent)
Archive
 
Has anyone read the book this is based off and can tell me if it's as pozzed as the show is?
It’s a set of graphic novels /comic format. It’s alright, I liked it, it was very much of its time and death looked just like a young Otterly which always amused me greatly.
Gaiman’s always been a bit of a prog, but Netflix have really done all the diversity and gay stuff.
Gaiman, Pratchett and Douglas Adams were the leading lights of that ‘big questions in silly format’ fantasy /scifi thing in the nineties Uk scene and Pratchett and Adams were much better writers and far funnier. He builds good worlds, but he lacks the narrative and wit and ability to write dialogue that Pratchett and Adana both had.
 
It's very possible Gaiman made that change on his own; I've seen it reported that he wanted the female Constantine and not John.

I haven't been following this shit, but apparently that came down to a rights issue with Warner Bros.

As long as these changes don't get shoved down my throat with commentary about how life is so hard for them or whatever, I don't really care (in a fantasy/fiction perspective, context is key if this were a historical movie and suddenly Joan of Arc is a Franco Nigerian, than I'm going to be annoyed... unless the movie isn't taking itself seriously).
I like to look at Red from Shawshank as the perfect example that you can be decently liberal with certain characters race/sex and it doesn't hurt anything. Shawshank even plays thr change for a joke with "maybe it's because I'm Irish."
Yeah, it's not a huge deal. I don't care who gets cast for roles.

I do think that stupid pandering is dumb, though, and Netflix has a long track record for that.
 
Don't just take my word for it, ask around here what people think of non whites and Jews.
Well, you're from around here. I'm from around here. I don't have those opinions.

Yes, there are some folks around here who do espouse that. But what do you gain from calling them out beyond just antagonizing them? Go to the Thunderdome if you want to slapfight.
 
Well, you're from around here. I'm from around here. I don't have those opinions.

Yes, there are some folks around here who do espouse that. But what do you gain from calling them out beyond just antagonizing them? Go to the Thunderdome if you want to slapfight.
This IS Thunderdome. Look at your screen carefully.

Also, Thunderdome is the same community and culture as the rest of the site. Fite me.
 
It’s a set of graphic novels /comic format. It’s alright, I liked it, it was very much of its time and death looked just like a young Otterly which always amused me greatly.
Gaiman’s always been a bit of a prog, but Netflix have really done all the diversity and gay stuff.
Gaiman, Pratchett and Douglas Adams were the leading lights of that ‘big questions in silly format’ fantasy /scifi thing in the nineties Uk scene and Pratchett and Adams were much better writers and far funnier. He builds good worlds, but he lacks the narrative and wit and ability to write dialogue that Pratchett and Adana both had.
How can you like Douglas Adams? Guy was an atheist, and all atheists' are lolcows according to this site. His books were extremely anti-Christian.

And Pratchett? The man behind Good Omens, that anti-Christian piece of libtard degeneracy? You LIKE that?

Also, as pointed out, his and Gaiman's works were pozzed since they didn't talk about the Jewish Question and the need for a white ethnostate.
 
As luck would have it, I wrote this post about it just the other day in A&L, so I think this will answer your question. As quoted below:

(But TL;DR the author was very liberal in the early 1990s and likely would have been labelled a progressive, had the term been in use back then, but was considerably less obnoxious about it. Also in the books was a whole bunch of tranny shit that I assume is not in the show yet or else you would have mentioned it.)
The trans character is portrayed sympathetically, but is explicitly described as not being a real woman. At the time, this was not controversial, but now of course it means Gaiman is worse than Hitler. I'm not sure how their going to handle it in the next season.
 
a highly sympathetic portrayal of a trans woman and the abuse she faced from her rural conservative parents.
"She says they've still got my old room at home on the farm, just like it was when I left. All my old toys and everything laid out on the bed. Just like it's a shrine or something."
"Toys...?"

> parents mourning their beloved young son who was groomed by pedophiles and turned himself into an abomination
> """abuse"""
 
Just imagine all the sleepless night JK never had, all the outrage she never gave a fuck about. Just imagine never giving a fuck about Twatter no-lifers and their recreational outrage. Yup, poor JK. /sneed
Based Tranny Annihilator JK will be wiping tears away with £50 notes while trying to get to sleep atop a pile of cash so large that it can be seen from fucking space.
 
How can you like Douglas Adams? Guy was an atheist, and all atheists' are lolcows according to this site. His books were extremely anti-Christian.

And Pratchett? The man behind Good Omens, that anti-Christian piece of libtard degeneracy? You LIKE that?

Also, as pointed out, his and Gaiman's works were pozzed since they didn't talk about the Jewish Question and the need for a white ethnostate.
I feel like you may have a gripe against a particular user/group of users. How about you tag em in here pal, really air out your vagina?
 
As I recall, there was a similar reaction on Twitter last year because of a scene in Doctor Who where the title character recited Harry Potter to herself.

View attachment 3628900
I'm glad I gave up on Doctor Who a long time ago. Just these tweets have me MATI with how lore-retarded they are. A time lord "regenerating" is less like a lizard regrowing their tale, or a troon getting an amhole melonballed, and more like if we assume reincarnation-based popular theology is correct except we stay the same species and retain memories of our past lives. It's an entirely new body, with an entirely new mind. That's part of what makes the power so interesting. It is inherently not something you can approach from a humanly practical or medical perspective. It is the embodiment of a Just Fucking Magic plot device. Troons missing this point is displaying how much they miss critiques of their entire ideology. What they want and what are possible are incongruent and that will never change.
 
I've seen so many people repeat the whole "unfortunately Rowling is problematic now because transphobia" thing but I bet if you asked them for details they'd be like "idk but everyone says it" and troons are like "trust me bro something something dogwhistle". It's just funny how much it's blown out of proportion, really must be the betrayal of the century that wizard lady is not falling in line. People will keep referencing Harry Potter and troons will keep seething and maybe dilating.
 
We won’t stand for terf ideology! We’re the generation of rebels who grew up on Harry Potter and Hunger Games, who rebuke the system ran by orange Voldemorts and President Snows that’s inherently opposed to us!1!
View attachment 3628862
Is there an edit where her hand is doing a different salute and i dunno wearing a reddish band on her arm?
 
Should note that Sandman is very much well loved especially by SJW types and Gaiman has been front and center claiming EVERY change to the source material was his decision and basically taking full credit (or blame) for said controversial changes.

Also, kind of shocked that they are more upset about a gratuitous "insert modern day pop culture reference" to a work made in the late 80s/early 90s than the fact that the story in question involves a guy raping a woman (a muse) repeatedly "to get inspiration to write his masterpiece and become rich and famous". Along with said muse being portrayed as such a formerly haughty bitch who broke Morpheus's heart, that she has to beg Morpheus to save her from her rape room dungeon and even then, Morpheus SPARES her rapist after putting him into a nightmare illusion to "punish him" for holding his ex prisoner (which Morpheus cares more about than the actual rapes).
 
Back
Top Bottom