Am I the only one who feels this is kinda pointless? J. H. Williams is an awesome artist, but is there really any point to write a prequel based on a minor detail in comics that were published 20 years ago? When I first read the stuff that Gaiman quotes in the video, I thought it was just a cool little detail, a minor background mystery that was never even supposed to be resolved. Personally, I don't think any of the new Sandman-related comics released after the actual series ended have been necessary. Endless Nights had a few decent stories, but mostly it was just a showcase for the (admittedly great) artists, and this prequel will probably just be the same for Williams.
I know Gaiman's mentioned before that he might at some point explain what happened to Morpheus before issue #1, but I wonder if the reason why he's doing it 15 years after the series ended is because he felt this story needed to be told, or because DC just waved a big enough bundle of cash at him to write a new Sandman comic? If he truly wanted to do new Sandman stuff, I think that instead of a prequel he should've written a sequel starring the new Dream, Daniel. There was still some great story potential in that character, but I guess the fans want good ol' Morpheus.
edited 16th Jul '12 2:09:05 AM by Tuomas
They have the threat of Before Sandman. A bunch of pointless 6 issue limited series, one for each of the Endless, written by a bunch of hacks.
Not that I'm saying Gaiman isn't enthused by it, but it's impossible to tell if he's just making the best of the situation. And I will buy this and I will expect it to be good, because this is Neil Gaiman.
I'm just wondering what they're going to do next.
edited 17th Jul '12 7:28:00 AM by C0mraid
Am I a good man or a bad man?I thought Gaiman had a agreement with DC that they will not use the characters he created for The Sandman without his permission? That's why there was that Destiny miniseries written by Alisa Kwitney, because Destiny existed as a character before The Sandman... But none of the other Endless have ever appeared in comics that weren't written or approved by Gaiman, because he created them, and can veto any attempt by DC to use them.
edited 18th Jul '12 12:16:19 AM by Tuomas
Ah yes, I remember correctly, Gaiman wanted control of the characters he created so that DC wouldn't screw him over like they did to Moore, his mentor. To quote from here
:
Around this time, as the series grew in readership issue by issue, Gaiman wanted assurances that his creations would not be manipulated the way others had at DC. Prime in his mind was probably the treatment of Alan Moore, who had left DC in the late 1990s after creating Watchmen and Swamp Thing over a number of tense issues with the company. Moore had been Gaiman's writerly hero and had gotten Gaiman into comics. Moreover, Rick Veith had in 1989 departed Swamp Thing, on which he had succeeded Moore, because his scripted story, in which Swamp Thing met Jesus Christ, was cancelled almost at the last minute by DC. Gaiman had scripted Swamp Thing Annual #5, published shortly after Veitch's departure, in which he began to establish the mythological themes that he intended to infuse into the series when, as was originally planned, Veitch completed his last few issues, in collaboration with Gaiman, opening the way for a new era on Swamp Thing that would have likely seen Gaiman and Jamie Delano (then the writer of Hellblazer) alternate as writer of the series. In response to all of this, as well as the growing success of The Sandman, Gaiman demanded assurances from DC and threatened to walk off the series. In return, DC gave Gaiman control of the characters he had created, assuring (as they had not done with Moore's Watchmen) that other writers would not be given those characters. Indeed, the deal was a recognition of DC's past errors as well as the fact that Gaiman had not so much revived the Sandman, an old DC property, as created a new mythos, albeit one not entirely out of whole cloth. Satisfied, Gaiman remained on the series.
edited 18th Jul '12 12:27:34 AM by Tuomas
I'd forgotten about that. Is it all legally binding though? Or is it mostly just an informal deal to keep Gaiman happy, which DC might unwisely decide isn't worth it? I vaguely remember a case where Death was used without Gaiman's permission, I can't remember the details of that though.
Am I a good man or a bad man?You may be remembering the 1990 issue of Captain Atom where Death appeared... IIRC Gaiman did give his approval for that one, but he was disappointed with the end result, as it depicts Gaiman's Death as merely one of several personifications of Death, instead of being the Death.
AFAIK none of Gaiman's original characters have ever appeared in official DC comics without his approval. I'm not sure how binding his deal with DC is, but if they'd wanted to do some shameless cash-in with other writers, surely they would've done that years ago, when Sandman was still fresh in people's memory.
edited 18th Jul '12 1:55:17 PM by Tuomas
Oh god that would have been awesome.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Neil Gaiman is writing a Sandman prequel. JH Williams is drawing a Sandman prequel. It is time to lose your shit.
Never trust anyone who uses "degenerate" as an insult.