Well I went into this not expecting much because every comic adaptation so far by DC has been crap (clown buddy-cop Lucifer and all that). But I got less than not much. The show is crap. The changes to the comic are bad. The characters stink. There's no blasphemy by the main character. There's no swearing. Cassidy sucks. Tulip sucks. The storylines diverge in a huge way from the comic and they're badly written. Why did this get good reviews? Even if I could ignore the PERFECT comic behind it, and see it as something fresh, it would STILL suck.

I'm not even watching, since knowing how bad those adaptations usually turn out (Lucifer being the "best" example) I don't want to watch it not having read the comics first. The thing is, I don't think I ever will read it. I'm not a fan of Garth Ennis. I don't think I actually liked anything of his I've read. I consider his run in Hellblazer to be the low point of the series (or at least it's first decade, which is as far as I've collected it so far).

Oh man. Preacher and The Boys are probably my favorite comics, both by Ennis. But they're not like his usual work.

They cannot curse because the show is on AMC, and they do not like curse in their shows, even though nowadays every kid curse. As for the show diverging from the comics, Garth Ennis said in an interview that they cannot start the show just like the comics. They need to show the backgrounds and whatnot on the characters, because you know, casual viewers would not know what is happening. He did said that it will stay true to its material when they finish with this. I take this season as an intro for the cast, so probably season two, or the last few episodes of this season will get to it.

These words do not inspire confidence. It still sucks after two episodes, and it's still diverged WAY TOO MUCH to "stay true to its material". And if they wanted something softer (AMC) they should not have chosen a blaspemous, hardcore, violent epic like Preacher to begin with. Or DC (as if DC even cares anymore) should have given the job to networks with balls, like HBO, and not AMC.

As someone that's never heard of the series or the comics beforehand, I rather enjoyed the premier.

Will definitely watch more..

Perhaps I *am* too biased because of the comic. But I shall never know. I can't watch it without thinking of the original and the original is cosmic magnitudes of better.

Have only read Crossed by Garth Ennis so far which is a bit extreme (it's almost too extreme), is Preacher any good?
What's the story about f.e.?

I havn't watched the show but as far as I know (based on what I saw of The Walking Dead show vs comic) that AMC can get away with just about any cursing short of the F-bomb. If there is no cursing stronger than an occasional "hell, damn, fart" in Preacher then I'd be pretty surprised. Also, I find the need to introduce the character properly excuse to be a bit thin. I don't recall a lot of comic fans complaining about not knowing who these characters were when reading the books. Either Garth Ennis thinks that TV viewers naturally lack basic comprehension skills or he is getting a fat enough paycheck that he doesn't care what AMC does as long as it gets ratings.

That makes zero sense. Why would you need all that in a TV show to know what's going on, if it wasn't necessary in the comics? Preacher wasn't build on some pre-existing continuity, being "casual" doesn't enter into it.

There's not even introducing the characters properly, as per the excuse. The characters in the TV series are COMPLETELY CHANGED right down to their core and drives. Tulip is not the comic book Tulip AT ALL. Even the Preacher ain't the Preacher.
I'll go with the Garth Ennis is a sell-out theory. If he supports this, and is trying to "rationalize" his comic books RAPE, he's just being paid off to do it.

Preacher is extreme, yes. But it's also pretty good, story and character-wise. Not as good as The Boys, but still... very good.

Will look into it when I have some time. Thanks!

Yeah, that was one of my major concerns when I saw the trailer (the other was the "raised by his father to become a Preacher" bit). The only character I was able to recognize was Jesse Custer, and that was just due to the costuming. I didn't "see" Cassidy or Tulip at all because the TV versions of these characters are completely unrecognizable from the comic. I had heard that Jack Earle Haley was going to play Quincannon in season 1, which meant they're starting season one about 3 dozen issues into the series. This was pretty surprising considering Quincannons' particular... um... fetish? I figured they would want to have a more established show before they went down that road. Maybe see how TV audiences handle TC, Bob & Freddy (Sexual Investigators!!) and Jesus DeSade first and then spring the likes Odin Quincannon on them. However, if that was the story arc they were starting with then it would make sense that Tulip and Cassidy weren't shown yet. So I watched the trailer again with that in mind and this time thought that maybe it wouldn't be too bad. I was even a bit optimistic when I thought I spotted Deputy Dagget, until I found out that was Tulip.

You couldn't find anything to like in Arrow, The Flash, Gotham, iZombie, Supergirl, or Legends of Tomorrow? That pretty much just means your standards are kind of wonky. Those are decent shows, and each of them has at least a few good episodes.

Unless you're just coming at this as a purist, in which case your opinion can't matter, because there hasn't ever been a faithful adaptation of print to screen. Maybe you're just too young to remember how bad television was in the 70s and 80s? It's all so improved that even the shows I don't like, I have a hard time calling crap.

I mean, for god's sake, TV squeezed six seasons out of putting a string in a horse's mouth.