Good Omens - General Discussion

[kieyra]

I’m about halfway through. I’m struggling with some of it, as a huge Terry Pratchett fan. I liked the pilot, with lots of narrative directly from the book. But I don’t like Frances McDormand’s narration. Not at all. I’m very much aware of her reading her lines. I'm not convinced she 'gets' it while she's reading, which is a big problem. I’m also not sure how I feel about the show’s interpretation of Anathema. Book Anathema was resigned to the end of the world, not crusading against it. Also, her styling is so weird it’s highly distracting.

To the good: the history and development of Aziraphale and Crowley’s romance in episode three is a nice touch.

Edited May 31, 2019 by kieyra

[Aulty]

Personally, I really liked the first 3.5 episodes, but the rest (apart from the final 20 minutes) was not as strong and to be honest, for me, it was the same with the book. I just enjoy the devious angel/demon storyline more than the kids' adventure. However, I thought the children actors did an amazing job.

Overall, the casting for this was really on point. Michael Sheen and Dave Tennant were fantastic and the show was the strongest when the story focussed on them (episode 1 & 3 were the best). I also thought the styling was well done overall, especially for Crowley.

All the fuss about the Cumberbatch playing Satan, in retrospect, was as riddiculous as the reappearance of the Hammaconda in the jogging scene. They had Andy Hamilton (who did a radio show about satan) narrate the toad at the trial, which was a nice touch. And I agree with you @kieyra - I didn't like Frances McDormand’s narration either.

Such a pity that Christopher Lee isn't around anymore to lend Death his epic voice.

Adria Arjona and Jack Whitehall were pretty cute, and what a shame that we didn't get more of them at the beginning of the story. They are the sort of rich characters that Pratchett was known for and that could easily star in a story of their own.

[Danny Franks]

First episode - It definitely captures the voice of the book, although perhaps too literally. I'm not sold on Frances McDormand narrating. For the prologue it was fine, but to keep it sprinkled throughout the episode was an odd choice. A lot of it was too on the nose for a TV show. I get the feeling that Neil Gaiman wanted to preserve as many of Sir Terry's jokes as possible.

Lots of familiar faces, which gave the show a sense of importance. Tennant and Sheen were both really good, as I expected them to be. Crowley's dissolute charm and Aziraphale's fussiness were perfect. And their alter egos, the nanny and the farmer genuinely had me laughing.

The effects are a bit cheap looking, and more what I'd have expected of the BBC than  Amazon, but they fit the show.  

Second episode - The burning of Agnes Nutter was almost Monty Python in its absurdity, and Jack Whitehall did a passable Lancashire accent.

Nice introductions to Newt and Anathema. Jack Whitehall was surprisingly good as a nebbish loser, and I liked Shadwell as a ranting street preacher. Adria Arjona is gorgeous, probably too gorgeous for the role, but I liked her too. And I always love Miranda Richardson.

David Tennant threatening plants was great. Jon Hamm buying pornography was very funny. The Them are pretty good, as child actors go. And Terry Pratchett was always so good at writing the casual cruelty of children.

Guns in the right hands giving weight to a moral argument? Sounds familiar.

I laughed at "Oh Lord, heal this bike." Aziraphale being too helpful, while Crowley was busy fixing his car.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Danny Franks

[Rickster]

I have absolutely no knowledge of the book and have watched the first 1.5 episodes. I’m finding it pretty entertaining. I do find the narraration intrusive and think it confirms my opinion that narration is the screenwriter’s last resort when they can’t find a way to adequately communicate the story through dramatization.

[snowwhyte]

I binge watched this in a day and will probably watch it all again soon. I really enjoyed it. The cast was great, it had a fun, whimsical feel and I thought the Queen heavy soundtrack was a nice touch. 

[Anela]

I wanted to watch this today, but I've felt like crap, so I'll have to wait. I want to be awake, and ready to enjoy it. 

[kieyra]

I don’t want to pile on too much. I’ll just say that, as a lifelong Pratchett fan and a scripted television fan, I know this could have been better, and that’s frustrating. I don’t think Gaiman was the right person for the job. I’m not sure Amazon was the right studio. (As mentioned upthread, a lot of it just looked ... cheap.)

The cast was obviously fantastic, if under-utilized in many places. (Huge waste of Jon Hamm and Mireille Enos, off the top of my head.)

[Miles]

10 minutes ago, kieyra said:

I don’t think Gaiman was the right person for the job. I’m not sure Amazon was the right studio.

I don't think Amazon is the problem here.

American Gods was amazing in season one. Then Gaiman got Bryan Fuller fired and completely ruined season two. I mean "worse than almost anything I've seen on TV"-ruined. From one of the best shows ever to one of the worst in the span of one season-break.

That being said, I just watched episode one of good omens and quite liked it. It's no american gods season one, but what is? But, a good part of what I liked wasn't actually the script or the visuals but David Tennant and Micheal Sheen acting their asses off. They really had some good chemestry going on there.

I guess I'll see how the rest of the season fares shortly.

[SnoGirl]

I just finished watching the whole thing, so beware of spoilers here.

I really liked it. I’ve always been hit or miss with Gaimen, only liking a handful of his books so I’ve never read Good Omens. But now, I want to.

Loved Crowley and Aziraphale. Found myself wishing they would return back to the pair every time someone else would be on screen. My heart broke when Crowley though Az was dead-Tennant did nice work on that scene. Found myself hoping for a hug between the angel and demon when Az got his body back and was disappointed we never got one. Friends for 6000 years and no hug when you find out your best friend is alive again? I thought it was an odd choice for zero physical touching.

Loved any times the Angel and Demon would stumble into an idiom that had to go with the other place “Good Heavens, shouldn’t of said that.” Also loved when Crowley and Az stood behind Adam like they were the Angel and Devil on his shoulders. Great imagery.

As really liked Newt and Anathema. I thought we saw the pair just the right amount. And I was surprised by Jack Whitehall-there were two briefest moments when I saw the snarky Jack Whithall glint in his eyes and not Newt. But he did a great job otherwise, I totally saw Newt and not Jack Whitehall(I problem I have a lot with comedians).

Overall, I liked it. I would be pleasantly surprised if they went with a season two, but totally fine if they just had one season.

[Featherhat]

I liked it a lot, maybe not as much as I was hoping but it did the job well enough for me and a lot of that was DT and SM, they definitely sparked off each other fantastically. The book isn't my favourite of either author and the adaptation wasn't amazing but it could have been a lot worse. Is that damning with faint praise? Because it's not meant to be, I enjoyed it much more than many other book adaptations. 

[Danny Franks]

17 hours ago, Miles said:

I don't think Amazon is the problem here.

American Gods was amazing in season one. Then Gaiman got Bryan Fuller fired and completely ruined season two. I mean "worse than almost anything I've seen on TV"-ruined. From one of the best shows ever to one of the worst in the span of one season-break.

I find Neil Gaiman to be full of cool, exciting, interesting ideas. More ideas than most other writers could hope to have. But I do find his execution of them to often be lacking.

There's just a coldness to his writing that I struggle to connect with. I enjoyed Neverwhere, but really felt indifferent to American Gods and Anansi Boys. I loved the movie of Stardust, but didn't enjoy the book. I think I liked the movie mainly because Claire Danes was so charming in it. I want to like his books, and tell people they should read them, but just don't ever feel that sense of enjoyment when reading. Not like I always do with Terry Pratchett, whose writing is warmer than an alpaca wool blanket, and wittier than a... very witty thing.

[vavera4ka]

27 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

I find Neil Gaiman to be full of cool, exciting, interesting ideas. More ideas than most other writers could hope to have. But I do find his execution of them to often be lacking.

There's just a coldness to his writing that I struggle to connect with. I enjoyed Neverwhere, but really felt indifferent to American Gods and Anansi Boys. I loved the movie of Stardust, but didn't enjoy the book. I think I liked the movie mainly because Claire Danes was so charming in it. I want to like his books, and tell people they should read them, but just don't ever feel that sense of enjoyment when reading. Not like I always do with Terry Pratchett, whose writing is warmer than an alpaca wool blanket, and wittier than a... very witty thing.

interestingly i found Neverwhere really hard to get through. My fav book of Gaiman is Ocean at the end of the lane. Followed by American Gods. I just love the imagination and language of his writing. It's so obvious that Neverwhere is one of his first books. I could see what would later develop into a cheeky, sarcastic, out of this world style. Maybe if i started with neverwhere and went up the timeline...

I'm finished with two episodes and I'm enjoying this a lot. The tongue in cheek dialogue is making me chuckle a lot. The "glorious tool" line made me LOL more than i care to admit.

I do wish they took a page out of Lucifer on Fox (the only thing they did right in season 3) and had Gaiman narrate as God. 

[MissLucas]

Well as someone who's only been familiar with Good Omens via lots of disgruntled comments about Supernatural's seasons 4 & 5 (IIRC) I quite enjoyed that. Tennant and Sheen were great, I loved the wackiness of it all which had whiffs of Doctor Who (no surprises there). The production design was interesting too. 

Some of the secondary characters like Shadwell never really worked for me - but I was binge-watching and I think plays a part here. I tend to get impatient with B-plots and just wait for the main action to return. It's the curse of the delivery format. 

[Jack Shaftoe]

I have watched 4 out of 6 episodes. Maybe it's because I have read the book many times and love it so much but the parts where they have followed the book are from great to good (though the narration is a bit too much overall) and the parts written for the show without being based on any specific scenes in the book are from mediocre to bad. I am enjoying it a lot, don't get me wrong but I don't see why they had to cut so much and add so much new material at the same time. For instance (book spoilers)

Spoiler

The whole storyline with Gabriel is both superfluous and contradictory to what happens in the book. In the book, the readers are clearly supposed to be shocked when Aziraphale contacts Metatron and the latter is all "Stop the war? Don't be silly, we want the war because we will win". Here, Gabriel and co expressed the same idea almost from the very start. And keeping the US diplomat and warlock under surveillance... in the book neither Hell nor Heaven cares very much about the details of what's going on Earth, that's precisely why Aziraphale and Crowley got away with fraternizing for so long. It just bugs me that the show spent to much time on that. Plus, if they kept Warlock under surveillance they would have noticed the lack of a hell hound.

Also, too many flashbacks of Aziraphale and Crowley. I understand why the show's creators would want to spend more time on them as opposed to the kids (it's never easy to work with child actors, plus people want to watch star actors) but as much as I love those two I found some of the stuff in these flashbacks pretty cringeworthy. Aziraphale going to France in 1793 because he just dying to eat crepe (pun intended) and Crowley having to rescue him from the guillotine? So lame.

I do love that they have kept many small details from the book like the interview with the nuclear power plant spokesman: "We were hoping you clever buggers at the BBC would have an idea." Or Aziraphale learning the gavotte. The acting is great, I just wish the writing wasn't so uneven.

[kieyra]

3 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

I find Neil Gaiman to be full of cool, exciting, interesting ideas. More ideas than most other writers could hope to have. But I do find his execution of them to often be lacking.

There's just a coldness to his writing that I struggle to connect with. I enjoyed Neverwhere, but really felt indifferent to American Gods and Anansi Boys. I loved the movie of Stardust, but didn't enjoy the book. I think I liked the movie mainly because Claire Danes was so charming in it. I want to like his books, and tell people they should read them, but just don't ever feel that sense of enjoyment when reading. Not like I always do with Terry Pratchett, whose writing is warmer than an alpaca wool blanket, and wittier than a... very witty thing.

I was having almost this exact train of thought yesterday. It’s like Gaiman is ideas first, characters second, and Pratchett is characters first, ideas second. And I really need the second arrangement to connect with material. I liked the Sandman comics back when I was a quasi-Goth young adult, but American Gods left absolutely no impression on me, and nothing else of his I tried after that fared any better.

Almost all of Pratchett’s books get re-read at least once a year.

I’m also having a tiny bit of resentment for how much Gaiman is invoking Pratchett’s memory (and carefully linking Pratchett’s legacy to his own) in the process of promoting the show. The fact that I’m convinced that Pratchett did 99% of the actual writing for Good Omens only contributes to that feeling.

Edited June 1, 2019 by kieyra

[Slovenly Muse]

Hmmm. I just finished the series, and I have some mixed thoughts.

While I enjoyed the book "Good Omens," I didn't love it (the book) as much as I hoped to, given the authors involved.

So, when I heard the series would lean heavily on the relationship between Crowley and Aziraphale, I was glad to hear it, because that really was the best thing about the book. And it worked brilliantly on screen. Sheen and Tennant were absolutely perfect, and every scene they had together genuinely delighted me. I do wish the other characters had had the chance to get a bit more development and get fleshed out into real people. Everyone was just kind of where they were, doing what they were doing, without much exploration into their inner life, or how they felt about it. What did Anathema want to do with her life that Agnes' prophecies were keeping her from? What was in Shadwell's background or upbringing that made him believe and behave the way he did? How did Madame Tracy feel about being a "Jezebel?" Was it something she did to pay the bills, or did she find it genuinely satisfying? Who are these people?

The efffects were cheap-looking, some of the touches were too cheesy, and the characters and plot could have used more work... but some of it just WORKED for me despite that. Like the Queen soundtrack in Crowley's car. Sometimes, it was clearly what Crowley was listening to in the car, and other times it HAD to be the show's music cues because the car could not be playing the song at that moment, and it made no sense, and it was totally overdone and over the top, and I LOVED IT. But then there was the narration, and while I didn't mind Frances McDormond's reading of it, I found it REALLY confusing that she was supposed to be "God" objectively telling the story of how Heaven and Hell and humanity were struggling to interpret Her "ineffable plan" without actually making Herself a part of the story or speaking for Herself. The character of God and the narrator should have been two different entities, because combining them made no narrative sense.

It was lacking in a lot of ways, and I have some criticism. On the other hand, Crowley/Aziraphale were so damned good that I think I might have actually found the miniseries even more enjoyable than the book!

People are bringing up American Gods, and I think it's pretty clear between this show and that one that Gaiman is being a bit too controlling about his adaptations. I totally understand that no author wants to sign away the rights to their labour of love and watch a studio strip it, hollow it out, and mutilate it on the screen. However, I think that the best things about Gaiman's writing are the things that just don't translate to the screen. I love the worlds he creates, and the atmosphere. His prose is very absorbing and captivating... but the actual stories, the plots, never leave me on the edge of my seat desperate to find out what's going to happen next, or gasping aloud at a crazy twist I never saw coming. His plots, just  the step-by-step progression of events from beginning to end, are, in my opinion, the weakest parts of his writing, and unfortunately they are the only part that can actually make it into a screen adaptation. If he won't let people more experienced in the visual medium make changes and explore the potential in what he has written, then adaptations of his work will always be lacking, and never really be showing off his work in the best light.

(For example, the first season of American Gods made him look like a better writer because of its quality. The events did not follow the book particularly closely, but the atmosphere, the feeling, was there, and by straying off the path to explore the potential in the source material, Bryan Fuller made the source material seem richer. The quality was there, if not the exact story. Clawing the story back under control just ruined the whole endeavor.)

The fact that a lot of what made the book enjoyable was Terry Pratchett's contributions, is a problem in the same way. Which is to say, the best qualities of Pratchett's writing are also difficult to translate to the screen! So, while there was a lot that was enjoyable here (and I really did enjoy it), I can't help but wonder what the series could have looked like with a stronger writing staff who were more willing to be bold and take big swings. Keep that sparkling Pratchett dialogue, and that immersive Gaiman world-building, and just go for it.

But, in the absence of the series this could have been, I'll certainly take what it was!

[NeenerNeener]

I enjoyed it, but then it's been a really long time since I read the book so I don't remember enough of it to be disappointed. Tennant and Sheen being goofy made me happy.

I rewound the scene at the air field guard post to see what the American guard was reading...it was "American Gods".

[kieyra]

So Gaiman inserted his own 20-year-old book as an Easter egg into the show?

Okayyyy ...

[vavera4ka]

the Russians on the submarine jumping to conclusion on who the war is against... first guess? Ukraine... cheeky LOL

[SnoGirl]

Can anyone explain the smoke that was going into Crowley’s eyes after he got the antichrist in episode one? Was that Satan temping/convincing Crowley to deliver the baby?

[rwlevin]

6 hours ago, vavera4ka said:

I do wish they took a page out of Lucifer on Fox (the only thing they did right in season 3) and had Gaiman narrate as God. 

I was thinking more Stephen Fry a la Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

[Haleth]

I’m only through episode 3 and am loving Aziraphale and Crowley. Loved seeing snippets of their interaction over the past 6000 years. Guess I’m gonna have to read the book. 

[mac123x]

What a disappointment.  

I want to compliment the 4 child actors - I thought they did a great job of being children, not child-actors-trying-to-be-children.  Tennant did a pretty good job also.  Sheen was too prissy.  Aziraphale is supposed to be prissy, but Sheen played him as if he was spineless.  Actor playing Pulsiver was good.  The rest were horrible.

Good actors like Miranda Richardson and Michael McKean were painfully overacting.  The actress playing Anathema was really pretty but also really bad.  I couldn't tell what she was going for emotionally in any of her scenes, and (I'm just going to say it) her accent was distracting.  

Past that, it felt padded.  They could probably have done this in 4-5 episodes.  The flashback section (25 minutes of scenes prior to the opening credits) was unneeded.

SFX was Dr. Who quality bad.  And not NuWho -- 1980s. on the verge of being canceled, era.  Hellhound!Dog was laughable. 

When the hellhound transformed into Dog, I did say "AWWW" out loud.  What a cute animal!  Perfect casting.

[fredfreddy44]

I'm guessing Newton Pulsifer's tie was supposed the resemble the Doctor's scarf.  

Having seen the first 3 episodes so far, I am enjoying it.

[kieyra]

9 hours ago, mac123x said:

Good actors like Miranda Richardson and Michael McKean were painfully overacting. 

And Mireille Enos. I noticed this too and I’m not sure if the blame lies with the director, or ...? They played some scenes so unnecessarily broadly. I had to skip through most of the seance scene, because it was embarrassing to watch. Why was Hastur always shrieking in terror or distress? Why was War giggling inappropriately in weird reaction shots?

Don’t get me started on Death.

A lot of things would have had far more impact with a lighter touch. They completely removed any sense of threat from the four horsemen by having everyone ham it up.

[Jack Shaftoe]

I have watched it all now. They did not include the other Four Bikers of the Apocalypse?!? Unforgivable!

And the trials of Aziraphale and Crowley were so silly and unnecessary.

And yes, quite a bit of overacting by the supporting cast.

[raven]

19 hours ago, vavera4ka said:

It's so obvious that Neverwhere is one of his first books. I could see what would later develop into a cheeky, sarcastic, out of this world style. Maybe if i started with neverwhere and went up the timeline...

Neverwhere is Gaiman's novelization of the mini-series he wrote for the BBC, if that makes any difference.  Neverwhere is my favorite, I've read it several times, even if it's not as meaty as some of his others.

I re-read Good Omens a few weeks ago because I didn't remember a lot about it.  For the comments about padding this series, when I re-read I felt the book was padded - you could remove the entire Agnes Nutter plot (prophecies, witches, Anathema, Newt, etc) and not lose any of the basic story.   I think 6 episodes for this series was just right, otherwise the show would have fallen into the trap that tanked the TV American Gods for me - too much extraneous padding that adds nothing to the story (I'm also very tired of the Bryan Fuller style, but that has nothing to do with Gaiman).  American Gods is my second favorite Gaiman book.
 

1 hour ago, Jack Shaftoe said:

They did not include the other Four Bikers of the Apocalypse?!? Unforgivable!

See, I didn't miss this at all.  When I read the book again, I couldn't get through their parts fast enough. 

I really enjoyed this series.  I had been worried when I heard there was narration but it ended up not bothering me.  I thought the performances were all good and Tennant and Sheen had great chemistry.   The Chattering Nuns in the beginning was funny and a bit creepy.

I pretty much laughed all through our first introduction with the Them (the whole Spanish Inquisition conversation is great - I loved Wensleydale).  I tend to avoid anything with teens/tweens but this hit the right notes.  Dog's introduction was perfect and as an animal actor, he managed to steal a couple of scenes from some good child actors, so there you go.

The actor playing Newt was surprisingly rootable in a fairly thankless part.  Anathema was fine.   Micheal McKean was fun and there was a nice rapport with Miranda Richardson, though as I said, both parts could be removed and not be missed.

However, the story is really about Crowley and Aziraphale and they nailed that part.   I loved the 6,000 year flashbacks of their friendship - which absolutely would not have worked if the two actors weren't paired so well.   I don't think the trial at the end was necessary, since a big theme of the book IMO is that the higher ups just plod along without really watching the underlings.

I think the slight cheesiness worked, though I though Aziraphale's book shop looked great.  We don't need flashy special effects IMO - the book is not supposed to be threatening or horrifying, though there are deaths.  The war ends up being banal.  In the show, I think the only actual death we see is the nun in the beginning?   We are, after all, rooting for Crowley, a demon who didn't fall so much as saunter vaguely downwards.  

This is a theme in the novels of Gaiman's that I've mentioned - how ordinary life and people/beings not so much as rise up but stumble/bumble/live their way through and beyond whatever gods/demons/supernatural stuff happens. 

[AstaCharles]

This is my first introduction to Pratchett and Gaiman ( never read their books), I tuned in because of Tennant and Sheen and I enjoyed it. The tone, some of the characters, and especially the narration reminded me of the Lemony Snicket series, which was fine for me.

[vavera4ka]

Can we talk about how there's a Queen song for every point in your life?

lol

[MissLucas]

Well as someone who's only been familiar with Good Omens via lots of disgruntled comments about Supernatural's seasons 4 & 5 (IIRC) I quite enjoyed that. Tennant and Sheen were great, I loved the wackiness of it all which had whiffs of Doctor Who (no surprises there). The production design was interesting too. 

Some of the secondary characters like Shadwell never really worked for me - but I was binge-watching and I think plays a part here. I tend to get impatient with B-plots and just wait for the main action to return. It's the curse of the delivery format. 

I hope all the nice comments about Jack Whitehall's (Newt) acting help him overcome his Robert Pattinson trauma.

[rwlevin]

There sure were a lot of Easter eggs. Anybody else catch the license plate of Adam’s dad’s car? SIDRAT! And I usually suck at catching Easter eggs.

[SoMuchTV]

22 hours ago, rwlevin said:

There sure were a lot of Easter eggs. Anybody else catch the license plate of Adam’s dad’s car? SIDRAT! And I usually suck at catching Easter eggs.

Cool!  I didn't really catch anything other than the book the base guard was reading.

Just finished - and I quite enjoyed it.  But, I had absolutely no expectations, good or bad, going into it.  I haven't read any Pratchett or Gaiman (except some Gaiman kids' books), hadn't been looking forward to it for 2 years, haven't gotten into Dr. Who or really any BBC, wasn't a follower of any of the actors (but it was fun to see someone I recognized pop up - Better-Call-Saul's brother, Fleabag's father, Jon Hamm as Jon Hamm...)  So I can totally understand some of the criticisms (too much narration, too much overacting, not enough of the stuff from the book, too much stuff from the book...) but for me, those things weren't a problem.

And I loved Hellhound puppy.

There were several times, during the final episode, where I thought, "it could end here, that would be perfect", but then saw there was quite a bit of time left.

Now trying to decide if I should read the book, or leave it be.  I have a week at the beach coming up...

Edited June 3, 2019 by SoMuchTV
Because on further reflection, I realize that Terry PRatchett is not related to Ann Patchett, and Jon Hamm has an H in his last name but not his first. Did I massacre anyone else's name?

[palmaire]

I came into it blind and really enjoyed it. Maybe because I'm not familiar with the source material, but the narration added to the story for me. I enjoyed the arch overtone and comedic elements, 

I was going to skip it because the only thing I'd seen Michael Sheen in was The Good Fight, where I disliked his character (and acting) so much that I stopped watching the show entirely. But I thought he was delightful here and honestly wouldn't have recognized him as the same person if I hadn't known.

Tennant made the first season of Jessica Jones for me and kind of did the same here. His voice, posture and body language were perfect for a hedonistic demon, and all quite different from the way he carried himself in Broadchurch, for example. I can't say enough about his acting.

[Turtle Wexler]

4 hours ago, rwlevin said:

There sure were a lot of Easter eggs. Anybody else catch the license plate of Adam’s dad’s car? SIDRAT! And I usually suck at catching Easter eggs.

I appreciated the brief Doctor Who “Exterminate,” from one of the kids, and thought that Crowley could have perhaps thrown in a random planet/moon/celestial body while deciding where to head from his office and so was looking at the different images of planets and galaxies.  As a Tori Amos fan, I also liked Pepper’s comment to War, “I believe in peace, Bitch” [from Amos’ song, “Waitress”].

[scottiB]

4 hours ago, palmaire said:

I came into it blind and really enjoyed it. Maybe because I'm not familiar with the source material, but the narration added to the story for me. I enjoyed the arch overtone and comedic elements.

That's my take, too. I am unfamiliar with Pratchett's work, and I've read only Sandman (years ago) and American Gods by Gaiman. I was utterly charmed by this from beginning to end. I loved the Gorey-esque opening credits, and, as a raised American Midwesterner, I loved the Englishness of it (even with McDormand narrating).

Perhaps since Game of Thrones ended, and I've been watching Chernobyl, having a short run, somewhat silly but thoughtful series is just what I needed. Plus, it had a happy ending. This is a show I'll just have on in the background while doing chores. I really liked it.

[tennisgurl]

I am a big fan of the book, Neil Gaimon and Terry Pratchet are two of my favorite authors ever, so of course I loved all of this. I think the miniseries really nailed the feel of the book, whimsical while also having some decently deep themes and concepts, with a lot of humor and heart. Both authors really enjoy exploring the frustration and beauty of the mundane, laughing at the absurdity of life, while also appreciating the pure joy of a small bookshop of a really good slice of pie. 

I thought the child actors were all really charming and likable, and kid actors are always rather hit or miss. I especially loved adorable hellhound Dog, who went from murderous scary monster of Hell to a cute doggo who just wants belly rubs and to play with a ball in about three seconds. That dog was super cute, and had some pretty good reaction shots. He was a good dog actor I suppose. 

Really, they had a great cast in general. Sheen and Tennant of course carried a lot of the story, and they were just as good as I thought they would be. I especially loved the flashbacks of the two of them meeting throughout time in different eras, and they had a really natural rapport together. Everyone was great, it was just so cool seeing the book come to life so well. 

I loved the opening credits, I watched them all the way through every time. Kind of a cross between Edward Gorey and Terry Gilliam.

[Dbolt]

It has been many years since I read the book so the differences didn’t really bother me. I enjoyed this very much. About the only thing that really bothered me was a very tiny change, at least as I remember from all those years ago. Wasn’t it the Chinese digging the tunnels in the book?  That would make more sense than the Tibetans digging spy tunnels. Was it changed to make sure it could be shown in China?

[Anduin]

1 hour ago, Dbolt said:

It has been many years since I read the book so the differences didn’t really bother me. I enjoyed this very much. About the only thing that really bothered me was a very tiny change, at least as I remember from all those years ago. Wasn’t it the Chinese digging the tunnels in the book?  That would make more sense than the Tibetans digging spy tunnels. Was it changed to make sure it could be shown in China?

I'm not sure where my copy is, but from memory it was always Tibetans. Tibet has always had that feel of mysticism to it, while China is just another country. The tunnels weren't spy tunnels, it's something to do with Tibetan monks.

Essentially, I liked it. Pretty good. Could have done with less narration, though. Also, it felt like they lingered on some of the jokes a little too long. Jokes are meant to be tossed off. The speed and snap are part of the appeal. By dragging them out, you dilute the humour.

[SnarkyBear]

I haven't read the book but I think I have to now. I'm about halfway through the series & I absolutely LOVE it. Tennant is my fav. Doctor Who so he can do no wrong. The whimsy is fantastic. This is so up my alley. I just love slightly absurd funny stories with mythologies. Hitchhiker at the End of the Universe, for ex.

I've been bingeing Lucifer too & this has a similar vibe with the idea of a reluctant evil/demon who isn't completely bad and an angel that has to report to the heavens. I know that goes against true Christian theology but I take it with a grain of salt & imagine it's just a different universe. It doesn't purport to be "Truth" so as a Christian, I just enjoy it as its own myth & don't take offense.

The relationship of angel & demon is my favorite thing about the series & I want to squeeze Dog so hard - so adorable.

[futurechemist]

In the last couple of episodes Tennant really seemed to channel the Doctor. I could have closed my eyes and the voice and dialogue would have fit either show.

Crowley and Aziraphale had great chemistry. But my main criticism, which also applied to the book, was that the 2 of them didn't seem to deliberately do anything of consequence. They spent years raising the wrong kid. They didn't convince Adam to back down. They didn't fight the horsemen. They didn't convince Gabriel/Beelzebub anything. Anything they did, like fund Shadwell, was indirect and not deliberate.

[iMonrey]

I'd never heard of the book so I didn't know what to expect. I didn't love it but I didn't hate it either. Not being overly familiar with the source material or the writers it came from, to me it had a very Terry Gilliam type vibe to it. Just weird, otherworldly and somewhat difficult to follow. Very foreign. Some funny bits but overly just odd.

I'm not a huge David Tennant fan, either - I know he has a very devoted fan base, I'm assuming from Dr. Who or something else I never saw or followed. So that wasn't a big draw for me, although he ended up being one of the best things about the show.

Quote

However, I think that the best things about Gaiman's writing are the things that just don't translate to the screen. I love the worlds he creates, and the atmosphere. H is prose is very absorbing and captivating... but the actual stories, the plots, never leave me on the edge of my seat desperate to find out what's going to happen next, or gasping aloud at a crazy twist I never saw coming.

Interesting remark about the books because that's pretty much the way I felt about the show. I did not binge this like I usually do streaming shows. It took me a couple weeks to get through it. Nothing about it made me want to jump right into the next episode as soon as one was over. 

Quote

 I felt the book was padded - you could remove the entire Agnes Nutter plot (prophecies, witches, Anathema, Newt, etc) and not lose any of the basic story. 

By the end of it I really didn't see the point of the subplot with Anathema, Pulsifer and the witch finder. I can see the need for more characters in a book but they didn't add anything to the story in the show.

I liked the way it ended though.

[thuganomics85]

Just finished this.  Never read the book (will probably rectify that soon), but the concept and cast seemed interesting, and I enjoyed it overall.  I did have some issues with the pacing and I felt like some moments didn't really lead anywhere, but I enjoyed the whimsical feel to the series and show.  I actually kind of reminded me of Pushing Daises at times, with thew whole narration stuff (only this time its God!) and quirky characters.

Not surprise that I thought David Tennant and Micheal Sheen were the highlights.  They both were perfect fits for Crowley and Aziraphale and shined in all of their scenes, but they were really fantastic together.  They just had a natural chemistry with one another, and really sold the friendship.  Tennant in particular did an excellent job with making it obvious that despite Crowley's snarks and insults, he really did care for Aziraphale underneath it all, and truly consider him to be his best and only friend.  Probably why my favorite part of the series was the beginning of episode three, when it was just Crowley and Aziraphale showing up at random key points in history, and bickering with each other.  I'd probably watch full episodes of those two just dicking around history.  It would be like Doctor Who is Ten was going through a rebellious, grungy phase, and his companion was a prissy Michael Sheen!

The supporting cast was solid as well.  I became a fan of Adria Arjona the first time I saw her on Person of Interest, so I'm glad she is still getting work, even though I never could fully figure out the Anathema character, and the accent she was going for didn't work.  Speaking of which, Michael McKean's attempt at a Scottish accent (I think that's what that was?) was.... something.  But I'm glad he seems to be having a career resurgence right now after Better Call Saul.  Miranda Richardson was fun as always, and Jack Whitehall did good work too.  Not sure why they even bothered getting Nick Offerman for his throwaway role, but I don't complain.  Jon Hamm as Gabriel a.k.a. "Angel Jon Hamm" was great.  Loved the bit where he kept trying to act like a human by talking about porn in an overabundant fashion.

Adam and the rest of the kids were well cast and I liked their scenes, even though any time they busted out the bikes, I was all "Hey, it is Stranger Things: UK!"  Does anyone know where they filmed all of that stuff in that town, because that really was a beautiful location.

I still have the opening credits song stuck in my head.

So, is this a miniseries or is there still more material to keep going?  If so, I'll be back.

[NeenerNeener]

Here in the "shallow" end of the pool I noticed Tennant doesn't have a "Dad Bod" yet, although Sheen definitely does.

[snowwhyte]

18 hours ago, NeenerNeener said:

Here in the "shallow" end of the pool I noticed Tennant doesn't have a "Dad Bod" yet, although Sheen definitely does.

To be fair to Michael Sheen, Aziraphale is a bit of a glutton in this. Maybe he is deliberately going for a portly look.

[snowwhyte]

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/31/michael-sheen-awkwardly-asked-wore-fat-suit-good-omens-9755821/ 

So just read this article and apparently a journalist asked Sheen if he wore a fat suit for this and he didn't. Also, Neil Gaimen originally intended him to play Crowley but he thought he'd be better as an angel.

[Sile]

2 hours ago, snowwhyte said:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/31/michael-sheen-awkwardly-asked-wore-fat-suit-good-omens-9755821/ 

So just read this article and apparently a journalist asked Sheen if he wore a fat suit for this and he didn't. Also, Neil Gaimen originally intended him to play Crowley but he thought he'd be better as an angel.

Ouch!  That's like asking a woman if she's pregnant; don't do it unless she's crowning.  And, even then, think twice before actually doing it.

Sheen, Tennant and Hamm were on some show the week before where Sheen said that he and Gaiman had been friends for years and Gaiman had always had him in mind for Crowley.  How is it that one of my favorite actors and one of my favorite authors have been friends for so long and I didn't know about it??

I think maybe Sheen aged out of it.  Back in the Underworld days I can see him being a really good Crowley!

Edited June 7, 2019 by Sile

[Haleth]

I just finished the last episode.  I loved, loved it!  The twist at the end was fantastic!  I am sooo going to miss Aziraphale and Crowley.  What wonderful characters!  

[moonshine71]

20 hours ago, snowwhyte said:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/31/michael-sheen-awkwardly-asked-wore-fat-suit-good-omens-9755821/ 

So just read this article and apparently a journalist asked Sheen if he wore a fat suit for this and he didn't. Also, Neil Gaimen originally intended him to play Crowley but he thought he'd be better as an angel.

I don't believe that's entirely accurate. According to Gaiman, he fully planned to offer Sheen the part of Aziraphale but was worried that he would be more interested in the Crowley role(which is consistent with Sheen's comment that Gaiman assumed he would want to play the demon). They both went into the meeting believing they would have to talk the other out of Sheen playing Crowley.

[Morrigan2575]

Just finished. First 2 episodes were a little rough/disappointing but, it got so much better starting with that beautiful cold open in episode 3. 

I think I'm going to have to do a rewatch.

[Jordan61]

On 6/1/2019 at 11:01 AM, vavera4ka said:

I do wish they took a page out of Lucifer on Fox (the only thing they did right in season 3) and had Gaiman narrate as God. 

That would have been great! I have never actually read any of Gaiman's books; instead I have listened to most of them in audiobook form. He narrates quite a lot of them and does an excellent job.

I am only through one episode of Good Omens so far and I am sad to say I was a bit bored. And hearing there won't be the Four Bikers of the Apocalypse is disappointing since one of my favorite lines from the book is when another biker asks them what chapter they belong to and they say, "Revelation."