Good Omens

[TyneTeas]

How good does the trailer look!

So excited for 31 May

I'm torn between rereading the book before or waiting until after

We've watched four so far. It feels less subtle and nuanced than the books - I'm missing some of the slow build up and wordplay. But I get why that wouldn't necessarily have translated well, and I love the relationship between Crowley and Azirephale.

We're watching with a 9yo, and it's fine so far, if you're okay with some swearing. (Multiple shits in Ep1 and a fuck in Ep4). The sex was quite cleverly done and I don't think he understood what was happening - there was no nudity.

I can't bring to mind any TV or film adaptation of a book that has been as subtle or nuanced as its book.

I deliberately didn't read the book again in the run up to the tv series to hope I could just enjoy it as it was without comparison thieving any of my joy.

There are a few things that I would have perhaps liked more of, but not at the loss of something else in it, and I think on the whole it was fairly balanced.

I expected Death's voice to be more hollow. The voice sounded like Brian Blessed.

I sound like I'm slagging it off, I'm not, I did enjoy it, but I'd just watched American Gods which I thought was AMAZING, and maybe compared it to that too much?

Michael Sheen was as brilliant as Aziraphael as I hoped he would be. He looked like he'd put some weight on for the part, and his face looked very cherubic I thought.

"Michael Sheen has revealed that a journalist recently asked him if he wore a fat suit in the newly released TV series Good Omens."

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

I was watching to see if I could show it to my 10yo who is reading Pratchett (hasn't got to Good Omens yet). It's rated 12 on Amazon.
The odd bit of swearing I'm fine with, but Hastur and War are quite nightmare-inducing, and the nunnery fire convinced me that ds should just read the book - he gets scared by films very easily.

The only thing that I think they've got 'wrong' is, as another poster said, Shadwell. He's far, far to nice and clean. That said, it's not unknown to tone down the more revolting characters. Dalziel in Reginald Hill's Dalziel and Pascoe novels is several shades less pleasant than the TV portrayal, and Dudley Sutton's Tinker in Lovejoy is much more sanitary than the character in the books.

And I suppose they had to make Anathema American for the US audience.

I also think the historical sets and dressing are a bit too 'picture postcard crossed with Horrible Histories'.

Other than that it's brilliant. Will be watching it several times.

Yes agreed, Shadwell didn't have half the hysterical Presbyterian ire I was hoping for. And Madam Tracey wasn't half as "homely" as portrayed in the book.
I'm nit picking though, as I loved it.

Brian is currently onstage in the West End playing Adrian Mole!

I’m not sure I’d have wanted to settle down in front of the telly to watch the gruesome Shadwell of the books. Quite happy to have him cleaned up a bit. Also happy for Madam Tracey.

I enjoyed it. It was fairly faithful and nicely paced. A couple of little niggles but I can forgive them.

I loved it - and I am rereading the book now. I especially like the quote about all cassettes/cds turning into The Best of Queen if left in the car for a fortnight - pure, vintage Sir Terry.

I think the casting was inspired - especially David Tennant (the SDTG in my nickname stands for Staying David Tennant’s Girl, which was my MN nickname after Matt Smith became Dr Who, and I took it badly) - I loved the louche Bill Nighy-ness of his Crowley.

Yes! Maybe that's why I didn't enjoy David Tennant as much as I thought I would. Too much Bill Nighy.

Finished it now and whilst I could take it or leave it, my 12 and 14 year old both really enjoyed it and now want to read the book which I have been recommending to them for ages, so mission accomplished on that score.

I enjoyed it although I did feel it lacked compared to the book. Bit the only film.ive ever enjoyed more than the book it is based on was Stardust.

I'm only disappointed they didn't end with the quote from the book which love and which gives me shivers every time I read it.

And if you want to imagine the future, imagine a boot... no, a sneaker, laces trailing, kicking a pebble; imagine a stick, to poke at interesting things, and throw for a dog that may or may not decide to retrieve it; imagine a tuneless whistle, pounding some luckless popular song into insensibility; imagine a figure, half angel, half devil, all human...

Slouching hopefully towards Tadfield.

... for ever."

As far as I’m concerned there is no such thing as Too Much Bill Nighy. Even DT as I Can’t Believe It’s Not Nighy is a positive addition to any drama.

Nobody will ever make a Pratchett film that lives up to its book, TPs use of language, sense of humour and complete understanding of us just can't be equalled and portrayed. But I'm glad people keep trying and this was very enjoyable, far better than any of the other Pratchett films I've seen.

The film of Stardust is a travesty! I love the book, and the BBC adaptation. Watched the film again recently, in case I'd just been too young to appreciate it the first time, and still hated it.

Agree that no adaptation will ever properly capture TP. For a start, there are no footnotes...

After a bit of a fight where ds wanted to eke it out longer (which as I'm away the first half of the week would have meant not finishing till Friday), we've watched it all now.

The biggest thing for me was that it was adapted with great love for the book and what it was trying to say. Of course there were things I missed, and bits I might have wished were different - but I understand the issues of making a successful TV series and also in bridging the time gap since it was written.

I (and ds and dh) loved it

Oh yes, and DT doing Crowley as Bill Nighy was just inspired and perfect for me

I love David Tennant in everything, but I think even he was out-done by Michael Sheen in this.

The relationship between the two was brilliant.

I came to this with the advantage of not having read the book so with no preconceptions and no pictures in my head of what the characters should look like. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I'm off to borrow the book from DS1 next.

I thought that the 2 leads were chosen well and they worked together perfectly. I was slightly disappointed that Death wasn't a little more Pratchett-like. I know, different Death, but even so, A CAPITAL LETTER OR TWO wouldn't have gone amiss. But overall, yes.

Having just finished the last episode I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed most of it, slightly slow in parts but it takes time to leave all the threads which pull together in ep5 and I thought some of that was bitty. That's just a production issue though.

My only real niggle is that Deaths voice wasn't Death-y enough. Too soft, needed more depth.

I'm off to download the book now (lost my paper copy some years ago) and remind myself of all the little bits they couldn't fit in...

Agree Pascha. Definitely should have been doomier.

More niggles from me - it's funny isn't it that you don't really think you are drawing very detailed backstories for characters in your head until you're faced with someone else's interpretation of them -
History and Ligor: in my head they are jobsworths who have been promoted beyond their capabilities. I had Ligor down in particular as a sort of Corporal Nobbs.
The hellhound: totally a Jack Russell and not the L'Oreal bounciness of what looked like a border collie/fox terrier cross.
Death: quite disappointing I thought but I understand why.