Good Omens 2 - all episodes watched so spoilers aplenty to discuss

[TyneTeas]

Oh :{

Why was there a focus on Crow Road? Is it a clue?

I don't know. That's why I'm wondering if I should read it. But equally, it might just be a shout out to a friend.

I felt that Gaiman/Finnemore ruined it by making a love relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley. Why couldn't they just be good friends like the first one? Why does it have to be a romance?

I know! I never watch rom coms and now they are turning one of my favourite shows into one. Some interesting theories on this thread, though, about what the kiss meant.

It all just felt like filler with a handful of great easter eggs thrown in. Could have been done in a feature length episode if they had cut the dross and needed a segway to series 3. I also found it jarring to reuse actors in different roles than series 1, especially with Miranda Richardson not being human even.

Nothing was actually getting closer! They set it up with the song and the trailer that something or someone was going to happen and then it turned out to just be a song that Gabriel enjoyed. His mind wipe serves no purpose, he could have just popped off to earth and run off with Beelzebub. That's what ended up happening anyway. It was a whole bunch of sketches and flashbacks that didn't move the story along. Aziraphale going to Edinburgh achieved no knowledge gain and no explanation of why their past there was relevant. The Nina and Maggie story seemed pointless, how could Maggie love her when she had avoided the coffee shop so far? What happened to the nazi zombies, surely someone would have noticed a daily brain eating attack around the country if they were still kicking around? I am not even going to put in writing what I feel about the terrible ending episode.

Loved the seamstress conversation. Best part of the whole show.

The book may be more ambiguous (it’s been years since I read it, I may have to re-read), but in S1 there are many hints that they are more than friends: “you go too fast for me Crowley”, and the scene in the bombed out church. The TV adaptation as a whole is a tribute to Terry Pratchett (as per many interviews by NG and statements by TP’s family and close friends) so I don’t think Neil Gaiman would have developed the characters in a way that wasn’t intended by them both. For me the two characters have an intense and unique connection, but of course they are not human so the labels don’t fit easily. And this connection develops and changes over time.

I think it's a couple of things - a shout out to the writer, and CR deals with similar themes (i.e. what it means to be a good person, and the basis of religion etc.).

thank goodness I found this thread no one else I know watches it! I finished it yesterday and the ending sent me reeling.

Really interesting thread. It's late so this is a bit of a place mark.

I read somewhere that he moved that way because the tight trousers left him with no other options.

I don't know how I feel about the ending. It seems to undo so much of Aziraphale's character development from the first season where he slowly comes to realise that Heaven isn't all it's cracked up to be and he and Crowley decide they're on their own side.

I felt it was all in keeping with that. What made his mind up about taking the Heaven gig was being told that they were planning the second coming and his realisation of what a disaster that could be for the human race.

I must say, I quite look forward to how series 3 would deal with that. It's always seemed to me that if Jesus turned up again now, he would get totally monstered by the right wing media for all that wishy-washy stuff about loving thy neighbour and forgiveness of sins.

@JanieEyre I could see the rw labelling Jesus a snowflake!

Finished it yesterday. I liked a lot about it but it definitely suffered from lack of source material - way too much filler. I didn’t like the Nina and Maggie stuff - they were both so annoying. And I hated how cheesy the ending was, and annoying Nina and Maggie giving a cheesy pep talk to C to make him understand his own feelings even though they don’t know him at all. Although kind of amused that Beelzebub suddenly stopped being surrounded by flies when the romance bit started. It’s all super inclusive as long as you are basically pretty attractive by human standards … which Beelzebub was not at all originally, but by the end was just a pretty woman in a weird hat.

I do think it’s kind of a shame that for a relationship to be deemed meaningful and important they have to want to shag each other. But I’m not sure what they were going with with the kiss. If A had fancied C but put his duty to heaven first, you would have thought they’d show him responding to the kiss and then pulling away - but he didn’t look like he was into it at all, it was very non-consensual. And C didn’t seem to be trying to make it romantic either, it seemed pretty aggressive.

Not sure what to make of it. But really hope it get renewed - it would be a crap place to leave it.

Gutted about the romance. Everything else worked.

There are quite a few Q&A posts on Tumblr with people asking questions and Neil Gayman answering them, I’ve been seeing some of them posted on Twitter, but it looks like someone also compiled them all into one file: https://www.tumblr.com/orpiknight/723314232291180544/neil-gaiman-tumblr-faq-good-omens?source=share

Some interesting stuff, esp a comment that there are S3 hints in the S2 title sequence!

I stopped after episode 2, I just can't be bothered, it committed the deadly sin of being dull as fuck. If reviews of season 3 are stellar I will catch up, just didn't hold my attention. I enjoyed season 1 more on my second, more recent watch. So I may give it a chance later.

Gaiman to me is a close analogue to Stephen Moffat, occasionally genius, routinely cringe as fuck. I have actually read a couple of his books American Gods and Anansie Boys, they can't have been that bad as I finished both, but they obviously didn't make a big impression. I also can't divorce him from the whole Amanda Palmer thing, I know it's unfair. I was aware of her before she met him and loved the dresden dolls. I had almost forgotten about both, but there seems so much drama has gone on, it's not surprising, battle royale of massive ego's. I think the pp that used the description "self indulgent" was spot on.

BTW @missmoon its Gaiman

That's me told!

Found this really fun to read through, thank you for posting it!

I watched the first series having read the book years ago and enjoyed it, watched it then forgot about it. This season has just lived in my head all week since I finished watching it. I don't know what's wrong with me!! Feels embarrassing I'm in my 40s for goodness sake.

Anyway there were lots of classic Neil Gaimen story features in there Gabriel being seen but not noticed or recognised (like characters in stardust/ neverwhere). People meeting over time and forming unlikely relationships- like Hob Gadling and Dream in sandman.

I enjoyed it a lot so much made me laugh, the apology dance. The references to being a "seamstress" 😝.

I found the Gabriel / Bealzibub (sp?) romance a bit jarring and out of nowhere but reflecting on it it's another mirror of Crowley and Aziraphale as only they know what it's like to rule over thousands ready for a war who didn't get to have it. The same way Crowley and Aziraphale only really have each other who have lived amongst humans for millennia.

Bit of a ramble but good to get that down somewhere. 😊

Neil Gaimen is one of my favourite authors I've followed his stuff since Sandman comics in the 90s. Part of my wants to egg his car after that ending though! 🥚 🚗 👃

Too much Gaiman. Not enough Pratchett. Disappointing.

https://www.cbr.com/good-omens-story-wont-conclude-with-season-2-neil-gaiman-confirms/

Watched it today. I didn't mind the romance, but the chemistry between Crowley and Aziraphale was nothing like as strong as season one. We seemed to spend forever in the Book of Job, 18th century Edinburgh and the second world war for no payoff. I am not sure what episodes 2-5 (until end of five) were needed for.

I did like Muriel, and the coffee and record shop women did a good job with a dull and unnecessary story line. The bit with them telling Crowley how to open about his feelings at the end was cringeworthy. Gabriel was fun. I feel as if they tried not to go too dark with the kiss but should have - neither man seemed more than a bit ruffled / sulky afterwards. It dragged on a lot - no payoff from any of the subplots.

Will watch season 3 but doubt I'll rewatch this one. They spent so little time together. Season 1 had all these great musical riffs - season 2 just one vaguely significant song. It just didn't feel as creative.

"the chemistry between Crowley and Aziraphale was nothing like as strong as season one." - I'm inclined to agree with you @Oftenaddled I had a look back the other day and there are loads more lovely moments in season one - "you go too fast for me Crowley" and "to the world" ❤️❤️❤️.

I don't know if the season 2 flashbacks were meant to show us that Crowley thought Aziraphale was becoming as disenchanted with Heaven as he was - lying to save Job's children, seeing that people making bad choices could be down to their circumstances (the Edinburgh flash back). Recognising the shades of grey. But at the same time was Aziraphale was discovering that Crowley was quite "good" underneath it all and so maybe thought Crowley would like to return to heaven and "be saved"??? Hence the ending where they land in such different camps?? I don't know. If that was the intention it was clumsily done. I guess it was left ambiguous to make the ending more shocking.

Neil Gaimen is playing the game a bit knowing the cliffhanger ending will get more people to push for season 3.

Again a ramble, sorry, no one I know watched it so it's nice to share somewhere.

I came across this post on Tumblr as lots of people were discussing it, the link to the longer essay is in the post. Basically it’s arguing (the author is a fantasy novel writer) that all is not as it seems in the flashback episodes. I did think that there were some inconsistencies, and some of it didn’t seem “real”. Also, there is a general theme on the issue of memory, which hasn’t been resolved. Probably why there was a mention of Iain Bank’s The Crow Road (I may need to re-read it in case there is a Clue!). Here is the link in case anyone is interested (the original essay is very long, but quite interesting): https://ariaste.tumblr.com/post/724311712381222912/the-magic-trick-you-didnt-see-being-an-analysis/amp