[televsion] Good Omens

Finished it tonight. I agree with above comments/complaints.
I am at least glad that the rain of fish was in the opening credits. And I teared up a bit with the end credit card, “For Terry”.

I had a good time with this, but I agree with the observations that everyone except Crowley and Aziraphale weren't very well written. I think that acting was probably fine, but the screenplay was maybe a little lacking for everyone else.

But that duo was awesome. It's worth watching the show just for them, even though the rest of it seems a bit placeholder-ish.

Okay, one other really good character: Archangel Gabriel was really well-acted, too. Man, he was annoying. I felt like War was maybe trying a little too hard, although the other actors were fine.

I also enjoyed the narration, because that part of the story sounded almost exactly like Terry Pratchett. It wouldn't shock me if it was lifted directly from actual text in the book.

I realized, later, that the description that I was trying to find in my first post was "BBC-like".... it feels like a BBC show. It appears that it IS one, so voila, that would explain it.

I would like to take a moment to appreciate just how many fantastic Queen songs they squeezed in to six episodes.

No really, how many were there? I lost count.

And I don’t recall any explanation of the Queen songs....you had to know the book to get the joke!

Malor wrote:

I felt like War was maybe trying a little too hard, although the other actors were fine.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought this. I don't know if it's just the face she chose to have on the whole time, but I did not buy that actress as War at all. It felt very... out of place. Whenever she was trying to smile all evilly and mischievous it took me out of the scene.

So for those of us who didnt read the books, can someone explain who the extra horsemen were and what's the joke with the Queen songs?

I did get a good chuckle when BICYCLE! played

Tapes left in cars for any length of time turn into Queen music.
So at one point on a drive, Aziraphale and Crowley might have listened to Bach’s “Fat Bottomed Girls” and Beethoven’s symphony “Another one Bites the Dust.”

At the cafe where the 4 horsemen meet up (I think it was a bar in the book?) there is another group of motorcycle riders who choose to follow along with the Horsemen on the way to Tadfield. Any more explanation I attempt would simply have to involve typing in bits of the story. They were wonderful and ridiculous and I can see why they were omitted, but I miss them.

Also, if you enjoyed the series, you may want to then pick up the book. It’s wonderful.

MathGoddess wrote:

Tapes left in cars for any length of time turn into Queen music.
So at one point on a drive, Aziraphale and Crowley might have listened to Bach’s “Fat Bottomed Girls” and Beethoven’s symphony “Another one Bites the Dust.”

Ah I did notice that Crowley put a CD labeled Mozart (I think) in while driving through an inferno. If I remember right it was a sort of unrecognizable symphony but by the time asked for directions it was a Queen song.

A confusing nod to the book I guess for anyone unfamiliar with it.

mrlogical wrote:

One observation I'd read in a review that felt very true to me is that the show is very engaging when Tennant and Sheen are on screen, but anytime they're not there it suddenly feels quite dull. The first episode did not feel well-paced to me, I'm hoping some of that may have been just the need to set everything up.

My wife and I finished it last night and this is pretty much how I felt too. Overall it was 'ok'. I think it was overhyped, but I think that about most of Gaiman's work. I will say it was very well made, all of the sets, costumes, photography were done very well. And of course Tennant stole the show.

Tennant and Sheen were great. Jon Hamm stole all of his scenes.

As for the rest of it, there's a twee preciousness, a mawkish sentimentality to the whole thing that is just hard to take. But, I have this problem with a lot of Pratchett's writing.

Also, Pratchett can not write a female character who is not some variety of idealized manic pixie dream girl. When I was younger, I didn't notice as much. Now, I have trouble getting past the cringe.

polq37 wrote:

Also, Pratchett can not write a female character who is not some variety of idealized manic pixie dream girl.

If that's the path that leads to raising someone like Rhianna Pratchett then I'll take it gladly.

Still have two episodes to watch and while I'm liking it a lot it's not quite what I expected. I haven't read the book, but I love Terry Pratchett and I expected the show to be Pratchett funny, but it's more Gaiman funny.

Jon Hamm is probably my favourite performer, even Sheen and Tennant are a bit aggravating, especially Tennant. The performances are just a bit lazy and obvious.

The above seems harsher than I feel. Those points are what stands between liking and loving the show. Hopefully I get to finish tonight.

Just finished it. Glad I watched it but... Didn't love it. It was just ok.

polq37 wrote:

Also, Pratchett can not write a female character who is not some variety of idealized manic pixie dream girl. When I was younger, I didn't notice as much. Now, I have trouble getting past the cringe.

I dunno, most of his witch characters were really interesting. There's that one that left the coven and ended up marrying a king that was closer to the manic archetype, but even she wasn't very close.

Honestly, I'm trying to think of any manic pixies in Discworld, and none are coming to mind. Did I just completely miss some major subtext?

Malor wrote:
polq37 wrote:

Also, Pratchett can not write a female character who is not some variety of idealized manic pixie dream girl. When I was younger, I didn't notice as much. Now, I have trouble getting past the cringe.

I dunno, most of his witch characters were really interesting. There's that one that left the coven and ended up marrying a king that was closer to the manic archetype, but even she wasn't very close.

Honestly, I'm trying to think of any manic pixies in Discworld, and none are coming to mind. Did I just completely miss some major subtext?

Magrat seemed more like a parody of the archetype, and even she developed into a more well-rounded character as the series went on.

There are a lot of manic pictsies in Discworld, but they're mostly dudes.

The Wee Free Men were awesome.

I've been thinking about it a little more, and I'm really curious where the idea came from. Granny Weatherwax is tough as an old boot. Nanny Ogg is a warmhearted matron that enjoys men wholeheartedly. Magrat's kind of a Nervous Nellie. Agnes Nitt is highly practical, with her Perdita subpersonality being a bit manic, but mostly suppressed. She's the only witch that I can remember that even vaguely qualifies, and her heavyset frame kind of takes her out of the archetype. And Tiffany Aching is kind of a mini-Granny, taking no crap from anyone.

The only other female character I can think of is Sybil Vimes, who is quite sharp and Very Proper, one of the least manic characters in the books.

So I'm mystified as to the source of the idea. Am I forgetting someone important?

Susan? She's not particularly MPDG, though.

Ooh, right. I don't remember much about her personality, but the little I do remember suggests a Very Serious Approach to life.

Angua, maybe? It's been a while since I read the books.

Just finished the series. I enjoyed it but I share the sentiments with the rest of the thread. It only really came alive when the duo were on. Most of the cast was a bit flat with some exceptions. That said it had me smiling and laughing many times through the series. The book is better overall but the show is still entertaining and fun.

master0 wrote:

The book is better overall but the show is still entertaining and fun.

For me, that describes nearly every film adaptation of an English (as in England) work of fiction. Especially comedy. Especially especially works by authors such as Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, and Douglas Adams where wordplay is a centerpiece of the work. The more energy expended by the consumer in paying attention, the better the payback. I need an above-usual amount of focus available to do them justice.

MathGoddess wrote:

Also, if you enjoyed the series, you may want to then pick up the book. It’s wonderful.

Got 1 more Ep to watch tonight and was wondering if I should read the book also... Looks like my question has been answered!

You won’t regret reading it. Just be careful reading in public. I find Pratchett laugh out loud funny

Yeah the books have a different flavor compared to the show. So much detail and narration is lost during the conversion. I think it can't be helped due to the style of the books really. It just so happens even if the books lose a lot there is still plenty for a good show.

master0 wrote:

Yeah the books have a different flavor compared to the show. So much detail and narration is lost during the conversion. I think it can't be helped due to the style of the books really. It just so happens even if the books lose a lot there is still plenty for a good show.

I hope the book meets my expectation because I finished the show last night and my feeling about it can be summarized as: Good but underwhelming.

For those of you who missed the other horsemen, a scene was written, but then cut. The scene can be read in the published version of the script.

We just finished the series. Personally I loved it, but then I haven't read the book (yet). The humor really worked for me. I thought it beautiful that a close friendship saved the world. I was just left wondering if everyone would be unprepared for the second attempt at Armageddon once Anathema destroyed the additional prophesies.

Finished the series a few days ago and just got around to posting some thoughts about it.
It's been many years since I've read the book; so I must take another pass. I mostly remember laughing out loud at the footnotes.

The show is 99% about Aziraphale/Crowley and their relationship; and it resulted in sucking the air out of everything else. I remember really enjoying the horsemen and the New Horsemen bits; everything about the witchfinder's order was hilarious, etc. Everything felt like a footnote until Tennant and Sheen appeared once again onscreen.

Even though I'm still halfway through S2 of American Gods; I liked how they're pacing that show vs Good Omens. We could have easily gotten 3 seasons out of GO without it overstaying its welcome.

Alas, now I'm off to dream of a Neverwhere adaptation starring Martin Freeman and Joey Deschanel.

Hobbes2099 wrote:

Alas, now I'm off to dream of a Neverwhere adaptation starring Martin Freeman and Joey Deschanel.

You know, I'm not seeing either one of them fitting those roles anymore. There was a Doctor in the BBC version, though.