Good Omens Season 2 -- good? Horrible? Other opinions?

[Anonymous]

Anyone have an opinion on Good Omens season 2?

I watched the first 3 (of 6) episodes last night (Amazon Prime) and I am pretty disappointed. There was no solid storyline and seems to be a series of not well integrated vignettes.

Anyone else watch it?

[Anonymous]

Oh, I loved the book and the first mini series. I didn't know there was a second. What's it based on? There's not a second book, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I loved the book and the first mini series. I didn't know there was a second. What's it based on? There's not a second book, right?

There's not a second book. Neil and T Pratchett had sketched out a sequel to the book, and Neil developed Season 2 as a sort of bridge to what they had discussed as the collaboration.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I could sense the way they were planning to distort the story by the end of season 1. I was a big fan of Terry Pratchett as a child and it was his voice that helped make Good Omens so good (I'm meh about Gaiman).

I'm very disappointed that they thought a 2nd season was necessary. No intention of watching it. It's all about profit over art.

If you liked season 1, the novel is even better. Doesn't have weird throwaway woke lines, like making Pepper shout, "I don't support everyday sexism!" at the air field, while being full of the actual goodness, equality, and moral truth that wokery has turned into a parody.

I also think season 1 should've just stuck to the Eighties. They go back and forth between Eighties tech and culture, and 21st century tech and culture. It gets confusing.

Like, it's relatively normal for small-town British kids in the Eighties to marvel at how America has sooooo many flavors of ice cream. That wouldn't make sense now...yet, the TV show has modern inserts like the demon Crowley inventing the selfie.

The actors do a good job though.

[Anonymous]

So my family binged season 2 this weekend. We enjoyed it, BUT I'm irritated that the production entirely erased heteronormativity. Like, it didn't exist. Everyone was a "partner" or "spouse," the secondary characters having a crush on each other were women, and spoiler (forgive me): these two women then talk Crowley into conceiving of his truly beautiful bromance with Azerafael as a mere romance. It's like they don't understand a connection between two people (er, creatures?) without sexual attraction and assume that it is as reasonable for sexual attraction to occur between any two given creatures as any other two random creatures. Not a cudgel I needed to be beaten with, but otherwise it was a few hours of good streaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I could sense the way they were planning to distort the story by the end of season 1. I was a big fan of Terry Pratchett as a child and it was his voice that helped make Good Omens so good (I'm meh about Gaiman).

I'm very disappointed that they thought a 2nd season was necessary. No intention of watching it. It's all about profit over art.

If you liked season 1, the novel is even better. Doesn't have weird throwaway woke lines, like making Pepper shout, "I don't support everyday sexism!" at the air field, while being full of the actual goodness, equality, and moral truth that wokery has turned into a parody.

I also think season 1 should've just stuck to the Eighties. They go back and forth between Eighties tech and culture, and 21st century tech and culture. It gets confusing.

Like, it's relatively normal for small-town British kids in the Eighties to marvel at how America has sooooo many flavors of ice cream. That wouldn't make sense now...yet, the TV show has modern inserts like the demon Crowley inventing the selfie.

The actors do a good job though.

All of this!

[Anonymous]

I loved season one so much I can't decide whether to watch. I think I'll rewatch season one first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I could sense the way they were planning to distort the story by the end of season 1. I was a big fan of Terry Pratchett as a child and it was his voice that helped make Good Omens so good (I'm meh about Gaiman).

I'm very disappointed that they thought a 2nd season was necessary. No intention of watching it. It's all about profit over art.

If you liked season 1, the novel is even better. Doesn't have weird throwaway woke lines, like making Pepper shout, "I don't support everyday sexism!" at the air field, while being full of the actual goodness, equality, and moral truth that wokery has turned into a parody.

I also think season 1 should've just stuck to the Eighties. They go back and forth between Eighties tech and culture, and 21st century tech and culture. It gets confusing.

Like, it's relatively normal for small-town British kids in the Eighties to marvel at how America has sooooo many flavors of ice cream. That wouldn't make sense now...yet, the TV show has modern inserts like the demon Crowley inventing the selfie.

The actors do a good job though.

+1

[Anonymous]

We watched it and we enjoyed it. My one disappointment was the actress that played Beezlebub was replaced and the new actress wasn't nearly as good.

[Anonymous]

It was a bit disappointing because the original Good Omens is a beloved classic in our house (as well as the book), and this was nowhere as good. I was still happy to watch, just because I love seeing fun characters return, like Sheen and Tennant and Hamm.



--- spoiler alert --




I have no issue with the new plot of the missing archangel. John Hamm plays it well. I have no issue with the main lesbian romantic relationship. But I DO have issue with the writers sexualizing the relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley at the end. Not every loving friendship needs to be sexual, especially one between an angel and a fallen angel!!! Ugh. So irritating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It was a bit disappointing because the original Good Omens is a beloved classic in our house (as well as the book), and this was nowhere as good. I was still happy to watch, just because I love seeing fun characters return, like Sheen and Tennant and Hamm.



--- spoiler alert --




I have no issue with the new plot of the missing archangel. John Hamm plays it well. I have no issue with the main lesbian romantic relationship. But I DO have issue with the writers sexualizing the relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley at the end. Not every loving friendship needs to be sexual, especially one between an angel and a fallen angel!!! Ugh. So irritating.

YES! YES! YES!

Why does it need to become "a cause"?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I could sense the way they were planning to distort the story by the end of season 1. I was a big fan of Terry Pratchett as a child and it was his voice that helped make Good Omens so good (I'm meh about Gaiman).

I'm very disappointed that they thought a 2nd season was necessary. No intention of watching it. It's all about profit over art.

If you liked season 1, the novel is even better. Doesn't have weird throwaway woke lines, like making Pepper shout, "I don't support everyday sexism!" at the air field, while being full of the actual goodness, equality, and moral truth that wokery has turned into a parody.

I also think season 1 should've just stuck to the Eighties. They go back and forth between Eighties tech and culture, and 21st century tech and culture. It gets confusing.

Like, it's relatively normal for small-town British kids in the Eighties to marvel at how America has sooooo many flavors of ice cream. That wouldn't make sense now...yet, the TV show has modern inserts like the demon Crowley inventing the selfie.

The actors do a good job though.

Also a reader of the original novel, and I agree. I thought season 1 was so-so. Won't be watching season 2. The book has a charm to it that they couldn't fully capture. But that's the standard case for TV and film nowadays. Not sure what's going on there.

[Anonymous]

The actress who plays Anathema Device is really not that good. Did they cast her just for her looks? Anathema Device has an actual personality in the novel. She's kinda edgy (not as an aesthetic, but her personality), and I always imagined her have a really expressive face (while reading the book). The actress wasn't terrible but she wasn't a great casting choice IMO.

[Anonymous]

What's the theory about drinking coffee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I could sense the way they were planning to distort the story by the end of season 1. I was a big fan of Terry Pratchett as a child and it was his voice that helped make Good Omens so good (I'm meh about Gaiman).

I'm very disappointed that they thought a 2nd season was necessary. No intention of watching it. It's all about profit over art.

If you liked season 1, the novel is even better. Doesn't have weird throwaway woke lines, like making Pepper shout, "I don't support everyday sexism!" at the air field, while being full of the actual goodness, equality, and moral truth that wokery has turned into a parody.

I also think season 1 should've just stuck to the Eighties. They go back and forth between Eighties tech and culture, and 21st century tech and culture. It gets confusing.

Like, it's relatively normal for small-town British kids in the Eighties to marvel at how America has sooooo many flavors of ice cream. That wouldn't make sense now...yet, the TV show has modern inserts like the demon Crowley inventing the selfie.

The actors do a good job though.

+1