Good Omens the mini-series

NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
My first thread in the new ship, be gentle with me! But I'm truly surprised that no one has started this before.

What do we think of the new Good omens mini series? I just finished watching it yesterday, and I loved every second. Pretty much my only criticism would be that Death didn't look or sound quite the way I though he should have. But that's minor.

What does everyone else think?

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Loved it. It struck the right middle-road between slavish reiteration of the original material and adding in so much new material you say "WTF?" The casting was right on the nose and the soundtrack synced with the material seamlessly. Most of the alterations to the story were the necessary adjustments required by moving from one medium to another.
    NicoleMR wrote: »
    Pretty much my only criticism would be that Death didn't look or sound quite the way I though he should have.

    I have wondered (and I know I'm not alone in this) if certain parts felt "different" or got paid less attention than the book because Neil Gaiman was personally involved with the project but Terry Pratchett was . . . unavailable. That's not so much a criticism as it is an acknowledgement that sometimes there's no substitute for authorial involvement.
  • FirenzeFirenze Purgatory Host, Host Emeritus
    My curse attend all of you watching on Amazon. I see it should turn up on BBC. Sometime.

    Hummph.
  • Schroedingers CatSchroedingers Cat Shipmate, Waving not Drowning Host
    Firenze wrote: »
    My curse attend all of you watching on Amazon. I see it should turn up on BBC. Sometime.

    Hummph.

    Precisely - please bear with those of us who have to wait.
  • I'm another one who is waiting to see this.
  • DooneDoone Shipmate
    Me too 😥
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    *sad sigh* Maybe this thread should be closed til everyone can see it? I didn't realize that it was only available yet on this side of the pond.
  • SandemaniacSandemaniac Shipmate
    Not so much on only one side of the pond, more that not all of us subscribe to Amazon or whatever channel it is on. Though being very nearly able to quote the book probably renders most of us relatively spoiler-proof...

    AG
  • The5thMaryThe5thMary Shipmate
    I resisted the urge to read it for a very long time because my ex-girlfriend (she of the mental illness and seeing demons everywhere) was not too thrilled with the idea of the book! Anyway, I read it online from my local public library (boy, is that cool or what?!) and laughed and laughed. What a great book! I think the casting is terrific and I might just sign up with Amazon or whomever, in order to watch the series on my trusty laptop.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I agree with Croesus.

    It's a while since I read the book, so I can't remember whether the Death character is supposed to be the same as the Discword Death or not. Insofar as I had expectations of Death, they were probably based more on Discworld than Good Omens.
  • Haven’t read the book for about 25 years and finished the series yesterday (Amazon membership). Really enjoyed it, as did my family - my husband hadn’t read it previously. Loved the nods in direction of related fiction and the cameos. Won’t say anymore yet.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    A list of Easter Eggs from a very specific, other continuity. Item 1: the license plate on Crowley's beloved Bentley says "SID RAT".
  • PriscillaPriscilla Shipmate
    Yet another one waiting ☹️
  • Gath fachGath fach Shipmate
    I loved it
  • SandemaniacSandemaniac Shipmate
    Given that both Deaths (Discworld and GO) are tall and wear hooded black robes, does it matter whether they are the same or not? Certainly the Death at the quiz machine is cut from a very similar cloth.

    AG
  • SandemaniacSandemaniac Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    A list of Easter Eggs from a very specific, other continuity. Item 1: the license plate on Crowley's beloved Bentley says "SID RAT".

    Sidrat is also the Army's nickname for their new Wildcat helicopters - because they look much bigger from the outside.

    And on that tangential note...

    AG
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Shipmate
    edited June 11
    Not being a Christian I can adopt a morally relativistic attitude and have d/loaded all the episodes from a non-authorised place. Saw the first two last night.

    I don't know the original material at all, having never read Gaiman and only read one Pratchett novel. My verdict, fun but nothing remarkable. Preferred the 1999 film 'Dogma' which was in similar territory.

    I am wondering if David Tennant really is that skinny or if there's been a bit of subtle CGI.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    It's the only reason I haven't cancelled Prime yet. Good Omens is one of my favourite books - I probably read it once year - and I'm loving it so far.

    The casting is inspired. There isn't a single off character. It's sufficiently close to how I've imagined it over the years to not annoy me but different enough to make it interesting. So pleased how many of the small touches survived.

    Sad we never got the follow up they planned.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I am wondering if David Tennant really is that skinny or if there's been a bit of subtle CGI.

    There's a farm somewhere in the UK that breeds lanky, angular men for the BBC. David Tennant, Matt Smith, and Benedict Cumberbatch all come from there. :wink:
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Shipmate
    Finished watching it last night. Thought it had all the grit and tension of a Scooby-Doo episode. Amused by Tennant's Mick Jagger-as-portrayed-by-Bill Nighy act, but that was about it. Showdown between forces of good and evil was utterly lame and none of the characters seemed to believe in their own jeopardy. Only scene that struck the right note for me was Hastur's re-materialisation in the call centre.

    All in all, it felt like children's TV wearing adult clothes.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Watched the first two episodes and I am enjoying it. I enjoy pretty much everything related to Pratchett.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Watched the first two episodes and I am enjoying it. I enjoy pretty much everything related to Pratchett.

    I think this one of the best adaptions of his stuff I've seen. :)
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Finished watching it last night. Thought it had all the grit and tension of a Scooby-Doo episode. Amused by Tennant's Mick Jagger-as-portrayed-by-Bill Nighy act, but that was about it. Showdown between forces of good and evil was utterly lame and none of the characters seemed to believe in their own jeopardy. Only scene that struck the right note for me was Hastur's re-materialisation in the call centre.

    All in all, it felt like children's TV wearing adult clothes.

    I think the lameness is kind of the point - AIUI, in Gaiman and Pratchett's view, good and evil don't come from external agencies acting on humans, but from humans ourselves and our own moral choices, and as soon as you imagine good and evil as possessing agency in their own right, you end up in some very odd moral places.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I’m about to start watching it tonight. I loved the book.
    NicoleMR wrote: »
    *sad sigh* Maybe this thread should be closed til everyone can see it?

    This is always a problem for those who don’t/won’t/can’t watch things in ‘real time’. It shouldn’t stop folk chatting about them imo.

    But, hopefully folks here will use the ‘spoiler’ button to good effect. :smile:

  • It's not a reluctance to watch in real time, it's a reluctance to sign up for Amazon to watch it now, when it is to be broadcast on BBC2 later. That reluctance being not wanting to support Amazon in general (whether or not I'm waiting for them to deliver a part to fix the kitchen sink as neither the trade nor home outlets in town could provide it).
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    I think the lameness is kind of the point - AIUI, in Gaiman and Pratchett's view, good and evil don't come from external agencies acting on humans, but from humans ourselves and our own moral choices, and as soon as you imagine good and evil as possessing agency in their own right, you end up in some very odd moral places.

    I can see that argument and even sympathise with it, (SPOILER ALERT) but portraying the allegory by having three somewhat stroppy children defeat three Horsemen of the Apocalypse with fatuous SJW-style platitudes was ridiculous. Even allowing that the three horsemen were only allegories for all human greed, et cetera, et cetera, selling the world for a bucket of dollars, it should take a lot more than that to 'defeat' them. It was also, as a conclusion to all the build-up, a complete let-down.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited June 13
    @Colin Smith - I'm not sure you "get" comedy or satire. Complaining that there's insufficient "grit" in such work or that the characters aren't taking their situation seriously seems like missing the point. It's like complaining that Charlie Chaplin isn't taking the rise fascism seriously or that maybe General Turgidson shouldn't be so flippant about nuclear war. ("I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed . . . ")
  • JennyAnnJennyAnn Shipmate
    I loved it. The Them annoyed me in the book, and also in the adaptation!

    I’ve been looking forward to this adaptation since I heard about it - it was my main reason for getting prime. I’ve not been disappointed.

    I love David Tennant and felt he portrayed Crawley really well. Michael sheen as Aristaphale was a really pleasant surprise - he acted everyone else off the screen.

    I’ve re-read the book since watching (again, an annual event) and have reminded myself of the missing bits. Bits like all cassettes turning into bohemian rhapsody after 2 weeks in Crawley’s car. On the whole these are reasonable omissions - either they’ve not dated well (the book has real age now!), or would just be too intricate for a 6 hour adaptation.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    JennyAnn wrote: »
    I’ve re-read the book since watching (again, an annual event) and have reminded myself of the missing bits. Bits like all cassettes turning into bohemian rhapsody after 2 weeks in Crawley’s car.

    There is a nod to that in the form of the Queen-intensive soundtrack.
  • JennyAnnJennyAnn Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    JennyAnn wrote: »
    I’ve re-read the book since watching (again, an annual event) and have reminded myself of the missing bits. Bits like all cassettes turning into bohemian rhapsody after 2 weeks in Crawley’s car.

    There is a nod to that in the form of the Queen-intensive soundtrack.

    Oh, I know, but it just not quite the same

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    I think the lameness is kind of the point - AIUI, in Gaiman and Pratchett's view, good and evil don't come from external agencies acting on humans, but from humans ourselves and our own moral choices, and as soon as you imagine good and evil as possessing agency in their own right, you end up in some very odd moral places.

    I can see that argument and even sympathise with it, (SPOILER ALERT) but portraying the allegory by having three somewhat stroppy children defeat three Horsemen of the Apocalypse with fatuous SJW-style platitudes was ridiculous. Even allowing that the three horsemen were only allegories for all human greed, et cetera, et cetera, selling the world for a bucket of dollars, it should take a lot more than that to 'defeat' them. It was also, as a conclusion to all the build-up, a complete let-down.

    But the story isn't about defeating evil or the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Aziraphale doesn't want good to triumph, he just wants the world not to end. The story is about Heaven and Hell both being just bit-parts against human choices. It's a humanist fable cleverly disguised as fluff.
    In any case, the Horsemen aren't defeated as such. Adam just restores the status quo, so war, pollution and famine still exist.

    A point of mild interest is that Good Omens started off as a Just William parody called 'William the Antichrist'. This is quite obvious in the novel, less so in the mini-series (although there is a shout-out in one scene in Aziraphale's bookshop).
  • I'm enjoying it very much. A lot of the criticism seems to be about its tweeness (which, I think, is related to @Colin Smith's comment about it being "like children's TV"). I rather like its tweeness, but then I also like twee pop.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    @Colin Smith - I'm not sure you "get" comedy or satire. Complaining that there's insufficient "grit" in such work or that the characters aren't taking their situation seriously seems like missing the point. It's like complaining that Charlie Chaplin isn't taking the rise fascism seriously or that maybe General Turgidson shouldn't be so flippant about nuclear war. ("I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed . . . ")

    I totally get both. I love Chris Morris's work, The Trip (with Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon) and 2012 and W1A and Hot Shots (part deux) is one of my favourite films. But I didn't watch Good Omens expecting satire. I suspect I like my comedy with a lot of black existential bleakness. For me, the perfect amalgam of bleakness, comedy and satire was Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    I think the lameness is kind of the point - AIUI, in Gaiman and Pratchett's view, good and evil don't come from external agencies acting on humans, but from humans ourselves and our own moral choices, and as soon as you imagine good and evil as possessing agency in their own right, you end up in some very odd moral places.

    I can see that argument and even sympathise with it, (SPOILER ALERT) but portraying the allegory by having three somewhat stroppy children defeat three Horsemen of the Apocalypse with fatuous SJW-style platitudes was ridiculous. Even allowing that the three horsemen were only allegories for all human greed, et cetera, et cetera, selling the world for a bucket of dollars, it should take a lot more than that to 'defeat' them. It was also, as a conclusion to all the build-up, a complete let-down.

    But the story isn't about defeating evil or the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Aziraphale doesn't want good to triumph, he just wants the world not to end. The story is about Heaven and Hell both being just bit-parts against human choices. It's a humanist fable cleverly disguised as fluff.
    In any case, the Horsemen aren't defeated as such. Adam just restores the status quo, so war, pollution and famine still exist.

    A point of mild interest is that Good Omens started off as a Just William parody called 'William the Antichrist'. This is quite obvious in the novel, less so in the mini-series (although there is a shout-out in one scene in Aziraphale's bookshop).

    The Them are definitely pinched from Enid Blyton as well as William.
  • SarasaSarasa Shipmate
    I'm half way through watching this and enjoying it even though I'm not a huge Pratchett fan, Gaiman I like a little more. I read the book a few years ago and the thing I liked best was the Just Williamness of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.