Good Omens S3 trailer sets up a blessed conclusion

Prime Video's supernatural comedy will end with a special 90-minute final episode.

See full article...

 

[dmsilev]

I ...don't know. Even putting aside the giant Gaiman-shaped elephant in the room, I thought S2 was a letdown compared to the first season. I think part of that has to do with the ending:

That’s when Crowley professed his own love for the angel and asked him to leave Heaven and Hell behind, too. Aziraphale wanted Crowley to join him in Heaven instead. So Crowley kissed him, and they parted. Once Aziraphale got to Heaven, he learned his task was to bring about the Second Coming.

To me anyway, Aziraphale deciding to head back to Heaven went against pretty much the entire arc of his character, both the book and the show versions. It really was a jarring moment, I guess creating a cliffhanger purely so that there could be a cliffhanger and a lead-up to this finale.

 

[Scotttheking]

That looks like way too much content for a 90 minute episode.

 

[williamyf]

I enjoyed both S1 and S2. Since this launches in may, i'll postpone it to watch it on a transatlatic flight at the end of june. Great.

Please no spoilers

 

[Green-PEAs]

it seems like Gaiman’s implosion sucked all the wind out of this show’s sails.

It’s certainly devastating as a fan to learn that he is a porn-brained criminal, I can’t imagine what it’s like to be someone putting your heart and soul into adapting his work and then have to grapple with that.

 

[MTSkibum]

Instead of cancelling his projects like this and sandman. They should have forced him to work and give 100% of any salary/bonuses/payments to women's groups.

This way the actor, writers, and other workers would not be unfairly hurt by 1 person. Plus it would raise money for nonprofits that need the money.


Edit:

Just to clarify, I think we should limit the collateral damage when someone does something bad. For example a normal person would not want to be punished with losing their job if their boss got arrested for these same allegations, you would just want to replace the boss.

However in cases where the boss has the IP or assets, this is much more difficult, and there are ways we as a culture could punish them, keep collateral damage to a minimum and also use money that would have gone to the perpetrator and instead use it to help the victims. The studio could have donated all of the money that he would have been paid via salary/royalties etc to victims groups, this would provide benefit to the types of people he hurt.

Maybe my idea isn't the best and even better ideas could be proposed for these types of events. However the current approach can definitely be improved upon

 

[libelle]

It's probably cognitive bias on my part, but it sure seemed to me that I could tell the Gaiman parts from the Pratchett parts when I read the book. This difference seemed even stronger in the TV series.

Pratchett's humor and weirdness is more sly and whimsical, whereas Gaiman's is more clever.

I definitely felt like S2 was lacking whimsy, and was trying a lot harder that S1. Whether or not that really is the lack of Pratchett, I can't prove.

With the allegations against Gaiman, I don't have much interest in this final episode.

 

[GaidinBDJ]

I thought S2 was a letdown compared to the first season.

Same. The first season was great and I really think they should have just left it at that. It was a rare gem of an adaptation that was worthy of the book.

The second season just seemed like an attempt to cash in on the chemistry between Michael Sheen and David Tennant had in the first season, but the story just kind of fell flat.

I wish people would realize that "one and done" is a perfectly acceptable way to adapt something when you do so well the first time.

 

[MENTALIST]

Same. The first season was great and I really think they should have just left it at that. It was a rare gem of an adaptation that was worthy of the book.

The second season just seemed like an attempt to cash in on the chemistry between Michael Sheen and David Tennant had in the first season, but the story just kind of fell flat.

I wish people would realize that "one and done" is a perfectly acceptable way to adapt something when you do so well the first time.

The second series felt a bit like it was spinning its wheels to me, because the story was planned to conclude in its third part. Possibly to do with production costs, with their big fancy sets at Livingston having another series priced in.

In any case, I’m hopeful of the possibilities of their conclusion, since this is supposedly what Pratchett and Gaiman had planned together for a potential sequel, and I believe Narrativia (the Pratchett estate) are still involved.

 

[Burgernaut]

Pratchett's humor and weirdness is more sly and whimsical, whereas Gaiman's is more clever.

I definitely felt like S2 was lacking whimsy, and was trying a lot harder that S1. Whether or not that really is the lack of Pratchett, I can't prove.

In my opinion, Pratchett (possibly by getting up earlier than Gaiman) managed to make the book about Adam and The Them; Gaiman, in his absence, made the TV show about Crowley and Aziraphale. I preferred the former.

Still hoping nevertheless, probably in vain, for series two to appear on Blu Ray.

 

[DistinctivelyCanuck]

Same. The first season was great and I really think they should have just left it at that. It was a rare gem of an adaptation that was worthy of the book.

The second season just seemed like an attempt to cash in on the chemistry between Michael Sheen and David Tennant had in the first season, but the story just kind of fell flat.

I wish people would realize that "one and done" is a perfectly acceptable way to adapt something when you do so well the first time.

Agreed; "one and done" would be marvellous Another weird example of that is something I'm watching right now off AppleTV -> "Hijack" a serviceable thriller series: a single "plot idea" that worked as a one and done, desperately extended into a second season in an absurd and thus far pointless manner (we're three episodes into the 2nd series, and: nope: just nope: we probably won't finish it)

There are so many other examples of "one and done" that failed at "two"

 

[Happy Medium]

it seems like Gaiman’s implosion sucked all the wind out of this show’s sails.

It’s certainly devastating as a fan to learn that he is a porn-brained criminal, I can’t imagine what it’s like to be someone putting your heart and soul into adapting his work and then have to grapple with that.

I wish he was just porn-brained. He's an abusive sexual predator, and in retrospect his the overtones of his stories about women being abused like Calliope take a much more upsetting connotation. I will never forgive him for making me feel ashamed of loving many of his previous artworks, and now not being able to read them without feeling nauseous. All you had to do was be not a horrible person, and you couldn't even meet that low bar.

 

[Chmilz]

I'll watch it to see the conclusion, and I'm thankful it's wrapping in a single episode. Probably the best balance between killing it off cold-turkey leaving hungry audiences frustrated and dragging a baggage-laden series on for longer than necessary.

 

[Andomagnus]

Being a huge Terry Pratchett fan, I’m glad this is being concluded (one way or the other).

When a project involves multiple people, the terrible actions of a single person should be highlighted, but I hope the good work of everyone else doesn’t always have to suffer in the process.

 

[ChrisSD]

Gaiman, Lovecraft, Tolkien, Scott Adams, Justin Roiland, all are products of their era, and fallible human beings at that...

And Pratchett isn't a product of his era? And Lovecraft's racism wasn't called out at the time (spoiler: it was)? It's funny how being a "product of their era" ignores all the people that somehow managed at least a basic standard of human decency (or even exceeded it).

I don't think "product of their era" or being "fallible" is a get out clause for being awful human beings.

 

[mvmiller12]

Gaiman, Lovecraft, Tolkien, Scott Adams, Justin Roiland, all are products of their era, and fallible human beings at that... and the worst aspects of their personalities seep into their work, either concisuly (Lovecraft, Adams, Roiland) or unconciously (Tolkien). One has to try to separate the artist from the work.

Maybe in the cases of Gaiman and Adams, not enough time has passed... I can understand that.

But in the case of Gaiman, all people are innocent until proven guilty*, for what that is worth...

* I am not saying that Gaiman is Inocent, and even if he is guilty, proving it is an uphill taks. What I am saying is that we do not have a definitive sentence yet, so we have to afford some latitude/leniency until we have one.

100% this. I have been the subject of an investigation into sexual harassment at work, and my saving grace was that the incident was witnessed by another person in the area. IF HE DID IT (and I have no idea if he did), nail his @$$ to the wall because that shit is despicable -- but he has a right to defend himself against the allegations.

The problem is that unsubstantiated allegations alone are enough to tank most people's reputations. "So-and-so said this guy did this horrible thing... it must be true, why would someone make that up?" I don't know, but sometimes, people do.

 

[geekydee]

I enjoyed both S1 and S2. Since this launches in may, i'll postpone it to watch it on a transatlatic flight at the end of june. Great.

Please no spoilers

Not to spoil it, but the butler did it!

 

[DOOManiac]

I absolutely loved season 1 of this show, but season 2 was just kind of... there. I guess I'll probably watch this for a conclusion, but still...

Gaiman, Lovecraft, Tolkien, Scott Adams, Justin Roiland, all are products of their era, and fallible human beings at that... and the worst aspects of their personalities seep into their work, either concisuly (Lovecraft, Adams, Roiland) or unconciously (Tolkien). One has to try to separate the artist from the work.

Umm... Why is Tolkien being included with this group?

 

[Internal Monologue]

Gaiman isn’t a “product of his times”. Absolutely no one normal his age would condone his actions (read the full allegations). In previous years people would honestly be more angry about it than younger people today who have adopted the idea that kink-shaming is always bad even if it’s incredibly violent or life-threatening (eg strangulation), and no one would call what he did “nonconsensual BDSM.” His victims would have sadly been less likely to come forward out of fear of being told they asked for it, though.

Also, sexual activity in front of your kid was not acceptable, nor encouraging said child to call the woman you’re torturing “Slave,”

Also, Gaiman has admitted that he did these things, but claims they were consensual and, in one nauseating case, said his victims had mental health problems and amnesia that made her forget what really happened.

 

[Faceless Man]

I liked S1 and S2, although I concede that S2 did lose itself a bit. This trailer isn't inspiring me about the conclusion, though. I don't know if it's because of what we now know about Gaiman that we didn't when S2 came out. (I think. It's been a while. I know we knew about it before S2 of Sandman came out.) It could also be that essentially rehashing the original story doesn't really appeal. (End of the world. Again? I mean the anti-Christ and Christ's return are all part of the same prophecy, and neither of them is a good thing for us, really.)

I'll probably watch it. I have Prime anyway, and the cast is good enough to keep me interested.

Big question: Who is Miranda Richardson going to play this time?

 

[xoa]

¿Have you noticed that when there are inter-caste marriages (Maïar to Elves or Elves to human) it is always the female of the higher caste marrying the Male of the Lower caste? That seems oddly specific, suspicious I may say.

¿Have you read the description of the Corsairs at the ports of Pelenor, or the Sauron aligned human forces in the battle of gondor? ¿Have you compared it to the description of Gondor-ians, rohan-ians or numenor-eans in general? Oddly specific as well.

¿Have you noticed that the "dark Eleves" of tolkien are white, even though the Dark Eleves of norse mithology (from which tolkien took inspiration) are not white, having a darker, or outright black complexion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dökkálfar_and_Ljósálfar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svartálfar

And this are just examples from tLotR, The Hobbit and the Silmarillion. I do not wan to go back to the Uncloncluded tales of numenor and middle earth, or to the Lost tales, that is left as an excersice for the reader.

This reads heavily as smearing innuendo based on cherry picking and reading what you want to into a large body of fantasy work. Against this we have clear other writings from Tolkien, including his well known 1938 letter where he vigorously opposed Nazi race theories, and conversely later in WW2 his opposition to anti-German propaganda as well. I can find no hint of him being anything but a pretty decent person for his time. One can certainly disagree philosophically with his views on government (quite strongly libertarian), or views deriving from his faith, but there isn't anything exceptional about them either and they seem to be truly held.

 

[NullSignal]

In my opinion, Pratchett (possibly by getting up earlier than Gaiman) managed to make the book about Adam and The Them; Gaiman, in his absence, made the TV show about Crowley and Aziraphale. I preferred the former.

Still hoping nevertheless, probably in vain, for series two to appear on Blu Ray.

I've been trying to put my finger on why I didn't like the 2nd season as much as the 1st, and this is basically it, thank you. Aziraphele and Crowley were side characters in the book. They were very important side characters sure, but they were side characters. The story was primarily about Adam and the Them, and (to a slightly lesser extent) Anathema and Newton.

Gaiman obviously saw them as the main characters, but could only go so far with that in the 1st season, because of the need to stay faithful to the source material. Without any such constraints in the second second, it completely changed the tone of the whole thing.

 

[mpat]

¿Have you noticed that when there are inter-caste marriages (Maïar to Elves or Elves to human) it is always the female of the higher caste marrying the Male of the Lower caste? That seems oddly specific, suspicious I may say.

There are exactly 3 instances of this. I hesitate to call it a trend based on those three datapoints. Also - this is the reverse of the traditional indo-European mythos, where it is generally the women marrying up. In fact, Indian caste restrictions banned exactly the cases you speak of.

¿Have you read the description of the Corsairs at the ports of Pelenor, or the Sauron aligned human forces in the battle of gondor? ¿Have you compared it to the description of Gondor-ians, rohan-ians or numenor-eans in general? Oddly specific as well.

Yes, but also easily explained. People who live in the north tend to be pale, or die from lack of vitamin D during winter. Umbar (where the corsairs come from) is closer to the equator. Or you just say that Tolkien used ancient England and the Roman Empire as the basis for Rohan and Gondor, respectively, which is why they’re lighter.

¿Have you noticed that the "dark Eleves" of tolkien are white, even though the Dark Eleves of norse mithology (from which tolkien took inspiration) are not white, having a darker, or outright black complexion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dökkálfar_and_Ljósálfar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svartálfar

And this are just examples from tLotR, The Hobbit and the Silmarillion. I do not wan to go back to the Uncloncluded tales of numenor and middle earth, or to the Lost tales, that is left as an excersice for the reader.

Who are Tolkien’s Dark Elves? I have read all of the books you mention, and I honestly don’t get who you’re speaking of.

 

[SubWoofer2]

In my opinion, Pratchett (possibly by getting up earlier than Gaiman) managed to make the book about Adam and The Them;

Excellent reading. Tip of the hat!

As for the matters about Gaiman that are yet to be tested in Court: the question of separating art from the artist really comes down to the individual consumer and public knowledge of what are often closely-held private activities. I first encountered this when buying a bundle of classic rock records, all being sold because the owner didn't like what the players on Layla, Bowie albums and the Rolling Stones had done in their private lives. He had had a religious conversion and had done his research. ("Hear the click clack of your feet on the stairs... I can see that you're thirteen years old; No I don′t want your I.D." [Sir] Mick Jagger, "Stray Cat Blues"). Currently our city has billboards up advertising a movie about Michael Jackson; I won't be seeing it as for mine his name is tainted badly, but I still listen to the other artists I've mentioned.

One has to draw a line somewhere, and unfortunately it's perhaps not a single line, because it includes age, gender, nature of the act/s, power (control/coercion/consent), repetition, earnings, extent to which the affronting personal behaviour colours the outputs of the artist, etc.

Gaiman rightfully has been outed; the accusations and damage are vile. Too few artists are outed, making it easy for commentators to claim hypocrisy and whattaboutism when others who should face criminal charges, do not, as the artists, their circles, and their enablers, keep things quiet.

I'd like to make an informed judgement about all the artists writers and musicians whose works I appreciate, as to whether the person is beyond the pale and - by being beyond the pale (and this is a second step) - has rendered their artistic output no longer palatable.

 

[Res-Ipsa-Loquitur]

It's probably cognitive bias on my part, but it sure seemed to me that I could tell the Gaiman parts from the Pratchett parts when I read the book. This difference seemed even stronger in the TV series.

Pratchett's humor and weirdness is more sly and whimsical, whereas Gaiman's is more clever.

I definitely felt like S2 was lacking whimsy, and was trying a lot harder that S1. Whether or not that really is the lack of Pratchett, I can't prove.

With the allegations against Gaiman, I don't have much interest in this final episode.

I've tried before to put my finger on what didn't click for me with s2 after really liking s1, and now I see it mentioned that's hit the nail on the head. There just isn't the same quaintness or levity in how the characters act... S1 had a lot of low key wit that just trusted it would land with the audience without forcing humor - like Crawley making the M25 a work of pure demonic frustration, that really did seem like a Pratchett idea!

My other observation was I actually preferred the more platonic relationship of Azeraphale and Cowley in the first season. It added to that subtlety and just felt a little forced in S2.

 

[rickane58]

Who are Tolkien’s Dark Elves? I have read all of the books you mention, and I honestly don’t get who you’re speaking of.

They're taking about the Moriquendi. However, if they actually knew about the mythology, this is merely all elves born in middle earth who did not manage to reach Valinor after the end of the third age. It would make 0 sense for them to be melanistically different from any other elf.

 

[Thad Boyd]

Gaiman, Lovecraft, Tolkien, Scott Adams, Justin Roiland, all are products of their era

Dude Justin Roiland is 46 years old. You can't "he was a product of his time" a guy in his mid-forties.

 

[williamyf]

Dude Justin Roiland is 46 years old. You can't "he was a product of his time" a guy in his mid-forties.

We are all a product of our time. Roiland is 46 (a millenial). Meanwhile, I am 53 (GenX), and I can tell you that "times-are-a-changing".


View: https://youtu.be/4BgF7Y3q-as?t=54

 

[Gary Patterson]

¿Have you noticed that the "dark Eleves" of tolkien are white, even though the Dark Eleves of norse mithology (from which tolkien took inspiration) are not white, having a darker, or outright black complexion?

This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what Tolkien wrote. And if you’re going to throw in obscure Tolkien stuff, actually read up on it before posting.

The moriquendi were the elves that were alive at the time but didn’t live under the light of the two trees in Valinor. For whatever reason, they didn’t travel there at Orome’s invitation. There is no connotation with evil or wickedness or even just skin colour like a lot of other fantasy dark elves. It’s just that they stayed nearer their birthplace at Lake Cuivenen (going from memory here, spelling iffy).

I pretty much discounted the rest of your post when I read that ending.

 

[Hispalensis]

This reads heavily as smearing innuendo based on cherry picking and reading what you want to into a large body of fantasy work. Against this we have clear other writings from Tolkien, including his well known 1938 letter where he vigorously opposed Nazi race theories, and conversely later in WW2 his opposition to anti-German propaganda as well. I can find no hint of him being anything but a pretty decent person for his time. One can certainly disagree philosophically with his views on government (quite strongly libertarian), or views deriving from his faith, but there isn't anything exceptional about them either and they seem to be truly held.

Yes, it doesn't make any sense: NG is a person repeatedly accused of abusing women whose work heavily features plots about abusers and abused women. Tolkien was a person marked by his experience in WW1 who wrote about the horrors of war. I guess that if someone uncovered that Tolkien enjoyed amputating fingers by biting them I would revisit my opinion.

 

[Vnend]

It’s certainly devastating as a fan to learn that he is a porn-brained criminal

Oh? There was a conviction? All I'd heard were accusations and a reference to some kind of limited settlement in NZ.

 

[Vnend]

I wish he was just porn-brained. He's an abusive sexual predator, and in retrospect his the overtones of his stories about women being abused like Calliope take a much more upsetting connotation. I will never forgive him for making me feel ashamed of loving many of his previous artworks, and now not being able to read them without feeling nauseous. All you had to do was be not a horrible person, and you couldn't even meet that low bar.

Links to the court verdicts, please?

 

[williamyf]

And Pratchett isn't a product of his era? And Lovecraft's racism wasn't called out at the time (spoiler: it was)? It's funny how being a "product of their era" ignores all the people that somehow managed at least a basic standard of human decency (or even exceeded it).

I don't think "product of their era" or being "fallible" is a get out clause for being awful human beings.

Every era produces all sorts of people. This era has both INCELs, SJW and everyhting in between. Saints, demons, and people with mixtures of good and bad traits. Some very good, with a little bad in there, some bery bad, with some droplets of good, and all other %s.

My post was not about giving bad people a free pass.

My post was about separating the author from their creation.

If the creation has merit, do not bury it (or review bomb it) because of the authors failings. Be that failing absolutely abohorrent, or small fails. If the creation has merit, we need to try to some extent to separate the creation from the creator, and understand how and why some of the darker sides of their personalities seeped into the creation.

For example Dilbert, and other Scott Adams works, like "God's Debris" ("The Religion War" not so much) brought me great joy over the years. When Scott Adams took a turn for the worse, I did not condone it, but I did not burn my Dilbert books either, I just took note, better understood certain things and undertones in the corpus of work, and moved on.

Ditto for Lovecraft (of whom I have the complete works, but some of the Spanish translations are absolutely attrocious). I did not burn my books, I just understand where thet bad crap comes from, and move on.

Or ditto for Roiland too (see the character "Tricia Lange" in Rick and Morty for one of many examples). If I stumble upon a re-run of an episode of S1-S6, I just watch if I feel like it, but not change the channel out of disgust/spite for Roiland. And if I ever buy the Disks, I'll not melt the disks of Seasons 1-6. Nor do I go to Rotten tomatoes to review bomb seassons 1-6.

Again: separate the author from their creation.

 

[Thad Boyd]

Oh? There was a conviction?

You seem confused. The standards for a criminal conviction are actually not the same standards required for a private individual to believe that a person is guilty.

For example, you ever hear of that OJ Simpson guy? He was acquitted of murder, but I still think he did it.

 

[Thad Boyd]

Every era produces all sorts of people. This era has both INCELs, SJW and everyhting in between. Saints, demons, and people with mixtures of good and bad traits. Some very good, with a little bad in there, some bery bad, with some droplets of good, and all other %s.

My post was not about giving bad people a free pass.

My post was about separating the author from their creation.

If the creation has merit, do not bury it (or review bomb it) because of the authors failings. Be that failing absolutely abohorrent, or small fails. If the creation has merit, we need to try to some extent to separate the creation from the creator, and understand how and why some of the darker sides of their personalities seeped into the creation.

For example Dilbert, and other Scott Adams works, like "God's Debris" ("The Religion War" not so much) brought me great joy over the years. When Scott Adams took a turn for the worse, I did not condone it, but I did not burn my Dilbert books either, I just took note, better understood certain things and undertones in the corpus of work, and moved on.

Ditto for Lovecraft (of whom I have the complete works, but some of the Spanish translations are absolutely attrocious). I did not burn my books, I just understand where thet bad crap comes from, and move on.

Or ditto for Roiland too (see the character "Tricia Lange" in Rick and Morty for one of many examples). If I stumble upon a re-run of an episode of S1-S6, I just watch if I feel like it, but not change the channel out of disgust/spite for Roiland. And if I ever buy the Disks, I'll not melt the disks of Seasons 1-6. Nor do I go to Rotten tomatoes to review bomb seassons 1-6.

Again: separate the author from their creation.

Look, man, you don't need anybody's permission to watch Rick and Morty if you feel like it.

And nobody needs your permission to not watch it if they don't.

Nobody asked you to burn your Dilbert books.

But I donated mine to the library, and if that makes you sad, well, that's just one of those problems you're going to have to figure out for yourself.

(If it makes you feel any better, I did keep my Dilbert coffee mug. Because a girl I had a crush on gave it to me in high school. We've all got our sentimental attachments to things; doesn't mean we all have to have the same attachments to the same things.)

 

[outofplace]

I'm torn, I have no idea for sure if he is guilty or not but rereading The Sandman after finding out about the allegations has a completely different and unsettling feel.
I have donated my Sandman books to a charity shop and still debating what to do about the other books of his that I own.

 

[Albino_Boo]

Oh? There was a conviction? All I'd heard were accusations and a reference to some kind of limited settlement in NZ.

I used to drink in the French House in Soho back in the 90s, he already had the reputation of not being safe in taxis then.