TVSTRANGERTHINGS
we're not kids anymore.
sheepfilms
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Kiana Khansmith
taylor price
Andulka
No title available
almost home
tannertan36
⁂
if i look back, i am lost
Peter Solarz
cherry valley forever
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
RMH
Game of Thrones Daily
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
pixel skylines
Cosimo Galluzzi
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Indonesia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Sweden
seen from Poland
seen from United Kingdom
seen from South Africa
@borntolurk
As a certified GO2 disliker (hater is a strong word), I don't really care about the S3 renewal ramifications... I really just need the tea on what the hell actually happened between them, if anything.
(And it sure as hell seems like there was something...)
I know I'm really late with this, but if there's one thing that bothers me about Good Omens Season 2 it's that in a second season to a show that was about the APOCALYPSE, they wrote COVID, aka a LITERAL FUCKING WORLDWIDE PLAGUE, into the show and it never ever comes up in the story besides as a thing that happens to have happened.
How on earth, in a second season to an apocalyptic story, where in the book it's based on there was a literal joke about how Pollution took over for Pestilence, do you have barely a MENTION of the fact that there was just a massive global pandemic? You don't have, Idunno, the Gabriel/Beelzebub thing be partly brought on by seeing the literal plague and freaking out that these are the rumblings of the next big thing? You don't have Aziraphale and Crowley pondering whether Heaven or Hell was behind it? You have literally nothing except a brief thing about Maggie's store not bouncing back after and some demons in face masks and that's it?!?!
Just a wasted opportunity. If they hadn't put it in the timeline at all it would have made more sense.
To be clear-
the point is less that there should have been a running joke about COVID or whatever. But while there is very little about Good Omens S1 that implied that it is tethered to any particular moment in our real world (or in our real world at all), there is quite a LOT in Good Omens S1 that implies that much of what happens in the world is linked in various ways with the forces of Heaven and Hell. And given what we know about Pestilence as the retired fourth horseperson of the apocalypse, in the case of a pandemic even more so! I honestly think that S2 would have just made more narrative sense in a universe that magically never had COVID in it than in a universe where COVID did happen but had nothing to do with Heaven and Hell at all.
I know I'm really late with this, but if there's one thing that bothers me about Good Omens Season 2 it's that in a second season to a show that was about the APOCALYPSE, they wrote COVID, aka a LITERAL FUCKING WORLDWIDE PLAGUE, into the show and it never ever comes up in the story besides as a thing that happens to have happened.
How on earth, in a second season to an apocalyptic story, where in the book it's based on there was a literal joke about how Pollution took over for Pestilence, do you have barely a MENTION of the fact that there was just a massive global pandemic? You don't have, Idunno, the Gabriel/Beelzebub thing be partly brought on by seeing the literal plague and freaking out that these are the rumblings of the next big thing? You don't have Aziraphale and Crowley pondering whether Heaven or Hell was behind it? You have literally nothing except a brief thing about Maggie's store not bouncing back after and some demons in face masks and that's it?!?!
Just a wasted opportunity. If they hadn't put it in the timeline at all it would have made more sense.
So, um, it would be pretty awesome if a supercut of the Job minisode existed somewhere and I knew where it was so I could watch it...
"how are you going to say that the resurrectionists minisode was out of character for aziraphale when they ripped dialogue straight from the book" well you see the thing is that aziraphale doesn't actually believe what he's saying there. hope this helps
I very strongly disliked this minisode for a whole slew of reasons (somehow it was boring despite a) a character literally selling her friend's corpse and b) David Tennant leaving no scenery unchewed, which if you think about it is an achievement) but this is a not-small part of it. Not only were the straight-out-of-the-book lines of dialogue by far the best and most interesting in the whole script, but they were taken so far out of context, and placed into the context of a moral dilemma that felt so weightless as to be almost absurd*, that it was just massively disappointing.
(Also, I haven't gone back to rewatch and check but didn't Wee Morag say she thought it was wrong to sell corpses? Why are we meant to believe that she'd be fine with it if it's hers?!)
*This sounds wrong because, again, it's an episode where a girl literally sells her friend's corpse. But it just... didn't feel real or substantial in any way. It's not just that Aziraphale is out of character (though IMO he is)- it's that the stages of the lesson being learned feel so in your face and preachy in terms of how the story tells it (both in terms of dialogue and structure), which is especially bizarre given that the question is, at least partially, is graverobbing moral which is NOT an obvious question! But even if it WERE an obvious question, are we seriously expected to believe that after more than FIVE THOUSAND YEARS on earth, this is the first time all of this has occurred to Aziraphale?** Really?! I don't know, nothing about this worked for me, because as the OP says, this is by no means something that Aziraphale would actually say or believe in real life.
**Especially as we already got the EXCELLENT Job minisode in which, THOUSANDS of years earlier, we see Aziraphale directly defying the blinkered morality of Heaven out of compassion?!?!?! ***
***Also worth noting, in the book this conversation happened around 1023 and is done as a thought exercise, rather than being done EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS LATER (centuries into the Arrangement!!) as a practical question
I still can't get past the "thought process" that has Aziraphale going "oh no, graverobbing is Bad, what shall I do? Ah, I will just desecrate the body so at least this poor girl won't get any money. This is Good."
I'D FORGOTTEN ABOUT THIS HOLY SHIT
"how are you going to say that the resurrectionists minisode was out of character for aziraphale when they ripped dialogue straight from the book" well you see the thing is that aziraphale doesn't actually believe what he's saying there. hope this helps
I very strongly disliked this minisode for a whole slew of reasons (somehow it was boring despite a) a character literally selling her friend's corpse and b) David Tennant leaving no scenery unchewed, which if you think about it is an achievement) but this is a not-small part of it. Not only were the straight-out-of-the-book lines of dialogue by far the best and most interesting in the whole script, but they were taken so far out of context, and placed into the context of a moral dilemma that felt so weightless as to be almost absurd*, that it was just massively disappointing.
(Also, I haven't gone back to rewatch and check but didn't Wee Morag say she thought it was wrong to sell corpses? Why are we meant to believe that she'd be fine with it if it's hers?!)
*This sounds wrong because, again, it's an episode where a girl literally sells her friend's corpse. But it just... didn't feel real or substantial in any way. It's not just that Aziraphale is out of character (though IMO he is)- it's that the stages of the lesson being learned feel so in your face and preachy in terms of how the story tells it (both in terms of dialogue and structure), which is especially bizarre given that the question is, at least partially, is graverobbing moral which is NOT an obvious question! But even if it WERE an obvious question, are we seriously expected to believe that after more than FIVE THOUSAND YEARS on earth, this is the first time all of this has occurred to Aziraphale?** Really?! I don't know, nothing about this worked for me, because as the OP says, this is by no means something that Aziraphale would actually say or believe in real life.
**Especially as we already got the EXCELLENT Job minisode in which, THOUSANDS of years earlier, we see Aziraphale directly defying the blinkered morality of Heaven out of compassion?!?!?! ***
***Also worth noting, in the book this conversation happened around 1023 and is done as a thought exercise, rather than being done EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS LATER (centuries into the Arrangement!!) as a practical question
Consider: David Tennant and Michael Sheen in La Cage Aux Folles. The vision? Do you see it? You should
OK, I'm not going to lie, I had mixed feelings about S2 but if it did leave me with one impression it is that them in an updated Birdcage would ABSOLUTELY BE THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE
(Which we already know because we've basically seen half of it already, but that doesn't mean we don't deserve to actually see the rest of it)
"what are you a cop" is bookaziraphale's entire mindset btw. "is it very angelic to hoard books and be mean to customers" what are you a cop? "should you really be married to your adversary" what are you a cop? "should your husband be parking his car there" ah you ARE a cop. explodes your ticket notebook with his mind. like in his mind if the lord herself doesn't come down to tell him off he's doing just fine. because he's doing it. and if she DOES come down (where is the flaming sword I gave to thee) well then. what is she a cop
no so true. in fact I think this was a key experience in his conviction that he is correct about everything ever. after all she did not ask him again
book Crowley: you’re an angel, you can’t do the wrong thing book Aziraphale: you are absolutely right. everything i do *is* the right thing book aziraphale really took ‘do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law’ and ran with it
Such a major difference between book Aziraphale and show Aziraphale-
Show Aziraphale is convinced that his side is right, and just hopes that that means that he's right, and as a result gets anxious.
Book Aziraphale knows that he's right, and if his side disagrees then it's them who are wrong. I'm not sure he's ever been anxious in his life.
Just enjoying how when the photos from the S2 minisode were released people were horrified by Crowley's hair and beard and overall THING... and then after people saw the minisode it was all "Bildad the Shuhite my beloved, make my shoes and deliver my children"
Book Crowley really is the most character ever.
He doesn’t need sleep but he loves it so he keeps doing it. He slept through the entire 14th century because he hated it. He answers to “Hail Satan” with a little wave and a “Hi”. He actually wants to listen to classical music but it keeps turning into Queen. We don’t realize he has yellow slitted eyes until he’s frantically searching for Aziraphale at the burning bookshop. He keeps a nice, spacious, modern flat just because it’s the kind of flat the human he pretends to be would have. He bought a great sound system and forgot to buy speakers for it but made it work miraculously. He keeps a fully stocked fridge with food that never goes bad just to keep up appearances. He loves Mary Poppins and tries to emulate her as a nanny. He was casted out of Hell. Deep down he is an optimist who believes the Universe will look after him. He hasn’t forgotten he was an Angel once and still tries to go good. He actively tries to keep people from getting harmed. He hates guns. He questions God’s plan but still trusts there is one and maybe he has a part in it. He was friends with Da Vinci. He went to Spain, saw what the Spanish Inquisition was doing and proceeded to get drunk for a week.
I want to study him like a bug under a microscope.
This is all absolutely accurate except that technically the nanny in the book was the Phoenician deity Ashtoreth, not Crowley. But he did really want to blow all the rival nannies off the street with a massive wind like in Mary Poppins.
God I love Book Crowley.
something else underrated about good omens I think is that it’s never been about how immortality drains the joy out of everything . it’s been 6000 years and these fools are still drinking and dining and seeing the world and listening to the nightingales and learning to dance and there’s always newness and challenge and joy and idk maybe it’s the mental illness or the crushing weight of the world talking but that’s just really precious to me
150%!! I associate this mentally more with the book than the show, but the show definitely has it too.
On a very related note, I also absolutely despise with a red hot passion the finale of The Good Place. What a lazy approach to heaven/infinity.
I didn't like S2: a meta about metas
I didn't like S2, and I think there are a bunch of reasons why, which come down to three main bullet points of
pacing (oh god, the pacing)
plot decisions (including the decision not to really have much of a plot)
minisodes (except the Job one which I thought was mostly amazing)
But that's not really the point of this, though I might get into those at another time.
The point is that since I finished the show yesterday, I've been reading metas that make a bunch of the choices that I disliked make more sense retroactively, and there's a part of my brain that keeps making me think "oh okay so you obviously judged the season too harshly, and these other people Got It."
And, like, that's totally possible? But the fact that I didn't Get It, I think, is relevant too. Call me a philistine, and I'm sure some will, but I do think that some stuff DOES need to work as read. Like, I can, and will, analyze like the worst of them, but if you need someone else to explain to you why a particular thing works by going back and collecting random details, when it's something that felt like it came out of nowhere when you were watching the actual thing itself... it's not your fault.
(Or rather, it's not my fault lol.)
Like, for example, I did NOT particularly enjoy the ending. I thought it came out of nowhere, I thought it seemed unnatural and contrived while it was happening, and I thought that the entire rest of the season spectacularly failed to set it up.
But then, I started reading metas about out, very good ones, and I was like, hmmm, these make quite a lot of sense! And there was one meta that actually really kind of punched me in the gut on a personal level, because it really touched on some personal issues I'm working on when it comes to the religious environment in which I was raised. By the end of reading some of these metas I was like ok well what Aziraphale did TOTALLY make sense because it's what I'd have done if I had been in his situation and it's totally psychologically consistent based on these details.
I do agree, seeding in some kinds of clues, and psychological plausibility, are both very important. But they're only a part of the story. You also have to be able to make the story work rhythmically. You plant the third act in the first, if you can manage it (and while I see the arguments people make about how the first episode includes a bunch of clues, they're more retroactive ones, the kinds that make for good metas where you're like "ahhh that's what that [might have] meant). You have to progress the story and the characters such that the ending is something that flows naturally from the rest of the story. You can have a shock ending, but it has to be a shock ending that takes what you already know and have been mentally logging from the rest of what you've seen and follows consistently from there.
It's very probable that a lot of people think that GO2 managed to do all of these things. I didn't. To me, the ending was all kind of jammed in, I found the Gabriel ending completely underwhelming, the bookshop standoff was resolved through two very nearly literal deus ex machinas, I had no idea what to expect... and suddenly all that happened and I didn't feel like anything previously in the season had prepared me for it.
A bunch of metas have explained to me that I was wrong, but I guess my point here is- storytelling is about more than the bunch of data points that get turned into metas. It's about the pacing, the writing, the directing, the editing, the acting... and I think that there were multiple points of failure this season that made any logic of the ending really hard to see without going into the weeds and writing metas, or reading other people's.
If you need someone to explain to you why you should like something, it may just mean that you don't like the thing, or how the thing was done, and that's okay! Not only are all opinions subjective, but metas are layered on top of the narrative- they aren't a part of it, and just because you find a compelling one that makes you feel like you don't trust your first impressions, that doesn't necessarily mean you were wrong to have them. The story itself and its storytelling have to convince you too.
(In the meantime, I'll probably go on reading, and eventually writing, metas lol)
Reblogging this for myself because I just read a really good meta about how Aziraphale and Crowley never learned to argue and how that makes a lot of stuff make sense, and how when you're two very different people and don't want to rock the boat or change things you just... don't bring certain things up, and it made me think about a LOT of relationships in my own life that absolutely revolve on this principle...
...and then I felt bad for not thinking S2 was good because I apparently just wasn't thinking about it right. After having written this whole meta about how it doesn't matter if you didn't enjoy the watching experience at the time*.
So yeah, just a reminder to me.
*To be clear, I don't mean "I didn't enjoy it because it made me sad and I want warm fuzzy hugs from my media." I didn't enjoy it for a variety of reasons that mostly (but not exclusively) come down to writing and pacing across the whole of S2. A meta that resonates with me isn't going to make me in retrospect think that the pacing was magically better or whatever.
been grumbling to myself about that "feels lonely" line in the job minisode for a while but i couldn't quite put my finger on why it bothered me so much, and then i realized. no the fuck it doesn't, people are there. crowley was out touring through cantinas and getting railed by leonardo da vinci and aziraphale was personally friends with almost every prophecy author (mother shipton spilled alcohol on his first copy) and he loved little restaurants where they knew him by name like where's the people!! where's humanity where's the earth, all the human characters they get to meet in the flashbacks (even nina and maggie when you think about it) come from some heavenly/infernal bullshit that dragged them into it, where are their FRIENDS.
The thing is, this isn't a Job minisode problem, this is a show vs book problem. The book made us really feel like they'd gone native on Earth and really loved it and humanity (both of them, not just Aziraphale!). The show gave us an image of them where they both kind of had to cling to each other in order to stand it, almost. It's just as true in S1, but there was enough book holdover there to mask it.
all right, so. you can see my book/tv Aziraphale comparison post here. now for the Crowley one.
I want to start this off by saying that, like all good book fans, I have long been a tv-dove-scene-hater, but I really do feel that season two with the Job and Elspeth episodes basically rehabilitated that for me. my problem with the change in the dove scene is that it took out a subtle piece of character information, which is that Crowley cares quite a bit for life and his first instinct is always to preserve it when he can, and season two hits us over the head with a hammer with this. so yes. that's fine.
what they didn't rehabilitate, and what was always a problem in the first season, is the gutting of what I have always felt is the twin core of Crowley's character: first, that beneath it all, he is an optimist, and second, that he loves the Earth.
the second one is actually a little easier to swallow than the first, because the show so dramatically expands what we know about tv!Crowley: that he created far-off star systems and nebulae without knowing that they were only background dressing for a planet he hadn't even heard of, and that this is part of what started him asking questions. that makes his Alpha Centauri plan in season one make a lot more sense. it was never just the Earth to tv!Crowley; he seems to have no issue with the idea that Creation covers all of the universe, and that he could live just as well off in the stars as he could on Earth. you never get that idea with book!Crowley. book!Crowley loves the Earth and he is determined to do everything he can to save it.
a lot of this stays the same in the show at first. we get the conversation Crowley has with Aziraphale where he convinces Aziraphale into the plan to have them both try to influence the Antichrist in the hopes of canceling each other out. and it's actually kind of interesting because I think it's the exact same section of the book where this falls apart as what I talked about in my Aziraphale post. because while Crowley and Aziraphale are out of contact, and Aziraphale hits his limit with self-delusion and Heavenly propaganda, Crowley believes that Aziraphale is dead, and knows for a fact that Hell is coming for him, so he'll soon be dead or worse as well. the bookshop fire scene happens almost exactly the same, and then in the book the next time we see Crowley he's doing 120mph on the way to Tadfield when Hell comes on the radio to tell him he is absolutely fucked:
MORTALS CAN HOPE FOR DEATH, OR FOR REDEMPTION. YOU CAN HOPE FOR NOTHING.
ALL YOU CAN HOPE FOR IS THE MERCY OF HELL.
"Yeah?"
JUST OUR LITTLE JOKE.
"Ngk," said Crowley. [...]
Crowley turned off the radio and bit his lower lip. Beneath the ash and soot that flaked his face, he looked very tired, and very pale, and very scared.
And, suddenly, very angry. It was the way they talked to you. As if you were a houseplant who had started shedding leaves on the carpet.
and then he keeps driving towards Tadfield, The Nice & Accurate Prophecies with Aziraphale's notes in hand. and once he hits the flames of the M-25, you get THEE Crowley thesis moment for me:
[Crowley's] conclusions could be summarized as follows:
Armageddon was under way.
There was nothing Crowley could do about this.
It was going to happen in Tadfield. Or to begin there, at any rate. After that it was going to happen everywhere.
Crowley was in Hell's bad books.
Aziraphale was-- as far as could be estimated-- out of the equation.
All was black, gloomy and awful. There was no light at the end of the tunnel-- or if there was, it was an oncoming train.
He might as well just find a nice little restaurant and get completely and utterly pissed out of his mind while he waited for the world to end.
And yet...
And that was where it all fell apart.
Because, underneath it all, Crowley was an optimist. If there was one rock-hard certainty that had sustained him through the bad times-- he thought briefly of the fourteenth century-- then it was utter surety that he could come out on top; that the universe would look after him.
Okay, so Hell was down on him. So the world was ending. So the Cold War was over and the Great War was starting for real. So the odds against him were higher than a vanload of hippies on a blotterful of Owlsley's Old Original. There was still a chance. [...]
"Heigh ho," said Anthony Crowley, and just drove anyway.
he drives anyway, with no hope that he will ever see Aziraphale again, with no hope that he has a chance to get back to semi-comfortable anonymity with Hell ever again, with only the tiniest shred of hope that he'll be able to do anything at all. he drives anyway!
whereas in the show, his thought process apparently stops at number 7 on the list? like are you fucking kidding me??? heigh-ho Anthony Crowley just does, in fact, go to a restaurant and get completely and utterly pissed out of his mind until ghost Aziraphale shows up?
the next time we see Crowley after the bookshop fire on the show is him enacting number 7. he has the book and Aziraphale's notes, but he isn't doing anything with them until Aziraphale shows up and tells him what to do. and then we get him driving the M-25.
and even before that on the show, Crowley always has one foot out of the door whenever anything goes wrong. when they realize that they've been trying to influence the wrong boy, Crowley asks Aziraphale if he wants to go off together in the first Alpha Centauri fight. I cannot stress enough how much this never even fucking OCCURS to book!Crowley. and tv!Crowley asks this again when they have the second Alpha Centauri fight. and time and again in season three his answer is that he and Aziraphale should go off together. the only time he faces a situation head-on, full steam ahead, even if it's hopeless, on the show, is when Aziraphale tells him to.
meanwhile, in the book, the only time Crowley gives even a fleeting thought to not trying to fight is when Satan himself is on the way. and then it's Aziraphale's turn to lay a hand on his shoulder and say there are people here, we shouldn't let this happen to him. and it takes barely two sentences for Crowley to agree.
I think what I've learned from making these two posts is that there are two places where the show falls apart the most in terms of book characterization: first, in the section of the book where Crowley and Aziraphale are separated, which in all fairness does seem difficult to adapt to television because of how many things are happening simultaneously. and second, just in the general fact that Crowley and Aziraphale in the show are just too dependent on each other to make decisions. they act when one of them pushes the other to. they have realizations when the other does. they don't have the room to do these things on their own.
and like I said in the Aziraphale post, I can see this version of Aziraphale as a version of book!Aziraphale who happens to be on a slower timeline. they still have time to get him to the same place that book!Aziraphale gets to by using season three. I don't really know how you fix what I've laid out about Crowley here. in the show I think Crowley's defining feature is that he's devoted to Aziraphale. Crowley in the book loves Aziraphale, but I would not describe him as "devoted." book!Crowley loves his car, his music, putting his CDs in alphabetical order, his plants, ducks, humans, the Earth. when book!Crowley thinks Aziraphale is dead, he drives into an impassable wall of flame to try to do everything he can for the planet they both love. when tv!Crowley thinks Aziraphale is dead he gets drunk and gives up. book!Crowley's defining feature is right there in the text: underneath it all, he is an optimist. it doesn't matter how much you take from him, up to and including Aziraphale, he's just going to try anyway.
not to say that a demon devoted to an angel can't also be a compelling character. he's just not the guy I legally named myself after is all.
There are a lot of great points here, but one that is really important (and is one of the main foundations of my "the book and the show are empirically different and book fans who tell show fans that they're understanding the show wrong are operating under their own delusion" platform) is that Crowley also loves his life on Earth in the book!
In the book, rather than living in a gloomy apartment throwing tantrums, he has a pristine high-tech apartment that he clearly derives a lot of vicarious joy from, because he likes owning sleek things. He has a music collection. He pays attention to how he dresses and enjoys staying up to date with trends. He loves to sleep and sees it as one of the world's great pleasures. He put little bullet hole stickers on his windshield because he thinks it's cool. He's also saving the world for selfish reasons!
It's one of those really weird things where so many book people analyzing Aziraphale's character in the book as opposed to the show are like "he just likes to be comfortable and enjoy his life, Crowley actually sees the stakes for humanity, Aziraphale is a cynical bastard and Crowley is just sweet and pure." And that makes no sense, as I've said in my own post, because in the book Crowley is the one who hit Anathema with his car and, though he felt guilty about it, it was Aziraphale who actually stopped to help. They're both perfectly capable of caring and they're both perfectly capable of being self absorbed.
Because, yeah, as you say they're weirdly codependent in the show in a way that they aren't remotely in the book. And in the book they also don't each have one defining character trait.
Crowley is optimistic, and Aziraphale, in his own deluded way (until the televangelist thing), also is. Crowley loves being on Earth, and so does Aziraphale. Crowley doesn't give up, and neither does Aziraphale.
Because the whole point of the book is that angels and demons aren't very different. The main differences between them are just in personality. The core stuff? They're both basically on the same page, just with slightly varying perspectives.
Neither one is the naive sunshiny one. Neither one is the dark and angsty one. Neither is the hedonistic one, neither is the kind one, neither is the one who takes action or the one who stays passive. They're both functionaries who have gotten comfortable and have to shake themselves out of it to actually DO something. And they both do, sometimes together, sometimes separately, always for their own self motivated reasons.
In the show, of course, they're just completely different characters, fundamentally. So the show fans aren't not understanding the book characters- they're learning about two totally different ones. And so book fans agonizing over how "if only Crowley had brought the dove back to life, the show fans would GET IT" is just bizarre to me. It's not at all the point.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why I have seen basically no posts on here about how S2 is flawed because it allows Gabriel to be a complete karma houdini
(And I say this because it's something that genuinely bothers me)
I mean, fine, nice memory-free Gabriel expresses remorse without knowing exactly what he's expressing remorse for- and then he gets his memories back and immediately nopes out (for his own personal reasons, rather than because he genuinely felt bad about his past self) and that's it?!
It's a total cop out and even if I was less angry about Gaiman's complete fanfic ending for him I'd still be mad because what the hell (do people really like Gabriel/Beelzebub that much?! it boggles the mind)
That one scene with Crowley wasn't enough of a catharsis to justify it, it's really kind of wild
Someone explain this to me please
TO BE CLEAR: I don't think every character has to be loveable and make only the right decisions
I was fine with Gabriel when he was just an unrepentant bastard
It's just that now he's still a basically unrepentant bastard (he apologized but without knowing what he was apologizing for, and not to the right person) who is now the fandom's Beloved for a reason that is basically completely contrived? Why?!
Personal opinion but I don't think we're supposed to think he has repented. Or that's were supposed to like him now. He was a tool for the entirety of s2 to create plot and for him a Beelzebub to be a foil to Aziraphael/Crowley in a way. The fact that he could get away and have his little romance away from heaven and hell just reinforces how Aziraphael couldn't leave Heaven for Crowley
Yeah, that makes sense/is fine, but a lot of people DO seem to like him now? And the whole S2 was basically spent making him funny and loveable so you can't 100% blame people. There's clearly something purposeful there and I'm confused what it is.
To be fair I'm not in the fandom so I don't know what's going on. Also, I'm familiar with fandoms just sticking with unlikeable characters for whatever reason and liking them. Some of his parts were funny, assisted by his naivete towards humanity and the hilarity of seeing a character we shouldn't like having to deal with a reset button. But apart from being source of jokes and a plot device for us to compare the main characters with, I don't think there was abhigher purpose to his story. Unless it is to show how heaven operates against their own
Oh, sure, I'm definitely probably a bit too hooked into what people are talking about here lol
But I also just... at the end of the day found his arc kind of vacant and unsatisfying. He was entertaining but the resolution to the arc bothered me.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why I have seen basically no posts on here about how S2 is flawed because it allows Gabriel to be a complete karma houdini
(And I say this because it's something that genuinely bothers me)
I mean, fine, nice memory-free Gabriel expresses remorse without knowing exactly what he's expressing remorse for- and then he gets his memories back and immediately nopes out (for his own personal reasons, rather than because he genuinely felt bad about his past self) and that's it?!
It's a total cop out and even if I was less angry about Gaiman's complete fanfic ending for him I'd still be mad because what the hell (do people really like Gabriel/Beelzebub that much?! it boggles the mind)
That one scene with Crowley wasn't enough of a catharsis to justify it, it's really kind of wild
Someone explain this to me please
TO BE CLEAR: I don't think every character has to be loveable and make only the right decisions
I was fine with Gabriel when he was just an unrepentant bastard
It's just that now he's still a basically unrepentant bastard (he apologized but without knowing what he was apologizing for, and not to the right person) who is now the fandom's Beloved for a reason that is basically completely contrived? Why?!
Personal opinion but I don't think we're supposed to think he has repented. Or that's were supposed to like him now. He was a tool for the entirety of s2 to create plot and for him a Beelzebub to be a foil to Aziraphael/Crowley in a way. The fact that he could get away and have his little romance away from heaven and hell just reinforces how Aziraphael couldn't leave Heaven for Crowley
Yeah, that makes sense/is fine, but a lot of people DO seem to like him now? And the whole S2 was basically spent making him funny and loveable so you can't 100% blame people. There's clearly something purposeful there and I'm confused what it is.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why I have seen basically no posts on here about how S2 is flawed because it allows Gabriel to be a complete karma houdini
(And I say this because it's something that genuinely bothers me)
I mean, fine, nice memory-free Gabriel expresses remorse without knowing exactly what he's expressing remorse for- and then he gets his memories back and immediately nopes out (for his own personal reasons, rather than because he genuinely felt bad about his past self) and that's it?!
It's a total cop out and even if I was less angry about Gaiman's complete fanfic ending for him I'd still be mad because what the hell (do people really like Gabriel/Beelzebub that much?! it boggles the mind)
That one scene with Crowley wasn't enough of a catharsis to justify it, it's really kind of wild
Someone explain this to me please
TO BE CLEAR: I don't think every character has to be loveable and make only the right decisions
I was fine with Gabriel when he was just an unrepentant bastard
It's just that now he's still a basically unrepentant bastard (he apologized but without knowing what he was apologizing for, and not to the right person) who is now the fandom's Beloved for a reason that is basically completely contrived? Why?!
