Hi, I'm Tris. I'm a very nerdy aspec cat. My main fandoms are Good Omens and OFMD, I'm an Izzy/Con Enjoyer and a proud Canyonite. 🔞 I'm very much like Aziraphale in how I act. I'm Autistic, queer, disabled, chronically ill, chronic pain, ID/LD, MOGAI, white, 34. Support good faith identities. Multigender. genderfluid, and xenogender. Butch lesbian, lesboy. Plural Kit/Kitself 🏳️🌈♿🖖🏳️⚧️ Header by Chorraich on Twitter
This is getting ridiculous, as if it wasn't already. It's down right insulting to compare someone dead naming a trans person to someone having a different interpretation of a TV show finale than you. As far as tagging goes, the block button is right there if you don't like how someone tags or doesn't tag things. Harassing people who are minding their own business writing fics and drawing fluffy fanart to tag things that isn't even in that art is just being a jerk because you don't like what they're drawing and writing.
You’re right, anon— this is getting ridiculous. It is utterly absurd that anyone is acting as if engaging in the long-established and courteous practice of correctly tagging a ship is infringing on their civil liberties and is a direct, personal attack on how they feel about the finale. It is downright insulting that every well thought-out and eloquently presented argument from those you don’t agree with is reduced and twisted into something dripping in bad faith. It is ridiculous that this fandom is mostly made up of adults— many of them in their 30’s-60’s— but so many are acting like they’re in grade school.
It's just that...
I remember when Rachel said she didn't feel safe on the internet and every finale enjoyer rushed to comment and dote and apologize on behalf of whoever it was that had made her feel that way.
And then when fellow fans, people who they have known and interacted with and even been friends with, ask that they please just tag things so that we can feel safe in this fandom again, we are attacked with vitriol and outraged refusal.
The ending of Show Omens is not the ending of Book Omens (or of it's non-existent sequel). There are several reasons that I think make this a fairly solid conclusion:
For one, Book Omens doesn't have a sequel. And it almost certainly was never really going to have one. I mean, it was published in 1990. Terry Pratchett died in 2015. That's 25 years in which they could have written a sequel but chose not to.
In fact, in an interview thing that's conveniently included with my copy of the book, they answer the question "Why is there no sequel?" like this:
Does this sound to you like they have an actual, fleshed out plan for a sequel? It sounds more like they were just throwing ideas around, not even in a drafting phase yet, for a story they didn't really expect to fully write. They also last did this at least 11 years ago, likely much longer.
At best, whatever parts of their ideas made it into the show are the result of one of the two people involved using pieces of something unfinished, likely barely even started, from years ago, without the input of the other author. It certainly can not be a fully accurate representation, simply because one of the people involved is no longer able to add his own insight.
But also, just looking at the book itself, it doesn't really strike me as being written with a sequel in mind. It literally ends with a vision of the future, which is fairly conclusive and also not particularly compatible with the show ending:
This ending does not exactly scream "needs continuation" or "there is further trouble ahead". More the opposite, really.
The scene right before this ending also serves as a very neat bookend and conclusion to the whole story, with Adam stealing an apple and deciding that life would be less fun if people didn't. That eating the apple was worth the trouble you got into for doing so.
The closest we get to foreshadowing a sequel is Crowley mentioning the possibility of the "Big One". But it's not exactly treated as something that is bound to happen. So while I guess it's possible it was actively meant to imply a sequel, the rest of the ending makes it somewhat unlikely imo. More likely it's either incidental or a more vague consideration without an actual, already existing plan attached.
Secondly, it would require a somewhat strange genre and tone shift. Good Omens is a comedy that parodies various things (The Omen, Revelations, The Cold War) to make it's point in a fairly light hearted way. It's universe is somewhat silly but also hopeful.
For it to end the way the show did, it would realistically have to change it's genre. It would have to be a Drama or even Tragedy with a story that seems to have somewhat lost it's parody elements as well as it's hope for the future. Which would be a very strange thing for the sequel to a fairly light hearted and hopeful comedy to do.
It would also be very odd in terms of how Terry Pratchett books usually end. Like, even the more bleak Discworld novels, like Night Watch, do end with the world in tact and at least marginally better than before. There is always hope for the world there. An ending in which the world can not be saved and every single character experiences identity death would be very much out of the norm. (I can't say if it would be for Gaiman, the only other book of his I ever read was Coraline).
Finally, related to this, it is not thematically consistent. Some of the major themes and points of Good Omens are, I would argue:
Both the best and worst of humanity is purely humanity's doing. They have a capacity for great good and evil and either way deserve to exist as they are. Free will and the knowledge of good and evil were worth the cost.
Just because it is written, does not mean it must be done. You can not and should not live your life doing only what someone else has decided you ought to be or do. Your choices, human choices, matter and they make a real difference.
The future may seem bleak, there may be a lot of things wrong, but it is not hopeless and it is worth fighting for. This world and its people are worth fighting for. The only real way to improve it is to get it into people's heads that their actions have consequences and that they should be kinder to each other and the environment.
The show ending is thematically opposed to this. Humanity's will and choices are not the deciding factor, do not make the ultimate difference. The humans of the old universe do not deserve to exist as they are. That imperfect world is not worth saving, can not and should not be saved.
As far as the show seems concerned, Adam, at his worst, was right. The world wasn't salvageable, it's best if we just destroy it and start all over again.
It would be extremely strange to have a sequel contradict the themes of the original like this. Especially since the original themes are ones extremely common in Terry Pratchetts work in general while the shows treatment of humanity, the world and it's future really don't seem to mesh well with them at all.
free well WAS and IS an angel falling in love with a demon (and demon falling in love with an angel), despite all the odds. despite everything, despite the fact that they shouldnt and that it's forbidden and yet they still do. free will was there all along!!
free will was adam defeating satan. free will was the them standing up to the horsepeople of apocalypse. free will was anathema burning the prophercies. free will was gabriel ditching heaven for beelzebub.
it surprises me when people call the ending “not homophobic” simply because it leaves two men in a romantic relationship. the problem is not that anthony and asa fell in love with each other. the problem is that aziraphale and crowley, characters with one of the most unusual and deeply developed queer stories in modern fantasy, were sacrificed for it
a romance between two men does not automatically make a story good representation. especially when those characters are reduced to a set of generic traits: they are kind, they love each other, and that is basically it. we have already seen countless stories like that, and this is not just about gay relationships. people loved aziraphale and crowley not because they were a couple. they loved them as individuals: complex, contradictory characters with their own dynamic, history, and personalities that developed over many years. that is why it feels so strange to watch them be replaced with a flatter version of the same idea
to me, bad representation is not the absence of a kiss. it is when unique queer characters are erased in favor of a safer and more conventional romantic story. that is a disservice to the fandom
Crowley is all genders at once. She swaps pieces of his corporation for their own joy and with zero plans or trauma. They present however she pleases whenever he pleases, and occasionally messes around with things just to needle the neighborhood councilwoman who still needs to be taught to mind her own business while tne teenagers of the area get to know themselves. Or to sneakily win a bet with Aziraphale.
Aziraphale loves his corporation in all its forms but really cannon be troubled to choose a gender for himself. The question doesn’t intereste him and he’d rather read, thank you.
Asa and Anthony seem perfectly lovely, but we have no indication that their house is an epicenter of gender and queer expression free for alls where radical acceptance gets its name the way Aziraphale and Crowley’s house is.
I refuse to relinquish the South Down cottage thst nurtures all kinds of gender and sexuality fuckery to the likes of the serial rapist’s cronies and Amazon.
it surprises me when people call the ending “not homophobic” simply because it leaves two men in a romantic relationship. the problem is not that anthony and asa fell in love with each other. the problem is that aziraphale and crowley, characters with one of the most unusual and deeply developed queer stories in modern fantasy, were sacrificed for it
a romance between two men does not automatically make a story good representation. especially when those characters are reduced to a set of generic traits: they are kind, they love each other, and that is basically it. we have already seen countless stories like that, and this is not just about gay relationships. people loved aziraphale and crowley not because they were a couple. they loved them as individuals: complex, contradictory characters with their own dynamic, history, and personalities that developed over many years. that is why it feels so strange to watch them be replaced with a flatter version of the same idea
to me, bad representation is not the absence of a kiss. it is when unique queer characters are erased in favor of a safer and more conventional romantic story. that is a disservice to the fandom
All of the queer people got a bad ending. It feels intentional as fuck. Everyone of them. Their lives destroyed, or meaninglessly killed off screen before ultimately being erased.
This isn't good representation, it's just being like heres some crumbs, and if you dont like it youre evil and harming fandom.
Agreed. Sure maybe they couldn't get the actors/actresses back for the Finale but they didn't have to invent a bad ending for them???
Imagine if Max (Mutt's spouse) only said that Mutt is elsewhere in the country or not around that particular day, no one would have questioned it. But they just had to say he died in what appeared to be an act of self-unaliving???? It was so unnecessary.
Maggie and Nina lost their shops and had to move away.
AziCrow end up becoming stardust.
And everyone in the world got evaporated. Worst ending for all the humans, especially queer people.
And for anybody with even a lick of hope remaining, PRIDE merch from the GO shop was delivered with a "letter from Aziraphale" that says HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT PRIDE IS ABOUT
And as an aroace person, I do not believe that two people not kissing is ace representation. Representation is not the absence of something, but the declaration of another. Without an acknowledgement within the story of any kind towards the reasoning behind it, the absence of a kiss is simply that.
The shining plethora of diverse queer characters were eradicated. In interviews, those involved in Good Omens stated a kiss between Aziraphale and Crowley was deemed unnecessary.
And no, a finger to mouth boop that you would give to a statue or a dog or a corpse does not count as a romantically declarative kiss. It's insulting to claim that it is.
By the end of the show, radical queerness was not celebrated, not declared, but packaged into something palatable to the queer-ambivalent and casually queer-phobic masses.
The queerness of Good Omens 3 was not silent as a queer positive statement. The queerness was just silenced.
it surprises me when people call the ending “not homophobic” simply because it leaves two men in a romantic relationship. the problem is not that anthony and asa fell in love with each other. the problem is that aziraphale and crowley, characters with one of the most unusual and deeply developed queer stories in modern fantasy, were sacrificed for it
a romance between two men does not automatically make a story good representation. especially when those characters are reduced to a set of generic traits: they are kind, they love each other, and that is basically it. we have already seen countless stories like that, and this is not just about gay relationships. people loved aziraphale and crowley not because they were a couple. they loved them as individuals: complex, contradictory characters with their own dynamic, history, and personalities that developed over many years. that is why it feels so strange to watch them be replaced with a flatter version of the same idea
to me, bad representation is not the absence of a kiss. it is when unique queer characters are erased in favor of a safer and more conventional romantic story. that is a disservice to the fandom
All of the queer people got a bad ending. It feels intentional as fuck. Everyone of them. Their lives destroyed, or meaninglessly killed off screen before ultimately being erased.
This isn't good representation, it's just being like heres some crumbs, and if you dont like it youre evil and harming fandom.
Agreed. Sure maybe they couldn't get the actors/actresses back for the Finale but they didn't have to invent a bad ending for them???
Imagine if Max (Mutt's spouse) only said that Mutt is elsewhere in the country or not around that particular day, no one would have questioned it. But they just had to say he died in what appeared to be an act of self-unaliving???? It was so unnecessary.
Maggie and Nina lost their shops and had to move away.
AziCrow end up becoming stardust.
And everyone in the world got evaporated. Worst ending for all the humans, especially queer people.
And for anybody with even a lick of hope remaining, PRIDE merch from the GO shop was delivered with a "letter from Aziraphale" that says HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT PRIDE IS ABOUT
And as an aroace person, I do not believe that two people not kissing is ace representation. Representation is not the absence of something, but the declaration of another. Without an acknowledgement within the story of any kind towards the reasoning behind it, the absence of a kiss is simply that.
The shining plethora of diverse queer characters were eradicated. In interviews, those involved in Good Omens stated a kiss between Aziraphale and Crowley was deemed unnecessary.
And no, a finger to mouth boop that you would give to a statue or a dog or a corpse does not count as a romantically declarative kiss. It's insulting to claim that it is.
By the end of the show, radical queerness was not celebrated, not declared, but packaged into something palatable to the queer-ambivalent and casually queer-phobic masses.
The queerness of Good Omens 3 was not silent as a queer positive statement. The queerness was just silenced.
As another aroace person I agree about the kissing.
I also want to draw more attention to this quote from Ladybracknellssherry
By the end of the show, radical queerness was not celebrated, not declared, but packaged into something palatable to the queer-ambivalent and casually queer-phobic masses.
This is such an important point. Everything that was overtly and radically queer about this show was erased, made to never exist. None of the radically queer people got a good ending, for fucks sake Aziraphale and Crowley were so far apart through the entire thing there was enough room for two Jesus's at least. They showed none of their love for each other. Aziraphale loses some of his effeminate nature. It really does feel like a return to Hayes code shit, which we know is happening the world over in media.
And still people are accepting crumbs of representation because oh these two who are supposedly AziraCrow reborn are married. Are we seriously accepting that little? Or did no one actually care about any of the show and the books queerness.
We know the BBC are turning on gay and queer folx, so is American media and this was called production between those two. Other countries aren't much better. We have to continue fucking fighting for proper representation, not just accepting shit scraps.
A response to the incredibly insensitive post about who belongs in the Good Omens fandom found here: https://www.tumblr.com/hkblack/821956453005918208/on-fandom-expectations-and-good-omens-3
“This is going to be long, and anyone who comments without reading the whole thing that despite S3 being a big, old complicated thing that makes folks feel different feels, with takes about how I'm wrong/condescending/stupid for liking the finale/whatever is going to be blocked on sight.”
Considering Tumblr tells me there are twenty-seven comments as of this writing, but only around six are visible, it tells me this is a case of “give me glowing reviews for my opinion, or I will delete your comment.”
“What I've realized is that a lot of folks seem to think that those of us who like the ending, or have positive feelings towards it, all think it's a happy ending. This is not true.”
Personally, I would chalk this up to confirmation bias. If the OP spent any time at all interacting with those who did not like the finale, they would realize that just like the folks who enjoyed S3, the folks who didn’t care for it come in many flavors.
“...based on how we've had to kick people who were not active, the number of requests I have to join, and folks who were interested in participating in our Warm Close event but hesitant to join a Discord Server, TAT would be a lot larger if I had the bandwidth to moderate more people.”
Yes, and? This doesn’t give us any hard data on how many pro-S3 folks there are compared to anti-S3. I assume the OP advertised her little server and event in more pro-S3 spaces and among pro-S3 friends than any other spaces, thus attracting more attention to them. Also, if she really wanted it to grow, she could appoint more mods since Discord doesn’t limit a server to just one. This is just a sly way to make her own server seem extremely popular. It's like when you're arguing with someone online, and they claim their view is not unpopular because tons of people are DMing them support.
But good for her for developing a server for people who are like-minded. That’s the whole point of a fandom…to hang out with people who enjoy what you do. I won’t criticise people for that. Make servers, hold events, have fun. Not everything has to appeal to other people.
It also helps to have an understanding of the song you’re titling your server after. According to Cyndi Lauper, it’s about leaving a relationship that’s run its course while trying not to look back upon it. The S3 writers should have figured this out, too. https://americansongwriter.com/meaning-time-after-time-cyndi-laupers/
“The conclusion that one can draw from such a varied group is that the ending of Good Omens S3 is complicated. It can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways, and it is, in the most Good Omens sense, an ending steeped in shades of grey.
Which I find, personally, to be beautiful.”
So, the OP is saying, how complicated S3 is, and presumably the feelings of those who watched it are diverse. Yet, on the other hand, she’s telling us the only ones with valid emotions are those who either like S3 or dislike it and keep quiet about it. Because those other people are just yucking the yum of the finale lovers.
That’s not how a fandom works. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you don’t happen to like it, there are block buttons, filters and other methods of curating your online experience so you don’t see the stuff you don’t want to.
“Therefore it's my belief that the issue amongst the larger fandom is that there are some people who are of the opinion that sad/uncomfortable = bad.”
Yes, there are. There are people literally freaking out because others are sad and uncomfortable about the ending. But negative emotions are part of life. It is unhealthy to bottle all that up. To deny folks that right to express them is inappropriate and promotes only positive emotions as valid ones. “You must like this thing that is causing you pain. You have no right to be angry because you’re just upsetting everyone else around you. Why can’t you understand that?”
I’d like to know why those who insist on practicing toxic positivity can’t simply show a little empathy to those whose entire fandom was turned upside-down by the finale. One can’t sit there preaching diversity and respecting different points of view, then turn around to talk about how the opinions that make them uncomfortable are wrong.
“These are the folks who hurl accusations such as S3 being a "bury your gays" ending when the finale explicitly ends with a married queer presenting couple sitting in a house they presumably own and being sweet together.”
Folks are allowed to take the “Bury Your Gays” trope, apply it to Good Omens 3 and decide after some analysis if it personally fits. It is not a black-and-white trope with an official definition, nor is S3 a “black-and-white ending”, if we use OP’s definition. The queer couple all of us have followed the entire series is suddenly Thanos’ed out of existence for a replacement couple some feel no emotional investment in. They might very well feel this fits the trope. The gays they loved are dead, and they’re being offered a poor facsimile instead.
This might all be part of them working through their grief. Allow them that much. Nobody else is required to feel the same or agree with them.
“Also it ignores that said abuser wrote the ending before his abuse was made public, so he had no reason to write a final "gotcha" when at the time he was still working under the assumption he would not be found out…”
I must wonder if this OP has never been around someone who’s grieving and searching for answers. Sometimes, they cling to ideas that seem outlandish. What they need is space and understanding, not a lecture. As they go through the stages of their grief, they’ll work it out. They just need to analyse all the information around them in their quest for meaning. Have some empathy for those who do.
Yes, I know there are also conspiracy theorists out there. It’s not that hard to tell the difference. It’s easy enough for others to show the grieving fan empathy and not interact with the conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist will eventually go elsewhere if they cannot engage anyone with their ideas.
“ …ignoring years of interviews and comments from NG, STP, Rob Wilkins, Rhianna Pratchett, and more all confirming that the ending has existed for a long time...”
An ending has existed for a long time, not the ending we got. It’s outlined here: https://x.com/Bowtiedino/status/1703866949669622049 We have elements of it, but this ending has been sold to us since 2005 by both authors and Rob Wilkins. They had people believing Aziraphale and Crowley retiring to the South Downs would end the show. It’s natural for some to feel like the rug was pulled out from under them when the series wrapped up differently than what was sold to the fandom.
“...it is a collaborative ending between the two writers.”
The originally planned ending was. If it was written down at all. The best I can say, based on the information I’ve found, is that it was discussed one late night in a hotel room by both authors. After that, both went back to their own novels and nothing else ever came of the Good Omens sequel.
Gaiman and Pratchett didn’t speak for many years before Pratchett contacted him about making Good Omens into a film or show. Rihanna Pratchett has stated it was entirely normal for them to have gaps like that, so I’m not going to comment further on it.
They reconnected three years before Pratchett’s death in 2015. By then, he was struggling to write. He talked about it in interviews that I wish I had receipts for, but I don’t. I read them back when he was still alive, and I'm not getting hits on anything when I search. He talked about how he could set something down in a perfectly visible place, but once he looked away and back again, he could no longer see the object. This weird quirk of his brain made it hard for him to type because some of the keys on the keyboard would disappear before his eyes. Pratchett would record dictations. Rob Wilkins and sometimes Rhianna Pratchett would type those dictations out. Wilkins also had the job of making sure the writing flowed smoothly and was consistent. Sometimes, Pratchett had trouble with that and Wilkins had to plump up paragraphs here and there and ask him for clarification on plot points
I assume if they were going through that kind of process to rewrite the ending, Gaiman would have said something. He liked to talk about Pratchett and their friendship. There’s a plethora of interviews out there showcasing that if you want to search for them. Yet, he never mentioned working together on an ending before Pratchett’s death. It seems like the kind of thing he would do, especially if it involved an interesting fact, like Terry having to dictate everything because he could no longer type it out.
So, unless there’s some proof somewhere that Pratchett was involved in the writing of the actual ending we got, it’s dishonest to say he was. We have no idea. Still there exists some evidence that he didn’t, in the silence of those who would be helping him with a rewrite and this Tweet from Marc Burrows, who wrote Pratchett’s biography. https://x.com/20thcenturymarc/status/2054628722146480469
If people “go to war” to have their names included in the writing credits, it seems strange that Narritivia didn’t make sure Pratchett got some credit for writing the ending. No, he just received credit for the original book.
And no, there wasn’t anything collected from Pratchett’s notes and works in progress after he died. Terry’s will stated he wanted his hard drive destroyed after his death, and it was. None of his unfinished works were to be published posthumously. If any notes on a Good Omens ending existed, they were very likely lost when the hard drive was crushed. The only notes Gaiman had to go on were ones he wrote down himself. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-41093066
“Folks are picking and choosing what interviews to include in their defense of "this is clearly a Bad Thing" instead of coming to terms with the fact that the ending was not what they expected, and that is disappointing.”
Yet the OP offers no evidence of this even though she is really keen on telling people they need to get over their disappointment simply because she likes the ending. Convenient.
“They point at the genre labels (a deeply flawed labeling system of stories across media types meant to promote marketing and sales and not actually indicative of the story content itself).”
Genre labels have existed almost as long as creative writing has. Even the ancient Greeks knew the difference between a comedy and a tragedy, and labeled them as such. I’m pretty sure it had little to do with marketing and sales. Plays were free in ancient Greece and took place during festivals. It seems pretty likely they got butts into seats just fine without turning genre into a flashy advertising campaign.
Sorry, OP, but genres have meaning. If I go into a bookstore and head to the romance section, I can safely assume the books there are not going to end with a werewolf eating the heroine, unless it’s noted somewhere on the cover that it’s also a horror crossover. Genres exist so we can reliably make some assumptions about the book like, setting, character types we might encounter, plot elements, mood and the tropes we might find between the covers.
The same applies to what we see on the screen. Again, if I buy a ticket to a romcom, I’m not going to expect to see an ending where the heroine is devoured by a werewolf, but the OP suggests we should anticipate this. We certainly should expect that our light, satirical comedy with a side of romance would suddenly include the end of the world that we’ve come to know and love. When that happens, we have no right to complain because genres are modern and mean nothing. Sorry, ancient Greeks.
This is very disappointing, since the OP does offer beta services. Or at least used to before she became the mod of a server and allowed that tiny bit of power to go to her head. It’s logical to assume someone who betas other’s writings would have some concept of how genre works, since part of a beta’s job is to make sure what’s written matches with the genre the author’s aiming for. Maybe she should educate herself. Here’s a good article to start with. https://www.writersworkout.net/post/understanding-genre-why-it-matters
“They point at specific quotes and ignore full interviews (specifically interviews where the contradictions are addressed as information previously NDA'd or unpromised was intentionally kept under wraps).”
And both sides are guilty of that, but the OP fails to point that out. She also fails to mentions that film studios typically frown upon actors and crew speaking negatively about their work. It’s an industry where to be successful, you have to know the right people and navigate the political environment correctly. Badmouth a role, and you could very easily find yourself blacklisted. I know people in the industry, a couple of actors in Chicago and someone who works in the production department of Futurama. I’ve asked.
You can’t depend on the interviews given by actors because they are going to smile and speak positively about S3 just like Amazon expects them to do. They’re going to talk excitedly when they need to and look a little teary-eyed when that’s required. It’s not hard for them to give an interview that looks genuine no matter their personal feelings. They are professional actors. We might love Michael Sheen and David Tennant, but we also have to take what they say publicly with a grain of salt. They’re not going to risk their very careers over Good Omens. They might love it or they might hate it. Chances are very good we’ll never know for sure.
“They invent thoughts on how the entertainment industry works (there is no secret cabal trying to personally victimize you in the writers room,”
Again, it doesn’t take that much kindness to just allow people to work through their grief over a tragic ending, even if it takes weird turns. They have to sort it all out, even the less believable stuff because we live in an age where we are bombarded by all kinds of information every time we log on to the internet.
“...frankly if this was a cash grab, they would've gone with a less divisive ending…”
We don’t know if Gaiman thought the ending divisive. It’s a pretty bog-standard Gaiman ending if you’ve read his work. Immortals rarely fare well in his books. Spoilers in the next paragraph, skip if you don’t want to know briefly explained, vague endings to Gaiman novels.
See The Sandman series (Dream is killed by the Fates and replaced by another), Stardust (immortal star marries mortal and is left behind to grieve after he dies), American Gods (gods depend on human belief to survive, but humans stop worshipping them, weakening some and killing others), The Ocean at the End of the Lane (an immortal being is gravely hurt and must return to “the ocean” to heal), The Graveyard Book (Immortal ghosts lose their human family member because he must grow up and join the mortal world)
Besides, after Gaiman said Good Omens was going to be one season only, it does look like a bit of a cash grab since there were three seasons. It would have been very easy for him to say that Good Omens might be only one season, but he’s leaving the door open. He didn’t. He changed his mind. I can’t tell you for sure the reason why, but I can tell you a story.
I have a friend who used to live in Wisconsin in the town where Gaiman and his first wife lived. This friend was on the board of the town’s public library. The library invited Gaiman to speak for a charity event and asked if he could do it on a goodwill basis or at least for a reduced fee. Gaiman said it wouldn’t be a problem. After the event, he demanded they pay him $20,000 for his public appearance. He threatened to take them to court if they didn’t. The library had to cut him a check out of what they raised for charity to avoid a more expensive court case. My friend hasn’t had a positive thing to say about Gaiman since then.
While this is far from definitive evidence, it does show that there’s a possibility that S2 and 3 were nothing more than a cash grab. The man was apparently willing to take cash away from a charity who needed it. Without proof to the contrary, the OP shouldn’t have declared she knew they weren’t.
Anyway, I obviously have no receipts for that story, but I do about Gaiman saying Good Omens was one and done. https://www.kvue.com/article/news/season-one-of-good-omens-is-good-omens-neil-gaiman-says-show-wont-have-more-than-6-episodes/269-cae9b363-b2ee-4780-a94a-4ce9491c59ed
“They applaud someone for taking an illegal recording of an unaware actor who is making a glib remark (and let it be known, having worked in the industry: actors know what you're looking for pretty quickly when you ask them questions and will not hesitate to say whatever they think will keep themselves safe, "on your side" and make you go away faster, especially if they are under the impression that they are not be recorded).”
This I don’t agree with. That recording shouldn’t have been made. But it’s interesting that the OP says here an actor will say what they need to to appear on your side, but refuses to apply the same logic to an actor saying positive things in interviews about their work to avoid angering film studios.
Saying she’s been in the industry would hold more weight if her declarations were more consistent instead of her using them to dishonestly make her point about fans she hates.
“In sum, these "fans" are using their personal interpretation (aka: head canon) of an intentionally complicated ending, and justifying the vitriol and disrespect they are spilling on other fans, the cast, the crew, the creators, the Estate, and more, by saying that the ending was, unequivocally "bad" and anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong, stupid, an abuse apologist, and more.”
Funny how anyone who disagrees with her interpretation of Good Omens and is vocal about it is lumped into one category, branded a “bad person” and considered, based on those quotation marks, not a true fan because true fans either like the ending or stay quiet about how they don’t.
Yes, some people are behaving badly. Interesting that the OP doesn’t acknowledge that there are folks on both sides who are stirring up shit. This writing of hers is proof of that. There is no reason to go after people who are vocal about not liking the ending other than thin skin. If one requires that much external validation of their opinions, I feel sorry for them. It must suck to have to have others constantly prop up your self-esteem.
But despite the OP’s view, public discussion of a divisive ending is not some kind of slap in the face to the other fans, the cast, the crew and anyone else involved with Good Omens. Even those who didn’t like the ending were appalled by the behavior of a few. Nobody in the cast or crew should have had to put up with harassment. Still, there is a vast difference between “discussion” and “harassment”. The OP needs to learn that.
“Because why? Because it wasn't a clear cut happy ending?”
Because it was an outright traumatizing ending for those who saw characters they had emotionally invested themselves in get turned into dust along with the entire cosmos. An entire cosmos, that I remind you, never existed in the first place because that’s the stated outcome when something or one is erased from the Book of LIfe. It’s a natural reaction to get upset when the writers basically write someone’s comfort characters out of existence.
And it’s just as insulting when another group insists that the replacements are just fine. Replacements who are given little backstory, are on the screen for about ten minutes and people might not have any emotional attachment to. Studies show that our brains can attach the same emotions to fictional characters as real people. https://news.ufl.edu/2022/05/why-you-got-attached-to-your-favorite-character/
Nobody with empathy would tell someone to get over their dead friend after two months. Neuroscience is starting to show us that the same applies to fictional characters. Grief takes time, even if it’s for someone who never existed in real life.
The “Reset the Universe” trope pulls the rug out from folks. It sends the message that beloved characters really didn’t matter in the end. That is going to be hard on some fans, whether the OP acknowledges it or not. And no, being offered shiny, new toys isn’t going to fix the problem for everyone. Some quite like the old ones and would rather they had gone on existing.
It’s at best unsatisfying and, at worst, devastating. If the OP likes it, good for her. Unlike OP, I’m not going to tell her she’s wrong for finding the ending beautiful. I’m glad she found something worthwhile in it. But a lot of people didn’t, despite what she wants others to believe. A quick peek at the Rotten Tomatoes audience reviews proves that many found the ending unsatisfying. The percentage at this writing sits at 33%.
Who again is the vocal minority here?
“We know that the finale was already adjusted to fit the times (Jesus showing up as a celebrity on a giant plane has very different vibes in 2026 than in 1996.) So we know that this ending was conjured during a different time. And while the time we are currently living in is harder, increasing the desire for more uncomplicated happy endings, that doesn't mean we are entitled to such endings.”
Also a rewrite doesn’t mean that Gaiman needed to go the nuclear route, now does it? There were many different ways S3 could have gone, and the plethora of fanfic that came out after S2, especially after S3 was put on hold, proves that. The man is a professional writer. I have trouble believing he couldn’t have come up with something decent that included that promised retirement in the South Downs when amateurs who write simply because they love the characters could.
And it’s laughable she talks about entitlement when Gaiman after S2 told fans there would be a happy and satisfying ending in several Tumblr asks. He even promised to write a book if S3 didn’t get greenlit. He knew he was speaking to fans with a lot of investment who were worried about the future of the series. To reassure them like it and make such promises was a real dick move when he had no intention of following through.
.
Even Rob Wilkins hyped the “happily ever after” ending at The Ineffable Con 6. https://www.tumblr.com/angelsandfelines/792144960506986496?source=share
💬 7 🔁 58 ❤️ 261 · SO!
Slight spoiler warning (?) for good omens three!!!
Rob Wilkins was this years guest at the ineffable con! Whilst t
You don’t do that to a fandom whom you know if hanging on your every word. You don’t keep feeding them that hope if you’re not going to deliver. Sorry, but Asa and Anthony are not Aziraphale and Crowley. Aziraphale and Crowley didn’t get that retirement with a cute little cottage that was talked up for years. They died. If that’s not jarring, I don’t know what is.
“...it was incredibly difficult for me to sit and watch people not just be sad, but be angry.”
And there we have it, folks. This OP cannot handle people being angry, so nobody is allowed to be.
“In trying to give space to those who were grieving a complicated ending, and the end of an era, and a show that should've gotten 6 hours, not 90 minutes, we legitimized those who decided "sad" and "not what I wanted to see" equals "bad writing/production/directing."”
What now? We shouldn’t allow people to grieve because some of the fans think the writing, production or directing is bad? There’s no logic here.
Nor does the OP get to decide what someone else considers bad writing, production or directing. As long as these people are not harassing the cast, crew or other fans, they are free to think what they want about the show. Art is subjective.
In this case, it’s more than that. Go search the internet and you will find plenty of S3 reviews that talk about the bad pacing, the plot lines that were confusing or never tied up, the stilted dialogue, how the acting was wonderful but the script gave the actors little to work with. The OP is free to think what she wants, but it’s hard to deny the writing was less than stellar when the critics keep repeating the same shortfalls in their reviews, even in fairly positive ones.
“In doing so, we gave them the space to come up with conspiracy theories ("not STP's ending", you know, a dead man who can't speak for himself and I guess we can say fuck you to his living loved ones who fought for this ending?”
Apparently, the OP thinks she can speak for Pratchett by claiming he somehow helped rewrite the ending, but people can’t express the opposite opinion. You know, the people who don’t see Pratchett in the ending are the ones who are his fans. The ones who can speculate because even though he cannot speak for himself, he left behind evidence in the form of his own novels. Using those stories’ endings, fans can form educated hypotheses on what he might or might not put in a finale.
That’s more than the OP can do. She’s admitted in the past on a Discord server that she’s never read a book written solely by Pratchett. If you have little knowledge of an author’s work, then you have no right to preach to their fans about “putting words in their mouths”.
Also his loved ones did not fight to get S3 made when it was cancelled. BBC Studios negotiated with Amazon to get the film that we got. Narritivia tentatively put its support behind BBC Studios. https://www.heyuguys.com/why-good-omens-3-has-a-terry-pratchett-problem-spoiler-review/
And by the way, that South Downs ending was Pratchett’s. Marc Burrows, who wrote a biography on Terry Pratchett and knows a lot more about him than the OP of this essay, tweeted that. Here’s a post on Reddit with receipts. https://www.reddit.com/r/goodomens/comments/1tye64y/the_pratchett_ending/
Also, you’re starting to get angry there, OP. Isn’t the point of this essay about how much the fandom is hurt by anger? Better calm down now.
“"NG wants to abuse us all", I cannot even with this one it is so deeply insulting to his actual assault victims.”
If you “cannot” with something, then move on. There is a lot in fandoms that is not worth engaging with, but that does not mean that we get to restrict opinions we don’t like and demand everyone behave how we choose based on the behavior of some outliers.
Furthermore, the OP did not consider how liking a work of Gaiman’s, even if it was written with another author, might be just as deeply insulting to his actual assault victims. Instead, she’d rather play the pain olympics with hurt fans. Just walk the fuck away. Or better yet, get off the internet. Believe me, OP. It’s full of stuff that you’re not going to agree with.
“In doing this, we harmed the rest of the fandom, both those who enjoyed the ending and fell more towards the bittersweet to happy interpretation of the ending, as well as those who actually needed the space to process and just thought it was a sad ending, without ascribing bad to it.”
Yes, that’s right. The OP is flat out saying that allowing grief yucks the yum of those who liked S3. Nobody should have the slightest bit of empathy for another human being in the fandom if that human beings’ mere expression of grief interferes with her enjoyment of the series. Let that sink in. Realize that’s toxic positivity at its finest. “I’m uncomfortable with your negative attitude, so you need to either put on a smile and start liking the finale or shut up about how angry and sad you are.”
My God. Go outside and touch some grass because it’s not all about you, OP.
And revoking someone’s right to grieve over the ending because there’s a few batshit crazy conspiracy theories out there makes it worse. I cannot even, to quote the OP.
“So when I say things like "you're allowed to just...not like the ending" this is not me saying that the ending was happy, actually, get over it. Nor is it me saying you gotta buck up and smile. Its me saying you should take a step back and look at this ending more objectively.”
Actually, “buck up and smile” or shut up about it is exactly what the OP has been saying this entire essay. Now she has the audacity to tell people who don’t like the ending that their opinion is wrong and they need to reevaluate. No, that’s not how it works. Nobody gets to tell someone their opinion is not valid, and they need to go back and look something over with fresh eyes.
You know that guy you turned down who keeps insisting that you need to give him a second chance? Yeah, I find people telling me I need to give a film I hated a second chance just as annoying.
“No one went out to "do" this to you. No one went "You know what, let's make this a sad ending specifically to ruin this person's life."
The irony here is so thick, I’m surprised the OP can’t taste it. Excuse me, OP. Nobody went and “did’ this to you. Nobody made you decide to throw common human decency and empathy out the window because you’re upset some people have discussions in public social media spaces that you personally can’t handle. Nobody went, “You know what, let’s make an essay pointing out the flaws in Good Omens’ finale to ruin OP’s enjoyment of it.”
“My anxiety struggles with cliff hangers and I absolutely read the wiki summary before committing to a thing to make sure the ending is going to be what I want it to be. Good story telling can hurt and sometimes I'm into it. And sometimes, I'm not.”
Yet the OP refuses to see that others can have anxiety, can be into something or simply might not be. The Main Character Syndrome just grows and grows, doesn’t it?
“And maybe if it just made you sad, you should think about distancing yourself from communities where people are mad.”
Ummm, no? I’m a fully grown adult capable of curating my own experience, thank you very much. Most of us are. We don’t need someone coming along to tell us what we should or should not be doing. It’s downright insulting that OP believes sad fans need to be told how to conduct themselves so they’re not “contaminated” by the wrong people.
“But that doesn't mean you've gotta throw the whole thing, including your fandom community, in the trash too.”
If someone came along and pressured me into spaces where only certain viewpoints were acceptable, I’d leave the fandom, too. The toxic positivity group hasn’t shown much tolerance for the sad fans unless they toe the line. You know, stay away from the “bad people” and “bad spaces”. Sing the praises of Good Omens 3, hide your sorrow and act like everything’s ok. Then, you’ll be accepted.
“It does mean that maybe you need to take a more active stance against those who are insisting that their head canon is the only "correct" interpretation of the ending…”
What do you think my response to your little essay is, OP?
“disrespecting and hating on the people who made a story.”
And we’re back to that, even though a very small portion of the fandom is actually engaging in hateful, disrespectful discourse.
“Frankly, those aren't the kind of people you should want to be in a community with anyway…”
The OP is correct. Nobody wants to be in a community where you’re told you need to reevaluate your anger and grief because your negative emotions make other people uncomfortable. People who engage in toxic positivity aren’t the kind of people most others want to hang around.
And really, this anger and grief some people have is about more than just a finale. It’s about the harassment, the loss of friends and communities, and the giant rift that now exists in our fandom.
“In sum: there are so many ways to interpret the Good Omens ending, whether you're looking at the Television Series ending or the Book ending (I mean come on the book ends with them discussing the "big one" and it is not clear which side Crowley thinks they are on, humans or not humans).”
I must say I do not understand. First, the OP goes on about how the headcanons of certain people who are angry and/or grieving are wrong, but now states that there are a lot of different ways to interpret it. It’s one way or the other. Either headcanons are okay, or they’re not. You just can’t decide a certain group of people’s headcanons are invalid because you don’t like them.
“And if we're going to preserve the community that has become so important to us, then yes. We need to stop letting the loudest (not the majority, just the loudest) people trample the joy of our community.”
Seriously? I have seen way more pro-S3 people complaining about opinions of the anti-S3 people than the other way around. And no, I’m not saying the anti-S3 side is perfect. It’s not. But aside from a few people hellbent on harassing others, those who don’t like the finale are not stifling the joy of everyone else simply by expressing their opinions. They are having discussions, bringing up concerns and trying to get their view acknowledged while the loud-and-proud minority of pro-S3 twists the narrative so they appear to be the victims.
“ "My head canon is different than yours, and you gotta stop shoving your deeply triggering take down my throat without a content warning." We've got to be more firm in that the very existence of Asa and Anthony is not, actually, something that should be spoilered because they are the result of suicide because that is a head canon, not a fact.”
Let’s look at the facts here…Aziraphale and Crowley die in the finale. I don’t know of any other interpretation one could have of two people turning into dust before their eyes. That is not a headcanon. Asa and Anthony are the result of death. They would not exist if not for the self-sacrifice of Aziraphale and Crowley.
This self-sacrifice can be perceived by a fan as suicide, per the OP’s own assertions that there are many different interpretations of the finale. But I’m guessing that when she wrote that, she only meant the interpretations she approves of, not the ones of those angry, grieving fans who are feeling emotions just as valid as hers.
And really, none of that really matters. Aziraphale and Crowley die on screen before our eyes. If major character death is not taggable, then trigger lists have no business existing. You accept all triggers without question, or you accept none. Nobody has the right to pick and choose what triggers are worth considering. That’s just playing with people’s mental health.
“And frankly, if you want your communities, your big servers, your whatever, to live on, you've got to take this seriously. Your mod teams have to agree that, personal feelings about the ending aside, the ending is open to a multitude of interpretations, there is no space for conspiracy theories that are harmful or disrespectful to cast, crew, actual NG victims, etc, in these spaces, and that these spaces are meant to come together in celebration of the story, not to complain about how much something sucked.”
Wrong. While there is harmful content that should stay out of servers, there is no rule out there that says servers need to exist solely to celebrate any film, show, musical, fandom or whatever. Someone is perfectly free to create a server to meet other needs, like creating one to give comfort to those who are distraught over the ending. Support is a wonderful thing. I’ve heard several say servers where their views were supported helped them get through their grieving process. If the OP doesn’t hold with the idea that some fans benefit more from support than hatred, then she’s free to remove herself from any servers that don’t exist solely to celebrate S3.
Contrary to her beliefs, there is a lot of good discussion out there about the finale that isn’t exactly positive. Not everything discussed has to be a celebration of it. There is nothing wrong with starting a discussion about how the Jesus plotline went nowhere. Or how God went from a hands-off deity in S1 to one willing to end all life in the cosmos on a whim. Or about the many out-of-character moments there were for Aziraphale and Crowley. Because that’s what fandoms do. They have discussions about what they like or don’t. What works and what could have been done better.
I have to wonder if the OP has ever been in other fandoms because she wouldn’t last long in some. I’m in at least one where they would laugh in her face if she demanded they only speak positively about the source material. I was just looking at a whole discussion in a Doctor Who server about how River Song is a horribly written character and guess what? It’s a civil conversation between both sides where nobody’s complaining that the River Song haters need to just shut up about it because they’re hurting the sensitive feelings of the River Song fans.
But we can’t have both sides existing together in the Good Omens fandom. We cannot be stomping on anyone’s enjoyment by actually discussing the shortfalls of the series. We must censor ourselves so we don’t upset those who like it.
“If you want your spaces to survive, to not become cesspools of the worse kind of feedback loops, you've got to make sure there's more joy than hate.”
I hate to break it to the OP here, but a server full of toxic positivity is also nothing more than a feedback loop. To have a healthy server, the fans have to respect each other, no matter if they liked the finale, felt neutral about it or find themselves in a state of grief because of it. Nothing will kill a server quite like a policy that everyone must either like a certain thing/behave a certain way or shut up about it. Been there, seen that.
A local Discord server decided back in 2020 that it was best to pretend Covid didn’t exist. They banned any criticisms of people having gatherings, and discussions of masking and other preventative measures. It died a pretty quick death.
“And if you're "in the middle" maybe take a step back from the loud voices and ask yourself: Are you in the middle? Or did something make you sad and the loud voices are trying to convince you that means that thing must not be any good at all?”
Contrary to the OP’s views, I, someone who doesn’t like the finale but isn’t emotional about it, do have the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff and make my own decisions, even if there are loud voices like the OP’s out there attempting to convince me otherwise. We all are entitled to walk our own path rather than the one OP tries to lay out for us.
I can't believe they're taking over the fandom's initiatives, the discord servers and ao3 tag wrangling and imposing, quite literally imposing, their toxic positivity on the whole fandom, de facto ruining it, because now apparently ppl are getting banned from discord servers for being anti finale??? Hello, how is that normal??? These people have been running people off platforms like bluesky, twitter etc. and no one is making posts to call the toxic positivity crowd out, but then posts like these where they keep scolding us for being negative bc we're criticizing a movie, while ofc generalizing deeply and saying we're all out there harassing cast and crew and other fans, which is bullshit. They're allowed to harass other fans, though. Make it make sense.
A response to the incredibly insensitive post about who belongs in the Good Omens fandom found here: https://www.tumblr.com/hkblack/821956453005918208/on-fandom-expectations-and-good-omens-3
“This is going to be long, and anyone who comments without reading the whole thing that despite S3 being a big, old complicated thing that makes folks feel different feels, with takes about how I'm wrong/condescending/stupid for liking the finale/whatever is going to be blocked on sight.”
Considering Tumblr tells me there are twenty-seven comments as of this writing, but only around six are visible, it tells me this is a case of “give me glowing reviews for my opinion, or I will delete your comment.”
“What I've realized is that a lot of folks seem to think that those of us who like the ending, or have positive feelings towards it, all think it's a happy ending. This is not true.”
Personally, I would chalk this up to confirmation bias. If the OP spent any time at all interacting with those who did not like the finale, they would realize that just like the folks who enjoyed S3, the folks who didn’t care for it come in many flavors.
“...based on how we've had to kick people who were not active, the number of requests I have to join, and folks who were interested in participating in our Warm Close event but hesitant to join a Discord Server, TAT would be a lot larger if I had the bandwidth to moderate more people.”
Yes, and? This doesn’t give us any hard data on how many pro-S3 folks there are compared to anti-S3. I assume the OP advertised her little server and event in more pro-S3 spaces and among pro-S3 friends than any other spaces, thus attracting more attention to them. Also, if she really wanted it to grow, she could appoint more mods since Discord doesn’t limit a server to just one. This is just a sly way to make her own server seem extremely popular. It's like when you're arguing with someone online, and they claim their view is not unpopular because tons of people are DMing them support.
But good for her for developing a server for people who are like-minded. That’s the whole point of a fandom…to hang out with people who enjoy what you do. I won’t criticise people for that. Make servers, hold events, have fun. Not everything has to appeal to other people.
It also helps to have an understanding of the song you’re titling your server after. According to Cyndi Lauper, it’s about leaving a relationship that’s run its course while trying not to look back upon it. The S3 writers should have figured this out, too. https://americansongwriter.com/meaning-time-after-time-cyndi-laupers/
“The conclusion that one can draw from such a varied group is that the ending of Good Omens S3 is complicated. It can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways, and it is, in the most Good Omens sense, an ending steeped in shades of grey.
Which I find, personally, to be beautiful.”
So, the OP is saying, how complicated S3 is, and presumably the feelings of those who watched it are diverse. Yet, on the other hand, she’s telling us the only ones with valid emotions are those who either like S3 or dislike it and keep quiet about it. Because those other people are just yucking the yum of the finale lovers.
That’s not how a fandom works. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you don’t happen to like it, there are block buttons, filters and other methods of curating your online experience so you don’t see the stuff you don’t want to.
“Therefore it's my belief that the issue amongst the larger fandom is that there are some people who are of the opinion that sad/uncomfortable = bad.”
Yes, there are. There are people literally freaking out because others are sad and uncomfortable about the ending. But negative emotions are part of life. It is unhealthy to bottle all that up. To deny folks that right to express them is inappropriate and promotes only positive emotions as valid ones. “You must like this thing that is causing you pain. You have no right to be angry because you’re just upsetting everyone else around you. Why can’t you understand that?”
I’d like to know why those who insist on practicing toxic positivity can’t simply show a little empathy to those whose entire fandom was turned upside-down by the finale. One can’t sit there preaching diversity and respecting different points of view, then turn around to talk about how the opinions that make them uncomfortable are wrong.
“These are the folks who hurl accusations such as S3 being a "bury your gays" ending when the finale explicitly ends with a married queer presenting couple sitting in a house they presumably own and being sweet together.”
Folks are allowed to take the “Bury Your Gays” trope, apply it to Good Omens 3 and decide after some analysis if it personally fits. It is not a black-and-white trope with an official definition, nor is S3 a “black-and-white ending”, if we use OP’s definition. The queer couple all of us have followed the entire series is suddenly Thanos’ed out of existence for a replacement couple some feel no emotional investment in. They might very well feel this fits the trope. The gays they loved are dead, and they’re being offered a poor facsimile instead.
This might all be part of them working through their grief. Allow them that much. Nobody else is required to feel the same or agree with them.
“Also it ignores that said abuser wrote the ending before his abuse was made public, so he had no reason to write a final "gotcha" when at the time he was still working under the assumption he would not be found out…”
I must wonder if this OP has never been around someone who’s grieving and searching for answers. Sometimes, they cling to ideas that seem outlandish. What they need is space and understanding, not a lecture. As they go through the stages of their grief, they’ll work it out. They just need to analyse all the information around them in their quest for meaning. Have some empathy for those who do.
Yes, I know there are also conspiracy theorists out there. It’s not that hard to tell the difference. It’s easy enough for others to show the grieving fan empathy and not interact with the conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist will eventually go elsewhere if they cannot engage anyone with their ideas.
“ …ignoring years of interviews and comments from NG, STP, Rob Wilkins, Rhianna Pratchett, and more all confirming that the ending has existed for a long time...”
An ending has existed for a long time, not the ending we got. It’s outlined here: https://x.com/Bowtiedino/status/1703866949669622049 We have elements of it, but this ending has been sold to us since 2005 by both authors and Rob Wilkins. They had people believing Aziraphale and Crowley retiring to the South Downs would end the show. It’s natural for some to feel like the rug was pulled out from under them when the series wrapped up differently than what was sold to the fandom.
“...it is a collaborative ending between the two writers.”
The originally planned ending was. If it was written down at all. The best I can say, based on the information I’ve found, is that it was discussed one late night in a hotel room by both authors. After that, both went back to their own novels and nothing else ever came of the Good Omens sequel.
Gaiman and Pratchett didn’t speak for many years before Pratchett contacted him about making Good Omens into a film or show. Rihanna Pratchett has stated it was entirely normal for them to have gaps like that, so I’m not going to comment further on it.
They reconnected three years before Pratchett’s death in 2015. By then, he was struggling to write. He talked about it in interviews that I wish I had receipts for, but I don’t. I read them back when he was still alive, and I'm not getting hits on anything when I search. He talked about how he could set something down in a perfectly visible place, but once he looked away and back again, he could no longer see the object. This weird quirk of his brain made it hard for him to type because some of the keys on the keyboard would disappear before his eyes. Pratchett would record dictations. Rob Wilkins and sometimes Rhianna Pratchett would type those dictations out. Wilkins also had the job of making sure the writing flowed smoothly and was consistent. Sometimes, Pratchett had trouble with that and Wilkins had to plump up paragraphs here and there and ask him for clarification on plot points
I assume if they were going through that kind of process to rewrite the ending, Gaiman would have said something. He liked to talk about Pratchett and their friendship. There’s a plethora of interviews out there showcasing that if you want to search for them. Yet, he never mentioned working together on an ending before Pratchett’s death. It seems like the kind of thing he would do, especially if it involved an interesting fact, like Terry having to dictate everything because he could no longer type it out.
So, unless there’s some proof somewhere that Pratchett was involved in the writing of the actual ending we got, it’s dishonest to say he was. We have no idea. Still there exists some evidence that he didn’t, in the silence of those who would be helping him with a rewrite and this Tweet from Marc Burrows, who wrote Pratchett’s biography. https://x.com/20thcenturymarc/status/2054628722146480469
If people “go to war” to have their names included in the writing credits, it seems strange that Narritivia didn’t make sure Pratchett got some credit for writing the ending. No, he just received credit for the original book.
And no, there wasn’t anything collected from Pratchett’s notes and works in progress after he died. Terry’s will stated he wanted his hard drive destroyed after his death, and it was. None of his unfinished works were to be published posthumously. If any notes on a Good Omens ending existed, they were very likely lost when the hard drive was crushed. The only notes Gaiman had to go on were ones he wrote down himself. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-41093066
“Folks are picking and choosing what interviews to include in their defense of "this is clearly a Bad Thing" instead of coming to terms with the fact that the ending was not what they expected, and that is disappointing.”
Yet the OP offers no evidence of this even though she is really keen on telling people they need to get over their disappointment simply because she likes the ending. Convenient.
“They point at the genre labels (a deeply flawed labeling system of stories across media types meant to promote marketing and sales and not actually indicative of the story content itself).”
Genre labels have existed almost as long as creative writing has. Even the ancient Greeks knew the difference between a comedy and a tragedy, and labeled them as such. I’m pretty sure it had little to do with marketing and sales. Plays were free in ancient Greece and took place during festivals. It seems pretty likely they got butts into seats just fine without turning genre into a flashy advertising campaign.
Sorry, OP, but genres have meaning. If I go into a bookstore and head to the romance section, I can safely assume the books there are not going to end with a werewolf eating the heroine, unless it’s noted somewhere on the cover that it’s also a horror crossover. Genres exist so we can reliably make some assumptions about the book like, setting, character types we might encounter, plot elements, mood and the tropes we might find between the covers.
The same applies to what we see on the screen. Again, if I buy a ticket to a romcom, I’m not going to expect to see an ending where the heroine is devoured by a werewolf, but the OP suggests we should anticipate this. We certainly should expect that our light, satirical comedy with a side of romance would suddenly include the end of the world that we’ve come to know and love. When that happens, we have no right to complain because genres are modern and mean nothing. Sorry, ancient Greeks.
This is very disappointing, since the OP does offer beta services. Or at least used to before she became the mod of a server and allowed that tiny bit of power to go to her head. It’s logical to assume someone who betas other’s writings would have some concept of how genre works, since part of a beta’s job is to make sure what’s written matches with the genre the author’s aiming for. Maybe she should educate herself. Here’s a good article to start with. https://www.writersworkout.net/post/understanding-genre-why-it-matters
“They point at specific quotes and ignore full interviews (specifically interviews where the contradictions are addressed as information previously NDA'd or unpromised was intentionally kept under wraps).”
And both sides are guilty of that, but the OP fails to point that out. She also fails to mentions that film studios typically frown upon actors and crew speaking negatively about their work. It’s an industry where to be successful, you have to know the right people and navigate the political environment correctly. Badmouth a role, and you could very easily find yourself blacklisted. I know people in the industry, a couple of actors in Chicago and someone who works in the production department of Futurama. I’ve asked.
You can’t depend on the interviews given by actors because they are going to smile and speak positively about S3 just like Amazon expects them to do. They’re going to talk excitedly when they need to and look a little teary-eyed when that’s required. It’s not hard for them to give an interview that looks genuine no matter their personal feelings. They are professional actors. We might love Michael Sheen and David Tennant, but we also have to take what they say publicly with a grain of salt. They’re not going to risk their very careers over Good Omens. They might love it or they might hate it. Chances are very good we’ll never know for sure.
“They invent thoughts on how the entertainment industry works (there is no secret cabal trying to personally victimize you in the writers room,”
Again, it doesn’t take that much kindness to just allow people to work through their grief over a tragic ending, even if it takes weird turns. They have to sort it all out, even the less believable stuff because we live in an age where we are bombarded by all kinds of information every time we log on to the internet.
“...frankly if this was a cash grab, they would've gone with a less divisive ending…”
We don’t know if Gaiman thought the ending divisive. It’s a pretty bog-standard Gaiman ending if you’ve read his work. Immortals rarely fare well in his books. Spoilers in the next paragraph, skip if you don’t want to know briefly explained, vague endings to Gaiman novels.
See The Sandman series (Dream is killed by the Fates and replaced by another), Stardust (immortal star marries mortal and is left behind to grieve after he dies), American Gods (gods depend on human belief to survive, but humans stop worshipping them, weakening some and killing others), The Ocean at the End of the Lane (an immortal being is gravely hurt and must return to “the ocean” to heal), The Graveyard Book (Immortal ghosts lose their human family member because he must grow up and join the mortal world)
Besides, after Gaiman said Good Omens was going to be one season only, it does look like a bit of a cash grab since there were three seasons. It would have been very easy for him to say that Good Omens might be only one season, but he’s leaving the door open. He didn’t. He changed his mind. I can’t tell you for sure the reason why, but I can tell you a story.
I have a friend who used to live in Wisconsin in the town where Gaiman and his first wife lived. This friend was on the board of the town’s public library. The library invited Gaiman to speak for a charity event and asked if he could do it on a goodwill basis or at least for a reduced fee. Gaiman said it wouldn’t be a problem. After the event, he demanded they pay him $20,000 for his public appearance. He threatened to take them to court if they didn’t. The library had to cut him a check out of what they raised for charity to avoid a more expensive court case. My friend hasn’t had a positive thing to say about Gaiman since then.
While this is far from definitive evidence, it does show that there’s a possibility that S2 and 3 were nothing more than a cash grab. The man was apparently willing to take cash away from a charity who needed it. Without proof to the contrary, the OP shouldn’t have declared she knew they weren’t.
Anyway, I obviously have no receipts for that story, but I do about Gaiman saying Good Omens was one and done. https://www.kvue.com/article/news/season-one-of-good-omens-is-good-omens-neil-gaiman-says-show-wont-have-more-than-6-episodes/269-cae9b363-b2ee-4780-a94a-4ce9491c59ed
“They applaud someone for taking an illegal recording of an unaware actor who is making a glib remark (and let it be known, having worked in the industry: actors know what you're looking for pretty quickly when you ask them questions and will not hesitate to say whatever they think will keep themselves safe, "on your side" and make you go away faster, especially if they are under the impression that they are not be recorded).”
This I don’t agree with. That recording shouldn’t have been made. But it’s interesting that the OP says here an actor will say what they need to to appear on your side, but refuses to apply the same logic to an actor saying positive things in interviews about their work to avoid angering film studios.
Saying she’s been in the industry would hold more weight if her declarations were more consistent instead of her using them to dishonestly make her point about fans she hates.
“In sum, these "fans" are using their personal interpretation (aka: head canon) of an intentionally complicated ending, and justifying the vitriol and disrespect they are spilling on other fans, the cast, the crew, the creators, the Estate, and more, by saying that the ending was, unequivocally "bad" and anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong, stupid, an abuse apologist, and more.”
Funny how anyone who disagrees with her interpretation of Good Omens and is vocal about it is lumped into one category, branded a “bad person” and considered, based on those quotation marks, not a true fan because true fans either like the ending or stay quiet about how they don’t.
Yes, some people are behaving badly. Interesting that the OP doesn’t acknowledge that there are folks on both sides who are stirring up shit. This writing of hers is proof of that. There is no reason to go after people who are vocal about not liking the ending other than thin skin. If one requires that much external validation of their opinions, I feel sorry for them. It must suck to have to have others constantly prop up your self-esteem.
But despite the OP’s view, public discussion of a divisive ending is not some kind of slap in the face to the other fans, the cast, the crew and anyone else involved with Good Omens. Even those who didn’t like the ending were appalled by the behavior of a few. Nobody in the cast or crew should have had to put up with harassment. Still, there is a vast difference between “discussion” and “harassment”. The OP needs to learn that.
“Because why? Because it wasn't a clear cut happy ending?”
Because it was an outright traumatizing ending for those who saw characters they had emotionally invested themselves in get turned into dust along with the entire cosmos. An entire cosmos, that I remind you, never existed in the first place because that’s the stated outcome when something or one is erased from the Book of LIfe. It’s a natural reaction to get upset when the writers basically write someone’s comfort characters out of existence.
And it’s just as insulting when another group insists that the replacements are just fine. Replacements who are given little backstory, are on the screen for about ten minutes and people might not have any emotional attachment to. Studies show that our brains can attach the same emotions to fictional characters as real people. https://news.ufl.edu/2022/05/why-you-got-attached-to-your-favorite-character/
Nobody with empathy would tell someone to get over their dead friend after two months. Neuroscience is starting to show us that the same applies to fictional characters. Grief takes time, even if it’s for someone who never existed in real life.
The “Reset the Universe” trope pulls the rug out from folks. It sends the message that beloved characters really didn’t matter in the end. That is going to be hard on some fans, whether the OP acknowledges it or not. And no, being offered shiny, new toys isn’t going to fix the problem for everyone. Some quite like the old ones and would rather they had gone on existing.
It’s at best unsatisfying and, at worst, devastating. If the OP likes it, good for her. Unlike OP, I’m not going to tell her she’s wrong for finding the ending beautiful. I’m glad she found something worthwhile in it. But a lot of people didn’t, despite what she wants others to believe. A quick peek at the Rotten Tomatoes audience reviews proves that many found the ending unsatisfying. The percentage at this writing sits at 33%.
Who again is the vocal minority here?
“We know that the finale was already adjusted to fit the times (Jesus showing up as a celebrity on a giant plane has very different vibes in 2026 than in 1996.) So we know that this ending was conjured during a different time. And while the time we are currently living in is harder, increasing the desire for more uncomplicated happy endings, that doesn't mean we are entitled to such endings.”
Also a rewrite doesn’t mean that Gaiman needed to go the nuclear route, now does it? There were many different ways S3 could have gone, and the plethora of fanfic that came out after S2, especially after S3 was put on hold, proves that. The man is a professional writer. I have trouble believing he couldn’t have come up with something decent that included that promised retirement in the South Downs when amateurs who write simply because they love the characters could.
And it’s laughable she talks about entitlement when Gaiman after S2 told fans there would be a happy and satisfying ending in several Tumblr asks. He even promised to write a book if S3 didn’t get greenlit. He knew he was speaking to fans with a lot of investment who were worried about the future of the series. To reassure them like it and make such promises was a real dick move when he had no intention of following through.
.
Even Rob Wilkins hyped the “happily ever after” ending at The Ineffable Con 6. https://www.tumblr.com/angelsandfelines/792144960506986496?source=share
💬 7 🔁 58 ❤️ 261 · SO!
Slight spoiler warning (?) for good omens three!!!
Rob Wilkins was this years guest at the ineffable con! Whilst t
You don’t do that to a fandom whom you know if hanging on your every word. You don’t keep feeding them that hope if you’re not going to deliver. Sorry, but Asa and Anthony are not Aziraphale and Crowley. Aziraphale and Crowley didn’t get that retirement with a cute little cottage that was talked up for years. They died. If that’s not jarring, I don’t know what is.
“...it was incredibly difficult for me to sit and watch people not just be sad, but be angry.”
And there we have it, folks. This OP cannot handle people being angry, so nobody is allowed to be.
“In trying to give space to those who were grieving a complicated ending, and the end of an era, and a show that should've gotten 6 hours, not 90 minutes, we legitimized those who decided "sad" and "not what I wanted to see" equals "bad writing/production/directing."”
What now? We shouldn’t allow people to grieve because some of the fans think the writing, production or directing is bad? There’s no logic here.
Nor does the OP get to decide what someone else considers bad writing, production or directing. As long as these people are not harassing the cast, crew or other fans, they are free to think what they want about the show. Art is subjective.
In this case, it’s more than that. Go search the internet and you will find plenty of S3 reviews that talk about the bad pacing, the plot lines that were confusing or never tied up, the stilted dialogue, how the acting was wonderful but the script gave the actors little to work with. The OP is free to think what she wants, but it’s hard to deny the writing was less than stellar when the critics keep repeating the same shortfalls in their reviews, even in fairly positive ones.
“In doing so, we gave them the space to come up with conspiracy theories ("not STP's ending", you know, a dead man who can't speak for himself and I guess we can say fuck you to his living loved ones who fought for this ending?”
Apparently, the OP thinks she can speak for Pratchett by claiming he somehow helped rewrite the ending, but people can’t express the opposite opinion. You know, the people who don’t see Pratchett in the ending are the ones who are his fans. The ones who can speculate because even though he cannot speak for himself, he left behind evidence in the form of his own novels. Using those stories’ endings, fans can form educated hypotheses on what he might or might not put in a finale.
That’s more than the OP can do. She’s admitted in the past on a Discord server that she’s never read a book written solely by Pratchett. If you have little knowledge of an author’s work, then you have no right to preach to their fans about “putting words in their mouths”.
Also his loved ones did not fight to get S3 made when it was cancelled. BBC Studios negotiated with Amazon to get the film that we got. Narritivia tentatively put its support behind BBC Studios. https://www.heyuguys.com/why-good-omens-3-has-a-terry-pratchett-problem-spoiler-review/
And by the way, that South Downs ending was Pratchett’s. Marc Burrows, who wrote a biography on Terry Pratchett and knows a lot more about him than the OP of this essay, tweeted that. Here’s a post on Reddit with receipts. https://www.reddit.com/r/goodomens/comments/1tye64y/the_pratchett_ending/
Also, you’re starting to get angry there, OP. Isn’t the point of this essay about how much the fandom is hurt by anger? Better calm down now.
“"NG wants to abuse us all", I cannot even with this one it is so deeply insulting to his actual assault victims.”
If you “cannot” with something, then move on. There is a lot in fandoms that is not worth engaging with, but that does not mean that we get to restrict opinions we don’t like and demand everyone behave how we choose based on the behavior of some outliers.
Furthermore, the OP did not consider how liking a work of Gaiman’s, even if it was written with another author, might be just as deeply insulting to his actual assault victims. Instead, she’d rather play the pain olympics with hurt fans. Just walk the fuck away. Or better yet, get off the internet. Believe me, OP. It’s full of stuff that you’re not going to agree with.
“In doing this, we harmed the rest of the fandom, both those who enjoyed the ending and fell more towards the bittersweet to happy interpretation of the ending, as well as those who actually needed the space to process and just thought it was a sad ending, without ascribing bad to it.”
Yes, that’s right. The OP is flat out saying that allowing grief yucks the yum of those who liked S3. Nobody should have the slightest bit of empathy for another human being in the fandom if that human beings’ mere expression of grief interferes with her enjoyment of the series. Let that sink in. Realize that’s toxic positivity at its finest. “I’m uncomfortable with your negative attitude, so you need to either put on a smile and start liking the finale or shut up about how angry and sad you are.”
My God. Go outside and touch some grass because it’s not all about you, OP.
And revoking someone’s right to grieve over the ending because there’s a few batshit crazy conspiracy theories out there makes it worse. I cannot even, to quote the OP.
“So when I say things like "you're allowed to just...not like the ending" this is not me saying that the ending was happy, actually, get over it. Nor is it me saying you gotta buck up and smile. Its me saying you should take a step back and look at this ending more objectively.”
Actually, “buck up and smile” or shut up about it is exactly what the OP has been saying this entire essay. Now she has the audacity to tell people who don’t like the ending that their opinion is wrong and they need to reevaluate. No, that’s not how it works. Nobody gets to tell someone their opinion is not valid, and they need to go back and look something over with fresh eyes.
You know that guy you turned down who keeps insisting that you need to give him a second chance? Yeah, I find people telling me I need to give a film I hated a second chance just as annoying.
“No one went out to "do" this to you. No one went "You know what, let's make this a sad ending specifically to ruin this person's life."
The irony here is so thick, I’m surprised the OP can’t taste it. Excuse me, OP. Nobody went and “did’ this to you. Nobody made you decide to throw common human decency and empathy out the window because you’re upset some people have discussions in public social media spaces that you personally can’t handle. Nobody went, “You know what, let’s make an essay pointing out the flaws in Good Omens’ finale to ruin OP’s enjoyment of it.”
“My anxiety struggles with cliff hangers and I absolutely read the wiki summary before committing to a thing to make sure the ending is going to be what I want it to be. Good story telling can hurt and sometimes I'm into it. And sometimes, I'm not.”
Yet the OP refuses to see that others can have anxiety, can be into something or simply might not be. The Main Character Syndrome just grows and grows, doesn’t it?
“And maybe if it just made you sad, you should think about distancing yourself from communities where people are mad.”
Ummm, no? I’m a fully grown adult capable of curating my own experience, thank you very much. Most of us are. We don’t need someone coming along to tell us what we should or should not be doing. It’s downright insulting that OP believes sad fans need to be told how to conduct themselves so they’re not “contaminated” by the wrong people.
“But that doesn't mean you've gotta throw the whole thing, including your fandom community, in the trash too.”
If someone came along and pressured me into spaces where only certain viewpoints were acceptable, I’d leave the fandom, too. The toxic positivity group hasn’t shown much tolerance for the sad fans unless they toe the line. You know, stay away from the “bad people” and “bad spaces”. Sing the praises of Good Omens 3, hide your sorrow and act like everything’s ok. Then, you’ll be accepted.
“It does mean that maybe you need to take a more active stance against those who are insisting that their head canon is the only "correct" interpretation of the ending…”
What do you think my response to your little essay is, OP?
“disrespecting and hating on the people who made a story.”
And we’re back to that, even though a very small portion of the fandom is actually engaging in hateful, disrespectful discourse.
“Frankly, those aren't the kind of people you should want to be in a community with anyway…”
The OP is correct. Nobody wants to be in a community where you’re told you need to reevaluate your anger and grief because your negative emotions make other people uncomfortable. People who engage in toxic positivity aren’t the kind of people most others want to hang around.
And really, this anger and grief some people have is about more than just a finale. It’s about the harassment, the loss of friends and communities, and the giant rift that now exists in our fandom.
“In sum: there are so many ways to interpret the Good Omens ending, whether you're looking at the Television Series ending or the Book ending (I mean come on the book ends with them discussing the "big one" and it is not clear which side Crowley thinks they are on, humans or not humans).”
I must say I do not understand. First, the OP goes on about how the headcanons of certain people who are angry and/or grieving are wrong, but now states that there are a lot of different ways to interpret it. It’s one way or the other. Either headcanons are okay, or they’re not. You just can’t decide a certain group of people’s headcanons are invalid because you don’t like them.
“And if we're going to preserve the community that has become so important to us, then yes. We need to stop letting the loudest (not the majority, just the loudest) people trample the joy of our community.”
Seriously? I have seen way more pro-S3 people complaining about opinions of the anti-S3 people than the other way around. And no, I’m not saying the anti-S3 side is perfect. It’s not. But aside from a few people hellbent on harassing others, those who don’t like the finale are not stifling the joy of everyone else simply by expressing their opinions. They are having discussions, bringing up concerns and trying to get their view acknowledged while the loud-and-proud minority of pro-S3 twists the narrative so they appear to be the victims.
“ "My head canon is different than yours, and you gotta stop shoving your deeply triggering take down my throat without a content warning." We've got to be more firm in that the very existence of Asa and Anthony is not, actually, something that should be spoilered because they are the result of suicide because that is a head canon, not a fact.”
Let’s look at the facts here…Aziraphale and Crowley die in the finale. I don’t know of any other interpretation one could have of two people turning into dust before their eyes. That is not a headcanon. Asa and Anthony are the result of death. They would not exist if not for the self-sacrifice of Aziraphale and Crowley.
This self-sacrifice can be perceived by a fan as suicide, per the OP’s own assertions that there are many different interpretations of the finale. But I’m guessing that when she wrote that, she only meant the interpretations she approves of, not the ones of those angry, grieving fans who are feeling emotions just as valid as hers.
And really, none of that really matters. Aziraphale and Crowley die on screen before our eyes. If major character death is not taggable, then trigger lists have no business existing. You accept all triggers without question, or you accept none. Nobody has the right to pick and choose what triggers are worth considering. That’s just playing with people’s mental health.
“And frankly, if you want your communities, your big servers, your whatever, to live on, you've got to take this seriously. Your mod teams have to agree that, personal feelings about the ending aside, the ending is open to a multitude of interpretations, there is no space for conspiracy theories that are harmful or disrespectful to cast, crew, actual NG victims, etc, in these spaces, and that these spaces are meant to come together in celebration of the story, not to complain about how much something sucked.”
Wrong. While there is harmful content that should stay out of servers, there is no rule out there that says servers need to exist solely to celebrate any film, show, musical, fandom or whatever. Someone is perfectly free to create a server to meet other needs, like creating one to give comfort to those who are distraught over the ending. Support is a wonderful thing. I’ve heard several say servers where their views were supported helped them get through their grieving process. If the OP doesn’t hold with the idea that some fans benefit more from support than hatred, then she’s free to remove herself from any servers that don’t exist solely to celebrate S3.
Contrary to her beliefs, there is a lot of good discussion out there about the finale that isn’t exactly positive. Not everything discussed has to be a celebration of it. There is nothing wrong with starting a discussion about how the Jesus plotline went nowhere. Or how God went from a hands-off deity in S1 to one willing to end all life in the cosmos on a whim. Or about the many out-of-character moments there were for Aziraphale and Crowley. Because that’s what fandoms do. They have discussions about what they like or don’t. What works and what could have been done better.
I have to wonder if the OP has ever been in other fandoms because she wouldn’t last long in some. I’m in at least one where they would laugh in her face if she demanded they only speak positively about the source material. I was just looking at a whole discussion in a Doctor Who server about how River Song is a horribly written character and guess what? It’s a civil conversation between both sides where nobody’s complaining that the River Song haters need to just shut up about it because they’re hurting the sensitive feelings of the River Song fans.
But we can’t have both sides existing together in the Good Omens fandom. We cannot be stomping on anyone’s enjoyment by actually discussing the shortfalls of the series. We must censor ourselves so we don’t upset those who like it.
“If you want your spaces to survive, to not become cesspools of the worse kind of feedback loops, you've got to make sure there's more joy than hate.”
I hate to break it to the OP here, but a server full of toxic positivity is also nothing more than a feedback loop. To have a healthy server, the fans have to respect each other, no matter if they liked the finale, felt neutral about it or find themselves in a state of grief because of it. Nothing will kill a server quite like a policy that everyone must either like a certain thing/behave a certain way or shut up about it. Been there, seen that.
A local Discord server decided back in 2020 that it was best to pretend Covid didn’t exist. They banned any criticisms of people having gatherings, and discussions of masking and other preventative measures. It died a pretty quick death.
“And if you're "in the middle" maybe take a step back from the loud voices and ask yourself: Are you in the middle? Or did something make you sad and the loud voices are trying to convince you that means that thing must not be any good at all?”
Contrary to the OP’s views, I, someone who doesn’t like the finale but isn’t emotional about it, do have the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff and make my own decisions, even if there are loud voices like the OP’s out there attempting to convince me otherwise. We all are entitled to walk our own path rather than the one OP tries to lay out for us.
I just wanted Aziraphale to be happy and loved as himself. That's it. I don't see why that was asking too much of Good Omens 3. I wanted him to finally get to live freely and happily with his beloved as he deserved. He fought like mad to do the right thing, and he earned his happily ever after.
I get why people are accusing NG of making the finale bad on purpose and out of malice. But one thing he got real testy about back when he was keeping his asks open on here is being called out for bad writing, plot holes, continuity, etc. So I’m choosing to just tell whoever will listen “maybe it was malicious- but honestly I think he’s just a bad writer and kinda stupid”
Was the finale written out of malice? Perhaps.
Is Neil Gaiman a bad TV writer and kinda stupid? This we can’t possibly refute.
Yeah, i don't think the incompetence was malicious (dropped plot points, lack of set up and pay off, inconsistent characters etc). But I do think the homophobia and the whole death thing was malice. An earnest but incompetent writer will do things like adding in plot threads that then get dropped, not having one half of the main romantic couple coerce the other into suicide
Look, if it’s not written by the original author it’s fanfic.
If two people wrote it together and one is dead, then it’s impossible for subsequent portions to have the same authorship.
QED, Seasons 2-3 ARE, technically, fanfic. Some of 2 was quite enjoyable fanfic! But the point is…the point is… the point I’m trying to make is… you needn’t feel obligated to accept ANY of it as canon. Guilt free.
So I guess there's some long-ass post circulating, where somebody says they like the Good Omens ending where the protagonists (and everybody else in the universe) are disintegrated into dust, but they need everybody who's sad about that to shut up and not say anything, because sad people are ruining their enjoyment of everyone getting disintegrated. Ohhhhh..........kay?
