the vengeance of the daughter
Xuebing Du

@theartofmadeline
KIROKAZE
NASA
Misplaced Lens Cap

⁂
tumblr dot com
No title available
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

titsay
Keni
Peter Solarz

Andulka

Kiana Khansmith

izzy's playlists!
YOU ARE THE REASON
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
One Nice Bug Per Day

Product Placement
will byers stan first human second
seen from Germany
seen from China

seen from Kenya

seen from Bangladesh

seen from Palestinian Territories
seen from Philippines
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Portugal

seen from Pakistan
seen from Iraq

seen from Germany

seen from India
seen from United States

seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from Azerbaijan
seen from Indonesia
seen from Argentina
seen from Brazil

seen from Australia
seen from United States
@hertenskylarks
the vengeance of the daughter
You know that snarky bit of writing advice that goes like “if you’re going to objectify the women in your media, then you also have to objectify the men”
Congrats to Matt Dinniman for being the first male author ever to understand the assignment
Yeah, yeah, Cassandra Clare got her start writing fanfic, old news.
Rebecca Thorne wrote She-Ra fanfic before writing Tomes & Tea.
Matt Dinniman wrote GI Joe and Transformers crossover fanfic before writing Dungeon Crawler Carl.
Pierce Brown wrote Greek Mythology fanfic before writing Red Rising.
Andy Weir wrote Ready Player One fanfic that later got canonized by Ernest Cline before writing The Martian.
Fanfic has never been, and will never be inferior to published works, and writing one does not discredit or devalue the quality of your work when writing another.
Why Good Omens season 1 has already fulfilled Sir Terry Pratchett's wish
Neil Gaiman said he wouldn't make a sequel to Good Omens
Neil Gaiman at SXSW in Austin, Texas in 2019:
[Gaiman also confirmed the series will only be six episodes, with no intention of trying to go for another season if successful. "The lovely thing about Good Omens is it has a beginning, it has a middle, and it has an end," he said to appreciative applause. "Season 1 of Good Omens is Good Omens. It's brilliant. It finishes. You have six episodes and we're done. We won't try to build in all these things to try to let it continue indefinitely."]
Source: Entertainment Weekly (2019)
"It's a buddy road movie through time."
2018 - Neil Gaiman on X- Twitter
Tweet link here
Also Neil Gaiman in 2023:
The ending of GO3 could have worked if we were shown repeatedly how awful the original world was. If it was some horrible dystopia, erasing it and starting over could have been justified (even though I still think there are better ways of "fixing" worlds than erasing them).
But the world was... just a regular world? Like this one we live in? Just people living their lives, trying their best, having free will.
The ending just seems to belong to an entirely different story.
(AND if you argue "but Heaven and Hell comdemned people after their deaths", then the answer lies in changing Heaven and Hell, not erasing the entire world as it was.)
Did they really stick it to God?
There’s another piece of meta that’s been on my mind lately. I’ve seen a number of comments from people who liked the ending of S3 because, in their view, it was a big "stick it to God" moment. The sentiment seems to be, "Yay! We got an atheist universe. That’ll really show Her." If that’s your interpretation, I genuinely encourage you to engage with this post, because I have some questions. I’m not trying to be snarky. I really want to understand how you arrived at that conclusion.
First of all, do you realize that the new godless universe only exists because She allowed it to happen?
To me, saying the ending "stuck it to God" feels a bit like saying, "Yeah, my boss let me take the day off. I really showed him." No... you didn't. For almost the entire story, everything unfolds exactly according to Her plan. Then, right at the end, the new universe feels less like a victory and more like a consolation prize, a participation trophy. It comes across as God saying, "Yep, I got everything I wanted. Sorry, you never stood a chance. I know, very sad. Here, have one wish to make up for it."
I genuinely struggle to see how that's interpreted as defeating Her.
That struggle is further compounded by the fact that religion still exists in the new universe.
If the new universe is meant to be our universe, and there's graffiti depicting angels and demons, then that lore has to come from somewhere. Which raises another question: are Aziraphale and Crowley actually free from Heaven and Hell?
The only difference is that, before, Heaven and Hell loomed over them in a very literal sense. Now Heaven and Hell loom over them the same way they've loomed over humanity throughout history: through persecution, inquisitions, witch trials, sexism, homophobia, indoctrination, zealotry, religious wars, and countless other forms of oppression. In that sense, they're still not free from Heaven and Hell. Nobody is. So what exactly was the sacrifice for?
And let me please remind you: Aziraphale and Crowley had absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe their God was benevolent. This is the same God who was perfectly comfortable drowning children in the Flood. The same God who sanctioned the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The same God who signed off on the deaths of Job's children. And that's only the material directly referenced by the show. Expand beyond that, and we're talking about the God who killed every firstborn child in Egypt to punish a Pharaoh. The omniscient, omnipotent being who witnessed the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the transatlantic slave trade, and every act of sexual violence in human history, yet never lifted a finger to stop any of it. And if we're embracing the interpretation that free will was an illusion all along, that She was secretly orchestrating everything from the beginning, then the implications of all of those events become... yikes.
By that point, in my opinion, any interpretation of the finale that relies on God suddenly being trustworthy, benevolent, merciful, or compassionate in any way just falls flat for me. That God? That’s the God you’re wholeheartedly trusting to give us a “better universe”?
Well, then I have a bridge to sell you.
My own interpretation is that the new universe is essentially the Job wager on steroids. In both the show and the biblical story, God makes a wager with Satan that's basically, "He's so loyal that I can destroy his entire life and he'll still worship me." The ending feels like the same wager, just scaled up to encompass an entire universe.
"I'll create a universe where I don't even participate. I won't perform miracles. I won't answer prayers. I won't reveal myself. It’ll be as if I don’t exist. And look, these plebs STILL worship me."
That motivation feels far more consistent with the egotistical deity we've been shown throughout the series than the idea that She suddenly had a change of heart and decided to give everyone a genuinely better universe.
Which brings me back to my original question: did they really stick it to God?
Because from where I'm standing, the only character who truly got everything she wanted was Her. Her plan succeeded. She retired (or evaporated herself) on her own terms. She created a universe where she doesn't even have to exist, yet billions of people still worship her. That's not getting owned. That's having your cake and eating it too.
If I were writing an ending intended to stick it to God, then God would actually have to lose. A lot of fans suggested ending things with a card game. That could've worked. Others suggested using Jesus as an active character, having him stand up to his mother the way Adam stood up to Satan, and then having Adam and Jesus build a genuinely better world together. That would've been sticking it to God. Or, I dunno, they had the Book of Life in their friggin hands. They summoned Her with it. They could have just as easily told her to bugger off with it. Don’t know why that didn’t occur to them.
But having an arguably sociopathic deity get everything she wanted, voluntarily step away from creation, leave behind a universe where she's still worshipped, and leave the protagonists living in a world that's still fundamentally shaped by religion...
No matter how hard I squint, how far I tilt my head, or how much I try to read between the lines, I still can't see how that's "sticking it to God," and I’m not even fully convinced they’re free from Heaven and Hell.
Am I missing something?
What I will never understand is
I agree that a kiss per se isn't required -- what we actually need is emotional resolution of their relationship (in whatever form that takes). That could be a kiss or a hug -- or it could be talking it out and getting on the same page emotionally (which can be in a completely nonphysical way) but let's be real that appears to be the least likely option for us to get in this script.
But I feel like you see people talk about how Crowley was right to not forgive Aziraphale -- & they were just too seperated by Aziraphale not being able to let Heaven go & by thinking he can change things that he (obviously) cannot. They were so very out of sync.
And then if you bring up the lack of kiss suddenly: Well they're ace and they don't need to kiss (or hug or even talk it out) cause they just understand each other SO deeply and instinctively that they don't need words or physical action to reaffirm anything.
So are they at odds (Crowley is obviously correct)
Or are they so in sync they don't even need to talk about it
Cause maybe I'm missing something -- but I personally fail to see how both can be true simultaneously?
Right on topic with my recent post. I don't even... I don't even know what to say. The anger and laughter inside me can't agree on which one will come out first, lol.
I know you have to respect other people's opinions and all that, but excuse me, I'm gonna tell people like THAT, from the camp of those who liked the finale, to fuck off. I don't care about those who liked the finale but they show some respect to those who didn't, and are simply enjoying themselves among themselves. But those who insult us, who think we're acting "childish," that we're spoiled... fuck off.
Let me preface this by saying anyone can like what they want and that’s okay; but liking something doesn’t make it objectively good, nor does it mean you get to tell other people not to be critical of things. People SHOULD be critical of things, and that doesn’t make them spoiled. In fact, the ability to question or find fault in things you like is an important form of critical thinking, just as much as disliking something.
People who think giving a shit about media is ‘childish’ are the people who contribute to the degradation of society by unquestioningly accepting every ounce of slop dropped in front of them by corporate sh*tbags who care more about their monetization than producing quality content. You’re creating a ‘tolerance’ culture that pushes consumers around.
They’re the reason cell phones don’t have removable batteries. They’re the reason appliances wear out after ten years. They’re the reason children’s cartoons are overstimulating and neurologically stunt kids’ development and behavior. They’re the reason movie sequel culture exists. They’re the reason we’re seeing shitty Ai books in stores.
And they’re the ones who will never be creative enough to contribute to society because they can’t fathom a world in which they aren’t told what to do- because they were too busy learning nothing in school rather than exercising their brain cells and figuring out how a functional narrative is built and a character arc is written.
As an animation major, and someone who generally puts a lot of mental and emotional investment into storytelling competence, it pisses me right off. I get tired of seeing people say ‘it’s not that deep’ about things. Sorry I could step into your gene pool and not get my feet wet, but actually it is that deep.
Stories send messages. Art has purpose and power over people. It is our culture, our history, our politics, our mental welfare, and our emotional connection, and it’s how we separate ourselves from common animals. To give a shit about fiction and art is to be a fucking person.
People should expect the people who make a living off of providing content to care about that content, just like I would expect a chef to wash their hands and make sure not to spit in my food before serving it.
Go be an apathetic brick wall somewhere else.
“ItS gOoD bEcAuSe I SAid sO-“ Then either back up your opinion with a genuine reason, or admit you liked it just because you do- which is you like having content regardless; And yknow what? That’s fine if you can own it.
But don’t tell me to shut up for having different standards. I choose the Red Pill, I’m not gonna live in the Matrix for everyone else’s happiness.
Imagine finding a character you identify with. Someone physically and emotionally abused by his family. Someone who spent most of his life afraid - and for a very good reason too. Someone who found and built himself a home away from those who abused him. Someone who made friends and acquittances, who looked for and found hobbies and joy and small pleasures. Someone who loved deeply, who helped where he could, was careful and held onto hope.
And the story ends with him being berated and laughed at by his mother and his beloved saying his love was not enough. And then he dies.
Aziraphale is very dear to me because his experience is literally my experience and everything I've been through. Absolutely all of his feelings are familiar to me, absolutely all of his fears, anxieties, tosses, the desire to be loved, to have support, to feel that you are not alone, the need to lie in order to live and survive, the feeling that you're wrong, spoiled, and you don't belong here - all this has always been familiar to me.
He deserved an end where he no longer had to be afraid. There is no need to hide. There is no need to be ashamed of himself, his needs and desires. He deserved to finally stop living with the idea that he was somehow wrong, that he needed to be fixed just because he was different.
He didn't deserve to die thinking that he wasn't important, none of what he'd been through was important in the end.
Recommendations for Alternative Sequels to GO Book/S1
Here are the fics that set my ridiculously high expectations for any sort of sequel(s). I have lots of favorite fics out there, and there are plenty of great recommendations in general, but I'd like to focus SPECIFICALLY on post-book/s1 canon compliant fics written before s2 was announced. Would love a thread of these, so please reblog and add your own fic recs that you think would make a great sequel!
Category 1: Top 3 Recommendations
In All Things, Balance by Kedreeva (T, 17k, 2019)
https://archiveofourown.org/works/20320441
GO READ IT! In the back of my mind, I always considered this to be canon, which I didn't realize until actual canon didn't meet those expectations. Missing a bit on the human side of things, but otherwise a fantastic alternative.
Choices by Bookwormgal (T, 154k, 2019-2022, 8 part series)
https://archiveofourown.org/series/1739542
Humans from the book continue the story with Heaven and Hell. Honestly I read this so long ago that I don't remember much, but I do recall that this filled the void of how flat the human characters (particularly the children) were written in the adaptation (i.e. s1)
Akashic Records by peniG (G/T, 206k, 2019-2020, 26 part series)
https://archiveofourown.org/series/1446628
To skip straight to the sequel-to-book/s1, start with part 21, although I highly recommend the full series. This has, hands down, always been the canon I've been missing. This fills in all the gaps we don't have in the source material in a satisfying way while staying true to the characters and themes. They really respect both Aziraphale and Crowley as intelligent, experienced partners who are clever and fallible and perfect.
Additional recommendations under the cut!
I saw a post a week or two ago, somewhere in the Good Omens 3 tag, talking about how fans need to realize that writers don't owe them a "happy ending." Or any specific character resolution, story resolution, etc. Obviously referring to the notion the people upset about GO's finale needed to remember that they weren't entitled to the sort of ending they wanted, and there was nothing wrong with the story as it ended up concluding.
And I agree! Sort of. Meaning, I agree with the idea that people aren't entitled to a story working out the way they personally want.
BUT.
In my admittedly limited time hanging out in this fandom, I don't think that's what I've seen. It's certainly not what I personally experienced in my own viewing of the finale.
While it's perfectly reasonable to say that people aren't entitled to stories working out the way they want, I think it's just as reasonable to say that they are allowed to expect a story to function and resolve following its own internal rules. They are allowed to assume a story will maintain its genre, follow through with its message, address loose threads in a way that makes sense within its established logic.
It's not "entitled" to be weirded out and disappointed when your whimsical, fun, satirical comedy-with-a-dash-of-romance suddenly veers wildly off-course and ends up awkwardly metamorphosing into a nihilistic tragedy. It's not petty or whiny to be sad about characters you've known and loved for years being destroyed so suddenly and unexpectedly. Falling in love with a story that - for decades - has had a specific, uplifting, accepted thematic message, only to be upset when that message is abruptly tossed out and replaced with something wildly different isn't the same as demanding writers bend to your will.
Isn't that the point of choosing a genre, or an established fiction? If I want to watch something scary, I'll seek out horror. If I want something heartwarming, I'll go for... I dunno... a Pixar movie or whatever. That's not me demanding things or being entitled; it's me making a choice about what I want to see based upon the established characteristics of specific bits of media.
People aren't upset just because they didn't get the kiss they wanted; they're upset because they decided to watch GO3 with the understanding that this piece of fiction was built around a specific sort of theme and vibe and wholesome message - based upon an established canon - and then they were smacked upside the head with something entirely different.
It was disorienting for me, and I've just been partaking in this fandom for a few months. I can't even imagine how shocking and jarring it was for people who've been here for years.
~ the prettiest star 💫~
inspired by this beautiful frame from the good omens s2 opening title sequence
My ‘official’ position on the question of ‘is the GO3 Ending the ‘Terry Pratchett Ending’ or not’ is basically ‘I don’t give a shit!’. At the end of the day Terry Pratchett was certainly a talented writer and beloved for a reason, but he wasn’t some God of Writing literally incapable of ever creating an Ending I personally thinks sucks ass. Plus, there is a difference here between thinking of an Ending and actually writing it down, both in the sense of, like, even if he thought it was a good idea, he never actually committed to writing and publishing it, and in the importance of the execution. Y’know, there are very few truly bad or good ideas, how they are done is often the most important factor. The devil’s in the details and all that.
That being said, whenever I do encounter the discussions about this ending in relation to Pterry, could this have been his ending, why he might’ve thought this ending was a good idea, how this ending is supported or not supported by his previous ‘Good Omens’ writing, as well as general discussions about how this ending could’ve been done better, it always strikes me how many of the factors here were things that were already changed or removed as early as GO1.
Like, while GO1 is clearly systematically critical of Heaven and Hell as institutions, pretty much all the lines where directly arguing for the possibility of a world where they are gone entirely were all cut in adaption.
Same with the lines where Adam calls Crowley and Aziraphale out for their complicity in Heaven and Hell’s Cosmic Imperialism. Instead, the framing in GO1 suggests they have a much more positive relationship with him, and by extension, humanity.
In general, while every version of Crowley and Aziraphale has some level of being both complicit in the system and victimized by it, Book Omens certainly emphasizes the Husbands’ complicity, while GO1’s reframing of them from ‘Cold War Spies’ to ‘Corporate Drones’ also coincide with a reframing that emphasizes their victimization. That makes the audience root for an uncomplicated Happily Ever After for them much more than feeling like they’ve got to ‘sacrifice’ something.
There’s also a lot to say about the shift in their characterization from the Book to the Show and how it effected the build up to the ending, but even on the most basic level, while the TV Omens version of Crowley and Aziraphale are still hedonists who try to save the Earth for mostly self-interested reasons, they also struggle with selflessness to some degree. Aziraphale thinking he should give up on his happiness with Crowley for the greater good, and Crowley being unhealthily self-sacrificial in the relationship. That makes a Heroic Sacrifice maybe a less ‘necessary’ conclusion to their characters compared to something that emphasizes the balance between selfishness and selflessness.
And the increased focus on romance and invoking the structure and tropes of a Romantic Comedy, both with the way the Ineffable Husbands Plotline goes in GO1 as a standalone narrative, and the way that GO2 seems to sell itself as the first half of a bigger, this-time-for-all-the-marbles Romantic Comedy with the post-Third-Act-Break-Up resolutions happening in GO3… that also makes a more uncomplicated ‘And They Lived Happily Ever After’ feel like the most appropriate ending.
In addition, making the Ineffable Husbands’ relationship so tumultuous and full of Mutual Pining, unlike in the book where they seemed pretty stable and you could infer that they were pretty satisfied with whatever relationship they had, makes it all so much more tragic. Unnecessarily tragic maybe. Like, sacrificing a centuries-long relationship would also be pretty sad, but sacrificing the possibility of even getting a chance to be together after 6000 years of doubts and fumbles and yearning and desires that never came to be is on a whole other level.
This romance-centric angle also makes it a story that’s…. at its most charitable interpretation is about how systematic change requires sacrifice sometimes, and making that thing that has to be sacrificed ‘a queer couple’s only chance at a Happy Ending’. Which is… certainly a choice.
And if we are doing, like, an Asa and Anthony thing, keeping Crowley and Aziraphale’s more functional and stable relationship might make Asanthony feel more like ‘aww, they’re picking up right where they left off’ and less like a stupid magical solution to the very realistic and human problems in the relationship in an ending that’s supposedly all about the beauty of mundanity.
And, y’know, GO2 generally giving so much focus to Crowley and Aziraphale’s personal and interpersonal struggles and how healing and solving them is a complicated and non-linear process is another thing that makes an ending where they actually live and get to work on these problems the actual mundane normal way feel like the most appropriate one.
GO2 also has generally a lot of focus on further ‘Humanizing’ (for the lack of a better word) other Angels and Demons. Again, emphasizing that they can all be victimized by the system, rather than just extensions of it.
And GO2, and GO1 to a lesser-but-still-definite extant, really putting the Humans and Humanist themes on the back-burner for the sake of cool supernatural drama and indulging in just being the Crowley and Aziraphale Show (as well as Human characters being written with less and less vibrancy and uniqueness in general)… that all makes the swerve to suddenly making Humanity the Most Important Thing and the thing that the audience needs to be invested more in then in Crowley and Aziraphale’s happy ending to be very discordant and jarring. And I think it runs the risk of being that even in an ideal version of GO3 where it had the full six episodes to build up to it's ending.
Also GO1 being as self-contained as it was and clearly framing itself as a happily ever after and a satisfying ending for Crowley and Aziraphale’s relationship problems and to their affiliation with Heaven and Hell makes it harder for GO3 to sell its at-best-very-Bittersweet ending as ‘the only way they could be happy’. Like Book Omens also ended with them happily dining at the Ritz and a nightingale singing at Berkeley Square, but they were also still employed by Heaven and Hell, but there was a much bigger emphasis on what’s going to come next and whatever or not the Husbands are ready for it.
I mean, I won’t say to the level where Book Omens feels like an unsatisfying, incomplete or ‘bad’ ending to them in a meaningful way but… maybe it is one that would do a better job of convincing the audience that a GO3-style ending is the two’s best shot at true happiness and freedom. While the pure complete happiness of the GO1 ending is much harder to sell as a temporary respite, even if that’s what it was retconned into in-universe as of GO2, because the audience is aware that this is not what the narrative was trying to communicate to them during GO1 (and GO3 is clearly trying to engage with things from a meta-narrative perspective so it’s hard to look at things purely in-universe).
(And this is just counting problems in GO1-2 as the lead-up to GO3, that’s not counting the writing issues of GO3 itself, as it was absolutely not the best-executed version of its own concept, even considering its less-than-ideal circumstances.)
… The thing I'm still having a real hard time even trying to justify is the Full Universe Reset thing though. Like, the idea of using "the world is better off destroyed, let's start from scratch" as a metaphor for the massive societal change that's required for dismantling oppressive and harmful systems that seem inescapable is maybe not inherently bad, but it's certainly a hard sell as a sequel to a work where "the world is better off destroyed, let's start from scratch" was a metaphor for… destroying the world.
Plus, the idea that the entirety of human existence happened pretty much identically in the "Real Universe" feels even more implausible and hard-to-suspend-disbelief within the Book Continuity, where Crowley and Aziraphale (and especially Crowley) have been doing a lot more meddling in Human Affairs (even if it's silly goofy meddling like inventing various annoying taxes and game shows).
Then there's also still "the first day of the rest of their lives", "the first day of the rest of the world" (as the Husbands' part of Sunday calls it), the constant implications that Adam still has a long future ahead of him, Agnes' ghost laughing at the sight of Anathema burning her second book (which is not the reaction I'd expect her to have if this book was basically about how Anathema and all of her family and everyone she knows and the whole world is gonna Fucking Die.)
That part of the Finale still feels like a hard sell in pretty much every version of Good Omens, and maybe makes even less sense with Book Omens.
But, like, well, first and foremost I guess this really just proves what I said above about the execution being more important than just the vague Idea of the ending. An idea could be… I think still emotionally difficult but potentially thematically resonant and bittersweet in one version of the Canon, but transplanted into a slightly different version of the story and it becomes a dismal and depressing mess.
But also I can't help but feel like it's kinda ironic, like, okay, for all that I said of how a version of this ending could've gone better under another context, I can't pretend like I prefer it to "and then Crowley and Aziraphale lived happily and self-indulgently ever after for literally forever". But if there is one version of the Ineffables that could thematically support this ending it's their Book Omens version, and they're the version who just got to live Happily Ever After. And meanwhile, the one version of Crowley and Aziraphale who most needed a romantic Happily Ever After, narratively, thematically, are the TV Omens version and they got the fucking GO3 ending.
It's almost like their endings have been swapped. And I'm honestly very thankful that my Book Boys remained untouched and happy and it's delightful seeing the low-key Book Omens resurgence after TV Omens' dismal ending but… If I lived in a timeline where the Book Ineffables story ended in a bittersweet kinda-philosophical way and then to cheer themselves up, the fandom went to the TV Continuity to see the characters living Happily Ever After, I'd at least feel like the universe makes a little more sense, y'know? Instead it feels like TV Aziracrow somehow ended up becoming Book Aziracrow's Picture of Dorian Grey.
GO3: Perspective from someone who grew up with reincarnation as a religious belief
This might be a bit incoherent.
So, I'm a Hindu. Grew up as one, and honestly learnt about Christianity from cultural osmosis by growing up in Texas and doing my own research. I'm pretty sure I learnt more about Greek mythology before I ever understood why a crucifix was ever important. When I'd first heard about Good Omens its satirizing of Christianity is what drew me in. Namely because if you have the awareness that the majority of people around you follow a religion that says you're going to hell for not believing in the same god as them, you're gonna end up side eying that a little. It was the dynamic between Aziraphale and Crowley that kept me in the fandom. They were the reason I got any social media account at all, including this tumblr blog, just because I wanted to see all the things this fandom created. All that to say is that I fundamentally disagree with the ethos of season 3. Reincarnation, from my experience, is a belief around death. When someone dies, believing that they are reincarnated as someone close to us is comforting. I've heard that belief from my own parents. But the person we knew is gone, and in reality we shouldn't treat someone like their past life is who they are - because they are no longer that person! And it would be unfair to treat them that way. Obviously in a TV show, we the viewer have the knowledge that Aziraphale and Crowley have been reincarnated into Asa and Anthony, even if they don't. But that's kind of the mega huge problem. They have no knowledge of this. And in my opinion, they cannot be treated as the same person. I'm gonna briefly discuss two Bollywood movies that have reincarnation as a plot point. One movie is called Magadheera (2009), and the other is called Manam (2014). Both movies revolve around a couple who die tragically, and are later reincarnated in the modern day. And you know what else they have in common. The couples get. Their fucking memories back! If they don't remember what happened in their previous life, portraying it in the movie would be absolutely pointless. The circumstances and time periods they live in are completely different. Being a queen in ancient India is different from being a regular woman in modern India. Being a middle aged mom is different from being a college student. Only reconciling these memories could indicate not just that these people are the same, but that they develop from the person that they once were. Asa and Anthony have no character development. We don't have the time! All the lessons that A and C learnt, all the time they spent learning from humanity as themselves - it no longer exists. None of it ever did. Hinduism is no stranger to apocalypses. We have a flood story too you know! But when the world ends, there are still people around who remember and pass down the memories and mythology of that time period. And it was still our world! Every time in fact! In the Good Omens universe, who is left to remember what happened? Us the viewers? But if the characters themselves don't remember, can't remember, can't apply these lessons to their own circumstances, then what happened before means nothing.
As a segue way, I never saw being an angel as inherently good. Because as someone, who by Christian canon, would never be accepted by heaven (nor would I want to) I don't have a place there regardless. In season 1, the point was that every character, whether human or angel or demon or green space alien or whatever, still had free will and that doing good or bad was independent of heaven or hell. That really appealed to me as someone who didn't believe in a Christian viewpoint. It felt like there was a place for me even in a world where only Christianity was right. And then season 3 acts like being an angel is the most valuable part of who Crowley is. Not any of his 6000 years on Earth. Just that he used to be an angel. And Crowley himself doesn't seem to value who he currently is! If a character doesn't value who they are, a satisfying conclusion is that they come to value who they are at the end of the story. That doesn't seem to happen, like, ever? Except in season 1, where despite having to face the demise of everything he knows, he still seems more secure and happier by the end than any other time in season 2 or 3.
This post honestly got away from me, but the point is, as someone who grew up with reincarnation as a religious belief, I don't see Asa and Anthony as Aziraphale and Crowley. It'd be one thing if they had their memories but they don't. And I fundamentally disagree with the ending of season 3 from a character and story angle. I think it directly contradicts the main point of season 1 (which was literally the original story) and has an unsatisfying conclusion.
When a mommy hates a daddy very much, mommy will conspire with daddy’s coworkers to discreetly steal his genetic material during a night of passion between daddy and his two coworkers who hate each other almost as much as they hate daddy, so that mommy can use daddy’s genetic material to create a living bomb that she will detonate to breach a locked tomb that only opens for daddy or a close blood relative, like a living bomb made out of one half of daddy’s stolen dna, that contains the death of daddy and his evil empire, and sometimes mommy will fail because one person in her ill advised polyclue, who is actually two people in one body but only one of them knows this and who are both daddy’s coworkers but not the ones who stole his dna, will push mommy with her living bomb out of an airlock during which she will die and fall down onto a decrepit planet that guards the locked tomb with her still alive and undetonated bomb. And that’s how babies are made!
I'd like to say a few words about what Good Omens means to me and why I believe this wasn't the ending our fandom deserved.
For years, this story, these characters, and this fandom were my home, my safe place, without even realizing it. And maybe it's true that you never fully understand the value of something until you lose it. One day, completely by chance, during a particularly difficult time when I was feeling really low, I started watching this show. From that moment on, something inside me changed, even if I didn't realize it at the time. Not long after, I read the book as well. Somehow, it helped me through that difficult time with surprising ease. It gave me hope when I needed it most, through humor and kindness, through its strange, wonderful, and deeply human characters. I saw parts of myself in them. I cared about them. And the message at the heart of the story stayed with me for years to come, changing the way I see the world forever.
It made me believe that, despite adversity, pain, suffering, and all the bad things life can throw at us, everything was going to be okay in the end. That if I believed hard enough, the world would take care of me. That the world always deserves another chance, even if it’s just one person trying to do their best with what they have, trying to help others in whatever way they can. That somehow, in the end, things would work out. That everyone would eventually get their happy ending.
Or at least, that’s what I used to believe. Because the final episode of Good Omens took a completely different path from what the book and the previous two seasons had built up to.
Crowley: "I want a real universe. I want the people to have a chance. I want free will to be a real thing. People deserve the chance... to live in the real world. Even if there are no angels. No demons. No us. Ever again."
But Good Omens already told us that human beings are the main source of evil. So God wasn’t even the real culprit. And on top of that, it is human beings who created God; the idea of what God wants, and the reasons we use to justify religious wars.
It’s not the existence of God that ruins society: it’s the idea of God, and that is a human creation.
I’ve never been religious, but now I find myself hoping with all my heart that if God does exist, then she is just and merciful. Because I can’t stand the idea of her being some selfish, shallow being who takes pleasure in playing with people’s lives. And that’s not how it was portrayed in the first two seasons. The idea that, from the perspective of an immortal and all-knowing being, the only way to fix things is to annihilate everything is genuinely depressing and makes absolutely no sense. Why would it end up causing its own destruction?
A world without God is a world without faith, without a soul, without destiny, without an afterlife, without reincarnation, and therefore without hope. They gave humans something they never chose and never asked for. The point was to give humanity true free will, the freedom to decide for themselves what they want, but they still failed even at that, because Crowley and Aziraphale ended up deciding for humanity. But more importantly, how could God have created a world without her if she wasn’t there in the first place? And if she still exists, and there is no Heaven or Hell anymore, and no souls destined to be together, then God has once again been playing with their lives, making it clear that their sacrifice to create this new world served no purpose. Because if God is still out there, interfering with human lives, then not even now do humans truly have free will.
What I always loved about this story was seeing how Aziraphale and Crowley didn't blindly obey Heaven and Hell, but questioned them instead, wondering whether what they are doing is right or wrong, just like human beings do. Because this story shows that extremism is wrong on both sides, whether in the name of good or evil. It teaches that you have to look within yourself for answers, because deep down we already know the difference between right and wrong. God has given us all the tools we need to understand that.
So what if this really was how it was always meant to happen from the very beginning?
Those are Crowley's and Aziraphale's words in the first season.
Crowley: "Angel... what if the Almighty planned it like this all along? From the very beginning?"
Aziraphale: "Could have. I wouldn’t put it past her."
The fact that Crowley learned that the world would end after six thousand years, the need to ask questions, the fall, the Antichrist being swapped and ending up in the wrong family instead of the one he was destined for, the fact that Adam managed to stop the apocalypse, and everything that led up to that moment. Not because free will doesn’t exist and God is playing with everyone’s lives, making each person act as she wishes, but because she knew from the very beginning, from the moment she created the world, that everything would unfold exactly as she intended. Being the one who created it, she would not make mistakes, and even if she did, she would accept having lost control over a world she set in motion, a world she no longer governs directly, leaving others the freedom to choose their own fate without interference once everything has begun. Just as when she allowed Crowley to tempt Eve into eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge, so that humans could understand the difference between good and evil and be free to make their own choices. The evils of the world do not come from her, but from the choices she allowed human beings to make.
Crowley: "Makes you wonder what God's really planning."
Aziraphale: "Best not to speculate. It's all part of the Great Plan. It's not for us to understand. It's ineffable."
Crowley: "The Great Plan's ineffable?"
Aziraphale: "Exactly. It is beyond understanding and incapable of being put into words."
God’s Great Plan is ineffable, just like this world. We don’t know what will happen to us tomorrow, we only know that we have this one life to live, and we shouldn’t waste a single second of it. Thinking that the best option is to erase everything and start over from scratch is a pessimistic and nihilistic view. That he world is beyond saving and deserved to be destroyed, that everything we do means nothing, and that in the end the strongest and cruelest will always win. But that was never what Good Omens was meant to say. It was a tv series and a story I used to lose myself in to escape the terrible things in life, where in the end all the characters got what they had always wanted: friends, a loving and caring family, a welcoming place to live, a partner, a companion for life, or someone they chose, again and again.
They showed you that it was possible to do good even if you had made mistakes, even if you were hurt, broken, imperfect. That it was perfectly fine to be exactly as you were, that you didn’t need to change for anyone. That this didn’t make you less worthy of love, but special. That somewhere, someone would see those imperfections and flaws and love them just as much as your qualities, if not more. That those very imperfections and flaws might be the reason someone loves you in the first place. We don’t fall in love with perfect things. We fall in love with the cracks, with the darker sides, with the loneliness we all carry inside us and keep trying to fill with people who don’t understand us, searching for someone who can understand that loneliness, who can understand that pain. Because you fall in love with those who have survived.
"One heart is not connected to another through harmony alone. They are, instead, linked deeply through their wounds. Pain linked to pain, fragility to fragility. There is no silence without a cry of grief, no forgiveness without bloodshed, no acceptance without a passage through acute loss. That is what lies at the root of true harmony."
Haruki Murakami.
It was a tv series where, in the end, good always triumphed over evil. Where life always triumphed over death. And all of that completely disappeared in the final episode, as if all those shades of grey the protagonists were so proud of, and through which they had found common ground, had been erased. As if only those who are completely blameless, flawless, and perfect deserved to live. All other living beings supposedly didn’t deserve to heal, to try to feel better, to improve, or to keep living. They were supposed to be erased from existence and replaced with perfect living beings; without trauma, without suffering, without any negative experiences. And in doing so, they threw away all the important messages this story had been trying to convey, telling us that only black and white exist. That the purest white is the only thing worthy of happiness, and that the deepest, darkest black is meant to give up and die.
So instead of giving us a sense of peace, positivity, and faith in people and in life, it left us with a feeling of anxiety and emptiness so deep that, in comparison, real life suddenly feels better and more acceptable.
And I believe that is one of the most horrific things a story like this, with these intentions, could possibly do.
This story taught us that existing, loving, choosing, being different, and continuing to move forward despite pain… all of it had value.
That even in a universe built on unfair rules, corrupted systems, and hierarchies constantly trying to tell you who you are supposed to be and who you are allowed to love, there is still something no power can truly control: the choice to remain human.
Because Crowley and Aziraphale were never just an angel and a demon. They were not just a ship. They represented everyone who has ever been made to believe that their love was wrong. Two immortal beings raised on opposite sides, taught to believe that their bond was impossible, unnatural, dangerous. And yet they kept choosing each other anyway. Always. At first in secret, with fear, hesitation, and with all the walls they had built to protect themselves over centuries. But as time went on, their barriers weakened more and more, and what once divided them no longer mattered, because they shared something they could not share with anyone else. Not with their own kind, nor with human beings: the loneliness of being different from their respective factions. The loneliness of feeling human in a world of humans that kept dying and being reborn. No one else could ever understand them the way they understood each other. And that brought them closer and closer together.
They kept finding their way back to each other because true love does not obey rules created by fear. And that is why so many queer people saw themselves in them. Because in real life there are no angels and demons, but there are religions, institutions, families, and entire societies that teach people certain kinds of love are wrong. That you must repress yourself. Hide. Give up parts of who you are in order to be accepted.
But Good Omens seemed to tell us: no. You don’t have to erase yourself to deserve love. You don’t have to become perfect to deserve to exist. You don’t have to give up your contradictions, your pain, or your mistakes in order to be worthy of being loved.
"To the world."
Not to Heaven. Not to Hell. To the world. Imperfect, chaotic, simply human. With its contradictions and its shades of grey.
"Well, maybe there is something to be said for... shades of grey."
Because Good Omens has never celebrated perfection. It has always celebrated humanity. Imperfection. Freedom of choice. The possibility of change. The right to be complicated, emotional, contradictory, and alive.
And that is exactly why an ending centered on sacrifice, death, and the annihilation of everything in order to create a supposedly perfect world without pain feels so wrong and hurts so much. Because it feels like a denial of everything this story has built. Suffering is not the opposite of life but an innate part of it. And suffering is never something positive. It destroys you. It tears you apart. It makes you feel as if there are no other possibilities left but to remain trapped in that pain, and it leaves you wondering what any of this is even for.
But completely eliminating suffering does not eliminate only evil. It eliminates life itself. Because being alive means feeling everything, including pain; feeling joy and anger, love and loss, hope and fear.
Our scars are not proof that we are irreparably broken and therefore to be discarded. They are proof that we have survived despite everything. And we deserve the chance to try to be happy regardless.
Crowley and Aziraphale have always done exactly that: they tried to survive in a world that was stacked against them. They survived Heaven. Hell. Loneliness. Shame. Fear. They survived systems that constantly tried to pull them apart and convince them that their love was wrong.
And despite all of this, they still kept choosing each other. Crowley and Aziraphale deserved a chance to be happy despite their trauma, all their suffering and all their pain.
That was the heart of Good Omens.
Not perfection. Not sacrifice. Not surrendering to the inevitable. But resistance. Stubborn hope. The choice to keep loving and living even when the world tries to convince you it’s pointless. Because the point was never: one day the pain will disappear. The point was: despite all this pain, life is still worth living.
Love is still worth choosing.
Fighting is still worth it.
Staying is still worth it.
That was the hope this story gave people. Not the fantasy of a perfect world, but the belief that even in a cruel and unfair one; love, solidarity, and rebellion against corrupt systems still matter. That being different is not something to be ashamed of. That even the smallest acts of kindness and disobedience still have meaning.
So what message does an ending like this leave behind?
That none of it ever really mattered?
That love doesn't conquer all after all?
That fighting against injustice is pointless because corrupt systems and power structures will always win?
That the only real peace comes through surrender and annihilation?
Because that was not what Good Omens was meant to convey, but rather the opposite.
Crowley and Aziraphale were not good because they were pure. They were good because they were tired, wounded, imperfect… and still chose compassion over cruelty.
Only those who have ever felt like that can recognize it in others. And in that recognition, there is something that keeps us going, something that makes life feel less unbearable. The sense that we are not alone, and that we matter, even in the smallest things we say and do. It was the same for them. They were lonely, and that loneliness led them to each other. Not as perfect beings, but as a refuge in each other, where they could simply be themselves, fall apart, and still not be abandoned. And maybe that is the real strength: not never falling, but falling and still choosing to rise again, with more awareness, more dignity, and more love. Because knowing what it means to be lost, wounded, and betrayed, and at the same time knowing how to love and trust, teaches you what it truly means to be human. They kept finding reasons to love humanity despite all its flaws. They kept finding reasons to love each other despite everything they had been taught.
And that is why this ending does not feel like an inevitable tragedy. It feels like surrender. As though everything they had learned meant nothing. As if love, hope, and resistance were nothing more than childish illusions, destined to lose against something greater and more powerful. But then what remains?
If even they have to surrender, what is left for all the people who saw themselves in them? For all those who found comfort in watching two imperfect beings defy fate simply for the chance to love each other freely?
No. That was not why we fell in love with this story.
We fell in love with a story that told us that being different is not a flaw. That our contradictions do not make us monsters. That people can choose each other even against the whole world. That shades of grey are more real than false perfection.
We fell in love with a story about the tragic and beautiful reality of being alive.
And to be alive also means to suffer.
There is no life without suffering, just as there is no life without death.
As Death says in the first season: "I am creation's shadow. You cannot destroy me, that would destroy the world."
But above all, it means continuing to choose the world, other people, and yourself despite everything.
And I refuse to believe that a story built on that idea was ever meant to end by saying the exact opposite.
For all these reasons, I cannot accept an ending that erases who they are and what they have become. Not because they must remain unchanged, but because their identity is built on memory, choice, and connection. To strip that away is to deny the very meaning of their story. I cannot accept this ending. And I never will. I do not believe this is the conclusion Terry Pratchett would have wanted for his characters and the world he built. This fandom will remember them forever. They will never truly die in our memories. They are still alive in the meaning they hold for us, in everything they represent, and in everything they continue to inspire. They are still alive for us, living on earth doing what they love the most: going for lunch at the Ritz, over shared drinks and endless conversations, walking in the park or driving through the streets, listening to music, reading, having adventures, helping others, and being silly together. Choosing each other. Being on their side. Forever.
And I want to make it clear that it's completely okay if you liked this ending. It's okay if you think this episode was perfect and that it didn't betray the messages this story has always tried to convey. But please, don't waste your time insulting or belittling people who think differently. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, as long as it's expressed with respect and thoughtfulness.
People have the right to criticize something they care deeply about. They have the right to feel anger, disappointment, and sadness when they believe something they love wasn't handled properly. And they also have the right to feel joy and happiness about how things turned out. Everyone's feelings are valid.
We can discuss things calmly, trying to show each other our perspectives, but please don't expect someone to change their mind simply because you disagree with them. I encourage everyone to think for themselves and try to approach things logically, without being influenced by what others think.
I only wanted to express my opinion and let out all the negative feelings I'm carrying right now. And if these words can make even one person feel a little less alone, then they will have accomplished something meaningful, and that, in turn, will make me feel a little less alone too.
Writing helps me release this enormous weight I've been carrying. It helps keep me from completely losing my mind. And knowing that there are people on the other side who understand me and appreciate what I'm saying helps me more than I can express. It truly means the world to me.
This fandom is one of the best things that has ever happened to me, and I will always be grateful for that. It's thanks to this fandom and the people in it, those who have made me laugh and made me feel understood that I didn't completely sink into the depression this episode threw me into.
This episode killed our hopes and took away so much of the motivation and creativity that inspired people in this fandom to create art, write stories, and make countless other things inspired by this world. But it's thanks to all of you that, even through the pain, we've managed to get back up and are trying to heal. Thanks to the love this fandom has for these characters, for each other, and for life itself.
We know we deserve better than this. Much better.
They may erase Aziraphale, Crowley, humanity, and even the entire universe. They may be forgotten by whatever new world comes after. But we will never forget them. Because we know how important this story is to each of us, and how important it is to tell stories like this; stories about the weird ones, the outsiders, the people who don't fit in and don't even want to. The people who refuse to bend to a corrupt and toxic system for the sake of convenience. The people who fight injustice and believe that this world can become something better.
Thank you so much if you've read all of this and made it this far.
I love you all. ❤️
Good Omens 3: whose ending is it?
Since the finale of Good Omens was released, both fans who liked and didn't like how it ended have been discussing whose idea it was. Some say it is the ending Terry Pratchett had always planned. Others deny that and argue that it was Neil Gaiman alone who decided that it should conclude this way. There has even been some speculation that the new writers, Peter Atkins and Michael Marshall Smith, did a complete rewrite of the six original scripts before cutting them down to a single 90 minute-long episode.
I think the latter can be debunked quite easily. Not only would time and financial constraints not have allowed to write six new scripts, but there are also many evidences that apart from cutting and shortening scenes, changes have been rather minimal. While Peter Atkins and Michael Marshall Smith are credited for the "Teleplay" alongside Neil Gaiman, Neil Gaiman is the only one who gets credited for the "Television story", meaning that the plot of the finale was laid out by him. There are also lines and short scenes in Good Omens 3 that are rather obviously leftovers from plotlines that have been removed, like Michael's comment about the Metatron messing with the Book of Life or Dagon declaring war on heaven seconds before hell gets snapped out of existence. Even the word "pedometer" that Neil Gaiman had teased for the finale was still included in the crossword scene (cf. this post by @crowleysgirl56).
Moreover, the concept art for the final scene was created at the time when Good Omens 3 was still six episodes long and featured a plotline in America (cf. this post). People have pointed out that Crowley and Aziraphale look much more like older versions of themselves in it and have taken this as proof that they were initially meant to keep their identities and memories. But you have to keep in mind that a concept artist does not get to decide on the costumes. The human versions of Crowley and Aziraphale were created with the input of David Tennant and Michael Sheen (cf. this interview). Louis Ralph just put placeholders in his concept art to get an overall impression of what the scene would look like. Similarly, in the concept art for the Resurrectionist minisode, the image of Crowley in his Victorian outfit from season 1 was inserted (cf. this post). And if you've followed some news from behind the scenes, you will probably remember that season 2 was originally supposed to feature a nightmare in which the bookshop was the only place left in the entire universe - foreshadowing for an ending that Neil Gaiman claimed to have come from his "subconscious/unconscious" (cf. this post).
If this still doesn't convince you, Peter Atkins has explicitly stated that the ending itself remained untouched, and that "no big narrative or thematic changes" were made (cf. these screenshots on Reddit). Rachel Talalay has confirmed that, too (cf. this interview). When asked the question "What kind of conversations did you have about where Crowley and Aziraphale should ultimately end up?", she replied: "That was very much worked out by Terry Pratchett. That was an absolute. That was in the six episodes and stayed the same through the shorter version. That wasn’t a debate or dialogue. That was what was decided. That was the reason to make it because that’s the ending Terry wanted."
Which leads us to another interesting point: the involvement of Terry Pratchett. Many people assume that the ending could never be what he wanted for the story, mainly because it contradicts the core messages of the book. The nihilistic take on the state of the world seems to fit Neil Gaiman's style a lot more and was interpreted as an attempt by him to finally make the story his own (cf., for example, this reblog by @acatwithstockings of a post by @obsessivelollipoplalala). Initially, I agreed with this view, but Rachel Talalay has repeatedly emphasized how Rob Wilkins, Terry Pratchett's assistant, who also functioned as the executive producer of Good Omens 3, assured her that it reflects Terry Pratchett's philosophy (cf. both of the interviews cited above).
Marc Burrows, who wrote a biography of Terry Pratchett (but did not ever meet him personally), has voiced doubts about the alternate universe being Terry Pratchett's idea (cf. this post). He also pointed out how Terry Pratchett not being officially credited for the story of the finale is somewhat telling, and Rob Wilkins liked his post (cf. this post). But this fact is contradicted by Rob Wilkins's role as executive producer, and Rachel Talalay's statement. There is no reason for her to blatantly lie about her conversations with Rob Wilkins, so we have to take her word for the ending being, at least officially, the one Terry Pratchett had planned. But this still leaves us with the question what aspects of the ending came from Terry Pratchett.
The destruction of heaven and hell? Absolutely yes. That was a thing that was already heavily hinted at in the book. Adam complains about the influence angels and demons have over humans: "It's hard enough bein' people as it is, without other people coming and messin' you around" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 366; cited below). Another instance is the analogy between the Them and their rival gang, the Johnsonites, on the one hand and heaven and hell on the other and Adam musing that the adults of Tadfield (the humans) would probably be glad if both of the gangs just disappeared (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 320; cited below). He also criticizes the concept of life after death; Crowley's line in the finale in which he asks God why people are punished for behaving like people is actually a quote by Adam from the book: "I don't see what's so triffic about creating people as people and then gettin' upset 'cos they act like people" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 367; cited below).
What's important to understand the context of this quote is what follows, though: "Anyway, if you stopped tellin' people it's all sorted out after they're dead, they might try sorting it all out while they're alive. If I was in charge, I'd try makin' people live a lot longer, like ole Methuselah. It'd be a lot more interestin' and they might start thinkin' about the sort of things they're doing to all the enviroment and ecology, because they'll still be around in a hundred years' time" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 367; emphasis in the original; cited below). Adam proposes a much longer lifespan for humans as a way for them to experience the direct consequences of their actions rather than getting some rather unrelated reward/punishment in the afterlife. He wants people to have a chance to take full responsibilty for their actions: "If you stop messin' them about they might start thinkin' properly an' they might stop messin' the world around. I'm not sayin' they would, [...] but they might" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 368; emphasis in the original; cited below).
A godless universe? I would say also yes. I remember this quote from back when I first read the book, before watching the series: "I mean, maybe you just want to see how it all turns out. Maybe it's all part of a great big ineffable plan. All of it. You, me, him, everything. Some great big test to see if what you've built all works properly, eh?" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 392; cited below). It gave me the suspicion that the ultimate goal of God might always have been to end his/her existence once creation has proven that it can take responsibilty for itself. Although I assumed that God would simply back out of the existing universe, not create a new one.
Crowley and Aziraphale sacrificing themselves? Maybe. At the end of the book, they choose not to run away and help the humans fight Satan instead, despite knowing that they do not really have a chance (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 373; cited below). So I guess a noble sacrifice would fit their characterisation, even though it would give them an unusual importance in a story that had painted them as rather incompetent bystanders so far (cf. this post by @dustbunniess).
Crowley and Aziraphale deciding on the fate of the whole of humanity alone? I highly doubt that. A story that has always been about human agency, about how supernatural beings should not interfere with human lives, about how destroying the world as it is is not a way to make it better ending with an angel and a demon single-handedly choosing the erasure of the entire universe is more than odd. We know that a plotline involving Jesus and Adam was cut from the finale, so maybe they were meant to play a bigger role in Terry Pratchett's vision. The ending as it is, however, as I said above, goes against the core messages of the book, and I will stand by that.
Crowley and Aziraphale becoming human? Possibly. They were always trying to imitate humans, so it would be a fitting conclusion for their character arc. Although I thought that the point was that they are already human at heart. All the things Crowley envies humans for - mainly free will and imagination (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 47f; cited below) - are qualities he already possesses. It actually reminds me a bit of The Wizard of Oz, in which Dorothy's friends wish for traits they've had all along. The only two things that really distinguish Crowley and Aziraphale from humans are their immortality and their miracles. Take them away from them and all the other angels and demons and they are equal to humans. I don't understand why removing the power imbalance requires them to lose their identity as well, and I'm still not sure whether this was Terry Pratchett's intention.
But even if every aspect of the ending was envisioned by Terry Pratchett, you have to bear in mind that the execution was entirely done by Neil Gaiman. He used the narrative landmarks that were set and built the plot around them. His comment about not really knowing where the idea with nightmare of the bookshop came from further suggests that he was making a lot of things up as he went. And when it comes to the messages of the story, one has to admit that he did not add much that was of value. The scene with God and Satan in the bookshop that was supposed to represent the philosophical core of the finale, for example, did not contain much original dialogue, but relied on recycled lines from the book instead, like Adam's remark about punishing people that I quoted above or Crowley's musings about human nature (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 47f; cited below).
Neil Gaiman is also the one who made the romance between Crowley and Aziraphale explicit on request of the fans, only to have it end tragically ("There was a point where I started to go: You know, I can give you what you want, but you won't want it" - that were his own words; cf. this video, timestamp 11:56-12:04). If they were always supposed to get annihilated in the end, he should have left it out. Since the story had shifted its focus to Crowley's and Aziraphale's relationship, the only narratively satisfying conclusion would have included a happy ending for them. I'm sure there would have been a way to do that without betraying the core of Terry Pratchett's vision. What we ultimately got was a weird example of 'having your cake and eating it too', as Reddit user WAR_FROM_GOOD_OMENS put it in this thread, of putting a lovestory in but also staying true to the original ideas under circumstances that had changed from the book (see also this post by @i-only-ever-asked-questions).
So, what is the takeaway from this post? Well, the takeaway is that the ending of Good Omens 3 is not the result of a rewrite of Neil Gaiman's scripts, but something that was planned right from the beginning, most likely even back when season 2 was written. And that we will never know for sure how much of it can be attributed to ideas by Terry Pratchett and how much to choices made by Neil Gaiman.
I understand that many people are unhappy with the ending and are looking for someone to 'blame' for it. And that many find the idea comforting that what we saw is not the 'real' ending and that a truer, more hopeful version of it exists somewhere. But in the end, we have to ask ourselves: does it really matter? You are allowed to like or dislike the ending, no matter who wrote it. Actually, I don't think the author of the ending should have an influence on your judgment of it at all. The finale of Good Omens is what it is, it does not become better when Terry Pratchett came up with it or worse when Neil Gaiman, Peter Atkins or Michael Marshall Smith invented it. Just look at what we've got and use your skills in media analysis to decide whether it makes sense for the story, for the characters, and for your own taste and morals. And if it doesn't, you can't change it anyway, but you can create a version for yourself and for other fans that feels more fitting. You don't have to accept an author's word on the story, no matter how famous or how skilled he is.
Keep going, Good Omens fandom!
Work cited:
Pratchett, Terry and Gaiman, Neil: Good Omens. The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. London 2011.