To those that still believe Asa and Anthony are Aziracrow. Nope.

Origami Around

Andulka
TVSTRANGERTHINGS

pixel skylines
Stranger Things
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Cosimo Galluzzi
I'd rather be in outer space đ¸
noise dept.
art blog(derogatory)

No title available
Three Goblin Art
taylor price
Misplaced Lens Cap
Show & Tell
One Nice Bug Per Day
No title available

blake kathryn
hello vonnie
Claire Keane
seen from TĂźrkiye
seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Canada

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Ireland
seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from Indonesia
seen from Norway
seen from Austria

seen from Malaysia

seen from Singapore
seen from Czechia

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
@moonlightshadow2025
To those that still believe Asa and Anthony are Aziracrow. Nope.
I am so upset at the ending of good omens that I genuienly haven't been able to stop angry ranting about it in this blog. I already wrote two pretty extensive different posts about why GO3 sucks and I still feel like I haven't scratched the surface enough.
So I'm gonna list even more grievances I had with this ending, and how it will never work for me, and why many viewers are torn about it.
1. The entire point of the character of Jesus and what he represents, and why the way his arc was handled leaves a dangerous and grim message.
I loved Jesus in the series, I thought he was extremely tender-hearted, confused, torn and most impostantly he is so incredibly human. When I was watching the series, I assumed that his character was meant to represent the importance of unity and why humanity works.
When Jesus gains conciousness again, he immediately asks for his friends, his mother, he asks for the connections he made during his human days that mattered the most to him. He choose to reach for his people over destiny or power.
Despite being Jesus, he's portrayed less as a divine figure and more as someone trying to navigate overwhelming circumstances while clinging to the people he loves.
He ultimately wanders through Earth and continues to be defined by his desire for connection. That's why his arc initially felt so powerful to me. It seemed to be building toward the idea that humanity's greatest strength is its ability to form meaningful relationships with one another.
Love. That's one of the most consistent theme on the show. Time and time again, the story emphasizes that the connections we form with others are what give our lives meaning. Characters endure unimaginable hardships because of the people they care about. They find reasons to keep going because someone matters to them.
Because of that, I assumed his arc was leading toward a reaffirmation of one of the show's central messages: that love is what allows humanity to survive, to heal, and to move forward.
I didn't expect his arc to not feel rushed in a 90 minute run, but what we got was worse in my opinion. It wasn't just rushed, it was ultimately a plotline that just dissolved into this wierd, tragic excuse of a plot.
Jesus as well as humanity, gets erased Ă la infinity war thanos snap. Before he dies he tragically says how he never got a chance to give it a go.
This just...sucks!! What even is the point of having the representaion of love and unity just dissaper into particles hopelessly? what message does that leave the viewers? Why did we even follow his plotline if ultimately it led us to absolutely nothing?
2. Crowley's choice in the end is ultimately framed as selfless when in reality it not only selifsh, but cowardly.
Crowley's character has always been about taking a clear stance. He defies the systems that were built and rebels by choosing his own moral compass over blind obedience.
What makes Crowley compelling is that he acts. He questions. He pushes back. He sees injustice and refuses to quietly participate in it. Even when he's afraid (and he often is) he still makes choices. He still stands his ground.
That's why his "wish" frustrates me so much.
Crowley's choice is framed as selfless because he is willing to sacrifice himself. He is willing to give up his own existence if it means creating a world free from Heaven and Hell because apparently thats the only way free will can actually exist.
The problem is that he isn't only sacrificing himself. He is also sacrificing Aziraphale. The decision is not solely his to make, yet the narrative imposes that he has to take it upon himself anyway.
Also, What about Beelzebub and Gabriel who literally carved a live out for themselves outside of heaven or hell?
Or Adam who quite literally rejects the role assigned to him because he choose his own friends and family? He rewrote the universe in season one because he refused to destory it, he wanted to fix it.
Then there's Maggie and Nina whom whose entire role in Season 2 revolves around the idea that relationships only work when people are allowed to make their own choices, free from outside interference?
The series repeatedly celebrates autonomy, self-determination, and choosing the people you love over the institutions that claim ownership of your life.
That's what makes Crowley's decision to reboot the universe in the name of "free will" so hollow.
In a strange way, his choice mirrors the very institutions Crowley spent the story opposing. Heaven and Hell repeatedly make enormous decisions for others because they believe they know what is best. They impose their vision of the future on countless people without consent.
That is what makes the choice feel cowardly to me as well. Rather than confronting the broken systems and finding a way to change them while preserving the people he loves, he chooses a solution that removes the problem by wiping the slate clean entirely.
A universe without Heaven and Hell may sound liberating, but if achieving it requires erasing the very individuals whose lives give that universe meaning, then the solution begins to undermine the values the story spent so much time celebrating.
Also it's a choice that the he would never make. This is the same Crowley who, when the world was on the verge of ending, didn't choose a grand ideological solution. He wanted to run away with Aziraphale.
Crowley's priorities have always been remarkably consistent. No matter how much he complains, no matter how cynical he pretends to be, when everything falls apart his first instinct is to protect the people he loves and stay close to them. Which is why he dislikes Armageddon in the first place, he loves the world he's in, he just doesn't like the people in power who control it.
This is also the same Crowley who, the last time we saw him, kissed Aziraphale in a desperate attempt to get him to stay. He was begging for Aziraphale to choose a life with him.
That's why the reboot decision feels so disconnected from the character we've been following.
You're asking me to believe that a Crowley who couldn't bear the thought of being separated from Aziraphale would willingly choose a future where both of them cease to exist entirely?
if there is one thing Crowley has consistently chosen throughout the entire story, it is Aziraphale.
3. What the hell even was the point of the Metatron's character then?
Season 2 literally builds up this character in a way that suggests he is going to be one of the most important antagonistic forces in the story.
His presence is unsettling from the moment he appears. The way he manipulates conversations, the way he isolates Aziraphale from Crowley, the way other characters react to him, this all creates the impression that there is something deeply wrong beneath his calm and polite exterior.
The entire tragedy of the finale hinges on the Metatron's intervention. He is the catalyst for Aziraphale's decision, the reason Crowley and Aziraphale separate. He is also arguably the single most important character in the climax outside of Crowley and Aziraphale themselves.
Which is why I'm left wondering what the point of all that buildup was.
Season 2 encourages the audience to pay attention to him. It practically begs us to analyze his motives. Fans spent years discussing whether he threatened Aziraphale, whether he was lying, what his true goals were, and what role he would play in the final conflict.
Instead, the Metatron quite literally gets killed in the first 15 minutes or so. We don't even get him as anything remotely close to a fully realized antagonist. That's what makes the decision so baffling to me.
The framing around him suggested that he represented something larger: the corruption of Heaven, the abuse of authority, the systems that manipulate people while presenting themselves as benevolent.
If that's what he was meant to symbolize, then why remove him almost immediately??? that literally prevents the story from fully engaging with those ideas.
It would be one thing if his death served as the beginning of a larger conflict. Sometimes a villain dies early because they are merely the face of a deeper problem. But if the narrative never properly explores that deeper problem either, then the Metatron's storyline starts to feel strangely hollow.
Looking back, it raises the question of why the audience was encouraged to fear him in the first place.
Why dedicate so much time to establishing his manipulation of Aziraphale?
Why make him the architect of one of the most emotionally devastating moments in the series?
Why position him as the looming threat over the future for Earth?
If the answer is simply for him to die before any of those threads are meaningfully explored, then the character ends up feeling less like an antagonist and more like a narrative device used to force the separation in Season 2. And for a figure who carried so much thematic and emotional weight, that's an incredibly unsatisfying payoff.
4. The archangel Michael being the plottwist antagonist
This was not only predictable, but just hollow to me.
A plot twist works when it either recontextualizes what came before or reveals something meaningful about the characters involved. Michael becoming the true antagonist doesn't really accomplish either of those things.
Michael wanted to destory the world, including their own coworkers who Michael had some sort of likness towards. Michael does this because they are tired and just...I don't know actually?? a comical crash out??
Like, I get it, we only have 90 minutes, but more reason to either build up the Metatron as the actual antagonist who we were already exploring last season, or atleast make Michael's motives make sense??? They really just erased existance for the fun of it I guess.
5. Aziraphale's mistreatment and mischarectarization
As someone who adores Aziraphale, this makes me so mad. We got like, the fanon version of his character instead of the fleshed out angel we know and love.
Mrs. Sandwich verbally berates him, calling him a taker and that he is the reason whickber street is the way it is now. And like, I think if we view this from Crowley's perspective then sure.
From Crowley's point of view, Aziraphale left. He chose Heaven. He chose an institution that has repeatedly hurt both of them. Crowley is heartbroken, and the people around him are witnessing the aftermath of that heartbreak.
However, Aziraphale went to heaven in hopes because of Crowley and he was also trying to avoid the second coming from happening. I am frustrated with how much Aziraphale is put down for this choice and tries to give the viewers no air to feel actual sympathy as to why he choose to leave.
But anyways, a specific scene that to me felt out of character was when Aziraphale finds Crowley extremely broken and sulking on the floor, and Aziraphale begs him to get up. Ultimately Crowley pushes him away and the angel leaves.
That's not the lovingly stubborn angel I know.
One of Aziraphale's defining traits throughout the entire series is persistence. When he loves someone, he doesn't give up on them easily. This is the angel who spent centuries arguing with Crowley. The angel who repeatedly sought him out even when they disagreed. The angel who continued believing there was good in people, in humanity, and even in Crowley when others would have walked away.
So when he finds the person he loves completely devastated and clearly not thinking rationally, it feels bizarre that he gives up so quickly. I'm not saying he should have magically fixed the situation. Crowley is allowed to be angry. He's allowed to reject him.
But Aziraphale's response to rejection has historically never been, "Well, I tried once." This is the same character who spent six thousand years maintaining a relationship that Heaven and Hell both disapproved of.
Yet now, in arguably the most important moment of their relationship, he seems strangely passive. Their reunion was an absolute let down.
I will give Michael Sheen credit where it's due. His performance is one of the few reasons the scene carries any emotional weight at all.
His voice cracks when he talks about Crowley. The look on his face communicates heartbreak, regret, fear, and love all at once. Even when the script isn't giving him much, you can tell exactly what Aziraphale is feeling.
I can see the love on Aziraphale's face. I can hear it in his voice. I absolutely believe that Michael Sheen's Aziraphale loves Crowley.
The problem is that Michael Sheen is acting emotions that the writing doesn't fully support.
6. The completely useless Bentley sideplot
First of all, I think taking Crowely's ability for miracles was a dumb plot device to allow some stupid gangsters take his Bentley.
It feels less like a meaningful conflict and more like a mechanism to keep Crowley occupied until the plot needs Aziraphale and Crowley to interact again.
Anyways, yes Aziraphale helps Crowley get the Bentley back and that's kind of the "truce" between them instead of like,, I don't know maybe an emotionally charge conversation? Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship has always been carried by dialogue.
If the Bentley storyline absolutely had to exist, then at least make it emotionally relevant. Make the Bentley represent something. Make Crowley's attachment to it part of a larger conversation about loss, identity, or the life he built with Aziraphale.
It feels like the writers wanted a reconciliation without having to write the difficult conversation that reconciliation actually requires.
Instead, the Bentley subplot ends up feeling like a distraction from the conversation the audience was actually waiting for. If you're going to dedicate screen time to a side quest in the middle of a story that already has limited runtime, that side quest should accomplish something beyond moving pieces around the board.
7. The lack of intimacy in Aziraphale's and Crowley's relationship this season was genuienly such a strange thing.
I feel like Good Omens always was good at writing such intimately sweet and precious moments between these two. And I feel like here, this season ultimately fails to deliver that.
Again, David and Michael translate their love through their performance amazingly. The problem is the script doesn't seem nearly as interested in those moments as previous seasons were.
I have already complained about not getting any sort of kiss (when, again, they had literally already crossed that line in Season 2). But I think what makes it worse is what happens with the alternate versions of Crowley and Aziraphale.
We get a camera pan of their hands with wedding rings. The narrative goes out of its way to communicate that these versions of them are together.
Because the original Crowley and Aziraphale never got that.
The versions we spent years following.
The versions who shared six thousand years of history.
The versions who suffered, grew, changed, argued, reconciled, and fell in love.
Instead, the story presents alternate versions who have not lived through the same experiences and then gives them the visual shorthand of a happy ending.
They aren't the people whose relationship formed the emotional heart of the series.
So while I understand what the scene is trying to communicate, it doesn't land as a reward for me.
It lands as a reminder that the characters who actually earned that future never got to experience it. And that's why the moment feels strangely hollow. It's not that I needed a wedding. It's not even that I specifically needed a kiss.
It's that after Season 2 already made their romantic feelings explicit, the finale seems reluctant to give the original Crowley and Aziraphale even the smallest moment of mutual romantic fulfillment, while simultaneously making sure the audience notices the wedding rings on their replacements.
The result felt less like a payoff and more like a workaround. A way of acknowledging the romance without fully allowing the characters we've spent years loving to actually live it.
....And there's sooooo much more but i'll never shut up so i'll end my list here (if you want to add on to my list, be my guest, theres so much to say about this awful ending to such a beloved series!!)
Ultimately, I feel for the creatives who did care for this show yet had their hands tied when it came to this god awful ending. I feel for both Michael Sheen and David Tennant who put their heart and souls into these characters just for this to be the resolution. The cast and crew who worked tirelessly on this show and had to watch it crumble this way, I can't imagine how it feels.
But most importantly, I feel for the us, the viewers, whom connected with this show and followed it for years. The LGBTQ+ fans who for once, wanted a romance story that was promised ended right. For the queer love in the story to have been as loud as it had been in the past 2 seasons instead of just dancing around it.
After all these years, queer audiences are not asking for special treatment.
We're asking for the same thing every audience asks for: for the stories we invest our hearts in to follow through on the promises they make.
Iâm still so angry and upset. đ˘
ActuallyâŚ. letâs let them sleep.
Itâs still pretty bad outside.
wekthesnek
Why was the whole thing framed as if Crowley was the - romantic and devoted one even in his pain because he kept an eye on the bookshop? Oh what noble sacrifice.
When Aziraphale was the one who gave up everything just so he could try and avoid their dying horribly (or living in a far worse way forever)?
Why was Aziraphale deemed the guilty one? Why did Crowley never as much as hinted at being sorry for leaving him for years alone?
What happened to Mr "I won't leave you on your own"?
Aziraphale succeeded and got not a single word of thanks or appreciation. No. He is constantly blamed and shamed and questioned and criticised. "And how's that working out?"
Fuck off Crowley. He saved your sorry ass from eternity in a burning goo. And you couldn't even run a bookshop. And not pick up rents.
People take a lot of offence at Aziraphale defenders joking or outright just wearily saying Aziraphale has nothing to apologise for, while they donât see how the constant âjokesâ about Aziraphale being called a cheater, home wrecker, traitor, how never asking for Crowley to apologise in turn or just assuming Crowley has every right to mock or punish Aziraphale when he inevitably returns with tail between his legs, dump him, or drink and live in despair for years because his partner has done an incredibly hurtful and inexcusable, and what's more unreasonable thing - is much worse.
F15 was painful for them both. There are many theories and in three months we will know more, and yes, theorising is fun, but watching the fandom spend three years assuming Crowley was right and Aziraphale wrong, was not.
Because the current state of the Good Omens fandom makes me really sad, I promised myself I would try to refrain from posting my negative thoughts about the finale...
But you know what? I just saw pictures of angelCrowley and 'Anthony' back to back, and maybe this is me being stupid and in denial, but Iâm only realizing now that this 'Anthony' is, in fact, a "reincarnation" or whatever of angelCrowley and NOT demonCrowley, the being we spent the story with, the being he became after millennia of experience on Earth - I mean THE Crowley, our Crowley, Aziraphaleâs Crowley, and I just...
It makes me even more furious than I already am. They erased nearly everything that was making this character interesting. After showing us time and again how terrible Heaven was, how free will is important, and why labels shouldnât matter as long as you stay true to who you are deep down ("just a little bit a good person", "just enough of a bastard", "just an angel/a demon who goes along with Heaven/Hell as far as he can"), they told us that a fallen angel was a bad thing, that it shouldnât exist after all. They ended with two 'angels' falling for each other.
I wonder, what happened to shades of grey?
I fell in love with those two because they were are far more complex than what it says on the tin. I donât give a damn about the purest of angels. I care about characters who ask questions, who doubt, who evolve, who fight for what they believe in, who love unconditionally, despite the odds.
And to think about all the other narrative decisions made in that finale...
What a shame that ending was. What a terrible, terrible shame.
I canât understand how portraying the idea that the best solution is to erase everything and create something new can be seen as something positive in todayâs world. As if the people who exist now and fight every day for their loved ones were not enough, as if it would be better if they had never existed at all.
Second Coming
Is literally about bringing everyone back and judging them for a final decision on where they will end up right? A LOT OF LAZARII miracles required? Plus the demons end up powerless in a lake of fire for eternity I believe. Because - unforgivable, amirite?
So everyone was dead at the end of S3...
And S3 went for the - ok so let's do Second Coming new Earth but WITH all the suffering. (There was supposed to be new Earth and new Heaven with no suffering after Second Coming, forever I believe.)
Why?
Why not bring everyone back the same as Adam did? Let people and the universe live out its time. And angels, demons, souls could have been brought back too: Look er, you are free. Here's a whole Universe, it's pretty large, find something to do. Don't start any wars. (In the credits, Star Wars theme starts, or something.)
Jesus was meant to orchestrate all that Second Coming business. So why didn't he? Why didn't they get Aziraphale and Crowley to talk to him? Why didn't Crowley go for the usual - there doesn't have to be any wa- sides. What was even the purpose of 'waking Jesus up'? Why wasn't he aware of what happened after his sacrifice? Why didn't he get to face Mother?
It's just so extremely unsatisfying.
Every day I find new ways to hate the Finale.
Anyway, read my fix it here if you like. Or my before GO3 S2 fix-it - which DID have everyone coming together to tell God off.
Also, if they wanted a sacrifice, I did once write a tiny story about that.
Putting links into my text always feels so corporate. Here, buy my products. Except they are free and made for you.
"The finale of Amazon Primeâs fantasy series Good Omens was supposed to be a gift to its fans, bringing closure and peace to the love story between the angel Aziraphale and the demon Crowley. How did it end up leaving so many furious and brokenhearted instead?"
From the article "Good Omens Revels in Heartbreak" - read below
âIf the finale is a love letter to fandom and fanfiction, itâs a love letter to the ability of fans to create better stories than these characters than the ones we actually gotâŚ. ones that use our own free will to say, âHereâs how this story goes.ââ
What an absolute banger of a line
I feel kind of silly that we spent so many years writing a Crowley who would do anything to save Aziraphale and then canon went with "What Crowley had apparently always wanted is a world in which Aziraphale doesn't exist and will do sod all to save him when God offered him the chance."
I mean, to be fair, who would look at the Bastille and "Why would he risk destruction for you?" and predict that?
Itâs just that S2 introduced memory wipe as a punishment and S3 tried to tell us itâs a good thing.
Jim didnât love Beelzebub. Gabriel did. He needed his memories for a reason. Anthony doesnât know or love Aziraphale. He loves a completely different guy. Which is nice and all. But I wanted to see Aziraphale and Crowley happy. Safe. Free. I wanted them to stay in my universe. I thought we shared it!
I get what people mean about their dear ones when they lose memories. I care what people say about their own lost memories. I'd never say they were replaced by another person. But that's not at all what we are talking about here. It's a new universe with brand new people. (Which if determinism is not true and god is gone should not look like the old ones?)
And I am glad if you found comfort and happiness in S3! I wish I did too.
But to me Aziraphale and Crowley are gone - their love started the new universe and I am sure it was powerful enough to be everywhere and all that (I could have maybe even liked it if S3 was done better and I didn't get attached to Aziraphale and Crowley so much). It's just not the ending I craved. Or needed. Or find rewarding. As much as I like a deep philosophical conversation, I just wanted them to have one another. Safely. And for as long as they wished.
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:
["It won't be confirmed unless enough people watch Season 2 to make Amazon happy...
...But obviously Season 3 is all planned and plotted and, if I get to make it, will take the story and the people in it we care about to a satisfying end."]
What happened?
Were the profits and ratings high enough to create two more seasons out of thin air? At this point, seasons 2 and 3 seem more like a greedy stretching of a beloved story already told in its entirety in the first season.
Has the first season already fulfilled Sir Terry Pratchett's wish?
As read above, Neil Gaiman himself said: "Season 1 of Good Omens is Good Omens."
Gaiman was very opened about how pleased he was with Season 1 and how he made it having Sir Terry Pratchett's wish in mind.
Interview for The Verge (May 30, 2019)
Link : Neil Gaiman had one rule for the Good Omens adaptation: making Terry Pratchett happy
Interviewer: Do you feel pressure from knowing this has to be the definitive best adaptation it could be?
Gaiman: No. All I wanted to do was to make something Terry would have liked. It wasnât like, âMake the best thing.â...
...Gaiman: The lovely thing about Good Omens [the miniseries] is that itâs still Good Omens. If you loved the book, this is that thing that you loved. And I will make you fall in love even more with Sergeant Shadwell. I will make you fall even more in love with Newt than you thought you could, I hope. It does demonstrate that I do kind of know what Iâm talking about, which is a nice thing to know.
...Gaiman: So with Good Omens, I feel like what I got to do was put the thing I made with Terry on the screen and then buttress it. What I added isnât completely different from the original. Itâs not out of left field.
Neil Gaiman on an interview for The Guardian in 2019.
Link: Neil Gaiman: âGood Omens feels more apt now than it did 30 years agoâ
There are times, he insists, when âyou make something you like so much that you donât really care what anyone else thinks of it.â Thereâs a clue to this, perhaps, in the showâs final frame, which reads âFor Terryâ. âHe didnât believe in heaven or hell or anything like that,â Gaiman says, âso there wasnât even a hope that there was a ghostly Terry around to watch it. He would have been grumpy if there was. But I made it for him.â
Why was Good Omens season 1 so good and you could really feel Sir Terry Pratchett's contributions?
Gaiman himself has already told us the answer:
...Gaiman: So with Good Omens, I feel like what I got to do was put the thing I made with Terry on the screen and then buttress it. What I added isnât completely different from the original. Itâs not out of left field.
Neil Gaiman for The Verge (2019).
There was original material to work with (Good Omens, published in 1990), on which we certainly know that Sir Terry Pratchett himself actively worked from start to finish.
Is there a proper sequel to Good Omens the book on which to base 2 more seasons of the series?
Neil Gaiman says the following on an interview for GQ in 2019.
Link: Neil Gaiman Says No to Adapting His Own BooksâExcept This Time
...But with this, it was like: Okay. Terry is gone. He wanted me to do this. He wanted me to do it for him. And that gave me a kind of weird impetus. And it meant that I felt very much at liberty to take every conversation that Terry and I had ever had about Good Omens. Not just the book, as written, but everything beyond it. We planned a sequel, never written, so I got to steal the angels from the sequel. I got to steal from every conversation Terry and I had about how we would do this. It felt very personal, and I guess kind of⌠holy. If that doesnât sound too ridiculous. But it was a mission.
Two conclusions can be drawn:
1) Informal conversations about the plot of a sequel do not equate to an officially written sequel.
2) Neil Gaiman has already used many of the ideas he and Terry Pratchett had planned for a never-written sequel to Good Omens and those ideas were largely added to and executed in the TV adaptation of Good Omens (2019).
Why keep stretching those ideas if the co-writer is no longer able to actively contribute and help to create a proper sequel?
If Gaiman were the sole creator of Good Omens we'd have a different conversation, but that's not the case. The first season of Good Omens was already a beautiful homage to Good Omens and Sir Terry Pratchett's work on the book.
Did Terry Pratchett write around 75% of Good Omens?
Link for the post here.
Link for the post talking about the video and sharing the video here.
Edit: I wanted to bring this point up to point out Terry Pratchett's important contribution to the making of the book, not to highlight it as an excuse to distance Gaiman from the novel. We will have to accept that he also contributed to the creation of the book.
Sir Terry Pratchett's last wish
2017 - Rob Wilkins on Twitter (X)
Terry Pratchettâs Unpublished Work Crushed by Steamroller
By Sophie Haigney - The New York Times
Terry Pratchett, the well-known British fantasy author, had a wish fulfilled two years after his death: A hard drive containing his unpublished work was destroyed by steamroller.
Mr. Pratchett, a wildly popular fantasy novelist who wrote more than 70 books, including the âDiscworldâ series, died at 66 in 2015. That year his friend, the writer Neil Gaiman, told The Times of London that Mr. Pratchett had wanted âwhatever he was working on at the time of his death to be taken out along with his computers, to be put in the middle of a road and for a steamroller to steamroll over them all.â Mr. Gaiman added at the time that he was glad this hadnât happened.
Now, though, it has. Mr. Pratchettâs estate manager and close friend, Rob Wilkins, posted a picture of a hard drive and a steamroller on Aug. 25 on an official Twitter account they shared.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Wilkins wrote that the deed was done.
I have not been able to find the exact reasons why Sir Terry Pratchet wanted his unfinished and unpublished works destroyed, but we can respect his last wish as a way for him to have control over what he felt he was ready to share with the world and what he was not.
Is Good Omens the exception?
With all that has been presented so far, I can only conjecture, but not be sure. I can believe that there was Terry Pratchett's permission and desire to make an adaptation of Good Omens, the original book published in 1990, but to my mind, creating two more seasons of a never-written sequel doesn't fit as part of Terry Pratchett's desire.
He is not among us to actively participate in a sequel and if his last wish was to destroy his unfinished works, I can't believe that he would have wanted to give his approval to something new published under his name and without his supervision.
Sir Terry Pratchett talking about a never-written sequel to Good Omens
âNeil and I thought about a sequel an awful lot initially. We talked about it on tour. And I think it was a big relief to both of us, when one day we looked one another in the eye and said, 'I thought you wanted to do a sequel.'..
Interview for the Magazine Locus. Locusmag archive page
This is me speculating, but I don't think there was real enthusiasm for creating a sequel until Gaiman alone saw profitable potential in the TV adaptation....
Good Omens also belongs to the those who love the story
I think it's okay to still love the story of Good Omens. Personally, I will always be grateful with the story and the characters for giving me confort in troubling times, but I find seasons 2 and 3 as some kind of excuse from Gaiman to keep profiting and benefiting from the story (more now than ever due to the SA allegations*).
Aziraphale and Crowley will always live happily in a lovely cottage as long as we want to. Even before season 2 was announced, many of us had already accepted that. Many artists have imagined lovely endings for our innefable husbands and in my eyes their works won't be any less valuable than whatever Gaiman had planned.
Note:
I don't like talking about Season 3 of GO without mentioning the current 5 SA allegations against Neil Gaiman (Main writer of seasons 2 and 3 and showrunner), so in case you want to know more about the allegations against Neil Gaiman. Here there's a great Round Up link (Podcasts links, transcripts, etc.)
Credits for the Round Up link to Muccamukk. Thanks a lot!
*more thoughts on supporting season 3
Furthermore, it seems like NG could have been involved in the "distilling" of the 6 episodes into one movie process. So long for "he offered to step down".
This makes the writing credits going solely to these 3 writers and not to TP so much more interesting.
Happy Pride Month đ
This post on Twitter kinda sums up the entirety of what's wrong with Good Omens 3 - they destroyed all the magic. They destroyed that magical, whimsical, optimistic universe and replaced it with bleak reality, a world without magic. Before the finale, we could visit all these places and believe that they were there, read ancient history and believe that they'd been there, blame our computer troubles on Newt, take things as prophecies from Agnes Nutter...and now? We're left with emptiness.
Why was F15 like that?
Because they needed to make it look like Aziraphale was making a mistake? He wasn't. (But thanks for the Aziraphale hate we got anyway*)
If Aziraphale stayed after S2, Crowley would not be happier.
They'd be very quickly dead. Or worse. Separated for eternity, Crowley ending up in the Lake of Fire after the Second Coming was enacted or whatever was meant to happen to demons.
Without Aziraphale, the Second Coming would have happened immediately. Supreme Archangel Michael would have made sure of it.
We still don't know why Metatron didn't want that. It doesn't seem plausible to me that he wanted to make it fair to humans (the judging) of whom Heaven knew nothing and only had Aziraphale to ask. But since Michael apparently disagreed with him and killed him first, who knows.
Making S3 all about a 'conflict' between Aziraphale and Crowley was fucking pointless though. It makes Crowley look stupid and defeatist and Aziraphale bullied and misunderstood. They really didn't have to try and remove their loving relationship, based on trust and understanding one another through impossible circumstances, we came to cherish. (Thank you Michael and David for saving as much of it as possible.) I could have accepted the ending if they worked together, trying everything and in the end agreed that angels and demons, Heaven and Hell were never gonna accept not fighting to destruction.
* I mean they could have just had a 'normal' argument in F15 about the core of it, Aziraphale wanting to try fix Heaven and Crowley thinking it was impossible and unfixable. Crowley would still be *right* in S3 and universe destroyed if that's what was the plan for the story. There needn't have been all the - Aziraphale values Heaven over Crowley, he left him again, he doesn't understand Crowley, he is never getting the job, he can't change anything (he did), Book of Life is not even a thing (oh it is), Aziraphale is naĂŻve and easily manipulated, can't see he's being lied to etc etc etc.
Crowley asking them to be an 'us' (when they both knew they already were and could not have had more) was pointless. He knew Second Coming was on the cards. He knew Metatron just tried to erase memories of someone who disagreed with the Plan days ago, did he really think Aziraphale could have just said no to them? Could they really have had a few happy weeks together or something? I don't think so.
And what if I never needed their souls to be 'intertwined by fate'? What if all that I needed is for them to love each other because they have known and understood and shaped each other for so long? And what if I never cared about them âfinding each other in every universe?â What if all that I wanted is for them, in this universe where the odds were so stacked against them, to choose each other?