Good Omens

[Mr Orange]

Just finished the first episode and I'm unconvinced. The show seems to have lost lot of the detail of the book and so has lost a lot of the cleverness of the story. Will see how episode 2 goes.

 

[anno]

Guardian gave it 3 out of 5 with reservations...

 

[Vince W]

I've only watched the first episode. It's okay overall. Some changes I'm not sure about yet, but I will say that Michael Sheen and David Tennant are wonderful together. I especially like Sheen's Aziraphale.

Oh, and would it have killed them to use a few lights in the darker scenes? I can barely see the faces and action in the dark/night shots. I'm watching this at home and not the cinema.

 

[Mr Orange]

That's interesting I watched it streaming on my phone and had no issues with lighting

And yes Sheen and Tennant are great, though they're on the verge of overacting the parts

 

[Al Jackson]

I never read Good Omens , started watching because I thought this sounds like Douglas Adams.
Found the introduction very funny.
The story seemed Monty Python like, I was amused will have to see if I am pulled in. Thought this review , tho, sort of captured some of my reactions.

Spoiler: Good Omens

Amazon's Good Omens is exhaustingly arch and terribly twee

Lots of people are going to love Good Omens (Amazon Video, 31 May). Some will be fans of the 1990 novel by Neil Gaiman and the late Terry Pratchett on which it’s based (Gaiman has adapted, in six parts). Some will be those with major hots for David Tennant, who plays, in snake-eye contact lenses...

www.newstatesman.com

 

[Hummus]

I've watched a few episodes and am enjoying it so far.

Some of the humour from the novel can't really be translated to screen I think - but they did a good job bearing that in mind. Tennant's Crowley is a bit goofy for my taste, but I like Sheen as Aziraphale. John Hamm as the bureaucratic angel Gabriel is a nice addition.

Anyway, if you like the book I say give the TV series a chance - it's still wonderfully whimsical and sticks to the plot and point.

 

[Overread]

I've not yet got round to reading the novel but I have now seen the series.

Overall I enjoyed it, though I feel it doesn't really crack new ground as such (then again I've been watching too much supernatural which kind of runs a similar godly theme going on in the background). I saw hints of Terry in there with the story structure which was great to see. The only thing I think that I would say was a bit sad was that they included the swear language. I say that only because otherwise it was mostly quite tame and would have made an excellent PG rated show for most ages, though that's really a small nit pick since its unlikely to stop it getting quite major exposure over the years.

 

[REBerg]

1+ episodes in: Looks like the love child of Preacher and Lucifer. I am expecting great things.

 

[ctg]

I say that only because otherwise it was mostly quite tame and would have made an excellent PG rated show for most ages, though that's really a small nit pick since its unlikely to stop it getting quite major exposure over the years.

I thought it was pretty PG. In fact, I cannot get rid this thought that Paddington was a better story. It had more of story and it was just a movie. For some reason I felt that some of the story had been lost somewhere. It took me until the final episode for the unfortunate Witchfinder descendant to make any sense. Also most of the time I didn't feel pressure from either of celestial partners. They were all at the background, almost as invisible, unseen forces full of useful idiots.

I know Gaiman and Pratcett know how to write stories. It's just this adaptation didn't raise to the standard of previous Pratchett mini-series. The best time I had was at the end with the incorporeal angel and very cunning devil. But I don't know what they should have done to some of the middle episodes as the felt somewhat in need of oomph.

 

[Mr Orange]

I never read Good Omens , started watching because I thought this sounds like Douglas Adams.
Found the introduction very funny.
The story seemed Monty Python like, I was amused will have to see if I am pulled in. Thought this review , tho, sort of captured some of my reactions.

Spoiler: Good Omens

Amazon's Good Omens is exhaustingly arch and terribly twee

Lots of people are going to love Good Omens (Amazon Video, 31 May). Some will be fans of the 1990 novel by Neil Gaiman and the late Terry Pratchett on which it’s based (Gaiman has adapted, in six parts). Some will be those with major hots for David Tennant, who plays, in snake-eye contact lenses...

www.newstatesman.com

I would say, based on her comments, that reviewer is not the target audience for this series

I thought it was pretty PG. In fact, I cannot get rid this thought that Paddington was a better story. It had more of story and it was just a movie. For some reason I felt that some of the story had been lost somewhere. It took me until the final episode for the unfortunate Witchfinder descendant to make any sense. Also most of the time I didn't feel pressure from either of celestial partners. They were all at the background, almost as invisible, unseen forces full of useful idiots.

I know Gaiman and Pratcett know how to write stories. It's just this adaptation didn't raise to the standard of previous Pratchett mini-series. The best time I had was at the end with the incorporeal angel and very cunning devil. But I don't know what they should have done to some of the middle episodes as the felt somewhat in need of oomph.

have you read the book @ctg? the story is actually a very good combo of Pratchett and Gaiman. from the 2 episodes I have seen so far, its definitely the adaptation that is the problem. in fact, this has been put on the "I might watch the rest of the series when there is nothing else to stream" shelf, which is a shame. I did have high hopes.

 

[ctg]

have you read the book @ctg? the story is actually a very good combo of Pratchett and Gaiman. from the 2 episodes I have seen so far, its definitely the adaptation that is the problem. in fact, this has been put on the "I might watch the rest of the series when there is nothing else to stream" shelf, which is a shame. I did have high hopes.

I have read quarter of it. You know how it is with some of Terry's book. And I have also side-listened when Viv has been playing the audio-book in her kindle. But I have never concentrated fully to get through it.

Arstechnica gave the adaptation a glowing review. They loved it, but they also interviewed Gaiman and he said that he made a lean script. The journalist goes into the detail

Gaiman successfully fought to keep Agnes Nutter—author of The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch—in the series, despite the high cost of recreating a medieval English village in which to burn her at the stake. But true book fans will lament the absence of the four British bikers who run into the Four Horsemen (er, Bikers) of the Apocalypse—the original Hell's Angels—in a pub and decide to ride with them. In the book, War, Famine, Pollution (who took over when Pestilence retired, "muttering something about penicillin"), and Death are joined by Pigbog (aka Really Cool People), Greaser (aka Cruelty to Animals), Big Ted (aka Grievous Bodily Harm), and Skuzz (aka Embarrassing Personal Problems, before changing to Things Not Working Properly Even After You've Given Them a Good Thumping But Secretly No Alcohol Lager). It's already a sprawling cast of characters, so I get why Gaiman et al. chose to leave them out of the TV adaptation. But they are missed.

There are also a couple of notable additions. For instance, Gaiman's script fleshes out Aziraphale and Crowley's long history, as they meet up at various points through brief flashbacks: the Garden of Eden, of course, but also Noah's ark, ancient Rome, the 1970s, and Elizabethan England, where they watch a rehearsal of Hamlet at the Globe by a struggling William Shakespeare. (Tennant's various period-appropriate hairstyles are practically a special effect.) Most notably, there's an extra plot twist in the later episodes that's not in the book. It makes the pacing lag a bit toward the end. Ultimately, I think the twist works, but it might annoy hardcore purists.

Review: Amazon’s Good Omens is every bit as entertaining as the original novel

I was expecting to see some of those tiny sidestories about temptation and miracles to get into the story, to enrich it, but as far as I'm concerned the TV adaptation is the main story without the frilly bits.

 

[Dave]

I'll reserve judgement for now (watched first episode and same plot as The Omen (1976) film.)

It's like a Pratchett story, where people either love it or they'll hate it.

I feel that way about Pratchett too. Yes, a sacrilegious view to Pratchett fans, but I never find him quite "that" funny. Douglas Adams, I did like.

1+ episodes in: Looks like the love child of Preacher and Lucifer. I am expecting great things.

I haven't seen Lucifer but elements did remind me of Preacher, only that Preacher is much more outrageous and scurrilous.

Scenes were filmed in Crystal Palace park and in a cafe in Penge last year (local to me) so I knew this was coming soon. They've just been filming a new Marvel film in the park too. So, now you can often bump into celebrities here in the street.

 

[The Big Peat]

Enjoyed it without falling in love with it. I'm not sure it was the smartest choice ever for a TV adaption but I think they've jumped a lot of the hurdles well and casted very well.

I feel that way about Pratchett too. Yes, a sacrilegious view to Pratchett fans, but I never find him quite "that" funny. Douglas Adams, I did like.
I haven't seen Lucifer but elements did remind me of Preacher, only that Preacher is much more outrageous and scurrilous.

Scenes were filmed in Crystal Palace park and in a cafe in Penge last year (local to me) so I knew this was coming soon. They've just been filming a new Marvel film in the park too. So, now you can often bump into celebrities here in the street.

I never should have moved!

Also, tangent, but I found Pratchett at his best when he wasn't particularly trying to be funny.

 

[L.L.Lotte]

Well I finished watching this today, and I'd say I don't regret binge watching it. The show had some rough moments, but it grew on me, and by the end I was quite satisfied with it. It definitely got better as it went along, like as if it took several episodes for them all to get comfortable with the story and characters.

It wasn't funny enough to make me laugh, but I did find myself smiling more than a few times.

 

[Dave]

I have also watched it. It did get better as it went on. I admit it, I haven't read the book and I didn't find this the best thing to ever be shown on TV (though a recent poll apparently found it quite high.) It was amusing and interesting. I thought there was a great build up to the final episode, which then fell rather flat after they...

Spoiler: blank blank

defeated the three horsemen of the apocalypse and saved the Earth

...after which it seemed padded out and slow.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Never really enjoyed the book - felt like a lot of it was padded out and pointless.

Same for the TV series.

The music and production values were great, as were all the interactions between Crowwley and Azraphale. Everything else was too much and too fussy. And, omg, did they drag out that ending or what?!

So, some things to like, a lot not, and like the book it doesn't bring out the best of either Pratchett or Gaiman.

 

[Harpo]

I haven't seen it, but I have just laughed at this

Thousands petition Netflix to cancel Amazon Prime's Good Omens

US Christian group condemns Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett’s story as ‘making satanism appear normal’ – but petition wrong company

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dave]

Is that because no one reads the adverts on the sides of buses anymore?
(Am I allowed to say that?? Serious point though, that the huge Amazon Prime advertisements on buses were quite prominent - in London anyway.)

 

[L.L.Lotte]

Just the point on petitioning the wrong company. How could they possibly make that mistake?

Obviously whoever that group is, they don't actually watch streaming services, or know anything about them. Probably think everything streaming must be Netflix...


I guess next step will be The CW getting petitioned to cancel Supernatural, since it's doing the exact same plot... Oh wait...

 

[Dave]

I don't want this thread to turn political, or religious, but these kinds of campaigns are counter-productive anyway. It is simply free advertising for the product. People who had never heard of it, will now watch it just to see if it really warrants this kind of fuss or not. Did J K Rowling worry when they made bonfires of her Harry Potter books? Books that they presumably had to buy first before they could burn them!