Good Omens season 3 will continue the story of Aziraphale and Crowley, but with a new twist as the romance between them takes a backseat. Season 2 is set to premiere on Amazon Prime Video on July 28, 2023, and will feature David Tennant as Crowley and Michael. The show is based on Neil Gaiman’s 1990 novel, Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch.
The second season of Good Omens will be six episodes long, featuring David Tennant as Crowley and Michael. The show was renewed for a second season in 2021, and Gaiman revealed that he had hatched the idea for a sequel with Terry Pratchett before his death in 2015. The new episodes act as a bridge between the first season and the second season, as they are based on new material.
There is no book sequel to Good Omens, so what could happen in season 3 is anyone’s guess. The ending of season 2 goes beyond Neil Gaiman’s original source material, leaving fans to speculate about what could happen next. The Good Omens novel is original and excellently written, but there is no sequel novel to the book. The new episodes will serve as a bridge between the first season and the second season, as Neil Gaiman believes the new material will serve as a bridge to the original story.
📹 Good Omens 2 is a Masterful Sequel/Adaptation
✓ CONTACT ✓ E-mail: [email protected] Mail: Council of Geeks PO Box 4429 St. Johnsbury, VT 05819.
Will there be a Good Omens 2?
The second season of the television series Good Omens is currently available for streaming on Amazon Prime Video for a period of 30 days, free of charge. For further information on fantasy programming, please refer to our TV Guide and Streaming Guide. To gain further insight from the most prominent figures in the television industry, one may consider listening to The Radio Times Podcast. For further information regarding additional streaming options, please refer to our TV Guide and Streaming Guide.
Is there a sequel to the Good Omens book?
In a 2006 Q&A with Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett, they discussed the lack of a sequel to their 1990 classic “Good Omens”. They mentioned that they had tried various ideas but could not generate enthusiasm. Recently, they have been considering a sequel, but they have not yet decided. Amazon Prime Video recently released the second season of its TV adaptation of “Good Omens”, featuring Michael Sheen and David Tennant as the apocalypse-fighting best friends Aziraphale and Crowley.
The second season goes beyond the original source material, which was originally intended as a limited series. The show was renewed for a second season in 2021, and Gaiman revealed that he had conceived the idea for a sequel with Pratchett before his death in 2015.
Will Good Omens 2 become a book?
Despite occasional discussions, a sequel to Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett’s novel Good Omens has yet to be officially announced. Should a sequel be forthcoming, it would undoubtedly constitute a singular and engrossing read.
Why did they cancel Good Omens?
The production of the graveyard was temporarily halted by Disney due to a lack of complete viewing equivalents, although the rationale behind this decision remains opaque.
Did Crowley and Aziraphale kiss in the book?
The novel Good Omens explores the romantic undertones of the characters Crowley and Aziraphale, who are not sexually mature. Despite their close friendship, their relationship doesn’t develop beyond this close friendship. Neil Gaiman, the creator of the TV show, credits the extended plot lines for enhancing the love story aspect of the novel.
Season 3 of Good Omens will begin on a tumultuous note, with their relationship becoming more sour and complicated. Despite Aziraphale’s return from Heaven and apology to Crowley, there will be significant damage to repair and feelings to resolve. If the angel and demon remain separated, their solitude will be more challenging for each to deal with. Both characters will have personal soul-searching to overcome, as well as their new mission of stopping Judgment Day.
The kiss between Crowley and Aziraphale sets up more development for their character arcs in season 3, allowing the relationship to move in a different way and utilizing the chemistry Tennant and Sheen share on screen. This allows Good Omens season 3 to breathe new life into the show’s central dynamic.
Do Crowley and Aziraphale kiss in the book?
The novel Good Omens explores the romantic undertones of the characters Crowley and Aziraphale, who are not sexually mature. Despite their close friendship, their relationship doesn’t develop beyond this close friendship. Neil Gaiman, the creator of the TV show, credits the extended plot lines for enhancing the love story aspect of the novel.
Season 3 of Good Omens will begin on a tumultuous note, with their relationship becoming more sour and complicated. Despite Aziraphale’s return from Heaven and apology to Crowley, there will be significant damage to repair and feelings to resolve. If the angel and demon remain separated, their solitude will be more challenging for each to deal with. Both characters will have personal soul-searching to overcome, as well as their new mission of stopping Judgment Day.
The kiss between Crowley and Aziraphale sets up more development for their character arcs in season 3, allowing the relationship to move in a different way and utilizing the chemistry Tennant and Sheen share on screen. This allows Good Omens season 3 to breathe new life into the show’s central dynamic.
What is Crowley’s real name in Good Omens?
In the novel Good Omens, Anthony J. Crowley, originally named Crawly, is a character who changes his name after tempting Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Notwithstanding the fact that he employs a number of pseudonyms throughout the novel, he nevertheless persists in using the name by which he is known.
Who is the angel Aziraphale in the Bible?
In Good Omens, the angelic hierarchy is explained, with Aziraphale (Sheen) being a Principality in the lowest order. He is below Seraphim, Cherubim, Dominions, Virtues, and Powers. Principalities guide and protect living things, inspire art and science, and carry out orders from upper sphere angels. Aziraphale has a boss, the archangel Gabriel (played by Jon Hamm), who is the primary messenger of God and best known for the Annunciation. The Metatron, the Voice of God, is also present in the celestial hierarchy.
In James Bond’s Bond, Crowley (Tennant), drives a vintage black Bentley with unique idiosyncrasies, such as not needing gas, remaining scratch-free, and turning any CD left in it for over a fortnight into an album by Queen. The character’s narration is a representation of the voice of God.
Who was Crowley before he fell?
The Archangels in Good Omens, who reside in Heaven, are absent, leading to speculation that Crowley might be the fallen Archangel Raphael. The theory gains traction in the Good Omens season 2 premiere, where Crowley sets the universe in motion but never shares his name. This contrasts with an encounter in season 1 within the Garden of Eden, where Crowley openly introduces himself. Season 2 amplifies Crowley’s true identity through his collaboration with God, suggesting he has authority to influence divine plans.
Raphael is traditionally associated with fostering harmonious unions, love, and marriage, which is reflected in the narrative. Crowley tries to unite Nina and Maggie through an orchestrated natural phenomenon, and he gains access to Heaven’s interface, something only a higher-up member of Heaven can do. In season 3, further exploration may reveal more revelations about Crowley’s past, potentially confirming his identity as Raphael or an original fallen angel.
Why is Crowley a fallen angel?
Crowley is a fallen angel, as numerous other angels rebelled against Satan. This resulted in Satan’s descent into Hell and subsequent joining of the fallen angels as demons when Satan was cast down.
How many books are there in the Good Omens series?
Good Omens is the sole book in its series. Prior to his demise, Terry Pratchett had formulated plans and hypotheses regarding a prospective sequel, yet no further endeavors have been undertaken to pursue the project posthumously.
📹 HOW TO WRITE A SEQUEL | What Writers Can Learn from Good Omens S2
CHANNELS MENTIONED @Bookborn BOOK I’M SELLING https://pangobooks.com/bookstore/lieneslibrary WISH LIST …
I adored season 2- focusing on Aziraphale and Crowley was the smartest move they could have made because the writing potential of these characters is practically limitless. Aziraphale and Crowley have existed basically forever, so they get to be both the A plot (modern setting) and the B plot (historical minisodes), and because the flashbacks are afforded so much more time, we get an incredibly expanded view on how they bonded on their ‘adventures’, far beyond what the first season could provide. All the more ammo for Neil to shoot us with.
I worked as an SA on season 2. I can be seen clearly in Episode 1 on the street just after the matchbox is discovered. We made it under strict lockdown restrictions. We had to go off to testing centre twice before even being allowed at the Studios where we would be tested again. We were isolated in pods between takes. You will notice that most exteriors are socially distanced. The joke about a few demons being allocated to the book shop raid is a clever use of our social distancing rules. With all that in play it’s astonishing how well the final show played out. And the 11th Doctor is right. In real life David Tennant is super skinny and always stayed in character.
The funny thing is that a “make Maggie and Nina fall in love” trope is used exactly because it’s a bad trope. It had to be there! I mean technically it could have been something else as long as it was thematically the same. The original book ended with Adam scolding both Aziraphale and Crowley for meddling in people’s lives, and they both reflect on how wrong it is. It’s even acknowledged that “we were only doing our jobs” is not a proper excuse. This does not happen in the show but I believe it’s quite likely that it’s still meant to be the final message. People’s lives being made worse by supernatural intervention is a running theme this season, it’s Maggie and Nina in the main story but it’s also present in all three minisodes.
Season 2 was amazing, even if it ripped my heart out a little, too. The storytelling, acting, and cinematography were all absolutely superb, and it felt very true to Sir Pterry’s legacy. I was TERRIFIED when season 2 was announced, right up until I sat down with some friends to watch it. Season 2 had me at “Is something supposed to happen?” and we binge-watched the whole thing in one night. It’s possible I’ve since rewatched it another 3 or 4 times….🙈
One of the things people seem to forget is that Good Omens is a comedy. The tongue-in-cheek tone and the rather arch performances are a good indication of this. On top of that, the majority of the cast have experience in comic acting, most notably The League of Gentlemen performers Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton and Reece Sheersmith. Also, Miranda Richardson will forever be Queenie in 1980’s sitcom Blackadder II. While the themes are undoubtedly sincere in intent, it should be clear that Good Omens is a profoundly silly programme at its core.
As someone who loved the book I enjoyed Good Omens S1, but realized that I would only rewatch the parts I loved, which were all about Aziraphale and Crowley (including the S1 ep3 flashbacks that weren’t in the novel). Which is why I realize how S2 is so much better, infinitely rewatchable, because it focused on Crowley and Aziraphale’s relationship. David and Michael disappear into their roles, they really become so attuned to them. I also loved that Neil continued the moral debates from S1 ep3 and expanded them even further in S2, making us question the “ineffability” of sacred laws. I also was glad to move on from S1’s other characters, and certainly did not miss them AT ALL, not to mention their stories felt truly over and there was no need to know how they moved on from the NotApocalypse. You are absolutely RIGHT in that S2’s ending is so smart. Most of the fandom were confused/angry at first, but it made so much sense with all the episodes and the subtle ways in which they showed that Aziraphale is yes, in love with Crowley, but also unsettled with the status quo. Aziraphale and Crowley are the beating heart of Good Omens, David and Michael are superb, they are all we need, and an intimate story between the two before the “Second coming” is all we needed <3 Thank you so much for this lovely essay!!!
Came for the Good Omens but this is also such a correct take on Strangers Things as well. Gaiman was so very smart in recognizing the biggest strength of the original miniseries (Tennant and Sheen) and which characters stories were concluded. He was also willing to bring Aziraphale and Crowley in a new direction and let them progress and develop and make mistakes in Season 2. After I watched it I came to the conclusion that there really only was one way to have continued that story, and that was to take the romantic direction and Gaiman saw that and fully went for it. He knew that the characters had to have somewhere to go. This is something the Duffer brothers have continuously failed at doing on Stranger Things, which suffers from having a huge budget and a strong cast but completely sub par storytelling (honestly the most frustrating a show can be for me, I harp on it all the time). Meanwhile Good Omens essentially downsized and still slapped. That’s the value of good writing (PAY!!!! YOUR !!!! WRITERS!!!!!) Also it was very queer 😺👍
Miranda Richarson is just amazing! She’s a perfect foil for David Tennant. And Derek Jacobi! Ahhhh!!!! And do I sense a double agent in Heaven in Season 3??? I can’t wait! I love Neil Gaiman’s work, and I was really bummed when American Gods went sideways. It really had so much potential. At least we have Stardust and Sandman.
You are so right about Neil’s ability to adapt to different mediums. If you’ve not seen it and you get the chance the theatre adaptation of Ocean At The End Of The Lane shows how well his writing works in a different medium even when adapted by somebody else. I think he is one of those people who has always been part of the audience, seeing a piece of work from that perspective as much as from a writers one if that makes sense. He’s also of the nicest people around and develops strong bonds with so many people that he works with and that somehow filters into the productions, they always seem like people had fun making them.
Great to hear you speaking on pressure of bringing back the old characters. I heard so many people complain that Adam wasn’t around but why would he? They did not raise him like they did Warlock. He just met them once and they are strangers to him. Also, he is not an Antichrist anymore so he would be just taking up time without a reason. They could bring back Anthema or just something about prophecies in a 3rd season as it is the end of the world but I also doubt they will do that because like you said it would be going back to a closed off stories.
I don’t think I’ve actually heard anything along the lines of “Gaiman thought it was more of a Pratchett book”. Neil had the original idea, and Terry helped him continue it, and so they wrote the book together. They even made two covers, one with Terry’s name at the top, the other with Neils, so that it appeared in both their sections.
Totally agree about it working so well because it was a ‘smaller’ story that focused on A&C – I said something very similar when praising it to a friend. Also! Shout out for John Finnemore, who co-wrote on this series. He’s a comedy writer who’s written a lot of great stuff for radio (look up Cabin Pressure). Good to know that he can write for tv too 🙂
I love it. It’s a bridge work–which I enjoy, though many people get tetchy about the function of bridge works. By necessity they gather elements of the old work (Aziraphale and Crowley), restate and reformat existing themes In this case Gaiman continues to ask what it means for something to be “written,” whether supernatural creatures can be self-willed, what fate means, who actually runs Heaven and Hell, and what the point is–and, again, what the heck being written, being in the Book of Life, being a self-willed being, being good, evil, angelic, demonic, MEAN in both the big picture and the tiny personal portrait. That is the huge issue that not only connects GO 1 to GO 2, but the central topic that must be dealt with in GO 3 for Aziraphale and Crowley to be able to resolve their issues with Heaven, Hell, Earth, and each other. And Gaiman’s managed to use GO2 to reframe all of that and end with a heart-breaker ending that can only be fixed by taking on the question of “what is written.” We’re going from scripture and Armageddon and Agnes Nutter’s prophecies in GO 1, to the gazillion little references to scripture, books, first lines of books, quotes, literary tropes (falling in love in the rain under an awning or at a Regency ball while dancing a country line dance), Metatron, God’s voice, the questioning of God and of what is written, the formulaic approach both Heaven and Hell take to choice and action. Then he gives us a forever questioning Crowley, and a faithful Aziraphale who struggles in his life and his actions to integrate “what is written” with “what is RIGHT.
I didn’t really have the fears over this that you did once I knew Neil was doing the script again. That eased any concern I had but I didn’t expect to like it as much as the first. The cast was spot on, excellent and I love the angelic copper who was so adorable. My only real issue is that I missed having a song from the Chattering Nuns, which is understandable given their fate in season 1. Also, that ending and tease for season 3…..woh!!
Such a thoughtful, insightful review! I love how you explained how the minisodes, far from being filler or extraneous, carefully build and grow A & C’s characterizations in crucial ways toward making the ending scenario make sense! I don’t think A’s decision or reactions to C’s proposal need any kind of “theory” to explain them–the minisodes showed us A’s changing but still needy attitude toward heaven perfectly.
I shared your trepidation about a season two without source material. We all sadly remember the lesson of Game of Thrones after the show passed the books. It took me two watch throughs to really get Good Omens 2 because there wasn’t a strong, complex narrative unlike the first one; but I ended up loving it. I was also happy not to see a lot of the cast brought back because few of them worked for me. Really, just the citizens of heaven and hell were spot on. I thought Miranda Richardson was straight up miscast, and was glad to see her redeem herself in Shax, where her performance was absolutely perfect. And when Russell leaves, NEIL GAIMAN NEEDS TO SHOWRUN DOCTOR WHO. I think if Russell asked him, very persuasively in a few years, he would. I hope so, anyway.
Thank you for the article, Vera! And I love the Crawly Crowley’s cosplay! As Vera mentioned before, with most of the media being just franchises currently, the expectations of sequels usually demand to escalate even more the conflicts and stakes, and also bring back every character (functionally) non-dead, even as just cameos. It not only diminishes the original media work, as also could create extreme tonal shifts in the stories. Without mentioning how tiresome becomes keep hearing about certain franchises which refuse to die (as examples, looking at you, Fast and Furious, and Lord of the Rings), because… money, always because money. I am really glad that Good Omens was able to avoid that for the most part! Something also worthy of mention: other problem with the American Gods TV series was probably the change of showrunners between seasons, causing conflict between producers and actors, with the latter’s roles being recast, very reduced or straight cut down from the series. In retrospect, even more reasons for the current SAG-AFTRA/WGA’s strike.
1) Loved your discussion of the problem with keeping characters in the story because audience expects/demands it – it’s such a common problem and it’s made worse if the character in question is, on their own, a very good one. Pratchett himself discussed many times that writing Discworld books set in Ankh Morpork got difficult, because he struggled with keeping Vimes and the Watch from dominating it. I agree that not having many of the characters from S01 was a great choice – they are not needed in this story (but if rumours about the unwritten 2nd book are true, some of them could appear again in S03). 2) I also don’t like ‘let’s make them fall in love trope’, but here I think we were supposed not to like it (as evidenced by Nina’s words at the end). For me, this plot point together with the grave robbers flashback was supposed to highlight Aziraphale’s character flaws (and a bit of Crowley’s, but to a lesser extent) and his genuine beliefs, which ties to the choice he made at the end.
I loved Season 2’s smaller focus. It was nice to see a story where the stakes were deeply personal. I know there are far-reaching implications, but at first you can’t really see that. The season manages to be incredibly engaging, avoid queerbaiting (that ending!) and not feel like a bridge despite doing so much to lay groundwork for the next season. It was beautiful.
This series and sequel have so many levels, and i always find something new to understand. Major humor, major fun, lots of emktion, and mainly each character has its own agenda, in total contrast with the others. All secondary characters are whole, not skeched, and i absolutely love miranda richardson, always brilliant of course. Just thought of giving her a special mention, as i never see anyone really mentioning her. Cheerz!
I liked season 2 more than s1 precisely because it focused on the best parts of the story/universe : Aziraphale and Crowley’s relationship and just generally their characters, their interactions, their relationship with the world, with Heaven and Hell, told through this pretty contained plot(Gabriel’s amnesia, Nina and Maggie). I loved s1 and the original story, of course, it was great, but recently I rewatched s1 and s2 one after the other and it confirmed that I liked s2 better(btw, a good friend of mine who is a fan of GO and Neil’s other work also said the same thing and I got my mum into GO too and she also watched s1 and s2 one after the other and liked s2 more). I hope s3, despite clearly having some major plot with the Second Coming, will tell that story in a similar contained way that focuses on Aziraphale and Crowley and their relationship and doesn’t keep them apart and on bad terms for the entire season(their interactions while on good terms are the heart of the show and where both characters shine as well). And I think s2 was funnier and more bold about leaning into its best parts. Same for the acting, Sheen and Tennant are great in s1 but I think they’re both even better in s2. When you compare how they are in s1 vs s2, in s1 they almost seem a bit more restrained or something, it’s like both the writing and acting is turned up a notch, leaning into the characters’ quirks, flamboyance, it’s like they’re louder and prouder, more playful and that’s so much fun to watch!
Fantastic analysis that touched on many things I hadn’t thought about (as someone who has read the book only once and enjoyed both seasons of the show) and made me think about the way sequels work, and the things that bother me about them so often. One other thing Gaiman did for this sequel that I think helped with tying it into the canon of the book, is that he brought in John Finnemore as a co-writer, who is one of the funniest, cleverest comedy writers working at the moment, and who adds that sharp comedic edge that Gaiman’s writing lacks. Of course it isn’t exactly the same as Pratchett’s style of humour, but it complemented it really well, and his influence on S2 was noticeable. Btw, your Crowley impression at the beginning is terrifyingly accurate.
As always I really appreciated your thoughts- you have a far deeper background with the material than I do and I’m grateful for your expertise (I know that might not sit well with your imposter syndrome, but you are certainly more of an expert than I am). That said, I really loved this season too. I consumed it like another adventure for the characters I loved and really enjoyed seeing them in this set of scenarios. I really love Gaiman’s ability to present characters in a deeply compassionate human way. Bringing that to his “godly” creations has moved me and given me more compassion for myself somehow. I watched this article in a moment where I needed to be reminded of that feeling and of the people like you out in the world who put so much effort into sharing that with the rest of us. So, I guess what I’m saying, though not as well as I would like, is thank you for this and all you do!
Season 2 is amazing 😍 it’s in perfect Pratchett tone, you can feel the deep respect that Gaiman has for his departed friend’s imaginarium. Thank you Vera for bringing together all screen adaptations by Gaiman here, as doing so does reveal the kind of storyteller he is: one excellent craftperson who will honour the story in all its quirks and nuances, and see it through without pandering to metrics or critics gossip.
Finally got to binge-watch this last night and now I can watch the reviews I’ve been avoiding. 😂 – John Hamm will always be Don Draper to me, so seeing him clearly having a ball playing an amnesia-ridden half-wit was fun. – Aziraphale was not in heaven for his ‘sentencing’, so missed that terrible cruelty meant for him (I LOVED that moment when Crowley confronted Gabriel). He hasn’t had his ‘rock bottom moment’ in heaven yet. I’m sure it will come in season 3. – I like the brevity of a six episode season. It cuts out any filler plot lines and padding. Should be noted that if this continues to season 3, we’ll have 6…6…6… My personal highlights: – The very first scene. Epic in scale. – Tearing into the Book of Job. Oh, this bible story had it coming, and this evisceration did not disappoint! – The amazing chemistry between Tennant and Sheen shines through. Their genuine friendship is on full display in every scene. – Crowley dragging his terrified houseplants around with him everywhere he went. I had no idea this season was a bridge, but it makes so much more sense now. Love your website and all your knowledge!
I liked the flashbacks. Building the lead characters and establishing their relationship worked really well this season. But the story set in the present felt weak. You said it was lower stakes, I just felt it was under cooked. Maybe I was more into the apocalyptic plot of season one, and by comparison this just felt less necessary. Though I did feel the final cliffhanger was worth the wait. I’m on the fence as to whether the third tv season is necessary, but Gaiman has promised he will write the novel it would be based on, should Amazon pull the plug on making more. So at least the story will exist.
I’m glad that season 2 seems so have pleased a lot of fans. But I just couldn’t get into it as much as season 1. I agree with all your points, Neil made a lot of smart decisions with this season. But at the same time, there’s a lot that throws it off. I think the mini-episodes kill the pace of the season and could have been shorter or cut. Honestly, this season feels like it’s being spread real thin to make it to six episodes. Maybe I’ll change my mind after a rewatch or when season 3 comes out.
Good omens season 2 is so good i havent been obsessed with something like this since i was a teenager! They make me feel giddy and complicated and yearn. God it was so fucking nice to see people like me on screen, just living their lives and being complicated and wrong and in love and I know that at the end of it all, theyll be happy. Its a tragedy until it won’t be. All the pain will be worth it!!!! Itll make the ending THAT much sweeter. All I wish thatll explicitly happen is for them to dance together in the rain, to kinda bring their first blossom of love full circle. I think Id simply perish
i think the romance trope cliches are done quite well, because they’re used as a commentary on a couple of things: how little our ineffable goobers understand about this foreign concept of romantic love that they’ve been told can’t exist for them for 6000+ years; how badly romance fiction tropes actually translate to reality instead of two people just talking to each other honestly; what each of our ineffable goobers thinks about or wants out of their own romance Because, lets be real, Aziraphale was TRYING to get kissed and swept off his feet at that ball, and Crowley, whose first experience of kindness on earth was being sheltered from the first rain definitely thinks sheltering from the rain is how you fall in love – they were both projecting so hard while they were banging their dolls together. In addition to all the matchmaking-via-trope attempts failing catastrophically, Crowley’s own One Good Kiss gambit crashed and burned. Because that’s not how you do relationship building! You do it by caring about each other and talking to each other and (this part is important and what they missed here) LISTENING to each other. So, while many of the romance elements are extremely tropey, they are also direct indictments and subversions of each of those tropes. This season is Act 2 of a three act story, and primarily serves to both give us a window on our characters and how the previous arc changed things and to set us up for Act 3. The sequel Neil and Terry created for the book started at a different place than the previous season left off, so the primary goal of this arc is to get them to where they need to be.
I watched it then rewatched with my tween. Considering the Jane Austen influence was a great lens to rewatch both. I love a good Jane Austen novel or adaptation and the formalities of identity and rules of what can or can’t be said. I had seen reviews and reactions of the first season and felt for LGBTQ+ fans were still nervous because the love hadn’t been spelled out on screen. My bi tween knew they were in love the whole time and I hope creators in the future have more freedom in the future for nuanced will they won’t they stories and other variety of queer romance without fair or queer baiting.
On the topic of excellent Neil Gaiman adaptations, I cannot rave enough about the stage adaptation of The Ocean at the End of the Lane. Don’t know if it ever left the UK, but it’s a poignant, if harrowing, take on childhood and family dynamics, and the whole thing was a visual spectacle. Well worth checking out.
Aziraphale has religious trauma. 😭It was brave to drop a lot of the characters from season one and it works really well. Terry and Neil planned a sequel to Good Omens which will be season 3, Neil wrote season 2 as a “filler” to get Azi and Crowley in the right place for season 3, the sequel that he and Terry planned.
Really enjoyed Good Omens 2! The focus on Aziraphale and Crowley was definitely the best direction to go in. The only episode I didn’t enjoy as much was the Nazi zombie one felt like I didn’t quite get it but wonder if it’ll set up something further down the line. Really really hope we get the third season!
In hindsight, it makes sense that it was a kind of a bridge. I liked a lot of the episodic arcs, especially the one on the story of Job, but the main story with Gabriel just seemed to be meandering forever and the resolution to that felt far too anticlimactic (also, Heaven and Hell now feel really.. small). So the real ending – Aziraphale’s promotion – being setup for the real sequel makes sense.
It’s always so baffling to me when people just write the second season off as fan service. Because… really? Really. The show about escaping over bearing religious authority figures… little by little coveting aspects of your unacceptable identity in the safety of un-monitored spaces… secretly maintaining relations they don’t approve of… being happiest with someone you’ve been indoctrinated to hate the nature of… fearing for that person’s life for the sole reason that they associate with you in a particular way… going out in public openly together after elaborately breaking away from those abusive organizations… would in absolutely NOOOOO way organically go in this direction?
One thing that bothered me slightly was the miracle blocker. It does seem like something Hell would come up with, but it seemed too easy to get. If the show had specified there was only one of them and there was a long waiting list, or the miracle blocker cost a year’s pay or something, it would have gone down better with me.
I thought Good Omens season 2 was great. I ended up perusal it twice because it really is just that kind of story. Imo it’s better once you already know what to expect and can pay attention to all the foreshadowing and little details. The first time I watched it, I enjoyed it a lot but remember wondering around episode 4 when it was going to get to the point. It was so satisfying when everything clicked right into place at the end though. All I can say otherwise is that I’ll be heartbroken if we don’t get a season 3 after the strikes are resolved. Those last few minutes destroyed me and they can’t leave it like that, lol.
I liked it a lot. There were a few places where the story felt a little too silly-brutal (the zombies bugged me, for example) but the story always swayed back to its center – the demon and angel in love, where – weirdly – only the demon knows it. The premise fits the character dev like a glove, and the ending (sadly) fits the dev. I really hope we get that ‘bones’ third season. I agree about American Gods and I wish the show had leaned into character dev. Gah.
I loved the series – it’s not perfect & there were some choices that I found irritating, although I understand why they were made. The story was also pretty choppy in places too but given it’s a bridge towards series 3 I can forgive pretty much anything. I also worked out the final episode bar one little thing which made me feel a right Inspector Constable 😉 Gaiman has managed to give us two series that has kept as true to the spirit of the source material as possible. That’s a real rarity these days.
Nah, I couldn’t see any sweat at all! 🙂 As much as loved what Neil did with Crowley and Aziraphale’s relationship (yes, I’m a shipper, don’t @ me because I use flames to toast marshmallows!) what I really loved the most was all the little easter eggs that popped up through the episodes. Some of them had me laughing, others had me crying, but it was just so wonderful that Sir Pterry wasn’t forgotten or left out even though this series was all Gaiman’s work. I do hope the writers and actors get what they want and that we get a series three but, even if we don’t, I’m so glad we got this one.
If I I’m going to be honest, I didn’t really take to Season 2 quite as well as the first. I think it was mostly the plot, I just didn’t find it as engaging as the first. It just felt like very little actually happened. Sheen and Tennant are great, as was Jon Hamm but everything else about it just felt very meh. Particularly as so much of the plot revolves around trying to get two humans together just to cover up Aziraphale’s use of a miracle. Which I just kinda found boring. Maybe it’s just a weird sort of whiplash I got when the first season was building up to the Armeggedon and this one was building to… well there wasn’t really a ticking clock to anything on this one.
I think the Gabriel storyline should have been more prominent, but their miracle working so well removed the tension from that plot immediately. Also, even though a couple lines of dialogue from Maggie and/or Nina did have an impact on Crowley, their storyline should have been smaller. Even with these complaints I did enjoy the season because I just enjoy the two main characters together and I understand Covid restrictions restricted, well, everything.
I watched the first season when it came out and while it was good, I wasn’t crazy about it. Mostly because of all the subplots with the kids and the witches. But I absolutely adored season 2! I love it more than the first which I rewatched after the sequel because I didn’t get the “nightingale” reference. Oops.
Couldn’t agree more with your assessment! So glad you did this, makes me realize it’s time for a rewatch sooner than I’d originally planned. Also, this made me think of another stellar follow-up book written long after the death of the author of the original, though a little different from the works discussed here: the novel Jacob T. Marley by R. William Bennett. It’s a…I guess I’d call it companion to A Christmas Carol; it has elements of prequel, sequel and parallel storylines, telling both the story of the titular character and including intersections with the beloved classic. It’s masterfully done, and feels really authentic to Dickens’ voice—it’s easy to imagine him creating this story. It’s become one of my favorites, and now my yearly tradition (as someone who doesn’t celebrate Christmas, but nevertheless loves Dickens’ story!) of listening to the audiobook of A Christmas Carol read by Tim Curry (and omg, that is a magnificent experience I heartily recommend to all!) includes Bennett’s book in audio afterwards.
I appreciate, among other things, that they went smaller in terms of scale. What often makes the series lose its appeal over the years (and this applies to franchises also) is that they feel they need to go GRANDER every time. And at some point there’s nowhere to go. This is where usually multiverses come in (which I hate most of the time) and everything becomes very contrived. What can be done is to go DEEPER not grander. This can also turn out badly (that’s why they should know where to stop also), but there’s more potential with going deeper, with focusing on one particular aspect. And here yes, it was a no-brainer that they needed to focus on Aziraphale and Crowley, they had incredible actors playing them that can pull off pretty much anything, but they still needed a good story to play, and it was always going to be the trickiest part. And I loved the result!
Neil Gaiman is generally a lot better at script writing imo. I never really loved his novel writing, however anything script-related seems to bring out the best in his skills and you can see how much better it generally gets. That’s why I love his comics and shows much better than his novels. Like they’re still good but it’s not the same level of mastery. As for s2 I loved it though it did make me realize that the Pratchett style really is what I loved the most (though, tbf Terry Pratchett is my fave author so it’s no fault of Gaiman, just my own preference) because it was missing TP’s humor and anger. Gaiman also explained once that TP always worked through the main story before writing its starting point (so he’d know where he wanted to go) and s2 is very much this beginning that TP never got to get into.
I’m gonna start very briefly with my general feelings about Good Omens 2, then address what’s actually said in the article (basically, the next paragraph will be before perusal, then after/while perusal): I had mixed feelings about GO2. It didn’t seem to have quite the same Pratchett-style wit of the first season (or book), which is a fear I’d had as we moved off book, but it wasn’t disastrously so, just…a bit off at times. The flashbacks included in the season were mostly a boon except for the zombie bit, which felt ridiculously pointless and – if anything – seemed to push Crowley and Aziraphale’s development in a weird direction, as the first Good Omens seemed to suggest they had a semi-detached closeness that was fully bridged amid the events of Good Omens, whereas the bit I point to here suggests they had infrequent moments of “shenanigans”, which doesn’t seem to align. The others seemed to fit in, showing how the two weren’t exactly “friends” but “friendly” and played off each other to an extent, testing the others philosophical underpinnings in a way that really worked in the “current” storyline (the Job flashbacks in particular really worked for me). The overall plotline seemed a bit too muddled until the end, but worked well enough in the wrap-up that I’m willing to overlook/forgive it. Jon Hamm remains a delight in random comedic roles, but David Tennant seemed to turn up his performance for this season (so much nuance) and Michael Sheen is still solid as Aziraphale.
I hope Aziraphale finds out the circumstances of Crowley’s fall from Heaven-it could really change their relationship if Aziraphale finds out Crowley didn’t deserve to be kicked out of Heaven. Also, I think Aziraphale needs to initiate some action toward Crowley next season -saving him from Heaven or kissing him at least.
Neil Gaiman did write for tv before, all the way back in the mid-90’s with Neverwhere. The novel is an adaptation of the tv series, which really should have been better – stellar cast with the likes of Paterson Joseph and Peter Capaldi, but it seems to have been done on a tight budget and I remember Neil talking about not being happy with how it turned out and also about the horrible movie pitches he was getting for Sandman and Good Omens (this would have been in 1997, and he and Terry had flown out to Hollywood to meet some people who had absolutely no idea how to work with the source material respectfully). I wonder if that put Neil off tv work for a long time. I wouldn’t be surprised, the 90’s were a bad time for sf/f media.
I preferred this season, I’ll admit I was surprised by the lack of characters from the first season especially perusal them back to back. It felt unnatural to not include previous characters but it was the right decision. I also like the story not being about saving the world I find that a bit overdone and the stakes are so high you know they have to succeed.
That Crowley cosplay is so awesome. 😎 I’m curious, is there anything in particular that you didn’t like? When it comes to my own thoughts/feelings, I’m kind of in the middle of the whole ‘it’s brilliant!’ vs ‘it’s utter trash!’ fan-war that seems to be going on. There’s loads about it that I love (the flashback with Job, Eric the Disposable Demon returning again, the off-the-wall dance party, among others), but a lot that I don’t. Episode 3 and 4 were the lowest of the low points for me, to the point where I almost gave up completely (and then spoiled the last two episodes on purpose and then regretted it instantaneously, and yeah, it was a mess). I think there’s three major factors at play: 1) The lack of PTerry is an unchangeable, yet noticeable thing. 2) The pandemic more than likely made filming incredibly difficult, and the episodes were also shortened from 60 min. to 45 min. 3) Bringing in another writer who’d never worked on Good Omens before might’ve been a mistake. Also, a minor thing, but David Tennant randomly websiteling Bill Nighy was so immersion-breaking and jarring and annoying.
I liked season two better than season one. I honestly never liked the Adam stuff even in the books and I absolutely hated the witchfinders. Getting a season without them and with more focus on the characters I liked made it much better. Still not a perfect story for me. I think the Gabriel and Belsebub stuff felt ruched for example and the zombie storie draged a bit but I still liked it alot.
I enjoyed S2 quite a bit, but I must admit I was a little on the fence about the reveal of the two romances at the end of the series. I used to be a love story junkie until I started perusal your content and gained some perspective on the way they’re often simply low-hanging fruit that’s poorly executed, and often an inappropriate addition to a story in an attempt to have broader appeal. The one with John Hamm I felt like was a bit closer to that low-hanging fruit but I felt like it worked well somehow. The one with Tennant…. It’s interesting. I feel like they put in much more work but in my (still fluid) opinion, it felt a bit more like pandering. I think that has less to do with the show actually pandering, and more to do with the way that TV and cinema have conditioned me to read “bromances” and “buddy cop scenarios.” I found the characters of Crowley and Aziraphale to be an S-tier bromance. Better than DS9 Bashir & Obrain, BMW Cory & Shawn, Teen Wolf’s Scott & Stiles, Psych’s Shawn & Gus…. Maybe even better than Scrubs’ JD & Turk. I’m so used to seeing male hetero characters gay-coded in this specific way, that I perceived the big reveal of the season finale as a better execution of the pandering we saw between Dean and Cass at the end of Supernatural. To be clear, I feel like GO did the work for this, but the state of coded representation across the last two decades of popular media has influenced the way I approach these types of story lines and perhaps I’m in the minority here but I was caught off guard. I was really interested in your take on this series that concluded with not 1, not 2, but 3 romantic focuses in a show that had until now not really included any. It was a bit of a surprise to see that you loved the series while having somewhat little to say about them. I think it would be a fun and interesting article to focus on what the show did right to make this work for you and a lot of other people, what you feel like maybe didn’t work so well, and yeah…. how the proliferation of gay-coded bromances may have influenced our expectations of same-sex relationships. At the end of the day, I enjoyed both S1 & S2, and I love your content. Wish I could still be a Patron but dollars are tight rn, I hope you understand. Thank you for the article and thank you for teaching me to look at media with more of a critical eye. <3 Run Fast. Laugh hard. Be Kind <3 <3 <3
So I actually didn’t like this season exactly for the reasons you liked it. Nothing happened. It was entirely setup with a subplot. It was essentially an exposition for whatever season 3 may be. I love the characters and the acting. Please understand- they were great. And I loved the flashbacks especially. But my favorite aspects of Good Omens are the Pratchett elements, and whole I did notice jokes I’m sure we’re pulled from their notes, but overall it was too cohesive and directed for me in that way. That said, I also love that so many other people love it because I desperately want a season 3. I want that other story with more Pratchetty elements, and if this is what it takes to get there, great! This season isn’t for me, but I still wholeheartedly support it.
I’m in the minority, but I HATED GOS2. There were some sincerely terrible points in the writing that broke the world as it existed in season one. Which, not everyone cares about, but in particular the miracle blocker absolutely sent me. The minute that’s introduced all of heaven and hell’s reactions to Aziraphale and Crowley defecting make no sense at all. If you can block miracles, why not just send people to do that constantly? Make them helpless? (That’s the biggest world breaking issue but, there were a lot more of writing 101 issues that wouldn’t get past an undergrad professor.) Still, glad others liked it!
I don’t think the second season feels at all related to the book. But it was a fine sequel to the first season. I hated the running bit of people not buying records. Also why do David Tennant and Michael Sheen as people have more chemistry than Crowley and Aziraphale when they kissed. It’s wild to me
This is really intresting, because… i didn’t like it! The strongest points were, of course, david and Michael just doing what they do best but… even then at some points i was visibly cringing at the directing and script. I had to stop half way through the series (the zombie episode) because it was so god awful, it was becoming a chore to sit through it. Even the cinematography was amature in many places, and the costumes…. well, costumy; especially in hell, and that goes for the cgi too. I loved the first few intro scenes with the two of them. All the little references and jokes along with that playful nature was just stellar but… wow… along with most serialised things I’ve tried to watch recently, the general quality is low? Im starting to feel like I’m perusal products churned out from one big factory – each one with similar faults and cut corners, feel the same about Asokha, and yet… all the positive reviews? I’m happy with all types of valid reviews, there just doesn’t seem to be enough deep and valid critisism. I may be wrong 🙂 it just seems like that to me.
I liked s2 (outside of the kinda icky ‘make them fall in love’ and really toxic existing relationship bits – it’s referenced in this and I’ve kept it general, that shouldn’t be too spoilerish). I had two things which bugged me (possibly vague spoilers). Crowley came off at times as a bit of the over exaggerated stereotype fem gay man, only a few places, but it was grating to see. Maybe it’s just my impression, again, it bugged me when it happened. I wouldn’t call it a jump the shark moment, but I also struggled with what seemed like an OOC ending, that may be on me for not seeing it as growth, I’ll have to think on that. Oh and that one scene being done while Crowley still had his glasses on, like ouch. I wear glasses, I winced there admittedly
I just was so disappointed by the human characters. They weren’t the best in the first season either, but they had things to do that affected the plot . Crowley and Aziraphale find common ground in their love for the world and humanity. They would just fuck off to space like GabBeez if they didn’t. But there’s no real contenders for human point-of-view characters. Maggie and Nina didn’t have much room for dimensions. And out of all the human characters to bring back from season 1, they bring back the Nazi spies in an entirely past set episode?? It’s weirdly paced .
As a fangirly who has spent a shameful amount of the last month on tumblr I am shook by the total lack of the mention of the last scene (not going to name it in case you were specifically not trying to spoil it)! (this is not at all a criticism, loved the article and I know it‘s not something you generally care about, although I would love to hear your thoughts regarding representation and how it relates to it being adapted from the original source material!)
Thank you! That is some good food for thought. I think I am an outlier, as I did not care for S2 as much as others. At times I was bored and didn’t think thee characters, particularly Crowley, had the sparkle and edge that were so outstanding in S1. I adored S1, and it could’ve stopped there for me. I will watch S3, as I think that could contain the elements that made S1 so good for me and perhaps less of the ones that didn’t work as well.
I agree with what you said about season 2 being an intimate time with the characters. I think the problem I had was expectations. I kept waiting for the mystery of Gabriel to be revealed as some big, earth shattering thing that would be revealed part way through the season. It took away my enjoyment of the intimate moments because I was too focused on the mystery, and then those expectations that I had built up were not met. That’s not the fault of the show (though it might be the fault of the trailer).
Yes yes yes to all of this! I only just watched S1 because I saw the trailer for S2 and that really piqued my interest. And funnily enough, I am now enjoying S2 MUCH more than the original season, because I wasn’t really too keen on the whole apocolypse plot and all the scenes with the kids in the first season. The dynamic between Aziraphale and Crowley SHINES in the second season and I am honestly living my best life. What an utter delight 🤩
You make some really excellent points. As a Marvel fan I will say the some of the biggest issues facing the franchise right now is 1. They are focused on big team up’s and crossovers that make it impossible to be a casual viewer (example: you can’t watch Dr Strange and the Multiverse of Madness without perusal WandaVision) and 2. I honestly think big team ups are planned without a cohesive storyline being planned more than one project ahead of time so that you get a very cobbled together plot line that has plot holes and outright contradictions just to make things work. All of which can be applied to many long running franchises (both movies and shows).
Very much liked the first season but I watched the first two episodes of season 2 and I really don’t like it this far. It’s first episode hit me over the head with a multitude of premises and involved characters without leaving time and opportunity for me to care about any of them. The second episode was just a high school play trying to replicate Monty Python sketches.
I really like that you point out they made a sequel to the show and not the book, because Neil has mentioned that we NEEDED s2 to get to the plot of s3, which was going to be a sequel of the book. So, I think he took into consideration the changes made for the show, tried to aling both stories w s2, so that s3 can be as faithful to the book as it’ll be to the show. I am more character based and i LOVED this season more than the first one, because we just get quiet moments w beautiful people!
Just today I read that season 3 is planned to use what Gaiman and Pratchett had for a sequel. Gaiman said there is a beginning and an end set, with a plotted story in between. He also said, that he would write it as a novel, if season 3 were not to happen. With the strikes ongoing, nothing can be done and who knows what happens after that. So he seems very committed to get the story out. It will be interesting to see. I enjoyed Season 2, which he calls a bridge between the books. And I think you were spot on. It was just .. so nice and charming to be with these characters again. No apocalypse needed.
Hi Liene! Loved season 2, though I loved season 1 more. The only downside is that is seemed less polished – which makes sense, given that season 1 was a book first and then reworked very carefully for the different medium and changed times. Much more time to polish it. But the characters, relationships and acting were all amazing and captivating. You are very right, season 2 made sense in the context of season 1, NOT of the book. And that makes it great – leaning into the strengths and the distinctive features of the show. Very much hoping it gets renewed for season 3 🙂
Good Omens is knit into the threads of my family culture at this point…. We’ve all read it at least once, we watch season 1 a few times a year. There are t shirts and swag. So…. we were SOOOOO excited and nervous for season 2. And it actually delivered!!! The first few episodes were just what you said… scaled back and intimate character growth time. I didn’t care for episode 4, it felt like a filler before launching to the end sequence. But as character driven readers/watchers, my teens were broken by the finish. So many feels. But my reaction was — omg that had perfect 2nd book energy!!! And I’m a second book girl, so that’s a compliment. 😂 Thanks for sticking whatever comes before a landing, Gaiman and crew.❤ I’m still confused about the recycled actors though….
I agree with you in theory but it definitely didn’t translate in Good Omens season 2. The two actors have great chemistry and are brilliant in their roles and they carried the season but there was nothing else to it. It didn’t really have a story. I agree it didn’t need to be apocalypse level adventures but there had to be something. There was no throughline at all. It lacked the wittiness and charm of the first season/book. I was greatly disappointed.
I loved good omen 1, and you pointed out pretty much what was great in it : the actors are phenomenal and they have great chemistry. And season two captured that rather well. But I have two issues with s2, one minor and one major. The minor 1 is about plot execution. Spoiler alert for end of s2 The whole setting for the poot is some kind of big mystery surrounding Michael. They try to make it sound really ominous, and they kind of manage to sell some kind of big apocalypse 2.0 is about to happen. And then the mystery is mai tained pretty much throughout all of s2, no particular progress being made, until they rush to try to resolve it all in the final episode, mainly through flashbacks. Rather than dropping hints that could actually help us buy the “big reveal” as the episodes go on, they have to drop it all off in one go, and that make it feel forced and awkward. And the “big reveal” is rather underwhelming given the set up. Then there is my bigger gripe : depictions of platonic deep wholesome friendships are rare, and when it comes to friendships between male characters, they are even more exceptional. These people rely on each other, confide in each other, trust each other and have gone through thick and thin together. Why oh why, for fuck sake, did they have to make that into a repressed romance? No! Those two worked great as friends.but given the ending of S2, now all of crowley’s action get to be reinterpreted as unrequited love, and suddenly that whole relationship stinks.
Having just watched season 2 a couple days ago I can say that I wasn’t impressed. It was 6 hrs. of a mystery box and two taboo love plots that added little to nothing to the first season and the final episode of the season is where it should have started. Which just felt cheap to try and build hype for season 3. The entire season I was wondering what it was leading to, what was going to be the payoff… and there wasn’t one. That’s is fine if you want to watch a handful of likeable characters stumbling about trying to figure out the mystery box, but it was freaking boring. Season 2 is lacking in pretty much everything season 1 had, save for the cast which are still on their A game. The overall main cast is much smaller and the side characters aren’t nearly as interesting or memorable. The writing isn’t nearly as tight and sometimes had me cringing one or two times. The stakes are non-existent. Even the theological ideas that were interwoven into the first to play with certain ideas were just slapped in here and there. And even God in the first season was more present as an omniscient narrator but only has two appearances in season two and could have been cut out completely. It just felt pointless and not nearly as engaging, immersive, funny, or even entertaining. The one thing I really did like is the debate in 18th Century England about the morality of doing wrong for the greater good vs the right thing for the wrong reasons, that was interesting and what I really liked about season 1.
I’d disagree about ever having watched Doctor Who (solely) for the interplay between the Doctor and the Companion/s. I know you would probably not state it like this on purpose, and it only came off this way in the article because you were going off the top of your head a bit there, but let me argue this for a sec regardless: If that were the case, episodes where one, the other, or both, were not present, would be missing something, which they do not seem to. The Tennant era especially had notable episodes where he was doing stuff without Companions (The Girl in the Fireplace; Midnight, and many more), where the Doctor was not himself for most of it, and the Companion had to deal with what was going on (The Family of Blood), or where both were absent (Blink). I am not trying to say that all of the episodes the interplay between Doctor and Companions does not play a role are great, but the ones I have listed certainly are. Some of the best of the Tennant era, I would argue. Even The Waters of Mars, though mediocre, was great in the ending. I would argue what made Doctor Who appealing was what, in part, made Rick and Morty appealing. It was an at times flippant, at times completely serious, episodic play on Science Fiction. For example: Nine times out of ten, the Doctor can explain everything going on as a scientific phenomenon, from witches to vampires, top flesh-eating shadows, and things are fun and exciting and sometimes make you think. And the tenth time he meets Satan, locked away next to a black hole, and it shakes his worldview, and he leaves the episode with more questions than answers, a wiser man, but completely traumatized.
I’m not really clear on why anyone should take writing advice from you. You don’t list any writing credentials, and you spend more than half of your article marveling over and explaining how a series could “go beyond” its source material, which thousands of shows have done since film and tv adaptations have been around. It’s not a novel or complicated concept. Then you spend about 5 minutes explaining how the writers of multi-billion dollar movies that have been amongst the most popular of all time “don’t seem to understand” how to write characterization. You spend less than two minutes actually talking about the contents of GO S2 itself, which was the ostensible subject of your article.