"Good Omens" TV Series from Amazon & BBC

Watched two episodes and gave up. The direction and acting seemed poor to me and I found the writing trying far too hard to be clever. like a bunch of Oxford undergraduates trying to be clever. It seemed really cheap as well.

 

Just finished watching the sixth and final episode. I like both Michael Sheen and David Tennant. Nothing absolutely astounding but certainly enjoyable enough. Honestly, there have been no amazing productions of anything by Pratchett - his work just doesn't lend itself to television or movies.

 

Excellent series, very enjoyable - stay with it til end!

 

Watched the first 3 eps. last night thought it was very good. I’m in.

 

I don't use to like comedies but I really enjoyed this, I'd keep on watching if another season is done.

 

It didn't like this very much despite admiring Sheen and Tennant a lot as actors.

 

I'm a fan of the book and with these series they did a great job translating the baroque style and colorful characters to the screen. It wasn't perfect, the all-star cast made for an impressive list, but i think it wasn't necessary next to the two strong leads.

 

I find it funny that U.S. based Christian groups wrote to NETFLIX to,protest the series. Clearly intelligence has left the building.

They felt that it was an attempt to paint Satanism in a sympathetic light. Hogwash. Seems satire also eludes them.

While Good Omens was far from perfect, it was entertaining and well done.

 

Loved it.

 

Go ahead!
Protest NETFLIX!
'course the show was on Amazon Prime, but, go ahead.....

 

Yep so says the news report about Netflix (hence my capitalization of the name). I guess none of them have or watch Amazon Prime (or Netflix for that matter).

 

I could comment on this, but I won't. I'll just 'like' your post...

 

It's very BBC. Looks cheap, uninspired visuals, good acting.
The first two episodes are terrible. Endless voice over that's not as funny as it thinks it is.
It improves from episode three, but one thing remains true.
When Sheen and Tennant are onscreen, it's good to great.
When they're not, it's utterly dull.
None of the other characters are interesting at all.
The digressions (eg about how three babies get mixed up etc), are self indulgent and rubbish.
Just put Sheen and Tennant onscreen!
The story of their charcters' friendship through the ages is well done, but chooses the usual historical moments, that I felt I'd seen in every other immortals type thing. It's very Anne Rice.
I laughed at the Noah's Ark scene though. The only time the writing had the effect on me that it was aiming for. That scene was clever and witty.
The rest of was trying to be clever and witty. And often failing.
I've never read the book. Love the Sandman comics, don't like Gaiman's novels, not interested in Pratchett thus far.

 

You should try the novel, it's (I think) laugh-out-loud funny. I somehow got the impression they tried what had done before with the fine movie that was made of 'The Hitchhikers' Guide To The Galaxy"; trying to explain and link the happenings on screen in a light way....maybe it would have worked better without it?

 

It definitely would have worked better without it.
Something to do with Gaiman not wanting to cut any of Pratchett's words, apparently.
Makes sense. Probably needed an outside writer to come in and do a draft.

 

I really wanted to like this show, but 3 episodes in it just seems rambling and messy. The actors feel like they are straining.

There are better shows out in the streaming world now. "Dead to Me" was great. That final episode proves Christina Applegate's acting chops beyond all doubt.

 

I have to give the Amazon Prime Video adaption a rating of C, due to the last third of it being lousy.

The characters just drift in the end, which is a shame because some of them - certainly the good angel and the bad angel - were interesting until then. Structurally, the problem is that after the angels declared their affection for each other there was nothing more for them to do, no where to grow. So, the story tries to distract by focusing on the villain for awhile, but don’t you the viewer focus too hard or you may notice that the villain shifts from being bad to good for no apparent reason. It’s an awful ending to what started as a promising story.

I am no expert on Neil Gaiman, and it may not be fair to compare a novel written by two people (with all the dulling of the narrative that such collaborations can cause) to a novel written by one person, but, contrast Good Omens to Stardust (written by Gaiman in 1997). In Stardust, even after the adventure seems to be nearly complete, the main character still has something very important to do and say in order to complete his character’s growth. There’s no such moment for either of the angels in Good Omens. Though I suppose their final deception was supposed to show some new level of their characters’ growth (but it didn’t).

David Tenant was awesome, as I’d hoped. But when his character had nothing more to do than play second-fiddle to some kids there was nothing he could do to keep it interesting.

 

Good Omens was very weak with major story and character logic issues. It was very messy, large chunks didn't work, and you could see where they nicked every single idea from. It wasn't half as funny as it thought it was. A bit of a dud but watchable.

I really liked Dead to Me. It was borderline brilliant.

I plodded through 6 episodes of Good Omens over about 4 or 5 weeks while 10 episodes of Dead to Me I wolfed down in 2 days.

 

Loved it. About as good as we long-time supporters of the book could have hoped for. Didn't realise David Arnold was behind the music. This article's interesting.

https://inews.co.uk/news/good-omens...eaven-and-hell-with-a-little-help-from-queen/

 

It took me a while to warm up, I am often specifically of rompy dark humor literature missing something as it translates to TV or movies. I turned out liking it very well after the first couple episodes. But my favorite part was the song and art of the intro. What is that called, the intro to a series that plays at the start of each episode?

 

I enjoyed it. I like Neil Gaiman's way with words and plotting through character. I understand this is the fairly literal adaptation of Terry Pratchett's novel but I hear see Gaiman all through it.

 

I appreciate that and I don't know any of Pratchett's work. I'm not trying to be contrary or clever. If I hadn't known that it was a collaboration, based on what little I have read of Gaiman's, I would have said this is an adaptation of his own book. What themes / ideas from Pratchett show through?