#good omens criticism

[inthecarpets]

I'm not sure if i have anyone to ask so i got a question regarding Good Omens season 2 here

i'm asking pretty much:

Does the second season of Good Omens get better?

Like: i watched the first episode and felt disappointed given how well written and throughrough the first season was. And the second season in the very first episode felt as if it was lacking.

Dad, who i was watching it with, thought it wasn't good. And he's one of those people who can actually tell if a production is well done, bad or just mid. (and He thought the first season was good and enjoyed it even tho he dislikes when authors play around religions in fiction as he finds it mocking toward religions.)

Maybe it was a mistake to re/watch the first season hours before watching the second one, but honestly i'm unsure whether i should watch it further, i might simply skip it? In this case for me the fandom fun is not important, i just want it to be actually good and as thought through as the first season, and i fear it is not the case.

[nestofstraightlines]

I really ought to simply decide not watch more Good Omens since I don’t like it.

The problem is they keep (theoretically) addressing my most fundamental criticisms so I have to check out what GO looks like with those points addressed.

After series 1 I wrote this blog post getting into why I thought GO was pretty bad, and my criticisms mostly really fell under two broad umbrella criticisms.

By far the most important was that they had adapted this comedy text without any comedy people involved as jet creatives. Everything else I disliked is ultimately a matter of taste. But this is one area where I felt it was genuinely, if inadvertently, disrespectful to Terry Pratchett’s craft. It certainly left the show very patchy in the comedy front both in terms of simply being amusing and on the level of deeper structural stuff.

… And then for series 2 they brought in my favourite working comedy writer, John Finnemore.

Series 2 was still bad but the dialogue was tighter and if GO s2 can be a springboard for John Finnemore into a new level of in-demand-ness, choice and reward in what he works on, that alone earns out the questionable decision to make a S2 of this show.

The second broad criticism of mine after S1, not unrelated to the point about lacking comedy expertise at the top, was that the directing of the show was bad. Doug McKinnon consistently failed to use the visual language to convey anything narratively meaningful and often did quite the opposite. His bigger stylistic moments and more pronounced aesthetic choices weren’t used to do anything, they were thoughtlessly applied as if he fundamentally didn’t get that what you do with the look and framing of the show ought to be used to tell some kind of story. A tale that in theory plays on contrasts of tone and aesthetic, which really needs the inclusion of tte mundane and real as well as the fantastical fur the basic point, was flattened to the same pitch of oversaturated fairytale prettiness across the board.

(Also, and most unpopular of my opinions, is that I didn’t really like Tennant and Sheen’s performances. I treat that as a sub-point of the ‘bad direction’ criticism because I like each actor very much in other roles. My objection to their turns in GO, which I know people SUPER don’t agree with, is that they have no chemistry. To me it feels like people are mistaking two luvvies independently hamming it up near each other for chemistry with each other. Their performances are so mannered and big they don’t leave room for each other’s. And that’s, at least in large part, down to the directing; both in directing these actors on set and how his shot choices frame these interactions.)

…And I’ve just learned (the news is a couple of months old but I don’t keep up with GO news for obvious reasons) that McKinnon is off series 3. Might they now employ someone who knows how to film for comedy? Might the editing also improve under a new director? I’m bloody well going to have to watch S3 to find out aren’t I.

[san-sebastienne]

With truly all the love and empathy in my heart: crying daily over the sexual assault allegations against Gaiman isn’t healthy. I’ve seen multiple people –especially fans of GO – saying this since they came out, and it’s really fucking concerning me.

I wonder if it has to do with the insidious ideas that 1) people are either Bad or Good, 2) Bad people can only do Bad things, and 3) liking Bad things or Bad people makes you Bad.

None of these things are true.

People are mixed up and incredibly complicated. Someone can be an incredible artist/friend/chef/ally against racism/drag queen and still be predatory/homophobic/antisemitic/never tips their wait staff. People do things that harm others in big and small ways all the time. You do too. I promise.

(Also the idea of anyone, even people who do genuinely insurmountable harm, becoming somehow less than human is an inherently fascist ideology)

The fact that you (yes, you!!) do harmful things doesn’t immediately make you Bad. There are certainly things that someone might do that causes more harm (say, assault) versus less, but that doesn’t somehow infect all the things they’ve done in the past with their Badness. Gaiman helped write Good Omens. There’s no way now to say “I was wrong and this book was Bad all along” or even “oh, all the parts I like were written by Pratchett, the Bad parts must have been Gaiman.” You didn’t miss an inherent evil by liking the book in the past. It doesn’t make you Bad for liking it now.

(It also doesn’t mean that people associated with Gaiman, like David Tennant, are also Tainted by inherent Badness. Tennant isn’t, you aren’t. Saying otherwise is also a slippery slope argument into dehumanization and fascist ideas)

By all means: if it feels right, stop giving Gaiman your money. Stop tagging him in your Azi/Crowley fanart. But do this as a way to disentangle yourself from parasocial relationships that are actively causing you grief and to vote with your wallet, not because unlinking yourself from Bad Art and Bad People will somehow absolve you and make you Good again. If you already have a copy of Good Omens or Sandman, whether you reread it is between you and your gods. Interacting with a text you find important doesn’t make you Bad or Good. It’s just reading. What you do with the stories is what matters (ironically, that’s the message of a lot of both Gaiman and Pratchett’s work).

Maybe take a peek at Good Omens and re familiarize yourself with its other core message: People are not Bad or Good. People do bad and good things.

Then maybe drink a cup of tea. You need to rehydrate.

[alivedean]

[chaoticace22]

don’t worry guys i have eurovision covered in here

[embracing-the-ineffable]

Beware clickbait accusations

Hi fandom, here's what happened yesterday: A reporter named Rachel Johnson, who is the sister to Boris Johnson and a big terfy supporter of JK Rowling, released a 4-part true crime podcast featuring two women accusing Neil Gaiman of SA. Yesterday. The day before the UK elections. This post explores the possible political links in more detail.

CW: this post is free of graphic details, but if you follow these links, there may be explicit descriptions of sex, kink, and bdsm, plus mentions of mental illness and suicidal thoughts.

I want to believe and support survivors, and I also want to base my thoughts and actions on facts. I thought the xitter livestream commentary from Not Becky for all 4 episodes was very insightful. There's also a first episode transcript without extra commentary. (Edit: released after I wrote this post: the full audio plus transcripts for all four episodes of the podcast are now available to download here, or you can read all four transcripts in your browser.) I have since concluded (pending more time to think and read and learn, or any new information, of course):

This seems like the worst kind of clickbait, an unjustified mess that will hurt everyone involved (except possibly a few politicians who might benefit somehow, we'll see). The evidence the "reporters" present directly contradicts their accusations. They're counting on people reading headlines and not digging any deeper.

They tried to make something sinister where there was apparently consent and a caring relationship. Have they exploited one or both of these women? S, in particular, is described as vulnerable and with a history of unspecified mental illness. They have all of the message history between S and Neil, and her messages make the sexy stuff between the two of them sound enthusiastically consensual. There are even messages (multiple!) where she specifically says everything was consensual. Here's one:

They're playing horror music in the background to try to make us feel horrified, even as S reassures us that things were consensual. It's emotional manipulation by the reporters.

The times S sounds upset during the interview are the times she talks about Neil leaving her behind or not paying attention to her. Not the times she talks about consent violations. Her stories during the interview are inconsistent, and they contradict her messages with Neil and with others. Maybe we'll get better information from a more reputable news source, or maybe not, I don't know. I also don't know why anyone who cares about her would have advised her to do this interview.

Then they tracked down lots of other women who know/have dated Neil and they all had glowing things to say, except one other lover from 20 years ago, K. She described some bad sex, and then pointed to a time in their 2-year relationship when she felt something wasn't consensual and he thought it was. And after their breakup, they continued to text and flirt, for decades.

This podcast "exposé" feels like explosive clickbait with political ramifications. The evidence here doesn't support a pattern of poor conduct so much as establish Neil as a fellow well-meaning human with imperfect judgement. That doesn't mean the accusations are all made up; intimate partner violence is complicated, and the responsibility for checking in and getting regular enthusiastic consent from partners is very real, especially when kink or bdsm are involved.

I don't know what the right balance is here between supporting survivors, thinking critically, assuming good intentions, and waiting for better information, but I feel confident that this podcast alone is not enough to condemn anyone aside from the irresponsible journalists who inflicted it on the rest of us.

PS/edit: I'm tagging my relevant posts (mostly reblogs) with #ineffable grief, and you can see all of them here.

[guardianjameslight]

gO wOkE gO bRoKe, then explain success of these.

And there's more.

[puns-and-musicals]

I’m starting to wonder if straight people know what a “buddy comedy” is 🤔

[artemis-pendragon]

Canon gay confessions alignment chart

[420technoblazeit]

i KNOW the gomens tv show has a different version of crowley and aziraphale and it's not really fair to compare it to the book one-to-one but every time i see ineffable husbands referred to as a grumpy/sunshine ship with aziraphale being the sunshine i take at least ten points of psychic damage

[just-sauntered-vaguely-downwards]

My first ever illustration on an iPad. I think it may be finally done? I could literally keep adjusting things forever probably, but for now at least I’m saying it’s done.

This started because I was obsessed with this jacket @shoemakerobstetrician posted and kinda all went forward from there. Fighting my adhd urge to overshare about my dormant art background and all the details I went insane doing, but maybe I’ll do that in another post.

[the-muppet-joker]

As a Catholic, I am deeply upset by my Good Omens. The portrayal of heaven and God fills me with a fear that there may be flaws within the religion I was raised with, which is WRONG AND IMPOSSIBLE. The only solution is to Cancel Good Omens.

[alivedean]

#foreshadowing (insp) bonus:

[ourlordandsaviorgojira]

"Death of the author" is getting a lot of exercise right now but consider this. I don't believe consuming only morally pure media made by perfect people is possible, but the bulk of Neil's work and the way he marketed it was intended to give him the best access to his preferred kind of potential victims possible. If you liked his work and dreamed of meeting him, you were a potential victim. Food for thought.

[thighguys]

conspiracy theory that phil dyed his hair so that he and dan can cosplay good omens aziraphale and crowley for pride month

[castielsprostate]

ugh i love fictional middle aged men that are emotionally unavailable, have a functioning drinking problem, harbour evil inside of them and have a crush on their male best friend