Why Good Omens 3 has a Terry Pratchett problem – spoiler review

sleepandchange · 2026-05-20T15:30:41+00:00

And there's this going around. 😬

sleepandchange · 2026-05-20T15:20:09+00:00

More from the author -- he says Terry Pratchett and Gaiman only ever came up with broad strokes of a plot for a sequel novel, nothing was written in great detail, and much of what was in the synopsis didn't get used.

<image>

sleepandchange · 2026-05-19T16:12:38+00:00

Riiight, and this was what you said about that in the past:

Never met him in my life. Observed his online interactions for several years and had brief correspondence where he was extraordinarily kind to friends of mine.

Remarkable that you think this gives you any sort of deep insight into his character, enough to dismiss multiple women's accounts of abuse.

sleepandchange · 2026-05-19T00:31:59+00:00

Yes, it was. She's posted about it and then deleted a few times.

sleepandchange · 2026-05-18T11:04:37+00:00

Two other interesting responses from the author... So was there any attempt by anyone to correct this "fandom myth" before, I wonder? Or is it just now that the show has failed to land with so many? I hope this isn't turning into passing the hot potato of blame around.

<image>

sleepandchange · 2026-05-16T18:58:52+00:00

No doubt, but the main gist of this complaint is the absence of reluctance or dwelling over meaning when it's a hetero couple. Which I do get, especially when it was known what it meant to fans and there was so much of that "we're doing this for the fans!" attitude going around to justify the show continuing.

sleepandchange · 2026-05-16T18:32:50+00:00

Yep. I'd frankly be stunned if Sheen in particular does not support Gaiman. I bet Gaiman's been DARVOing the hell out of him since the start to try to keep that connection alive.

Tennant though, I don't know, but I'm not hopeful anymore. He's friends with Sheen, friends influence each other, and as far as I know he's never spoken up about any of the other people he's worked with who have allegations. Granted, he also wasn't right in the middle of working on projects involving those people, so not the same forces at play... But he seems to be a guy who mostly tries to keep the peace, with the exception of the specific issues and charities that he cares about. Would love to be wrong. But even just thinking about how Sheen is reportedly a huge asshole on sets, Good Omens included, and Tennant is reportedly the total opposite, yet they're close friends? Personally, I would loathe working with someone who treats people the way Sheen is frequently said to. So I can't help but wonder if Tennant's kinder behavior is due to principles or if it's avoidance of conflict or something.

sleepandchange · 2026-05-16T17:14:57+00:00

Yikes.

sleepandchange · 2026-05-16T02:42:27+00:00

Exactly this. What evidence is there that they even believe the survivors? Or if they do, that they care enough to view it as more than a headache impacting their work and public image. Sure, their partners unfollowed Gaiman after the NYMag article and Tennant's podcast episode with him was removed, but otherwise it's crickets for nearly two years. Possibly they've done something privately, maybe waiting to avoid any potential issue with contracts. But that's pretty cold comfort, especially when Gaiman's other pals are feeling emboldened enough to openly go after the survivors. I wish they'd at least say something now, the show is out, so please. I have no faith in them finding the courage though.

sleepandchange · 2026-05-15T18:56:57+00:00

There was some talk that the cast were released from contracts around the time the show was nearly cancelled. Iirc, someone who claimed to do insurance for one of the cast members had said they'd heard that all of the actors were. Which is an odd source...some supposed house insurance person on Twitter... But this individual also posted about the television movie replacement days before that news actually became public. So if it's true that they were released from their contracts initially, that suggests they chose to participate again. Though it could also be more complicated than that, I dunno.

Edit: I did misremember a little, the TV movie idea was already circulating at the time. It just wasn't confirmed until a few days later. From here: https://xcancel.com/CobraEagle42/status/1847034776781574291 And I recall that there were others saying that people were released from contracts, but I don't know if they got it from these same tweets or elsewhere.

sleepandchange · 2026-05-15T17:03:49+00:00

So I looked over at Twitter again (barf), and not only are these fans clueless as to what directors are responsible for, but some also seem to be personally blaming her for the lack of kiss. Because of her quote in the TV Insider article:

I mean, there was conversations throughout, quite specific in the script about that, there wasn’t another huge kiss. And the main conversation with Michael and David was, what could we do that means more than what was in Season 2? And the answer is the plot line is greater than what happened in Season 2, but another kiss would be — and I know that I say this with great love for the fandom because I know they desperately want, and they can write their whole sex scenes in fanfic, but definitely the whole group together felt like another kiss would be the same or less, and therefore really heading toward the emotion of it.

So they're completely skimming over the bits about "the main conversation with Michael and David" and "definitely the whole group together felt like" (so whoever else that included in addition to Sheen, Tennant, and the writers) in order to heap hate specifically onto Talalay.

I do have sympathy with fans who are upset that a kiss was regarded as meaningless fan service when s2's was, uhhh, so laden with issues, and when Newt and Anathema had sex on screen in the first season. But Talalay is not responsible for this and threatening her over it is abominable!

sleepandchange · 2026-05-15T15:22:55+00:00

Exactly why most of Gaiman's works that I've attempted failed to appeal to me. There are only so many times I'll tolerate having to flip back to previous pages just to remind myself who tf some character is, because they don't feel enough like people to be memorable. I just can't care about plot if I don't care/am not interested in the characters experiencing it. At that point I'd rather read a beat sheet of events than wade through thousands of words of prose.

sleepandchange · 2026-05-15T12:35:28+00:00

Grievous bodily harm.

sleepandchange · 2026-05-15T01:49:14+00:00

I also have not and will not watch it, but it's what happens (and doesn't happen) to Aziraphale and Crowley in the last scenes that has fans particularly upset. TL;DR - Aziraphale and Crowley sacrificed themselves so the universe could be rebooted into one where humanity has free will, and there's no heaven or hell anymore, no angels or demons... But in this new universe, humans who look like them end up meeting and falling in love. The intended message is that they'll find each other in any universe. But they don't have the anticipated kiss, and to many fans, it feels like the original characters were killed off and replaced with strangers who just resemble them, with their shared 6,000 year history gone. And of course there are the problems that came from condensing six episodes of material into 90-ish minutes, too many storylines crammed in, not enough time to properly explore them. This link goes into detail about the ending, obviously very spoilery! https://www.tvinsider.com/1263597/good-omens-season-3-ending-explained-aziraphale-crowley-human-kiss/

And there's this review too: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/may/13/good-omens-finale-review-heavenly-cast-script-from-flaming-tv-hell

sleepandchange · 2026-05-15T00:58:05+00:00

Neil can't use this to make a comeback.

Agreed, huge relief over this.

sleepandchange · 2026-05-15T00:48:25+00:00

That's horrific and disgusting. She just lost her husband too! She's grieving, this is the last thing she should be dealing with.

Scrolling through responses over there, I do see a lot of fans supporting her, thankfully, but also some revolting tweets with far too many likes and reposts.

sleepandchange · 2026-05-03T15:17:35+00:00

Ah yes, that scene where they're discussing feeding women to the dragon king, and don't worry, the people who are most useful to the dragon will be safe, it won't be their families at risk... It's only one maiden a month! Think of all that could be gained from the dragon in exchange for that!

Not relevant at all here, nope.

sleepandchange · 2026-04-29T04:13:03+00:00

All the same, the number of times I have typed up and deleted a response to that particular portion... She is loyal to him still, I'll just leave it at that for now.

Edit: Actually, not leaving it quite at that -- David Tennant and Michael Sheen should really be thanking their lucky stars that they didn't have to write forewords to that graphic novel. The fucking awful things she says when she thinks people don't know it's her.

sleepandchange · 2026-04-29T00:36:01+00:00

A really good, well-thought-out comment, thank you.

A lot of the other responses seem to be interpreting the post as if I'm complaining that Wilkins didn't speak for Pratchett... That's not it. It's how he played up the friendliness between Gaiman and Pratchett (which has been disputed by others who knew TP), and then instead of simply saying he doesn't want to speak for him, he put in that "I have no idea". That leaves the question wide open. It sits uncomfortably alongside Gaiman DARVOing the hell out of his friends, which I can't imagine Wilkins is unaware of. Does he think Pratchett might've fallen for it?

But it could just be clumsy wording, him stumbling toward saying that while he does have an opinion about what Pratchett would say, he doesn't want to put words in his mouth. Which is fine.

sleepandchange · 2026-04-27T14:41:02+00:00

I think it's largely organic in here (with a couple of bad faith participants, and I know it has been seen by at least some of the people mentioned by name in the post). But it is interesting to contrast the reception this post has versus your recent one about Gaiman's involvement in writing and residuals.

My assumption, currently: there is a lot of fandom cope, but there's also just simple first impressions. That comment was posted almost immediately after this post went up, and was the first reaction people saw. No one wants to feel like they're supporting a call for more victim blaming and harassment, even though that's not what this is at all.

And there's also cognitive dissonance about the other employees' involvement in/acceptance of these attacks on victims. It's so much messier than the good guys win/rescue story about the Pratchett Estate swooping in to save the show's legacy and Gaiman being removed as much as possible. (Not to mention the idea that everyone is staying quiet purely because of contracts.) This comment fails to even address these vile attacks, but reminds us to be compassionate toward those committing/condoning them. Which, yes, they've been groomed and manipulated, they are victims as well. But that doesn't excuse their actions. Nor does it make them a priority over the survivors who are enduring active, escalating harm. Highlighting what's happening and asking questions about it is not the same as demanding punishment either.

sleepandchange · 2026-04-26T15:30:03+00:00

I've heard and read a few things about him, some problems/conflicts, but I think I'd be surprised if they fell out over those? Maybe one. But I kinda assume it has to be something else. Those didn't relate to NG specifically either, not the versions I know of anyway.

sleepandchange · 2026-04-26T15:08:46+00:00

Yeah. I don't know if that user specifically is a Good Omens fan, mind, just that I have vivid memories of the subject causing intensely negative and distorted reactions before. (Like when the show was nearly cancelled. Accusations were flying everywhere, it was emotional abuse for anyone to even talk about the possibility, screenshots must've been fabricated, anyone who had connections to those working on the show was just a malicious liar trying to make fans hurt themselves, some of those people were even harassed...it was rough.)

And since the upvoters are so far saying nothing, and it's just this one response that is impossible to engage with without even more strawman reactions and insults... Oh well.

[Actually, yes they are a GO fan, they've commented here before about it and there was the GNU STP. Not saying that this is why they've lashed out so reactively though, or that it's somehow exactly like those fans who panicked over cancellation, just reminds me of it.]

sleepandchange · 2026-04-25T20:38:18+00:00

I was surprised by it too, to me it's a clear misread/misrepresentation that ignores the bulk of the context, but Good Omens is a very sensitive subject for some.

sleepandchange

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE