Latest Posts by earhartsplane - Page 6
This is my favorite joke in the entire show.
Crowley: We need to make this the tiniest, most insubstantial, fractional half a miracle we have ever performed. No traces of anything miraculous left behind. No alarm bells ringing in Heaven.
Aziraphale: Right. Count of three.
Crowley: One, two, three, now.
*Crowley jumps on the chair and checks an orangey-flowy-something with a tip of his finger*
Crowley: I think it took. That was a class-A surreptitious half a miracle. No one will have noticed a thing.
*happy Aziraphale*
*unamused Michael sighs as alarms are blaring in Heaven*
A small update: A few hours later, here are the two other comments that make up the top 3.
So the trailer for Our Flag Means Death Season 2 just went live on youtube, and this is the top comment. I agree with it wholeheartedly.
So the trailer for Our Flag Means Death Season 2 just went live on youtube, and this is the top comment. I agree with it wholeheartedly.
Wanna see a funny thing ? This is the worldwide trend search for The Crow Road
Regarding the minisodes, I don't think the point was to show us that they trust each other implicitly. It's something I've been thinking about, so excuse the long reply.
The flashbacks in season 1, IMO, had 2 purposes:
Showing us how their relationship came to be as it is in present day. How they met, how they started getting along, how the Agreement came to be, fall out and reconciliation that they had over the centuries, etc.
Setting up the Holy Water ( if I remember the book correctly, it only shows up for the scene in Crowley's apartment, he didn't get it from Aziraphale and since the body swap is TV only, it never comes up again)
Your mileage may vary, but I think that this season's minisodes were only partially about their relationship (because everything is at least a bit about their relationship), they were more about Aziraphale. Specifically, Aziraphale's moral struggles.
A companion to Owls (the Job Minisode) shows us Aziraphale lying to the Heavenly Host to protect humans, and being very miserable about it (as a side note, I was screaming "Dude, you lied to GOD in the garden of Eden" during my first viewing, but on careful re-watch, his "I must have put the sword down somewhere" can still fall under the "technically true if extremely misleading" category, which apparently doesn't count for him).
In the Resurrectionists, Aziraphale spents most of his time encountering consequentialism for the first time, and trying to reconcile it with a deontological philosophy. Is defiling tombs a Wrong thing to do, if it leads to Good? I might be thinking to much about it, but it's interesting to see that after some reluctance, Aziraphale has a pretty standard reaction to encountering Consequentialism : it's great! It solves so many problems! And then runs smack down into 2 classic counter-arguments to Consequentialism: 1. you cannot actually know what the consequences to your actions are going to be (i.e., Wee Morag dying). 2. Consequentialism implies that the subject should be impartial as to who benefits and who suffers, as long as the overall Good outweighs the bad. But as Crowley points out, "It's different when you know them, isn't it?"
The moral argument in Nazi Zombie Flesheaters is at the very end. Aziraphale says that Crowley helping him means that he's not as bad as he says. Crowley replies that Heaven sees thing in black and white and sometimes, you have to blur the edges. They toast to shades of grey. Very very light/dark grey. And that's basically the moral position of Aziraphale as we know him in the present day: willing to make some concessions. But it's a compromise, and it's more about Crowley being good than, for instance, Heaven being bad.
The minisodes do other things, of course. A Companion to Owls reminds us of how awful Gabriel was, the Resurrectionists makes a link to the pub and explains why Crowley asks for the Holey Water, the Nazi Zombie Flesheaters shows us the trust (and I'll bet money that we haven't seen the last of these zombies). But I think they do work as foreshadowing for Aziraphale being overjoyed at the idea of being friend with Crowley without the moral complications.
(The discussion in the other reblogs was great, but I wanted to answer some points in this post specifically)
Can someone who actually liked the ending of s2 please explain to me why?
Hiii, do you (or anyone else seeing this ask) have or know about a list of Crowley's Looks?? I want to make a tier list :D
Hiya! :) Not that I am aware of :)
A cartoon for New Scientist.
I am of the opinion that he carries piles of books for the specific purpose of throwing them dramatically.
Do we know what Crowley was doing yeeting those books in season 2? And if we don't, what are the theories around?
At first I thought he was making space for more fire extinguishers, but then Neil said that those were Aziraphale's investment, so I'm back to wondering what that was about...
Maybe he was just bringing Jim more books that he could catalogize by the brilliant Jimsystem? :) BUt not caring enough not to yeet them
I don't post much, I'm mostly here to lurk and I've been avoiding writing anything about The Big Moment in Good Omens season 2, because I need to rotate things in my head for a long time before I talk about them.
But after a few weeks, can I just say. It was so good. It was so fucking good. Like, of course, I'm miserable, chewing glass, scratching at the walls, etc. But it was so good.
The Tragedy of it. It's not a miscommunication, or a "bad-timing-by-a-few-seconds" kind of things. Crowley still declares (as much as he can), still kisses him (my personal interpretation of which being that he's trying to show that this isn't something Aziraphale can pout about until he changes his mind), still waits until the last possible moment.
It's a tragedy in the "classical" sense of the word. It ends in tears not because there was nothing to be done, but because who these characters are at the moment does not let them act in any other way. There are some fatal character flaws. I know it's a hotly debated issue around here at the moment, but in my opinion the fault lies mainly in Aziraphale. I love him, I think he was working on it, but he's still an angel with too much faith in Heaven. An understandable, reliable, hopeful mistake is still a mistake.
And I don't think the overall story is a tragedy. I don't think it will end in heartbreak. I'm going to let these characters live in the back of my brain for however long it takes to get a season 3, and when we do, I'll be right there.
Imagining Sandalphon's reaction to any of the events in season 2 is hilarious.
We know Beelzebub's recasting will be addressed in S2, will Sandalphon's absence also be addressed?
Nope. He was off on a secret mission during the events of Season 2 and it was so secret nobody talks about it.
(I was really sad when Paul Chahidi was unavailable, but Liz Carr is so good and now I'm happy I have more Angels if there is ever a Season 3. )
British demons with a penchant for philosophy. She can't do much to help beyond offering to connect him with a good divorce lawyer.
....
........
I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who finds this funny.
[Image ID: Two demons, both with a black-and-red motif, sitting on red velvet stools at a small, circular table. The table boasts a crystal ball, and behind them a fire is burning in a fireplace. The left demon is Trixie Mephistopheles, a brunette female demon with her black wings outstretched. She is leaning on one hand with a look of vague amusement bordering on sympathy. On the right is Crowley from good omens, a red-headed demon with dark sunglasses. He appears to be crying, slumped over the small table with his head down.]
there was something at about the lighting and stainless steel while i was cleaning up at work that made me go WAIT HOLD UP GOTTA GRAB ME CAMERA
I still can't believe that Gabriel and Beelzebub said "Gay rights but just for us".
I would be 5% less insane about Good Omens season 2 if I hadn't heard "Nothing Gold Can Stay" in Malevolent a few months back.
I was right
I am not trying to ruffle any feathers, but I have to say this before Season 2 comes out, so I can act smug when I’m right. Here is my number one prediction for Good Omens Season 2:
There won’t be a voice-over.
Now hang on. I know it’s a controversial opinion. Let me explain.
I have noticed that virtually every adaptation of Terry Pratchett’s books has some sort of voice over, either diagetic (like Going Postal, where it’s part of the framing device) or non-diagetic (Hogfather). And I get it ! If you’ve read any of the Discworld book and have this weird brain quirk where a part of you is always thinking about how this would translate on screen, you’ve probably noticed two things:
1. There’s visual humour in text form. How ? This man was a genius and a will be missed forever.
2. There’s so much that just can’t be translated on a purely visual level. The footnotes! Should we just leave the footnotes out ? They’re so great! They add so much to the world in general. There are running jokes that only appear in the footnotes ! Should we just accept that it won’t make it to screen ?
Yes. I’m sorry, but yes. Some things will be lost. Maybe you can integrate one of these jokes as recurring background events ? A lot of people are not going to notice though. There’s an expectation that the reader will read all of the words, while the viewer may not see all that’s happening on screen (although, to be fair, you will be noticing new puns on every re-read for years in the case of the Discworld).
(In comparison, adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s work are less prone to voice over. If I remember correctly, Coraline didn’t have one. Sandman starts with a bit of voice-over from the main character, but nothing more after that. I don’t remember any in American Gods. MirrorMask has left me nothing but the memory of a fever dream, so I can’t be sure. )
This is not to say that the voice-over in season one was pointless. It establishes the tone, to start with. If you remember, the opening narration is about the age of the Earth, in which we learn that it was created on the 21st of October, 4004 B.C., and therefore learn its star sign. It’s a good way to show that yes, there are angels in this, and demons, and the garden of Eden, and if you want to think too hard about this, they’ve got you covered. But if you think that these depictions are either blasphemous or religious propaganda, it might be a good time to learn to take a step back (and a joke, in my personal opinion).
But there are definitely instances of narration that would never have happened if season 1 wasn’t a book adaptation. I am thoroughly convinced that Dog’s experimentation with chasing and being chased by cats would have been screen only. Maybe a scene. Maybe something happening in he background. Who knows.
And here’s the thing. Season 2 isn’t the adaptation of a novel. I remember a tweet by Neil Gaiman about how he and Pratchett had a sequel plotted out, but even that isn’t season 2. According to the same, tweet, Season 2 is how we get there.
My number 2 prediction is that there will be a an intense heist scene during which Sadie and Dottie both try to steal some incriminating letters unbeknownst to each other.
So Universal Pictures may have just intentionally over-pruned all of the city owned trees in front of their LA corporate office in an effort to fuck with the WGA/SAG-AFTRA picketers during what is predicted to be the hottest week of the year so far:
And the LA City Controller is looking into it:
Once again it looks like it's time for:
I've always read this part of Good Omens as a bit of moral cowardness on the part of the duo. A life against the universe is a very utilitarian way to see things, and if you subscribe to this philosophy, it's not wrong. Both would like it to be no antichrist, but neither are willing to do the deed themselves.
And they both have their reasons to not engage too deeply with moral matter. Aziraphale principal failing is having much more in Heaven than is warranted and believing them (or trying to believe them) to be right. Tautologically. (There's a reason why the sarcasm in "You're an angel, I don't think you can do the wrong thing." doesn't register). So as much as he doubts the righteousness of the Flood, or the Crucifixion, he can fall back on "Well, if Heaven thinks it's okay...". Hence why he's so desperate to have their approval way after it's obvious to everyone that they're not interested in stopping the apocalypse.
Crowley has it a bit easier, since his side is supposed to be wrong, and not liking any of them assholes is perfectly acceptable. So if Hell is peeved at him for being more annoying than murderous, it just means he's succeeding at being annoying. Which is a justification for not being murderous. But not having a convenient excuse for not wanting everyone to die, he's much more ready to throw in the towel.
Because Crowley is on the right side of the argument when it comes to their relationship (for starters, by acknowledging they have one), it's easy to forget that in the bandstand scene, he's arguing for giving up on Earth. I think that's Illustrative of Crowley's main problem: with one notable exception, he's not comitted to anything.
He didn't mean to fall, he just sauntered vaguely downard. He's shocked by the Flood, but he doesn't do anything about it. He didn't invent the Spanish Inquisition (and, in the book, gets drunk for a week when he finds out about it) but he'll take the credit. On his day to day, his demonic activities consist of putting a large number of people in a bad mood, which admittedly is more efficient, but also means that he doesn't have to do or witness any of the really nasty stuff that could result from it. And he wants the Antichrist to be gone, but he doesn't want to have to kill him himself.
I've been working on this post for a while and I am running out of time! So here goes: Today I want to talk about the dark side of Good Omens. This is a long post, sorry about that, but there are so many twists and turns. We all love GO, the romance, the banter, the comedy, the humanity of it. But it does a have a subtle dark side underneath which is usually overlooked. It has to do with the race to stop Armageddon, how their different views brought them to the bandstand conflict, and how Aziraphale ultimately came around at the airbase. It was a rocky road. In the book, when Crowley receives the basket and is on his way to the hospital, he has a thought. We didn't see this in the show so it may or may not have happened there, but it happened in the book. Ultimately Crowley didn't go through with it, but it did occur to him.
So Crowley kept driving and eventually came up with Plan A: Raise the antichrist together behind Hell's back. Surely as a normal, balanced human being the kid wouldn't want to destroy the world, easy and straightforward, right?
Aziraphale's orders are to keep Crowley under observation and so he does. But he also tells Heaven he will "influence the child towards the light". Heaven humors him as long as he keeps doing his job: monitoring Crowley and the antichrist.
However as the scheduled time gets closer, Crowley realizes that the only way to be 100% certain there won't be an Armageddon is to not have an antichrist at all (like 11 years ago). And he brings up Plan B: Kill the child, for the first time.
Aziraphale didn't like the idea of killing Warlock outright if there were other options. So he came up with Plan C: stop the dog. That... was very short-lived.
And here is where things will start to get murky. While both know they need to find the antichrist, they don't really know what to do afterwards.
Crowley probably thinks that whatever they do, they'll do it together, that Aziraphale will be on board with it. Aziraphale on the other hand still thinks Heaven are "the good guys" so he separately comes up with Plan D: Tell Heaven where the antichrist is. If Heaven gets rid of Adam, all will be fine. Heaven knows better and thy are going to win anyway. At this point, Aziraphale is fine with eliminating the antichrist, he just doesn't like the idea of doing the deed himself, let Heaven handle it. So he lies to Crowley about finding Adam.
And he lies again about having found the antichrist when they meet at the bandstand. Aziraphale has made his mind. As they talk, Aziraphale's reasons that if Crowley were to kill the child instead of Heaven, it would be a better solution for everybody. Again, he is fine with eliminating the antichrist, but not with doing it himself, Crowley can do it. Should this be a very short lived Plan E?
Crowley on the other hand, just like at the Crystal Palace, insists that Aziraphale do the deed. Aziraphale would not have it. Either Crowley does it or Heaven does it, but not him.
The book is more clear about how Crowley is afraid of Hell's punishment if he fails. In Crowley's mind, if Aziraphale kills the child it would be ok, Aziraphale gets brownie points in Heaven and Crowley gets punished for maybe only being incompetent.
But if Crowley kills the child, he would be in really BIG trouble, punished as the worst traitor there could be. (this quote comes from a later passage but it is the sentiment that counts)
Both agree that the antichrist needs to go. But Crowley won't kill the child and Aziraphale won't kill the child either. So they come to an impasse.
Aziraphale proceeds with his Plan D anyway and his conversation with the Metatron goes as pear-shaped as could. And this is where he decides to talk to Crowley and reconcile. That didn't work out either.
After a short trip to Heaven, Aziraphale finds himself on Earth and ready to follow Crowley's Plan B. However he still doesn't want to do it himself, so this time he is recruiting humans to do it (Plan F!). Humans are good at killing other humans, they have been doing it for a long time ;)
Said humans are on board with it until they realize that the antichrist is an 11-year old boy and Plan F goes up in smoke.
Crowley is not giving up though and Aziraphale, fully committed now that every other option failed, follows Crowley's lead. Third time is the charm, right? Aziraphale doesn't hesitate anymore and shoots when Crowley urges him to do so.
And, as we know Madame Tracy saves the day and Adam (although for all we know Adam is bulletproof at this point ;) ) So yeah, interwoven with all the fun there are these glimpses of hidden darkness, our demon who keeps pushing Aziraphale to kill the antichrist for lack of a better plan and our angel who doesn't want to taint his hands and keeps looking for other people to do the deed instead. There is certainly a lot more nuance to this, Crowley and Aziraphale are not selfish, detached entities who end human lives willy-nilly, not at all. But in a desperate hour, they will, if that means the survival of the whole world. As Crowley put it back at the Crystal Palace "one life against the universe". He was ready to sacrifice that life from the very beginning. Aziraphale meandered his way to get there, but at the end he got there and shot at the child.
It is certainly very fortunate that they were not very competent at this. It would have been awful killing Warlock and then realizing he wasn't the antichrist after all. And Adam is a nice and smart kid who found his very own human solution to the problem without intentionally shedding any blood. They both deserve to live, and our walking disasters deserve to get their world and their humans without having to pay for it with the life of a child.
this is by far my favorite safety/warning sign btw. they really went off with this one
The fact that in the year of our lord 2019 Aziraphale didn't know know what an answering machine was tells me that he hasn't called anyone else in his entire life.
We've always appreciated the attention to detail in Charles Lee's "The Golfers."
Everyone is for a descriptive approach to language rather than a prescriptive one, until there is the slightest disagreement abot the meaning of queerbaiting. At that point, you'll have the smuggiest people in earth acting like the meaning has been uncontroversially established through decades of academic consensus, and any dissent is tantamount to denying Gravity.
I’ve read that a tactic a lot of studio execs are planning on waiting out the strike through October and are hoping writers losing their apartments and needing food will break the strike. How true is this and what are some of the best ways to support the writers and maybe donate money to any who have fallen on hard times?
I’ve read the same article you have.
I plan to do just that, and cancel it at the end of the free trial. If there's a "Why are you leaving?" question, I also plan to say that it's because I support the WGA strike (I really don't know if it would matter, but it can't hurt).
Not a question, but I wanted to say out loud that I managed to see the first episode of Sandman on a flight recently. I haven't had cable TV since 1998 and never had a Netflix account, not since *looks at wrist* they started mailing CDs in little red envelopes howevermany years or decades ago. But I'm seriously thinking about finally caving now, simply because of how good that first ep was. Having been braced against giving Amazon any unnecessary money for years, the privilege of actually seeing an episode of Good Omens might take a bit longer, unfortunately, despite being here on this site and witnessing a ton of Posts about it. It is a tease, let me tell you.
just saying.
Why not do a free trial when Good Omens is released?
Thinking about it a bit more after having slammed the reblog button, I can't help but remember this exchange from Cabin Pressure:
"So, this is your husband’s famous executive jet.
It’s not an executive jet; he’s not my husband; and it’s not his – but otherwise, spot on."
And compare it to the Naked Man Friend, who is not a man, nor a friend, and not even naked anymore. Worth noting that the author of Cabin Pressure, John Finnemore, is the co-author for season 2 of Good Omens.
☕☕☕☕☕☕
☕☕☕☕☕☕
With Jane Austen being a possible inspiration for Good Omens season 2, there has been some speculations about what parallels could be drawn between main couple in Jane Austen’s books and our heroes. Pride and Prejudice has been floated around, which is not surprising since it’s the most famous of her works. Others speculate that Emma might be a good fit for Aziraphale, since he is apparently a landlord and meddles in the love life of humans. Persuasion is also a likely candidate, full of pining as it is. All of them possibilities, all of them good choices. However, I would like to put Northanger Abbey forward, for two reasons: 1. It’s funny as hell. 2. It contains the following quote:
“[T]hough Henry was now sincerely attached to her, though he felt and delighted in all the excellencies of her character and truly loved her society, I must confess that his affection originated in nothing better than gratitude, or, in other words, that a persuasion of her partiality for him had been the only cause of giving her a serious thought. It is a new circumstance in romance, I acknowledge, and dreadfully derogatory of an heroine's dignity; but if it be as new in common life, the credit of a wild imagination will at least be all my own.”
And I’m sorry to say, but I do think it applies here.