aletheiafelinea (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
aletheiafelinea) wrote2020-03-17 06:30 pm
aletheiafelinea) wrote2020-03-17 06:30 pm
Entry tags:
Pretty Good Omens
Maybe even Nice and Accurate.
So, uff, I got down to watching it, finally. And half an hour in I started to wonder if I really wanted to keep going... The greatest surprise turned out discovering that I liked extra pieces more than the original ones; something I never expect from any adaptation. The latter were just... kind of going through the moves but somehow overdone and underdone at the same time – the drunken discussion at Aziraphale's is arguably the funniest ever piece of writing I know, which couldn’t be said about the show version at all. Instead, my favorite was the intro to the 3rd episode, and within it – the Globe scene, though the Victorian park was great, too. (And am I the only who feels sorry for the French executioner? Yes? Okay...) Then again, I always liked the historical retrospections trope in the GO fandom.
I didn’t like some things that weren’t exactly bad per se, but felt like pointless changes for the sake of changing:
# Crowley’s apartment black instead white?
# The shades come off too early and too often; in the novel we learn their purpose only when they get knocked off in the burning bookstore, and later when he puts on a new pair it’s a significant gesture as well – him getting his shit together, regaining composure and making a decision; it’s lost when they’re on’n’off all the time, just so.
# I always liked that tiny detail when Crowley revives the dove suffocated under Aziraphale’s coat; it happens almost in the background, no attention drawn to it either by himself or narrator, just a casual miracle of saving a little life that’s very unfit for a self-respecting demon... but in the show it’s Aziraphale who does that, in the same casual manner, and that takes the miracle out of the miracle, you know?
# Why changing the details of the climax? Especially why the sword for the all Four instead of the kids making their own set – crown against crown etc.
Not as much a change as rather a novelty, but I’m somewhat meh at making God the narrator. It can’t be put into the pointless category either, because the novel relies on the narration so much it makes it really difficult to film it with visual tools only, so I understand that choice, but still – it puts God too close, in a way. In the novel it’s the one character that’s spoken about a lot, but never shows up (well, except to grill Aziraphale about the sword). On the other hand, if there had to be narrator, God is probably the best choice. Ehhh, I don’t know...
Some other things were actually failures:
# Death’s voice. The visual design was mostly okay (it was a wise decision to show very little), but voice was just... come on, like it’s allowed to use digital tools only for footage? It was like they didn’t even try.
# Famine was... he wasn’t. Just traitless. You can recognize the others for what they are, but Famine you couldn’t without being told. The novel’s choice was making him a slick CEO in a suit instead of some gaunt allegory – someone who causes hunger instead of being an embodiment of it. The show’s Famine is neither. There was an attempt of a slick CEO, but not really effective. We’re left with basically a random no-one-in-particular. Granted, it’s not like I’ve ever been that much invested in the Four (maybe except Death, though mostly by association with the Discworld one), so I’m rather nitpicking on the principle here.
# I don’t know if this is a failure, but the lack of explanation feels so: why Aziraphale can’t break those shackles of Liberté on his own? Miracling his way out would be unholy, but a demonic job is okay, or what?
And things I actually appreciated a lot, the way they put attention to details:
# The Mona Lisa sketch!
# While disapproving the shades being constantly off like it’s nothing, I liked the designs changing over centuries a lot! And the general evolution of Crowley’s appearance, too.
# The Bentley falls apart when Crowley gets distracted and turns his attention elsewhere. The Mournful Moment (again an added thing!) was a fan-service if I ever seen one, and the finest sort of it. :’)
# Crowley saying he never had oysters, Aziraphale jumping in “Let me tempt you... oh, that’s your thing” and Crowley’s silent ‘gotcha’. You don’t even make it difficult, angel. XD
# And of course later the whole deal around “Hamlet” and all small details of it (Shakespeare catching Crowley’s line) was even so much better. :’)
# Agnes Nutter was much more impressive than her written version. And I can’t really say I liked him (hey, that’s a compliment actually :P), but Hastur was well made, too.
# Another of those good additions: Agnes warning Aziraphale about his cocoa. Not like this helped anyway, it seemed...
# Pollution casually throws the carton into the stream, while focusing only on the crown.
# The guard reading “American Gods”, heh. It’s a honourable mention, because not a fan here, but I appreciate the care for details again.
Overall it was like the opposite of my most recent slash current fandom: damn good writing, damn cheap realization. And ‘cheap’ here means mostly the CGI and the headcount in public places, while the ‘analog’ parts – costumes and props – mostly looked fine, especially the non-fantasy ones. I found the show reflects the general impression the book leaves: there’s a demon, an angel and their friendship, everything else being somewhat superfluous. Of course, this everything else needs to be there to make a working plot and what this story is about, but now I’m talking about a fan’s perspective. And picking at details aside, what really matters is: is this adaptation really the Good Omens or is not? And to my immense relief (and no small surprise), yes, it is. It rang true. In spite of surprises (ginger Crowley; nervous Aziraphale), it never becomes another classic wretched case of an utter rewrite you can’t even recognize anymore and with the “on motifs” slapped on as the universal excuse. The surprises were something to get used to, not a dealbreaker. Same about the theatrical exaggerated manner – a convention, not artificiality. All in all, those were the true Crowley and Aziraphale (and the others, too), and again – it was an immense relief to finally see actors that really get it, and a filming team that actually works for the sake of honoring the original instead of just exploiting its popularity.
So, yeah. Cannot say about long term impression yet, of course, but the fresh one is mostly positive.
So, uff, I got down to watching it, finally. And half an hour in I started to wonder if I really wanted to keep going... The greatest surprise turned out discovering that I liked extra pieces more than the original ones; something I never expect from any adaptation. The latter were just... kind of going through the moves but somehow overdone and underdone at the same time – the drunken discussion at Aziraphale's is arguably the funniest ever piece of writing I know, which couldn’t be said about the show version at all. Instead, my favorite was the intro to the 3rd episode, and within it – the Globe scene, though the Victorian park was great, too. (And am I the only who feels sorry for the French executioner? Yes? Okay...) Then again, I always liked the historical retrospections trope in the GO fandom.
I didn’t like some things that weren’t exactly bad per se, but felt like pointless changes for the sake of changing:
# Crowley’s apartment black instead white?
# The shades come off too early and too often; in the novel we learn their purpose only when they get knocked off in the burning bookstore, and later when he puts on a new pair it’s a significant gesture as well – him getting his shit together, regaining composure and making a decision; it’s lost when they’re on’n’off all the time, just so.
# I always liked that tiny detail when Crowley revives the dove suffocated under Aziraphale’s coat; it happens almost in the background, no attention drawn to it either by himself or narrator, just a casual miracle of saving a little life that’s very unfit for a self-respecting demon... but in the show it’s Aziraphale who does that, in the same casual manner, and that takes the miracle out of the miracle, you know?
# Why changing the details of the climax? Especially why the sword for the all Four instead of the kids making their own set – crown against crown etc.
Not as much a change as rather a novelty, but I’m somewhat meh at making God the narrator. It can’t be put into the pointless category either, because the novel relies on the narration so much it makes it really difficult to film it with visual tools only, so I understand that choice, but still – it puts God too close, in a way. In the novel it’s the one character that’s spoken about a lot, but never shows up (well, except to grill Aziraphale about the sword). On the other hand, if there had to be narrator, God is probably the best choice. Ehhh, I don’t know...
Some other things were actually failures:
# Death’s voice. The visual design was mostly okay (it was a wise decision to show very little), but voice was just... come on, like it’s allowed to use digital tools only for footage? It was like they didn’t even try.
# Famine was... he wasn’t. Just traitless. You can recognize the others for what they are, but Famine you couldn’t without being told. The novel’s choice was making him a slick CEO in a suit instead of some gaunt allegory – someone who causes hunger instead of being an embodiment of it. The show’s Famine is neither. There was an attempt of a slick CEO, but not really effective. We’re left with basically a random no-one-in-particular. Granted, it’s not like I’ve ever been that much invested in the Four (maybe except Death, though mostly by association with the Discworld one), so I’m rather nitpicking on the principle here.
# I don’t know if this is a failure, but the lack of explanation feels so: why Aziraphale can’t break those shackles of Liberté on his own? Miracling his way out would be unholy, but a demonic job is okay, or what?
And things I actually appreciated a lot, the way they put attention to details:
# The Mona Lisa sketch!
# While disapproving the shades being constantly off like it’s nothing, I liked the designs changing over centuries a lot! And the general evolution of Crowley’s appearance, too.
# The Bentley falls apart when Crowley gets distracted and turns his attention elsewhere. The Mournful Moment (again an added thing!) was a fan-service if I ever seen one, and the finest sort of it. :’)
# Crowley saying he never had oysters, Aziraphale jumping in “Let me tempt you... oh, that’s your thing” and Crowley’s silent ‘gotcha’. You don’t even make it difficult, angel. XD
# And of course later the whole deal around “Hamlet” and all small details of it (Shakespeare catching Crowley’s line) was even so much better. :’)
# Agnes Nutter was much more impressive than her written version. And I can’t really say I liked him (hey, that’s a compliment actually :P), but Hastur was well made, too.
# Another of those good additions: Agnes warning Aziraphale about his cocoa. Not like this helped anyway, it seemed...
# Pollution casually throws the carton into the stream, while focusing only on the crown.
# The guard reading “American Gods”, heh. It’s a honourable mention, because not a fan here, but I appreciate the care for details again.
Overall it was like the opposite of my most recent slash current fandom: damn good writing, damn cheap realization. And ‘cheap’ here means mostly the CGI and the headcount in public places, while the ‘analog’ parts – costumes and props – mostly looked fine, especially the non-fantasy ones. I found the show reflects the general impression the book leaves: there’s a demon, an angel and their friendship, everything else being somewhat superfluous. Of course, this everything else needs to be there to make a working plot and what this story is about, but now I’m talking about a fan’s perspective. And picking at details aside, what really matters is: is this adaptation really the Good Omens or is not? And to my immense relief (and no small surprise), yes, it is. It rang true. In spite of surprises (ginger Crowley; nervous Aziraphale), it never becomes another classic wretched case of an utter rewrite you can’t even recognize anymore and with the “on motifs” slapped on as the universal excuse. The surprises were something to get used to, not a dealbreaker. Same about the theatrical exaggerated manner – a convention, not artificiality. All in all, those were the true Crowley and Aziraphale (and the others, too), and again – it was an immense relief to finally see actors that really get it, and a filming team that actually works for the sake of honoring the original instead of just exploiting its popularity.
So, yeah. Cannot say about long term impression yet, of course, but the fresh one is mostly positive.
no subject
Instead, my favorite was the intro to the 3rd episode
Mine too! Because as you say, I think it was adding a riff, rather than just retreading things I already loved, not always well.
Agree with you on being disappointed by Death's voice and by Famine -- in general by the Four, except that I did like this creepy take on Pollution.
And a bit ambivalent on God as narrator, too -- I didn't expect that, but that WAS the only way to capture some really great lines, which I was glad to have there, and if someone's going to narrate the thing, that's the only sensible choice. But I agree with your criticism of the effect, too.
Want me to link you to my reactions? I don't remember if I tagged them sensibly or not XD
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Mój główny zarzut jest taki, że serial jest... przegadany. Narracją. Dobrze wiem, że wycięcie czegokolwiek spotkałoby się z oburzeniem i poczuciem ogromnej straty, któremu być może sama bym przytaknęła, ale kurczę naprawdę dobrze byłoby to odciążyć, bo ciężko obejrzeć cały odcinek bez przerwy. Już pierwsza scena to rozbudowany monolog, w którym czekamy na puentę zbyt długo i nawet grafiki nie pomagają. Zgadzam się, że głosu narratora nie da się uniknąć i wcale bym nie chciała, ale ograniczyłabym go do miejsc, w których faktycznie był potrzebny.
Jeśli jakikolwiek serial lub film miałabym nazwać zbyt wiernym, to będzie to GO.
On the other hand, if there had to be narrator, God is probably the best choice.
A gdyby pozostawić tożsamość narratora niewyjaśnioną? Ewentualnie ujawnić ją na końcu zamiast na samym początku? Też sobie gdybam bez jednoznacznych preferencji.
Jeśli chodzi o stronę wizualną, lokacje, kostiumy, ujęcia, to zasadniczo wszystko mi się podobało, łącznie z tabliczkami informującymi o czasie i miejscu. Poza grafiką do czołówki. Na szczęście uwielbiam muzykę :) Miliony wydane na CGI są najczęściej dla mnie stracone, tu mi wszystko grało w ramach pewnego stylu.
Crowley’s apartment black instead white?
Tam są jasne ściany, tylko wszystko jest spowite cieniem i wydaje się ciemnoszare/czarne. Najsprytniejsze pozostanie wiernym opisowi (jeśli opis mówił o bieli) przy jednoczesnym zachowaniu spójności w symbolice bieli i czerni :D
The shades come off too early and too often; in the novel we learn their purpose only when they get knocked off in the burning bookstore, and later when he puts on a new pair it’s a significant gesture as well – him getting his shit together, regaining composure and making a decision; it’s lost when they’re on’n’off all the time, just so.
Będę bronić :) Zakrywanie aktorowi oczu na 95% czasu ekranowego ogranicza jego możliwości ekspresyjne. Plus nie ufamy osobom, których oczu nie możemy zobaczyć, a Crowleya mamy lubić. Rozumiem przywiązanie fanowskie, ale jak najbardziej popieram zdjęcie okularów na przykład we własnym mieszkaniu.
I always liked that tiny detail when Crowley revives the dove suffocated under Aziraphale’s coat
Tu się trochę zgadzam, trochę rozumiem, że w pierwszym odcinku trzeba było ustalić wizerunki anioła i demona, żeby można było później je łamać. Czy gdyby to Crowley wskrzesił gołębia naprawdę wzbudziłoby to na tym etapie zamieszanie u widza? Nie wiem, ale łapię ostrożność.
I don’t know if this is a failure, but the lack of explanation feels so: why Aziraphale can’t break those shackles of Liberté on his own?
Dostał reprymendę, że używa za dużo czarów. Cudów. Wspomina o tym Crowleyowi.
A jak Ci się podobał Gabriel? Zdziwiłam się, gdy gdzieś doczytałam, że w książce go nie ma :D Świetny Hamm, sporo komedii.
Na tym na razie kończę, odniosę się do drugiej połowy odcinków, jak je obejrzę.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)