Embracing the ineffable mystery

Since the finale of Good Omens was released, both fans who liked and didn't like how it ended have been discussing whose idea it was. Some say it is the ending Terry Pratchett had always planned. Others deny that and argue that it was Neil Gaiman alone who decided that it should conclude this way. There has even been some speculation that the new writers, Peter Atkins and Michael Marshall Smith, did a complete rewrite of the six original scripts before cutting them down to a single 90 minute-long episode.

I think the latter can be debunked quite easily. Not only would time and financial constraints not have allowed to write six new scripts, but there are also many evidences that apart from cutting and shortening scenes, changes have been rather minimal. While Peter Atkins and Michael Marshall Smith are credited for the "Teleplay" alongside Neil Gaiman, Neil Gaiman is the only one who gets credited for the "Television story", meaning that the plot of the finale was laid out by him. There are also lines and short scenes in Good Omens 3 that are rather obviously leftovers from plotlines that have been removed, like Michael's comment about the Metatron messing with the Book of Life or Dagon declaring war on heaven seconds before hell gets snapped out of existence. Even the word "pedometer" that Neil Gaiman had teased for the finale was still included in the crossword scene (cf. this post by @crowleysgirl56).

Moreover, the concept art for the final scene was created at the time when Good Omens 3 was still six episodes long and featured a plotline in America (cf. this post). People have pointed out that Crowley and Aziraphale look much more like older versions of themselves in it and have taken this as proof that they were initially meant to keep their identities and memories. But you have to keep in mind that a concept artist does not get to decide on the costumes. The human versions of Crowley and Aziraphale were created with the input of David Tennant and Michael Sheen (cf. this interview). Louis Ralph just put placeholders in his concept art to get an overall impression of what the scene would look like. Similarly, in the concept art for the Resurrectionist minisode, the image of Crowley in his Victorian outfit from season 1 was inserted (cf. this post). And if you've followed some news from behind the scenes, you will probably remember that season 2 was originally supposed to feature a nightmare in which the bookshop was the only place left in the entire universe - foreshadowing for an ending that Neil Gaiman claimed to have come from his "subconscious/unconscious" (cf. this post).

If this still doesn't convince you, Peter Atkins has explicitly stated that the ending itself remained untouched, and that "no big narrative or thematic changes" were made (cf. these screenshots on Reddit). Rachel Talalay has confirmed that, too (cf. this interview). When asked the question "What kind of conversations did you have about where Crowley and Aziraphale should ultimately end up?", she replied: "That was very much worked out by Terry Pratchett. That was an absolute. That was in the six episodes and stayed the same through the shorter version. That wasn’t a debate or dialogue. That was what was decided. That was the reason to make it because that’s the ending Terry wanted."

Which leads us to another interesting point: the involvement of Terry Pratchett. Many people assume that the ending could never be what he wanted for the story, mainly because it contradicts the core messages of the book. The nihilistic take on the state of the world seems to fit Neil Gaiman's style a lot more and was interpreted as an attempt by him to finally make the story his own (cf., for example, this reblog by @acatwithstockings of a post by @obsessivelollipoplalala). Initially, I agreed with this view, but Rachel Talalay has repeatedly emphasized how Rob Wilkins, Terry Pratchett's assistant, who also functioned as the executive producer of Good Omens 3, assured her that it reflects Terry Pratchett's philosophy (cf. both of the interviews cited above).

Marc Burrows, who wrote a biography of Terry Pratchett (but did not ever meet him personally), has voiced doubts about the alternate universe being Terry Pratchett's idea (cf. this post). He also pointed out how Terry Pratchett not being officially credited for the story of the finale is somewhat telling, and Rob Wilkins liked his post (cf. this post). But this fact is contradicted by Rob Wilkins's role as executive producer, and Rachel Talalay's statement. There is no reason for her to blatantly lie about her conversations with Rob Wilkins, so we have to take her word for the ending being, at least officially, the one Terry Pratchett had planned. But this still leaves us with the question what aspects of the ending came from Terry Pratchett.

The destruction of heaven and hell? Absolutely yes. That was a thing that was already heavily hinted at in the book. Adam complains about the influence angels and demons have over humans: "It's hard enough bein' people as it is, without other people coming and messin' you around" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 366; cited below). Another instance is the analogy between the Them and their rival gang, the Johnsonites, on the one hand and heaven and hell on the other and Adam musing that the adults of Tadfield (the humans) would probably be glad if both of the gangs just disappeared (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 320; cited below). He also criticizes the concept of life after death; Crowley's line in the finale in which he asks God why people are punished for behaving like people is actually a quote by Adam from the book: "I don't see what's so triffic about creating people as people and then gettin' upset 'cos they act like people" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 367; cited below).

What's important to understand the context of this quote is what follows, though: "Anyway, if you stopped tellin' people it's all sorted out after they're dead, they might try sorting it all out while they're alive. If I was in charge, I'd try makin' people live a lot longer, like ole Methuselah. It'd be a lot more interestin' and they might start thinkin' about the sort of things they're doing to all the enviroment and ecology, because they'll still be around in a hundred years' time" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 367; emphasis in the original; cited below). Adam proposes a much longer lifespan for humans as a way for them to experience the direct consequences of their actions rather than getting some rather unrelated reward/punishment in the afterlife. He wants people to have a chance to take full responsibilty for their actions: "If you stop messin' them about they might start thinkin' properly an' they might stop messin' the world around. I'm not sayin' they would, [...] but they might" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 368; emphasis in the original; cited below).

A godless universe? I would say also yes. I remember this quote from back when I first read the book, before watching the series: "I mean, maybe you just want to see how it all turns out. Maybe it's all part of a great big ineffable plan. All of it. You, me, him, everything. Some great big test to see if what you've built all works properly, eh?" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 392; cited below). It gave me the suspicion that the ultimate goal of God might always have been to end his/her existence once creation has proven that it can take responsibilty for itself. Although I assumed that God would simply back out of the existing universe, not create a new one.

Crowley and Aziraphale sacrificing themselves? Maybe. At the end of the book, they choose not to run away and help the humans fight Satan instead, despite knowing that they do not really have a chance (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 373; cited below). So I guess a noble sacrifice would fit their characterisation, even though it would give them an unusual importance in a story that had painted them as rather incompetent bystanders so far (cf. this post by @dustbunniess).

Crowley and Aziraphale deciding on the fate of the whole of humanity alone? I highly doubt that. A story that has always been about human agency, about how supernatural beings should not interfere with human lives, about how destroying the world as it is is not a way to make it better ending with an angel and a demon single-handedly choosing the erasure of the entire universe is more than odd. We know that a plotline involving Jesus and Adam was cut from the finale, so maybe they were meant to play a bigger role in Terry Pratchett's vision. The ending as it is, however, as I said above, goes against the core messages of the book, and I will stand by that.

Crowley and Aziraphale becoming human? Possibly. They were always trying to imitate humans, so it would be a fitting conclusion for their character arc. Although I thought that the point was that they are already human at heart. All the things Crowley envies humans for - mainly free will and imagination (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 47f; cited below) - are qualities he already possesses. It actually reminds me a bit of The Wizard of Oz, in which Dorothy's friends wish for traits they've had all along. The only two things that really distinguish Crowley and Aziraphale from humans are their immortality and their miracles. Take them away from them and all the other angels and demons and they are equal to humans. I don't understand why removing the power imbalance requires them to lose their identity as well, and I'm still not sure whether this was Terry Pratchett's intention.

But even if every aspect of the ending was envisioned by Terry Pratchett, you have to bear in mind that the execution was entirely done by Neil Gaiman. He used the narrative landmarks that were set and built the plot around them. His comment about not really knowing where the idea with nightmare of the bookshop came from further suggests that he was making a lot of things up as he went. And when it comes to the messages of the story, one has to admit that he did not add much that was of value. The scene with God and Satan in the bookshop that was supposed to represent the philosophical core of the finale, for example, did not contain much original dialogue, but relied on recycled lines from the book instead, like Adam's remark about punishing people that I quoted above or Crowley's musings about human nature (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 47f; cited below).

Neil Gaiman is also the one who made the romance between Crowley and Aziraphale explicit on request of the fans, only to have it end tragically ("There was a point where I started to go: You know, I can give you what you want, but you won't want it" - that were his own words; cf. this video, timestamp 11:56-12:04). If they were always supposed to get annihilated in the end, he should have left it out. Since the story had shifted its focus to Crowley's and Aziraphale's relationship, the only narratively satisfying conclusion would have included a happy ending for them. I'm sure there would have been a way to do that without betraying the core of Terry Pratchett's vision. What we ultimately got was a weird example of 'having your cake and eating it too', as Reddit user WAR_FROM_GOOD_OMENS put it in this thread, of putting a lovestory in but also staying true to the original ideas under circumstances that had changed from the book (see also this post by @i-only-ever-asked-questions).

So, what is the takeaway from this post? Well, the takeaway is that the ending of Good Omens 3 is not the result of a rewrite of Neil Gaiman's scripts, but something that was planned right from the beginning, most likely even back when season 2 was written. And that we will never know for sure how much of it can be attributed to ideas by Terry Pratchett and how much to choices made by Neil Gaiman.

I understand that many people are unhappy with the ending and are looking for someone to 'blame' for it. And that many find the idea comforting that what we saw is not the 'real' ending and that a truer, more hopeful version of it exists somewhere. But in the end, we have to ask ourselves: does it really matter? You are allowed to like or dislike the ending, no matter who wrote it. Actually, I don't think the author of the ending should have an influence on your judgment of it at all. The finale of Good Omens is what it is, it does not become better when Terry Pratchett came up with it or worse when Neil Gaiman, Peter Atkins or Michael Marshall Smith invented it. Just look at what we've got and use your skills in media analysis to decide whether it makes sense for the story, for the characters, and for your own taste and morals. And if it doesn't, you can't change it anyway, but you can create a version for yourself and for other fans that feels more fitting. You don't have to accept an author's word on the story, no matter how famous or how skilled he is.

Keep going, Good Omens fandom!

Work cited:

At Eden's gate a gentle angel

Stood shining with a bowed-down head,

While dark and fierce, the rebel demon

Above the hellish chasm sped.

The spirit born of doubt and scorning

Upon the spirit pure did gaze,

And felt, through unexpected yearning,

A tender warmth for the first days.

"Forgive me," then he softly uttered,

"I saw you, and your light was true;

Not all within this world I hated,

This is my canon ending. I decided so.

👋 Bye!

Fix-it ver. Angel with A Shotgun Derringer

Aziraphale says "you must have had records" and Nina, hypnotized, responds "yes, we were very good at keeping records". Keeping. What does Maggie's record shop notoriously not do? Sell records. She is the record-keeper.

The nuns' records at Tadfield were destroyed in a (hell-made) fire. When the world is remade to Adam's preference at the end of S1, he restores the records and puts them back. He just puts them back .. slightly differently. It's an 11 yo child's understanding of records, tucked back into reality safely, placed right back into a space that had been destroyed by a fire.

Aziraphale's bookshop.

Nina not having a job at the nunnery except to provide refreshments-- carries over too.

Anyway.

Staged - Clapperboard Hands

David Tennant at the Rivals Season 2 event in NY - May 2026

Not saying thank you

Bonus:

David Tennant answering the question: When returning to Doctor Who, what did you bring to the table that was different than the previous time you played the Doctor?