Obsessed with all things Good Omens | I strongly identify with Crowley
I have been over 18 for a very long time. I grew up with she/her pronouns, although any are fine. (I am frequently addressed as "Sir" by store clerks, and then when they look again, they are all apologies to correct themselves. I find this amusing. I am tall, prefer masculine clothing, have a low-pitched voice, and apparently stand/walk in a way that can be perceived as masculine. But have feminine body curves. I look both like my Dad and my Mom.)
I am attracted to other people mostly by their personalities, rather than body type, although I have more commonly been attracted to people with male bodies. I am married, and have one child. (Just in case anyone was curious.)
...wait a minute, where did the last 10 (20, 30...) years go? How did I get here?
As if you fell asleep and when you wake up it's not the next day, but years and years have somehow gone by, but you feel almost the same, inside your head. But everything outside is different. It sometimes feels very surreal, like everything around you isn't really there, just some kind of mask or overlay on top of whatever reality is, like you are inside the Matrix, but have become aware of it, for just a moment.
And then, all of the "normal" things that you have to do just to survive and get through every day kind of drag you back down, into the "pretend" that is the normal everyday reality that everyone else is living in, and that weird sense of hyperawareness goes away, and you're back in "reality" again. Lately it feels more and more like this reality is a "pretend", even though I know that it is supposed to be the REAL reality, and that my imagination is supposed to be the "pretend" reality.
For whatever reason I am having these flashes of "hyperawareness" (not sure what else to call it, really) more and more often. I'm not sure what that means. I have never been "normal" (just ask any relative, teacher, or acquaintance), always read too much, asked too many questions, had too many opinions that weren't agreeable with everyone else's. Not sure if I have some sort of mental illness, physical illness, have become over-aware of and possibly obsessed with my own mortality, or what...
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Aziraphale and the history of the effeminate gay man trope
recently, there was this rage bait post about Sheen's portrayal of Aziraphale and how it connects to very old, homophobic tropes of the effeminate gay man (I know you all saw it). I don't do ragebait, so I didn't engage, but I do think the topic's interesting, so let's get into it shall we?
what the OP completely failed to explain (because they were rage baiting, kept contradicting themself, and had seemingly no idea what they were talking about acutally, duh) was the historical context of that stereotype and how it influences how we as audiences read Sheen's portrayal of Aziraphale and why.
[Edit: After talking to someone in the replies here who discussed with the poster I'm referring to and revisiting that discussion, I must admit that the post read more ragebait-y in the moment than it probably was meant to be taken, and I feel now I was wrong making such a point of it. It's also not really relevant to the main topic or argument of my post anyway, which stands on its own. As I'm not in the habit of hiding my mistakes, this is me owning them.]
you remember that Disney villain you had a crush on when you were a child, only to later realize that said villain, and you, are both queer(coded) as fuck? that stems from the Hays Code. the Hays Code was a self-censorship protocol devised in the early 20th century to keep Hollywood in check ideologically. it stated, roughly paraphrased, that "deviant" characters (gays, communists, etc.) should not be portrayed in a positive light. so what did creators do? they queer-coded their villains, later on the funny side-characters meant to be the butt of the joke. ever heard of the "bury your gays" trope? where there's exactly one gay or queer-coded character, and they die halfway through the film? that's where that comes from. the Hays Code basically said that you can have a queer character, but they can't have a happy ending because that would give audiences the wrong idea about what was "good" and the "right" (aka straight) way of living.
the Hays Code, though long abolished, was very pervasive and influential asthetically, to the point that we still see traces of it in the media made and consumed today. there's a related subplot in the show Sense8: the Mexican actor Lito is outed as gay, and the only roles offered to him going forward are either "villain" or "drug-addicted, HIV-positive side-character who dies halfway through the story". that's also a result of many decades of Hays Code.
so, what happens when you take that kind of portrayal, the mannerisms, the aesthetic, and use it to portray not only not the villain, not only not the side-character meant to be the butt of every joke, but the PROTAGONIST that audiences are meant to identify with and root for, and who also happens to be a literal ANGEL? you subvert the trope. and that's exactly what Sheen's doing by playing Aziraphale the way he does.
by the way: for this to be true, it doesn't matter whether Sheen knows what he's doing or not. it only matters what the audience reads into it AND that there are visible similarities to the way effeminate gay man in older movies were portrayed, which there are.
thanks for coming to my literal TED talk. here's a cute angel and his bitchy eyebrow to make you smile <3
Thanks so much for the motivation @kitcat-italica 🫶🏻
the Hays Code basically said that you can have a queer character, but they can't have a happy ending because that would give audiences the wrong idea about what was "good" and the "right" (aka straight) way of living.
It's become relevant again because:
How is GO3 bury your gays and homophobic you ask?
We have two adorable men holding hands and one has a wedding ring and they live together.
We've come such a long way!
You know who did not come a long way? Two lesbians. A trans character and his adoring partner. A fussy genderless angel. A sarcastic genderfluid demon.
A whole bunch of weird and wonderful demons in fact. And a bunch of nonbinary angels that I swear longed for freedom.
And also:
so, what happens when you take that kind of portrayal, the mannerisms, the aesthetic, and use it to portray not only not the villain, not only not the side-character meant to be the butt of every joke, but the PROTAGONIST that audiences are meant to identify with and root for, and who also happens to be a literal ANGEL? you subvert the trope. and that's exactly what Sheen's doing by playing Aziraphale the way he does.
And yet - (some) people saw Aziraphale and clocked - villain.
And hated him. And still do.
A bookshish effeminate angel who loves food and enjoys things, listens to classical music and has a posh accent?
Villain, villain I tell you.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
All we 'got' from Metatron is that he messed with the Book of Life.
How or why. Or for how long. We have no idea.
Did it go as he wished? Did it backfire? Did he want what God wanted? What he assumed she wanted? Or did he have his own agenda?
Did he want to stop Second Coming? Otherwise, why the fuck would he give a war starting, disobedient traitor angel who basically lives with a demon and was meant to be punished for helping (and freeing) the previous Supreme Archangel this high position???
Anyway. I know we won't get answers.
But we got Michael. Who was the one suddenly meddling with the Book of Life too. Apparently increasingly so until they steal it and decide to murder other angels because their new boss is refusing to simply end the Universe as was expected and it's driving them mad with exasperation.
Seems a bit rash, but what do I know.
Btw the same way I am not a fan of giving Crowley depression to answer any questions about why he's not doing anything to help Aziraphale, I am also not a fan of making Michael 'go crazy' and start a murder spree. But then I am not a jaded rejected rapist author.
My point, my point, I know:
🐬🐬🐬
Was part of Metatron's role transferred over to Michael? Doon Mackichan said her role got bigger and madder right? Why? In a pointless (to the story) attempt to make it more cohesive? Were they gonna have a fight? About what God wants or something?
Because it did not get more cohesive. Not if we don't know why Aziraphale has the job and what was messed with in the Book of Life. If anything. We don't know anybody's motivations.
Why am I thinking about this? What am expecting?
I don't know.
Closure I guess.
:(
P.S. Metatron tells Aziraphale he needs him for the job because he knows Earth.
??
Did he need Aziraphale to fly a plane or something?
I hoped Metatron could have been sincere you know, knowing Heaven has absolutely no idea how to judge the humans on whether they were good or bad. The Good Place style. That he wanted to try and do it right.
:(
In short? The Trump DOD thought the Iran War would be over immediately but the aircraft carrier has been at sea for 9+ months and in combat for 5 months and it is running out of supplies and having major maintenance issues. Morale amongst the 5,000+ crew is abysmal because they thought this was going to be a 7 month deployment and now they have no idea when they’re going to go home and conditions aboard are growing shittier and shittier.
ao3 is a house of the freaks and the perverts (affectionate). you ARE in the house of the freaks and the perverts. so don’t think about harassing or being rude to the freaks and the perverts who built this anti-censorship house and are kind enough to let you in.
ao3 is proship, profic, and anti censorship. being proship, profic, anti censorship, and hosting dark and taboo fics that were banned on other platforms are the main reasons ao3 was created in the first place.
you are welcome to join ao3. but you are NOT welcome to harass, act rude or be entitled towards the people who built this house. if the fact ao3 allows fics you find disgusting (even though it also allows you to filter out anything you don’t want to see) bothers you so much, you are free to go back to wattpad and have nearly everything censored and banned there.
here’s the list of things you should know if you’re new to ao3
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
After the "season 3" of Good Omens, let's talk about season 2.
I. Shift in perspective: Moving from a human narrative to ethereal drama
Season 1, faithful to the book, was a work deeply rooted in reality. The plot advanced thanks to humans, through colorful characters and their increasingly eccentric reactions to the Apocalypse. Crowley and Aziraphale played a major role, but they acted primarily as fascinated, loving observers of the "human comedy," so to speak. Season 2 marks a complete 180-degree turn in terms of form: it narrows all its focus onto the angel and the demon. However, on substance, the message does not change immediately; it is still about showing how much the world is worth saving with its advantages and flaws.
A. The erasure and flattening of human characters
This recentering on the main duo comes at the expense of mortals. Where figures like Shadwell, Madame Tracy, Anathema, or Newt brimmed with eccentricity, making them instantly memorable, Nina and Maggie are hopelessly normal, placid, and overly realistic. Even if their characterization can be justified (Maggie as an introverted small shopkeeper, Nina as a slightly rough cafe manager processing her personal trauma through her work), they cruelly lack the poetic madness unique to the universe portrayed in the book. Lacking any eccentricity, they end up becoming simple, transparent extras around the main duo, making any attachment nearly impossible.
B. The alteration of Crowley and Aziraphale's characters and the illusion of "off-screen" evolution.
Several years have passed between the end of Season 1 and the beginning of Season 2. The characters have naturally changed, but this transformation took place entirely off-screen. Having not witnessed this journey, the viewer is thrust in front of altered protagonists without understanding how or why they arrived there. The result does not look like a natural evolution, but an arbitrary alteration where the characters become caricatures of themselves.There is a flattening of Crowley and the loss of his demonic nuance. In Season 1, Crowley was fascinating because he maintained a subtle balance between his benevolence and his true demonic malice (his tendency toward trickery, mockery, or the memorable scene where he hands out guns to humans). In Season 2, he is depicted as a character who is constantly agitated, annoyed, and aggressive on the surface, but completely incapable of the slightest act of real malice. By turning him into an irreproachable hero with a heart of gold disguised as a rebel, the series strips him of the ambiguity and depth that gave him all his charm.Conversely, Aziraphale's petty side is emphasized. In contrast, Aziraphale undergoes an inverse but equally damaging treatment. His sincere goodness and attachment to humans, which balanced his slightly selfish, hedonistic flaws in Season 1, are reduced to simple "poudre aux yeux" (smoke and mirrors). He is depicted as pettier, more naive, and more obtuse, serving mainly as a foil to highlight Crowley's alleged moral superiority.
I spoke in more detail about their distortion here: https://www.tumblr.com/belisarius456/823646449122377728/if-you-are-sensible-move-along-and-above-all-have?source=share
II. The alteration of the "ineffable husbands" relationship: From complicity to toxicity.
In Season 1, although Crowley and Aziraphale's shared scenes were proportionally fewer, every single one demonstrated their extremely solid and beautiful bond. Their exchanges, arguments, and bickering were those of an old couple who knew each other by heart. There was mutual respect, a shared love of humanity, and unwavering support against Heaven and Hell. It was refreshing, funny, and far removed from all the usual romantic tropes.Then in Season 2, while they spend a large part of the season together, their complicity collapses. The series tries to make us believe (notably through the concept of the apology dance) that they have never truly spoken in depth over their 6,000 years of existence and that their relationship rests on heavy unsaid things. Furthermore, instead of letting chemistry operate naturally as in Season 1 (where couple-like undertones came from direct banter between them), Season 2 relies on the heavy-handed device of third parties (the shopkeepers, Gabriel) constantly coming to ask if they are together, weakening the authenticity of their bond.We only understand the "romantic" link uniting them in this season through the lens of other humans like Nina and Maggie—erased characters who do nothing but orbit around them to remind us how much they look like a married couple.Take away the Job and 1941 flashbacks from Season 2 (for Edinburgh, it's different) and see for yourself how much they lack chemistry in the present. Try the experiment.
III. A suffocating aesthetic and a shift in visual tone
A. We observe a feeling of confinement in Season 2.
Unlike Season 1, which took us traveling across England and History, creating a warm, cozy feeling on a global scale, Season 2 suffers from indoor filming (heavily influenced by health constraints, which we cannot blame them for).Apart from a brief scene at St James's Park in the first episode, the entire plot stagnates in the bookshop or on Soho street. This lack of air and large open spaces generates a rather suffocating feeling of confinement.Even Aziraphale's trip to Edinburgh feels claustrophobic, lacking wide outdoor shots.Once again, remove the flashbacks and notice this feeling. Even if the best shot of the series in Job's flashback was computer-generated (I realize that), the rest traps us and breaks away from Season 1: no more outside world, no more Tadfield, no more interesting and eccentric humans.
B. Furthermore, a shift in color grading occurs.
Season 1 used a colorful, vibrant, almost absurd visual palette that perfectly matched the frantic pace of a story that never stopped.There were so many colors that you didn't know where to look. This highly distinct visual identity defined by multiple colors was intrinsic to the zany universe of Good Omens.Season 2 adopts much more muted, grainy, aestheticized, and polished visuals (notably during flashbacks shot or processed like old film).In Season 2, we find an aesthetic that is darker, flatter, and more controlled—a symbol of the unfortunate uniformity found across all streaming platform series at the moment. Although Job's flashback offers sublime visuals, this stylistic choice deprives the series of its original chaotic and spontaneous energy.
IV. The trap of the finale, the bias of the kiss, and the absurdity of Season 3.
Was the kiss ultimately just smoke and mirrors?! If Season 2 received higher ratings than the first, it is largely thanks to the last 15 minutes of episode 6. (I know I might miss out on news by saying this, but don't worry, I fell for it too—I was actually the first one).
After years of disappointment over the lack of official same-sex couples in other cult series (Sherlock, Supernatural), the audience was more than pleasantly surprised to finally see two main protagonists of the same sex kiss. This unexpected emotional payoff completely overshadowed all the writing issues of previous episodes. Neil Gaiman used this kiss as bait to guarantee audience engagement and create a sense of urgency around the sequel.(It is an even deeper betrayal knowing that Rachel Talalay specified that no kiss was originally planned in the Season 3 script).
V. A transition toward a dead end
Trying to turn Season 2 into a "bridge" between the original novel and a dark, ultra-short (90 minutes). Season 3 centered on the drama of two ethereal beings is a narrative aberration. You don't write a 350-page book followed by two television seasons celebrating the beauty of humanity only to end up destroying that world or declaring that free will never existed. This 180-degree shift in ideology completely distorts Pratchett's work.
VI. Conclusion and personal rewriting of the canon
Season 2 can be considered a guilty pleasure (at least, that is the case for me). Taken in isolation, it remains an entertaining and endearing television series. However, it fails to be a coherent sequel to Season 1 and the novel.The ideal chronology to preserve the work (in my eyes):
- Keep Season 1 as the only true canonical story.
-Extract the flashbacks from Season 2 (particularly Job's) and insert them in the middle of episode 3 of Season 1 to form a grand 90-minute historical episode.
-Keep only the scene from the rest of Season 2 where Gabriel and Beelzebub declare their love for each other, inserting it right before the Ritz scene. This makes all Season 2 characters canon without altering the message or the end of the series.
Separated this way, Season 2 no longer needs to be watched after Season 1.
My two cents on why I didn't like the ending of Good Omens
To be honest I didn't hate all of it, but there was just so much that didn't sit right with me that I can't accept it as canon (and it's not because it's "sad").
Overall it left me feeling so odd, because (aside from the bit about Asa and Anthony, which was fine ig, that sequence made me genuinely cry on first watch) I couldn't be sad about the Decision. Betrayed yes, but not sad.
I felt like it was trying to trick me into crying, into being amazed by this grand, heroic gesture which actually meant very little to me as a viewer. I guess tricking is something that writing can do, but when you can tell you're being tricked so easily that it actually breaks your suspension of disbelief, I'm afraid we've stepped into bad writing territory.
[I want to make it clear that I'm not blaming this on the director or the cast, I think they did their best with what they were given, and the harassment they've been receiving is gross and unacceptable. Despite everything, I'm glad Rachel Talalay took care of this project, and I'm forever grateful that David and Michael brought this to life for us one more time, seeing them both on screen is a joy every time. Even if I didn't like it, I'm glad they tried to bring it to conclusion.
One other thing that I can't ignore while writing this is how (as some people pointed out) this ending might have been heavily based on NG's scripts, even with some changes, and with what we heard from one of the writers I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, so this is just to say that my complains are more about the crappy writing and the awful messages than about the pacing and all the other stuff that is due to budget and runtime cuts.]
1. For a start, I think this finale places Aziraphale and Crowley on a too high pedestal that they did not need. The original story of Good Omens didn't put all of humanity's sake in their hands, and that's because the original story knew these characters aren't morally superior heroes.
That was the whole point actually.
Crowley and Azi are imperfect in many ways, and it's clear from the start that they don't just want to save humanity because it's "the right thing to do", they mainly wanna preserve their own life and the comfort they found on earth ("no more Mozart", "no more little restaurants where they know you"), and that's what's beautiful about them, what makes them human. They don't love humanity in the selfless, all encompassing way a god would, they love the earth for the same reasons that we do: because of the experiences, of the endless possibilities, the books, the cars, the whales. Yes they love humanity, but they were never meant to make this big of a choice for them.
Of course, I get the existentialism behind that last decision, to have Azi and Crowley choose humanity and offer themselves as a final delcaration of love for them, and I understand why many people found meaning in it. But I also think everything leading up to that scene completely obfuscated the intentions behind it, and the execution of said sacrifice was even more of a mess.
2. We couldn't have seen that coming. The finale spends a lot of time on plots that don't lead anywhere, it dances around Aziraphale and Crowley's problem without giving them time to solve it and TALK (you know, just literally the biggest problem that was brought up in s2 and should've been the main focus of our main characters' arc this season), then we reach the ending and our characters have to take a decision the show did not prepare us for, and then it's over.
That's why a lot of us are upset, it's not because the ending is "sad", it's because it comes completely out of the blue, overturning everything we've always known about the characters and without a setup to support said ending. We've known these characters and this universe for years, we had a pretty clear idea of where their character arcs were headed and what to expect from this story as a whole, and literally nothing, from a narrative perspective, was leading to a tragic ending.
Good Omens has always been a comedy, and even though it did touch on some grimy topics, in the end its characters always found a way out by outsmarting the system and finding loopholes (the "But is it also the Ineffable Plan?", the body swap, the trick with Job's children). The ultimate message was always that, no matter what sick rules society imposes on you, you can choose your own path in life.
So, if there was one thing us viewers could count on, it was that our characters would always come through, and for YEARS the showrunners convinced us that's what was going to happen (namely, the South Downs cottage). Then in s3 the narrative does a 180 and tells you that no, actually there is no way out of this and our characters just need to surrender to the system (why? we're left to wander, this possibility was never introduced to us, so why now?).
What left me utterly defeated in that moment is that Crowley and Aziraphale didn't even try to find another solution or one of the usual loopholes (and there were plenty, the writers just decided not to use them– they had the book of life in their hands ffs, don't give your characters an all too powerful tool if you don't want them to use it).
3. Everything that mattered to us was destroyed. Above all else, this is what hurts the most. And I'm not just talking about our main characters (and everyone else) literally dying, I'm talking about that happening before both their character arcs had reached a proper end.
I'm talking about the fact that season 2 had set up the premise for a reconciliation, which needed to happen in order for their relationship arc to be complete, for this ending to be at least somewhat happy, and instead all we got was a mockery of an apology, and our characters acting as if they had learnt nothing from their conflict (which they didn't, the writing there completely forgot they had some character development to do and decided to not bother with fixing their relationship).
How can I be happy to see these two act bitter around each other for one and a half hour and not address their emotions seriously?
The storyline we were following about these two, along with that of every other character we knew, was discarded, cut short. This is the definition of sacrificing the characters for the plot. A plot that was not even thematically coherent with Good Omens in the end!! Who asked for this? It's no wonder people are pissed. Again I could have accepted their unnecessary death if they had at least solved their own conflict before that. If the story that I had been following was brought to conclusion.
This is why I feel betrayed as a viewer. The writer/s knew exactly what the story needed and what the public expected, and they decided not to deliver that.
4. In the end the message this finale leaves us with reads as "you can't overcome oppressive systems" and it's sad to say, but it's an awful message to spread given the times we're living in, and given that the characters delivering said message are a metaphor for queerness and religious guilt.
Picture it like this: we live in a society that ostracizes gay people and has actively prosecuted and killed them for their very existence all throughout history (and still is). If we had the opportunity to change the system once and for all, of course we would want it to not have existed in the first place so that nobody ever got hurt, but reality is that we can't erase the past (and even if we could magically erase everyone and start over, that would not take away the suffering that already happened!!), we can only fix it in the present and make sure things will be better going forward. That's the most human thing you can do: learn and do better.
Erasing the past and starting from zero is a lazy easy-fix from a narrative standpoint, and it's never a solution in real life, on the countrary, it's something we have to learn to accept as not possible. So why would you try to send that message in a story that's always been a metaphor for real issues?
What are we to learn from this? That when your society doesn't even want you alive you should just hope to get luckier in the next life? To abandon everything you've ever fought for because it's not perfect? Where is hope in all of this? Where is the message of hope that was delivered in the book and in s1?
I'm sorry but this couldn't be farthest from the Good Omens I know. And neither the story, nor the characters, deserved this end. Aziraphale and Crowley didn't deserve to end in such a miserable way, the imperfect humanity they've grown to love didn't deserve to vanish either, they deserved to be fought for, just like our imperfect world does.
I actually really like Cleopandra's alternative ending idea because that feels more like Good Omens, a story where no matter what, humanity finds a way to thrive, and the protagonists are able to get out of any dire situation with a clever twist.
And that ending opens the door to a theme that's also very important to me: change. That's where I thought Good Omens was gonna end, with the system being dismantled, and with all the angels and demons being given the possibility to change.
How awesome would it have been? How satisfying, to see the "holier than thou" angels and the demons who had to make "suffering" their whole personality discover something new, a world of possibilities, and have the chance to decide what they want to do with their existence as supernatural entities. Heaven and Hell are just labels, once you get rid of the system that punishes humans after death and forces all the angels and demons into maintaining a façade, you have given everyone free will. And maybe there will be angels and demons who won't accept this change, who will still want War because that's what they've dedicated their whole life to and will be left asking "what's the point of me now?", and that's where the magic starts, that's when they'll start to grasp the human experience, when they will have to decide what their life means to them, and what they're gonna do with it.
Instead, we got nothing. All the characters we loved didn't get a chance to heal, they simply got erased, their memories and their trauma with them, as if those things weren't at all important to the story.
In the end I'm just disappointed. I know it's unfair to talk about all the stuff that they couldn't fit in just 90 minutes, and it's not like I was expecting this finale to be perfect, but I still did have some hope, because what was the point of making s3 at all if not to give us closure? Who thought not giving our favorite characters closure was a good idea?? I think we all know who, and that's a big part of why I'm disappointed.
I'm pissed at that one awful man in particular who has likely been playing with us all this time and has managed to ruin this for all of us, I'm sad because the fandom's bad reaction is affecting the actors and all the lovely people who did put passion and care in this project, I'm sad for the community who is being divided by this and for the people who had their comfort show ruined. And I'm sad for what this show could've been.
I know it's hard for a lot of people, but I find that the best thing for me is to ignore this last installment and keep enjoying the original work, and the fanwork obviously. We can't let the bad things ruin the good ones, and to me this fandom has always the best part of Good Omens.❤️🤍
Repression is a coping mechanism, not a personality trait
You have probably seen what Mickey Ralph wrote. And of course, everyone can interpret the story presented in Good Omens differently. But I have to say that I really, really disagree with his comment. There are two reasons for this:
(1) We didn’t need “I love you” to be sure that Aziraphale loves Crowley. We already knew that. The love was clearly there in Season 1, even though there were only a handful of touches.
(2) I find framing “being repressed” as a personality trait alongside “impulsive” really shocking. Repression is a coping mechanism. And that is exactly why I wanted Aziraphale to say “I love you”, to witness him heal, work through his trauma, and finally fully accept (embrace) the fact that he loves Crowley.
But of course, this is only my opinion, so it is just as valid as his :)
That's right, WE don't need an "I love you", but the characters did. After 6000 years of hiding, of repressing one's own feelings and being scared that one's love will destroy the other person, you sure as hell need your characters to acknowledge their love in a healthy way. It's not about what the fans want, it's about character development. It's about finally giving your characters the one thing they fought for since the beginning. "Repression" was precisely what we were waiting for them to overcome. Which doesn't mean they need to make it raw on screen, or even kiss for that matter. But it was just the two of them during the tree scene, their walls were down, you can't convince me that if they were a straight couple they wouldn't have had a heart to heart and a love confession right there.
I'm tired. Why do queer people always have to lose? Why is queerness always treated like a tragedy, even in a comedy?? Enough is enough.
On the matter of Aziraphale and Crowley's "Decision", I feel like making a comparison with Miraculous Ladybug another show that was completely ruined by its own creator. Bear with me even if you haven't watched ML, there won't be spoilers
So, one ethical question that ML originally* posed to its viewers was that of what would happen if the villain Papillon/Hawkmoth won and gained access to a wish he needed to alter reality.
Papillon terrorizes (and sometimes kills) civillians over and over for months, but he doesn't care, because he plans to create a new timeline where his wife had never died, so he wouldn't have become a supervillain and terrorized the city (I'll leave the "one life for another" out of this discourse or I'll never get to the point).
So tecnically, if the villain won, everything would be fine: in the new timeline his son wouldn't be an orphan, he wouldn't even remember being one, the civilians wouldn't remember being terrorized, and his crimes would have never existed, all clean. Except not.
Except that even if everyone's trauma got erased because in the new timeline it never happened, that wouldn't mean he didn't commit those crimes, and that wouldn't make the suffering that he caused less real. His victims still deserve justice. And it's not fair that one single person gets to decide arbitrarily over other people's existence. That's why some fanfics set post this hypothetical Wish make a point of restoring their reality and bringing him to justice.
So you can see where I'm going with this.
Erasing the universe does not "make up" for the wrong that was done to humanity and to the angels and demons. Erasing Aziraphale and Crowley's trauma does not equate to giving them a happy ending. Erasing trauma (if that were possible) is a cheap way to avoid having to deal with the consequences of what you've done and possibly having to make up for it.
So I'm not happy that Aziraphale and Crowley got erased alongside everyone, because all those characters deserved a chance to heal, not to forget about their trauma entirely.
And I won't call their trauma-less versions "better" because they're smiling and not hiding behind sunglasses, I won't be happy that "now they can love each other" as if their traumatized selves couldn't be happy together. As if traumatized people and imperfect worlds were broken things to get rid of.
*I'm really only taking the first seasons into account, I think it's pretty clear that from a certain point on the story deviated from its tracks and lost its point entirely to become a moneygrab so I'm sticking with the original concept.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
If they had outwardly been a man and a woman, they would have slept together ages ago. And there wouldn't be all this talk about their "transcendent" or "elevated" love. Hell, their entire concept as characters is that they've become deeply grounded, far removed from anything lofty or divine. Are you serious?
The people saying they didn't need a second, proper, tender kiss because it would have been "the same or less" are just fucking homophobes.
Including Prime.
Fuck the kiss, why the hell didn't we even get a HUG?!
They were literally dying in front of each other, and all the writers deemed acceptable was for them to hold hands for the first time in 6,000 years?
What, are hugs too sexual now? Too intimate? Not "transcendent" enough?
Seriously, saying that a second kiss full of love and understanding and consent on both sides would've been "the same or less" as the first one is loads of bullshit. It's a disingenuous and harmful comparison, and it reinforces the idea that queer intimacy is inherently negative.
I'm tired of having to be the bigger person and accept "transcendental" showcases of love from queer media. Queer people are people too, we're not some ethereal beings who live off of thin air, we express our feelings just like everyone else. Be it a hug, a heartfelt conversation, a kiss. Queer love shouldn't have to be "pure" and "chaste" and ultimately invisible to be allowed to exist.
And I'm obviously happy for the people who saw themselves represented by this finale, but I also can't buy the lack of kiss as purposeful ace representation. And this is not me saying that it couldn't have been.
But if they wanted to give us ace rep you can be sure as hell they would've made that clear. Even one line where they both acknowledge that not kissing works better for them would've sufficied and it would not have changed the plot, instead they avoided the subject so much that the closest thing we have to knowing the characters' thoughts about the kiss is Michael Sheen's "do that again" interpretation from 2023.
I do not believe for one single second that Amazon Corporation was oh so concerned with ace rep when they have the same reputation of cancelling queer media as any other company. The same goes for the cishet writers who worked on the script, with how little they've shown to care about the story in general, I doubt queer rep was ever on their minds.
If we're looking for some good ace rep that would actually be S1. The first season did an AMAZING job at exploring their queerplatonic relationship by not showing physical intimacy but being very intentional with the queer subtext, and all of that without disrespecting its audience by promising something (reconciliation/ a second kiss) and not delivering it.
In the end I think us queer fans have all been played for suckers in one way or the other.
