The Worm on a Cloud

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:

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.

THEY RELEASED THE COYOTE VS ACME TRAILER !!!!!

WE WON !!!

Now that Good Omens is over, I can finally see what I love and what I hate about this narrative, both, the book and the series, in terms of storytelling and characters...

Regarding Aziracrow/Ineffable Husbands, before the series, the audience understood their relationship as "an honest and solid queerplatonic" OR as "they are totally an old married couple, Your Honor, it's right under your nose".

Both interpretations worked because the book left enough room for it. Aziraphale and Crowley had a connection, but this unique connection wasn't openly explored, which opened the possibility for the audience's mind to explore it in whatever way they saw fit, in theories and fanfiction.

Although there are some elements in the book that I find somewhat prejudiced, nothing excessive, but it needed a post-90s revision (something that the adaptation attempts to correct, in S1, where possible).

But, too, after season 1, some things changed in how the audience understood the personalities of these characters…

I love the irreverent narrative tone of the book and Season 1. I think the adaptation retold the book, improving some elements. It was great to have flashback scenes of Aziraphale and Crowley, it was interesting to see Satan visually at the airbase, and the punishments of Aziraphale and Crowley and how they escaped were also creative additions. There's more Queen songs playing.

But despite everything, there are things we need to point out; The flashback scenes in Season 1 better outlined their relationship, giving them more prominence in Season 1. However, this makes it seem like it only takes on a more 'romantic' form in the last centuries, whereas before, because there are no flashbacks in the book, fans were much more freer to imagine when and how their relationship became more than it seemed.

But the change in personality began there, in season 1, albeit in a more subtle way;

Look, Crowley was an "optimistic" in the book, but in the series he's given a more grumpy and whiny personality. While in the book Crowley goes to Tadfield without being told to, I never interpreted the Crowley in the book as thinking Aziraphale was dead, only that he thought he was disembodied and in heaven (which he was). I simply thought he would know the difference between hellfire and ordinary fire. But the Crowley in the series doesn't know the difference; for him, Aziraphale is dead, so he suffers, drinks, and becomes a sentimental mess (the crazy thing is that NG stated that he changed this because he 'suffered from Terry's death' and wanted to express that in that scene, about 'thinking you've lost a friend', when I think about it now it makes me angry!!!).

But even before that, the series has them fighting in the 'bandstand scene', and after that when Crowley goes after him in S1E3 and S1E4. This change in the character's personality made the audience see Crowley as more needy and emotionally dependent on Aziraphale than he was shown in the book.

In the book there wasn't problem between them because they don't fight in the book, there's no scene in the bandstand, no argument, they were more integrated because the plot didn't focus on them, it's leaving room for for readers to simply assume they were a good duo and that's it.

Now, in season 1, that argument between Aziraphale and Crowley at the bandstand scene, and Crowley chasing after him in his car only to be rejected again, I see that as a foreshadowing of what was to come, because the problem was introduced there: neither of them ever talked about it, nor about their differences of opinion on heaven and hell or their relationship openly.

Now I see it as a sign that NG didn't know, since that, how to develop any kind of relationship between those characters!

So, this new understanding, brought about by the adaptation, of their personalities; of Crowley's more needy side, and the long time they spend together without really talking about 'us,' will have consequences for the next season...

Look, season 1, despite some flaws, is still brilliant overall. The problem with the narrative and characterization effectively begins in season 2 and spirals out of control in the finale.

In season 2, we have a Crowley who seems more grumpy (Crowley version from the flashbacks, as Bildad and with Elspeth and Wee Morag, still seems cheerful. He also seems to have fun when he goes to heaven with Muriel, but the plot forgets that he should be helping Aziraphale, not there), but increasingly in the present centuries he seems more closed off, serious and grumpy, further and further from the "optimistic Crowley" of the book.

Meanwhile, the audience expected a development of Aziraphale's character that didn't actually come. We expected that after season 1, he would be better able to discern that "sides" don't matter, and we even expected that the flashbacks in season 2 would be a way to explore this over time. However, in the final episode of season 2, we still hear him saying things like: “You could come back to Heaven and... and everything, like the old times. Only, even nicer” or like “Obviously you said no to Hell, you're the bad guys. But Heaven... Well, it, it's the side of Truth. Of, of Light. Of Good”. Ultimately, this contributes nothing to the character's development.

Fans began to see Crowley as the "poor, heartbroken guy", while trying to find plausible justifications for Aziraphale's words without interpreting it literally. This is evident in fanfictions and theories...

But this only happens because the plot of the second season had already mischaracterized them, since Crowley should never have been transformed into a "mere grumpy, miserable and emotionally needy fool" and Aziraphale should never have been reduced to a "mere naive fool who still believes in opposing sides". From there, things went downhill…

In season 2, the story fails to reconnect the characters with who they were, with what they were in the book, with what they were in season 1.

- First, season 2 erases the remaining human characters from Book/season 1 from the narrative because it doesn't know what to do with them, so it removes them from the narrative core. So we lose Adam, Anathema, Tracy, and all the others from season 1.

- And with the characters that remain, mainly Aziraphale and Crowley, they resemble them visually, but with dissonant personalities.

Because the plot also doesn't know how to truly write these characters!

Aziraphale becomes excessively silly (a disservice to the character; many had already mentioned that Aziraphale seemed to have regressed in Season 2, but most of us chose not listen, thinking there was more to his actions than what was shown, and in the end, it was just a regression, without anything truly elaborated behind his actions), while Crowley becomes more grumpy and needy (when in the book Crowley was optimistic! And in Season 1 he was more fun! But now he became a depressed and needy bore, almost a martyr, where the plot constantly tries to give him the spotlight).

Crowley never says he's living in the car, Aziraphale never asks. They never really talk about their relationship. The Season 2 storyline, without really addressing the second coming or a new apocalypse, getting lost in trying to develop random characters, and failing to establish the "Aziracrow" relationship, and after going nowhere, ends with a dispute between them that divided the audience into "pro-Crowley" or "pro-Aziraphale".

It was awful. The fandom was divided, people started creating theories and writing "fix-it" fanfiction or taking sides, whether it was Crowley's or Aziraphale's.

While the Finale be unsure how to develop their relationship; Aziraphale becomes even more mischaracterized because the narrative insists on forcing him to still believes in sides and making Crowley more and more depressed with martyr-protagonist tones.

And they continue without any dialogue about this or about anything happening between them. Both, the Season 2 plot and the finale, give shape to any other romantic relationships, but not to the main couple.

We never see them have an honest dialogue about "us".

It's curious that, in the book and in Season 1, we have several characters, and even though Aziraphale and Crowley are just more one of all them, they manage to delineate their personalities and relationship well. But in Seasons 2 and the finale, where they are seemingly placed in the foreground, where they should have more prominence and more screen time to develop THEIR story, this doesn't happen!

Perhaps it would have been better to keep them as supporting characters (it seems to have worked for Beelzebub and Gabriel, and for Muriel and Eric), perhaps it would have worked for Aziraphale and Crowley too if plot hadn't tried to force them onto the screen as the "protagonists" they never really were!

And this leads: In the end, the Crowley of the finale was very far from being the "optimistic" Crowley of the book; he basically became his reverse twin, a pessimistic and depressed Crowley who lives on the streets and has lost all hope. Meanwhile, Aziraphale doesn't evolve; he continues to think that hell is terrible and heaven isn't as bad as its actions suggest, as in phrases like: "Someone must've had a motive for the theft. A motive for the murder. Angels aren't killers". So he suggests that it might be hell that stole the book of life. In other words, he learns nothing beyond the "sides".

Their character development was terrible because it was a "involution", a decline. And this, added to the fact that they never talk about "us", ends up making us, as fans, hate what plot did to them.

On the other hand, the Finale returns to central points of the narrative, of the book and the series, the question: is this universe, and the world they live in, deterministic or stochastic?

At this point the plot attempts to recapture elements from the book such as;

"God does not play dice with the universe; plays an ineffable game of own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time" - GOOD OMENS BOOK

and

"Maybe it's all part of a great big ineffable plan. All of it. You, me, everything. Some great big test to see if what you've built all works properly, eh? You start thinking: it can't be a great cosmic game of chess, it has to be just very complicated Solitaire". - GOOD OMENS BOOK

The plot of the finale even attempts to suggest that they're going from a deterministic universe to a stochastic one. But it FAILS.

It fails to conclude its central narrative arc because, in presenting the new world requested by Crowley and Aziraphale, this new world makes a point of showing that all the characters from the past universe, immortal or human, still exist in this new universe, all at the same time in the same place, that there's still a strong connection between who they were in the past universe and who they are now in the new universe. The new version of Aziraphale still likes books, still has "fell" as a name, his love still called "Anthony Crowley" and eventually they not only fall in love but also acquire a globe with the bookshop and the Bentley from the previous universe, proving that that universe wasn't truly forgotten.

Which leads us to the question: Did God bluff? Did they not overcome the system? Is it a deterministic or stochastic world?

In other words, in an attempt to give the characters a happy ending, despite all the flaws and setbacks in the plot, the story ends up returning to a deterministic universe. Except without the supernatural element. Making what Agnes had already predicted a reality? Consider this:

"Further Nife and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter," Anathema read slowly, "Concerning the World that Is To Come; Ye Saga Continuef l Oh, my . . .". - Good Omens Book.

What was the overall problem? I think it stems from trying to make Aziraphale and Crowley the protagonists they were never intended to be.

It would make more sense to me if it were like this: Instead of Crowley and Aziraphale, it could be Adam and Josh/Jesus at the end facing God, asking for their world back, but everything supernatural (angels, demons, heaven, hell, God, and Satan) would need to stay away in a parallel plane. At most, they could observe from afar, without interfering… So those who wanted to stay and interfere could simply stay, but as humans, and all the laws governing the universe from then on would be the laws of physics and nothing more.

That way they would solve the "determinism vs. stochastic world" problem that was created as the plot of the finale.

Crowley and Aziraphale would only need to talk about one thing: what do they want for themselves, what do they want for their future together? From there, they could even choose to remain human and finally live the love story they were never able to before, given that I doubt they would be happy in a parallel plane, far from humanity, surrounded by other angels and demons, forever...

...The story still wouldn't be able to fix the damage it did to their personalities on S2 and Finale, not at this point, not in 90 minutes, but it could still fix what it could and give them a happy ending in their original world, and at least get it right with "the right world".

But, in the end, that wasn't the chosen path. Yes, I was frustrated by that...

Well... the ending itself, what we saw, I don't think is bad, but it left many questions! Are they them? Aren't they them? Is it a new world? Isn't it? Will they eventually remember? Won't they remember? Did God bluff? Did God not bluff? Does God still exist? Does God not exist? Why does everything in the new world seem so ineffable? Many questions, no answers.

But, despite all the flaws and the TERRIBLE character development of Aziraphale and Crowley, there are still points I consider positive in the adaptation of the book in the first season and its expansion into the second season and the finale episode:

Of the good things...

1) I loved getting a red-haired Crowley played by David Tennant, I also loved Sheen's Aziraphale visual concept. I didn't know I needed it, but now I can't imagine anyone else playing these characters.

2) All the flashbacks are creative, whether make sense or not. I simply love when the plot shows them in another time, whether in S1 or S2, and whether people liked the finale or not, I became obsessed with Aziraphale's long hair in that first scene. Someone can put me in a straitjacket now, I'm obsessed with hair! Now I simply need a collection of fan art with Aziraphale and Crowley, both with long hair. It's mad!

3) I liked the blossoming of Beelzebub and Gabriel's relationship, as well as Eric and Muriel's. Aww, both so cute. These two couples were something I wasn't expecting, and I'm glad I got them in the adaptation. I liked Nina and Maggie too, despite everything. And, despite people hating it, I also liked Asa and Anthony! Regardless of whether people think they're still Aziraphale and Crowley or not, they're still so cute the way they are.

4) Oh, and I can't forget, I loved Jesus! Another such cute character!

5) And, despite everything that's wrong with Season 2 and the finale, I still laughed at several moments.

6) I like how much more queer the adaptation is than the book. In the book, God is a he, in the series a she. And we have many more queer characters in general than in the book. I know that in the book supernatural beings are canonically genderless or gender-fluid, but the adaptation embraces queer diversity more broadly! And this had an impact on the fans, who began to accept themselves more as a result.

It's a strange feeling. I didn't love it. Nor did I hate it. I just tolerated what I got from the adaptation. Maybe it's because I'm a Libra! It's very difficult to take sides when you're a Libra; we always try to measure things, balance positive and negative points, weighing all the pros and cons exhaustively without ever really reaching a conclusion that benefits either side!

Anyway, I'll keep the good things that Season 1 + Season 2 + Finale gave me in my heart (a collection of several things), but I'll minimize the things I didn't like (quite a lot, but what can I do? I can't change it, I can only overlook it). I didn't love the Book + Season 1 + Season 2 + Finale collection, but I didn't hate it either. I'm somewhere balanced between the two. Love the good things and hate the bad things. Life goes on…

I’m really starting to think that we ended up with a linear story in GO3 that was never intended to be a linear story - and unfortunately, the changes that may have been made to make the story fit the 90-whatever minute runtime are some of the main points of friction in the fandom right now. Spoilers and a couple of theories based on the pieces of the puzzle we got in s2 below the cut.

I think the true villain of season 3 was to have been the Metatron. I think in essence the Metatron is the machine of the Party. God is Big Brother, apparently in control but actually distant and watching it unfold.

I found your idea that maybe Adam had changed something that made this new world possible interesting! I hadn’t thought of that. I’d attributed it all to the Metatron. Certainly the Book of Life is a crazily powerful object and I think we can trust Crowley when he says it was just a joke. So when did it come into actuality then? Did Adam accidentally create it?! And the Metatron has been using it since? Hm…

I didn’t catch the rat in the alleyway as a 1984 reference but yes that makes sense. It gives another layer of meaning to the fact that the Bookshop doesn’t have rats huh? Maybe there’s a little sanctuary the Party can’t reach…

I’m putting together some book quotes that might have been relevant to a new plot for Adam (at least in the book sequel… in the show at this point, who knows) but I’ll go ahead and post this one:

Adam turned and appeared to notice them for the first time. Crowley was not used to people identifying him so readily, but Adam stared at him as though Crowley’s entire life history was pasted inside the back of his skull, and he, Adam, was reading it. For an instant, he knew real terror. He’d always thought the sort he’d felt before was the genuine article, but that was mere abject fear beside this new sensation. Those Below could make you cease to exist by, well, hurting you in unbearable amounts, but this boy could not only make you cease to exist merely by thinking about it, but probably could arrange matters so that you never had existed at all.

It seems likely to me that the 6-episode version of Good Omens season 3 always went roughly this way, and the script was cut down to 90 minutes instead of being rewritten into a clear, satisfying, 90-minute arc.

With that thought in mind, it makes me wonder what the missing pieces would have been, and how they would have built up to this ending feeling like a clear fit. I.e., how do we get from S1's Adam being convinced not to replace his friends' parents and S2's Sitis saving her children to S3's clean slate approach?

I think there are snippits within the remaining 90 minutes that hint at how the necessity for rewriting the universe could have been supported by what was in S3.

The decay of Whickber Street could have been a case study in it: Aziraphale left, and in the span of just a few years, it utterly collapsed. Why? Well, Aziraphale wasn't there supporting it. When he lived there, he wasn't just passively failing to collect rent; he was supernaturally molding the environment around him to provide sturdy buildings that don't require maintenance, protect it from gangsters and government inspectors, and everything else to ensure that he and his neighbors never encountered any serious problems.

Tadfield could have been another case study: We saw at the end of S1 that Adam kept his powers. The first newspaper headline in S2 says "Is Tadfield the Best Village in England?" Adam presumably kept using his powers to make it a wonderful place to live, with idyllic weather, no devastating highway construction or predatory corporations moving in, and neighbors who never moved away. Adam renounced being Satan's son, but even without his conscious meddling, he still kept Tadfield intact.

Crowley's plants are a case study as well: Without miracles, he has only one left alive, and it doesn't look like it will last much longer.

Aziraphale leaves, and Whickber Street crumbles. Adam stays, and Tadfield remains. Crowley loses his miracles, and his plants die.

Why can't the current universe exist without God? The same reason Whickber Street can't exist without Aziraphale.

To lean into the trend of angels and demons pairing off (from S1's Aziraphale/Crowley, S2's Gabriel/Beelzebub, and S3's Muriel/Eric), this could even be because of angels and demons, not God Herself.

We only ever see Aziraphale and Crowley stationed permanently on Earth, but in S2, Shax calls herself "Hell's representative in London." The implication is that there are hundreds or thousands of angels and demons stationed all over the world.

Perhaps they're all constantly, subconsciously keeping things running, the same way Aziraphale does with Whickber Street, Adam does with Tadfield, and Crowley does with his plants. They don't need to be purposefully trying to keep the world running; their desire to have their own small part of the world be nice is what keeps the whole world worth living in. (And isn't that a nice thought, by itself?)

Telling them not to meddle wouldn't be good enough; they're meddling subconsciously, all the time. The bookshop has no rats because Aziraphale is an angel. Shutting off their miracles wouldn't save the world; it would crumble, just like Crowley's plants.

The existence of angels and demons was built into the fabric of the universe, and they can't be removed from the ecosystem without everything falling apart. The only way to have a universe without supernatural meddling is to change the very fabric from which the universe was made.

In that spirit, things I loved:

Their war outfits??

Present day Crowley’s lovely ridiculous curls

Muriel being a ray of sunshine

Aziraphale having no actual plan other than trying to talk the planet into being good, via Jesus. Still a better plan than Armageddon, at least

Crowley sleeping in the alley to protect the bookshop because he can’t bear to stay in there but he can’t bear to be away

Aziraphale’s absolute joy at getting to be the one rescuing Crowley this time, showing him he still loves him in Crowley’s own love language

Crowley’s bafflement at Aziraphale knowing a David Bowie song

Jesus immediately bonding with the humans and using his little time on earth to just get a snack and tell some stories and share a bit of comfort

Aziraphale trying desperately to think of music Crowley would like in the car on the way to save everything

Them actually talking honestly about how fucked their situation was, because there was no real choice for either of them, but they couldn’t not try

The plot following through on the cocked Chekhov’s gun of the Book of Life

The uncanny nuclear shadow residue of the dead angels

Crowley taking in the “I had to do something to make a chance for us!” conversation, realizing he’s still loved, and immediately following Aziraphale straight into Heaven itself

The golden waistcoat and the entire incredibly tacky “fuck you” that was his heavenly outfit

The angels’ egos being their undoing. They couldn’t keep Aziraphale or Jesus contained or organize a proper apocalypse bc they were too busy undermining each other

The glee Aziraphale gets at getting to Investigate again and Muriel at getting to join in

His disguise. The teeth. The Kewpie doll hair. The egregious tongue

Receptionist Eric’s outfit

“A MURDERRRRR”

“It’s my job to set an example for all the other angels by —mmmMMMmmmMM—making choices” (immediately tucking in)

“HELL is NOT MOCKED!” “How about some gentle ribbing?”

Eric and Muriel being delighted to run into each other again

The hired goon sitting down with his petrol can to finish off the nice lunch

Crowley finally getting to take Aziraphale to space and drive the Bentley as fast as he could

The fact that the eternal flame is actually in the real-world Book of Revelations — every evil thrown into it ceases to exist, including death itself. Much nicer than Michael’s use of it

Jesus’ pizza blessings. So silly but so kind

“Your soul is important to us. Please hold”

The way Aziraphale gets to say exactly how good he thinks Crowley and his questions are, before the end.

The way they reach for each other just before.

As for the end: I hoped they could use the Book of Life to reverse everything. When that was destroyed I was shocked. And then when they started writing a new book, I hoped they’d use that to restore everything. I love the idea that whatever the-powers-that-be destroy, we still get to write what comes next. Admittedly, I didn’t know what they could do with Heaven and Hell.

But I didn’t want them to actually get to talk to God. And I didn’t want her to restart everything. I wanted Crowley and Aziraphale to have the chance to just save what they loved, and live happily in it.