So, I tried watching a bit of Good Omens TV adaptation and...hm...well, it's a bit of mixed bag.
On the one hand, the show clearly realized the most entertaining aspect was Crowley×Aziraphale interaction, so there was significantly more of that, which is good.
On the other hand, going through "human history" with two White dudes as a demon and angel, presuming that the all events in the Bible is historical whilst making snide comments about said events, and depicting the infernal and celestial servants as "human" but also demonstrating the author has a clear idea of "good" vs. "evil" whilst trying to ruminate on the nature of "good" vs. "evil" but not acknowledging that morality and human judgement of good and evil stems from human understanding, thus not divine, just...feels a bit shallow.
In other words. The show both wants to make fun of the idea of "god as the moral arbiter" but also condemn revolutionaries for being too blood thirsty.
It's like... Guys (or rather, guy, since Neil Gaiman is solely in charge of the show's script), you can't have it both ways. Either you take a secular stance on morality, wherein you accept that morality is a social construct, therefore there is no authority and the judgement of whether an event is "good or evil" is dependent on the interest of the person doing the judging. OR you accept that there is some divine moral authority on what is good or bad and you kind of lose the ground for making fun of the Old Testament's morality because...well, divine authority and all that.
The other thing I'm a bit annoyed by is that despite the general theme of "good and evil are human constructs, demons and angels don't actually have moral compasses because they're just supernatural minions of two supernatural factions", the show continues to use over-played tropes when it comes to the depiction of Crowley and Aziraphale. One of the fun elements of the book version of these two characters is that they are not depicted as "good" or "evil" specifically. Yes, Crowley is uncaring of the damage he wreaks when pursuing his own goals. Yes, Aziraphale has a constant urge to help if he sees someone in need of assistance. But there's nothing inherently good or bad about what the two characters are doing. Neither Crowley nor Aziraphale have strong moral objections to good or bad things because of their feelings. When they object to doing a thing, it is because they are driven by obedience to their faction, not because the thing registers as "good" or "bad" on an emotional level.
However, in the show, both demon and angel have a clear and agreed upon standard for "good" vs "evil". Demons merely do evil while angels do good. Which might have been fine if the subjects involved were cut and dry events like "help a frail old lady across the street" or "burn people alive for shits and giggles". But when it comes to events such as peasant uprising against the monarchy because the peasants are dying by droves under the mismanagement of the aristocracy... "Good" and "evil" are just such weak concepts when dealing with the complexity of social power struggles and equitable distribution of resources.
In other words, I find Good Omens TV show about as a mixed bag as the book but for very different reasons.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
