Oh, yes, that was gross… 
I do love how useless the brother of the chief is, so much so, that he mismanages the settlement so much while the chief and warriors are away raiding, that they have offer the elderly to throw themselves off a cliff to go to Valhalla (and safe food); after the first ones does, the others decline and compromise with the slave who took them there that they will never be seen again in the village.
I thought it had been mentioned on here before, but I can’t find it.
We’ve been enjoying Good Omens this week and last. One episode to go. Very enjoyable so far, David Tennant and Michael Sheen are both eminently watchable.
That show made me so very happy watching it, it is not always a given that good books get a good treatment when adapted for television but as Neil Gaiman was very much part of making this one I had high hopes for it and wasn’t disappointed.
And, yes, both of them are sooo adorable. Were the roles made for them or they for the roles? I have no idea.
This is one show, I’d really like as a hardcopy somewhere here so I can hug it 
Have you watched the series they made for the BBC in lockdown?
Huh? I’m not in UK so I usually have no idea what is going on with the BBC. More Good Omens? This?
update: oh that’s cute and sad at the same time…
I’ve seen a number of people say this and I’m rather baffled by it. That was not my impression watching back-to-back at all.
As for the stories being the same, that’s not a problem for me either. I rewatch things back-to-back sometimes. What I meant was despite more or less telling the same story in those first few episodes, I found it much less engaging. I went back and watched the first few episodes of the earlier show to check if it was an artifact of rewatching but I felt the same way after doing so.
I think the comic is pretty rough. It’s a completely different beast, in any case. The premise and the character concepts are the bulk of what’s recognizable.
I am referring to more use of animated backgrounds and it seems to be there are just a few more details in every scene. Maybe I should have phrased it differently. One can notice that a few years have passed and animation technology seems to have advanced–doesn’t mean I like the new version better. It’s like in Live Action special effects got better, but does that make the new Star Wars movies better than the old ones? … and the can of worms is open 
Hmm. I suppose I think of it less as a technology thing and more as a confluence of budget and aesthetic priorities. There’s a lot of “missing” background detail in Avatar: The Last Airbender, too, but I wouldn’t say the animation is any less engaging than shows I’ve watched that have more illustrative detail.
As an example, there are a few action sequences in Korra where despite more illustrative detail in both foreground and background you can see that there’s less detail in the movements and the choreography and you end up with a sort of stand-and-deliver trading of elemental beams. That’s not a show-wide issue, it just reveals their changed priorities when it does come up.
No it’s actually called STAGED - six short (15) episodes on BBC.
Apparently Michael Sheen was supposed to be Crowley at first, but then both he and Gaiman realized he would be better as Aziraphale.
Watching back some Disney films, I was really shocked by the lack of detail in some scenes (Lion King in particular). It’s not much more than a character on a plain coloured background in some shots. Not sure if it’s 3D animation spoiling us with background details or just more noticeable as we get older and less wowed by bright colours, but I notice the background a lot more now. It’s not really much of an indicator of quality anyhow.
I haven’t specifically heard, but it seems a reasonable guess.
Now you say that, I think he could have pulled off either character, he’s such a good actor.
My only issue with Good Omens was the last episode, I think it was a bit of a letdown. Oh, and the scene where they are supposed to be meeting in King Arthur’s times, and both wear XV century armour harnesses… Basically like putting a Ferrari in the Crusades, but hey, is not like the cinema industry cares much about that…
The King Arthur scene in Good Omens is completely anachronistic on purpose because everything about King Arthur is always anachronistic.
Good call. I do agree that the last episode was disappointing though.
It is a fair point, obviously being a legend from the Anglo-Saxon invasion times, there were plenty of anachronisms even on the accounts from the 1100s… But something as shiny as milanese harness from the 1500s in the Migration Era is like justifying a machine gun from the 1900s in a Renaissance period setting…There are anachronisms, and then there are anachronisms. Good try, though.
You think Gaiman is lying?
No. I say, good try as “Good try at convincing me”.
Mind you, I don’t think they had coconuts either, and there is Monty Python’s Holy Grail out there…