Well, what a deflation that turned out to be by the end.
After starting off promisingly, Neil Gaiman's unexpected follow-up to his & Terry Pratchett's critically acclaimed novel (via a televised adaptation) seems to have been nothing but hot air, with the benefit of hindsight; a needless regurgitation of the exact same premise, repeating themes which were already present in the original but to far less greater effect, with none of the subtlety or nuance present in the first. Therefore, what did the sequel offer?
Honestly, nothing.
I say this because "Good Omens" has always been a tongue-in-cheek satire of our flawed perceptions of inherent good versus evil, encapsulated via the physical manifestations of both; an angel & a demon, comedically working together whilst naively claiming to serve at the behest of different factions (who always seem to have a common interest, when their actions are examined with a sense of objectivity). Hence, the humour we grew to love was derived from observing needless situational difficulties, borne from complexities, conflicting with fundamentally, overly simplistic understandings of human behaviour - predominantly due to / influenced by a narrow minded interpretation of religious texts which are far more subjective than we care to admit. Furthermore, the suggested implications of a homosexual relationship between the two protagonists has additionally been there from the very start... It's just that the detail was embedded within the subtext, for those who cared to look deeper.
What did this do, but drag it out & prostrate the glaringly obvious - to anyone who's been paying attention whilst reading - before us, for those unable to infer meaning, hidden between the lines? Plus, to relinquish any doubts anyone may have - in justifying why I make these criticisms, for full transparency, I'm a gay man so have no quarrels with LGBT+ representation (in fact, I cherish it when done properly) but other than confirming well-established fan theories (congratulations - you had to have it literally spelled out for you - as if that isn't patronising at all?), what was the actual narrative accomplishment here?