Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Goodnight Sweetheart


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-06-2013, 15:02
Artymags
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 17,209
I think he did-he ended up losing the good life in the 1990s, and the more exciting and attractive partner in his life. He had to make do full-time with being fifty years in his past, with its relative lack of mod cons, and all the features of that age that look so backward and seem like bad things to someone born and raised when he was.
Yes - but he also had the great advantage (and reward) of an unparalleled knowledge of the future which he could use to make life pretty cushy for himself. For instance he could buy up Microsoft right at the beginning.
Artymags is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 12-06-2013, 15:09
woot_whoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,435
I never really liked the second Phoebe, she always seemed a bit dopey and slow compared to the original one who was quite bright and sharp.
I missed the episode where Gary met his son. What happened?
Michael is in his fifties when in one episode, "My Heart Belongs to Daddy", we see him in the present day. He unwittingly visited Gary's Blitz and Pieces shop and appears to be poverty stricken (saying that his father was never around when he was a kid but being interrupted before he can reveal whether Phoebe is alive or dead). Eventually, Gary remedies the situation by setting up a trust-fund for Michael in the 1940s.
woot_whoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 16:24
Cloudbusting
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kent, England
Posts: 612
I have always loved Goodnight Sweetheart. I have all the episodes on DVD and have re-watched the series through quite a few times.

My only complaint is some of the character decisions went too far in the later series, like Yvonne's connection to New Labour and becoming a high flying businesswoman seemingly overnight. I know the series was fantasy-like anyway, what with the time travel, but this particular aspect always felt forced and unreal to me.
Cloudbusting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 23:27
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,498
Michael is in his fifties when in one episode, "My Heart Belongs to Daddy", we see him in the present day. He unwittingly visited Gary's Blitz and Pieces shop and appears to be poverty stricken (saying that his father was never around when he was a kid but being interrupted before he can reveal whether Phoebe is alive or dead). Eventually, Gary remedies the situation by setting up a trust-fund for Michael in the 1940s.
If I remember rightly, Michael was played by Ian Lavender (Pike from Dad's Army) in that episode.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 23:33
Phoenix Lazarus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,967
Yes - but he also had the great advantage (and reward) of an unparalleled knowledge of the future which he could use to make life pretty cushy for himself. For instance he could buy up Microsoft right at the beginning.
He tried to get rich by knowing the future before. There was an episode where he tried to use old newspaper reports to put bets on horses-and one where he tried to get rich by investing in a company that later boomed. Both times the schemes were derailed by fate. Yet Gary set up a trust-fund for his down-and-out son, and changed his future. He also gave advance information that made the attack on Pearl Harbour less totally damaging and left the US provoked enough to turn the balance of the war, without decimating their forces. Also, he saved Prime Minister Atlee, at the series' end. It was as if the laws of time were intrinsically moral, and only let Gary change the future when he did so for altruistic motives, not selfish ones!
Phoenix Lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 00:53
clarky323
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,196
As the last few months I'd watched this for the first time, I decided to watch it again for a bit on GOLD, probably just the first series again, because of the actress changes for Phoebe and Yvonne, I got so used to the new ones from series 4 onwards I sort of forgot what the original ones were like, plus the changes in Ron, he looked completely different!!

anyway, thought there wasn't much difference in the two Yvonnes at all, if you watched just the first episode and the last, you'd probably not know its different actresses! The two Phoebe's on the other hand, it really was different, but I can't work out which was better! didn't really like the Eric character though, guess I'll watch series 2 as well when Phoebe changed to help decide which was better!!
clarky323 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 03:23
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,498

anyway, thought there wasn't much difference in the two Yvonnes at all, if you watched just the first episode and the last, you'd probably not know its different actresses! The two Phoebe's on the other hand, it really was different, but I can't work out which was better! didn't really like the Eric character though, guess I'll watch series 2 as well when Phoebe changed to help decide which was better!!
Well, there we go, I thought the Phoebes looked far more alike than the Yvonnes, who were not remotely alike IMO.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 12:08
woot_whoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,435
If I remember rightly, Michael was played by Ian Lavender (Pike from Dad's Army) in that episode.
That's right.

I recall reading many moons ago that, in order to create contrast between the modern scenes and those set in the past, the 40s scenes were filmed with a sepia filter. The first series is being shown right now, and this is quite noticeable. The 'past' scenes are a little more faded and washed out.

Does anyone know when this stopped? I recently rewatched the later series (with the new wives) and can't recall there being much (if any) difference in the colouration of the 40s.
woot_whoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 12:29
Cloudbusting
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kent, England
Posts: 612
Well, there we go, I thought the Phoebes looked far more alike than the Yvonnes, who were not remotely alike IMO.
I agree with you.
Cloudbusting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 12:48
Phoenix Lazarus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,967
Well, there we go, I thought the Phoebes looked far more alike than the Yvonnes, who were not remotely alike IMO.
First Phoebe was much thinner.
Phoenix Lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 13:02
woot_whoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,435
First Phoebe was much thinner.
You know, I thought that too, but on a recent rewatch I noticed that Elizabeth Carling did actually have a very narrow waist when seen from the side. She was just taller than the petite Dervla Kirwan, and the bulky 1940s clothes did not suit her frame the way they suited Dervla.
woot_whoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 13:08
Phoenix Lazarus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,967
You know, I thought that too, but on a recent rewatch I noticed that Elizabeth Carling did actually have a very narrow waist when seen from the side. She was just taller than the petite Dervla Kirwan, and the bulky 1940s clothes did not suit her frame the way they suited Dervla.
Well facially second Phoebe was a lot chubbier-but then she had just given birth, in the show. Her eyes looked different, darker, than her predecessors, and her nose looked different, too.
Phoenix Lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 14:00
woot_whoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,435
Well facially second Phoebe was a lot chubbier-but then she had just given birth, in the show. Her eyes looked different, darker, than her predecessors, and her nose looked different, too.
Yes, Phoebe 2 had a bigger face and was more jowly. But then, they were completely different people. Carling also had a deeper voice than Dervla's famous sultry tones, and overall the character became (I think) a bit goofier.
woot_whoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2013, 22:21
clarky323
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,196
watched the first eight episodes again then, its very good watching again now I know what happened in the end, turned out Gary told Yvonne a few times that he could go back to 1940's

didn't like the change in Phoebe though, thought the actress just didn't suit that type of character, I liked her much more in the first series tbh!
clarky323 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-06-2013, 22:28
TrishaS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,258
Yes, Phoebe 2 had a bigger face and was more jowly. But then, they were completely different people. Carling also had a deeper voice than Dervla's famous sultry tones, and overall the character became (I think) a bit goofier.




Yes, she seemed to me to be quite stupid and ordinary whereas Dervla was brighter and prettier and you could see why Gary fell for her.
TrishaS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 09:35
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 5,919
I watched this all the way through on GOLD as well and agree with many of the posters:

- Gary was a much nastier and selfish character than I remembered. His treatment of both his partners and friends is pretty bad.

- The tone of the show did shift after the 2nd series away from a comedy drama towards more of an outright farce.

- The change in actresses affected the show considerably IMO. Yvonne became more sexy and less of a bitch whilst Phoebe went in the opposite direction!

Basically, when I watch the show the first time round I kind of understood Gary as he seemed to be miserable and insignificant in the present but could become this important, valued person in the past. His bigamy didn't seem that bad as I remembered Yvonne not being that interested in him. However watching it back I got much of an impression that Yvonne cared about Gary and that his life in the present was actually ok.

Also - I could never imagine Gary being a Satellite dish fitter
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 12:59
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 41,358
I watched this all the way through on GOLD as well and agree with many of the posters:

- Gary was a much nastier and selfish character than I remembered. His treatment of both his partners and friends is pretty bad.

- The tone of the show did shift after the 2nd series away from a comedy drama towards more of an outright farce.

- The change in actresses affected the show considerably IMO. Yvonne became more sexy and less of a bitch whilst Phoebe went in the opposite direction!

Basically, when I watch the show the first time round I kind of understood Gary as he seemed to be miserable and insignificant in the present but could become this important, valued person in the past. His bigamy didn't seem that bad as I remembered Yvonne not being that interested in him. However watching it back I got much of an impression that Yvonne cared about Gary and that his life in the present was actually ok.

Also - I could never imagine Gary being a Satellite dish fitter
I get the impression that Gary ending up stuck in the 1940s was a punishment for him and his misdemeanours. He seemed a bit fed up and depressed in the last episode and I sensed that he wasn't entirely happy at how things had panned out.
Eurostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 13:08
PompeyBill
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,964
Goodnight Sweetheart was one of those shows where I don't know if I liked it or not. Programme itself was good, with an interesting premise, and the storylines were interesting. However, I found the Gary Sparrow character to be an self centred bore, who thought that everybody's life should be centred around him, even to the detriment of their own lives (poor Ron's life seemed to be insignificant to Gary, so long as Ron did what Gary wanted). Am actually glad he ended up decently unhappy in the end!
PompeyBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 20:49
CELT1987
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,525
I get the impression that Gary ending up stuck in the 1940s was a punishment for him and his misdemeanours. He seemed a bit fed up and depressed in the last episode and I sensed that he wasn't entirely happy at how things had panned out.
I think Gary was just unhappy that he couldn't have the best of both worlds - being stuck just in the 40's didn't appeal to him.

Why didn't Ron try to find out if the old Gary was still alive?
CELT1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 20:58
woot_whoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,435
I think Gary was just unhappy that he couldn't have the best of both worlds - being stuck just in the 40's didn't appeal to him.

Why didn't Ron try to find out if the old Gary was still alive?
He might have, afterwards. You might think Yvonne would have, too - even if only to 'give 'im such a slap'!
woot_whoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2013, 21:16
CELT1987
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,525
He might have, afterwards. You might think Yvonne would have, too - even if only to 'give 'im such a slap'!
Would loved to have seen that!
CELT1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2013, 08:28
COTTONHEAT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 6,278
With Birds of a feather returning on ITV hopefully they could bring Goodnight Sweetheart back as well & have them on a Monday night replacing Vicious & The Job Lot
COTTONHEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2013, 23:45
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,498
Goodnight Sweetheart was one of those shows where I don't know if I liked it or not. Programme itself was good, with an interesting premise, and the storylines were interesting. However, I found the Gary Sparrow character to be an self centred bore, who thought that everybody's life should be centred around him, even to the detriment of their own lives (poor Ron's life seemed to be insignificant to Gary, so long as Ron did what Gary wanted). Am actually glad he ended up decently unhappy in the end!
I felt sorry for Yvonne in the end though. It was clear she missed Gary badly - more than you'd have thought.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2013, 03:54
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Black Country
Posts: 96,755
Me neither. Emma Amos was much nicer.
I liked her in The Last Detective as well
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-06-2013, 13:07
woot_whoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,435
Quick question about this show - in the episode 'The Leaving of Liverpool', Gary and Phoebe visit her grandmother in Liverpool. Gary then goes back to the 90s and finds he's changed things in the past (and thus altered the future), so goes back to 40s Liverpool (all during the night of their visit) to ensure that Ron's granfather becomes a hero, thereby restoring the 90s to how he had known it.

The question is, how the hell was Gary getting back and forward from Liverpool to London (and the time portal) in the middle of the night in the 40s? That episode seemed like the writers had forgotten that Gary could only time travel via Duckett's passage. He's simply pop out of Phoebe's gran's front door in Liverpool and the next scene would have him in 90s London!
woot_whoo is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:17.