Why on earth did the BBC not make a sequel?? Everything seemed to be left open ended for one. Was it not a success? I read great reviews on it! It's been 9 years so I'm assuming there's no chance! What a shame after watching 10 hours of it I still want more!!
shareYou're not the only one.. I loved it.. I want more... It's just so well done...
shareWell, I'll tell you why - it was because the BBC appointed a new Head of Drama just after this, and naturally s/he (I can't remember) wanted to introduce projects of his/her own.
I only know this because my son, then small if not cute, was Tom St John, the shotgun expert and problem child. Great fun, we all had. He was Bodily Fluids Boy, being smeared at various times with blood, sweat, tears, piss, spit and vomit. Nice.
Oh, he was so cute! He was just a beautiful child and did a great job in his role!
And the other little boy in the other family (can't think of his name) was very good too, quite convincing as a shy and retiring little boy. They did a great job at casting this series.
I'm watching this for the second time, have forgotten anything about a shotgun. hmmmm.
Your son completely won my heart as Tom. Of course he's a probably some great galoot by now, but I'm sure every time I see him as Tom, he makes my smile.
shareI'm with you. I'm in Canada and I just finished watching the mini. Wouldn't you want to know if our trio of nannies got their happy endings-especially Hannah whose rash decision to switch the babies led to the death of probably her closest confidante Mrs. Bronowski.
I'm a big fan of Pride and Prejudice (especially the 2005 version, sorry purists!), and I was thinking that the actor William Scott-Masson who played Captain Mason would have made a great Wickham-he was handsome and a cad but he was convincing.
I'm sorry, what kind of mother says her son wasn't cute?
I thought he was cute.
"You can't tell me nothin' if you ain't had an 8-track." -Sinbad
Hello, megmarch, reading through some old threads here...
My son prided himself on not being cute (I'm using the word in the English sense, cute meaning sweet, loveable, not the American sense which I think is more clever, sharp?).
His most treasured review, of a quite different production, a stage play, went like this - "Billy (the character's name) is funny and mercifully saccharine-free". He liked that.
He's twenty now, a hairy motor-bike-riding music student. How time flies.
I'm thinking that megmarch meant it in the more American sense of "attactiveness".
I have heard it both ways. What a cute (as in sweet) little baby.
However, I hear it more often along the lines of "That guy is so cute." (aka handsome, attractive, etc.)
So I think she meant, "What mother wouldn't think her son to always be cute as in attractive." My answer: An honest one. (I've seen some homely boys.)
Not yours, though. I understood your point, though. Your son - though a handsome boy - was not a "cute" character. He played his part very well. From the moment he came on the screen, I could tell what his character would be and he hadn't even said or done anything. His facial expressions, posture, etc. were perfect for the role.
It's great acting when the character can just stand there and convey a specific presence.
Thanks, H-W. I remember the casting director saying that the casting of this was a dream, all the right people just came walking in her door. The caddish army officer, the scary aunt, the charming scallywag brother, the pompous butler, the harassed housekeeper, the cuddly cook - and the nasty little boy. You smell like a tart was his first line!
I also remember the first read-through, in which, according to the usual custom, all the cast read their lines 'flat' except the butler, a real old-school trouper, and my Laurence, the youngest actor present (the other children being too young to read fluently). These two gave full-on performances, to everyone's amusement.
Ah, happy days. He did do other stuff - a couple of small parts in films, several stage plays - but nothing as big as this, and nothing as much fun.
Wait, wait, wait . . . I must not have read your original post carefully enough.
You son played Tom, the boy who accidentally shot his father?
When you said "the shotgun expert", I thought you meant the nasty little kid who put a dead bird in Tom's bed.
Ahhh, now I get what you mean when you said bodily fluids boy. Completely overlooked that before.
Awww, I think Tom was a cute kid. Spoiled, yes, but neglected by his parents, which made me feel sad for him.
I thought his character became more endearing as the episodes went on. And I loved his interactions with Ned. I was so angry when he was forced into the hunting situations - something I abhor - with no understanding from his father whatsoever. It seemed his father was being so forceful only because his pride was hurt by the obvious flirtation between his wife and Captain Mason.
And my heart broke for him when he was sent away. Poor kid.
If the series had continued, do you know if Tom would have come back or would his exit to school have been the end of his character?
"Shotgun expert", heh heh. I was being ironical. But yes, I agree, Tom was a damaged child and his bad behaviour was a result of his unhappy home. Good writing there. The little sister Harriet was promised some bad behaviour of her own, but it never got written, much to Emily Canfor-Davis's disappointment.
The odious Lord Louis was played by Rollo Weekes, brother of Honeysuckle Weekes, who has done rather well. Very nice lad, actually; they met now and then at castings for a few years after this. Laurence's problem was that his voice was broken and he was about 5 foot 8 by the time he was rising thirteen, so that was the end of that. It was fun while it lasted.
I don't know what would have happened if there had been a sequel. It would have been difficult, because the babies - Imogen, Ivo, Charlie/Billy - small enough to be manageable and played by a variety of infants recruited wherever we happened to be, would have grown into toddlers - imagine trying to film with two-year-olds!
A mother (or Father) with a sense of humor, that's who. He or She is pulling our leg. He was adorable and did a great job with the part. I think all the children were excellent in their roles.
shareMy husband and I finished the last disc Sunday night. I feel like most of the loose ends were wrapped up pretty well.
I loved the show and would have loved for it to go on, but I felt like there was adequate closure for me to be content.
It did seem like there was a closure of sorts for everyone but it was also still an open ending for all of them too. If they had decided to do a sequel there was still a lot of story left to tell. "Upstairs, Downstairs" had about a million episodes. Berkeley Square could have continued in the same vein easily. Honestly, this was so good I can't see why time/money/effort wasn't earmarked for a sequel to this gem among the new chief's new projects. I really wanted to see Ned make it back to Matty in one piece!
(The two little boys were really good.)
~"Chris, am I weird?"
~"Yeah, but so what? Everybody's weird."
[deleted]