Hi, I am back again since I last spoke about what is so not nice about Carrie Bradshaw in my previous entry, I dislike Sex and the City: What is good about emulating Carrie Bradshaw anyway?. Anyway, a very recent entertainment news snippet (don’t know if it is real or rumour) which states that the leading actress wants a possible Sex and the City sequel (gasp!) after and despite the Sex and the City 2 flop which happened last year. Here is the online news snippet which is mentioned on the New Zealand MSN entertainment section.
I am gonna get shot for saying this (by a bunch of very rabid Sex and the City fans especially those who happen to like Carrie Bradshaw) but anyway this is what I have to say in response to this issue. Do we really need another Sex and the City sequel to put up with if the third movie happens? Honestly speaking, Sex and the City is already dead (and would love it to stay that way, really). That’s not all, when the second movie got butchered by the critics in 2010, I was left smiling all the way. So, why should we have to see an irritating so-called heroine (who is actually a materialistic, dumb, narcissistic, insecure and selfish loser of a shrew with a terrible fashion sense) like Carrie Bradshaw having to grace the silver screen all over again? Honestly, Carrie Bradshaw is so unappealing, unrealistic and out of date. Just give me Penelope Garcia (Criminal Minds), Olivia Benson of Law and Order: SVU or Buffy anytime. Carrie Bradshaw is a no-go and no-show.
Anyway, what says you about this?
i hate sex in the city, im the only one of my friends who just feels like they are flogging a dead horse
Perfectly well said with the “flogging a dead horse” bit and looks like I am not the only one here. Thanks for your input.
The first series of S&TC had a kind of quirky charm – you knew it was all fantasy (how could CB afford the life and clothes she had on what she did for a living) but it was fine. But then they had to go on and on. I think the real reason is that TV and Film executives are lazy, greedy and nervous. Lazy in that it is easier and cheaper to keep doing same old same old, or re-writes of previous hit movies; greedy in that they made shed-loads of dosh first time round and think their goose can still lay golden eggs as they have ‘brand recognition’, and nervous in that they are too scared to commit time and money to making anything new or different in case it flops. Frankly S&TC is so last century now, times have changed – move on.
Thank you for your input, herschelian. You made an excellent point that the tv executives of that show are lazy, greedy and nervous. However, they too created a very unrealistic and inaccurate portrayal of a newspaper columnist. A newspaper columnist in real life would not be able to afford all the expensive goods (too bad to say that Candace B has gotten her facts wrong somewhat). Lastly, you have a point that SATC is very last century.
I actually like the TV show and the first movie (haven’t seen the second one). But, one has to admit their own flaws, right? I like Taylor Swift but that doesn’t mean she is any good. Same happens with other products. Also, I love to read best sellers but that doesn’t mean they are good. It’s just that there is a moment for each thing and the Sex and the City moment is gone, like the actresses’ looks and their fame (and money).
Thanks for your input, Elena. Yes it is okay to admit one’s flaws and you are right that the whole SATC moment is gone (and definitely gone)
SATC morphed from something unique ( the support from girlfriends
needed to survive Big-city relationships and dreams) to the Carrie
show, which featured SJP clod hopping around in ill-advised fashion
disasters worthy of Donna Martin.
The first movie was a wake-up call that our economic platform was about to collapse.
I dared not see the second, but maybe it predicted the democracy movement spreading through the mid-east? Or maybe it just featured some dumb camel jokes.
I dare not think what the next one might bring.
You’re not the only one daring not to think what the next one might bring next. I do agree with you that SATC is Carrie this and Carrie that (Carrie is just sickening really) along with some very unfashionable clothes I would never want to wear when I am in my forties and early fifties.
I worry that so many young women, many of whom flock to New York in their 20s to find fulfillment (defined usually as “falling in love” rather than having a successful career) STILL consider Carrie Bradshaw a role model. SJP’s character chooses to return, over and over again, to a man who deep down does not respect her. Well, it appears that she also doesn’t respect herself, and keeps putting up with humiliation because she is convinced he is “the one.” In real life, such situations often become tragic abuse stories; SATC sends a dangerous message!
Thank you for pointing out another reason why Sex and the City sends a dangerous message to women. From what you commented, you have said it well. Carrie keeps thinking that she has he is “the one” and all his love when in reality she is just too blind and stupid to realise that Mr. Big doesn’t respect her as a person and you are right that she has no self-respect (if you include the part that she stole Mr. Big off another woman, Natasha, who happened to be married to him before she found them out for having an affair). It is a shame that some of those rabid Sex and the City fans think the relationship between Carrie and Mr. Big is love when actually it is nothing but full of alarm bells which indicate abuse. Sadly, the person who created Sex and the City just sugarcoat that abuse bit off just to mislead those fans.