Really? Or, Pics From Sex And The City Movie Sequel (Really?)

[Huerta88]

Okay I am obviously not and never was the target audience for this show/franchise. So my not liking it is a big so-what. But it's sufficiently annoying, and the specific question I'm weighing in on is sufficiently puzzling to me, that I don't feel too age-ist or look-ist joining this guy in saying: Really?

http://www.wwtdd.com/tag/sex-and-the-city/

Okay, so those are a particularly horrifying set of photos. I don't dispute anyone's right to make, watch, or like this movie. I don't dispute anyone's right to be older, or less than what I find entirely attractive.

The question about which I'm genuinely curious is the one he raises: do the moviemakers/audience really find plausible plots in which these women are the object of desire by attractive, successful young men? And specific to those "flashback" pictures -- without knowing what moronic subplot the "flashback" refers to -- are they literally meant to be plausible and desirable portrayals of what the characters looked like in their 20s? Or has it just moved into complete fantasy-land/willing suspension of any disbelief/surrealism, like doing Othello with an all-monkey cast? I can get in on the joke, if so -- I guess.

I obviously just don't get it, and that's fine -- but -- really?

[gaffa]

The question about which I'm genuinely curious is the one he raises: do the moviemakers/audience really find plausible plots in which these women are the object of desire by attractive, successful young men? And specific to those "flashback" pictures -- without knowing what moronic subplot the "flashback" refers to -- are they literally meant to be plausible and desirable portrayals of what the characters looked like in their 20s? Or has it just moved into complete fantasy-land/willing suspension of any disbelief/surrealism, like doing Othello with an all-monkey cast? I can get in on the joke, if so -- I guess.
These are still photos of the shooting of a scene that will, undoubtedly, be processed by Lola FX (http://www.lolavfx.com/who.php). This is the software that has been used to make Brad Pitt both older and younger for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and has been responsible for making both Madonna and Kylie visually acceptable to yet another generation of fans.

[singular1]

Well, now I'm curious. That site is blocked at work - do the pictures show up anywhere on a safe website?

[Huerta88]

Well, now I'm curious. That site is blocked at work - do the pictures show up anywhere on a safe website?

Your work is quite right to block that site. Though check it out from home sometime, it's often quite funny.

Try this.

http://www.stylelist.com/blog/2009/09/10/sex-and-the-city-2-gives-us-totally-awesome-eighties-flashback/

gaffa, thanks for restoring my world to at least somewhere near its axis.

What are their plans to deal with the present-day scenes, though? [/zing]

[msmith537]

The question about which I'm genuinely curious is the one he raises: do the moviemakers/audience really find plausible plots in which these women are the object of desire by attractive, successful young men?

I only know this because my girlfriend is a big fan of the show / film.

All the characters in the show with the exception of Samantha (Kim Catrall) are married to age-appropiate men. As of the end of the last film, Samantha had just turned 50 and she is about 10 years older than the other girls (approximately their ages IRL).

Really after the first couple seasons, the women don't seem to sleep around as much as the show's title would imply. But "Long-Term On-Again/Off-Again Relationships And the City" just doens't have the same ring to it.

[Belowjob2.0]

Okay I am obviously not and never was the target audience for this show/franchise. So my not liking it is a big so-what. But it's sufficiently annoying, and the specific question I'm weighing in on is sufficiently puzzling to me, that I don't feel too age-ist or look-ist joining this guy in saying: Really?

http://www.wwtdd.com/tag/sex-and-the-city/

Okay, so those are a particularly horrifying set of photos. I don't dispute anyone's right to make, watch, or like this movie. I don't dispute anyone's right to be older, or less than what I find entirely attractive.

The question about which I'm genuinely curious is the one he raises: do the moviemakers/audience really find plausible plots in which these women are the object of desire by attractive, successful young men? And specific to those "flashback" pictures -- without knowing what moronic subplot the "flashback" refers to -- are they literally meant to be plausible and desirable portrayals of what the characters looked like in their 20s? Or has it just moved into complete fantasy-land/willing suspension of any disbelief/surrealism, like doing Othello with an all-monkey cast? I can get in on the joke, if so -- I guess.

I obviously just don't get it, and that's fine -- but -- really?

The flashbacks to younger days will get heavy CGI, as gaffa noted. I fully expect them to be much younger, thinner, and cuter on screen. These are still photos w/o processing, though I wonder why they were released.

The real life question would be can women that age attract successful, good looking men their own age. Most of the time, good looking rich 50 yo men are chasing (and catching) 30 yo women. But this is wish fulfillment for the target audience.

[Rubystreak]

The real life question would be can women that age attract successful, good looking men their own age. Most of the time, good looking rich 50 yo men are chasing (and catching) 30 yo women. But this is wish fulfillment for the target audience.

No, it's not. As has already been stated, 3 of the 4 characters on the show are married. They will not be chasing men at all, with the possible exception of Samantha. Please, in your eagerness to slag off the the franchise, do not completely make things up.

[Cisco]

I believe Sarah Jessica Parker has ruined her looks with cigarettes, bad hair, bad makeup, and awful clothes. She's not actually that old. Compare to Diane Lane (http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/diane-lane-picture-6.jpg), born the same year. A 30 year old would be lucky to get her.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

Othello with an all-monkey cast

No interest in S&TC, but that I'd pay to see.

[furryman]

Sex and the City sequel announced:
To be called "The City Gets Pregnant"

[RickJay]

No, it's not. As has already been stated, 3 of the 4 characters on the show are married. They will not be chasing men at all...
What, did you write the script? Maybe they'll divorce or kill off a husband or two.

[madmonk28]

Lord knows there have been plenty of TV shows where the cast age, but their lifestyle and appearance on the show doesn't. Friends was like this, they all had these 20 something wardrobes and hairstyles, but by the end, it was a very sad thing.

[Cisco]

Lord knows there have been plenty of TV shows where the cast age, but their lifestyle and appearance on the show doesn't. Friends was like this, they all had these 20 something wardrobes and hairstyles, but by the end, it was a very sad thing.
Yeah, some of the 90210 cast were pushing 30 when that show started, and they were supposed to be high school freshmen.

[cstamets]

Diane Lane (http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s42/indirav1/diane-lane-picture-6.jpg)


Just wanted to say thanks.

[Rubystreak]

What, did you write the script? Maybe they'll divorce or kill off a husband or two.

Yeah, I wrote the script. :rolleyes: From what I understand, much of it is in flashbacks, so we would see man chasing in those parts. I strongly doubt we'll see anyone but Samantha playing the field in the current events part of the movie. But by all means, insult 40 year old women by saying that the SATC women are too ugly to hook up and that we're all just living out wish fulfillment by watching these hags score hot men in the movie, even though that's very, very likely not going to be the story line.

What is it about this franchise that brings out such nastiness in men? I don't get it.

[wierdaaron]

Meh. They can keep making Sex and the City movies as long as they keep making Crank movies, yin and yang.

[Justin_Bailey]

What is it about this franchise that brings out such nastiness in men? I don't get it.

Most of us are much nicer about our hate of SATC, but it really boils down to two points:

1. The show is just bad. Bad dialogue, bad plotlines, annoying characters, annoying actors playing those characters, etc, etc, etc.

2. Some women's ridiculous devotion to the show, i.e....

No, you and your friends are not just like Sarah Jessica Parker and the others. You don't live in New York. You've all been married since college. And you all don't have wacky adventures in the dating scene. Oh, and please get off our backs for thinking of the brunette "innocent one" as the hot one. We didn't write her character that way and we can't help it that the other three run the gamut from mildly attractive (Cynthia Nixon) to hag (Kim Catrall) with footface in the middle.

[Bridget Burke]

Yeah, I wrote the script. :rolleyes: From what I understand, much of it is in flashbacks, so we would see man chasing in those parts. I strongly doubt we'll see anyone but Samantha playing the field in the current events part of the movie. But by all means, insult 40 year old women by saying that the SATC women are too ugly to hook up and that we're all just living out wish fulfillment by watching these hags score hot men in the movie, even though that's very, very likely not going to be the story line.

What is it about this franchise that brings out such nastiness in men? I don't get it.

Movies are supposed to star aging, craggy former action heroes--playing action roles! With romantic interest supplied by nubiles young enough to be their granddaughters. Oh, no, that's not wish fulfillment!

I was never a great fan of Sex & The City--because I don't usually have premium cable. (I watch quite enough TV as it is.) But I could get the attraction--they were witty, satirical fantasies about life in the big city, with a heavy emphasis on fashion. Kind of like Absolutely Fabulous--except a bit more realistic & a lot less funny.

If the franchise bothers guys, tough. They don't have to watch the movies. If they're bitching about aging cuties--what about Chris Noth? Everybody ages, but some of us age better than others. (I still keep my eye out for very early episodes of Law & Order.)

[Rubystreak]

Most of us are much nicer about our hate of SATC, but it really boils down to two points:

1. The show is just bad. Bad dialogue, bad plotlines, annoying characters, annoying actors playing those characters, etc, etc, etc.

So don't watch it. End of story. It's not mandatory viewing for anyone, AFAIK. Why make a point of entering every thread about SATC or SJP and being all shitty about it? I'm not saying you do this, but it happens every single time the show or its star are mentioned, and I don't get the vitriol. You don't like it. Fine. Other people do. Live and let live, right?

2. Some women's ridiculous devotion to the show, i.e....

It's not more ridiculous than some guys' devotion to sports, or video games, and I bet very few women come in and shit on your football or gamer threads in a similar fashion.

No, you and your friends are not just like Sarah Jessica Parker and the others. You don't live in New York. You've all been married since college. And you all don't have wacky adventures in the dating scene. Oh, and please get off our backs for thinking of the brunette "innocent one" as the hot one. We didn't write her character that way and we can't help it that the other three run the gamut from mildly attractive (Cynthia Nixon) to hag (Kim Catrall) with footface in the middle.

Are you really so put upon by this show? My god, who do you associate with that you are so tormented by SATC? Choose better women friends if this is happening to you. Otherwise, I have to say you're likely exaggerating, or you're entering threads you should just avoid if they bother you this much.

[Justin_Bailey]

Are you really so put upon by this show? My god, who do you associate with that you are so tormented by SATC? Choose better women friends if this is happening to you. Otherwise, I have to say you're likely exaggerating, or you're entering threads you should just avoid if they bother you this much.

Relax, I was just trying to explain the reasons why guys dislike it. I don't watch it, but I do think hardcore SATC fans are a bit weirder about it than big sports or video game fans. It's just a different vibe that has been commented on to me by various female sports or game fans as well.

And yes, I was exaggerating, but only a little. Especially about women's reactions to finding out guys find the brunette one attractive. Some of them (note I said some, as I did in my first post) seem to take it as a personal affront to their femaleness that men find her attractive as opposed to one of the more "empowered" characters.

[Belowjob2.0]

The flashbacks to younger days will get heavy CGI, as gaffa noted. I fully expect them to be much younger, thinner, and cuter on screen. These are still photos w/o processing, though I wonder why they were released.

The real life question would be can women that age attract successful, good looking men their own age. Most of the time, good looking rich 50 yo men are chasing (and catching) 30 yo women. But this is wish fulfillment for the target audience.

Not slagging on the franchise. If I could dream up something half as hot, I'd be set for life.

The franchise was effing brilliant. Though in all honesty, the early SATC was more of a gay man's fantasy of what single women's lives would be like. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Action movies featuring stars over 35 are most definitely wish fulfillment. The vast majority of men pushing forty have left their ass kicking days well behind them. When the star in question is pushing fifty it becomes laughable.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0313443/ This movie, Out of Time, featured a 48 yo Denzel duking it out w/ former star athlete Dean Cain, who was 12 years younger.

The only way a 48 yo man kicks a 36 yo man's ass, is if the 48 yo is smart enough to outthink the young'n. Otherwise, the 48 yo is well advised to run like a girl. (That's certainly what I would do at 46 if I encountered my 34 yo self in a dark alley. Or really be smart, and carry a gun.)

[Rubystreak]

Relax, I was just trying to explain the reasons why guys dislike it. I don't watch it, but I do think hardcore SATC fans are a bit weirder about it than big sports or video game fans. It's just a different vibe that has been commented on to me by various female sports or game fans as well.

First of all, I am a fan of the show and know a bunch of others, and none of us are weirder or more fanatical than big sports or video game fans. Seriously. So, in true dueling anecdotes fashion, I'm going to have to disagree. You don't have to explain to me why you don't like it. Of course (straight) guys dislike it. It's not FOR YOU. You're not the target audience, so you don't get it. That's OK, right? You think it's weirder because the appeal is totally lost on you, but that doesn't actually make it weirder.

And yes, I was exaggerating, but only a little. Especially about women's reactions to finding out guys find the brunette one attractive. Some of them (note I said some, as I did in my first post) seem to take it as a personal affront to their femaleness that men find her attractive as opposed to one of the more "empowered" characters.

The only place I've ever seen anyone talk about anyone getting insulted by someone liking Charlotte is men talking about how put upon they are because they like Charlotte. Whatever.

What I can't understand is, if you dislike the show and its fans so much, why even bother with a thread about the show or movie? I don't enter threads about football or NASCAR or Halo because I have no interest and find it kinda dumb, but hey, you like it, more power to ya. Why do so many people feel the need to crap on this franchise and its stars? Is Bridget Burke right that men find it offensive that older, less stereotypically attractive women are shown as sexy and sexual, but are totally OK when a pushing 70 Harrison Ford type scores with a woman decades younger? If so, as she said, too bad.

[RickJay]

Yeah, I wrote the script. :rolleyes: From what I understand, much of it is in flashbacks, so we would see man chasing in those parts. I strongly doubt we'll see anyone but Samantha playing the field in the current events part of the movie. But by all means, insult 40 year old women by saying that the SATC women are too ugly to hook up and that we're all just living out wish fulfillment by watching these hags score hot men in the movie, even though that's very, very likely not going to be the story line.
Sorry, but where do I insult 40 year old women, suggest they're too ugly to hook up, or accuse anyone of living out anything through a TV show?

Please provide me specific examples of me writing those things, because I do not recall suggesting anything of the sort. You can supply the quotes or refer to the post numbers.

[Rubystreak]

Sorry, but where do I insult 40 year old women, suggest they're too ugly to hook up, or accuse anyone of living out anything through a TV show?

Please provide me specific examples of me writing those things, because I do not recall suggesting anything of the sort. You can supply the quotes or refer to the post numbers.

Oh, calm down. I was replying only to you only in the first part of my reply, where you snidely asked me if I wrote the script because I was doubting the premise that the characters in the show would be avidly chasing men in this movie. The rest of it was directed at other posters in the thread and in the site linked by the OP, who expressed negative sentiments. The entirety of my post was not directed at you, obviously, since your post was only one line.

[sinjin]

Um, I'm not getting this whole hate thing going on.

We didn't watch SATC the first time around because we don't do premium cable. MrSin watched some episodes on the road and liked them and then the sinkid lent us year one.

We enjoyed it, laughed at the silly girls and the silly guys and subsequently bought all the episodes. MrSin liked it way more than I did. I thought the "girls" were beyond stupid most of the time. But, meh, it was entertaining and we had fun MST3King every episode.

Watch it or not, no big deal. Why are the looks of the women stars so important? Mr. Big is getting a bit pudgy too. No hate for him?

[Rubystreak]

I thought the "girls" were beyond stupid most of the time. But, meh, it was entertaining and we had fun MST3King every episode.

That's the thing-- the women on this show are not enviable. Carrie makes terrible decisions often and behaves like an idiot, suffering the consequences of her bad judgment time and time again. Ditto the other characters, to a lesser extent. They are not women I fantasize about being or wish to emulate. I do like the clothes, shoes, and bags sometimes... other times, they are hideous and hilarious, so we laugh at them or marvel. Overall, it's not wish fulfillment that makes me watch the show. I find the characters to be articulate, engaging, interestingly dressed and shod fuck ups.

That said, I also don't find it hard to believe that any of them could get laid. They are all in great physical shape, and while most of them have average faces for their ages, come on, they look pretty decent for 40-50 somethings. For the most part, in the show they did not date younger, extremely hot men. Occasionally, sure, but for the most part, the men the characters dated and married were age appropriate or older. None of the husbands on the show are raving beauties or man candy. Samantha had Smith for a while and he was a young stud, but she ran the gamut, believe me, and not all of them were hot, or even male. Her love life was a caricature and definitely not meant to be realistic.

I think people make a lot of shit up about this show because they dislike the premise and don't really know enough about it to make an informed criticism. There's plenty to criticize, but most of the negatives I see offered are not on target.

[msmith537]

Lord knows there have been plenty of TV shows where the cast age, but their lifestyle and appearance on the show doesn't. Friends was like this, they all had these 20 something wardrobes and hairstyles, but by the end, it was a very sad thing.

Really Seinfeld is a better example. The characters never show any growth or learning at the end of each episode. In Friends (which seems typical of most sitcoms where the characters start out as fun and faboulous young adults) most of them eventually settled down and got married.

[Justin_Bailey]

Jesus, I shouldn't have said anything. Sex and the City needs to go on the list of things you don't talk about with religion and politics as things that are too controversial for everyday talk.

The only place I've ever seen anyone talk about anyone getting insulted by someone liking Charlotte is men talking about how put upon they are because they like Charlotte. Whatever.

Oh really? From our own Cat Fight in one of the last SATC threads... (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10208474&postcount=14)

It is funny how 99 percent of real-life men can't stand anyone but submissive, girl next door Charlotte.

[Rubystreak]

Jesus, I shouldn't have said anything. Sex and the City needs to go on the list of things you don't talk about with religion and politics as things that are too controversial for everyday talk.

Yeah, probably, since you don't even watch the show, why comment? You haven't explained that to me yet. And no, it's not that it's so controversial, it's that men feel compelled to be really negative about it despite professing to know next to nothing about it. If you disagree or correct them, you're the one who's being touchy. It's so predictable and annoying.

Oh really? From our own Cat Fight in one of the last SATC threads... (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10208474&postcount=14)

I don't agree with her characterization of Charlotte. However, she is right, since most men like yourself only know about SATC from pictures of the cast and what they imagine it's about based on hearsay and one or two eps they watch, they tend to pick the cutest one, which is Charlotte. Kristin Davis is obviously the most traditionally pretty and most demurely dressed, so I'm not surprised straight men like her the best.

[Justin_Bailey]

Yeah, probably, since you don't even watch the show, why comment? You haven't explained that to me yet. And no, it's not that it's so controversial, it's that men feel compelled to be really negative about it despite professing to know next to nothing about it. If you disagree or correct them, you're the one who's being touchy. It's so predictable and annoying.

I've seen the show enough times to know I dislike it. Every husband/boyfriend has. It goes with the territory of living with a woman anytime in the last decade.

I don't agree with her characterization of Charlotte. However, she is right, since most men like yourself only know about SATC from pictures of the cast and what they imagine it's about based on hearsay and one or two eps they watch, they tend to pick the cutest one, which is Charlotte. Kristin Davis is obviously the most traditionally pretty and most demurely dressed, so I'm not surprised straight men like her the best.

But yet, you ignore that she slams men for liking Charlotte because "she's the virginal one". I didn't pull that quote out of my ass, she said it. And she said again here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6845968&postcount=6):

Despite its attempt at quashing gender stereotypes regarding female sexuality, every guy I ask, without fail, goes for the submissive, virginal, conventionally pretty Charlotte

All I'm saying is that guys who bash SATC have likely watched an episode or twelve, so they're not just ragging on something they have no experience with. And then I'm saying that there are women out there who do seem mortally offended that a guy would find Charlotte attractive, whether it be plot-related reasons or because "she's the most conventionally pretty" (and why that's held up as a reason why we shouldn't find her attractive is even more baffling).

[Zhen'ka]

Yeah, probably, since you don't even watch the show, why comment? You haven't explained that to me yet. And no, it's not that it's so controversial, it's that men feel compelled to be really negative about it despite professing to know next to nothing about it. If you disagree or correct them, you're the one who's being touchy. It's so predictable and annoying.



I don't agree with her characterization of Charlotte. However, she is right, since most men like yourself only know about SATC from pictures of the cast and what they imagine it's about based on hearsay and one or two eps they watch, they tend to pick the cutest one, which is Charlotte. Kristin Davis is obviously the most traditionally pretty and most demurely dressed, so I'm not surprised straight men like her the best.

Jesus, Ruby. Leave your baggage at home. I would like to discuss the OP.

I am actually intrigued by the idea that CGI may be used to make older actors look younger. Does anyone know how common this is or may become in the future?

[Lamia]

Oh really? From our own Cat Fight in one of the last SATC threads... (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10208474&postcount=14)That thread is almost exactly a year old. Kind of a long time to be carrying a chip on your shoulder over a comment in a thread you didn't even post in about a show you don't even like.

[Rubystreak]

Jesus, Ruby. Leave your baggage at home. I would like to discuss the OP.

That's nice. Thanks. Why not leave your personal attacks at home? I actually watch the show, so why not take issue with those commenting who don't? They aren't actually adding anything to the discussion, just slagging off on a show that pisses them off. I would think it would be them with the baggage, no?

ETA: Thanks, Lamia, for demonstrating my point about who has the baggage here. Also, the OP isn't about CGI being used to make actors look younger, it's about how ugly the actresses are, so...

[Justin_Bailey]

That thread is almost exactly a year old. Kind of a long time to be carrying a chip on your shoulder over a comment in a thread you didn't even post in about a show you don't even like.

Who's carrying a chip on their shoulder? The question was posed, "why do men dislike Sex and the City so much?" I answered the question and I got jumped on.

As for that thread being a year old, it is the first SATC-related thread that comes up when searching the boards for "Charlotte sex city" because I knew I had read that "men love Charlotte because she's a virgin" crap here as well as hearing it in the real world. It was just an easily linkable example to prove it does happen. And I only sought it out because Ruby specifically mentioned earlier in this thread that it never really happens:

The only place I've ever seen anyone talk about anyone getting insulted by someone liking Charlotte is men talking about how put upon they are because they like Charlotte. Whatever.

[Zhen'ka]

That's nice. Thanks. Why not leave your personal attacks at home? I actually watch the show, so why not take issue with those commenting who don't? They aren't actually adding anything to the discussion, just slagging off on a show that pisses them off. I would think it would be them with the baggage, no?

ETA: Thanks, Lamia, for demonstrating my point about who has the baggage here. Also, the OP isn't about CGI being used to make actors look younger, it's about how ugly the actresses are, so...

No personal attacks. The thread is about photographs of actresses in a movie that depicts them in the past.

I am interested in how CGI may make these actresses (and actors) look younger in the film.

You are the only poster here who seems intent on making this into an argument on "looks" or age. (I have no baggage with Lamia).

If you want to open yet another thread on SITC, have at it. I didn't want to see this one turn into one of your multi-page dramas.

Can we please get back on topic?

[Rubystreak]

Who's carrying a chip on their shoulder? The question was posed, "why do men dislike Sex and the City so much?" I answered the question and I got jumped on.

No, that was not the question that was posed. It was why are men go out of their way to be so NASTY about the show and its stars. I can easily understand why you might not like it. What I can't understand is why, every time a thread or post is made about the show, the movies, or SJP, a bunch of guys who swear they do not watch it come in and make shitty comments. It's a bonafide phenomenon. I'd think, if you have no interest in the show, you'd just avoid threads about it, but nope. Gotta come in and take your shot. THAT was my question, not "Why don't men like it?"

As for that thread being a year old, it is the first SATC-related thread that comes up when searching the boards for "Charlotte sex city" because I knew I had read that "men love Charlotte because she's a virgin" crap here as well as hearing it in the real world. It was just an easily linkable example to prove it does happen. And I only sought it out because Ruby specifically mentioned earlier in this thread that it never really happens:

Does it happen to you anywhere but here on the SDMB? And if so, I have to wonder why you are involved in so many discussions of a show that you profess to hate and not watch. I watch it and like it, and know many people who do, and yet I've never heard that particular conversational topic arise IRL. Just here.

[Cisco]

she slams men for liking Charlotte because "she's the virginal one". I didn't pull that quote out of my ass, she said it.
That is just baffling to me. The extent of my knowledge of Sex and the City is pretty much what I've gathered from walking past tv sets that were showing it, and Charlotte is my favorite. She's the hottest. I'm pretty sure the exact same thing can be said for every guy I know. I like intelligent, assertive, experienced women for christ's sake. But that doesn't trump one of them being about 10 times more attractive than the other three.

[Rubystreak]

No personal attacks.

Oh really? What about this:

I didn't want to see this one turn into one of your multi-page dramas.

Huh?

I have no baggage with Lamia.

But you think you do with me? I don't even know who you are, much less why you're giving me such a hard time right now. The topic of the thread, based on the OP, is the attractiveness of the actresses in SATC. Reread it and see if I'm not right. There is no mention of CGI to age actresses whatsoever. So, it seems that my posts are the ones that are on topic, and yours are not. You seem bent not only on attacking me but in junior modding. If you want to talk about CGI to make actors older or younger, maybe it's you who needs to open another thread, no?

[Justin_Bailey]

No, that was not the question that was posed. It was why are men go out of their way to be so NASTY about the show and its stars. I can easily understand why you might not like it. What I can't understand is why, every time a thread or post is made about the show, the movies, or SJP, a bunch of guys who swear they do not watch it come in and make shitty comments. It's a bonafide phenomenon. I'd think, if you have no interest in the show, you'd just avoid threads about it, but nope. Gotta come in and take your shot. THAT was my question, not "Why don't men like it?".

Then I misunderstood. My apologies. I thought the question was "Why do men that have seen SATC hate it so much and feel the need to comment?"

Does it happen to you anywhere but here on the SDMB? And if so, I have to wonder why you are involved in so many discussions of a show that you profess to hate and not watch. I watch it and like it, and know many people who do, and yet I've never heard that particular conversational topic arise IRL. Just here.

I work in a library with two dozen other women. I have five male co-workers and three are under 18. SATC came up often in conversation when the show was still airing and the movie was new.

[Zhen'ka]

No, that was not the question that was posed. It was why are men go out of their way to be so NASTY about the show and its stars. I can easily understand why you might not like it. What I can't understand is why, every time a thread or post is made about the show, the movies, or SJP, a bunch of guys who swear they do not watch it come in and make shitty comments. It's a bonafide phenomenon. I'd think, if you have no interest in the show, you'd just avoid threads about it, but nope. Gotta come in and take your shot. THAT was my question, not "Why don't men like it?"



Does it happen to you anywhere but here on the SDMB? And if so, I have to wonder why you are involved in so many discussions of a show that you profess to hate and not watch. I watch it and like it, and know many people who do, and yet I've never heard that particular conversational topic arise IRL. Just here.

If your fucking question was "Why don't men like Sex in the City?" Then open you're own fucking thread.

When you come into a thread completely unrelated to that question and start fucking interrogating people as to "Why do you NOT FUCKING LIKE SITC," then, of course, you can expect the outcome.

So, please, kindly refrain from doing that and STFU. It's obvious that you're spoiling for a fight so take it elsewhere.

Would anyone else like to answer my question -- you know, the one related to the OP -- about the photographs and CGI? How common is this? Will it be something that will become common in the industry

[Rubystreak]

Then I misunderstood. My apologies. I thought the question was "Why do men that have seen SATC hate it so much and feel the need to comment?"

I could understand why you would comment if you were having lunch with the ladies at work, SATC came up, and you were involved in the conversation. However, on a message board where you can easily avoid the topic, why come in and say something? I don't get that. I do get why you wouldn't like the show. My husband wouldn't either. It's not a guy thing, and that's OK.

I work in a library with two dozen other women. I have five male co-workers and three are under 18. SATC came up often in conversation when the show was still airing and the movie was new.

And these people gave you shit for saying Charlotte was the prettiest? She is. That seems pretty obvious. Your opinion of her is probably not much based on her character, since you don't watch the show, so whatever. I don't find it offensive. As Cisco said, Kristin Davis is the most conventionally attractive member of the cast, so it's not surprising at all.

[Zhen'ka]

Then I misunderstood. My apologies. I thought the question was "Why do men that have seen SATC hate it so much and feel the need to comment?"



I work in a library with two dozen other women. I have five male co-workers and three are under 18. SATC came up often in conversation when the show was still airing and the movie was new.

Justin,

Don't apologize. She changed the course of discussion.

[Cat Fight]

I don't find it insulting that so many guys seem to like Charlotte the most, but it is something I'd observed when the show was still on and it is interesting because she did approach relationships in the most old-fashioned, reading The Rules way (or at least until that episode where she exclaimed that she just wanted to 'get pounded really hard' to her country club friends... or the episode where she discovered The Rabbit). But then I suppose it's slim pickings if you want someone hot who wont outdo you – or chain smoke – in bed.

I think it's been discussed on SDMB before, but people do seem to get especially nasty when it comes to the show and Sarah Jessica Parker. Entourage's writing is ridiculously bad and the (quasi-)celeb cameos are laughable – I'm pretty sure it's actually been called SATC for men, with exclusive sneakers instead of Jimmy Choos – but it doesn't seem to garner as much attention or venom as SATC.

ETA While I think the show was mostly shopping porn and groan-worthy puns, I honestly think it did a lot for women when it comes to opening up about their sexuality. It normalized discussions about masturbation techniques when, prior to the show, most of my female friends wouldn't even admit to the act. But while I'll defend it in general, I'll also be the first to complain about Scary Sadshaws, the girls and women who flock (flocked?) to New York with an oversized fake flower in their hair, ready to take on the city and eat cupcakes and blog about their sex lives. I think it's sort of died down, except for the bus tours. But there are bus tours for fucking everything.

[Rubystreak]

If your fucking question was "Why don't men like Sex in the City?" Then open you're own fucking thread.

That was not my question.

So, please, kindly refrain from doing that and STFU. It's obvious that you're spoiling for a fight so take it elsewhere.

Yeah, I'll just report this post and move on with the rest of the thread, where people aren't swearing at me and losing their minds. I did not change the course of the discussion. Please read more carefully before you freak out on people.

[Justin_Bailey]

I could understand why you would comment if you were having lunch with the ladies at work, SATC came up, and you were involved in the conversation. However, on a message board where you can easily avoid the topic, why come in and say something? I don't get that. I do get why you wouldn't like the show. My husband wouldn't either. It's not a guy thing, and that's OK.

I like reading all sorts of different topics around here. Especially on cultural touchstone stuff like Sex and the City. As for why I'd comment at all, I have seen the show and I know exactly why guys get so nasty about it... because we all have to watch it at least once. And any guy who says he's never seen it is a damn liar.

[Lamia]

As for that thread being a year old, it is the first SATC-related thread that comes up when searching the boards for "Charlotte sex city" because I knew I had read that "men love Charlotte because she's a virgin" crap here as well as hearing it in the real world. It was just an easily linkable example to prove it does happen.

And I only sought it out because Ruby specifically mentioned earlier in this thread that it never really happens:Neither of the comments you quoted actually insulted the men who liked Charlotte, and they certainly weren't "slams" as you claimed. They weren't favorable, but someone calling a preference "funny" is pretty far from being a slam. It's barely even snide. Perhaps you've heard much worse from women in real life, but that isn't Cat Fight's fault. I don't understand why you want to call her out over a brief, mild comment she made a year ago.

[Marley23]

Jesus, Ruby. Leave your baggage at home. I would like to discuss the OP.

I am actually intrigued by the idea that CGI may be used to make older actors look younger. Does anyone know how common this is or may become in the future?

I didn't want to see this one turn into one of your multi-page dramas.
Zhen'ka, this is a personal attack and against the rules in this forum. This is a formal warning: don't do this again.

Everyone else is strongly encouraged to turn the rancor down immediately.

[Rubystreak]

I like reading all sorts of different topics around here. Especially on cultural touchstone stuff like Sex and the City. As for why I'd comment at all, I have seen the show and I know exactly why guys get so nasty about it... because we all have to watch it at least once. And any guy who says he's never seen it is a damn liar.

Every woman who has dated men has had to either watch some boring sporting event or watch the guy play video games, yet those topics do not garner the same kind of venom. And it's always the same kind... let's go back to the OP, shall we, to remind ourselves what the topic of this thread is:

...do the moviemakers/audience really find plausible plots in which these women are the object of desire by attractive, successful young men?

IOW, the actresses are not attractive enough (except maybe Kristin Davis) to be starring in a show called Sex and the City, and getting lots of action. The thing is, they are pretty attractive, for their age, and they aren't dating "young" men either. So this perception that the show is utterly implausible is based on faulty premises IMO, and a jaundiced view of the show.

I do apologize on behalf of my gender if some woman forced you to watch the show against your will. I can understand why that would be terrifically annoying and would rub you the wrong way. However, really, the show has more merit to it than you've been given to understand from your limited exposure to it, and probably not the merits you think, either.

[Zhen'ka]

Zhen'ka, this is a personal attack and against the rules in this forum. This is a formal warning: don't do this again.

Everyone else is strongly encouraged to turn the rancor down immediately.

You know, I wavered a bit on this one. Should I report Ruby for thread-shitting and completely fucking up the OP? Should've reported it.

But, I thought I could handle it without tattling.

I'll take it up in ATMB.

[Marley23]

You know, I wavered a bit on this one. Should I report Ruby for thread-shitting and completely fucking up the OP? Should've reported it.

But, I thought I could handle it without tattling.
You're pushing your luck here, Zhen'ka. Take this to ATMB and drop the hijack.

[Zhen'ka]

You're pushing your luck here, Zhen'ka. Take this to ATMB and drop the hijack.


Done, and done.

[gaffa]

Would anyone else like to answer my question -- you know, the one related to the OP -- about the photographs and CGI? How common is this? Will it be something that will become common in the industry
Good question.

The first time the Lola software was used in a movie - officially - was the third X-Men film (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376994/). But the company has been around for ten years before that 2006 film. Their previous work was reported as "secret digital retouching of aging pop divas". So, I'd say that you have seen it already. I'm sure there are film contracts where the lead actress or actor has specified that Lola will be used, in the same way they would specify a particularly favored hair stylist or make-up artist.

Who has used it? We'll never know for sure. It's a testament to the discretion of the Lola FX staff that they were working in this field for a decade without the secret getting out. As I said, it was used to de-age Brad Pitt, and will doubtless be used to similar effect if Ian Holm plays the much younger Bilbo in the upcoming film version of The Hobbit.

Back to the question, I have no doubt that all four of the leads in the Sex and the City sequel will be made much younger in the flashbacks - and may even be slighly tweeked for the rest of the film. But I have no idea what Lola processing costs.

I am the rare heterosexual male who saw, and enjoyed, the Sex and the City movie. My only real problem was the purse Carrie gave her devoted assistant. Bleagh! It looked like she stole it from a dead circus clown! Is that really supposed to be fashionable? In the same way, I thought the outfit that Stanley Tucci's character dressed Anne Hathaway's character in, in The Devil Wears Prada, was hilariously ugly. So what do I know?

[Rubystreak]

According to wikipedia, Carrie Bradshaw came to NY when she was 18 and a freshman in college, so in the flashbacks would have to strip away about 25 years. This is what SJP looked like at 18 (http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQ3ODMxMDYyOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNjgzODU2._V1._SX273_SY400_.jpg) in real life, much different from how she looks now. Considerably less glamorous, kinda dorky actually. I think SJP benefited from her stylist's attentions. It will be interesting to see if Flashback!Carrie is made to look really pretty or what, since IRL she really wasn't a raving beauty at 18.

Kim Cattrall is 52. This is what she looked like (http://www.triviatribute.com/images4/kimcattrall8.jpg) at the age that Samantha supposedly came to NY in the late '70s. Pretty hot.

Just for amusement value, here's Cynthia Nixon at 14 (http://www.childstarlets.com/lobby/bios/portraits/cynthia_nixon12.jpg) She is 43, Kristin Davis is 44.

Most people would need CGI to pull off credible versions of themselves as teenagers and early 20-somethings once they are over 40, no?

[Justin_Bailey]

Neither of the comments you quoted actually insulted the men who liked Charlotte, and they certainly weren't "slams" as you claimed. They weren't favorable, but someone calling a preference "funny" is pretty far from being a slam. It's barely even snide. Perhaps you've heard much worse from women in real life, but that isn't Cat Fight's fault. I don't understand why you want to call her out over a brief, mild comment she made a year ago.

I'm not sure you understand the implications of saying a guy prefers a woman because she's "virginal". That's basically code for "he's an old-fashioned misigynist scumbag who only wants his women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen". It's a slam, plain and simple.

[olivesmarch4th]

Jeez, Cafe Society sure has gotten nasty these days.

[Huerta88]

That's the thing-- the women on this show are not enviable. Carrie makes terrible decisions often and behaves like an idiot, suffering the consequences of her bad judgment time and time again. Ditto the other characters, to a lesser extent. They are not women I fantasize about being or wish to emulate. I do like the clothes, shoes, and bags sometimes... other times, they are hideous and hilarious, so we laugh at them or marvel. Overall, it's not wish fulfillment that makes me watch the show. I find the characters to be articulate, engaging, interestingly dressed and shod fuck ups.

Okay. But you may be giving other viewers too much credit for having the perspective you do. I don't find the characters articulate or engaging (as someone noted upthread, like most I have been subjected to viewing enough of the show to know, whereupon I stopped, but also as I made clear in my OP, I am not trying to make anyone else stop; it was "Yeah, great honey, hope it's a good one this week, I'll be down at the bar for an hour or two."). But MMV. And another area where MMV is your realistic perspective.

I wrote the OP in extremis or maybe better in exasperation after having the experience for the nth (n>>>>>>1) time of hearing a Japanese acquaintance use SATC as a reference point (the reference point) for what life is, was, aspirationally should be, in a big Western city (I had made the mistake, God help me, of attending a baby shower with her, don't ask why, and apparently there was some SATC template for baby showers that she kept cross-referencing and using as a baseline for critiquing the IRL one). Every and I mean every foreign woman I have had occasion to discuss American culture with (and I meet a lot of them in business) has spontaneously brought the show up in a way that made it clear that they viewed it as a documentary of life in the big American city and/or an aspirational, modern day Horatio Alger tale for young and not so young and not so long ago young women. And I can also assure you -- again, from discussions IRL -- that there are American women outside big cities who have the same outlook or who want to believe the same fairytale.

You correctly point out that it is not a fairytale in all aspects. From some small amount of what I've read from Candace Bushnell, she's not a dummy, any more than I think Helen Fielding is (I've read all her books, by the way). I think there is a place for observational humor about modern metropolitan life for women, and I further understand that a bit of exaggeration around the edges is standard comedic technique, even if the end result ends up being not my cup of tea. But once you've processed it through the fab gay producers and the fashion-porn prop artists, I'll guarantee you the depressing and self-parodying aspects that you correctly note come through, to you, are registering nowhere on the screens of my little Japanese business associates who have I kid you not used the words "admire," "envy," and "successful" in describing the show's characters.

Plus, I think we can all admit that the tagline from my link is pretty good -- Mummies With Hoop Earrings is hard to top.

[Rubystreak]

I reply to this with trepidation, as I do not want to be accused of further hijacking, but since Huerta88 is the OP and seems to want to talk about it, I will assume it's OK unless a mod tells me otherwise.

Okay. But you may be giving other viewers too much credit for having the perspective you do. I don't find the characters articulate or engaging (as someone noted upthread, like most I have been subjected to viewing enough of the show to know, whereupon I stopped, but also as I made clear in my OP, I am not trying to make anyone else stop; it was "Yeah, great honey, hope it's a good one this week, I'll be down at the bar for an hour or two."). But MMV. And another area where MMV is your realistic perspective.


Maybe. Someone else must like it, though, since it's pretty popular, and they must find the characters articulate and engaging. Thanks for acknowledging that my perspective is realistic. This reminds me of conversations about The Sopranos, where some critics were all up in arms, saying the show glamorized being in the mafia, when really, it didn't, at all. SATC seems glamorous because of the clothes and style, but the characters are often very openly and obviously unhappy, always looking for something and not finding it. They make really bad decisions and suffer for them, and even the most ardent fan would have to admit that. That aspect of the show doesn't seem like something people would want to emulate.

apparently there was some SATC template for baby showers that she kept cross-referencing and using as a baseline for critiquing the IRL one).

The only baby showers I can remember being shown in SATC seemed hellish to me, but it's been a while.

Every and I mean every foreign woman I have had occasion to discuss American culture with (and I meet a lot of them in business) has spontaneously brought the show up in a way that made it clear that they viewed it as a documentary of life in the big American city and/or an aspirational, modern day Horatio Alger tale for young and not so young and not so long ago young women. And I can also assure you -- again, from discussions IRL -- that there are American women outside big cities who have the same outlook or who want to believe the same fairytale.

Honestly, I'm puzzled, since I don't see how ANYONE can view that show as a fairy tale. Either they've only seen a few eps, or have a selective memory, or they're like those Sopranos fans who think the mafia is cool despite the show being about how crazy and dysfunctional the characters are. I guess what I'm saying is, blame these women who are incapable of an accurate and intelligent viewing of the show, not the show itself. The show itself is very critical of the characters. The fairy tale is how expensively they all dress and the shoes they can afford, but beyond that? I don't see it.

I'll guarantee you the depressing and self-parodying aspects that you correctly note come through, to you, are registering nowhere on the screens of my little Japanese business associates who have I kid you not used the words "admire," "envy," and "successful" in describing the show's characters.

Well, OK-- there are aspects to admire and envy about these women. They are in their 30s and 40s and have killer bodies, even though they are shown eating and drinking out in every episode. They can afford very nice apartments and clothes/shoes. All of them, even demure Charlotte, have successful, high profile careers that would earn them generous salaries in NYC. In those respects, there is much to envy and admire about their success. The whole irony of the show is that, despite the trappings of success, they all have a great deal of difficulty having a satisfying romantic life. The only stable relationships they have are with each other, and that's the basis of the show. So, while you might envy their material success, their emotional failures are on full display, and are often their own faults.

Plus, I think we can all admit that the tagline from my link is pretty good -- Mummies With Hoop Earrings is hard to top.

I guess what it boils down to is this: I think these women's emotional travails are pretty realistic, even if their outer trappings are not, for most women. Their looks, however, are what become the focus for most discussions, and I think that's silly. These women do look above average for their ages IMO when compared with regular women, and their bodies are most definitely far above average. If the criticisms were about the content of the show, you'd get no rancor from me, but it seems to ALWAYS be about how they look, and that's both shallow and silly IMO. It's also become so predictable as to be annoying.

[Nzinga, Seated]

I'm not sure you understand the implications of saying a guy prefers a woman because she's "virginal". That's basically code for "he's an old-fashioned misigynist scumbag who only wants his women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen". It's a slam, plain and simple.


Yeah, but furthermore, this is not the right subject to have this discussion.

I mean, in order for there to be a meaningful discussion of whether men like one women in a cast more than the others based on her 'virginal' qualities, all the women must be of approximate equal attractiveness.

Charlotte is just simply way better looking than the rest. She has the classic features that men like...no big wart, witchy nose, weak chin, or whatever. Her skin looks young and healthy, her hair isn't fried and dyed. She just looks better.

Hey, why do people always say, "I don't watch the show, but my wife watches it and so I have to take it in through osmosis" or whatever?

I'm not a huge fan of the show, but it is a part of pop culture, and I have seen episodes of the show, I know the characters, I'm familiar with the overall plot. No need to pretend we 'catch glances' of the damn show; if we are going to discuss it, let's at least admit we've watched it, first.

[Lamia]

I'm not sure you understand the implications of saying a guy prefers a woman because she's "virginal". That's basically code for "he's an old-fashioned misigynist scumbag who only wants his women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen". It's a slam, plain and simple.Regardless of what you think was implied in Cat Fight's posts, they were brief, mild remarks that weren't targeted at you or any particular poster. They were not slams by any stretch of the imagination. I think it was poor form for you to drag her into an argument you were having with someone else, especially since the posts you're calling her out for are both old (one from a year ago, one from four years ago) and pretty weak support for the point you were trying to make. I also think you're taking Sex and the City a wee bit too seriously if you get this worked up over anyone expressing the slightest disapproval for your favorite character.

I'll guarantee you the depressing and self-parodying aspects that you correctly note come through, to you, are registering nowhere on the screens of my little Japanese business associates who have I kid you not used the words "admire," "envy," and "successful" in describing the show's characters.I was living in Japan when SATC was on the air, and I can confirm that the show was very popular there. I was actually the only woman in my office who'd never seen it before (and would not until several years later, when it was in reruns on the CW). One woman I knew once asked me if it were really true that single women in America had their own apartments "like on Sex and the City"*. This particular woman happened to love shoe shopping, but the housing situation was the aspect of SATC that she was most impressed by. Like most single Japanese women, she lived with her parents.

Frankly, if I were a Japanese woman I too would admire and envy four single women who had good careers (not just jobs, CAREERS!), lived independently, and could talk openly about sex and relationships. None of these things are common for women in Japan. Female friendship is also a less popular subject for TV shows/movies in Japan than it is in the US, so a Japanese woman might be attracted to SATC because she admires the women's friendship. I don't doubt that many women also find the fashion aspect of the show interesting, especially since Japan is very brand conscious in general, but that's not the only thing about the show likely to inspire envy in a Japanese woman.

*My reply was "Uh, they do often have their own apartments, but I don't think it's like on Sex and the City."

[Rubystreak]

I mean, in order for there to be a meaningful discussion of whether men like one women in a cast more than the others based on her 'virginal' qualities, all the women must be of approximate equal attractiveness.

And come on, it's laughable to say that Charlotte is virginal. She isn't, at all. She has plenty of sex on the show, just like everyone else. Of the three, she is the most traditionally marriage/relationship oriented, and is squeamish about really graphic or crude discussions of sex. She also dresses the most conservatively. However, to call her virginal is absurd. Prudish and judgemental, yes, those things she is, if you find that appealing. I also would have to think most guys would find her personality pretty annoying, since she wants a rich, handsome doctor/lawyer/whatever to support her so she can have babies and be the Perfect Wife and Mother. Men complain about women like this, who only want to date very rich men, and who are picking the china pattern after the third date, unless they are super-cute like Kristin Davis, I guess.

[Huerta88]

*My reply was "Uh, they do often have their own apartments, but I don't think it's like on Sex and the City."

Yes, that comes up too, and SATC is hardly the only show guilty of exaggerating the type of apartment that a freelance writer or shopgirl or whatever could afford.

My gripe specifically in connection with the J-girls was that they hardly need any encouragement to prolong their adolescence which, taken superficially (as they naturally did), SATC serves for them as a massive apologia for and invitation to expand upon the various pathologies that have Japan on a fast tack to demographic suicide . . . which wasn't in my OP but was fueling my annoyance at the baby shower and when I saw the mutton-dressed-as-lamb photos before someone pointed out the CGI angle . . . .

[Justin_Bailey]

Regardless of what you think was implied in Cat Fight's posts, they were brief, mild remarks that weren't targeted at you or any particular poster. They were not slams by any stretch of the imagination. I think it was poor form for you to drag her into an argument you were having with someone else, especially since the posts you're calling her out for are both old (one from a year ago, one from four years ago) and pretty weak support for the point you were trying to make. I also think you're taking Sex and the City a wee bit too seriously if you get this worked up over anyone expressing the slightest disapproval for your favorite character.

I didn't drag her into anything. Her post (not her specificially) was just the easiest way to demonstrate that there are people who take offense to men liking the "virginal" one (which, as Rubystreak showed, is bunk anyway).

[Rubystreak]

I didn't drag her into anything. Her post (not her specificially) was just the easiest way to demonstrate that there are people who take offense to men liking the "virginal" one (which, as Rubystreak showed, is bunk anyway).

Do you think men like her solely because she's the prettiest, without knowing the character? Honestly, I don't think most men would gravitate towards that character based on her personality. She's an extremely girly girl, of the kind men date because they look hot and then bitch about to their friends for being so twee and uptight.

[Cisco]

Most people would need CGI to pull off credible versions of themselves as teenagers and early 20-somethings once they are over 40, no?
Most people probably would. However, Howard Stern played himself in college at age 43 and looked the part.

[Rubystreak]

Most people probably would. However, Howard Stern played himself in college at age 43 and looked the part.

Did they use any effects on him? Were there close ups? Maybe the make up artist was really good. Sometimes you can do wonders with a soft focus and some amazing make up. The CGI is a pretty recent innovation, so there must be other techniques that work pretty well.

That said, no way are you going to get 52 year old Kim Cattrall looking credibly 18 or 22 without lots of help. That is not a slam on her in any way-- her bod is amazing and she looks way better than the average 52 year old, but she's not passing for a college student any time soon.

[Huerta88]

Honestly, I'm puzzled, since I don't see how ANYONE can view that show as a fairy tale. Either they've only seen a few eps, or have a selective memory, or they're like those Sopranos fans who think the mafia is cool despite the show being about how crazy and dysfunctional the characters are. I guess what I'm saying is, blame these women who are incapable of an accurate and intelligent viewing of the show, not the show itself. The show itself is very critical of the characters. The fairy tale is how expensively they all dress and the shoes they can afford, but beyond that? I don't see it.

Continuing my self-hijack you know what I forgot to mention beyond the first-order problem that women, some women, truly do seize on the consumerism/promiscuity/vulgarity as a literal template?

The second-order problem that more sophisticated and considered women could still take the show as a metaphor or confirmation for their dissatisfactions, thus reinforcing them and prolonging what might be counter-productive behavior. What do I mean? Well, when the show was on, I knew any number of women, with college and graduate degrees, living in big cities who, yes, liked the trappings, and would literally drink the drinks or covet the shoes that the show glorified, but would also model their mindset on the going-to-brunch-moaning-about-how-hard-it-is-to-have-a-relationship perpetual motion machine that, at least in the first few seasons, shaped most people's overall impression, seemed to be the lot of any single woman in a big city. They understood that the show was portraying lack of success in many cases, but took that as the fated outcome.

People talk about a positive aspect of "women supporting each other," and that's fine, but I knew (dated) a lot of girls who assumed that dating was destined to be a trainwreck, a comedy of errors, an endless cycle of disappointment, but what can ya do, that's life as a single girl in the big city? There's a lot of defeatism there and a tendency to overcomplicate (because complications make good drama/plotline) "relationships." The "female friend solidarity" came across sometimes as as not completely dissimilar to the cynical fratboy "bros before hos" attitude, and no one finds that kind of "solidarity" inspiring or edifying.

I recently was talking with two guys -- a 28 year old who lives in a kind or rural area and has been married for six years, and a 42 year old big city guy who got married right after grad school and is now visiting college campuses with what I guess must be his 16 or 17 year old daughter. They both shared bemusement with pop culture obsession with dating and "relationship" drama -- both said "what's the big deal? You meet someone, maybe you like them, you like them enough, get married." I'd be foolish to suggest that it's always that easy, that modern metropolitan life doesn't hold particular foibles for single people, or that focusing on the happily married 22 year olds isn't always great television. But, as I guess SATC eventually got around to realizing/portraying, and contra the hoary "more likely to be struck by lightning after 30 than to find a decent single man," the part that annoyed me as much as anything was the part that had me yelling at the screen, "it's not all that complicated, all the time."

[gaffa]

Did they use any effects on him? Were there close ups? Maybe the make up artist was really good. Sometimes you can do wonders with a soft focus and some amazing make up. The CGI is a pretty recent innovation, so there must be other techniques that work pretty well.
I'm pretty sure they did the same thing to Howard that they used for Ian Holm in "The Two Towers" - stretched the wrinkles out of his face with tape hidden under a wig. But it's not as if the filmmakers weren't aware of how much Howard Stern didn't really look like his younger self:

[on why Howard is playing himself in college instead of someone younger]
Howard Stern: I know I seem a little too old to be in College. But for this movie you've gotta suspend disbelief.

That said, no way are you going to get 52 year old Kim Cattrall looking credibly 18 or 22 without lots of help. That is not a slam on her in any way-- her bod is amazing and she looks way better than the average 52 year old, but she's not passing for a college student any time soon.
Even if the movie is a total dud, it's going to push the state of the art in digital de-aging technology.

[Rubystreak]

Continuing my self-hijack you know what I forgot to mention beyond the first-order problem that women, some women, truly do seize on the consumerism/promiscuity/vulgarity as a literal template?

Template for what? I mean, sure, it'd be nice to live in Manhattan and be able to afford Jimmy Choo and Prada, but it's hard to parlay that into a reason to live, if you know what I mean. And frankly, I don't think you can blame SATC for that consumerist mentality, which some people would possess regardless. Many shows have depicted characters living extravagant lifestyles that people drool over, not just this one. In fact, reality shows are much worse offenders in this regard.

The second-order problem that more sophisticated and considered women could still take the show as a metaphor or confirmation for their dissatisfactions, thus reinforcing them and prolonging what might be counter-productive behavior.

Again, I have to say, I think you're giving a show way too much credit. Don't you think people have been bitching about dating and how absurd and awful it is since forever? Men and women both. Look around at this message board and I think you'll see what I mean. In fact, here at the SDMB, the men bitch about the futility and horror of dating more than women, it seems. I would hesitate to lay this at the feet of SATC. I recall people of both genders doing this when I was in college, which predates SATC by several years, and when presumably dating would be easier. When I think about the amount of time we all spent complaining about dating/relationships and experiencing drama about them, I marvel at the misspent energies of youth.

They understood that the show was portraying lack of success in many cases, but took that as the fated outcome.

Unfortunately, for most dating experiences, it IS the fated outcome, and it gets harder the older you get.

There's a lot of defeatism there and a tendency to overcomplicate (because complications make good drama/plotline) "relationships." The "female friend solidarity" came across sometimes as as not completely dissimilar to the cynical fratboy "bros before hos" attitude, and no one finds that kind of "solidarity" inspiring or edifying.

I would not say that SATC has a female version of "bros before hoes" mentality. They support each other, and give each other advice, but I don't think they denigrate men as the equivalent of a frat boy mentality would indicate. They all genuinely want each other to be happy, and try to support and advise each other accordingly. When they think one of their group is making a mistake, they tell her; it's not all uncritical "You go girl" type stuff. I do think the friendships on that show are pretty well portrayed and overall rather healthy, esp. when compared to the relationships with men. But I have to tell you, that's been true of my friendships v. relationships often in my life (I didn't marry until I was 35).

They both shared bemusement with pop culture obsession with dating and "relationship" drama -- both said "what's the big deal? You meet someone, maybe you like them, you like them enough, get married."

I'm sorry, I consider that a horrifying attitude towards marriage. I would not want to marry someone just because "maybe you like them, you like them enough, eh." That's settling for mediocrity and a recipe for midlife dissatisfaction. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with waiting until your mid thirties to marry. Unfortunately, the trade off is, the pickings get slimmer, you get more bitter, and it can be complicated. You become more reliant on your friends for emotional support because they are with you through your 20s and 30s, where other people have spouses and children for that. But again, SATC is only a reflection of this true phenomenon, not the origination point for it.

But, as I guess SATC eventually got around to realizing/portraying, and contra the hoary "more likely to be struck by lightning after 30 than to find a decent single man," the part that annoyed me as much as anything was the part that had me yelling at the screen, "it's not all that complicated, all the time."

The thing is, they were all always meeting decent single men, but it didn't work out for whatever reason. Sometimes, the reason was because the woman in question was a neurotic mess (Carrie and Aidan, for example-- that was all Carrie's fault; ditto the travails of Miranda and Steve). In those situations, like you, I was yelling at the TV for the woman to quit being such a mess. But hey, that's how life is for some people, and I'd venture to say, anyone who is still single in their 30s has been there at least once. Sometimes, you mess up your own happiness. Most viewers capable of a critical reading of the show could see that, and maybe it would cause them to examine their own crappy attitudes and behaviors.

[Justin_Bailey]

Do you think men like her solely because she's the prettiest, without knowing the character? Honestly, I don't think most men would gravitate towards that character based on her personality. She's an extremely girly girl, of the kind men date because they look hot and then bitch about to their friends for being so twee and uptight.

I really think you're overthinking just how much men think about the plot of Sex and the City. Even though I've watched probably a dozen episodes in my life, I can't describe what happened in them beyond little thoughts like...

- "They went to LA in one"
- "Sarah Michelle Gellar was in one episode"
- "The brunette one's husband has erectile disfunction in one"
- "Hey John Corbett! Man, I miss Lucky"
- "Hey Chris Noth! Is he still on Law & Order?"

[Rubystreak]

I really think you're overthinking just how much men think about the plot of Sex and the City.

I'm not overthinking it at all. I'm saying, most men who say Charlotte is their favorite character don't watch the show and are basing their comments solely on her looks, because any deeper knowledge of the show would likely change their answer. That is accurate, isn't it? If so, then we are in agreement.

[Lightray]

I don't find it insulting that so many guys seem to like Charlotte the most, but it is something I'd observed when the show was still on and it is interesting because she did approach relationships in the most old-fashioned, reading The Rules way (or at least until that episode where she exclaimed that she just wanted to 'get pounded really hard' to her country club friends... or the episode where she discovered The Rabbit). But then I suppose it's slim pickings if you want someone hot who wont outdo you – or chain smoke – in bed.

Do you think men like her solely because she's the prettiest, without knowing the character? Honestly, I don't think most men would gravitate towards that character based on her personality. She's an extremely girly girl, of the kind men date because they look hot and then bitch about to their friends for being so twee and uptight.

And come on, it's laughable to say that Charlotte is virginal. She isn't, at all. She has plenty of sex on the show, just like everyone else. Of the three, she is the most traditionally marriage/relationship oriented, and is squeamish about really graphic or crude discussions of sex. She also dresses the most conservatively. However, to call her virginal is absurd. Prudish and judgemental, yes, those things she is, if you find that appealing. I also would have to think most guys would find her personality pretty annoying, since she wants a rich, handsome doctor/lawyer/whatever to support her so she can have babies and be the Perfect Wife and Mother. Men complain about women like this, who only want to date very rich men, and who are picking the china pattern after the third date, unless they are super-cute like Kristin Davis, I guess.

Here's an observation: maybe the men who say that they'd like Charlotte the best aren't saying so because of the reasons y'all are casting upon them. Yes, she is the most conventionally "pretty" of the cast. But it is possible that men are perceptive enough to look beyond the flaws that Charlotte -- like the rest of 'em -- has, to realize that she's the nicest one of the lot.

They're all self-obsessed. Samantha actively uses men and is primarily interested in how they perform in bed and is dismissive of fidelity. Miranda is critical and dismissive of the men she's with. Carrie is... well, she's a mess and pretty much a bitch and seems to think her infidelity was excusable because it was for True Love. Charlotte, on the other hand, is the one who offered up her expensive ring to bail out her stupidly spendthrift friend's apartment situation, with no expectation of being paid back.

Men can like Charlotte because she is more likeable. There is no reason for the catty insinuations that men don't like the others because they're not "someone hot" or "wont outdo you in bed" or that they don't realize that Charlotte will be a "girly girl" who is "twee and uptight" or will be "picking the china pattern on the third date."

Even with all her other flaws, Charlotte is going to be more pleasant to be with than those other harridans.

[Rubystreak]

Here's an observation: maybe the men who say that they'd like Charlotte the best aren't saying so because of the reasons y'all are casting upon them. Yes, she is the most conventionally "pretty" of the cast. But it is possible that men are perceptive enough to look beyond the flaws that Charlotte -- like the rest of 'em -- has, to realize that she's the nicest one of the lot.

In some ways. In others, she's very shallow and prissy. She can also be judgmental, and very hung up on the material. All of them have their positives and negatives.

Charlotte, on the other hand, is the one who offered up her expensive ring to bail out her stupidly spendthrift friend's apartment situation, with no expectation of being paid back.

They all do stuff like this for each other over the years, though.

Men can like Charlotte because she is more likeable. There is no reason for the catty insinuations that men don't like the others because they're not "someone hot" or "wont outdo you in bed" or that they don't realize that Charlotte will be a "girly girl" who is "twee and uptight" or will be "picking the china pattern on the third date."

As long as you understand that this is just your opinion, then that's cool. I don't find her particularly more "likeable" or "nicer." She comes into conflict with her friends because she can be very judgey. She also married a handsome doctor she hardly knew for the status and superficial appeal of being a rich doctor's wife. She almost doesn't marry Harry because she throws it in his face that she's so hot and he's ugly, so she's really doing him this huge favor by being with him. She's not all kittens and rainbows. None of them are.

Even with all her other flaws, Charlotte is going to be more pleasant to be with than those other harridans.

:rolleyes: She wouldn't give you the time of day if you weren't of the appropriate social status. Maybe she's not a harridan, but a snob? Definitely.

[Justin_Bailey]

I'm not overthinking it at all. I'm saying, most men who say Charlotte is their favorite character don't watch the show and are basing their comments solely on her looks, because any deeper knowledge of the show would likely change their answer. That is accurate, isn't it? If so, then we are in agreement.

It appears we are. But I'm still not sure watching the show would change their minds. Charlotte would still be "the hot one" and she's still more, let's say normal, than the rest of them.

[Rubystreak]

It appears we are. But I'm still not sure watching the show would change their minds. Charlotte would still be "the hot one" and she's still more, let's say normal, than the rest of them.

Eh, she's just an neurotic and self-defeating as any of them, with just as many pretensions and hang ups (if not more). She's cuter, and more demure, which I can see would be appealing, but she does have that crazy materialism and superficiality that the others do not have, and she's obsessed with the idea of getting married to a rich, handsome man and having babies. As a woman, I find her attitudes annoying, and she does screw herself over bigtime with her first marriage as a result. The character grows a lot in order to marry Harry, though as noted above, not before being a total bitch to him about his looks as compared to hers, and resisting the relationship tooth and nail at first based only on superficial issues.

I guess I cannot see her as "nicer" than the others. Each of the other women gets involved with men who are not glamorous, rich, or handsome, but not Charlotte, ever. She isn't a bad person, and she can be very sweet, but she has her flaws, which are just as glaring as the other characters'. Seems like men are willing to give her a pass based on looks while characterizing the others as "harridans," which I think is really unfair.

[Larry Mudd]

But it is possible that men are perceptive enough to look beyond the flaws that Charlotte -- like the rest of 'em -- has, to realize that she's the nicest one of the lot.I wouldn't put so much stock in "nice."

I actually enjoyed the entire run of Sex in the City, and (although I crushed hard on Sarah Jessica Parker in the '80s, when she was on Square Pegs,) the only one of that bunch that has any appeal for me at all is Miranda.

Smart and sexy is a pretty good combo for me. Get enough "smart" and "sexy" in there, and you could safely crank the "bitch" up quite a bit more than the modest superiority that Miranda displays.

Charlotte may be "nice," but she's bland. Way too bland. Like, "couldn't possibly get it up for that" bland.

[Lightray]

As long as you understand that this is just your opinion, then that's cool. I don't find her particularly more "likeable" or "nicer." She comes into conflict with her friends because she can be very judgey. She also married a handsome doctor she hardly knew for the status and superficial appeal of being a rich doctor's wife. She almost doesn't marry Harry because she throws it in his face that she's so hot and he's ugly, so she's really doing him this huge favor by being with him. She's not all kittens and rainbows. None of them are.
As long as you understand that the scenario you have constructed for why guys like Charlotte better is just your opinion. And not one supported by any evidence I can see, either.

:rolleyes: She wouldn't give you the time of day if you weren't of the appropriate social status. Maybe she's not a harridan, but a snob? Definitely.
Don't rolleyes at me. Your dismissive attitude of the opinions of others is obviously irritating more than one poster.

And, had you read what I'd said, I was never claiming that Charlotte didn't have any character flaws. They're all rather horrible people, and I wouldn't want to be around any of them. The fact that I find Charlotte the least offensive is why I'd say she's the most likeable.

I guess I cannot see her as "nicer" than the others. Each of the other women gets involved with men who are not glamorous, rich, or handsome, but not Charlotte, ever. She isn't a bad person, and she can be very sweet, but she has her flaws, which are just as glaring as the other characters'. Seems like men are willing to give her a pass based on looks while characterizing the others as "harridans," which I think is really unfair.
And since I'm the one who referred to the others as "harridans", I'm going to assume this comment was directed at me, despite being in reply to a completely different poster.

I didn't give her a pass based on her looks. In fact, I didn't offer an opinion on her looks or on the looks of any others in the cast, other than she is the most conventionally pretty. I gave completely different reasons as to why her flaws are the least objectionable.

Your deliberate misrepresentation that it was "giv[ing] her a pass based on her looks" is approaching straw-manning to make your point.

[Lightray]

Smart and sexy is a pretty good combo for me. Get enough "smart" and "sexy" in there, and you could safely crank the "bitch" up quite a bit more than the modest superiority that Miranda displays.
I think Miranda is the only other one (aside from Charlotte) that had any character development that was an improvement. Until she got pregnant she was shallow and superior and dismissive over minor flaws. Once she started acknowledging Steve's good points and being willing to accept his perceived flaws, I found her a lot more attractive.

I guess I give more weight to Charlotte's enthusiastic support of all her partners -- even when it's woefully misplaced. I don't put up with a partner who doesn't regard me as an equal.

[Rubystreak]

As long as you understand that the scenario you have constructed for why guys like Charlotte better is just your opinion. And not one supported by any evidence I can see, either.

I gave evidence that she's not particularly nicer than the other women, nor are her attitudes towards men particularly appealing or enlightened. It's right in the part you quoted. You can disregard it if you choose and stick to your characterization, but it's not terrifically fact-based either.

Don't rolleyes at me. Your dismissive attitude of the opinions of others is obviously irritating more than one poster.

Don't tell me what to write. My :rolleyes: is directed at the word "harridan," which is uncalled for and kind of sexist IMO.

The fact that I find Charlotte the least offensive is why I'd say she's the most likeable.

To you. I wonder if you were confronted by her attitude towards men, if you'd find her as appealing. I see men on this very message board lamenting the shallow, snobby women who only want rich, pretty men and ignore nicer men who are perhaps less elite. That's why I say that this idea that Charlotte is so nice seems incongruous with men's stated feelings about women who operate that way.

Your deliberate misrepresentation that it was "giv[ing] her a pass based on her looks" is approaching straw-manning to make your point.

So you really find her attitudes towards men acceptable and lilkeable? OK. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm also entitled to wonder if you find a similar attitude directed at you IRL so acceptable, or a similar attitude held by a woman you considered unattractive.

[Indygrrl]

I wouldn't put so much stock in "nice."

I actually enjoyed the entire run of Sex in the City, and (although I crushed hard on Sarah Jessica Parker in the '80s, when she was on Square Pegs,) the only one of that bunch that has any appeal for me at all is Miranda.

Smart and sexy is a pretty good combo for me. Get enough "smart" and "sexy" in there, and you could safely crank the "bitch" up quite a bit more than the modest superiority that Miranda displays.

Charlotte may be "nice," but she's bland. Way too bland. Like, "couldn't possibly get it up for that" bland.

Nice is definitely overrated.:)

I like SATC well-enough, and I also think that Miranda is the most appealing of the four women. If she comes off as bitchy and superior it's probably because a lot of her life on the show involves her fighting her way to the top in a male-dominated field. But I think her character grew a lot throughout the series and she became much more loving and open after having a baby and getting serious with Steve.

Charlotte annoys me to no end. I'm not even sure exactly why. Maybe it's because she always came off as so desperate for a picture-book life. Something about that was pathetic, especially when she gave up an amazing career to be a housewife to Trey. I think she got better after getting with Harry, but she still annoyed me. I loved it when naked Harry was leaving teabags all over the apartment. You could just see her panties twisting up. It was hilarious.

The other two......meh. I think Samantha became more interesting after her cancer and Carrie will always be a selfish meanie in my mind.

And oh yeah, those photos are AWFUL. SJP is looking really bad these days.

[Lightray]

So you really find her attitudes towards men acceptable and lilkeable? OK. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm also entitled to wonder if you find a similar attitude directed at you IRL so acceptable, or a similar attitude held by a woman you considered unattractive.
And, again you attempt to read in to what I wrote what was never there.

You have repeatidly claimed that men like Charlotte only because she is prettier than the others. I gave reasons why she is the least objectionable which have nothing to do with her looks. You then insinuate that my opinions -- and, those of other men -- would change if we had to deal with her in real life, because YOU are projecting what opions YOU THINK men have of women.

I don't give a rat's ass what Charlotte looks like. I find her annoying, too. Her attitude toward her relationships is not attractive as I have repeatidly stated. Yet you keep bringing up that I'd change my mind if I were to realize what she is like.

Again. I realize what she is like. I still find her the least objectionable of the lot. The least objectionable, which is not the same as finding her appealing.

Frankly, the only man in SitC whom I think got a good relationship was Stanford. (maybe Aiden; it's difficult to tell what his new girlfriend was like, given the filter of Carrie's ego that the entire series is seen through.)

[Rubystreak]

And, again you attempt to read in to what I wrote what was never there.

You have repeatidly claimed that men like Charlotte only because she is prettier than the others. I gave reasons why she is the least objectionable which have nothing to do with her looks. You then insinuate that my opinions -- and, those of other men -- would change if we had to deal with her in real life, because YOU are projecting what opions YOU THINK men have of women.

I'm not insinuating it, I'm flat out saying it. I really do think your opinion would change if you had to deal with her in real life, not because of the opinions I think men have of women, but because of the way Charlotte treats men. In general, I don't think men (or women, or anyone really) would like to be viewed the way she views them. If you disagree, then I guess we'll have to agree to differ on this.

I don't give a rat's ass what Charlotte looks like. I find her annoying, too. Her attitude toward her relationships is not attractive as I have repeatidly stated. Yet you keep bringing up that I'd change my mind if I were to realize what she is like.

OK, now I'm confused. You don't like her based on her looks, and you don't like her based on her relationships. What's left? And how is what's left so vastly better than the other women?

Frankly, the only man in SitC whom I think got a good relationship was Stanford. (maybe Aiden; it's difficult to tell what his new girlfriend was like, given the filter of Carrie's ego that the entire series is seen through.)

Ironically, Charlotte winds up in a great marriage with a short, fugly, hairy little bald man. She really had to break down her own prejudices and shallowness to do it, but she did it, and it worked out for her in the end. Sadly, Stanford and annoying Anthony are kissing at the end of the last movie, which makes me think Stan and Marcus, his cute model boyfriend, broke up.

[Lightray]

OK, now I'm confused. You don't like her based on her looks, and you don't like her based on her relationships. What's left? And how is what's left so vastly better than the other women?
Yes, you are confused.

Why do you think that the only way a man could like a woman would be based on her looks, or on her relationships?

Anyway, again, I don't really like any of them. I just find Charlotte the least objectionable of them. You just can't comprehend that way of thinking, though, so I might as well be speaking Martian here.

[Rubystreak]

Yes, you are confused.

Why do you think that the only way a man could like a woman would be based on her looks, or on her relationships?

I place a lot of weight on how people treat other people, so I would base my opinion of someone in large part on how they conduct their relationships with friends, family, and SOs. We never see her with her family, except her brother than one time, so that's out. Friends? She's usually nice, but on several occasions, she runs into trouble because she's judgmental and prissy towards them. Overall, her friendships are OK, though. When it comes to how she treats men, she is a disaster just like the rest of them, and for her, the reason they're so often disastrous is the sexist and retrograde attitudes she holds towards men and relationships. That's why I'd think that a man might not like her as much, based on how she treats the men she's involved with. I don't think this reasoning is way far out there.

Anyway, again, I don't really like any of them. I just find Charlotte the least objectionable of them. You just can't comprehend that way of thinking, though, so I might as well be speaking Martian here.

I comprehend it, but to me it doesn't seem in line with the facts of the character. But whatever, we're both speaking Martian because you don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying either and it's not worth either of us getting pissed off about.

[Huerta88]

Nice is definitely overrated.:)
Agreed and disagreed. I went through the SATC era, when lots of women consequently thought they needed to show "edge" to date effectively. I don't show "edge" (outside of work) and friendly goes so much further than people think . . . .

And oh yeah, those photos are AWFUL. SJP is looking really bad these days.
Shallow though I may be (I kinda sorta apologized in the OP), thanks. If these pictures are meant in any way as "sexy" (and I only now understand they are going to try to fix some of the more overt problems with digital magic) -- I am tired of having crinkly older gals foisted on me as someone whom the population at large (not the cougar-fan crowd) should swoon over. Is there anything grosser than some dessicated Tina Turner or Aretha Franklin at 55, in a leather miniskirt, being quoted on some complaisant website croaking "I'm as sexual as ever?"

SJP never looked really good to me -- her gamine turn in Shopgirl, 20 years ago, was painful to me. I still remember her twirling in the miniskirt and thinking -- "but she's so unattractive."

By the way let none of this be construed as blowing off older women -- though I do largely blow them off as sex objects, sorry. I have read the complete works of Barbara Pym, and I have a mother, so I understand that older women can have rich, dramatic (if usually on a smaller, domestic scale) lives, ones that I might even want to read/hear about. I just don't want to see the mummies vamping about.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

So it's a show about three hookers and their mom?

[Polerius]

I'm saying, most men who say Charlotte is their favorite character don't watch the show and are basing their comments solely on her looks, because any deeper knowledge of the show would likely change their answer.
I have watched several seasons on DVD with my wife. IMO, all the women have serious flaws in their personalities, so I would not want a long-term relationship with any of them. Since they all have flawed personalities, the only thing left to compare them with (for attractiveness) is their looks, and in that department Charlotte wins. A younger Samantha maybe would have been more attractive than Charlotte, but as it stands, Charlotte is the most attractive one (So, your assertion that a "deeper knowledge of the show would likely change [men's] answer" is not necessarily true)

Overall, despite its flaws, the show is fun and entertaining, and I find the characters much more developed than the characters on Entourage, which is another show we are watching on DVD and like.

[Polerius]

A younger Samantha maybe would have been more attractive than Charlotte
ETA: I was right (http://www.poster.net/cattrall-kim/cattrall-kim-photo-xxl-kim-cattrall-6231190.jpg), I don't think Charlotte was ever this hot.

[Huerta88]

I find the characters much more developed than the characters on Entourage, which is another show we are watching on DVD and like.
It would be hard for them to be less developed . . . I watched the first couple of seasons of Entourage, there were parts that were guilty pleasures, but there's a core of douchiness to it, not surprising given its origins with Marky Mark.

Oh, for equal opportunity bashing of unrealistic wish fulfillment, I should have gone on the record earlier as castigating the guys (I'm sure it's guys) who cast Kevin James and God help us Paul Reiser and the like opposite way hotter women. Hollywood moguls and their equivalent may well be able to exploit a power dynamic to get to such an aesthetically-unequal pairing in their own lives, but in the normal middle class families, with husband and wife of seemingly equal resources/background, that you see in those type of sitcoms, it's usually hardly realistic . . . .