Sex and the City - were they always this awful?

[singular1]

So I'm watching Sex and the City2, and all I can think is what heinous cunts all these women are. I'm only 45 minutes in, and I want all these women to die. Has is always been this awful?!?

[grude]

Oh god yes, the show is unwatchable.

[DMark]

The TV series was fun - despite what people here on the board will chime in to say.
The first movie was, well, more of the TV show - so if you liked the series you would have liked the movie. Plus, it made enough money to finance Sex and the City II.

Now, I will admit that second film sucked...really badly...really, really badly. Big time suckeroo.

But again, either you were a fan or you weren't. Series and first film were fun if you were a fan, but they really should apologize publicly for that sequel. However, it is not the only sequel of late that sucked...and I am looking at you Hangover II.

[Jackmannii]

I have never liked books or movies where the characters spend an inordinate amount of time chatting over lunch.

There don't have to be lots of car chases and shooting, but spare me all the lunch scenes.

[gaffa]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

I have never liked books or movies where the characters spend an inordinate amount of time chatting over lunch.

There don't have to be lots of car chases and shooting, but spare me all the lunch scenes.

How about dinner?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Series was fun. First movie was ok. Second movie sucked.

[Stink Fish Pot]

The simple answer is yes. The movie, the characters, the plot lines... All sucked.

I will say this, though. I recently went back to the first season with my wife and was surprised ad how good the show was compared to where it ended up. And it went south VERY quickly.

But the first season gave it the push it needed to get the next season approved. And it was making enough money for HBO to keep it alive. But the truth is, my wife, who was one of the biggest fans of the show and dragged me to both movies agreed that the show sucked big hairy ape testicles at the end. And the second movie was of such a level of suckatude that even the diehards had to admit that piece of crap was a whore-like Hollywood money grab.

3 ugly women (one of which was a real life dyke and had the Seinfeld Man-hands), and one semi-attractive prude wasp are getting more cock than your average NYC woman... Especially women that claimed they were looking for long term relationships (with the exception of Samantha, who to her credit was a self-proclaimed whore.). Everyone of the women were whores. As a male viewer, I didn't mind that so much, except that's not how they were portraying themselves. The other thing that killed it was their ages. They looked like dried out old hags. It just didn't play well. In my opinion, after season 1, they should have flushed it.

One of the most over-rated shows in the last 25 years. My prediction is that, just like the stars, this show will age badly. SJP is NOT an attractive woman. Even a blind guy would give her the thumbs down if he felt her face.

For those of you who liked the concept of young women in NYC, HBO is trying a new show called GIRLS (I think), which follows 4 20-somethings making their way after college. I haven't seen much of it, but it looks like it might have potential.


Whew. Sorry. I must have wanted to vent about SATC for a while. (how embarrassing)

[drastic_quench]

My wife was into the show. It was certainly passable by soap opera standards and equally disposable.

[chela]

Watcha taling about Willis?

I missed the series when it debut'ed, arrived,but i came around 5 or more years later I have seen all seasons since then. It's great, funn dialogue, a few episdes seem to get bogged down with cliches, but not many. still makes me laugh. Never seen the movies....

[Bohomite]

Agree with Stink Fish Pot. It was over-rated. I watched the first two seasons and then gave up, I just didn't see the point.

And yes, SJP is stinking ugly.

[D-bear]

Hey. At least in the first movie we got to see full frontal from Gilles Marini... Not a total waste of time...

[Greekfreak]

I was a fan of some of the writing, early on--but like Seinfeld, it's hard to relate to completely awful human beings as characters. The writing started to stink, the cast got way too old to even be dolled up enough so as to be fuckable, and the movies were simply cash-grabs. HBO was smart enough to market the hell out of it and The Sopranos when they both came out on DVD.

I was forced to watch the first movie and it was embarrassingly bad. From what I heard, the 2nd was 10x worse.

I agree that it will only age poorly.

[Quimby]

I liked the series at the time but it doesn't seem to be ageing well. The first movie was just a big movie sized episode (actually kind of like a couple of episodes smushed together) and wasn't bad. The second movie was unwatchable.

[ThelmaLou]

The TV show was wonderful. The characters changed and developed over the years and the plots became more serious. There was usually a theme to each half-hour episode and it was played out in at least three of the four main character's eyes. I've seen every single episode and I know whereof I speak. I don't know what age the viewer needs to be to appreciate the series. Having lived through those times might help. But the series didn't run for many seasons and win many awards because it was crap.

The first movie was just okay-- nothing special, not as good as the TV series.

The second movie was an abomination, a travesty, a capital crime. It was embarrassing, insulting to the history of the series, and every copy (including digital copies) should be destroyed and the remains buried deep under the ocean.

[hajario]

I have seen most of the tv episodes thanks to my now ex-wife who was a fan. Those four characters were just useless, awful, shallow, horrible people with the possible exception of Miranda who occasionally showed some glimmers of humanity.

[amarinth]

A review of a television show that doesn't talk about the writing, directing, plotting, acting, and dialogue and focuses instead on the actors' level of attractiveness and sexual orientation tells me more about the reviewer more than it does about the thing being reviewed.

That said, it wasn't a great show and it has aged really poorly. It was very much a product of it's time - and that time was late-90s NY. When it showed up on TV, the top 10 shows were "Seinfeld," "ER," "Veronica's Closet," "Friends," "Touched by an angel," "Monday Night Football," "Union Square," "60 minutes," "CBS Sunday Night Movies," and "Home Improvement." Sex and the City wasn't really like anything popular on TV at the time, it had a very different style and point of view and fit very well into HBO's "It's not TV, it's HBO" brand.

The first two seasons are kind of interesting and kind of good, the writing is good, not great but good. And they lucked out with the casting - the actresses have great chemistry with each other, fit their roles really well, and did a better job than the material. As the show went on, it went downhill and just became a mess.

[Sparky the Wonder Spirit]

I don't know if it's an age thing or a personality thing, but I never liked it - the women portrayed by that show bear no resemblance to me or my friends so I found the related cultural buzz (Are you a Miranda? Tee hee hee!) annoying and vaguely offensive.

[An Gadaí]

I quite liked it. It was sometimes hilarious, sometimes poignant. Had plenty of bad episodes but also lots of good ones. Seeing it lately it feels like it has dated a lot. The first film was pretty awful and I didn't bother with the second one at all.

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by Sparky the Wonder Spirit

I don't know if it's an age thing or a personality thing, but I never liked it - the women portrayed by that show bear no resemblance to me or my friends so I found the related cultural buzz (Are you a Miranda? Tee hee hee!) annoying and vaguely offensive.

I don't understand this pov. Why would you WANT to watch a TV show about people who are like you and your friends? That's one reason why I don't watch reality shows. I want scripted dialogue, situations different from my ordinary life, and... well, acting.

[Llama Llogophile]

I'm surprised a couple of posters have said they liked the first season. I thought Sex and the City was awful in the first season and didn't hit it's stride until about halfway into the second. All of that talking into the camera - awkward.

Later on I thought they did a good job on some issues and had some clever plot lines. Samantha having breast cancer was interesting, and I loved that Charlotte the princess fell for a barbarian like Harry.

[Sparky the Wonder Spirit]

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou

I don't understand this pov. Why would you WANT to watch a TV show about people who are like you and your friends? That's one reason why I don't watch reality shows. I want scripted dialogue, situations different from my ordinary life, and... well, acting.

I like to watch shows about people I can root for, or at least like, in situations I find interesting. I found the characters of Sex and the City to be nasty, self-absorbed, shallow, and boring.

The comment about them not being like me or my friends was more in reference to the cultural, 'these four characters are archetypes for all woman-kind' thing.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Originally Posted by amarinth

A review of a television show that doesn't talk about the writing, directing, plotting, acting, and dialogue and focuses instead on the actors' level of attractiveness and sexual orientation tells me more about the reviewer more than it does about the thing being reviewed.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. Yikes. I can only imagine what he'd think of Golden Girls!

I found the show enjoyable and witty, even as I reflected that I loathed the main character and found all of them pretty worthless human beings at least some of the time. It's a show that works on a fantasy level only, for me. If they were real people I would feel saddened and/or disgusted by them.

I think it's a fine line to walk to make a story about despicable people, and make it entertaining. Sometimes I watch something like that and I'm entertained by their ridiculous exploits, and sometimes I'm just like, "Why would I want to watch these jerks?"

[Rachael Rage]

I wouldn't consider myself a "fan" but I watched the show occasionally when it aired (I didn't have HBO but a friend did) and have caught many episodes in re-runs (I can't recall where it re-ran though - was an edited version run on cable at some point?). I'd say I've probably seen about 60-75% of the episodes.

I'm with ThelmaLou - I don't need to relate to the characters to enjoy the show. I never once felt that the show accurately represented women or womankind or even wealthy thirtysomething women in New York. And certainly not me or my friends! It's story-telling. It's entertainment. I don't have to want to be the people in the show - or even think they are realistic - to enjoy stories about them.

The implication - which even my husband likes to indulge in - that all women who enjoyed SATC spent hours of their lives debating if they were more of a "Miranda" or a "Samantha" and oogling over Carrie's shoe collection is far more insulting to women than anything portrayed in the show. I never once felt like the show spoke to where I was in life or my relationships. Neither did Friends. Or Seinfeld. Or ER. Or The X-Files, or Twin Peaks, or the Simpsons. Or any other show that I avidly watched and enjoyed in the 90s. So why is it so astonishing that one could enjoy a TV show without being accused of secretly wanting to own a closet full of $400 shoes? It's infuriating.

And at what point did it become appropriate criticism to evaluate a TV show on the sexual attractiveness of the principal cast? It's fine if you think they are all trolls, but how does this, in itself, make it a terrible show? Even if I didn't particularly like the show, the unmitigated hatred and bile spewed against women considered less than bang-able when they DARE to ooze across a TV screen (I'm looking at you, Stink Fish Pot) literally sends shivers up my spine. If the counter-argument is "but the whole premise is to show the glamorous lives of four gorgeous women sleeping their way through New York" then you simply don't get the show at all. [/rant]

Apparently in later seasons, which I didn't see much of, the show did slip farther into the absurd fashion- and wealth- fetishism that the show was always accused of but it didn't really deserve until later in its life. I am not sure what season it occurred but turning "Mr. Big" into a real character - a viable future for Carrie, as opposed to the "Prince Charming" unattainable fantasy - was where it started to go off the rails for me. I blame Chris Noth for being popular so viewers probably wanted more of him and the writers indulged. But making this archetype - the indescribably wealthy and fucked-up fantasy object a la Christian Grey - a genuine love interest skewed too far into self-indulgent fantasy for me. At that point I paid more attention to the fun stuff happening to the other characters - Charlotte's failed marriage, Miranda's single motherhood, Samantha's struggle with monogamy.

The first film was an extension of this line. I wasn't much into the premise, so I felt pretty Meh about it. I didn't bother with the second, for obvious reasons.

But when the show was good, it was really good. Snappy writing, good jokes, characters and story lines that felt authentic in a sitcommy sort of way. And a premise based on the friendship between four very different women who were more concerned about navigating their own lives and supporting each other than focusing their entire being on pleasing a man. Maybe that is what pisses men off so much about it - on SATC men were secondary characters. Men tend not to like that very much.

[Hottius Maximus]

I admit that I have never watched one episode of this show nor have I ever had the desire to. I read about the show on occasion and quite frankly I never knew any women who behaved that way. Perhaps I just didn't hang out in those circles.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Rachael Rage

Maybe that is what pisses men off so much about it - on SATC men were secondary characters. Men tend not to like that very much.

You have to be kidding, SITC indulged in the worst female stereotyping around. Women according to the show are obsessed with cock, clothes, and shoes and not one other thing. Entourage is the male version of SITC, and just as unwatchable. I hear enough of that garbage in my real life just being a guy, I sure as hell wouldn't want to watch a show about it.

My wife once commented that SITC did not represent actual "girl talk", but more like what men imagined women talk about over lunch.

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by Hottius Maximus

I admit that I have never watched one episode of this show nor have I ever had the desire to. I read about the show on occasion and quite frankly I never knew any women who behaved that way. Perhaps I just didn't hang out in those circles.

Behaved what way? Since you never saw the show...??

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Sex And The City (SATC), not Sex In The City (SITC).

The city was meant be a character in itself.

[Hottius Maximus]

@Thelma Lou: I said that I READ about the show. Women searching for non-committal sexual relationships and living high-powered lives did not introduce themselves to me in my mid-western world.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

But that's not an accurate description. Charlotte only wanted the white-wedding dream and was hardly high powered. Miranda tried to balance work with personal life, and later, a child.

Samantha was the only one that even fits the characterization. And you don't have high powered women who like flings in the Midwest?

[Hottius Maximus]

@Ivory Tower Denizen: I have no doubt that there are women here in the midwest who do live the high powered lifestyle, however none of them were in my social circles. While I pride myself on being respectful to most people, socially I tend to hang with the proles and the plebes. FYI--my wife is a professional but I would not refer to her as living a "high powered lifestyle." That is, my social circle mostly consists of men and women who are middle class workers, regular folks, and not any real movers or shakers, although i have been with those types from time to time.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

I think your experience is not limited to the Midwest. I've lived on the west coast, east coast and Midwest and in my experience, for the most part, you meet all types.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your post- I thought you meant the Midwest did not have those types of women.

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by Hottius Maximus

@Thelma Lou: I said that I READ about the show. Women searching for non-committal sexual relationships and living high-powered lives did not introduce themselves to me in my mid-western world.

Yes, but that's an watered-down misrepresentation of the program. I HAVE watched it, so my opinion is based on primary knowledge. Anyway, do you relate to characters in Dickens or Shakespeare? Peanuts or Calvin & Hobbes? Or in the Bible, for that matter? Human nature is human nature--buckskin or Blahnik. Don't matter. Love, sadness, loss, humiliation, joy, success. The show was not just girly fluff. Don't mind me. I also get annoyed when people reject food, music, books, and art that they know nothing about based on other people's opinions.

[Hottius Maximus]

@Thelma Lou: No I don't mind you. And yes I admitted that I never watched the show. I did see previews of it and I admit that it never grabbed me, and yes I did read some articles about it. That being said, (and perhaps this would be great for another thread) I have to care about the characters in any story to want to see what happens to them. I don't really identify with the characters from "Mad Men" or "The Sopranos" but I cared enough about them to see what happens to them. SO perhaps I should have posted that from what I've seen in the previews (which are supposed to peak the viewers' interests) and what I've read in articles about "Sex and the City" that there was nothing that grabbed me or made me care about the characters whereas previews for "Mad Men" and "The Sopranos" did make me want to take a look.

I guess I sound like people who hate Rush Limbaugh but never listen to him; they just listen to what others say about him. My apologies.

[Slow Moving Vehicle]

I've only ever seen one or two episodes of SITC, not enough to have an opinion on the OP's question.

But I am taken aback by the language used by some posters, about what is after all just a TV show. "Heinous cunts", "dyke", "dried-out hags"; them's some powerfully misogynistic words you're throwin' around there, fellas.

[grude]

HBO and the media were pumping SJP and the other stars as sex symbols when the show aired, I'm guessing it is in response to that.

Family Guy and other comedy shows have made a tradition out of comparing SJP to a horse.

[lisiate]

Although their series runs overlap somewhat (Sex and the City from 1998 to 2004 and The Sopranos from 1999 to 2007) SATC isn't part of the current 'Golden Age' of TV which I personally date from the start of The Sopranos. This could explain why SATC the series has dated so badly. I can speak about the movies (which I confess to never having watched).

[Rachael Rage]

Originally Posted by grude

You have to be kidding, SITC indulged in the worst female stereotyping around. Women according to the show are obsessed with cock, clothes, and shoes and not one other thing.

I can't even take this seriously. If you think that's how SATC portrayed "women" or even these particular characters, it's clear you didn't watch much of the show.

It's hilarious to me how men get so furious over SATC for its terrible, horrible stereotyping of women. Oh yes, please tell me how much more of a feminist you are than I am because I enjoyed a show focused on women characters and you think they're all stupid cunts.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by Rachael Rage

I wouldn't consider myself a "fan" but I watched the show occasionally when it aired (I didn't have HBO but a friend did) and have caught many episodes in re-runs (I can't recall where it re-ran though - was an edited version run on cable at some point?).

As I recall, they shot both "clean" and HBO versions at the same time so the clean versions could be put into syndication on network TV without looking chopped up and edited. I believe WGN used to air them here in the Chicago area but I could be wrong.

My wife watches sometimes and I've seen multiple episodes just from being in the same room. I find the writing awful and the show itself to be dire but I suppose I'm not the target audience.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Rachael Rage

I can't even take this seriously. If you think that's how SATC portrayed "women" or even these particular characters, it's clear you didn't watch much of the show.

It's hilarious to me how men get so furious over SATC for its terrible, horrible stereotyping of women. Oh yes, please tell me how much more of a feminist you are than I am because I enjoyed a show focused on women characters and you think they're all stupid cunts.

I'm not criticizing anyone for enjoying the show, but don't hold up the characters as real women facing real life issues. Samantha and Carrie are both caricatures, they are cartoons that couldn't exist in real life. Samantha's sole defining character trait is being a slut, and Carrie supports her outlandish lifestyle and shoe addiction by working less than part time.

I've seen more of the show than I cared, it reminded me of Entourage ugh.

[twickster]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

...

3 ugly women (one of which was a real life dyke and had the Seinfeld Man-hands), and one semi-attractive prude wasp are getting more cock than your average NYC woman... Especially women that claimed they were looking for long term relationships (with the exception of Samantha, who to her credit was a self-proclaimed whore.). Everyone of the women were whores. As a male viewer, I didn't mind that so much, except that's not how they were portraying themselves. The other thing that killed it was their ages. They looked like dried out old hags. It just didn't play well. In my opinion, after season 1, they should have flushed it.

Although you're attacking characters on a TV show, your language here is more inflamatory than it needs to be outside the Pit -- especially the word "dyke," which is highly offensive.

Dial it back.

twickster, Cafe Society moderator

[Yookeroo]

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou

I don't understand this pov. Why would you WANT to watch a TV show about people who are like you and your friends? That's one reason why I don't watch reality shows

You and your friends are like people in reality shows? Yuck.

[Cartooniverse]

Originally Posted by gaffa

How about dinner?

Or dinner in a diner?

I'm very much of two minds here. I worked on Sex and The City as a day player Cameraman. I'd done a few episodes before my ex-wife watched it once at a friends' house.

She came home announcing that we were getting HBO. Oh, she was all in a froth over how great it was.

Meh. The only thing I can say for it is that it was very much like Seinfeld in that it was about very little to nothing. I never got into Seinfeld. I get it. I do. It's about nothing. Most of everyone's life is about nothing. You get up and take a shower and get it together and get out the door and onto the subway and then stand at the bus stop waiting for the bus and see other people waiting for the bus and then you do your job or shop for stuff and interact with strangers some of whom are civil and some of whom are uncivil and then you reverse, get home, consume food, eliminate food, sleep. Awaken, repeat and rinse.

Why this made for Emmy-award winning t.v. was always a bit beyond me. Similarly, Sex and The City was about the nothingness of the normal range of human relationships. Did we care about any of them? Not really. Did a lot of women relate very heavily to one or more of the archetypes? Oh holy crap yes. Hence the incredible popularity.

It wasn't art, in the same way that The Brady Bunch wasn't art. In fact, one might make the argument that S&TC was the Brady Bunch with a clitoris.

On the OTHER other hand, I can say with firsthand experience that there's nothing like working on a hit t.v. show. Everyone is energized, everyone brings their A Game and the catering kicks ass.

[Ponch8]

I've never seen the movies, but really enjoyed the show. One thing that really surprised me about the book (the inspiration for the show) was just how awful it is. It just rambles on about various people nobody would give a shit about. No plot or character development whatsoever. The four main characters in the TV show were just minor characters in the book.

[Stink Fish Pot]

Originally Posted by twickster

Although you're attacking characters on a TV show, your language here is more inflamatory than it needs to be outside the Pit -- especially the word "dyke," which is highly offensive.

Dial it back.

twickster, Cafe Society moderator

Really? I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to offend anyone in real life.

But that doesn't mean I didn't. My apologies to everyone who was.

twickster, check your PM's when you have a chance. Thanks.

[Hottius Maximus]

TO Ivory Tower Denizen: No problem here. I enjoy the banter on these message boards. Have a great one.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen

I think your experience is not limited to the Midwest. I've lived on the west coast, east coast and Midwest and in my experience, for the most part, you meet all types.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your post- I thought you meant the Midwest did not have those types of women.

In SATC, there is only one fully developed character, and that is New York. A narrow slice of New York that lives ambition and trends. Everyone else is a chess piece moving around in the ways that fit with that take on New York.

[Siam Sam]

The first few seasons of the show were really very good. They've really gone off the rails now though.

[DragonAsh]

Oh god the show was awful. You can't even call the show's main female characters 'caricatures'- they were card-board cut-outs of caricatures, poorly done at that. Popular trash is still...trash.

[StJoan]

I loved the show, though I could never afford to live the affluent lives of any of the principal characters! Perhaps it is because I do not live in NYC that I can still watch reruns of SATC series without finding anything significantly outdated about it.

As for the movies, I liked movie I and not so much movie II, though that was mostly because of poor editing and excessive length. Despite all that, IMO, SATC-II did not deserve the disparaging (and often, frankly misogynist) reviews that it got. I personally think male reviewers often seem to dislike SATC because, (for the first time ?), in a television show, women openly treat men as sex objects. The 4 women discuss men & shoes (and relationships and clothes) with same cold, analytical, and often cynical eye. And no one is selling sex (or anything else) for shoes either. Sexual objectification of women is as old as history, but when women are shown to enjoy being sexual and financially well-off (without using one to fund the other), well, then the shoe on the other foot, and the reaction is... blistering , as is to be expected.

[StJoan]

Originally Posted by grude

Samantha's sole defining character trait is being a slut.

So what is wrong with being a slut, if you enjoy it? Given the societal objections against a woman who enjoys sex so much that she has numerous lovers, any popular entertainment show wherein the "slut" does not pay for her indiscretions is a revolutionary one.

There is nothing "cartoon-like" about Sam. She exists in all of us. The show focuses on this one aspect of her personality in order to throw our own prejudices in our faces. We don't care that she is (also) a successful business woman, that she is real go-getter, or that she speaks her mind and walks out of relationships when they become too stressful for her. Her fans are cheering her on for refusing to be a hypocrite and denying her self her needs, while her detractors are hoping that she will suffer for having slept with one (or 10 or 100) men too many. Isn't that how society functions as well? No one minds a girl having good time, as long as she does not look like she is enjoying herself (too much), or so the saying goes.