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 . . . .
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.
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.
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."
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. *
Even if the movie is a total dud, it’s going to push the state of the art in digital de-aging technology.
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.
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.
Unfortunately, for most dating experiences, it IS the fated outcome, and it gets harder the older you get.
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).
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
They all do stuff like this for each other over the years, though.
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.
: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 tell me what to write. My :rolleyes: is directed at the word “harridan,” which is uncalled for and kind of sexist IMO.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
