Brian Damage
05-18-2008, 11:56 AM
May 18, 2008 -- "Sex and the City"? Again?
Those that know me will confirm that I'm not one to look backward very often. They'll tell you I am always among the first to embrace change and greet the future.
That's because I learned along ago, probably from writing about television, that the world has a way of changing very quickly, particularly in recent years as new technologies have changed everything.
In such a fast-moving world, cultural phenomena that seemed so important just a few years ago come across now as quaint anachronisms.
A case in point: "Sex and the City," which aired on HBO from June 6, 1998, to Feb. 22, 2004.
The show is back in the form of a feature film and newspapers, magazines and web sites are treating it like the second coming of "Citizen Kane."
And many, especially men such as myself, are left to wonder yet again why women continue to be so fascinated by the love lives, lunching habits and materialistic shopping sprees of Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte.
Moreover, I have to ask the rhetorical question: What was so special about this series that it rates a feature-film sequel to its original run on HBO?
To give the series its due, even I liked the final season (which ran for eight episodes), culminating in the series finale.
That last episode seemed to close out the show so satisfactorily that it seems superfluous to continue the "SATC" story in a movie, other than to collect a nice, fat paycheck (one of many for everyone involved).
Moreover, as a partisan who favors TV, it is dismaying to me whenever a TV show "graduates" to movie theaters, as if TV represents the minor leagues and the production of a feature film is akin to being called up to the majors.
Have you been to the movies lately? Feature films these days are dominated by insipid romantic comedies and CGI-heavy comic-book adaptations. For real creativity, TV is where all the action is these days.
Which is not to deny the creators and stars of "SATC" their extra pay.
Hey, everybody, this is 2008. We're in a recession and the pursuit of new shoes and outfits is not exactly on most of our minds lately.
A "Sex and the City" movie? Buy tickets if you want to, but I have no plans to visit 2004 anytime soon.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05182008/tv/id_rather_not_carrie_on_with_sex_111278.htm
Those that know me will confirm that I'm not one to look backward very often. They'll tell you I am always among the first to embrace change and greet the future.
That's because I learned along ago, probably from writing about television, that the world has a way of changing very quickly, particularly in recent years as new technologies have changed everything.
In such a fast-moving world, cultural phenomena that seemed so important just a few years ago come across now as quaint anachronisms.
A case in point: "Sex and the City," which aired on HBO from June 6, 1998, to Feb. 22, 2004.
The show is back in the form of a feature film and newspapers, magazines and web sites are treating it like the second coming of "Citizen Kane."
And many, especially men such as myself, are left to wonder yet again why women continue to be so fascinated by the love lives, lunching habits and materialistic shopping sprees of Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte.
Moreover, I have to ask the rhetorical question: What was so special about this series that it rates a feature-film sequel to its original run on HBO?
To give the series its due, even I liked the final season (which ran for eight episodes), culminating in the series finale.
That last episode seemed to close out the show so satisfactorily that it seems superfluous to continue the "SATC" story in a movie, other than to collect a nice, fat paycheck (one of many for everyone involved).
Moreover, as a partisan who favors TV, it is dismaying to me whenever a TV show "graduates" to movie theaters, as if TV represents the minor leagues and the production of a feature film is akin to being called up to the majors.
Have you been to the movies lately? Feature films these days are dominated by insipid romantic comedies and CGI-heavy comic-book adaptations. For real creativity, TV is where all the action is these days.
Which is not to deny the creators and stars of "SATC" their extra pay.
Hey, everybody, this is 2008. We're in a recession and the pursuit of new shoes and outfits is not exactly on most of our minds lately.
A "Sex and the City" movie? Buy tickets if you want to, but I have no plans to visit 2004 anytime soon.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05182008/tv/id_rather_not_carrie_on_with_sex_111278.htm