CARRIE ON WITH 'SEX'

[Brian Damage]

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...sex_111278.htm

[OH Nuts!]

I do understand your sentiments-I'm a big TV partisan too -97% of the DVDs I watch are some sitcom or another - in fact, this is why I came to SO. S&TC is surely not for everyone. But as for me, a hard core Samantha junkie (give or take a few minus points for shallowness but she's nowhere near as as the vapid Carrie who I never cared for to begin with.)--I need my Samantha Fix. And yes I could surely live without Carrie's Manolo Blahnik shoe fetish and the way she treats men, which really sucks (case in point Aidan). What's so special abt the series?..... Some GREAT shots of the city I love and some great guest stars...so what the hell...and this series being carted out as a movie is no big whoop to me ...series& movies are always being milked for as much cash as they can rake in (aka Rocky 17? exaggerating of course but u get the idea) But I am going to see the movie for less than $12 you can be sure of that (bet I can find a matinee somwhere for $7-8) This will probably be my one annual pilgrimage to the cinema.