"How Sex and the City are we right now? I'm Samantha, you're Charlotte and you're the lady at home who watches it."

[Alyssa]

I am just as horrified as anyone by the idea that someone would pay $19,000 for a ticket to the Sex and the City premiere and "experience" in New York. Sex and the City was a very good show, and I watched a lot of it during one post-breakup summer with one of my best girlfriends (who I'm going to see the movie with tomorrow morning), but it is not the Bible.

On the other end of the spectrum, though, lies an equally annoying person: the critic who doesn't understand that most Sex and the City fans understand that the show is not the Bible. I'm not going to see the movie to get life cues from Carrie Bradshaw any more than I went to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to learn about South American archeology from Indiana Jones or the Star Wars movies for helpful hints on how to run a political movement (though not setting up your base of operations in an ice cave is probably a good idea).

The movie is a big, dumb summer fantasy. And while actually not accumulating savings because you buy too many designer shoes and running the risk of losing your apartment would be a very bad thing in real life, I think most women are not going to actually make that kind of mistake. I guess I don't really understand why wanting a lightsaber makes someone a harmless geek but wanting a closetful of Jimmy Choos makes someone riddled with avarice. Getting either one is really equally unrealistic for most people. It's just wishful thinking. In my fantasy life, I'd take one of each.

Update: Hey, to defend my geek cred, I never said that the Hoth fortress wasn't awesome. Awesome, however, is not the same as practical. I'm pretty sure that making the place warm enough for humans to live in, lubricant not to freeze in X-wings, etc. would leave a huge, detectable heat signature. Also, building your fortress of material that's prone to cave-ins, etc., especially when your military equipment presumably isn't terribly easy to replace (it's not like they can waltz into the Coruscant shipyards and order up a new fleet of planes stat) doesn't seem like a very good idea, at least to me.

Comments

Why take a swipe at the ice cave? That bought them a bunch of time, didn't impede their communications, and ultimately could be vacated when discovered. Sounds like a great base of operations for a rebellion.

Posted by phil | May 30, 2008 3:10 PM

I read that whole thing before realizing it wasn't a post from Matthew.

Posted by Justin | May 30, 2008 3:13 PM

What would you do with one shoe?

Posted by mark f | May 30, 2008 3:18 PM

Your post seems to suggest that the Bible is less of a big, dumb fantasy then Sex and the City. Quickly comparing the two in my head, I see several flaws in this argument.....

Posted by grung0r | May 30, 2008 3:19 PM

I don't see where Lane suggested that SATC fans think it's the Bible. It seems he just didn't like it. Not sure why a guy who didn't like the TV show is a good choice to review the movie, though.

Posted by Josh E. | May 30, 2008 3:22 PM

Your flip dismissal of the ice cave as a movement incubator is troubling.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 30, 2008 3:22 PM

The Bible has better character development.

Posted by daveNYC | May 30, 2008 3:22 PM

Isn't that Sex and the City show about 3 hookers and their Grandma?

Posted by Q | May 30, 2008 3:27 PM

Mary Magdalene was such a Samantha.

Posted by Chris | May 30, 2008 3:29 PM

I've never been a big SATC fan, but I couldn't help laughing when I read the NYTimes review, in which Manohla Dargis complains that the men don't have anything to do. She writes:

"The male characters in the movie stand idly by, either smiling or stripping, reduced to playing sock puppets in a Punch-free Judy and Judy (times two) show. I’m all for the female gaze, but, gee, it’s also nice to talk — and listen — to men, too."

I guess she doesn't get enough of the male gaze (or whatever) while she's watching the millions and millions of movies in which the women are given nothing to do except look ravishing (or maternal, or bitchy, or whatever)?

Posted by mary | May 30, 2008 3:29 PM

Let me guess -- the light saber has a "Vibrator" mode?

Posted by Don Williams | May 30, 2008 3:31 PM

Well, first of all, wanting a lightsaber is pretty sad, at least when you're older than about 13. Secondly, at least Star Wars does not celebrate a lifestyle of gross promiscuity. The soulless and heartless world of 'Sex and the City' is a sad reflection of what our society has become.

Posted by Hector | May 30, 2008 3:31 PM

You shouldn't be horrified by how much she spent. Successful television shows that I have worked on often donate signed scripts, extra roles, and yes, tickets to premieres to charities for them to auction off. $19,000 is a high price for such a thing, but I've seen extra roles particularly go for much more.

What you ought to be horrified by is that anyone out there actually believed that that many goodies were bundled together as one auction item.

Posted by James | May 30, 2008 3:32 PM

I hope I never become so dead inside that I stop wanting a real light saber.

I'm also at a loss to figure out what, exactly, was wrong with hiding out on Hoth. It was pretty safe until the Imperial probes found them. The valuable lesson there was that you shouldn't use non-native animals like Tontons as work animals in an environment for which they are not adapted for.

Posted by Tyro | May 30, 2008 3:38 PM

On the contrary, I think the whole Ice Cave thing worked out pretty well. Think of how much time the rebels bought by being so well hidden from the empire. The escape was a bit iffy, but everything worked out for the best.

But as long as we're comparing sex and city and star wars:

"if you terminate my television show, i shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

"i thought the movie looked bad--on the outside!"

"That's no movie, it's a collection of T.V. episodes!"

"Now you will see the power of this FULLY OPERATIONAL shoe collection!"

Posted by Blake Emerson | May 30, 2008 3:39 PM

X-wing lubricant ought to work just fine at low temperatures, dontcha think? Space is cold, after all.

Posted by Drew Steen | May 30, 2008 3:43 PM

Alyssa, your update is correct. However, you implied that ESB demonstrated that setting up your hideout in an ice cave was a bad idea. It seems to argue just the opposite. Your point should be that Star Wars, like Sex and the City, are poor guides to lifestyle/rebellion decisions, because they portray unrealistic scenarios without depicting the consequences (which isn't the point in the first place, since it's entertainment).

Posted by Tyro | May 30, 2008 3:44 PM

OK, that "Hector" post has to be a parody. Right?

Posted by too many steves | May 30, 2008 3:48 PM

Anthony Lane's reviews run in the New Yorker more or less biweekly regardless of what's playing, so it's probably luck of the draw. Either way, Lane's reviews are often more about his reviewing voice than about the films themselves, so I'd take his comments with a grain of salt. It was just an opportunity for some campy, quippy remarks. But he seems to have no trouble with big, dumb screen fantasies as a rule elsewhere, just those that treat viewers like they're dumb, too. Hence this, I guess.

The "30 Rock" quote is great, by the way.

Posted by Maureen | May 30, 2008 3:49 PM

"It's like they used a TV camera to film our lives!"

(where is that title quote, and the three hookers and their grandma quote from?)

Posted by Patty and Selma | May 30, 2008 3:51 PM

I guess I don't really understand why wanting a lightsaber makes someone a harmless geek but wanting a closetful of Jimmy Choos makes someone riddled with avarice. Getting either one is really equally unrealistic for most people.

That lightsaber and those shoes are both made of straw. It's not the accoutrements of wealth that cause me to dislike Sex and the City, it's the obnoxious gold-digger attitude of the characters thereon. And while it's physically impossible to actually live the life of Luke Skywalker or Indiana Jones, I've met plenty of twenty-and thirty-something professional women in New York who seem to aspire to being Carrie Bradshaw.

Posted by James Gary | May 30, 2008 3:52 PM

1) The choice of Hoth was too clever by half. With Vader leading the search the rebels should never have bitten on such a flimsy “they’ll never think to look for us here” gambit.

2) Who doesn’t want a lightsaber? They’re awesome. You don’t have to be 13 to see that.

3) What are we talking about again? Oh yeah, that chick spending $19,000 to see Sex and the City. Whatever. People overpay for stuff they’re really into all the time. So what? If I had tons of money I’d probably do the same thing. And by do the same thing I mean get some guy to build me a working lightsaber.

Posted by mkd | May 30, 2008 3:55 PM

It's quite possible that they picked Hoth because of its galactic location. Possibly it's in a really out of the way system? Also, it's possible that they weren't planning on making it a perminant base, but would have packed up and left in a week anyway.

That, or it could have just been a big mistake. Military organizations do that.

Posted by Alex Broner | May 30, 2008 4:02 PM

Lane’s reviewing the movie, not your experience of it. And I’m sure there are some silly, overwrought reactions – see Hector’s comment above – but a defensive “It’s just a movie!” isn’t much better. Dumb or not – and boy oh boy do I vote for “dumb” – there are ideas in there, and they’re pretty gross.

There’s nothing wrong with having guilty pleasures, but they’re supposed to be… you know… guilty. A righteous defense just isn’t in the cards.

Posted by bh | May 30, 2008 4:04 PM

Either way, Lane's reviews are often more about his reviewing voice than about the films themselves, so I'd take his comments with a grain of salt. It was just an opportunity for some campy, quippy remarks.

Maureen has it. That's just what Anthony Lane does. It's like with Glenn Beck-- the story isn't the latest bit of nonsense, but why he's there in the first place.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 30, 2008 4:18 PM

The funniest thing about SATC is how the most rabid fans of the show don't seem to have actually paid that much attention to it. For all people rip on it, it's actually pretty honest about how shallow and screwed up its main characters are and how much their problems are their own fault.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 30, 2008 4:21 PM

The update greatly strengthens the post. Thanks, Alyssa.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 30, 2008 4:23 PM

BTW, Anthony Lane trashed the last Star Wars movie, so he's not a real good jumping-off point for your argument.

Posted by bh | May 30, 2008 4:28 PM

For all people rip on it, it's actually pretty honest about how shallow and screwed up its main characters are and how much their problems are their own fault.

I think the opposite is true, actually: the whole shtick of "being self-destructive and fully aware of it in a therapy-couch drama-queen kind of way" owes much of its real-world popularity in recent years to SATC. It's sort of "emo porn."

Posted by James Gary | May 30, 2008 4:30 PM

Someone in my office just went on in length about her theory that if it were not for Sex and the City, there would be no "The Hills," in that SATC mainstreamed, for lack of a better word, avarice.

I have no dog in this fight, since I've seen maybe four or five episodes of SATC (all with my then girlfriend, and I alternately read and/or fell asleep while watching, probably why we aren't together), but if my co-worker is right, and SATC has made certain American cities safe for 20-year-old douchebags (I live in LA, so my entire social life is predicated that days' tolerance level for douchebags), then Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte are indeed the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Posted by Shine | May 30, 2008 4:30 PM

Maybe it is just me, but watching a bunch of 40-50- somethings trying to get laid while prattling on about their Prada bags never appealed to me. And as a New Yorker, I loathe (I just changed "fucking hate" to "loathe") their "New York" pretentiousness, mainly because it reminds me of the 20% of the city who moved to NYC so they could feel important.

Other than that, I love that show.

Posted by jim | May 30, 2008 4:31 PM

The reason SATC stirs up such criticism is because of Carrie's job as a sex columnist and her constant moral-of-the-story voice-overs. If it were just upscale cosmopolitan girls and their lives then it really would be just about the fantasy of having Jimmy Choos. But when the shoes narrator herself is pontificating about the deep meaning of her post-break-up shopping trips and the connectedness of the experiences of her friends each week, it can evoke some disagreement.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | May 30, 2008 4:39 PM

Alyssa, if you were able to produce that geek cred defense at the end of your post without reference to Google or Wikipedia, I think your cred is safe.

Posted by cmholm | May 30, 2008 4:41 PM

No Google or Wikipedia, cross my heart, cmholm. I didn't even get up to consult my Star Wars Encyclopedia. :)

Posted by Alyssa | May 30, 2008 4:44 PM

Alyssa, if you were able to produce that geek cred defense at the end of your post without reference to Google or Wikipedia, I think your cred is safe.

Well, i didn't want to say anything, but she did blow it by referring to "a new fleet of planes." Planes? Planes? PLANES?!!

Posted by James Gary | May 30, 2008 4:45 PM

The reason SATC stirs up such criticism is because of Carrie's job as a sex columnist and her constant moral-of-the-story voice-overs.

Those voiceovers always reminded me of the part of the Springer show when Jerry talks to the camera.

Posted by bh | May 30, 2008 4:49 PM

"The Bible has better character development."

The begats?

Posted by Njorl | May 30, 2008 5:01 PM

Someone in my office just went on in length about her theory that if it were not for Sex and the City, there would be no "The Hills," in that SATC mainstreamed, for lack of a better word, avarice.

Shine, I think the shows that mainstreamed avarice were Dallas and Dynasty. It's remarkable to remember that when Dallas came out, it was really weird to have a popular tv show about rich people. Many of the most popular shows of the 70s were about working class people or genuinely poor people:

Good Times
The Waltons
All in the Family
What's Happenin!
Chico and the Man
Sanford and Son
Happy Days/Laverne and Shirley
Welcome Back, Kotter

It was completely normal back then to watch a show about people with no money. Maybe it goes all the way back to The Honeymooners, I dunno. But Dallas, Dynasty, Hotel, Falcon Crest, Flamingo Road -- all the nighttime soaps -- really changed that aesthetic. And then you got sitcoms like Different Strokes, which dramatized the transition from poor people of color as sitcom subjects to rich which white people.

Posted by Pesto | May 30, 2008 5:02 PM

"X-wing lubricant ought to work just fine at low temperatures, dontcha think? Space is cold, after all. "

But vacuum is the best insulator - it has no heat capacity. All heat loss is radiative.

Posted by Njorl | May 30, 2008 5:05 PM

"X-wing lubricant ought to work just fine at low temperatures, dontcha think? Space is cold, after all. "

But vacuum is the best insulator - it has no heat capacity. All heat loss is radiative.

Posted by Njorl | May 30, 2008 5:05 PM

Actually I think the reason SATC generates so much criticism is that there are so many people out there who say that the show is very good. While I'm perfectly willing to believe that there are millions of people out there who enjoyed the show (and will also enjoy the movie), it is objectively a very bad show. Millions enjoyed the Brady Bunch. None would defend it as "smart" or "good". SATC reaches about the same level of asinine sit-com yuks and lessons week after week and yet people call it good. If such folk weren't out there (I'm talking to you, Alyssa) then people like me wouldn't be itching to interrupt and say, um, no, actually, that show really sucks.

Posted by Rob Mac | May 30, 2008 5:06 PM

Isn't that Sex and the City show about 3 hookers and their Grandma?

The actual quote is "So it's a show about three hookers and their mom?" and it's from Family Guy (as observed by Brian).

Posted by JimmyJack | May 30, 2008 5:06 PM

Ice turns out to be a pretty good insulator. Sure, there is going to be some heat escaping from vents/air shafts/etc., but probably not a suspicious amount. And keep in mind that if the Empire is trying to measure the heat escaping from small vents in the ice on a particular planet, you're pretty screwed under any circumstance.

As for cave-ins, point taken, but I'm not so sure the ice fortress was a bad idea. It's reasonably easy to build into the ice (easier than building underground at least), and the base would probably be missed on cursory inspection (though not a more detailed look -- but again, if the Empire thinks you are probably there, it's game over anyway).

I'm sure that there are better hidden base choices, but off the top of my head, I'm not sure what. Maybe an underwater base?

Posted by Joe | May 30, 2008 5:11 PM

Well, i didn't want to say anything, but she did blow it by referring to "a new fleet of planes." Planes? Planes? PLANES?!!

Considering how famous it is that Lucas based his fight scenes on airplane dogfights rather than spaceship movements, I'm going with Freudian slip for that one.

Posted by Rab01 | May 30, 2008 5:15 PM

Igloos should demonstrate that ice is actually a pretty good insulator. Though I definitely see your point about putting out a lot of waste heat. Still, I got the impression that it was a hastily thrown together temporary base.

Going out and about on a tauntaun, however, is probably not the brightest thing to do on an ice planet.

Posted by Stu | May 30, 2008 5:27 PM

"Igloos should demonstrate that ice is actually a pretty good insulator. Though I definitely see your point about putting out a lot of waste heat."

Insulators work both ways. If it traps in a lot of heat, that means the escaping heat signature is going to be pretty small.

Posted by Joe | May 30, 2008 5:40 PM

Considering how famous it is that Lucas based his fight scenes on airplane dogfights rather than spaceship movements, I'm going with Freudian slip for that one.

It's an easy enough mistake to make. My point was that at no time in any of the six Star Wars movies does any character refer to any spacecraft as a "plane."

Also, I'd always assumed tauntauns were native to Hoth--the problem was that any creature (native or not) would die of exposure if they had to spend an entire night outdoors.

Posted by James Gary | May 30, 2008 5:40 PM

I couldn't get past the first few episodes because I find the whole "mens vs women" schtick to be unfunny, sickening, anti-feminist, and entirely unlike anything I've ever experienced in my life. As far as I could tell, all the main characters are repulsive personalities living narcissistic lives and are essentially caricatures.

I can't see how anyone watches it for "quality". From everything I've read about it by fans, including this post, it seems to me that the reason so many women watch it is because they buy into much of the oh-so-funny men vs women worldview and its associated perennial manifestation in "isn't that just how things are" comedies. I don't quite understand how so many feminists or feminist-leaning women don't recognize the anti-feminist nature of the portrayals of these women, the setting them up as both archetypes and role models, and the way in which the show encourages an essentialist and oppositional view of men and women.

Watching the show literally made me anxious and slightly nauseated. I've been around women like these often in my life, but only at a distance. They're not like any women I've known well or been partners with. They're a lot more like people that have always seemed to me to be almost alien creatures. A certain kind of man strikes me the same way...in fact, the kind of men these characters seem to date.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | May 30, 2008 5:47 PM

James Gary, I did myself in there just by trying to vary my word choice. Of course there's a difference between airplanes as we know them, fighter jets, spacegoing freighters, battle cruisers, etc. :)

Posted by Alyssa | May 30, 2008 5:49 PM

My advice to you
dont go agaisnt millions of super fans who could embed their jimmy choos into your skull if they hear you bad mouthing the show or the movie.
Why go see the movie if you have nothing to say positive about it?
Most people dont sit in a cinema criticising the movie they are paying to watch. Four years people have waited for this so it is understood why there is so much excitement this time round.
I also agree that this arguement has many flaws in some ways you are criticising religion and saying that the bible is a big dumb fantasy?
Maybe some things in the film may not happen in real life but if it was a movie about Carrie living on the streets, it would be a little bleak woudlt it?

Posted by May | May 30, 2008 5:53 PM

The problem with SATC is that thousands upon thousands of soulless females with rich dads paying for everything came stampeding into Manhattan, determined to live the SATC lifestyle. All that was quirky, artsy, DIY, dirty, fun, and dangerous about NYC was replaced by high end shopping socialites with egos too big for such a small town, wanting nothing more than a rich man to buy them fancy shoes.

The city became more and more like the materialistic vapid hell depicted in the show the more and more popular it got.

One benefit for the men was that it promoted heavy drinking and sexual promiscuity amongst many young women. Unfortunately, most of these women were incapable of thinking about anything but fancy parties and shopping.

In short, the show made it increasingly easier for NYC men to get laid, but increasingly harder to meet any woman of substance, and many men I know happily sowed their wild oats in that atmosphere before leaving town to pursue women who had their priorities straight and knew what was truly important in life. The shadier men stuck around to knock boots with the new crop of girls who can't hold their appletinis.

Posted by Nylund | May 30, 2008 5:58 PM

The most crucial difference between Star Wars and Sex and the City is their respective audiences.
Star Wars (along all the other movies of that ilk) is created for people with little if any hope of ever getting laid. The prototypical Star Wars fan is a teenage version of Charlie Brown.
Sex and City, however, is made for alpha-girls. The prototypical Sex and the City watcher is that character from Mean Girls who gets hit by a bus. (Not that I, as a red-blooded male have ever seen that movie. Ahem.)
In this sense, I think your comparison doesn't hold up. Interesting thought, though.

Posted by Dave | May 30, 2008 6:30 PM

And as a New Yorker, I loathe (I just changed "fucking hate" to "loathe") their "New York" pretentiousness, mainly because it reminds me of the 20% of the city who moved to NYC so they could feel important.

I've seen bits and pieces of the show while flipping around--the cloying writing and hammy acting make it hard to watch for more than five minutes--but I saw one scene where one was introducing her date to the others, they guy was all but wearing overalls and chewing on a piece of straw as he aw-shucksed about such bee-yoo-ti-full women folk in one place. The one introducing him, with a wink and a nod the yokel was of course too dumb to understand, explained that he was from... Chicago.

Posted by Jim | May 30, 2008 6:41 PM

The real problems with Alyssa's update are that a) there are no shipyards in the Coruscant system. The major shipyards for the Empire were in the Kuat system, and b) Incom was building X-wings and other ships for the Rebellion. The problem was that the Alliance didn't have enough money to buy new ones very often.

Posted by rmb | May 30, 2008 6:55 PM

Actually I think the reason SATC generates so much criticism is that there are so many people out there who say that the show is very good.

It is very good. In fact, I'd say it's one of the best television comedy-dramas of the past couple of decades, which is why it has been so successful and influential. And it got better as it went along. I don't think the show's many fans care very much about predictable criticisms from the usual humorless suspects: Andrea Dworkin-type feminists, preachy lefties, religious conservatives etc.

Posted by Mixner | May 30, 2008 6:56 PM

A '30 Rock' reference to go with her previous Boston Red Sox posts? Alyssa is the best.

Posted by Alex | May 30, 2008 6:57 PM

Hector: "at least Star Wars does not celebrate a lifestyle of gross promiscuity"

I knew there was something I didn't like about Star Wars.

But, hey, Luke French-kissed his sister. That puts him on a par with Angelina Jolie, who French-kissed her brother.

"I've met plenty of twenty-and thirty-something professional women in New York who seem to aspire to being Carrie Bradshaw."

Phone numbers, please.

Oh, wait, they wouldn't be interested in a poor, aging slob like me anyway.

But, hey, I got "bank robber" cred!

Oh, wait, I live in San Francisco, not New York.

Never mind.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 30, 2008 7:03 PM

Keith Ellis, you must be a sensitive soul if this teevee show has such a profound effect on you.

The reason people like SATC is becuase it meets the first requirement for a television comedy: it's funny. Also, it has a fair amount of sex. It has nothing to do with feminism or anti-feminism. Not everything is political.

Posted by too many steves | May 30, 2008 7:11 PM

Star Wars (along all the other movies of that ilk) is created for people with little if any hope of ever getting laid.

..the fuck? Most people who saw Star Wars were parents with their children.

"Movies of that ilk"? You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? You can't really gross a hojillion dollars by appealing to the "never gets laid" crowd, which you seem to think is a synonym for geekdom. (Met my wife over a game of Dungeons and Dragons, which we still play, so kindly go fuck yourself.) I know the people you think you're talking about; it's very likely they're getting laid a lot more often than you. (Lacking your insufferable sense of superiority seems to help.)

Also, to correct a misconception a few posts above - igloos are made out of snow, not ice.

Posted by Chet | May 30, 2008 8:01 PM

First off, to the ranting New Yorkers--ladies coming to Manhattan in search of glamour and rich boyfriends long predates Carrie Bradshaw, Edith Wharton, and Henry James.

As for the critical reaction to SATC, the (great) film critic Matt Zoller Seitz made some excellent points (scroll down a bit to his first comment) recently about how movies with male values (lots of explosions, lots of talk about honor and loyalty) get considered universal classics; movies with female characters and values (like a focus on the domestic sphere, marriage, and children) get written off as "chick flicks".

Also, as he notes, gratuitous displays of wealth and high spirits were hardly invented by SATC either---many of the 30s comedies that even beard-stroking film geeks bow to are basically SATC in black and white.

Generally, the SATC is well aware that they're watching fantasy---yes, they may go out and buy shoes just like Carrie's, but there's never been a shortage of men buying sunglasses like Tom Cruise either. The interesting question is what's it a fantasy of? And I think the answer there is that the clothes, wealth, sex and success are really all window-dressing for what's really a dream of perfect friendship. It's really a female version of a Judd Apatow flick, fantasizing about a world where junior high gender relations (the opposite sex is intriguing, but peripheral; your own pals are central) is sustained into a successful adulthood. So yeah, the fantasy is childish. But then, most fantasies are.

And to close with a quote from MZS: "The spectacle of male critics lecturing women on the corruption of feminism is more hilarious than anything Michael Patrick King could come up with."

Posted by That Fuzzy Bastard | May 30, 2008 8:58 PM

many steves say,
"[SATC] has nothing to do with feminism or anti-feminism. Not everything is political."
once upon a time, women rallied around the cry that the personal IS political.

more generally, the biggest problem i have with the show is that the world they live in is NO ONE'S reality. their new york is one where they can pay for endless cabs and brunches with their good looks. don't these women know about the fucking subway? because most syndicated columnists wouldn't be able to get to brunch without it. come to think of it, most syndicated columnists don't even have brunch with their friends in a different hip restaurant every day. come to think of it, NOBODY has brunch with their friends in a different hip restaurant every day (with the possible exception of the show's writers, producers, etc.).

also, i find the idea that before the show, manhattan was, as NYlund said, "quirky, artsy, DIY, dirty, fun, and dangerous" is more than a little odd. new york city did transform around the turn of the century, and this transformation has certainly been for the worse; but i can think of an army of real estate speculators, a decades-long market boom, and one lizard of an ex-mayor who would be more than a little upset at you giving all the credit to sarah jessica parker and her shoes.

Posted by sleepy | May 30, 2008 9:01 PM

I also agree that this arguement has many flaws in some ways you are criticising religion and saying that the bible is a big dumb fantasy?

Just to defend my honor here(I apparently made the argument that you agree with), I don't think that a show/movie about 40ish women doinking younger men while buying expensive shoes is equal in realism to a book about a magical sky zombie born from a virgin. In fact, just to be 100% clear, I believe that the bible is a big, dumb fantasy. Really big. Really dumb. Really fantastical. much, much more so then Sex and the City.

Posted by grung0r | May 30, 2008 9:28 PM

GrungOr, good point.

I'd much rather be boinking fortyish babes (well, not likely, since I'm closer to 60, so "younger" than them I'm not) than being, well, crucified, or chased out of Egypt by boils or whatever.

And today, one would definitely learn a bit more about this world by watching these crazy broads than reading the Bible.

Unless, of course, you read the "X-Rated Bible":
http://www.amazon.com/X-Rated-Bible-Irreverent-Survey-Scriptures/dp/0922915555

Product Description

"Everything you wanted to know about the holiness-horniness nexus, but they wouldn't tell you."-George Carlin

"Found in nearly every home, within the reach of underage children, is a book plump with scenes normally confined to sin-bins marked "Adults Only." We're talking about the Holy Bible, a book filled with incest, rape, adultery, prostitution, drugs, bestiality, castration-all the nasty stuff!"

Only problem I have with SATC - and I admit I've never watched the show, although I might go see the movie - is that the only really good looking babe on the show is Kristin Davis. The rest of them have, well, some problems. Not that I wouldn't hump any of them, you understand, but "Desperate Housewives" had a better looking cast (Marcia Cross, OMFG!)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 30, 2008 9:38 PM

Re Richard's comment

"Oh, wait, they wouldn't be interested in a poor, aging slob like me anyway.

But, hey, I got "bank robber" cred!

Oh, wait, I live in San Francisco, not New York.

Never mind."
---------------
Considering that you are probably the last living heterosexual male in San Francisco, I would say the deck is pretty heavily stacked in your favor , Richard.

There is the competition from vibrators, of course. But kill that fucking Energizer Bunny and you have it made in the shade.

Posted by Don Williams | May 30, 2008 10:04 PM

Let's remember children that SATC and Star Wars are both movies. They are not real. And who cares, because if someone enjoys either one, then let them. Can't people stop being so critical of EVERYTHING!! Damn, we live in America, we have the freedom of choice. Don't trash that one right we still have. We could live in Cuba, take your choice.

Posted by Amanda | May 30, 2008 10:16 PM

lol god i love this blogs comments section. quips'r'us. and no alyssa there is no walking back the dissing of Hoth. you gaffemachine you. but i think u knew this and tried anyway and for that i forgive you and our readership-relationship is renewed. or something. in the spirit of Eurovision, you get 1 pointsssssssss. ps satc is crap and we all know it but.... so?

Posted by steviewonder | May 30, 2008 10:34 PM

The problem with SATC is that thousands upon thousands of soulless females with rich dads paying for everything came stampeding into Manhattan, determined to live the SATC lifestyle.

Really? Is there any evidence at all for that assertion? Admittedly I don't live in Manhattan, but I've spent a lot of time there visiting relatives and working over the last 10 years. I've heard this complaint all the time, but never seen the slightest iota of evidence it's true. If you're smart enough to avoid the bridge and tunnel hangouts chances are you won't run into these "soulless females."

Posted by vanya | May 30, 2008 11:31 PM

Maybe some things in the film may not happen in real life but if it was a movie about Carrie living on the streets, it would be a little bleak woudlt it?
Posted by May | May 30, 2008 5:53 PM

I'd much rather see that.

As for Hoth, the point was not to be found. A more habitable planet would have been inhabited.

The real question is why the original rebel base wasn't immediately attacked by the Imperial fleet after the Death Star was destroyed. They weren't even evacuating while the fight was going on.

Posted by aleks | May 31, 2008 12:19 AM

Two things I learned on this thread:

1) Tautauns (Tontons?) were not native to Hoth.

2) {Sex in the city fans} ∩ {star wars fans} != ∅

Posted by Kolohe | May 31, 2008 12:22 AM

"1) Tautauns (Tontons?) were not native to Hoth."

I believe that's still in dispute. That mutant polar bear must have eaten something before the rebs showed up.

Posted by aleks | May 31, 2008 2:39 AM

Tauntauns couldn't be native to Hoth - Han tells Luke (while riding a tauntaun) at the beginning of ESB that there isn't enough life on Hoth to fill a space cruiser.

Posted by rmb | May 31, 2008 3:12 AM

Good point rmb.

And am I the first to picture Hillary Clinton singing Veruca Salt's song "Don't Care How, I Want It NOW!"

Posted by aleks | May 31, 2008 6:43 AM

Vanya,

Dear Lord.

I fear I'm going to have to be blunt: who the fuck are you to talk about "bridge and tunnel"?

B&T is a 1970s and 80s phrase used by people who moved to Manhattan from other parts of the country to sneer at the vulgar white-ethnics who actually came into the city from places like Brooklyn, Queens and New Jersey where they'd lived there whole lives. Was rather snobby and outrageous then as the people they were sneering at actually had New York accents and were much more natives than the sneerers.

Now that that very same type of snob (newbie hipster just out of Brown) is living in Brooklyn and Queens it's really not even applicable/used. But it's ugliness lingers.

That said, as you don't live in New York City, Vanya, you're by definition pretty "bridge and tunnel" yourself on those occasions when you choose to dazzle us here in NY with your presence.

What's more, you have no idea what you're talking about. Indeed, Manhattan has really changed and the city is, indeed, full of those kinds of gals. As well as the sort of Europeans who you use to only find in Soho or Tribeca.

Not your best post. Snobby, hypocritical, anachronistic, ignorant, and blissfully unaware ("When I bridge and tunnel into New York I make sure to stay away from the bridge and tunnel crowd!). And, yeah, just wrong about the gals.

Posted by The Queens Midtown Tunnel | May 31, 2008 1:10 PM

That mutant polar bear must have eaten something before the rebs showed up.

It's called a Wampa, for God's sake. Given the general nerdishness of commentary on this blog, I really hoped the Star Wars nomenclature would be adhered to more closely. ;)

Posted by James Gary | May 31, 2008 2:37 PM

"Can't people stop being so critical of EVERYTHING!! Damn, we live in America, we have the freedom of choice. Don't trash that one right we still have. We could live in Cuba, take your choice."

and here you are being critical of people being critical.

further, you seem to believe that americans have some sort of constitutional right to enjoy a shitty television show, free from the presence of somebody else mentioning that the show is a pile of shit. i don't remember learning about that amendment.

finally, in spite of the fact that cuba is an evil godless state where the citizens live like slaves and are chained to the will of an evil godless dictator, cuban arts have really been flourishing these past fifty years. true, they don't have big budget premium cable shows about sexually "liberated" women who spend all their time hoping they can find a man to fuck them, but if that's what your hanging our superiority on, we should really wonder just how awesome this Amerikan Freedum really is.

Posted by MOPE | May 31, 2008 3:12 PM

I must echo other commenters who mentioned the grating narration as the primary evil of the show. I have no problem with a shameless, mindless comedy, but SATC is a mindless comedy masquerading as some kind of wellspring of big city wisdom. Before I had watched the show, I was aware of the acrimonious criticism it garnered and it seemed disproportionate. It's just a dumb comedy after all, right? Until I watched the show a few times, and realized that the criticism SATC garners is explained by its odd agenda of not just depicting but also valorizing life as a series of animalistic fuck-based "relationships", credit card swipes, and unguided lashings out.

It's a show about permanent adolescence without the wake-up call. I can't completely accept the analogy to Judd Apatow flicks because those at least use some devices to suggest the need to grow up (even in Superbad, where the show is about actual adolescence, the plump character cries after he realizes how pathetic his attempt to hook up with one of the female leads has turned out). SATC on the other hand evidences no such self-awareness. I really have never taken seriously the interpretative approach that transmogrifies writers and producers of prima facie regressive pop culture items into winking, trenchant critics of same.

Posted by StJoe | May 31, 2008 8:15 PM

I'm fairly certain that Tauntauns are indeed native to Hoth. I think the most likely explanation for Han's comment is either hyperbole or simple ignorance. He is, after all, merely a smuggler and space captain, not a biologist. It's also possible that the Rebel base was located at a polar region of the planet where few Tauntauns naturally lived rather than the still frozen, but not quite as cold, equatorial region.

Posted by MosBen | June 1, 2008 9:40 AM

According to the Star Wars databank, tauntauns are native to Hoth.

Posted by Sarah L. | June 1, 2008 8:34 PM

From the Star Wars Databank:

"Though tauntauns are sure-footed and well equipped to handle Hoth's daytime temperature, the chilling extremes of a Hoth night will prove deadly."

Hah! My initial conjecture (above, May 30 at 5:40) proved correct. Thank you, Sarah L.

Posted by James Gary | June 1, 2008 9:04 PM

"Most people who saw Star Wars were parents with their children."
you're kidding, right? maybe for the last three, but absolutely not for the first three. Nobody's parents saw that movie in 1978.

I've never seen SATC but I've always wondered how much the criticism of the show was based on the fact that the friendship of the women for each other seems more important to them than men or children, and that they felt this way without being rebels of any kind, as demonstrated by their wholehearted embrace of capitalistic materialism. There's a subversive element to taking such traditonal "feminine" preoccupations to a level which makes the women value each other as much as the four friends in SATC do.

Posted by Diana | June 2, 2008 2:37 PM

Speaking of the Bible....

Saturday, May 31, 2008
Sex and the City
A quiz...

By David Buckna
Special to ASSIST News Service

http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2008/s08050173.htm

Posted by David Buckna | June 5, 2008 2:50 AM