Who is Looking Forward to 'Sex and the City 2'? And If You are… Why?
I fail to see the appeal
Photo: New Line Cinema
Movieline is obviously not the target audience for Sex and the City 2 as they have posted not one but two articles slamming the upcoming sequel, first suggesting "50 Things I'd Rather Do Than Watch the New Sex and the City 2 Trailer" and the second is a comical "The Sex and the City 2 Trailer: By The Numbers".
Jeff Wells also isn't a fan as he suggests "the four Sex and the City ladies [get] dropped into some ghastly situation and made to suffer over a period of weeks if not months" or an alternative scenario that has them visited by an angel named Clarence to help them save their souls. Of course, all three of these negative sentiments come from men and I am not exactly raising my hand to be first in line for a film that follows four spoiled, alcoholic, nymphomaniac Manhattanites to Abu Dhabi on a vacation where they can make hot flash jokes whilst riding camels in the desert (ha, ha), have affairs and be doted on by the natives. Now you tell me… who is this aimed at?
The first film made over $415 million worldwide, which is to say fans of Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda are wide spread. Does the beat continue for the sequel even though the first film has a lowly 49% rating at RottenTomatoes and even has a meager 5.4/10 rating at the always forgiving IMDb. I didn't like the first film and am not looking forward to the sequel, but I had only seen one episode of the show before seeing the first film and am obviously not in the target demo.
Check out the trailer below, is this for you?
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 22 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I actually am looking forward to Sex and the City 2 very much, but I've seen at most two hours of the original TV series; my real introduction to the series was the first movie, and surprisingly enough I've never felt compelled to revisit the TV series (though I suppose I will sometime in the future, just not in the near future).
For the record, I'm not in the target demo: I'm a guy. But I'm also gay, so does that put me in the target demo anyways?
Ha, no idea if that puts you into the target demo, but what is it that interests you?
For me the first movie was so long the personalities of these characters just became overbearing, and I can't imagine it will get any better in the second one.
I suppose part of it could be how I hope that my life eventually resembles what's portrayed on-screen in Sex and the City–referring specifically to the friendships the characters have maintained through the years. I have my own tight-knit group of friends and we've known each other for years; I've known one of them since 1st grade and we're both 21 now. We actually all watched the first Sex and the City together (on DVD, of course, not in theaters).
Sex and the City 2 looks like more of the same, no doubt about that. But I've also seen the first one far too many times on HBO, so I assume that I'm good to go for more of the same.
Well, no doubt 30+ women will watch this, but the thing that gives it big numbers are the number of teens enticed to see this as they think this would bring in Girl Power and stuff.
It doesn't matter if your gay. I'm straight but I watch Dear John alone, Confessions of a Shopaholic and 13 going on 30. I find it fun, and something to waste my time on, I think that's a reason why people watch this.
I do hope that Prince of Persia beats Sex and The City 2 though. It would be an opening for Game franchises that doesn't actually suck!
I usually don't mind chick flicks (I will happily watch "Ever After" and "The Time Traveler's Wife" by my lonesome), but tripe like "Sex and the City" (both TV show and movies) and "Valentine's Day" are what put guys like us off.
The new trailer made me throw up in my mouth a little. And whoever in their right mind thinks Sarah Jessica Parker is attractive? Barf.
For years I've heard the industry complain about the lack of female-driven movies and how women were often ignored by an all male industry that was intent on pleasing the adolescent, new voter, and quarter-life crisis crowd. Flashforward to now and those same demographics composed of men and boys remain shut-ins and engage themselves in the instant gratification that is known as the internet and video-gaming.
And so as the studio system is stuck in a drought thanks to the boys of my generation, and I include myself in this. Now they are forced to turn there attention towards the opposite sex. In the process they somewhat alienate there once gold mine of an audience and prehaps we just aren't meant to see the appeal in these kinds of films. Prehaps these films provide women with a level of escapism that guys find there own distractions.
One comment that a friend of mine made to me about more the series than the first film was that it gave this message, if you will, that it wasn't such a bad thing for women over 30 to be single and that they ultimatley didn't need to depend on someone to live there life.
I will admit that I can't really relate to that statement but I can say that I at times enjoyed the series as a bit of a guilty pleasure thanks to sharpness of the writing and how genuinley funny the situations at hand could be. However, after being forced to sit through the struggle to find conflict shitfest that was the first film, my then girlfriend expressed her overall disapointment to me. And needless to say, I have my doubts about anyone being riled up or interested the follow-up film.
Dude: you're not a girl. Hey, man, I still haven't seen the first Sex and the City and I'm hoping I never have a date suggest THAT DVD for a cozy dinner. But seriously, you – are – not – A CHICK.
Unless the studio or a publication specifically requests that you watch it, just don't. Move on to something you do like. Not every movie is made for you, and since no one asked in the first place …
So because I'm a guy I can't have an opinion or watch a movie that may not be targeted for me. That's sort-of a close minded sentiment but one who argues for there limitations can gladly keep them if oyu like. And I have to say that I agree with what Wells and company said in the film in the article above. Also, keep in mind that this is a movie written and produced by men.
It's gotten to the point that every time I hear the first few of the unfortunatley distinctive bars of openning music from the once provocative series that my ears cringe with absoloute pain. As I know I'm about watch a group of 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or turn of the century-somethings get mixed up in another unrealistic and unbelieveable femenistic adventure. And as I see this I feel sympathy for women that this is what they have to endure as "entertainment" or "enjoyment" for themselves.
Not too long ago on this site there was article entailing the depressing state of romantic comedies and the classics that seem to be left behind and forgetten about by todays filmakers and capitalistic businessmen in search of a profit from those with the most disposable income. It is a true pity that films that are previewed in the trailer above are what audiences of both sexes have to settle for.
I'm a twenty year old female, and am very excited to see the movie. I'm a big fan of the show and I watch the DVDs frequently. Why am I looking forward to the movie? BECAUSE I'M A FAN OF THE SERIES. It's that simple.
We all know that this is just a matter of demographics. Sex and the City is for the females. The same way that I don't see the appeal of movies like Bad Boys I, II, and III or in-your-face, macho-man action flicks…I don't expect men to see the appeal of Sex and the City. And i\
I'm not hating on chick flicks — like you said, they're aimed at a certain demographic like yorself. It's just I've seen a couple of the episodes from the TV series (and endured the first movie), and I've tried my best to see it from your perspective. I just fail to see the appeal, and usually I can see both sides of an argument.
I'm not hating on women either. Some chick flicks can be really, really good when they tone down the sap and actually focus on telling a good story.
Matt, if you've only seen "a couple of the episodes from the TV series", then you don't get it. The frenetic anticipation for SATC2 is coming from the die-hard fans, who’ve seen every episode more than once, including all of the episodes on the DVDs that were narrated by Michael Patrick King for added insight. There's a layered effect of appreciation that develops over the series. There's inside humor that you, as a newbie, won't get. Many die-hard SATC fans went to the first midnight showing of the movie. I did, and then I went to 3 more theater showings. The first midnight showing's audience was the only one to collectively gasp when Carrie first arrived home and said, "John?".
I’ve adored that these friends are so active in each other’s lives. I think most women haven't been able to duplicate this in their own lives, because of time and distance obstacles, and are starving for it. When watching the series, it was like being a 5th friend at the brunch table every week.
The show was written for independent women who are self-sufficient. Personally, I think the end of the series and the first movie drifted from its roots of being written for independent, self-sufficient women, when it married nearly all of them off. The show was supposed to be about not needing a husband or babies in order to be happy in life (except for Charlotte). It challenged the stereotype image of what “happily ever after” looks like. In the end only the nymphomaniac, Samantha, doesn’t fall in line with the stereotype, leaving the alternate-happily-ever-after image a farce. Despite the significant disappointment, I still enjoy the characters and other aspects of the show, and I’m looking forward to SATC2 with great anticipation.
If the thought of watching the entire series, including a second viewing of several episodes in narrated mode, before the May 28, 2010 release date repulses you, then you're not the primary target audience. It may be a “fun” or “nice” movie for you, but you just won’t “get” what the frenzy is all about.
I am by no means a fan of Sex and the City – in fact it doesn't interest me at all.
But I don't think it is right to use the imdb rating as an arguement for or against a chickflick. IMDb is very male-driven, with the majority of guys 'hating' on a chick flick, giving it ratings of 1 without even seeing it. Even on a hugely female oriented film like Sex and the City of which I assume around 75% of the people that saw it were female, there are more votes from males. So I don't think that IMDb ratings work for chick flicks because they don't reflect the polarising views of the sexes, and instead are skewed towards guys.
EXACTLY! We have a winner! This is why Nicholas Sparks films don't get good reviews but do good business. The most popular teen in the world, Miley Cyrus, has stated several times that she loves her some Sex in the City, and has a cameo role in the sequel. I don't even bother with Rotten Tomatoes anymore. In fact, one of the reasons I overestimated the weekend gross of Date Night this weekend, is because the Rotten Tomato score was so low for Couples Retreat, I assumed it broke $30 million because it was the sole release. Wrong.
Because its pure fantasy… the show/films are not about the sex its about the freindship…
i cant sum up why im looking forward to it and why im a fan…. its like asking somepeople why there fans or sports and others not….
I think women enjoy Sex in the City in order to taste the fantasy that these types of shows populate — the C-list celebrity lifestyle of being a jet-setting glamourpuss with no worries beyond primping, sex and appearance. Is it a shallow, glittery romp through a world completely detached from reality? Absolutely, and it's fine if you take it on those terms. This sort of thing is definitely not for me, but there's nothing wrong with a couple hours of cotton candy-flavoured escape if that's your thing.
I've probably watched most of the episodes of SATC (my girlfriend has all the DVDs) but had no interest in the movies (she saw the first one with her friends from work). The show was pretty good, at least the first few seasons. However, episodic TV is a very different beast from motion picture. TV works by repeating the same story over and over every week. The characters are the constant that audiences either love and follow through any awful, contrived plot, or they hate and therefore focus on every little goof or hole in the story. If you're a fan of David Caruso, you enjoy him putting on his shades and spouting corny puns before the opening credits. If not, you point out how ridiculously over-funded the Miami CSI department must be for all the cool lighting and fancy equipment they have. Essentially, every episode is interchangeable, it ends about where it started. (The Simpsons goofed on this idea at least once.)
Movies, on the other hand, need the main character to change (go on a journey, yadda, yadda). Plot is more important. It can be difficult for a TV series to adapt. Since I haven't seen SATC (the movie), I cannot judge.
What the heck, this movie is better than all these current thrash movie that we have nowadays. Will I watch this? hell yeah!!!
IT's FANTASY. While the original concept of the show made sense, and had a point – what it has turned into is a complete FANTASY. No Different than Avatar, Star Wars and LOTR. Sex and the City (movie) and it's Sequel are just an extension of the Vogue-magazine-reading-Real-Housewives-watching-Macy's-shopping-Weekend-clubbing-Too-expensive-shoe-buying-Dating-a-different-guy-a-month-while-wanting-to-have-a-happy-home-life-and-husband-and-kids-and-beautiful-life-FANTASY that apparently the studios producing and companies funding THINK kind of women are out there. It's a Harlequin Romance for the digital, media-saturated age. Clown Shoes. Now – you decide – is this a good thing? It seems ok to have 'distraction-based fantasy' out there for men – so why not women? For every woman out there who thinks the guy who loves Star Wars and LOTR is a loser, there's a guy out there who thinks the 'shoe-shopping, "Valentine's Day" loving, chocolate-will-make-me-feel-better" woman is just as much of a loser. But, while the men may love their fantasy, they don't believe it could happen (at least the reasonable one's don't) whereas the women who watch this kind of stuff ACTUALLY TRY TO LIVE LIKE THIS – or at least think it's possible. Anyway – SJP gotta eat and we suffer the outcome.
I'm not sure that I'm looking forward to it. The first film wasn't all that great (but I liked it in spite of its mediocre quality- what can I say, I'm a fanboy!), but I know that the second film will add absolutely NOTHING to the series.
I like (I might even LOVE) "Sex and the City", the television show. It was a well-written, raunchy & funny series that stood out mostly because the characters seemed more like real people, especially to women. You could see a little bit of yourself in any of the four main characters. They were radical, they had ideas, thoughts, dreams that were different from the normal "marry, have kids, get white picket fence & 2 story house" aspirations that you see in other aspects of the media.
Now though, these girls have become exactly what they rebelled against. They're just stereotypes- the romantic, the "hoochie", the cynic, the level-headed one.
Us fans were so attached to the characters that we wouldn't mind seeing them again, but if we step away from the rose-colored glasses from a bit, we can see that the film is just milking something that has become hoary, old and unremarkable.
I never watched more than an episode of the series, but my wife is a big fan. I saw the movie in theaters and rather enjoyed it.
Second one looks like more of the same, but I guess that's what the fans expect no? I mean most watched the show every season seeing more of the same.
I don't understand the point of this article and the question it asks. I mean, is there going to be a "Who is looking forward to Shrek 4" post? Or a "Why are you looking forward to Iron Man 2" article? If you like the series, watch the sequel. If you don't, it's irrelevant to question it and its content, especially a movie like Sex and the City 2 where the target demo is clear cut and know exactly what they are getting from this sequel.
Are you going to ask a Batman fan if he's looking forward to a follow-up of The Dark Knight? People who like Sex and the City are looking forward to this. People who don't care for it in the first place are most likely going to skip it.
So again, the point of this article is…?
This is the winner!
In my opinion, this was the only series that was specifically written for thirty-something (now forty-something), single women who were straight but didn’t want the stereotypical happily-ever-after ending with a husband and kids (except for Charlotte). It challenged the notion that happiness could only be obtained after marrying and having babies. I was in my 30’s never married, never pregnant and didn’t want children. I loved that this show was uniquely written for me. I couldn’t identify with any other show like I could with this one. The writing was intelligent, humorous, endearing and entertaining. It was intoxicating.
The end of the series and the movie disappointed me by returning to traditional happily-ever-after endings for each of the characters, except Samantha, who has always been more of a caricature whom I couldn’t relate to. It’s made a farce of its original belief that happiness can exist independently from husbands and children. Some of my favorite early episodes, like “The Baby Shower” and "Bay of Married Pigs", ridiculed the traditional stereotype of striving for husbands and babies. I miss the portrayal of that perspective.
Despite my disappointment, I’m looking forward to seeing SATC2. I use google news almost daily for new “Sex and the City” updates. I’ll attend the first midnight showing of SATC2, and at least two more showings before purchasing the DVD. (I believe in voting with my wallet for movies that I want to see more of.) The women may be married and having babies, but as long as I can still identify with the characters I’ll still see the movies, although perhaps with less enthusiasm and wallet-backing. When I can’t relate anymore I won’t.
I’m holding out hope that SATC is just getting its bearings with movies and will find a way to return to its roots. True fans can recall the season one writing errors for Samantha’s character … a total mismatch that was painful to watch. The writing turned around and never repeated those errors.