I am rewatching Sex and the City, and oh dear

[Anonymous]

I never fell for the appeal of this show. I found it mildly amusing. The women who loved it in the nineties were so transparent and 'faux feminist'. It appealed to the masses I guess.

[Anonymous]

I never understood why materialism was such a big part of the show. The viewers are meant to like the four main characters and find them aspirational, but the characters seem to care more about spending thousands of dollars on designer shoes and clothes than almost anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone takes this show way too seriously....

Agree. It’s so weird every single time these threads pop up. It’s a fiction tv show from the late 90s. Who are these people demanding so much from a comedy show about sex. The whole “it doesn’t hold up well” is dumb. What is it suppose to hold up? It’s a fiction show from the late 90s. If you want a main gay character, trans character, POC character, overweight character, woke character, etc we have those in every show now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nixon is terrific? Lol. Everyone always hated her character. Everything about her is repulsive.

I don't remember that narrative at all. I remember people complaining about the way she was styled on the show -- Nixon is a lovely woman but Miranda was always styled to look as awkward and ugly as possible. But I don't remember anyone saying she was repulsive. Most of my friends found her the most tolerable of the quartet -- a lot of lawyers in my circle of friends and people identified a lot more with her than with any of the others except maybe Samantha at times (but her character is a caricature much of the time).

Miranda's character was the most relatable, and I'm not a lawyer. None of the main characters have anything in common, and those women would never be BFFs in real life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone takes this show way too seriously....

Yup. It's weird how much rage this old show inspires. No one talks about the influence Seinfeld had on young men because they would sound insane if they did.

There's sex in the title, and it's about women. It's just pearl clutching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to love this show but it does not hold up. I used to think Carrie was the epitome of cool, but she seems clingy and mean! Kristen Davis's acting is painful. Cynthia Nixon is terrific of course, as is Kim Cattrall, but overall the dialogue is stilted and it's just...BIZARRE to watch. Very dated.

Does anyone notice her extremely long neck? Cynthia Nixon? Once someone pointed it out I couldn't stop seeing it. Sorry no picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never fell for the appeal of this show. I found it mildly amusing. The women who loved it in the nineties were so transparent and 'faux feminist'. It appealed to the masses I guess.

I agree and I think I was the target audience (white woman born in 70s, lived in NYC in the 90s). However, there were certain observations that, at the time, spoke to a certain truth that was not otherwise being voiced. The “he’s just not that into you” episode stuck with me. The one where Samantha gets frustrated that women are expected to wax everything and men aren’t. The one where carrie complains that women who get married and have babies have all sorts of celebrations of those moments but women who make other decisions go uncelebrated by their friends. And, at least back in the 90s (probably less true now), the observation that a bi guy is generally always going to dump you for a man.
So I wasn’t a huge fan, thought the character were mostly annoying, but—like Seinfeld—there were certain observations made in it that we’re not being said openly other places.

[Anonymous]

The people who can't stop whining about this old show are bigger fans than the people who loved it.

[Anonymous]

I also hate how seriously people take it. My fave season was the first. Then it was just a fun comedy but later turned into almost a soap opera.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never fell for the appeal of this show. I found it mildly amusing. The women who loved it in the nineties were so transparent and 'faux feminist'. It appealed to the masses I guess.

I agree and I think I was the target audience (white woman born in 70s, lived in NYC in the 90s). However, there were certain observations that, at the time, spoke to a certain truth that was not otherwise being voiced. The “he’s just not that into you” episode stuck with me. The one where Samantha gets frustrated that women are expected to wax everything and men aren’t. The one where carrie complains that women who get married and have babies have all sorts of celebrations of those moments but women who make other decisions go uncelebrated by their friends. And, at least back in the 90s (probably less true now), the observation that a bi guy is generally always going to dump you for a man.
So I wasn’t a huge fan, thought the character were mostly annoying, but—like Seinfeld—there were certain observations made in it that we’re not being said openly other places.

+1. Good point!

[Anonymous]

I think people overstate how much materialism is in the show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do a search. This has been discussed and debated so many times.

Each person who starts to rewatch the series thinks they're having a unique thought, but in reality it's an annual thread on DCUM:

Watched Sex and the City for the first time in a while
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/912349.page

Rewatching Sex and the City
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/843691.page

Carrie Bradshaw is a loser
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/782267.page

Is it just me or was Carrie Bradshaw the most annoying character from the 90s?
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/567698.page

[Anonymous]

The reason it is bad is because it is not sympathetically written about women in those situations, it was written by a team of gay men and really it should have been about gay men in NYC it would have been a lot more entertaining and still interesting to watch now. Because of that disconnect it was and is, terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason it is bad is because it is not sympathetically written about women in those situations, it was written by a team of gay men and really it should have been about gay men in NYC it would have been a lot more entertaining and still interesting to watch now. Because of that disconnect it was and is, terrible.

lol, why do dumb dumbs keep repeating this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do a search. This has been discussed and debated so many times.

Each person who starts to rewatch the series thinks they're having a unique thought, but in reality it's an annual thread on DCUM:

Watched Sex and the City for the first time in a while
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/912349.page

Rewatching Sex and the City
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/843691.page

Carrie Bradshaw is a loser
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/782267.page

Is it just me or was Carrie Bradshaw the most annoying character from the 90s?
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/567698.page

Do you just stalk Sex and the City threads to post other Sex and the City lists? Someone did that on the first page of your first link and I’m just curious who has so much time to babysit the subject. Do you have some sort of alert set up on your phone? Or are you just a SATC super fan who can’t stand to see the show besmirched?