Carrie Bradshaw is a loser
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Yes, and it's easy to judge SATC in hindsight. At the time, everything made sense and we wanted to be one or all of them. |
Anonymous
|
I enjoyed the show at the time but don't think it really ages well.
Some elements are great - loved how close the women were and that the stuck together during so much crap like divorce, infertility, breast cancer, struggles being a new mom, aging parents/in-laws, etc. But yea Carrie seems super immature with the cheating and being totally hung up on Mr. Big. |
Anonymous
Nah, after my divorce I did that at 47 and it was fun as hell! |
Anonymous
This! I didn't know what Manolos were! |
Anonymous
|
Here’s a great 13 page thread on SATC.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/666755.page |
Anonymous
| The show definitely age well. I hated that whole storyline about her wanting to buy her apt and having zero money saved cause she spent it all on shoes. And chasing after big was so pathetic. |
Anonymous
I remember when my cousin and I graduated high school in 2001 she was obsessed with SATC. I remember she got a box set and special high heels as graduation presents. I had never seen the show because I didn’t have cable television nor was I cool enough to care about a show like this. So it’s been 17 years? My cousin still acts like Carrie Bradshaw best I can tell having never actually watched the show. She for sure dresses like her which is weird because I feel like the rest of the world’s moved on. It’s intersting how a teenage obsession can influence the rest of your life. |
Anonymous
|
The show wasn't supposed to be about her career. It was supposed to be about sex. And at the time, there wasn't anything quite like it: a show that actually had lead female characters being brutally honest about sexual relationships and dating in a way that wasn't fixated on marriage or even necessarily romance.
The first season, IMO, was the best. I didn't watch the movies because by the last season, it had really gotten off track of what it was supposed to be. They dealt with a lot of sex-related things from a woman's perspective in a very comical way. Carrie Bradshaw's character was supposed to be a kind of modern-day female libertine, and from that vantage point, the show was able to show female sexuality in a different line and kind of give unromanticized snapshots of dating and sex. I think it should have stuck to that, but because it was so popular, they did a bunch of seasons and took the story lines in other directions. I don't think it worked well for that. The first season was Seinfeld-esque. And I think it would've been better to stay that way. No one expected any of the characters on Seinfeld to be noble or represent figures we aspire to be. They were meant to be launching off points to deal with all of the bizarre letting human things we all notice but never really talk about. Sex and the City was supposed to be that but for sex and dating. Carrie was supposed to be a kind of female Seinfeld -- a forever bachelorette character through whom we could explore all of the awkward and less talked about things in dating and sex. IMO, what the show got wrong was trying to give the characters more depth. Not every show has to be serious. |
Anonymous
I felt that way about all of the characters, but it was an entertaining show, kind of like Seinfeld where none of the characters were all that likeable, but it was a funny show. The situations were funny, but the characters imo weren't all that likeable. I never could related to any of them. |
Anonymous
I don't think the idea of the show was ever supposed to be that we want to be them. It was really (originally) supposed to be vignettes about the awkward realities of modern dating and sex. |
Anonymous
9:42 here. Yes! That's the point. The show wasn't supposed to be a character-driven show. It was supposed to be situation-driven show, vignettes, like Seinfeld. What Seinfeld got right is that it never tried to develop the characters. The characters stayed EXACTLY the same throughout the series. It never tried to make the show a drama instead of a comedy. Sex and the City began as a comedy, but where it went downhill was in trying to shift to a drama with intricate character storylines. I don't think that works if you are trying to do the vignettes and make the awkward interactions the centerpiece of the comedy/show. |
Anonymous
I agree. |
Anonymous
Are we going to judge all of the fictional characters on tv or movies? Did you miss the part about it being fictional? |
Anonymous
| It was based on a series of articles in the NY Observer written by Candace Bushnell and from the late 80's or early 90’s. NY was a very different place at that time. |
Anonymous
| I thought that was the whole point of the show: a cautionary tale. |