Sex and the City
Posted 04 July 2007 - 02:47 PM
Does this mean I have to watch the TV series now, so that I know what I'm talking about if and when I review the film?
- - -
'Sex and the City' heads to theaters
New Line Cinema is getting in bed with HBO on "Sex and the City." After much foreplay, the movie version of the long-running HBO series is gearing for a fall start, with New Line near a deal to finance and distribute. Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis and Cynthia Nixon are all set to reprise their roles, with longtime exec producer Michael Patrick King directing a script he wrote. . . .
Variety, July 4
Posted 04 July 2007 - 11:05 PM
Posted 05 July 2007 - 10:47 AM
Posted 21 May 2008 - 04:31 PM
If not, then I wonder if the discrepancy might be due to the fact that this film was produced by New Line, which was recently absorbed by Warner Brothers in the States, but still releases its films through Alliance here in Canada. (Warner takes over Canadian distribution of New Line films at the end of the year.)
Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 21 May 2008 - 04:32 PM.
Posted 21 May 2008 - 06:02 PM
Sadly, I'll be there.
Posted 21 May 2008 - 08:10 PM
For the Tuesday, May 27 screening of SEX AND THE CITY - please note—NO GUESTS will be permitted at this screening. You must RSVP. ... If your name does not appear on the RSVP list, you will NOT be admitted into the theater. NO EXCEPTIONS! We are screening at xxxxx due to the fact that the first 30 mins will be “LIVE” satellite footage from the “Pink Carpet” at the NYC Premiere. This is the only theater with the technology to do this.
Posted 21 May 2008 - 08:12 PM
Posted 28 May 2008 - 11:47 AM
How many male-oriented action movies -- pretty much every other major summer release -- get held up to such scrutiny?
I'd be even more put off by this if I thought the movie had anything serious to say. I'm sure it doesn't, although I'd take even one or two predictable pieces about the vapidity of these characters and their lifestyle choices over the "will men bother to see it?" line that keeps cropping up.
EDIT: Just discovered that the film already has screened for critics, and at least one female critic doesn't care for it.
Edited by Christian, 28 May 2008 - 11:56 AM.
Posted 28 May 2008 - 01:19 PM
The last 90 minutes is a little more tolerable than the first hour, but that’s like saying the visit to the dentist got better after he pulled the tooth with a pair of pliers without the applying of an anesthetic.
The soul of this movie is infected with gross materialism, the flaunting of me-me egos and the endless nurturing of the characters’ greed and/or sense of entitlement.
Posted 28 May 2008 - 01:42 PM
But do you think women can convince their husbands and boyfriends to see it with them? That's the pressing issue!
Posted 28 May 2008 - 02:36 PM
: How many male-oriented action movies -- pretty much every other major summer release -- get held up to such scrutiny?
Yeah, but male-oriented action movies usually give the women something to enjoy, too -- studly men, women kicking ass, etc. Sex in the City is all about shopping, or relationships, or something -- what's in it for the guys?
Posted 29 May 2008 - 12:52 AM
Like every other show that has appeared on HBO - including The Sopranos and The Wire - the series contains a very intentional story arc that spans years, and involves complex themes, relationships, and emotions.
I won't bore you with those things here, though, since you don't seem interested anyway.
Posted 29 May 2008 - 10:28 AM
: Why do you assume Sex and the City is only about "shopping, or relationships, or something"?
It's not a question of what I "assume". It's a question of what sort of marketing hook, if any, this film has for guys.
: Would you say The Sopranos was just about the mafia, or that The Wire was just about ghetto life?
Those are TV shows, not movies.
Posted 29 May 2008 - 11:23 AM
: There IS no marketing hook for guys, and I don't see why there needs to be. It's a chick flick.
Right, so how would you answer Christian's question, then? Regarding the scrutiny that this film is being held up to, etc.
A recent article asked whether Sex and the City fans were "geeks" like Star Trek fans, given that they use all the catchphrases and buy all the clothes, etc., etc. I imagine when the new Star Trek movie comes out, there will be lots of articles obsessing over whether the sci-fi franchise can cross over to "regular" moviegoers -- especially since director J.J. Abrams has explicitly said that that is what he wants the movie to do. But personally, as a Star Trek fan, I don't care whether the movie attracts non-fans or not. There doesn't need to be a marketing hook for non-fans. It's a Star Trek flick.
Posted 29 May 2008 - 11:30 AM
I can sure vouch for that, and it makes sense (especially after having seen the film -- it would have been bait-and-switch).
In an environment were critics lambaste adapted films for not being "true" to the source material, it sure does seem like we ought to be celebrating SATC for avoiding that trap.
However... At an estimated budget of $65 million, it also seems that, from a business perspective, the appeal of the film should have been broadened (in the same way as is done for other big-budget summer blockbuster fare). After marketing costs, the ROI is going to be very small.
I think it will do around $180 million in domestic gross by the time it's all said and done. But the film will have zero crossover appeal, though it should please fans mightily over repeat viewings. (Do I underestimate the market potential for that demographic? Very likely. But what's the precedent from which to judge?)
Still, this makes sense for New Line, which under Bob Shaye's late tenure got in the habit of greenlighting projects that did NOT generate crossover business. And that, of course, is in part why Shaye was ousted.
Edited by Greg Wright, 29 May 2008 - 11:30 AM.
Posted 29 May 2008 - 05:44 PM
: There IS no marketing hook for guys, and I don't see why there needs to be. It's a chick flick.
Indeed, it seems the studio might have gone out of its way to turn guys off!
Greg Wright wrote:
: But what's the precedent from which to judge?
Most stories have compared this to the apparently unexpected success of The Devil Wears Prada -- which grossed $124 million in North America and another $201 million overseas (on a $35 million budget!). But Prada was PG-13, and therefore more marketable, supposedly, than Sex and the City, which is rated R. Then again, Sex and the City established its R-rated credentials as a TV series. Then again again, Die Hard 4 downshifted from an R to a PG-13 and did about as well as its predecessors did at the box office, did it not?
Posted 30 May 2008 - 12:02 AM
Once inside, the movie's opening sequence, as expected, played to a spirited reaction: loud cheering and excited chatter continuing even a few scenes into the film. What was less expected was what the crowd would react to. Sure, there were the laughs at the raunchy visual gags that travel well -- humping dogs, phallic sushi and the like.
But the interesting thing was that the audience seemed to laugh at parts that we could swear were supposed to play straight, and in the U.S. no doubt will -- a mid-bridge reunion between a reconciling couple, a soon-to-be-ex-boyfriend's decision to let his soon-to-be-ex girlfriend keep a ring -- and, most noticeably, a decision by a couple to enter therapy. Therapy? A couple? Now that's comedy.
There were reports from early U.S. screenings of moviegoers weeping at some of these scenes. No sniffles here.
All this made us realize that for all of the HBO series' popularity in Europe, it really played as frilly fun -- with New York an idealized fairy-tale setting -- not as the more earnest exploration of feelings that at least in part drew U.S. viewers.
Steven Zeitchik, Risky Biz Blog, May 28
Posted 30 May 2008 - 10:50 AM
I looked up the official trailer on the internet, and I'm not even clear from that where the idea comes from that the movie is simply about sex and shopping. Perhaps it's because I'm a fan, and I picked up on every story line mentioned in the trailer and instantly knew the significance of it from the tv series. Charlotte is pregnant? Significant because she was infertile, yet her entire identity was wrapped up in becoming a mother. Carrie marrying Big? Significant because the bastard is a ladies man and strung her along for years. Steve cheating on Miranda? Significant because Miranda was a fiercely independent single woman who didn't need anybody, yet she willingly gave herself into motherhood and marriage. Samantha still in a relationship with Smith? Significant because she goes through men like some of us go through paper towels - use them once and throw them away (but only to avoid being the one to get hurt).
The clincher for me, is that the trailer climaxes to make the point about life throwing things at you, but in the end all you have are true friendships. This is really what the series is about, and I'm assuming it's what the movie is about as well (I have not seen it yet).
I think comparing the SATC phenomenon to a Star Trek movie is dead on - there is most definitely a faithful following. It's obvious the majority of film goers will be die-hard fans who will know every little nuance not obvious to a novice, and who will pick up on every little gesture, facial expression, inside quip, etc. based on her knowledge of the tv series. Perhaps this explains why audiences laugh at times that seem strange to an outsider of the series - we know something you don't.
I was thinking about this yesterday - it seems to me like the SATC movie is almost like a deeply heartfelt thank you note from the producers to the show's fans (albeit the most expensive thank you note I've ever seen). It's their encore performance, lovingly created by the momentum from the show's increasing popularity through syndication. I really don't see anyone outside of this loop getting it, which seems to be the point you are all driving at.
But let's be honest, none of us are really expecting any die-hard fans to rely on reviews from clueless men anyway, so at least New Line has THAT going for them.
Posted 30 May 2008 - 11:05 AM
Well, reviews rarely stop anyone from seeing a movie, regardless of who its from. But reviews might make people want to see a movie they might otherwise have dismissed.
Your "expensive thank-you note" observation is pretty close to the mark, I'd say. It felt like a private party, and I felt like a crasher.