Fashion Is Fun Nov 6, 2008 @ 2:16pm

Sex and the City: Part Blah

by Britt Aboutaleb

I didn’t think this gloomy day could get any worse.

But now, on top of thinking about K-Swiss when Chuck Bass comes on the screen, I have to think about the Sex and the City sequel.

Thanks, Kim Catrall (she confirms its existence at about ten minutes in).

I hated the first movie’s wardrobe. The eclectic and charming use of vintage, high street, designer, and couture fashion that made the show so much fun to watch was missing from the big screen. All the vintage was designer vintage, all the “risky” outfits came from the runway, and every single outfit was An Outfit. All the fun parts were missing.

So now that the women aren’t just older, but plain old, how will Pat put the fun bits back into the wardrobe? Because honestly, the plot will be shit - there is absolutely nothing left to say about these women, or Big - and the clothes are all we have to look forward to.

On a related note, wouldn’t it be wonderful if they shot the entire thing inside so that we don’t know what everything looks like months before?

« Want a Cute Boss?

Fashionista Main

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 2:24PM

ok fashionista.
since when has journalism been a completely opinion-based world?

give us the info. we don't need your snarky side remarks. they aren't even clever, they're contrived and obnoxious.

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 2:30PM

guest 1, you know this is a blog, right? as in, this: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blog

if you want only facts, read a newspaper that hides its opinions in its subtext. and as for the satc movie, i couldn't agree more. gross.

posted by cpayne86

Nov 06, 2008 2:34PM

I was quite disappointed when the "vintage" wedding suit Carrie wore was exposed. I am, however, curious to see what Pat will throw together this time.

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 2:43PM

Oh God not again! I loved the show but there are no more stories here to tell.

What's next, Sex and the Senior's Home?

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 3:05PM

hateration!
this is supposed to be a fun distraction from work. I'm not supposed to be stomaching your disgust.. please. Think about why people visit this sight..

It's definitely not to hear your bitch after eating a meatball sub about Sex & the City

posted by carzola

Nov 06, 2008 3:18PM

guest one, you are a moron. guest two, two snaps for you.

SATC 2? i actually didn't hate the movie like amny others did, mainly cause i had so much fun naming all the designer outfits. the plot was a little lame yes but overall the movie was pleasant. im indifferent towards a sequal.

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 3:31PM

Totally agree with fashionista

posted by my fall collection

Nov 06, 2008 3:32PM

I'm afraid that I agree with 5 --there is a difference between a personal blog and a magazine-y blog (for lack of a better word) that assumes the royal "we" and relies less on individual personas and more on thematic interests.

My feeling as a reader is that someone like Suzie Bubble can pretty much write whatever she wants because her blog is an extension of her personality and I am a fan of her personality. But I don't really read Fashionista or similar sites (e.g., Corporette) for a cacophony of personal reactions and preferences, especially about non-fashion related items such as whether the Sex and the City plot has run its course.

I'm really not trying to be harsh. Today is a crappy dark day in NYC and I understand that people have moody days. But as a loyal, reader-ever-since-inception, fan of Fashionista, I just want to pipe in and say that my preference, for what it's worth, is to also tone down the non-fashion Haterade.

Finally, I think talking about the outfits in a movie/show/political campaign is totally interesting and relevant when it's specific. But general allusions to poopyness is kind of non-interesting.

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 3:38PM

hater much?

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 3:52PM

1. I'm just saying: what made the show fun to watch was the evolution of four friends, their relationship with themselves, their men, and their city. The clothes were simply a perk. You saw the first movie. Don't lie to us like you won't see the second--even if it is for "work".

2. We already know what fashion will look like entire seasons ahead. We weren't shocked when we saw that dumb feathery Fendi in May after we had already seen it in March on the runway. Hello.

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 3:56PM

"So now that the women aren't just older, but plain old..."

Meow! I think being in your 40s is hardly "old." (And no, I'm nowhere near my 40s. Just think it's really catty.)

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 4:03PM

i think this post was fine, but how about something other than sex and the city?
why not post the first look of Thakoon for target?!http://www.nylonmag.com/?section=article&parid=2227

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 4:13PM

"just plain old?" Get over yourself. If women can't handle seeing other mature women on the big screen then we're promoting the same thinking that lets dudes quickly label Hillary a bitch and Palin a babe... I'm so done with this site, what the hell happened to you guys ?

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 4:13PM

Blogs need snark. It's why they are interesting. I want news I read WWD. I get bored with only news. Love the snark ladies, and totally agree on Sex and the City.

P.S. Have any of you idiots heard of Op-Eds in mags and newspapers?

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 5:39PM

Snark is fine but I suspect that many of your readers are a lot older than you guys. Watch your bitch - it won't age well.

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 6:57PM

Well I AM forty, and I agree with fashionista.
There is nothing wrong with being 40, or older, but the story of SATC is about a particular period in life.
And there is nothing hot or hip or interesting about chasing a time that's past, whatever your age.
I agree with the still hot and beautiful Jaclyn Smith: "nothing ages you like desperation" and the SATC characters are frankly starting to REEK (though, of course I understand that's the characters and NOT the actresses).

posted by TyTy

Nov 06, 2008 7:15PM

"So now that the women aren't just older, but plain old, how will Pat put the fun bits back into the wardrobe?"

most ridiculous thing ever. they're in their 40s, not 90s.

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 8:36PM

Who cares how old they are? The show has run its course, move on! It's like any other that just won't end, i.e. the original 90210. It was sad to see those characters go through the SAME love triangles after 10 years. Another Sex and the City movie is like beating a dead horse.

posted by guest

Nov 06, 2008 10:14PM

I agree, they're beating a dead horse, with their SATC sequel and their stupid children's book about Carrie's life in high school, and ugh.

The whole show was about single 30-something urban woman, none of which applies anymore.

The series ended on a high note, and while the movie was disappointing, it was forgiveable (because how can you top such an amazing show?), and it put the series to rest for most of its fans.

To do a sequel is absurd. If they don't stop, fans will remember the series for the horrible movies and horrible sequels rather than the awesomely innovative and quirky show that it was. Most of us will hate it in our memories rather than love it.

Its better to burn out than to fade away, old and irrelevant.

posted by guest

Nov 07, 2008 9:25AM

Couldn't agree more, guest #19.

I haven't watched the show even once since I saw the movie. It's just different/over now. Please don't make a second movie and make us hate Sex and the City!

posted by guest

Nov 07, 2008 2:36PM

guest 19

if your last line was supposed to be a neil young reference, then i really like you :)

posted by guest

Nov 07, 2008 9:41PM

Indeed it was #21, indeed it was ...

with a little addendum at the end.

posted by guest

Nov 09, 2008 12:36AM

wow...i can't figure out whether fashionista hates sjp or has just decided to court the tween set. earlier this week you had that embarassing post about how sjp's new fragrance is trying to ride the coat tails of the "twilight" movie (huh? and why would i care??)...and now you call out the cast of satc for being just "plain old."

i may not have *loved* the first satc movie but i sure enjoyed it more than reading your recent blog posts...

stick to the fashion, fashionista.

posted by guest

Nov 10, 2008 10:09AM

I think Fashionista is completely entitled to their own opinion, however I delightfully disagree, SATC the movie was good the first time, and I will be shelling out another movie ticket's worth for a sequel.

I feel like they did the "5 year" transition well and just hope they don't stretch this out as painfully as they did with Rocky. Either way - #2 is welcome to me! (Sorry for all the repetition hehe)