What men think when watching a ‘Sex and the City 2′ trailer
There’s a sequel to “Sex and the City”, and it looks…horrifying. So bad in fact that I can barely even make it through the preview. Thousands of men will no doubt be forced to see this nonsense when it comes out on May 27th, and we’re not happy about it. Here now is what every man is thinking while they watch the trailer for “Sex and the City 2.”
If for some reason you want to watch the real trailer, here it is. And I’ll be seeing you in hell.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Previously logged in with Facebook?
Log in to True/Slant with Facebook
Thanks for sharing. But you know they will still rake in millions anyway…
I’m curious to know, what did you think of the series? I hated the first movie, but I’m hoping that this one is better. I suspect it won’t be. It’s not so much that the ladies are too old for these misadventures — the Golden Girls were two decades older, and I still watch those DVDs religiously — it’s just that my least favorite episodes of the series were the high-concept ones that took place out of the city (NYC). I think the movies would be better if they kept it simple and stuck to the basics that made the series so enjoyable. But then again, what worked for a 30-minute show might seem interminable stretched out to 90 minutes no matter what.
Hated the show, didn’t bother with the movies. It struck me primarily as a show that found itself a lot funnier and more original than it actually was.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think I’m the only person in the world who has never seen the show (or movie(s), or any of whatever this conglomerate is comprised of.)
Correction: I watched 10 minutes of the show one time, and died of boredom, and then came back to life and made sure never to make that mistake again.
This is funny because it’s fucking true.
I give you a compliment and you delete my comment? Weird…
This is a show that destroyed an entire generation of American women. I mean, all around the country there are 20- and 30-somethings who believe life in NYC is actually like this. And that freelance writers live in apartments with closets the size of Kansas–and the multi-thousands worth of clothes to fill it.
I’d rather pay $13–or whatever the hell it now costs to see a movie in Manhattan–to watch your annotated trailer!
I also prefer your plan, Susan. You can make your check payable to Brian Donovan, and just send it on to the True/Slant offices. They have a vault for my earnings there.
In response to another comment. See in context »Not only do they believe that life is like that, they have adopted the values of that life — that a woman can be judged by her ability to get into trendy clubs, the shoes she wears, the bag she carries, the names she drops, naturally, her desirability to successful men.
The show used to be harmless fun, a little mental bon bon and I enjoyed it as such. But at some point along the way, it evolved into S&TC, the Franchise, and it became the beast that ate young women’s souls. Shame on you, Sarah Jessica Parker.
In response to another comment. See in context »Like I said, I’ve never watched the show. Now I know why I chronically don’t fit in and I have recently figured out that it’s partially due to not having the “right” purses or shoes.
I’m glad I’ve never watched the show because evidently it’s saved me a lot of money.
In response to another comment. See in context »Thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking for years. Life is NOT like this in NYC but young women have bought into this for years. I have never known any woman who lives in this city to be able to afford that type of lifestyle. Even the most educated and well paid have a difficult time.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think you’re forgetting gay men. We’re VERY excited to find out how Carrie Bradshaw will ruin another man’s life this time.
Really? The “like a virgin” moment didn’t annoy you at all? How about Liza Minelli doing “single ladies?” That doesn’t bother you as pandering to stereotypes? And also, really lame?
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh, it’s totally lame. Gay men do not act like that. But then again, women do not act like those shrieking harpies. I suppose I should make some spirited defense of gays being treated as something more than manseccsories to she-devils, but the show and the movies are cartoons.
As Pauline Kael would say, “It’s camp, darling.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes, the movie looks silly – ok, stupid – but the women are NOT old!
Humph.
Ha, well, I meant old in terms of being wandering, alcoholic sexpots. Old for that behavior, not old in general.
(That may not have helped.)
In response to another comment. See in context »I submit that women can be wandering, alcoholic sexpots at any age. Now I can’t wait to see the movie.
In response to another comment. See in context »True that we can be wandering, self-obsessed (you just can’t leave out self-obsessed), alcoholic sexpots at any age. Thing is, when you’re doing it at 23, it’s not so aggressively pathetic as that activity is when you’re doing it at 40. That is true for men, too.
Life is generally considered to be a personal journey in which we grow and mature. The meaning in life lies in our progress as humans. When people fail to do that, it is sad.
These women are emotionally frozen at 23. That would be fine if the comedy derived from how pathetic that is. But the writers seem to expect us to want to emulate them while the comedy comes from hack jokes and puns. You’re not supposed to laugh at them but with them. That’s creepy.
“Oh Brave new world that has such people in it!”
In response to another comment. See in context »This is an embarrassing reflection on where we evolved as a species.
Thirty-six thousand children will die of starvation in the next 24 hours and ‘Sex & the City 2′ is the level of escapism pop culture in America consciously chooses to pursue? Great.
Do you think about the thirty-six thousand children who die per day before you engage in any escapist pursuit, or just the ones you particularly look down your nose at?
In response to another comment. See in context »Looks as about tired as the whole “difference between the sexes” material that mediocre comedians still cling to.
Rule 3. of True /Slant is to be followed
Hi. I live in New York, I am a writer for a Web site, and I actually feel that my life is somewhat reflected in the few episodes of the show I have seen. I love fashion, although I dress like a slob and can’t afford it, so the outrageous outfits are a fantasy for me. But the clubbing, the eating at Cafeteria, the tons of gay male friends who I adore, and an annoyingly difficult love life are all pretty much my life here. At 36, it is getting tiring and sort of old, but unless I strike it rich or move, I can’t see my life changing very much for some time. I would like to think that I have the depth to put images like this into perspective, but I see it for what it is — a fantasy for women, just like Indiana Jones and James Bond films are ridiculous fantasies for men. It is sad that young women take this stuff too seriously, but that can be said of MANY cultural ideals that lead people to strive for things that are illusory, like most of the useless things in American culture.
WHAT I LIKE about the movie, the first one anyway, is that these women hold their love for each other to be more important than anything — their careers, their spouses, even their kids. These women put their friendships with each other FIRST. This in a society where all women seem to want to be married more than anything, and then to be swallowed up by being mothers if they can be “so lucky.” This is like saying the woman as an individual is the most important thing to HERSELF. And if that is the case, why can’t she keep having all sorts of adventures until the day she dies? Then her marriage and kids are a part of HER LIFE, instead of her life revolving around her family.
“This is an embarrassing reflection on where we evolved as a species.”
Really, Mozza? Guess you haven’t seen many movies.
Seriously. I saw Iron Man 2 last week, and the title character invents a new element in the time it took me to visit the bathroom.
Hyperbole alert no. 2:
“This is a show that destroyed an entire generation of American women. I mean, all around the country there are 20- and 30-somethings who believe life in NYC is actually like this.”
Seriously, Susan? Perhaps you prefer the NYC depicted in Taxi Driver.
Lighten up. You too, Jody. Do you REALLY think SATC “eats women’s souls”? LOL. That isn’t giving y(our) gender much credit. Just because some women like to get dressed up and wear stilettos for Meatpacking outings (which isn’t a great idea, i submit: those cobblestones are heel killers!) doesn’t mean they don’t have decent values. Expensive drinks, meals, outfits — these women are good for our economy!
Brian, congrats on putting up a post that people felt compelled to comment on. Your kind will come in handy come May 27 when there is a desperate demand for babysitters. And thanks for posting that trailer-with-commentary — it cracked me up.
Thank you, Lori. Well said. I can’t believe something as harmless as SATC is being targeted as what is destroying Western civilization as we know it when there is so much worse going on in the multiplexes. Lighten up, folks, it’s only a TV show/movie. SATC did not create society’s problems or whatever lower form of female you think dominates today any more than Quentin Tarantino’s films are responsible for all the violence in the world.
In response to another comment. See in context »Okay, the eating women’s souls comment? Pure hyperbole. I own that. But I’ll bet it’s funnier than anything you’ll hear in this movie.
Just saying from someone who is indifferent to SATC, I think you’re overestimating the intelligence of “every man”, not to mention your own sense of humor.
No, that’s no so, Kallen. I’m very funny. It’s universally agreed upon.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hey I hate to point out the obvious but SATC wasn’t exactly a show (or film) designed to cater to straight male audiences. The same way The A-Team wasn’t made to appeal to straight women or gay men. I mean, pick it to death all you like but it’s a bit like shooting fish in a barrell for you – y’know, someone waaaaay outside the target demographic. But go nuts. Whatever.
There was instructive value in the episode where Carrie tried to get a mortgage but her only “assets” were all her expensive shoes. Much as the characters became caricatures, we’ve all known a Charlotte or Miranda, if not a Carrie or Samantha. I agree that a show or series celebrating female friendship is a good thing.
The suicide pact joke was definitely funny. After saying no for like six months I finally broke down and saw the first one with my boyfriend since no one else would go with him, and by the end I was banging my head on the seat in front of me to make the pain stop. At one point, the elderly blonde lady was having sex with her 20-something boyfriend and he complained about the lack of intimacy in their relationship, so she said “Intimacy? You’re still inside me!” I thought I was going to claw my eyes out from the horror of that moment.
Amen, Alexander. Amen. I feel your pain.
In response to another comment. See in context »I might see if for a bj. Now if I could get a bj and watch the A-team… that would be awesome.
For the record: I was a fan of the show. I thought it handled many things well, while still being ridiculous and fun. Caitlin, Carrie’s personal mortgage crisis was one of them. I walked out of the first movie after 15 minutes.
I think the problem is – when the show was over, it was over. The story arcs, all of them, were complete. There was nothing else to do with those ladies. It’s like one of those SNL skits they try to drag out into a movie. It’s kinda, sorta, embarrassingly funny for a sketch that lasts 5 or 7 minutes, but not funny for 100 minutes.
Thankfully, I will have the sense not to plunk any $$$ down for this. Nor for McGruber (speaking of ill-conceived SNL movies …)
Jody, the scenes that killed me in the show every time were the brunches. Or lunches, or whatever the hell they were. All four women sitting around the table bantering, tossing quips, and being theoretically hilarious. I could just feel the show telling me, “SEE, this is how women really talk!!!” But really they were just incredibly dirty pun fests that never made me laugh and never made me feel like I was watching something true. I’ve never known a single woman who talks like that, I’m happy for it. They drove me nuts.
Now MacGruber, on the other hand…that I gotta see.
In response to another comment. See in context »No worries, Brian, I saw “Hot Tub Time Machine.”
It was an estrogen tsunami… I tried to run, but it was too late…
Kill me. . .
The show was a disgrace, the first movie was a laborious disaster and this looks just plain desperate.
I will say that shows like this are absolutely front and center “the end of Western civilization” along with economic meltdowns and imbecilic politicians of Right and Left wings that have become one indistinguishable fog…..This silly show, which was never “escapism” or “glamorous” to this former Manhattanite (now in Europe), made cynicism the new standard of wit and ha-ha humor. It turned neuroses into a form of social sophistication. It turned depressing promiscuity (yes, that old fashioned word there) into a sport. It turned conversation and the art of intelligence into sessions of never ending pleas of insecurity and low self esteem.
Many of the women posters here thought that the obsession with “shoes, clubs and men” comprised the most degrading aspects of the show’s portrayal of women but they are sidebar matters to the overall pathetic rendering of female personality. So these girls are off to the Middle East–did any of them, during the course of the show, know that there had actually been a war in Iraq? Or, for that matter, that Communism collapsed? Did anyone ever read a book or a newspaper?
It is the “end” of our civiization and cultural standards if women find entertainment in this and not protest movie directors to get the likes of Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis or Audrey Hepburn (and their great scripts) back into the spirit of things.
Honestly, this movie looks like total camp that I think will appeal to gay men for the sheer “outrageousness” of it all, but little beyond that
[...] other bloggers on this very site about the likes of Nickelback and Justin Bieber, Bret Michaels and Sex and the City 2. But suddenly, I had become not only a bad writer (one who somehow, miraculously, has been able to [...]
I think (fear?) that I’ve been a lot more entertained by watching the “what men are thinking” video and reading these comments than I would be in the theater watching this movie. So thank you all.
Fake Mae West quips work just fine in a 30-minute show — they don’t fly in a two-plus (!!!!!!$^#%@*#@) hour movie, and now they’re even pretty cringe-worthy in a trailer. I will probably end up adding to the bajillion-dollar haul that this movie will bring in, but if that happens I’ll stake out the earliest matinee I can find so that on principle I haven’t paid the full ticket price.
Maybe not the end of Western civilization. Maybe good to celebrate women’s friendships and independence and fashion and sex and ungodly amounts of disposable income. But I still can’t help but think (dear God, Carrie’s writing makes an impact — kill me now) that we all lose a bit on this one.
[...] now, having been exposed to what men think when they watch the “Sex and the City 2″ trailer (brilliant), I’m taking a quick spin through some of the [...]