From AceShowBiz:

Although Warner Bros. Pictures has not released an official plot of "Sex and the City 2", details of the storyline have been unveiled by Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, which claimed they have obtained a leaked script. Based on the copy of its script, it has been known what some of the major characters might be dealing with in the second film.

[spoiler ALERT!] According to the publication, Carrie Bradshaw has a hard situation since her marriage with Mr. Big is put to a test after they lose everything in a financial scam. Seeking for a new job, Mr. Big ends up in London, where he's living in a rundown apartment, but cheats on Carrie - who dumps him before finding out she's pregnant.

Aside from her marriage problem, Carrie is looking forward to the wedding of her gay best friend, Stanford Blatch, to Anthony Marantino, one of Stanford's former enemies. As it has been mentioned in earlier news, during the ceremony, Liza Minnelli will make her cameo appearance to sing a cover of Beyonce Knowles' "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)".

Meanwhile, Samantha Jones, who is also hit hard by financial problem, has to downgrade her glam lifestyle. Still, she can take comfort in the arms of Smith Jerrod, with whom she broke up at the end of the previous movie. The script additionally reveals that another girl pal of Carrie, Miranda Hobbes quits her law practice after getting sued. Later, she and her husband Steve Brady decide to open a restaurant.

Moreover, the film will allegedly reflect global economic problem in the real world through the film's wardrobe choices. The publication further stated that an unnamed production insider said the costumes used by the movie's characters will be "less over-the-top but still stylish."

Serving as the follow-up to "Sex and the City", "Sex and the City 2" will see Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Cynthia Nixon, and Kristin Davis reprising their roles as Carrie Bradshaw Preston, Samantha Jones, Miranda Hobbes Brady, and Charlotte York Goldenblatt respectively. Directed by Michael Patrick King, the drama comedy movie is planned to be released in the U.S. on May 28, 2010.

I never got into it, either. It always just seemed like a less well done version of Designing Women or something. It's like it was trying to be all things to all people, was it trying to be a drama? A comedy? A prime time soap? It didn't seem to have much of identity to me. That... and I can't stand to watch Sarah Jessica Parker for any length of time. She looks like an Afghan hound. These women are far too whiny, also.

You missed the point. Which is not surprising, you always do. You live in the past, have dinosaur tastes, and refuse to go beyond, say, 1970s. Time passes, it's the law of physics.

You missed the point. Which is not surprising, you always do. You live in the past, have dinosaur tastes, and refuse to go beyond, say, 1970s. Time passes, it's the law of physics.

+1

When the first movie came out I got yelled at on here for saying how I felt the movie negated the very point of the first, early seasons--thefun and most of all the attitude that you could be single, at any age, and with good friends it didn't matter. Suddenly (like the last seasons) everyone feels old and NEEDS a man and that becomes the point. But people think seeing all the girls just hang out and do fun things, regardless, is fun sothey can endlessly pump out this crap and there will be an audience. Even SJP (maybe most of all?) doesn't understand why people lovedthe show in the first place.

the plot is irrelevant. this show has never been about plot. its never had good plot. its about 5 things... carrie, miranda, charlotte, samantha, and NYC. thats all it needs.

Shouldn't fans demand a bit more You could say that about any show--

Edited December 27, 200915 yr by EricMontreal22

Shouldn't fans demand a bit more You could say that about any show--

No.

I demand one thing from things i watch. That they entertain me. Thats it.

SATC is about friendship. The friendship these four women have, and their romantic and sexual issues. Their life issues outside of that do not matter as its just a backdrop for the friendship. It really is like the Golden Girls in that way. The plot line didnt matter, the storylines didnt matter. The friendship did.

By the last few seasons, the friendship scenes seemed so labored, and I didn't sense the actresses enjoyed working together. They each had their own lives and stories by then, moreso than ever. I've always wished they could have had the women eventually drift apart, especially Charlotte, who by the end of the show had no real need for them at all. It's like in Four Seasons, when Carol Burnett says old friends slowly go out of your life, new friends arrive, that's just how things work.

The first few seasons were so much fun and full of the right amount of camp and incisiveness. Later on behind all the crazy clothes and wacky hijinks the material became more and more depressing and self-serious. The Carrie/Aidan relationship, where he went about fixing her and we were supposed to see him as the ideal man and Carrie as self-destructive for cheating on him with Big, bothered me a lot.

No.

I demand one thing from things i watch. That they entertain me. Thats it.

SATC is about friendship. The friendship these four women have, and their romantic and sexual issues. Their life issues outside of that do not matter as its just a backdrop for the friendship. It really is like the Golden Girls in that way. The plot line didnt matter, the storylines didnt matter. The friendship did.

Please let's not compare The Golden Girls to trash like Sex and the City.

The Golden Girls appealed to everyone and people of all ages because, unlike the Sex girls, the Golden Girls were three dimensional. They all had nuances and little things that made them tick and, aside from maybe the last season, you could buy everything they did as the truth, no matter how outlandish the story was or may have seemed. Because the Golden Girls delved beyond the superficial with alot of their stories, even their fluff. Because it was about four older women living together like they were in their 20's, the emphasis was less on glamour and cute clothes and hot bods, and more about the story and characterization.

Golden Girls was more than about the four ladies and their friendship. Golden Girls represented a kind of reality through comedy that its competitors will never touch.

You missed the point. Which is not surprising, you always do. You live in the past, have dinosaur tastes, and refuse to go beyond, say, 1970s. Time passes, it's the law of physics.

No, I don't think I missed the point. Many of you thought the movies sucked, and somehow negated what you liked about the series. I get that. And I have dinosaur taste. So what? I'm 41... who am I supposed to be into? Hannah Montana? It's not like nobody is capable of making something I can enjoy... for instance, I actually like to watch Ugly Betty. It has an identity, a focus. And Brothers and Sisters is the best thing on tv right now. I just thought Sex and the City tried to have it's foot in all the doors, and ended up getting left out in the hall. Was it supposed to be a "Women don't have to have a husband to be fulfilled" show? Mary Tyler Moore already did that, and the characters were much more likeable.

Please let's not compare The Golden Girls to trash like Sex and the City.

The Golden Girls appealed to everyone and people of all ages because, unlike the Sex girls, the Golden Girls were three dimensional. They all had nuances and little things that made them tick and, aside from maybe the last season, you could buy everything they did as the truth, no matter how outlandish the story was or may have seemed. Because the Golden Girls delved beyond the superficial with alot of their stories, even their fluff. Because it was about four older women living together like they were in their 20's, the emphasis was less on glamour and cute clothes and hot bods, and more about the story and characterization.

Golden Girls was more than about the four ladies and their friendship. Golden Girls represented a kind of reality through comedy that its competitors will never touch.

Now THERE is a statement I can sign off on!

Edited December 28, 200915 yr by alphanguy74

No.

I demand one thing from things i watch. That they entertain me. Thats it.

SATC is about friendship. The friendship these four women have, and their romantic and sexual issues. Their life issues outside of that do not matter as its just a backdrop for the friendship. It really is like the Golden Girls in that way. The plot line didnt matter, the storylines didnt matter. The friendship did.

But the friendship was forced, laboured and tacked on by the end and even more so in the movie--cuz the show wanted to be all things to all people and sadly to do this became the kinda show it was against at first, one that set up to prove women didn't need a man in their lives to be happy and fulfilled. It's ironic cuz it's like the first movie sets up to prove that the theme of the early seasons was wrong lol I think telling your audience that they were foolish to believe the themes of what attracted them to your show in the first place is dangerous (I know Darren Star has apparently wanted to speak out against the movie and the series finale but then back tracked--and while some of his feelings may be jealousy at his show being sucha success without him I'd still like to hear his uncensored thoughts).

I must have been watching a different show. Friendships increasingly fake?! Please. When was that?! They were very real. What bothered me are moments of sleaze, saccharine stuff and the fact that Carrie can't stop obsessing about Mr. Big. She is a prize masochist then. Not to say anything about the fact that a girl we knew in the show wouldn't have married him after what he did. But she did.

Carrie & Aidan was a great relationship, beautifully written for the most part, and what they went through was great drama, Carl. It wasn't laboured at all. And even though I preferred him to Big, they convinced me fully that those two weren't meant one for the other.

And, bellcurve, they were three-dimensional. You can't say they were all the same, bland person.

This was about friendship too and about the normal biological need for another person. That didn't wreck the premise of the show. The sad thing is - yes, you can be alone and happy, albeit very rarely - but people who keep claiming that they are precisely that, that call for that in shows and push their agendas to show this "single as happy" stuff are usually very miserable.

Carrie & Aidan was a great relationship, beautifully written for the most part, and what they went through was great drama, Carl. It wasn't laboured at all. And even though I preferred him to Big, they convinced me fully that those two weren't meant one for the other.

This man shows up, passed off as perfection, and quickly tells Carrie what she can and can't do. I just didn't buy it, and the whole thing was very condescending towards Carrie. I didn't think SJP and John Corbett had enough chemistry and I thought the story was too focused on telling us instead of showing us. The whole thing seemed to amount to pathetic Carrie can't allow herself to be happy, when I thought many people, not just Carrie, would have issues with this idea of happiness.

Friendships increasingly fake?! Please. When was that?!

The last few seasons. I didn't think they had the same spark as the first few years. I felt like the women as they were by that point were friends only because the script said so, not because of a believable connection. By that time Charlotte had someone she was much closer to than the girls (the Mario Cantone character), she had a husband she loved, a child or children on the way. Most of what she had spent time with the other women for seemed of the past. Yet she still sat around and listened to Samantha joke about her labia.

I think Carrie became so forced over the last few years that she didn't have a believable connection with much of anyone.

Edited December 28, 200915 yr by CarlD2

SATC is about friendship. The friendship these four women have, and their romantic and sexual issues. Their life issues outside of that do not matter as its just a backdrop for the friendship.

WIN.

Carrie as self-destructive for cheating on him with Big, bothered me a lot.

That was, probably, the best storyline this show ever did! And it was fabulous. As well as Carrie/Aidan Round 2.

Sylph, I think I love you more than ever!

I must have been watching a different show. Friendships increasingly fake?! Please. When was that?! They were very real.

There was never a sense that those friendships were lost... even the movie has those moments of great, touching friendship.

Carrie & Aidan was a great relationship, beautifully written for the most part, and what they went through was great drama, Carl. It wasn't laboured at all. And even though I preferred him to Big, they convinced me fully that those two weren't meant one for the other.

I share the exact same feelings--in some ways, I loved Aidan more than Mr. Big... but they were wrong for each other in a way that Big and Carrie never were, despite all the problems and obstacles. Great writing.

And, bellcurve, they were three-dimensional. You can't say they were all the same, bland person.

All four ladies--including some of the men--were greatly developed, multi-dimensional characters indeed...

One of my favorite things about the show is the great character development from its beginning to its end; for example, how they took Charlotte from a stuck-up, I-want-the-perfect-guy woman to a woman who realized that she wanted her loved one exactly as he was--without eradicating what made her Charlotte in the first place. Just great character writing.

This man shows up, passed off as perfection, and quickly tells Carrie what she can and can't do. I just didn't buy it, and the whole thing was very condescending towards Carrie. I didn't think SJP and John Corbett had enough chemistry and I thought the story was too focused on telling us instead of showing us. The whole thing seemed to amount to pathetic Carrie can't allow herself to be happy, when I thought many people, not just Carrie, would have issues with this idea of happiness.

Who told her what to do? Aidan?! Aidan was very caring and truly loved her. But they were from very different worlds and had different aspirations. Carrie could never abandon the rush and chaos of the City and leave it to live a peaceful and serene life somewhere in the country. Even if it's for 3 or 7 weeks a year.

I have to tell you that I disagree strongly: they had chemistry, he loved her and she loved him dearly too. Their relationship had an arc, everything that happened, all the beats were realistic and had lots of heart. Remember the letter she wrote to him? It was visible on the screen only for a few moments, but someone froze the screen and retyped it — that sentence Just know that I'm thinking about you, and I miss you, and I'm still sleeping on your shoulder when I close my eyes at night.... You may say it's sappy, sleazy, cheap, sugary... But it's not. Then that You broke my heart! scream, she running away terrified... So many moments... The decision not to marry... Her final encounter with him...

I never saw it as Carrie not allowing herself to be happy. Where did you see that? What made you think so? I never ever heard anyone say something even remotely resembling that statement.

The last few seasons. I didn't think they had the same spark as the first few years. I felt like the women as they were by that point were friends only because the script said so, not because of a believable connection. By that time Charlotte had someone she was much closer to than the girls (the Mario Cantone character), she had a husband she loved, a child or children on the way. Most of what she had spent time with the other women for seemed of the past. Yet she still sat around and listened to Samantha joke about her labia.

I think Carrie became so forced over the last few years that she didn't have a believable connection with much of anyone.

The problem with the last two seasons was that guy Jack Berger and Aleksandr Petrovsky. Jack was just terrible, terrible. She would never feel the "zsa zsa zsu" or whatever let alone fall in love with him! He was just selfish, darkish, nasty at times and just plain — a bad match.

Aleksandr Petrovsky and him signified a shift in the tone in that the series wanted to be "artsy", full of art bullocks and what not. It was full of sugar and it didn't suit the show. She falling for an older, mundane, rich Russian artist, then going away to Paris, "the city of love", blah, blah. Suddenly she lost her "edge" and became this art-loving, sophisticated serene counterpart of an artist. That was just bad. She was sophisticated in her own, more "urban" way.

But even in all that, it had good stuff.

What I always loved, and you all may laugh and roll your eyes, were the narrations, voice-overs and questions. Questions were great, un-pretentious (yes) and dealt with many of life's dilemmas. So there.

Charlotte did love Cantone's character, but you can't really compare him to the girls. Her friendship with Samantha, and you'll recall they had their feuds and disagreements, transcends the signature Samantha sex talk. If it's a picture of real life, then that was just a part of what these women discussed over dinner or lunch.

Edited December 29, 200915 yr by Sylph