I can't get the link to the actual article (on wga.org) to work, so I'll post this link instead. Regardless, it's a pretty fun list, I think.

ETA: Did I say "fun"? I meant "bad." It's a bad list. (Sorry, y'all, lol.)

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Exclusive-Best-Written-Shows-Ever-TV-Writers-1066234.aspx

Edited June 4, 201312 yr by Khan

Yes, yes, so much yes.

I still remember the excitement of that cheating story. My God, they did not care at all to make it sympathetic, did they? She cheated because she wanted to, because it was hot, because she could. No sugarcoating, no lies, no trying to excuse her. And it was mesmerizing. To me, that was feministic--she did not cheat because she was abused or mistreated or unhappy. She cheated because she damn well pleased. She knew it was wrong (the audience did too) but it did not matter--wrong decisions are made all the time.

Her attempts to be someone else in order to work with Aidan a second time (because she knew he was the best choice, if not the right one) were also fascinating. I never though Aidan illogical in his actions. Just like a man is expected to "change" in order to work in a marriage/relationship (we certainly see a lot of that in shows), he expected that of Carrie. I'm fine with that. He was the nice, settled man and she was the drama queen.

I didn't think the story was presented as a woman having a hot affair as much as it was about a damaged woman who could not expect true happiness, which is where I thought it made her into more of a victim. It was sort of like, "poor little Carrie, she can't help herself even when she has the love of a good man." I thought the whole thing was misogynist, in a way.

The parts where he tried to change her were things like stopping her from smoking, which, you know, is great, but again was done as some sort of example of the good person she could never be.

I don't think I even rememeber enough about Leap Years to have noticed the tragic gay cliche...

His boyfriend was a cop who died in the finale.

Edited June 5, 201312 yr by CarlD2

I didn't think the story was presented as a woman having a hot affair as much as it was about a damaged woman who could not expect true happiness, which is where I thought it made her into more of a victim. It was sort of like, "poor little Carrie, she can't help herself even when she has the love of a good man." I thought the whole thing was misogynist, in a way.

The parts where he tried to change her were things like stopping her from smoking, which, you know, is great, but again was done as some sort of example of the good person she could never be.

I did not mean it was a story about a hot affair! lol I meant that Carrie, despite having a really great relationship, still wanted the man she truly loved. It was more about the irresistible pull Big had on her than anything else (or at least part of it was). I just do not see it as an attempt to make her into a victim at all--quite the opposite, I thought the show and Carrie both owned their actions. I guess a complicated story (such as that one) can be interpreted in many, many ways.

Plus, that whole smoking thing... I know countless people, men and women, who would not date a smoker and would say that it's either the cigarettes or them. Besides that, I'm having difficulty remembering any specific examples of what she had to change. The point is, the show made it very clear that Carrie was a woman with her own thoughts, ideas and desires and she could not--would not--sacrifice that for marriage, even though she thought she had to (but so what? We all do). She made her choice (good or bad). I don't see how that is misogynistic!

Seinfeld is so damn overrated

Amen to that. I don't even understand half the stuff they're saying on that show!

I did not mean it was a story about a hot affair! lol I meant that Carrie, despite having a really great relationship, still wanted the man she truly loved. It was more about the irresistible pull Big had on her than anything else (or at least part of it was). I just do not see it as an attempt to make her into a victim at all--quite the opposite, I thought the show and Carrie both owned their actions. I guess a complicated story (such as that one) can be interpreted in many, many ways.

Plus, that whole smoking thing... I know countless people, men and women, who would not date a smoker and would say that it's either the cigarettes or them. Besides that, I'm having difficulty remembering any specific examples of what she had to change. The point is, the show made it very clear that Carrie was a woman with her own thoughts, ideas and desires and she could not--would not--sacrifice that for marriage, even though she thought she had to (but so what? We all do). She made her choice (good or bad). I don't see how that is misogynistic!

I thought it made Carrie a victim of herself and her inability to truly grow. I took the story as, basically, Aidan being a wonderful, wonderful man, and Carrie just not being able to reach his level. Instead she self-destructed, because that's all she knew how to do. I didn't take it as Carrie made her choice as much as Carrie being damaged made the choice for her.

There was a bizarre punishing tone in SATC's writing as the years passed, IMO. I remember when the show ended and Miranda gave up everything to take care of a bedridden Anne Meara (and what a huge waste of Anne Meara), because this was going to show us she'd learned her lesson. It was like some type of bleak opus from 1850.

I thought it made Carrie a victim of herself and her inability to truly grow. I took the story as, basically, Aidan being a wonderful, wonderful man, and Carrie just not being able to reach his level. Instead she self-destructed, because that's all she knew how to do. I didn't take it as Carrie made her choice as much as Carrie being damaged made the choice for her.

There was a bizarre punishing tone in SATC's writing as the years passed, IMO. I remember when the show ended and Miranda gave up everything to take care of a bedridden Anne Meara (and what a huge waste of Anne Meara), because this was going to show us she'd learned her lesson. It was like some type of bleak opus from 1850.

Wow! We really could not see this any more differently!

But I respect your opinion!

Edited June 5, 201312 yr by YRBB

The Miranda of season 1 would never have married such a smuck as Steve. I could have seen them being co-parents without getting married, nor her giving up her great apartment for Brooklyn. Totally went against the DNA of the character.

I think the essence of the show was the friendships between the 4 women. My fav scenes were all 4 together at their regular hangout.

I think SATC 2 tried to showcase the friendship aspect, but did it in a very over the top matter.

I liked that Miranda changed, to a point - she was very brittle early on. She and Steve had great chemistry together. I just thought at the end she changed a little too much. The idea that she had to give up everything (I know she was working at home but how much time would she have with a child, a home, and a sick mother-in-law) seemed stark to me.

I guess the movies may have rectified this, but I didn't watch them, so I can't say.

That was one with false memories from a shrink (and she fell in love with him or something?) right? blah.

Yes. Basically, Georgie began seeing a therapist, played by Patricia Kalember's real-life husband, after her and John's marriage hit the skids. Her and Dr. Caspian's affair began shortly thereafter. In the meantime, Dr. Caspian manipulated harmless and benign memories of Georgie's father treating her for an upset stomach into episodes of sexual abuse -- a "revelation" that caused Georgie to separate from her mother and sisters for awhile. (Dr. Thomas Reed was many things, they argued, but he wasn't a pedophile.) Eventually, when her own son came down with some illness (the flu, I think?), Georgie realized how wrong she'd been, and how Dr. Caspian had used her. Naturally, Dr. Caspian denied ever having an inappropriate relationship with Georgie; and IIRC, too, bringing charges against him in front of the medical review board served only to make Georgie look like a complete fool. However, the whole ordeal prompted her to return to school and become a therapist herself, so that others would not be victimized by predatory psychiatrists as she had been.

I think SATC 2 tried to showcase the friendship aspect, but did it in a very over the top matter.

I think it just annoyed me how that particular movie seemed to be all about Carrie and her highly manufactured "buyer's remorse" in marrying Big, just to give MPK an excuse for including Aidan. The other characters had nothing at all to do in the movie. Miranda and Charlotte had genuine issues with "having it all" that essentially were settled, I think, with getting drunk and admitting too much. And Samantha -- well, her arc was basically looking for the right place, country-wise, to bone a man named "Rick Hard."

On the one hand, I agree with JP's statement that S&TC never shied away from calling Carrie on her own, self-destructive tendencies. Her side relationships and brief flings were as likely to end over her screw-ups as they were over the man's. But, on the OTHER hand, I feel the writers whitewashed the real nature of her and Big's relationship in order to prop (yes, prop) them as a modern-day fairy tale couple. Carrie was foolish to keep going back to someone who, at best, had serious commitment issues. However, I feel as if part of Big got off on the fact that he COULD play the silly games with Carrie, knowing that no matter what he did, he could always knock on her door, and she'd be there to answer. I think Aidan leaned too far to the other extreme for his and Carrie's relationship to have been long-lasting and successful (if it wasn't her smoking, it was going to be something else about Carrie that "perfect" Aidan would have found off-putting...and then something else...and then something else...and then something else again...and how much can one person change about their self before 1) they don't recognize who they are anymore, and 2) they start to wonder why that other person keeps finding things about them to correct?) but I would've liked to have seen Carrie end up at the end with someone who was as charismatic as Big but who resisted playing the mind-games with her.

Edited June 5, 201312 yr by Khan

The Sisters story just wasn't appropriate for that show, in my view, and I also felt like it came too much on the heels of so many depressing stories. Georgie worked best as the wife and mother and support for everyone.

On the one hand, I agree with JP's statement that S&TC never shied away from calling Carrie on her own, self-destructive tendencies. Her side relationships and brief flings were as likely to end over her screw-ups as they were over the man's. But, on the OTHER hand, I feel the writers whitewashed the real nature of her and Big's relationship in order to prop (yes, prop) them as a modern-day fairy tale couple. Carrie was foolish to keep going back to someone who, at best, had serious commitment issues. However, I feel as if part of Big got off on the fact that he COULD play the silly games with Carrie, knowing that no matter what he did, he could always knock on her door, and she'd be there to answer. I think Aidan leaned too far to the other extreme for his and Carrie's relationship to have been long-lasting and successful (if it wasn't her smoking, it was going to be something else about Carrie that "perfect" Aidan would have found off-putting...and then something else...and then something else...and then something else again...and how much can one person change about their self before 1) they don't recognize who they are anymore, and 2) they start to wonder why that other person keeps finding things about them to correct?) but I would've liked to have seen Carrie end up at the end with someone who was as charismatic as Big but who resisted playing the mind-games with her.

The show wanted it both ways with Carrie and Big - they were presented as toxic and damaged, yet also as a classic romance. The former became suffocating enough that I had lost all interest in them by the last years of the show.

I thought they were toxic and damaged, and a classic romance. Classic romances are not rainbows and butterflies, they are usually pretty tragic and damaged. Carrie and Big were not easy, and they went through a lot and came a long way before ending up together. He changed. She changed. They both grew. We saw this. She wanted him when he couldnt commit, he wanted her when she was trying to move on, they tried to live apart, not to think about eachother, but couldnt. They always came back to eachother. I never thought the show sold them as this ideal, perfect love. They were never that.

When he showed up in Paris to get her back, for himself, for the girls, for NYC - he was also getting her back for herself. She changed who she was to be with the Russian more than with any other man, including Big. In fact, she hardly changed herself to be with big. I actually liked her in all of her major relationships, but for her to be with Big in the end would have been wrong, to me.

As for Miranda, yes she changed and she evolved and she grew, but I dont see whats wrong with that. if the Miranada of s1 was the same Miranda in the end, that would be an issue. Miranda didnt change for Steve, their love for each other, their baby, their family unit - including his mother, and their maid/nanny - changed her. And it isnt like in the end she was so far removed from who she was. She was still a strong willed, opinionated woman who wasnt afraid to speak her mind, she just had a husband, a baby, and a mother in law to take care of.

I think all four of the ladies ended a believable place from where they began if you watch the journey.

I liked that Miranda changed, to a point - she was very brittle early on. She and Steve had great chemistry together. I just thought at the end she changed a little too much. The idea that she had to give up everything [...] seemed stark to me.

Agree. Even if Miranda had realized over time how much more there was to life than one's career, and that you can't expect the greatest man in your life to complement you in EVERY way (although, really, what would an attorney find appealing about a schmuck with one testicle who never seemed all that pleased about doing something OTHER than bartending?), it seemed off-putting to have her uproot her life to that degree. As I've said up-thread, I feel as if the writers "punished" or made fun of the fact that Miranda genuinely cherished her professional life, right down to the fact that she was SO busy all the time that (ha ha) one of her two ovaries went out of business.

Gosh, I am so torn, because I am understanding JP and YRBB's take on everything as well I am Carl's.

Meanwhile, I probably should bring this back on-topic, shouldn't I?

Three more shows I'd add to my personal list of best-written series: "Buffalo Bill," "The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd," and "The Slap Maxwell Story." All three were created by Jay Tarses (BB was co-created with his longtime collaborator, Tom Patchett); and all three, IMO, are brilliant and vastly underappreciated.

Is "SCTV" not on the list, or have I overlooked it?

Edited June 5, 201312 yr by Khan

I didn't see it either, which is too bad, as it's a whole lot better than any other sketch comedy, and it's not really close. I guess this may be about cool points again. (if it is on there, then I take it back)