Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Apart from that bitchy aside about Samantha going to London because 60 year old vixens are acceptable there (!), I thought it was really great.

Please register in order to view this content

First two episodes were exactly what I needed.

I love Sara Ramirez's character Che!

Edited by Cat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They kind of make up for it by having the women miss Samantha and her presence being felt in other ways. So it's not all petty nastiness. I think the aspect I have enjoyed most in the first two episodes is these 55 year old women having lived rarefied lives but now coming to terms with new realities and rules and a world changing around them. I appreciate that they are wearing their age as a badge of honor too.

I have a feeling that Carrie is going to be confronted with finances soon. Just my speculation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I really enjoyed the first 2 episodes.  I worried it would be more of the same but they are really taking the characters forward in stories that are plausible for them.  I agree with Cat that Carrie will most likely have financial issues.  I also think Miranda will have an alcohol problem and Charlotte will be Charlotte.

Edited by Efulton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I watched the first two episodes and I was a little disappointed. I don't think the show was able to strike the right balance between comedy and drama the way that it did so brilliantly as SATC. Obviously, the circumstances that unfolded in the first two episodes dictated the overall tone. However, I was wanting more haha moments. Also, I think the show needs to add back in Carrie's voiceover to tie in all the scenes. Carrie's VO as a storytelling device would provide character depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Time does stand still for old folks, lol. I liked that AJLT acknowledges how out-of-touch and sheltered they might be with the current shifting environment. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, and back in the mid-90s, sexual (and gender) politics were not as evolved. In its early years, SATC did open up and normalise discussion about sex and relationships, though.

LOL yes Che was a cipher for wokeness, a subject which Michael Patrick King is obviously preoccupied by. But there is a scene in ep 2 with Miranda where I thought Sara Ramirez brought some nuances to the characterisation. Miranda used to get some of the awkward-sex SLs but is now getting the awkward-race/gender-relations SL.

After the passive-aggressive abuse Cattrall received from cast and MPK two years ago, I thought Bitsy's "Sexy sirens in their 60s are still viable there!" quip was spiteful. Especially as the main actresses are pushing 60 themselves. The show tried to make up for it by acknowledging what Samantha meant to the show, that she was gone and it was a loss for the audience. However, on reflection, it is framed as 'Samantha hurt Carrie's feelings!' -- even though Carrie's the one who fired Samantha as her PR. It is hard not to see SJP's narrative of Cattrall being mean to her when she reached out as being transposed onto this storyline.

Stanford has changed the most as a character. Was he always this obsessed with his image? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I loved the first two episodes. I was ready to hate watch and make fun of the characters acting the same way the did in the original series and I ended up crying when I saw Charlotte's all grown girls. 

Remember when life was about buying expensive shoes and dating around in cocktail bars? The ladies have move on, so have we. It was nice that we found each other again after all these years.

The woke madness is real and the show has to acknowledge it. Please don't turn AJLT into another show obsessed with it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally, I had no intention of watching, because that was my feeling too, especially after the two movies that, imo, didn't need to happen but I saw opaque comments about an end to the first episode that was a shock and I said "hm, wonder what that's about?"

Then this morning, I was actually watching a morning news magazine show and on the bottom of the screen crawl said something to the effect of "SATC fans divided on the first episodes" or something and I was intrigued. Then I even saw a newspaper headline that alluded to a negative review, so I said "okay, I think I might need to watch to see what all this fuss is about" (I didn't read the article), so I had to find a stream.

Please register in order to view this content

 

My first question after watching is "How will they deal with the Stanford Batch issue?" Or do they not plan on lasting that long. Willie Garson has died and they won't be able to pretend his character is in Europe like Samantha, who they kept discussing as if her absence were a type of death. With

Please register in order to view this content

, it's going to span the maudlin to have another long-time character die in such a short space of time. I guess they are at "that age" when loss can come more frequently but isn't this still a comedy?

Speaking of which, the laughs didn't come until the second episode, and then they were few and far between and I'm including even

 

From a writing perspective, I was surprised by how much the first episode seems like a pilot. It's kind of comforting that, as accomplished as MPK and everyone connected with SATC are, they can still produce an episode that struggles with the same aspects as everyone else like writing too much exposition.

The second episode was much better, less clunky storytelling but still hung like a dark cloud, it's appropriate that the Eurythmics song closed out the episode. 

I think the episodes managed the aspect of grief well. I do wonder, in such an already somber time when loss abounds, how many people want to see consecutive episodes dealing with loss and death, especially for a show that was once known for punchlines, one-liners and oh, comedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • However, let me say this and I don't think it applies in the case of MM and BC. Straight actors shouldn't accept a role if they are unwilling to play intimate scenes that are often required in daytime. Imagine a gay actor accepting a straight role and saying they won't do any intimate scenes or have very limited intimacy with an opposite sex co-star. It wouldn't happen though, because the stigma works one way.  I think the limited intimacy has more to do with trepidation of how soap viewers will take it. The average soap viewer is older and more conservative and soaps aren't exactly drawing in younger eyes, so storylines have tended to lean more safe in the 21st Century especially in terms of sex and sexuality with a few exceptions.   
    • I disagree. I think Jill going off the rails made perfect sense.  It was a multi season process starting in season 8, climaxing at the season 9 cliffhanger, and continuing into season 10.   It was after Jill's story ended was when Knots Landing really went off the rails because it happened just as Abby was leaving the show.. and the Lathams didn't really have anything interesting to follow both of these events.
    • Thank you for that. I came into the show at a confusing time for Cliff because he just floats from one story to the next and his job appears to change. I like him even though I know I probably shouldn't since he's such a creep at times. I might have to go back and watch some of the previous stories because I'm missing some important pieces of Deborah and Geraldine's backstories.    Thank you for the explanation. I'm not sure I have the patience for that so I think I'll give it a miss. I must have bought it with the idea that it was going to cover her time on the soaps. 
    • David Bailey was the only actor that I remember as Russ. I was too young to remember Sam Groom or Robert Hover. When David Bailey returned in 1989, I thought the powers that be should have recast the part. However, I went back to watch some episodes with Bailey. Actually, Bailey was good. The show missed a great opportunity to keep Bailey on longer than six months. Bailey always great chemistry with Vickie Wyndham, Irene Dailey and Connie Ford. And he was good in scenes with Carmen Duncan. Russ could have been involved with Iris again and possibly Rachel with the return of Carl Hutchins. Charles Keating's reappearance in 1989 with Carl being involved with the Red Swan story.  Beverly Penberthy's return in 1989 would have been a treat. Pat could have played the aunt for Josie to lean on, and good romantic pairing later for Spencer Harrison. Even though Paul Stevens had passed away in 1986. I would have brought back the character Brian Bancroft; this time being played by Donald May or John Gabriel. Was the intention for David Bailey to return for only short-term purposes.
    • First up: Finishing up January 1974. Then on to 1973! FROM THE VAULT: WEEKLY DAYTIME NIELSEN RATINGS: WEEKS OF 12/31/73-1/4/74 & 1/7/74-1/11/74:

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Of course it's just a rumor so it shouldn't be taken that seriously and when there really is an issue usually an actor will just turn the role down or leave (like the first Adam Newman on Y&R). If anything I think the producers might be keeping the kissing down to avoid issues with more conservative viewers. When it comes down to it Facebook pages are full of ignorant people who speculate about everything.
    • The facebook comments are *very* entertaining! Sometimes I enjoy going down that rabbit hole. It doesn't matter the soap, if it's on Facebook, they are always wildly off the mark.
    • Then they shouldn't accept roles playing gay. ETA: They would probably not have any reservations about playing cheaters or liars but kissing another man is too much. I'm so sick of this attitude. Just to be clear though, we don't know for sure if that is the case here. It's still only a rumour.
    • I think I join others here who believe that Russ never really got over Rachel. So, I would have considered him in the wake of Mac's death as a partner for Rachel. I do not even remember Hover, might as well be WHOver?!!! But, Sam Groom & David Bailey each in their own ways were good. Of course, it would have been good to have some more relatives for him & my own strong preference was for Beverly Penberthy. Pat could have functioned as his sister and she could have worked at Cory, too.  But, always open to new talent.  
    • Sure, but when it comes to playing gay roles a lot of straight men become terrified that people will actually think they are gay if they do a kissing scene.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy