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

    • Thanks! I've kept thinking that he carried some negatives.  Patrick Mulcahey told a story about a scene being written where a helicopter swooped down upon a group of people & the P&G rep tried to sell them on the idea of it not being a helicopter, but a blue luxury sedan. Yeah, NOT. 
    • I've never thought about this. I'm curious about what made you think to pose it as a question. I am strong on AW & weak on OLTL.  Linda Dano & Stephen Schnetzer both acted on OLTL first & then were lifetime characters on AW. Both shows had Agnes Nixon.  Irna Phillips had two main proteges: Agnes Nixon & Bill Bell. Irna was part of the creation of 2 soaps that in the 1970s were in grave danger of very early cancellation. Agnes Nixon saved AW & Bill Bell saved DAYS OF OUR LIVES.  After being HW at AW Agnes created OLTL, right? Her first ABC tenure, where before she had been a P&G writer, 1st GL & then AW. (Do I have that chronology correct?) Both AW & OLTL had very high points in terms of ratings, awards, success & also very low points where they struggled. At times OLTL was considered "not as good" as AMC. At times AW was considered "not as good" as DAYS OF OUR LIVES. They share anything & everything that relates to being a New York City soap. I think they share that they didn't get the respect they deserved. Both had their female lead be the strongest character on the show & also that they were the unquestioned star of the show.  When AW's cancellation was announced, Angela Shapiro went to P&G & tried to buy AW to air on ABC. It is not known how she planned to schedule that but one theory was that she would air AW & OLTL both as half hour soaps, back to back, mid to late afternoon. P&G declined & then she tried to buy the character Felicia Gallant. No, again. Then she did what we all know too well & put Linda Dano as Rae on all the ABC soaps. I have dubbed that 'Shapiro's Folly'.  Honestly, I don't think that OLTL suffered from being "Bay City-fied" or AWfication. However, these are some [nitpick] parallels or similarities. Possibly they are of interest. Anyway, I've had fun with it. 
    • Oh, wow. This explains why there is a scene in one of the 1987 episodes where Alan out of the blue brings up Rita to Ed! It always seemed incredibly out of place before now. For most of 1987 Alan was involved with Vanessa. Marland initially planned to have Rita and Vanessa become rivals over Ed. They ultimately decided Ed and Van were not a good pairing. While I was never convinced Van was in love with Alan, she could be very possessive, so the two of them fighting over him could have been very interesting.  If she had come back with a KID, after Maureen accepted Ed's baby with Claire.... SO MANY great possibilities here. Not to mention, if she had come back, MAYBE that would have kept Alan out of Reva's orbit. (I can dream, can't I?) My guess for why they didn't bring her back in 1989--Alan was being hustled off the canvas, plus after bringing back Zaslow and Garrett, they might not have been able to afford her. He complained a lot about Mike's romantic pairings. I seem to remember he also complained that he didn't get to do enough action scenes. I think he wanted to fly a helicopter in a scene and was miffed they had the stunt man do it. Which was probably done because of insurance reasons. In Locher Room interviews I can't recall anyone who worked with him who speaks of him fondly, while people will speak warmly about Chris Bernau and Tom O'Rourke. The best Elvera could do was mention he flirted with her mother during a set visit.
    • After listening to the songs that MVJ co-wrote for Deniece Williams ... (youtubes and info upthread) . . . I wonder if she contributed to the music or the lyrics? What type of songs did MVJ's real-life girl group The Articulettes sang?  And what did Anita's fictional Articulettes sing?
    • This is a photo collage I did for/about Michele Val Jean. Her first writer mentor, middle left is Jeri Taylor [RIP]

      Please register in order to view this content

    • 7" 45 RPM single from Deniece Williams taken from the "Let's Hear it for the Boy" album https://www.discogs.com/release/1746724-Deniece-Williams-Black-Butterfly This U.S.A. single sold to the public has these songs: A-side: Black Butterfly B-side: Blind Dating co-written by MVJ The UK and Netherlands singles of Black Butterfly don't have "Blind Dating" on the B-side. Other songs are on B-side. There are U.S. promotional copies of Black Butterfly that don't have Blind Dating on the B-side. U.S.A. public single:

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Is there anything in print or fan lore or info about Don Stewart & temperament or behavior? Of course my brain could be playing tricks on me. 
    • “On ERICA versus RACHEL, Erica was a very unique character. ... Rachel was a lower-class Erica, her mother was a cleaning woman, and her goals were not nearly stratospheric as Erica’s. Rachel just wanted to marry Russ or somebody with money. What Erica and Rachel have in common is they thought if they could get their dream, they’d be satisfied. But that dream has been very elusive.”– Agnes Nixon, Creator, ONE LIFE TO LIVE, ALL MY CHILDREN, and LOVING So my takeaway from this, plus knowing the characters, is that both Rachel & Erica schemed for acquisition. They wanted to acquire romance, husbands, prosperity, a kind of low-level fame or notoriety.  Am I correct in thinking that Carla schemed for safety, camouflage, to keep from getting caught & so for survival? Or did she also scheme for things similar to above?
    • Full details on Deniece Williams' album "Let's Hear it for the Boy" https://www.discogs.com/release/20670361-Deniece-Williams-Lets-Hear-It-For-The-Boy MVJ on the track "Blind Dating" Columbia is the U.S. release. CBS is the international release.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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