|
Sex and the city 2 (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
You want more from a TV show? If you take issue with this show for those reasons, then you can't possibly like anything on TV. It's fluffy entertainment... it isn't supposed to be brilliant. Most shows on TV are all the same... bull story-lines of unrealistic crap.
The show does have a lot of good elements - it challenges mores and social expectations of women and other elements of society, and it shows respect and acceptance to different lifestyles (gays/lesbians, transvestites, sexually promiscuous people etc.) |
Damages while showing women doing some despicable things, at least offers non-Hitchcock-ian contrasts with their equally despicable, male counter-parts. And the women are strong, complex and actually DO challenge the social mores.
Try The Shield, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek: (DS9 & NGen ONLY), Southland, and hell - even Medium.
Medium, on just a cursory inspection, could be construed as a very superficial show about a woman who uses magical thinking to solve crimes. Fortunately, the producers have managed to utilize special effects in conjunction with allowing her 'psychic powers' to be used as a non-linear plot device with which to present the viewer with a puzzle.
It doesn't rely on ANY of the conventions about keeping a viewer tied to a mythological narrative by continuously manipulating romantic entanglements in ways which float the ratings as much as they are emblematic of severe personality dysfunction. At worst, it is cornball, but even the cheese factor is toned down with a visceral dint and a willingness to stray off the formulaic reservation every now and then.
Observing that the show challenges social mores is kind of like saying Fonzie advanced what it meant to be a man. Sex in the City has done for women what 227 has done for black people: Project a grating, two-dimensional stereotype bereft of thinking beyond the next punchline. The characters are caricatures of 'independent' women, at best, conflicted about who they are in relationship to the bifurcated dichotomy between their oft repressed sexual desires and their cloying need to be loved.
The plots flail about in superficially conflated miasma over issues which most women or men, for that matter, would be happy to have as a problem set - because to anyone with an iota of common sense they are easily solved. They seem to be hell-bound to walk into unnecessary conflicts with parades of suitors which begs the question, "If you were unable to figure out he was ed up before you met him, how in the hell did you escape from your mother when she was eating her ing young?"
Never-mind that shows which depict support for gay people usually involve one stereotype which is roughly akin to how retarded people are depicted. The loving, non-threatening, asexual alien beings, who seem to come from a parallel culture which exhibits no animosity, no racial hang-ups, and no bad things also come with an abiding love and cheerful tolerance for the culture that actually oppresses them when it's not making them out to be completely impotent without the help of the protagonists. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
see below... That was entirely the point, the review was criticising the film (which suggested women should not work!), not suggesting that they shouldn't.. Her comment was purely sarcastic! :)
LOL at some people misunderstanding the review, i thought it seemed pretty straightforward and hilarious :)
She was saying that SITC2 is extremely offensive to women, and is extremely racist and ethnocentric, just to summarise... |
Yeah I got all that. I wasn't commenting on her review. |
|
|
| Ania_xox |
People who proactively hate any television program are hilarious idiots :stongue:
Are you scared that the program vehicles politically incorrect ideas? That it perpetuates oh-so-annoying stereotypes?
Guess what? It's all been done before. And will be done again - probably by Lady Gaga in the next 10 minutes.
Cry about it :stongue:
fag |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Would you have sex with SJP Ania? |
|
|
| Ania_xox |
No, but I'm not bi-curious.
I'd let Chris Noth boink me against a mailbox.
Yes her character is sometimes annoying in the whole "I couldn't help but wonder.... [insert rhetorical question about sex/relationships]?"
I think she's nice to look at. Her body is like a canvas with all kinds of crazy expensive on it 24/7
I have an appreciation for effed-up haute couture, so she doesn't annoy me in that sense.
I think the writers work hard to avoid clichés, yet are still able to appeal to the general public. That`s not an easy thing to do and should be applauded, I feel. |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ania_xox
I think she's nice to look at. |
 |
|
|
| Ania_xox |
lol
I was mainly talking about the way she dresses. That's why I made reference to the haute couture
It's cool to see someone wearing crazy . |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Yeah, too bad about her face though. |
|
|
| leph555 |
 |
|
|
| enydo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ania_xox
People who proactively hate any television program are hilarious idiots :stongue:
|
Not really, no. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ania_xox
People who proactively hate any television program are hilarious idiots :stongue:
...
Are you scared that the program vehicles politically incorrect ideas? That it perpetuates oh-so-annoying stereotypes?
... |
If I were, at all, concerned about those things, I'd take on the porn industry.
I just think SITC is to political incorrectness or annoying stereo-types what Cherry Flavored, Caffeine Free Diet Pepsi is to Jack Daniels - an inferior, non-essential, replicable, and replaceable ingredient which detracts from the spectacle it's trying to achieve because it's actually trying to achieve it while diluting it with inferior ingredients, in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
