All of this "recession friendly" crap is really starting to get on my nerves. If you have the money then spend it! And its a movie. . .toning down SATC would be like filming the fast and the furious with hyundai cars. We don't want to pay $10 to see things that we see every day. We want to dream!

Sorry for the rant. Just had to get that off my chest.

All of this "recession friendly" crap is really starting to get on my nerves. If you have the money then spend it! And its a movie. . .toning down SATC would be like filming the fast and the furious with hyundai cars. We don't want to pay $10 to see things that we see every day. We want to dream!

Sorry for the rant. Just had to get that off my chest.

ha, Hyundai cars. I can see it now: Almost Fast, Not Quite So Furious.

SATC shouldn't change, I mean who would really believe Samantha buying something from Target, or Charlotte not being a little Park Ave princess (I admit, she's my favorite though).

what would be left of the movie then? the oh so deep storyline? we all know why we watch it, so its not fix something that is not broken

I agree with Leila07, in reality, the best way to get out of a recession is to SPEND to boost the economic market thus creating jobs, blah blah. So I don't think that the fantasy world of movies should change and rather, they should set an example of spending so people do the same and help us get out of this recession quicker.

Also, I could never afford some of the things featured as common items on SATC, so now that we are in a recession... things haven't changed for me in that respect, I still can't afford Gucci, big whoop. I don't think I am the only one that wants to escape in a world where money is not an issue and it's all about labels.

i actually dont understand why theyre making a sequel, since the movie tied everything up pretty well. that said, if their going to do it, it should be done the way its alway been. whats SATC without the crazy designer labels we all lust for but cant always get?

I wouldn't change it too much it is a movie...

It's fiction. It's a movie. Are Blair Waldorf and Jenny Humphreys going to start going to Ross for their designer stuff? No. This is fantasy, and frankly, most people who watch the show aren't going to purchase $500 shoes regardless of what the economy looks like.

They should just be sensitive to the current environment. There are a lot of people who have jobs and simply choose to be less ostentatious. Imaging you're bored, you pick up your recently unemployed close friend because you want a shopping friend when you go to Barney's to buy some ridiculously priced cologne in your new Bentley Continental GT Speed.

Sex in the City shouldn't spoon-feed us frugality, but step back and make sure scenes don't come off as rubbing-in and teasing viewers with the "I have this, and you don't" attitude.

But why is there a sequel?

Yes, ignore it! We go to the movies to escape reality... not relish in it.

DON'T MESS WITH A GOOD THING! LEAVE SATC AS IT IS!

satc is an escape from reality...screw the recession!

I think it should take the recession into account. Maybe Big somehow loses his job or something — can Carrie still love the a-clown when he's broke? Blah blah blah.

i'm not necessarily sure that they should take it all in to account, because movies are about escaping reality, but it would be interesting to see how it;s worked in.

2 of the characters are lawyers, it would be great to see how their business changes because of the recession...and to see how Sam's PR business changes as well. i can't imagine that either carrie or charlotte's lives would change, but maybe Big would suffer something from the whole financial debacle since he's all about investing and things of that nature.

i like seeing my girls living it up and if that's what it takes to make the movie successful without really being mindful of the economy then that's ok with me.

I don't really care either way because I think this sequel is a bad idea. But if they just have to make it, then it's a movie. It's fiction. The economy doesn't have to factor into Carrie & Co's world.

I agree with the whole escapism thing, but the other thing I was thinking about is that the economy changes. The movie's going to take another several months to be written, filmed, edited, etc, it's unlikely that the movie will hit theaters before 2011. I'm not saying that things will be peachy in the financial world by then, but if things are even just slightly better, it would suck to watch something as purely escapist as SATC and be reminded about how bad things were when it was written.

Um, seriously? My economic life is bad enough in reality; I don't need my movies to remind me of that.

Don't mess with a good thing! Like SATC has ever been a "reality" show! Just keep it the way it is. It's fiction and it's wonderful ....

SATC was never really grounded in reality anyway (Carrie's shoes, clothes and NYC apartment on a writer's salary??? Um, I think not) so i don't think they should take the recession into account.

The show is such a fantasy / fairy tale that I think they can get away with not talking it into account.

If they are going to start making the reality of the world matter then they better be able to explain how Carrie was able to afford such a huge apt. in such a great neighboorhood, PLUS all those uber expensive shoes PLUS the super expensive clothes PLUS all the dinner/lunch/breakfasts/drinks out in such fab places daily/nightly PLUS all the other stupid things that have no basis in reality but make it fun to watch. She wrote of a newspaper column and had what like two books out. Still doesn't explain how she could afford any of the astronomically priced lux items she had.
Just say no. ha.

Aren't the characters all rather wealthy?
Perhaps they will enjoy the "recession sales" like MK Oslen.

The series started out as a cynic's view of relationships (incl. s-e-x) in a big city. That's what made it stand out. It drifted ridiculously into consumerist porn towards the end. It's as though Carrie lost brain cells and life experience savvy as she aged. I think they should have done this before, but the recession is now the perfect reason to bring the show back to the human element, and get away from the shopping.

Where fashion came into play, it was about Carrie's style, not the brands in her closet. SJP was very holier-than-thou about her small wardrobe and low spending ways in the Harper's Bazaar magazine... bring a little bit of that to the next movie.

I love SATC & SJP, but hope they will get the series away from the nauseating, brainless expensive merch obsession, which have replaced the human angle, wit & wisdom of the best of the show towards the end. Carrie is the biggest brand in SATC, not Prada or Westwood or any other product-placing behemoth.

If you want to look at brands and conspicuous unrealistic consumption, flip through Vogue. A movie should tell a good story with believable, naturally evolving (not continually making the same dumb decisions) characters.

As a huge fan of the show (in case you couldn't tell by the name...) I'm actually torn on this one. As some people have mentioned, yes it is fiction almost like an escape...to watch it is to fantasize. However I would like to see it be a bit more realistic taking today's economy into account.

I'd like to point out, for a few people who felt it was unrealistic for Carrie to afford all of her shoes and that apartment, they had an entire episode where they bring up her debt. She even realizes how much she spent on shoes and how it could have gone towards other things. I actualy really loved that episode because it made the show a lot more realistic. It was good to see one of the girls go through money troubles and I don't think it took away from the show at all.

thats what makes apart of the movie great! if you dont love the girl talk then you'll love the clothes. plus all of the characters have jobs that wouldnt be affected by the recession. so why should that change?

The first movie had too much product and label placement. Sex and the City is about fashion, style and escapism, but the last movie was too much in terms of luxury and labelled goods. The sequel should ignore the recession but should also tone down the blatant product placement.it's off-putting.