Why “Sex and the City” should never be a template
I don’t hate Sex and the City so much as squirm uncomfortably when it comes on. Although, I don’t exactly change the channel. Because some things are funny and because I feel the need to figure out just what the hell people mean when they declare themselves “a Carrie” – as if it’s a badge of honor. There’s no denying the show made some kind of cultural impact but my god, enough already!
Then you get this:
We fight crime and have bad taste in men - tee hee!
There’s a lively discussion going on over at Comic Book Resources about the new Marvel Divas that promises to be:
“Sex and the City” in the Marvel Universe, and there’s definitely that “naughty” element to it, but I also think the series is doing to a deeper place, asking question about what it means…truly means…to be a woman in an industry dominated by testosterone and guns. (And I mean both the super hero industry and the comic book industry.) But mostly it’s just a lot of hot fun.”
Wow. Really? A lot of hot fun? Cause last I checked working in a male dominated field wasn’t so much “hot fun” as “cold shoulder” but whatever. It may actually be an interesting endeavor with a terrible pitch. After all, one of the reason I really like X-Men is because the interpersonal relationships are more fleshed out than, say, Batman.
But here’s why they shouldn’t use “Sex and the City” as a template or model.
1. The endearing quality of Sex and the City was NEVER about the characters as they appeared on paper. If you were to describe each of these characters most women would cringe. An aging sex kitten who uses her sexuality to get ahead in her career to little or no success? But the actresses who played these characters gave them heart, a silliness or awareness that I think translated to the screen. It wasn’t the characters themselves women related to but the what the actresses made them.
2. Fashion is central and spandex is soooo not there. Spandex has never been there.
3. Sex and the City is inherently irritating to most people. The grating whininess of selfish women will get on even the most “a Charolette”’s nerves. So this series can’t last very long.
4. Sex and the City wasn’t hot fun. If they really want to use the Sex and the City model then the sex needs to be awkward, drunken and hidden by strategically placed bed posts. Lame.
So I’m not against giving the Marvel superheroines romantic lives or exploring the concept of “what being a woman means” (barf, ok I am against that because it’s somewhat insulting to suggest that being a woman means constantly surrounded by this weird mystique that separates you from the “norm” despite being half of all populations in the world) – sorry, ok back on track – I’m not against Marvel Divas (oh god the title is just terrible, worse than Minx) -
One more time here, I really and truly am not against this idea. But please please Marvel do NOT use the Sex and the City template. If you are going to go that route, take note that all of the City ladies were a B cup or smaller.
Though a really interesting side story might be the decision to get surgically altered to better fit into the superhero world…
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I think you’ve hit on the reasons “Sex and the City” isn’t portable or replicable. For me, being the age I am, the core of whatever appeal the series had (which was really intermittent) was Sarah Jessica Parker.
And that’s not because she was particularly brilliant or charismatic. She was fine, don’t get me wrong, but it was more the interest of seeing someone I’d grown up watching in pleasant but predictable roles doing something entirely different. And that isn’t something you can recreate, especially on a printed page.
Yowza!