Why a “Sex in the City” movie doesn’t work for me.

1. Time line
a. SITC was about dates and you could believe a bad date a week but a couple of hours of bad dates?
2. Fashion
a. SITC was all about the clothes and shoes. How many wardrobe changes can there be in a couple of hours that make a story line believeable or is it just about marketing?
3. Men
a. SITC copped out in the end by giving each woman a man. It would have made more sense and been more reality-speak if Carrie had gone manless/relationshipless in the end. Depressing but true. Once an asshole, always an asshole. Mr. Big might have made the grand gesture to another woman but not Carrie. It’s a Gone with the Wind thing.
4. Babies
a. Charlotte got her baby, maybe not biological but still where would we go with the kids? Do they inherit the fashion/metrosexual thing? Babies detract from the main storyline of the relationship of the women.
5. Life Changes
a. Introduce a baby to a friendship and it must change. Should one choose motherhood and the other, singledom or DINK status the world’s do NOT collide. Is it two hours of MNO?

6. It was, what it was, when it was.
a. SITC was glorious when it was on. It left at the height of it’s popularity and left us breathless and hoping for another funny, sexy, well written romantic comedy (weekly mental floss). The likes of which Desperate Housewives attempted to fill and did so successfully for one season. Four to five years of separation, us girls have grown up and moved on. Of course, we will all go see it or rent the DVD, just to dish.
7. Friendships
a. A foursome without two quarreling and/or gossiping about the other two, is simply not reality.
8. Where to pick up?
a. Miranda never got to do the “I told you so” about Petrovski. But that was the beauty of the ending.