A ‘Sex and the City’ sequel: A bad idea?

There will be a sequel to the wildly successful “Sex and the City” movie. After the film’s $57 million opening weekend, that’s one of the surest bets in the entertainment industry.

But – to muse a la Carrie Bradshaw– I have to wonder, can “Sex” be as good the second time around?

Not that this would stop the studio from rushing into a sequel, but if you’ve seen the film, you know there’s really nowhere for the stories of the “SATC” characters to go. (Pictured at right: Kristin Davis, Sarah Jessica Parker, Cynthia Nixon and Kim Cattrall in the “SATC” movie.)

Satc And that’s the problem with the extension of entertainment franchises, which is rampant these days. Steps from the Times Square hotel I’m sitting in now, there’s ample evidence of this: “Legally Blonde” was a movie that became a Broadway show (and there will soon be a reality show based around that musical). John Waters’ “Hairspray” was a movie that became a musical that morphed into another movie.

Right now, TV the most fertile ground for this kind of cross-pollination. The success of the “SATC” movie probably prompted entertainment executives to rustle through their archives and start developing female-friendly TV projects into films. Maybe now there’s a small chance we’ll get that “Gilmore Girls” feature after all. But it’s more likely that the enticements offered to “Sopranos” creator David Chase to come up with a feature film will multiply daily.

Genre pieces are actually the workhorses of the multi-platform craze. Shows like “Heroes” and “Battlestar Galactica” spawn videogames, books, Webisodes, graphic novels and TV movies, among other things. Another “X-Files” feature will come out six years after the show went off the air (and given how dreadful that show’s final seasons were, who was clamoring for its return?). There’s yet another “Star Trek” big-screen iteration on the way next year (courtesy of one of the “Lost” co-creators).

And as much as their creators see the wisdom in giving their TV shows defined end dates, a la “Lost,” the insatiable demands of the big entertainment conglomerates will not be denied. Is it wrong to wonder if “Lost” itself will become a musical some day? (I can just imagine the big closing number – “We Never Did Find That Island Again.”). In all seriousness, that show’s spinoffs will probably never really end, and I can’t imagine that the creation of a “Lost” feature film hasn’t occurred to Disney-ABC executives.

But the problem with spinning out entertainment franchises is that they tend get burdened with more and more baggage even as the stories that power the franchises start to peter out. As generally pleasing as the “Sex and the City” movie was (and I was lucky enough to see it with packed, wildly appreciative audience in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood, the epicenter of “SATC” adoration), it may emerge as a cautionary example of the law of diminishing returns.

Hit TV shows create big egos, which is the only explanation I can think of for Kim Cattrall’s oversized part in the “SATC” film. She’d always been rumored to be the holdout regarding a big-screen “SATC” project, and judging by the inexplicably large amount of screen time she got, I can only surmise that film’s producers mollified the actress by giving her character, Samantha, and her lover, Smith, far more screen time than this pallid, predictable duo deserved.

But that’s the problem with pulling together a movie project once a cast and creative team has disbanded. To get a film off the ground, factors that have nothing to do with storytelling and everything to do with money, ego and politics often become part of the equation. That may be the reason that “SATC” fan favorites such as Sanford Blatch, Charlotte and Harry Goldenblatt and wedding planner Anthony Marentino received too little screen time and Samantha’s vamping got too much.

And thanks to bigger film budgets and the increased studio oversight that can bring, the quirkier and funkier aspects of a TV show can get lost. There were two-parters in the first few seasons of “The X-Files” that were far better than the franchise’s first big-screen project.

“Battlestar Galactica’s” 2007 standalone TV movie “Razor,” on the other hand, was a worthy project. But it’s only natural to wonder if that show’s brilliant cast and its complex, morally murky world can be fully reassembled for the additional “Battlestar” TV movies that are being contemplated by the Sci Fi Channel. It should be noted that these movies – up to three are being considered – aren’t a done deal yet (there’s more on them here).

As a fan, I can understand the wish to extend the show’s life. But the films shouldn’t be made unless they can, like “Razor” and Joss Whedon’s big-screen “Firefly” spinoff, “Serenity,” live up to the exacting standards that the TV show set for itself.

What you don’t want is a feature project in which leading characters and important relationships don’t get enough screen time. Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Mr. Big (Chris Noth) are a big part of the engine that drives the “SATC” franchise, and there scenes together were very good, but there weren’t enough of them.

Though I understood and even appreciated the film team’s desire to pay tribute to dozens of “SATC” staples, such as cosmos, Carrie’s closets, Fashion Week and so forth, it felt as if the movie was trying to cover way too many bases. The overly long feature wasn’t nearly as streamlined and focused as two or three well-paced, strongly linked episodes of the show.

In that sense, though the “SATC” movie was far superior to the disappointing second season of “Heroes,” both tried to do too much and ended up falling short in a key areas.

The biggest problem – and the most ominous one for the future of Carrie Bradshaw franchise – is that the “SATC” film trotted out plots that we’d already seen on the show several times. Nostalgia drove much of that massive weekend box office, and the fact that we hadn’t seen Carrie and her three pals in four years means the film got a pass for recycling stories from the past.

But by providing closure (yet again) regarding most of the women’s romantic relationships, the “SATC” creative team painted themselves into a corner. I don’t care how many fabulous ensembles Ms. Bradshaw wears next time – if the next “SATC” film mines Carrie or Miranda’s man problems again, or spends too much time on Samantha the man-eater, my patience will wear as thin as a designer knockoff.

Michael Patrick King, who wrote and directed the film, and Parker, one of its producers, were the key creative forces behind the TV show for most of its run, and it’s up to them to find a new, original story about these characters that’s worth telling. It can be done. And it must be done, or else the next “SATC” movie will come off as just another money-grubbing attempt to troll for product placement and sell DVDs.

If we’ve learned one thing about Carrie, it’s that she values love above money. Though the truth is, she’s always aimed to have a healthy supply of both.
Source