People: Sarah Jessica Parker was the only one making big money on SATC

wenn1862698

This.Story.Will.Never.End. 2017 is all about… Sex and the City drama! I’m sort of done with recapping all the sh-t that’s happened in the past week, so just trust me when I say that Sarah Jessica Parker and her people are attacking Kim Cattrall pretty hard, all because Kim didn’t want to do a third Sex and the City movie. Kim’s mad that SJP and her peeps are ganging up on her, and Kim’s position is basically: go ahead and make a third movie, I don’t care, I just don’t want to be in it. But SJP and the peeps are still throwing massive hissy fits about this situation. And once again, “unnamed sources” are dishing to People Magazine:

Multiple sources tell PEOPLE that star Kim Cattrall’s demands led studio Warner Bros. to kill the in-development sequel, which Sarah Jessica Parker has said had a “beautiful, funny, heartbreaking, joyful, very relatable script and story” ready for filming. Cattrall “was dragging her feet all summer and cast and crew members had put their lives on hold to get ready to shoot the movie,” says one source. “Then when she made outrageous demands, the studio had enough and pulled the plug. Her demand for them to buy her films in development and to give her a TV deal are what broke the camel’s back for them.”

Another source echoes that, saying Cattrall was “a demanding diva.” But a third source with knowledge of the situation counters that Cattrall wanted her character treated better.

“She was willing to have a conversation, but she needed to hear something she hasn’t heard before — namely, that they would treat her character with some dignity and respect — and they wouldn’t even engage in that sort of discussion,” the source says. The source says that Cattrall’s Samantha had “one humiliating plot line after another” in the two movies made after the series wrapped. In the first, Samantha is dumped by her boyfriend and ends the show turning 50. (Both Samantha and Cattrall, now 61, are the oldest of the SATC leads.) In the second movie, Samantha was going through menopause and experiencing hot flashes.

“And yet she never wanted to derail things and she’s never demanded story approval and she’s never tried to meddle with what the screenwriters and show creators thought was best,” the source says.

Money, of course, was also an issue. While Parker and series creator Michael Patrick King were producers on the lucrative movies and TV series, Cattrall and the other stars weren’t. “Kim’s not the only one who got left out of a lot of money to be earned back when the show was on the air. Let’s just say unless you had had a first, middle and last name listed in the credits, you were not seeing any SATC money beyond your episode salary,” the source says.

Mr. Big, meanwhile, has stayed outside the fray thus far. Chris Noth “was never even asked to be part of the movie, only because it didn’t get far enough to get to that point,” a source tells PEOPLE. “He was never vocal about not wanting to be part of it — he just said, ‘If they’re making a third, they haven’t called me yet.’”

[From People]

Wait, if Kim Cattrall is being blamed for single-handedly destroying any chance of SATC3 because she kept EVERYBODY waiting while she made more and more diva demands, how is it that Chris Noth hadn’t even been approached? This begs the question that I had at the beginning: how far along in development was this film? The way SJP made it sound, they were ready to start filming in a month. Which probably wouldn’t have been the case if they hadn’t even gotten Chris Noth to sign on too.

Beyond that… as I said yesterday, Sarah Jessica and her people need to stop. The Team Cattrall sources make excellent points here: maybe Kim was talking to producers, seeing how much money she could get, and seeing if they would allow the Samantha character to have a bit of dignity. When it was clear that Sam was still going to be cartoon character, a parody of an older cougar, and when it was clear that Kim wasn’t going to be paid as well as she wanted to, of course Kim said no. Why suffer through all of that indignity once again?

Kim Cattrall attends a screening of her movie 'Sensitive Skin' as part of the Jameson Dublin International Film Festival

New York City Ballet Fall Fashion Gala 2017 - Arrivals

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

144 Responses to “People: Sarah Jessica Parker was the only one making big money on SATC”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Talie says:

    Kim did mention in an instagram comment about not wanting to do certain things at 61, so I see her point. On the show, Samantha was never the punch-line…but she did become that in the movies.

    • Char says:

      First, no one, not even die hard fans, wanted a third movie. The second was so, so bad, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda were turned into charicatures to support the even more annoying Carrie.

      What would this movie be about? Carrie running into Berger, now a famous writer, and questioning (again) her love for Big while in Dior $798 shirts and Balenciaga boots? While her friends are kept from growing since Carrie HAS TO BE the most interesting character and let’s face it, she was always the least interesting one?

      Kim IS SO RIGHT on saying “no”, they couldn’t approach Samantha’a cancer with dignity, they ruined the character on the movies and if you were at least making money. She comes out as a winner for me and SJP comes out as…Carrie: stupid, selfish, annoying and out of touch.

      • minx says:

        I can see why SJP is addicted to this gig. She undoubtedly makes tons of money, has some creative control, and gets to play dress up and be the center of attention.

      • Sherry says:

        My favorite storyline for Samantha was when she was with Smith and going through the cancer scare. I loved that love story and saw so much personal growth for Samantha during that time. I hated that the movie broke them up and turned Samantha back into a one dimensional, “The only that matters is sex” character.

        The second movie was crap and the bullying of Kim for not wanting to do a third crap movie has turned me off of SJP.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ Char:

        The one character I absolutely HATED was that Berger character. The most annoyingly passive aggressive bitch of a man I’ve ever seen on Television.

        I’d much rather date a criminal than him.

      • Megan says:

        The second film was so bad I am actually stunned any studio would consider a third.

      • shiba says:

        Plus, while Ms. Cattrall’s not Joan of Arc, I think she realized that the constant disparaging of Samantha’s getting older, subtly supports misogynistic cultural standards. Kim choose not to participate in something that diminishes women (everyone ages except dead people!)
        Successful movies shape social mores; filmmakers have responsibility in what they make. Kim Cattrall owned hers.

    • Clare says:

      Minx – its also a vehicle to flog her shit – shoes etc,

    • lavin says:

      I hated what they did to Samantha’s character in the second film. They made her a mess, a dripping sweaty mess, constant menopause, highstrung, needing her supplements to live and then they made her behave as if she had no common sense, The script was insulting to Samantha’s character and made her seem OLD and Useless unless she was chasing men. I hated it. Kim Cattrall one of the most beautiful women , they turned into a unattractive mess, because she hit 50’s , it was insulting to all women, young and older.

      Carrie’s character was meanwhile, was suppose to be a spry as the 20 something girl who arrived in NYC all those years ago. I think it was very mean what they did to Samantha’s character and to Charlotte and Miranda.

  2. Kath Day says:

    That header pic of SJP is so bad…

    • Sara says:

      She wears such heavy eyemakeup which paradoxically makes her beautiful eyes lool smaller.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Her eye makeup is aging and makes her eyes look tiny. I don’t get it.

      • Bread and Circuses says:

        She has always had strong features, and her fine lines do show now, so I wonder if the dark eyeliner is an attempt to distract from those two things a bit. With a little soft focus or distance, she looks much like she always has, thanks to her fair skin and the strong contrast of her eye makeup.

    • Jules343 says:

      I think she does her eye makeup like that to try and hide her crows feet, but it’s just about the most counter-productive thing she could possibly do.

      • Elizabeth says:

        She is only 52. The women I know irl who look like that header photo at her age have done some really hard living. But she has resources–and trying to sell shoes and act in bubble gum movies is good incentive to look well rested, hydrated. Somebody please explain that photo to me??

      • tracking says:

        @Elizabeth– chain smoking and dieting

      • minx says:

        tracking–exactly. I’m 13 years older than SJP and don’t have lines like that. You pay a price for being extremely skinny after a certain age. And smoking.

      • Maddy says:

        @minx I remember reading a comment somewhere that at a certain age you make a choice, your arse or your face. I think SJP has made hers!

      • minx says:

        Maddy, true!

    • HH says:

      It’s clear she wants that to be her signature look, but signature looks should be flattering first and foremost.

    • Bellagio DuPont says:

      SJP’s eye makeup looks absolutely ghastly on that picture. It makes her look incredibly cruel (which I’m sure shes probably not).

      I really wouldn’t mind a fresh character in place of Kim’s actually. Might bring back a bit of freshness to the story. Maybe even cross reference a character from similarish shows set in New York like Grace from Will and Grace, or maybe even Monica from Friends.

      That might be interesting.

    • Holly hobby says:

      Oh yeah that picture isn’t doing her any favors. She should fire her make up artist.

  3. Alexandria says:

    I believe the Celebitches in the film industry that this third ‘beautiful story’ was not about to start filming. Sue KC if she has signed. I’ve never even heard of KC being difficult, she has laid low a lot.

    Also, just wanna ask if KC has had work done? In any case, her makeup in these pics were nicely done.

    • Jayna says:

      I saw her in an interview this year. She’s had subtle work done and a little filler, smooth jawline, but she looked great. She had forehead lines, a few lines at the corner of her eyes. She didn’t look all pulled and plumped. She’s 61 and aging far better than SJP.

    • minxx says:

      KC looks much younger than SJP even though she’s almost 10 years older.
      I think that the second SATC was already too much, I can’t imagine the third movie. KC had every right to say no, IMO.

    • tty says:

      If the Sony leak taught us anything, it’s that studios bullshit everyone all the time. I’m guessing they told all the remaining actors that everyone else was on board and they were all set to start filming anytime now, while still trying to figure out how to convince KC and refusing to accept her “No”.

      • abby says:

        ITA

        Negotiations are “private” but who knows what the producers/studio was saying to the rest of the cast. SJP as producer would be privy but she can manipulate the narrative in her favor and the other cast members would be clueless.

        Either way, I have no interest in this film. Never did, less so now.

  4. HelloSunshine says:

    SJP keeps looking worse and worse in this. Girl, just stop. I am also questioning how far along this could have actually been if they didn’t lock down one of the most recognizable characters from it. I thought the implication was that they already had crew and stuff that were now out of a job. Did SJP or whoever throw that out just to make KC look bad??

  5. SKF says:

    Team Kim all the way!!!

  6. Margo S. says:

    Well now Sarah Jessica Parker is on my sh!t list. She’s messing with Kim too much. Girl, get over it.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Margo: Me too, which makes me sad because I’ve always liked her, way back to when “Square Pegs” was on. But this is just ridiculous the way she’s treating Kim.

      I hope this doesn’t ruin “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun” for me — it’s one of those movies I can watch over and over again. I always stop whatever I’m doing if I come across it on tv.

  7. Lily says:

    SJP needs fo chill a bit. Damn, the second film was absolutely horrendous; I don’t know why suddenly she’s so adamant about the third one as if it’s going to be any different.

    Also, who’s dying to watch another 2 hours of selfish Carrie whining about Big while wearing Galliano as most of New York is working their asses off? Sex & the city’s train has passed. Let it be.

    Also, SJP is aging like buttermilk left out in the sun. I used to really like her but all of this Kim bashing is ridiculous, unfair, & mean.

    • minx says:

      I don’t believe they have a “beautiful story” to tell.

      • Alix says:

        It’s an ugly story about a so-called feminist celeb who’s perfectly willing to throw another woman under the bus, same as any sexist producer would, when the lil’ lady doesn’t do as she’s bid.

        The inevitable publicist-prodded explanation/mea culpa about this mess, when it comes, will be a masterpiece of of vacuous double-speak and an impassioned plea for the media/public to pay attention to all the current horrors in the world, not just SJP’s nasty little corner of it.

    • Marianne says:

      “SJP needs fo chill a bit. Damn, the second film was absolutely horrendous; I don’t know why suddenly she’s so adamant about the third one as if it’s going to be any different.’

      Because money. Regardless of how well the film did critically, it still has a huge fanbase. Also, they’re women over a certain age where roles start to dry up. What was the last big movie that SJP did that people remember? I mean the last thing I can think of is that movie with Hugh Grant. And that was like 6 or so years ago.

  8. Nicole says:

    Ugh yea SJP looks ridiculous for this every day they drag this out. Like I said yesterday Samantha was treated the worst in the movies. I can see why Kim would not want to make another movie with the crap they put her character through.
    And the money thing: I’ve actually heard that before. That SJP makes substantially more than the others. Which several seasons and two movies later makes no sense. They should’ve had pay parity.
    Listen SJP caused the show to end she should know how this plays out

  9. my3cents says:

    Who really wanted a third movie anyway? I can only see SJP and her bank account.

  10. MMC says:

    They are both pushing a narrative and the truth is somewhere in the middle. It’s hard to believe all of this is coming from SJP’s camp as she doesn’t have the reputation for trash talk. And KC made some nice bank from side projects that came about due to the Samantha character. Samantha storylines that are being called humiliating in today’s story were called brave, honest and the most realistic of the series in stories just this week. Come on already. And none of them seem to be crying poverty.

    • HelloSunshine says:

      There are many stories from filming the movies and show about SJP mean girling KC so I’m def learning towards KC’s version of things. Either way, no one asked for a third film but SJP it seems lol

    • magnoliarose says:

      She leaked like crazy but covered her tracks some. She wants to get back to her fashionista status, but it isn’t Kim’s job to help her with that.

  11. Carol says:

    am I the only one who didn’t even think the show was that good in the first place? people act like it was some kinda revolutionary feminist statement. It was just a show about shallow, catty, semi privileged people.

    • Originaltessa says:

      I can’t watch the show anymore. 16 year old me thought it was fantastic. 30 year old me thinks it’s ridiculous.

    • Snowflake says:

      I love it. It was nice to see a woman having a career and not being pressured into marriage and kids. Unlike what I saw and experienced growing up.

    • Zuzus Girl says:

      Not alone Carol. I thought it was awful, esp the SJP character. She was always so selfish and uncomfortable without a man.

    • Angel says:

      To play devil’s advocate though, isn’t that what we want?
      Layered, flawed characters who don’t do the right thing all the time. Who have agency and sometimes use it badly. We can’t have a thread one day about how often women are told be pleasent and smile more then turn around and slag a show with unapologeticly selfish (sometimes), demanding (sometimes), irritating women. The show does not age well but at the time it started conversations and let women say things that were not always said.
      We don’t watch Hamlet because he is perfect, we don’t watch Luther (BBC Idris Elba) because he is perfect, we don’t like half the male characters on GoT because they are good men. We watch them because they have depth and are complicated.
      My feminism (which you don’t have to agree with) does not want more perfect women, just more well written women who are complicated and maybe not perfect.

    • GinT says:

      You are definitely not alone Carol, I hated that show. I used to watch it a bit in the beginning but it’s just so stupid filled with annoying parody characters. I never bothered with the movies but I firmly believe the world does not need a third one.

      Also, SJP is 52??? She looks almost as old as my mom who is closer to 70 now. That eye make-up is not good.

      • Ksenia says:

        Agreed. I found the characters to be stereotypical and too privileged and petty to connect with. I stopped watching after about 5 episodes when I realized how much more focus was on what they wore, not who they were. Or they were just too uninteresting for me to care. @ Angel: “Imperfect” does not automatically mean “interesting” or “layered” in personality. It can just mean boring AND flawed. That was the characters of Sex and the City to me.

  12. Radley says:

    I get Kim’s points. The article was dumb to include menopause as an example of humiliating the character of Samantha. That’s sort of an empowering plot line that a woman who looks great and still has a life and career is also menopausal. I just wanted to complain about that. LOL

    • Rose says:

      Yes I agree! it’s not humiliating to be in menopause i think one of the humiliating scenes in the second film was when Sam was waiving condoms at people in a Bazaar, it was out of character and extreme. But then I fee like that film was humiliating for all involved and I was a huge fan on the tv series. It had it’s moment in the late 90s but hasn’t aged that well.

      • Paperclip468 says:

        The point isn’t that menopause is humiliating, it’s that they made it so with their characterization of it. It’s a shame, because they handled Sam’s breast cancer storyline beautifully.

  13. jferber says:

    I’ve also heard that SJP makes mint on these movies and the others make peanuts. I totally believe it. But that was also true for the Star Trek movies, I’m sure. This is an old Hollywood game, and though I’d like to talk shit about SJP for allowing this, I know no one expected William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy or any other male star to make sure their co-stars got a fair shake. In fact, the Star Trek co-stars complained that Shatner would call them the day before the shoot to tell them they were in the movie.

  14. Elena says:

    I have read about the ways she used the films as a money making opportunity, this article (http://nypost.com/2010/05/18/cah-carrie/) from the time of the second film’s release has details about it. Was taken aback at how much product placement there was.

    • Paperclip468 says:

      Good comment. I mean, really, how much more is ENOUGH for heaven’s sake? SJP is already richer than Creesus and is fashion/persona-beloved across many platforms! I think she has soiled that now and, as a result, it’s she – not KC – that put the nail in the coffin on SATC. For SJP, it’s all about relevance and holding on to the ‘it girl’ thing. Perhaps it’s time to go forward and become relevant as an ‘it’ WOMAN. Times have changed…grow the eff up and move on.

      • minx says:

        SJP and Matthew Broderick own multiple expensive NYC townhouses and apartments. They are always buying and selling-I read that they bought 2 side by side townhouses for $34 million and wanted to make one mega mansion. The same article said they own “at least” 3 houses in the Hamptons. So it’s easy to see why she would want more SATC cash.

      • tty says:

        > So it’s easy to see why she would want more SATC cash.

        It’s not. Quite the opposite, in fact…

      • ravynrobyn says:

        “SOILED” is THE perfect word!

      • minx says:

        tty– Touché! Yes.

  15. Jules343 says:

    What would this film have even been about? By the end of the series they were already starting to cross into depressing territory. A 30-something flailing cluelessly and carelessly through life is silly but still fairly entertaining, if done right. 40-something, it’s just getting a little pathetic. 50-something it’s just sad, no matter how many Manolo’s she has.

    I mean, there’s certainly material to mine there, but it would have to be far more dramatic than SATC ever was for more than a minute or two.

    On the other hand, if all the characters finally have it together and are just going about their lives, well that’s just boring. I just don’t see how they were going to make another SATC film that holds onto the vibe of the series and the first film, not with the characters at this stage of their lives. And I doubt the idea was to implement a big tonal change.

  16. Sam says:

    What even happened in the second movie??
    Ive seen the first one and vaguely remember the ending.

    Can someone give me a quick recap?

    • greenmonster says:

      Carrie is bored, Charlotte is overwhelmed with two kids (despite a fulltime nanny), Miranda is annoyed with her boss and Samantha is in menopause. They all go to Abu Dhabi and drag everything about the culture through the mud. Carrie meets Aiden on a market, kisses him, tells Big and gets a black diamond in the end.

      • Sam says:

        Thanks for the quick recap!
        It sounds terrible, more like a movie length episode, I’m sure the 3rd would be just as bad if not worse.

  17. greenmonster says:

    Wouldn’t we have heard about it IF they wanted to start filming in a month? No rumors about a new movie, no storylines leaking – nothing. How come they wanted to start filming in a couple of weeks if the 4th lead hadn’t even signed the contract?
    Maybe they haven’t approached Chris Noth because they wanted to kill him off and Carrie is all about being a widow for two or three years and is now getting back into the dating life. That’s also why they can’t kill off Samantha. Killing off two characters? That’s not going to happen.

  18. ANOTHER DAY says:

    Well one of those sources didn’t see the first movie or get the plot right, so they can’t be all that credible. In movie #1 Samantha was not dumped by her boyfriend ~ she ended the relationship as she felt consumed by it. Not sure making her turn 50 was humiliating either …. but The Whole “she gained weight (15 pounds) by eating her feelings” was cringe worthy.

    Everything about #2 was horrid.

    • Chinoiserie says:

      I agree, was just about to post this.

    • Mrs. Darcy says:

      Yeah, that really bugged me too (the Samantha got” fat” thing) – like her friend Carrie actually fat shamed her the first time she saw her – the f**k?! Sometimes it feels like Michal Patrick King actually hates women.

    • jugil1 says:

      @ ANOTHER DAY, thanks. You saved me the trouble of mentioning how the their sources were wrong about the ending of movie #1.

  19. The Original G says:

    Maybe Samantha and Mr. Big run off together in disgust?

  20. Char says:

    The bit about Noth makes this interesting to me because, what if the reason they are all freaking out is because they know they can’t kill off Samantha because it would be too big a storyline over the fact that they are already killing off Big? So maybe Kim really did get a finally “dig” in at them, saying to just kill Samantha off, knowing that it would take away from Carries “I lost the love of my life” storyline.

    • minx says:

      Ooh, that is interesting, and could be true. Big’s death would free Carrie to take advantage of all the beautiful men throwing themselves at her. She’d be a single gal again.

    • Mindy_dopple says:

      Char!!! I think you hit the nail on the head! They were going to kill off Big so that Carrie could have her SITC days back and an assortment of men at her feet. They can’t make a movie mourning two characters or ignore one without constantly mentioning the other. If she’s a producer and really wanted this movie made, she should have given everyone more money (because there’s not a shortage) and given them a little more meat. Her treatment of them as lesser characters shows exactly how she views them, she’s the star and they should be happy to work for her.

  21. grabbyhands says:

    Man, SJP is SALTY about this.

    I feel like I have now heard more about SATC in the last week or so than I did when it was actually on air. The last movie came out how many years ago and it got terrible reviews – like, who was even checking for this?? I don’t get her obsession about this.

    On a purely catty note, someone needs to take the black eyeliner away from her.

  22. Jenna says:

    Guys. Slow down on the SJP hate train. First of all she is a producer / of course she’s cashing in. Second of all – it is possible that Kim is being a diva. Third of all – SJP hasn’t alluded to Kim at all – she just said it wasn’t being done and it was a pity. We and the gossip websites are running wild with accusations based on nothing at all. Cheesy movies, let’s move on. Can we dissect a Trump tweet already?

    • Lula says:

      But SJP’s buddies are dragging KC – maybe without specifically naming her, but the implication is enough to have weirdo SATC superfans jumping down KC’s throat.

      As a producer she could’ve stopped all of this by following up KC’s statements with a statement about the film not moving forward being no one’s fault, it just wasn’t meant to be, etc.

      SJP’s inaction, given how this has blown up, speaks volumes about any motives she might have for trashing KC’s reputation.

    • minx says:

      Again, if KC was such a diva, why would anyone want to work with her again? Wouldn’t SJP and the others be relieved to be done with her? That’s the part that makes no sense. “Oh, Kim was awful but we want to do another movie with her. But she’s still awful!”

    • MissMarierose says:

      It’s interesting that a woman who demands more money and more control over her career is a “diva” but a man who does that is just a boss.

    • Elaine says:

      The point is that she’s making bank, yet slamming KC for wanting more dough.

      I agree on ‘no’ to a third film. Teenage me *lived* for the show. Oh god those clothes…

      Now? I do not want to see where they might take those characters. I do not want to see Miranda and Steve break up, or Carrie ruin her marriage or or or

      Just let it go.
      *Puts on Elsa costume. Buys blonde wing. Sings Frozen theme song* Let.it.go.

  23. Cassie 231 says:

    KC has a fkourishing theatre career – she pacjs houses in London’s West End. She doesn’t need another Sex in the City film.

  24. Lizzie says:

    cynthia nixon is an education advocate and is being pressured to run for governor of NY. surely she doesn’t want to be in a third crappy SATC movie cracking diarrhea jokes?

    besides – what is this beautiful story? carrie, a fifty year old woman, grappling with having a child with her sixty some year old husband and coming to the conclusion that her family is her friends? getting a surrogate for her and standford and anthony with some montage of potential baby mamas where anthony keeps screaming “NEXT!” and some IVF hi-jinks? the assistant from the first movie dies and carrie and big adopt her kid ala baby boom? samantha’s vag dries up and falls out and she has to learn to love without sex? miranda is still a bitch? i’d love to hear this amazing, heartfelt one of a kind story they pitched.

    • minx says:

      LMAO, I think you nailed it.
      Speaking of Jennifer Hudson’s assistant role….I remember that scene where she is answering Carrie’s correspondence (2 feel away from Carrie) while Carrie sits on her a** in her small apartment, flipping through a magazine. What a princess. Or when JHud told Carrie she couldn’t get her old NYC area code and Carrie whined “But I’m a 212 girl!” Carrie couldn’t attend to these various tasks because she was so busy doing…..what?

    • Tourmaline says:

      LMAO this is hilarious. “NEXT!” hahaaha
      So.over.SJP.
      Team Cattrall.

  25. Mrs. Darcy says:

    Can’t we just have a spinoff film about Miranda and her cats in Brooklyn? (after Steve dies in a suitably terrible accident ;-0). SJP’s ego was way too indulged in the films, her storylines were boring and overdone. Even though Samantha’s scenes were trashy comic relief (well in the first one), they brought much needed light. I don’t think a film would work with just the three of them, and they know that. They should have kept Cattrall happy, there is seemingly a long standing resentment here that has led to such an ugly public spat. It’s a shame it ended with such a turkey of a film, but that is on the producers/writers, not Cattrall. I am disappointed in Kristin Davis for taking sides with SJP, feels like she is just ganging up on the bullying/blaming Kim train when it’s obviously more complex.

  26. Liane says:

    All this drama is more entertaining than any script they may have for a third movie.

  27. prissa says:

    She has beautiful eyes. Why does she smother them in that dreadful black mascara???

  28. Maum says:

    SJP was on a UK chat show a while ago and other guests were talking about Carrie being needy and high maintenance.
    She turned really defensive and cross- she seemed really humourless and annoyed that the panel weren’t worshipping at the altar of Carrie.

    It seems that in her head she’s identifying herself as her character and she’s stuck in the early noughties.

    In my early 20s I used to love the show. When I watch reruns now I hate watch Carrie.

    • Jayna says:

      I’m surprised by that reaction. Sarah has talked about how different she is from the character and how she found it hard not to judge the character she portrayed at times.

  29. Suzanne says:

    These women are OVER the hill…Quit while you’re ahead. I agree with Samantha! Enough already.

    • Zuzus Girl says:

      Which hill is that? At what age do you think women should crawl into the woods and die?

    • Rosalee says:

      I am 57 years old, my legs are amazing my ass is tight enough to bounce a quarter off…I’m a granny, a mom and I have fabulous sex..so where the hell is this hill? My story is not over at my age there are different streams from your 20’s, 30’s and 40’s..this period of life is where you are comfortable in your skin, your voice is louder, your opinions more forceful. You recognize life is in a constant state of evolution and become more fluid. So f**k the hill..

      • Maum says:

        I think the characters, rather than the actresses, are over the hill.

        The show hit a certain zeitgeist 15 years ago. Problem is after 2 films the level of maturity of the characters was the not only the same, but actually going backwards.
        The films were about product placement and ‘being fabulous’.
        Case in point: Stanford who in the series was living a relatively (although moaning about lack of sex) settled life with his boyfriend.
        In the films out of nowhere he suddenly starts dating and ends up marrying the other token gay character in the show. Who happens to be a guy he had despised for years.

        There’s also the nanny-with-no-bra-and-bouncing-tits.
        Running joke that literally all the guys perve on her but then she turns out to be a lesbian so all is good.

        That is cheap and insulting to the fans. Hence= over the hill.

  30. smcollins says:

    There are more than enough comments about all this drama so I’m going to address the “source’s” lack of knowledge about the first film surrounding Samantha. Smith didn’t dump Sam, she left him. Her life became all about him and his career and she felt that she lost who she was. Like she told him, “I love you, but I love me more.” She reclaimed herself and her independence. It ended with it being her 50th bday I think because the very first episode had a dinner scene celebrating her 40th. A little throwback, if you will. In case it’s not obvious I’m a big SATC fan (despite that god-awful second movie) 😉. I wish this would all stop, though, because it’s going to wind up ruining it for me

  31. kimbers says:

    sjp and her squad 😈 continue to look like desperate, old, wrinkled bishes who are holding onto their glory days with both liver spotted hands clenched! Kim has aged gracefully, while sjp has not. There was never a contract and I will never watch a production with sjp or that crappy thirsty actress Charlotte(no clue what her name actually).

    #teamKim

  32. D says:

    SJP is coming accriss as a twunt and KC as a dignified professional

  33. Carey says:

    Kim’s outrageous demands were not really outrageous. “Buy her films in development and to give her a TV deal” I mean, why not? She’s a working actress who is looking beyond that one project. Are we supposed to hate on her because she had aspirations to a robust career beyond SATC?

    • Holly hobby says:

      Or she could just be making those demands so they will balk, walk away and leave her alone. I’ve known contractors who highly inflate the price for their services because they did not want to do the job.

  34. Mac says:

    How much money does SJP need. She selling shop shoes with me for $400 an hour. Greed. I never watched this show (smile)

  35. Zuzus Girl says:

    On a superficial note, SJP desperately needs to change her make-up styling. That heavy liner she’s been doing for years is killing her face. And let SATC die a natural death. It has not held up over time.

  36. Savasana Lotus says:

    This is just what I said yesterday. My money is on the script killing Samantha off. If I were Kim, I’d want something for that. Either that, or they made her look like a foolish afterthought like in the first two movies. It’s so obvious in those films that they don’t respect her. IMO she’s been the soul of restraint. These producers see her as washed up and let her know by trashing her rep and career nonstop. Without the balls to put their names behind it. Big babies.

  37. Ozogirl says:

    Samantha dumped Smith in the first movie, not the other way around.

    If Kim was interested in the script and pay out, I think that’s completely reasonable even if she was saying “no”. She probably knew that it would be a crap script anyway, but she wanted a good laugh before saying no.

    What else is there to address with these characters anyway?!? I loved the show, but it’s over. They’ve successfully beat a dead horse. Let the characters have their happy endings!

  38. Citresse says:

    SJP was in Toronto recently selling her shoes. She turned up at a mall and was originally due to walk around the mall in her shoes, you know, kind of a walking ad. But at the last minute, she changed her mind and decided to have a meet and greet with her fans at Browns shoes. The security was very tight. The doors were closed to the shoe store while security vetted certain people access into the store. Pure diva.

    • Holly hobby says:

      Wow she acts like she’s Hillary Clinton – which is understandable given her former role as First Lady. I went to Hilary’s book signing and we were screened by Secret Service.

  39. Meg says:

    Doing the movie without Kim would defeat the purpose of the movie, just like doing full house but not bringing the original cast back, the audience is there for nostalgia, without the original cast what’s the point? Also stringing someone along is a tease and unfair to others. Kim has had bad press about being difficult since the beginning but this blog seems to ignore all of that because he writer of these posts clearly doesn’t like the movies

    • Anon33 says:

      It’s a blog. Not the NYT. You can find blogs that agree with your perspective if you don’t like the writer’s take.

  40. Wendy says:

    Love KC!

    Has anyone seen her show Sensitive Skin?????? It is Canadian. Has 2 seasons. It’s super good!!!!!

    • Doc says:

      I have! I think it’s really good, but am wondering about the third season, as the last one ended on a cliff hanger… or is that the end? I love KC in it; she also successfully managed to move away from the SJ character.
      I yhink SJP’s show Divorce is also really hood and by the last season I watched she had finally started to lose Carrie, which is something that seems hard for her.
      I hope I’m making sense, it’s early, haven’t had my coffee ☕️ yet…

  41. OTHER RENEE says:

    I remember reading an interview with SJP before the script for the second movie was even written and she said, “It needs to be a romp.” Which explains how the ridiculous storyline come to be. So I’m not trusting her judgement when it comes to the quality of scripts.

    And I don’t blame KC one bit for not wanting to be a caricature in yet another film. And I do think they should all be making the same money. But I’m going to admit that had there been a third movie, I would have liked to see it if only to see if they had redeemed themselves for the previous fiasco.

    I watched the series for the first time when it was in reruns and I was going through a divorce. I wasn’t bar hopping or dating a pile of inappropriate men, but it was good timing for me as I navigated being single again after a long marriage.

  42. HK9 says:

    Kim looks amazing for 61 and SJP, is looking a little haggard in that photo. While I’ll always love SATC the characters & the fashion, it’s over. Just let it be.

  43. d says:

    I always thought Carrie was beyond insufferable and couldn’t understand why anyone would want to be like her. Or why any man would want to marry her. And she was a terrible friend. At most, a trophy wife. Anyway, this pile-on of KC seems really weird. Is there some rule or contract where she needs to be in the film? If they aren’t comfortable doing it without her, then maybe she does deserve the money and/or maybe it’s not that strong of a film idea anyway. If she was holding out and being unreasonable, I still don’t see how that would stop the film from happening, if everything else really is hunky-dory (which … I mean there can’t be if it crumbles like this [the only thing maybe is if the script has KC in it so much that removing her would cause a whole rewrite…still can’t judge though, without knowing how they were treating her character]). All those comments at KC make THEM look bad, not Catrell. Good on her for sticking up for herself against what simply looks like mean girls. Sheesh.
    And oh yeah, SJP REALLY NEEDS TO LAY OFF THE BLACK EYELINER. Good grief.

  44. TeresaMaria says:

    I am definitely team Kim here hence a bit biased (and a bit mean as well) but I have to say Kim Catrall at 61 looks a hell of a lot better than SJP who is 10 years younger. And I don’t mean wrinkles etc., – Kim just looks relaxed, happy and content with her life while SJP looks posing and pretending. Or maybe SJP just does not photograph well.

  45. Rori says:

    I’m team Cattrall on this. The others are making themselves look terrible

  46. OTHER RENEE says:

    Didn’t SJP make a big deal a while back about how she ruined her feet and was told by a podiatrist to forego wearing heels? Was that just to promote a line of flats or…?

  47. LittlefishMom says:

    Loved that show in its prime. Watched every week and I think the movies, maybe not the first one, are a huge mistake. Leave with some dignity.

  48. gwen says:

    SJP really needs to lay off the dark eyeliner. It’s a terrible look and ages her in a bad way.

  49. Overit says:

    SJP looks like she should be working on the reboot of Hocus Pocus not Sex In The City.

  50. Kath says:

    One of the issues I had with SJP – especially as a producer – was that as the supposed ‘star’ of the show, it was only the OTHER actors who had to perform nude scenes while she refused to do so. I though that was exploitative as f–k.

    KC was disproportionately the one who had to appear naked and do risque things in all sorts of embarrassing and compromising scenarios, while SJP just got to swan around in designer clothes while being (improbably) complimented and pursued by a series of desirable men.

    Who wants to put up with that crap at the age of 61, especially if it means returning to a toxic work environment just so SJP can make bank and expand her property portfolio?

    Kim has spent the past decade or so stretching herself as an actor, establishing herself as a theatre actor in the UK and making a bunch of interesting TV series. She has actually been the most successful and acclaimed of the SATC cast after the show ended. Why on earth would someone in that position accept peanuts to be SJP’s whipping girl again?

    • minx says:

      +10000000

    • ALF-M says:

      ITA 💯. That being said, to be fair, post SATC, Cynthia Nixon was just nominated for a Tony for the Broadway Show Rebecca, had a great story arc for a season on Showtime’s awesome show Thw Big C, which main star was Laura Linney, her Rebecca co-star. She’a been in many movies and played Emily Dickenson in one. She has been in countless off broadway and broadway plays. She has also gotten into NY politics. So Cynthia’s career has been doing just fine. I think because she has known SJPand worked together since they were kids, she would do SATC3 because they have a long relationship. She doesn’t need to do it though and neither does Kim for their career status. Unlike, Kristin, Willie, etc might need a pay check. I remember reading months ago that according to to Chris Noth, when
      asked about doing a SATC3, he hadn’t heard a thing from producers at all and wasn’t interested in doing it either. The way that the producers and SJP shadily blamed Kim in the press has really backfired and personally has turned me off forever on SJP. She should focus on making her stupid clothing and shoe line more of a success than making another unnecessary, SATC turd burglar sequel since this is obviously really about adding coins to her already big bank account, not about making film art or genuinely promoting true sisterhood and support!

    • SoyFrappe says:

      Totally agree, Kath.

  51. Scout says:

    For the love of all things sacred, when will women who have such a lot of obvious cosmetic work done on their faces stop ringing their eyes with black liner?
    It only makes the hideousness more horrific.
    Staaaaaap.

  52. Vovicia says:

    Sorry to be picky – but Samantha dumped Smith in the first movie – not the other way around. And it was played (somewhat ham-handedly I admit) as Samantha regaining her independence.
    I personally don’t believe that SJP is behind all this stuff. I think she’s generally a pretty classy act in the business. I think MPK is behind it. SJP is always going to protect her product – she was the producer – she’s not going to come out and say the films were shit. Nor do I believe that the other ladies don’t see any money from syndication – if that’s what that line is implying. Either way – there is not going to be a third film (thank God) so they might as well stop bitching.