Kim Cattrall never wanted to do SATC3, says SJP ‘could have been nicer’

Still images from 'Sex and the City'

Last week, Sarah Jessica Parker announced that the Sex and the City 3 movie wasn’t happening. I thought the film was still in the “development hell/don’t have a script” phase, but apparently they did have a script and everyone was on board except for Kim Cattrall. SJP actually didn’t mention Cattrall by name when she spoke to Extra – SJP only said that “we’re not doing it… I’m disappointed.” Of course, the Daily Mail got an exclusive in which unnamed sources did the heavy lifting for Sarah Jessica Parker. Those sources claimed Cattrall made outrageous demands in exchange for her agreement to do SATC3, and that Cattrall wanted a lot of money, etc, etc, diva this, “playing the victim” that. That DM article was incredibly harsh to Cattrall. And so now Cattrall is addressing the claims that SATC3 isn’t happening because she’s a diva and an a–hole.

Elaborating on her side of the story during an interview taped for Piers Morgan’s ITV show, Life Stories, Kim Cattrall denounced claims against her conduct and turned the tables on her co-star.

“And now, now at this very moment it’s quite extraordinary to get any kind of negative press about something that I’ve been saying for almost a year of ‘no’ that I’m demanding or a diva,” Cattrall told Morgan, according to The Daily Mail. “And this is really where I take to task the people from Sex and the City and specifically Sarah Jessica Parker in that I think she could have been nicer. I really think she could have been nicer,” she reiterated. “I don’t know what her issue is, I never have.” However, Cattrall also said, “There is genuine affection and there has been over the years.”

As she elaborated to Morgan, according to The Daily Mail, “This is extenuating circumstances and in the past I’ve felt, wow, especially with the fans I don’t want to in any shape or form ruin an ideal of it, because it does stand for empowerment and it does stand for women sticking up for each other, but not always.”

Overall, it seems Cattrall has lost touch with her castmates. “They all have children and I am ten years older and since specifically the series ended I have been spending most of my time outside of New York so I don’t see them,” she said during the interview. “The common ground that we had was the series and the series is over.”

While questions remain over what caused the third film’s demise, Cattrall insisted she always rejected the project. “The answer was always no and a respectful, firm, no,” Cattrall told Morgan, according to The Daily Mail. “I never asked for any money, I never asked for any projects, to be thought of as some kind of diva is absolutely ridiculous.”

According to The Daily Mail, Cattrall explained during the interview that she had received sporadic calls since December about the project with offers to meet with producers, all of which she said she declined. “This isn’t about more money, this is not about more scenes, it’s not about any of those things,” she told Morgan. “This is about a clear decision, an empowered decision in my life to end one chapter and start another. I’m 61. It’s now.”

While she reportedly declared to Morgan we will never see her on screen as Samantha Jones again, she’s not opposed to recasting the character or introducing a new one entirely.

“I want them to make the movie, if that’s what they want to do. It’s a great part. I played it past the finish line and then some and I loved it and another actress should play it,” she suggested during the interview. “Or bring in another character. It can be another character. This is what I really believe that this franchise needs another point of view and this could be it.”

[From E! News]

*shrug* I believe her. I believe that she had been saying no from the beginning. Kim and Sarah Jessica never got along, but they made it work together professionally through the course of the TV show. Kim probably did get nice paychecks for the two movies, and she was done. She’s 61 years old, she doesn’t want to still be playing the sex-starved Samantha at this point. And I admire her for sticking up for what she believed was right for the characters and the story. The second film was an appalling mess and there is no good reason why a third film should be made.

Kim Cattrall & Sarah Jessica Parker

Photos courtesy of WENN and HBO.

Related stories

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

118 Responses to “Kim Cattrall never wanted to do SATC3, says SJP ‘could have been nicer’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Clare says:

    Right? She’s 61 years old – if she wants to chill and not make another (shitty, let’s be honest) film with people she doesn’t particularly like, then I really don’t see the problem with that.

    Also, had this been a man, would the ‘demanding diva’ narrative have been pushed this far? Of course not. Ugh.

    • Lahdidahbaby says:

      Good point. Women can be sexist toward other women, it’s just too bad it’s these women.

    • minx says:

      I like the way she put it–she took Samantha to the finish line and beyond. Enough. Let it be.

    • Eleonor says:

      If she was a man things would be sooo different.
      Anyway it seems to me sha has always been clear about not wanting to do another SATC movie, so no news for me.

    • courtney says:

      exactly. so over this. the movies sucked anyways. sad that this series is SJP’s entire career but she’s made millions, she does not have my sympathy. get the hell over it

  2. Nicole says:

    I believe her too. The second movie was awful esp for her character. No development and a slip backwards. I believe she was done with the one note Samantha and the disparity over the checks.

    • Amide says:

      I believe her but I feel obligated to defend SJP here. She’s one of the nicest celebs behind the scenes.
      I can’t believe she’s solely behind this poison.😢

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

        Were I Catrall, I would stay away from a reboot simply for the sake of my future career. Period.

        Leave it where it is, with nostalgia for the fans of the original series. The movies just detract from the series.

      • Kanye's Blonde Hair says:

        She’s known for that from a crew, entourage POV. Sandra Bernhard did a Howard Stern interview where she said she was approached to play Miranda and she turned it down because the script was terrible and she wanted nothing to do with SJP. And she describes how bad she is, I got the sense it was SJP being passive aggressive. So as much as I love her, it can all be lies and PR. The timing of Cattrall’s diva demands are new, and I remember reports of her never being on board for this one. I’m team Kim on this one…. omg I’ve never said that before

      • Bridget says:

        Bernhardt turned it down because the salary was tiny and she just came off of Roseanne.

      • denisemich says:

        @bridget. Bernhardt clearly stated she didn’t want to work with SJP that people hate her.

      • Vovicia says:

        I don’t think she is perpetrating the poison – I mean the DM creates that shit up just on their own I’m sure – but I think SJP and the others are probably misguidedly not saying the truth because they think they are ‘protecting’ Kim from taking the blame for not having a third movie. But it’s clear she doesn’t give a shit that people know it – so when SJP and Kristin Davis are all cagey about why it’s not happening they sound as if they are trying to create drama – whether they are or not.

  3. Lahdidahbaby says:

    I believe her too. And don’t blame her at all for how she feels. I would feel exactly the same in her Manolos.

    • Alix says:

      And SJP strikes me as a money grabbing person more than anyone else on that show anyway.

      • HadleyB says:

        I love SJP but it really showed me how jealous she was of Kim’s character — she became so popular so quickly.

        We get it: SJP was the “star” of the show, but it was ok to have a favorite that wasn’t her if we watched it. She still made $$ off the show, she still got all the credit. Get over yourself.

      • kibbles says:

        SJP is a one note actress. SATC is her claim to fame and it always will be. Beyond that she has made horrible movies in which she is just playing an extension of the Carrie character. Of course she wants this money because she’s not making much else except her SATC royalties and any other endorsements she can scrounge. She is not particularly attractive and that is becoming more apparent with age.

        Kim Cattrall has and always will be fabulous. She did the most work out of all of the characters, and had to do a lot of nude scenes, which SJP was never willing to do for the show. Although Cattrall looks great and will always look better than SJP at any age, she is 61-years-old. Who can blame her for having enough of playing that type of character? She has diversified her career much more than the other three SATC cast members since the show ended. She’s doing shows and plays in the UK. She’s aging gracefully both in her career and in her personal life. She does not need to make another SATC movie. Good for her for not being desperate enough for an obvious money grab to make a bad movie that will further disrespect the integrity of a great 90s show.

      • minx says:

        kibbles, yes to all of this.

  4. Gutterflower says:

    Is anyone even asking for this to be made?

    • Jenns says:

      No. Kim did us all a favor by rejecting this awful idea.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        That is what I came here to say. The show was great for a while, it had its time, the movies sucked IMO and it’s time has passed. They all need to move on! Team Kim!

      • Megan says:

        The show never translated to the big screen. A third movie would be a blatant money grab.

      • TQB says:

        So right. I respect Kim for having the integrity to say that she won’t be part of killing something that was important and special just for the cash.

      • kibbles says:

        If SATC had to come back, I’d much rather have the cast agree to a limited one or two season show on HBO (like Will & Grace or Fuller House) than make a bad two-hour movie. The movies were not good at all. The first one was okay but still could not hold a candle to the television series.

    • perplexed says:

      It wasn’t just the second movie that was terrible. The first one was terrible too.

      She probably didn’t want to add a third after seeing how the first two turned out.

      From what I can tell, Cattrall has common sense!

    • Vovicia says:

      I can understand wanting to do a third one. (though I don’t want them to) There isn’t a single one of them that must not realize that the second movie was like taking a giant dump on the entire series and then lighting it on fire. The desire for some clean slate or redemption must be strong with that level of failure.

  5. alexandria says:

    I also believe she was done and there’s nothing wrong with that. I loved her character but they did not develop it further. I did not watch SATC when I was a teen (because I was a teen) but when I watched it on YouTube as an adult, I found Carrie the most irritating character (no offense to SJP). I would have appreciated more of Samantha. Kim is standing her ground and not being “bitchy”. Puh lease. If she were a man, she would be deemed as being more selective of her projects. She is not even being nasty, she is just stating matter of factly what she is no longer keen on.

    • TQB says:

      And she’s right to have given this interview to clarify that her answer is, was, and will continue to be NO. If that’s what “killed” the movie, so be it, but I’m glad she’s setting the record straight about “diva demand” BS.

  6. BengalCat2000 says:

    I love SJP (hated Carrie) but wtf kind of ‘beautiful story’ is she talking about? The movies were embarrassing and by the last few seasons of the show, all four women were complete caricatures of themselves. Do any of these women really need this gig?

  7. SK says:

    Yeah good for her. She has been villainised before for pushing for more money and parity pay-wise and I never understood that. Sure SJP was the original “Star” of the show; but Samantha and Miranda were by far the most interesting characters (played by the best actresses) and what the hell would the show have been without them?? I mean, look at what the FRIENDS actors did – they negotiated together and all won together. SJP could have worked with her cast mates to do something similar and she didn’t. I love Kim Cattrall and I think she’s right not to revisit SATC again. The last movie is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. I still can’t believe they did that to what was once a fantastic storyline and group characters. Why dig the hole any deeper? Good for her for standing up for herself. I’d love to see her in something new and fabulous. Ryan Murphy collaboration?

    • Clare says:

      Didn’t the Big Bang Theory cast agree to take a pay CUT so the new cast members could be paid more?

      I think these films are a money spinner for SJP, and that’s all there is to it.

      • Kate says:

        The Carrie image really props up her side ventures into fashion and perfume. No one wants to buy that stuff from the actress from, I don’t know, The Family Stone. They’re buying into SJP as Carrie, not just SJP.

        It’s not just about the money from the film for her, it’s about keeping that character alive in people’s minds so they keep buying all the other stuff she peddles.

      • HH says:

        That’s also what I was thinking. SJP probably holds onto the show as her claim to fame. Reminds me of the Fuller House remake situation. The whole case and fans were upset with the Olsens, however, they didn’t need that new show like the others did.

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      SJP not siding with her cast mates for equal pay is crap when the four of them were integral to the success of the show. I also read somewhere (for the life of me can’t remember where) that when SJP decided as producer to wrap up the show she felt it was not her place (as producer and cast member) to tell the other three.

      This campaign to shame Cattrall into doing this film and the abuse she has taken on twitter is uncalled for. SJP, Kirsten Davies and the retweeting by the guy that played Standford Blatch, are all throwing Cattrall under the bus.

  8. ilove6kies says:

    I believe her. SJP have always stroked me as an overly ambitious person and very exhausting, especially when it comes to money grabbing from SATC – it’s her baby and probably the only thing she’ll be remembered by and she is willing to churn this crap out no matter how bad it will be.

    I have always been a loyal SATC fan and I have watched the TV series over and over. The first movie was okay, but the second one was embarrassingly bad. If it wasn’t because I was with my girlfriends I would’ve walked out of the theatre.

    It’s done. Stop beating a dead horse. And I really hate that it seems like SJP could not take no for an answer.

    • minx says:

      I used to think Carrie’s narcissism was confined to her character, and not SJP, but now I don’t know. Does SJP really need another vanity vehicle where she can inflict us with Carrie’s irritating little girl act? Did she even watch the final cut of SATC2? I remember when Carrie dressed for the Sanford/Anthony’s wedding in a tuxedo and that hideous, unflattering hat thing–and we were supposed to believe Big was consumed with lust when he laid eyes on her. Just as Aiden was lovestruck when he saw her at the market. Puh-leeze.

      • The Original G says:

        Honestly, I watched Divorce and I thought the story was about a “Carrie” who felt she married below her station and blew up her middle-class life because she thought she was too good for everyone. Poor Carrie.

  9. Giulia says:

    IIRC Cattrall didn’t want to do SATC2 either. It’s really ugly of SJP to sic the dogs on her like this, but Cattrall’s solution of recasting is sensible (and an almost elegant touche). SJP can’t slap back without totally losing her “forest faun” mask now, and I like it.

    • minx says:

      Kim has good taste because SATC2 was an embarrassing piece of trash. It was ugly to look at, the women were photographed horribly, the story was laughable. I bet KC thought on the last day of filming, never again.

      • Jenns says:

        Carrie’s obsession with the woman eating french fries while her face was covered was peak worst Carrie. And that’s saying something because she was always terrible.

    • greenmonster says:

      I had to giggle a bit at the suggestion of recasting the character or introducing a new one. A movie without Kim Cattrall as Samantha wouldn’t work and I guess the producers (including SJP) know that. Sam is such an important character with tons of fans – a recast wouldn’t work. Barely anyone wants to see a third movie, but NO ONE wants to see a third movie without Samantha.

      I totally support KC in her decision. The story has been told, it’s over. Also: what they did to Samantha in the second movie was awful. Her character has been dragged through mud and then some. She has always been open and adventurous but they made her act downright stupid.

  10. A Croatian says:

    I feel empowered by the fact she is sticking up for herself this way. Go, Kim! That’s what Samantha would do, too, I think :-)

  11. Louise177 says:

    I believe Kim. Production demands didn’t make sense considering she’s not a huge, in-demand actress. And I don’t think she should be attacked for not wanting to do the movie. Sarah said the second movie script was funny and great too and we know how that turned out.

  12. smcollins says:

    I like that she’s essentially giving her blessing to make the film without her, or to recast the character (which is actually a terrible idea because she embodied Samantha perfectly, and anyone else in that part would be sooooo wrong). Granted, the movie wouldn’t feel whole without her but if the rest of them really want to do it, why not? Like I said in a previous SATC post, it would be a shame for that awful second movie to be the final chapter. It’d be nice to see it officially end on a high note. Oh well…

    • Betsy says:

      I can see this. Yes, the second movie was awful. I’m not up enough on multicultural issues, but even from my rather simplistic perspective, it seemed just horrible about Islamic culture, to say nothing about the story arcs of the characters. Why couldn’t the movie have shown character growth? The third could, though I certainly can’t fault Kim for saying it’s done.

      • LokiGal says:

        Thank YOU. I am a Muslim and I have real issues with the way women are treated for real in that region. Having said that, the stereotypical and frankly racist way SATC went about portraying that was off putting. And it is demeaning the way they butchered Sam’s character.

  13. AmandaPanda says:

    It would actually be an amazing storyline for Samantha to die of a cancer relapse – they could recast to do the (smaller, physically different) scenes you’d need to make it work. But I guess there wouldn’t be enough merchandising opps in that.

    Surprised sjp was so openly nasty about it. Agree that Kim should stand her ground!

    • tracking says:

      I agree. If Kim doesn’t want to do the movie, and why should she after what they did to her character in the second–start the third and final movie with Samantha’s funeral after cancer recurrence. I would love to see a third movie, with a good script to wrap up the series in a nice way. Though, honestly, I’m having trouble seeing anything left to do with the remaining three characters.

      • tracking says:

        Or in the hospital with the camera showing her perspective from bed, surrounded by her best friends. Wouldn’t even need to show her face.

  14. Miss Jupitero says:

    GoodGod, the world does not need more SATC. It’s over. It is so over. Am I the only person who watches the show and finds it incredibly dated? Good heVens, even Donald Trump makes an appearance at one point. Everyone has moved on except SJP who just wants to sell makeup and shoes.

    • ArchieGoodwin says:

      It is SO over. In the 90′s, it was hot. I recently rewatched some, it streams on CraveTV here in Canada, and it was cringy. Over acted, over blown, just so over.

    • CynicalAnn says:

      I loved it when it was on-especially the first few seasons. My 19 year old just started watching it and said “omg–it’s so 90s.” I’d rather have the happy memories than ruin the show in my mind by watching the new one. Back when I was in college I loved the show “thirtysomething.” Once I was actually in my 30s and re-watched a few episodes I thought, “ugh-this is bad.”

      • HadleyB says:

        I LOVED Thirtysomething too … Hope was such a pill when I rewatch. I didn’t notice how most of them annoyed me.

        Kinda of like Friends .. I laughed back then but now when happen to see a bit of it.. I HATE it and think everything is so whiney. Ugh. lol

    • lunchcoma says:

      It’s very dated. Some of the core character dynamics are strong, but I don’t know that people are looking for the story of a bunch of rich, white women in Manhattan at this particular moment. There’s also the show’s OMG SHOPPING moments, which I thought got tiresome even when it was airing and come across as very tone deaf now.

  15. Becks says:

    I believe her. The second movie was SO BAD. SO SO SO BAD. I don’t blame her for being like, eh, you know what, I need to call it a day and move on from this character.

    Agree with PP who said all the characters became caricatures. Samantha’s cancer storyline helped her grow as a character but then by SATC2 they just kind of reverted her character back to form.

  16. naomipaige says:

    I totally believe her. The 2nd movie sucked! Even if they did a 3rd move, I certainly wouldn’t be lining up to see it. No thanks! I think SJP is just being a cry baby about the whole thing.

  17. Shambles says:

    “And now, now at this very moment it’s quite extraordinary to get any kind of negative press about something that I’ve been saying for almost a year of ‘no’ that I’m demanding or a diva”

    “This is extenuating circumstances and in the past I’ve felt, wow, especially with the fans I don’t want to in any shape or form ruin an ideal of it…”

    I’m sorry, but why can’t people speak in logical sentences anymore?

    • Betsy says:

      I think off the cuff sentences, especially when it’s an emotionally fraught issue and one in which one has been personally targeted, have always been kind of bonkers to read.

  18. MMC says:

    I don’t see what either Kim or SJP said that was so horrible. They didn’t get along, it happens, and for every person who says they are glad no movie, there is another wishing it would move forward. And really do not understand commenters who in one sentence are all “Go Kim, do what’s best for you, women need to support women” then slam SJP for her choices in the next. And how do any of us know it wasn’t a frustrated crew member, mad about losing a gig, that wasn’t leaking, or Michael Patrick King, or one of many other people who were behind the scenes? If the story had the flip narrative these comments would be “Kim is a poor loser, Kim just wants the money” and so on.

    • Carol says:

      I am not sure why Kim called out SJP rather than Willie Garson. He was the one who went after her by name while SJP just said she was disappointed. Weird.

      I never watched the show or the movies so don’t care at all whether a third movie gets made.

    • perplexed says:

      It kind of sounds like SJP was trying to force KC’s hand. I suspect that’s why people are annoyed with SJP, not the fact she wants to do the money. She can’t force KC to do something she doesn’t want to do through the press.

    • magnoliarose says:

      SJP announced this to be backstabby Kim had to defend herself for her career sake if nothing else. She didn’t want to do it, and the others are mad because they need it and without her, it would be a joke.

  19. Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

    Kim Cattrall is one classy lady.

    Unlike SJP. Sour loser much?

  20. Merritt says:

    I’m glad this movie is not getting made. The second film was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. It is not like fans of the show were demanding another film, no one wanted this. SJP needs to find another project if she wants more money.

  21. Mrs. Ari Gold says:

    I’m surprised by the comments here. Everyone affiliated with the show knows Kim Catrall is an awful person and everyone loves working with SJP. Actually, SJP is MUCH more likeable in real life than onscreen. No one can stand Kim Catrall- she’s a nightmare to work with and always has been.

    • tracking says:

      Based on what evidence, please? Even if SJP is more “likeable” in real life, what does that have to do with Kim Cattrall’s entirely reasonable desire not to revisit her character again, or make another terrible movie? And if what you’re saying is true, then they should be thrilled to make the movie without her and leave her alone!

      • CynicalAnn says:

        There is the evidence that SJP was always tight with Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis, and still is. Kim Cattrall never got along with the 3 of them. SJP has a reputation for being very nice and professional, Kim not so much.

      • tracking says:

        Except that’s not really evidence, CynicalAnn. Kim C said herself that she’s a decade older than the other three, who also all have children–basically saying they had nothing in common other than the show. Seems fair. SJP had tremendous clout as producer, so all three ladies had incentive to play nice with her. Kim C chose not to play ball with that, for whatever reason. Who knows why, but no one involved in production has actually stated on the record that she was unprofessional in any way. My second point is the more important one anyway.

      • magnoliarose says:

        It is something in between, but Kim is known to be difficult but SJP isn’t without her faults, and I just think some people get along better and others rub each other wrong and never get on a right foot with each other. It isn’t all one or the other really. SJP just made it more evident to the public than Kim did.

      • kibbles says:

        From my observations, Cattrall seems to be more of a reserved person, and there is nothing wrong with that. I’m sure all of us can relate to the fact that there are some co-workers we don’t particularly like, we simply act professional during work hours with no intention of seeing that person outside of the office. This is probably the same deal. It would be wonderful to imagine that all of these women bonded the same way their characters did, but that is usually never the case. Some of the Golden Girls actresses didn’t get along well either. It is normal. In both cases all of these actresses were extremely professional and made their friendships on the show believable even if they did not hang out in real life.

      • Lex says:

        I recall KC having issues with the pay she was receiving during the series – that it was far less than SJP and she didn’t think it was fair

    • minx says:

      If KC is so terrible then they should be glad she didn’t want to do another movie. Problem solved!

    • lunchcoma says:

      This conflict doesn’t seem to just be about who’s nicer, though. It seems like Kim is right. Disagreeable people sometimes are. I can’t think of a reason why any actor should feel obliged to continue to appear as a character in sequels if they don’t wish to, especially if the audience isn’t even clamoring for another movie and the last installment was bad.

    • Kate says:

      So she’s awful and a nightmare to work with…but they desperately want her to come back and do a third film?

      If she was that awful they’d just do it without her. Unless they can’t get it greenlit at all without her, in which case she’s obviously always been right about her value to the show.

    • Amide says:

      @MrsAriGold 👌👏👊 That’s EXACTLY what I’ve always heard, for years. Now SJP is the witch and Kim is the victim. Ah well, the wheel will probably turn again.😤

    • LaBlah says:

      So what if KC is “difficult”, not that I believe she actually is but even if she was the worst cow in the world and SJP was adorable (a friend who worked with her on a major charity event has a seriously different view of SJP by the way) Catrall STILL wouldn’t be obligated to take a job she doesn’t want.

      The last few seasons weren’t great, the first movie was bad, the second was possibly the worst movie I ever saw and was soaked in rich white people arrogance and ignorance too. I side eye anyone who wants to keep flogging that rancid stinking dead horse.

  22. magnoliarose says:

    The storyline would have to be changed to reflect aging and sexuality along with life choices and regrets. It would have to have become a broader story to be relevant or interesting.
    SJP is very insecure and neurotic as well as controlling, and Kim is not cozy or apologetic and can be difficult, so they were a lousy mix the entire time. SJP was jealous that Samantha became such an essential part of the show and that gave Kim a lot of power. SJP thought she should have been the most beloved character, but she ended up being a fashionable foil for the other characters.
    SJP lives nearish me, and she is known to be friendly and polite, but her husband is a whole different story. He is a notorious ass,le. He has the most punchable face in the universe.

  23. Lizzie says:

    after they passive agressively made her fat in the first movie – i can’t believe she agreed to a second one.

  24. Katherine says:

    I bet that’s what they’re saying about me in my old job. People just hate it when they need you for a project but you aren’t that into it anymore and have moved on with your life. They think what they are working on is the bee’s knees and just can’t fathom someone would not be interested. I’m with Kim here.

    • kibbles says:

      It is pretty amazing how abusive bosses and co-workers take good workers for granted until those workers have had enough and find another job, then they are all like, “How dare you leave us?!” At my old job, I was tired of the exploitation and mild abuse, as well as hostility and gossip from some co-workers. I was an essential worker in that department, and they needed me to complete a lot of tasks. Finally I had enough, found another job, and they were all shocked and even felt betrayed that I was leaving them. My director even asked me to stay when I told her that I planned to leave for my new job that offered better job security in a much nicer city. They didn’t think about playing nice when they upset me over the course of a year, which drove me to find a new job and say good-bye to them for good. It always happens that way.

  25. Jess says:

    Good for her, they keep trying to revive something that’s long dead and needs to stay that way. I saw the first movie and it was ok, predictable and cheesy, but the second one I refuse to watch, I know it will ruin the nice memories I have of these characters!

  26. TrixC says:

    I loved SATC back in the day, but it was very much of its time. I’m sure a third film would flop badly. As Cattrall implies I also think a lot of the appeal of the show was tied up in it being about glamorous thirty-somethings in the process of establishing their personal identities. I don’t mean to sound ageist but I don’t think a movie about a bunch of 50-60 year olds with established lives would have the same audience appeal.

    • Mel says:

      “I don’t mean to sound ageist but I don’t think a movie about a bunch of 50-60 year olds with established lives would have the same audience appeal. ”

      It would have great audience appeal for that age group, which is probably the one with the most money. Not to mention all of the SATC fans.

  27. Ozogirl says:

    I hope this back and forth doesn’t escalate. I don’t want Kim bullied into doing something she’s not interested in. Samantha was the worst in the 2nd movie and I really don’t see how much further they can take that character (or any of them really). I am a little worried they will kill Samantha off so they can go forward with the 3rd movie without Kim… that would be desperate and heart breaking for true fans.

  28. Originaltessa says:

    I don’t want to be ageist or sexist, but I think it’s human nature to assume growth in people and character over a 20 or so year span. The issues these characters were having in their 30′s and 40′s hopefully are resolved in their 50′s and 60′s. What is the movie supposed to be about? What antics are these women getting into, and what are we supposed to still care if their characters have supposedly evolved and grown into maturity? I think Kim is wise to say no. The movie would be silly. There’s nothing left to say about these characters.

    • magnoliarose says:

      That was my point too. What would they do with themselves? What is the point?

    • DanielleStl says:

      I cannot agree with this. I’m far from being their age but life doesn’t just stop once you start using anti-wrinkle creams.
      One of the reasons I love European films so much, French especially, is because they make movies about the lives of mature people. America is completely obsessed with youth. The most “old” a woman can be here is 40 and even at that age she always gets the “Oh, you look amazing!” treatment as if 40s were Death.

      • The Original G says:

        I’m interested in a movie like this as well, but it won’t be called SATC 3.

      • Originaltessa says:

        Oh, I’m not trying to imply that life is over at 50 and there’s nothing left to say, just that I feel like there’s nothing left to say for this particular group of women without completely dismantling everything and starting over. I just think the series will stop standing on its own, and the whole franchise will get muddy if they keep continuing it. There has to be a point where the growth feels permanent and the ending is satisfactory, and closure has come. It’s storytelling. I feel like the first movie was that moment. They should have stopped then.

      • Adrien says:

        I get you originaltessa, there should be growth in their characters, earn some wisdom, etc. Their juvenile shenanigans still causing them troubles? Isn’t that a premise of an Adam Sandler smorgasboard film? It was a series adapted from a Candace Bushnell book. I don’t think the hbo series intended satc to be a Hangover type franchise.

    • kibbles says:

      I agree with Originaltessa. SATC was specifically about single career women in the city in their 30s and 40s. The show was centered around the challenges that most well educated single women in that age group are typically faced with, which are the struggles of finding Mr. Right, choosing to have a baby at a later age, having fun with girlfriends, balancing career and family, and climbing the social and career ladder. For both the SATC characters, and for women in real life, they went through those story lines, and the women for the most figured out what they wanted and accomplished those goals. The SATC characters should not be the same in their 50s and 60s, just as none of us are the same at 50 as we were when we were 25 or 30. Our story changes. Therefore, it really would not longer be SATC. It would be a different story entirely. And I think most fans would honestly be disappointed even if the movie were halfway decent. At this point, Miranda and Charlotte would still be married and taking care of their children, Samantha would just be older but still single or dating a younger man, and Carrie would still be her immature self fighting with Mr. Big. I can’t really see a lot of character development beyond that.

    • Mel says:

      But people – in real life – don’t necessary “evolve and grow into maturity”. What many do is either settle or find new adventures, perhaps from a different perspective.
      A film about them in their 50s or even 60s would actually have far more potential for a good film than any of the previous ones. But for that you’d need good writers.

  29. Bobafelty says:

    They don’t need her for another movie. How about Samantha’s cancer came back and she died? The women struggle to move into menopause and the realities of aging, and the funny/weird things that happen. Big upgrades his 20 year old side piece and Carrie finally matures and is ok being single. Charlottes kids rebel by being goth or something. Charlotte starts her own company for some cool stay at home mom product, Carrie does the PR and writing, and Miranda does the legal side since she quit her firm after being passed over for promotion. They find new meaning. A mix of 1st wives club/ Frankie and Gracie/ SATC vibe?

  30. Lavin says:

    PR ploy, me thinks.

  31. sassy says:

    Here’s my idea: Samantha dies under unusual circumstances, and the 3 girls go on a crazy Nancy Drew caper to find out who did it! Spoiler alert: Stanford did it.

  32. The Original G says:

    Who gets along with whom is irrelevant.

    It’s astonishing that SJP is in deep denial that those two movies were Craptacular and Craptacular II, the Joke sequel.

  33. Turtle says:

    As a big fan of the original series, I wouldn’t mind one more go, if only to end their stories on a more pleasant note and wipe away the stench from the second movie. How many big-budget films come along featuring four women in their 50s-60s? But I totally get why KC would say “no” and want to let sleeping dogs lie. Honestly, the hatred piled on her feels more anti-woman (or slut-shaming for her character, the only one of the quartet who didn’t hinge her entire life on finding a man) than frustration from disappointed fans.

    • Mel says:

      “How many big-budget films come along featuring four women in their 50s-60s?”

      Exactly. Especially women in their 50s and 60s as sexual beings.
      But she probably knows that the writers aren’t up to the task.

  34. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    Samantha was my favourite character primarily because I love Kim. Carrie irritated the eff out of me particularly in the latter series and movies. The character started to take herself too seriously and lost the humour part but I think that was in part down to SJP who’s ego got too big.

  35. Barbs441 says:

    I grew up watching SATC and loved the first movie the second was terrible. I have erased it off my mind. A 3rd isn’t necessary.

  36. Bridget says:

    SJP and KC’s dispute all originated with money. None of the castmembers were very high paid, but SJP’s producer credit changed that for herself. Which, that was her job and her agent’s job. Just as it was Kim’s perogative to get more $$ for being Sam Jones. I probably respect both women more for negotiating hard now, though I would really rather not watch a third movie.

  37. Amelie says:

    While I like Sex and the City for what it is (a fun uncomplicated show about four friends and their romantic lives in NYC), it had its issues and wasn’t a perfect show. I never liked the main character Carrie. I thought she was annoying, a terrible friend, so self-absorbed, and just not someone I could relate to on any level. Loved the three other women though. Kim is right, the show is past its prime and should just be left the way it is. The second movie should never have been made. Samantha’s character development was just unfortunate. I’m not surprised she broke up with her long time boyfriend (Smith Jerrod?) at the end but it was a little unbelievable to me she stayed with him for so long anyways.

  38. Jayna says:

    There doesn’t need to be a third movie. The second movie was overkill.
    Leave it in the past where it belongs, a legacy of a great TV show, which is where it excelled, on the small screen.

    What I absolutely loved about the TV show was the tremendous chemistry between the four characters/actors. You really felt like you were watching four friends, very different, hang out, go through single life together in different ways, with NYC as the huge backdrop for the show also, four 30-somethings living in NYC. I read someone say NYC was the fifth character in the show, and that’s true.

    But those friendships felt organic, never TV sitcomy, like most shows feel. That is such a rarity Every once in awhile a show strikes gold in that way. SATC was one of them. You looked forward to seeing your friends every week, because that’s what they felt like, your friends also, as seasons went by.

    Miranda became a favorite of mine, which shocked me, because she was the one I wasn’t interested in in the very beginning of the show. But I absolutely loved all the characters.

  39. Tess says:

    Well it sounds like the “outrageous demands” werent because that’s what she actually wanted, they were because she DIDN’T want to do it. It makes sense. Wasn’t the general consensus that the movie was overkill but it was basically just because fans wanted it? So the 2nd was already overkill of overkill.

  40. ANOTHER DAY says:

    On one hand, I almost wish for a 3rd movie to remove that bad, vile taste in my mouth that 2nd PIece of Cinematic $h-t left.

    On the other hand, call me Team Kim Cattrall on this one. Stick a fork in it, SATC. It’s done.

  41. Mel says:

    Well, to be honest, she COULD play a “sex-starved” – or rather, highly sexual – Samantha at 61, and inject some class into such a character, present it as the real thing it is. We don’t see many sexual older women on the screen – or elsewhere – and, of course, they do exist.
    But with writers like those who did the last film – fat chance. They would make her into a ridiculous character, or a pathetic one.

  42. Kathryn says:

    I agree with an earlier comment: watch Kim in the Canadian show Sensitive Skin. She’s great. The series is available on Netflix (here in the US)

  43. Lia says:

    If the rest of them want to make the movie bad enough, why don’t they start the movie by saying Cattrall’s character died, add a new character, and go from there?