Sex and the City Without Samantha Would Be Like The Beatles Without John

by CALICO RUDASILL on October 12, 2018

Post image for Sex and the City Without Samantha Would Be Like The Beatles Without John

Calico Rudasil is a feature columnist for Sssh.com, the award-winning porn site for women & couples. With over 18 years’ experience under her belt, writing about and for the adult entertainment industry, Calico qualifies as something of a Web Porn Dinosaur; similar to a tyrannosaurus, only with far more attractive arms and a less pronounced overbite.

While I’m not the biggest Sex and the City fan in the world, I’ll admit I enjoyed the show and its big-screen sequels.

I’ll also admit I was disappointed to hear there’s an ongoing feud between Sarah Jessica Parker and Kim Cattrall, because on some level I’m a dopey romantic who wants to believe actors all get along as well in real life as their characters do on-screen. I know that’s not the case, of course; I’m just saying I always want it to be so.

But if there’s one thing I’m not surprised or disappointed to hear, it’s that Sarah can’t imagine making another sequel without Kim on board.

Sure, You COULD Re-Cast Samantha, But…

“You are still my hero,” wrote a fan to Sarah via Instagram. “Please replace or write her out Kim/Samantha if she is not interested and bring back sex and the city movie #3. The fans need this.”

“Not sure if I can imagine doing another movie without her,” is how Sarah replied.

While I can certainly understand where the fan is coming from, I’m with Sarah: I can’t imagine them doing any sort of sequel or extension without Samantha – or without Kim as Samantha – either.

I also think there are certain characters which really shouldn’t be re-cast, because they’re just so closely associated with the actors who play them. For example, I don’t ever want to see Columbo rebooted, remade, or touched in any way, now that Peter Falk has left us and isn’t available to play the titular character. Columbo IS Falk, and Falk IS Columbo. That’s how it is – and how it should be.

I feel the same way about Samantha; she is Kim Cattrall, and vice versa. I just don’t want to see anyone else even try to pull off scenes like the ones from the “My Motherboard, My Self” episode, or delivering a line like “If you turn into one of those married assholes, I’ll kill you.”

Some characters, like James Bond, have now been played by so many actors I don’t care who they cast in the role next – but Samantha Jones is not James Bond. (Among other things, I’m sure she’d never be caught dead drinking a watered-down martini.)

Instead Of A Sequel, How About….

If I’m going to hope for anything specific here, it’s that Sarah and Kim’s feud is as overblown as they have occasionally suggested it is (granted, at other times, they have not downplayed it) and they will eventually be part of a third movie.

If that can’t be the case, though, I have another suggestion: Sex and the City: The Next Generation.

Seriously, if you can’t imagine re-casting Captain James T. Kirk, the next best thing to do is create Captain Jean-Luc Picard, right?

Or maybe not. Granted, my husband is not exactly a “focus group,” but when I floated that last paragraph by him to see what he thought, he raised an eyebrow, frowned and said: “What have you been smoking? Captain Picard sucks.”

Hmm. I don’t think he meant that in a positive, amusing-blowjob-anecdote sense of the word ‘sucks.’

Oh well, so much for my attempt and Sex and the City sequel problem-solving. I suppose I’ll just have to wait and see if the movie studio comes up with a better solution. Here’s hoping whatever it is, it’s not a prequel which includes a massive rabbit who talks like stereotypical Rastafarian.

Calico Rudasil is a Sssh.com (@ssshforwomen) columnist and Sssh will be on Peeperz for fun times again in the near future, meanwhile why not check us out:


Previous post:

Next post: