The Sex and the City reboot has been one of the biggest announcements of the new year, but it’s been almost overshadowed by the news that Kim Cattrall wouldn’t be returning.
The actress has long been on the record saying she wasn’t interested in portraying Samantha anymore (specifically because of her bad blood with Sarah Jessica Parker). But now that more SATC is actually happening, many are disappointed that the fan-favorite character won’t be present. With the loss of such a vital part of the famous foursome of BFFs, watching the new episodes may feel like something huge is missing from the series.
As for Candace Bushnell, the author of the original Sex and the City novel, she’s not too worried about it. She told Page Six that the writers will undoubtedly come up with a good reason for Samantha’s absence in the upcoming episodes.
“You know what, I think it’s fine. Kim is a grown woman. She is 64 and she’s made a decision that I’m sure she has 10 very good reasons for and I respect her for that. I also think it will be interesting. But I also know there’s a lot of interesting characters like [Cynthia Nixon’s] Miranda. We are all Mirandas. Miranda is an interesting character — but I don’t know what they’re gonna do.”
Hmm, does it feel a bit random to single out Miranda here? Are we all Mirandas? Surely the Samanthas of the world would have something to say about that!
The writer went on:
“Kim should be happy — and I think she is happy. I think that her character Samantha is always going to be an inspiration to them. So somehow, I imagine she’ll be there in spirit and as an inspiration that gives them a chance of exploring s*xuality with different characters [without Samantha hogging the libidinous spotlight].”
As presented by Page Six, it’s unclear if that last phrase was Candace’s exact words, but “hogging the libidinous spotlight” seems a bit unfair. All the women had their own s*xual misadventures — that’s why it was called Sex and the City, after all. And yes, Samantha was definitely the most “libidinous,” but that was her role in the series and what made her such an interesting character. Each of the gals brought their own particular perspective to the brunch table… that’s what made the show work!
Hell, Samantha was more sex positive than the actual sex columnist!
Maybe Candace is right and the reboot will be great without her, and we’ll be watching no matter what, but we can’t help feeling like moving forward without Samantha is objectively a huge loss. What do U think, Perezcious readers? Can you imagine SATC without her? Or are the new episodes destined to be a flop on par with the second SATC film? Let us know your thoughts in the comments (below)!
[Image via WENN/Instar/Ivan Nikolov]