Champion Vikki

I have caught glimpses of this show when I was a little kid. My first impression was: gross, nasty, disgusting, lacking in wit or charisma.

Now years later, I'm gonna watch this and figure out to which extent my kid impression was right or wrong.

Watching this to see the fashion. And to enrich my culture.

Only 6 seasons, only 12 episodes in a season, only 30 minutes in an episode. I'm watching every soap opera of the 80s too, those are like 12 years, hundreds of episodes, 1 hour each. SATC will be easy compared to that!

I have started watching this a few days before writing this. Then 11 episodes in, I decide to start writing this down. Because I love bloggers and I wish to do the same. Thank you Keyofjetwolf and Docholigay for inspiring me.

Because I've seen 11 episode before writing this, the 11 episodes won't be a genuine fist impression but a recreation of it with some additional input.

Episode 1. The opening.

I have read what the wikipedia says about this show. This show is both praised for its feminism and condemned for its anti-feminism, at the same time. I believe that's simply how all TV shows work - they are always inherently inconsistent, they are written by countless different writers all wanting the show to do different things. And also - same team of writers is expected to keep writing forever for the same show. The writers can't do this forever, they have to put in filler content, imitation content. "Garbage" is always a part of TV. Also - this is a show about 4 people, all stories about a big number of characters always suffer from the story not knowing what to do with the characters, having more characters than the story knows what t do with. But has to do something - so it inserts filler content, imitation content. I expect the show will be a perpetual contradiction - changing between pro-feminism and anti-feminism, breath by breath, sometimes being both in the same breath. All serial stories are usually messy, especially when written by countless different writers, each doing their own thing.

The opening: Feminism or anti-feminism? The wikipedia shows the critique that the opening is anti-feminism - first it shows the woman happy because she gets to wear a pink tutu, like a princess. Then it shows her wearing a negligee on the poster. Same sequence first shows her as a child, then as an object. "Women are either children or objects" is anti-feminism. Do this opening's creators intend that? Is the critique valid?

People are usually stupid. They do things they don't realize they're doing. "Writer's intent" is often worthless because the writer doesn't understand what he's doing. Often the writer believes they do one thing while actually doing another. What was the intention of this opening?

Maybe it IS "women are either children or objects", maybe the opening was designed to say that, in order to advertise the show as "sexy", expressed by standard way society dehumanizes women. Maybe the opening is something as dumb and simple as that. 'This show will have a women in a mini skirt, who gets splashed with water so her nipples are showing, and she will pose sexily too!" Maybe it's intended to be that.

The opening does make the impression of being stupid. Hard to tell what the intent was.

Or maybe that's a false impression. And the opening is designed smart.

The sequence works as a commentary on growing up. Or specifically - since this is meant to be a show about sex - about women growing up in relation to sex.

The woman begins as smiling happily and wearing a pink tutu. She is a child. Her happy smile - it can be seen a innocent. An innocent child.

Then the child gets splashed with filthy water. The splashing is a metaphor for sex - fluids hitting her tits. Her nipples pop out. Her princess dress is ruined. Her innocence is tarnished.

She looks what caused this - and this was caused by a sexy picture of herself. The sexy picture represents sexuality. She was an innocent child, then sexuality made her dirty and gave her hard nipples.

Then she looks around, deep in thought. That "deep in thought" look is a promise from the show - the look, the sequence, is promising that the show will be about female sexuality. "Deep in thought" look because the show will be about women thinking about sex, women discussing sex. In that light - the sequence is doing a good job representing the show.

The downside: she begins happy. Then "sex" takes her happiness, makes her frown. That's not sex-positivity, that's sex-negativity. That says "sex makes women miserable, women shouldn't have sex, women should stay children forever". If the opening is designed to represent the show, and she begins happy, then discovers sex and becomes miserable - then the opening is promising the show will have a tragic ending. It's kinda saying "she will have sex and hate it".

In the light of representing the concept of "growing up", it's not good that she begins as a happy child then ends as a frowning adult. Adulthood shouldn't equal misery. The opening is sort of saying "women are better young, worse old, women are better as children, worse as adults". But considering how old the actresses look... I guess this is an unintended message.

They should have had her shrug the filth off, smile and keep walking - sure she got dirty. But it doesn't have to ruin her day! That woulda been more positive.

---

The episode. "Welcome to the age of un-innocence" - I guess this line is also about the opening? The opening and the line are meant to come together. The show is about women and sex, and innocence is a part of that. And she's talking about New York. I read this show treats New York as a character. I wonder if that's meaningful or is it just a vibe choice? A successful TV show needs a vibe of its own, SATC chose "New York" as its vibe. Is there any meaning to New York in this show?

I have seen "Charmed" before, same exact time frame with this. That show says "we are in San Francisco!" Then spends 8 years doing exactly nothing with that, doesn't matter not one bit where they say it's set. I wonder if SATC will explore NY in some way.

The first shot of the redhead. This show's first thing is "the actresses look very old". But in this shot, in the very beginning, the redhead looks so YOUNG. She's basically a child. I guess one could say this actress got old together with the show. A lifetime commitment. That's sweet.

She cites a woman who couldn't keep her guy, therefore failed at life. What is the show saying? Overall - unclear. Small scale… the redhead is afraid of ending as an old maid? Then the cute-face lead appears. Their lines are very sharp, delivered sharply. I believe these lines were used for the audition? I like watching shows and guessing which lines were used for the audition. A fun thing to consider. People talking about relationships. So far I can't figure out a meaning. Just filling the first episode with random stuff, designed to work as a taste-test only? Designed to make the bosses greenlight the show, therefore all vibe, no meaning? Transvestites celebrating the redhead's birthday. The show is promising "we will have everything!" The redhead talked about being afraid of age. Carrie and Samantha look very aged, don't look young at all. The opening is about growing up. What is the show saying about age? I'm expecting - no cohesive message, just a bunch of random words. I'm expecting TV shows usually start incohesive in season 1, only develop cohesive messaging as years go by. Carries sees her ex. Says he's her mistake, calls him scum, says she'd be a masochist to go for him, then goes for him, just to follow Samantha's advice. Then fails to get what she wanted. A valid story about female sexuality - patriarchic society always defeats women, every time. Valid storytelling.

Skipper. They wanted the show to be about old women. Then they wanted Skipper to be a younger guy. But failed to inform the casting people about that. They cast an actor that's too old for the role. He's supposed to be younger than them but he's same age as them. So instead of recasting, they fix this with makeup. Put a ton of makeup on the guy in an attempt to make him look younger. Poor guy looks like he's wearing a mask. Miranda butting heads with Skipper. So far I don't see any meaning. All vibe, no meaning. But it's just the pilot, right?

I'm loving Sarah Jessica Parker. She's so good at making facial expressions and performing charisma. I'm wondering if she's a good actress. Samantha looks at a guy, Says he's usually dating models. And goes after him. What is the show saying? Samantha looks old and not exactly conventionally attractive. Is the show saying she can get any man she wants? Then it's an escapist fantasy about female empowerment.

A comedy moment with Charlotte - she thought this guy respects her, then discovers he treats her like a object. I've watched 11 episodes before writing this. And in retrospect, I know - an example of Kristin Davis pulling off a comedy scene and making an appropriate facial expression, successfully selling the scene, is something to take a note of. She did better in the pilot than she does as the show starts. Guess she wanted a job so she did her best. Then she got the job and relaxed.

Samantha does this to seduce a guy she just met. I wonder if the show intends Samantha to be seen as awesome or pathetic. One constant wonder with Samantha. A point of actual interest in the show - same character is both two opposites at the same time, both awesome and pathetic at the same time. That's some good show craftsmanship. Complicated setups are beautiful.

And as I'm saying that. She just invites him to a room. Never tells him her name. This shifts her to pathetic. She looks 40 and conventionally unappealing, so the guy rejects her. "She's a fool for trying!" the scene is saying. This is anti-women. Carrie wanted to treat the guy badly. Didn't get what she wanted. Charlotte wanted this guy. Turns out he's a jerk. Didn't get what she wanted. Miranda wanted to reject her guy. Couldn't reject him. Kind of didn't get what she wanted. Samantha wanted that guy. Didn't get what she wanted. So far the show is about women losing. And then Samantha, after her first choice guy rejects her, gets another guy that night. She doesn't care who she goes with. Same guy that was a jerk to Charlotte? And he directly tells her "don't stay for the night, okay?" She is acting like a pathetic harlot, and he openly treats her as a pathetic harlot. What is the show saying? Charlotte has enough self-respect not to go after the guy that treats her cheap. And Samantha wants dicks so much, she doesn't care how guys treat her. Samantha is pathetic. Earlier, Samantha spoke about wanting power. But her first choice guy rejects her, her second choice guy treats her cheap and wants her out as soon as they're done. She has no power here. Samantha loses. Samantha is portrayed as a nymphomaniac, a pathetic slave to the dick here. At least she didn't pay him, right? At least he didn't humiliate her worse.

The theme of the episode is "power". Samantha said she wanted sex without commitment. She got what she wanted. But to get that, she needed to be pathetic, and she gave up her power. Samantha gets a trade where she loses power to get sex. A question is raised: is Samantha valid for wanting this? Is the price worth the cost? I guess the show is performing a valid exploration on ho society treats sexuality with Samantha.

Or maybe I'm overestimating the show. Maybe the show is showing Samantha as pathetic and says "this is good!" Maybe this is a dumb show that both celebrates promiscuity and condemns promiscuity at the same time, as imitation content. Maybe even as malicious content - maybe the show is saying "when the guy rejects Samantha, she's pathetic, and when she sleeps with another guy, she's also pathetic!" Maybe the show intends to simply shame women.

===

Carrie wanted another guy. Then met this guy. Then Samantha wanted this guy. But this guy went for Carrie. Charlotte dropped her guy, Samantha picked Charlotte's guy. And Carrie hooked her friends together - knew this guy, and passed him onto Miranda. So far, the girls are juggling guys between each other. This is kind of fun. The pilot successfully promises a discussion on how society treats sexuality. The pilot says "society treats women badly" then the plot also treats women badly. When the plot shows Samantha as pathetic, what does the show say? Is it the show shaming women? Carries starts as a happy child wearing her pink princess tutu, then ends with a frown, then Samantha wants power but fails to get any, all 4 fail to get what they want. Is it a discussion on how women live? Or is it shaming? Is it a meaningful, cohesive messaging? Or is this just a bunch of random words thrown together in a script, all vibe, zero meaning? So far, I can't tell. I guess the questions this pilot asks, are… "Will Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, find the guys they like?" And… "Will Samantha find a way to get power without losing dignity?" What is the pilot's stance on feminism? All these women want men, men is all they think about, they cannot exist without men. It's pathetic. But on another hand - this is a show about female sexuality. The show needs them to need men, otherwise there would be no show. That means the show's challenge is… Is the show capable of exploring female sexuality without diminishing the women? If it can - then the show is exploring female sexuality successfully. But if it can't… if it shows them as pathetic harlots that can't exist without dicks… If the show ends up saying "women are nothing without men"… Then the show is anti-women, then the show is about glamorized slut-shaming. TV shows are usually messy and contradictory. So I expect the show will be doing both. I expect the real question will be - which side is it more of? Exploring women? Or shaming women? Which is it doing more? I guess that's the primary question of the show. Every single plot, every single scene, needs to be asked: is this valid exploration? Or is it a case of a slut-shaming fetish? The pilot… Carrie wanted to treat the guy badly so she could have power over him. She didn't get power over him, he always had power over her. But this is a real everyday situation, she is not humiliated with this. This is proper exploration. Charlotte wanted this guy, then learned he isn't what she wants. Real everyday situation, Charlotte is not diminished. Valid exploration. Miranda didn't want this guy, then decided to try him anyway. He wants her, she has the power to reject him. She holds power over him. She doesn't get what she wants, but she gets something. Both loses some and gains some. Valid exploration. And Samantha... wanted power, didn't get any, got humiliated instead. She is sort of a valid exploration, sort of a fetish for slut-shaming in this, both at once. She better get out of that guy's apartment before he kicks her out! She wanted power and she lost. Her scenes show her as a slave to her desires. She wants a guy, that means the guy holds power over her. Realistically - women like her end badly. Because society expects men to hurt women. The show promises to explore female sexuality, and the show sets Samantha to be punished for being sexual. Where will that go - will she be punished for being sexual, the show fetishizing the act of punishing women? Anti-women? Or will she be punished but in a way that properly explores women's lives? Maybe she starts pathetic but then she grows up and discovers dignity? A story of a woman struggling to handle herself, a realistic everyday situation that many women are represented by? Pro-women?

I guess Samantha is the one most interesting in this. Her journey should be about women struggling to get what they want but at a cost that's not too much. The journey of adjusting your desires and trying to find the best price to get what you want. Is it really worth it for Samantha to let men treat her like dirt so she could find a way to feel powerful? She didn't get power in this one. If she wants power, then she isn't getting what she really wants here.

Samantha wants both power and promiscuity. But to get promiscuity, she needs to give up power. Yet she wants both. Samantha wants more than she can afford. If she was a young girl of breathtaking beauty so every guy would jump her, or if she was filthy rich so she could buy lovers, maybe she could get both promiscuity and power at the same time. Samantha's story is about wanting what she can't have, can't afford with her limited resources. Will it be an exploration of realistic struggles? Or a dumb power fantasy that says "kids, promiscuity is a good thing!"? Or a slut-shaming fetish content designed to diminish her. I guess those are my thought on the pilot.

Considering the casting choices... Carrie, Samantha, Miranda are not conventionally attractive. That means the show intends to do complicated things. The casting choices promise that.

I'm currently watching the 80s soaps. First I saw Dynasty. Lame plots written by fake "writers" that can't write. Beautiful actors that can't act. Then I'm watching the 90s Melrose Place. A spiritual successor to Dynasty - actors that have beautiful faces but can't act.

Then I'm watching Knots Lading. ALl actors are conventionally unattractive. But they're all master-class actors. The show has proper writing designed to tell stories and explore the actors' talents. The actors were cast for their skills. Casting has this choice: cast a pretty face? To sell the pretty face? It probably can't act. OR. Cast a proper, real, gifted actor. But that actor will probably be ugly - because an actor that's both beautiful and gifted should raise quickly so most productions can't get them. Productions usually have to choose: an anti-actor with a pretty face? Or an ugly mug with talent?

Dynasty and Melrose Place choose pretty faces that can't act. And provide non-writing for the non-actors.

Knots Landing choose ugly mugs with incredible skills. And design the writing to exhibit their talents.

SATC chose the actors for Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, not for them looking pretty. Obviously - for their talents. That casting choice by itself is making an unspoken promise - the show intends to have good writing. Or intends to do something unconventional. Otherwise thy would have cast 4 pretty faces, otherwise they would never cast actors that are conventionally unappealing.

So I guess the pilot is asking the question: will the show have good writing that explores the talents of these 3 conventionally unappealing women? Will the show make a point with their unconventional appearances? Will the show successfully do an unconventional thing? After the pilot, that would be the good ending.

Or will the show be a failure. Hire 3 unappealing actors then do nothing of value with them. A bad show with odd casting choices. A pointless show about disgusting, pathetic, ugly harlots, the show designed to shame and diminish women. After the pilot, that would be the bad ending.

Serial shows are usually inconsistent. So I guess SATC will be a mix of both.

I hope I formatted this right.

===

I guess I also wanna write observations on how the show treats the actors. Carrie: the lead is given the most screen time. Gets scenes designed to exhibit her abiliy to perform charisma and make facial expressions. Samatha: given scenes that depend on her ability to perform charisma. She can do this well, so it's a good deal for her. Charlotte: given a couple worthless scenes that give the actor nothing. And a comedy scene she performed well. Miranda: a few very generic scenes that don't give the actor much. "Just act pissed!" is all she's been instructed to do here.

Miranda's first scene, she's talking about a woman that failed at life because she was single at 40. Miranda's second scene, she's celebrating her birthday. Then Carrie sets her for someone younger. And then they don't talk about age anymore. The show threw in the subject of "age" but didn't make anything coherent. This is a little garbage-y. Miranda gets the worst deal.

===

I guess I should also do counters. What would be good counters for this show? Any advice welcome. Except the most obvious guy counter.

COUNTERS

===

GUYS COUNTER Episode 1.01. Carrie: meets a new guy and rekindles with her ex. Guys she dated: 1. Guys she slept with: 1. Guys she's been paired with: 2. Guys she dumped: 1. Times we saw her on a date: 0. Miranda: Skipper. Guys she dated: 1. Times we saw her on a date: 1. Charlotte: Guys she dated: 1. Guys she dumped: 1. Times we saw her on a date: 1. Samantha: mentions an ex. Propositions to one guy. Sleeps with another. Guys we saw her date: 0. Guys we know she slept with: 2. Guys we saw her sleep with: 1. Guys we saw her proposition to: 1. Guys we saw reject her: 1. Times we saw her on a date: 0.

=== Tits counter. How many times they show tits? Random women: 1) 1.01.

===

Comedy counter. How many times they perform comedy?