Talk:Sex and the City 2

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sex and the City 2 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The budget and box office takings are wrong! Doesn't match the source it is linked to! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.198.216 (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

The movie opening date it May 28, 2010 not May 27, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.212.3 (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following

I removed the following-"Cynthia Nixon's recent win at the Grammys in 2009 mean that an Oscar win for this film would make her a Showbiz Grand Slam Winner".

That is just ridiculous. The film hasn't even opened yet and someone is already putting speculation in the article about Oscar wins? Encyclopedia's are not about what if or what can happen scenarios, they are about facts and the above has no place in this or any article. I will continue to watch this article and remove it if it is inserted again.--99.177.250.140 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

I Removed the sentence about Barbra Streisand appearing in this movie. There is no reference for it and on Barbra Streisand's Wikipedia page nothing is said about her being in the movie. I looked at the whole cast list at IMDB and found nothing of her having anything to do with this movie.--99.177.250.140 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot added

With the NYC premiere, the plot has been covered be several reliable sources; therefore, as per Wikipedia Guidelines, the plot is included in the article. --Bobak (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might wait until it is on general release as a courtesy. There's no requirement for you or anyone else to wait either WP:SPOILER. Someone has removed the plot summary.

Early reviews are coming in such as from the Guardian and the reviewer politely disliked the film giving it only

although it will be interesting to see if critics who liked the first film view this one favourably. -- Horkana (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

once again I have changed the rotten tomatoes report to its current state. It should read: Review aggregate Rotten Tomatoes reports that % of critics have given the film a positive review based on x number of reviews with an average score of x/10. It should not simply be written that the film was given a 'score' because the % is NOT A SCORE! Its the percentage of positive reviews! Metacritc gives a score but Rotten Tomatoes reports the percentage of positive reviews.Benatfleshofthestars (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Lindy West review

Another critic should be added: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/burkas-and-birkins/Content?oid=4132715 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.248.175 (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update Needed!

Since the movie has opened some one needs to edit all the predictions and revise the commentary so that the word "will" becomes something more appropriate when writing about things that has already happened.

Having seen the film I fully understand why they had to film it elsewhere -- these are supposed to be four intelligent sophisticated women and about the only things they're not shown doing to offend the local people is going topless and/or having sex in public. Behavior in an isolated resort is one thing, going out among the people of the host culture and ignoring their culture and their laws is something else. Talk about "ugly" Americans!

I won't touch the plot summary because this is only one reviewer's opinion, but this could have been a much better film than it is, written to show Carrie and her friends showing a touch more respect for the culture of the country they were (supposedly) visiting, and still have entertained the core audience.

However, one of the things that is not mentioned in the plot summary is that Samantha's ignorance and blatant disrespect for her host and his culture cost her what was apparently a very lucretive free-lance PR job. None of them seem to have noticed that. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Edit request from 213.106.106.168, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hi, just wanted to point out an error with citation number 27; Hadley Freeman does not, never has and hopefully never will write for the Daily Mail, she writes for The Guardian. You can look her up anywhere to confirm this (including wikipedia's page on her) I think she would be quite insulted to be associated with the mail. Thanks.

213.106.106.168 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The "error" you point out seems to be on the Mail's website. Regardless of whatever may be going on there, Wikipedia has no control over the Daily Mail. Moreover, at the bottom of the source in question is "(C) Guardian News and Media 2010"; perhaps the article is from the Guardian but has been copied over to the Mail website? Intelligentsium 00:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish. She did not write the article for the Daily Mail, she wrote it for the Guardian. You are right that they have taken the article from the Guardian, but to say "she wrote in the Daily Mail" is erroneous. The Daily Mail reported what she wrote in the Guardian. The article can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/may/23/sex-and-the-city-film-terrible I would change it, but it's been locked for some unfathomable reason. Probably to stop irate women everywhere calling for the head of the writers. I would ask you change this please, the information you have is incorrect.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.174.45 (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this locked?

Why is this article locked? I wanted to change where someone wrote that it is speculated that Victoria Beckham will be in the film. I saw the movie and she is not in the movie. What Genius locked the page with wrong info on it?--99.177.250.140 (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are protected when IPs are vandalizing articles. Use the template {{editsemiprotected}} instead with more specific information. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 05:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget this, I removed it. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 05:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This article could be merged with Sex and the City. Sex and the City 2 is just the sequel and it seams pointless that they have to be on seperate pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sco1996 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

$10 million wardrobe budget?

Did anyone else hear about this? I've been told the wardrobe budget for the film was $10 million. Can anyone confirm it? --76.105.145.143 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sex and the City 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b120904_sjp_more_sex_chris_nothand_maybe_gilles.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613042747/http://wimg.co.uk:80/Hij.pdf to http://wimg.co.uk/Hij.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]