It's funny how time can make four glamorous gal pals and a surefire film franchise look less than golden.
When HBO's "Sex and the City" strutted into movie theatres in 2008, some fans were overjoyed. Others were appalled that the "perfect" end to 2004's TV finale was undone.
This film made money: more than US$415 million worldwide. But the movie's debut raised a question -- one that haunts the May 27th release of "Sex and the City 2."
Have Carrie and company become irrelevant?
In a world still smacking from economic meltdown, are these girls' glamorous excesses -- and the $10 million price tag for their new film wardrobe -- a turn on or a turn off?
Earlier this month, In Touch Weekly reported that "SATC2's" wardrobe budget equalled the cost of about 100 luxury Porsche Carreras. The lucky cast got to keep the clothes.
The free trip to Morocco, and another paycheque, also didn't hurt Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis.
But time marches on, especially in Hollywood. For every "I can't wait!" fans blog about "SATC2," you'll find just as many incredulous naysayers who cannot believe New York's Fab Four are back.
"I hope the sequel dies…and rescues us all from the danger of yet another cloying, insipid promotional tour of duty from SPJ," writes one vexed blogger.
"The first movie script was a joke, but I'll go see the sequel," adds someone else.
"Sorry, but they have gone over the edge into the area of tediousness and excess," writes another.
With so much debate, one wonders if "SATC2's" producers have miscalculated.
Can "SATC2" beat vampire love and 3-D?
Can Carrie and company really trounce Jake Gyllenhaal's "Prince of Persia" at the box office with their Jimmy Choo shoes?
Just like "Prince of Persia's" exotic dunes, "SATC2" also makes a great escape to the Middle East.
The escape was calculated, says director Michael Patrick King. He wanted a "big, fun decadent vacation for the girls on-screen as well as in the audience." So King writes in Eric Cypher's book, "Sex and the City 2: The Movies. The Fashion. The Adventure."
Certainly escapism at the movies helped millions of North Americans weather the Great Depression of the 1930s. Busby Berkeley musicals, like "The Gold Diggers of 1933", entertained moviegoers and eased their troubled minds, if only for a few hours. "The Lost Horizon" of 1937 did the same, whisking the down-and-out to the magical mountain monastery of Shangri La.
If "SATC2" can do the same, and toss in more girl-power for the ride, then all the better.
The issues driving this installment are certainly relatable to mass audiences. Carrie's marriage is losing its glow; Samantha is confronting menopause; Charlotte is overwhelmed by motherhood; and Miranda looks for more in life than her career.
Yet for all these "everyday" dramas, the playing field has changed in Hollywood even since 2008.
When "Sex and the City" ended its run on HBO, fans were driven wild by all the possible endings that could befall Carrie and Big. Where they meant to be? Where these off-again-on-again lovers finally done?
Big and Carrie captured the publics' imagination. They were Gable and Lombard, Taylor and Burton, and Pitt and Aniston all rolled into one.
Now vampire love, courtesy of "Twilight" star Robert Pattinson and Kristin Stewart, has stolen their romantic thunder.
Groundbreaking new filmmaking technologies have also made the 2-D troubles of four maturing fashionistas look dusty. Thanks to James Cameron's 2009's behemoth, "Avatar," 3-D fever has swept through Hollywood. As a result, today's filmmakers have a new mantra: if you don't go 3-D, just go home.
Can "Sex and the City 2" compete with all that? Can that risqué dialogue that titillated moviegoers 12 years ago really wow them now?
It is anyone's guess if these archetypal single women can still cut it with audiences in 2010.
If they succeed, then it's Cosmos for everyone. If not, we'll console ourselves by staring at the Jimmy Choo shoes.
