They have now given me another reason to write them, which I now present to you. Let's see if they print this.
-------------------------------------------------
Dear EW,
Holy crap. Enough with Sex in the City! You advertise 63 pages of "Sex" on the cover, but my math skills tell me that from page 22 to page 99 makes it closer to 77. This is an unprecedented amount of coverage for a movie that is clearly only going to appeal to a certain percentage of your readership. To put this into perspective, you recent issue featuring the new Indiana Jones movie, a cultural phenomenon and guaranteed block buster whether it is actually good or not, garnered only 8 pages! What?!? And the last kick in the face was that this "Sex in the City" issue is somehow a "double issue"! So not only have you given me an issue filled to the brim with something that I and many other readers will have no interest in, we will go another week EW-less. Your better than that, EW.
Hopefully you have gotten Carrie Bradshaw out of your system now.
If you are struggling for more things to talk about, here are some options:
- the upcoming Lost finale
- The recent finale of The Office
- A look at the legs of Iron Man/the faltering of Speed Racer
- More than a brief mention about this rumored Donnie Darko sequel
- Ricky Gervais' star studded new project
- Anything else.
That is more on par with what I expect from EW. Please resume being an awesome magazine.
Thank you,
Tyler Domske
Posts
Word. I'd rather watch 2 hours of murder she wrote than this.
ReplyDeleteThe "certain percentage of readership" you refer to is probably a lot higher than you think. Sex in the City is actually an extremely clever show. I'd guess maybe 80% of the women who read EW (and probably like 10% of the dudes) enjoy the show. I've seen a few episodes, and while I'm not a follower by any means, I'm still interested in how they plan to make a movie out of the show. And I'm one of the least girly girls I know.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Sex in the City is a much more relevant cultural phenomenon than Indie. Indiana Jones is definitely a classic movie, but the actual content does not relate to the current state of society, nor does it reflect America's changing social mores or values in the way that Sex in the City CLEARLY does. Indie has an obvious hero quest story a la Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth" (read it if you haven't already), but Indie is by no means unique in that aspect. Sex in the City actually broke new ground in the way it challenges traditional conservative tv programming.
Sure, 63 pages of anything in one issue of EW is a bit ridiculous. However, just because you're a dude and you don't understand the show doesn't mean that you represent the readership of EW. Indiana Jones also only appeals to a "certain percentage" of the EW readership as well, and the Indiana Jones subgroup is probably of similar size to the Sex and the City subgroup.
Lories,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the readership percentage that anticipates the Sex & the City movie is higher than I would, I don't think that it is as far reaching as you suggest. Moreover, my main argument is that EW has never given so much attention of not one, but TWO issues over to one specific movie/show. I would argue that Friends or Seinfeld were would have adequately met the criteria of commenting on society in a way that is more reflective than Sex in the City, and yet neither of those shows got a 63 page spread.
I would be very surprised if the Sex in the City movie makes more than 100 million, which is essentially the benchmark for movies to be "blockbusters." If is does crack that, I doubt it will be by much. Prince Caspian has a better shot at 100 million, or even 200 million, and that didn't even get a cover. Granted, it's a more specific fan base, but that is essentially my point with Sex in the City.
But I digress...
Entertainment Weekly used to be really good, but over the past few years it has slowly been becoming more like a magazine version of Access Hollywood.
I do agree that 63 pages is ridiculous. I'm mostly saying that the word "specific" to describe a fan base has a lot less credence when half of the adult population is the target audience. There aren't many genres that can garner more than half of the general population as a target audience. Exceptions I can think of are Harry Potter, American Idol, and maybe Star Wars.
ReplyDeleteI'd actually think Prince Caspian has an even broader fan base than Sex and the City because you get kids, their parents, plus everyone who read and liked the books when they were young. Not to mention the not-at-all subversive nature of C.S. Lewis' biblical undertones drawing in the Christian fan base.
But anyways. In summary, yes, I agree with you on your complaint, I just think your argument is short-sighted and slightly misogynistic. Unless EW's readership is greater than ~65% male...then you're probably spot on. But I don't really see it as a magazine that attracts one gender over another.
Agreed, though my disliking of Sex in the City has very little to do with me being a guy, so I would rule out the misogyny. I have been a big fan of many shows who have a target audience of females (Project Runway, Ugly Betty, America's Next Top Model, etc.) I am specifically not into Sex in the City for the overemphasis on both sex and fashion (which are ironically the main emphases of all of the shows that I listed above, just more measured).
ReplyDeleteAnd Adrien doesn't like Sex in the City at all either.
I would equate Sex's draw as akin with Grey's Anatomy, another show that I don't watch for much same reason, yet one that I would argue has as broad (if not broader?) an appeal as Sex in the City, yet I don't think Entertainment Weekly is about to put out a 63 page spread on that (but who knows... perhaps I speak too soon).
So to sum up, my dismissal of Sex in the City is not uniformed, or because I'm a guy. It's just not a show that I like, and while I understand that there are a lot of people who like things that I don't, and many of them read EW, I still don't think that the fan base for Sex in the City is as far reaching as the coverage in the magazine suggests.