web
counter
 

That Sex and the City 2 Wardrobe Budget Could've Been Used More Wisely

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (55)



129_5056850610.jpg

  • Carrie’s embellished jeans by the Blonds: $4,000
    Cost to educate 400 children in Haiti: $4,000

  • Carrie’s silver-and-gold Chanel lamé dress: $47,190
    Cost to donate 3,775 chickens to third world families: $47,190

  • Samantha’s spiky shoulders by the Blonds: $5,000
    Cost to assist 142 sexually exploited women in third world countries: $5,000

  • Samantha and Miley Cyrus’ Matching Dresses by Matthew Williamson: $3500 a piece
    Cost to provide job training for 280 women in third world countries: $7,000

  • Miranda’s Roland Mouret dress: $1400
    Cost to provide safety for 700 exploited third-world women: $1400

  • Reported Cost of the Entire Sex and the City 2 Wardrobe: $10 million
    Number of schools you can build in third world countries for $10 million: 1,176

    (Prices provided by New York Magazine)









    Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



    Exclusive: Ken Kwapis to Direct Live-Action Dilbert Movie | Hard Eight Review | Out of the Past









    Comments

    And the budget of each Transformers movie could have covered the debt of a third world nation.

    Posted by: Inaras at May 26, 2010 12:15 PM

  • Ouch...

    Posted by: Patty O'Green at May 26, 2010 12:16 PM

    i'd also be curious to know how that money could have been spent--to help those in need--in the country they live in. $10 million is a lot of money, even in america.

    Posted by: maxpurr9 at May 26, 2010 12:22 PM

    *golfclap*

    Posted by: pendelton at May 26, 2010 12:24 PM

    But think of all the craftsmen, designers, makeup artists and SFX people who had jobs thanks to having to outfit and attempt to make these 4 husks alluring and attractive.

    Posted by: Fredo at May 26, 2010 12:31 PM

    This just made me inordinately sad.

    Posted by: Jeremy Feist at May 26, 2010 12:34 PM

    Thank you for this.

    Posted by: katy at May 26, 2010 12:38 PM

    How much money would it cost to make sure this movie never sees the light of day? Think of all the poor boyfriends and husbands that have to sit through those 2 hours of torture.

    Posted by: schrome at May 26, 2010 12:46 PM

    Point well made.
    Personally I think Hollywood could very well stand to not make one shit movie a year and donate the budget to the betterment of the world.

    But as for the cost of sostumes in SATC2, it would be irrelevent, because was this movie not all CG anyway? I mean my God look at them!

    Posted by: Odnon at May 26, 2010 12:49 PM

    a large amount of the appeal of SATC (tv shows or movies) is the clothes, in the way that special effects or big movie names are in other franchises. so james cameron will spend mad amounts of money on effects, instead of, say, shoes. its kind of unfair (and an easy target) to pick on SATC when all of Hollywood is spending this kind of money on other kinds of visual yummies.

    that aside, judging by the trailer no amount of diamond encrusted bikinis or chanel scrunchies will make this film enjoyable in any way... so carrie on (aaargh)

    Posted by: eve at May 26, 2010 12:57 PM

    These are good points. But we aren't immune to them ourselves, even if they are true of us to a lower level. Think of your movie-watching budget (e.g., seeing flicks in theaters, getting to and fro, netflicks, treats during the showings, etc). My (and your) annual movie budget is enough to ensure that scores of children don't starve. The same is true of many of our other expenditures. Peter Singer's arguments in his article on Affluence and Poverty cuts Sex and the City 2 deeply, but it cuts us as well.

    Posted by: nitpickyjerk at May 26, 2010 1:05 PM

    This is pretty lame. The time you spent researching this, you could have spent working at a soup kitchen or playing games with orphans or teaching foster kids how to read or write.

    Just saying...

    Touché. -- DR

    Posted by: Forbiddendonut at May 26, 2010 1:08 PM

    Fire up the Murdertank cause I'm going to find every last piece of that wardrobe, pile it all up in the middle of Time Square and drop a nuke-dook right in the centre.

    Posted by: admin at May 26, 2010 1:12 PM

    Odd how you kicked preachy and moralizing into high gear for Sex and the City 2, Rowles, but not any one of the dozens of even higher budget crapfests out there. Why so much ire directed at rhinestones and glitter?

    Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

    Posted by: ZombieScientist at May 26, 2010 1:15 PM

    To be fair to Sex & The City 2, it will very likely easily make its money back perhaps two or three times over. Given that, perhaps it would be more fair to scrutinize how the profits are used.

    As for me, I'd rather just ditch this "money" thing and live in a Gene Roddenberry Star Trek society.

    Posted by: DarthCorleone at May 26, 2010 1:36 PM

    The amount spent on clothing is minor compared to the amount spent on crappy CGI, crappy writing, crappy directing on many other movies.

    I won't see this, but I don't get the hate.

    Posted by: BWeaves at May 26, 2010 1:58 PM

    Didn't Sarah McLaughlan do this video?

    Also, who in the _fuck_ spends $4000 dollars on jeans? The most I've ever spent was $98 dollars and it's because they make my ass look FanDamnTastic and they've lasted the past five years and I'll keep 'em till they're threads. *sigh* Of course I could support a child in Ethiopia for just pennies a day...

    /end privileged white girl rant

    Posted by: Kayanne at May 26, 2010 2:04 PM

    A one day spa treatment at one of New York’s most exclusive day spa’s: $8,795 per person

    Cost of a Hot Walker for all four ladies: $4,295

    Posted by: Pookie at May 26, 2010 2:09 PM

    As people have pointed out, you can do this with any high budget movie. I'm sure my weekly coffee and beer budget could feed a family of 4 in Somalia for a year.

    Just imagine for a moment all the good in the world that could be done if... American Idol (or Glee or Chuck or whatever) went commercial free for just one episode and had those companies donate that money instead to Doctors Without Borders or the Red Cross or [insert your pet cause here].

    Targeting SATC alone is unfair.

    Posted by: Lennon at May 26, 2010 2:12 PM

    GENDER WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by: Sofía at May 26, 2010 2:23 PM

    Lennon, (how apt!)

    I agree. The corporations owe, they gotta give up the dough to our towns, or else we gotta shut 'em down.

    Posted by: replica at May 26, 2010 2:29 PM

    Yes because the reason global poverty exists is the movie industry.

    wtfbbq

    Posted by: Tigerlilies at May 26, 2010 2:41 PM

    @Sofia: I think we already had one of those last night on the PAD thread.

    Posted by: Ian at May 26, 2010 2:46 PM

    How much money would it cost to make sure this movie never sees the light of day?

    Posted by: schrome at May 26, 2010 12:46 PM
    ---
    I'm in for $5.

    Posted by: , at May 26, 2010 2:57 PM

    Jesus, Pookie, that was awesome.

    Posted by: , at May 26, 2010 2:59 PM

    I'm with you, Darth, as long as you have a Holodeck and one of those food machines.

    And don't forget my bottle of Shirtless Shakespearean Picard. Rawr.

    Posted by: Patty O'Green at May 26, 2010 3:09 PM

    For those comparing the difference between this and other movies its simple.

    That $10 million dollars is going to something in those films. But think of all the craftsmen, designers, makeup artists and SFX people who had jobs thanks to having to outfit and attempt to make these 4 husks alluring and attractive. Check out the closing credits to a movie. You have eight gajillion names for the SFX crews and a handful for wardrobe. Plus, its not like the craftsmen and designers working with the movie made the outfits. Some rich fucking designer made the outfits and charged them for them.

    My main complaint is that the budget is for the costumes. The goddamn costumes. Yes, the point of the fucking movie is that they are all shallow, vapid, bitches who dress in expensive clothes. I understand that. But you can mimic outfits without having to pay the exuberant price.

    Posted by: DeistBrawler at May 26, 2010 3:13 PM

    not to defend this tripe, but you can't "mimic outfits" on sex and the city. the whole show was about fashion. one could say that fashion was the island.

    people who know fashion would know the difference between michael kors and forever 21. i have friends who can tell the difference between a botkier bag and a botkier for target bag. i didn't even know what or who botkier was until a couple years ago.

    i've never understood the desire to pay a shit ton for designer clothes... until sunday when i bought a 450 dollar michael kors purse.

    hey, it came with a free mimosa.

    totes worth it.

    also, generally i think making these comparisons is silly. one could always be doing something better with one's money and time.

    like drinking and buying overpriced purses.

    Posted by: stopthemadness at May 26, 2010 3:23 PM

    I suppose you're right, stopthemadness. So I guess my real question is: How did they manage to make a TV series, and movies, that dealt with fashion? Simple shots, The Devil Wears Prada, "Project Runway," ok...but a character driven television show? How?

    Posted by: DeistBrawler at May 26, 2010 3:30 PM

    I should probably just shut up. Its fairly obvious I hate anything and everything to do with Sex and the City.

    Posted by: DeistBrawler at May 26, 2010 3:31 PM

    I thought we went to the movies to "escape" if not for a little while. Thanks for ruining the last piece of solitude for me, dude. I can't even appreciate a bit of haute couture now without thinking about the human plight? Jeez.

    Seriously though, who cares? Even a fucking latte is an exorbitant amount of money compared to a third-world country. Just sayin'...

    Posted by: Gistine at May 26, 2010 3:35 PM

    Yep, extravagant.

    But let's also remember the money we ALL spend that can be put to a better use. Pay extra $2 to park at a parking lot 2 blocks closer to work? anyone?

    Sure, there's a huge difference between $500 a year (assuming you take a vacation) and 4 grand... but it's still money.

    Posted by: Tara at May 26, 2010 3:56 PM

    Can I get the formula for the monetary amount that assuages white, middle-class guilt?

    Posted by: admin at May 26, 2010 4:16 PM

    DB- It's hard to understand. I'm the least girly girl that I know and even I watched all 6 seasons. And I watched the movie (on cable). And I'll probably see this one too (again, on cable.) I really enjoyed watching the show when it was on. Maybe I was less cynical in my 20s or something. But now? They need to quit dragging those old bitches out of their dusty Chanel filled closets. The shit was unrealistic then and it's even more unrealistic now that they're all 75. What's next. Sex and the City: Who Moved My Butterscotch Pudding? Put the old bitches to bed, already.

    Living in LA dealing with this SATC crap is annoying. I live right near a pretty "popular" outdoor mall in LA and you should have seen the line of dumbass women waiting at the theater when SATC:1 came out, all dressed up in leopard skin dresses and slut shoes. It made me embarrassed to be a broad. I really felt like yelling at them "you all look like whores! Even Samantha would never wear that shit!"

    But I didn't say that. Because I'm a fucking lady, goddamnit.

    Posted by: stopthemadness at May 26, 2010 5:11 PM

    easy, admin,

    buy some scotch (single malt) and mail it to my house.

    i will report back to my people that you've paid your reparations.

    ::slaps hands together::

    and that's how we solve problems, y'all.

    Posted by: stopthemadness at May 26, 2010 5:16 PM

    You should have said that.

    Posted by: DeistBrawler at May 26, 2010 5:17 PM

    Reminds me of how annoyed my dad would get at my mom and me when we would go shopping yet he'd thinking nothing of dropping some serious coin on random ass farm equipment. Farming was a hobby not his profession, by the way. In other words it's okay to spend a shit ton of money on VFX and blowing shit up for the sake of cool (jury is still out on how cool some of it is), but heaven forbid money be spent on wardrobe. Especially when wardrobe is and always has been a very important part of the characters. Granted the movies are slightly out of control with the label whoring (I cannot get over Carrie on a PC), but the ladies are older, more successful, and can afford them.

    Posted by: taylor at May 26, 2010 5:22 PM

    I really enjoyed the series (especially season 4, and I absolutely loved Pajiba's review of it) and disliked Carrie most of the time, but the show had a heart. The movies are more about the characters being parodies of themselves and clothes. And Michael Patrick King's mangina, or he-pussy.

    Posted by: Sofía at May 26, 2010 5:31 PM

    Budgets aside, acting skills aside, general loathing for SITC and all it stands for aside, I don't understand how it became cool to support racists? Is it just because of their designer clothing? Or is it okay because they're making fun of Muslims?

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/sex-and-the-city-2-film-review-1004093261.story

    Posted by: Xtreme at May 26, 2010 5:38 PM

    And what middle-class guilt are you talking about admin? The previous administration fucked the middle-class out of existence, hell, I’ve seen porn stars with prolapsed rectums in better shape than the middle class.

    Posted by: Pookie at May 26, 2010 5:54 PM

    pookie has a point, but that shouldn't stop any scotch deliveries based solely on white man's guilt.

    Posted by: stopthemadness at May 26, 2010 5:56 PM

    THANK SO MUCH 4 PUTTING THIS UP.

    Posted by: M.R. at May 26, 2010 6:01 PM

    Not where I live, Pooks. Not where I live.

    Madness, do I have to clear this deal with that other black guy with the bullets or are we good to go?

    Posted by: admin at May 26, 2010 7:13 PM

    HEY, MAN, I'M NOT A BLACK GUY!

    but yeah, you should probably check with him. he'll probably want a forty of colt 45. cold cocked!

    Posted by: stopthemadness at May 26, 2010 7:24 PM

    Here's the formula, admin:

    Your SIN card + my pockets [gold boullion, prorogue if ingot or better] doublepluspaychequegood x 'Me Wantee' + free tampons to the power of infinity [Maya Angelou v. Toni Morrisson at the Collisseum] sigma 'the jazz' or 'a credit to the negro race' exponent Cristal boycott, with mouth grills now to be soaked in Hennessey prior to swallowings = leavings, 'blood diamonds'.

    Please leave funding and daughters at the door of our very, very legal operation. I'm the Grace Jones chair there, so...so, it exists. That's the part that I know.

    Just take the lesson from my screen name. Do as Spinal Tap would bid you to do and 'Gimme Some Money'.

    I feel so 'togetherness' now!

    Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at May 26, 2010 7:25 PM

    @Kayanne:

    Yeah, I was thinking that. 'World's On Fire' or something to that effect. I don't know the title for sure, as it was off of her last album, so that was probably in 1982, or something. I think she might have done some press explaining it, but I didn't bother to pay attention when my mother was telling me about it. Oh, I'm kind of a shitty person. Frown.

    Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at May 26, 2010 7:29 PM

    We're talkin' Geritol-soaked tampons for these four mummies, right?

    Posted by: , at May 26, 2010 11:50 PM

    I must preface this comment: I hate SatC. Haaaaate it with a passion that I normally reserve for people who can't teach their crotchfruit some basic manners and olives on my pizza. The only word I can think of to describe this show is "drivel".

    But: If you apply this to the SatC movie, you must apply to all other movies. All other entertainment. So yeah, I would rather the money be spent to make a "Clash of the Titans" that lives up to its hype, but really, if we're using the line of reasoning presented here, we'd get no more movies. Or TV. Or really, any other form of creativity. And I'm pretty sure this site doesn't want that.

    (Self righteousness and pretension over now)

    Posted by: Geof the God of Biscuits at May 27, 2010 12:09 AM

    I think the reason that this is so much more offensive than the budget for say Transformers, is that Sex and the City pretends to be about empowering women while it actually perpetuates a lookist, sexist, if I could only have a man(ist) thought process for the people watching. While Transformers is really just about... robots in disguise? I don't know, I didn't see Transformers, but it isn't pretending to make the world a better place while actually making people's lives much much much harder.

    Posted by: ashleigh at May 28, 2010 11:25 AM

    I just want to say that people in haiti can kiss my ass. I dont care about them, if you wanna throw out some statistics like how many of our OWN people we can feed with that money then I might just pay attention, we have enough rape and starvation on our own soil for me to give a damn about haitians needing chicken.
    AND you are an idiot if you think that half of those clothers were given just to have the designers name in the movie.

    Posted by: Nicole at May 28, 2010 11:44 AM

    The girls of Sex and the City 2 deserve every penny that was spent on that movie. If you're so worried about people in other countries, then sell your house and car and donate the money to poor foreign people. I could care less about them.

    Posted by: Pam at May 30, 2010 10:36 PM

    LOL - this page is priceless!! Thanks to everyone for the posts, I needed a good chuckle!!

    Posted by: anabanana at June 1, 2010 12:20 AM

    What trips me out is that people actually think that because someone has money that they are "SUPPOSED" to give to the needy. How do you no that they have not given millions? I am not a millionaire but pretty close so why is it that people automatically think that I 'Should" donate to help those less fortunate. I give to needy Americans. I donate to the American Cancer Foundation, Humane Society, and to St. Judes Childrens hospital where children with cancer are treated free but when I purchase a new BMW for myself I get hit with donating money to those less fortunate. I am sure the writer of this article has no clue as to what those involved in the movie humanitarian efforts are all he wanted to do was highlight the negative which was a very lopsided comparison.
    Why do we always have to give to other Countries? Do people in this Country not need help?

    Posted by: Tari at June 1, 2010 10:13 AM

    Always been a massive supporter of Sex And The City. Fab movie, thought that after such a gap it would be strange seeing our old friends again, but no as soon as the open credits kick in and you hear the familar voice over it's like your four best friends have never been away.

    Posted by: Josue Brackeen at June 26, 2010 10:49 AM

    You're so nice! I don't suppose Ive read anything such as this before. So great to find person with a number of original thoughts on it subject. realy thanks for starting it up. this site is certainly something that is helpful on the internet, somebody by having a little bit of creativity. helpful work for carrying something new to the internet!

    Posted by: Linken at January 23, 2011 1:33 PM