Kim Cattrall calls Sex and the City co-stars ‘toxic’

By Alexa Caruso on October 5, 2017 | 22 Comments

Still from Sex and the City (2008)Tension has been growing between the Sex and the City co-stars. It seems to be Kim Cattrall versus the others after Kim confirmed she is not interested in doing a third film based on the hit television series. The first film, Sex and the City, came out in 2008 and was followed by the less-successful sequel, Sex and the City 2, in 2010.

Rumor has it that Kim, who plays Samantha, demanded that other films she had in development would be produced before she would agree to sign on. Kim responded by telling Piers Morgan on his ITV series Life Stories, “I never asked for any money, I never asked for any projects. To be thought of as some kind of diva is absolutely ridiculous.”

Sarah Jessica Parker, who plays Carrie, said in an interview with Extra she was “disappointed” the film would not be moving forward. “It’s over…we’re not doing it,” she revealed. “We had this beautiful, funny, heartbreaking, joyful, very relatable script and story. It’s not just disappointing that we don’t get to tell the story and have that experience, but more so for that audience that has been so vocal in wanting another movie.”

It’s not just SJP who’s disappointed — the show’s other stars, Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis, were reportedly on board. Although sources say Kim was negotiating to be in the film as recently as this summer, Kim denies it and doesn’t appreciate that she’s taking all the heat for the film being scrapped, saying, “For me it’s over, it’s over with no regrets, I just wish that Sarah had been nicer.”

She explained, “And usually what happens in a healthy relationship is that someone, or a transaction for a job in my business, is that someone says, ‘are you available?’ and you say ‘yes’ and here’s the job and you say ‘yes but thank you very much but I’m sort of over here right now but thank you very much’ and that person turns to you and they say ‘that’s great, good luck to you, I wish you the best.’”

She continued, “That’s not what happened here, this is, it feels like a toxic relationship… They all have children and I am ten years older and since specifically the series ended I have been spending most of my time outside of New York so I don’t see them… The common ground that we had was the series and the series is over.”

What do you think about Kim deciding to not do the film? Do you think she owes it to her co-stars and fans to finish the Sex and the City saga? Or are the other stars just looking for a paycheck? Sound off in the comments section below! ~Alexa Caruso

Comments & Discussion

  1. Debbie • October 5, 2017 @ 11:06 AM

    I think it it totally up to the individual, Kim or anyone else. I watched ‘Sex and the City’, the t.v. show and the movie, but have outgrown it. I thought the movie was just a fashion show, and the cast ditched men at any sign of difficulty. I would not see any more of this nonsense. And…I love fashion and don’t think people should be in toxic relationships, well, unless they want to be. Funny, I just used what Kim said. I am older now, and so is Kim. That could be part of it. But…it is up to the individual, again. They probably need the money. I read that SJP had a failed shoe line, and then teamed up with a designer and is doing well? Anyway, if the other 3 want to do a movie, they could ddisclude Kim’s character. Anything is possible.Funny too,lately I have only thought of Sarah as her character in ‘Square Pegs’. And she is so over the top. I am not a shoe person. An obsession I wouldn’t want. This is my therapy for the day… Lol.

  2. Debbie • October 5, 2017 @ 11:09 AM

    And there should be no hard feelings, no matter what the outcome. People can be civil.But…we never know what the truth is…

  3. Jeanice • October 5, 2017 @ 11:48 AM

    Why can’t they find somebody else to be in her place? it happens all the time?
    Or kill her. She had cancer right? may be the cancer came back and unfortunately she passed on!!!!! They do this kind of things in sequels, in soap opera and etc. So just replace her with somebody that may be looks like her.
    It is not fair that 3 of them want to do it, the public wants them to do it and because of one everything is over. Nobody is unreplaceable. Believe me

  4. Magda • October 5, 2017 @ 11:56 AM

    I don’t think Kim Cattrall owes it to her fans, co-stars or anyone else to make another Sex and the City movie. If she just doesn’t have the motivation or passion to do it, then she shouldn’t. If you don’t have the passion to do a movie and you do it anyway it will show on screen. I’m a fan of the series and I thought the first movie was great, but the second movie was terrible. As a fan, I’m not disappointed that there won’t be a third one.

  5. MA • October 5, 2017 @ 12:20 PM

    Sex and the City was a great show and Kim is mature enough to know when it is over. The first movie was OK, the second was rubbish. She is right to put it behind her. SJP is the egomaniac I think and it is not that she has done much since S&TC. Get over it, you have had your 15mins. of fame…move on.

  6. Jerry • October 5, 2017 @ 12:26 PM

    The new script is probably junk too and KC wants nothing to do with it.

  7. Shelley Brooks • October 5, 2017 @ 12:45 PM

    The second movie was so bad it would have to be a lot better to interest anyone.

  8. Derek Beaupre • October 5, 2017 @ 1:08 PM

    Kim has every right to do What she pleases.
    The others are more interested in a paycheck than anything else, same as the last one.
    If you don’t want to do something, you should not have to deal with a bunch of cows trying to guilt you into doing it.

  9. Allie223 • October 5, 2017 @ 1:29 PM

    SATC had its day…the only reason to do a third movie would be to erase the horrid-ness that was the second movie from our minds. The series was good, the first movie, while unnecessary was entertaining. As for KC being a diva, if at all true, perhaps some of her demands might be legit…she takes far more risks in her role as Samantha than any of the other three characters as far as nudity and sexuality goes and perhaps she should be given more than in previous films but the character now is so overplayed, almost to the point of cartoonish. SJP has been type cast as “carrie” for life, and now that’s the only reason to do another movie and the other two, well, everyone needs a paycheck, right?

  10. Yawnie13 • October 5, 2017 @ 1:41 PM

    It’s just a pay check. SATC has been over for quite a while. I respect Kim for knowing this and moving on. Maybe SJP shod try doing the same thing. I never understood how she was the centre focus of the show. Maybe this “square peg” needs to find a new home to fit into. It’s called growth.

  11. Jimbo • October 5, 2017 @ 3:11 PM

    Why did I read this dribble? Who cares not me.

  12. TeeDee • October 5, 2017 @ 5:47 PM

    Anyone who feels Kim ‘owes’ this to the others in the cast/fans is being ridiculous. None of us would want to feel forced to return to a job that we left 10 years ago. Also, I don’t believe a word of the so-called “rumours” that the media invents just to sell gossip rags. Let the other 3 do it if they want and let Kim decide for herself what she does in her career, in the same way we want to live our own lives.

  13. TeeDee • October 5, 2017 @ 5:49 PM

    Oh and btw, the headline for this article is pure click bait. Kim did “not” call her co-stars, “toxic”, she said the rumours and comments are “like being in a toxic relationship.”

  14. Karen • October 5, 2017 @ 5:51 PM

    Good idea, kill Samantha off, opening scene is her raunchy memorial service. KC’S character never really seemed connected to the other 3 and their characters and more real life issues. Samantha had her breast cancer stuff but generally all her character did was “f*+#” the first man that stood still long enough.
    KC is a better stage actress in small cast productions were she doesn’t share the spotlight with other women.
    Carrie, Miranda and Charlotte hope to see you again. You guys are timeless

  15. Cathy • October 5, 2017 @ 7:45 PM

    The tv show was great in it ‘s time but that is over. They are all too old to keep playing these same characters unless they are now going to be grandparents in the new storyline.

  16. Chris Foster • October 5, 2017 @ 11:34 PM

    Kim came to the small town I live in to film a movie years ago and she seemed lovely and very gracious to everyone. She is a genuine person and really doesn’t owe it to anyone to continue to play a character in a story line that she feels has run it’s course – even if others disagree. I think it is unfair and somewhat bully like tactics of others (including SJP) to lay the blame for the movie not being made at KC’s feet alone. The streets of Hollywood are littered with many fantastic scripts and stories that will never be told; they had their kick at the can twice!!

  17. Snepts • October 6, 2017 @ 9:43 AM

    Parker was the most annoying character on the show.

  18. RN • October 6, 2017 @ 9:47 AM

    I think Kim is right if she busy and does not want to do any more SATC movies it is alright. The others could make the movie without her if they wanted no need to kill Kim off just she is out of country or whatever. People come and go lot’s in real life. I think the other girls need to grow up and maybe show maturity they should have at their ages.

  19. Barbara • October 6, 2017 @ 11:16 AM

    I never watched the show and I certainly would not watch this movie! SJP is certainly not a GREAT actress from different roles I’ve seen her play. Who Cares Sarah?? Give it up we don’t want a remake of a terrible movie role you seem to care so much about!!

  20. Sam • October 6, 2017 @ 11:55 AM

    I wonder who all these fans were that wanted another movie, like SJP said? It seems the consensus is that no one wanted another movie, especially if the second one was bad (I’ve never seen it, you couldn’t pay me to sit through trash like that).

  21. Not SJP • October 10, 2017 @ 11:41 PM

    I am very glad to hear there will not be a third attempt at a SATC movie after the series. Sequels are rarely as good as the original. The series was great for what it was at the time. I think we have all moved on. I can see the SATC crew maybe wanting to try a stab at a movie once or even twice, but both of these were tried and extremely lack-lustre.

    I respect Kim for having healthy boundaries. It shows she has some integrity to say “no” after two failed post-series movie attempts. It’s obvious Kim respects her image and craft, rather than just chasing money. Bravo!

  22. Ron • November 19, 2017 @ 12:24 AM

    I completely agree that it’s time to move on…I loved the series, but that was then…these lovely women are all in their 50’s/60’s now…would be somewhat sad for the old premise to continue on…hats off to KC…enough is enough…

Join The Conversation:

Similar Articles

Candace Bushnell writing new Sex and the City TV script

March 28, 2019 | Leave a Comment

Good news for fans of Sex and the City! Author Candace Bushnell has announced her new book, Is There Still Sex in The City? will be published in August.

New York City filming locations tour of TV shows and movies

November 6, 2018 | Leave a Comment

To celebrate the release of Succession on Blu-ray (Nov. 6th), HBO invited us to visit the key filming locations in New York City as seen on classic HBO shows.

New DVD releases – The Hateful Eight, Concussion and more

March 29, 2016 | Leave a Comment

Quentin Tarantino fans are faithful and passionate, and they’ll surely be racing to grab their copy of his latest film, The Hateful Eight, out on DVD this week. Other films on the list of DVD releases include Will Smith’s Concussion and the remake of Point Break.

 Change Location