![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
offbalanceSo, they've been filming all around midtown the past few weeks, and this week, the crowd is over by St. Patrick's Cathedral. Word on the street is that Big and Carrie are getting married. Good on them.
However.
The continuity whore in me has a big problem with this. In the Season 1 episode, "Come All Ye Faithful," it was established that Big was a weekly churchgoer at Park Avenue Presbyterian Church. Carrie, in that episode (or possibly the one where Charlotte is wrestling over whether she should convert to Judaism or not), states that she was raised in "the church of be nice to people and eat your vegetables."
So, why, pray tell (pardon the pun), would they get married in a CATHOLIC Cathedral?? I may not know too much about the Christian faith, but I'm pretty sure that Catholic and Presbyterian are not interchangeable. It's not a big hall you rent out, either. I think you need some proof that you're Catholic to get married in St. Pat's. Am I wrong?
A few reasons they could be shooting that scene there:
1. Big and Carrie aren't the ones getting married, and that was just a rumor.
2. The producers/location people figured that no one currently living in the five boroughs is going to bother seeing this film, so they decided to go for an iconic New York location, rather than an *accurate* one. I mean, St. Patrick's is pretty, right? And it's on Fifth Avenue, right near where Saks just opened up a temple to Carrie's real religion: shoes! It's like, perfect and stuff.
3. No one remembered that Big has been established as a Presbyterian.
4. It's some kind of wacky dream sequence.
I know it may be silly of me to take up a tiny detail such as this one, especially on a show as grossly inaccurate in so many ways as Sex and the City always was. But it's like they're not even trying. They might as well call it Sex and the City: We're In It For More Money. And, like I said, I'm a continuity whore. When a show refers back to some obscure detail from a past season, it makes me all aglow. (like when NCIS referred to DiNozo's past Ypestis poisoning in the season premiere. That made me squee. Continuity!!) It's easy enough to do, especially when you have as few episodes as SATC did. Seriously!
Anyway, I'm through embarrassing myself. Point and laugh in the comments if you must.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Yeah!
Date: 2007-10-03 01:41 pm (UTC)Hey, the man *was* a long-haired hippie carpenter.
Re: Yeah!
Date: 2007-10-03 01:45 pm (UTC)Re: Yeah!
Date: 2007-10-03 02:49 pm (UTC)He's currently being a "rocker" in his country-rock band aka going through his mid-life crisis.
Re: Yeah!
Date: 2007-10-03 02:50 pm (UTC)Re: Yeah!
Date: 2007-10-03 03:00 pm (UTC)When he first started on SaTC, I used to call him Aiden "Chris in the Morning" Shaw. I loved his character and when the affair between Big and Carrie happened, my love affair with the show was over. I was just pissed off with that whole storyline.
Re: Yeah!
Date: 2007-10-03 03:08 pm (UTC)I loved him on Northern Exposure. And I was fine with the first Aiden storyline; I thought it was interesting and made Carrie find out some nasty things about herself. HOWEVER, I hated the SECOND Aiden storyline, never thought they should have brought him back, had them get engaged, or anything. Carrie was wretched to him twice, and I hated her for it.
Re: Yeah!
Date: 2007-10-03 03:23 pm (UTC)Then, of course she was upset that everyone who was Aiden's friend considered her to be 'the bitch that broke his heart twice'. How could ANYONE not like/understand my quirky ways. It was like she didn't want to accept her position as the one who broke his heart, TWICE. If the writers could have allowed Carrie to accept it AND admit it, then it probably would have made her grow up a little. Oh no, that could never happen with Carrie. The "it girl" of the show.
Re: Yeah!
Date: 2007-10-03 03:57 pm (UTC)