Shite and the City
by Ian R Thorpe
2007-10-27
CREATIVE COMMONS: Attribute, non commercial, no derivs.
KEYWORDS:sex,television, fashion, style, drama, relationships, comedy, humour, humor , humour, humor
Here we go fishing for a high profile court action again...
You would think those mega-rich media moguls who own HBO television would have made enough money out of peddling their mediocre, unconvincingly acted, poorly scripted celebrity vehicle shows like Five Go Mad In Manhattan – sorry, we mean Shite And The City – sorry again, we mean Sex and the City to a gullible world to be able to afford a little generosity of spirit. But no, in yet another example of how mean spirited and small minded great wealth can make people, the HBO boys (and girls) are setting their attack dog lawyers on anybody who dares to even go anywhere near close to infringing their intellectual property.
Calling a women's health and fitness centre Health and the City is an allusion to the HBO title but it can hardly be described as a pun, not even by the standards of tabloid headline writers. Sadly though, New Yorker Jennifer Cassetta finds herself fighting a legal move by HBO to force her to change the name of her business.
Jennifer is not alone, we hear they have also gone after Scents and the City, Flex in the City, Pets and the City and even Handbags and the City. So it seems H.B.O (Horrible Bastards Organisation?) thinks it has a copyright on the words “and the City” or “in the City.”
So Boggart Blog says to HBO, “we fart in your general direction, and as for your hotshot lawyers, bring ‘em on.”
We refute HBO’s claim to copyright of the phrase “... and the City” on the grounds that our senior writer Ian Thorpe used that phrase in a poem written in 1969 so if copyright is being infringed it is ours. We reckon we are owed millions in royalties for unauthorised use of our copyright. We also contend that the title “Sex and the City” is dishonest and misleading and as such offends against advertising standards regulations in the UK and Europe. The title suggests the show is about the sex life of a city, but cities are conceptual entities, not living creatures and are therefore incapable of having sex.
We also refute the suggestion that the show’s title refers to the sex lives of the central characters who live in the city. Main lead Sarah Jessica Parker is as sexy as cabbage soup.
There is bonking in the show but showbiz bonking, with is contrived bounciness reminiscent of 1970s British soft smut movies such as Confessions of a Window Cleaner, has nothing to do with what civilised people would call sex.
The bonking in Sex and the City centres on the sexually repulsive Samantha (played by the devastatingly sexy Kim Cattrall here desexy’d by bad scripts and lack of production values) All sophisticated men of the world know women like Samantha. She’s the kind of girl who shags anything that moves but not quickly enough, and then runs round town telling everybody what a lousy shag her latest conquest was. But it is Samantha who is a lousy shag, she knows all the techniques but has none of the spontaneity, passion and humour that make a good partner. Bonking her has nothing to do with sex, you might as well hump a mannequin.
On top of all that, the female cast smoke like chimneys, drink like fishes and eat like pigs. Therefore they must have bad breath, lousy skin and lardy arses.
Sex is not the first word that springs to mind.
In view of all that, in addition to paying Boggart Blog what we are owed in royalties for use of our copyright and change the name of the show to Shite and the City.
Alternatively they can mail us and promise to leave Jennifer Cassetta alone to run her business in peace and we will leave them alone. If they do not comply we will start on The Tudors and its shortarse Henry VIII next.
RELATED POSTS:
Bread And Circuses
Is The Internet Making Us Stupid
Obama & Jackson The Same Person?
What The Romans Did For Us
Breakfast Apprentice
The Great Internet Scam
TV Phone In Scam
Bread And Circuses TV
Is The Turner Prize Shite?
