And Just Like That's Big Season 3 Question: Should Carrie Wait Around for Aidan?
Just like the original Sex and the City, Max's sequel series And Just Like That… is all about romance — but I can't help but wonder if Carrie is making a mistake in her love life.
Let's back up: In Season 2, Carrie reunited with her former fiancé Aidan, played by John Corbett, and they discovered the spark was still there between them. Carrie's husband Big had died, and Aidan was divorced, so it seemed like the stars were aligning for them to get a second chance at love together. They even picked out a new apartment together, but when Aidan's sons started having problems back home in Virginia, Aidan decided to move back there to take care of them. He didn't break up with Carrie, though. He asked her to give him some time — about five years, until his sons are grown up.
More from TVLine
Sling Streaming Deal: Get 50% Off Your First Month - Plus, Get an Additional $5 Off When You Bundle With Max
If You Loved The Pitt, Should You Start ER? A Superfan and First-Time Viewer Watch the Pilot, Give Their Two Cents
Max Reveals New Password Sharing Fee - Find Out How Much It Costs
Huh? So Carrie is supposed to sit around in a quiet room with her hands folded until Aidan decides to come back to New York to be with her? This is Carrie Freaking Bradshaw, people. She waits for no one! In Aidan's mind, they've already waited 20 years to get back together, so what's five more? But for people who must be nearing age 60 by now, five years is a substantial chunk of the time they've got left in this world. And as we saw with Big, lives can end in an instant, so there's no guarantee they'll both be around in five years for a happy reunion. It seems like wishful thinking that they can just press pause on their romance for half a decade and then pick up right where they left off.
In the trailer for Season 3 (premiering May 29), Carrie and Aidan are exchanging blank postcards as a way to stay connected, and we see he pays a visit to her new apartment. But we also see Carrie connecting with a handsome new neighbor who calls her 'vibrant.' (Hmmm!) So will her bond with Aidan be able to survive these five years of long distance? I don't see it — but maybe the new competition will spur Aidan to move back sooner than expected. After all, she can't wait around forever.
We want to know what you think: Should Carrie wait around for Aidan? Cast your vote in our poll below, and let us know your feelings heading into Season 3 in a comment below.
Best of TVLine
Weirdest TV Crossovers: Always Sunny Meets Abbott, Family Guy vs. Simpsons, Nine-Nine Recruits New Girl and More
ER Turns 30: See the Original County General Crew, Then and Now
The Best Streaming Services in 2024: Disney+, Hulu, Max and More
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A 'Home Improvement' Clip Is Going Viral For Exposing Just How Backwards We Have Gone As A Society
JIM WATSON / AFP via Getty Images ABC Photo Archives / Disney General Entertainment Content via Getty Images For reference, "Home Improvement" followed the life of DIY TV show host Tim Taylor, played by Tim Allen, his wife, Jill, and their three sons. It originally aired on ABC between 1991 and 1999. ABC via Disney+ 'I don't need Angela to make me a sandwich,' Tim tells Brad, who insists: 'She doesn't mind,' which Angela echoes. Tim reiterates: 'I don't need you to make me a sandwich, thanks. ABC via Disney+ ABC via Disney+ ABC via Disney+ ABC via Disney+ When Tim says that he does, Brad asks: 'And you think that's good?' and Tim reasons: 'Well, I don't know, it works for me… But maybe having Angela as your sandwich girl works for you, your whole life is sandwiches!' ABC via Disney+ Since being posted to TikTok, this clip has been liked almost 200k times, and racked up thousands of comments — with many of them saying the same thing. 'this would be called woke today,' a popular comment reads. Somebody else echoed: 'They tried to do a story like this these days MAGA would call it 'woke' and call for a boycott of everyone involved.' 'Funny how back then the audience would have perceived the dad as a 'good man', whereas now the same audience would call him 'woke/soft/leftist,'' another user added. 'now you would have 300 guys complaining it's woke,' one more agreed, while somebody else observed: 'It's almost like 'wokeness' that people keep referring to has always been there, it just wasn't wrapped up in inflated egos fueled by political rhetoric.' And one more concluded: 'I got so many of my lessons in being a man from 90s sitcoms. Just human lessons, not activists lessons.'
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Money Is Ruining Television
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Watching Carrie Bradshaw—erstwhile sex columnist, intrepid singleton, striver—float down the majestic staircase of her new Gramercy townhouse on a recent episode of And Just Like That while wearing a transparent tulle gown, on an errand to mail a letter, is one of the most cognitively dissonant television experiences I've had recently. And Just Like That has never been a particularly imaginative show with regard to women in midlife, but there's still something fundamentally off about seeing one of the canonical female characters of our era transformed into a Gilded Age archetype, worrying about a garden renovation and choosing back-ordered fabric for a chaise. Carrie, suddenly, has many hats. She communicates with a lover via handwritten notes while she waits for his liberation from the home front in Virginia. What's happened to Carrie, truly, is money. Two decades after Sex and the City rolled to a televised close, acknowledging that its own cultural relevance was waning, its characters continue in zombified form on And Just Like That, pickled in a state of extreme privilege where nothing can touch them. The drama is lifeless, involving rehashed old storylines about beeping alarm systems and 'a woman's right to shoes' that serve mostly as a backdrop for clothes. Charlotte, in a questionable lace workout jacket, worries that her dog has been unfairly canceled. Miranda, in one of a series of patterned blouses, gets really into a Love Island–style reality show. (Remember Jules and Mimi?) Lisa wears feathers to a fundraiser for her husband's political campaign. Seema, in lingerie, nearly burns her apartment down when she falls asleep with a lit cigarette, but in the end, all she loses is an inch or so of hair. The point of the show is no longer what happens, because nothing does. The point is to set up a series of visual tableaus showcasing all the things money can buy, as though the show were an animated special issue of Vogue or Architectural Digest. What's stranger still is that a series that once celebrated women in the workplace has succumbed to financial ideals right out of Edith Wharton: The women who earned their money themselves (Miranda and Seema) somehow don't have enough of it (spoiler—they still seem to have a lot), while the ones who married money (Carrie, Charlotte, Lisa) breeze through life as an array of lunches, fundraisers, and glamping trips, with some creative work dotted into the mix for variety. The banal details of exorbitant wealth—well, it's all quite boring. [Read: We need to talk about Miranda] Lately, most of television seems stuck in the same mode. Virtually everything I've watched recently has been some variation of rich people pottering around in 'aspirational' compounds. On Sirens and The Better Sister, glossy scenes of sleek couture and property porn upstage the intrigue of the plot. On Mountainhead, tech billionaires tussle in a Utah mountain retreat featuring 21,000 square feet of customized bowling alleys and basketball courts. On Your Friends & Neighbors, a disgraced hedge-fund manager sneers at the vacuous wealth of his gated community (where houses cost seven to eight figures), but also goes to criminal lengths to maintain his own living standards rather than lower them by even a smidge. And on With Love, Meghan, the humble cooking show has gotten a Montecito-money glow-up. 'I miss TV without rich people,' the writer Emily J. Smith noted last month on Substack, observing that even supposedly normie shows such as Tina Fey's marital comedy The Four Seasons and Erin Foster's unconventional rom-com Nobody Wants This seem to be playing out in worlds where money is just not an issue for anyone. This is a new development: As Smith points out, sitcoms including Roseanne and Married … With Children have historically featured families with recognizable financial constraints, and the more recent dramedies of the 2010s were riddled with economic anxiety. Reality television, it's worth noting, has been fixated on the lifestyles of the rich and bored virtually since its inception, but as its biggest stars have grown their own fortunes exponentially, the genre has mostly stopped documenting anything other than wealth, which it fetishizes via the gaudy enclaves and private jets of Selling Sunset and Bling Empire. Serialized shows, too, no longer seem interested in considering the stakes and subtleties of most people's lives. Television is preoccupied with literary adaptations about troubled rich white women, barbed satires about absurdly wealthy people on vacation, thrillers about billionaire enclaves at the end of the world. Even our contemporary workplace series (Severance, Shrinking) play out in fictional realms where people work not for the humble paychecks that sustain their lives, but to escape the grief that might otherwise consume them. What does it mean that our predominant fictional landscapes are all so undeniably 'elevated,' to use a word cribbed from the Duchess of Sussex? And Just Like That is evidence of how hard it is for shows that take wealth for granted to have narrative stakes, and how stultifying they become as a result. But we also lose something vital when we no longer see 99 percent of American lives reflected on the small screen. Money isn't just making TV boring. It's also reshaping our collective psyche—building a shared sense of wealth as the only marker of a significant life, and rich people as the only people worthy of our gaze. We're not supposed to be able to empathize with the characters on-screen, these strutting zoo animals in $1,200 shoes and $30,000-a-night villas. But we're not being encouraged to empathize with any other kinds of characters, either—to see the full humanity and complexity of so many average people whose lives feel ever more precarious in this moment, and ever more in need of our awareness. On an episode in the final season of Sex and the City, a socialite named Lexi Featherston cracks a floor-to-ceiling window, lights a cigarette, and declares that New York is over, O-V-E-R. 'When did everybody stop smoking?' she sneers. 'When did everybody pair off?' As the hostess glares at her, she continues: 'No one's fun anymore. Whatever happened to fun? God, I'm so bored I could die.' Famous last words: Lexi, of course, promptly trips on her stiletto, falls out the absurdly dangerous glass panel, and plummets to her death. Her arc—from exalted '80s It Girl to coked-up aging party girl—was supposed to represent finality, the termination of the city's relevance as a cultural nexus. 'It's the end of an era,' Carrie says at Lexi's funeral, where Stanford is elated to have scored VIP seats next to Hugh Jackman. 'The party's officially over,' Samantha agrees. After six seasons of transforming how a generation of women dated, dressed, even drank, Sex and the City seemed to be acknowledging that its own moment had come to an end. The characters were undeniably older, no longer seeking anthropological meaning in a SoHo nightclub at 3 a.m. But the city that the show documented—and popular culture more broadly—had shifted, too: toward less spontaneity, less rebellion, and infinitely higher incomes. [Read: The ghost of a once era-defining show] The year that final season aired, 2004, is possibly when television's prurient obsession with rich people really kicked off, with the launch of shows including Desperate Housewives, Entourage, and, notably, The Apprentice. A year earlier, Fox had premiered a soapy drama called The O.C., which charted the rags–to–Range Rover adventures of a teen from Chino who ended up ensconced in the affluent coastal town of Newport Beach. Until then, it had never occurred to me that teenagers could wear Chanel or drive SUVs that cost six figures, although watching them rattle around in McMansions the size of the Met provided much of The O.C.'s visual thrill. In direct response to the show's success, MTV debuted the reality show Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County a year later, and in 2006, Bravo countered with its own voyeuristic peek into the lives of the rich and fabulous—The Real Housewives of Orange County. Documenting wealth enticingly on television is a difficult balancing act: You want to stoke enough envy that people are inspired to buy things (gratifying advertisers along the way), but not so much that you risk alienating the viewer. Reality TV pulled it off by starting small. The women on the first season of Real Housewives were well off, but not unimaginably so. They lived in high-end family homes, not sprawling temples of megawealth. Similarly, when Keeping Up With the Kardashians debuted in 2007, the family lived in a generous but chintzy bungalow, having not yet generated the billions of dollars that would later pay for their minimalist compounds in Calabasas and Hidden Hills. During the 2008 financial crisis, a critic for The New York Times wondered whether the tanking global economy might doom the prospects of shows such as The Real Housewives of Atlanta, which had just premiered, and turn them into 'a time capsule of the Bling Decade.' But the fragility of viewers' own finances, oddly, seemed to make them more eager to watch. Shows about money gratified both people's escapist impulses and the desire to critique those who didn't seem worthy of their blessings. As Jennifer O'Connell, a producer for The Real Housewives of New York City, put it to the Times a year later: 'Everyone likes to judge.' The toxic, unhappy, rich-people shows that have more recently proliferated on prestige TV—the Succession and White Lotus and Big Little Lies variation—cover their backs with cynicism. Money doesn't make you happy, they assert over and over, even though studies suggest otherwise. The documentation of extreme wealth on television with such clarifying bitterness, they imply, surely inoculates audiences from pernicious aspiration. Except it doesn't: The Four Seasons San Domenico Palace in Sicily was fully booked for a good six months following the second season of The White Lotus, despite the fictional bodies floating in the water. And a study conducted at the London School of Economics in 2018 found that a person's increased exposure to shows that regularly 'glamourize fame, luxury, and the accumulation of wealth' made them more inclined to support welfare cuts; it also noted other studies that found that the more people watched materialistic media, the more anxious and unhappy they were likely to be in their own lives. Watching shows about wealth does, however, seem to stimulate the desire to shop, which is maybe why this latest season of And Just Like That feels intended for an audience watching with a second screen in their hand—all the better to harvest the aspirational consumption the show's lifestyles might generate. Streaming services are already tapping into the reams of data they have on viewers by serving them customized ads related to the series they might be watching, and many are also experimenting with e-commerce. You could argue that And Just Like That is honoring the spirit of Sex and the City by putting fashion front and center. But the vacant dullness of the new season feels wholly of its time: This is television for the skin-deep influencer age, not the messy, pioneering drama it once was. More crucially, Carrie and company take up space that deprives us of more shows like The Pitt, one of a sparse handful of series documenting the workers trying to patch up the holes in an ever more unequal America. No one seems to have anticipated that the Max series would be such a success. As workers today are being squeezed 'for all their worth, no more chit-chatting at the water cooler, we've gotten to a point where reality for most people is quite unpleasant,' Smith writes on Substack. 'And executives are betting that we don't actually want to watch it.' The reality of the TV business also underscores why shows that sell us something—even if it's just the illusion of exceptional prosperity as a default—are easier to commission. But audiences will always be drawn to drama, and the stakes of defiantly deglamorized series such as The Bear and Slow Horses feel necessary in this moment, when the state of the future relies so much on the direction and quality of our attention. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
LIVE! UFC 316 Results, Streaming ‘Prelims' Updates
UFC 316 featured prelim fighter Joshua Van. | Photo by Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) goes down TONIGHT (Sat., June 7, 2025) with UFC 316 live from Prudential Center in Newark, N.J., and streaming LIVE on ESPN+ PPV. UFC 316 features Merab Dvalishvili vs. Sean O'Malley 2 in the main event, for Dvalishvili's Bantamweight title. This is Dvalishvili's second time defending the belt. Advertisement Is he looking past tonight's opponent, though? UFC 316's co-main event has Julianna Pena vs. Kayla Harrison for the women's Bantamweight belt. The PPV main card also has Kelvin Gastelum vs. Joe Pyfer, Mario Bautista vs. Patchy Mix and Kevin Holland vs. Vicente Luque. UFC 316's 'Prelims' have seen some chopping and changing. The featured 'Prelims' bout remains Joshua Van vs. Bruno Silva in the Flyweight division. The late 'Prelims' also include Azamat Murzakanov vs. Brendson Ribeiro, Serghei Spivac vs. Waldo Cortes-Acosta and Khaos Williams vs. Andreas Gustafsson. Our UFC 316 early 'Prelims' are headlined by Ariane da Silva vs. Wang Cong. The opening card also has Jeka Saragih vs. Joo Sang Yoo, Quillan Salkilld vs. Yanal Asmouz and MarQuel Mederos vs. Mark Choinski. Advertisement So, before UFC 316's PPV action begins at 10 p.m. ET tonight right here, will deliver LIVE coverage of the entire UFC 316 'Prelims' undercard below, beginning with the first fight at 6 p.m. ET this evening on Disney+/ESPN+. Again, we are covering UFC 316's PPV main card in a separate thread right here, beginning at 10 p.m. ET. UFC 316 START TIME AND DATE will deliver LIVE round-by-round, blow-by-blow coverage of the entire UFC 316 fight card below, starting with the ESPN+/Disney+ early 'Prelims' undercard bouts, which air at 6 p.m. ET, followed by the UFC 316's late 'Prelims,' which air on Disney+/ESPN/ESPN+ at 8 p.m. ET. This is followed by UFC 316's PPV main card, which will start at 10 p.m ET on ESPN+ PPV, with play-by-play updates here. Keep in mind that we will also be the spot for the latest news, recaps, and post-fight analysis following 'Merab vs. O'Malley 2.' Without further delay, see below for the updated UFC 316 results. (Note: This will go from the top down; therefore, the newest information will at the top of the stream). UFC 316 QUICK RESULTS 135 lbs.: Merab Dvalishvili vs. Sean O'Malley 135 lbs.: Julianna Pena vs. Kayla Harrison 185 lbs.: Kelvin Gastelum vs. Joe Pyfer 135 lbs.: Mario Bautista vs. Patchy Mix 170 lbs.: Vicente Luque vs. Kevin Holland 125 lbs.: Bruno Silva vs. Joshua Van 205 lbs.: Azamat Murzakanov vs. Brendson Ribeiro 265 lbs.: Serghei Spivac vs. Waldo Cortes-Acosta 170 lbs.: Khaos Williams vs. Andreas Gustafsson 125 lbs.: Ariane da Silva vs. Wang Cong 145 lbs.: Jeka Saragih vs. Joo Sang Yoo 155 lbs.: Quillan Salkilld vs. Yanal Ashmouz 155 lbs.: MarQuel Mederos vs. Mark Choinski UFC 316 'PRELIMS' PLAY-BY-PLAY UPDATES The Prudential Center, home to the New Jersey Devils, hosts UFC 316 tonight. To check out the latest and greatest UFC 316: 'Merab vs. O'Malley 2' news and notes be sure to hit up our comprehensive event archive right here. More from
