The Sex and the City movie was set in New York City, filmed in New York City, and treats New York City like the oft-touted "fifth character" of the story. But last night, it got its world premiere in London. Controversy over New Line Cinema's decision to debut the film across the ocean from its home town almost overshadowed the debut itself. The question "Why London?" followed the four leading ladies onto the sparkly red carpet. When pressed for a reason, producer and star Sarah Jessica Parker explained that that was where their "bosses" decided to have the premiere. Smooth move SJP, but aren't you sort of one of those "bosses" you're so swift to pass the buck to?

In another article via the Telegraph, Cynthia Nixon offers further explanation, saying that they're just "building to the New York premiere," which promises to be a much larger affair than the "smallish premiere" in London's Leicester Square.

Channeling Carrie Bradshaw for a minute here (and then I promise never to do it again): In reading all this hoopla about choosing London over New York, I couldn't help but wonder: At what point does bad press about a movie premiere overshadow the good buzz about the movie itself?

New Line Cinema and/or Parker should think about coming up with some kind of definitive answer to fans' questions. Perhaps London offered better fashion freebies, or a clueless assistant got "Big Ben" and "Big Apple" mixed up. No matter what the real reason is, all too often the speculation is worse. Rumors are nasty things, and Carrie & Co. should know that better than anyone.

Tags: cities, sex, sex and the city