Has Sarah Jessica Parker just confirmed Sex and the City 3?

... or is it in fact about a new shoe collection? "The cat's out of the (little brown) bag" teases the actress who says she's under a "strict gag order"

According to Sarah Jessica Parker’s latest Instagram post the “cat’s out of the (little brown) bag”. But what cat is it? 


On the one hand, the picture feels like one of the biggest hints yet that Carrie and co are reuniting for a third Sex and the City film. The white dress is very similar to the one worn by Carrie on the SATC2 poster, she’s strutting along clearly having been shopping at one of Carrie’s favourite stores and well, she’s wearing heels, which is SATC 101. 

But, could it actually just be news about another shoe line from the star, presumably with some involvement from Bloomingdales?

She was spotted doing a photo shoot there yesterday (standing on top of the sign no less), suggesting that’s how the cat got out of the bag – passers by snagged snaps after all. Perhaps this is just a snap from the shoot? Plus – not to go too Sherlock Holmes here – she has tagged her shoes in the Instagram post.

The actress writes: “Well, I guess the cat’s out of the (little brown) bag. As usual, we will keep you posted on every little detail as we are able. I’m under strict gag order until then.”

It’s not stopped SATC fans from hoping. After all, it’s certainly not the first time there’s been talk of SJP, Cynthia Nixon, Kim Cattrall and Kristin Davis reuniting.

SJP has gone on record to say “there’s one last chapter to tell” while Davis has admitted the “exciting” idea of a third movie is more than just a “pipe dream”. Heck, Mr Big himself Chris Noth told RadioTimes.com he had an idea for how the third instalment would play out: “The divorce?! That could be it.”  

If that’s the case, fans better brace themselves: an almost wedding, an affair, an actual marriage, then a divorce? Maybe one day we’ll get a ‘the end’ on the Carrie/Big story. Or just a nice new pair of shoes, eh?


Watch Noth talk SATC3 here: