When I opened my mailbox earlier today, I was at first excited to see the new issue of "Entertainment Weekly" waiting inside (it was a day late), but my happy feelings evaporated immediately upon seeing the cover. The entire issue -- a double issue -- was devoted exclusively to the new "Sex and the City" movie.

You might assume that my negative reaction is because I disliked the HBO series. That's not the case. In fact, while my subscription to HBO came and went during the show's run, whenever I had the channel in my lineup I was a regular viewer. Sure, it wasn't my favorite show, and my sometimes prudish tendencies clashed with Samantha's sensibilities (not to mention Carrie's infidelity with Big while dating Aiden), but I watched and enjoyed the show on a regular basis.

Instead, my disappointment upon seeing EW's theme issue stems from the fact that I don't want a SATC movie. I don't want any changes to the happily-ever-after series finale. After 94 episodes of D-R-A-M-A, the show ended on an up note for all four ladies, but most of that happiness seems poised for evaporation, all for the sake of milking the SATC brand name for cinematic glory. Judging from the movie's ads and trailer, something derails Carrie and Big's wedding, Samantha appears to have strayed from live-in boyfriend Smith, and Steve has done something to betray Miranda. Sigh.

Sometimes stories need to end, no matter how much we may miss them. I don't want "The Sopranos" to cut back from black. I don't need to find out what happened after Jerry and the gang got out of jail on "Seinfeld." And I hope I never find out for sure whether Marlo Stanfield stayed out of the game for good on "The Wire." HBO didn't cancel "Sex and the City." The show's creative team was given the opportunity to end things on their own terms, and they did so in fine fashion. In 2004. Anything after that is unnecessary.