Isel said:

Very true. MTV could have been the adult and just told her not to perform, but Britney's not a child. She's a grown woman with two small children. If she needs people to hold her hand for everything instead of making the better decisions for herself, than she's a lost cause. Why should they have to treat her like an incompetent child? I surely hope they wouldn't smack her hand and tell her, "No performing for you tonight, young lady." This is why she's disowned all the people who were there for her from the beginning...she wanted to be in control of her life, but apparently has no idea of how to do that on her own. She needs to learn how to look at a situation and think it through instead of just jumping into it blindly. She didn't do normal rehearsals, so I doubt there was a dress rehearsal. Some media program said that MTV asked her to wear a corset, but she told them, "No, it's not sexy enough." I don't know how true that is, but I also don't know how true it isn't. They can't force her to do anything that she doesn't want to do, just like nobody can force her to seek help...she has to want it for herself. She obviously thought she was ready for that 'comeback performance'. It would have been easier and better for her to just not perform at all, then do what she did. She could have sited 'exhaustion'...shit, everybody else does and it would actually have been true for Britney, especially if she was partying every night before the performance. MTV has had to juggle performance acts on more than one of their award shows in the past, so I'm sure they wouldn't have had any trouble replacing her if they had been told that Britney wasn't ready to perform by someone in her camp with the guts to really help her.. I don't believe that MTV is going to crucifix one of it's golden girls. Hell, Kanye really wanted to be the opening act; and it could have been a surprise if he had opened instead of Britney, so ratings might have still been high. They could have continued telling everybody that Britney was going to be on the show, and at the last minute, tell everybody that Britney was sick and couldn't perform. There, nobody's hurt in the end, but how were they to know it was going to be this bad. She's fired all the people who may have been controlling her, but they also weren't letting her destroy herself either. Once they were all out of the picture, than all the new, moochers aka 'friends' started showing up. Sad to say, many of her fans aren't helping her by defending her bad actions every second and continuing to buy her products. Sometimes you have to cut a person off completely for them to miss all the things that they took for granted. Tough love does work. I just think she needs to really disappear for as long as she needs, so she can figure out how to live her life without having to be guided by someone else. Just my

estelle81 said:

This already an old topic, but I have to respond. There are a lot of adults with children who don't behave responsibly, so what's your point? Britney is NOT the only person in the world who is doesn't behave like we would expect a rational person. Would a rational person have put themselves in the many compromising situations as Britney? Would MOST rational people lose sell their dignity for a buck? The bottom line is that there is something very wrong with Britney. I don't know the girl... so all of this is gossip and speculation, BUT she's either a drug addict, alcoholic, or has some sort of emotional problems--more than likely ALL OF THE PRECEDING--according to statistics. She has had problems for years--even when her old management and parents "controlled" her career. She has just gone from one set of enablers to another. Granted, her former "team" cut her off, but as far as I'm concerned, it was a too little too late. And maybe it was more about saving THEIR credibility than hers--just a thought.

Obviously, even adults sometimes don't think rationally--particularly when they are in the midst of drug addiction or some other type of "crisis." Like children, even troubled adults sometimes need some protection from THEMSELVES because they aren't capable of making reasonable decisions. Unfortunately, the people responsible for getting her up on the stage in the first place KNEW about her issues: WE ALL have known about her issues, so like I said earlier it wasn't any surprise that she spent most of her time in Vegas partying rather than rehearsing. The REAL surpise would have been if she actually pulled-off her "comeback" with that performance. Now, maybe she promised them she would behave--I have no idea. But somebody could have pulled the plug very early when the girl wasn't rehearsing and taking her "comeback" seriously. It's called ethics. As far as MTV, to me the execs.are just like shady boxing promoters--putting a "big name" troubled fighter in the ring--KNOWING damn good and well he/she was going to lose, but going through with it because the fighter would bring in a crowd. Then the boxing match because less about the sport, but more about the spectacle and EVERYBODY wins in regard to "money" because even the boxer is paid, BUT his/her reputation is ruined--plus the credibility of the sport is damaged--not mention the fact the boxer is "enabled" once again, believing he/she still has "it" in regard to popularity at least when whatever legitimate training combined with skill making him/her popular is a thing of the past.

Similarly, Britney's performance was less about HER performance and more about the spectacle she created. In fact, as Simon Cowell was quoting as saying--Britney's performance--as bad as it was--overshadowed everything else on that show. I wouldn't know because I didn't watch it because I've long crossed MTV off my viewing list. BUt if there were any legitimate performers, nobody is talking about them: most everyone was talking about Britney, and THAT'S disrespectful not only to the other "acts" but also to the viewing audience. I realize the Music Video Award is supposed to be sort of tongue in cheek anyway, but usually the musical acts have some sort of credibility--even if that credibility is within the genre of a dance/music act.

All of that said, I agree with tough love, but who was being tough with Britney? A tough love approach would have been to tell her upfront, she would NOT get up on that stage unprepared or maybe NOT offering her the gig in the first place. Hell, MTV could have even suggested drug testing even though that is a little extreme, but it's tough isn't it? Nonetheless, producers of movies do it sometimes because they are concerned with their OWN reputations and liability if not the artist's. However, apparently, nobody was being either tough or professional with Britney. I stand by what I said, the people involved just used her.. like she's been used in the past. So I do have compassion for her in the same way I have compassion for Whitney Houston. Both of their situations are very, very sad and similar in certain respects because they BOTH got involved with something they obviously couldn't handle. The good news for them is that they both do have money and resources to help them, BUT unfortunately that money is also a curse because it prevents them from ever really hitting rock-bottom and keeps the "hangers-on" and enablers coming back. So it's sort of viscious cycle.

Look, I'm no fan of Britney's. I don't own one of her cd's. But I hate to see a person "used" when they are down--ANYBODY rich, famous, or anonymous and poor.
An what really gets me is people are blaming BRITNEY--even though she's a friggin mess, but the people enabling her are getting-off unscathed. They'll move-on to the next gig or another meal ticket. But Britney is being raked over the coals. I'm just saying, there was no reason for it at all. To me, Britney is a mess, so it's up to the people who are supposed to be thinking rationally--who are supposed to be PROFESSIONALS-- to protect her from herself. Of course, that didn't happen in this case because there was too much to gain from exploiting her--AGAIN. Frankly, it's no better than exploiting a drug-addicted or emotionally unstable prostitute, except MTV, et al, are PIMPS, and it's apparently OK because this is ((or has become)ENTERTAINMENT for all the world to see?
[Edited 9/13/07 6:38am]

CalhounSq said:

that shit made the evening news

Isel said:

So, basically you feel that MTV and her current management should continue to treat her as if she were a child? They should make all important decisions for her and continue to hold her hand and guide her step-by-step through her career and life? Hey, no arguments from me in that case. There has never been any doubt in my mind that this girl is addicted to something and/or mentally damaged. She does need to seek help, but like I stated, she has to want to help herself. If she doesn't think she has a problem, than nobody is going to force her into anything if she doesn't agree to it (unless they declare her 'incompetent', at which time they can have her committed to a mental evaluation). After watching lots of "Intervention" (great show that really shows you how self-destructive people can really be), I learned that you really can't help someone who doesn't want to help themselves...no matter how much you care about that person. Forcing her into rehab already happened and is the main reason why she disowned all those people, family included, who were there for her when she was just a small town girl looking for her big break. She's not the only celebrity in entertainment history to be used by their management or label (and she definitely won't be the last, unfortunately). She's actually a whole lot luckier than some who died without a penny to their names and riddled with debt. The girl is banking over $700,000 a month, so her handlers didn't completely steal from her in the long run. All those people who 'pimped' her, left her quite the nice little nest egg to live the rest of her life on. Yeah, I know, "Money can't buy you everything", but it's better than being broke and having to figure out how to make it in the real world working a 9-to-5 after being a big celebrity for soo long. But, it's okay. People feel sorry for her; so they will go out and buy her new album when it drops. For all I know, she could have planned this whole thing. The awful performance might have just been a way for her to get people to buy her album out of sympathy and pity because of the hardships she's had to endure in recent months. If that's the case, than that's some pretty smart marketing campaign she's got going there and it's most likely going to make the album go platinum. Maybe she's smarter than I take her for. I will agree with you that this is now an old topic and also say that I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions of her; nor is anyone going to change mine. I don't feel sorry for her, because I don't see her as being a victim. Much of the drama that she has gone through, she brought on herself and I can't feel sorry for anyone who jumps into a empty pool without looking first. I always say there are two types of people in this world: those who learn the easy way; and those who learn the hard way. Just my

You might be very correct about Britney. I'm not asking for you to feel "sorry" for her. I don't care if you do or don't. But what I'm saying is that TPTB need to protect their own INTEGRITY if nothing else at this point because it really doesn't look like they even care about her or how they are being represented. I read in the New York Times Jive was still going to release her cd? Well does the girl REALLY want her cd to be released? Is she really serious about her comeback or "career" for that matter? And even if she is..if she does have some type of problem, she might just need a little help fulfilling her commitment from those people standing to make tons of money off her, too. Unfortunately though, since trainwrecks are so popular, people are going to be making money off her no matter the quality of the product--well at least in the short term. MTV succeeded in increasing its ratings, for example. It really didn't matter that Britney was a mess.

MY issue is more about the people around her. In ANY other professional situation, a person would be either fired, or forced to take a leave of absence if he/she couldn't perform a "job." In fact, it's not uncommon for some companies to suggest counseling or whatever in order for an professional to keep his/her job. Why is this any different? So in a way, we agree with each other. But you think it's Britney's sole responsibility to get herself together, but I think it's also the "professionals" responsibility to give her some support. I tell ya what, as far as the choreographers, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't her to make a mockery of my work or the hard work the dancers put into that show. Given her history, I sure as hell would put some restrictions in place so she wouldn't embarrass herself and me, the dancers--the integrity of the production,etc., by extension. Honestly,I don't know what transpired because I wasn't there, but I tell ya what, if she had showed up at dress rehearsal unable to fulfill HER commitment TO ME, I would have not only refused to perform, but sued HER to pay me for my work and also the dancers. So I'm not as "nice" as I might appear. However, I do think there is something wrong with her, and PEOPLE NEED TO BE CAREFUL WORKING WITH HER BECAUSE SHE WILL TAKE THEM DOWN WITH HER.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel sorry for MTV,Jive, her lawyers, her choreographers,her manager,.. anybody who was responsible for getting her on that stage because they KNEW what they were getting. And if they KNEW what they were getting, then I have to question their motives for allowing her to perform in the first place--or even pitching the idea to her when she has a history for YEARS now of flaking out due to her own ego or ther more serious reasons. However, I do feel sorry for the dancers--hired to do a job and the other performers on that show who were professional and ready to perform since their work was completely overshadowed by this drama.

I'm just suggesting when is somebody going to say, enough already? And if they don't--if they let this behavior continue for the trainwreck factor--because they can make money and get exposure regardless, then shame on them AS WELL AS Britney except she is in "denial" at the very least that people still care about her as an "artist" rather than a joke. So, yeah.. I do sort of feel sorry for her for in that respect.
[Edited 9/15/07 5:43am]

I was going to post this when the subject of compassion came up...
The only way Britney might get a wakeup call is if people stop hiring and working with her. But that probably won't happen. The biggest problem for these kids like her and Lindsay is that they don't want to listen to anyone.

Supposedly Britney didn't like what the stylist had done to her hair and threw him out or he stormed out. Same with the original outfit. Madonna has reached out to her as well. People like this are lost until they decide to help themselves and she can't even admit that she has a problem (and I'm sure she has a dozen of them). "It's Britney, b*tch." Are you kidding me? Even if she pulls it together that doesn't mean that she's got it together inside. Most of these kids are just hard-headed. They're arrogant, flaunt their wealth and celebrity when they get in trouble and don't want to listen to anyone.

I wouldn't work with someone that messed up. What does that say about me and my character? It's most likely hell on me and a poor reflection of my work so I don't blame the stylist for walking out. But the label's going to go ahead with CD and I guess we'll see if she's able to promote it but I'd be damned if she made a mockery out of my label, network, television show, styling, etc.

If people stopped supporting her and buying her albums and videos maybe then she'd get the message but her fans think she's hot and her music is great and she's a victim and blah blah blah so she'll continue on because her public accepts it.

Didn't that chick tell Matt Lauer that she wanted to live a quiet life or be low profile for awhile and raise her kids? And she's done everything but that. A celebrity can become low profile or even invisible if they truly want to but we have to know about her every move whether orchestrated or not. It wouldn't be so pathetic if she weren't a mother.
[Edited 9/15/07 6:13am]

JackieBlue said:

I think the problem is much deeper and uglier than that. Greed is a big factor, there are so many they want to be part of this whole imaginary comeback that they are all signing on because they wanna be the ones to say "Hey i helped Britney" so people like Timbaland and MTv and other producers on the album, are all GUILTY too. But it also must be said that people are just so HUNG up in this TMZ zone that they know more about Britneys kids than their own. I also blame her mother for alot of this stuff, there is something to be said of Child stars who are thrown into fame and dont have good parenting, Lindsay,Nicole,Britney and yes Michael Jackson too, they are all products of bad parenting and they are just not able to pull it together. And its not always an abuse situation, sometimes its just not letting your kids live as opposed to going on stage or being in a movie. But then again i do blame media for focusing on this, they love to report the scandal and tragedy rather than the positive, take A Hilary and Haylie Duff, good family, good people, they arent shoving their money up their nose or crashing into a wall drunk, but is that reported, NO, why, because who wants to hear something positive, no one. The fact that TMZ posted a phone message between Alec Bladwin and his daughter is proof of how they work, now maybe what Alec said was wrong, but kids sometimes need to be yelled at, i mean if he murdered her that would be something else indeed, but yelling at your kid, thats wrong? and then he has to redeem himself on Dr. Phil, what kind of a world do we live in?

As for Britney, people like the scandal and they will report it, because i feel deep down they are wanting another Anna Nicole type story here, and sad to say many companies and people want to be a part of it.

Yes, greed is at the root of all of this and most ills whether it be for fame, money, possessions, etc.

I believe there is some sort of societal morbid fascination with waiting for the other shoe to drop. People want to see a comeback but don't seem to mind a good crash and burn either.

JackieBlue said:

Yeah.. I tell ya,this is the problem I'm having as far a sort of social commentary.

Britney's fiasco is not necessarily the first time a high-profile performer--troubled or not-- has gotten-up on stage drunk or made a fool of him/herself. What bothers me is that now..it's seems to be OK to do that. In other words, a record label.. MTV.. agents,etc., the performers themselves are more willing to take that risk with NAME artists because bad publicity is better than no publicity at all because something is gonna sell just by virtue of their name alone. I don't know if I'm explaining myself very well, but when there are shows created just to show the celebrity meltdowns--and they're successful.. well there is something very wrong with that trend. Or even something like American Idol... where the first part is dedicated to those people willing to make fools of themselves just for a shot in the spotlight--and it seems to me hoping someone will make em a "star" for it.. well there's something wrong with that picture for me.

I just really think in the past, MTV wouldn't have been so quick to book Britney without any type of conditions apparently.. given all the bad publicity she has received over the past few years.. It just seems to me over the past decade in particular.. it doesn't really matter if a performer has a meltdown as long as everyone makes money in the process, AND the audience is either entertained in one way or another--even if it's very similar to the same sort of entertainment one might get from watching the WWF.

Don't ya'll think in the distant past, JIve and MTV would have been a little more reluctant because their reputations would be on the line? That's why I was SHOCKED to read Jive was gonna release this cd in Novemeber anyway--even though by ALL ACCOUNTS including but not limited to this performance, Britney HERSELF doesn't appear to be committed to promoting the project with respect to herself and her work--for a variety of reasons. Would a record company allow this new, talented "hot" artist to "go ahead" with a project if he/she was high-risk in regard to promoting it? I'm just asking?

It's just weird--and it's like this dynmaic is just so expedient.

Najee said:

I agree with every word, but particularly this bit "It’s about Spears symbolizing a disturbing trend of equating inappropriately young sexiness with some twisted form of feminism". That's what makes me laugh. If these people are so concerned about the effect on young girls of Britney being called fat I wonder if they were protesting 5 years ago when Britney was being rewarded for reinforcing the very same body standards they are supposedly opposed to. I wonder if they've ever given a second thought to the tons of more talented and interesting female artists who never got success because they refused to walk around half naked, or because they were the same weight that Britney is now.

As far as Britney's personal issues, hey, my heart goes out to her, but quite frankly it's none of my business. She is one person, and her individual problems are no more important than millions of other individuals who are going through worse things as we speak. What matters to me is what her success represents, and it represents everything I'm against. Namely a complete disregard for artistic merit in favour of marketing concerns. Her songs are mostly garbage. Her performances have always been like a tarted-up version of The Laker Girls with lipsynching. She can't sing live and she is completely devoid of anything resembling a personality. She could well have been the first genetically modified pop star, but something's obviously gone wrong with the programming in recent years. They sold her the same way Matel sells Barbie dolls. They sold an image. That was all there ever was. Now it's gone. Boo hoo.
[Edited 9/15/07 10:16am]
[Edited 9/15/07 11:34am]

JackieBlue said:

midnightmover said:

co-sign

midnightmover said:

EXCELLENT and well thought out commentary from you both. Y'all are on fire today!

^^

Well.. the only thing is that didn't she start her "image" as a kid? Weren't there any adults there to say.. uh I don't think so?

It's not like she was Madonna-who was in her 20's, rolling around on the stage in a wedding gown. And at least Madonna finished high school, studied at Alvin Ailey, and completed a year of college. I don't think Britney even finished high school, did she?

I STILL don't hold Britney completely responsible because I think people around her have been exploiting her from the get-go. Now, they are still exploiting her..squeezing every drop of juice out of her.

That's why I just can't completely blame Britney, and I DO have compassion for her because nobody even bothered "nurturing" her--or instilling any sort of self-respect. Hey.. it was apparently OK to be portray a "Lolita" type of character early in her career. It was OK to lip-synch rather than sing. But now that she's an adult...everything her career was based upon is passe. And unlike Madonna, Britney never had the emotional maturity (and probably intelligence) to handle all this in the first place. Britney needed people to help her, and now she needs people to help her transition if she doesn't want to be a joke. But they would rather keep feeding her the same crap, making her delusional in the first place.

PS. Madonna's first release was in 1982--which made her 24 years old? So I guess, she was at least 25 before she had huge success. And even though she was quite young when releasing her first album, Janet's family wasn't dependent upon her success. Plus, she didn't promote herself as a "sex object" when she was in her teens. That came later... And more importantly, Janet had witnessed what the "biz" did to Michael. I really think Janet just knew how to protect herself and learned from her brothers mistake, although she obviously has made some mistakes and has some "issues" herself. In fact, I don't think either Madonna or Janet have been totally unscathed by the harsh reality of the business. They just have been better at putting it all in perspective... to a certain extent.

In contrast, Britney is 25 right now, and she simply doesn't have her own personal strength or self-respect. She really doesn't--she's really messed-up in spite of all the money, yet I don't think she knows who to trust, and she can't even trust herself. I just think Britney can't be held completely responsible for the mess she is in right now because when she had the opportunity to learn some harsh lessons or make some better decisions early-on, NONE OF THE ADULTS advising her let her because they were too busy making money of Britney's dream to be a "star." How many kids have had the same dream and then exploited because of it?

So how can Britney be held completely responsible just by virtue of the fact she's now 25 with kids of her own? It's like we are asking her to behave like a "grown-up," when she HAS NEVER grown-up to begin with. I'm sorry, but if SOME ADULT--her mom, dad, manager SOMEBODY had told her she was selling her soul to the devil early-on--if SOME adult would have encouraged her to stay in high school at the very least to get bit of maturity.. if some adult had told her.. NO when he/she had the chance, then maybe we could blame Britney. But as far as I'm concerned, the adults enabling her are responsible for her situation right now.

edited to get my facts straight.

P.S.S.

I just wanted to come back to add lyrics to one of my most favorite songs... It's a shame that with all her success and money.. somebody let Britney down.. and now she's probably letting her children down, too.
from Into the Woods.
How do you say to your child in the night?
Nothing's all black, but then nothing's all white
How do you say it will all be all right
When you know that it might not be true?
What do you do?

Careful the things you say
Children will listen
Careful the things you do
Children will see and learn
Children may not obey, but children will listen
Children will look to you for which way to turn
to learn what to be
Careful before you say "Listen to me"
Children will listen
Careful the wish you make
Wishes are children
Careful the path they take
Wishes come true, not free
Careful the spell you cast
Not just on children
Sometimes the spell may last
Past what you can see
And turn against you
Careful the tale you tell
That is the spell
Children will listen

How can you say to a child who's in flight
"Don't slip away and i won't hold so tight"
What can you say that no matter how slight Won't be misunderstood
What do you leave to your child when you're dead?
Only whatever you put in it's head
Things that your mother and father had said
Which were left to them too
Careful what you say
Children will listen
Careful you do it too
Children will see
And learn, oh guide them that step away
Children will glisten
Tamper with what is true
And children will turn
If just to be free
Careful before you say
"Listen to me"
[Edited 9/16/07 17:53pm]

Najee said:

I love all of these parodies. Seth Green has one too!

http://www.youtube.com/wa...2p1sJUHow4

When he stops to reapply liner

Page 20! Page 20!