a disturbing amount of people still think disney's just kiddy crap and wont hear otherwise.
your reactions and personal experiences. doesnt have to be disney.
prejudices against your interests
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
prejudices against your interests
i was on a final fantasy board and kingdom hearts was brought up(cue SA here)
a disturbing amount of people still think disney's just kiddy crap and wont hear otherwise.
your reactions and personal experiences. doesnt have to be disney.
a disturbing amount of people still think disney's just kiddy crap and wont hear otherwise.
your reactions and personal experiences. doesnt have to be disney.
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
-
carolinakid
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:58 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: New Jersey but soon to be Florida!
Personally, I have yet to encounter any awful prejudice issue caused by something I liked. My friends know that I love Disney, video games (mainly Nintendo), that I believe in God, I love animated movies, so on and so forth. But I get what this thread is saying. I hate it when people feel they have the right to judge anyone based on what they are into because of a bandwagon they have going on.
For starters, I don't like Twilight, I think Justin Bieber is just another sugary pop star, Rango is overrated, and yet I have friends that enjoy those things and I respect them for it. We agree to disagree and don't bring it up or argue it when they are mentioned. I think the problem is that people have a deep desire to belong so badly that they will hop on any bandwagon for the sake of being accepted, and out of that come these prejudices.
People need to learn that people have their things that they love or hate and move on.
For starters, I don't like Twilight, I think Justin Bieber is just another sugary pop star, Rango is overrated, and yet I have friends that enjoy those things and I respect them for it. We agree to disagree and don't bring it up or argue it when they are mentioned. I think the problem is that people have a deep desire to belong so badly that they will hop on any bandwagon for the sake of being accepted, and out of that come these prejudices.
People need to learn that people have their things that they love or hate and move on.
-
slave2moonlight
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4427
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: TX
- Contact:
I don't recall experiencing any outright bullying for my likes, but definitely I have been mocked for them, mostly the Disney/cartoons/toys and stuff of that nature, which most American kids when I was growing up (and definitely all the adults) saw as baby-ish. I think it would be easier growing up with these fandoms nowadays, as they are either popular in general or at least with certain groups, so that you could find friends who like it and even girls who would like to date a guy who likes that stuff. That is something unusual in my age group, meeting girls who don't think guys are supposed to act a certain way and definitely not like cartoons and toys and all (even girls who like them themselves). I think a big part of what degree to which you face this also has to do with the culture of the location you live in. I mean, for example, some parts of the country are worse than others in expecting men to grow out of stuff (and rather quickly too) and be manly and macho, or "adult", or whatever. You're only supposed to like sports and cars, politics and work, and tools, none of which interest me. And men have little else to talk about, it seems. One reason I don't make many friends is that when I meet a guy, he usually tries to talk about sports, and I soon find that's all he can talk about, because if I say I am not interested in sports, well, they still will try to talk to me about sports! And when women find out I am interested in the things I am interested in, I get the weirdo reaction or sent to the friend zone (if they can't avoid interacting with me again all together). So, basically, my interests have caused me a lot of loneliness, though not really bullying or anything, but it's still prejudice.
<a href="http://moonlightmotelcomic.com/"><img alt="Check out my published content!" src="http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/ ... 4lxrtt.png" border="0"></a>
-
The_Iceflash
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:56 am
- Location: USA
I've had the 'Disney is for kids' mantra thrown at me time after time by those who know about my interest in Disney. Music interests have been also one to be prejudiced against (aka "music pre-[insert date here] sucks"). I've seen such a anti-music before now directed toward any and all music from the past it's become commonplace.
One thing I can't stand though is gender biases with interests. As a heterosexual guy, I'm expected to like/dislike certain music, movies, tv shows, etc. It's like my masculinity is questioned and I'm made to feel guilty and embarrassed to listen to/watch certain things. It's not really fair as I always considered things like that to not have such boundaries. That's why the music I like and the movies and TV shows I watch are so different from each other and are all over the place.
One thing I can't stand though is gender biases with interests. As a heterosexual guy, I'm expected to like/dislike certain music, movies, tv shows, etc. It's like my masculinity is questioned and I'm made to feel guilty and embarrassed to listen to/watch certain things. It's not really fair as I always considered things like that to not have such boundaries. That's why the music I like and the movies and TV shows I watch are so different from each other and are all over the place.
-
Lazario
I guess the best way to combat the whole Disney-is-for-kids attitude is to tell them flat-out that Disney the corporation would be nowhere without the support of adult buyers. How many kids actually get their money from their own jobs? Zero. Next, compare Disney as the most popular provider of family entertainment in the entire freaking world to any other entertainment franchise aimed at kids that they naturally outgrow. How many 20 year olds do you know that still watch Blue's Clues and Barney the Dinosaur? But keep flipping through the halls of family entertainment options and you see some things were made to break through the restrictions of educational entertainment. In fact, how many people say Warner Bros(.)' cartoons are in fact typically made for adults? How many kids even get the jokes of Looney Tunes and Animaniacs?
On the other hand... in the past, I've agreed with the attitude of "Disney for kids" in so far as Disney movies getter even more simplistic, forcefed, dumb, etc. Coinciding with nearly all Disney films becoming overblown Broadway-esque musicals and scenes literally carving a formula in stone from which it would never deviate. Ala- the late 80's. I know it's not fair to call musicals dumb since even I know what they're doing and the last thing they're trying to be is dumb. But they're the ultimate examples of where any serious idea dies for awhile so a physical art like dance or stimulating elements like production design, camerawork, or cinematography can take over and "thrill" audiences. Yep, I'm goin' there: it's kinda like a sex scene. Nothing to think about but what you're looking at.
That bothers me a little. So, I'll say you shouldn't take any stock in it. What bothers me a little is not important. What bothers me a lot on the other hand is the storytelling in the renaissance era. Disney tried to change the movies to make people interested in buying their product again. And much more than ever in Disney's past, they worried over any moment in each that could lull a stupid audience member. So they include insurance in every scene. A good example right out of the box is Flounder in Little Mermaid. No character but he's in the movie regardless. Says nothing important but has dialogue. Is not cute, funny, or amusing in any discernible way. But they use him to pad scenes with his "quirky" nervous "personality" trait. (And expand the eventual toy collection line.) But if you were a kid... would you complain about him?
Kids don't pay attention so well to how they're manipulated. They just, as so many people love to tell me as a horror fan, "turn their brains off" and enjoy whatever a movie/show throws at them. Disney's attitude at that time though was we can't let kids not enjoy these movies. For example, name only one 90's Disney animated movie people consider falling hard. Pocahontas. Why? Because historians ripped it apart. How did Disney fans take it? Meh (though you'd better believe they still sold a SHITLOAD of merchandise- especially art, paint, and video / CD-ROM games). My mother was a teenager when The Aristocats was originally released and she hated it (since she's the one who made me a huge Disney fan, this is certainly relevant). Why "meh" with Pocahontas and Hunchback (and Rescuers Down Under with most)? Because they followed a formula so close to the letter, they insured that people would at least coast by a lesser film because it had copied elements from the hit movie they had previously and remember it more fondly than it perhaps deserved to be. Do you think Walt-era Disney worked this way? Or, were they typically given vast creative freedom and did whatever the hell they wanted to (so long as Walt approved)?
I still stand by my claims that classic Disney films most certainly (usually) told audiences what to think. But they did it in a medium they created where it was easy to ignore messages because everything was so steeped in heady fantasy elements. Not that everyone was smart enough to let the films only touch their nostalgia (but we all know some people are hopeless). And I'll take that any day over Disney-2 (why not?) where they poke you over and over again emotionally to manufacture reactions instead of letting them come as they come. The classic Disney movies would just let you have your reactions and after you saw the movie, it was the (very much biased toward a specific sentiment) fans who told you what it meant and how you should feel about it (gee... I wonder why I'm so distrustful over the opinions I've encountered recently over Cinderella, Bambi, and Snow White - hmmm). The Whoring-90's* flicks? Did they let any audience member have one genuine reaction that was really theirs?
Did they ever just make really strong characters and let the audience hate them if they so desired? For the answer to that, I refer you to any given shitfit several UD members have whenever I bash Belle for being bland. Why should I trust Disney or the movies they make if they pander to such sad cultural worship over a character who defines herself through lame songs... (only for the next scene to simplify the emotional impact everyone raved about getting through the freaking song)? Also, yes, I admit I take this era of Disney to task with certain films more than others. Because The Little Mermaid aimed for supernatural malice so much, it lead to creative hysteria to the extent to where "Les Poissons" wasn't developing any established characters and instead flaunted the practice of killing our well-liked sidekick, cooking, and eating his kind. Or "Poor Unfortunate Souls" was having fun with evil defined by what are considered Satantic elements like witchcraft and corrupting an innocent character for the fun of it and kinda saying it doesn't care about religious people who might insist this goes too far and makes Ursula the best liked character in the movie. Remember, folks, she's a Satanist (just like all campy Disney witches) (I MEAN all Disney witches).
But mainstream (family) cinematic culture changed in the 90's, getting really stupid in the process (and mirroring 80's television - ? - perhaps). I say Disney might have even single-handledly spearheaded that revolution. Valuing their technical innovations way more than they trusted their own storytelling skills (and, no, I don't blindly lump Pixar into the same category), to the point where I think (to rope this back into squarely on-topic relevancy) the reason why the villains are the most compelling element of almost all of the late 80's to now Disney animated films is that they were the only characters Disney expected adults to like too. So, they stopped pandering to making children squeal with delight at every obnoxious one-liner or go "I KNOW THAT VOICE!" Or, with the heroines / lead female characters in particular, compare Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, and Nala (who, for all the genuine personality the actresses conveyed through their speaking performances, could actually have been voiced by the same actress and not made a difference) to Snow White, Cinderella, Alice, and Aurora. Walt actually (I'm told) agonized (at times) over finding just the right voice for a character. Not the perfect voice to neutralize people from thinking - basically - anything worse than I think about Belle. I mean, find me one person who will say they feel about any of the 90's heroines' vocal performances the way some people reacted to Snow White (many people legitimately can't stand her). Or, to go deeper, Alice's character and how she reacts pissily to the Wonderland resident's unfriendly madcap antics.
(* - it's supposed to be my version of a clever play on words in reference to "The Roaring 20's")
On the other hand... in the past, I've agreed with the attitude of "Disney for kids" in so far as Disney movies getter even more simplistic, forcefed, dumb, etc. Coinciding with nearly all Disney films becoming overblown Broadway-esque musicals and scenes literally carving a formula in stone from which it would never deviate. Ala- the late 80's. I know it's not fair to call musicals dumb since even I know what they're doing and the last thing they're trying to be is dumb. But they're the ultimate examples of where any serious idea dies for awhile so a physical art like dance or stimulating elements like production design, camerawork, or cinematography can take over and "thrill" audiences. Yep, I'm goin' there: it's kinda like a sex scene. Nothing to think about but what you're looking at.
That bothers me a little. So, I'll say you shouldn't take any stock in it. What bothers me a little is not important. What bothers me a lot on the other hand is the storytelling in the renaissance era. Disney tried to change the movies to make people interested in buying their product again. And much more than ever in Disney's past, they worried over any moment in each that could lull a stupid audience member. So they include insurance in every scene. A good example right out of the box is Flounder in Little Mermaid. No character but he's in the movie regardless. Says nothing important but has dialogue. Is not cute, funny, or amusing in any discernible way. But they use him to pad scenes with his "quirky" nervous "personality" trait. (And expand the eventual toy collection line.) But if you were a kid... would you complain about him?
Kids don't pay attention so well to how they're manipulated. They just, as so many people love to tell me as a horror fan, "turn their brains off" and enjoy whatever a movie/show throws at them. Disney's attitude at that time though was we can't let kids not enjoy these movies. For example, name only one 90's Disney animated movie people consider falling hard. Pocahontas. Why? Because historians ripped it apart. How did Disney fans take it? Meh (though you'd better believe they still sold a SHITLOAD of merchandise- especially art, paint, and video / CD-ROM games). My mother was a teenager when The Aristocats was originally released and she hated it (since she's the one who made me a huge Disney fan, this is certainly relevant). Why "meh" with Pocahontas and Hunchback (and Rescuers Down Under with most)? Because they followed a formula so close to the letter, they insured that people would at least coast by a lesser film because it had copied elements from the hit movie they had previously and remember it more fondly than it perhaps deserved to be. Do you think Walt-era Disney worked this way? Or, were they typically given vast creative freedom and did whatever the hell they wanted to (so long as Walt approved)?
I still stand by my claims that classic Disney films most certainly (usually) told audiences what to think. But they did it in a medium they created where it was easy to ignore messages because everything was so steeped in heady fantasy elements. Not that everyone was smart enough to let the films only touch their nostalgia (but we all know some people are hopeless). And I'll take that any day over Disney-2 (why not?) where they poke you over and over again emotionally to manufacture reactions instead of letting them come as they come. The classic Disney movies would just let you have your reactions and after you saw the movie, it was the (very much biased toward a specific sentiment) fans who told you what it meant and how you should feel about it (gee... I wonder why I'm so distrustful over the opinions I've encountered recently over Cinderella, Bambi, and Snow White - hmmm). The Whoring-90's* flicks? Did they let any audience member have one genuine reaction that was really theirs?
Did they ever just make really strong characters and let the audience hate them if they so desired? For the answer to that, I refer you to any given shitfit several UD members have whenever I bash Belle for being bland. Why should I trust Disney or the movies they make if they pander to such sad cultural worship over a character who defines herself through lame songs... (only for the next scene to simplify the emotional impact everyone raved about getting through the freaking song)? Also, yes, I admit I take this era of Disney to task with certain films more than others. Because The Little Mermaid aimed for supernatural malice so much, it lead to creative hysteria to the extent to where "Les Poissons" wasn't developing any established characters and instead flaunted the practice of killing our well-liked sidekick, cooking, and eating his kind. Or "Poor Unfortunate Souls" was having fun with evil defined by what are considered Satantic elements like witchcraft and corrupting an innocent character for the fun of it and kinda saying it doesn't care about religious people who might insist this goes too far and makes Ursula the best liked character in the movie. Remember, folks, she's a Satanist (just like all campy Disney witches) (I MEAN all Disney witches).
But mainstream (family) cinematic culture changed in the 90's, getting really stupid in the process (and mirroring 80's television - ? - perhaps). I say Disney might have even single-handledly spearheaded that revolution. Valuing their technical innovations way more than they trusted their own storytelling skills (and, no, I don't blindly lump Pixar into the same category), to the point where I think (to rope this back into squarely on-topic relevancy) the reason why the villains are the most compelling element of almost all of the late 80's to now Disney animated films is that they were the only characters Disney expected adults to like too. So, they stopped pandering to making children squeal with delight at every obnoxious one-liner or go "I KNOW THAT VOICE!" Or, with the heroines / lead female characters in particular, compare Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, and Nala (who, for all the genuine personality the actresses conveyed through their speaking performances, could actually have been voiced by the same actress and not made a difference) to Snow White, Cinderella, Alice, and Aurora. Walt actually (I'm told) agonized (at times) over finding just the right voice for a character. Not the perfect voice to neutralize people from thinking - basically - anything worse than I think about Belle. I mean, find me one person who will say they feel about any of the 90's heroines' vocal performances the way some people reacted to Snow White (many people legitimately can't stand her). Or, to go deeper, Alice's character and how she reacts pissily to the Wonderland resident's unfriendly madcap antics.
(* - it's supposed to be my version of a clever play on words in reference to "The Roaring 20's")
People who are bashing the movie Titanic because of the fictional story while saying A Night to Remember is better because there are no fictional subplots. When will the hating and bashing of anything on the Internet stop? ALL THE BASHING I SEE MAKES ME WANT TO CRY. PEOPLE BASHING ANYTHING ONLINE MAKES ME WANT TO CRY. 
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
-
Lazario
You've never hated anything enough to bash it? You should try it, it's therapeutic and the more you discuss things anyway, the more you understand how things work. You do learn from the experience, either way. Besides, this is Hollywood. If you had any clue how callous most of the assholes who work in that system are and how little they care about anything or anyone real and how much they care about money instead... you'd stop crying and get as mad as I do. Titanic? Seriously? That film is all about James Cameron's ego. At every turn. Also- Leonardo Di Caprio is the worst kind of cheesy, Celion Dion is the worst kind of corny... nevermind; this is Titantic the movie, the awfulness is self-explanatory.bradhig wrote:People who are bashing the movie Titanic because of the fictional story while saying A Night to Remember is better because there are no fictional subplots. When will the hating and bashing of anything on the Internet stop? ALL THE BASHING I SEE MAKES ME WANT TO CRY. PEOPLE BASHING ANYTHING ONLINE MAKES ME WANT TO CRY.
-
Super Aurora
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4835
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am
did you get my pm Lazario?
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
-
Elladorine
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4372
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:02 pm
- Location: SouthernCaliforniaLiscious SunnyWingadocious
- Contact:
Back when I first got into anime it wasn't the mainstream entertainment it's considered today. Well, whatever . . . right? Although it was kind of strange that many of the people who had actually heard of that weird "japanimation" crap just knew it was nothing more than bizarre, violent porn targeted towards nerds.
I suppose Cream Lemon and Urotsukidoji had something to do with that.
Anyway, I once entered a comic/hobby shop to pick up a Sailor Moon RPG book I'd ordered over the phone . . . must have been around 1996-97? And when I went to the counter to pick it up and pay, a male customer saw it sitting in front of me and freaked out, asking me if I was some kind of pathetic lesbian with a bizarre fetish for underage girls and tenticles. Not as a joke, but in a completely serious and angry accusational tone. I'd have brushed it off but I had two of my little nieces with me. I asked him to please contain his ignorance since there were children present, but he wouldn't let up. I'm not sure what made me angrier, the customer continuing to verbally attack me with profanities or the employee just looking to the floor, letting it happen (it looked like the customer was a regular). I never did return to that shop.
I suppose Cream Lemon and Urotsukidoji had something to do with that.
Anyway, I once entered a comic/hobby shop to pick up a Sailor Moon RPG book I'd ordered over the phone . . . must have been around 1996-97? And when I went to the counter to pick it up and pay, a male customer saw it sitting in front of me and freaked out, asking me if I was some kind of pathetic lesbian with a bizarre fetish for underage girls and tenticles. Not as a joke, but in a completely serious and angry accusational tone. I'd have brushed it off but I had two of my little nieces with me. I asked him to please contain his ignorance since there were children present, but he wouldn't let up. I'm not sure what made me angrier, the customer continuing to verbally attack me with profanities or the employee just looking to the floor, letting it happen (it looked like the customer was a regular). I never did return to that shop.
-
Lazario
Yeah, and I was going to respond the best I could but... I actually assumed you'd sent it to some other people and that I probably knew even less about it than they did. Unfortunately, the answer is no, I don't know who / what. But I think I can tell the style and colors... if that helps at all. The top is either acid washed or stone washed denim and the color is most likely powder blue. The bottom is clearly pastel blue and I'd venture to guess the material is not exactly the same as the top. The photo is slightly faded but they look like plain ol' jean material to me.Super Aurora wrote:did you get my pm Lazario?
That's all I can do for you. Which is why I didn't reply right away. But the second I got on the board yesterday morning, I went Googling for about 8 minutes seeing if it might have been Jordache or Benneton (knowing full-well that the latter were a more famous store than a brand for anything buyable). Of course, what I didn't do was search for lists of popular 80's jean brands. Which would yield better results and knowing a few other jean brands and punching them into Google Images just might bring up a pic of the ad you showed me. Plain laziness explains why I don't have more to give you right now but I can take another stab at looking later if I remember to do so.
UPDATE:
I did find a jacket I think looks very similar if this helps / the obvious difference is that this is "military styled," so it has patches on it I doubt that puffy blonde haired chick wouldn't be rocking:
http://www.etsy.com/listing/87455056/80 ... cid-washed
I think the logo reads Jordache.
-
Super Aurora
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4835
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am
Ah thanks for the help and reply. I appreciate it. I'll see do what I can do. I was doing similar hing to what you were doing. There is one more pic of that outfit and it this one of Milla Jovovich:
This is why I thought that this is popular brand. at first I thought it was part of L.A Gears but I found out it was just advertising the shoes.
I found this from Heather Locklear with similar outfit:
Never mind, it WAS from L.A Gears LOLOL
This is why I thought that this is popular brand. at first I thought it was part of L.A Gears but I found out it was just advertising the shoes.
I found this from Heather Locklear with similar outfit:
Never mind, it WAS from L.A Gears LOLOL
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
-
Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14120
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
The magic in fairy tales and Disney movies is a made-up fantasy magic that doesn't call upon Satan or demons or any religious deities. Only of they mention a specific religion does that bring that into question (such as voodoo in The Princess and the Frog).Lazario wrote:Or "Poor Unfortunate Souls" was having fun with evil defined by what are considered Satantic elements like witchcraft and corrupting an innocent character for the fun of it and kinda saying it doesn't care about religious people who might insist this goes too far and makes Ursula the best liked character in the movie. Remember, folks, she's a Satanist (just like all campy Disney witches) (I MEAN all Disney witches).
Admittedly, sometimes Disney makes magic tied to/a metaphor for sprituality, and Maleficent's calling upon Hell could be Satanic or it could be hyberbole and metaphor again. But it's not definite that any of the witches are Satanists.
-
Lazario
As usual, this is very fascinating Duster- you giving me an education on where ALL Disney magic comes from and how we're intended to interpret it.
This of course obliges me to teach everyone something too. How to speak Duster:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mKVoZjIuEGU" frameborder="0"></iframe>
If you don't see a difference between fairies and witches and magic and black magic- you don't know as much about fantasy as you obviously think you do.
This of course obliges me to teach everyone something too. How to speak Duster:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mKVoZjIuEGU" frameborder="0"></iframe>
If you don't see a difference between fairies and witches and magic and black magic- you don't know as much about fantasy as you obviously think you do.
-
rs_milo_whatever
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:56 pm
- Contact:
I actually agree with Disney Duster on this one. That's just the way I like to view magic in fairy tales, excluding, of course, instances where these things are explained further into satanism.
Small piece of trivia: Maleficent actually does call on Lucifer's powers in the Mexican Spanish dub of Sleeping Beauty.
And as for being looked down on for our interests. I love Britney Spears to the point where I am still obsessed with her. I win.
Small piece of trivia: Maleficent actually does call on Lucifer's powers in the Mexican Spanish dub of Sleeping Beauty.
And as for being looked down on for our interests. I love Britney Spears to the point where I am still obsessed with her. I win.
-
Lazario
I was freaking talking about Disney Witches. I stated it explicitly- not hard to figure out. Do you guys really think they conjure their power from the same source as Cinderella's Fairy Godmother and Glinda the Good Witch, etc(.)? Ask anyone: there is a difference between magic and black magic in fiction.rs_milo_whatever wrote:I actually agree with Disney Duster on this one. That's just the way I like to view magic in fairy tales, excluding, of course, instances where these things are explained further into satanism.
I really hope you grow out of that. She is so boring when compared to just about any other female pop music figure of the last 40 years. Yeah, that's right, that weirdo who sang "You Light Up My Life" (Debby Boone) is more interesting on most days than Twitney. Her and her flavorlessness is literally the reason everyone lost respect for pop, dance, and club music over the last 12 years. Thanks to her, Goldfrapp - FAR MORE deserving of the insane amounts of worship Spears gets - have practically been relegated to obscure status (in America, at least). I honestly don't know what's more sad, Britney trying to pass off something like "Till the World Ends" as anything but trash or her fans for honestly being worried about her during the time when she made her best freaking music. And even then, any female performer with a baby could have performed "Piece of Me" (one of her few lyrically rewarding and intriguing tracks). As I'm sure I've said before when you brought her up- she does none of the work in the production of her music. She phones in her vocal performances and dances the videos and tours out. Not a single thing about her equals art.rs_milo_whatever wrote:And as for being looked down on for our interests. I love Britney Spears to the point where I am still obsessed with her. I win.