Was Prime Britney intention was to shock people in anything she did?

[KatLove]

Britney wanted lots of tight clothes and she wore pants and a crop top and it looked **** and it was simple. Don't get why artist can't do that that today. So you do agree with me that Britney did things because she wanted to make a legacy and name for herself and came up with creative ideas(clothes, performances, music videos) that was new and shocking when she did it? Her VMA performances were all shocking as well!!!! What do you think?

[RoyalStan85]

No, in fact I think what makes Britney so iconic was that she didn't seem to do things with the "intention" of pure shock.. A lot of her greatest moments came naturally. 

[DirtyMind]

15 minutes ago, RoyalStan85 said:

No, in fact I think what makes Britney so iconic was that she didn't seem to do things with the "intention" of pure shock.. A lot of her greatest moments came naturally. 

This, basically.  She wasn't like Stripped-era Christina or Bangerz-era Miley in that she didn't even have to try to be controversial; she just did her thing and stirred people up along the way, like a true queen.

[OutrageousSin]

She is **** without even trying like @RoyalStan85 said! And I think people weren't as open to nudity as they are nowadays, and because she was idolised by lots of kids it was kinda of a big-deal! Plus she was young herself!

[Anti-Hero]

Nah, she just thought people would see her holding a python and think it's normal 

[DirtyMind]

5 minutes ago, danny1994 said:

Nah, she just thought people would see her holding a python and think it's normal 

Wait, are you saying you don't just carry pythons around? 

[December02]

I don't think she takes it as seriously as we would assume. I mean she was probably like "a jungle theme is cool so lets get a snake" () 

[Anti-Hero]

1 minute ago, DirtyMind said:

Wait, are you saying you don't just carry pythons around? 

Lol, but really, I think the snake performance was the only time she intentionally tried to shock people.

[DirtyMind]

Just now, danny1994 said:

Lol, but really, I think the snake performance was the only time she intentionally tried to shock people.

Agreed.  She knew exactly what she was doing with that performance.  Same with the striptease in 2000, too.  

[derick]

2 minutes ago, December02 said:

I don't think she takes it as seriously as we would assume. I mean she was probably like "a jungle theme is cool so lets get a snake" () 

Flesh colored and named banana lol Britney has been around gays her whole career u kno Brian friend men was like girl put a big **** around yo neck

[Applejack]

Britney was classy, but yes she clearly wanted to do memorable things. VMAs 2000 and 2001 she wanted to bring THE show.

[grevan]

I think she would say she never had any intention to shock... even Madonna down played the kiss saying it was just an innocent peck.. but come on we cant believe that when she ripped off into a nude body suit, was half naked dancing with a python, kissed a woman on stage, that she wasnt going for some shock value.

[Steel Magnolia]

Short answer. Yes.

[Crayboy]

This. I've thought this as well. Compare her transitiok from innocent to **** to the artists now.

For Britney it always came naturally, the mature part of her songs and performances, and it never seemed to be that she was trying to hard.

Did she want to shock, and be memorable? Yes. Did ever seem like she was trying too hard? Never. That's one of the reasons we love her right?

[F.a.u.zish]

well they way Britney talks about her projects its more like 'I wanted to do this because I thought it would look cool/ be fun' than to shock people

[RoyalStan85]

20 minutes ago, OutrageousSin said:

She is **** without even trying like @RoyalStan85 said! And I think people weren't as open to nudity as they are nowadays, and because she was idolised by lots of kids it was kinda of a big-deal! Plus she was young herself!

Right !? I was going through my Britney merch collection & I have a substantial number of the dolls & I can't believe the "Slave" & "Not a Girl" dolls were pulled from shelves for being OVER SEXUALIZED!! Whaaaaa??? They are no where near as raunchy as the dolls are now lolololol

[Curiousexhaler86]

[GemmaTeller]

No. Especially the outfits she wore. Whenever she talked about outfits for a performance or a video or award show it really just sounded like she was picking things that made her feel **** and pretty and confident. She just had her own style and liked wearing things that made her feel good, she was never trying too hard to shock people. She did do some things that brought shock and controversy but it never overshadowed her performance skills or anything else she had going for her.

[OutrageousSin]

2 minutes ago, RoyalStan85 said:

Right !? I was going through my Britney merch collection & I have a substantial number of the dolls & I can't believe the "Slave" & "Not a Girl" dolls were pulled from shelves for being OVER SEXUALIZED!! Whaaaaa??? They are no where near as raunchy as the dolls are now lolololol

 Lmao true!!!!! Forget about the dolls, even kids nowadays are not as innocent as us, well...most of us! 

[DirtyMind]

20 minutes ago, Crayboy said:

This. I've thought this as well. Compare her transitiok from innocent to **** to the artists now.

For Britney it always came naturally, the mature part of her songs and performances, and it never seemed to be that she was trying to hard.

Totally.  These young artists now are literally going from sweaters and jeans one day to assless chaps the next.  It's crazy.  Even Christina transitioned more naturally and she randomly showed up at the VMAs wearing a damn scarf for a shirt.