fantastical
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 5,298
- Reaction score
- 3
Once again my theory is true - whenever the VMAs aren't in New York they suck. SUCK big time. And not having a host was just plain stupid.
That Britney tribute wasn't even really a tribute. The little girls dancing was awesome but hello that was it. What a joke. Clearly it was only for ratings. The performances weren't that great either. Adele was the best and she looked beautiful. Why was there no rock music. Why not ask the Foos to perform.
The fashion wasn't anything special. I swear there were more celebs there last year. Britney, Zoe and Katie Holmes looked cute. Katy Perry looked quirky cute in the Versace.
Hopefully next year will be better and back in NYC where is supose to be.
agree on ALL ACCOUNTS! what a lackluster year for the VMA's
especially regarding the so called "tributes" to Britney and Amy W.
not having a host made the show feel empty...when it ended it just - ended, there was no real conclusion to the show
I also feel like the "red carpet", or whatever that was, was a terrible idea. We didn't get to see pretty much anyone like a real red carpet would have been
the best performances by far was Adele and Beyonce



And that's not a shot at you or anything, it's just something I've noticed in general. Sometimes people don't do it for show (although obviously alot have alterior motives--and I can't hide a smirk for any rapper who comes on stage and does that), but for the most part I've found people thank God because they genuinely feel that way.
Oh, and any pics of Jennifer Lawrence? Didn't she present the Hunger Games clip? I didn't see the whole show, so I was just wondering if she actually showed up or if it was like a pre-recorded type of deal.
Why no thanky the fans?
He also looked like an idiot- those pants,those shoes,those necklaces? NO.














