When would've been the ideal time for Britney to headline the Super Bowl?

[Power love]

2004 or 2008/2009. 
 

After 2009 she was a hot mess live. Just tragic 

[GraceRandolph]

I don’t think she’s talented enough for a headliner. Maybe she could perform a Toxic/Baby/Oops medley as a guest someday. 

[selena_lavigne]

1 hour ago, La Reina said:

2004. Anyone saying any year after that is delusional.

 

People are way too critical and negative these days so she'd get dragged ruthlessly if she did it now.

"these days" they f***ing destroyed Janet for literally showing her nipple 20 years ago when 99.99999999% of people have nipples and see nipples on a daily basis 

Edited December 27, 2022 by selena_lavigne

[AMIT]

40 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

I don’t think she’s talented enough for a headliner. Maybe she could perform a Toxic/Baby/Oops medley as a guest someday. 

This is why no one takes y'all monsters seriously or have any empathy when you play the victim card 

 

OT: 2004 was the best year for her to do it. 

[Trash]

During the Circus era, however TBEP got it that year and they were in fact the biggest stars musically at the time.

[Gorjesspazze9]

Anytime in the 2000’s. I actually would have done it in 2005, just 3 months after My Peragotive: Greatest hits album came out. With the Chris Cox Mega-mix as the main setlist. Just throw in some celebrity collab stages, a hip-hop remix and it would have been even better then the 2000’s show

[Norte]

Never 

[MissedTheTrain]

2004....she was at her performing peak in my opinion, and she also seemed to be more creatively inspired than ever.

[Soda Pop Queen]

I say 2002. Britney era had her best stage attire, best choreography, her knees were still good and the Britney album could've used the boost here in the states. She also could've started the Pepsi sponsored halftimes as she was still the Pepsi pop girl at the time. 

 

setlist: 

 

Baby One More Time

Crazy/Slave 4 U/Boys (with a Nasty interpolation)

Oops... I Did It Again

I Love Rock 'n Roll (special guest Joan Jett)

Stronger

[Slayn]

8 hours ago, zoldyck said:

Jennifer Lopez had to share with Shakira and got fully overshadowed. Rihanna and Katy has shown much more versality than Britney when its come to performance. Britney is and always been performers that can only appeal to teenagers and gays and therefore always confined to stages of MTV awards and other B-award shows. 

 

She literally has two performances more iconic and memorable to everyone than any performance your fav has ever done. And lemme know when Rihanna and Katy can put on a performance like this btw:

 

 

 

EDIT: the answer is 2004. Would have been another defining moment in her career. Imagine her opening with My Prerogative  what could've been--

Edited December 28, 2022 by Slayn

[johnny_9ss]

2004 would have been too early, although that was certainly her peak as a performer.

 

In theory 2011 would have been perfect. The hype around her new album was surreal. But she was obviously forced to perform against her will during this era, so a SB performance would have been a mess. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by johnny_9ss

[collin]

2004, 2009 or 2017 all could’ve worked decently. Glory era really could’ve benefitted from that and she was performing rather well then and also looked great.

[Jay07]

9 hours ago, zoldyck said:

Again you are speaking from fan point of view. I get it she was mesmerizing to you and other gays/kids/teenagers during her peak. But there is reason she only performed at Grammys once and never got called back, only got to perform one song at superbowl that was not even hers. If she was that big, the producers would have been dying to have her on stage for ratings. But she never was such a thing as a performer outside MTV awards shows aimed at gays/teenagers. 

No, it is not my subjective view, Britney was objectively the best selling and most popular popstar in the world for several years. I don't see what the Grammys or the VMAs supposedly being for gays only (what?) has to do with it. Madonna didn't perform at the Grammys until 98, more than 15 years into her career. Does that make her a gay act only? Are you only legitimate if you perform for old white fossils? What is this this bizarre gatekeeping only when it's convenient? The VMAs are not good enough and apparently too gay (?) because Madonna and Britney are the Queens of the VMAs?

 

Also, Britney did only one song as the Superbowl halftime show because the shows then were produced by MTV and there were always multiple acts involved, even on Janet's show they also had Nelly, Kid Rock and well, Justin and they all did one or two songs, there wasn't really a headliner.

[MotoPapi]

2004

[Iaintsorry]

12 hours ago, allforyou said:

2016 or 2017, she was in great shape. I don't see the point of her doing it before that, she was too young to do it.

There’s no age requirement to headline the Super Bowl lol. The following artists did it before the age of 34/35 (Britney’s age in 2016/2017):

 

- Beyoncé (31)

- Katy Perry (30)

- Lady Gaga (31)

- Bruno Mars (29)

And there’s probably more too

 

 

[Fruity]

3 hours ago, Slayn said:

 

 

Any Victoria Secret model with 2 weeks of dance class and rehearsal can do this. She's literally not singing LOL. It is iconic tho!

 

OT: My vote is also 2004/5.

[Mystic Boy]

11 hours ago, Rican said:

Na, she was too stiff during the Femme Fatale era. 

 

Like imagine picking any year after 2004, the deep delusion 

11 hours ago, zoldyck said:

Again you are speaking from fan point of view. I get it she was mesmerizing to you and other gays/kids/teenagers during her peak. But there is reason she only performed at Grammys once and never got called back, only got to perform one song at superbowl that was not even hers. If she was that big, the producers would have been dying to have her on stage for ratings. But she never was such a thing as a performer outside MTV awards shows aimed at gays/teenagers. 

bUt bu....bUt ...sHe wAs tHe bEsT sELLinG aCt 

[Negev]

Lowkey Circus, FF or Glory wouldn't have happened if not for the conservatorship. 

 

2002 would've been great for her. 

[allforyou]

1 hour ago, Iaintsorry said:

There’s no age requirement to headline the Super Bowl lol. The following artists did it before the age of 34/35 (Britney’s age in 2016/2017):

 

- Beyoncé (31)

- Katy Perry (30)

- Lady Gaga (31)

- Bruno Mars (29)

And there’s probably more too

 

 

I know but I don't see the point of doing it that young, I see the halftime as something to help someone's career rather than doing it at their prime

[LeMésTragique]

2001 before it was widely knows she's a lousy performer who can't sing.

[zoldyck]

5 hours ago, Jay07 said:

I don't see what the Grammys or the VMAs supposedly being for gays only (what?) has to do with it.

That their main audience VMAs are watched by Gays/Teenagers like I said. Only type of audience that Britney performance appeal to. 

5 hours ago, Jay07 said:

 Are you only legitimate if you perform for old white fossils? 

 

No it called having broader appeal. There is nothing wrong with catering to one audience but having broader appeal lead to more stages. Like Madonna has performed Eurovision, Grammys, Superbowl, Headline Multiple Festivals, Filled Stadium overall the world. Compared it next to Britney, you will see how limited Britney appeal is. And why she doesn't exist outside the sphere of MTV shows

 

5 hours ago, Jay07 said:

What is this this bizarre gatekeeping only when it's convenient? The VMAs are not good enough and apparently too gay (?) because Madonna and Britney are the Queens of the VMAs?

 

 

I am gate-keeping because they are B-award show  and everyone in industry knows that. But I guess when that was the only stage Britney could shine on you got to come up with made up title like "Queen of VMAs" and act like they matters  

Edited December 28, 2022 by zoldyck

[Khal]

Anyone picking post-early 2000s must hate her, or have delusions about her level as a performer. Let's be serious

[Jay07]

5 minutes ago, zoldyck said:

That their main audience VMAs are watched by Gays/Teenagers like I said. Only type of audience that Britney performance appeal to. 

No it called having broader appeal. There is nothing wrong with catering to one audience but having broader appeal lead to more stages. Like Madonna has performed Eurovision, Grammys, Superbowl, Headline Multiple Festivals, Filled Stadium overall the world. Compared it next to Britney, you will see how limited Britney appeal is. And why she doesn't exist outside the sphere of MTV shows

 

I am gate-keeping because they are B-award show  and everyone in industry knows that. But I guess when that was the only stage Britney could shine on you got to come up with made up title like "Queen of VMAs" and act like they matters  

The VMAs were the only award show everyone was talking about back in the 90s and 00s and Grammys were considered dusty and cringe, that's why the Grammys tried to create more viral moments and invite more relevant artists to attract younger audiences. You literally have no clue what you are talking about. MTV and the VMAs used to make stars. Britney has also performed at the Grammys, Superbowl, VMAs and stadiums and arenas around the world. I have no idea how you have decided that Britney was for teenagers only when she was literally the biggest popstar in the world and the VMAs are second tier when it was the buzziest show in the world. Well, I do actually, because Britney and Madonna had 3 performances each on the best performances in history list and your fave didn't have any 

[zoldyck]

10 minutes ago, Jay07 said:

The VMAs were the only award show everyone was talking about back in the 90s and 00s and Grammys were considered dusty and cringe, that's why the Grammys tried to create more viral moments and invite more relevant artists to attract younger audiences. You literally have no clue what you are talking about. MTV and the VMAs used to make stars. Britney has also performed at the Grammys, Superbowl, VMAs and stadiums and arenas around the world. I have no idea how you have decided that Britney was for teenagers only when she was literally the biggest popstar in the world and the VMAs are second tier when it was the buzziest show in the world. Well, I do actually, because Britney and Madonna had 3 performances each on the best performances in history list and your fave didn't have any 

Lies or fallacies. Or simply delusions shared by Britney stans.

 

Grammys consistently had over 15M in 90s, their most watched telecast was watched by 29M. VMAs never did half of that.

 

In 00s Grammy lowest watch telecast still drew 17M and VMAs highest watched telecast was 12.5M.

 

No wonder, you felt VMAs show were bigger because it is a show catering to us.  But sadly the number shows there are more audience than kids/teenagers/gays. 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by zoldyck

[Jay07]

3 minutes ago, zoldyck said:

Lies or fallacies. Or simply delusions shared by Britney stans.

 

Grammys consistently had over 15M in 90s, their most watched telecast was watched by 29M. VMAs never did half of that.

 

In 00s Grammy lowest watch telecast still drew 17M and VMAs highest watched telecast was 12.5M.

 

No wonder, you felt VMAs show were bigger because it is a show catering to us.  But sadly the number shows there are more audience than kids/teenagers/gays. 

 

 

You realize VMAs were on CABLE and Grammys were on a network right? It's like comparing HBO to CBS. Please don't talk of things you don't know.