Sony Promotes “Smurfs 2″ with Britney Spears Music Video

Here is Britney Spears’ explanation for why she did this Smurfs music video called “Ooh La La”:

“The main reason why I did it was because my boys. They’re obsessed with the Smurfs. We’ve seen The Smurfs movie a million trillion times and they were told they could be in the video and all this cool stuff, so that’s the reason why I did it. It’s about feeling good. Like when a guy makes you giddy. It’s more of a feeling. When I eat chocolate I have that ‘ooh la la’ feeling.”


  • Gagaman

    Am I the only one that thinks Britney looks like she is flipping the bird in the video thumbnail?

    • Alex

      More like flipping the Smurf, which is much worse..

      • Gagaman

        haha oh wow they changed it, did they notice?

  • Inkan1969

    Britney Spears? Not Katie Perry?

    • Jason Cezar Duncan

      Is it 2013 or 2003?

      • Chris Sobieniak

        I thought she was done for career-wise, but I guess not. :-/

    • http://pickledperfection.blogspot.com/ Andrea K Haid

      Britney is far more popular than Katy Perry.

      • Inkan1969

        But doesn’t Katy still voice Smurfette in the movies?

  • Close3k

    Oh, that’s just smurfin’ wonderful.

  • Mapache

    Sadly, her -It’s Britney, b*tch- catchphrase was cut from the song.

  • http://the-animatorium.blogspot.com/ Natalie Belton

    She’s seen The Smurfs movie that many times? I guess I can’t complain to much about how many Disney sequels I’ve had to sit through while baby sitting.

  • Roberto González

    The weird things one have to see these days. Advice: long rant, not only about the clip, but about these movies…

    Ok, Sony. You made Cloudy and Hotel Transylvania, so I guess I could forgive you for this…Nah, I really cant.

    I just love The Smurfs comic books too much. I know they are only well known in USA because of the Hanna Barbera series, but even that, crappy as it was, it didn’t reek of the annoying commercialization these new movies are. I just hate every aspect of their promotion.

    I actually didn’t hate the real movie that much…for what it was. I mean, it was the equivalent of sh*tt*ng on the comics and then trying to flush the toilet by making a few things right. The whole premise was wrong (making the characters in ‘realistic’ CGI, bringing them to the present, random celebrity casting, overly fake make up in Gargamel…) but some of the details were ok. Except for that awful Guitar Hero scene the smurfs kinda kept some of their original traits, especially Papa Smurf, who was still wise and likeable.

    But I still can’t understand what’s so difficult about making an entirely animated film that took place in the Middle Ages. The original comic books are universal and contemporary. Much like Asterix they are a satire of modern society even if they happen in the past. You don’t need to have time travel or placing them in specific countries. The Smurf Village is a metaphor of every town in the world in any year. They had Pixar material for a great animated trilogy and they decided to make a rip off of the Alvin and The Chipmunks movie. They don’t even try. And somehow they managed to make Neil Patrick Hurris dull and unfunny.

    • SarahJesness

      There’s kind of this weird trend of adapting popular old cartoons, where the live-action film version puts them in a modern, “real” setting, and then focus heavily on the new human characters they put in. TV Tropes calls it “human focused adaptation”. I think the idea behind it is that regular, real world human characters in a modern world would be more relatable…

      But that is pretty stupid and I have no idea why they think that. Plenty of extremely successful animated films have had non-humanoid characters and taken place in fictional/non-modern societies. But maybe “animated” is the key word here. There really aren’t many live-action films with non-humanoids as the lead characters. Guess they don’t want to look too “kiddie”. But that begs the question, why make the movie live-action in the first place? It’s probably a side effect of the Animation Age Ghetto; they want their new adaptation to bring in older (but still child age) audiences.

      • Roberto González

        Yeah, I think you’re right. Still the Minions are a success and How To Train Your Dragon works well in an ancient setting, so I guess they could see The Smurfs in their original form as something potentially succesful, why they have to focus on Alvin and the Chipmunks as the standard.

        Incidentally I don’t have nothing against Britney Spears specifically , not a lot in favour either, but I think it’s kind of charming that she did this for her kids. It’s just that Britney Spears and the Smurfs is a very odd combination that I could have never imagined while reading the comic books.

    • jmahon

      tangentally, I really wish the animated Asterix movies(& the Vikings, I’m looking at you) would’ve got a theatrical release over here. With high quality animation, great voice acting, and a big epic story that would fit a theatrical release perfectly, it probably would’ve done really really well. I can only hope that Ernest and Celestine gets a chance.

  • Mark Landmark

    The song is horrible and i guess the movie as well. Very pity… I always loved smurfs.

  • Tσrri ❀

    Also from the Smurfs 2 Soundtrack, check out “Vacation” by G.R.L. http://smarturl.it/GRLsVACATION