go to link to check the video!! Enjoy !

But jessica is not disney...

Jessica doesn't look creepy . . . . :/

^ yes she does LOL

@princesslullaby- Jessica was Disney until 2009, when MGM became it's own company again. Some people still consider her a Disney girl, because she was one for so long.

And why is Jessica dressed up like Venom? It's weird, not creepy (she still looks better than Belle though)

Jessica looks more weird than scary.

Jessica was never owned by MGM it was owned by Warner Bros and she was never disney

^^I'm pretty sure it was MGM once (I could be wrong) but it was definitely Disney. Just look here:

"It was produced and released by Walt Disney Pictures under the Touchstone banner"

link

well she's definatly not pretty enough to be a disney girl

^^ o so now all disney girls have to be pretty? thts a rlly conceited and petty comment! and if she's not a disney character how come Mickey Mouse is a character in her movie? if it wasnt disney, there would be some serious copyright issues there. and some people consider Jessica to be very sexy! a little out of proportion but arent a lot of the disney girls out of proportion?

^^Actually, Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a book first, with no Disney affiliation, and it still had the characters. Also, it had WB characters too. It's not copyright infringement if they give permission and get a cut of the profits.

But yeah, like I said in my last post, it's Disney, so we can stop arguing now.

From my research, Jessica was produced under warner bros, but was BOUGHT OUT by disney. That doesn't make her a disney girl to me.

i don't consider touchstone disney. Disney just distributes the movie but has nothing to do with production. I don't consider Ooogie Boogie to be a disney villain, for example.