Jump to content

Something is holding "Framing Britney Spears" back + Deuxmoi post


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The documentary was perfect for what it was. The amount of time they had to make it, the amount of information that rushed in within only a couple of years and the time constraints they had!  They d

Considering how Tri Star and LT have (allegedly) huge involvement in Britney's money laundering, why did they hold back on them? Is it because LT is behind something's bigger than New York Times? Or i

They could have included the court docs that show she was involved since the beginning, also Lynne's own book. I mean, those fans must have mentioned her to them.  Another thing is why Britneys v

6 minutes ago, neverover said:

Considering how Tri Star and LT have (allegedly) huge involvement in Britney's money laundering, why did they hold back on them? Is it because LT is behind something's bigger than New York Times? Or is there an episode 2 in the works?

My biggest fear is that they are trying to put all the blame to Jamie, and trying to make him disappear. But then LT and the gang will come back with a new name and put Britney on square one. I hate Jamie and all of his guts, but to be completely honest, he is dumb as a doorknob. There is no way he can pull this whole conservatorship off without LT and their set of conservatorship mafia. This is not just a family abuse, but also a court and legal system abuse. And why "Framing Britney" just stop there?

I'm curious to what you guys think.

We should petition for Framing Britney Spears part 2 tbh

I agree with you. I mean we have no proof, but my gut instinct is that LT has connections to the bigger picture. She's Tristar after all, they are huge.

They're a company with the power to the pull strings of peoples with huge careers, aka Britney's. They can pull strings on a lot of things. MY humble opinion.

  • Love 6
  • Like 3
Link to post

Yeah, It was underwhelming the lack of mention of Lou and we only saw Larry's name there once. The guy was/still is her manager and they didn't even showed his face. 

Framing Britney didn't have enough time to explore more of the real story, and they lose much time with the controversies of her younger days.

I think If this doc was more focused on the c-ship issue Lou's name definitely would pop up... Or not, Lou is a powerful business woman afterall.

I also have the same fear about Jamie "villain role", he is nothing next to the real problem. 

But again, I don't feel like this doc ever was about the c-ship and more about the misogyny and media consequences for Britney.

  • Love 2
  • Like 6
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Applejack said:

because there's no money laundering proven. it's a theory. they can only show off things they can actually verify that happened.

accusing someone of money laundering is not to be taken lightly;

I was even surprised they included the BG voicemail and claimed they did not verify the source, but we all kinda know who it was.

I can't remember the name of the guy?

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Applejack said:

because there's no money laundering proven. it's a theory. they can only show off things they can actually verify that happened.

accusing someone of money laundering is not to be taken lightly;

I was even surprised they included the BG voicemail and claimed they did not verify the source, but we all kinda know who it was.

I definitely get that. But they could just leave the fact hanging there, like how Britney's estate stayed the same but Tri Star have $600 million assets increase. 

But nonetheless, Lou's role is pivotal in framing Britney Spears. Pun intended.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, neverover said:

Considering how Tri Star and LT have (allegedly) huge involvement in Britney's money laundering, why did they hold back on them? Is it because LT is behind something's bigger than New York Times? Or is there an episode 2 in the works?

My biggest fear is that they are trying to put all the blame to Jamie, and trying to make him disappear. But then LT and the gang will come back with a new name and put Britney on square one. I hate Jamie and all of his guts, but to be completely honest, he is dumb as a doorknob. There is no way he can pull this whole conservatorship off without LT and their set of conservatorship mafia. This is not just a family abuse, but also a court and legal system abuse. And why "Framing Britney" just stop there?

I'm curious to what you guys think.

Edit: just saw this on Deuxmoi, not sure what it really meant tho :(

PSGrSEO.png

I'm unsure what they mean by DOA?

  • Love 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, GregReid said:

I'm unsure what they mean by DOA?

Probably they are saying that the documentary is relevant and true, so that it's not dead on arrival.. What got me wondering is that they said that "If someone once worked with her is now speaking out, that is inaccurate."

Not sure which part they're talking about tho.

  • Like 3
Link to post
25 minutes ago, ChaosMoogle said:

The documentary was perfect for what it was. The amount of time they had to make it, the amount of information that rushed in within only a couple of years and the time constraints they had! 
They did an excellent job.

Did they miss a few things? Yes. But this documentary is well made and is the opportunity for this situation and the movement to gain exposure!!

Instead of complaining about what’s missing, let’s use this exposure as momentum for the movement and continue pushing accurate information while more eyes watch!

This is the perfect catalyst for the good side. Don’t lose faith, don’t lose hope! Continue spreading truth! AND petition for a Part 2!


It easily could have been a three-hour feature doc, or a six-part half-hour series.

The issue is clearly that the NY Times and Samantha Stark have been threatened by Jamie and Lou's lawyers.

Otherwise, there would be far more material to work with.

  • Love 3
Link to post
2 hours ago, Applejack said:

because there's no money laundering proven. it's a theory. they can only show off things they can actually verify that happened.

accusing someone of money laundering is not to be taken lightly;

I was even surprised they included the BG voicemail and claimed they did not verify the source, but we all kinda know who it was.

Huh, I didn't expect to find you here :shocked_what_xfactor_britney_pink_surprised_wow:

I'm glad you're back and I hope you're doing well :hugs_madonna_britney_ftr_2008_circus_hugging_friends_support:

  • Love 1
Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :badthoughts_gun_kris_genner_thinking_debating:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block