Framing Britney Spears was kind of disappointing

[ivosoares]

The documentary was good, but it missed so much important information like I don’t get it. Where’s Lou Taylor? Where’s the dementia claim? Where’s the money laundering? The medication issues 

[Blu Ivysaur]

Well, it’s better than nothing. At least now a lot of people (that are not fans FANS) know about what’s happening 🧐

[jordeezy river red]

I agree BUT Fe was a great addition, so I just take it as an interview with Fe. Also, it was good to hear other people who have worked with Britney in the industry. Overall, though, the documentary skimmed the surface and had cute visuals. I also really liked the part where they interview the paparazzi guy she pulled the umbrella on. When I see that footage of her with the shaved head, it always makes me wish we would have gotten a Blackout performance of her rocking that look with AMAZING colorful eye makeup. 

[chizwhiz]

The court case is ongoing and mentioning allegations from within it is potentially libellous and contempt of court. 

[ChrisBritSlo]

I see "Framing" like It was meant for general public and newer generation, who is not aware of Primeney. Us fans know most of the informations that were shared, but GP does not. So It was very important to raise awareness.

[joanhs]

I just kNEW some fans wouldn't be satisfied  Honey, this was not for you! This was for the general public. It started out about only being about her ***uality, that was the pitch. They started research long before #FreeBritney really took off. See the interviews with Samantha posted on here and you will know MANY people tried to stop her from doing the doc! SHe has spoken to lawyers. That way we can conclude, Lou Taylor probably sent her lawyers and The New York Times got scared.. Lou have sued fans. 
But bottom line is, this was not only about c-ship but about britney the person, and how people see her differently

[kleinbritney]

You should turn a second part that takes apart the contradictions of guardianship down to the last detail.

[DignifiedLove]

I respectfully disagree and think that they covered the topic of the conservatorship very well. It was the other stuff that fell short and left me disappointed. I liked the vintage footage, and what not, but they could have selected more, or better, coverage and talked about her legacy some more. Not once in the documentary, anyone mentioned how much of a diligent worker she was, or how many days/hours/weeks she would spend in rehearsal. Her brilliance as a pop tycoon and artistry was never mentioned once??? Her phenomenal skills as a singer, dancer and gymnast. The development of her baby voice and why that may have robbed her as being a ‘serious’ singer. And even how before her conservatorship, her art was often times censored by her label as she wanted more creative control. Regardless, people need to be reminded of why the public fell in love and were so infatuated with her in the first place. She put in that work nobody else was willing to do and I was hoping this documentary would transform the public's perception on her 'talent'. And aside from the brief clip of Felicia showing the placards, the topic of sales were never discussed. Why might this be relevant? Because I think it's important for people from this younger generation, or any non-fans, to be aware of what Britney's legacy meant for the culture and how it really was unprecedented, especially during a time when grunge, hip-hop, alt-rock soloists and pop groups were dominating. I will say that I appreciated them showing the clip from 'Star Search'. I also think they could have selected some better photographs and kept some of the unpleasant trauma/imagery (mostly the head shaving incident since it could be triggering for Britney herself) at a minimum. Anyway, those are really the two aspects of the documentary where the NYT failed to capture. Other than that, it was great and I'm glad the public is becoming more aware. 

[NewDisplayName]

Yes I felt that too.. they should dive deep in a law and show how dirty they played and how messy they put her under c-ship but I hope it’s just a stray and other documentaries are on the way for that. 

p.s. I liked that lawyer said that it might never be needed to put her under c-ship cause she was capable of logical judgment at that time but he was very careful with his words sadly 

[Nickey]

I get your point, but like somebody said here already - this needs to be pretty simple and understandable for the GP. 

Too much information and names would confuse people, also calling out Lou Taylor seems dangerous because remember she wanted to sue Jordan for QUOTING somebody's (bad) opinion (!) about her. 

[PokemonSpears]

16 minutes ago, GODNEY IS A QUEEN said:

I respectfully disagree and think that they covered the topic of the conservatorship very well. It was the other stuff that fell short and left me disappointed. I liked the vintage footage, and what not, but they could have selected more, or better, coverage and talked about her legacy some more. No one in the documentary, anyone mentioned how much of a diligent worker she was, or how many days/hours/weeks she would spend in rehearsal. Her brilliance as a pop tycoon and artistry was never mentioned once??? Her phenomenal skills as a dancer and gymnast. The development of her baby voice and why she chose to incorporate that style throughout her work. Like, come on. People need to be reminded of why the public fell in love and was so infatuated with her in the first place. She put in that work nobody else was willing to do and I was hoping this documentary would change the public's perception on her 'talent'. And aside from the brief clip of Felicia showing the placards, the topic of sales were never discussed. Why might this be relevant? Because I think it's important for people from this younger generation, or any non-fans, to be aware of what Britney's legacy meant for the culture and how it really was unprecedented, especially during a time when grunge, hip-hop, alt-rock soloists and pop groups were dominating. I will say that I appreciated them showing the clip from 'Star Search'. I also think they could have selected some better photographs and kept some of the unpleasant imagery (mostly the head shaving incident since it could be triggering for Britney herself) at a minimum. Anyway, those are really the two aspects of the documentary where the NYT failed to capture. Other than that, it was great and I'm glad the public is becoming more aware. 

more than that, I think they should've made evident the fortune she represents and why having her conserved is so much more lucrative and takes a completely different perspective than just wanting her to be good, mentally or in terms of her health.

I think it was ok that they didn't focus on the superstar, because this wasn't an entertainment documentary, or some sort of biography, but they did miss many interviews or yeah, like for example that FF interview where she's asked if she wants to be there, or the fact that she spoke about the conservatorship in 2016 but it was censored, etc.

They should've also made more clear all the irregularities about the process of how she was placed under the conservatorship, or all the loopholes of how she's able to keep shared custody of her children, yet she's not fit to provide for herself, because there's no clauses about it, because conservatees aren't supposed to be her age and have underage children. Or how she's the one that has to pay Kevin a monthly fee.

 

Still, I feel like they did a good job. It was different than the typical vh1 program or gossip show, I just feel like in the direction they took, they could have interviewed more people then, like producers, directors, etc.

[DignifiedLove]

25 minutes ago, PokemonSpears said:

more than that, I think they should've made evident the fortune she represents and why having her conserved is so much more lucrative and takes a completely different perspective than just wanting her to be good, mentally or in terms of her health.

I think it was ok that they didn't focus on the superstar, because this wasn't an entertainment documentary, or some sort of biography, but they did miss many interviews or yeah, like for example that FF interview where she's asked if she wants to be there, or the fact that she spoke about the conservatorship in 2016 but it was censored, etc.

They should've also made more clear all the irregularities about the process of how she was placed under the conservatorship, or all the loopholes of how she's able to keep shared custody of her children, yet she's not fit to provide for herself, because there's no clauses about it, because conservatees aren't supposed to be her age and have underage children. Or how she's the one that has to pay Kevin a monthly fee.

 

Still, I feel like they did a good job. It was different than the typical vh1 program or gossip show, I just feel like in the direction they took, they could have interviewed more people then, like producers, directors, etc.

I understand some of your points but you can't possibly discuss Britney's trajectory without mentioning why and how she got to the unprecedented heights she did. Now the documentary covered some of that but a lot of detail was left out or just skimmed through. For example, how other aspiring artists built their careers off of Britney's name. That was a huge thing they left out. Topping the Forbes 100 List at age 20. Her lucrative business deals and work schedule. Or like I said earlier -- her drive, dancing skills and work ethic weren't brought up once. The reason these are important is because much of the general public has this tired perception that Britney is 'untalented' or that she was just handed a record deal which is why I preach that it's important for the general public to be reminded of why the world was fascinated with her from the get go. 

And I don't know why you say the irregularities of the conservatorship weren't fully covered when they did a fine job discussing most important aspects. 

[PokemonSpears]

25 minutes ago, GODNEY IS A QUEEN said:

I understand some of your points but you can't possibly discuss Britney's trajectory without mentioning why and how she got to the unprecedented heights she did. Now the documentary covered some of that but a lot of detail was left out or just skimmed through. For example, how other aspiring artists built their careers off of Britney's name. That was a huge thing they left out. Topping the Forbes 100 List at age 20. Her lucrative business deals and work schedule. Or like I said earlier -- her drive, dancing skills and work ethic weren't brought up once. The reason these are important is because much of the general public has this tired perception that Britney is 'untalented' or that she was just handed a record deal which is why I preach that it's important for the general public to be reminded of why the world was fascinated with her from the get go. 

And I don't know why you say the irregularities of the conservatorship weren't fully covered when they did a fine job discussing most important aspects. 

but they talked about the conservatorship in a general way. Other than Adam Streisand sharing his part of the story, they didn't mention Britney needed to be informed that she was gonna be put under a conservatorship with several days in advance, but Jamie asked the judge not to do so, or that Jamie didn't go under any sort of evaluation to see if he was fit to take the role of conservator. Or the fact that Lynne mentions in her book that the conservatorship was planned way before any of the hospitalizations happened, or that the hospitalizations actually didn't find anything wrong and even the first time she was released less than 24 hrs later, instead of waiting for the 72hrs that the 5150 specifies, again, because they didn't think she needed to be there any longer.

They talked about this mysterious medical report, but they didn't go on to say that the doctor that had attended Britney refused to give a report, then the judge ordered another doctor to do the evaluation, yet Sam Ingham came with a third doctor out of nowhere to give the report, and the judge took it as gospel, without feeling the need to see Britney in person even once. Or the whole fact that the conservatorship was granted in record time, when we hear countless cases of people that actually need a conservatorship for their parents or grandparents, and aren't granted, because excluding Britney Spears, conservatorships are actually very hard to grant.

So at the end, the viewer can still think "see, there's still some stuff that we don't know" and justify with it the conservatorship, when the things that we DO know, like what the law says compared to what's on the legal documents, prove that many things of that process were wrong and/or irregular.

She could've been Britney, or Mandy Moore, she could've been as disciplined as she is, or she could've been the laziest celebrity, and it wouldn't matter, the important thing here is that the whole conservatorship and the way it was placed on her, was wrong, and they should've gone deeper as to why that is, and what could've been the interest for people to do it.

 

Now among the other people they could've interviewed, was the guy that leaked the letter she wrote in 2008/09, or they could've at the very least mentioned it.

 

But I mean, it was ok, we already knew what this was gonna be about with the interviews the producer has done these past few days, and the reviews we got, so it's not like I was expecting more than what we got. BUT, they could've added more.

 

 

[DignifiedLove]

2 minutes ago, PokemonSpears said:

but they talked about the conservatorship in a general way. Other than Adam Streisand sharing his part of the story, they didn't mention Britney needed to be informed that she was gonna be put under a conservatorship with several days in advance, but Jamie asked the judge not to do so, or that Jamie didn't go under any sort of evaluation to see if he was fit to take the role of conservator. Or the fact that Lynne mentions in her book that the conservatorship was planned way before any of the hospitalizations happened, or that the hospitalizations actually didn't find anything wrong and even the first time she was released less than 24 hrs later, instead of waiting for the 72hrs that the 5150 specifies, again, because they didn't think she needed to be there any longer.

They talked about this mysterious medical report, but they didn't go on to say that the doctor that had attended Britney refused to give a report, then the judge ordered another doctor to do the evaluation, yet Sam Ingham came with a third doctor out of nowhere to give the report, and the judge took it as gospel, without feeling the need to see Britney in person even once. Or the whole fact that the conservatorship was granted in record time, when we hear countless cases of people that actually need a conservatorship for their parents or grandparents, and aren't granted, because excluding Britney Spears, conservatorships are actually very hard to grant.

So at the end, the viewer can still think "see, there's still some stuff that we don't know" and justify with it the conservatorship, when the things that we DO know, like what the law says compared to what's on the legal documents, prove that many things of that process were wrong and/or irregular.

She could've been Britney, or Mandy Moore, she could've been as disciplined as she is, or she could've been the laziest celebrity, and it wouldn't matter, the important thing here is that the whole conservatorship and the way it was placed on her, was wrong, and they should've gone deeper as to why that is, and what could've been the interest for people to do it.

 

Now among the other people they could've interviewed, was the guy that leaked the letter she wrote in 2008/09, or they could've at the very least mentioned it.

 

But I mean, it was ok, we already knew what this was gonna be about with the interviews the producer has done these past few days, and the reviews we got, so it's not like I was expecting more than what we got. BUT, they could've added more.

 

 

I see your point and agree. They could have added those points in to inform the general public some more. However, I think they did a decent job highlighting the sum of what a conservatorship is and how it essentially became what we know of it today. After all, they dedicated an entire 30 minutes alone on the topic and I believe it was the right amount of information for the general public, key word: general public, to grasp onto and analyze. I don't think anyone  who watched the documentary and has an ounce of common sense interpreted the conservatorship as something justified. In fact, the documentary did a great job highlighting why the system is in fact corrupt. Sure they may have left out certain claims but keep in mind this was a step in the right direction and the topic has reached its widest demographic yet. 

I was mainly arguing how Britney's history, work ethic and overall legacy should have been highlighted, just as much as the conservatorship in the documentary. Even if it meant extending the documentary to more than just 75 minutes because i's really safe to say that Britney's meteoric rise and stardom is probably the greatest 21st century story in pop culture and why I think it would have been a great opportunity for the general public to be reminded or informed. Not that they did a bad job highlighting it but the commemorating could have been lengthier or gone in more detail.

[Easy There]

It was a little disappointing when it comes to FreeBritney.

But it did a great job of making ppl emphasize with Britney based on how media nad GP treated her still treats her till this day. 

Also thi documentary was not about celebrating her achievements and career even though it reminded ppl of that as well. Idgi why are some stans are complaining about that part.

Its least of our worries.

And 3rd of all this documentary was not made just for stans by fellow stan.

It was made by NY Times mostly for GP who is not familiar with her situation. Or chooses to forget years of abuse she went trough.

[DignifiedLove]

16 minutes ago, Easy There said:

It was a little disappointing when it comes to FreeBritney.

But it did a great job of making ppl emphasize with Britney based on how media nad GP treated her still treats her till this day. 

Also thi documentary was not about celebrating her achievements and career even though it reminded ppl of that as well. Idgi why are some stans are complaining about that part.

Its least of our worries.

And 3rd of all this documentary was not made just for stans by fellow stan.

It was made by NY Times mostly for GP who is not familiar with her situation. Or chooses to forget years of abuse she went trough.

But that is what gets people intrigued. With unprecedented heights comes more empathy and that is why Britney is so beloved. People need to be reminded of what she did and what she accomplished, as a young female within a male dominated, cut-throat industry, in order to better understand her situation. Again, it's not like the documentary didn't discuss that but it could have gone into more detail and covered more aspects, especially when it came to her work ethic, artistry and talent.

[Easy There]

2 minutes ago, GODNEY IS A QUEEN said:

But that is what gets people intrigued. With unprecedented heights comes more empathy and that is why Britney is so beloved. People need to be reminded of what she did and what she accomplished, as a young female, in order to better understand her situation. Again, it's not like the documentary didn't discuss that but it could have gone into more detail and covered more aspects, especially when it came to her work ethic and talent.

Yeah agree to extend.

But I am really pleased of what they did with this documentary.

In my opinion their main goal was to remind ppl of abuse she went trough by us (GP) and media.

[Humpney]

I think this was made more for the general public than stans/enthusiasts that already know every single detail. I felt that they wanted to keep it simple and easy to digest while conveying the key points that they want people to know.

and it's working

[Easy There]

7 minutes ago, Humpney said:

I think this was made more for the general public than stans/enthusiasts that already know every single detail. I felt that they wanted to keep it simple and easy to digest while conveying the key points that they want people to know.

and it's working

I just wish that **** Loucifer and her stalkerish (alleged) ways were at least mentioned.

She along with Vivian psycho were masterminds behind this conservatorship 

[Forever222]

It shamed Jamie and the media really well. It started a campaign of questioning the probate court and lawyers motives. 

Public pressure is needed. Whoever pushed for this did the right move. It’s setting up the next phase of her freedom. 
 

In depth documentary’s will no doubt continue to come for many years.