Pressed much? The Guardian: “Britney vs Spears review – Netflix doc is schlocky, trashy and deeply uncomfortable...”

[BritneyLVR]

1 minute ago, danielhaus29 said:

The funny thing is that it wasn't even on the image from the POM, it was one of the dancers 

I wanted to comment this but didn’t want to get attacked. Literally the smallest details like this. How? Why? 

[SlayOut]

4 minutes ago, everybodygoesdown said:

You could tell they initially wanted to show the head shaving and umbrella incident, but they stopped and just froze the image of her on the piece of me music video to cover it up while they taked about her “downfall”. 

At least they included the ambulance footage…

Spoiler

I say that in jest. Meaning idk why that footage is acceptable or, in their mind, would be appropriate to show given Britney’s stated feelings about footage from that time.

 

[Z-dawg]

8 minutes ago, Jordan Miller said:

I did open up about Jamie and LT threatening to sue me - even reading one of the emails LT sent me. I also quoted lyrics from Rebellion, among other things we talked about.

I love that! 😍 And again, you did us all proud, but more importantly Britney herself! 

[div]

8 minutes ago, everybodygoesdown said:

You could tell they initially wanted to show the head shaving and umbrella incident, but they stopped and just froze the image of her on the piece of me music video to cover it up while they taked about her “downfall”. 

Btw that wasn't her on the froze pom image, right?

[danielhaus29]

We need NYT part 3, with a full exposé on Lou 

[danielhaus29]

Just now, div said:

Btw that wasn't her on the froze pom image, right?

It wasn't, they screenshot one of the backup dancers with the blond wig 

[Markoct]

"TRASHY"???? ive never seen critics use that word. Common now 

[Busybee]

In my opinion they spent entirely too much time on pre conservatorship leading up to it. They really did a disservice to the amount of time they had. 

With that being said they did interview people who weren't in previous times. Dr spar for example however much we might despise him, him speaking to never even have meeting her really plays well for why this was corrupt from the beginning. Those little tidbits made up for the loss time they used focusing on 2007. 

The editing was a little messy like using POM footage when talking about the Circus tour but you can tell they were passionate about it and truly fans. She even tried to help her personally so this probably effected her personally.

This was 2.5 years in the making so for what it was I'm not suprirsed its getting negative reviews. Something tells me they changed some things up last minute due to NYT surprise drop. 

But we all got to admire Jordan's arms  so from that view point 10/10

[Mxra]

Make sure to give it a thumbs up on Netflix...

Netflix making a documentary on this is huge, it wasn't a bad docu. We need to remember there's soooooo much to go over that could never fit in 1 doc. 

Show a little support to it.

 

[BritneyLVR]

7 minutes ago, danielhaus29 said:

We need NYT part 3, with a full exposé on Lou 

 

[BritneyLVR]

9 minutes ago, danielhaus29 said:

It wasn't, they screenshot one of the backup dancers with the blond wig 

Actual footage of me: 

[Catalin]

39 minutes ago, danielhaus29 said:

Project Rose won in the end (NYT)  Also they used a lot of 2007 footage which they promised not to, Whats good Erin Lee  

Honestly, why do people praise the NYT doc so much? There's nothing groundbreaking in it. 

[PokemonSpears]

I feel like they should've released what they had back then. Of course no one knew she was gonna give her testimony in June and July, but the smartest would've been to release theirs even if Framing Britney came first, and keep the research to release a second part.

In an ideal world, they should've made a series instead, they could've focused in a couple of years per episode, and don't make it that rushed.

 

I don't like Adnan and Lutfi and that whole era, however I think it was necessary to show as a context. Adnan and the Kevin custody battle, because that gives context about Britney's eternal fight for her kids, and Adnan gives that glimpse of the very moment she realized she's under the conservatorship. Lutfi is also key, because we know he was used as the scapegoat by her parents to put all the blame on it, and almost as the reason why she needed to be under the conservatorship, the "undue influence". 

In my opinion they also should've asked him then why did he sue her instead of letting her alone, but whatever.

So in the end that took a lot of time, but why wouldn't it, if those are the people they had for interview. Controlling Britney just focused mostly on Circus Tour, because that was the people they had. They didn't talk about FFT or X Factor, because they didn't have people for that (except Felicia).

 

 

So yeah, all the documentaries always make it seem like, oh she shaved her head, she was sent to the hospital, then she was placed under a conservatorship because of this. Here they're like no, the conservatorship keep existing because of Sam Lutfi, but here's him explaining how that's bs. 

I just feel like they show a lot of things, but they don't explicitly say anything, and thus people think they're not saying anything, but you have to draw your conclusions. 

For example, they don't say Ingham is corrupt, but they show what he did, so you put 2 and 2 together, and realize what were his intentions. People complained they don't talk about the money and TriStar, they didn't (besides the 500k that Jamie gave them) but they put all the revenue from the POM and the last tours, an they also mentioned the $40M she already had before Circus, so again, the viewer needs to put 2 and 2 together and compare it with the reported $60M that everybody has heard already, and see that something fishy is going on.

Dr. Spar not wanting to admit he met Britney and he signed a capacity declaration, why so secretive? Why acting so guilty? Again, they're not saying it, but what does it say to the viewers, that everything was a scam ingham

 

[PokemonSpears]

13 minutes ago, Catalin said:

Honestly, why do people praise the NYT doc so much? There's nothing groundbreaking in it. 

because it has new stuff the fans didn't know, or didn't have confirmed. 

But on its own it won't tell the public a lot, especially if they didn't watch Framing Britney. Which by the way also had a lot of focus on the media and Justin Timberlake, etc. 

So no documentary is perfect. 

[Kaitlyn Johnson]

It wasn’t good or bad, but it felt very amateurish. They were clearly struggling to find people to talk. The NYT docs were worlds above this one. 

[Notorious I.G.G.Y.]

15 minutes ago, Catalin said:

Honestly, why do people praise the NYT doc so much? There's nothing groundbreaking in it. 

Framing literally SHOOK the world, did you miss the reactions, repercussions and accolades it received? It was a BIG tool in helping the GP undeniably take Britney's side. And Controlling was pretty groundbreaking to the point Britney's lawyer literally cited their investigative work in legal docs yesterday...

[Busybee]

Everyone is always a critic but to be fair I'm appreciative of any exposure that speaks to the corruption of conservatorship abuse. This will at the very least get people talking tomorrow and that's what we need.

[Yok1]

 Which documentary gave more accurate coverage of Britney's situation in this fraudulent con? Controlling Britney Spears without a doubt. I am sorry but Netflix did a really half-assed job ( except your contribution Jordan)    For someone who doesn't know the situation, does Netflix give pro-Britney wibes? 

[Xavierleleon]

1 hour ago, Urbanney said:

I don’t understand the hate. It revealed a lot of things we didn’t know. Do I agree with everything they did? No. And the pacing/tone was weird at times. But will it help the movement and getting Britney free? Yes. 

Well, they work with reviewing creative work. From a professional point of view it is not a good film in terms of coherence and storytelling, editing etc. When they give these reviews they don’t value so much “that person who is interviewed now is a bad/good person”, they look at the film as a film, a narrative whose theme should be consistent. If someone writes a manuscript or an academic thesis, it is not like what matters most is that the topic is interesting or that the intention is good, it is very important that the introduction naturally leads to the next part, that background/history feels natural and relevant to the rest of the story, so there is a flow throughout the film/book/academic thesis/essay from beginning to end. And I felt this Netflix doc was different ideas and sketched work in progress just glued together so it felt like the story was chopped in pieces and then put together without it fitting. The beginning scene felt promising and was pretty magical but then I kept wondering “how is this relevant, what happened to the previous ‘promise’ from the previous scene/part of the film”. And I have seen that many others reacted the same. There seem to be a consensus here that the only reason we react like this is because we are fans who already knows so much, but I think it has to do with editing. Critics reacted the same apperently and I don’t think they are all part of the Free Britney movement. 
 

I do hope though that these journalists will put together a real hit piece on Lou Taylor, Kevin Federline, Robin, etc etc etc, all of the predators, and just show how they want it to be done ;)

[Z-dawg]

56 minutes ago, Catalin said:

Honestly, why do people praise the NYT doc so much? There's nothing groundbreaking in it. 

I don’t know. Maybe bringing information to light that compelled the FBI to look into it 🤷🏻‍♂️