Jump to content

Did Lou Taylor pay the media to write negative reviews about Netflix's new doc 'Britney Vs Spears?'


Recommended Posts

I didn't love this one honestly, The New York Times did better but you did great Jordan and I think it was still good for the GP, etc. However I think you are completely right. This one made a LOT of focus on Lou and it's Netflix which is huge. I can totally see that evil, corrupt hag doing this. She would know a lot about trashy.

  • Love 2
  • Like 4
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Britney'sBish said:

I don't doubt Loucifer's involvement, but I don't think them portraying both Lufti and Adnan in positive lights is helping either.

There were snakes on all sides.

Agree but I don't necessarily think they were portraying Lutfi and Adnan in positive lights as much as they were trying to help the viewer understand why Britney was so desperate to find someone who showed the slightest bit of protection or loyalty that she allowed these losers into her life. The fact that Jamie went to such extremes to remove these people from her world while at the same time taking just as much, if not more, advantage of Britney is so ironic that Alanis Morissette wishes she could have included it in her song.

What I got from the documentary is that almost every single person around her was a snake - her dad, Loucifer, Adnan, Lutfi, the rest of her family - that it's no wonder she had trust issues that caused her to act out. The only people that seemed to care about her best interests were the ones who were swiftly removed - Adam Streisand, Andrew Gallery, and anyone else who had genuine motives but questioned why such a capable woman was under the restraints of a slave who was forced to perform like a workhorse for the benefit of anyone else except Britney.

  • Love 1
  • Like 4
Link to comment

The letters fired off in Mar 2021 by lawyers for that grifter Lou M Taylor to the documentary makers sounded preemptive AF, like old Lou has a LOT to try and get in front of.

Lou M Taylor, Tristar, Blackbox, the Spears parents and siblings are all filthy grifters. I am in awe of the strength of Britney Spears. Most would have committed suicide years ago. She's coming out swinging. And I hope she knocks some skulls.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
  • Leader
54 minutes ago, G-unit said:

o say it’s a “waste of everyone’s time”?  How is watching a documentary, designed to educate people about corruption and guardianship abuse…a documentary about shedding light on the abuse of someone who has had their civil rights and liberties stripped from them for over 13 years a WASTE of anyone’s time?

Nailed it!! 

  • Love 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment

I think you did a great job in it Jordan but I don’t think the filmmakers did a great job. I have already written in other threads why I don’t think it is a good film, but basically I agree with the reviews and many members of this site had similar impressions of it. I in no ways think that serious critics at the Guardian are being bribed. It is basic knowledge about storytelling that no matter if you are writing a novel, a non-fiction book, a manuscript for theatre, film or tv, or an academic thesis you really have to work on the editing of your material so it becomes one consistent story and won’t be perceived as “choppy” for the reader or viewer. Everything needs to be relevant for the work. These critics are not reviewing Adnan or Fe, or Britney, or the intention to do a documentary about her case, they are reviewing a film. 
The biggest argument against your question is that many of these reviews compare it to the NYT docs and say that they are better, thus recommending the public to watch them. And those have given Britney’s attorney ammunition and made the FBI starting to investigate the conservatorship. No way anyone in the conservatorship would do that. 
But also, the Netflix doc is bad for being a documentary on Netflix. Compared to any other “world class” documentary you can watch on the biggest platform, I think it is embarrassing actually, and that only has to do with the filmmakers work with their manuscript, self awareness as storytellers and editing. It doesn’t mean I think it is wrong to include Sam Lutfi or that there were not pieces of it that had beautiful footage or good people to interview, like you or Fe or Gallery. 
 

I agree with this review, and the ones in the Guardian and Variety. https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/britney-vs-spears-netflix-review-conservatorship-jamie-exploitative-1221857/amp

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, femmepop said:

Sí, es un poco extraño lo duro que se está criticando a uno en comparación con los muchos otros documentos que existen. Fue un poco chiflado, pero no diría más explotador que cualquiera de los otros y, desde luego, no la CNN o la BBC.

: snooptoya_jackson_snooping_looking_magnifying_glass_glasses_search: 

¿Por qué este? 

El doctor que controlaba a Britney Spears también mencionó a Loucifer ...

Not having a narrative tone or missing the point of what you want to tell is enough to say that a work is poorly done.

  • Love 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Xavierleleon said:

Creo que hiciste un gran trabajo con Jordan, pero no creo que los cineastas hicieran un gran trabajo. Ya he escrito en otros hilos por qué no creo que sea una buena película, pero básicamente estoy de acuerdo con las críticas y muchos miembros de este sitio han tenido impresiones similares al respecto. De ninguna manera creo que se esté sobornando a los críticos serios de The Guardian. Es un conocimiento básico sobre la narración de historias que no importa si estás escribiendo una novela, un libro de no ficción, un manuscrito para teatro, cine o televisión, o una tesis académica, realmente tienes que trabajar en la edición de tu material para que se convierta en uno. historia coherente y no será percibido como "entrecortado" para el lector o espectador. Todo debe ser relevante  para el trabajo. Estos críticos no están revisando a Adnan ni a Fe, ni a Britney, ni la intención de hacer un documental sobre su caso, están revisando una película. 
El mayor argumento en contra de su pregunta es que muchas de estas revisiones lo comparan con los documentos del NYT y dicen que son mejores, por lo que recomiendan al público que los vea. Y esos le han dado munición al abogado de Britney y han hecho que el FBI comience a investigar la tutela. De ninguna manera alguien en la tutela haría eso. 
Pero también, el documento de Netflix es malo por ser un documental sobre Netflix. Comparado con cualquier otro documental de “clase mundial” que puedas ver en la plataforma más grande, creo que en realidad es vergonzoso, y eso solo tiene que ver con el trabajo de los realizadores con su manuscrito, la autoconciencia como narradores y la edición. No significa que crea que esté mal incluir a Sam Lutfi o que no haya piezas que tengan imágenes hermosas o buenas personas para entrevistar, como tú, Fe o Gallery. 
 

Estoy de acuerdo con esta revisión y las de Guardian y Variety. https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/britney-vs-spears-netflix-review-conservatorship-jamie-exploitative-1221857/amp

 

THIS.

The most basic thing in narrative is knowing what you are going to tell and HOW you are going to tell it. Here they did not know those two essential things.

  • Love 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Applejack said:

I get the reviews because they interviewed Sam Lutfi. But jornalistic integrity is about getting to know all sides of a story in order to reach the truth, so...

None of the reviews I have read put it like that. Their critic has to do with how he is being interviewed, that he is not asked questions or challenged, that him and Adnan takes up a lot of space to the point it is unclear what the focus is. That is what it is meant by sloppy, trashy etc. Sloppy refers to the lack of focus, the manuscript is confusing and you wonder what the narrative is, which is bad, viewers shouldn’t wonder that, no matter if they are professionals used to analysing cinema, like these reviewers, or if they are just ordinary viewers. “Trashy” has to do with how several reviewers associate this doc with tabloids and true crime. I agree, I think this one is shallow, confusing, “shapeless” as one critic put it and disrespectful as well to Britney in the composition. Because of the “true crime” choice of music but few revelations. I am not a professional critic, my level of English is not the greatest and I am tired so I can’t express myself as clear as these critics, but I agree with The Guardian, Variety and this one; https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/britney-vs-spears-netflix-review-conservatorship-jamie-exploitative-1221857/amp

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

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

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