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

[RedDinoCandyTree3]

Very probably. Sneaking, manipulating,  slandering and covert stealing are her trademark style.

 

The Adnan / Lutfi interviews seems to me more about shedding light on Britney's situation from those perspectives.

They did not linger on, sensationalize 2007; they questioned the negative labels.

Kaplan's view "she could get a message out in a million ways"  was presented but contradicted by the entire documentary, particularly Eliscu's own documented experience.

It was balanced, and touched major points.  Defying Lou's lawyer to mention her, mention of and images of the Jerylls as well as  emphasizing the family wanted to barge in and seize control.

Seems they covered all bases and set Britney up positively, which was long overdue.

Definitely they put effort and time into presenting a mature balanced and therefore  credible perspective.

I love the NYT and Netflix docs.  Both were helpful in their own ways, both brought forward important information for the GP.

👍

[Jordan Miller]

35 minutes ago, Xavierleleon said:

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

 

I hear you, and I appreciate the way you worded this. I guess I just don't see the value in taking time to call someone's hard work "trash." 

[Jordan Miller]

5 minutes ago, Priya Awais said:

Very probably. Sneaking, manipulating,  slandering and covert stealing are her trademark style.

 

The Adnan / Lutfi interviews seems to me more about shedding light on Britney's situation from those perspectives.

They did not linger on, sensationalize 2007; they questioned the negative labels.

Kaplan's view "she could get a message out in a million ways"  was presented but contradicted by the entire documentary, particularly Eliscu's own documented experience.

It was balanced, and touched major points.  Defying Lou's lawyer to mention her, mention of and images of the Jerylls as well as  emphasizing the family wanted to barge in and seize control.

Seems they covered all bases and set Britney up positively, which was long overdue.

Definitely they put effort and time into presenting a mature balanced and therefore  credible perspective.

I love the NYT and Netflix docs.  Both were helpful in their own ways, both brought forward important information for the GP.

👍

Appreciate this comment a lot

[limecakes]

2 hours ago, Kaitlyn Johnson said:

I agree with this. IMO it was in poor taste to even bring Sam in for an interview. His obsession with Britney hasn’t ended and it’s a little uncomfortable. I also found the focus on the men in her life kinda gross. 
 

..but there was nothing trashy or awful about it. It was very informative. 

Its kinda impossible not to focus on the men, since that’s all she ever has been a victim from. All these men where in her orbit, steering her in one way or the other. I don’t trust Sam Lutfi but I did not kind him on the documentary. You gotta get many sides of the story. I didn’t know anything about what Adnan talked, so I was surprised he added more to the story. 

[Bigno]

31 minutes ago, limecakes said:

Its kinda impossible not to focus on the men, since that’s all she ever has been a victim from. All these men where in her orbit, steering her in one way or the other. I don’t trust Sam Lutfi but I did not kind him on the documentary. You gotta get many sides of the story. I didn’t know anything about what Adnan talked, so I was surprised he added more to the story. 

I agree with this. It is not like all of a sudden these people became goodie good pants, but one has to listen to all sides. We say time and time again, that even if Britney was going through emotional hardships and maybe, very possibly, mental health issues, it never meant she was totally incapable of choosing. For whatewver reason, she found certain solace in these men and they have a perspective that has been desperately silenced by the very people who have kept Britney enslaved for 13 years. Why the urgency of team con to silenced them by slandering their reputation?

I think Lulu is just using her traditioal methods and I bet she payed, o surprise there. 

[ElToxico]

I came across the guardian's one earlier today and the first red flag for me was this and I quote:

 

this disturbing film gives redemption stories to controversial figures from Britney’s past.

 

While Ghalib was often in contact with Jamie, Lutfi was seen as a pariah by the Spears family

Yes, because Jamie and the Spears family are CLEARLY the most trustworthy source of truth in this case LOL

[MikeHunt]

 

Lou M Taylor will chew you up and spit you out.

[RedDinoCandyTree3]

Not exactly many sources to choose from, willing to speak, for that time period to get first hand accounts...

Others could have come forward too.

EDIT: Seems  the goal is to catch the big fish, not the small fry.

Anyway,  I felt both docs (CNN doesn't count) did a good job shining light. Peace ❤️

[britneyluv]

One of my favorite parts was them showing Lou's demand letter and the response was basically

She is so transparent it's pathetic. I'm so glad the filmmakers realized her letter was nothing but an empty threat and just made Lou look like a moron since she has no legal basis whatsoever to sue 

[Xavierleleon]

2 hours ago, Jordan Miller said:

I hear you, and I appreciate the way you worded this. I guess I just don't see the value in taking time to call someone's hard work "trash." 

I totally understand your position on that and I think you did awesome, I am glad you were there and spoke for Britney’s rights! And you look gorgeous 😇. 

[Xavierleleon]

1 hour ago, ElToxico said:

I came across the guardian's one earlier today and the first red flag for me was this and I quote:

 

this disturbing film gives redemption stories to controversial figures from Britney’s past.

 

While Ghalib was often in contact with Jamie, Lutfi was seen as a pariah by the Spears family

Yes, because Jamie and the Spears family are CLEARLY the most trustworthy source of truth in this case LOL

You are definitely right about that. I am one of the few who have defended Sam Lutfi and refused to buy the smearing of him though and it has been pretty lonely doing that, aka, most of Britney’s fans have hated him and portrayed him as a villain to put it mildly. But yes, bad example of why he hasn’t had a good reputation. 

[Xavierleleon]

1 hour ago, limecakes said:

Its kinda impossible not to focus on the men, since that’s all she ever has been a victim from. All these men where in her orbit, steering her in one way or the other. I don’t trust Sam Lutfi but I did not kind him on the documentary. You gotta get many sides of the story. I didn’t know anything about what Adnan talked, so I was surprised he added more to the story. 

Naaah, Lou Taylor (who were featured on the doc though), Robin, the assistent Bret, all of the judges, Jamie’s lawyer, Diane Sawyer, the politician who said she wanted to shoot Britney, Lynne and Jamie Lynn; all women and part of the bad guys. 

[DollyParton]

U wanna get sued again? 

[Luxuriou$]

Well this docu is trashy... Lou part was the only interesting part so if she's mad i don't blame her... i hope she realized this is just the beginning 

[Anticonformity]

47 minutes ago, MikeHunt said:

 

Lou M Taylor will chew you up and spit you out.

Be still and...

maybe the FBI won't see you

[boyinthemirror]

Out of the weak ones, it was the best.

From a fan perspective I think it was bad. But from a general public perspective, it was okay… So yeah it’s kinda weird the reviews are this bad. It feels like an attack to the movement since most of the information exposed was spread and discovered by fans. I kinda feel guilty for criticizing it now 

[hello70]

So this is a hot take but I for one HATED the Netflix doc. Maybe I had my hopes up too much? 

1. Disgusting rehash of Britney's worst times was unneeded and actually counterproductive depending on how you see it. I've seen comments from the GP saying they feel like it reminded them of just how "crazy" she was and that perhaps the CON really was needed all this time. Very heartbreaking to read those comments.

2. I don't know about you guys but the first 20 minutes of that doc felt weirdly pro con. Especially the comments from Kaplan dismissing her claims she was held against her will. The doc NEVER challenges him on this.

3. The doc absolutely fails to mention any of the scariest truths or restrictions about the conservatorship. And the revelation that someone sent them Britney's medical information was unsettling. That is the ONE thing Britney seems to not want others to see. And yet...these 2 girls are going over her medication records like la di da. And they don't even give a compelling motive (or revelation) to justify such an intrusion. Very exploitative that part. So they get "thousands" of pages of stuff but somehow only manage to reveal 2 things previously unknown regarding the whole conservatorship??? Interesting.

4. I could honestly go on but I don't wanna look crazy posting long comments😅

[ilikethispart]

Let’s be real here. Netflix has the biggest global reach to the GP so of course there’s going to be a smear campaign of negative reviews. But we also have to remember that the media likes to copy each other. If the general vibe is negative they’ll follow the crowd.

[MinakoS]

Wouldn't it be risky for her to do that? I mean, a media could refuse and expose her request, which would make things even worst for her. I think she's smarter than that lol. Unless she pays A LOT and none of those medias have an ounce of humanity, like tmz. 

[jennyj]

I wouldn't be surprised if she did... but she didn't really need to, because it kinda sucked in itself lol

There was too much focus on the 2 women journalists... and there was too much "here read this line, read that".  Like girl.... just read it yourself to her lol. 

And there wasn't even really anything new.

 

The only part I enjoyed really was Fe and the clip of Britney having fun during the circus Womanizer rehearsals.