Page 1 of 1
Britney's Shootz
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 2:59 am
by Lex
It occurs to me, that for every bunch of photos that come out of a shoot (like the ones currently on Britney.com), in which she appears topless/naked, she would have to be in a room with at least 1 cameraman, but much more likely a photographer/director, several lighting assistants, etc.
So why the hell aren't there more leaked photos out there of the shots where her wrists weren't in quite the right place? And, if you were photoing Britney, wouldn't you keep the camera rolling as she changed position? YOU ARE IN A ROOM WITH A TOPLESS BRITNEY SPEARS, ASSJACK.
Seriously, could *you* ignore the temptation to keep firing away with yo' lens while she jiggles into the next pose?
Just a thought.
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 6:41 am
by Worm
I thought they did snap away and just took the best shots.
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:32 pm
by James Bond
Now listen here, god damn it. We are not going to talk about Britny Spears. Because if we do, then I am just going to fucking *snap*, and I am going to start posting long, vitriol-filled, acidic and furious rants on the subject and get needlessly worked up over it again, and again, and again, and I'm going to say over and over how utterly and completely dispicable a creature she is, and I will go into great detail on the subject. And, seriously, no one wants that. kay?
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 2:23 pm
by Britney Spears
James Bond wrote:Now listen here, god damn it. We are not going to talk about Britny Spears. Because if we do, then I am just going to fucking *snap*, and I am going to start posting long, vitriol-filled, acidic and furious rants on the subject and get needlessly worked up over it again, and again, and again, and I'm going to say over and over how utterly and completely dispicable a creature she is, and I will go into great detail on the subject. And, seriously, no one wants that. kay?
Oops, you did it again.
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 6:07 pm
by Vitriola
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 6:27 pm
by Casual
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 8:16 pm
by THE SNOWMAN
You're really having trouble posting IMAGES, CASUAL.
WHY NOT ASK YOUR FIANCEE FOR HELP. HE'S NOT HERE? I WILL HELP YOU
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 8:16 pm
by THE SNOWMAN
Worm your sig makesme sick.
Re: Britney's Shootz
Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:02 pm
by Ice Cream Jonsey
Lex wrote:YOU ARE IN A ROOM WITH A TOPLESS BRITNEY SPEARS, ASSJACK.
Probably because her people would blacklist you.
But then again, Playboy is offering up $7 million for her to pose naked, so who cares if you're blacklisted if you never have to work again?
Anyway, I'd feel sorry for her if something like that happened, but really the only thing she's got going for her is that we haven't seen her naked yet. So actually, she had that in common with Lex, so there's that. But anyway, the T.A.T.U. girls would have been around longer if they had played their cards differently and not had those naked club shots out there from the get-go.
Oh, and if they weren't filthy, godless Soviets, natch.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:34 am
by bruce
James Bond wrote:vitriol-filled
I thought Filling Vitriola was ICJ's job description these days.
Bruce
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:32 pm
by Lysander
bruce wrote:James Bond wrote:vitriol-filled
I thought Filling Vitriola was ICJ's job description these days.
A-hah! Finally, someone caught that!
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:10 pm
by Jack Straw
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:35 pm
by bruce
I'd still hit that.
Bruce
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:22 pm
by Pinperson
The un-made-up version looks better, in my opinion.
