Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought that some of the issues from the 17 point list happened during the time that Baldoni was filming other people besides Lively, like forcing unexpected climaxing acting on Ferrer playing an underage character? And that Lively brought the list up when she did because the strike had just ended, which would mean they could expect to return to work, which she didn’t want to do without an agreement in place that would stop the same harassing behavior from continuing.

But, sure, I’m sure the fact that the Deadpool release was announced on the same day indicates there was some malevolent plan, right?

Note that this was not the first time the Deadpool movie release date had been announced — the date had moved around a few times by then due to the strikes etc. Here is what the Deadpool Wikipedia page says:

“The film was originally announced with a release date of September 6, 2024, before it was pushed back to November 8 to accommodate other MCU film delays. Its release was then moved forward to May 3 of that year when Disney adjusted its release calendar due to the WGA strike, before settling on the July 2024 date after the SAG-AFTRA strike ended.” In other words, the movie was always expected to be released within a few months of the July 2024 date finally settled on, either earlier or later, basically at Disney’s whim.

This. The 17 point list happened because the strike had ended and they were headed back to set. Blake has evidence if both how miserable she was during filming pre-strike and how much she was dreading returning to the set (texts with friends talking about all the on set behavior and how she would go home crying, texts to other actress on production discussing how much she was dreading going back). So all evidence points to Blake creating the 17 point list in an effort to protect herself and others on the set from what she viewed as inappropriate and harmful behavior.

But sure, let's invent a parallel theory based on literally nothing about how it was really about Ryan masterminding a theft of the movie so that, um, something something about Deadpool/wolverine [gestures wildly, nods emphatically, no logical points made].

Prior to the strike, Blake complained about three things: the sexy comment, the birthing video and Heath looking at her in her trailer. There was no mention of simulated nudity during the birthing scene, gratuitous kissing during the dance scene, pornography, young Lily (had they even met?) or anything else that was added later.

What happened during the strike? We know from Baldoni’s emails and texts she had been asking for access to things and even had her manager reach out, but Baldoni had said she’d have to wait. We also know the new date for Deadpool was announced.

How does Blake go from three grievances that she raised right away to an entire laundry list of grievances? The birthing scene is most suspicious, particularly since her supporters feel it’s the strongest of her claims. Why is it that she complained about heath’s video back in May but didn’t complain about the scene itself until months later. Something she’d never mentioned before ends up in her complaint as pressure to simulate nudity. She also claims she was only wearing “a thin piece of cloth” which multiple people have debunked. Could it be that her lawyers told her that her list lacked teeth and she needed more?

It’s also interesting that before the strike, her only grievance about Baldoni was the sexy comment and all the others were about Heath. Then after the strike JB became her focus. Why? Because he’s the one she needed to sideline.

This is not accurate.

- She complained about Justin asking her trainer for her weight

- She complained about Justin's behavior in her trailer when he came to talk to her about wardrobe

- She objected to Justin and Jamey about them wanting her to do the birth scene topless, to the point where Justin felt the need to ask Jamey to show her the birth video the next day, to show her an example of a woman giving birth nude (which is beside the point, but that's how hung up they were on it)

- She complained after the dance scene and alleges that Justin defended himself by saying he wasn't even attracted to her.

That's in addition to her complaining about the sexy comment, the birth video itself, and Heath coming into her trailer.

And this is over the course of just a couple weeks.

Justin/Wayfarer were very aware of Blake's objections well in advance of the 17 point list. It's just they believed their apologies were sufficient and did not think she was still upset about it.

This is an organizational/HR failure.

Had Wayfarer involved HR early on, kept track of these issues, and conducted some kind of investigation, they could have resolved the dispute and closed the door on it. By handling it in an "as hoc" way and not involving their HR team, they failed to recognize the issue was not resolved for Blake or, potentially, for other women on set. This is why companies should have procedures for handling these kinds of issues and a way to formally interview, investigate, and resolve them. This was an own goal.

Your account is not accurate according to Baldoni’s timeline.

[Anonymous]

https://pagesix.com/2025/05/24/celebrity-news/taylor-swift-insider-who-leaked-blake-livelys-alleged-threat-to-release-pop-stars-private-texts-revealed/

Taylor’s dragon is her dad. I do not understand how any of you can still support Blake lively and her disgusting husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought that some of the issues from the 17 point list happened during the time that Baldoni was filming other people besides Lively, like forcing unexpected climaxing acting on Ferrer playing an underage character? And that Lively brought the list up when she did because the strike had just ended, which would mean they could expect to return to work, which she didn’t want to do without an agreement in place that would stop the same harassing behavior from continuing.

But, sure, I’m sure the fact that the Deadpool release was announced on the same day indicates there was some malevolent plan, right?

Note that this was not the first time the Deadpool movie release date had been announced — the date had moved around a few times by then due to the strikes etc. Here is what the Deadpool Wikipedia page says:

“The film was originally announced with a release date of September 6, 2024, before it was pushed back to November 8 to accommodate other MCU film delays. Its release was then moved forward to May 3 of that year when Disney adjusted its release calendar due to the WGA strike, before settling on the July 2024 date after the SAG-AFTRA strike ended.” In other words, the movie was always expected to be released within a few months of the July 2024 date finally settled on, either earlier or later, basically at Disney’s whim.

This. The 17 point list happened because the strike had ended and they were headed back to set. Blake has evidence if both how miserable she was during filming pre-strike and how much she was dreading returning to the set (texts with friends talking about all the on set behavior and how she would go home crying, texts to other actress on production discussing how much she was dreading going back). So all evidence points to Blake creating the 17 point list in an effort to protect herself and others on the set from what she viewed as inappropriate and harmful behavior.

But sure, let's invent a parallel theory based on literally nothing about how it was really about Ryan masterminding a theft of the movie so that, um, something something about Deadpool/wolverine [gestures wildly, nods emphatically, no logical points made].

Prior to the strike, Blake complained about three things: the sexy comment, the birthing video and Heath looking at her in her trailer. There was no mention of simulated nudity during the birthing scene, gratuitous kissing during the dance scene, pornography, young Lily (had they even met?) or anything else that was added later.

What happened during the strike? We know from Baldoni’s emails and texts she had been asking for access to things and even had her manager reach out, but Baldoni had said she’d have to wait. We also know the new date for Deadpool was announced.

How does Blake go from three grievances that she raised right away to an entire laundry list of grievances? The birthing scene is most suspicious, particularly since her supporters feel it’s the strongest of her claims. Why is it that she complained about heath’s video back in May but didn’t complain about the scene itself until months later. Something she’d never mentioned before ends up in her complaint as pressure to simulate nudity. She also claims she was only wearing “a thin piece of cloth” which multiple people have debunked. Could it be that her lawyers told her that her list lacked teeth and she needed more?

It’s also interesting that before the strike, her only grievance about Baldoni was the sexy comment and all the others were about Heath. Then after the strike JB became her focus. Why? Because he’s the one she needed to sideline.

This is not accurate.

- She complained about Justin asking her trainer for her weight

- She complained about Justin's behavior in her trailer when he came to talk to her about wardrobe

- She objected to Justin and Jamey about them wanting her to do the birth scene topless, to the point where Justin felt the need to ask Jamey to show her the birth video the next day, to show her an example of a woman giving birth nude (which is beside the point, but that's how hung up they were on it)

- She complained after the dance scene and alleges that Justin defended himself by saying he wasn't even attracted to her.

That's in addition to her complaining about the sexy comment, the birth video itself, and Heath coming into her trailer.

And this is over the course of just a couple weeks.

Justin/Wayfarer were very aware of Blake's objections well in advance of the 17 point list. It's just they believed their apologies were sufficient and did not think she was still upset about it.

This is an organizational/HR failure.

Had Wayfarer involved HR early on, kept track of these issues, and conducted some kind of investigation, they could have resolved the dispute and closed the door on it. By handling it in an "as hoc" way and not involving their HR team, they failed to recognize the issue was not resolved for Blake or, potentially, for other women on set. This is why companies should have procedures for handling these kinds of issues and a way to formally interview, investigate, and resolve them. This was an own goal.

And yet after consulting with her attorney, she declined an invitation to open a sexual harassment complaint. Perhaps she knew such an investigation would reveal her claims were bs.

[Anonymous]

I wonder what was in the texts Blake asked Taylor to delete. My guess is that Bryan Freedman now knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what was in the texts Blake asked Taylor to delete. My guess is that Bryan Freedman now knows.

Can’t wait for Bryan Freedman to drop that bomb.

[Anonymous]

I think people are greatly underestimating how the early May paparazzi and fan chatter affected Blake. People online were absolutely brutal. Blake was 35 at the time, so not old, but because she was essentially playing a character that people expected to be 23 comments about her weight and her age and everything… it was really brutal. Add that onto the fact that she was clearly insecure about her postpartum body. And she hadn’t been on a movie set in 6 years and she was coming off the rhythm section which did horribly and was pulled from theaters almost immediately because it was hemorrhaging money.

Blake, having not read the book, might not have even realized that she was playing a character that was supposed to be much younger. Her team panicked and they did have Colleen Hoover put out a statement that they had to age the characters up because it made no sense that these characters would be doing things like neurosurgery and being head chef and owner of bostons hottest new restaurant at 23, but it didn’t really help and there was just so much backlash.

There was talk at that time that Blake really lost interest in the film. I think she was actually trying to get out of the movie at that time. I am betting that someone on her team got in her ear, and said instead of backing off of this movie, why don’t you try to take a larger role - maybe this could be your chance to get some producing experience, etc. maybe we can say you wrote a scene etc.

There was just a major shift in tone after that backlash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what was in the texts Blake asked Taylor to delete. My guess is that Bryan Freedman now knows.

Can’t wait for Bryan Freedman to drop that bomb.

How is this scenario possible while at the same time Swift remains out of the case? I don’t understand the “logic.”

I am inclined to believe Swift and Lively aren’t friends and that Seift wants to be left out. I do not understand how Swift could have given Freedman anything anything on the supposed spoliation of evidence i.e. texts without absolutely being required to testify about it either by Freedman or Gottlieb. How would that possibly work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people are greatly underestimating how the early May paparazzi and fan chatter affected Blake. People online were absolutely brutal. Blake was 35 at the time, so not old, but because she was essentially playing a character that people expected to be 23 comments about her weight and her age and everything… it was really brutal. Add that onto the fact that she was clearly insecure about her postpartum body. And she hadn’t been on a movie set in 6 years and she was coming off the rhythm section which did horribly and was pulled from theaters almost immediately because it was hemorrhaging money.

Blake, having not read the book, might not have even realized that she was playing a character that was supposed to be much younger. Her team panicked and they did have Colleen Hoover put out a statement that they had to age the characters up because it made no sense that these characters would be doing things like neurosurgery and being head chef and owner of bostons hottest new restaurant at 23, but it didn’t really help and there was just so much backlash.

There was talk at that time that Blake really lost interest in the film. I think she was actually trying to get out of the movie at that time. I am betting that someone on her team got in her ear, and said instead of backing off of this movie, why don’t you try to take a larger role - maybe this could be your chance to get some producing experience, etc. maybe we can say you wrote a scene etc.

There was just a major shift in tone after that backlash.

+1

[Anonymous]

-1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people are greatly underestimating how the early May paparazzi and fan chatter affected Blake. People online were absolutely brutal. Blake was 35 at the time, so not old, but because she was essentially playing a character that people expected to be 23 comments about her weight and her age and everything… it was really brutal. Add that onto the fact that she was clearly insecure about her postpartum body. And she hadn’t been on a movie set in 6 years and she was coming off the rhythm section which did horribly and was pulled from theaters almost immediately because it was hemorrhaging money.

Blake, having not read the book, might not have even realized that she was playing a character that was supposed to be much younger. Her team panicked and they did have Colleen Hoover put out a statement that they had to age the characters up because it made no sense that these characters would be doing things like neurosurgery and being head chef and owner of bostons hottest new restaurant at 23, but it didn’t really help and there was just so much backlash.

There was talk at that time that Blake really lost interest in the film. I think she was actually trying to get out of the movie at that time. I am betting that someone on her team got in her ear, and said instead of backing off of this movie, why don’t you try to take a larger role - maybe this could be your chance to get some producing experience, etc. maybe we can say you wrote a scene etc.

There was just a major shift in tone after that backlash.

Oh bullshit.

What your framing does reveal is she never deserved this part in the first place and is so damn stupid, lazy and entitled she didn’t bother reading the book.

She was way too old and frankly, lacks the talent. Which reveals she only got this part because she and her husband used his Hollywood clout & Ari to get it. That is very obvious.

And once she got it, they set in motion a scheme to steal production credit. She tried and failed to seduce & set up Justin, so they just made it all up and carried on with the scheme.

[Anonymous]

The absolute denseness of the BL supporters is almost unbelievable. No one can be this gullible and ignorant.

This isn’t going to trial so TS won’t be called as a witness. This is headed towards settlement. For those in the back TS was always relevant to this lawsuit as BL dragged her name into it in an effort to intimidate JB. She lied many times about TS’s involvement and heavily implied that TS would have an issue with JB if he didn’t accede to her demands.

BL is cooked. It’s all over but the $$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what was in the texts Blake asked Taylor to delete. My guess is that Bryan Freedman now knows.

Can’t wait for Bryan Freedman to drop that bomb.

How is this scenario possible while at the same time Swift remains out of the case? I don’t understand the “logic.”

I am inclined to believe Swift and Lively aren’t friends and that Seift wants to be left out. I do not understand how Swift could have given Freedman anything anything on the supposed spoliation of evidence i.e. texts without absolutely being required to testify about it either by Freedman or Gottlieb. How would that possibly work?

Texts received from Blake don’t require swift’s testimony, they can be used directly to impeach Blake. Taylor would not have to testify. Of course, if Blake wants to drag her back into the case, that”a on her. Baldipni could use it without having Taylor testify .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The absolute denseness of the BL supporters is almost unbelievable. No one can be this gullible and ignorant.

This isn’t going to trial so TS won’t be called as a witness. This is headed towards settlement. For those in the back TS was always relevant to this lawsuit as BL dragged her name into it in an effort to intimidate JB. She lied many times about TS’s involvement and heavily implied that TS would have an issue with JB if he didn’t accede to her demands.

BL is cooked. It’s all over but the $$$.

Oh look it’s the Baldoni supporter obsessed with settlement dancing in again, where every new event in the case means Lively needs to settle more immediately than ever, consistent with the Freedman MO. There was a desperation for settlement four months ago. Yet here we still are with all of these outstanding MTDs of Freedman’s claims as well as motions for sanctions emphasizing the appropriateness of dismissing Baldoni’s claims with prejudice. Yet somehow this Baldoni fan thinks this means settlement will happen RIGHT NOW. lol

I think that if settlement DOES happen within the next week with all these MTDs etc pending, then Freedman likely DID get something damaging out of Swift. Otherwise, this just seems like more Freedman preening for the press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://pagesix.com/2025/05/24/celebrity-news/taylor-swift-insider-who-leaked-blake-livelys-alleged-threat-to-release-pop-stars-private-texts-revealed/

Taylor’s dragon is her dad. I do not understand how any of you can still support Blake lively and her disgusting husband.

I don't support them, but I do keep an open mind to either side. I try to go for the most rational, fact-supported scenario before conspiracies.

I'm not going to believe Taylor's father was the source just because Page Six and Daily Mail report an insider said that. I struggle to see what his motive would be for doing that, when I assume that Swift's main interest is in staying out of the lawsuit. Certainly if Lively and Gottlieb made those threats, Swift's camp had the right to be absolutely furious, but I assume Swift's camp is made up of rational people and their #1 step was discussing it with their lawyers. In Freedman's narrative, Gottlieb threatens her attorney and her attorney puts it in writing that he considers that an extortionate threat and IMO that is absolutely a smart thing to do to put Lively's team on notice that there is now documentation in case they go through with the threats. From there, I can't understand why Scott Swift would possibly go ahead and leak that information to Freedman who will obviously have no choice but to make Taylor an issue in the lawsuit and try to obtain those records and begin the whole media circus.

With that said, Page Six is big enough that now I do sort of wonder if Swift's people will want to come out and deny the rumor that it was her father, and if they don't, I wonder if we can read into that. I don't read anything into her lack of comment about Lively because I get she doesn't want to be drawn further into the case, but this is her dad, and I can see wanting to clarify the record on that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The absolute denseness of the BL supporters is almost unbelievable. No one can be this gullible and ignorant.

This isn’t going to trial so TS won’t be called as a witness. This is headed towards settlement. For those in the back TS was always relevant to this lawsuit as BL dragged her name into it in an effort to intimidate JB. She lied many times about TS’s involvement and heavily implied that TS would have an issue with JB if he didn’t accede to her demands.

BL is cooked. It’s all over but the $$$.

Oh look it’s the Baldoni supporter obsessed with settlement dancing in again, where every new event in the case means Lively needs to settle more immediately than ever, consistent with the Freedman MO. There was a desperation for settlement four months ago. Yet here we still are with all of these outstanding MTDs of Freedman’s claims as well as motions for sanctions emphasizing the appropriateness of dismissing Baldoni’s claims with prejudice. Yet somehow this Baldoni fan thinks this means settlement will happen RIGHT NOW. lol

I think that if settlement DOES happen within the next week with all these MTDs etc pending, then Freedman likely DID get something damaging out of Swift. Otherwise, this just seems like more Freedman preening for the press.

Dp. There must be a few of us who think this way. Because you have also criticized me for thinking BL should settle. I haven’t posted on this issue for a few days though. I’m not really pro anyone, but as a lawyer who has been involved in a number of litigations, I do think settlement is the best way out, for both of them really, but yes, especially Blake.