Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More good news for Lively's case just in:

Sloane and Vituscka have worked out an agreement whereby Vituscka has filed an declaration, stating, essentially, the following (as paraphrased by Sloane) that explains he got certain facts wrong in his article which he regrets, and which I believe basically absolves Sloane of liability for defamation; as a result Sloane is dropping her motion to compel against Vituscka:

"The Sloane Parties and Vituscka have reached an agreement wherein Vituscka furnished a sworn declaration stating, in relevant part, that 'Ms. Sloane never told me that Ms. Lively was sexually harassed or sexually assaulted by Justin Baldoni or anyone else.' Ex. A ¶ 5. The text messages appearing at paragraph 193 of the Wayfarer Parties’ Amended Complaint were therefore a 'mistake,' the truth of which the Wayfarer Parties never confirmed prior to filing their complaints that included Vituscka’s texts without his authorization. Id. ¶¶ 3, 6. Vituscka has also agreed, by June 23, 2025, to produce his communications to which Bryan Freedman is a party for the time period of July 2024 through January 16, 2025."

Did you happen to catch that closing zinger? Vitscka will produce seven months of his communications with Bryan Freedman involving the time in question.

Sloane letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.0.pdf
Vituscka declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.286.1.pdf

Suck it, haterz.

BF’s a lawyer. The only thing he would’ve been texting Vituscka is questions about what Sloane and the other lively parties said to him. Vituscka’s also just ruined his own credibility because he told wayfarer one thing and now he’s changing his story. He may even open himself up to having the reporter privilege pierced.

We're talking about Bryan Freedman, right? Of course he leaks stuff to tabloids all the time. He has TMZ, DM, and Page Six on speed dial. And no, not just to talk about legal evidence they might be able to provide. He is very skilled at using tabloid press to his clients' benefit.

I doubt the texts between Vituscka and Freedman will yield anything legally useful, but I do assume they'll be a bunch of juicy, juicy leaks and gossip and blind quotes Freedman wanted to have placed in DM articles.

I don’t think he’d put anything like that in writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

I acknowledged it by responding. I have no obligation whatsoever to capitulate to someone whose reasoning for supporting another woman in this litigation is simply on the basis of sharing the same anatomy. That is the hallmark of a low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational individual full of hubris that believes their perspective is the sole truth and cannot be challenged. That is not how the court system works and it's crystal clear that people like you and her are the reason we have these laws in the first place. Otherwise anyone you didn't like you would be able to accuse of anything with impunity. Just like Blake. You want Baldoni to pay for the sins of your exes and other men you've had harrowing experiences with and that's not how it works.

Very well said and spot on.

+100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

I acknowledged it by responding. I have no obligation whatsoever to capitulate to someone whose reasoning for supporting another woman in this litigation is simply on the basis of sharing the same anatomy. That is the hallmark of a low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational individual full of hubris that believes their perspective is the sole truth and cannot be challenged. That is not how the court system works and it's crystal clear that people like you and her are the reason we have these laws in the first place. Otherwise anyone you didn't like you would be able to accuse of anything with impunity. Just like Blake. You want Baldoni to pay for the sins of your exes and other men you've had harrowing experiences with and that's not how it works.

Very well said and spot on.

+100.

And now there is a third Baldoni supporter endorsing the idea that women who support the female accuser here must themselves be "low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational" as well as, per the last line, vindictive for the slights they have experienced from their "exes and other men." This is what you guys are; you own this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

I acknowledged it by responding. I have no obligation whatsoever to capitulate to someone whose reasoning for supporting another woman in this litigation is simply on the basis of sharing the same anatomy. That is the hallmark of a low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational individual full of hubris that believes their perspective is the sole truth and cannot be challenged. That is not how the court system works and it's crystal clear that people like you and her are the reason we have these laws in the first place. Otherwise anyone you didn't like you would be able to accuse of anything with impunity. Just like Blake. You want Baldoni to pay for the sins of your exes and other men you've had harrowing experiences with and that's not how it works.

Very well said and spot on.

+100.

And now there is a third Baldoni supporter endorsing the idea that women who support the female accuser here must themselves be "low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational" as well as, per the last line, vindictive for the slights they have experienced from their "exes and other men." This is what you guys are; you own this.

Make that a fourth supporter!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

I acknowledged it by responding. I have no obligation whatsoever to capitulate to someone whose reasoning for supporting another woman in this litigation is simply on the basis of sharing the same anatomy. That is the hallmark of a low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational individual full of hubris that believes their perspective is the sole truth and cannot be challenged. That is not how the court system works and it's crystal clear that people like you and her are the reason we have these laws in the first place. Otherwise anyone you didn't like you would be able to accuse of anything with impunity. Just like Blake. You want Baldoni to pay for the sins of your exes and other men you've had harrowing experiences with and that's not how it works.

Very well said and spot on.

+100.

And now there is a third Baldoni supporter endorsing the idea that women who support the female accuser here must themselves be "low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational" as well as, per the last line, vindictive for the slights they have experienced from their "exes and other men." This is what you guys are; you own this.

For the record, I am a Lively supporter who is a happily married, employed attorney who graduated cum laude from Yale, has never been fired from a job, never divorced, has been told by several people I’m the best manager they’ve ever had, and whose last “ex” happened more than 20 years ago so I’m pretty sure I’m over that. In short: Go fish.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t it maybe just a little bit funny that by publishing Vituscka’s incorrect texts about Baldoni’s “sexual assault” of Lively, Freedman basically defamed Baldoni? And/or maybe Baldoni defamed himself? Had Freedman never published these texts in the lawsuit, no one ever would have been aware of these allegations that Baldoni had sexually assaulted anyone.

Will Baldoni now sue himself for $400M? Will he seed negative stories about himself in the tabloids to retaliate against his and his lawyers bruising defamatory actions? What will his position in the amicus briefs be when they are both for and against himself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it maybe just a little bit funny that by publishing Vituscka’s incorrect texts about Baldoni’s “sexual assault” of Lively, Freedman basically defamed Baldoni? And/or maybe Baldoni defamed himself? Had Freedman never published these texts in the lawsuit, no one ever would have been aware of these allegations that Baldoni had sexually assaulted anyone.

doesn't matter. most people believe justin, and the ones who do believe blake basically think harassment is equivalent to assault anyways

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake Lively left fans perplexed over her latest social media post as she playfully offered her floral arranging services to fans amid her legal war with Justin Baldoni.

Although she has certainly had her hands full navigating her ongoing lawsuit against her former It Ends with Us costar, 41, the Gossip Girl star, 37, took a much-needed break from defending herself to show off one of her many talents.

'My flowers babies, from seeds, to cutting, to arrangement,' she wrote on her Instagram Story, alongside an innocuous picture of peonies and Russian sage placed into a vase on her dining room table.

In a bizarre move, the mother-of-four, who has an estimated personal net worth of $30 million, joked that she was open for business to create floral arrangements for her followers' 'next graduation, funeral or wedding.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14785215/blake-lively-funeral-arrangements-fans-ends-post-lawsuit.html

But Justin's the one whose a weirdo. This birdbrain still doesn't get it.

She’s melting down in real time. Another one of her stories showed the clearance rack in target and she tried to spin the empty shelves as her hair products selling out. Meanwhile, Puck had an article out that the company is being shuttered as target is done and not restocking. And the same article, mentioned her drink lines faltering as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are quickly approaching the FOFO stage for Lively and her supporters.

Ryan and Blake’s supporters are not real. As soon as the money spigot is turned off, they will all disappear. Justin and the other victims aren’t paying any shills and bot farms, they have organic support.

I am a real person who supports Blake's claims. I wouldn't say I'm a "Ryan and Blake" supporter -- I don't really care about them as actors or celebs. But I think what she's alleging likely happened and that it's not right for a woman to be treated that way on a film set by a director. I am a survivor of workplace harassment and sexual assault, and have worked as an advocate for SA/SH survivors since then (through the same organization where I found solace when I was dealing with PTSD from my experience).

I don't think Blake's experience is the worst example of SH I've ever heard of, far from it, and certainly she's better resourced and supported than the vast majority of survivors. But that's a reason to support her, not to dismiss her. Most survivors don't have the means or support system to get justice. I didn't -- I quit my job, dealt with my harasser saying negative things about me to former colleagues and preemptively calling me a liar and criticizing my mental health to pre-empt me coming forward with allegations, went into a different industry, got therapy, and moved on. It was unsatisfying but the best outcome for me, as I know trying to sue would have been horrible to go through and I didn't have a good support system at the time. But that makes it all the more important for people who are in a position to litigate, and who can deal with the inevitable character attacks and expenses, to do so.

FTR, if it came out that it was all a lie and that Baldoni was great on set and she made up all these allegations, I will retract my support. But right now I believe her and would like to hear from witnesses and hear both Baldoni and Lively testify. I think she'll be proven truthful in the end, I just hope people listen to her.

But that’s the thing, she shouldn’t have to show he was great onset. It could have been a poorly run set and he could not have been great, that doesn’t mean that he sexually harassed her. That’s the problem I have with her claims. I’ve no doubt that she experienced some discomfort, but I don’t think it meets the bar of sexual harassment.

It is within his realm to ask her to do certain scenes and she didn’t want to do them so she didn’t do them. If that conversation is uncomfortable you should not be an actress doing these kinds of movies. You simply shouldn’t. she had a ton of people supporting her, she was never not without her assistant and team on set with her and then the moment she felt uncomfortable she had her very powerful husband and a Sony producer. She was much more powerful than him and had a set of ridiculous harassing behaviors on her own. Inviting someone to your apartment so your husband can berate him is harassment. Constantly having your lawyer send threatening letters that you’re going to quit and derailed the movie is harassment. Violating his right as a director to get in the editing bay when she had no way to do that is harassment.

DP, but I disagree that the examples you give of Lively "harassing" Baldoni are harassment.

Inviting Baldoni to their apartment to have work-related meetings about issues related to the production (including Baldoni's completely inappropriate decision to ask Lively's trainer for her weight, something the trainer immediately tracked as problematic behavior which is why he told Blake and Ryan right after it occurred) was convenient because Wayfarer did not have NY offices and when these meetings occurred, the movie was not in production (meetings that occurred during production appear to have taken place on set). Were Baldoni/Wayfarer providing another location for meetings to take place? Baldoni must have been in a hotel or rental during this time, it's unlikely it was as big or comfortable as Lively's apartment, which likely has office space and meeting since they have so many business ventures and likely use it a lot for those purposes.

It was inappropriate for Ryan to yell at Baldoni but it was also unprofessional and inappropriate for Baldoni to ask his lead actress's personal trainer to disclose her weight.

A lawyer making contract demands and threatening that his client may walk if they are not met is a business negotiation, not harassment. It sounds like Lively's lawyer/agent drive very hard bargains. I'm sure that is frustrating to deal with but it's also not uncommon in Hollywood and filmmaking is a weird business to be in if you think a lawyer being a tough negotiator is a form of "harassment." Grow up.

Lively got the okay from Sony for her work in the editing bay. The DGA guidelines for directors are just guidelines, and Baldoni has not produced evidence that this was a violation of any contract. He also isn't suing Sony over the editing or their decision to release Blake's cut. That's called a "creative dispute" and there's no evidence that Lively actually "harassed" him about it. Rather, she asked for and received editing time with her own editing team to produce a cut of the film that Sony ultimately okayed and that went on to make an insane amount of money, including for Baldoni. That's not harassment.

Meanwhile, Lively is alleging that Baldoni touched her inappropriately, that Baldoni and Heath entered her trailer without knocking while she was undressed, that they pressured her to do unscripted nudity and unscripted sexual scenarios on screen, that they failed to fully close the set or cut feeds to monitors when Lively was performing an intimate childbirth scene wearing only a hospital gown and a pair of briefs, that Baldoni repeatedly claimed to be communing with her dead father, that Heath (at Baldoni's direction) showed her an intimate video of his nude wife without asking permission first, etc. These are examples of harassing behaviors.

Lol, you can disagree all you want, but they are harassing behaviors. The Sony producer quit the production and said never in his 40 year career had he seen someone harassing someone to that degree. There were plenty of witnesses too. Oops.

Further, inviting Justin to the house is a power move, and absolutely backfired on them because we wouldn’t be in this mess if he hadn’t been in the apartment at the same time as Taylor, and Blake never would never have sent the dragons text, which lead to Taylor‘s involvement, their separation, and Taylor’s public shunning of them, which is hurt like more than anything else in this case.

But anyway, Blake never said that anyone inappropriately touched her on set. In fact, we have video footage of Blake inappropriately touching Justin. There’s footage of her in a few scenes roughly grabbing him off and moving him around unscripted. When she was asked about this in a panel interview, she is visibly uncomfortable that people saw that on film. I would say it’s going to be very hard to explain that to a jury, but we all know this is never getting to a jury. Blake is going to settle along before this.

[Anonymous]

You keep saying that, and they keep not settling! lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You keep saying that, and they keep not settling! lol

Wouldn’t Baldoni’s team have to agree to a settlement though?

I really have a hard time believing this will go to trial, but I could be wrong. It just seems like such a disaster for Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You keep saying that, and they keep not settling! lol

Wouldn’t Baldoni’s team have to agree to a settlement though?

I really have a hard time believing this will go to trial, but I could be wrong. It just seems like such a disaster for Blake.

Baldoni has more to lose by going to trial. Freedman has controlled the PR narrative and Justin has stayed hidden away in Hawaii. People who have no real familiarity with him as a person have developed a conception of him and of what happened on that set based on a tabloid narrative, revealed through leaks, that doesn't really involve him.

In reality, Justin has a grating personality, is probably a poverty narcissist, and is likely going to come off as off-putting and whiny if/when he ever speaks publicly on this matter. It's also going to be highly problematic for him if cast members and people from Sony testify at trial to his weird behavior on set and how difficult he was to work with (it's obvious from the emails and texts but I don't think people have really focused on it because the focus has been on Blake). He also has a lot to lose if any third party witnesses testify to Blake's biggest allegations in a way that gives them more credence and undermines Baldoni's narrative. Sure, a lot of people believe him now, but will they believe him if they hear the testimony of a makeup artist and another actor and an intimacy coordinator and a PA, and their accounts back up Blake? It's a real risk.

Blake, however, has very little reason to settle at this point. They've gone so hard at her in the press that it's pinned her into a corner and now a trial is actually her best bet for mitigating the negative perception of her. I think Freedman underestimated her willingness to tolerate the PR attack, and rather than force a settlement, it's put her in a position where she really has very little to lose by going to trial, and potentially could regain a lot of ground. She is portrayed as a villainous caricature in the press, a conniving, manipulative witch who plotted to steal a movie from an innocent man months in advance, invented harassment allegations out of thin air, twisted the arms of Sony producers and famous castmates to do her bidding. If she can testify and come off as relatively normal, and convince people that at a minimum she was personally hurt by Justin's actions and genuinely believed him to be harassing her, she'll have largely resuscitated her rep. I know that's a big if, but with the right witness prep and good lawyers, it's definitely possible.

The worse things get for Blake in the PR game, the less likely she is to settle, and the more likely she is to want or even need a trial setting to make her case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You keep saying that, and they keep not settling! lol

Wouldn’t Baldoni’s team have to agree to a settlement though?

I really have a hard time believing this will go to trial, but I could be wrong. It just seems like such a disaster for Blake.

Baldoni has more to lose by going to trial. Freedman has controlled the PR narrative and Justin has stayed hidden away in Hawaii. People who have no real familiarity with him as a person have developed a conception of him and of what happened on that set based on a tabloid narrative, revealed through leaks, that doesn't really involve him.

In reality, Justin has a grating personality, is probably a poverty narcissist, and is likely going to come off as off-putting and whiny if/when he ever speaks publicly on this matter. It's also going to be highly problematic for him if cast members and people from Sony testify at trial to his weird behavior on set and how difficult he was to work with (it's obvious from the emails and texts but I don't think people have really focused on it because the focus has been on Blake). He also has a lot to lose if any third party witnesses testify to Blake's biggest allegations in a way that gives them more credence and undermines Baldoni's narrative. Sure, a lot of people believe him now, but will they believe him if they hear the testimony of a makeup artist and another actor and an intimacy coordinator and a PA, and their accounts back up Blake? It's a real risk.

Blake, however, has very little reason to settle at this point. They've gone so hard at her in the press that it's pinned her into a corner and now a trial is actually her best bet for mitigating the negative perception of her. I think Freedman underestimated her willingness to tolerate the PR attack, and rather than force a settlement, it's put her in a position where she really has very little to lose by going to trial, and potentially could regain a lot of ground. She is portrayed as a villainous caricature in the press, a conniving, manipulative witch who plotted to steal a movie from an innocent man months in advance, invented harassment allegations out of thin air, twisted the arms of Sony producers and famous castmates to do her bidding. If she can testify and come off as relatively normal, and convince people that at a minimum she was personally hurt by Justin's actions and genuinely believed him to be harassing her, she'll have largely resuscitated her rep. I know that's a big if, but with the right witness prep and good lawyers, it's definitely possible.

The worse things get for Blake in the PR game, the less likely she is to settle, and the more likely she is to want or even need a trial setting to make her case.

There is no way, even if Blake wins something in trial, that she and Ryan can come back from this. Her businesses are shutting down and I doubt she’ll get another bite of that apple of beauty products or lifestyle related brands.

It’s really telling that she just had the biggest box office success of her career - and it’s cricket in terms of her landing another role.

I’m sure Ryan will fund her some little projects here and there, but I doubt she’ll ever get a chance at making a movie that opens in theaters.

This was just such a spectacular PR crisis… It’s kind of hard to fathom. It will be interesting to see in the coming years as tell alls come out if they took their own advice and just didn’t listen to experts, or if they were just taken for a ride by supposed experts who steered them the wrong way for the grift. It’s truly baffling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You keep saying that, and they keep not settling! lol

Wouldn’t Baldoni’s team have to agree to a settlement though?

I really have a hard time believing this will go to trial, but I could be wrong. It just seems like such a disaster for Blake.

Baldoni has more to lose by going to trial. Freedman has controlled the PR narrative and Justin has stayed hidden away in Hawaii. People who have no real familiarity with him as a person have developed a conception of him and of what happened on that set based on a tabloid narrative, revealed through leaks, that doesn't really involve him.

In reality, Justin has a grating personality, is probably a poverty narcissist, and is likely going to come off as off-putting and whiny if/when he ever speaks publicly on this matter. It's also going to be highly problematic for him if cast members and people from Sony testify at trial to his weird behavior on set and how difficult he was to work with (it's obvious from the emails and texts but I don't think people have really focused on it because the focus has been on Blake). He also has a lot to lose if any third party witnesses testify to Blake's biggest allegations in a way that gives them more credence and undermines Baldoni's narrative. Sure, a lot of people believe him now, but will they believe him if they hear the testimony of a makeup artist and another actor and an intimacy coordinator and a PA, and their accounts back up Blake? It's a real risk.

Blake, however, has very little reason to settle at this point. They've gone so hard at her in the press that it's pinned her into a corner and now a trial is actually her best bet for mitigating the negative perception of her. I think Freedman underestimated her willingness to tolerate the PR attack, and rather than force a settlement, it's put her in a position where she really has very little to lose by going to trial, and potentially could regain a lot of ground. She is portrayed as a villainous caricature in the press, a conniving, manipulative witch who plotted to steal a movie from an innocent man months in advance, invented harassment allegations out of thin air, twisted the arms of Sony producers and famous castmates to do her bidding. If she can testify and come off as relatively normal, and convince people that at a minimum she was personally hurt by Justin's actions and genuinely believed him to be harassing her, she'll have largely resuscitated her rep. I know that's a big if, but with the right witness prep and good lawyers, it's definitely possible.

The worse things get for Blake in the PR game, the less likely she is to settle, and the more likely she is to want or even need a trial setting to make her case.

There is no way, even if Blake wins something in trial, that she and Ryan can come back from this. Her businesses are shutting down and I doubt she’ll get another bite of that apple of beauty products or lifestyle related brands.

It’s really telling that she just had the biggest box office success of her career - and it’s cricket in terms of her landing another role.

I’m sure Ryan will fund her some little projects here and there, but I doubt she’ll ever get a chance at making a movie that opens in theaters.

This was just such a spectacular PR crisis… It’s kind of hard to fathom. It will be interesting to see in the coming years as tell alls come out if they took their own advice and just didn’t listen to experts, or if they were just taken for a ride by supposed experts who steered them the wrong way for the grift. It’s truly baffling.

Keep underestimating Lively's ability to tolerate the pain cave at your peril. "There is no way they can come back from this..." blah blah blah blah. She seems to be doing okay actually and just released a successful film via ASF 2, whereas Baldoni is literally hiding with his family in Hawaii while his entire identity/brand as a male feminist gets more and more irretrievable every day. At some point he's going to be asked about the legal positions he allowed his team to take in this case which would kill a good law purely to protect himself and his ridiculously retributory $400M requested windfall. Hope his PR team is prepping him on what to say on that lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The book is a romance novel, not a dissertation on survivor rights.

The book is not a romance novel. Hoover herself has stated multiple times it is a personal story inspired by her mother's experience with domestic abuse. Like Lively, you've never read the book so you don't know what you're talking about.

Lively spoke extensively at premieres and in interviews about how the story was about the complexity of one woman's life, not as a "DV victim" but as a woman, an entrepreneur, a friend, and a mother, who also experienced DV. That's actually something that really resonates with me as a survivor fo sexual violence -- my identity is not "victim". I'm a whole person who has been through something difficult. A movie about my life that focused on my experiences being raped and harassed would not provide a very good picture of who I am as a person.

The movie isn't about you. The film is about the character Lily and the overarching issue of domestic violence. Your rationalization of Lively's poor marketing clearly didn't resonate with other women as it couldn't generate the film sale's into product sales for Blake Brown and Betty Buzz. And it seems like you and other Lively supporters keep moving the goal post every other week regarding her tone deaf campaign. First the marketing was Sony's concept. Then it was Blake's brainchild. Then it was back to Sony and them "banning" her from talking about dv. Now apparently it was Blake's organic framing the entire time. While she couldn't even describe what the film was about or bring light to the main topic of the film (as Hoover intended), in every interview Baldoni was able to accurately lay out the synopsis, the backstory of the characters, why the film and theme was important, and resources and organizations for dv victims. Blake simply did not care for the source material. She used the film as a launching pad for the rejuvenation of her career.

DP to who you’re responding to, but someone tells you their traumatic personal experience and your response doesn’t acknowledge it at all and waves it off with “This movie isn’t about you.” And more disingenuous towing of the party line that ignores the contents of the posted video as well?

Get the eff out of here and don’t bother coming back. So rude. No thank you.

I acknowledged it by responding. I have no obligation whatsoever to capitulate to someone whose reasoning for supporting another woman in this litigation is simply on the basis of sharing the same anatomy. That is the hallmark of a low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational individual full of hubris that believes their perspective is the sole truth and cannot be challenged. That is not how the court system works and it's crystal clear that people like you and her are the reason we have these laws in the first place. Otherwise anyone you didn't like you would be able to accuse of anything with impunity. Just like Blake. You want Baldoni to pay for the sins of your exes and other men you've had harrowing experiences with and that's not how it works.

Very well said and spot on.

A second Baldoni supporter endorsing the idea that women who support the female accuser here must themselves be "low-iq, emotionally led, and irrational" as well as, per the last line, vindictive for the slights they have experienced from their "exes and other men." Ladies, ladies, normally we reserve such language for the accusers themselves! How enterprising to branch it out like this!

You need intensive therapy. I wish you well.

Name the lie!

She will ignore this question.