Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ryan is very clearly a closeted gay man and this is a sham marriage, right? He’s extremely effeminate, dandy, has a lisp, and has that perpetually deceptive and devious look in his eyes.

.

Homophobia is a bad look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ryan is very clearly a closeted gay man and this is a sham marriage, right? He’s extremely effeminate, dandy, has a lisp, and has that perpetually deceptive and devious look in his eyes.

.

Homophobia is a bad look.

+1

Shame on the PP. Disgusting troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I think the Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni thing is such a hot-button thing right now that even a mere mention of it will seem like I could be on the wrong side of things, even though I would never be,” Glaser said. “I also don’t want to give his name any — I’m mad I even know his name, to be honest with you, so I don’t need to say it anymore."

This is Nikki Glaser's response to not joking. I am happy she's not going but condemning him like this was wrong.

Hollywood is full of phonies and kiss asses. Obviously the bigger stars (Blake and Ryan) are going to get sycophants like this chiming in. Most people have literally no idea who Justin is.

No celeb is gonna go against Ryan. He has his hands in everything including running a huge marketing firm in Hollywood. There’s no way anybody wants to cross him and I lost a lot of respect for Nikki for even weighing in like this. She should’ve just stayed out of it.

I don’t even know who Nikki is but agree. No one wants to cross Ryan and Blake and I would not put it past them to abuse their power that they knowingly wield.

In defense of Nikki, she is hosting the Golden Globe awards and there’s a lot of press about Blake and Ryan not attending. She was asked if she was going to make jokes about this and she said no. But I feel like she could’ve just said no and moved on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that Blake & Ryan are skipping the Golden Globes even though Ryan is nominated. Why would you hide if your hands were clean in this mess?

Why would you file a lawsuit with dirty hands and set yourself up for an embarrassing loss? Their case is obviously strong.

With the latest that have come out, I disagree that they have a strong case. I think they are very delusional about the public perception of them. If they weren’t, they would cool it with the over exposure that they’ve had for the last year. I think a lot of that was why the bad press against Blake was so organic this year. People are just sick of their manufactured press and they’re trying so hard to strike a certain image and their constant products being put in our faces.

I think they thought they could bulldoze justin and celebs would take their sides and I do not think that Blake should have shut him out PR of his own movie. He felt like he had to go on the defensive. And then things clearly spiraled out of control because I don’t think even the crisis management firm saw all the organic bad press Blake was going to get. They literally could’ve done nothing and I think she would’ve gotten a fair amount of bad press anyway. And this whole thing would’ve died down.

I think blaming her poor sales from the hair products on Justin absolutely shows how delusional she is. Anyone could predicted it was going to fail. The market is way oversaturated and Blake doesn’t have the star power to carry a line like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

Another lawyer poster, mostly agree with you and especially with respect to the NYT. I can’t comprehend how they let that story like that run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

Another lawyer poster, mostly agree with you and especially with respect to the NYT. I can’t comprehend how they let that story like that run.

NYT has likely seen all the texts including whatever JB supposedly think exonerates him. I expect that their confidence comes from what they know will come out in trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that Blake & Ryan are skipping the Golden Globes even though Ryan is nominated. Why would you hide if your hands were clean in this mess?

Why would you file a lawsuit with dirty hands and set yourself up for an embarrassing loss? Their case is obviously strong.

With the latest that have come out, I disagree that they have a strong case. I think they are very delusional about the public perception of them. If they weren’t, they would cool it with the over exposure that they’ve had for the last year.

I agree with this. I think that they think they can buy good publicity that will sway public opinion. Sure, they can pay publicists to say whatever they want, but that does not mean that people buy what they are selling.

Ryan seems like an image conscious control freak. He has a very annoying self-satisfied manner in those cell phone commercials. You can tell that he thinks he's hilarious by the way he laughs at his own "jokes." I think he's smarmy with obvious humor.

Blake had proven herself to be rude and snide, which is behavior that puts people off.

[Anonymous]

^ also, they apparently never even went to the European journalist for comment, but strongly implied she was somehow involved with Baldoni in his ‘smear campaign’.

It’s basic journalism. I can’t figure out what made them publish that schlock

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

Another lawyer poster, mostly agree with you and especially with respect to the NYT. I can’t comprehend how they let that story like that run.

NYT has likely seen all the texts including whatever JB supposedly think exonerates him. I expect that their confidence comes from what they know will come out in trial.

Well, it seems they missed at least one about her inviting Baldoni to her trailer while she pumped.

And I posted below. The NYT looped that European journalist in too, without seeking her comment, which is absolutely standard journalistic practice

[Anonymous]

Good analysis here

https://slate.com/life/2025/01/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-it-ends-with-us-new-york-times.html

[Anonymous]

Also a lawyer and agree with the PPs that the NYT essentially republished the complaint as an article without trying to get Baldoni's side (at least, that's how I'm interpreting those posts). No doubt that this was because Lively's PR people came to them with the story, but (a) I don't think Baldoni has a claim for defamation because NYT is not required to be unbiased and it does not appear they published the story with malice or reckless disregard for the truth and (b) I tend to think NYT went for it more because of their left-leaning politics and that this represented another MeToo type storyline rather than any fealty to Lively or Reynolds. Basically I think if any well known actress came to them with a complaint that had as much detail and documentation backing it as Lively's, they would have published a similar story in search of starting another MeToo conversation. But then, I am more interested in the legal angle here and not that familiar with Lively and Reynolds and their Hollywood connections.

[Anonymous]

NYT absolutely did not post all the texts. There’s a ton more coming out even now.

And they blatantly misled on a key point - when they noticed all of the organic bad press Blake was getting, one of them jokingly texted, this is why you pay me. In the full context, it was sarcastic because the whole point was that Blake was getting a ton of negative press that they weren’t responsible for. New York Times article deliberately left off that context and made it seem like the PR person was actually bragging, “This is why you pay me.”

That was just plain bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also a lawyer and agree with the PPs that the NYT essentially republished the complaint as an article without trying to get Baldoni's side (at least, that's how I'm interpreting those posts). No doubt that this was because Lively's PR people came to them with the story, but (a) I don't think Baldoni has a claim for defamation because NYT is not required to be unbiased and it does not appear they published the story with malice or reckless disregard for the truth and (b) I tend to think NYT went for it more because of their left-leaning politics and that this represented another MeToo type storyline rather than any fealty to Lively or Reynolds. Basically I think if any well known actress came to them with a complaint that had as much detail and documentation backing it as Lively's, they would have published a similar story in search of starting another MeToo conversation. But then, I am more interested in the legal angle here and not that familiar with Lively and Reynolds and their Hollywood connections.

Lawyer here again, I’m not sure if I agree. It’s totally sloppy journalism and I can’t figure out why they’d run for a cheap story like this.

There is a defense to a defamation claim called Fair report privilege, which does give the Times some leeway to present info from a litigation (which if from one party’s papers is always going to be totally one sided) without further context, but there are limitations to that defense, and their piece went somewhat far beyond that, especially with its salacious headline.

As far as which standard applies, reckless versus negligence, the issue of which one applies is a decision for the judge. The issue of whether the standard was violated is a factual issue for a jury. It’s way too early to make either of those calls, but my bet is that Baldoni will easily survive the Times’ early stage motion to dismiss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.