Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was hired to act. There was a woman who wrote the script; female ADs; a professional costume designer with, I have no doubt, a superior understanding of what would look good. Blake Likely is grasping and dishonest and her interviews show it. End of, Mrs I Don’t Even LIKE Blake Lively.

The costume designer on IEWU was Eric Daman who had previously worked with Lively on Gossip Girl. In fact the aesthetic that everyone seems to blame on Lively is actually very in keeping with Daman's aesthetic -- if you look up photos of his work on GG, or heck look at how he dresses himself, you'd understand that the costuming on the movie was very much his baby. Heck, Jenny Slate looks like a grown up Blair Waldorf with her headbands.

Daman had nothing but good things to say about working with Lively on the movie and they appear to remain good friends. Again, this was the costume designer hired by Wayfarer to do the costumes for the movie.

But sure, go off on calling Lively "grasping and dishonest" even though she had a positive working relationship with the costumer and the wardrobe for the movie is much more reflective of his sensibility than Lively's own personal style.

Her relationship with the costume isn't why she's in court, is it? Your girl's cake is baked.

Lol, she's in court because SHE sued HIM. She wants to be in court.

[Anonymous]

I am so embarrassed for her. As the saying goes…the internet never forgets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That interview just really highlights her arrogance. She smugly states ‘I don’t just want to be an actor’ or something to that effect. Blake, if being just an actor isn’t fulfilling enough for you, go out and create something, you are wealthy enough to do that. You don’t get hired as an actor and the expect to ‘collaborate’ with the director. What if all the actors hired for a film expected this?

Why is it smug to not want to just be an actor?

Baldoni didn't want to just be an actor, that's why he got into directing.

It's super common for actors to want to branch out from just acting after they've been in the business for a while. Why is it "smug" for Lively to say something that is incredibly common in the business and in fact is something Baldoni himself chose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That interview just really highlights her arrogance. She smugly states ‘I don’t just want to be an actor’ or something to that effect. Blake, if being just an actor isn’t fulfilling enough for you, go out and create something, you are wealthy enough to do that. You don’t get hired as an actor and the expect to ‘collaborate’ with the director. What if all the actors hired for a film expected this?

She was an actor and producer.

If Wayfarer didn't want her to produce and didn't want to collaborate with her, they had ample opportunity to do so before the movie began filming.

The truth is, they didn't "just" want an actor. The wanted a name, someone with some box office pull who would help sell the film. That's why they hired Lively over literally hundreds of other actors who could have played the role as well or better. Well, the flip side of that is that someone who is famous and has a ton of instagram followers and knows she's been hired to help sell tickets also has leverage, and Lively wanted to use her leverage to have more involvement in the film.

If Wayfarer didn't like that, they didn't have to hire her. They got exactly what they paid for with her. And she made them a TON of money. But they are still mad because, ugh, she wanted to have input into the costumes and, ugh, she wants to have input into the script. Rolling my eyes. They wanted it both ways and you can't have it both ways.

Next time they can make their little movie with some nice, compliant actress who just hits her marks and says her lines and never says a peep about anything else, and no one will see it or care about it but look, they have all the control in the world. That's what they want, yes?

Whether that's what they wanted or not, she had plenty of input from script writing to editing to promoting the movie separately so she did get her way, and they weren't talking about it until the NYTimes article came out. That whole fight didn't even have to come to light. She just didn't think they'd fight back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That interview just really highlights her arrogance. She smugly states ‘I don’t just want to be an actor’ or something to that effect. Blake, if being just an actor isn’t fulfilling enough for you, go out and create something, you are wealthy enough to do that. You don’t get hired as an actor and the expect to ‘collaborate’ with the director. What if all the actors hired for a film expected this?

Why is it smug to not want to just be an actor?

Baldoni didn't want to just be an actor, that's why he got into directing.

It's super common for actors to want to branch out from just acting after they've been in the business for a while. Why is it "smug" for Lively to say something that is incredibly common in the business and in fact is something Baldoni himself chose?

Then she needs to go and independently and honestly create something. She isn’t above being an actor, she is acting like she is above it all.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to make a prediction.

I think this whole story is about to get blown wide open with the addition of Jed Wallace to the lawsuit and, ultimately, his deposition as well as discovery of communications between him, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel. I think that aspect of the case is going to flip over the rock that is Hollywood PR and we are all going to get to see what's underneath it and it's going to be grotesque.

I think when that happens, you are going to see a groundswell of support for Lively from Hollywood, especially among other actresses and performers who have been subject to that same PR machine. Especially if/when we see clear discussion of astroturfing tactics and what someone like Jed Wallace does to sway online sentiment against an actress.

I think ultimately this is WHY Lively filed the lawsuit and why she's going to keep going -- to expose how that machine works to capitalize on existing misogyny and hate online to keep actresses in Hollywood disempowered even through metoo. And I think Lively has people supporting her that you can't see -- I believe the reports that Taylor Swift or Anna Kendrick are mad at Lively are bogus, and that when the truth of what Wallace/Nathan/Abel did comes out, you will see these women and others rally around Lively because she is fighting for something that also impact them directly.

I don't think people realize this is just getting started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That interview just really highlights her arrogance. She smugly states ‘I don’t just want to be an actor’ or something to that effect. Blake, if being just an actor isn’t fulfilling enough for you, go out and create something, you are wealthy enough to do that. You don’t get hired as an actor and the expect to ‘collaborate’ with the director. What if all the actors hired for a film expected this?

Why is it smug to not want to just be an actor?

Baldoni didn't want to just be an actor, that's why he got into directing.

It's super common for actors to want to branch out from just acting after they've been in the business for a while. Why is it "smug" for Lively to say something that is incredibly common in the business and in fact is something Baldoni himself chose?

Are you listening to the context in which she does so? It’s deceitful. That’s the part that everyone is focusing on. I don’t think anyone cares if an actor/actress decides they want to go into directing. It’s how she goes about it that is the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to make a prediction.

I think this whole story is about to get blown wide open with the addition of Jed Wallace to the lawsuit and, ultimately, his deposition as well as discovery of communications between him, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel. I think that aspect of the case is going to flip over the rock that is Hollywood PR and we are all going to get to see what's underneath it and it's going to be grotesque.

I think when that happens, you are going to see a groundswell of support for Lively from Hollywood, especially among other actresses and performers who have been subject to that same PR machine. Especially if/when we see clear discussion of astroturfing tactics and what someone like Jed Wallace does to sway online sentiment against an actress.

I think ultimately this is WHY Lively filed the lawsuit and why she's going to keep going -- to expose how that machine works to capitalize on existing misogyny and hate online to keep actresses in Hollywood disempowered even through metoo. And I think Lively has people supporting her that you can't see -- I believe the reports that Taylor Swift or Anna Kendrick are mad at Lively are bogus, and that when the truth of what Wallace/Nathan/Abel did comes out, you will see these women and others rally around Lively because she is fighting for something that also impact them directly.

I don't think people realize this is just getting started.

Why accuse Baldoni of SH? That’s the part that she should’ve left out. It discredits her in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to make a prediction.

I think this whole story is about to get blown wide open with the addition of Jed Wallace to the lawsuit and, ultimately, his deposition as well as discovery of communications between him, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel. I think that aspect of the case is going to flip over the rock that is Hollywood PR and we are all going to get to see what's underneath it and it's going to be grotesque.

I think when that happens, you are going to see a groundswell of support for Lively from Hollywood, especially among other actresses and performers who have been subject to that same PR machine. Especially if/when we see clear discussion of astroturfing tactics and what someone like Jed Wallace does to sway online sentiment against an actress.

I think ultimately this is WHY Lively filed the lawsuit and why she's going to keep going -- to expose how that machine works to capitalize on existing misogyny and hate online to keep actresses in Hollywood disempowered even through metoo. And I think Lively has people supporting her that you can't see -- I believe the reports that Taylor Swift or Anna Kendrick are mad at Lively are bogus, and that when the truth of what Wallace/Nathan/Abel did comes out, you will see these women and others rally around Lively because she is fighting for something that also impact them directly.

I don't think people realize this is just getting started.

Completely disagree because there is no need to make Blake Lively look bad: she has done it over and over again since the Gossip Girl days with zero help from anyone. She opens her mouth and does it all on her own. She looked bad long before she even set foot on that set and met Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to make a prediction.

I think this whole story is about to get blown wide open with the addition of Jed Wallace to the lawsuit and, ultimately, his deposition as well as discovery of communications between him, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel. I think that aspect of the case is going to flip over the rock that is Hollywood PR and we are all going to get to see what's underneath it and it's going to be grotesque.

I think when that happens, you are going to see a groundswell of support for Lively from Hollywood, especially among other actresses and performers who have been subject to that same PR machine. Especially if/when we see clear discussion of astroturfing tactics and what someone like Jed Wallace does to sway online sentiment against an actress.

I think ultimately this is WHY Lively filed the lawsuit and why she's going to keep going -- to expose how that machine works to capitalize on existing misogyny and hate online to keep actresses in Hollywood disempowered even through metoo. And I think Lively has people supporting her that you can't see -- I believe the reports that Taylor Swift or Anna Kendrick are mad at Lively are bogus, and that when the truth of what Wallace/Nathan/Abel did comes out, you will see these women and others rally around Lively because she is fighting for something that also impact them directly.

I don't think people realize this is just getting started.

Why accuse Baldoni of SH? That’s the part that she should’ve left out. It discredits her in my opinion.

I mean there’s a crap load of exceptional actresses out there, A list actresses who are somehow managing. Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchett, Nicole Kidman, Naomi Watts, how are they managing all of the misogyny out there? It’s a superficial business though and one should be aware of and prepared for that. If BL wants to break into a director’s role she needs to pursue that in an honest way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to make a prediction.

I think this whole story is about to get blown wide open with the addition of Jed Wallace to the lawsuit and, ultimately, his deposition as well as discovery of communications between him, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel. I think that aspect of the case is going to flip over the rock that is Hollywood PR and we are all going to get to see what's underneath it and it's going to be grotesque.

I think when that happens, you are going to see a groundswell of support for Lively from Hollywood, especially among other actresses and performers who have been subject to that same PR machine. Especially if/when we see clear discussion of astroturfing tactics and what someone like Jed Wallace does to sway online sentiment against an actress.

I think ultimately this is WHY Lively filed the lawsuit and why she's going to keep going -- to expose how that machine works to capitalize on existing misogyny and hate online to keep actresses in Hollywood disempowered even through metoo. And I think Lively has people supporting her that you can't see -- I believe the reports that Taylor Swift or Anna Kendrick are mad at Lively are bogus, and that when the truth of what Wallace/Nathan/Abel did comes out, you will see these women and others rally around Lively because she is fighting for something that also impact them directly.

I don't think people realize this is just getting started.

Why accuse Baldoni of SH? That’s the part that she should’ve left out. It discredits her in my opinion.

Because you need underlying harassment for the retaliation claim.

I think she is stretching a bit on the harassment claims but also there's enough there that if she has decent documentation and witnesses she can press the claim. Baldoni and Heath did some weird and inappropriate stuff on set and I think they alienated much of the cast plus Colleen Hoover which is going to make that easier -- it would be a different story if everyone else on the set had a great experience and Lively alone was complaining. I think possibly Jenny Slate and/or Isabela Ferrer will testify to inappropriate comments or behavior in their depositions and that's gonna be it for Baldoni -- once you have a corroborating account, it's much easier to prove the behavior was "pervasive."

There have been reports from the set that multiple women -- not just Lively, probably including Hoover based on what I'm seeing in the texts/emails in Baldoni's timeline, but maybe also Slate -- were unhappy with the direction of the film and felt Baldoni was trying to push a a "redemption narrative" for his character, Ryle, and trying to center the movie on Ryle's struggle as an abuser as opposed to Lively's character's story. If Hoover and Slate also testify to this dynamic, it causes real issues for Baldoni because again, it's not just Lively trying to "take over" the movie -- it's multiple women including the author of the book the movie is based on disagreeing with his creative direction and questioning has feminist bona fides.

The interview with Baldoni from the Gents podcast that he recorded in November but just came out this morning actually backs this up. I encourage people to listen to it. He talks extensively about identifying with his character on the movie and wanting to tell the story of Ryle and what caused him to become abusive. But the book, and the movie, is not about Ryle. And most abusers never reform. It's frankly a weird take and paints Baldoni in an alarming light.

I don't think Baldoni set out to harass anyone but I think he's a conflicted person who over-identified with his abuser character on the movie and was unfortunately in a position of authority as director that meant that over-identification had particularly negative impacts on the women in the film, especially Lively who was playing opposite him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so embarrassed for her. As the saying goes…the internet never forgets.

if you don't like her why are you embarrassed for her? She can take all her money and cry on some beach location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to make a prediction.

I think this whole story is about to get blown wide open with the addition of Jed Wallace to the lawsuit and, ultimately, his deposition as well as discovery of communications between him, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel. I think that aspect of the case is going to flip over the rock that is Hollywood PR and we are all going to get to see what's underneath it and it's going to be grotesque.

I think when that happens, you are going to see a groundswell of support for Lively from Hollywood, especially among other actresses and performers who have been subject to that same PR machine. Especially if/when we see clear discussion of astroturfing tactics and what someone like Jed Wallace does to sway online sentiment against an actress.

I think ultimately this is WHY Lively filed the lawsuit and why she's going to keep going -- to expose how that machine works to capitalize on existing misogyny and hate online to keep actresses in Hollywood disempowered even through metoo. And I think Lively has people supporting her that you can't see -- I believe the reports that Taylor Swift or Anna Kendrick are mad at Lively are bogus, and that when the truth of what Wallace/Nathan/Abel did comes out, you will see these women and others rally around Lively because she is fighting for something that also impact them directly.

I don't think people realize this is just getting started.

Why accuse Baldoni of SH? That’s the part that she should’ve left out. It discredits her in my opinion.

Because you need underlying harassment for the retaliation claim.

I think she is stretching a bit on the harassment claims but also there's enough there that if she has decent documentation and witnesses she can press the claim. Baldoni and Heath did some weird and inappropriate stuff on set and I think they alienated much of the cast plus Colleen Hoover which is going to make that easier -- it would be a different story if everyone else on the set had a great experience and Lively alone was complaining. I think possibly Jenny Slate and/or Isabela Ferrer will testify to inappropriate comments or behavior in their depositions and that's gonna be it for Baldoni -- once you have a corroborating account, it's much easier to prove the behavior was "pervasive."

There have been reports from the set that multiple women -- not just Lively, probably including Hoover based on what I'm seeing in the texts/emails in Baldoni's timeline, but maybe also Slate -- were unhappy with the direction of the film and felt Baldoni was trying to push a a "redemption narrative" for his character, Ryle, and trying to center the movie on Ryle's struggle as an abuser as opposed to Lively's character's story. If Hoover and Slate also testify to this dynamic, it causes real issues for Baldoni because again, it's not just Lively trying to "take over" the movie -- it's multiple women including the author of the book the movie is based on disagreeing with his creative direction and questioning has feminist bona fides.

The interview with Baldoni from the Gents podcast that he recorded in November but just came out this morning actually backs this up. I encourage people to listen to it. He talks extensively about identifying with his character on the movie and wanting to tell the story of Ryle and what caused him to become abusive. But the book, and the movie, is not about Ryle. And most abusers never reform. It's frankly a weird take and paints Baldoni in an alarming light.

I don't think Baldoni set out to harass anyone but I think he's a conflicted person who over-identified with his abuser character on the movie and was unfortunately in a position of authority as director that meant that over-identification had particularly negative impacts on the women in the film, especially Lively who was playing opposite him.

This is an interesting take. I listened to the interview yesterday when it was made available and I didn’t get that at all. He identified with Ryle in the context of trying to put up a certain persona to get a girl. Also most abusers have been abused themselves or have some tragedy in their past that causes them to abuse. As an empathetic person and a story teller, I can see wanting to show the underlying cause of why someone does something regardless of whether or not it’s right. I don’t think he wanted to redeem Ryle but wanted to show his why. I think that was somewhat accomplished in the movie but don’t want to give spoilers for anyone who hasn’t watched. Justin several times shared that he didn’t identify with the abuser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was hired to act. There was a woman who wrote the script; female ADs; a professional costume designer with, I have no doubt, a superior understanding of what would look good. Blake Likely is grasping and dishonest and her interviews show it. End of, Mrs I Don’t Even LIKE Blake Lively.

The costume designer on IEWU was Eric Daman who had previously worked with Lively on Gossip Girl. In fact the aesthetic that everyone seems to blame on Lively is actually very in keeping with Daman's aesthetic -- if you look up photos of his work on GG, or heck look at how he dresses himself, you'd understand that the costuming on the movie was very much his baby. Heck, Jenny Slate looks like a grown up Blair Waldorf with her headbands.

Daman had nothing but good things to say about working with Lively on the movie and they appear to remain good friends. Again, this was the costume designer hired by Wayfarer to do the costumes for the movie.

But sure, go off on calling Lively "grasping and dishonest" even though she had a positive working relationship with the costumer and the wardrobe for the movie is much more reflective of his sensibility than Lively's own personal style.

Her relationship with the costume isn't why she's in court, is it? Your girl's cake is baked.

Lol, she's in court because SHE sued HIM. She wants to be in court.

Which is why fawning about her relationship with the costume designer is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How she rug-pulls in her own words:

https://www.tiktok.com/@hylldadanyella?pid=video_embed&referer_video_id=7470029322821078303&videoId=7470029322821078303&type=video&referer_url=s9e.github.io/&refer=embed&embed_source=121374463,121468991,121439635,121433650,121404359,121497414,73319236,121477481,121487028,73347566,121331973,120811592,120810756,121503376;null;embed_name


Her hair color is so so bad.

Wow, that interview didn’t age well. This is her mo and she obviously thinks very highly of herself. Weaseling her way in with no intention of perfecting the character or actually improving her craft, so cringy and dishonest. During the interview she states that she knows that she is replaceable. Yes, Blake, you are a dime a dozen, in terms of acting ability.

I don’t understand why she couldn’t generate her own projects where she had more creative and business control?