Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’d like to laugh at your prediction. No one has publicly supported Lively once Baldino dropped the rooftop audio. If Kendrick was down with BL, this would be a time to show it, in support of their film. If exonerating material for BL was juuuuust around the corner, Apatow and Handler wouldn’t crack on her. They wouldn’t laugh at a woman being smeared or subjected to retaliation let alone SH. I don’t recall anyone making wisecracks about anyone allegedly SH or SA by Weinstein or Dan Schneider or Bryan Singer and so forth. No one would do anything equivalent to an eye-roll about the fundamental victim claims and we all know it.

She is over. She is at this point in a corner she and she alone - unless her husband is indeed guiding these shtty decisions - put her in. A humiliating confession is all that can save her and she can’t do it.

It is downright delusional to have the take that Blake is going to survive this. If this were a true me too moment, female actresses would be coming out of the woodwork to share their story like Abigail B and Kate beckinsdale did early on. But once Justin started releasing his take, no one has said a damn word.

Blake’s team is giving talking points, they have released statements about DARVO and the abusers playbook, and no one in Hollywood is picking up and running with them. And like others have pointed out it’s now being joked about at award shows and on red carpets. If these were serious allegations people would not be joking.

I’m very interested to find out what actions were taken during Baldoni’s PR campaign. I do think everything kind of depends on that. I think that angle of things is why the NYT got involved in the first place. If Wallace planted stories or had people out there commenting in Reddit to “shift the tone,” I think that’s showing the kind of retaliation against Lively that Baldoni specifically signed an agreement saying he would not do. If Wallace just released press statements and didn’t do anything underhanded, I strongly suspect Lively’s SH claims aren’t strong enough by themselves to win. But I don’t know.

I have been going through Baldoni’s amended complaint and I think it’s poorly written and, in places, actually deceptive fwiw.

+1 on the Wallace/astroturfing angle being why NYC viewed this as newsworthy and being the main story here, more than the alleged SH (though I do think a lot of actresses can relate to some of what Lively is alleging and even if it doesn't rise to the level of SH by civil standards, I think if those details are confirmed and discussed more, you will see her getting more support -- especially the stuff about being asked to do nudity not in the script or feeling like she isn't given sufficient privacy off set when changing/breastfeeding/having makeup applied or removed).

I have also had that experience going through the timeline Baldoni posted. For instance in many places the written narrative will claim Lively or someone else said something specific and put the words in quotes, and then there will screenshots of emails/texts and those words won't be used. Perhaps he will allege those were spoken and not committed to text but it's not clear about it and makes it seem like they are trying to exaggerate.

There are also places where the narrative uses language that is, IMO, demeaning to women or intended to minimize serious issues. For instance at one point there was a meeting between Lively and Wayfarer to discuss her ongoing issues with the production and the narrative says she'd been "overanalyzing" interactions with Baldoni and Heath where she felt they'd crossed the line. That is exactly the kind of language people always use to minimize women when they have concerns or are bothered by behavior or treatment. It's meant to cast her feelings about their behavior as unreasonable even though at least *some* of her issues were reasonable IMO. Reading it, it really sounds like they were dismissive of her concerns regarding the birth scene, which does strike me as problematic, and Heath trying to show her the birth video. Even if those things don't constitute SH by civil court standards (I honestly don't know) they strike me as insensitive and unprofessional. So to then argue that Lively was overanalyzing those interactions indicates to me that they didn't take valid complaints about behavior on the set seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I'll change the topic. How do Blake and Ryan recover? If they settle tomorrow the damage is already done. We need an explanation on why her complaint and the NYT text messages were so misleading

I think I read that JB doesn’t want to settle. He wants to go to trial to clear his name, which has been totally ruined.

He is also going to get some big bucks from BL or NYT. He isn't going to pass that up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’d like to laugh at your prediction. No one has publicly supported Lively once Baldino dropped the rooftop audio. If Kendrick was down with BL, this would be a time to show it, in support of their film. If exonerating material for BL was juuuuust around the corner, Apatow and Handler wouldn’t crack on her. They wouldn’t laugh at a woman being smeared or subjected to retaliation let alone SH. I don’t recall anyone making wisecracks about anyone allegedly SH or SA by Weinstein or Dan Schneider or Bryan Singer and so forth. No one would do anything equivalent to an eye-roll about the fundamental victim claims and we all know it.

She is over. She is at this point in a corner she and she alone - unless her husband is indeed guiding these shtty decisions - put her in. A humiliating confession is all that can save her and she can’t do it.

It is downright delusional to have the take that Blake is going to survive this. If this were a true me too moment, female actresses would be coming out of the woodwork to share their story like Abigail B and Kate beckinsdale did early on. But once Justin started releasing his take, no one has said a damn word.

Blake’s team is giving talking points, they have released statements about DARVO and the abusers playbook, and no one in Hollywood is picking up and running with them. And like others have pointed out it’s now being joked about at award shows and on red carpets. If these were serious allegations people would not be joking.

I’m very interested to find out what actions were taken during Baldoni’s PR campaign. I do think everything kind of depends on that. I think that angle of things is why the NYT got involved in the first place. If Wallace planted stories or had people out there commenting in Reddit to “shift the tone,” I think that’s showing the kind of retaliation against Lively that Baldoni specifically signed an agreement saying he would not do. If Wallace just released press statements and didn’t do anything underhanded, I strongly suspect Lively’s SH claims aren’t strong enough by themselves to win. But I don’t know.

I have been going through Baldoni’s amended complaint and I think it’s poorly written and, in places, actually deceptive fwiw.

+1 on the Wallace/astroturfing angle being why NYC viewed this as newsworthy and being the main story here, more than the alleged SH (though I do think a lot of actresses can relate to some of what Lively is alleging and even if it doesn't rise to the level of SH by civil standards, I think if those details are confirmed and discussed more, you will see her getting more support -- especially the stuff about being asked to do nudity not in the script or feeling like she isn't given sufficient privacy off set when changing/breastfeeding/having makeup applied or removed).

I have also had that experience going through the timeline Baldoni posted. For instance in many places the written narrative will claim Lively or someone else said something specific and put the words in quotes, and then there will screenshots of emails/texts and those words won't be used. Perhaps he will allege those were spoken and not committed to text but it's not clear about it and makes it seem like they are trying to exaggerate.

There are also places where the narrative uses language that is, IMO, demeaning to women or intended to minimize serious issues. For instance at one point there was a meeting between Lively and Wayfarer to discuss her ongoing issues with the production and the narrative says she'd been "overanalyzing" interactions with Baldoni and Heath where she felt they'd crossed the line. That is exactly the kind of language people always use to minimize women when they have concerns or are bothered by behavior or treatment. It's meant to cast her feelings about their behavior as unreasonable even though at least *some* of her issues were reasonable IMO. Reading it, it really sounds like they were dismissive of her concerns regarding the birth scene, which does strike me as problematic, and Heath trying to show her the birth video. Even if those things don't constitute SH by civil court standards (I honestly don't know) they strike me as insensitive and unprofessional. So to then argue that Lively was overanalyzing those interactions indicates to me that they didn't take valid complaints about behavior on the set seriously.

I agree... it's looking to me like he has very good defenses to most of the alleged sexual harassment, but it's also fair to say he wasn't a saint and didn't foster the best workplace environment despite his claims of being a male feminist. And there are, of course, many problematic aspects of Lively's behavior and her complaint as well. There doesn't seem to be much space for nuanced opinions in this thread, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

You keep trying to sell this, but it really looks like there is no there there. Blake generated sufficient bad publicity on her own so Wallace didn’t need to do anything in this case. Hence his lawsuit against Lively and why he is not currently on the complaint. But it is desperate times for the Lively camp and since her legal team is clearly not running the show, I guess she’ll try to add him. Would not be surprised if he immediately moves to dismiss. What a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

[Anonymous]

I think the writing is on the wall. BL (and likely RR) need to settle with a public authentic apology ( not the PR language I have a lot to learn, etc.) Recognze the damage they have done to their work colleague. Short of that this will continue to drag them down. If authentic and some volunteer work around a related topic and some true humility ( not humbling themselves) and acting with grace perhaps this can blow over and they can restart their brands. Otherwise this will continue to snowball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the writing is on the wall. BL (and likely RR) need to settle with a public authentic apology ( not the PR language I have a lot to learn, etc.) Recognze the damage they have done to their work colleague. Short of that this will continue to drag them down. If authentic and some volunteer work around a related topic and some true humility ( not humbling themselves) and acting with grace perhaps this can blow over and they can restart their brands. Otherwise this will continue to snowball.

I think it’s also going to take a lot of money, I’d insist on that if I was representing Baldoni.

[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 a huge stretch. Male directors make bad movies all the time that don’t take the female perspective into account. That is not sexual harassment. I’m sorry, but this is why this is getting so much pushback. Baldoni may not be a feminist and he may not even be a good guy, but I do not believe he actually harassed Blake or anyone on that set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

It might be, if it was done in retaliation for sexual harassment. There's a lot she would have to prove and a lot of legal arguments to win to get there, granted, and it wouldn't generally be actionable otherwise. And Baldoni's got lots of defenses, especially that the underlying SH claim is not credible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

You keep trying to sell this, but it really looks like there is no there there. Blake generated sufficient bad publicity on her own so Wallace didn’t need to do anything in this case. Hence his lawsuit against Lively and why he is not currently on the complaint. But it is desperate times for the Lively camp and since her legal team is clearly not running the show, I guess she’ll try to add him. Would not be surprised if he immediately moves to dismiss. What a waste of time.

DP but I disagree. If they launched a smear campaign and she can prove it and that it was done in retaliation (this is a lot to prove, and I am not saying she'll be successful) then I don't think "she had bad publicity on her own anyway" defeats the case. Even Trump, who has tons of bad publicity, was about to wrangle a defamation settlement. She still has to go on to prove damages to her brand, and a jury has to agree the damages were caused by the smear campaign. That will be tough. I do recall she alleged that when she closed her personal social media accounts, the accounts believed to be paid trolls moved on to her business accounts, so that may bolster her claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

If you're paying people to spend their time reviving old stories about the woman you're working with (true or false, though false is worse) that make her look bad when you specifically signed an agreement attesting you wouldn't retaliate against her, I think that might be in violation of that agreement actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you actually look at the costumes, they are clearly Daman's costumes. It sounds like they worked collaboratively and that Lively also brought in items that Daman incorporated. But if you have any familiarity with Daman's costuming -- Lily looks the way I would expect her to look.

A lot of the things people have criticized about the costuming are Daman hallmarks. Like people criticize the layering, the use of menswear pieces, and the incorporation of very high end items which it would be unrealistic for the character to be able to afford. But this is how Daman costumes.

Here's an interview with Daman on the costuming for the film. He calls his relationship with Lively "symbiotic." Again, this is who Baldoni and Wayfarer hired.

https://www.glamour.com/story/it-ends-with-us-costume-designer-blake-lively-gossip-girl-easter-eggs

OMG how obnoxious. she forced this choice of costumer who also appears equally ignorant of the actual character. And it makes zero sense either. Is it riot girls? is it chaotic? Is it “masc”? is it super luxe crystal YSL boots? is it vintage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If details about real astroturfing by Wallace come out, I’d expect Lively’s support by female actresses to increase. Because they know that sh!t can happen to them too at the drop of a dime if they get on the wrong side of the wrong person (in this case someone who is backed by a billionaire who follows the same religion — which, btw, seems a little cultish to me in all the proselytizing that is required of members etc).

I really doubt it. If Blake was looking for that she should have named Wallace in her lawsuit.

I think Wallace and his behavior has been one of the main targets all along, but it's harder to create standing to sue Wallace because Lively never directly interacted with him. She has to get to him through Baldoni and Abel/Nathan. All Lively had were the texts where Able/Nathan reference Wallace. That's why she wanted to depose him, to get more info on his involvement -- she needs to be able to show that Wallace's actions directly impacted her, and that Wallace was a part of the retaliation efforts by Wayfarer and their PR firm. It's just tricky because he was subcontracted.

I think MANY actresses and other people in Hollywood would be interested to see Wallace and the tactics he uses exposed and brought down. Regardless of what they might think of Lively personally or even whether they think Baldoni committed SH.

In any case, Lively's lawyers announced in a letter today that they intend to add Wallace as a defendant in their amended complaint (which is being postponed to the 5th because of the suit Wallace filed against Lively in Texas). So it's coming. The question is whether they can successful pull him in and then if so, what they are able to reveal, through discovery, that he did. I expect a lot of celebrities and their publicists will be watching this part of the case extremely closely. It's consequential for far more than just Lively, Reynolds and Baldoni.

Yeah. I honestly hope Lively's team is not relying solely on discovery from Wallace to prove what Wallace did, but is hiring their own Internet forensics gurus or whatever to try to trace some of the crazy negative publicity that was coming back at Lively after Baldoni hired them -- and/or maybe trace some of the same addresses used planting stories from the Heard/Depp days also planting stories against Lively. Trying to find a copy of the Lively complaint, I saw on an old Reddit thread that someone there recognized that the person who resurfaced the prior Lively interview about "congrats on your baby bump" was also the same person who had resurfaced a ton of positive Depp interviews during the Depp/Heard trial. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1hjhfen/read_blake_livelys_complaint_against_wayfarer/ I guess I'm wondering whether Wallace, if he actually did terrible things, won't produce them. If so, and he actually did astroturf etc, i hope Lively will be able to trace things back to him and prove it, anyway. Seems like that could be a costly project but would be important to winning her case.

I have to say, I do believe PR reps and astroturfing sunk Amber Heard in the public opinion and that's mostly what killed her at trial. That whole PR seamy underbelly is rotten and should be stopped. I know folks will say that Lively is some sort of racist dummy who is ultra privileged and has had things handed to her, and I don't know much about her but I agree she is privileged. I think I recall she directed a music video for Swift at some point a few years ago to dip her toe in the director's seat? Not everybody gets to do that. And she's white and pretty-ish and married to a famous rich actor. But nobody should have negative PR campaigns planting stories to change the narrative about them out there -- especially negative stories, especially right before a trial. It's just wrong. Like, it would be wrong to do it against Diddy, and I think even people on this thread would agree that Lively is nowhere as bad as that. (Maybe some would not, actually - very strong opinions here!)

Reviving an old interview clip of Lively behaving badly is not actionable.

If you're paying people to spend their time reviving old stories about the woman you're working with (true or false, though false is worse) that make her look bad when you specifically signed an agreement attesting you wouldn't retaliate against her, I think that might be in violation of that agreement actually.

She probably should have made the agreement a bit more explicit and stated they would not hire PR to campaign against her, or somesuch, because as it is, he can still argue that whatever he did was not retaliation, but self-preservation. Actually, it would be interesting if celebrities started including this type of provision in their contracts!