Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes! The Blake Lively Backlash Was A Long Time Coming. #TeamLeighton

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blake-lively-backlash-long-time-214550738.html

Is it the clip where she refers to Leighton as a monkey?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes! The Blake Lively Backlash Was A Long Time Coming. #TeamLeighton

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blake-lively-backlash-long-time-214550738.html

Yup if anyone watched the show then they would have been well aware of the rumors of how nasty Blake is. It doesn't stop there either. There were rumors she was all over Ben affleck during filming too.

For some reason, I can’t cut and paste it but there’s also an article called “I can’t stop thinking about the Green Lantern press tour.” It’s all about how if you look back it was so obvious that Ryan and Blake got together while she was still dating Penn he was still married. But the public didn’t seem to care and were just rooting for this couple so totally accepted their ridiculous timeline of events.

Sometimes celebs can control the narrative and sometimes they can’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes! The Blake Lively Backlash Was A Long Time Coming. #TeamLeighton

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blake-lively-backlash-long-time-214550738.html

Yup if anyone watched the show then they would have been well aware of the rumors of how nasty Blake is. It doesn't stop there either. There were rumors she was all over Ben affleck during filming too.

For some reason, I can’t cut and paste it but there’s also an article called “I can’t stop thinking about the Green Lantern press tour.” It’s all about how if you look back it was so obvious that Ryan and Blake got together while she was still dating Penn he was still married. But the public didn’t seem to care and were just rooting for this couple so totally accepted their ridiculous timeline of events.

Sometimes celebs can control the narrative and sometimes they can’t.

I mean Angelina has some rabid fans and they don’t care about a little infidelity or husband stealing. Why is it an issue now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always found Blake and Ryan unappealing, both separately and together.

Ryan has always looked like he’s wearing a mask of his own face, and he seems goofy. I couldn’t understand what ScarJo liked about him. I also can’t wrap my head around a man liking both Alanis Morisette and ScarJo.

I know Blake only from Gossip Girl and she’s a bad actress and always sounded like she needed a spittoon. Ugliest pretty girl I’ve ever seen, and I just figured it was because she was ugly on the inside.

Yes - this! I have felt the same way about RR yet could not put my finger on it exactly until reading this above.
He just does not seem like a genuine person to me.

He also has a very annoying manner of speaking. It's he's constantly holding back a laugh at his own joke. In my mind his voice makes him unsuitable for almost any serious part. His fake Twitter
fight and inside jokes with Hugh Jackman are tiresome. He seems to think we are waiting for his next Twitter "prank."

Blake is at the age when the movie parts for attractive actresses with minimal abilities start running out. It's not fair but it happens to almost all actresses over 40. She's not going to be a character actress because her zone is basically sorority girl or former sorority girl. Jennifer Anniston with less charm.

This is so on point. He thinks he is so freaking funny but is not. And what makes him more unfunny is his arrogant expectation that everyone finds him hilarious and is waiting with bated breath for his next joke/prank/whatever. Will never understood how he pulled ScarJo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I’d be surprised if he puts his hands on her, but it seems like it’s common knowledge that he’s controlling. I actually can’t name a single movie he’s been in, but I do know that Scarlett Johnassen left him in part because he was too controlling. And, like the plantation wedding which neither of them seemed to understand the upset over for years, he doesn’t seem at all bothered by this reputation.

They’re clearly both completely out of touch about a lot of things, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they both think that a relationship in which he treats her poorly is enviable.

Blake’s whole obsession with the antebellum era and southern belles is racist AF, but she’s also swooning over a time when women had no agency. And then there are the Weinstein rumors. Maybe she’s just really dumb, but she seems really smug about giving in to a predator and being married to an ass.

I am a person of color and I don't think that enjoying the dress and decor of that era automatically makes a person racist.

Very vague. Are you green? Would green people be offended by something that is commonly offensive to Black people? Be more specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, Blake and Parker were so rude. Watching this made me physically uncomfortable.

I’d give the interviewer a break as non-native speakers often use turns of phrase that are rude but they don’t necessarily understand that they way a native speaker would. It would have been nicer to give a congrats that did not involve any relation to her body or body shape.

That said, a bump comment is not a reason to be so mean.

Blake seems dumb and entitled in the video. Others would have handled this with much more intelligence and grace. Blake just seemed like a bully at the schoolyard.

Referring to someone’s “bump” is not rude. There’s literally a pregnancy website called The Bump. It’s cutesy and vomit-inducing, but not rude.

Unfortunately you don’t get to decide that. Don’t comment on people’s “bump” it’s weird and rude.

Fine. It was rude. Better to just move on right? Blake is at work. She could have acknowledged it and moved on and then when the interview was over could have said something. Saying something rude back and body shaming another woman (if you think it’s rude to comment on a pregnant woman’s bump assume you also agree commenting on a woman’s body when she’s not pregnant is also rude.) it was just unprofessional. But then it just went off the rails from there and the rest of the interview was simply hard to watch.

Both women are at work. But you seem to think only one has a duty to be professional.

The interviewer did not intend to be hurtful. Blake did. She handled it terribly because that's who she is at her core.

It’s the interviewers job to control the interview and keep it on track. She failed.

She failed because Blake and Parker had already decided they weren't going to be part of thos interview

Yep. They certainly weren’t trying to help her do her job and in return they looked terrible at theirs which is to promote the film and engage an audience. Hard to do that when you are just doubling down on excluding the interviewer and derailing the interview you are being paid to do.

This happened in 2016. Who cares?

Okay, Ryan.

[Anonymous]

It's true sometimes people just turn on famous women for no real reason. That happens all the time. And it does feel like a lot of the Lively hate is just due to her being overexposed.

BUT Lively also has a history of being tone deaf and flat out unkind. And even if you don't care about the 2016 interview, I don't get how you defend the weird and very insensitive stuff she's said regarding DV in the last month or so while promoting a movie that is *about* DV-- like not a movie about other stuff with a DV component but a movie that is explicitly about DV.

I think this is more like a Lance Armstrong situation-- if a public person is enough of a jerk to enough people for long enough, eventually people stop making excuses and turn on them. It can seem abrupt but when you look back you see these breadcrumbs that go all the way back to the beginning of their career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's true sometimes people just turn on famous women for no real reason. That happens all the time. And it does feel like a lot of the Lively hate is just due to her being overexposed.

BUT Lively also has a history of being tone deaf and flat out unkind. And even if you don't care about the 2016 interview, I don't get how you defend the weird and very insensitive stuff she's said regarding DV in the last month or so while promoting a movie that is *about* DV-- like not a movie about other stuff with a DV component but a movie that is explicitly about DV.

I think this is more like a Lance Armstrong situation-- if a public person is enough of a jerk to enough people for long enough, eventually people stop making excuses and turn on them. It can seem abrupt but when you look back you see these breadcrumbs that go all the way back to the beginning of their career.

Lance was cheating and using performance enhancing drugs. Not the same.

[Anonymous]

Aaaaaaand now Blake is in trouble for an LGBT+ slur. She really thinks her pretty, rich privilege will continue to protect her. And using her friendship with Taylor as a shield. Taylor isn't going to risk alienating her queer fans. Will drop Blake like she dropped Karlie. Buh-byyyyye!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's true sometimes people just turn on famous women for no real reason. That happens all the time. And it does feel like a lot of the Lively hate is just due to her being overexposed.

BUT Lively also has a history of being tone deaf and flat out unkind. And even if you don't care about the 2016 interview, I don't get how you defend the weird and very insensitive stuff she's said regarding DV in the last month or so while promoting a movie that is *about* DV-- like not a movie about other stuff with a DV component but a movie that is explicitly about DV.

I think this is more like a Lance Armstrong situation-- if a public person is enough of a jerk to enough people for long enough, eventually people stop making excuses and turn on them. It can seem abrupt but when you look back you see these breadcrumbs that go all the way back to the beginning of their career.

Listen, I have never really liked Blake Lively. But this revisionist history turning a COLLEEN HOOVER book into some material that was supposed to be about bringing awareness to DV? Please, she is the lifetime movie network of authors. Her genre is DV adjacent sm*t. No fans of CH are going into that movie expecting some deeply meaningful deep dive into DV. The main character is a florist named Lily Bloom. That is what we're working with here.

I also think its telling that the entire cast seems to be on her side. She is kind of an annoying vapid Serena Van Der Wood type, I'm not denying it. But I think that the fact that her costar has been abandoned by all the women working on the movie and has hired the same PR firm that reps Depp and Pitt and Weinstein is shady AF and makes me very much side eye this 'Blake Lively is the devil' message they have gotten into the public eye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true sometimes people just turn on famous women for no real reason. That happens all the time. And it does feel like a lot of the Lively hate is just due to her being overexposed.

BUT Lively also has a history of being tone deaf and flat out unkind. And even if you don't care about the 2016 interview, I don't get how you defend the weird and very insensitive stuff she's said regarding DV in the last month or so while promoting a movie that is *about* DV-- like not a movie about other stuff with a DV component but a movie that is explicitly about DV.

I think this is more like a Lance Armstrong situation-- if a public person is enough of a jerk to enough people for long enough, eventually people stop making excuses and turn on them. It can seem abrupt but when you look back you see these breadcrumbs that go all the way back to the beginning of their career.

Listen, I have never really liked Blake Lively. But this revisionist history turning a COLLEEN HOOVER book into some material that was supposed to be about bringing awareness to DV? Please, she is the lifetime movie network of authors. Her genre is DV adjacent sm*t. No fans of CH are going into that movie expecting some deeply meaningful deep dive into DV. The main character is a florist named Lily Bloom. That is what we're working with here.

I also think its telling that the entire cast seems to be on her side. She is kind of an annoying vapid Serena Van Der Wood type, I'm not denying it. But I think that the fact that her costar has been abandoned by all the women working on the movie and has hired the same PR firm that reps Depp and Pitt and Weinstein is shady AF and makes me very much side eye this 'Blake Lively is the devil' message they have gotten into the public eye.

Blake Lively is not the devil. She just sounds like someone who has been too entitled for too long and forgot humility and manners, if she ever had them. She also is a billionaire, married to a huge douchebag billionaire. Baldoni is just a working guy in Hollywood. The imbalance of power is not on his side on this, so let's not make it into what it's not because one PR firm got hired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true sometimes people just turn on famous women for no real reason. That happens all the time. And it does feel like a lot of the Lively hate is just due to her being overexposed.

BUT Lively also has a history of being tone deaf and flat out unkind. And even if you don't care about the 2016 interview, I don't get how you defend the weird and very insensitive stuff she's said regarding DV in the last month or so while promoting a movie that is *about* DV-- like not a movie about other stuff with a DV component but a movie that is explicitly about DV.

I think this is more like a Lance Armstrong situation-- if a public person is enough of a jerk to enough people for long enough, eventually people stop making excuses and turn on them. It can seem abrupt but when you look back you see these breadcrumbs that go all the way back to the beginning of their career.

Listen, I have never really liked Blake Lively. But this revisionist history turning a COLLEEN HOOVER book into some material that was supposed to be about bringing awareness to DV? Please, she is the lifetime movie network of authors. Her genre is DV adjacent sm*t. No fans of CH are going into that movie expecting some deeply meaningful deep dive into DV. The main character is a florist named Lily Bloom. That is what we're working with here.

I also think its telling that the entire cast seems to be on her side. She is kind of an annoying vapid Serena Van Der Wood type, I'm not denying it. But I think that the fact that her costar has been abandoned by all the women working on the movie and has hired the same PR firm that reps Depp and Pitt and Weinstein is shady AF and makes me very much side eye this 'Blake Lively is the devil' message they have gotten into the public eye.

Blake Lively is not the devil. She just sounds like someone who has been too entitled for too long and forgot humility and manners, if she ever had them. She also is a billionaire, married to a huge douchebag billionaire. Baldoni is just a working guy in Hollywood. The imbalance of power is not on his side on this, so let's not make it into what it's not because one PR firm got hired.

THE PR firm got hired. And right now he's fully winning the PR war despite literally no costars and even his own podcast partner seemingly icing him out. Just seems like a long trend of this particular PR firm. Tarring and feathering a woman who isn't particularly loved to ensure the sterling reputation of a handsome man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true sometimes people just turn on famous women for no real reason. That happens all the time. And it does feel like a lot of the Lively hate is just due to her being overexposed.

BUT Lively also has a history of being tone deaf and flat out unkind. And even if you don't care about the 2016 interview, I don't get how you defend the weird and very insensitive stuff she's said regarding DV in the last month or so while promoting a movie that is *about* DV-- like not a movie about other stuff with a DV component but a movie that is explicitly about DV.

I think this is more like a Lance Armstrong situation-- if a public person is enough of a jerk to enough people for long enough, eventually people stop making excuses and turn on them. It can seem abrupt but when you look back you see these breadcrumbs that go all the way back to the beginning of their career.

Listen, I have never really liked Blake Lively. But this revisionist history turning a COLLEEN HOOVER book into some material that was supposed to be about bringing awareness to DV? Please, she is the lifetime movie network of authors. Her genre is DV adjacent sm*t. No fans of CH are going into that movie expecting some deeply meaningful deep dive into DV. The main character is a florist named Lily Bloom. That is what we're working with here.

I also think its telling that the entire cast seems to be on her side. She is kind of an annoying vapid Serena Van Der Wood type, I'm not denying it. But I think that the fact that her costar has been abandoned by all the women working on the movie and has hired the same PR firm that reps Depp and Pitt and Weinstein is shady AF and makes me very much side eye this 'Blake Lively is the devil' message they have gotten into the public eye.

Blake Lively is not the devil. She just sounds like someone who has been too entitled for too long and forgot humility and manners, if she ever had them. She also is a billionaire, married to a huge douchebag billionaire. Baldoni is just a working guy in Hollywood. The imbalance of power is not on his side on this, so let's not make it into what it's not because one PR firm got hired.

THE PR firm got hired. And right now he's fully winning the PR war despite literally no costars and even his own podcast partner seemingly icing him out. Just seems like a long trend of this particular PR firm. Tarring and feathering a woman who isn't particularly loved to ensure the sterling reputation of a handsome man.

What is the name of this amazing PR form that make Blake do and say racist and transphobic things? And how did they master the art and science of time travel because Blake has been like this for almost 20 years!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true sometimes people just turn on famous women for no real reason. That happens all the time. And it does feel like a lot of the Lively hate is just due to her being overexposed.

BUT Lively also has a history of being tone deaf and flat out unkind. And even if you don't care about the 2016 interview, I don't get how you defend the weird and very insensitive stuff she's said regarding DV in the last month or so while promoting a movie that is *about* DV-- like not a movie about other stuff with a DV component but a movie that is explicitly about DV.

I think this is more like a Lance Armstrong situation-- if a public person is enough of a jerk to enough people for long enough, eventually people stop making excuses and turn on them. It can seem abrupt but when you look back you see these breadcrumbs that go all the way back to the beginning of their career.

Listen, I have never really liked Blake Lively. But this revisionist history turning a COLLEEN HOOVER book into some material that was supposed to be about bringing awareness to DV? Please, she is the lifetime movie network of authors. Her genre is DV adjacent sm*t. No fans of CH are going into that movie expecting some deeply meaningful deep dive into DV. The main character is a florist named Lily Bloom. That is what we're working with here.

I also think its telling that the entire cast seems to be on her side. She is kind of an annoying vapid Serena Van Der Wood type, I'm not denying it. But I think that the fact that her costar has been abandoned by all the women working on the movie and has hired the same PR firm that reps Depp and Pitt and Weinstein is shady AF and makes me very much side eye this 'Blake Lively is the devil' message they have gotten into the public eye.

Blake Lively is not the devil. She just sounds like someone who has been too entitled for too long and forgot humility and manners, if she ever had them. She also is a billionaire, married to a huge douchebag billionaire. Baldoni is just a working guy in Hollywood. The imbalance of power is not on his side on this, so let's not make it into what it's not because one PR firm got hired.

THE PR firm got hired. And right now he's fully winning the PR war despite literally no costars and even his own podcast partner seemingly icing him out. Just seems like a long trend of this particular PR firm. Tarring and feathering a woman who isn't particularly loved to ensure the sterling reputation of a handsome man.

What is the name of this amazing PR form that make Blake do and say racist and transphobic things? And how did they master the art and science of time travel because Blake has been like this for almost 20 years!

I'm not defending any of that, said I didn't like her. I was solidly more a Leighton Meester fan. Just said that as a 40 year old woman who has watched the media gleefully tear apart women to help advance the careers of celebrity men who did something jerky for literal decades I do not take the headlines words for it about a woman. And I do not join the mob pile on when it starts.

And I get very suspicious when Melissa Nathan/Matthew Hiltzik get hired. Because if Justin Baldoni was who he SAID he was, someone who abhors toxic masculinity and speaks up for women, he wouldn't have hired them.

[Anonymous]

Blake Lively doesn't understand public persona vs private self. If there's a difference, she's gotta keep the distasteful one under cover.