Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading both, I believe Blake far more than Justin. All his allegations were vague and non specific and all the writer did was try to use very dramatic language to make the points without specifics. There were so many contradictions and repetitive aspects, someone was being paid by the page as that could have been written in about 20 pages. He comes across as really whiny and his version of events lacks common sense. Blake’s was fare more coherent and believable. And that PR team is a car crash. Ridiculous she used her private phone for work as a PR person!!

I couldn't get past the first few pages it was so melodramatic with no substance. Who wrote this?

Its a PR war. There was so many unnecessary tidbits like Blake knowing his tea ( a hot matcha, that's not a complex order Justin).

That’s how I found it too. Very dramatic with few actual claims and so many contradictions. I read it before looking on here and surprised people thought his was stronger etc. I found it to be quite weak.

I mentioned earlier that I sided with Justin, but I don’t think the complaint is a strong legal document (I feel like it’s everything they tell you not to do). I can only assume it was devised as a tool to get people to read their text conversations and paint JB as a professional who was just trying to get this movie made (as opposed to some sexually harassing creep). If you want to read a ton of Justin bashing, head over to Reddit. It’s just brutal over there. Probably a lot of TS angry fans.

As far as some of her allegations about procedural failures (nudity rider, intimacy coordinator), we’ll have to see. Everything else is just kind of a distraction at this point. And as PP said, it’s PR management.

And, as a disclaimer, I’ve always felt like she sounds like someone who got mad about something and then went scorched earth (not someone who was victimized and afraid). (Imagine if the interviewer (or Seth Myers) hadn’t congratulated her bump but instead asked her about her weight, and then implied they didn’t love her edit of the film! She’s clearly no shrinking violet as she feigns.) Anyway, if she goes home upset to her husband, and she’s good at playing the victim and he’s the overprotective type, the two of them might have convinced themselves he’s a dirtbag who needs to be put in his place and who they need to protect other women from. I just don’t see it, though. The texts do just show a person who’s just trying to get this movie made with as little drama as possible.

I thought the same thing after reading Justin's lawsuit. He has evidence she wasn't telling the truth and that should've been the focus. Instead this was an overly reactionary piece that wasn't needed. For me it left more questions about the missing pieces. While she was overbearing from the start, I thought she was also much nicer and insecure then he had lead on. I wonder what happened because I don't believe she signed on intentionally wanted to steal the movie, but she went scorched earth as well. Maybe Ryan got in her ear. Told her it was her movie and she needed to transform to a dragon

You didn’t read the whole thing I bet. you read the introduction.

In very high profile cases like this, the introduction is written precisely to be the source of media quotes and for the lay public. The factual allegations are spelled out in the body of the complaint. I barely read more than 1/4 of the complaint, but even that portion was packed with factual allegations supportable by documentary evidence that fully rebutted Blake’s claims.

It wasn't just the introduction. If you had read it you would've seen it. In fact there were several careless mistakes throughout.

What careless mistakes?

I read a ton of these complaints & answers and this one reads as expected and is very strong. They never read like a contract dispute or whatever.

For one when talking about the nudity rider, his lawyer claimed Wayfarer stated it needed to be signed by May 11th. Expect in the attached exhibit, Wayfarer's lawyer said they needed it the next day which would have been the 9th. He also claimed Blake's lawyer didn't respond until the 12th. Again not true. Her lawyer responded the same day at 1:46 pm. They needed more documents that wasn't sent over until the next day on the 10th. I read a lot lawsuits as well and while Justin has evidence this was not done well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why would she lie? She’s really risking public ridicule and her career to make a false claim?

The case all hinges on retaliation. Her initial complaints were tenuous or false. But under the law you are protected from retaliation for making a sexual harassment complaint if the retaliation would deter a reasonable person from making a complaint. Although I do not think Baldoni harassed her, it looks like he smeared her chronologically after her complaint and to undermine her continued complaints that he feared. legally it’s more complex that that and far from proven, but it’s still a big threat to him.

More subjectively, I think his decision to do a smear campaign against an A-lister is what triggered this. Setting aside all the other stuff, Blake and her “dragons”
found this unacceptable.

I think his complaint does a good job of showing there wasn’t a smear campaign, but lively’s team may have thought there was one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Encounter with Justin Baldoni By Andrew Billen (in The Times) is an interesting read.

I read it. It struck me as frankly bullying Baldoni for being earnest about this stuff.

I think it is more about what a conflicted person Justin is. The speaking out about women's issues then going home and watching porn, the body acceptance for women aspect while dealing with his own body dysmorphia etc. Interestingly a cinematographer from a film maybe ten years ago said that working with Justin was the most difficult experience he has ever had for similar reasons - he says one thing but does another. Wants to always seem sweet and kind and meek to your face but isn't really like that and can't pull it off so he treats people quite badly but then feels bad about it but does it over and over. I thought that matched too with lots of parts of his complaint where he was not only accepting Blakes comments but buttering her up but then complaining to his team about the same things he was praising her for. Lots of the things he said were unnecessary if he was just trying to appease her.

people who are conflicted are the ones working out the issues. If difficult issues were as easy to solve as “Oh I will be good now!” then the issues would not be difficult. A man being sincere about toxic masculinity but still struggling with it (including porn) is nothing to be ashamed of. he’s sincere, which is probably a big no-no in Hollywood.

I am not saying they are easy to solve but those issues can impact on others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading both, I believe Blake far more than Justin. All his allegations were vague and non specific and all the writer did was try to use very dramatic language to make the points without specifics. There were so many contradictions and repetitive aspects, someone was being paid by the page as that could have been written in about 20 pages. He comes across as really whiny and his version of events lacks common sense. Blake’s was fare more coherent and believable. And that PR team is a car crash. Ridiculous she used her private phone for work as a PR person!!

I couldn't get past the first few pages it was so melodramatic with no substance. Who wrote this?

Its a PR war. There was so many unnecessary tidbits like Blake knowing his tea ( a hot matcha, that's not a complex order Justin).

That’s how I found it too. Very dramatic with few actual claims and so many contradictions. I read it before looking on here and surprised people thought his was stronger etc. I found it to be quite weak.

I mentioned earlier that I sided with Justin, but I don’t think the complaint is a strong legal document (I feel like it’s everything they tell you not to do). I can only assume it was devised as a tool to get people to read their text conversations and paint JB as a professional who was just trying to get this movie made (as opposed to some sexually harassing creep). If you want to read a ton of Justin bashing, head over to Reddit. It’s just brutal over there. Probably a lot of TS angry fans.

As far as some of her allegations about procedural failures (nudity rider, intimacy coordinator), we’ll have to see. Everything else is just kind of a distraction at this point. And as PP said, it’s PR management.

And, as a disclaimer, I’ve always felt like she sounds like someone who got mad about something and then went scorched earth (not someone who was victimized and afraid). (Imagine if the interviewer (or Seth Myers) hadn’t congratulated her bump but instead asked her about her weight, and then implied they didn’t love her edit of the film! She’s clearly no shrinking violet as she feigns.) Anyway, if she goes home upset to her husband, and she’s good at playing the victim and he’s the overprotective type, the two of them might have convinced themselves he’s a dirtbag who needs to be put in his place and who they need to protect other women from. I just don’t see it, though. The texts do just show a person who’s just trying to get this movie made with as little drama as possible.

I thought the same thing after reading Justin's lawsuit. He has evidence she wasn't telling the truth and that should've been the focus. Instead this was an overly reactionary piece that wasn't needed. For me it left more questions about the missing pieces. While she was overbearing from the start, I thought she was also much nicer and insecure then he had lead on. I wonder what happened because I don't believe she signed on intentionally wanted to steal the movie, but she went scorched earth as well. Maybe Ryan got in her ear. Told her it was her movie and she needed to transform to a dragon

I’ve never seen her act insecure in any sort of public setting. Just watch some interviews. I think that’s just her being all demure and victim-y. I guess you can read things any way you want—and we all come armed with our own experiences and biases—but to me she sounds mostly butthurt. And he just seems to be oscillating between upbeat and mildly frustrated but most pretty normal.

+1 Insecure? Have you seen any of her interviews? A self-described Khaleesi is many things (primarily a fool) but definitely not insecure.

More like dumb as a box of rocks.

[Anonymous]

It’s so interesting to see longer versions of the text threads. The “whispering in the ear” one for example, which is part of the thread where Nathan and Abel say “he doesn’t realize how lucky he is,” which was mentioned in the NYT article. You see in the longer thread that they didn’t want that to come out but also that it wasn’t true. Lively’s truncated version of the text thread insinuated otherwise in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

It is interesting that Baldoni hired Bryan Freedman as his lawyer. Freedman was accused of sexual assulat and battery of a 17 year old while he was in college. According to the girl, a group of 8 guys including Bryan gang-raped her with some only kissing and touching and others raping her. He resigned from his student government position and settled out of court so there aren't many details beyond the financial settlement (it was 1986). He represented Kevin Spacey and Don Lemon / Tucker Carlson).

Just an interesting choice.

[Anonymous]

I think with both complaints, you can't read it like a factual document or even like a news report of what happened. These are intended to be persuasive documents. As a result they will sculpt a narrative, include details that make their client look good and the opponent look bad, but many of them are ultimately not relevant and may not even be facts they can prove.

Baldoni's complaint does more of this, IMO, which I think is a reflection of his lawyer's style. If you are aware of the other high profile clients he's had, you get a sense of why he would approach it that way. Also if you've worked in litigation at any level you know guys with this personality. It's a type.

But a lot of the detail in his complaint is really there for color, knowing it will be read by the press and some in the public and just wanting to paint Lively as badly as possible. Like the detail about Lively not reading the book the movie was based on. That's not uncommon for actors -- sometimes they don't want to read source material because they don't want to confuse their interpretation of the character with another version. It's not actually some damning reveal. Once the film rights to a book have been purchased, it's an interpretation only and there is not any requirement to slavishly adhere to the book. If Baldoni/Wayfarer wanted to hew closer to the book, and Lively had another interpretation in mind for her character, those are creative differences -- they are incredibly common in the movie business. They aren't generally actionable. Certainly you can't sue an actor for declining to read the book a movie was based on, unless their contract for some reason stipulated that they must.

The complaint makes a point of saying that Lively served her complaint on Baldoni and Wayfarer as they were preparing to flee the fires in LA and Lively was safely across the country in NYC. That one was particularly eye roll inducing because of the language involved (talking about how they were packing "go" bags and worrying about their children). It makes it sound like Lively was trying to make it difficult for them to evacuate for the fire when in reality this was almost certainly a coincidence of timing. Blake Lively didn't start the fires in LA, and she was in NY because that's where she lives most of the time. That Baldoni and Wayfarer were served as they were dealing with the crisis was probably an annoyance but nothing more than that.

There is tons of this sort of thiing Baldoni's complaint -- little pot shots to try and make Lively look as petty, entitled, and mean as possible. Lively's complaint has some of this too, but the writing style is more constrained and there's less of it.

That doesn't mean Lively's complaint is better or her account more accurate -- I think Baldoni's complaint raises significant questions especially about her harassment allegations, where he is providing additional context that makes it look like Lively is exaggerating some of these claims. But of course the stuff people are stuck on are these little extraneous details that aren't very important tot he underlying legal arguments. She didn't even read the book! Ugh, she made them bring the costumes to her apartment, rude. OMG she served her complaint on him while he was fleeing the fires?!?!? It's a little game designed to elicit exactly this response but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I do think the whole thing is about to get even more nasty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading both, I believe Blake far more than Justin. All his allegations were vague and non specific and all the writer did was try to use very dramatic language to make the points without specifics. There were so many contradictions and repetitive aspects, someone was being paid by the page as that could have been written in about 20 pages. He comes across as really whiny and his version of events lacks common sense. Blake’s was fare more coherent and believable. And that PR team is a car crash. Ridiculous she used her private phone for work as a PR person!!

I couldn't get past the first few pages it was so melodramatic with no substance. Who wrote this?

Its a PR war. There was so many unnecessary tidbits like Blake knowing his tea ( a hot matcha, that's not a complex order Justin).

That’s how I found it too. Very dramatic with few actual claims and so many contradictions. I read it before looking on here and surprised people thought his was stronger etc. I found it to be quite weak.

I mentioned earlier that I sided with Justin, but I don’t think the complaint is a strong legal document (I feel like it’s everything they tell you not to do). I can only assume it was devised as a tool to get people to read their text conversations and paint JB as a professional who was just trying to get this movie made (as opposed to some sexually harassing creep). If you want to read a ton of Justin bashing, head over to Reddit. It’s just brutal over there. Probably a lot of TS angry fans.

As far as some of her allegations about procedural failures (nudity rider, intimacy coordinator), we’ll have to see. Everything else is just kind of a distraction at this point. And as PP said, it’s PR management.

And, as a disclaimer, I’ve always felt like she sounds like someone who got mad about something and then went scorched earth (not someone who was victimized and afraid). (Imagine if the interviewer (or Seth Myers) hadn’t congratulated her bump but instead asked her about her weight, and then implied they didn’t love her edit of the film! She’s clearly no shrinking violet as she feigns.) Anyway, if she goes home upset to her husband, and she’s good at playing the victim and he’s the overprotective type, the two of them might have convinced themselves he’s a dirtbag who needs to be put in his place and who they need to protect other women from. I just don’t see it, though. The texts do just show a person who’s just trying to get this movie made with as little drama as possible.

I thought the same thing after reading Justin's lawsuit. He has evidence she wasn't telling the truth and that should've been the focus. Instead this was an overly reactionary piece that wasn't needed. For me it left more questions about the missing pieces. While she was overbearing from the start, I thought she was also much nicer and insecure then he had lead on. I wonder what happened because I don't believe she signed on intentionally wanted to steal the movie, but she went scorched earth as well. Maybe Ryan got in her ear. Told her it was her movie and she needed to transform to a dragon

You didn’t read the whole thing I bet. you read the introduction.

In very high profile cases like this, the introduction is written precisely to be the source of media quotes and for the lay public. The factual allegations are spelled out in the body of the complaint. I barely read more than 1/4 of the complaint, but even that portion was packed with factual allegations supportable by documentary evidence that fully rebutted Blake’s claims.

I am curious about the list of what you consider factual allegations with documentary evidence that fully rebutt Blake's claim? I didn't see that in there at all.

Do, but pretty much the entire complaint. You either didn’t read it, or are a Blake supporter in denial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think with both complaints, you can't read it like a factual document or even like a news report of what happened. These are intended to be persuasive documents. As a result they will sculpt a narrative, include details that make their client look good and the opponent look bad, but many of them are ultimately not relevant and may not even be facts they can prove.

Baldoni's complaint does more of this, IMO, which I think is a reflection of his lawyer's style. If you are aware of the other high profile clients he's had, you get a sense of why he would approach it that way. Also if you've worked in litigation at any level you know guys with this personality. It's a type.

But a lot of the detail in his complaint is really there for color, knowing it will be read by the press and some in the public and just wanting to paint Lively as badly as possible. Like the detail about Lively not reading the book the movie was based on. That's not uncommon for actors -- sometimes they don't want to read source material because they don't want to confuse their interpretation of the character with another version. It's not actually some damning reveal. Once the film rights to a book have been purchased, it's an interpretation only and there is not any requirement to slavishly adhere to the book. If Baldoni/Wayfarer wanted to hew closer to the book, and Lively had another interpretation in mind for her character, those are creative differences -- they are incredibly common in the movie business. They aren't generally actionable. Certainly you can't sue an actor for declining to read the book a movie was based on, unless their contract for some reason stipulated that they must.

The complaint makes a point of saying that Lively served her complaint on Baldoni and Wayfarer as they were preparing to flee the fires in LA and Lively was safely across the country in NYC. That one was particularly eye roll inducing because of the language involved (talking about how they were packing "go" bags and worrying about their children). It makes it sound like Lively was trying to make it difficult for them to evacuate for the fire when in reality this was almost certainly a coincidence of timing. Blake Lively didn't start the fires in LA, and she was in NY because that's where she lives most of the time. That Baldoni and Wayfarer were served as they were dealing with the crisis was probably an annoyance but nothing more than that.

There is tons of this sort of thiing Baldoni's complaint -- little pot shots to try and make Lively look as petty, entitled, and mean as possible. Lively's complaint has some of this too, but the writing style is more constrained and there's less of it.

That doesn't mean Lively's complaint is better or her account more accurate -- I think Baldoni's complaint raises significant questions especially about her harassment allegations, where he is providing additional context that makes it look like Lively is exaggerating some of these claims. But of course the stuff people are stuck on are these little extraneous details that aren't very important tot he underlying legal arguments. She didn't even read the book! Ugh, she made them bring the costumes to her apartment, rude. OMG she served her complaint on him while he was fleeing the fires?!?!? It's a little game designed to elicit exactly this response but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I do think the whole thing is about to get even more nasty.

Oh look, Blake’s pr lady is back with another one of her exceeding long, and in this case, exceedingly off the mark, spin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe his version that they were best of friends, giggling away and then for no reason at all and with no warning, she just falsely created a list of 17 things that made her uncomfortable. I don't believe that came out of thin air that she made some devious psychopathic premediated plan to destroy him even though it had all been the most amazing thing ever up until that point.

After "the list", it is clear there was a lot of negative feelings on both sides and it gets harder to tell what really happened as both are now playing games when texting and being somewhat two-faced.

Blake's text writing style of lengthly poetic posts would drive me a bit crazy but so would all of Justin's whining in his texts.

I feel like the disagreements on the writing, producing, directing, editing aspects must have some documentation given contracts but who knows. I also don't know what is the norm on movie sets with A listers who want input and have executive producer titles as she did.

I am sure it will come out if she really did threaten or intimidate the rest of the cast into turning against Justin.

Justin's real life wife and kids had cameos in the movie. The ObGyn (Adam Mondschein) is a close friend of Baldonis (also Bahai) that has done bits of acting in the past. I wonder if other friends and family had cameos or small parts - although I would assume this is pretty typical in many films.

Well, we now know Blake wanted her sister hired for a part, so she has no room to complain on that front.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting that Baldoni hired Bryan Freedman as his lawyer. Freedman was accused of sexual assulat and battery of a 17 year old while he was in college. According to the girl, a group of 8 guys including Bryan gang-raped her with some only kissing and touching and others raping her. He resigned from his student government position and settled out of court so there aren't many details beyond the financial settlement (it was 1986). He represented Kevin Spacey and Don Lemon / Tucker Carlson).

Just an interesting choice.

I think the main reason Baldoni hired him is that he has a reputation for being extremely tenacious and has gotten big settlements on behalf of individuals in conflicts with heavyweight opponents. He's also represented Gabrielle Union, Octavia Spencer, and Megyn Kelly, so it's not like he only represents people caused of sexual assault or harassment. He does seem to have a penchant for representing people who are getting trashed in the press.

But that detail about Freedman from college is a bit disturbing. It's a little weird Freedman has never explained or contextualized it. I wonder if Baldoni knew about it when he hired Freedman, given Baldoni's whole thing about being a male feminist and holding men accountable. I don't know what to make of that.

[Anonymous]

The lawyer understands that Blake and Ryan’s priority is their public image, and the filing was designed to feed the organic TikTok fires engulfing both of them (and now slowly Taylor swift thanks to the dragons comment). Very smart strategy indeed. The emphasis on her past interviews by Baldoni’s lawyer shows that he understands her fundamental weaknesses—she easily comes across as a mean girl, and her own statements cement that image (see comments re: Kate Middleton, Leighton born in cage, infertile reporter). The filing aims to boost that perception, and it seems to be succeeding but who knows.

I will say that for myself, the only thing that is notable is that after the Blake story and the fawning ballerina farm article, I have diminished trust in NYTimes reporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think with both complaints, you can't read it like a factual document or even like a news report of what happened. These are intended to be persuasive documents. As a result they will sculpt a narrative, include details that make their client look good and the opponent look bad, but many of them are ultimately not relevant and may not even be facts they can prove.

Baldoni's complaint does more of this, IMO, which I think is a reflection of his lawyer's style. If you are aware of the other high profile clients he's had, you get a sense of why he would approach it that way. Also if you've worked in litigation at any level you know guys with this personality. It's a type.

But a lot of the detail in his complaint is really there for color, knowing it will be read by the press and some in the public and just wanting to paint Lively as badly as possible. Like the detail about Lively not reading the book the movie was based on. That's not uncommon for actors -- sometimes they don't want to read source material because they don't want to confuse their interpretation of the character with another version. It's not actually some damning reveal. Once the film rights to a book have been purchased, it's an interpretation only and there is not any requirement to slavishly adhere to the book. If Baldoni/Wayfarer wanted to hew closer to the book, and Lively had another interpretation in mind for her character, those are creative differences -- they are incredibly common in the movie business. They aren't generally actionable. Certainly you can't sue an actor for declining to read the book a movie was based on, unless their contract for some reason stipulated that they must.

The complaint makes a point of saying that Lively served her complaint on Baldoni and Wayfarer as they were preparing to flee the fires in LA and Lively was safely across the country in NYC. That one was particularly eye roll inducing because of the language involved (talking about how they were packing "go" bags and worrying about their children). It makes it sound like Lively was trying to make it difficult for them to evacuate for the fire when in reality this was almost certainly a coincidence of timing. Blake Lively didn't start the fires in LA, and she was in NY because that's where she lives most of the time. That Baldoni and Wayfarer were served as they were dealing with the crisis was probably an annoyance but nothing more than that.

There is tons of this sort of thiing Baldoni's complaint -- little pot shots to try and make Lively look as petty, entitled, and mean as possible. Lively's complaint has some of this too, but the writing style is more constrained and there's less of it.

That doesn't mean Lively's complaint is better or her account more accurate -- I think Baldoni's complaint raises significant questions especially about her harassment allegations, where he is providing additional context that makes it look like Lively is exaggerating some of these claims. But of course the stuff people are stuck on are these little extraneous details that aren't very important tot he underlying legal arguments. She didn't even read the book! Ugh, she made them bring the costumes to her apartment, rude. OMG she served her complaint on him while he was fleeing the fires?!?!? It's a little game designed to elicit exactly this response but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I do think the whole thing is about to get even more nasty.

Oh look, Blake’s pr lady is back with another one of her exceeding long, and in this case, exceedingly off the mark, spin.

The comment you're replying to isn't pro-Lively. It's just critiquing an element of Baldoni's complaint. You are the one who is "spinning" by accusing anyone who doesn't trash Lively and completely side with Baldoni of being a "pr lady." Are YOU a pr lady?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think with both complaints, you can't read it like a factual document or even like a news report of what happened. These are intended to be persuasive documents. As a result they will sculpt a narrative, include details that make their client look good and the opponent look bad, but many of them are ultimately not relevant and may not even be facts they can prove.

Baldoni's complaint does more of this, IMO, which I think is a reflection of his lawyer's style. If you are aware of the other high profile clients he's had, you get a sense of why he would approach it that way. Also if you've worked in litigation at any level you know guys with this personality. It's a type.

But a lot of the detail in his complaint is really there for color, knowing it will be read by the press and some in the public and just wanting to paint Lively as badly as possible. Like the detail about Lively not reading the book the movie was based on. That's not uncommon for actors -- sometimes they don't want to read source material because they don't want to confuse their interpretation of the character with another version. It's not actually some damning reveal. Once the film rights to a book have been purchased, it's an interpretation only and there is not any requirement to slavishly adhere to the book. If Baldoni/Wayfarer wanted to hew closer to the book, and Lively had another interpretation in mind for her character, those are creative differences -- they are incredibly common in the movie business. They aren't generally actionable. Certainly you can't sue an actor for declining to read the book a movie was based on, unless their contract for some reason stipulated that they must.

The complaint makes a point of saying that Lively served her complaint on Baldoni and Wayfarer as they were preparing to flee the fires in LA and Lively was safely across the country in NYC. That one was particularly eye roll inducing because of the language involved (talking about how they were packing "go" bags and worrying about their children). It makes it sound like Lively was trying to make it difficult for them to evacuate for the fire when in reality this was almost certainly a coincidence of timing. Blake Lively didn't start the fires in LA, and she was in NY because that's where she lives most of the time. That Baldoni and Wayfarer were served as they were dealing with the crisis was probably an annoyance but nothing more than that.

There is tons of this sort of thiing Baldoni's complaint -- little pot shots to try and make Lively look as petty, entitled, and mean as possible. Lively's complaint has some of this too, but the writing style is more constrained and there's less of it.

That doesn't mean Lively's complaint is better or her account more accurate -- I think Baldoni's complaint raises significant questions especially about her harassment allegations, where he is providing additional context that makes it look like Lively is exaggerating some of these claims. But of course the stuff people are stuck on are these little extraneous details that aren't very important tot he underlying legal arguments. She didn't even read the book! Ugh, she made them bring the costumes to her apartment, rude. OMG she served her complaint on him while he was fleeing the fires?!?!? It's a little game designed to elicit exactly this response but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I do think the whole thing is about to get even more nasty.

You kinda of a joke, spent pages arguing that we had to take whatever was alleged in the complaint as true when we were discussing Blake’s complaint.

Let’s get to the heart of Blake’s complaint. She deliberately made it sound like she was wearing only a “thin strip of material” over her crotch in the birthing scene when she was wearing briefs and a pregnancy suit (the standard for Ruke 11 sanctions are high, but her lawyers are pushing it in this paragraph). Only one or two of the initimacy scenes were filmed prior to the SAG strike break. He has notes about the discussions concerning the intimacy scenes and with respect to the specific scenes she complains about, audio or video that supports his version of how they were filmed. Perhaps they got a date or two wrong, but on the substance, it looks very very bad for Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think with both complaints, you can't read it like a factual document or even like a news report of what happened. These are intended to be persuasive documents. As a result they will sculpt a narrative, include details that make their client look good and the opponent look bad, but many of them are ultimately not relevant and may not even be facts they can prove.

Baldoni's complaint does more of this, IMO, which I think is a reflection of his lawyer's style. If you are aware of the other high profile clients he's had, you get a sense of why he would approach it that way. Also if you've worked in litigation at any level you know guys with this personality. It's a type.

But a lot of the detail in his complaint is really there for color, knowing it will be read by the press and some in the public and just wanting to paint Lively as badly as possible. Like the detail about Lively not reading the book the movie was based on. That's not uncommon for actors -- sometimes they don't want to read source material because they don't want to confuse their interpretation of the character with another version. It's not actually some damning reveal. Once the film rights to a book have been purchased, it's an interpretation only and there is not any requirement to slavishly adhere to the book. If Baldoni/Wayfarer wanted to hew closer to the book, and Lively had another interpretation in mind for her character, those are creative differences -- they are incredibly common in the movie business. They aren't generally actionable. Certainly you can't sue an actor for declining to read the book a movie was based on, unless their contract for some reason stipulated that they must.

The complaint makes a point of saying that Lively served her complaint on Baldoni and Wayfarer as they were preparing to flee the fires in LA and Lively was safely across the country in NYC. That one was particularly eye roll inducing because of the language involved (talking about how they were packing "go" bags and worrying about their children). It makes it sound like Lively was trying to make it difficult for them to evacuate for the fire when in reality this was almost certainly a coincidence of timing. Blake Lively didn't start the fires in LA, and she was in NY because that's where she lives most of the time. That Baldoni and Wayfarer were served as they were dealing with the crisis was probably an annoyance but nothing more than that.

There is tons of this sort of thiing Baldoni's complaint -- little pot shots to try and make Lively look as petty, entitled, and mean as possible. Lively's complaint has some of this too, but the writing style is more constrained and there's less of it.

That doesn't mean Lively's complaint is better or her account more accurate -- I think Baldoni's complaint raises significant questions especially about her harassment allegations, where he is providing additional context that makes it look like Lively is exaggerating some of these claims. But of course the stuff people are stuck on are these little extraneous details that aren't very important tot he underlying legal arguments. She didn't even read the book! Ugh, she made them bring the costumes to her apartment, rude. OMG she served her complaint on him while he was fleeing the fires?!?!? It's a little game designed to elicit exactly this response but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I do think the whole thing is about to get even more nasty.

Oh look, Blake’s pr lady is back with another one of her exceeding long, and in this case, exceedingly off the mark, spin.

The comment you're replying to isn't pro-Lively. It's just critiquing an element of Baldoni's complaint. You are the one who is "spinning" by accusing anyone who doesn't trash Lively and completely side with Baldoni of being a "pr lady." Are YOU a pr lady?

Do you think we are stupid? It’s the same poster who has dominated this thread with her pro Blake posts which are very easy to identify due to both her writing style and her multi paragraph posts. You know, the one who loves Manatt Phelps and was bragging about reviewing intimacy coordinator contracts.