Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said it before and I will repeat it again, Isabel, who played young Lily - her texts to Justin really hurts blakes case - she didn’t have to send them and she was over the top complementing him on how he ran the movie. I was actually shocked to see them there because it just goes against what Blake had reported.

Here’s the thing. A little after the movie wrapped, Jenny Slate published a book, and Blake went on Instagram raving about it. I’m sure you could still find the post. And Ryan did that mock take down of Brandon who played Atlas, pretended to be jealous. He even got his mom to join the bit. I’m sorry, but if you’re an actor trying to build a career, it certainly would help to have a video going viral of you having playful banter with Ryan Reynolds.

It seems like the cast was fine with Justin and they chose sides based on Blake and Ryan’s power. If not, somebody needs to show that there were other problems on set. I’ve seen none of that and it’s been a month.

100%. I thought this was really damning. If you haven't already, I encourage posters to read these texts. They are not from someone who observed any issues whatsoever on set, quite the opposite. It's worth noting this young actress also had intimate scenes which she thought Baldoni handled beautifully. I'm skeptical a sexual harasser would respect and pass over a nobody and go right after a big industry star. It's of course possible, but that would be highly unusual for an abuser.

But couldn't Isabel's texts to Justin be for precisely the same reasons you are alleging Jenny Slate backed Blake? Isabel had just filming her scenes on a fairly high profile movie and she kissed up to the director and told him how amazing he was because if he likes her it could benefit her career down the road -- he could cast her in another movie or he could recommend her to another director or his production company could produce something and think of her. Even if he was a pain to work with or handled the intimate scenes poorly, this is a very young actress in the early stages of her career and this is one of her first large-ish roles -- she would be far from the first actress to overlook questionable behavior by a director or other powerful person in order to exploit a connection for more work. Isn't that what everyone accuses Lively of having done with Weinstein?

One of my takeaways from all the correspondence in Baldoni's complaint is how freaking FAKE everyone sounds and how they are constantly all gushing over each other and telling one another how amazing they are and how important their work is. All of them. Blake, Justin, the producers at Wayfarer, even the editors Justin corresponded with when he was upset about Sony letting Lively screen her version of the movie without him. It really strikes me how the tone of everything is "we are all so amazing, this movie is so amazing, we are so important." Fake, fake, fake.

I think this aspect of Hollywood culture probably obscures a lot of what is happening. Like there is so much a$$-kissing and false intimacy in the way these people all communicate that I don't even know how you untangle that to figure out who did what to whom, or how you ever know how anyone actually feels about anything. What a nightmare. So glad I don't work in that industry.

Weren’t you the intimacy coordinator contract reviewer? And once again, arguing for Blake (but definitely not a shill!).

No I was not and I'm not arguing for Lively, just pointing out that if Slate may have backed Lively for self-interested reasons, then Isabel may have kissed up to Justin for the same reason. Where is the flaw in that logic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason this case is getting so much attention is simply because of hubris. Blake thought she could crush him, using me too language and pop psychology rhetoric like darvo. But she and her husband didn’t count on him hiring a bulldog of an attorney and the fact that faced with any sort of scandal, social media does not immediately side with a famous blond woman with a billionaire husband (not to say that white women can’t be sympathetic figures, look at all the love Dolly Parton and Jennifer Garner get). She needs damning evidence against him and he’s not a woody Allen type figure to where you could get that.

The hate she got the first time around was organic. Had she or her team understood that, they would have been much better able to navigate the aftermath.

Agree. Whatever happens, I've found this to be a fascinating look at behind-the-scenes power plays in this industry. I think she expected this to be a slam-dunk slam and it's not working. Maybe I'm completely wrong but it's not looking good for her.

[Anonymous]

I feel kind of overwhelmed by the competing claims here so I've been looking for legal/PR analysis online that might help explain. This piece in Vulture was helpful:

https://www.vulture.com/article/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuits-explained.html

Obviously competing theories here but the takeaway for me is that this isn't a slam dunk for either of them and they both have a lot to lose both in the actual cases and (probably more importantly) in the court of public opinion. But they are both clearly very emotionally committed to the conflict which might result in this going to trial even though the rational thing for both of them is likely to settle out of court.

I thought the last scenario was interesting because I hadn't really thought about how Baldoni's case against the New York Times plays into the whole thing. But the implication seems to be that if the NYT wins that case it could be bad for Baldoni in the long run because it weakens his case against Lively. He's alleging she and her team defamed him via the NYT article. But if the NYT wins that lawsuit, he'd be left trying to argue that her complaint on its own was defamatory. Can you do that? Can a lawsuit that alleges things that turn out to not be proven in court be considered defamatory on it's own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel kind of overwhelmed by the competing claims here so I've been looking for legal/PR analysis online that might help explain. This piece in Vulture was helpful:

https://www.vulture.com/article/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuits-explained.html

Obviously competing theories here but the takeaway for me is that this isn't a slam dunk for either of them and they both have a lot to lose both in the actual cases and (probably more importantly) in the court of public opinion. But they are both clearly very emotionally committed to the conflict which might result in this going to trial even though the rational thing for both of them is likely to settle out of court.

I thought the last scenario was interesting because I hadn't really thought about how Baldoni's case against the New York Times plays into the whole thing. But the implication seems to be that if the NYT wins that case it could be bad for Baldoni in the long run because it weakens his case against Lively. He's alleging she and her team defamed him via the NYT article. But if the NYT wins that lawsuit, he'd be left trying to argue that her complaint on its own was defamatory. Can you do that? Can a lawsuit that alleges things that turn out to not be proven in court be considered defamatory on it's own?

Vulture is not a trustworthy source on legal matters. As we discussed upthread, The NY Times will almost definitely settle. There is a legitimate fear among media companies of the current state Supreme Court overturning Sullivan, which is a favorable standard for defamation, and media companies want to avoid a situation where a case winds up there. And The NY Times was clearly very sloppy in their reporting, especially with respect to the manipulated texts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel kind of overwhelmed by the competing claims here so I've been looking for legal/PR analysis online that might help explain. This piece in Vulture was helpful:

https://www.vulture.com/article/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuits-explained.html

Obviously competing theories here but the takeaway for me is that this isn't a slam dunk for either of them and they both have a lot to lose both in the actual cases and (probably more importantly) in the court of public opinion. But they are both clearly very emotionally committed to the conflict which might result in this going to trial even though the rational thing for both of them is likely to settle out of court.

I thought the last scenario was interesting because I hadn't really thought about how Baldoni's case against the New York Times plays into the whole thing. But the implication seems to be that if the NYT wins that case it could be bad for Baldoni in the long run because it weakens his case against Lively. He's alleging she and her team defamed him via the NYT article. But if the NYT wins that lawsuit, he'd be left trying to argue that her complaint on its own was defamatory. Can you do that? Can a lawsuit that alleges things that turn out to not be proven in court be considered defamatory on it's own?

Vulture is not a trustworthy source on legal matters. As we discussed upthread, The NY Times will almost definitely settle. There is a legitimate fear among media companies of the current state Supreme Court overturning Sullivan, which is a favorable standard for defamation, and media companies want to avoid a situation where a case winds up there. And The NY Times was clearly very sloppy in their reporting, especially with respect to the manipulated texts.

Adding just read this article and it’s a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said it before and I will repeat it again, Isabel, who played young Lily - her texts to Justin really hurts blakes case - she didn’t have to send them and she was over the top complementing him on how he ran the movie. I was actually shocked to see them there because it just goes against what Blake had reported.

Here’s the thing. A little after the movie wrapped, Jenny Slate published a book, and Blake went on Instagram raving about it. I’m sure you could still find the post. And Ryan did that mock take down of Brandon who played Atlas, pretended to be jealous. He even got his mom to join the bit. I’m sorry, but if you’re an actor trying to build a career, it certainly would help to have a video going viral of you having playful banter with Ryan Reynolds.

It seems like the cast was fine with Justin and they chose sides based on Blake and Ryan’s power. If not, somebody needs to show that there were other problems on set. I’ve seen none of that and it’s been a month.

100%. I thought this was really damning. If you haven't already, I encourage posters to read these texts. They are not from someone who observed any issues whatsoever on set, quite the opposite. It's worth noting this young actress also had intimate scenes which she thought Baldoni handled beautifully. I'm skeptical a sexual harasser would respect and pass over a nobody and go right after a big industry star. It's of course possible, but that would be highly unusual for an abuser.

But couldn't Isabel's texts to Justin be for precisely the same reasons you are alleging Jenny Slate backed Blake? Isabel had just filming her scenes on a fairly high profile movie and she kissed up to the director and told him how amazing he was because if he likes her it could benefit her career down the road -- he could cast her in another movie or he could recommend her to another director or his production company could produce something and think of her. Even if he was a pain to work with or handled the intimate scenes poorly, this is a very young actress in the early stages of her career and this is one of her first large-ish roles -- she would be far from the first actress to overlook questionable behavior by a director or other powerful person in order to exploit a connection for more work. Isn't that what everyone accuses Lively of having done with Weinstein?

One of my takeaways from all the correspondence in Baldoni's complaint is how freaking FAKE everyone sounds and how they are constantly all gushing over each other and telling one another how amazing they are and how important their work is. All of them. Blake, Justin, the producers at Wayfarer, even the editors Justin corresponded with when he was upset about Sony letting Lively screen her version of the movie without him. It really strikes me how the tone of everything is "we are all so amazing, this movie is so amazing, we are so important." Fake, fake, fake.

I think this aspect of Hollywood culture probably obscures a lot of what is happening. Like there is so much a$$-kissing and false intimacy in the way these people all communicate that I don't even know how you untangle that to figure out who did what to whom, or how you ever know how anyone actually feels about anything. What a nightmare. So glad I don't work in that industry.

Weren’t you the intimacy coordinator contract reviewer? And once again, arguing for Blake (but definitely not a shill!).

No I was not and I'm not arguing for Lively, just pointing out that if Slate may have backed Lively for self-interested reasons, then Isabel may have kissed up to Justin for the same reason. Where is the flaw in that logic?

The difference is one is a random text sent prior to litigation and the other is a pr statement after a lawsuit is filed,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel kind of overwhelmed by the competing claims here so I've been looking for legal/PR analysis online that might help explain. This piece in Vulture was helpful:

https://www.vulture.com/article/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuits-explained.html

Obviously competing theories here but the takeaway for me is that this isn't a slam dunk for either of them and they both have a lot to lose both in the actual cases and (probably more importantly) in the court of public opinion. But they are both clearly very emotionally committed to the conflict which might result in this going to trial even though the rational thing for both of them is likely to settle out of court.

I thought the last scenario was interesting because I hadn't really thought about how Baldoni's case against the New York Times plays into the whole thing. But the implication seems to be that if the NYT wins that case it could be bad for Baldoni in the long run because it weakens his case against Lively. He's alleging she and her team defamed him via the NYT article. But if the NYT wins that lawsuit, he'd be left trying to argue that her complaint on its own was defamatory. Can you do that? Can a lawsuit that alleges things that turn out to not be proven in court be considered defamatory on it's own?

Vulture is not a trustworthy source on legal matters. As we discussed upthread, The NY Times will almost definitely settle. There is a legitimate fear among media companies of the current state Supreme Court overturning Sullivan, which is a favorable standard for defamation, and media companies want to avoid a situation where a case winds up there. And The NY Times was clearly very sloppy in their reporting, especially with respect to the manipulated texts.

Adding just read this article and it’s a joke.

In seriousness: why is it a joke? They talk to reputable people in PR and at law firms. They present a variety of possible scenarios. What about it is a joke? Where should I look for better analysis (by actual professionals who know the law and the industry, not just random anonymous DCUM or reddit posters who can say anything and assert they are experts even if they have no business weighing in)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said it before and I will repeat it again, Isabel, who played young Lily - her texts to Justin really hurts blakes case - she didn’t have to send them and she was over the top complementing him on how he ran the movie. I was actually shocked to see them there because it just goes against what Blake had reported.

Here’s the thing. A little after the movie wrapped, Jenny Slate published a book, and Blake went on Instagram raving about it. I’m sure you could still find the post. And Ryan did that mock take down of Brandon who played Atlas, pretended to be jealous. He even got his mom to join the bit. I’m sorry, but if you’re an actor trying to build a career, it certainly would help to have a video going viral of you having playful banter with Ryan Reynolds.

It seems like the cast was fine with Justin and they chose sides based on Blake and Ryan’s power. If not, somebody needs to show that there were other problems on set. I’ve seen none of that and it’s been a month.

100%. I thought this was really damning. If you haven't already, I encourage posters to read these texts. They are not from someone who observed any issues whatsoever on set, quite the opposite. It's worth noting this young actress also had intimate scenes which she thought Baldoni handled beautifully. I'm skeptical a sexual harasser would respect and pass over a nobody and go right after a big industry star. It's of course possible, but that would be highly unusual for an abuser.

But couldn't Isabel's texts to Justin be for precisely the same reasons you are alleging Jenny Slate backed Blake? Isabel had just filming her scenes on a fairly high profile movie and she kissed up to the director and told him how amazing he was because if he likes her it could benefit her career down the road -- he could cast her in another movie or he could recommend her to another director or his production company could produce something and think of her. Even if he was a pain to work with or handled the intimate scenes poorly, this is a very young actress in the early stages of her career and this is one of her first large-ish roles -- she would be far from the first actress to overlook questionable behavior by a director or other powerful person in order to exploit a connection for more work. Isn't that what everyone accuses Lively of having done with Weinstein?

One of my takeaways from all the correspondence in Baldoni's complaint is how freaking FAKE everyone sounds and how they are constantly all gushing over each other and telling one another how amazing they are and how important their work is. All of them. Blake, Justin, the producers at Wayfarer, even the editors Justin corresponded with when he was upset about Sony letting Lively screen her version of the movie without him. It really strikes me how the tone of everything is "we are all so amazing, this movie is so amazing, we are so important." Fake, fake, fake.

I think this aspect of Hollywood culture probably obscures a lot of what is happening. Like there is so much a$$-kissing and false intimacy in the way these people all communicate that I don't even know how you untangle that to figure out who did what to whom, or how you ever know how anyone actually feels about anything. What a nightmare. So glad I don't work in that industry.

Weren’t you the intimacy coordinator contract reviewer? And once again, arguing for Blake (but definitely not a shill!).

No I was not and I'm not arguing for Lively, just pointing out that if Slate may have backed Lively for self-interested reasons, then Isabel may have kissed up to Justin for the same reason. Where is the flaw in that logic?

The difference is one is a random text sent prior to litigation and the other is a pr statement after a lawsuit is filed,

Yes but why would their reasons be different. I would assume a text like the one Isabel sent to Justin is common in the industry because relationships matter so much. I would not assume it was an honest assessment of Isabel's actual opinion of Baldoni.

If it were a text from Isabel to a friend or her agent in which she said she had a great experience on the set and Baldoni was a wonderful director, that would very persuasive. But this seems like a standard "you're amazing, thank you for the opportunity [please think of me in the future and say good things about me to others]" message to someone you worked with. It doesn't feel broadly exonerating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said it before and I will repeat it again, Isabel, who played young Lily - her texts to Justin really hurts blakes case - she didn’t have to send them and she was over the top complementing him on how he ran the movie. I was actually shocked to see them there because it just goes against what Blake had reported.

Here’s the thing. A little after the movie wrapped, Jenny Slate published a book, and Blake went on Instagram raving about it. I’m sure you could still find the post. And Ryan did that mock take down of Brandon who played Atlas, pretended to be jealous. He even got his mom to join the bit. I’m sorry, but if you’re an actor trying to build a career, it certainly would help to have a video going viral of you having playful banter with Ryan Reynolds.

It seems like the cast was fine with Justin and they chose sides based on Blake and Ryan’s power. If not, somebody needs to show that there were other problems on set. I’ve seen none of that and it’s been a month.

100%. I thought this was really damning. If you haven't already, I encourage posters to read these texts. They are not from someone who observed any issues whatsoever on set, quite the opposite. It's worth noting this young actress also had intimate scenes which she thought Baldoni handled beautifully. I'm skeptical a sexual harasser would respect and pass over a nobody and go right after a big industry star. It's of course possible, but that would be highly unusual for an abuser.

But couldn't Isabel's texts to Justin be for precisely the same reasons you are alleging Jenny Slate backed Blake? Isabel had just filming her scenes on a fairly high profile movie and she kissed up to the director and told him how amazing he was because if he likes her it could benefit her career down the road -- he could cast her in another movie or he could recommend her to another director or his production company could produce something and think of her. Even if he was a pain to work with or handled the intimate scenes poorly, this is a very young actress in the early stages of her career and this is one of her first large-ish roles -- she would be far from the first actress to overlook questionable behavior by a director or other powerful person in order to exploit a connection for more work. Isn't that what everyone accuses Lively of having done with Weinstein?

One of my takeaways from all the correspondence in Baldoni's complaint is how freaking FAKE everyone sounds and how they are constantly all gushing over each other and telling one another how amazing they are and how important their work is. All of them. Blake, Justin, the producers at Wayfarer, even the editors Justin corresponded with when he was upset about Sony letting Lively screen her version of the movie without him. It really strikes me how the tone of everything is "we are all so amazing, this movie is so amazing, we are so important." Fake, fake, fake.

I think this aspect of Hollywood culture probably obscures a lot of what is happening. Like there is so much a$$-kissing and false intimacy in the way these people all communicate that I don't even know how you untangle that to figure out who did what to whom, or how you ever know how anyone actually feels about anything. What a nightmare. So glad I don't work in that industry.

Weren’t you the intimacy coordinator contract reviewer? And once again, arguing for Blake (but definitely not a shill!).

No I was not and I'm not arguing for Lively, just pointing out that if Slate may have backed Lively for self-interested reasons, then Isabel may have kissed up to Justin for the same reason. Where is the flaw in that logic?

The difference is one is a random text sent prior to litigation and the other is a pr statement after a lawsuit is filed,

Yes but why would their reasons be different. I would assume a text like the one Isabel sent to Justin is common in the industry because relationships matter so much. I would not assume it was an honest assessment of Isabel's actual opinion of Baldoni.

If it were a text from Isabel to a friend or her agent in which she said she had a great experience on the set and Baldoni was a wonderful director, that would very persuasive. But this seems like a standard "you're amazing, thank you for the opportunity [please think of me in the future and say good things about me to others]" message to someone you worked with. It doesn't feel broadly exonerating.

For the record I also think Slate's comments about Lively are fairly meaningless. There's zero evidence Slate was even present to witness whatever happened on set regarding the stuff in question, or that she knew or interacted with either party that much. And as someone stated upthread, Slate had a book coming out and Lively vocally promoted it so there may be some quid pro quo there. I don't view it as damning for Baldoni, especially because Slate doesn't say "this happened to me too."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel kind of overwhelmed by the competing claims here so I've been looking for legal/PR analysis online that might help explain. This piece in Vulture was helpful:

https://www.vulture.com/article/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuits-explained.html

Obviously competing theories here but the takeaway for me is that this isn't a slam dunk for either of them and they both have a lot to lose both in the actual cases and (probably more importantly) in the court of public opinion. But they are both clearly very emotionally committed to the conflict which might result in this going to trial even though the rational thing for both of them is likely to settle out of court.

I thought the last scenario was interesting because I hadn't really thought about how Baldoni's case against the New York Times plays into the whole thing. But the implication seems to be that if the NYT wins that case it could be bad for Baldoni in the long run because it weakens his case against Lively. He's alleging she and her team defamed him via the NYT article. But if the NYT wins that lawsuit, he'd be left trying to argue that her complaint on its own was defamatory. Can you do that? Can a lawsuit that alleges things that turn out to not be proven in court be considered defamatory on it's own?

Vulture is not a trustworthy source on legal matters. As we discussed upthread, The NY Times will almost definitely settle. There is a legitimate fear among media companies of the current state Supreme Court overturning Sullivan, which is a favorable standard for defamation, and media companies want to avoid a situation where a case winds up there. And The NY Times was clearly very sloppy in their reporting, especially with respect to the manipulated texts.

Adding just read this article and it’s a joke.

In seriousness: why is it a joke? They talk to reputable people in PR and at law firms. They present a variety of possible scenarios. What about it is a joke? Where should I look for better analysis (by actual professionals who know the law and the industry, not just random anonymous DCUM or reddit posters who can say anything and assert they are experts even if they have no business weighing in)?

For example, they have five scenarios which include her winning but not him. PR people aren’t lawyers. Not one is doing analysis, they give two sentence conclusions. And the guy saying Baldoni sued the NY Times to deter further reporting missed the boat entirely, i.e., he is providing a quote on media coverage of the very subject. Another opinion is Blake wins because she is famous— wow, deep analysis!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said it before and I will repeat it again, Isabel, who played young Lily - her texts to Justin really hurts blakes case - she didn’t have to send them and she was over the top complementing him on how he ran the movie. I was actually shocked to see them there because it just goes against what Blake had reported.

Here’s the thing. A little after the movie wrapped, Jenny Slate published a book, and Blake went on Instagram raving about it. I’m sure you could still find the post. And Ryan did that mock take down of Brandon who played Atlas, pretended to be jealous. He even got his mom to join the bit. I’m sorry, but if you’re an actor trying to build a career, it certainly would help to have a video going viral of you having playful banter with Ryan Reynolds.

It seems like the cast was fine with Justin and they chose sides based on Blake and Ryan’s power. If not, somebody needs to show that there were other problems on set. I’ve seen none of that and it’s been a month.

100%. I thought this was really damning. If you haven't already, I encourage posters to read these texts. They are not from someone who observed any issues whatsoever on set, quite the opposite. It's worth noting this young actress also had intimate scenes which she thought Baldoni handled beautifully. I'm skeptical a sexual harasser would respect and pass over a nobody and go right after a big industry star. It's of course possible, but that would be highly unusual for an abuser.

But couldn't Isabel's texts to Justin be for precisely the same reasons you are alleging Jenny Slate backed Blake? Isabel had just filming her scenes on a fairly high profile movie and she kissed up to the director and told him how amazing he was because if he likes her it could benefit her career down the road -- he could cast her in another movie or he could recommend her to another director or his production company could produce something and think of her. Even if he was a pain to work with or handled the intimate scenes poorly, this is a very young actress in the early stages of her career and this is one of her first large-ish roles -- she would be far from the first actress to overlook questionable behavior by a director or other powerful person in order to exploit a connection for more work. Isn't that what everyone accuses Lively of having done with Weinstein?

One of my takeaways from all the correspondence in Baldoni's complaint is how freaking FAKE everyone sounds and how they are constantly all gushing over each other and telling one another how amazing they are and how important their work is. All of them. Blake, Justin, the producers at Wayfarer, even the editors Justin corresponded with when he was upset about Sony letting Lively screen her version of the movie without him. It really strikes me how the tone of everything is "we are all so amazing, this movie is so amazing, we are so important." Fake, fake, fake.

I think this aspect of Hollywood culture probably obscures a lot of what is happening. Like there is so much a$$-kissing and false intimacy in the way these people all communicate that I don't even know how you untangle that to figure out who did what to whom, or how you ever know how anyone actually feels about anything. What a nightmare. So glad I don't work in that industry.

Weren’t you the intimacy coordinator contract reviewer? And once again, arguing for Blake (but definitely not a shill!).

No I was not and I'm not arguing for Lively, just pointing out that if Slate may have backed Lively for self-interested reasons, then Isabel may have kissed up to Justin for the same reason. Where is the flaw in that logic?

The difference is one is a random text sent prior to litigation and the other is a pr statement after a lawsuit is filed,

Yes but why would their reasons be different. I would assume a text like the one Isabel sent to Justin is common in the industry because relationships matter so much. I would not assume it was an honest assessment of Isabel's actual opinion of Baldoni.

If it were a text from Isabel to a friend or her agent in which she said she had a great experience on the set and Baldoni was a wonderful director, that would very persuasive. But this seems like a standard "you're amazing, thank you for the opportunity [please think of me in the future and say good things about me to others]" message to someone you worked with. It doesn't feel broadly exonerating.

You are perpetually unable to see anything favorable to him, even when it is obvious, truly amazing. Do you hate all men or just him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

+1. the OB scene and “fat shaming” are two bigs ones rebutted by Baldoni. The intimacy coordination issue is a little harder to track, but Baldoni’s complaint casts a lot of doubt on the narrative that there was no intimacy coordination. Especially the part where Blake was refusing to meet with the intimacy coordinator, putting Baldoni in the position of having to relay what she said to Lively, then practice the scenes in Blake’s home with Ryan coming in and out. so in effect it was Blake making Baldoni uncomfortable by refusing to use the IC as intended…

The OB scene was not proven with evidence. Justin just gave his own version of events - now ee have two versions. Neiter are facts and niether have evidence. The fat shaming one may still be out of context - who knows or if there was other comments made. Just because it is in a complaint doesn't make it fact and the complaint itself isn't evidence.

Thanks babe, we are all lawyers here and know the difference between an allegation at the complaint and answer stage and a fact as determined by a finder of fact.

The person who gave the OB scene as an example of factual evidence clearly wasn't aware. And likely neither you nor most on are here lawyers. Look how many thought the Baldoni complaint was strong. It was a rambling mess.

maybe it was a strong rambling mess.

Blake said she was wearing a thin strip of material covering her genitals, Justin said she was wearing briefs. That isn't a gotcha moment that proves Blake was lying. I don't know what she was wearing, what exactly Justin's definitions of briefs are, how covered Blake felt or what exactly constitutes a thin strip of material. Briefs are underwear, I certainly have underwear that I would describe as not much more than a thin strip of material. If I was just in underwear and someone was up between my legs, I would probably descibe it the same ways as only having a thin strip of material between us.

As for the friend. Yes, his friend ended up in the Obgyn role. Yes his friend has done bit parts of acting in the past. Did his friend audition and try out for and get this role based on his acting merits? Who hired the friend? Did the friend hang out on the set on other days or only show up for his professional contracted onligations that he was hired to do? Or did Justin offer his friend a role in the movie given maybe he thought saying he was in a scene with Blake would help his career? And if that was the case, given Justin's porn addiction, it doesn't seem coincidental that he gave his friend the Obgyn role up between her legs - even if she had underwear on.

The point is - these descriptions by Justin are not documented proof that Blake was lying. I don't know if she was or she wasn't - but Justin's complaint didn't clear that up either.

He was a professional actor, with a masters degree in theater, who toured with a British theater company for decades, and yes, his bit parts are consistent, he’s worked as an actor for decades and been on dozens and dozens and dozens of sets. Bit parts like this are literally what he does for a living. His resume is very clear that it was perfectly appropriate to cast him in this role. 100 other people have previously done the same thing, but Justin’s in the wrong?

I absolutely don’t believe that he got off on being anywhere near Blake - he was doing his job. She sounds like a complete psycho.

Where do you get that he has worked consistently as an actor and been on dozens and dozens and dozens of sets?

According to IMDB he has been on
It Ends with Us (2024)
A podcast called Dark Air with Terry Carnation (2021)
The Last ship (one episode) (2016)
Castle (one episode) 2015
One episode appearances on four different shows in 2014
One episode apperances on two different shows in 2013
One episode apperance in 2012
One voice over role in 2010.

His own resume only lists 8 of these film/ tv appearances so he has been (in most cases very briefly with bit parts in one epsiode) on less than a dozen movie or tv sets in his lifetime. The last time before It Ends with Us as in 2016 on a tv set and he has only ever been on one movie set before. His resume lists a dozen or so theatre shows he has been in and two off broadway plays.

If Blake's claim is truthful, Justin introduced Adam as his best friend. They come from the same church so I doubt their friendship is falsified. As you saw from my post, there are a lot of possibilities as to how and why he ended up in this movie and in this scene.

you mean where you posited that it was some kind of involuntary porn show because Justin was addicted to porn and wanted to put on a show for his friend? GTFO.

I never posited that. I said he likely told his friend he could get him in the movie and even in a scene directly with Blake. And probably a wink wink about being the obgyn - a common storyline trope in porn. I never said anything about anyone creating a porn show or the friend getting aroused. You are just making up nonsense and you know that. Given your dozens and dozens of posts in this thread, your trolling is getting old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said it before and I will repeat it again, Isabel, who played young Lily - her texts to Justin really hurts blakes case - she didn’t have to send them and she was over the top complementing him on how he ran the movie. I was actually shocked to see them there because it just goes against what Blake had reported.

Here’s the thing. A little after the movie wrapped, Jenny Slate published a book, and Blake went on Instagram raving about it. I’m sure you could still find the post. And Ryan did that mock take down of Brandon who played Atlas, pretended to be jealous. He even got his mom to join the bit. I’m sorry, but if you’re an actor trying to build a career, it certainly would help to have a video going viral of you having playful banter with Ryan Reynolds.

It seems like the cast was fine with Justin and they chose sides based on Blake and Ryan’s power. If not, somebody needs to show that there were other problems on set. I’ve seen none of that and it’s been a month.

100%. I thought this was really damning. If you haven't already, I encourage posters to read these texts. They are not from someone who observed any issues whatsoever on set, quite the opposite. It's worth noting this young actress also had intimate scenes which she thought Baldoni handled beautifully. I'm skeptical a sexual harasser would respect and pass over a nobody and go right after a big industry star. It's of course possible, but that would be highly unusual for an abuser.

But couldn't Isabel's texts to Justin be for precisely the same reasons you are alleging Jenny Slate backed Blake? Isabel had just filming her scenes on a fairly high profile movie and she kissed up to the director and told him how amazing he was because if he likes her it could benefit her career down the road -- he could cast her in another movie or he could recommend her to another director or his production company could produce something and think of her. Even if he was a pain to work with or handled the intimate scenes poorly, this is a very young actress in the early stages of her career and this is one of her first large-ish roles -- she would be far from the first actress to overlook questionable behavior by a director or other powerful person in order to exploit a connection for more work. Isn't that what everyone accuses Lively of having done with Weinstein?

One of my takeaways from all the correspondence in Baldoni's complaint is how freaking FAKE everyone sounds and how they are constantly all gushing over each other and telling one another how amazing they are and how important their work is. All of them. Blake, Justin, the producers at Wayfarer, even the editors Justin corresponded with when he was upset about Sony letting Lively screen her version of the movie without him. It really strikes me how the tone of everything is "we are all so amazing, this movie is so amazing, we are so important." Fake, fake, fake.

I think this aspect of Hollywood culture probably obscures a lot of what is happening. Like there is so much a$$-kissing and false intimacy in the way these people all communicate that I don't even know how you untangle that to figure out who did what to whom, or how you ever know how anyone actually feels about anything. What a nightmare. So glad I don't work in that industry.

Weren’t you the intimacy coordinator contract reviewer? And once again, arguing for Blake (but definitely not a shill!).

No I was not and I'm not arguing for Lively, just pointing out that if Slate may have backed Lively for self-interested reasons, then Isabel may have kissed up to Justin for the same reason. Where is the flaw in that logic?

The difference is one is a random text sent prior to litigation and the other is a pr statement after a lawsuit is filed,

Yes but why would their reasons be different. I would assume a text like the one Isabel sent to Justin is common in the industry because relationships matter so much. I would not assume it was an honest assessment of Isabel's actual opinion of Baldoni.

If it were a text from Isabel to a friend or her agent in which she said she had a great experience on the set and Baldoni was a wonderful director, that would very persuasive. But this seems like a standard "you're amazing, thank you for the opportunity [please think of me in the future and say good things about me to others]" message to someone you worked with. It doesn't feel broadly exonerating.

You are perpetually unable to see anything favorable to him, even when it is obvious, truly amazing. Do you hate all men or just him?

I do? I posted upthread that I found his complaint very damaging to Lively's case. And that I find Lively's retaliation case specifically very weak. But I don't think this one text thread from an actress who was probably just very grateful for the opportunity to be somehow determinative of the whole case. It just sounds like what anyone would tell a director after working with him. I don't understand the comments saying "oh this one text is the key to the whole thing." It sounds fairly irrelevant to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

+1. the OB scene and “fat shaming” are two bigs ones rebutted by Baldoni. The intimacy coordination issue is a little harder to track, but Baldoni’s complaint casts a lot of doubt on the narrative that there was no intimacy coordination. Especially the part where Blake was refusing to meet with the intimacy coordinator, putting Baldoni in the position of having to relay what she said to Lively, then practice the scenes in Blake’s home with Ryan coming in and out. so in effect it was Blake making Baldoni uncomfortable by refusing to use the IC as intended…

The OB scene was not proven with evidence. Justin just gave his own version of events - now ee have two versions. Neiter are facts and niether have evidence. The fat shaming one may still be out of context - who knows or if there was other comments made. Just because it is in a complaint doesn't make it fact and the complaint itself isn't evidence.

Thanks babe, we are all lawyers here and know the difference between an allegation at the complaint and answer stage and a fact as determined by a finder of fact.

The person who gave the OB scene as an example of factual evidence clearly wasn't aware. And likely neither you nor most on are here lawyers. Look how many thought the Baldoni complaint was strong. It was a rambling mess.

maybe it was a strong rambling mess.

Blake said she was wearing a thin strip of material covering her genitals, Justin said she was wearing briefs. That isn't a gotcha moment that proves Blake was lying. I don't know what she was wearing, what exactly Justin's definitions of briefs are, how covered Blake felt or what exactly constitutes a thin strip of material. Briefs are underwear, I certainly have underwear that I would describe as not much more than a thin strip of material. If I was just in underwear and someone was up between my legs, I would probably descibe it the same ways as only having a thin strip of material between us.

As for the friend. Yes, his friend ended up in the Obgyn role. Yes his friend has done bit parts of acting in the past. Did his friend audition and try out for and get this role based on his acting merits? Who hired the friend? Did the friend hang out on the set on other days or only show up for his professional contracted onligations that he was hired to do? Or did Justin offer his friend a role in the movie given maybe he thought saying he was in a scene with Blake would help his career? And if that was the case, given Justin's porn addiction, it doesn't seem coincidental that he gave his friend the Obgyn role up between her legs - even if she had underwear on.

The point is - these descriptions by Justin are not documented proof that Blake was lying. I don't know if she was or she wasn't - but Justin's complaint didn't clear that up either.

He was a professional actor, with a masters degree in theater, who toured with a British theater company for decades, and yes, his bit parts are consistent, he’s worked as an actor for decades and been on dozens and dozens and dozens of sets. Bit parts like this are literally what he does for a living. His resume is very clear that it was perfectly appropriate to cast him in this role. 100 other people have previously done the same thing, but Justin’s in the wrong?

I absolutely don’t believe that he got off on being anywhere near Blake - he was doing his job. She sounds like a complete psycho.

Where do you get that he has worked consistently as an actor and been on dozens and dozens and dozens of sets?

According to IMDB he has been on
It Ends with Us (2024)
A podcast called Dark Air with Terry Carnation (2021)
The Last ship (one episode) (2016)
Castle (one episode) 2015
One episode appearances on four different shows in 2014
One episode apperances on two different shows in 2013
One episode apperance in 2012
One voice over role in 2010.

His own resume only lists 8 of these film/ tv appearances so he has been (in most cases very briefly with bit parts in one epsiode) on less than a dozen movie or tv sets in his lifetime. The last time before It Ends with Us as in 2016 on a tv set and he has only ever been on one movie set before. His resume lists a dozen or so theatre shows he has been in and two off broadway plays.

If Blake's claim is truthful, Justin introduced Adam as his best friend. They come from the same church so I doubt their friendship is falsified. As you saw from my post, there are a lot of possibilities as to how and why he ended up in this movie and in this scene.

you mean where you posited that it was some kind of involuntary porn show because Justin was addicted to porn and wanted to put on a show for his friend? GTFO.

I never posited that. I said he likely told his friend he could get him in the movie and even in a scene directly with Blake. And probably a wink wink about being the obgyn - a common storyline trope in porn. I never said anything about anyone creating a porn show or the friend getting aroused. You are just making up nonsense and you know that. Given your dozens and dozens of posts in this thread, your trolling is getting old.

Fanfic about a harassment complaint - that’s a new one!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, the smear campaign, coordinated or not, that showed past clips of her being difficult, smug, a jerk etc. maybe they coordinated the digging up of those clips, but she was rude in all those clips and that is on her. She seems entitled and difficult and has a shit ton of power over other due to her status and wealth as Ryan Reynolds wife.

They didn't though. That's the funny part! All of the bad press Blake got was 100% her own doing. They may have had a plan to do it, but they didn't have to.