Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

No wonder Taylor is distancing herself. Blake says the other women who felt uncomfortable will be revealed in discovery and will tell their stories at the deposition. I don't see anyone asking to be part of her narrative. It's this power imbalance where Blake is dragging other women in this suit to corroborate her claims, when they have been otherwise reluctant to come forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, I think Blake forgot that she was supposed to be ACTING in this film. If you choose to ACT in films, there may perhaps be scenes in which, in real life, you may feel uncomfortable. But this wasn’t real life, it was a fantasy, a story trying to be portrayed.

She essentially didn’t approve of the way Ryle’s character was being portrayed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the girls are ganging up on Justin. Blake convince them into thinking it was an ‘uncomfortable’ environment.

Is making people uncomfortable criminal tough? It seems to muddle her point, like she's adding a laundry list of complaints because her initial point isn't strong.

It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge. The question is whether he violated what is reasonable, not whether he committed a crime.

And in a hostile work environment claim, it will always be a "laundry list" be abuse she's not alleging that he coerced her into quid pro quo (which would be sexual harassment even if it never happened again) but that Baldoni and Heath created an environment that was, yes, "uncomfortable" for women on the set. And yes, discomfort would be enough if they can show multiple women experienced it and that multiple requests were made to change the behavior but that it persisted.

So yes, in this case, making several women feel uncomfortable would be enough to prove harassment. That's a form of harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the girls are ganging up on Justin. Blake convince them into thinking it was an ‘uncomfortable’ environment.

Is making people uncomfortable criminal tough? It seems to muddle her point, like she's adding a laundry list of complaints because her initial point isn't strong.

It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge. The question is whether he violated what is reasonable, not whether he committed a crime.

And in a hostile work environment claim, it will always be a "laundry list" be abuse she's not alleging that he coerced her into quid pro quo (which would be sexual harassment even if it never happened again) but that Baldoni and Heath created an environment that was, yes, "uncomfortable" for women on the set. And yes, discomfort would be enough if they can show multiple women experienced it and that multiple requests were made to change the behavior but that it persisted.

So yes, in this case, making several women feel uncomfortable would be enough to prove harassment. That's a form of harassment.

Who declined having an IC? Blake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No wonder Taylor is distancing herself. Blake says the other women who felt uncomfortable will be revealed in discovery and will tell their stories at the deposition. I don't see anyone asking to be part of her narrative. It's this power imbalance where Blake is dragging other women in this suit to corroborate her claims, when they have been otherwise reluctant to come forward.

I don't think she is dragging them in. If they didn't have these experiences, then they could just say "no, that's not how I remember it" and she's be stuck. Especially at this point where participating is going to expose you to harassment online (Slate and Sklenar have already experienced that). If they didn't want to participate, they could refuse to do so with no negative consequences.

If they testify to Baldoni saying/doing inappropriate things in set, creating a hostile environment, it is because that's what happened to them. Stop stripping these other people of agency. Right now, Blake's and Ryan's reps, publicly, are at a low point. Yet these people are still willing to testify to this. That's a sign that there really was something wrong in that set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the girls are ganging up on Justin. Blake convince them into thinking it was an ‘uncomfortable’ environment.

Is making people uncomfortable criminal tough? It seems to muddle her point, like she's adding a laundry list of complaints because her initial point isn't strong.

It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge. The question is whether he violated what is reasonable, not whether he committed a crime.

And in a hostile work environment claim, it will always be a "laundry list" be abuse she's not alleging that he coerced her into quid pro quo (which would be sexual harassment even if it never happened again) but that Baldoni and Heath created an environment that was, yes, "uncomfortable" for women on the set. And yes, discomfort would be enough if they can show multiple women experienced it and that multiple requests were made to change the behavior but that it persisted.

So yes, in this case, making several women feel uncomfortable would be enough to prove harassment. That's a form of harassment.

Who declined having an IC? Blake?

No, no one ever declined to have an IC. Baldoni doesn't even allege that. Lively declined one pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss the sex scenes. That's not the same thing as declining an IC altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No wonder Taylor is distancing herself. Blake says the other women who felt uncomfortable will be revealed in discovery and will tell their stories at the deposition. I don't see anyone asking to be part of her narrative. It's this power imbalance where Blake is dragging other women in this suit to corroborate her claims, when they have been otherwise reluctant to come forward.

I don't think she is dragging them in. If they didn't have these experiences, then they could just say "no, that's not how I remember it" and she's be stuck. Especially at this point where participating is going to expose you to harassment online (Slate and Sklenar have already experienced that). If they didn't want to participate, they could refuse to do so with no negative consequences.

If they testify to Baldoni saying/doing inappropriate things in set, creating a hostile environment, it is because that's what happened to them. Stop stripping these other people of agency. Right now, Blake's and Ryan's reps, publicly, are at a low point. Yet these people are still willing to testify to this. That's a sign that there really was something wrong in that set.

If this is true, why did Blake refuse to meet with an IC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the girls are ganging up on Justin. Blake convince them into thinking it was an ‘uncomfortable’ environment.

Is making people uncomfortable criminal tough? It seems to muddle her point, like she's adding a laundry list of complaints because her initial point isn't strong.

It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge. The question is whether he violated what is reasonable, not whether he committed a crime.

And in a hostile work environment claim, it will always be a "laundry list" be abuse she's not alleging that he coerced her into quid pro quo (which would be sexual harassment even if it never happened again) but that Baldoni and Heath created an environment that was, yes, "uncomfortable" for women on the set. And yes, discomfort would be enough if they can show multiple women experienced it and that multiple requests were made to change the behavior but that it persisted.

So yes, in this case, making several women feel uncomfortable would be enough to prove harassment. That's a form of harassment.

Who declined having an IC? Blake?

No, no one ever declined to have an IC. Baldoni doesn't even allege that. Lively declined one pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss the sex scenes. That's not the same thing as declining an IC altogether.

She wasn’t initially able to meet with the IC thus the IC was eliminated. Why didn’t she insist on meeting with IC at a later time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, I think Blake forgot that she was supposed to be ACTING in this film. If you choose to ACT in films, there may perhaps be scenes in which, in real life, you may feel uncomfortable. But this wasn’t real life, it was a fantasy, a story trying to be portrayed.

A clip from Clifford Big Red dog was circulating yesterday on who is to act and who is to direct. Some TikToker put it up: https://www.tiktok.com/@cake_n_tyla/video/7472448943847116062

This is story on it if don’t want to click on TikTok link itself:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/clifford-big-red-dog-episode-181543042.html

“ @cake_n_tyla captioned the clip, "POV: If Blake Lively watched this episode of 'Clifford,' she could have saved $400M!"

The episode, titled "Making A Movie!", features a scene where Emily Elizabeth, one of the show's main characters, checks in on her friend Sam, who appears visibly frustrated.

"Oh no, Sam, are you okay?" Emily Elizabeth asks, to which Sam replies, "I'm just... I mean, I'm the director. I had everything planned out for my movie, and well, you sort of just took over."

Emily Elizabeth then apologizes, saying, "I'm sorry, Sam. I was just trying to help."

Sam responds, "I know, but the director is the leader."

Realizing her mistake, Emily Elizabeth admits, "You're right, I did take over, I'm sorry. And you know, Sam, I am not a very good director."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, I think Blake forgot that she was supposed to be ACTING in this film. If you choose to ACT in films, there may perhaps be scenes in which, in real life, you may feel uncomfortable. But this wasn’t real life, it was a fantasy, a story trying to be portrayed.

A clip from Clifford Big Red dog was circulating yesterday on who is to act and who is to direct. Some TikToker put it up: https://www.tiktok.com/@cake_n_tyla/video/7472448943847116062

This is story on it if don’t want to click on TikTok link itself:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/clifford-big-red-dog-episode-181543042.html

“ @cake_n_tyla captioned the clip, "POV: If Blake Lively watched this episode of 'Clifford,' she could have saved $400M!"

The episode, titled "Making A Movie!", features a scene where Emily Elizabeth, one of the show's main characters, checks in on her friend Sam, who appears visibly frustrated.

"Oh no, Sam, are you okay?" Emily Elizabeth asks, to which Sam replies, "I'm just... I mean, I'm the director. I had everything planned out for my movie, and well, you sort of just took over."

Emily Elizabeth then apologizes, saying, "I'm sorry, Sam. I was just trying to help."

Sam responds, "I know, but the director is the leader."

Realizing her mistake, Emily Elizabeth admits, "You're right, I did take over, I'm sorry. And you know, Sam, I am not a very good director."

That’s cute. The IC safety net was never implemented. Blake is solely to blame for this. She skipped or missed the meeting with the IC and then agreed to proceed with filming anyhow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone on here has posted about Liz Plank (and what she knows) and so I wanted to drop this here. This article shares an Instagram post that makes it look like Plank was the reason Lively was cast in It End With Us. So sounds like she knew both of them before all this went down.

https://fandomwire.com/justin-baldonis-former-friend-is-the-reason-why-blake-lively-bagged-it-ends-with-us-role/#google_vignette

It will be really interesting to see whether all these women also had issues with Baldoni, or whether Lively worked to get them on her side because she didn’t like Baldoni.

Just one additional comment: that would suggest that plank did not herself have issues with Justin, at least until after talking to Blake.

Maybe, maybe not. Are they friends or did Plank just meet her at an event or something? Or just know if her and think she would be good.

A while back, I went and watched an episode of their podcast with just Plank and Heath, that came out I think in the spring of 2024. It was... weird. I watched it because it was about consent and dating and I was curious if Heath would say anything that could be interesting to this case. I did find his comments on consent to be interesting -- neither damning nor vindicating, just interesting (he was very interested in the idea of what a man can perceive as consent, which I think is a valid way to come at it as a man trying to understand what's okay and what isn't). But Plank's comments in that podcast make me think she'd be very against the stuff Baldoni/Heath are alleged to have done, even if a court didn't rule it as harassment. I think she'd come down on Lively's side regarding the birth scene and the the kissing scenes, for instance. Just based on her own positions on how consent works.

So I'm not convinced Lively "turned" Plank. I think she was I the awkward position of co-hosting a podcast with people who may have done things she, personally, think cross a line. Make of that what you will.

There is speculation that Ryan Reynolds helped turn plank because he’s given her some business opportunities. He featured her in a Wrexham episode, not sure why, and there was one other link, connecting them together. People have been speculating that because he’s such a big Hollywood player, she wanted to choose his versus Baldoni.

I lost all respect for her and think she’s fake as hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone on here has posted about Liz Plank (and what she knows) and so I wanted to drop this here. This article shares an Instagram post that makes it look like Plank was the reason Lively was cast in It End With Us. So sounds like she knew both of them before all this went down.

https://fandomwire.com/justin-baldonis-former-friend-is-the-reason-why-blake-lively-bagged-it-ends-with-us-role/#google_vignette

It will be really interesting to see whether all these women also had issues with Baldoni, or whether Lively worked to get them on her side because she didn’t like Baldoni.

Just one additional comment: that would suggest that plank did not herself have issues with Justin, at least until after talking to Blake.

Maybe, maybe not. Are they friends or did Plank just meet her at an event or something? Or just know if her and think she would be good.

A while back, I went and watched an episode of their podcast with just Plank and Heath, that came out I think in the spring of 2024. It was... weird. I watched it because it was about consent and dating and I was curious if Heath would say anything that could be interesting to this case. I did find his comments on consent to be interesting -- neither damning nor vindicating, just interesting (he was very interested in the idea of what a man can perceive as consent, which I think is a valid way to come at it as a man trying to understand what's okay and what isn't). But Plank's comments in that podcast make me think she'd be very against the stuff Baldoni/Heath are alleged to have done, even if a court didn't rule it as harassment. I think she'd come down on Lively's side regarding the birth scene and the the kissing scenes, for instance. Just based on her own positions on how consent works.

So I'm not convinced Lively "turned" Plank. I think she was I the awkward position of co-hosting a podcast with people who may have done things she, personally, think cross a line. Make of that what you will.

There is speculation that Ryan Reynolds helped turn plank because he’s given her some business opportunities. He featured her in a Wrexham episode, not sure why, and there was one other link, connecting them together. People have been speculating that because he’s such a big Hollywood player, she wanted to choose his versus Baldoni.

I lost all respect for her and think she’s fake as hell.

She’s a special snowflake just like Blake.

[Anonymous]

I just think there’s still a lot of he said / she said. It’s impossible to state unequivocally in either direction because we don’t have the full picture. You can only guess which you think makes the most sense to you at this point in time.

It’s possible Heath and Baldoni made multiple women uncomfortable through a series of tone deaf actions; it’s possible Baldoni offended one woman with a personality disorder by not loving her script, talking to her about her clothes, and so on. It doesn’t seem like it was an elaborate takeover scheme to me. But if Lively has narcissistic/controlling tendencies, she may well have felt justified in taking it over. Both options are on the table and can’t be ruled out at this time.

I think we’ll have to wait for the trial. I know it won’t stop people from debating endlessly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No wonder Taylor is distancing herself. Blake says the other women who felt uncomfortable will be revealed in discovery and will tell their stories at the deposition. I don't see anyone asking to be part of her narrative. It's this power imbalance where Blake is dragging other women in this suit to corroborate her claims, when they have been otherwise reluctant to come forward.

I don't think she is dragging them in. If they didn't have these experiences, then they could just say "no, that's not how I remember it" and she's be stuck. Especially at this point where participating is going to expose you to harassment online (Slate and Sklenar have already experienced that). If they didn't want to participate, they could refuse to do so with no negative consequences.

If they testify to Baldoni saying/doing inappropriate things in set, creating a hostile environment, it is because that's what happened to them. Stop stripping these other people of agency. Right now, Blake's and Ryan's reps, publicly, are at a low point. Yet these people are still willing to testify to this. That's a sign that there really was something wrong in that set.

That depends on what they are complaining about. If it was something that moves the needle, it would have been in the complaint. That’s how litigation works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the girls are ganging up on Justin. Blake convince them into thinking it was an ‘uncomfortable’ environment.

Is making people uncomfortable criminal tough? It seems to muddle her point, like she's adding a laundry list of complaints because her initial point isn't strong.

It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal charge. The question is whether he violated what is reasonable, not whether he committed a crime.

And in a hostile work environment claim, it will always be a "laundry list" be abuse she's not alleging that he coerced her into quid pro quo (which would be sexual harassment even if it never happened again) but that Baldoni and Heath created an environment that was, yes, "uncomfortable" for women on the set. And yes, discomfort would be enough if they can show multiple women experienced it and that multiple requests were made to change the behavior but that it persisted.

So yes, in this case, making several women feel uncomfortable would be enough to prove harassment. That's a form of harassment.

Who declined having an IC? Blake?

No, no one ever declined to have an IC. Baldoni doesn't even allege that. Lively declined one pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss the sex scenes. That's not the same thing as declining an IC altogether.

It’s not, but it set Justin Baldoni up a bit - you can’t deny that. He was forced to relay handwritten notes to Blake and she use them against him.

Also, I don’t understand why people don’t get that in a movie of this budget, really any budget but especially one with a budget of 25 million which is not big for a Hollywood movie, you just don’t have an IC constantly waiting in the wings to come out and meet with people. She is a contracted position and they probably had her contracted for a few meetings. If Blake missed those meetings, there’s no guarantee that she can come back again. She’s probably contracted on other movies. So yes, it is a problem that Blake missed meetings and people keep dismissing that as if it is nothing, but it actually is really relevant.

Just like many things, it seems like Blake constantly set people up. Inviting people into the trailer while she was breast-feeding or pumping and then later, turning around as if people did something inappropriate.

Refusing to follow directions in scenes that the director wanted, and then claiming things were unscripted. She has a pattern of doing this.