Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really don't think the text thing matters. Is there any evidence that what is in those messages isn't true? They don't seem to have any evidence that Sloane planted stories about Baldoni, leaked negative or false stories about him, etc. Not even examples of stories that they are accusing her of planting.

In light of that, even if the text conversation was planned to "create a paper trail" -- isn't it also true? It looks like they did not plant any negative stories about Baldoni. Isn't that the relevant issue?

They did plant stories. They told the press the whole cast hated him, among other things. Sloane doesn’t deny it. She said it wasn’t defamation because it was true.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really curious how this movie made so much money. It’s currently grossed over $350 million, which is a crazy amount for a domestic violence film. Baldwin has come nowhere close to these numbers — Five Feet Apart grossed 45 million but Clouds grossed far less, I can’t even find real numbers but maybe only $2 million? Lively’s A Simple Favor (I) with Kendrick grossed about $100 million. I don’t think Hoover’s ever come close to this before. Was the success in fact from all the controversy? Was Reynold’s promotion firm really successful here? $350 million is a lot of viewers.

Maybe this was the plan all along, sort of reverse psychology. Even negative attention is better than no attention.

No,no. You guys are missing that Colleen Hoover‘s book was hugely popular. People have been waiting for this movie to be made for years and there was a lot of attention on it as soon as it was announced. She has a ginormous fan base. Another one of her books, verity, is being made with Anne Hathaway, Josh Hartnett, and Dakota Johnson.

I personally don’t understand the popularity of the books, but she is a huge deal. This was a really covered role that Blake scored.

Sorry, should say coveted role.

I mean, okay, but Come. On. Three past Hoover books have been made into movies: Ugly Love, Confess, and Maybe Someday, and none of them have made anywhere near this much money. I don't think I've heard of them, even. Not that fans may not have been looking out for this one, particularly, but are you really saying that would get the movie to $350M? I think It Ends With Us sold one or two million last year - that's not really getting into the half-of-a-Marvel-movie where the film's gross wound up, as far as I'm aware.

Anne Hathaway is an Oscar winner. SHe has her pick of any roles. The fact that she’s doing verity means these movies are going to be seen. I think you are really over estimating Blake here and really underestimating the machine that is Colleen Hoover.

It's being made by Amazon studios, though, and it's not yet clear if it's getting a theater release. It may be streaming only. Hathaway's last movie (The Idea of You) was a streaming-only feature on Prime, and she also was one of the big names who did an episode of their Modern Love series a few years ago (Tina Fey also did an episode, there were other A-list type people in it). She also starred in that WeCrashed series about the WeWork people -- I don't think that was Amazon though, maybe Max? Still a streaming product.

Streaming makes it much harder to evaluate the market for actor's box office power these days. Lots of big stars do streaming-only movies and limited series these days, and the streamers spend HUGE money on those productions right now, so it can be quite lucrative for the creators involved. But unlike a film with a theater release, you never get the kind of clear numbers with streaming products -- the streamers don't even release a transparent list of top streamed shows or movies (they release these partial lists but it's often not even clear what they represent because there are lots of ways to count something as "viewed" that don't necessarily equate to a ticket sale in a movie theater).

All of which is not to say that Colleen Hoover is not a lucrative product right now -- obviously she's having a moment and studios like that her book adaptations have a build in audience. In fact the success of IEWU actually makes it more likely that Verity will get a theater release of some kind. But I also think you can argue that IEWU outperformed expectations even knowing it was a popular Hoover book with a decent following. One thing I will note is that international box office accounted for over 200m of its box office -- that's huge. I think Hoover might have a decent following in Europe, but also Lively went out of her way to go promote the film in London (attended the London premiere in person and paid for Ferrer to accompany her to it on Lively's own dime -- not sure if Lively also paid for her own travel/lodging for that premiere as well). I think you can argue that Lively played an important role in the success of the movie given it's international success, because of her willingness to go the extra mile on the promotional tour and also because of her recognizability to an international audience thanks to both Gossip Girl and her association with Reynolds. She's also a fashion darling and may receive more pressing Europe because of that -- her relationship with Vogue and certain designers (including Versace who did a lot of her clothes for the promotional tour for IEWU) is pretty well known among people interested in fashion.

She’s a fashion nightmare but ok

PP here and I personally don't like her style but that's beside the point. She's got good relationships with designers and fashion editors including a really good relationship with Vogue. She did the Vogue cover in September to coincide with the release of IEWU (the September issue comes out in August, and also is considered the most important issue of the year so the cover is a big get). She's hosted the Met Gala more than once and tends to be more involved and get better reviews than most celebrity hosts. She is a frequent front row guest at both Paris and New York fashion weeks and has attended Paris FW with Anna Wintour which is a weird special honor that tends to go to this very small group of actresses who Wintour dotes on (Emma Stone would be another actress in this group).

I find her personal fashion kind of obvious BUT it's true she famously does not work with a stylist and that she generally looks great on red carpets, which means she does know something because that's really hard to do -- not just because it requires understanding what looks good and how to put the whole look together, but it's also a logistics challenge because it means she has to have the relationships directly with designers and know how to manage the kind of political/interpersonal aspect of it which is more complicated than you might realize.

All of which is to say that Lively has some special attributes as an actress that would make her especially appealing from a box office standpoint for a movie with a primarily female audience in the 18-35 and 35-50 demographics -- those overlap perfectly with the audience for fashion content whether you are talking about Vogue magazine or In Style or just people who pay close attention to fashion blogs and red carpet events. And given IEWU's international box office, I would bet that her willingness to go abroad to promote the movie, to wear big name fashion and do red carpet events in London where it's going to get picked up by European fashion press who are already very familiar with her, translates to actual money for the studio in a very real way. Ever magazine article, blog post, and social media photo of Lively wearing big name fashion on a red carpet while promoting the movie is worth a lot of exposure that it could be hard to get with another actress. It's real value she brings to the project.

I mean, sure if you like tons of gaudy bangles and large chunky earrings, and colorful mismatched prints. It’s trying a little too hard and outdated but whatever floats your boat. With the huge hair, huge white teeth, huge silicone breasts…less is probably more. She’s like her bff TS, far from a style icon. This is partly why I fail to see Europeans following her, as they tend to have more sophisticated low key style generally.

Lol to the idea that Europeans as a group have "sophisticated, low key" style. American fashion is much more stripped down and low key when compared to what comes out of Europe, with the excess of the couture houses as well as all the avant garde fashion that comes out of London/Paris/Copenhagen. European fashion is not low key at all. Sophistication is in the eye of the beholder.

Europeans in general are not wearing avant garde high fashion couture on the daily.

You are really missing the point. It doesn't matter what Europeans wear daily. The point is that Lively will get quite a bit of press in Europe by showing up to events there and wearing designers like Stella McCartney and Tamara Ralph. Her outfit for the London premier got a ton of play in the fashion/celebrity press both in the UK/EU and in the US because it was eye popping and beautiful -- it made for a very pretty picture which makes it easy for photo editors to grab it and use it because it will attract eyeballs.

I'm sure there are plenty of Europeans who would roll their eyes at it and never wear anything like it (or the oversized white McCartney suit she wore as well) and find it tacky. I find it tacky! But Lively understands the fashion world and the fashion press and she definitely worked that knowledge to the best of her ability to sell this movie, which might be why it over performed at the box office so much.

Blake needs a stylist asap, but her bad sense of style is a type of karma, so just let it go.

Not that I understand fashion but what on earth does the bolder mean?

Is anything really bad taste anymore? In RL for sure but celebrities and pop musicians get away with some really bizarre outfits.

She was fat in her SNL corset, and all the slap and veneers and piles of jewelry make it all worse.

Not a BL fan but she looked pretty. I could also see her staying a little bigger to help her case ie that she was fat shamed. Keep in mind what looks bigger on camera would be considered super skinny in the real world. We should all like to look like her.

Are you serious? OMG, just no.

DP. Blake’s pretty. Silly to say otherwise just because she’s ugly on the inside.

DP, can you knock it off? It’s legitimately okay for people to not find any one person pretty.

I will say that Blake is interesting and a little cute by Hollywoods standards. But for her height and size, i would look to a few other ladies as style icons.

She’s a mom of 4, etc, etc. Melanie has a great stylist. Always nails it. And she’s a mom. So is Ivanka. Mom of 3 and looks classy . And no I am not Maga.

Rihanna is tall and about Blake’s age. Mom of 2 toddlers. Rich and dresses cool as heck. Has her own brand. Rihanna rocks Hollywood cool and sexy and all of that. And she does prints the right way!

Laura Dern, Brooke and many more.

I think the challenge that I have with Blake’s style it’s all over the place. Just not very sophisticated overall. But hey, that’s her thing.

Forgot Margot, Charlize, Emma, Cate… Julia and Angelina with more weight.

I guess Blake is okay, but IMO, there are so many other tall, sort of bigger women that carry style really well. Maybe they work with stylists, or maybe they just have great fashion sense. Dunno, but it works.

They have stylists for sure.

Yeah, they aren’t dumb. They are all more respected for their work which of course means they are more collaborative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't think the text thing matters. Is there any evidence that what is in those messages isn't true? They don't seem to have any evidence that Sloane planted stories about Baldoni, leaked negative or false stories about him, etc. Not even examples of stories that they are accusing her of planting.

In light of that, even if the text conversation was planned to "create a paper trail" -- isn't it also true? It looks like they did not plant any negative stories about Baldoni. Isn't that the relevant issue?

They did plant stories. They told the press the whole cast hated him, among other things. Sloane doesn’t deny it. She said it wasn’t defamation because it was true.

That wasn't a planned story. She was responding to a reporter asking what was going on with him being iced out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a YouTube video that called out something really interesting in Leslie Sloane’s filing. She includes text messages between she and Ryan where he’s explicitly telling her not to smear Justin. However, the problem is she starts the text “Hi, it’s Les” even though she’s been his PR for a decade. No one starts a text like that with someone they know (her number should be in his phone and if it wasn’t he wouldn’t have responded without verifying). Dead give away that they were creating a paper trail for their alibi. The rest of it reads very much like an alibi. Fascinating.

You are nuts. If I haven’t texted someone in a while and I know they text a lot of people I start with a “hi it’s [my name]. Especially not crazy where as here it’s Ryan Reynolds.

Agree it's a huge leap.

Also having known fame-adjacent people, I would not be surprised at all if they use multiple phones or often have an assistant handling their phone. If this was mid-August, it would have been right in the midst of Reynolds doing press with Lively for IEWU plus continuing to promote Deadpool, plus Welcome to Wrexham was nominated for an Emmy right around that time as well. Ryan Reynolds was not sitting in his office checking texts between reading emails and working on a document. He was traveling constantly promoting multiple projects. It is entirely reasonable that anyone who works with him is in the habit of identifying themselves when texting, sorry.

You know how a lot of people don't believe Lively because they feel she doesn't have enough "hard evidence" of inappopriate things happening on set? Well speculation like this is NOT hard evidence. It's flimsy sht. Come on.

Just checked and the screenshots appear to be from Ryan’s phone and the contact is labeled Leslie.

That her number is programmed into this phone now doesn’t mean it was programmed in then when the text was made (unless it was a photo of the text taken back in August? Which would seem weird to me and suggest maybe they were creating some story).

But in any case, SHE doesn’t necessarily know if her number is programmed into his phone. This whole thing is just a super big stretch to make something normal seem fishy. You guys take the smallest thing and turn it into a circus. This level of crazy makes the rest of your arguments suspect.

But again, if it was her phone (as opposed to someone else’s) and her number wasn’t in his phone at the time, wouldn’t he verify first, no? What celebrity texts back and forth with a random unknown number.

Seems like the “it’s Les” took care of that, and then the context of them knowing what each other were talking about through the rest of the conversation. So this doesn’t seem weird to me. If she said “it’s Les” and then asked something weird, he would check harder, or just stop responding, I’d think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a YouTube video that called out something really interesting in Leslie Sloane’s filing. She includes text messages between she and Ryan where he’s explicitly telling her not to smear Justin. However, the problem is she starts the text “Hi, it’s Les” even though she’s been his PR for a decade. No one starts a text like that with someone they know (her number should be in his phone and if it wasn’t he wouldn’t have responded without verifying). Dead give away that they were creating a paper trail for their alibi. The rest of it reads very much like an alibi. Fascinating.

This is a legit good catch. Color me impressed.

Except it’s built on sketchy assumption - I send messages all the time to good friends saying Hi It’s (insert nick name) - that did not look fishy to me at all

We obviously need more evidence (like everything in this case) but it doesn’t look great. Context will be the give away. Was it a new number, was it someone else’s phone and she jumped on? They’ll find out in discovery, but if none of those things are true it looks crazy. The overall thread reads like an alibi. Ryan says something like “remember I also told you in Denmark not to say anything” and she says something like “I haven’t per your instructions”. I’m paraphrasing but that’s the gist. Let’s hope the trial is televised lol lol

I mean i give them some credit for having a few brain cells between them unlike Nathan and Abel texting about how they can't put anything in writing! These people are all so dumb RR must be the genius mastermind.

The bigger issue to me is some of the texts were screenshots and others were written out. Makes the written out ones look made up or altered.

Blake's amended complaint does a lot of that and then states whoever was on the text agreed with her.

It’s all lies and insinuation and bullsht. The foundation of her claims so obviously has rot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't think the text thing matters. Is there any evidence that what is in those messages isn't true? They don't seem to have any evidence that Sloane planted stories about Baldoni, leaked negative or false stories about him, etc. Not even examples of stories that they are accusing her of planting.

In light of that, even if the text conversation was planned to "create a paper trail" -- isn't it also true? It looks like they did not plant any negative stories about Baldoni. Isn't that the relevant issue?

They did plant stories. They told the press the whole cast hated him, among other things. Sloane doesn’t deny it. She said it wasn’t defamation because it was true.

That wasn't a planned story. She was responding to a reporter asking what was going on with him being iced out.

The reporter texted her that he heard Blake was difficult on set, not that Justin was iced out. To take the heat off Blake, she gave them a different story, that Justin was the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a YouTube video that called out something really interesting in Leslie Sloane’s filing. She includes text messages between she and Ryan where he’s explicitly telling her not to smear Justin. However, the problem is she starts the text “Hi, it’s Les” even though she’s been his PR for a decade. No one starts a text like that with someone they know (her number should be in his phone and if it wasn’t he wouldn’t have responded without verifying). Dead give away that they were creating a paper trail for their alibi. The rest of it reads very much like an alibi. Fascinating.

+1. It’s deeply obvious, to me, lawyers were coaching these two evil scammers from the get-go. This was a well orchestrated scheme. They figured they would bury him and it’d be an easy scalp and power grab as they segue to Hollywood moguls. They never in a million years expected a relatively unknown guy like him to have kept his own receipts, fight back, and for millions of people to organically take his side.

Now she’s probably the most hated woman in America right now. Hubby is repulsive. Two lying scam artists. The average fan will never trust or support either of them ever again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a YouTube video that called out something really interesting in Leslie Sloane’s filing. She includes text messages between she and Ryan where he’s explicitly telling her not to smear Justin. However, the problem is she starts the text “Hi, it’s Les” even though she’s been his PR for a decade. No one starts a text like that with someone they know (her number should be in his phone and if it wasn’t he wouldn’t have responded without verifying). Dead give away that they were creating a paper trail for their alibi. The rest of it reads very much like an alibi. Fascinating.

You are nuts. If I haven’t texted someone in a while and I know they text a lot of people I start with a “hi it’s [my name]. Especially not crazy where as here it’s Ryan Reynolds.

Agree it's a huge leap.

Also having known fame-adjacent people, I would not be surprised at all if they use multiple phones or often have an assistant handling their phone. If this was mid-August, it would have been right in the midst of Reynolds doing press with Lively for IEWU plus continuing to promote Deadpool, plus Welcome to Wrexham was nominated for an Emmy right around that time as well. Ryan Reynolds was not sitting in his office checking texts between reading emails and working on a document. He was traveling constantly promoting multiple projects. It is entirely reasonable that anyone who works with him is in the habit of identifying themselves when texting, sorry.

You know how a lot of people don't believe Lively because they feel she doesn't have enough "hard evidence" of inappopriate things happening on set? Well speculation like this is NOT hard evidence. It's flimsy sht. Come on.

Just checked and the screenshots appear to be from Ryan’s phone and the contact is labeled Leslie.

That her number is programmed into this phone now doesn’t mean it was programmed in then when the text was made (unless it was a photo of the text taken back in August? Which would seem weird to me and suggest maybe they were creating some story).

But in any case, SHE doesn’t necessarily know if her number is programmed into his phone. This whole thing is just a super big stretch to make something normal seem fishy. You guys take the smallest thing and turn it into a circus. This level of crazy makes the rest of your arguments suspect.

But again, if it was her phone (as opposed to someone else’s) and her number wasn’t in his phone at the time, wouldn’t he verify first, no? What celebrity texts back and forth with a random unknown number.

Seems like the “it’s Les” took care of that, and then the context of them knowing what each other were talking about through the rest of the conversation. So this doesn’t seem weird to me. If she said “it’s Les” and then asked something weird, he would check harder, or just stop responding, I’d think.

It’s obviously not natural communication. Looks like it was copied and pasted from something a lawyer drafted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a YouTube video that called out something really interesting in Leslie Sloane’s filing. She includes text messages between she and Ryan where he’s explicitly telling her not to smear Justin. However, the problem is she starts the text “Hi, it’s Les” even though she’s been his PR for a decade. No one starts a text like that with someone they know (her number should be in his phone and if it wasn’t he wouldn’t have responded without verifying). Dead give away that they were creating a paper trail for their alibi. The rest of it reads very much like an alibi. Fascinating.

+1. It’s deeply obvious, to me, lawyers were coaching these two evil scammers from the get-go. This was a well orchestrated scheme. They figured they would bury him and it’d be an easy scalp and power grab as they segue to Hollywood moguls. They never in a million years expected a relatively unknown guy like him to have kept his own receipts, fight back, and for millions of people to organically take his side.

Now she’s probably the most hated woman in America right now. Hubby is repulsive. Two lying scam artists. The average fan will never trust or support either of them ever again.

I don't know, so far, he's produced his text messages and footage from the film. It's not so unbelievable that he has those sort of receipts. Most people don't wipe their text messages. She understands that cameras are rolling when they're on set. He put it all together on that website in a very compelling way, but it's not at all shocking to me he has those records. In particular with that dancing scene footage, while she knew that it was going to be overlaid with music, I'm very surprised an experienced film actress didn't know she was mic'ed and that sound would be recorded. She should have expected them to have that footage and she knows Wayfarer's co-founder is extremely wealthy and would fight back legally. So I'm left like... are Blake and Ryan getting bad advice or is she just delusional or does she really honestly believe in her case?

[Anonymous]

I will never believe ever that Ryan Reynolds legitimately requested PR to not attack Baldoni. Sloane, Lively and Reynolds all have lieabetes and it’s going to kill at least 2 of their careers. Square that request with Nicepool. Square that request with having his crazy mother say obscenity-laden comeons to the guy playing Atlas and also say “call me Blake” as part of that nonsense promo for the film while that same week having JB and his family separated at the premiere for his film. It doesn’t make sense because it’s a lie.

It’s all lies. This is an important thing to remember. Lies. This is not a novel case excepting maybe maybe the NYT arguments. These are liars who got the surprise of their lives when their victim fought back hard.

[Anonymous]

Baldoni sure did fight pretty hard to get Lively to be topless in a birth scene, even though birth scenes really aren’t shot that way and he was totally springing unexpected nudity on her. Dude is at minimum a weirdo that bills himself as a feminist even though he has the strangest ideas about women and will mansplain what a normal birth looks like to a woman who has given birth four times — and seems more and more likely to be an actual sexual harasser. But go ahead and listen to Bryan Freedman appearing on Megyn Kelly or maybe get some more talking points from Candace Owen’s — I’m sure maybe you will even come to see Jed Wallace as another great hero who comes in to save the day. Good luck with that one, but I’m sure you can find a way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really curious how this movie made so much money. It’s currently grossed over $350 million, which is a crazy amount for a domestic violence film. Baldwin has come nowhere close to these numbers — Five Feet Apart grossed 45 million but Clouds grossed far less, I can’t even find real numbers but maybe only $2 million? Lively’s A Simple Favor (I) with Kendrick grossed about $100 million. I don’t think Hoover’s ever come close to this before. Was the success in fact from all the controversy? Was Reynold’s promotion firm really successful here? $350 million is a lot of viewers.

Maybe this was the plan all along, sort of reverse psychology. Even negative attention is better than no attention.

No,no. You guys are missing that Colleen Hoover‘s book was hugely popular. People have been waiting for this movie to be made for years and there was a lot of attention on it as soon as it was announced. She has a ginormous fan base. Another one of her books, verity, is being made with Anne Hathaway, Josh Hartnett, and Dakota Johnson.

I personally don’t understand the popularity of the books, but she is a huge deal. This was a really covered role that Blake scored.

Sorry, should say coveted role.

I mean, okay, but Come. On. Three past Hoover books have been made into movies: Ugly Love, Confess, and Maybe Someday, and none of them have made anywhere near this much money. I don't think I've heard of them, even. Not that fans may not have been looking out for this one, particularly, but are you really saying that would get the movie to $350M? I think It Ends With Us sold one or two million last year - that's not really getting into the half-of-a-Marvel-movie where the film's gross wound up, as far as I'm aware.

Anne Hathaway is an Oscar winner. SHe has her pick of any roles. The fact that she’s doing verity means these movies are going to be seen. I think you are really over estimating Blake here and really underestimating the machine that is Colleen Hoover.

It's being made by Amazon studios, though, and it's not yet clear if it's getting a theater release. It may be streaming only. Hathaway's last movie (The Idea of You) was a streaming-only feature on Prime, and she also was one of the big names who did an episode of their Modern Love series a few years ago (Tina Fey also did an episode, there were other A-list type people in it). She also starred in that WeCrashed series about the WeWork people -- I don't think that was Amazon though, maybe Max? Still a streaming product.

Streaming makes it much harder to evaluate the market for actor's box office power these days. Lots of big stars do streaming-only movies and limited series these days, and the streamers spend HUGE money on those productions right now, so it can be quite lucrative for the creators involved. But unlike a film with a theater release, you never get the kind of clear numbers with streaming products -- the streamers don't even release a transparent list of top streamed shows or movies (they release these partial lists but it's often not even clear what they represent because there are lots of ways to count something as "viewed" that don't necessarily equate to a ticket sale in a movie theater).

All of which is not to say that Colleen Hoover is not a lucrative product right now -- obviously she's having a moment and studios like that her book adaptations have a build in audience. In fact the success of IEWU actually makes it more likely that Verity will get a theater release of some kind. But I also think you can argue that IEWU outperformed expectations even knowing it was a popular Hoover book with a decent following. One thing I will note is that international box office accounted for over 200m of its box office -- that's huge. I think Hoover might have a decent following in Europe, but also Lively went out of her way to go promote the film in London (attended the London premiere in person and paid for Ferrer to accompany her to it on Lively's own dime -- not sure if Lively also paid for her own travel/lodging for that premiere as well). I think you can argue that Lively played an important role in the success of the movie given it's international success, because of her willingness to go the extra mile on the promotional tour and also because of her recognizability to an international audience thanks to both Gossip Girl and her association with Reynolds. She's also a fashion darling and may receive more pressing Europe because of that -- her relationship with Vogue and certain designers (including Versace who did a lot of her clothes for the promotional tour for IEWU) is pretty well known among people interested in fashion.

She’s a fashion nightmare but ok

PP here and I personally don't like her style but that's beside the point. She's got good relationships with designers and fashion editors including a really good relationship with Vogue. She did the Vogue cover in September to coincide with the release of IEWU (the September issue comes out in August, and also is considered the most important issue of the year so the cover is a big get). She's hosted the Met Gala more than once and tends to be more involved and get better reviews than most celebrity hosts. She is a frequent front row guest at both Paris and New York fashion weeks and has attended Paris FW with Anna Wintour which is a weird special honor that tends to go to this very small group of actresses who Wintour dotes on (Emma Stone would be another actress in this group).

I find her personal fashion kind of obvious BUT it's true she famously does not work with a stylist and that she generally looks great on red carpets, which means she does know something because that's really hard to do -- not just because it requires understanding what looks good and how to put the whole look together, but it's also a logistics challenge because it means she has to have the relationships directly with designers and know how to manage the kind of political/interpersonal aspect of it which is more complicated than you might realize.

All of which is to say that Lively has some special attributes as an actress that would make her especially appealing from a box office standpoint for a movie with a primarily female audience in the 18-35 and 35-50 demographics -- those overlap perfectly with the audience for fashion content whether you are talking about Vogue magazine or In Style or just people who pay close attention to fashion blogs and red carpet events. And given IEWU's international box office, I would bet that her willingness to go abroad to promote the movie, to wear big name fashion and do red carpet events in London where it's going to get picked up by European fashion press who are already very familiar with her, translates to actual money for the studio in a very real way. Ever magazine article, blog post, and social media photo of Lively wearing big name fashion on a red carpet while promoting the movie is worth a lot of exposure that it could be hard to get with another actress. It's real value she brings to the project.

This is unfounded PR hype.

So she is a fashion icon and a bunch of 38 year old suburban women will run out and buy Blake's wonderful fashion? Who pays attention to magazine photos anymore? Also who in regular America is trying to dress like a Hollywood actress. That's something teenage girls do, not married moms with full time jobs.

Blake lively is not a fashion icon. Did you see what she wore to the Super Bowl last year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni sure did fight pretty hard to get Lively to be topless in a birth scene, even though birth scenes really aren’t shot that way and he was totally springing unexpected nudity on her. Dude is at minimum a weirdo that bills himself as a feminist even though he has the strangest ideas about women and will mansplain what a normal birth looks like to a woman who has given birth four times — and seems more and more likely to be an actual sexual harasser. But go ahead and listen to Bryan Freedman appearing on Megyn Kelly or maybe get some more talking points from Candace Owen’s — I’m sure maybe you will even come to see Jed Wallace as another great hero who comes in to save the day. Good luck with that one, but I’m sure you can find a way.

And I'm sure Plantation Barbie is full of ethics, wearing blackface, throwing her vag around, stealing married women's husbands, plotting her cast mates against people she doesn't like, making sexual harassment threats against makeup artist, hijacking scripts and sets, texting men who arent her husband at 2 am in the morning, bragging about her bj game "no teeth", using her famous dragons to clout, inviting men to her trailer while breast feeding, being rude to staff, being rude to interviewers, being tone deaf to dv survivors, being self involved, supporting weinstein, is the mother theresa of Hollywood.

She's bonified gutter trash, just like you.

[Anonymous]

The real tell that that is a fake text to create a paper trail is not the greeting, it’s the use of the term, brother-in-law, and using his name, Bart.

Think about it. These people have been communicating for 15+ years. Robin and Bart are at a ton of their events. They’ve all interacted for years, in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if Leslie does some minor PR work for them, but I digress.

Anyway, there is a reason they wanted to use both the terms, brother-in-law and his name. They wanted the audience to know who they were talking about. If this were real, she would simply say Bart has been talking to the press or whatever. He would obviously know who she was talking about. And he would’ve just said oh he’s sweet.

But no, they needed to get his relationship in there and his name.

Please picture picking up your phone to a text to a friend and instead of saying John you say your brother-in-law. it’s just not how people talk and this is the crux of this case because the public is turning on them because they thought we were stupid for years and honestly, this thing would’ve worked even five years ago, but now thousands of influencers and podcasts are dissecting every word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a YouTube video that called out something really interesting in Leslie Sloane’s filing. She includes text messages between she and Ryan where he’s explicitly telling her not to smear Justin. However, the problem is she starts the text “Hi, it’s Les” even though she’s been his PR for a decade. No one starts a text like that with someone they know (her number should be in his phone and if it wasn’t he wouldn’t have responded without verifying). Dead give away that they were creating a paper trail for their alibi. The rest of it reads very much like an alibi. Fascinating.

You are nuts. If I haven’t texted someone in a while and I know they text a lot of people I start with a “hi it’s [my name]. Especially not crazy where as here it’s Ryan Reynolds.

Agree it's a huge leap.

Also having known fame-adjacent people, I would not be surprised at all if they use multiple phones or often have an assistant handling their phone. If this was mid-August, it would have been right in the midst of Reynolds doing press with Lively for IEWU plus continuing to promote Deadpool, plus Welcome to Wrexham was nominated for an Emmy right around that time as well. Ryan Reynolds was not sitting in his office checking texts between reading emails and working on a document. He was traveling constantly promoting multiple projects. It is entirely reasonable that anyone who works with him is in the habit of identifying themselves when texting, sorry.

You know how a lot of people don't believe Lively because they feel she doesn't have enough "hard evidence" of inappopriate things happening on set? Well speculation like this is NOT hard evidence. It's flimsy sht. Come on.

What? I just posted about the weird use of the term brother-in-law in the text, I don’t have a problem with it” It’s les”. But what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense.

Do you think Leslie Sloan is constantly texting Ryan from weird phones so he has to figure out who the hell she is? No, that’s not how any of that works. And if it was an assistant texting from her phone, it would be the assistant doing the identification m. Hi Ryan, it’s Mary, Leslie‘s assistant. Leslie would not be the one introducing herself from her own phone.

And Ryan is so busy that he just picks up his phone and doesn’t bother to see who it is and just respond back to anyone? That doesn’t make any sense. Busy people have the time to look and see who a text is coming from. Modern technology is a wonderful thing and somehow Apple has made it pretty easy to pretty quickly identify who texts are coming from even for busy international traveling A-list stars like Ryan Reynolds lol.