Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

I wonder if she is doing this because she has deep pockets to sue and she knows the accused does not have deep pockets and she assumes he will settle to avoid lawsuit costs and get an NDA to make her look innocent. Wonder if her alcohol and product launches are not doing well and she has been advised this route won’t make her look bad, they think it will make her look sympathetic and her side projects and acting can return to previous levels. What we have seen is lots of sympathy for women who have been SA. We also see other women coming forward. So let’s see if other women come forward. Am even more surprised she did not talk about the importance of the message of the movie if what she says happened on the film happened when it was being promoted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t really get it. The nytimes article is mostly about the PR side. I’d imagine it would be ruthless because isn’t it the entire point in this sort of two sides situation, making your “enemy” look bad? Ultimately Baldoni’s PR pushed forward and exploited things that Blake Lively did do: mean interviews, tone deaf, bad promotion. What matters most is did he actually do the things on set she accused him of? If so, it is despicable, he should lose in court and not work again. If not, she is just playing the same ruthless PR game.

Because it goes against Justin's story that he was being unfairly treated and is a nice guy. He knows he made her uncomfortable and that's why she didn't want to be around him. Instead of moving on and hires a PR team to "bury her"

[Anonymous]

The parts where the main PR lady doesn't agree with what's happening but is still acting like it's a game is kind of unhinged

[Anonymous]

She seems like an awful person. She isn’t exactly doing A-list work, as it is. This will be a mistake for her. Btw, she had nothing to do with drafting up the complaint. She’s not exactly cerebral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t really get it. The nytimes article is mostly about the PR side. I’d imagine it would be ruthless because isn’t it the entire point in this sort of two sides situation, making your “enemy” look bad? Ultimately Baldoni’s PR pushed forward and exploited things that Blake Lively did do: mean interviews, tone deaf, bad promotion. What matters most is did he actually do the things on set she accused him of? If so, it is despicable, he should lose in court and not work again. If not, she is just playing the same ruthless PR game.

Because it goes against Justin's story that he was being unfairly treated and is a nice guy. He knows he made her uncomfortable and that's why she didn't want to be around him. Instead of moving on and hires a PR team to "bury her"

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matthew Hiltzik company strikes again

And this is why Angelina Jolie requested messages between Brad and them. I would not be surprised if they team up in the future for this. This is incredibly damaging. Very proud of Blake for this!

She cannot undo that mean interview. She was horrible to the reporter. So bratty. Also the wealth different between her and the actor/director is huge. She is the one who wants to destroy someone. She should have just let it go and work on being nicer. Beyond this actor other actors and media have said she is difficult.

So what she's rude, does that make it okay for them to strategize a system to bury her in their own words

Being mean isn’t a legal injury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if she is doing this because she has deep pockets to sue and she knows the accused does not have deep pockets and she assumes he will settle to avoid lawsuit costs and get an NDA to make her look innocent. Wonder if her alcohol and product launches are not doing well and she has been advised this route won’t make her look bad, they think it will make her look sympathetic and her side projects and acting can return to previous levels. What we have seen is lots of sympathy for women who have been SA. We also see other women coming forward. So let’s see if other women come forward. Am even more surprised she did not talk about the importance of the message of the movie if what she says happened on the film happened when it was being promoted.

It's a little odd to say "she is doing this" when he is the one who went after her. He didn't seem too worried about her deep pockets when he launched his campaign. Doesn't seem to fit the narrative of David going after Goliath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if she is doing this because she has deep pockets to sue and she knows the accused does not have deep pockets and she assumes he will settle to avoid lawsuit costs and get an NDA to make her look innocent. Wonder if her alcohol and product launches are not doing well and she has been advised this route won’t make her look bad, they think it will make her look sympathetic and her side projects and acting can return to previous levels. What we have seen is lots of sympathy for women who have been SA. We also see other women coming forward. So let’s see if other women come forward. Am even more surprised she did not talk about the importance of the message of the movie if what she says happened on the film happened when it was being promoted.

It's a little odd to say "she is doing this" when he is the one who went after her. He didn't seem too worried about her deep pockets when he launched his campaign. Doesn't seem to fit the narrative of David going after Goliath.

She is the powerful, connected and wealthy billionaire here. It doesn’t fit the usual pattern of sexual harassment. Why not get the guy fired immediately at filming time? He certainly should have been if this is all true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if she is doing this because she has deep pockets to sue and she knows the accused does not have deep pockets and she assumes he will settle to avoid lawsuit costs and get an NDA to make her look innocent. Wonder if her alcohol and product launches are not doing well and she has been advised this route won’t make her look bad, they think it will make her look sympathetic and her side projects and acting can return to previous levels. What we have seen is lots of sympathy for women who have been SA. We also see other women coming forward. So let’s see if other women come forward. Am even more surprised she did not talk about the importance of the message of the movie if what she says happened on the film happened when it was being promoted.

It's a little odd to say "she is doing this" when he is the one who went after her. He didn't seem too worried about her deep pockets when he launched his campaign. Doesn't seem to fit the narrative of David going after Goliath.

She is the powerful, connected and wealthy billionaire here. It doesn’t fit the usual pattern of sexual harassment. Why not get the guy fired immediately at filming time? He certainly should have been if this is all true.

Seems like she was trying to work though it with "crisis talks". This didn't come out of nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if she is doing this because she has deep pockets to sue and she knows the accused does not have deep pockets and she assumes he will settle to avoid lawsuit costs and get an NDA to make her look innocent. Wonder if her alcohol and product launches are not doing well and she has been advised this route won’t make her look bad, they think it will make her look sympathetic and her side projects and acting can return to previous levels. What we have seen is lots of sympathy for women who have been SA. We also see other women coming forward. So let’s see if other women come forward. Am even more surprised she did not talk about the importance of the message of the movie if what she says happened on the film happened when it was being promoted.

It's a little odd to say "she is doing this" when he is the one who went after her. He didn't seem too worried about her deep pockets when he launched his campaign. Doesn't seem to fit the narrative of David going after Goliath.

She is the powerful, connected and wealthy billionaire here. It doesn’t fit the usual pattern of sexual harassment. Why not get the guy fired immediately at filming time? He certainly should have been if this is all true.

She can't fire him as it's his studio and he owns the movie rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matthew Hiltzik company strikes again

And this is why Angelina Jolie requested messages between Brad and them. I would not be surprised if they team up in the future for this. This is incredibly damaging. Very proud of Blake for this!

She cannot undo that mean interview. She was horrible to the reporter. So bratty. Also the wealth different between her and the actor/director is huge. She is the one who wants to destroy someone. She should have just let it go and work on being nicer. Beyond this actor other actors and media have said she is difficult.

So what she's rude, does that make it okay for them to strategize a system to bury her in their own words

Being mean isn’t a legal injury.

Did you even read what she's suing for

[Anonymous]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/12/21/us/complaint-of-blake-lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc-et-al.html

This is the whole complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if she is doing this because she has deep pockets to sue and she knows the accused does not have deep pockets and she assumes he will settle to avoid lawsuit costs and get an NDA to make her look innocent. Wonder if her alcohol and product launches are not doing well and she has been advised this route won’t make her look bad, they think it will make her look sympathetic and her side projects and acting can return to previous levels. What we have seen is lots of sympathy for women who have been SA. We also see other women coming forward. So let’s see if other women come forward. Am even more surprised she did not talk about the importance of the message of the movie if what she says happened on the film happened when it was being promoted.

It's a little odd to say "she is doing this" when he is the one who went after her. He didn't seem too worried about her deep pockets when he launched his campaign. Doesn't seem to fit the narrative of David going after Goliath.

She is the powerful, connected and wealthy billionaire here. It doesn’t fit the usual pattern of sexual harassment. Why not get the guy fired immediately at filming time? He certainly should have been if this is all true.

She can't fire him as it's his studio and he owns the movie rights.

Sony was involved in the financing and producing as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if she is doing this because she has deep pockets to sue and she knows the accused does not have deep pockets and she assumes he will settle to avoid lawsuit costs and get an NDA to make her look innocent. Wonder if her alcohol and product launches are not doing well and she has been advised this route won’t make her look bad, they think it will make her look sympathetic and her side projects and acting can return to previous levels. What we have seen is lots of sympathy for women who have been SA. We also see other women coming forward. So let’s see if other women come forward. Am even more surprised she did not talk about the importance of the message of the movie if what she says happened on the film happened when it was being promoted.

It's a little odd to say "she is doing this" when he is the one who went after her. He didn't seem too worried about her deep pockets when he launched his campaign. Doesn't seem to fit the narrative of David going after Goliath.

She is the powerful, connected and wealthy billionaire here. It doesn’t fit the usual pattern of sexual harassment. Why not get the guy fired immediately at filming time? He certainly should have been if this is all true.

She can't fire him as it's his studio and he owns the movie rights.

Sony was involved in the financing and producing as well.

Sony doesn't own the movie rights. She tries to remedy the situation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She seems like an awful person. She isn’t exactly doing A-list work, as it is. This will be a mistake for her. Btw, she had nothing to do with drafting up the complaint. She’s not exactly cerebral.

Why would she have something to do with drafting up the complaint? That's why she went to lawyers who did their job and had a pre-complaint discovery done.