Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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:This is solely hearsay from an anonymous online source who says they know about the set but according to them the Intimacy Coordinators were not hired to be on set until the hiatus (about July). That prior to the hiatus there was an IC who was hired as a consultant, but it was only after all the May / June complaints that they hired 2 ICs to work on the set and I believe they were present going forward once filming resumed.

I'm someone who tends to give Lively the benefit of the doubt more than others, but this could simply be due to the intimate scenes not having been scheduled until the back end of shooting. I'm definitely curious to hear more from the IC(s) though. It will be an important part of the case - did Lively really refuse meetings other than the initial one, did the IC really suggest added intimacy that Baldoni went along with, are Baldoni's handwritten notes accurate, what really happened with Ferrer, etc.

Well, we know she refused the initial meeting because we have those texts. And at this point she has not refuted them so I see no reason why we wouldn’t believe them.

Right, but I want to know if she refused other meetings. The first meeting came off as a casual meet and greet, like do you want to stop in and say hi? And she said nah. That's fine. If she refused to participate in other substantive meetings to coordinate the intimacy, and then complains about lack of an intimacy coordinator, then that hurts her case.

I have no idea about subsequent meetings but with regards to the IC I don't think it's a great look that Ryan skewered Baldoni in his depiction of Nicepool. He depicts Nicepool as a guy insisting on a whole bunch of things on set including demanding an IC (very Hollywood insider talk for a mainstream film) with the obvious implication that wanting an IC or other demands of a professional set makes you a whiny, beta loser.

Then he posted the quote below to Sandra Bullock. He was so obsessed with dragging Justin “covertly” on social media. Say what you want about Blake and Ryan, but they are def hypocrites. At no point did they act like professionals. But they expected it.

“For your birthday this year, I got us both intimacy coordinators. And an HR department. And clothing?'”

RR is the absolute worst.

I also joke with friends about terrible stuff that is going down while it is happening. Many people do but I understand your need to turn this into a major character flaw. If he is abusing or controlling that’s another issue, and maybe the yelling at Baldoni was Not Great. I don’t think his dark sense of humor (which made him millions on Deadpool and while millions of Americans find funny) should be on trial here, but if it is I don’t find that comment objectionable.

It’s pretty bad that he mocked baldoni in Deadpool and killed the satirical character in front of a flower shop less than two weeks before the iewu premiere. It was highly suggestive, especially since BL and RR were promoting the movie together. They knew what they were doing. I guess that’s not defamation, that’s “art”.

I watched a youtube video of all the Nicepool scenes strung together. It’s just really really mean and violent, and I cant find any humor in it, knowing it’s mocking a real person. Nobody would be okay if this was done to Blake.

I think a ton of people would be okay with it if it was done to Blake. People were pretty thrilled at the idea that SNL was making jokes at her expense. I don't even like Blake Lively but a lot of the commentary about her online is and has been extremely mean spirited (just look at the conversations in this thread about her appearance, for instance), so I imagine there would be a very enthusiastic audience for that exact kind of satire about her. She's certainly very far from untouchable or off limits in terms of criticism.

Like just as an example, I googled "Blake Lively parody" and immediately found this TikTok video of a man making fun of Lively's costumes and acting in IEWU. It's not flattering! And there is much, much more of this online.

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelpavano/video/7462163111517179166?lang=en

Justin didnt make those videos?? Lady Pool (blake) violently blew nicepool’s head off in a hugely popular movie created by her husband. For a better comparison (but not really), you’re going to have to look at the treatment Parker and Stone gave to Saddam Hussein in south park the movie.

I know it’s protected. But it is still really cruel, even if 100% of her allegations were true. And we already know they aren’t.

+1 I also think what people are missing is that this is one of many actions that BL and RR took that actually brought bad press on themselves, so it's hard to turn around and blame Justin for their bad press. Between deadpool, everyone unfollowing him and icing him out at the premiere, it led to lots of rumors. There's a really good YouTube video that talks about Colleen and how she had for 5 years made her audience fall in love with Justin through her Facebook group since they announced their collab way back in 2019. When Blake was cast (long before filming and any SA claims) Colleen's own fans had a mixed view of Blake but a very strong positive view of Justin. They felt Blake was too old, was a one dimensional actor and a mean girl (again nothing to do with Justin). So fast forward to 2024 and Colleen and others unfollow him, he's mocked on deadpool and separated at the premiere and Colleen's own fans started asking what happened and saying they felt really sad for Justin. These are real people, not bots. This was Blake's own doing. If she ultimately can't prove astroturfing, she's going to look crazy.

I only half agree. I think it's perfectly valid to criticize stuff like Lively's own behavior in interviews. But I get tired of hearing about how it's her fault that people were mad about how she looked in the movie. They chose to cast her! If fans were upset that she was older than the character in the book, their issue is with Baldoni and Wayfarer for choosing to age the characters up for the movie, something Hoover approved of. I mean Baldoni is like 13-14 years older than the book character he plays and no one seems mad about that?

There are enough reasons to criticize Lively without trying to argue that it's her fault she's the age that she is or criticizing her body or saying she doesn't look the way fans of the book thought the character should look. I'm sorry but that's not Lively's fault. Honestly, even her acting isn't really her fault -- she is what she is. Again, she didn't cast herself in the movie, that choice was made by other people.

But whether Baldoni's PR people astroturfed against her or not is a separate question. I actually think it's possible to dislike Lively, think she has done herself no favors in terms of her public image, and still think that Baldoni/Wayfarer retaliated against her when they hired TAG and Jed Wallace to go after her. That's currently mostly where I land, despite never having been a fan of Lively's and even participating in the online pile on against her last summer.

No one’s saying the fact that the audience didn’t like the casting was Blake’s fault, but it’s also not Justin’s. The point you’re missing is that the audience already didn’t like her, so when she started pretty openly bullying Justin they liked her even less. I do believe the bad press she got was organic. She’ll need to prove it wasn’t.

Thank you for bringing this up. I really don’t think a lot of people on this thread truly understood how big the fanfare was over this movie and how invested the fans have been for years. Blake faced so much backlash from the beginning. I don’t really get saying that’s not her fault, yes, the fact that she is her age is certainly not her fault, but the fans were really not wanting her to be in the movie, she has a reputation as an entitled mean girl, long before all of this.

It’s not Justin‘s fault because there was a lot of pressure from Sony to cast Blake because of their partnership with RR.

There was just so much organic backlash from Blake since she was cast and through the film filming and build up of the movie. There is a timeline that starts when Justin retains the crisis PR firm - and Blake had received a ton of backlash already. We started talking about her on DCUM well before justin hired the firm, then to find out the 2016 baby bump interview was released by the journalist without any prompting from the firm, that was one of the ones that has gotten most of the backlash and hits. I’ve said it before, it’s possible the journalist is lying, but I haven’t seen anything in Blake’s legal filings that they are claiming that.

Blake created so many challenges on her own separate from Justin. The whole debacle with the screenwriter apology - after saying Ryan had written the rooftop scene on the red carpet, only when at a press junket earlier the screenwriter Christie Hall had spoken at length about the difficulty of writing the rooftop scene and how she was most proud of that scene because it was so pivotal in the book and it was so hard to translate it from page to screen. Sony was freaking out, and apparently she got a lot of pushback from the screenwriter herself because you can read the gushing and very lengthy apology in Blakes amendment.

At the end of the day, the cast silence is deafening and no one has come out to support her ever since Justin published his lawsuit on December 31, nor has Taylor stood up for her friend. That says a lot. Her own brother in law backtracked his support of her! And she is very close to Robin and Bart. Brandon was supportive and now has gone absolutely silent and neutral. Colleen took down her post supporting Blake. I don’t know how much clearer it could be.

That Brandon Sklenar guy majorly backtracked as well. He was so obsessed with BL and RR when the lawsuit first dropped and now he’s like - I’m team no one! It really is telling how no one except that creep Ari Emmanuel is willing to be public about their support at this time. Would love to hear from the sisterhood of traveling pants again… crickets from them since JB filed his own lawsuits.

[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:This is solely hearsay from an anonymous online source who says they know about the set but according to them the Intimacy Coordinators were not hired to be on set until the hiatus (about July). That prior to the hiatus there was an IC who was hired as a consultant, but it was only after all the May / June complaints that they hired 2 ICs to work on the set and I believe they were present going forward once filming resumed.

I'm someone who tends to give Lively the benefit of the doubt more than others, but this could simply be due to the intimate scenes not having been scheduled until the back end of shooting. I'm definitely curious to hear more from the IC(s) though. It will be an important part of the case - did Lively really refuse meetings other than the initial one, did the IC really suggest added intimacy that Baldoni went along with, are Baldoni's handwritten notes accurate, what really happened with Ferrer, etc.

Well, we know she refused the initial meeting because we have those texts. And at this point she has not refuted them so I see no reason why we wouldn’t believe them.

Right, but I want to know if she refused other meetings. The first meeting came off as a casual meet and greet, like do you want to stop in and say hi? And she said nah. That's fine. If she refused to participate in other substantive meetings to coordinate the intimacy, and then complains about lack of an intimacy coordinator, then that hurts her case.

I have no idea about subsequent meetings but with regards to the IC I don't think it's a great look that Ryan skewered Baldoni in his depiction of Nicepool. He depicts Nicepool as a guy insisting on a whole bunch of things on set including demanding an IC (very Hollywood insider talk for a mainstream film) with the obvious implication that wanting an IC or other demands of a professional set makes you a whiny, beta loser.

Then he posted the quote below to Sandra Bullock. He was so obsessed with dragging Justin “covertly” on social media. Say what you want about Blake and Ryan, but they are def hypocrites. At no point did they act like professionals. But they expected it.

“For your birthday this year, I got us both intimacy coordinators. And an HR department. And clothing?'”

RR is the absolute worst.

I also joke with friends about terrible stuff that is going down while it is happening. Many people do but I understand your need to turn this into a major character flaw. If he is abusing or controlling that’s another issue, and maybe the yelling at Baldoni was Not Great. I don’t think his dark sense of humor (which made him millions on Deadpool and while millions of Americans find funny) should be on trial here, but if it is I don’t find that comment objectionable.

It’s pretty bad that he mocked baldoni in Deadpool and killed the satirical character in front of a flower shop less than two weeks before the iewu premiere. It was highly suggestive, especially since BL and RR were promoting the movie together. They knew what they were doing. I guess that’s not defamation, that’s “art”.

I watched a youtube video of all the Nicepool scenes strung together. It’s just really really mean and violent, and I cant find any humor in it, knowing it’s mocking a real person. Nobody would be okay if this was done to Blake.

I think a ton of people would be okay with it if it was done to Blake. People were pretty thrilled at the idea that SNL was making jokes at her expense. I don't even like Blake Lively but a lot of the commentary about her online is and has been extremely mean spirited (just look at the conversations in this thread about her appearance, for instance), so I imagine there would be a very enthusiastic audience for that exact kind of satire about her. She's certainly very far from untouchable or off limits in terms of criticism.

Like just as an example, I googled "Blake Lively parody" and immediately found this TikTok video of a man making fun of Lively's costumes and acting in IEWU. It's not flattering! And there is much, much more of this online.

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelpavano/video/7462163111517179166?lang=en

Justin didnt make those videos?? Lady Pool (blake) violently blew nicepool’s head off in a hugely popular movie created by her husband. For a better comparison (but not really), you’re going to have to look at the treatment Parker and Stone gave to Saddam Hussein in south park the movie.

I know it’s protected. But it is still really cruel, even if 100% of her allegations were true. And we already know they aren’t.

+1 I also think what people are missing is that this is one of many actions that BL and RR took that actually brought bad press on themselves, so it's hard to turn around and blame Justin for their bad press. Between deadpool, everyone unfollowing him and icing him out at the premiere, it led to lots of rumors. There's a really good YouTube video that talks about Colleen and how she had for 5 years made her audience fall in love with Justin through her Facebook group since they announced their collab way back in 2019. When Blake was cast (long before filming and any SA claims) Colleen's own fans had a mixed view of Blake but a very strong positive view of Justin. They felt Blake was too old, was a one dimensional actor and a mean girl (again nothing to do with Justin). So fast forward to 2024 and Colleen and others unfollow him, he's mocked on deadpool and separated at the premiere and Colleen's own fans started asking what happened and saying they felt really sad for Justin. These are real people, not bots. This was Blake's own doing. If she ultimately can't prove astroturfing, she's going to look crazy.

I only half agree. I think it's perfectly valid to criticize stuff like Lively's own behavior in interviews. But I get tired of hearing about how it's her fault that people were mad about how she looked in the movie. They chose to cast her! If fans were upset that she was older than the character in the book, their issue is with Baldoni and Wayfarer for choosing to age the characters up for the movie, something Hoover approved of. I mean Baldoni is like 13-14 years older than the book character he plays and no one seems mad about that?

There are enough reasons to criticize Lively without trying to argue that it's her fault she's the age that she is or criticizing her body or saying she doesn't look the way fans of the book thought the character should look. I'm sorry but that's not Lively's fault. Honestly, even her acting isn't really her fault -- she is what she is. Again, she didn't cast herself in the movie, that choice was made by other people.

But whether Baldoni's PR people astroturfed against her or not is a separate question. I actually think it's possible to dislike Lively, think she has done herself no favors in terms of her public image, and still think that Baldoni/Wayfarer retaliated against her when they hired TAG and Jed Wallace to go after her. That's currently mostly where I land, despite never having been a fan of Lively's and even participating in the online pile on against her last summer.

Do you think they retaliated because she filed a sexual harassment claim, though? At what point does a person start taking accountability for their own role in a crappy situation of their own making. At some point it was like they were purposely provoking him. When does the statute of limitations (using this term in a nonlegal manner) of a highly dubious SH claim end.

The thing is that their texts and marketing plans had statements discussing destroying her credibility and making her unlikable if her concerns came to life. Like that's pretty horrible, just in general, if you think of someone saying that about an actual harassment victim. That would be retaliation. And Nathan and Abel don't know what happened on set (in fact they seem to dislike him too!) yet they are participating. It's so gross. Baldoni himself probably doesn't think he committed SH because he thinks he's a feminist and everything he did was great.

So it's just an interesting legal case. If someone makes SH-type complaints to the distributor (maybe not formal ones, but the conditions for return to production clearly put them on notice of the nature of the complaint), but you think they are lying or exaggerating the claims (and I am open to the idea Lively is doing so), and you can hire crisis PR in case she decides to come forward... is that retaliation? To the extent he focuses on DV "survivor content" (even debating posting private DMs from fans, which Nathan and Abel talked him out of) and boosting his own image, that's not unlawful, but it's the part where they are trying to destroy Lively's credibility preemptively because she may raise SH concerns about the set. Is that relaliation? It certainly seems like a decent argument that it is, just based on the texts we've seen, and enough to get to a jury. And then whatever they are able to get in discovery, especially from Wallace... it's going to be interesting.

[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:This is solely hearsay from an anonymous online source who says they know about the set but according to them the Intimacy Coordinators were not hired to be on set until the hiatus (about July). That prior to the hiatus there was an IC who was hired as a consultant, but it was only after all the May / June complaints that they hired 2 ICs to work on the set and I believe they were present going forward once filming resumed.

I'm someone who tends to give Lively the benefit of the doubt more than others, but this could simply be due to the intimate scenes not having been scheduled until the back end of shooting. I'm definitely curious to hear more from the IC(s) though. It will be an important part of the case - did Lively really refuse meetings other than the initial one, did the IC really suggest added intimacy that Baldoni went along with, are Baldoni's handwritten notes accurate, what really happened with Ferrer, etc.

Well, we know she refused the initial meeting because we have those texts. And at this point she has not refuted them so I see no reason why we wouldn’t believe them.

Right, but I want to know if she refused other meetings. The first meeting came off as a casual meet and greet, like do you want to stop in and say hi? And she said nah. That's fine. If she refused to participate in other substantive meetings to coordinate the intimacy, and then complains about lack of an intimacy coordinator, then that hurts her case.

I have no idea about subsequent meetings but with regards to the IC I don't think it's a great look that Ryan skewered Baldoni in his depiction of Nicepool. He depicts Nicepool as a guy insisting on a whole bunch of things on set including demanding an IC (very Hollywood insider talk for a mainstream film) with the obvious implication that wanting an IC or other demands of a professional set makes you a whiny, beta loser.

Then he posted the quote below to Sandra Bullock. He was so obsessed with dragging Justin “covertly” on social media. Say what you want about Blake and Ryan, but they are def hypocrites. At no point did they act like professionals. But they expected it.

“For your birthday this year, I got us both intimacy coordinators. And an HR department. And clothing?'”

RR is the absolute worst.

I also joke with friends about terrible stuff that is going down while it is happening. Many people do but I understand your need to turn this into a major character flaw. If he is abusing or controlling that’s another issue, and maybe the yelling at Baldoni was Not Great. I don’t think his dark sense of humor (which made him millions on Deadpool and while millions of Americans find funny) should be on trial here, but if it is I don’t find that comment objectionable.

It’s pretty bad that he mocked baldoni in Deadpool and killed the satirical character in front of a flower shop less than two weeks before the iewu premiere. It was highly suggestive, especially since BL and RR were promoting the movie together. They knew what they were doing. I guess that’s not defamation, that’s “art”.

I watched a youtube video of all the Nicepool scenes strung together. It’s just really really mean and violent, and I cant find any humor in it, knowing it’s mocking a real person. Nobody would be okay if this was done to Blake.

I think a ton of people would be okay with it if it was done to Blake. People were pretty thrilled at the idea that SNL was making jokes at her expense. I don't even like Blake Lively but a lot of the commentary about her online is and has been extremely mean spirited (just look at the conversations in this thread about her appearance, for instance), so I imagine there would be a very enthusiastic audience for that exact kind of satire about her. She's certainly very far from untouchable or off limits in terms of criticism.

Like just as an example, I googled "Blake Lively parody" and immediately found this TikTok video of a man making fun of Lively's costumes and acting in IEWU. It's not flattering! And there is much, much more of this online.

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelpavano/video/7462163111517179166?lang=en

Justin didnt make those videos?? Lady Pool (blake) violently blew nicepool’s head off in a hugely popular movie created by her husband. For a better comparison (but not really), you’re going to have to look at the treatment Parker and Stone gave to Saddam Hussein in south park the movie.

I know it’s protected. But it is still really cruel, even if 100% of her allegations were true. And we already know they aren’t.

+1 I also think what people are missing is that this is one of many actions that BL and RR took that actually brought bad press on themselves, so it's hard to turn around and blame Justin for their bad press. Between deadpool, everyone unfollowing him and icing him out at the premiere, it led to lots of rumors. There's a really good YouTube video that talks about Colleen and how she had for 5 years made her audience fall in love with Justin through her Facebook group since they announced their collab way back in 2019. When Blake was cast (long before filming and any SA claims) Colleen's own fans had a mixed view of Blake but a very strong positive view of Justin. They felt Blake was too old, was a one dimensional actor and a mean girl (again nothing to do with Justin). So fast forward to 2024 and Colleen and others unfollow him, he's mocked on deadpool and separated at the premiere and Colleen's own fans started asking what happened and saying they felt really sad for Justin. These are real people, not bots. This was Blake's own doing. If she ultimately can't prove astroturfing, she's going to look crazy.

I only half agree. I think it's perfectly valid to criticize stuff like Lively's own behavior in interviews. But I get tired of hearing about how it's her fault that people were mad about how she looked in the movie. They chose to cast her! If fans were upset that she was older than the character in the book, their issue is with Baldoni and Wayfarer for choosing to age the characters up for the movie, something Hoover approved of. I mean Baldoni is like 13-14 years older than the book character he plays and no one seems mad about that?

There are enough reasons to criticize Lively without trying to argue that it's her fault she's the age that she is or criticizing her body or saying she doesn't look the way fans of the book thought the character should look. I'm sorry but that's not Lively's fault. Honestly, even her acting isn't really her fault -- she is what she is. Again, she didn't cast herself in the movie, that choice was made by other people.

But whether Baldoni's PR people astroturfed against her or not is a separate question. I actually think it's possible to dislike Lively, think she has done herself no favors in terms of her public image, and still think that Baldoni/Wayfarer retaliated against her when they hired TAG and Jed Wallace to go after her. That's currently mostly where I land, despite never having been a fan of Lively's and even participating in the online pile on against her last summer.

Do you think they retaliated because she filed a sexual harassment claim, though? At what point does a person start taking accountability for their own role in a crappy situation of their own making. At some point it was like they were purposely provoking him. When does the statute of limitations (using this term in a nonlegal manner) of a highly dubious SH claim end.

The thing is that their texts and marketing plans had statements discussing destroying her credibility and making her unlikable if her concerns came to life. Like that's pretty horrible, just in general, if you think of someone saying that about an actual harassment victim. That would be retaliation. And Nathan and Abel don't know what happened on set (in fact they seem to dislike him too!) yet they are participating. It's so gross. Baldoni himself probably doesn't think he committed SH because he thinks he's a feminist and everything he did was great.

So it's just an interesting legal case. If someone makes SH-type complaints to the distributor (maybe not formal ones, but the conditions for return to production clearly put them on notice of the nature of the complaint), but you think they are lying or exaggerating the claims (and I am open to the idea Lively is doing so), and you can hire crisis PR in case she decides to come forward... is that retaliation? To the extent he focuses on DV "survivor content" (even debating posting private DMs from fans, which Nathan and Abel talked him out of) and boosting his own image, that's not unlawful, but it's the part where they are trying to destroy Lively's credibility preemptively because she may raise SH concerns about the set. Is that relaliation? It certainly seems like a decent argument that it is, just based on the texts we've seen, and enough to get to a jury. And then whatever they are able to get in discovery, especially from Wallace... it's going to be interesting.

It’s not retaliation because BL lied. She was not SH. Therefore he wasn’t retaliating. He was protecting himself and his family from her lies. It’s a simple case.

[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:This is solely hearsay from an anonymous online source who says they know about the set but according to them the Intimacy Coordinators were not hired to be on set until the hiatus (about July). That prior to the hiatus there was an IC who was hired as a consultant, but it was only after all the May / June complaints that they hired 2 ICs to work on the set and I believe they were present going forward once filming resumed.

I'm someone who tends to give Lively the benefit of the doubt more than others, but this could simply be due to the intimate scenes not having been scheduled until the back end of shooting. I'm definitely curious to hear more from the IC(s) though. It will be an important part of the case - did Lively really refuse meetings other than the initial one, did the IC really suggest added intimacy that Baldoni went along with, are Baldoni's handwritten notes accurate, what really happened with Ferrer, etc.

Well, we know she refused the initial meeting because we have those texts. And at this point she has not refuted them so I see no reason why we wouldn’t believe them.

Right, but I want to know if she refused other meetings. The first meeting came off as a casual meet and greet, like do you want to stop in and say hi? And she said nah. That's fine. If she refused to participate in other substantive meetings to coordinate the intimacy, and then complains about lack of an intimacy coordinator, then that hurts her case.

I have no idea about subsequent meetings but with regards to the IC I don't think it's a great look that Ryan skewered Baldoni in his depiction of Nicepool. He depicts Nicepool as a guy insisting on a whole bunch of things on set including demanding an IC (very Hollywood insider talk for a mainstream film) with the obvious implication that wanting an IC or other demands of a professional set makes you a whiny, beta loser.

Then he posted the quote below to Sandra Bullock. He was so obsessed with dragging Justin “covertly” on social media. Say what you want about Blake and Ryan, but they are def hypocrites. At no point did they act like professionals. But they expected it.

“For your birthday this year, I got us both intimacy coordinators. And an HR department. And clothing?'”

RR is the absolute worst.

I also joke with friends about terrible stuff that is going down while it is happening. Many people do but I understand your need to turn this into a major character flaw. If he is abusing or controlling that’s another issue, and maybe the yelling at Baldoni was Not Great. I don’t think his dark sense of humor (which made him millions on Deadpool and while millions of Americans find funny) should be on trial here, but if it is I don’t find that comment objectionable.

It’s pretty bad that he mocked baldoni in Deadpool and killed the satirical character in front of a flower shop less than two weeks before the iewu premiere. It was highly suggestive, especially since BL and RR were promoting the movie together. They knew what they were doing. I guess that’s not defamation, that’s “art”.

I watched a youtube video of all the Nicepool scenes strung together. It’s just really really mean and violent, and I cant find any humor in it, knowing it’s mocking a real person. Nobody would be okay if this was done to Blake.

I think a ton of people would be okay with it if it was done to Blake. People were pretty thrilled at the idea that SNL was making jokes at her expense. I don't even like Blake Lively but a lot of the commentary about her online is and has been extremely mean spirited (just look at the conversations in this thread about her appearance, for instance), so I imagine there would be a very enthusiastic audience for that exact kind of satire about her. She's certainly very far from untouchable or off limits in terms of criticism.

Like just as an example, I googled "Blake Lively parody" and immediately found this TikTok video of a man making fun of Lively's costumes and acting in IEWU. It's not flattering! And there is much, much more of this online.

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelpavano/video/7462163111517179166?lang=en

Justin didnt make those videos?? Lady Pool (blake) violently blew nicepool’s head off in a hugely popular movie created by her husband. For a better comparison (but not really), you’re going to have to look at the treatment Parker and Stone gave to Saddam Hussein in south park the movie.

I know it’s protected. But it is still really cruel, even if 100% of her allegations were true. And we already know they aren’t.

+1 I also think what people are missing is that this is one of many actions that BL and RR took that actually brought bad press on themselves, so it's hard to turn around and blame Justin for their bad press. Between deadpool, everyone unfollowing him and icing him out at the premiere, it led to lots of rumors. There's a really good YouTube video that talks about Colleen and how she had for 5 years made her audience fall in love with Justin through her Facebook group since they announced their collab way back in 2019. When Blake was cast (long before filming and any SA claims) Colleen's own fans had a mixed view of Blake but a very strong positive view of Justin. They felt Blake was too old, was a one dimensional actor and a mean girl (again nothing to do with Justin). So fast forward to 2024 and Colleen and others unfollow him, he's mocked on deadpool and separated at the premiere and Colleen's own fans started asking what happened and saying they felt really sad for Justin. These are real people, not bots. This was Blake's own doing. If she ultimately can't prove astroturfing, she's going to look crazy.

I only half agree. I think it's perfectly valid to criticize stuff like Lively's own behavior in interviews. But I get tired of hearing about how it's her fault that people were mad about how she looked in the movie. They chose to cast her! If fans were upset that she was older than the character in the book, their issue is with Baldoni and Wayfarer for choosing to age the characters up for the movie, something Hoover approved of. I mean Baldoni is like 13-14 years older than the book character he plays and no one seems mad about that?

There are enough reasons to criticize Lively without trying to argue that it's her fault she's the age that she is or criticizing her body or saying she doesn't look the way fans of the book thought the character should look. I'm sorry but that's not Lively's fault. Honestly, even her acting isn't really her fault -- she is what she is. Again, she didn't cast herself in the movie, that choice was made by other people.

But whether Baldoni's PR people astroturfed against her or not is a separate question. I actually think it's possible to dislike Lively, think she has done herself no favors in terms of her public image, and still think that Baldoni/Wayfarer retaliated against her when they hired TAG and Jed Wallace to go after her. That's currently mostly where I land, despite never having been a fan of Lively's and even participating in the online pile on against her last summer.

Do you think they retaliated because she filed a sexual harassment claim, though? At what point does a person start taking accountability for their own role in a crappy situation of their own making. At some point it was like they were purposely provoking him. When does the statute of limitations (using this term in a nonlegal manner) of a highly dubious SH claim end.

The thing is that their texts and marketing plans had statements discussing destroying her credibility and making her unlikable if her concerns came to life. Like that's pretty horrible, just in general, if you think of someone saying that about an actual harassment victim. That would be retaliation. And Nathan and Abel don't know what happened on set (in fact they seem to dislike him too!) yet they are participating. It's so gross. Baldoni himself probably doesn't think he committed SH because he thinks he's a feminist and everything he did was great.

So it's just an interesting legal case. If someone makes SH-type complaints to the distributor (maybe not formal ones, but the conditions for return to production clearly put them on notice of the nature of the complaint), but you think they are lying or exaggerating the claims (and I am open to the idea Lively is doing so), and you can hire crisis PR in case she decides to come forward... is that retaliation? To the extent he focuses on DV "survivor content" (even debating posting private DMs from fans, which Nathan and Abel talked him out of) and boosting his own image, that's not unlawful, but it's the part where they are trying to destroy Lively's credibility preemptively because she may raise SH concerns about the set. Is that relaliation? It certainly seems like a decent argument that it is, just based on the texts we've seen, and enough to get to a jury. And then whatever they are able to get in discovery, especially from Wallace... it's going to be interesting.

It’s not retaliation because BL lied. She was not SH. Therefore he wasn’t retaliating. He was protecting himself and his family from her lies. It’s a simple case.

But her lying (and I do think, basically, she lied about the dancing scene) is more like different interpretations... I agree his interpretation and not hers, but OTOH of course he thinks she lied, many men accused of SH will say that or downplay that they were just joking or their comments were misinterpreted. It's not a great defense on the retaliation claim. I guess that's why he works to build the extortion narrative, giving him a different reason for attacking her.

[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:This is solely hearsay from an anonymous online source who says they know about the set but according to them the Intimacy Coordinators were not hired to be on set until the hiatus (about July). That prior to the hiatus there was an IC who was hired as a consultant, but it was only after all the May / June complaints that they hired 2 ICs to work on the set and I believe they were present going forward once filming resumed.

I'm someone who tends to give Lively the benefit of the doubt more than others, but this could simply be due to the intimate scenes not having been scheduled until the back end of shooting. I'm definitely curious to hear more from the IC(s) though. It will be an important part of the case - did Lively really refuse meetings other than the initial one, did the IC really suggest added intimacy that Baldoni went along with, are Baldoni's handwritten notes accurate, what really happened with Ferrer, etc.

Well, we know she refused the initial meeting because we have those texts. And at this point she has not refuted them so I see no reason why we wouldn’t believe them.

Right, but I want to know if she refused other meetings. The first meeting came off as a casual meet and greet, like do you want to stop in and say hi? And she said nah. That's fine. If she refused to participate in other substantive meetings to coordinate the intimacy, and then complains about lack of an intimacy coordinator, then that hurts her case.

I have no idea about subsequent meetings but with regards to the IC I don't think it's a great look that Ryan skewered Baldoni in his depiction of Nicepool. He depicts Nicepool as a guy insisting on a whole bunch of things on set including demanding an IC (very Hollywood insider talk for a mainstream film) with the obvious implication that wanting an IC or other demands of a professional set makes you a whiny, beta loser.

Then he posted the quote below to Sandra Bullock. He was so obsessed with dragging Justin “covertly” on social media. Say what you want about Blake and Ryan, but they are def hypocrites. At no point did they act like professionals. But they expected it.

“For your birthday this year, I got us both intimacy coordinators. And an HR department. And clothing?'”

RR is the absolute worst.

I also joke with friends about terrible stuff that is going down while it is happening. Many people do but I understand your need to turn this into a major character flaw. If he is abusing or controlling that’s another issue, and maybe the yelling at Baldoni was Not Great. I don’t think his dark sense of humor (which made him millions on Deadpool and while millions of Americans find funny) should be on trial here, but if it is I don’t find that comment objectionable.

It’s pretty bad that he mocked baldoni in Deadpool and killed the satirical character in front of a flower shop less than two weeks before the iewu premiere. It was highly suggestive, especially since BL and RR were promoting the movie together. They knew what they were doing. I guess that’s not defamation, that’s “art”.

I watched a youtube video of all the Nicepool scenes strung together. It’s just really really mean and violent, and I cant find any humor in it, knowing it’s mocking a real person. Nobody would be okay if this was done to Blake.

I think a ton of people would be okay with it if it was done to Blake. People were pretty thrilled at the idea that SNL was making jokes at her expense. I don't even like Blake Lively but a lot of the commentary about her online is and has been extremely mean spirited (just look at the conversations in this thread about her appearance, for instance), so I imagine there would be a very enthusiastic audience for that exact kind of satire about her. She's certainly very far from untouchable or off limits in terms of criticism.

Like just as an example, I googled "Blake Lively parody" and immediately found this TikTok video of a man making fun of Lively's costumes and acting in IEWU. It's not flattering! And there is much, much more of this online.

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelpavano/video/7462163111517179166?lang=en

Justin didnt make those videos?? Lady Pool (blake) violently blew nicepool’s head off in a hugely popular movie created by her husband. For a better comparison (but not really), you’re going to have to look at the treatment Parker and Stone gave to Saddam Hussein in south park the movie.

I know it’s protected. But it is still really cruel, even if 100% of her allegations were true. And we already know they aren’t.

+1 I also think what people are missing is that this is one of many actions that BL and RR took that actually brought bad press on themselves, so it's hard to turn around and blame Justin for their bad press. Between deadpool, everyone unfollowing him and icing him out at the premiere, it led to lots of rumors. There's a really good YouTube video that talks about Colleen and how she had for 5 years made her audience fall in love with Justin through her Facebook group since they announced their collab way back in 2019. When Blake was cast (long before filming and any SA claims) Colleen's own fans had a mixed view of Blake but a very strong positive view of Justin. They felt Blake was too old, was a one dimensional actor and a mean girl (again nothing to do with Justin). So fast forward to 2024 and Colleen and others unfollow him, he's mocked on deadpool and separated at the premiere and Colleen's own fans started asking what happened and saying they felt really sad for Justin. These are real people, not bots. This was Blake's own doing. If she ultimately can't prove astroturfing, she's going to look crazy.

I only half agree. I think it's perfectly valid to criticize stuff like Lively's own behavior in interviews. But I get tired of hearing about how it's her fault that people were mad about how she looked in the movie. They chose to cast her! If fans were upset that she was older than the character in the book, their issue is with Baldoni and Wayfarer for choosing to age the characters up for the movie, something Hoover approved of. I mean Baldoni is like 13-14 years older than the book character he plays and no one seems mad about that?

There are enough reasons to criticize Lively without trying to argue that it's her fault she's the age that she is or criticizing her body or saying she doesn't look the way fans of the book thought the character should look. I'm sorry but that's not Lively's fault. Honestly, even her acting isn't really her fault -- she is what she is. Again, she didn't cast herself in the movie, that choice was made by other people.

But whether Baldoni's PR people astroturfed against her or not is a separate question. I actually think it's possible to dislike Lively, think she has done herself no favors in terms of her public image, and still think that Baldoni/Wayfarer retaliated against her when they hired TAG and Jed Wallace to go after her. That's currently mostly where I land, despite never having been a fan of Lively's and even participating in the online pile on against her last summer.

Do you think they retaliated because she filed a sexual harassment claim, though? At what point does a person start taking accountability for their own role in a crappy situation of their own making. At some point it was like they were purposely provoking him. When does the statute of limitations (using this term in a nonlegal manner) of a highly dubious SH claim end.

The thing is that their texts and marketing plans had statements discussing destroying her credibility and making her unlikable if her concerns came to life. Like that's pretty horrible, just in general, if you think of someone saying that about an actual harassment victim. That would be retaliation. And Nathan and Abel don't know what happened on set (in fact they seem to dislike him too!) yet they are participating. It's so gross. Baldoni himself probably doesn't think he committed SH because he thinks he's a feminist and everything he did was great.

So it's just an interesting legal case. If someone makes SH-type complaints to the distributor (maybe not formal ones, but the conditions for return to production clearly put them on notice of the nature of the complaint), but you think they are lying or exaggerating the claims (and I am open to the idea Lively is doing so), and you can hire crisis PR in case she decides to come forward... is that retaliation? To the extent he focuses on DV "survivor content" (even debating posting private DMs from fans, which Nathan and Abel talked him out of) and boosting his own image, that's not unlawful, but it's the part where they are trying to destroy Lively's credibility preemptively because she may raise SH concerns about the set. Is that relaliation? It certainly seems like a decent argument that it is, just based on the texts we've seen, and enough to get to a jury. And then whatever they are able to get in discovery, especially from Wallace... it's going to be interesting.

But if he didn’t commit sexual harassment, and they came out with the New York Times me too author article, sued for sexual harassment, and Ryan was walking around Hollywood calling him a sexual predator, that’s a problem, right? I consider myself a pretty good person, but I would absolutely want to destroy someone’s life too.

It’s infuriating what they did to him. I’m trying to keep an open mind. If there is a smoking gun or more comes out that he actually is a sexual predator that would be one thing. But so far I’m not convinced and it seems like Blake is lying.

[Anonymous]

Ideally, Justin would have taken the high road. I don’t blame him one minute bit for hiring a crisis PR firm but I suppose if we’re living in La La Land, maybe they could’ve focused more on his emphasizing his good reputation and less on her. It seems like if they had just let things play out, she was getting plenty of horrible press without them having to actually do anything.

But I can’t imagine how infuriated he was by this point. I mean this crap had been going on since spring of 2023. She manipulated him, things he said, lied, took over editing. Put out her cut which scored lower. His a film by byline was taken off the poster and his image too. He was banned from the premier.

A person can only take so much.

[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:This is solely hearsay from an anonymous online source who says they know about the set but according to them the Intimacy Coordinators were not hired to be on set until the hiatus (about July). That prior to the hiatus there was an IC who was hired as a consultant, but it was only after all the May / June complaints that they hired 2 ICs to work on the set and I believe they were present going forward once filming resumed.

I'm someone who tends to give Lively the benefit of the doubt more than others, but this could simply be due to the intimate scenes not having been scheduled until the back end of shooting. I'm definitely curious to hear more from the IC(s) though. It will be an important part of the case - did Lively really refuse meetings other than the initial one, did the IC really suggest added intimacy that Baldoni went along with, are Baldoni's handwritten notes accurate, what really happened with Ferrer, etc.

Well, we know she refused the initial meeting because we have those texts. And at this point she has not refuted them so I see no reason why we wouldn’t believe them.

Right, but I want to know if she refused other meetings. The first meeting came off as a casual meet and greet, like do you want to stop in and say hi? And she said nah. That's fine. If she refused to participate in other substantive meetings to coordinate the intimacy, and then complains about lack of an intimacy coordinator, then that hurts her case.

I have no idea about subsequent meetings but with regards to the IC I don't think it's a great look that Ryan skewered Baldoni in his depiction of Nicepool. He depicts Nicepool as a guy insisting on a whole bunch of things on set including demanding an IC (very Hollywood insider talk for a mainstream film) with the obvious implication that wanting an IC or other demands of a professional set makes you a whiny, beta loser.

Then he posted the quote below to Sandra Bullock. He was so obsessed with dragging Justin “covertly” on social media. Say what you want about Blake and Ryan, but they are def hypocrites. At no point did they act like professionals. But they expected it.

“For your birthday this year, I got us both intimacy coordinators. And an HR department. And clothing?'”

RR is the absolute worst.

I also joke with friends about terrible stuff that is going down while it is happening. Many people do but I understand your need to turn this into a major character flaw. If he is abusing or controlling that’s another issue, and maybe the yelling at Baldoni was Not Great. I don’t think his dark sense of humor (which made him millions on Deadpool and while millions of Americans find funny) should be on trial here, but if it is I don’t find that comment objectionable.

It’s pretty bad that he mocked baldoni in Deadpool and killed the satirical character in front of a flower shop less than two weeks before the iewu premiere. It was highly suggestive, especially since BL and RR were promoting the movie together. They knew what they were doing. I guess that’s not defamation, that’s “art”.

I watched a youtube video of all the Nicepool scenes strung together. It’s just really really mean and violent, and I cant find any humor in it, knowing it’s mocking a real person. Nobody would be okay if this was done to Blake.

I think a ton of people would be okay with it if it was done to Blake. People were pretty thrilled at the idea that SNL was making jokes at her expense. I don't even like Blake Lively but a lot of the commentary about her online is and has been extremely mean spirited (just look at the conversations in this thread about her appearance, for instance), so I imagine there would be a very enthusiastic audience for that exact kind of satire about her. She's certainly very far from untouchable or off limits in terms of criticism.

Like just as an example, I googled "Blake Lively parody" and immediately found this TikTok video of a man making fun of Lively's costumes and acting in IEWU. It's not flattering! And there is much, much more of this online.

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelpavano/video/7462163111517179166?lang=en

Justin didnt make those videos?? Lady Pool (blake) violently blew nicepool’s head off in a hugely popular movie created by her husband. For a better comparison (but not really), you’re going to have to look at the treatment Parker and Stone gave to Saddam Hussein in south park the movie.

I know it’s protected. But it is still really cruel, even if 100% of her allegations were true. And we already know they aren’t.

+1 I also think what people are missing is that this is one of many actions that BL and RR took that actually brought bad press on themselves, so it's hard to turn around and blame Justin for their bad press. Between deadpool, everyone unfollowing him and icing him out at the premiere, it led to lots of rumors. There's a really good YouTube video that talks about Colleen and how she had for 5 years made her audience fall in love with Justin through her Facebook group since they announced their collab way back in 2019. When Blake was cast (long before filming and any SA claims) Colleen's own fans had a mixed view of Blake but a very strong positive view of Justin. They felt Blake was too old, was a one dimensional actor and a mean girl (again nothing to do with Justin). So fast forward to 2024 and Colleen and others unfollow him, he's mocked on deadpool and separated at the premiere and Colleen's own fans started asking what happened and saying they felt really sad for Justin. These are real people, not bots. This was Blake's own doing. If she ultimately can't prove astroturfing, she's going to look crazy.

I only half agree. I think it's perfectly valid to criticize stuff like Lively's own behavior in interviews. But I get tired of hearing about how it's her fault that people were mad about how she looked in the movie. They chose to cast her! If fans were upset that she was older than the character in the book, their issue is with Baldoni and Wayfarer for choosing to age the characters up for the movie, something Hoover approved of. I mean Baldoni is like 13-14 years older than the book character he plays and no one seems mad about that?

There are enough reasons to criticize Lively without trying to argue that it's her fault she's the age that she is or criticizing her body or saying she doesn't look the way fans of the book thought the character should look. I'm sorry but that's not Lively's fault. Honestly, even her acting isn't really her fault -- she is what she is. Again, she didn't cast herself in the movie, that choice was made by other people.

But whether Baldoni's PR people astroturfed against her or not is a separate question. I actually think it's possible to dislike Lively, think she has done herself no favors in terms of her public image, and still think that Baldoni/Wayfarer retaliated against her when they hired TAG and Jed Wallace to go after her. That's currently mostly where I land, despite never having been a fan of Lively's and even participating in the online pile on against her last summer.

Do you think they retaliated because she filed a sexual harassment claim, though? At what point does a person start taking accountability for their own role in a crappy situation of their own making. At some point it was like they were purposely provoking him. When does the statute of limitations (using this term in a nonlegal manner) of a highly dubious SH claim end.

The thing is that their texts and marketing plans had statements discussing destroying her credibility and making her unlikable if her concerns came to life. Like that's pretty horrible, just in general, if you think of someone saying that about an actual harassment victim. That would be retaliation. And Nathan and Abel don't know what happened on set (in fact they seem to dislike him too!) yet they are participating. It's so gross. Baldoni himself probably doesn't think he committed SH because he thinks he's a feminist and everything he did was great.

So it's just an interesting legal case. If someone makes SH-type complaints to the distributor (maybe not formal ones, but the conditions for return to production clearly put them on notice of the nature of the complaint), but you think they are lying or exaggerating the claims (and I am open to the idea Lively is doing so), and you can hire crisis PR in case she decides to come forward... is that retaliation? To the extent he focuses on DV "survivor content" (even debating posting private DMs from fans, which Nathan and Abel talked him out of) and boosting his own image, that's not unlawful, but it's the part where they are trying to destroy Lively's credibility preemptively because she may raise SH concerns about the set. Is that relaliation? It certainly seems like a decent argument that it is, just based on the texts we've seen, and enough to get to a jury. And then whatever they are able to get in discovery, especially from Wallace... it's going to be interesting.

But if he didn’t commit sexual harassment, and they came out with the New York Times me too author article, sued for sexual harassment, and Ryan was walking around Hollywood calling him a sexual predator, that’s a problem, right? I consider myself a pretty good person, but I would absolutely want to destroy someone’s life too.

It’s infuriating what they did to him. I’m trying to keep an open mind. If there is a smoking gun or more comes out that he actually is a sexual predator that would be one thing. But so far I’m not convinced and it seems like Blake is lying.

PP and i don't disagree with anything you've said. The way they talk in those texts is so disgusting and all the troll farm stuff rang true so I sided with Blake initially, but the more Baldoni has posted evidence the more it looks like Iike Blake was grossly misrepresenting things. Like the dance scene, she's either lying or wildly delusional, and it colors my interpretation of everything else against her, but then again, it's possible some of that stuff is grounded in reality. That's one reason I really want to know if others complained.

[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:This is solely hearsay from an anonymous online source who says they know about the set but according to them the Intimacy Coordinators were not hired to be on set until the hiatus (about July). That prior to the hiatus there was an IC who was hired as a consultant, but it was only after all the May / June complaints that they hired 2 ICs to work on the set and I believe they were present going forward once filming resumed.

I'm someone who tends to give Lively the benefit of the doubt more than others, but this could simply be due to the intimate scenes not having been scheduled until the back end of shooting. I'm definitely curious to hear more from the IC(s) though. It will be an important part of the case - did Lively really refuse meetings other than the initial one, did the IC really suggest added intimacy that Baldoni went along with, are Baldoni's handwritten notes accurate, what really happened with Ferrer, etc.

Well, we know she refused the initial meeting because we have those texts. And at this point she has not refuted them so I see no reason why we wouldn’t believe them.

Right, but I want to know if she refused other meetings. The first meeting came off as a casual meet and greet, like do you want to stop in and say hi? And she said nah. That's fine. If she refused to participate in other substantive meetings to coordinate the intimacy, and then complains about lack of an intimacy coordinator, then that hurts her case.

I have no idea about subsequent meetings but with regards to the IC I don't think it's a great look that Ryan skewered Baldoni in his depiction of Nicepool. He depicts Nicepool as a guy insisting on a whole bunch of things on set including demanding an IC (very Hollywood insider talk for a mainstream film) with the obvious implication that wanting an IC or other demands of a professional set makes you a whiny, beta loser.

Then he posted the quote below to Sandra Bullock. He was so obsessed with dragging Justin “covertly” on social media. Say what you want about Blake and Ryan, but they are def hypocrites. At no point did they act like professionals. But they expected it.

“For your birthday this year, I got us both intimacy coordinators. And an HR department. And clothing?'”

RR is the absolute worst.

I also joke with friends about terrible stuff that is going down while it is happening. Many people do but I understand your need to turn this into a major character flaw. If he is abusing or controlling that’s another issue, and maybe the yelling at Baldoni was Not Great. I don’t think his dark sense of humor (which made him millions on Deadpool and while millions of Americans find funny) should be on trial here, but if it is I don’t find that comment objectionable.

It’s pretty bad that he mocked baldoni in Deadpool and killed the satirical character in front of a flower shop less than two weeks before the iewu premiere. It was highly suggestive, especially since BL and RR were promoting the movie together. They knew what they were doing. I guess that’s not defamation, that’s “art”.

I watched a youtube video of all the Nicepool scenes strung together. It’s just really really mean and violent, and I cant find any humor in it, knowing it’s mocking a real person. Nobody would be okay if this was done to Blake.

I think a ton of people would be okay with it if it was done to Blake. People were pretty thrilled at the idea that SNL was making jokes at her expense. I don't even like Blake Lively but a lot of the commentary about her online is and has been extremely mean spirited (just look at the conversations in this thread about her appearance, for instance), so I imagine there would be a very enthusiastic audience for that exact kind of satire about her. She's certainly very far from untouchable or off limits in terms of criticism.

Like just as an example, I googled "Blake Lively parody" and immediately found this TikTok video of a man making fun of Lively's costumes and acting in IEWU. It's not flattering! And there is much, much more of this online.

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelpavano/video/7462163111517179166?lang=en

Justin didnt make those videos?? Lady Pool (blake) violently blew nicepool’s head off in a hugely popular movie created by her husband. For a better comparison (but not really), you’re going to have to look at the treatment Parker and Stone gave to Saddam Hussein in south park the movie.

I know it’s protected. But it is still really cruel, even if 100% of her allegations were true. And we already know they aren’t.

+1 I also think what people are missing is that this is one of many actions that BL and RR took that actually brought bad press on themselves, so it's hard to turn around and blame Justin for their bad press. Between deadpool, everyone unfollowing him and icing him out at the premiere, it led to lots of rumors. There's a really good YouTube video that talks about Colleen and how she had for 5 years made her audience fall in love with Justin through her Facebook group since they announced their collab way back in 2019. When Blake was cast (long before filming and any SA claims) Colleen's own fans had a mixed view of Blake but a very strong positive view of Justin. They felt Blake was too old, was a one dimensional actor and a mean girl (again nothing to do with Justin). So fast forward to 2024 and Colleen and others unfollow him, he's mocked on deadpool and separated at the premiere and Colleen's own fans started asking what happened and saying they felt really sad for Justin. These are real people, not bots. This was Blake's own doing. If she ultimately can't prove astroturfing, she's going to look crazy.

I only half agree. I think it's perfectly valid to criticize stuff like Lively's own behavior in interviews. But I get tired of hearing about how it's her fault that people were mad about how she looked in the movie. They chose to cast her! If fans were upset that she was older than the character in the book, their issue is with Baldoni and Wayfarer for choosing to age the characters up for the movie, something Hoover approved of. I mean Baldoni is like 13-14 years older than the book character he plays and no one seems mad about that?

There are enough reasons to criticize Lively without trying to argue that it's her fault she's the age that she is or criticizing her body or saying she doesn't look the way fans of the book thought the character should look. I'm sorry but that's not Lively's fault. Honestly, even her acting isn't really her fault -- she is what she is. Again, she didn't cast herself in the movie, that choice was made by other people.

But whether Baldoni's PR people astroturfed against her or not is a separate question. I actually think it's possible to dislike Lively, think she has done herself no favors in terms of her public image, and still think that Baldoni/Wayfarer retaliated against her when they hired TAG and Jed Wallace to go after her. That's currently mostly where I land, despite never having been a fan of Lively's and even participating in the online pile on against her last summer.

Do you think they retaliated because she filed a sexual harassment claim, though? At what point does a person start taking accountability for their own role in a crappy situation of their own making. At some point it was like they were purposely provoking him. When does the statute of limitations (using this term in a nonlegal manner) of a highly dubious SH claim end.

The thing is that their texts and marketing plans had statements discussing destroying her credibility and making her unlikable if her concerns came to life. Like that's pretty horrible, just in general, if you think of someone saying that about an actual harassment victim. That would be retaliation. And Nathan and Abel don't know what happened on set (in fact they seem to dislike him too!) yet they are participating. It's so gross. Baldoni himself probably doesn't think he committed SH because he thinks he's a feminist and everything he did was great.

So it's just an interesting legal case. If someone makes SH-type complaints to the distributor (maybe not formal ones, but the conditions for return to production clearly put them on notice of the nature of the complaint), but you think they are lying or exaggerating the claims (and I am open to the idea Lively is doing so), and you can hire crisis PR in case she decides to come forward... is that retaliation? To the extent he focuses on DV "survivor content" (even debating posting private DMs from fans, which Nathan and Abel talked him out of) and boosting his own image, that's not unlawful, but it's the part where they are trying to destroy Lively's credibility preemptively because she may raise SH concerns about the set. Is that relaliation? It certainly seems like a decent argument that it is, just based on the texts we've seen, and enough to get to a jury. And then whatever they are able to get in discovery, especially from Wallace... it's going to be interesting.

It’s not retaliation because BL lied. She was not SH. Therefore he wasn’t retaliating. He was protecting himself and his family from her lies. It’s a simple case.

But her lying (and I do think, basically, she lied about the dancing scene) is more like different interpretations... I agree his interpretation and not hers, but OTOH of course he thinks she lied, many men accused of SH will say that or downplay that they were just joking or their comments were misinterpreted. It's not a great defense on the retaliation claim. I guess that's why he works to build the extortion narrative, giving him a different reason for attacking her.

I hate the idea that women would have this huge burden to prove sexual harassment. At the same time, I hate the idea that someone could lie so much and get away with it. From what I can gather, Blake is a person who easily lies. There’s one video where she gives on interview and says she’s embarrassed to admit she had no idea who Colleen Hoover was when she signed onto the project. Cut to an interview of Blake telling Colleen that what drew her to the project was Colleen’s name and her books. There’s one where she’s laughing about how she tells everyone she’s a great cook when she’s not because nobody can prove her wrong. She also laughs about how she messed up a batch of cookies and then posted on Instagram that Ryan made them. She said women don’t have pregnancy cravings—they just lie to get what they want. She lied about who wrote the rooftop scene, and she lied about how much it was rewritten. She lied about the dancing scene (and had the gall in her list of 30 complaints to say “no more talking to Blake out of character during scenes” when she had demanded it of him). She clearly lied about the fat shaming. In her amended complaint, she removed the contention that she had to beg for coverage between takes during the birthing scene—why? Was it BS too?

There’s just a point where you have to question her motives here. She benefitted a great deal from making those claims.

[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:This is solely hearsay from an anonymous online source who says they know about the set but according to them the Intimacy Coordinators were not hired to be on set until the hiatus (about July). That prior to the hiatus there was an IC who was hired as a consultant, but it was only after all the May / June complaints that they hired 2 ICs to work on the set and I believe they were present going forward once filming resumed.

I'm someone who tends to give Lively the benefit of the doubt more than others, but this could simply be due to the intimate scenes not having been scheduled until the back end of shooting. I'm definitely curious to hear more from the IC(s) though. It will be an important part of the case - did Lively really refuse meetings other than the initial one, did the IC really suggest added intimacy that Baldoni went along with, are Baldoni's handwritten notes accurate, what really happened with Ferrer, etc.

Well, we know she refused the initial meeting because we have those texts. And at this point she has not refuted them so I see no reason why we wouldn’t believe them.

Right, but I want to know if she refused other meetings. The first meeting came off as a casual meet and greet, like do you want to stop in and say hi? And she said nah. That's fine. If she refused to participate in other substantive meetings to coordinate the intimacy, and then complains about lack of an intimacy coordinator, then that hurts her case.

I have no idea about subsequent meetings but with regards to the IC I don't think it's a great look that Ryan skewered Baldoni in his depiction of Nicepool. He depicts Nicepool as a guy insisting on a whole bunch of things on set including demanding an IC (very Hollywood insider talk for a mainstream film) with the obvious implication that wanting an IC or other demands of a professional set makes you a whiny, beta loser.

Then he posted the quote below to Sandra Bullock. He was so obsessed with dragging Justin “covertly” on social media. Say what you want about Blake and Ryan, but they are def hypocrites. At no point did they act like professionals. But they expected it.

“For your birthday this year, I got us both intimacy coordinators. And an HR department. And clothing?'”

RR is the absolute worst.

I also joke with friends about terrible stuff that is going down while it is happening. Many people do but I understand your need to turn this into a major character flaw. If he is abusing or controlling that’s another issue, and maybe the yelling at Baldoni was Not Great. I don’t think his dark sense of humor (which made him millions on Deadpool and while millions of Americans find funny) should be on trial here, but if it is I don’t find that comment objectionable.

It’s pretty bad that he mocked baldoni in Deadpool and killed the satirical character in front of a flower shop less than two weeks before the iewu premiere. It was highly suggestive, especially since BL and RR were promoting the movie together. They knew what they were doing. I guess that’s not defamation, that’s “art”.

I watched a youtube video of all the Nicepool scenes strung together. It’s just really really mean and violent, and I cant find any humor in it, knowing it’s mocking a real person. Nobody would be okay if this was done to Blake.

I think a ton of people would be okay with it if it was done to Blake. People were pretty thrilled at the idea that SNL was making jokes at her expense. I don't even like Blake Lively but a lot of the commentary about her online is and has been extremely mean spirited (just look at the conversations in this thread about her appearance, for instance), so I imagine there would be a very enthusiastic audience for that exact kind of satire about her. She's certainly very far from untouchable or off limits in terms of criticism.

Like just as an example, I googled "Blake Lively parody" and immediately found this TikTok video of a man making fun of Lively's costumes and acting in IEWU. It's not flattering! And there is much, much more of this online.

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelpavano/video/7462163111517179166?lang=en

Justin didnt make those videos?? Lady Pool (blake) violently blew nicepool’s head off in a hugely popular movie created by her husband. For a better comparison (but not really), you’re going to have to look at the treatment Parker and Stone gave to Saddam Hussein in south park the movie.

I know it’s protected. But it is still really cruel, even if 100% of her allegations were true. And we already know they aren’t.

+1 I also think what people are missing is that this is one of many actions that BL and RR took that actually brought bad press on themselves, so it's hard to turn around and blame Justin for their bad press. Between deadpool, everyone unfollowing him and icing him out at the premiere, it led to lots of rumors. There's a really good YouTube video that talks about Colleen and how she had for 5 years made her audience fall in love with Justin through her Facebook group since they announced their collab way back in 2019. When Blake was cast (long before filming and any SA claims) Colleen's own fans had a mixed view of Blake but a very strong positive view of Justin. They felt Blake was too old, was a one dimensional actor and a mean girl (again nothing to do with Justin). So fast forward to 2024 and Colleen and others unfollow him, he's mocked on deadpool and separated at the premiere and Colleen's own fans started asking what happened and saying they felt really sad for Justin. These are real people, not bots. This was Blake's own doing. If she ultimately can't prove astroturfing, she's going to look crazy.

I only half agree. I think it's perfectly valid to criticize stuff like Lively's own behavior in interviews. But I get tired of hearing about how it's her fault that people were mad about how she looked in the movie. They chose to cast her! If fans were upset that she was older than the character in the book, their issue is with Baldoni and Wayfarer for choosing to age the characters up for the movie, something Hoover approved of. I mean Baldoni is like 13-14 years older than the book character he plays and no one seems mad about that?

There are enough reasons to criticize Lively without trying to argue that it's her fault she's the age that she is or criticizing her body or saying she doesn't look the way fans of the book thought the character should look. I'm sorry but that's not Lively's fault. Honestly, even her acting isn't really her fault -- she is what she is. Again, she didn't cast herself in the movie, that choice was made by other people.

But whether Baldoni's PR people astroturfed against her or not is a separate question. I actually think it's possible to dislike Lively, think she has done herself no favors in terms of her public image, and still think that Baldoni/Wayfarer retaliated against her when they hired TAG and Jed Wallace to go after her. That's currently mostly where I land, despite never having been a fan of Lively's and even participating in the online pile on against her last summer.

Do you think they retaliated because she filed a sexual harassment claim, though? At what point does a person start taking accountability for their own role in a crappy situation of their own making. At some point it was like they were purposely provoking him. When does the statute of limitations (using this term in a nonlegal manner) of a highly dubious SH claim end.

The thing is that their texts and marketing plans had statements discussing destroying her credibility and making her unlikable if her concerns came to life. Like that's pretty horrible, just in general, if you think of someone saying that about an actual harassment victim. That would be retaliation. And Nathan and Abel don't know what happened on set (in fact they seem to dislike him too!) yet they are participating. It's so gross. Baldoni himself probably doesn't think he committed SH because he thinks he's a feminist and everything he did was great.

So it's just an interesting legal case. If someone makes SH-type complaints to the distributor (maybe not formal ones, but the conditions for return to production clearly put them on notice of the nature of the complaint), but you think they are lying or exaggerating the claims (and I am open to the idea Lively is doing so), and you can hire crisis PR in case she decides to come forward... is that retaliation? To the extent he focuses on DV "survivor content" (even debating posting private DMs from fans, which Nathan and Abel talked him out of) and boosting his own image, that's not unlawful, but it's the part where they are trying to destroy Lively's credibility preemptively because she may raise SH concerns about the set. Is that relaliation? It certainly seems like a decent argument that it is, just based on the texts we've seen, and enough to get to a jury. And then whatever they are able to get in discovery, especially from Wallace... it's going to be interesting.

But if he didn’t commit sexual harassment, and they came out with the New York Times me too author article, sued for sexual harassment, and Ryan was walking around Hollywood calling him a sexual predator, that’s a problem, right? I consider myself a pretty good person, but I would absolutely want to destroy someone’s life too.

It’s infuriating what they did to him. I’m trying to keep an open mind. If there is a smoking gun or more comes out that he actually is a sexual predator that would be one thing. But so far I’m not convinced and it seems like Blake is lying.

PP and i don't disagree with anything you've said. The way they talk in those texts is so disgusting and all the troll farm stuff rang true so I sided with Blake initially, but the more Baldoni has posted evidence the more it looks like Iike Blake was grossly misrepresenting things. Like the dance scene, she's either lying or wildly delusional, and it colors my interpretation of everything else against her, but then again, it's possible some of that stuff is grounded in reality. That's one reason I really want to know if others complained.

Agreed, I don’t think you get to falsely claim SH and then use that as a shield to bully, extort and defame another person with the threat of a retaliation lawsuit. If Freedman shows the SH allegations were false and wayfarer signed under duress (BL threatening to walk), I think the contract obligations can be voided. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

[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:This is solely hearsay from an anonymous online source who says they know about the set but according to them the Intimacy Coordinators were not hired to be on set until the hiatus (about July). That prior to the hiatus there was an IC who was hired as a consultant, but it was only after all the May / June complaints that they hired 2 ICs to work on the set and I believe they were present going forward once filming resumed.

I'm someone who tends to give Lively the benefit of the doubt more than others, but this could simply be due to the intimate scenes not having been scheduled until the back end of shooting. I'm definitely curious to hear more from the IC(s) though. It will be an important part of the case - did Lively really refuse meetings other than the initial one, did the IC really suggest added intimacy that Baldoni went along with, are Baldoni's handwritten notes accurate, what really happened with Ferrer, etc.

Well, we know she refused the initial meeting because we have those texts. And at this point she has not refuted them so I see no reason why we wouldn’t believe them.

Right, but I want to know if she refused other meetings. The first meeting came off as a casual meet and greet, like do you want to stop in and say hi? And she said nah. That's fine. If she refused to participate in other substantive meetings to coordinate the intimacy, and then complains about lack of an intimacy coordinator, then that hurts her case.

I have no idea about subsequent meetings but with regards to the IC I don't think it's a great look that Ryan skewered Baldoni in his depiction of Nicepool. He depicts Nicepool as a guy insisting on a whole bunch of things on set including demanding an IC (very Hollywood insider talk for a mainstream film) with the obvious implication that wanting an IC or other demands of a professional set makes you a whiny, beta loser.

Then he posted the quote below to Sandra Bullock. He was so obsessed with dragging Justin “covertly” on social media. Say what you want about Blake and Ryan, but they are def hypocrites. At no point did they act like professionals. But they expected it.

“For your birthday this year, I got us both intimacy coordinators. And an HR department. And clothing?'”

RR is the absolute worst.

I also joke with friends about terrible stuff that is going down while it is happening. Many people do but I understand your need to turn this into a major character flaw. If he is abusing or controlling that’s another issue, and maybe the yelling at Baldoni was Not Great. I don’t think his dark sense of humor (which made him millions on Deadpool and while millions of Americans find funny) should be on trial here, but if it is I don’t find that comment objectionable.

It’s pretty bad that he mocked baldoni in Deadpool and killed the satirical character in front of a flower shop less than two weeks before the iewu premiere. It was highly suggestive, especially since BL and RR were promoting the movie together. They knew what they were doing. I guess that’s not defamation, that’s “art”.

I watched a youtube video of all the Nicepool scenes strung together. It’s just really really mean and violent, and I cant find any humor in it, knowing it’s mocking a real person. Nobody would be okay if this was done to Blake.

I think a ton of people would be okay with it if it was done to Blake. People were pretty thrilled at the idea that SNL was making jokes at her expense. I don't even like Blake Lively but a lot of the commentary about her online is and has been extremely mean spirited (just look at the conversations in this thread about her appearance, for instance), so I imagine there would be a very enthusiastic audience for that exact kind of satire about her. She's certainly very far from untouchable or off limits in terms of criticism.

Like just as an example, I googled "Blake Lively parody" and immediately found this TikTok video of a man making fun of Lively's costumes and acting in IEWU. It's not flattering! And there is much, much more of this online.

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelpavano/video/7462163111517179166?lang=en

Justin didnt make those videos?? Lady Pool (blake) violently blew nicepool’s head off in a hugely popular movie created by her husband. For a better comparison (but not really), you’re going to have to look at the treatment Parker and Stone gave to Saddam Hussein in south park the movie.

I know it’s protected. But it is still really cruel, even if 100% of her allegations were true. And we already know they aren’t.

+1 I also think what people are missing is that this is one of many actions that BL and RR took that actually brought bad press on themselves, so it's hard to turn around and blame Justin for their bad press. Between deadpool, everyone unfollowing him and icing him out at the premiere, it led to lots of rumors. There's a really good YouTube video that talks about Colleen and how she had for 5 years made her audience fall in love with Justin through her Facebook group since they announced their collab way back in 2019. When Blake was cast (long before filming and any SA claims) Colleen's own fans had a mixed view of Blake but a very strong positive view of Justin. They felt Blake was too old, was a one dimensional actor and a mean girl (again nothing to do with Justin). So fast forward to 2024 and Colleen and others unfollow him, he's mocked on deadpool and separated at the premiere and Colleen's own fans started asking what happened and saying they felt really sad for Justin. These are real people, not bots. This was Blake's own doing. If she ultimately can't prove astroturfing, she's going to look crazy.

I only half agree. I think it's perfectly valid to criticize stuff like Lively's own behavior in interviews. But I get tired of hearing about how it's her fault that people were mad about how she looked in the movie. They chose to cast her! If fans were upset that she was older than the character in the book, their issue is with Baldoni and Wayfarer for choosing to age the characters up for the movie, something Hoover approved of. I mean Baldoni is like 13-14 years older than the book character he plays and no one seems mad about that?

There are enough reasons to criticize Lively without trying to argue that it's her fault she's the age that she is or criticizing her body or saying she doesn't look the way fans of the book thought the character should look. I'm sorry but that's not Lively's fault. Honestly, even her acting isn't really her fault -- she is what she is. Again, she didn't cast herself in the movie, that choice was made by other people.

But whether Baldoni's PR people astroturfed against her or not is a separate question. I actually think it's possible to dislike Lively, think she has done herself no favors in terms of her public image, and still think that Baldoni/Wayfarer retaliated against her when they hired TAG and Jed Wallace to go after her. That's currently mostly where I land, despite never having been a fan of Lively's and even participating in the online pile on against her last summer.

Do you think they retaliated because she filed a sexual harassment claim, though? At what point does a person start taking accountability for their own role in a crappy situation of their own making. At some point it was like they were purposely provoking him. When does the statute of limitations (using this term in a nonlegal manner) of a highly dubious SH claim end.

The thing is that their texts and marketing plans had statements discussing destroying her credibility and making her unlikable if her concerns came to life. Like that's pretty horrible, just in general, if you think of someone saying that about an actual harassment victim. That would be retaliation. And Nathan and Abel don't know what happened on set (in fact they seem to dislike him too!) yet they are participating. It's so gross. Baldoni himself probably doesn't think he committed SH because he thinks he's a feminist and everything he did was great.

So it's just an interesting legal case. If someone makes SH-type complaints to the distributor (maybe not formal ones, but the conditions for return to production clearly put them on notice of the nature of the complaint), but you think they are lying or exaggerating the claims (and I am open to the idea Lively is doing so), and you can hire crisis PR in case she decides to come forward... is that retaliation? To the extent he focuses on DV "survivor content" (even debating posting private DMs from fans, which Nathan and Abel talked him out of) and boosting his own image, that's not unlawful, but it's the part where they are trying to destroy Lively's credibility preemptively because she may raise SH concerns about the set. Is that relaliation? It certainly seems like a decent argument that it is, just based on the texts we've seen, and enough to get to a jury. And then whatever they are able to get in discovery, especially from Wallace... it's going to be interesting.

It’s not retaliation because BL lied. She was not SH. Therefore he wasn’t retaliating. He was protecting himself and his family from her lies. It’s a simple case.

But her lying (and I do think, basically, she lied about the dancing scene) is more like different interpretations... I agree his interpretation and not hers, but OTOH of course he thinks she lied, many men accused of SH will say that or downplay that they were just joking or their comments were misinterpreted. It's not a great defense on the retaliation claim. I guess that's why he works to build the extortion narrative, giving him a different reason for attacking her.

I hate the idea that women would have this huge burden to prove sexual harassment. At the same time, I hate the idea that someone could lie so much and get away with it. From what I can gather, Blake is a person who easily lies. There’s one video where she gives on interview and says she’s embarrassed to admit she had no idea who Colleen Hoover was when she signed onto the project. Cut to an interview of Blake telling Colleen that what drew her to the project was Colleen’s name and her books. There’s one where she’s laughing about how she tells everyone she’s a great cook when she’s not because nobody can prove her wrong. She also laughs about how she messed up a batch of cookies and then posted on Instagram that Ryan made them. She said women don’t have pregnancy cravings—they just lie to get what they want. She lied about who wrote the rooftop scene, and she lied about how much it was rewritten. She lied about the dancing scene (and had the gall in her list of 30 complaints to say “no more talking to Blake out of character during scenes” when she had demanded it of him). She clearly lied about the fat shaming. In her amended complaint, she removed the contention that she had to beg for coverage between takes during the birthing scene—why? Was it BS too?

There’s just a point where you have to question her motives here. She benefitted a great deal from making those claims.

In Blake’s defense, the more celeb SM posts I see, the less I like them as people. Prior to SM, actors had a mystery about them, they were admirable, good role models, of course much of this was smoke and mirrors, but now these celebs try to be ‘relatable’ on SM and it’s just cringeworthy. All people lie on SM, especially celebs. They’re just such hypocrites, I miss the magic of old Hollywood.

[Anonymous]

I guess the reason I don't have the same opinion as others is that I do not think Lively is lying. I think there may be multiple perspectives on what happened, but I don't think she made it up. I think her complaint is an honest accounting if her experience.

I can see how, if you think she's lying, it all seems very unfair -- the Deadpool parody, the cast freezing him out, the lawsuit.

But since I don't think she's lying, none of that seems unfair 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:

Anonymous wrote:This is solely hearsay from an anonymous online source who says they know about the set but according to them the Intimacy Coordinators were not hired to be on set until the hiatus (about July). That prior to the hiatus there was an IC who was hired as a consultant, but it was only after all the May / June complaints that they hired 2 ICs to work on the set and I believe they were present going forward once filming resumed.

I'm someone who tends to give Lively the benefit of the doubt more than others, but this could simply be due to the intimate scenes not having been scheduled until the back end of shooting. I'm definitely curious to hear more from the IC(s) though. It will be an important part of the case - did Lively really refuse meetings other than the initial one, did the IC really suggest added intimacy that Baldoni went along with, are Baldoni's handwritten notes accurate, what really happened with Ferrer, etc.

Well, we know she refused the initial meeting because we have those texts. And at this point she has not refuted them so I see no reason why we wouldn’t believe them.

Right, but I want to know if she refused other meetings. The first meeting came off as a casual meet and greet, like do you want to stop in and say hi? And she said nah. That's fine. If she refused to participate in other substantive meetings to coordinate the intimacy, and then complains about lack of an intimacy coordinator, then that hurts her case.

I have no idea about subsequent meetings but with regards to the IC I don't think it's a great look that Ryan skewered Baldoni in his depiction of Nicepool. He depicts Nicepool as a guy insisting on a whole bunch of things on set including demanding an IC (very Hollywood insider talk for a mainstream film) with the obvious implication that wanting an IC or other demands of a professional set makes you a whiny, beta loser.

Then he posted the quote below to Sandra Bullock. He was so obsessed with dragging Justin “covertly” on social media. Say what you want about Blake and Ryan, but they are def hypocrites. At no point did they act like professionals. But they expected it.

“For your birthday this year, I got us both intimacy coordinators. And an HR department. And clothing?'”

RR is the absolute worst.

I also joke with friends about terrible stuff that is going down while it is happening. Many people do but I understand your need to turn this into a major character flaw. If he is abusing or controlling that’s another issue, and maybe the yelling at Baldoni was Not Great. I don’t think his dark sense of humor (which made him millions on Deadpool and while millions of Americans find funny) should be on trial here, but if it is I don’t find that comment objectionable.

It’s pretty bad that he mocked baldoni in Deadpool and killed the satirical character in front of a flower shop less than two weeks before the iewu premiere. It was highly suggestive, especially since BL and RR were promoting the movie together. They knew what they were doing. I guess that’s not defamation, that’s “art”.

I watched a youtube video of all the Nicepool scenes strung together. It’s just really really mean and violent, and I cant find any humor in it, knowing it’s mocking a real person. Nobody would be okay if this was done to Blake.

I think a ton of people would be okay with it if it was done to Blake. People were pretty thrilled at the idea that SNL was making jokes at her expense. I don't even like Blake Lively but a lot of the commentary about her online is and has been extremely mean spirited (just look at the conversations in this thread about her appearance, for instance), so I imagine there would be a very enthusiastic audience for that exact kind of satire about her. She's certainly very far from untouchable or off limits in terms of criticism.

Like just as an example, I googled "Blake Lively parody" and immediately found this TikTok video of a man making fun of Lively's costumes and acting in IEWU. It's not flattering! And there is much, much more of this online.

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelpavano/video/7462163111517179166?lang=en

Justin didnt make those videos?? Lady Pool (blake) violently blew nicepool’s head off in a hugely popular movie created by her husband. For a better comparison (but not really), you’re going to have to look at the treatment Parker and Stone gave to Saddam Hussein in south park the movie.

I know it’s protected. But it is still really cruel, even if 100% of her allegations were true. And we already know they aren’t.

+1 I also think what people are missing is that this is one of many actions that BL and RR took that actually brought bad press on themselves, so it's hard to turn around and blame Justin for their bad press. Between deadpool, everyone unfollowing him and icing him out at the premiere, it led to lots of rumors. There's a really good YouTube video that talks about Colleen and how she had for 5 years made her audience fall in love with Justin through her Facebook group since they announced their collab way back in 2019. When Blake was cast (long before filming and any SA claims) Colleen's own fans had a mixed view of Blake but a very strong positive view of Justin. They felt Blake was too old, was a one dimensional actor and a mean girl (again nothing to do with Justin). So fast forward to 2024 and Colleen and others unfollow him, he's mocked on deadpool and separated at the premiere and Colleen's own fans started asking what happened and saying they felt really sad for Justin. These are real people, not bots. This was Blake's own doing. If she ultimately can't prove astroturfing, she's going to look crazy.

I only half agree. I think it's perfectly valid to criticize stuff like Lively's own behavior in interviews. But I get tired of hearing about how it's her fault that people were mad about how she looked in the movie. They chose to cast her! If fans were upset that she was older than the character in the book, their issue is with Baldoni and Wayfarer for choosing to age the characters up for the movie, something Hoover approved of. I mean Baldoni is like 13-14 years older than the book character he plays and no one seems mad about that?

There are enough reasons to criticize Lively without trying to argue that it's her fault she's the age that she is or criticizing her body or saying she doesn't look the way fans of the book thought the character should look. I'm sorry but that's not Lively's fault. Honestly, even her acting isn't really her fault -- she is what she is. Again, she didn't cast herself in the movie, that choice was made by other people.

But whether Baldoni's PR people astroturfed against her or not is a separate question. I actually think it's possible to dislike Lively, think she has done herself no favors in terms of her public image, and still think that Baldoni/Wayfarer retaliated against her when they hired TAG and Jed Wallace to go after her. That's currently mostly where I land, despite never having been a fan of Lively's and even participating in the online pile on against her last summer.

Do you think they retaliated because she filed a sexual harassment claim, though? At what point does a person start taking accountability for their own role in a crappy situation of their own making. At some point it was like they were purposely provoking him. When does the statute of limitations (using this term in a nonlegal manner) of a highly dubious SH claim end.

The thing is that their texts and marketing plans had statements discussing destroying her credibility and making her unlikable if her concerns came to life. Like that's pretty horrible, just in general, if you think of someone saying that about an actual harassment victim. That would be retaliation. And Nathan and Abel don't know what happened on set (in fact they seem to dislike him too!) yet they are participating. It's so gross. Baldoni himself probably doesn't think he committed SH because he thinks he's a feminist and everything he did was great.

So it's just an interesting legal case. If someone makes SH-type complaints to the distributor (maybe not formal ones, but the conditions for return to production clearly put them on notice of the nature of the complaint), but you think they are lying or exaggerating the claims (and I am open to the idea Lively is doing so), and you can hire crisis PR in case she decides to come forward... is that retaliation? To the extent he focuses on DV "survivor content" (even debating posting private DMs from fans, which Nathan and Abel talked him out of) and boosting his own image, that's not unlawful, but it's the part where they are trying to destroy Lively's credibility preemptively because she may raise SH concerns about the set. Is that relaliation? It certainly seems like a decent argument that it is, just based on the texts we've seen, and enough to get to a jury. And then whatever they are able to get in discovery, especially from Wallace... it's going to be interesting.

It’s not retaliation because BL lied. She was not SH. Therefore he wasn’t retaliating. He was protecting himself and his family from her lies. It’s a simple case.

But her lying (and I do think, basically, she lied about the dancing scene) is more like different interpretations... I agree his interpretation and not hers, but OTOH of course he thinks she lied, many men accused of SH will say that or downplay that they were just joking or their comments were misinterpreted. It's not a great defense on the retaliation claim. I guess that's why he works to build the extortion narrative, giving him a different reason for attacking her.

I hate the idea that women would have this huge burden to prove sexual harassment. At the same time, I hate the idea that someone could lie so much and get away with it. From what I can gather, Blake is a person who easily lies. There’s one video where she gives on interview and says she’s embarrassed to admit she had no idea who Colleen Hoover was when she signed onto the project. Cut to an interview of Blake telling Colleen that what drew her to the project was Colleen’s name and her books. There’s one where she’s laughing about how she tells everyone she’s a great cook when she’s not because nobody can prove her wrong. She also laughs about how she messed up a batch of cookies and then posted on Instagram that Ryan made them. She said women don’t have pregnancy cravings—they just lie to get what they want. She lied about who wrote the rooftop scene, and she lied about how much it was rewritten. She lied about the dancing scene (and had the gall in her list of 30 complaints to say “no more talking to Blake out of character during scenes” when she had demanded it of him). She clearly lied about the fat shaming. In her amended complaint, she removed the contention that she had to beg for coverage between takes during the birthing scene—why? Was it BS too?

There’s just a point where you have to question her motives here. She benefitted a great deal from making those claims.

Many, if not most, film actors are simply BS artists. Some are more believable than others. If you watch them closely enough, they all lie. Everything they do is based on the image they want to project, but it’s almost all false. They contradict themselves. Many seem to lack a strong sense of self and a strong moral compass and values. I find this to be true with even the most famous celebrities. Many seem so developmentally stunted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess the reason I don't have the same opinion as others is that I do not think Lively is lying. I think there may be multiple perspectives on what happened, but I don't think she made it up. I think her complaint is an honest accounting if her experience.

I can see how, if you think she's lying, it all seems very unfair -- the Deadpool parody, the cast freezing him out, the lawsuit.

But since I don't think she's lying, none of that seems unfair to me.

I think Blake may believe she was SH and Ryan and co. may have convinced her that she was, however I’m not sure Blake had capacity to even make that determination. It’s almost like she was not mentally well during the filming. Her thoughts and beliefs may be totally inaccurate and false.

[Anonymous]

How soon after giving birth did Blake begin this film?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the reason I don't have the same opinion as others is that I do not think Lively is lying. I think there may be multiple perspectives on what happened, but I don't think she made it up. I think her complaint is an honest accounting if her experience.

I can see how, if you think she's lying, it all seems very unfair -- the Deadpool parody, the cast freezing him out, the lawsuit.

But since I don't think she's lying, none of that seems unfair to me.

I think Blake may believe she was SH and Ryan and co. may have convinced her that she was, however I’m not sure Blake had capacity to even make that determination. It’s almost like she was not mentally well during the filming. Her thoughts and beliefs may be totally inaccurate and false.

Ia. I don't think what happened is enough to be considered sexual harrassment