Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the extortion, Ryan and Blake have done this before. The Director of the first Deadpool was pushed out by Ryan and the comic book author was sidelined at the premiere. Last fall when Blake’s camp was smearing Baldoni, they also leaked to the press that Ryan wanted to buy the movie from Baldoni so she could continue the franchise without him, as they’d clashed. The problem with narcissists is they always tell on themselves.

What a weird amalgam of truth, rumor, and flat out lies.

The comic book author was sidelined by Marvel/Disney, not Reynolds (he wasn't involved with that at all). This is a longstanding issue between comic book authors and Marvel and Disney. Authors of these stories are unique because they are generally hired to tell stories about existing characters and universes, which means they never own the copyright on what they produce. I have also heard authors who have written parts of the extended Star Wars universe that have found their way into the newer films talk about this. It's just a challenge of working in that genre on existing IP and has absolutely zero to do with Ryan Reynolds or Blake Lively.

The rumors that Reynolds or Lively were trying to get the rights to the sequel have never been substantiated. It's never clear where those "leaks" came from or what they were based on. Though on their face, offering to buy the rights from Baldoni is not "extortion." It's legal and find to offer to pay for the rights to an IP property.

I didn't follow the thing with Reynolds and the original director of Deadpool that closely but it just sounded like creative differences. Again, not extortion -- it's not like Reynolds tried to extort that director. They disagreed over the direction of the second movie, and Miller decided to quit. It's just a reality that when you have a franchise like that, the "face" of the franchise often has more power than the director of the movie because it's easier to replace a director (most movie watchers will never know the difference) than to replace the actor who stars as the lead character. I guess even in Deadpool where he wears the mask all the time this is true. I don't know. I'm sure Miller has what he feels are legitimate gripes with Reynolds over what happened there, but notice he didn't sue Reynolds for extortion. Because it's not extortion to flex the power you have on a film set to try and control the direction of the movie. It's how the movie business works. It's a tough business!

Miller didn’t sue because Ryan pushed him out the old fashioned way. With iewu, Blake pushed Baldoni out by falsely accusing him of SH and leaking these things to the public. The point about buying the movie is they were making their intentions clear. Put enough pressure on Baldoni reputation wise so he’d be compelled to sell.

1) I do not believe Lively's allegations are false.
2) Lively sued over the SH allegations in December 2024, a full 5 months after the movie was released.
3) Baldoni remained the director for the duration of the shoot and is credited as the director on the movie. He was not fired nor was he forced to quit.
4) Baldoni did his own edit of the movie and if he wants to release it, he is welcome to. Sony decided to distribute Lively's edit of the movie. It is not uncommon for a large studio serving as distributor of a movie to choose an edit other than the director's edit for distribution, and there are multiple factors that go into it.
5) Again, there is zero evidence that Lively or Reynolds ever offered to buy the rights to sequel from Baldoni, and even if they did, what is the evidence that the goal here wouldn't be just to ensure Lively could make a sequel to a popular movie she starred in without working with the director who SHed her on the set of the original movie? It seems reasonable to me that if you were SHed by a director, you wouldn't want to work with them again, and it would be a bummer if that director owned the rights to a sequel for a movie you were closely associated with.

This whole narrative about how Lively and Reynolds somehow plotted to steal the movie and the sequel rights from Baldoni by inventing sexual harassment claims and using them as leverage makes no sense. If the claims were invented, they'd be easy to disprove, so why would they work as leverage in the first place? And given their money and power, this is the weirdest possible way for Lively to gain control of a movie -- she was in talks to direct her first movie before they even shot IEWU. Why would she scheme to steal IEWU instead of just making that movie and then going on to direct her own first feature?

The hoops y'all will jump through to deny that a woman was sexually harassed, and to defend a man who is, by all accounts, kind of crappy. It's amazing. Not really surprising, but still amazing.

Here you are again, that BL or piece. Get off of the juice. These two railroaded him and continue to try to railroad him through their tactics. We all know what they are doing. It’s high school 101–eeww, he’s so weird (weird being culturally different, racially different, sexually different, physically different—you name it) and using this as a foundation for Creating a fake claim against this guy. Her tactics have been relentless and cruel. Thank goodness he kept receipts, because that really shifted public opinion away from her false, unproved allegations to his provable assertions that her smears were unsubstantiated.

I’m not sure who you are and why having BL viewed so falsely positive is all you write about and spin on.

You can agree to disagree on how you think the case will resolve, but by no means is BL or her case the slam dunk that you continue to force. She lied! Repeatedly! He brought the receipts to prove they were lies! What else is she lying about?

You want to smear JB because he may not have run a perfect set, but overlook her crap— her insurrections, her flirtings, her bait and traps, her demands, and moreover, her ambushes! An actor with power coming in and taking over a director’s movie. That’s like any one of us as associates coming in and trying to steal the business and role of a partner. You’d be on the street and black listed so fast!

Don’t care if JB made a few minor mistakes. Like that THR digital pic, I am absolutely 100% team Baldoni. The mean girl hate, etc (you fill in the blank) has to stop. He gave her an opportunity and she made him a sucker for being so kind and generous.

Bye bye BL

[Anonymous]

That BL pr piece

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the extortion, Ryan and Blake have done this before. The Director of the first Deadpool was pushed out by Ryan and the comic book author was sidelined at the premiere. Last fall when Blake’s camp was smearing Baldoni, they also leaked to the press that Ryan wanted to buy the movie from Baldoni so she could continue the franchise without him, as they’d clashed. The problem with narcissists is they always tell on themselves.

What a weird amalgam of truth, rumor, and flat out lies.

The comic book author was sidelined by Marvel/Disney, not Reynolds (he wasn't involved with that at all). This is a longstanding issue between comic book authors and Marvel and Disney. Authors of these stories are unique because they are generally hired to tell stories about existing characters and universes, which means they never own the copyright on what they produce. I have also heard authors who have written parts of the extended Star Wars universe that have found their way into the newer films talk about this. It's just a challenge of working in that genre on existing IP and has absolutely zero to do with Ryan Reynolds or Blake Lively.

The rumors that Reynolds or Lively were trying to get the rights to the sequel have never been substantiated. It's never clear where those "leaks" came from or what they were based on. Though on their face, offering to buy the rights from Baldoni is not "extortion." It's legal and find to offer to pay for the rights to an IP property.

I didn't follow the thing with Reynolds and the original director of Deadpool that closely but it just sounded like creative differences. Again, not extortion -- it's not like Reynolds tried to extort that director. They disagreed over the direction of the second movie, and Miller decided to quit. It's just a reality that when you have a franchise like that, the "face" of the franchise often has more power than the director of the movie because it's easier to replace a director (most movie watchers will never know the difference) than to replace the actor who stars as the lead character. I guess even in Deadpool where he wears the mask all the time this is true. I don't know. I'm sure Miller has what he feels are legitimate gripes with Reynolds over what happened there, but notice he didn't sue Reynolds for extortion. Because it's not extortion to flex the power you have on a film set to try and control the direction of the movie. It's how the movie business works. It's a tough business!

Miller didn’t sue because Ryan pushed him out the old fashioned way. With iewu, Blake pushed Baldoni out by falsely accusing him of SH and leaking these things to the public. The point about buying the movie is they were making their intentions clear. Put enough pressure on Baldoni reputation wise so he’d be compelled to sell.

1) I do not believe Lively's allegations are false.
2) Lively sued over the SH allegations in December 2024, a full 5 months after the movie was released.
3) Baldoni remained the director for the duration of the shoot and is credited as the director on the movie. He was not fired nor was he forced to quit.
4) Baldoni did his own edit of the movie and if he wants to release it, he is welcome to. Sony decided to distribute Lively's edit of the movie. It is not uncommon for a large studio serving as distributor of a movie to choose an edit other than the director's edit for distribution, and there are multiple factors that go into it.
5) Again, there is zero evidence that Lively or Reynolds ever offered to buy the rights to sequel from Baldoni, and even if they did, what is the evidence that the goal here wouldn't be just to ensure Lively could make a sequel to a popular movie she starred in without working with the director who SHed her on the set of the original movie? It seems reasonable to me that if you were SHed by a director, you wouldn't want to work with them again, and it would be a bummer if that director owned the rights to a sequel for a movie you were closely associated with.

This whole narrative about how Lively and Reynolds somehow plotted to steal the movie and the sequel rights from Baldoni by inventing sexual harassment claims and using them as leverage makes no sense. If the claims were invented, they'd be easy to disprove, so why would they work as leverage in the first place? And given their money and power, this is the weirdest possible way for Lively to gain control of a movie -- she was in talks to direct her first movie before they even shot IEWU. Why would she scheme to steal IEWU instead of just making that movie and then going on to direct her own first feature?

The hoops y'all will jump through to deny that a woman was sexually harassed, and to defend a man who is, by all accounts, kind of crappy. It's amazing. Not really surprising, but still amazing.

I agree with most of this.

[Anonymous]

BL and RR paint this narrative that he’s so weird and “uncomfortable” to be around because he’s not alpha. He’s not mainstream. So he’s weird, he should be railroaded, and you should support our lies because we’re cool and part of the non, weird in crowd.

It’s asinine that RR would mock JB with a character in his movie. That’s how much they want people to hate JB’s differences. He made a whole character that he mocks and annihilates in his movie! Who does shit like that?

Again, not sure why you are going so hard for BL in this, always coming back with theses well crafted bullet points in support of BL as if you are part of her legal team.

Agree to disagree on this, but I guarantee (and I’m sure that the courts will mirror public opinion on this) but his actions do not add up to SH. They ruined the livelihood of JB knowing that the narratives were false. We all see that and that’s why—not because of some bots or some sophisticated astroturfing marketing campaign—that’s why so many people are like me and throw our support behind JB. He was bullied and still is being bullied.

BL is so insufferable and shows no grace. Look at those videos from her past! She is not. Truthful nor nice person. It really has me wondering about TS.

[Anonymous]

Just ignoring the insult word salad poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the extortion, Ryan and Blake have done this before. The Director of the first Deadpool was pushed out by Ryan and the comic book author was sidelined at the premiere. Last fall when Blake’s camp was smearing Baldoni, they also leaked to the press that Ryan wanted to buy the movie from Baldoni so she could continue the franchise without him, as they’d clashed. The problem with narcissists is they always tell on themselves.

What a weird amalgam of truth, rumor, and flat out lies.

The comic book author was sidelined by Marvel/Disney, not Reynolds (he wasn't involved with that at all). This is a longstanding issue between comic book authors and Marvel and Disney. Authors of these stories are unique because they are generally hired to tell stories about existing characters and universes, which means they never own the copyright on what they produce. I have also heard authors who have written parts of the extended Star Wars universe that have found their way into the newer films talk about this. It's just a challenge of working in that genre on existing IP and has absolutely zero to do with Ryan Reynolds or Blake Lively.

The rumors that Reynolds or Lively were trying to get the rights to the sequel have never been substantiated. It's never clear where those "leaks" came from or what they were based on. Though on their face, offering to buy the rights from Baldoni is not "extortion." It's legal and find to offer to pay for the rights to an IP property.

I didn't follow the thing with Reynolds and the original director of Deadpool that closely but it just sounded like creative differences. Again, not extortion -- it's not like Reynolds tried to extort that director. They disagreed over the direction of the second movie, and Miller decided to quit. It's just a reality that when you have a franchise like that, the "face" of the franchise often has more power than the director of the movie because it's easier to replace a director (most movie watchers will never know the difference) than to replace the actor who stars as the lead character. I guess even in Deadpool where he wears the mask all the time this is true. I don't know. I'm sure Miller has what he feels are legitimate gripes with Reynolds over what happened there, but notice he didn't sue Reynolds for extortion. Because it's not extortion to flex the power you have on a film set to try and control the direction of the movie. It's how the movie business works. It's a tough business!

Miller didn’t sue because Ryan pushed him out the old fashioned way. With iewu, Blake pushed Baldoni out by falsely accusing him of SH and leaking these things to the public. The point about buying the movie is they were making their intentions clear. Put enough pressure on Baldoni reputation wise so he’d be compelled to sell.

1) I do not believe Lively's allegations are false.
2) Lively sued over the SH allegations in December 2024, a full 5 months after the movie was released.
3) Baldoni remained the director for the duration of the shoot and is credited as the director on the movie. He was not fired nor was he forced to quit.
4) Baldoni did his own edit of the movie and if he wants to release it, he is welcome to. Sony decided to distribute Lively's edit of the movie. It is not uncommon for a large studio serving as distributor of a movie to choose an edit other than the director's edit for distribution, and there are multiple factors that go into it.
5) Again, there is zero evidence that Lively or Reynolds ever offered to buy the rights to sequel from Baldoni, and even if they did, what is the evidence that the goal here wouldn't be just to ensure Lively could make a sequel to a popular movie she starred in without working with the director who SHed her on the set of the original movie? It seems reasonable to me that if you were SHed by a director, you wouldn't want to work with them again, and it would be a bummer if that director owned the rights to a sequel for a movie you were closely associated with.

This whole narrative about how Lively and Reynolds somehow plotted to steal the movie and the sequel rights from Baldoni by inventing sexual harassment claims and using them as leverage makes no sense. If the claims were invented, they'd be easy to disprove, so why would they work as leverage in the first place? And given their money and power, this is the weirdest possible way for Lively to gain control of a movie -- she was in talks to direct her first movie before they even shot IEWU. Why would she scheme to steal IEWU instead of just making that movie and then going on to direct her own first feature?

The hoops y'all will jump through to deny that a woman was sexually harassed, and to defend a man who is, by all accounts, kind of crappy. It's amazing. Not really surprising, but still amazing.

I agree with most of this.

No- some of us have really been harassed, and this ain’t it. Popping out boobs to breast pump, inviting a man to have a meeting while doing so, and then getting while he stares—who does shit like this?

Or better yet, ambushing a guy by callling a meeting at your apartment and then getting to heavies to coerce him into accepting you rewrite of a script that he, the director wrote? Who does that? That’s like saying “ no, partner X. I’m going to the head partner and telling him why my associates brief is better than your partner brief, because I know the main boss and he will let me have my way.

This is what I cannot support. I’m not saying JB was as airtight as say some more established directors would have been, but BL was always looking for an opportunity to gain control. She said it in past videos—she looked to gain more control over movies!

I’m done with her and RR!

[Anonymous]

I don't think people would even know Nicepool was based on Baldoni if the conflict between Livley and Baldoni had not erupted into litigation, many months after that movie even came out. I don't think it was Reynold's intent to humiliate Baldoni publicly with that character -- I think it was a private joke between him and Lively that made it's way into his movie and that it got "outed" thanks to the litigation.

I know people will say they shouldn't have joked about it but people use humor to handle stress and trauma all the time. It's honestly healthy.

Baldoni was the one who brought the issue of Nicepool forward and made people focus on it. Had he not sent that letter to Disney/Marvel about the character, I don't think this is something anyone would cover in media. Baldoni wanted to highlight the similarities between himself and Nicepool in order to pursue this "bullying" allegation. But before that, most people had not made the connection between the two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people would even know Nicepool was based on Baldoni if the conflict between Livley and Baldoni had not erupted into litigation, many months after that movie even came out. I don't think it was Reynold's intent to humiliate Baldoni publicly with that character -- I think it was a private joke between him and Lively that made it's way into his movie and that it got "outed" thanks to the litigation.

I know people will say they shouldn't have joked about it but people use humor to handle stress and trauma all the time. It's honestly healthy.

Baldoni was the one who brought the issue of Nicepool forward and made people focus on it. Had he not sent that letter to Disney/Marvel about the character, I don't think this is something anyone would cover in media. Baldoni wanted to highlight the similarities between himself and Nicepool in order to pursue this "bullying" allegation. But before that, most people had not made the connection between the two.

It can’t be an inside joke if it’s put in a movie that is cast worldwide! People may not have known who the character was based on, but it definitely pokes fun of a less than alpha male. It’s still the same bullying —you man bun wearing softie…( who is obliterated in the movie).

That’s some dark, bulling humor. Could have just left that at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gone for a week and this thread has once again gone south.

Do some of you all not have jobs? Working with annoying people comes with the territory, regardless of profession. Being annoying or as some of you put it, unprofessional, is not actionable as sexual harassment.

The princess types will always find something to complain about. They find certain innocuous men too creepy to work with.

Hmm, sounds like you are speaking from personal experience. Why don't you expand on this?

Yes, I am a woman who has worked with trouble making mean girls. If they don’t find a man attractive, if he’s not alpha, they often pick apart things he says and does simply because they don’t like him, the women are bullies. It’s allowed and almost normalized because these men are seen as ‘creepy’ or weird by society because they don’t fit a certain stereotype. Even male coworkers feel the same way about these ‘odd’ men. These poor men are targets and are bullied and ostracized into submission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gone for a week and this thread has once again gone south.

Do some of you all not have jobs? Working with annoying people comes with the territory, regardless of profession. Being annoying or as some of you put it, unprofessional, is not actionable as sexual harassment.

And being outwitted strategically is not extortion.

Bit being threatened with fabricated sexual harassment claims in exchange for rights to a movie is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gone for a week and this thread has once again gone south.

Do some of you all not have jobs? Working with annoying people comes with the territory, regardless of profession. Being annoying or as some of you put it, unprofessional, is not actionable as sexual harassment.

The princess types will always find something to complain about. They find certain innocuous men too creepy to work with.

Hmm, sounds like you are speaking from personal experience. Why don't you expand on this?

Yes, I am a woman who has worked with trouble making mean girls. If they don’t find a man attractive, if he’s not alpha, they often pick apart things he says and does simply because they don’t like him, the women are bullies. It’s allowed and almost normalized because these men are seen as ‘creepy’ or weird by society because they don’t fit a certain stereotype. Even male coworkers feel the same way about these ‘odd’ men. These poor men are targets and are bullied and ostracized into submission.

For example, one woman colleague of mine would get offended because a male colleague would say “hi” to her too many times per day, like whenever he saw her. She hated him for this. He was most likely on the spectrum, I felt so bad for him. I always waved to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gone for a week and this thread has once again gone south.

Do some of you all not have jobs? Working with annoying people comes with the territory, regardless of profession. Being annoying or as some of you put it, unprofessional, is not actionable as sexual harassment.

The princess types will always find something to complain about. They find certain innocuous men too creepy to work with.

Hmm, sounds like you are speaking from personal experience. Why don't you expand on this?

Yes, I am a woman who has worked with trouble making mean girls. If they don’t find a man attractive, if he’s not alpha, they often pick apart things he says and does simply because they don’t like him, the women are bullies. It’s allowed and almost normalized because these men are seen as ‘creepy’ or weird by society because they don’t fit a certain stereotype. Even male coworkers feel the same way about these ‘odd’ men. These poor men are targets and are bullied and ostracized into submission.

And I’m the pp who just went off on this diatribe about BL being a bully. Yes, I have been harassed. Narrative is quasi-similar.

The reason JB has so much public support is because so many of us get this whole construct by BL. We’ve experienced it.

I completely support JB going the distance and clearing his name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the extortion, Ryan and Blake have done this before. The Director of the first Deadpool was pushed out by Ryan and the comic book author was sidelined at the premiere. Last fall when Blake’s camp was smearing Baldoni, they also leaked to the press that Ryan wanted to buy the movie from Baldoni so she could continue the franchise without him, as they’d clashed. The problem with narcissists is they always tell on themselves.

What a weird amalgam of truth, rumor, and flat out lies.

The comic book author was sidelined by Marvel/Disney, not Reynolds (he wasn't involved with that at all). This is a longstanding issue between comic book authors and Marvel and Disney. Authors of these stories are unique because they are generally hired to tell stories about existing characters and universes, which means they never own the copyright on what they produce. I have also heard authors who have written parts of the extended Star Wars universe that have found their way into the newer films talk about this. It's just a challenge of working in that genre on existing IP and has absolutely zero to do with Ryan Reynolds or Blake Lively.

The rumors that Reynolds or Lively were trying to get the rights to the sequel have never been substantiated. It's never clear where those "leaks" came from or what they were based on. Though on their face, offering to buy the rights from Baldoni is not "extortion." It's legal and find to offer to pay for the rights to an IP property.

I didn't follow the thing with Reynolds and the original director of Deadpool that closely but it just sounded like creative differences. Again, not extortion -- it's not like Reynolds tried to extort that director. They disagreed over the direction of the second movie, and Miller decided to quit. It's just a reality that when you have a franchise like that, the "face" of the franchise often has more power than the director of the movie because it's easier to replace a director (most movie watchers will never know the difference) than to replace the actor who stars as the lead character. I guess even in Deadpool where he wears the mask all the time this is true. I don't know. I'm sure Miller has what he feels are legitimate gripes with Reynolds over what happened there, but notice he didn't sue Reynolds for extortion. Because it's not extortion to flex the power you have on a film set to try and control the direction of the movie. It's how the movie business works. It's a tough business!

Miller didn’t sue because Ryan pushed him out the old fashioned way. With iewu, Blake pushed Baldoni out by falsely accusing him of SH and leaking these things to the public. The point about buying the movie is they were making their intentions clear. Put enough pressure on Baldoni reputation wise so he’d be compelled to sell.

1) I do not believe Lively's allegations are false.
2) Lively sued over the SH allegations in December 2024, a full 5 months after the movie was released.
3) Baldoni remained the director for the duration of the shoot and is credited as the director on the movie. He was not fired nor was he forced to quit.
4) Baldoni did his own edit of the movie and if he wants to release it, he is welcome to. Sony decided to distribute Lively's edit of the movie. It is not uncommon for a large studio serving as distributor of a movie to choose an edit other than the director's edit for distribution, and there are multiple factors that go into it.
5) Again, there is zero evidence that Lively or Reynolds ever offered to buy the rights to sequel from Baldoni, and even if they did, what is the evidence that the goal here wouldn't be just to ensure Lively could make a sequel to a popular movie she starred in without working with the director who SHed her on the set of the original movie? It seems reasonable to me that if you were SHed by a director, you wouldn't want to work with them again, and it would be a bummer if that director owned the rights to a sequel for a movie you were closely associated with.

This whole narrative about how Lively and Reynolds somehow plotted to steal the movie and the sequel rights from Baldoni by inventing sexual harassment claims and using them as leverage makes no sense. If the claims were invented, they'd be easy to disprove, so why would they work as leverage in the first place? And given their money and power, this is the weirdest possible way for Lively to gain control of a movie -- she was in talks to direct her first movie before they even shot IEWU. Why would she scheme to steal IEWU instead of just making that movie and then going on to direct her own first feature?

The hoops y'all will jump through to deny that a woman was sexually harassed, and to defend a man who is, by all accounts, kind of crappy. It's amazing. Not really surprising, but still amazing.

I agree with most of this.

No- some of us have really been harassed, and this ain’t it. Popping out boobs to breast pump, inviting a man to have a meeting while doing so, and then getting while he stares—who does shit like this?

Or better yet, ambushing a guy by callling a meeting at your apartment and then getting to heavies to coerce him into accepting you rewrite of a script that he, the director wrote? Who does that? That’s like saying “ no, partner X. I’m going to the head partner and telling him why my associates brief is better than your partner brief, because I know the main boss and he will let me have my way.

This is what I cannot support. I’m not saying JB was as airtight as say some more established directors would have been, but BL was always looking for an opportunity to gain control. She said it in past videos—she looked to gain more control over movies!

I’m done with her and RR!

I have been harassed and I believe Lively.

Also, I will note that I was actually sexually harassed at work by two women, so to me this really isn't a gender issue for me. These women touched me inappropriately and made frequent comments to me that were sexually charged and inappropriate. I was also pressured to dress in a more revealing way and my body was often commented on at work, mostly by women. My experience is that people really struggle with any narrative of sexual harassment that doesn't match this kind of generic, TV movie perception -- I know people who think I can't possibly have been sexually harassed because the perpetrators were women, and while one of them was queer the other was not. But I actually don't think either of the people who harassed me were interested in me sexually. I think they used physical contact and sexualized comments as a tactic for control/influence in the workplace, and that I became a target when I was not receptive to this behavior after I started working there. And I see similar issues at play in Lively's allegations and even the way Baldoni and Heath have chosen to respond to them. Her story rings true to me, and as an example, that video of the dance scene, in my opinion, supports her allegations because of what I see happening with the use of physical contact to control, and what I perceive as visible annoyance/anger from Baldoni when it's clear that Lively is trying to evade the physical contact and exert her own control over the scene.

I don't really care about Ryan Reynolds either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gone for a week and this thread has once again gone south.

Do some of you all not have jobs? Working with annoying people comes with the territory, regardless of profession. Being annoying or as some of you put it, unprofessional, is not actionable as sexual harassment.

And being outwitted strategically is not extortion.

Bit being threatened with fabricated sexual harassment claims in exchange for rights to a movie is.

Please point to where Lively threatened Baldoni with fabricated SH claims in exchange for movie rights. And no, Reddit threads where random people just assert that this is what must have happened don't count. Show where Lively threatened to go public with fabricated claims to get the rights to the sequel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people would even know Nicepool was based on Baldoni if the conflict between Livley and Baldoni had not erupted into litigation, many months after that movie even came out. I don't think it was Reynold's intent to humiliate Baldoni publicly with that character -- I think it was a private joke between him and Lively that made it's way into his movie and that it got "outed" thanks to the litigation.

I know people will say they shouldn't have joked about it but people use humor to handle stress and trauma all the time. It's honestly healthy.

Baldoni was the one who brought the issue of Nicepool forward and made people focus on it. Had he not sent that letter to Disney/Marvel about the character, I don't think this is something anyone would cover in media. Baldoni wanted to highlight the similarities between himself and Nicepool in order to pursue this "bullying" allegation. But before that, most people had not made the connection between the two.

It can’t be an inside joke if it’s put in a movie that is cast worldwide! People may not have known who the character was based on, but it definitely pokes fun of a less than alpha male. It’s still the same bullying —you man bun wearing softie…( who is obliterated in the movie).

That’s some dark, bulling humor. Could have just left that at home.

Movies are full of inside jokes. It's just they are mostly not later made public. The whole point of an inside joke is that you can reference it publicly and only the people in on it will get it. There's zero evidence that anyone who saw Deadpool last summer thought Nicepool was based on Justin Baldoni, except maybe Justin Baldoni himself who might have recognized the uncomfortable similarities between himself and the character (I'm in this picture and I dont' like it). But why would Baldoni even go see Deadpool? It doesn't seem like his sort of movie anyway.

There's just no evidence that the character was designed to intimidate or embarrass him. I don't even think he realized the character existed and was likely based on him until months later.