Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

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.

How did it go from Blake supporting Justin and the film to having Justin and his family segregated into the basement at the premier? Why did Blake make this happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If nothing else it makes Ryan look like a middle school aged mean girl.

[Anonymous]

Again, this is what happens when you get a bunch of millennials together to try to make a movie.

[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!

Your take on these incidents is not the objective truth. It’s the story you are choosing to believe. I have also been harassed and a lot of what I saw in Lively’s complaint rang true to me, even after Baldoni’s filings. Moreover, knowingly hiring Johnny Depp’s PR firm is a step too far for me. That’s not a good guy who is just trying to protect himself, that’s someone trying to win at all costs and bury the other side - same move in hiring Freedman whose theatrics all for show are not impressing me so far. (He just filed another letter responding to the protective order, making big hay out of the SNL appearance also). Nah, no thank you to all of that.

On preview: I read the dance scene same as PP above posting about her own harassment. Lively keeps trying to escape his physical advances that weren’t supposed to be in the scene and he gets mad about it. They were not in the script! This was supposed to be staring into one another’s eyes and talking, the kissing was something he added in his own that she did not like and was trying to get out of.

[Anonymous]

We can agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Your take on these incidents is not the objective truth. It’s the story you are choosing to believe. I have also been harassed and a lot of what I saw in Lively’s complaint rang true to me, even after Baldoni’s filings. Moreover, knowingly hiring Johnny Depp’s PR firm is a step too far for me. That’s not a good guy who is just trying to protect himself, that’s someone trying to win at all costs and bury the other side - same move in hiring Freedman whose theatrics all for show are not impressing me so far. (He just filed another letter responding to the protective order, making big hay out of the SNL appearance also). Nah, no thank you to all of that.

On preview: I read the dance scene same as PP above posting about her own harassment. Lively keeps trying to escape his physical advances that weren’t supposed to be in the scene and he gets mad about it. They were not in the script! This was supposed to be staring into one another’s eyes and talking, the kissing was something he added in his own that she did not like and was trying to get out of.

Blake was the wrong actress for this film. They needed an actress who was willing and able to become Lily. To fully take on this role. Blake’s character and Baldoni’s were obviously unable to collaborate and mesh well. If Baldoni thought this was how Ryle should be portrayed why is that wrong? Why is Blake right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

How did it go from Blake supporting Justin and the film to having Justin and his family segregated into the basement at the premier? Why did Blake make this happen?

Because he sexually harassed her on set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Your take on these incidents is not the objective truth. It’s the story you are choosing to believe. I have also been harassed and a lot of what I saw in Lively’s complaint rang true to me, even after Baldoni’s filings. Moreover, knowingly hiring Johnny Depp’s PR firm is a step too far for me. That’s not a good guy who is just trying to protect himself, that’s someone trying to win at all costs and bury the other side - same move in hiring Freedman whose theatrics all for show are not impressing me so far. (He just filed another letter responding to the protective order, making big hay out of the SNL appearance also). Nah, no thank you to all of that.

On preview: I read the dance scene same as PP above posting about her own harassment. Lively keeps trying to escape his physical advances that weren’t supposed to be in the scene and he gets mad about it. They were not in the script! This was supposed to be staring into one another’s eyes and talking, the kissing was something he added in his own that she did not like and was trying to get out of.

This is also a story you’re choosing to believe. Which is fine as long as you understand it’s so a story.

We are all sitting here truly not knowing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Your take on these incidents is not the objective truth. It’s the story you are choosing to believe. I have also been harassed and a lot of what I saw in Lively’s complaint rang true to me, even after Baldoni’s filings. Moreover, knowingly hiring Johnny Depp’s PR firm is a step too far for me. That’s not a good guy who is just trying to protect himself, that’s someone trying to win at all costs and bury the other side - same move in hiring Freedman whose theatrics all for show are not impressing me so far. (He just filed another letter responding to the protective order, making big hay out of the SNL appearance also). Nah, no thank you to all of that.

On preview: I read the dance scene same as PP above posting about her own harassment. Lively keeps trying to escape his physical advances that weren’t supposed to be in the scene and he gets mad about it. They were not in the script! This was supposed to be staring into one another’s eyes and talking, the kissing was something he added in his own that she did not like and was trying to get out of.

Blake was the wrong actress for this film. They needed an actress who was willing and able to become Lily. To fully take on this role. Blake’s character and Baldoni’s were obviously unable to collaborate and mesh well. If Baldoni thought this was how Ryle should be portrayed why is that wrong? Why is Blake right?

It is wrong to push an actor do participate in nudity and intimacy on screen that is not in the script and that you haven't discussed with them beforehand. If that is how Baldoni wanted those scenes to go, why wouldn't he just tell Lively ahead of time and get her on board? Why would he add this stuff in the moment? You don't improvise kissing and intimacy and nudity in a movie. It's not a free for all.

I am glad Lively was the one hired for this role because she's calling it out. If they'd hired a less experienced actress who would have felt more pressured to just "go with it" when Baldoni did this stuff, then there would be no conversation about whether or not it's okay to just surprise an actor with kissing, fondling, and nudity and expect them to roll with it. I think the conversation matters. I also feel uncomfortable about what Baldoni would have learned from this movie if he'd had an actress in this role who just accepted these sorts of violations of consent as normal, or even if she didn't like it she stayed silent to avoid upsetting her director (who is also the actor improvising all this stuff). He would think "oh this is fine." But it's not. Actors have rights too and agreeing to do a movie that has kissing in it does not mean you are agreeing for literally any scene in the movie to involve your scene partner kissing and petting you, or that it's okay to show up to set one day and be told "oh you are doing this scene naked" with no warning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Your take on these incidents is not the objective truth. It’s the story you are choosing to believe. I have also been harassed and a lot of what I saw in Lively’s complaint rang true to me, even after Baldoni’s filings. Moreover, knowingly hiring Johnny Depp’s PR firm is a step too far for me. That’s not a good guy who is just trying to protect himself, that’s someone trying to win at all costs and bury the other side - same move in hiring Freedman whose theatrics all for show are not impressing me so far. (He just filed another letter responding to the protective order, making big hay out of the SNL appearance also). Nah, no thank you to all of that.

On preview: I read the dance scene same as PP above posting about her own harassment. Lively keeps trying to escape his physical advances that weren’t supposed to be in the scene and he gets mad about it. They were not in the script! This was supposed to be staring into one another’s eyes and talking, the kissing was something he added in his own that she did not like and was trying to get out of.

Blake was the wrong actress for this film. They needed an actress who was willing and able to become Lily. To fully take on this role. Blake’s character and Baldoni’s were obviously unable to collaborate and mesh well. If Baldoni thought this was how Ryle should be portrayed why is that wrong? Why is Blake right?

This is the kind of comment that I don’t understand. Clearly Blake did a pretty good job of becoming Lily, the main character of the movie, or the movie would not have made an astonishing and unexpected $350 million dollars. Clearly her cut of the film did pretty well. Not sure how you can look at the box office receipts and say that Lively was not right for the role, but go off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Your take on these incidents is not the objective truth. It’s the story you are choosing to believe. I have also been harassed and a lot of what I saw in Lively’s complaint rang true to me, even after Baldoni’s filings. Moreover, knowingly hiring Johnny Depp’s PR firm is a step too far for me. That’s not a good guy who is just trying to protect himself, that’s someone trying to win at all costs and bury the other side - same move in hiring Freedman whose theatrics all for show are not impressing me so far. (He just filed another letter responding to the protective order, making big hay out of the SNL appearance also). Nah, no thank you to all of that.

On preview: I read the dance scene same as PP above posting about her own harassment. Lively keeps trying to escape his physical advances that weren’t supposed to be in the scene and he gets mad about it. They were not in the script! This was supposed to be staring into one another’s eyes and talking, the kissing was something he added in his own that she did not like and was trying to get out of.

Blake was the wrong actress for this film. They needed an actress who was willing and able to become Lily. To fully take on this role. Blake’s character and Baldoni’s were obviously unable to collaborate and mesh well. If Baldoni thought this was how Ryle should be portrayed why is that wrong? Why is Blake right?

It is wrong to push an actor do participate in nudity and intimacy on screen that is not in the script and that you haven't discussed with them beforehand. If that is how Baldoni wanted those scenes to go, why wouldn't he just tell Lively ahead of time and get her on board? Why would he add this stuff in the moment? You don't improvise kissing and intimacy and nudity in a movie. It's not a free for all.

I am glad Lively was the one hired for this role because she's calling it out. If they'd hired a less experienced actress who would have felt more pressured to just "go with it" when Baldoni did this stuff, then there would be no conversation about whether or not it's okay to just surprise an actor with kissing, fondling, and nudity and expect them to roll with it. I think the conversation matters. I also feel uncomfortable about what Baldoni would have learned from this movie if he'd had an actress in this role who just accepted these sorts of violations of consent as normal, or even if she didn't like it she stayed silent to avoid upsetting her director (who is also the actor improvising all this stuff). He would think "oh this is fine." But it's not. Actors have rights too and agreeing to do a movie that has kissing in it does not mean you are agreeing for literally any scene in the movie to involve your scene partner kissing and petting you, or that it's okay to show up to set one day and be told "oh you are doing this scene naked" with no warning.

💯 agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

How did it go from Blake supporting Justin and the film to having Justin and his family segregated into the basement at the premier? Why did Blake make this happen?

Because he sexually harassed her on set.

Not from what’s been disclosed. You cannot harass if you don’t have power. BL has demonstrated in so many ways that she was able to usurp power or force JB into submission. Wardrobe, meeting locations, terrace scene, marketing—she’s no victim here. She got most of demands met by JB and team. She welded power! And was never afraid to use it, which she did repeatedly.

No sh there.

[Anonymous]

She even asked for a producer credit, after usurping so many things. Ah, no victim here. Like she said in a prior video, it’s typically her intent to try to take over more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Your take on these incidents is not the objective truth. It’s the story you are choosing to believe. I have also been harassed and a lot of what I saw in Lively’s complaint rang true to me, even after Baldoni’s filings. Moreover, knowingly hiring Johnny Depp’s PR firm is a step too far for me. That’s not a good guy who is just trying to protect himself, that’s someone trying to win at all costs and bury the other side - same move in hiring Freedman whose theatrics all for show are not impressing me so far. (He just filed another letter responding to the protective order, making big hay out of the SNL appearance also). Nah, no thank you to all of that.

On preview: I read the dance scene same as PP above posting about her own harassment. Lively keeps trying to escape his physical advances that weren’t supposed to be in the scene and he gets mad about it. They were not in the script! This was supposed to be staring into one another’s eyes and talking, the kissing was something he added in his own that she did not like and was trying to get out of.

Blake was the wrong actress for this film. They needed an actress who was willing and able to become Lily. To fully take on this role. Blake’s character and Baldoni’s were obviously unable to collaborate and mesh well. If Baldoni thought this was how Ryle should be portrayed why is that wrong? Why is Blake right?

It is wrong to push an actor do participate in nudity and intimacy on screen that is not in the script and that you haven't discussed with them beforehand. If that is how Baldoni wanted those scenes to go, why wouldn't he just tell Lively ahead of time and get her on board? Why would he add this stuff in the moment? You don't improvise kissing and intimacy and nudity in a movie. It's not a free for all.

I am glad Lively was the one hired for this role because she's calling it out. If they'd hired a less experienced actress who would have felt more pressured to just "go with it" when Baldoni did this stuff, then there would be no conversation about whether or not it's okay to just surprise an actor with kissing, fondling, and nudity and expect them to roll with it. I think the conversation matters. I also feel uncomfortable about what Baldoni would have learned from this movie if he'd had an actress in this role who just accepted these sorts of violations of consent as normal, or even if she didn't like it she stayed silent to avoid upsetting her director (who is also the actor improvising all this stuff). He would think "oh this is fine." But it's not. Actors have rights too and agreeing to do a movie that has kissing in it does not mean you are agreeing for literally any scene in the movie to involve your scene partner kissing and petting you, or that it's okay to show up to set one day and be told "oh you are doing this scene naked" with no warning.

💯 agree

It’s a good thing neither of you are actresses acting in a romantic drama that requires kissing your co star.

[Anonymous]

It’s nice to see we still have sock puppeting on the Blake sode, at least it’s consistent.