Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Ari made that live podcast disappear where he bullies Justin and calls him baloney?! Wow. The new Candace episode just dropped.

Starts talking about it at 24:00

[Anonymous]

oh god, giant live links to Candace Owens (with a fox news advertisement below, whee). We really are living in the worst timeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's bananas. The expression "with teeth" has existed a long time and is used in regular conversation to mean something that is especially forceful or aggressive, with the potential for real impact - as though one was bit. We use this in our law office and nobody is talking about blow jobs or thinks they are talking about blow jobs.

To be fair, it's "with teeth" in the same sentence as "balls" or "ball busting." I called it a spicy comment above. I do think it tends to a sexual connotation but she can argue otherwise. Not a smoking gun either way, but I wouldn't consider it the same as saying a motion to dismiss has teeth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:oh god, giant live links to Candace Owens (with a fox news advertisement below, whee). We really are living in the worst timeline.

Is Candace lying about the podcast where Ari attacks and bullies Justin disappearing? You don’t think that deeply suspicious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:oh god, giant live links to Candace Owens (with a fox news advertisement below, whee). We really are living in the worst timeline.

Owens’ podcast gets exponentially more views than any fake PR planted article, which must make Ryan and Blake seethe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s there. It specifically states that Sony Gianetti did receive complaints from Blake, but that the complaints she made were about proper Covid protocols on the set, not about harassment.

It’s right there.

I don't see where Sony came out and said she lied and that the only complaints were about covid. Who from Sony are you seeing said that? Can you link the name, then I can search that in the article. I read it twice and still haven't seen it.

A specific person is not identified. You know, sort of like how Blake has yet to identify the other complainants but you accept their existence.

BL put hers in a legal document. A random tabloid referring to vague, general 'sources' means nothing.

Well, she puts things in a legal document and then she omits them in the next iteration, so I don’t think that’s any more a guarantee of truth.

lol, are you the same person who came in hot 24 hours ago wrongly claiming Lively had surreptitiously amended her complaint yesterday because of something you read on Reddit? Just checking how much weight to give to your/reddit’s/jed Wallace’s theories.

If you follow r/ItEndsWithLawsuits you can tell that someone in this thread is importing arguments there to here. I follow that sub plus several others in the hopes of getting sort of a balanced impression of online sentiment. That one is very pro-JB, there's a super pro-Lively one I follow too (r/BaldoniFiles) and then r/Fauxmoi and r/popculturechat are more neutral in that they sometimes lean pro-Lively, sometimes pro-Baldoni (in the fall they were both very pro-JB but now they lean more toward Lively).

Both the pro-JB and pro-Lively subs will have good posts and then a lot of BS posts that are insanely biased. I can tell someone on here is *deep* in that pro-JB sub and just kind of regurgitating stuff from there.

The person who is “deep” into this is you. I think I am not alone in posting/reading only here.

Are people allowed to have an opinion without there being a conspiracy that they are deep into all these subs? Blake Lively is a spoiled brat and has done herself no favors with this case. That does not mean she deserves harrassment, but in her world it is ok to take over a movie and rewrite scenes and have her husband bully the director, but no one is allowed to say anything to her.

The texts messages from Baldoni show him being nothing but encouraging and supportive. Meanwhile Blake cannot even have a civil 10 minute interview with a reporter without inserting her diva behavior and victimhood. It is tiresome. The only thing I like about this case, besides Baldoni's hot body, is the guy who impersonated Blake on Tik Tok. I don't give a damn about the Lilly Flowers film or any other Blake or Ryan project and I will probably never see a Baldoni movie.. So, Tik Tok guy for the win. And I did not import my thoughts from Reddit.

The BL impersonator is HILARIOUS.

Can you share a link??

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

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelpavano/video/7464754412087430430

I don't really get it? I mean, I get the joke with her outfits and agree they are ripe for parody but this doesn't send me. I don't think he has nailed her face at all, though he does appear to have found her lipstick shade.

I have a thing about men impersonating women for laughs though. Like I think part of what I'm supposed to find funny is that I can see his chest hair in the overalls, for instance, and this just strikes me as pretty retrograde. Maybe I'd find it funnier if he wasn't emphasizing some of his masculine features to impersonate a woman. Or if he did a good vocal impersonation. But this feels pretty cheap and lazy, IMO.

I never saw him before this thread and this isn’t my type of humor. But, I think he does look like her with her limited facial expressions and the way she holds her lips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s there. It specifically states that Sony Gianetti did receive complaints from Blake, but that the complaints she made were about proper Covid protocols on the set, not about harassment.

It’s right there.

I don't see where Sony came out and said she lied and that the only complaints were about covid. Who from Sony are you seeing said that? Can you link the name, then I can search that in the article. I read it twice and still haven't seen it.

A specific person is not identified. You know, sort of like how Blake has yet to identify the other complainants but you accept their existence.

BL put hers in a legal document. A random tabloid referring to vague, general 'sources' means nothing.

Well, she puts things in a legal document and then she omits them in the next iteration, so I don’t think that’s any more a guarantee of truth.

lol, are you the same person who came in hot 24 hours ago wrongly claiming Lively had surreptitiously amended her complaint yesterday because of something you read on Reddit? Just checking how much weight to give to your/reddit’s/jed Wallace’s theories.

If you follow r/ItEndsWithLawsuits you can tell that someone in this thread is importing arguments there to here. I follow that sub plus several others in the hopes of getting sort of a balanced impression of online sentiment. That one is very pro-JB, there's a super pro-Lively one I follow too (r/BaldoniFiles) and then r/Fauxmoi and r/popculturechat are more neutral in that they sometimes lean pro-Lively, sometimes pro-Baldoni (in the fall they were both very pro-JB but now they lean more toward Lively).

Both the pro-JB and pro-Lively subs will have good posts and then a lot of BS posts that are insanely biased. I can tell someone on here is *deep* in that pro-JB sub and just kind of regurgitating stuff from there.

The person who is “deep” into this is you. I think I am not alone in posting/reading only here.

Are people allowed to have an opinion without there being a conspiracy that they are deep into all these subs? Blake Lively is a spoiled brat and has done herself no favors with this case. That does not mean she deserves harrassment, but in her world it is ok to take over a movie and rewrite scenes and have her husband bully the director, but no one is allowed to say anything to her.

The texts messages from Baldoni show him being nothing but encouraging and supportive. Meanwhile Blake cannot even have a civil 10 minute interview with a reporter without inserting her diva behavior and victimhood. It is tiresome. The only thing I like about this case, besides Baldoni's hot body, is the guy who impersonated Blake on Tik Tok. I don't give a damn about the Lilly Flowers film or any other Blake or Ryan project and I will probably never see a Baldoni movie.. So, Tik Tok guy for the win. And I did not import my thoughts from Reddit.

The BL impersonator is HILARIOUS.

Can you share a link??

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

https://www.tiktok.com/@michaelpavano/video/7464754412087430430

I don't really get it? I mean, I get the joke with her outfits and agree they are ripe for parody but this doesn't send me. I don't think he has nailed her face at all, though he does appear to have found her lipstick shade.

I have a thing about men impersonating women for laughs though. Like I think part of what I'm supposed to find funny is that I can see his chest hair in the overalls, for instance, and this just strikes me as pretty retrograde. Maybe I'd find it funnier if he wasn't emphasizing some of his masculine features to impersonate a woman. Or if he did a good vocal impersonation. But this feels pretty cheap and lazy, IMO.

I never saw him before this thread and this isn’t my type of humor. But, I think he does look like her with her limited facial expressions and the way she holds her lips.

He looks exactly like her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is Blake a victim of sexual harassment when she was texting Justin innuendo about her blow job skills and inviting him over to watch her breastfeed? And her hubby was texting him deeply creepy stuff about his anus?

These are sick deviants.

I'm honestly in the fence in this case and want to wait until more info comes out (would love, for instance, to see depositions with all the major parties), but comments like this annoy me because when I see them I think "whoa, she did???" And then I go look it up and see that actually the blow job thing was her saying something about how her character would behave in a scene and it's 100% not sexual, she didn't invite anyone to come watch her breastfeed (she told Justin she could run lines and was pumping but you can pump fully clothed and it wasn't even clear if she meant for him to come while she was pumping), and the Reynolds comment was not "deeply disturbing" but a crude way of expressing gratitude.

Like I don't know if Blake was SHed, but I do know you are exaggerating stuff for effect here. Why can't people just talk about this case honestly and frankly without constantly lying and exaggerating? It makes it hard to follow what is actually going on.

+1

I hate those type of posts too. I've defended Baldoni at times, but those sort of posts make me want to defend Blake and hope she can prove herself with evidence. There are some fair points raised there, but it's the tone and the implication that "if you X then you can't have been sexually harassed." I hate the implication you need to be a perfect victim.

Those two comments by Lively and Reynolds are disgusting and tacky. I cringe when I hear them. It's fair for Baldoni to bring it up (mainly Lively's) because hostile environment sexual harassment refers to pervasive conduct that is unwelcome. It's ok for him to bring up some examples of her being spicy to set the tone for their working relationship. It's one comment though and if he sprang nudity and unwanted kissing on her he still could have sexually harassed her (I'm not saying he did, just that it's possible).

Breastfeeding and pumping are sufficiently similar enough that I agree with Baldoni that it's relevant to show she actually invited him to her dressing room while she was pumping. That would certainly inform whether he thought it was unwelcome to be in her dressing room while feeding/pumping. That is fair. But Lively had a good point in the amended complaint where she said that consent could be withdrawn by her, and if at any point she was feeding or pumping and asked someone to leave, they should have done so. Do I think that one incident is harassment? No, and I tend to believe Heath's account actually... but do I think it's impossible she was sexually harassed just because she invited him to her room once while pumping? No!

I actually think her claims have a better chance of getting in front of a jury than Baldoni's, because it's all these little fact patterns that could reasonably be enough to find SH *if they are true* and whether they are true is proven at trial. But they are so detail oriented and marginal that I think she will have a very difficult time in front of the jury because on balance, he'll have reasonable explanations for almost everything.

Part of the problem is that she named a bunch of things that happened in preproduction, like fat shaming, and early on set, like the dancing scene and others that made her uncomfortable and that she labeled SH. And then as late as June 2, clearly after these things had happened, and she was clearly uncomfortable and feeling harassed, that’s when she sent a text inviting him to run lines while she pumped.

She’s inviting him into an enclosed place where she requires privacy. It just is odd if she felt that uncomfortable. And he didn’t end up going, making clear in his text that he would be there later after he finished eating and would “head that way.” to me, indicated that he even really want to go in her trailer, but he would meet her over on that side of the set.

I’ll add one more thing that just really pisses me off. She threatened to quit a lot of times during the making of this, but when she threatened to not promote the movie, it’s just unbelievable to me. Very few women or anyone frankly can just burn it all down because they’re unhappy. I think that is what is called having FU money?

I mean they had done it. They had gone through all this work, the cast and crew and not just her, and were at the tail end and all they had to do was promote it. Literally do a few interviews and show up at the premier and then you never have to see each other again. And her threatening not to do it doesn’t just affect her, which clearly with her $400 million if she can afford it, because of something silly like not getting her cut when she is not the director!! Which would impact so many other people. I just feel like it was so damn selfish.

PP you're replying to.

Yes, that's a good point about the timeline. All of these events have to be viewed in context. It will be hard to explain friendly messages away as just trying to be cordial given all the supposed harassment. And while Baldoni as director wielded power on set and was her boss, she was not powerless and is in a totally different situation than the newbie actress. Considering how she made some pretty big demands and got them, it's harder for her to argue she didn't feel empowered on set and felt she had to be nice to him (whereas, it would make total sense for someone like Ferrer to feel that way).

It was smart of him not go when she was pumping. Don't remember if there were other incidents of Baldoni walking in when she was feeding/pumping or just Heath. I'm sure she would have cast everything in the worst possible light.

Part of me feels like they should have just called her bluff on not promoting the movie. We don't know when she signed her contract but I thought Baldoni said something about hoping he would no longer have to worry about her threatening that (presumably, it's a requirement although I suppose she could have also claimed to be sick or something). Was she really going to not promote this movie and let it flop? Someone had a good post the other day about how she did a ton of promotion and flew all around, way more than Baldoni. I feel like she would have been pissy but she would have done it. It sort of makes me wonder if Wayfarer didn't force the issue because they did feel like there were things they did that they didn't want people to know about, but I can't say for certain. It is legit hilarious reading his complaint every time they finally want to draw the line in the sand she's like "nope." She seemed to have a lot invested in this movie, wanted it to be the next Barbie... was she really going to give it up just because Baldoni was next to her on the red carpet or had his name on a film everyone knew he starred in and directed? It's just bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oh god, giant live links to Candace Owens (with a fox news advertisement below, whee). We really are living in the worst timeline.

Is Candace lying about the podcast where Ari attacks and bullies Justin disappearing? You don’t think that deeply suspicious?

That podcast was taken down??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is Blake a victim of sexual harassment when she was texting Justin innuendo about her blow job skills and inviting him over to watch her breastfeed? And her hubby was texting him deeply creepy stuff about his anus?

These are sick deviants.

I'm honestly in the fence in this case and want to wait until more info comes out (would love, for instance, to see depositions with all the major parties), but comments like this annoy me because when I see them I think "whoa, she did???" And then I go look it up and see that actually the blow job thing was her saying something about how her character would behave in a scene and it's 100% not sexual, she didn't invite anyone to come watch her breastfeed (she told Justin she could run lines and was pumping but you can pump fully clothed and it wasn't even clear if she meant for him to come while she was pumping), and the Reynolds comment was not "deeply disturbing" but a crude way of expressing gratitude.

Like I don't know if Blake was SHed, but I do know you are exaggerating stuff for effect here. Why can't people just talk about this case honestly and frankly without constantly lying and exaggerating? It makes it hard to follow what is actually going on.

+1

I hate those type of posts too. I've defended Baldoni at times, but those sort of posts make me want to defend Blake and hope she can prove herself with evidence. There are some fair points raised there, but it's the tone and the implication that "if you X then you can't have been sexually harassed." I hate the implication you need to be a perfect victim.

Those two comments by Lively and Reynolds are disgusting and tacky. I cringe when I hear them. It's fair for Baldoni to bring it up (mainly Lively's) because hostile environment sexual harassment refers to pervasive conduct that is unwelcome. It's ok for him to bring up some examples of her being spicy to set the tone for their working relationship. It's one comment though and if he sprang nudity and unwanted kissing on her he still could have sexually harassed her (I'm not saying he did, just that it's possible).

Breastfeeding and pumping are sufficiently similar enough that I agree with Baldoni that it's relevant to show she actually invited him to her dressing room while she was pumping. That would certainly inform whether he thought it was unwelcome to be in her dressing room while feeding/pumping. That is fair. But Lively had a good point in the amended complaint where she said that consent could be withdrawn by her, and if at any point she was feeding or pumping and asked someone to leave, they should have done so. Do I think that one incident is harassment? No, and I tend to believe Heath's account actually... but do I think it's impossible she was sexually harassed just because she invited him to her room once while pumping? No!

I actually think her claims have a better chance of getting in front of a jury than Baldoni's, because it's all these little fact patterns that could reasonably be enough to find SH *if they are true* and whether they are true is proven at trial. But they are so detail oriented and marginal that I think she will have a very difficult time in front of the jury because on balance, he'll have reasonable explanations for almost everything.

Part of the problem is that she named a bunch of things that happened in preproduction, like fat shaming, and early on set, like the dancing scene and others that made her uncomfortable and that she labeled SH. And then as late as June 2, clearly after these things had happened, and she was clearly uncomfortable and feeling harassed, that’s when she sent a text inviting him to run lines while she pumped.

She’s inviting him into an enclosed place where she requires privacy. It just is odd if she felt that uncomfortable. And he didn’t end up going, making clear in his text that he would be there later after he finished eating and would “head that way.” to me, indicated that he even really want to go in her trailer, but he would meet her over on that side of the set.

I’ll add one more thing that just really pisses me off. She threatened to quit a lot of times during the making of this, but when she threatened to not promote the movie, it’s just unbelievable to me. Very few women or anyone frankly can just burn it all down because they’re unhappy. I think that is what is called having FU money?

I mean they had done it. They had gone through all this work, the cast and crew and not just her, and were at the tail end and all they had to do was promote it. Literally do a few interviews and show up at the premier and then you never have to see each other again. And her threatening not to do it doesn’t just affect her, which clearly with her $400 million if she can afford it, because of something silly like not getting her cut when she is not the director!! Which would impact so many other people. I just feel like it was so damn selfish.

PP you're replying to.

Yes, that's a good point about the timeline. All of these events have to be viewed in context. It will be hard to explain friendly messages away as just trying to be cordial given all the supposed harassment. And while Baldoni as director wielded power on set and was her boss, she was not powerless and is in a totally different situation than the newbie actress. Considering how she made some pretty big demands and got them, it's harder for her to argue she didn't feel empowered on set and felt she had to be nice to him (whereas, it would make total sense for someone like Ferrer to feel that way).

It was smart of him not go when she was pumping. Don't remember if there were other incidents of Baldoni walking in when she was feeding/pumping or just Heath. I'm sure she would have cast everything in the worst possible light.

Part of me feels like they should have just called her bluff on not promoting the movie. We don't know when she signed her contract but I thought Baldoni said something about hoping he would no longer have to worry about her threatening that (presumably, it's a requirement although I suppose she could have also claimed to be sick or something). Was she really going to not promote this movie and let it flop? Someone had a good post the other day about how she did a ton of promotion and flew all around, way more than Baldoni. I feel like she would have been pissy but she would have done it. It sort of makes me wonder if Wayfarer didn't force the issue because they did feel like there were things they did that they didn't want people to know about, but I can't say for certain. It is legit hilarious reading his complaint every time they finally want to draw the line in the sand she's like "nope." She seemed to have a lot invested in this movie, wanted it to be the next Barbie... was she really going to give it up just because Baldoni was next to her on the red carpet or had his name on a film everyone knew he starred in and directed? It's just bizarre.

I agree about calling her bluff. If she was trying to promote her new hair product line seemed like not promoting the movie would have overshadowed that big time. Just the speculation etc. would have hurt Baldoni and wayfarer but also her. And not to mention her cast mates - - who are all much less well known and probably wanted a summer movie launch- might not look too kindly on that.

That said, the more I’m learning about how Sony was involved, I don’t think it was totally up to Wayfarer. I think they were under a lot of pressure from Sony and Sony is big time in bed with Reynolds. Which they might be regretting about now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:oh god, giant live links to Candace Owens (with a fox news advertisement below, whee). We really are living in the worst timeline.

Her pop culture reporting is beyond reproach.

[Anonymous]

That said, the more I’m learning about how Sony was involved, I don’t think it was totally up to Wayfarer. I think they were under a lot of pressure from Sony and Sony is big time in bed with Reynolds. Which they might be regretting about now.

I'm sure, but I feel like "you have to let the director and co-star of the film walk the red carpet and have his name on the poster" is like a super reasonable line for Wayfarer to draw. I don't really follow the film industry but it seems unheard of to me. I'm sure much bigger names had bigger clashes and they had to suck it up and walk together. I'm sure actresses who were literally sexually assaulted by their director had to walk the red carpet with them, which is horrifying. Like, I don't think Blake Lively is that level of fame to demand that (and *get it*), so it's crazy to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That said, the more I’m learning about how Sony was involved, I don’t think it was totally up to Wayfarer. I think they were under a lot of pressure from Sony and Sony is big time in bed with Reynolds. Which they might be regretting about now.

I'm sure, but I feel like "you have to let the director and co-star of the film walk the red carpet and have his name on the poster" is like a super reasonable line for Wayfarer to draw. I don't really follow the film industry but it seems unheard of to me. I'm sure much bigger names had bigger clashes and they had to suck it up and walk together. I'm sure actresses who were literally sexually assaulted by their director had to walk the red carpet with them, which is horrifying. Like, I don't think Blake Lively is that level of fame to demand that (and *get it*), so it's crazy to me.

A somewhat similar thing happened recently on Don't Worry Darling, when Florence Pugh had a major falling out with director Olivia Wilde. Pugh declined to do some of the promotion for the movie including a press conference the day of the premiere, but she did ultimately show up to the premiere and take photos with Wilde on the red carpet. It was a super tense situation and there is footage of them doing group photos and making sure Wilde and Pugh don't wind up standing next to each other. The movie premiered at the Venice Film Festival which is a very high profile event so there may have been more pressure on Pugh to agree to appear with Wilde. I think there's less control over the format of the red carpet at an event like that.

Actually this didn't occur to me until just now, but Pugh's issues with Wilde actually have some similarities with the Lively/Baldoni thing. Like Baldoni, Wilde is an actor turned director who was was acting in the movie as well as directing. And the conflict stemmed from some weird behavior by Wilde on the set and related to the movie. It's was a bit of a mess but basically: Shia LaBoeuf was originally cast to star opposite Pugh and even started filming but left the movie early on. Wilde said she fired him for inappropriate behavior with Pugh but a video came out of her basically begging him to stay on the film and referring to Pugh as "Miss Flo" and clearly implying that Pugh's issues with him were her own fault. La Boeuf wound up being replaced by Harry Styles, who Wilde had a very public relationship with. Just insanely unprofessional behavior by Wilde all around and it seems like the cast (except for Styles) were all pretty fed up with her, but especially Pugh.

Anyway, Pugh did attend the premiere with Wilde but it did nothing to tamp down the rumors of conflict and actually made it worse in some ways. But the general point is that the rift between Baldoni and Lively is far from unprecedented, and neither is a film's star playing games with refusing to promote a movie because she's mad at the director. I genuinely think the fact that both of these movies involved a director who was also in the movie is relevant -- I think it takes a high level of professionalism to do this and that perhaps some of these people (Wilde, Baldoni, for starters) do not have the skill set.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that recap of Pugh and Widle, that's super interesting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That said, the more I’m learning about how Sony was involved, I don’t think it was totally up to Wayfarer. I think they were under a lot of pressure from Sony and Sony is big time in bed with Reynolds. Which they might be regretting about now.

I'm sure, but I feel like "you have to let the director and co-star of the film walk the red carpet and have his name on the poster" is like a super reasonable line for Wayfarer to draw. I don't really follow the film industry but it seems unheard of to me. I'm sure much bigger names had bigger clashes and they had to suck it up and walk together. I'm sure actresses who were literally sexually assaulted by their director had to walk the red carpet with them, which is horrifying. Like, I don't think Blake Lively is that level of fame to demand that (and *get it*), so it's crazy to me.

I’ve pointed this out before, the directors who sexually assaulted the actresses don’t care about being branded and abuser. They would shrug it off.

Justin and Blake and Ryan had a unique power dynamic. They knew just starting a whisper campaign of leaks, getting out that he had fat shamed her, there was inappropriate behavior, people felt uncomfortable, they knew that would hit him where it hurts.

That it just got out of control.