Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
No, I said that Baldoni would NOT shrug off allegations because he identifies his brand as a feminist. That Ryan and Blake knew a whisper campaign would really hurt him in ways it might not hurt a typical male director who doesn’t have a podcast on feminism. |
Anonymous
No... you said, "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." I am the one who said that Baldoni has to deny the allegations no matter what because he made feminism his brand. What I said contradicts what you said, but now you are claiming you said what I said? Make it make sense. |
Anonymous
| Do you also believe no woman ever falsely accused a man for strategic reasons? |
Anonymous
Actually, Kristen Stewart was pretty well-known and pretty famous by that time. She was a very successful childhood actress. But the point is the franchise is what powered the success of the film much like this. Blake lively has had the biggest bomb in cinematic history with her last movie. The rhythm section in 2020. The last movie that did well was 2018 a simple favor, and you can’t ignore that Henry Goulding, who is incredibly popular and Anna Kendrick also contributed to that, and that was also based on a very popular book by the same name. I’m not sure what the argument is here. Blake has never really been known as an actress with big box office chops. It’s great that she got hit with this one, but to say that it was all Blake It’s just willfully ignoring the other factors that made this movie a success. There was a ton of buzz about this film before December 2022, when she was announced. And the only reason that she was even put in the film is because Sony wanted to keep Ryan Reynolds happy. |
Anonymous
Sorry for the confusion, I’m not clear where the miscommunication is. I had posted a few days earlier some examples of directors who have a history of allegations of inappropriate behavior, don’t seem to really care and continue to churn out a lot of of movies despite rumors that women are not treated well on their sets. But someone like Justin, whose brand is feminism, is going to take the kind of rumors floating around when the premier was happening (he had fat shamed Blake, he made her uncomfortable) much more seriously. It seems like Ryan and Blake knew that, so even well before a lawsuit was even in their heads, they thought they could hurt him by starting these rumors. |
Anonymous
In other words, after backlash, Ari made a huge podcast disappear where he bullied Justin and admitted he sacked Justin at the behest of Ryan and Blake. Catnip for Justin’s lawyers. |
Anonymous
Not the poster you're replying to but I would consider something like Gaiman to be shrugging it off by claiming it didn't happen or was consensual. Baldoni is claiming extortion, essentially arguing he had to give up on items like writing the PGA letter under duress or walking the red carpet separately and viewing the premiere from a different theater. But why give in? Was it fear of false allegations, fear of true allegations coming to light, contract dispute, pressure from Sony because Reynolds is a bigger star, all of the above, none of the above, something else? |
Anonymous
Stewart was a kid. She'd done a drama with Jodie Foster and people knew her from that, but that's about it. And the Twilight books were much bigger than Hoover's books (like many multiples). Part of it is just the genre, YA versus romance. Plus everyone was looking for another YA fantasy novel after Harry Potter so Twilight captured that audience due to timing. I just think it's a poor comparison. To be honest, I don't think anyone knows for sure why this movie did so well. I agree Lively doesn't have a great history at the box office. But I don't think you can chalk it entirely up to Hoover either -- the movie far exceeded expectations. I do think the international box office numbers tell a story. I would be interested to know how Hoover's books sell overseas versus domestically, because the movie's international box office numbers are very impressive and really drove the success of the movie. |
Anonymous
Colleen Hoover is ridiculously popular overseas as well. Of the top 25 best sellers in 2022, eight were from Colleen Hoover. I mean think about that. Further, it ends with us also has a sequel. It starts with us that published in 2022 and got a lot of buzz. It was ridiculous. How much fans were looking forward to this movie. It was a huge gift to Blake lively or any actress to get this role. It was a really coveted role. That said, I don’t think anyone expected it to do this well. The release got delayed because of the strikes, and was supposed to be I think a January or February release, normally those don’t do as well. Certainly being a summer movie and certainly having buzz from Deadpool no doubt helped, so in that way I’m sure Blake lively helped it, but there were also just a lucky combination of circumstances for everyone involved. Sadly, for everyone, it doesn’t look like there’s going to be a sequel anytime soon, at least with this current cast. So you can argue this drama led to bigger box office sales, but also ruined the chances for them to benefit for a sequel. |
Anonymous
That's interesting about Hoover's overseas appeal, and definitely might explain the overseas interest in the movie. I do think the fact that Lively attended multiple European premieres plays a role too, though. I don't think Hoover attended those premieres, though she did attend the US premiere. So I assume it's a combination of factors. I am sure Lively showing up to those events helped the movie get press in Europe -- I feel like a movie like this normally would not have multiple European premieres, actually. Not sure who came up with the strategy to stage those events and send Lively, but it seems like it contributed to the movie's success. I had never heard of Colleen Hoover before all of this but that doesn't mean much -- I don't read a lot of mass-market fiction. I guess that guy Harlan Coban or whatever is super successful as well because there are a million Netflix series based on his books but I have never heard of him outside that context. And Nicole Kidman did that Netflix movie The Perfect Couple that I think is also based on a bestselling book that I'd never heard of. People read a lot of schlock. |
Anonymous
|
Interesting because so many of you have been pro Baldoni and agreed with me on the few points that I’ve raised.
You continue to mistake about five or six of us as the same person and we’re not. I’ve bought this to your attention several times. There was no sh in this case, based on the current legal definition of sh. Did balding make some mistakes? Yep. Did Sony? Yep. Did Blake? Yep. But as so many of us have mentioned, too many receipts on hand that debunk BL’s narrative. Too many! And now Sony is also countering her false assertions. She has no credibility at this point. It’s doubtful that anything that Jenny Slate provides in testimony will be a smoking gun. So the only ace that she has left is the astroturfing claim. I know you think that there are many gray areas left in this lawsuit. Perhaps there are, but none look favorable for Blake. I even saw a few tabs post on RR recently about how difficult he is to work with from at least four or five sources. And then there are Blake’s videos. There is a phrase that you can win the battle but lose the war. Blake has done so much damage with this case. If it makes you feel better to keep arguing her point and keeping her in this great positivity light until the case settles, so be it. But we all know that this was not sh, not by a long shot. She ruined another person’s fair name with these accusations. And then there are videos of her doing the same with others. She is insufferable. Regardless of how this case turns out, and I’m sure Justin will get paid a nice sum thru settlement or jury decision, there is little desire to see her or Ryan in anything else. So many more classy, talented actresses that carry the mantle for women in Hollywood and who do it so well. I do hope Reese gets the nod for that biopic, and I can’t wait to see the works of other actresses that turn director. But in the borrowed words from a good friend “she’s nothing special (except insufferable).” Adios. |
Anonymous
| Meanwhile, Judge Liman's order on discovery has just dropped, denying the subpoena for call records as to the Wayfarer parties but allowing as to non parties. Mostly a loss for Lively (who are the non parties who subpoenas were issued to?): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.102.0.pdf |
Anonymous
PP again and I think this may actually give Lively the most important thing they wanted, which are Jed Wallace's call records? The subpoenas are denied as to the Wafarer parties but Wallace is excluded from that definition ("Wayfarer Studios LLC, Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, It Ends With Us Movie LLC, Melissa Nathan, The Agency Group PR LLC, and Jennifer Abel (collectively, the 'Wayfarer Parties')") -- so I think they get these records from Jed Wallace at least - not sure from who else. That seems important. |
Anonymous
|
So I read the judge's order and feel like I can provide a fairly unbiased summary, for those who don't speak legalese:
The judge agreed with Wayfarer that the subpoenas were too broad even after being limited only to log data, because they request info for every call/text regardless of recipient. So the judge is quashing the subpoenas for the Wayfarer parties (and only the Wayfarer parties) for all call logs, though leaves open the option of Lively to request call logs between specific parties already involved (so she could request call logs between the Wayfarer parties, and could request call logs between those parties and Jed Wallace, or specific people at Sony, for instance. However, this just applies to the Wayfarer parties. The judge agreed with Lively that the Wayfarer attorneys lack standing to try and quash the subpoenas on privacy grounds for the non-Wayfarer parties (basically just Jed Wallace, as the PR people are included in the Wayfarer parties). So if Jed wants to quash the subpoenas to him, he will have to have a representative file on his behalf specifically. He can't come in under the Wayfarer umbrella. Also, when the judge discussed the overbroad nature of the subpoenas, he zeroed in on the timeline. He points out that Lively says the subpoenas are needed to identify parties and communications related to the smear campaign. However most of the subpoenas go back to December of 2022, long before the smear campaign would have started. Thus: over broad. But this does open a door for Lively to attempt a set of subpoenas dating only from July of 2024 to try and go after communications related to the PR campaign. At least that's what I would do if I were her lawyers because the judge has very specifically opened the door for a broader discovery of communications in that part of the timeline. So yes, definitely a win for Wayfarer. But will be interesting to see now what Jed Wallace does (does he move to quash in the same way? I believe the subpoena against him is more limited in time) and also to see if Lively now pursues a more targeted subpoena regarding the smear campaign. |
Anonymous
The only reason Wallace wasn’t excluded was that his counsel did not object. Not even sure he is on the subpoena as he was not added to the until after the subpoena went out. |