Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Don’t want to support the movie at this point but would be curious differences given complain shows JB version was 94% audience approval and BL was 82% on her first try and then 83% and believe it was that 3bd try one she released.

Also, realize the JB amended complaint is his version of events, but hats off to his lawyers for how tell their story as reads a master class for how to ice someone out from their own movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the amended document (different from the link above): https://dam.tmz.com/document/22/o/2025/02/01/2239f45c1ecb4e1680f278ba9c5c6092.pdf

Justin addresses Blake's claim that he had sex without consent. "In her Complaint, she intentionally misrepresents the story to suggest that Baldoni had engaged in sexual conduct without consent. In fact, it was the other way around. Baldoni was referencing an intimate relationship in which he was the one who did not give consent, not the other way around."

Thanks for amended complaint link. Sure a bonus went to whoever at Baldoni law firm spotted the date stamps to create argument about when NYTimes started getting messages from Lively team.

They got it from YouTubers and social media people.

Then going public with the raw video of dance scene and other texts worth it to them if got some folks to dig for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read the Amended Complaint. Blake Lively is an absolute nightmare. Her ego is absolutely insane. The way that they had to coddle her from the beginning is so gross. I’m so happy that she is being called on her lies.

Lawsuits aside, the emails in amended complaint are exhausting. Suddenly amazed any movie gets made with directors/producers conflicting, stars having to be handled and the juggling of egos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another thing that caught my eye in the amendment: Blake had two female ADs fired.

Complaint makes point that lively insisted on a specific “A-list producer” at one point and that producer was present when RR berated JB and complaint suggests producer who say was over the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another thing that caught my eye in the amendment: Blake had two female ADs fired.

lol of course she did

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing that caught my eye in the amendment: Blake had two female ADs fired.

Complaint makes point that lively insisted on a specific “A-list producer” at one point and that producer was present when RR berated JB and complaint suggests producer said was over the top.

JB attorneys must be salivating to get to depositions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, I think he’s going to lose, even though he’s the victim. He shoulda let he walk away.

Lose what? He's the defendant in her lawsuit and the plaintiff in a couple of others. Then there's the court of public opinion and his career.

I think he'll lose the cases in which he's the plaintiff, but those were filed to get his POV across, anyway. He's winning in the court of public opinion and I think his career survives, but it may transition away from acting if he's considered a creepy male feminist. He can still make tons of money directing and producing. I think he wins against Lively's suit

I think he’ll have to pay damages to her for retaliating, and I don’t think she’ll owe him damages. Fact is she said she was uncomfortable and he signed something saying he wouldn’t retaliate for that. I think it’s far more complicated, but I think that will be the outcome, because nobody’s going to want to say a woman can’t say she’s uncomfortable. I personally think she lied about being uncomfortable, to use it as a bargaining chip, but I don’t think that will really matter. Because they basically let her use it as a bargaining chip. They could have just said, no, we’re not signing that and let the chips fall. It would have made them look bad, and they would have lost money, but then they could have sued her for damages and used whatever PR people they wanted to do damage control.

I think she’ll lose in the court of public opinion.

He didn’t retaliate so stop putting it down as objective fact that he did. Gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the amended document (different from the link above): https://dam.tmz.com/document/22/o/2025/02/01/2239f45c1ecb4e1680f278ba9c5c6092.pdf

Justin addresses Blake's claim that he had sex without consent. "In her Complaint, she intentionally misrepresents the story to suggest that Baldoni had engaged in sexual conduct without consent. In fact, it was the other way around. Baldoni was referencing an intimate relationship in which he was the one who did not give consent, not the other way around."

Thanks for amended complaint link. Sure a bonus went to whoever at Baldoni law firm spotted the date stamps to create argument about when NYTimes started getting messages from Lively team.

They got it from YouTubers and social media people.

Then going public with the raw video of dance scene and other texts worth it to them if got some folks to dig for them.

Yeah, people seem to really be on his side. Not “bots”!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is destroying Lively online.
I actually think she’ll lose legally as well. He did not retaliate when she expressed concerns. He turned to PR assistance after a coordinated effort by the Lively camp to bring him down.

How would you describe the coordinated effort? Honest question.

- What- coordinated effort? Did you previously believe PR firms did not work on film projects?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing that caught my eye in the amendment: Blake had two female ADs fired.

Complaint makes point that lively insisted on a specific “A-list producer” at one point and that producer was present when RR berated JB and complaint suggests producer who say was over the top.

The problem with a lot of these comments supposedly made by other people (in both complaints, from Lively and Baldoni), is that I get the feeling people were often placating them. Lively more than Baldoni, but him too.

There are lots details like this in both th complaints and from the start I've wondered about the degree to which others just tell these two, "oh yes, he/she is awful" as a way to placate or ingratiate themselves, regardless of their actual opinion. I think it's part of the culture if the industry.

So I'm skeptical of all if it. I think it's possible everyone was tired of the conflict between these two from the jump and the supposed commiseration of others was just a way to get them to stop talking about it and do their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is destroying Lively online.
I actually think she’ll lose legally as well. He did not retaliate when she expressed concerns. He turned to PR assistance after a coordinated effort by the Lively camp to bring him down.

How would you describe the coordinated effort? Honest question.

Influencing cast members to side with her and lying to people to make that happen to start. The biggest thing thing though how Blake’s demands for the premier made him appear less than and guilty of something so bad she couldn’t even be around his vicinity in a public environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing that caught my eye in the amendment: Blake had two female ADs fired.

Complaint makes point that lively insisted on a specific “A-list producer” at one point and that producer was present when RR berated JB and complaint suggests producer who say was over the top.

The problem with a lot of these comments supposedly made by other people (in both complaints, from Lively and Baldoni), is that I get the feeling people were often placating them. Lively more than Baldoni, but him too.

There are lots details like this in both th complaints and from the start I've wondered about the degree to which others just tell these two, "oh yes, he/she is awful" as a way to placate or ingratiate themselves, regardless of their actual opinion. I think it's part of the culture if the industry.

So I'm skeptical of all if it. I think it's possible everyone was tired of the conflict between these two from the jump and the supposed commiseration of others was just a way to get them to stop talking about it and do their jobs.

I do not believe you’ve committed both complaints to memory. Lively’s had as is now publicly known chopped-up text threads. Baldoni’s is replete with full exchanges reflecting actual context for Lively’s spurious claims.

I hate the false posture of a “reasoned centrist.” Sell that sht elsewhere. She lied.
After that reality got absorbed here slowly people start creeping in trying to say they both sound off. “They” don’t. She does. She learned no lessons whatsoever for her plantation wedding and reverence for antebellum fashions as she was rightfully excoriated for her insensitivity and she’s right back at it, stupidity incarnate wanting women to be all “florals for spring!” about an abuse story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing that caught my eye in the amendment: Blake had two female ADs fired.

Complaint makes point that lively insisted on a specific “A-list producer” at one point and that producer was present when RR berated JB and complaint suggests producer who say was over the top.

The problem with a lot of these comments supposedly made by other people (in both complaints, from Lively and Baldoni), is that I get the feeling people were often placating them. Lively more than Baldoni, but him too.

There are lots details like this in both th complaints and from the start I've wondered about the degree to which others just tell these two, "oh yes, he/she is awful" as a way to placate or ingratiate themselves, regardless of their actual opinion. I think it's part of the culture if the industry.

So I'm skeptical of all if it. I think it's possible everyone was tired of the conflict between these two from the jump and the supposed commiseration of others was just a way to get them to stop talking about it and do their jobs.

They interviewed a few people (including young Lily) about JB and JH specifically, and they described a very positive set. It’s in this amended complaint. Not sure why they’d need to placate him there. But it’s possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing that caught my eye in the amendment: Blake had two female ADs fired.

Complaint makes point that lively insisted on a specific “A-list producer” at one point and that producer was present when RR berated JB and complaint suggests producer who say was over the top.

The problem with a lot of these comments supposedly made by other people (in both complaints, from Lively and Baldoni), is that I get the feeling people were often placating them. Lively more than Baldoni, but him too.

There are lots details like this in both th complaints and from the start I've wondered about the degree to which others just tell these two, "oh yes, he/she is awful" as a way to placate or ingratiate themselves, regardless of their actual opinion. I think it's part of the culture if the industry.

So I'm skeptical of all if it. I think it's possible everyone was tired of the conflict between these two from the jump and the supposed commiseration of others was just a way to get them to stop talking about it and do their jobs.

They interviewed a few people (including young Lily) about JB and JH specifically, and they described a very positive set. It’s in this amended complaint. Not sure why they’d need to placate him there. But it’s possible.

PP has totally misrepresented what’s in the complaints.

The other producers could see how dishonest and manipulative Lively is. It’s all over the text exchanges. They know they have to yield because she had more fame than most of the cast.

She is never going to be cast in a notable project involving other people’s money again. And it’s what she deserves as she and her beady-eyed husband told a pantload of lies just because.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, I think he’s going to lose, even though he’s the victim. He shoulda let he walk away.

Lose what? He's the defendant in her lawsuit and the plaintiff in a couple of others. Then there's the court of public opinion and his career.

I think he'll lose the cases in which he's the plaintiff, but those were filed to get his POV across, anyway. He's winning in the court of public opinion and I think his career survives, but it may transition away from acting if he's considered a creepy male feminist. He can still make tons of money directing and producing. I think he wins against Lively's suit

I think he’ll have to pay damages to her for retaliating, and I don’t think she’ll owe him damages. Fact is she said she was uncomfortable and he signed something saying he wouldn’t retaliate for that. I think it’s far more complicated, but I think that will be the outcome, because nobody’s going to want to say a woman can’t say she’s uncomfortable. I personally think she lied about being uncomfortable, to use it as a bargaining chip, but I don’t think that will really matter. Because they basically let her use it as a bargaining chip. They could have just said, no, we’re not signing that and let the chips fall. It would have made them look bad, and they would have lost money, but then they could have sued her for damages and used whatever PR people they wanted to do damage control.

I think she’ll lose in the court of public opinion.

He didn’t retaliate so stop putting it down as objective fact that he did. Gross.

I said I thought he’d have to pay damages for retaliating. I didn’t say it was a fact that he retaliated. I can see that’s confusing so I’ll reword: I think the court will throw his case against her out, and then I think her whole case will depend on the retaliation claim, not whether he committed SH. And I guess I think she’ll get some damages for that. I’m actually on his side. I wouldn’t give her anything! But I’m trying to think about how it would play out in trial, just based on the PR angle and whether it will be seen as a smear campaign.