Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read on Bluesky over the weekend that Baldoni told his wife when she announced that she was pregnant with a boy: “Baby, you get to be done!” Was he going to make her keep going until he got a boy? Wut.

This is as silly as bringing up Blake's ancient history.

Her ancient history follows and establishes a clear pattern. She's her mother's daughter, that's for sure...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read on Bluesky over the weekend that Baldoni told his wife when she announced that she was pregnant with a boy: “Baby, you get to be done!” Was he going to make her keep going until he got a boy? Wut.

This is as silly as bringing up Blake's ancient history.

It’s just a strange position for a supposedly feminist man to take. Babe, we’ve got to keep going until we have a son, and then you can stop. I guess for the brand he really needed to have a son around so he could “teach” him all those feminist principles he’s so good at and write his book for boys for him. Always be branding.

It's possible that they both wanted a boy and this comment was not just about Justin getting what he wanted but more like "we both wanted a boy and a girl and now we have them which is great because I know pregnancy is tough on you." Like there is a much more benign read on that comment.

BTW, I saw that as someone who support BL's lawsuit and thinks Baldoni is a fake feminist who got caught being his true self on the set of IEWU and is now facing a perfectly predictable comeuppance for it. I find him incredibly grating and think he did all this to himself by trying to brand himself as a feminist ally when he's actually really dumb about gender issues and not a feminist at all.

But that doesn't mean I need to read nefarious intent into everything he does. That would make me no different than the PP above claiming that Lively "shut down a donut shop" when in reality JB stans who don't even live locally to the donut shop got it shut down by calling in health code violations over Blake briefly appearing in the shop with her hair down. That was a dumb PR stunt by Lively (and she should have worn a hair net), but she didn't get the shop shut down -- that was due to psycho JB supporters with literally nothing better to do than harass a small business because of it's minor affiliation with an actress they've decided is their sworn enemy because of their over-identification with an actor/director they'd never even heard of until like 4 months ago.

I’m PP and that’s fair enough. It’s possible his wife really wanted a boy. Or, it could have been coming primarily from Justin. I don’t like him and immediately went for the negative interpretation, which perhaps isn’t totally fair of me. If it did come from him, though, I think it’s a fair criticism.

From what I understand, Justin isn’t a male feminist. His brand is about challenging toxic masculinity. That’s an oversimplification that Blake’s team is trying to push so they can trick people into thinking he’s gutting me too laws when really it’s Blake who’s doing that by abusing the law. She’s even trying to use SH privilege against Jed Wallace, who’s never even met her. This is a woman who twisted the facts to gain leverage and now is seeking to hide behind hard fought protections that were put in place for real victims of SH and SA facing powerful abusers. In this case, the alleged victim seems to be the one who has abused her power again and again. The courts will probably rule the CA law unconstitutional and it’ll be Lively’s fault.

I find this unfair to both parties. Neither are lawyers and they may not even fully understand the legal arguments.

Blake is being sued for defamation for her claims of sexual harassment. If there's literally a law that protects her from that type of lawsuit for that type of claim, of course her team is going to invoke it.

As to Wallace, it's dicier - she's not claiming he harassed her, but that he participated in retaliation for harassment, so there's going to be issues of whether he participated knowingly (if he is found to have participated at all) and then whether the law applies that broadly. In her particular case, there may be a stronger nexus between the alleged harassment and the alleged retaliation than is typical (the idea being to destroy her credibility precisely because she may speak out). I can see why her lawyers made the argument. It very well might fail, but I'm not surprised they made it.

For Justin, of course he is going to argue that this law doesn't apply. His lawyers have several theories, which is normal. One of those arguments is that the law is unconstitutional. Another is specific to Lively. The law doesn't cover sexual harassment claims made with malice, and he of course is arguing that her claims were fabricated or grossly distorted, and therefore not covered by the law. Those are good arguments to make.

If he wasn't the first to make the constitutionality argument, someone else would have (maybe they have in some pending case that hasn't been ruled on). If the courts were inclined to rule it unconstitutional, then it would happen eventually. It won't be either of their fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read on Bluesky over the weekend that Baldoni told his wife when she announced that she was pregnant with a boy: “Baby, you get to be done!” Was he going to make her keep going until he got a boy? Wut.

This is as silly as bringing up Blake's ancient history.

It’s just a strange position for a supposedly feminist man to take. Babe, we’ve got to keep going until we have a son, and then you can stop. I guess for the brand he really needed to have a son around so he could “teach” him all those feminist principles he’s so good at and write his book for boys for him. Always be branding.

It's possible that they both wanted a boy and this comment was not just about Justin getting what he wanted but more like "we both wanted a boy and a girl and now we have them which is great because I know pregnancy is tough on you." Like there is a much more benign read on that comment.

BTW, I saw that as someone who support BL's lawsuit and thinks Baldoni is a fake feminist who got caught being his true self on the set of IEWU and is now facing a perfectly predictable comeuppance for it. I find him incredibly grating and think he did all this to himself by trying to brand himself as a feminist ally when he's actually really dumb about gender issues and not a feminist at all.

But that doesn't mean I need to read nefarious intent into everything he does. That would make me no different than the PP above claiming that Lively "shut down a donut shop" when in reality JB stans who don't even live locally to the donut shop got it shut down by calling in health code violations over Blake briefly appearing in the shop with her hair down. That was a dumb PR stunt by Lively (and she should have worn a hair net), but she didn't get the shop shut down -- that was due to psycho JB supporters with literally nothing better to do than harass a small business because of it's minor affiliation with an actress they've decided is their sworn enemy because of their over-identification with an actor/director they'd never even heard of until like 4 months ago.

I’m PP and that’s fair enough. It’s possible his wife really wanted a boy. Or, it could have been coming primarily from Justin. I don’t like him and immediately went for the negative interpretation, which perhaps isn’t totally fair of me. If it did come from him, though, I think it’s a fair criticism.

From what I understand, Justin isn’t a male feminist. His brand is about challenging toxic masculinity. That’s an oversimplification that Blake’s team is trying to push so they can trick people into thinking he’s gutting me too laws when really it’s Blake who’s doing that by abusing the law. She’s even trying to use SH privilege against Jed Wallace, who’s never even met her. This is a woman who twisted the facts to gain leverage and now is seeking to hide behind hard fought protections that were put in place for real victims of SH and SA facing powerful abusers. In this case, the alleged victim seems to be the one who has abused her power again and again. The courts will probably rule the CA law unconstitutional and it’ll be Lively’s fault.

I find this unfair to both parties. Neither are lawyers and they may not even fully understand the legal arguments.

Blake is being sued for defamation for her claims of sexual harassment. If there's literally a law that protects her from that type of lawsuit for that type of claim, of course her team is going to invoke it.

As to Wallace, it's dicier - she's not claiming he harassed her, but that he participated in retaliation for harassment, so there's going to be issues of whether he participated knowingly (if he is found to have participated at all) and then whether the law applies that broadly. In her particular case, there may be a stronger nexus between the alleged harassment and the alleged retaliation than is typical (the idea being to destroy her credibility precisely because she may speak out). I can see why her lawyers made the argument. It very well might fail, but I'm not surprised they made it.

For Justin, of course he is going to argue that this law doesn't apply. His lawyers have several theories, which is normal. One of those arguments is that the law is unconstitutional. Another is specific to Lively. The law doesn't cover sexual harassment claims made with malice, and he of course is arguing that her claims were fabricated or grossly distorted, and therefore not covered by the law. Those are good arguments to make.

If he wasn't the first to make the constitutionality argument, someone else would have (maybe they have in some pending case that hasn't been ruled on). If the courts were inclined to rule it unconstitutional, then it would happen eventually. It won't be either of their fault.

Here’s why I don’t think it’s that simple in Lively’s case. Arguing that California law should apply is a stretch for her complaint against Wayfarer—even Ryan wants NY law to apply for his case. Blake lives in NY and the alleged harassment happened in NY and NJ. This is different from Wayfarer’s defamation claim where CA law makes the most sense. She’s clearly forum shopping, which courts don’t like btw. You don’t have to forum shop when you have the facts on your side. She specifically has set her sights on 47.1 because of the unique protection it provides and she’ll be its downfall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Google says they made amends but nothing about a video.

It sounds like Blake apologized and Taylor took the phone call, but until I see Taylor publicly supporting Blake, I’m not buying it’s any deeper than that. It’s like when a friend burns you and you accept their apology but the relationship is never really the same after that. And why should Taylor risk her own reputation right now for someone like Blake? She’s combustible. Look what happened to the donut shop.

I imagine there was some sort of behind-the-scenes negotiation between the PR reps that said they can move forward with this messaging but won't do any appearances together for now. I'd say that's nominally good for Blake. Not great, but shows she's not completely done.

You’ve read this all wrong.

Taylor is notoriously supportive of her girlfriends and she goes out of her way to use her fame to shield people she’s even tangentially friendly with. See Sophie Turner — Taylor made a big show of being seen publicly with Sophie and even let her stay in her NY townhouse. She barely knew Sophie.

Taylor is a girls girl.

Taylor Swift staying silent is equivalent to screaming in a megaphone “I am not with Blake”

So do you think Blake is leaking these stories without Taylor's permission? Or if you think Taylor's PR agreed, why do you think they did that? She's been silent on Blake for a while, so this represents a change. Why do you think that change is happening now? I assume it is the PR firm Blake hired.

Not PP, but it’s unclear to me if Taylor’s PR people signed off. You would think so b/c why would Blake risk angering her further. At the same time, Blake also tried to insinuate that they had made amends back in February when Blake visited that horse farm near Taylor’s Rhode Island house and the article made sure to point that out. It’s honestly not clear to me how far Blake is willing to go.

Another element is there’s press about problems with Travis. He supposedly blames Taylor for lack of focus and losing the superbowl. She won’t be as present at games next season, according to the tabloids. Taylor probably would rather have people talk about her soft reconciliation with blake than her relationship problems with Travis, so she may have approved sharing with the press that Blake had apologized and they’re talking again.

DP. Absolutely none of the above is cited anywhere. Please stop posting things without credible citations.

Everything I mentioned has been in the press. Google it before you make accusations.

Maybe post links if you’re going to make claims. Credible links.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read on Bluesky over the weekend that Baldoni told his wife when she announced that she was pregnant with a boy: “Baby, you get to be done!” Was he going to make her keep going until he got a boy? Wut.

This is as silly as bringing up Blake's ancient history.

It’s just a strange position for a supposedly feminist man to take. Babe, we’ve got to keep going until we have a son, and then you can stop. I guess for the brand he really needed to have a son around so he could “teach” him all those feminist principles he’s so good at and write his book for boys for him. Always be branding.

It's possible that they both wanted a boy and this comment was not just about Justin getting what he wanted but more like "we both wanted a boy and a girl and now we have them which is great because I know pregnancy is tough on you." Like there is a much more benign read on that comment.

BTW, I saw that as someone who support BL's lawsuit and thinks Baldoni is a fake feminist who got caught being his true self on the set of IEWU and is now facing a perfectly predictable comeuppance for it. I find him incredibly grating and think he did all this to himself by trying to brand himself as a feminist ally when he's actually really dumb about gender issues and not a feminist at all.

But that doesn't mean I need to read nefarious intent into everything he does. That would make me no different than the PP above claiming that Lively "shut down a donut shop" when in reality JB stans who don't even live locally to the donut shop got it shut down by calling in health code violations over Blake briefly appearing in the shop with her hair down. That was a dumb PR stunt by Lively (and she should have worn a hair net), but she didn't get the shop shut down -- that was due to psycho JB supporters with literally nothing better to do than harass a small business because of it's minor affiliation with an actress they've decided is their sworn enemy because of their over-identification with an actor/director they'd never even heard of until like 4 months ago.

I’m PP and that’s fair enough. It’s possible his wife really wanted a boy. Or, it could have been coming primarily from Justin. I don’t like him and immediately went for the negative interpretation, which perhaps isn’t totally fair of me. If it did come from him, though, I think it’s a fair criticism.

From what I understand, Justin isn’t a male feminist. His brand is about challenging toxic masculinity. That’s an oversimplification that Blake’s team is trying to push so they can trick people into thinking he’s gutting me too laws when really it’s Blake who’s doing that by abusing the law. She’s even trying to use SH privilege against Jed Wallace, who’s never even met her. This is a woman who twisted the facts to gain leverage and now is seeking to hide behind hard fought protections that were put in place for real victims of SH and SA facing powerful abusers. In this case, the alleged victim seems to be the one who has abused her power again and again. The courts will probably rule the CA law unconstitutional and it’ll be Lively’s fault.

I find this unfair to both parties. Neither are lawyers and they may not even fully understand the legal arguments.

Blake is being sued for defamation for her claims of sexual harassment. If there's literally a law that protects her from that type of lawsuit for that type of claim, of course her team is going to invoke it.

As to Wallace, it's dicier - she's not claiming he harassed her, but that he participated in retaliation for harassment, so there's going to be issues of whether he participated knowingly (if he is found to have participated at all) and then whether the law applies that broadly. In her particular case, there may be a stronger nexus between the alleged harassment and the alleged retaliation than is typical (the idea being to destroy her credibility precisely because she may speak out). I can see why her lawyers made the argument. It very well might fail, but I'm not surprised they made it.

For Justin, of course he is going to argue that this law doesn't apply. His lawyers have several theories, which is normal. One of those arguments is that the law is unconstitutional. Another is specific to Lively. The law doesn't cover sexual harassment claims made with malice, and he of course is arguing that her claims were fabricated or grossly distorted, and therefore not covered by the law. Those are good arguments to make.

If he wasn't the first to make the constitutionality argument, someone else would have (maybe they have in some pending case that hasn't been ruled on). If the courts were inclined to rule it unconstitutional, then it would happen eventually. It won't be either of their fault.

Here’s why I don’t think it’s that simple in Lively’s case. Arguing that California law should apply is a stretch for her complaint against Wayfarer—even Ryan wants NY law to apply for his case. Blake lives in NY and the alleged harassment happened in NY and NJ. This is different from Wayfarer’s defamation claim where CA law makes the most sense. She’s clearly forum shopping, which courts don’t like btw. You don’t have to forum shop when you have the facts on your side. She specifically has set her sights on 47.1 because of the unique protection it provides and she’ll be its downfall.

I thought Blake's contract with Wayfarer was governed by CA law. Of course we have yet to see this magical contract and there may be issues if she hadn't signed it at the relevant times her claims accrued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read on Bluesky over the weekend that Baldoni told his wife when she announced that she was pregnant with a boy: “Baby, you get to be done!” Was he going to make her keep going until he got a boy? Wut.

This is as silly as bringing up Blake's ancient history.

It’s just a strange position for a supposedly feminist man to take. Babe, we’ve got to keep going until we have a son, and then you can stop. I guess for the brand he really needed to have a son around so he could “teach” him all those feminist principles he’s so good at and write his book for boys for him. Always be branding.

It's possible that they both wanted a boy and this comment was not just about Justin getting what he wanted but more like "we both wanted a boy and a girl and now we have them which is great because I know pregnancy is tough on you." Like there is a much more benign read on that comment.

BTW, I saw that as someone who support BL's lawsuit and thinks Baldoni is a fake feminist who got caught being his true self on the set of IEWU and is now facing a perfectly predictable comeuppance for it. I find him incredibly grating and think he did all this to himself by trying to brand himself as a feminist ally when he's actually really dumb about gender issues and not a feminist at all.

But that doesn't mean I need to read nefarious intent into everything he does. That would make me no different than the PP above claiming that Lively "shut down a donut shop" when in reality JB stans who don't even live locally to the donut shop got it shut down by calling in health code violations over Blake briefly appearing in the shop with her hair down. That was a dumb PR stunt by Lively (and she should have worn a hair net), but she didn't get the shop shut down -- that was due to psycho JB supporters with literally nothing better to do than harass a small business because of it's minor affiliation with an actress they've decided is their sworn enemy because of their over-identification with an actor/director they'd never even heard of until like 4 months ago.

I’m PP and that’s fair enough. It’s possible his wife really wanted a boy. Or, it could have been coming primarily from Justin. I don’t like him and immediately went for the negative interpretation, which perhaps isn’t totally fair of me. If it did come from him, though, I think it’s a fair criticism.

From what I understand, Justin isn’t a male feminist. His brand is about challenging toxic masculinity. That’s an oversimplification that Blake’s team is trying to push so they can trick people into thinking he’s gutting me too laws when really it’s Blake who’s doing that by abusing the law. She’s even trying to use SH privilege against Jed Wallace, who’s never even met her. This is a woman who twisted the facts to gain leverage and now is seeking to hide behind hard fought protections that were put in place for real victims of SH and SA facing powerful abusers. In this case, the alleged victim seems to be the one who has abused her power again and again. The courts will probably rule the CA law unconstitutional and it’ll be Lively’s fault.

I find this unfair to both parties. Neither are lawyers and they may not even fully understand the legal arguments.

Blake is being sued for defamation for her claims of sexual harassment. If there's literally a law that protects her from that type of lawsuit for that type of claim, of course her team is going to invoke it.

As to Wallace, it's dicier - she's not claiming he harassed her, but that he participated in retaliation for harassment, so there's going to be issues of whether he participated knowingly (if he is found to have participated at all) and then whether the law applies that broadly. In her particular case, there may be a stronger nexus between the alleged harassment and the alleged retaliation than is typical (the idea being to destroy her credibility precisely because she may speak out). I can see why her lawyers made the argument. It very well might fail, but I'm not surprised they made it.

For Justin, of course he is going to argue that this law doesn't apply. His lawyers have several theories, which is normal. One of those arguments is that the law is unconstitutional. Another is specific to Lively. The law doesn't cover sexual harassment claims made with malice, and he of course is arguing that her claims were fabricated or grossly distorted, and therefore not covered by the law. Those are good arguments to make.

If he wasn't the first to make the constitutionality argument, someone else would have (maybe they have in some pending case that hasn't been ruled on). If the courts were inclined to rule it unconstitutional, then it would happen eventually. It won't be either of their fault.

Here’s why I don’t think it’s that simple in Lively’s case. Arguing that California law should apply is a stretch for her complaint against Wayfarer—even Ryan wants NY law to apply for his case. Blake lives in NY and the alleged harassment happened in NY and NJ. This is different from Wayfarer’s defamation claim where CA law makes the most sense. She’s clearly forum shopping, which courts don’t like btw. You don’t have to forum shop when you have the facts on your side. She specifically has set her sights on 47.1 because of the unique protection it provides and she’ll be its downfall.

I thought Blake's contract with Wayfarer was governed by CA law. Of course we have yet to see this magical contract and there may be issues if she hadn't signed it at the relevant times her claims accrued.

Right, the irony of using the contract she never signed to get protection that really wasn’t intended for people like her, but for actual victims of SH in a state where she does not live. That’s also why she filed the CRD in CA, to gain jurisdiction there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read on Bluesky over the weekend that Baldoni told his wife when she announced that she was pregnant with a boy: “Baby, you get to be done!” Was he going to make her keep going until he got a boy? Wut.

This is as silly as bringing up Blake's ancient history.

Her ancient history follows and establishes a clear pattern. She's her mother's daughter, that's for sure...

Baldoni fans say rules for thee but not for me of course.

[Anonymous]

The Washington Post has an interesting article today about intimacy coordinators. It only mentions Blake and Justin in passing, but worth a read for anyone who is interested in this aspect of the case.

https://wapo.st/4jqRVR3

I thought the end of the article was really interesting, where the IC they interviewed talked about filming a sex scene where something was added that some people might find upsetting or disturbing, and the IC checked with the crew and camera operators to make sure they were okay participating. I'm a huge proponent of consent in all things, and I had never thought about how a camera operator might feel about filming certain sex scenes. It's a good reminder of how ICs are about more than just one or two actors -- filming a sex or nude scene is a very collaborative activity with a lot of people involved and I can see why wanting someone there whose job it is to ensure that everyone is participating consensually could be really valuable.

[Anonymous]

Yeah. But when an actor declines the use of an intimacy coordinator, then that should be viewed as consenting to an ‘ad lib’ effect because you decided against that objective screen.

It’s one thing if an act is called uncomfortable with an objective body there, overseeing the act and helping to improve discomfort;

It’s quite another when you decline to have that objective body present, but then complain that unscripted actions made you uncomfortable, and then proceed to incorporate an unscripted act into another movie, Ean act that was even more uncomfortable, but you dismiss it as playful ‘ad libing.’ I’m sure Henry G did not feel comfortable with his crotch being grabbed unannounced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah. But when an actor declines the use of an intimacy coordinator, then that should be viewed as consenting to an ‘ad lib’ effect because you decided against that objective screen.

It’s one thing if an act is called uncomfortable with an objective body there, overseeing the act and helping to improve discomfort;

It’s quite another when you decline to have that objective body present, but then complain that unscripted actions made you uncomfortable, and then proceed to incorporate an unscripted act into another movie, Ean act that was even more uncomfortable, but you dismiss it as playful ‘ad libing.’ I’m sure Henry G did not feel comfortable with his crotch being grabbed unannounced.

When did Lively decline to have an IC present on set during a scene, as opposed to declining a pre-shooting meeting with the IC?

My understanding is that a big part of her 17 point list was insisting that an IC would be present for the rest of the film. Showing that the Baldoni and Wayfarer were not having an IC present when Baldoni was attempting to insert kissing in scenes that didn’t have any scripted kissing, for example.

You just dislike her so much you are making stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah. But when an actor declines the use of an intimacy coordinator, then that should be viewed as consenting to an ‘ad lib’ effect because you decided against that objective screen.

It’s one thing if an act is called uncomfortable with an objective body there, overseeing the act and helping to improve discomfort;

It’s quite another when you decline to have that objective body present, but then complain that unscripted actions made you uncomfortable, and then proceed to incorporate an unscripted act into another movie, Ean act that was even more uncomfortable, but you dismiss it as playful ‘ad libing.’ I’m sure Henry G did not feel comfortable with his crotch being grabbed unannounced.

Just want to debunk the idea that Lively declined to have an IC on the IEWU. This did not happen. From Baldoni's own timeline, he reached out to Lively before filming began to let her know he'd already hired an IC and said he wanted to set up a Zoom call between the IC and Blake. Blake replies that she is "comfortable" and will meet the IC on "when we start" which obviously means when they start filming.

At no point did Lively say she didn't want an IC and in fact she is enthusiastic about Baldoni hiring one and expresses a positive attitude about working with the IC on the film.

All of this is from Baldoni's own timeline, not Lively's pleadings. So unless Justin and Wayfarer are falsifying text messages, Lively did NOT decline an IC and expressed interest/enthusiasm about having one on set.

[Anonymous]

Whatever. She declined to meet with the coach. She lied about the rooftop scene. The stain of her bullshit will never leave Blake Lively.

How’d A Simple Plan 2: Liars Gotta Eat Too so again?

[Anonymous]

I listened to that old beyond the blinds podcast about Blake because someone on another thread here had mentioned it. It’s from well before it ends with us, and wow is it unflattering.

Apparently she had a reputation as a “casting couch girl.” Also, Harrison ford apparently treated her really badly on the set of the age of Adeline, saying “this is why you don’t hire people who can’t act just because of who they married”. Blake was taking acting lessons and everything but couldn’t meet his expectations.

There’s lots of other stories, so you’ll have to listen yourself if interested, but it did raise two things for me. First, given all of her on set romances, including with married men and including while she was married, it does make me wonder about the fan theory that she had a thing for Justin and was a bit insulted when he didn’t reciprocate. The other thing I thought was “why Justin”? Out of all of these men who treated her really badly like Harrison Ford, what made Justin the one she wanted to go after. Almost makes me think she’s taking out her past trauma on him. Like she said “no more” as she alleges in her 30 point complaint but really she was thinking about all the men who had disrespected her in the past so by the time she crossed paths with Justin any little thing could set her off.

[Anonymous]

Such a vivid imagination - posting stories you have made up in your own head that have only the lightest connections to reality. I guess it gets you off.

Reynolds filed his reply in the case but it hasn’t been posted for free yet, so I haven’t read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I listened to that old beyond the blinds podcast about Blake because someone on another thread here had mentioned it. It’s from well before it ends with us, and wow is it unflattering.

Apparently she had a reputation as a “casting couch girl.” Also, Harrison ford apparently treated her really badly on the set of the age of Adeline, saying “this is why you don’t hire people who can’t act just because of who they married”. Blake was taking acting lessons and everything but couldn’t meet his expectations.

There’s lots of other stories, so you’ll have to listen yourself if interested, but it did raise two things for me. First, given all of her on set romances, including with married men and including while she was married, it does make me wonder about the fan theory that she had a thing for Justin and was a bit insulted when he didn’t reciprocate. The other thing I thought was “why Justin”? Out of all of these men who treated her really badly like Harrison Ford, what made Justin the one she wanted to go after. Almost makes me think she’s taking out her past trauma on him. Like she said “no more” as she alleges in her 30 point complaint but really she was thinking about all the men who had disrespected her in the past so by the time she crossed paths with Justin any little thing could set her off.

Thanks for the recommendation of the podcast. It sounds really interesting. Harrison Ford is a curmudgeon, but he is a well-respected actor. I did not even know he was in a movie with Blake Lively. Will be interested to hear about that.