Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more likely to me that Liz Plank simply believed one friend over the other. Why she believed Blake over Justin only Liz knows.

Look, I don’t think Justin harassed Blake - I think he offended her, and she couldn’t handle it. Then she got really mad after seeing those texts. But some people want this to be a massive takeover scheme and coverup when it’s really just your garden variety workplace conflict. I’ve seen stuff like this play out in my own workplace, so it makes sense to me how this could happen. Add in much higher financial stakes, and it’s pretty easy to see how this all got so out of hand.

+100, this is it. It's a workplace/employment dispute. I wouldn't describe what happened as harassment. It doesn't seem targeted, it all seems like tone deaf stuff that probably Baldoni/Heath should have known better than to say or do, and that Lively was not inclined to be forgiving about. I do think the stuff with the birth scene gives me a strong "ick" reaction.

But I do think Lively genuinely believed it to be harassment. She clearly complained about it a lot. It was a bad working relationship but it's not clear Baldoni understood that because he was overwhelmed and frankly not doing a good job running the production. Then the hiatus happened, she stewed and came out guns blazing with the list and the Jan 4 meeting, he got super defensive, and then it was war. Which culminated in him hiring Nathan and the texts.

I don't think there was a plot to "steal" the movie. I still don't really know what that means. I don't view anyone involved in this as a victim. Not Lively but also definitely not Baldoni. He made his bed. I don't get the David and Goliath framing. Blake's more famous but I think Baldoni was more instrumental in creating a toxic workplace that led to this point. He should not have directed that movie. He didn't have the skills, it didn't make sense for this particular movie to have a make director, it was absurd for him to start and direct and created a ton of extra problems that were then handled poorly. Blake also screwed up a bunch but it was Baldoni's/Wayfarer's movie so I think more of the blame lies with them.

There’s a lot of things being misrepresented by Blake and her supporters here.

First, this was not Justin’s first bite at the apple as director. He also directed clouds, which went directly to Disney plus due to Covid. Sabrina Carpenter, close friends with Taylor Swift, starred in the movie, adores Justin and has publicly backed him over Blake. He’s also done other movies. Check wayfarer’s website before spreading lies. Justin was transitioning to more behind the scenes work as a producer and director and those people are never as well known as the onscreen talent, but that doesn’t mean they’re inexperienced. Wayfarer also did Garfield and movies with Robert DeNiro and Will Ferrell.

Second, there’s no evidence of a toxic workplace outside of Blake’s allegations, which her supporters are taking as truth. We now have a crew member supporting Justin, co-stars supporting Justin, and texts from Isabella Ferrer thanking him for creating a safe work environment. No one onset has come out supporting Blake’s claims that there was a toxic work environment. Blake’s hit piece in the LAT accusing Justin of toxic positivity is the best they’ve got.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more likely to me that Liz Plank simply believed one friend over the other. Why she believed Blake over Justin only Liz knows.

Look, I don’t think Justin harassed Blake - I think he offended her, and she couldn’t handle it. Then she got really mad after seeing those texts. But some people want this to be a massive takeover scheme and coverup when it’s really just your garden variety workplace conflict. I’ve seen stuff like this play out in my own workplace, so it makes sense to me how this could happen. Add in much higher financial stakes, and it’s pretty easy to see how this all got so out of hand.

+100, this is it. It's a workplace/employment dispute. I wouldn't describe what happened as harassment. It doesn't seem targeted, it all seems like tone deaf stuff that probably Baldoni/Heath should have known better than to say or do, and that Lively was not inclined to be forgiving about. I do think the stuff with the birth scene gives me a strong "ick" reaction.

But I do think Lively genuinely believed it to be harassment. She clearly complained about it a lot. It was a bad working relationship but it's not clear Baldoni understood that because he was overwhelmed and frankly not doing a good job running the production. Then the hiatus happened, she stewed and came out guns blazing with the list and the Jan 4 meeting, he got super defensive, and then it was war. Which culminated in him hiring Nathan and the texts.

I don't think there was a plot to "steal" the movie. I still don't really know what that means. I don't view anyone involved in this as a victim. Not Lively but also definitely not Baldoni. He made his bed. I don't get the David and Goliath framing. Blake's more famous but I think Baldoni was more instrumental in creating a toxic workplace that led to this point. He should not have directed that movie. He didn't have the skills, it didn't make sense for this particular movie to have a make director, it was absurd for him to start and direct and created a ton of extra problems that were then handled poorly. Blake also screwed up a bunch but it was Baldoni's/Wayfarer's movie so I think more of the blame lies with them.

There’s a lot of things being misrepresented by Blake and her supporters here.

First, this was not Justin’s first bite at the apple as director. He also directed clouds, which went directly to Disney plus due to Covid. Sabrina Carpenter, close friends with Taylor Swift, starred in the movie, adores Justin and has publicly backed him over Blake. He’s also done other movies. Check wayfarer’s website before spreading lies. Justin was transitioning to more behind the scenes work as a producer and director and those people are never as well known as the onscreen talent, but that doesn’t mean they’re inexperienced. Wayfarer also did Garfield and movies with Robert DeNiro and Will Ferrell.

Second, there’s no evidence of a toxic workplace outside of Blake’s allegations, which her supporters are taking as truth. We now have a crew member supporting Justin, co-stars supporting Justin, and texts from Isabella Ferrer thanking him for creating a safe work environment. No one onset has come out supporting Blake’s claims that there was a toxic work environment. Blake’s hit piece in the LAT accusing Justin of toxic positivity is the best they’ve got.

Well now you are misrepresenting things. Baldoni had two feature films under his belt before IEWU -- Clouds and Five Feet Apart. Both are small films. Five Feet Apart was made for just 7 million. Clouds had a budget closer to IEWU (23 million versus 25 million) which actually surprises me because I am unsure where they spent the money. It's a tiny movie with no major names in it (this was before Sabrina Carpenter blew up -- she was just a former Disney star trying to transition to a more mature image) and was filmed in Quebec. But 23m is still a relatively small budget.

But Baldoni didn't make the Garfield movie and has never worked with DeNiro or Will Farrell. Wayfarer co-produced those movies but Baldoni himself was not involved. There have also been reports that Baldoni has a tendency at Wayfarer to not be particularly involved in the day to day of the studio.

Baldoni also directed a docu-series focused on people living with terminal illnesses. Both Five Feet Apart and Clouds were an extension of that work, as both focus on individuals with terminal illnesses.

So IEWU was a major departure for Baldoni. I can see the thinking that a movie about a domestic violence survivor could have some DNA in common with his previous work, but it's different. And then once they cast Lively, Jenny Slate, and Hasan Minhaj, it became a more high profile movie than anything he'd done previously (also that cast makes it more obvious where IEWU's budget came from, making that 23m for Clouds even more baffling). Also, Baldoni himself said in an interview back in 2020 or 2021 that he did not think he would be directing IEWU, that the subject matter called for a female director. It has never been explained what changed and let him to decide to direct it. I think his first instinct was actually correct -- this was not a good fit for him as a director, especially with that cast and with the intense scrutiny the movie was likely to get from fans of Hoover's books.

He has said that it was Hoover who encouraged him to take the role of Ryle, and I can see how wanting to make Hoover happy could have made him want to do it. I also expect that there was an element of ego involved -- he has not really acted since Jane the Virgin and has said before that he knows his acting career was based on being "eye candy" and having a very specific look as a guy that is very hard to sustain as you get older, which is why he pivoted to directing. So perhaps Hoover saying "oh no you must play the lead in this movie" appealed to the part of him who was likely still kind of sad at where his acting career had gone (or rather, had not gone) and that led him to agree to do it.

But I still contend it was a major misstep for him to both direct and star in this movie, after just two very small films under his belt, and even he knew there were some very good reasons why a woman would be a better choice to direct a film with this content.

Also Sabrina Carpenter has simply stated that she personally had a great experience with Justin on Clouds and was shocked to hear the allegations. She has not accused Blake of lying or weighed in on the ongoing legal battle. Like most sane people, she has chosen to mostly stay out of it.

[Anonymous]

The efforts being made by one or two posters here to end discussion of both the VanZan subpoena and the Plank business collab are quite something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more likely to me that Liz Plank simply believed one friend over the other. Why she believed Blake over Justin only Liz knows.

Look, I don’t think Justin harassed Blake - I think he offended her, and she couldn’t handle it. Then she got really mad after seeing those texts. But some people want this to be a massive takeover scheme and coverup when it’s really just your garden variety workplace conflict. I’ve seen stuff like this play out in my own workplace, so it makes sense to me how this could happen. Add in much higher financial stakes, and it’s pretty easy to see how this all got so out of hand.

+100, this is it. It's a workplace/employment dispute. I wouldn't describe what happened as harassment. It doesn't seem targeted, it all seems like tone deaf stuff that probably Baldoni/Heath should have known better than to say or do, and that Lively was not inclined to be forgiving about. I do think the stuff with the birth scene gives me a strong "ick" reaction.

But I do think Lively genuinely believed it to be harassment. She clearly complained about it a lot. It was a bad working relationship but it's not clear Baldoni understood that because he was overwhelmed and frankly not doing a good job running the production. Then the hiatus happened, she stewed and came out guns blazing with the list and the Jan 4 meeting, he got super defensive, and then it was war. Which culminated in him hiring Nathan and the texts.

I don't think there was a plot to "steal" the movie. I still don't really know what that means. I don't view anyone involved in this as a victim. Not Lively but also definitely not Baldoni. He made his bed. I don't get the David and Goliath framing. Blake's more famous but I think Baldoni was more instrumental in creating a toxic workplace that led to this point. He should not have directed that movie. He didn't have the skills, it didn't make sense for this particular movie to have a make director, it was absurd for him to start and direct and created a ton of extra problems that were then handled poorly. Blake also screwed up a bunch but it was Baldoni's/Wayfarer's movie so I think more of the blame lies with them.

There’s a lot of things being misrepresented by Blake and her supporters here.

First, this was not Justin’s first bite at the apple as director. He also directed clouds, which went directly to Disney plus due to Covid. Sabrina Carpenter, close friends with Taylor Swift, starred in the movie, adores Justin and has publicly backed him over Blake. He’s also done other movies. Check wayfarer’s website before spreading lies. Justin was transitioning to more behind the scenes work as a producer and director and those people are never as well known as the onscreen talent, but that doesn’t mean they’re inexperienced. Wayfarer also did Garfield and movies with Robert DeNiro and Will Ferrell.

Second, there’s no evidence of a toxic workplace outside of Blake’s allegations, which her supporters are taking as truth. We now have a crew member supporting Justin, co-stars supporting Justin, and texts from Isabella Ferrer thanking him for creating a safe work environment. No one onset has come out supporting Blake’s claims that there was a toxic work environment. Blake’s hit piece in the LAT accusing Justin of toxic positivity is the best they’ve got.

Well now you are misrepresenting things. Baldoni had two feature films under his belt before IEWU -- Clouds and Five Feet Apart. Both are small films. Five Feet Apart was made for just 7 million. Clouds had a budget closer to IEWU (23 million versus 25 million) which actually surprises me because I am unsure where they spent the money. It's a tiny movie with no major names in it (this was before Sabrina Carpenter blew up -- she was just a former Disney star trying to transition to a more mature image) and was filmed in Quebec. But 23m is still a relatively small budget.

But Baldoni didn't make the Garfield movie and has never worked with DeNiro or Will Farrell. Wayfarer co-produced those movies but Baldoni himself was not involved. There have also been reports that Baldoni has a tendency at Wayfarer to not be particularly involved in the day to day of the studio.

Baldoni also directed a docu-series focused on people living with terminal illnesses. Both Five Feet Apart and Clouds were an extension of that work, as both focus on individuals with terminal illnesses.

So IEWU was a major departure for Baldoni. I can see the thinking that a movie about a domestic violence survivor could have some DNA in common with his previous work, but it's different. And then once they cast Lively, Jenny Slate, and Hasan Minhaj, it became a more high profile movie than anything he'd done previously (also that cast makes it more obvious where IEWU's budget came from, making that 23m for Clouds even more baffling). Also, Baldoni himself said in an interview back in 2020 or 2021 that he did not think he would be directing IEWU, that the subject matter called for a female director. It has never been explained what changed and let him to decide to direct it. I think his first instinct was actually correct -- this was not a good fit for him as a director, especially with that cast and with the intense scrutiny the movie was likely to get from fans of Hoover's books.

He has said that it was Hoover who encouraged him to take the role of Ryle, and I can see how wanting to make Hoover happy could have made him want to do it. I also expect that there was an element of ego involved -- he has not really acted since Jane the Virgin and has said before that he knows his acting career was based on being "eye candy" and having a very specific look as a guy that is very hard to sustain as you get older, which is why he pivoted to directing. So perhaps Hoover saying "oh no you must play the lead in this movie" appealed to the part of him who was likely still kind of sad at where his acting career had gone (or rather, had not gone) and that led him to agree to do it.

But I still contend it was a major misstep for him to both direct and star in this movie, after just two very small films under his belt, and even he knew there were some very good reasons why a woman would be a better choice to direct a film with this content.

Also Sabrina Carpenter has simply stated that she personally had a great experience with Justin on Clouds and was shocked to hear the allegations. She has not accused Blake of lying or weighed in on the ongoing legal battle. Like most sane people, she has chosen to mostly stay out of it.

No, you’re misrepresenting things. Justin is credited on all of those movies. Again, check wayfarer’s website. He’s also the co-owner of the studio.

I also find it really weird that Blake supporters seek to diminish women when they’re not on Blake’s side. Sabrina’s first album came out five years before clouds and she was already friends with Taylor at that time, so it’s unfair to downplay her star power. Finally, no one said she accused Blake of lying, but when Blake came out with her allegations, Sabrina publicly defended Justin. Of course she was careful with her words, she has a PR team and is a big celebrity, but she chose to not stay silent which speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more likely to me that Liz Plank simply believed one friend over the other. Why she believed Blake over Justin only Liz knows.

Look, I don’t think Justin harassed Blake - I think he offended her, and she couldn’t handle it. Then she got really mad after seeing those texts. But some people want this to be a massive takeover scheme and coverup when it’s really just your garden variety workplace conflict. I’ve seen stuff like this play out in my own workplace, so it makes sense to me how this could happen. Add in much higher financial stakes, and it’s pretty easy to see how this all got so out of hand.

+100, this is it. It's a workplace/employment dispute. I wouldn't describe what happened as harassment. It doesn't seem targeted, it all seems like tone deaf stuff that probably Baldoni/Heath should have known better than to say or do, and that Lively was not inclined to be forgiving about. I do think the stuff with the birth scene gives me a strong "ick" reaction.

But I do think Lively genuinely believed it to be harassment. She clearly complained about it a lot. It was a bad working relationship but it's not clear Baldoni understood that because he was overwhelmed and frankly not doing a good job running the production. Then the hiatus happened, she stewed and came out guns blazing with the list and the Jan 4 meeting, he got super defensive, and then it was war. Which culminated in him hiring Nathan and the texts.

I don't think there was a plot to "steal" the movie. I still don't really know what that means. I don't view anyone involved in this as a victim. Not Lively but also definitely not Baldoni. He made his bed. I don't get the David and Goliath framing. Blake's more famous but I think Baldoni was more instrumental in creating a toxic workplace that led to this point. He should not have directed that movie. He didn't have the skills, it didn't make sense for this particular movie to have a make director, it was absurd for him to start and direct and created a ton of extra problems that were then handled poorly. Blake also screwed up a bunch but it was Baldoni's/Wayfarer's movie so I think more of the blame lies with them.

There’s a lot of things being misrepresented by Blake and her supporters here.

First, this was not Justin’s first bite at the apple as director. He also directed clouds, which went directly to Disney plus due to Covid. Sabrina Carpenter, close friends with Taylor Swift, starred in the movie, adores Justin and has publicly backed him over Blake. He’s also done other movies. Check wayfarer’s website before spreading lies. Justin was transitioning to more behind the scenes work as a producer and director and those people are never as well known as the onscreen talent, but that doesn’t mean they’re inexperienced. Wayfarer also did Garfield and movies with Robert DeNiro and Will Ferrell.

Second, there’s no evidence of a toxic workplace outside of Blake’s allegations, which her supporters are taking as truth. We now have a crew member supporting Justin, co-stars supporting Justin, and texts from Isabella Ferrer thanking him for creating a safe work environment. No one onset has come out supporting Blake’s claims that there was a toxic work environment. Blake’s hit piece in the LAT accusing Justin of toxic positivity is the best they’ve got.

Well now you are misrepresenting things. Baldoni had two feature films under his belt before IEWU -- Clouds and Five Feet Apart. Both are small films. Five Feet Apart was made for just 7 million. Clouds had a budget closer to IEWU (23 million versus 25 million) which actually surprises me because I am unsure where they spent the money. It's a tiny movie with no major names in it (this was before Sabrina Carpenter blew up -- she was just a former Disney star trying to transition to a more mature image) and was filmed in Quebec. But 23m is still a relatively small budget.

But Baldoni didn't make the Garfield movie and has never worked with DeNiro or Will Farrell. Wayfarer co-produced those movies but Baldoni himself was not involved. There have also been reports that Baldoni has a tendency at Wayfarer to not be particularly involved in the day to day of the studio.

Baldoni also directed a docu-series focused on people living with terminal illnesses. Both Five Feet Apart and Clouds were an extension of that work, as both focus on individuals with terminal illnesses.

So IEWU was a major departure for Baldoni. I can see the thinking that a movie about a domestic violence survivor could have some DNA in common with his previous work, but it's different. And then once they cast Lively, Jenny Slate, and Hasan Minhaj, it became a more high profile movie than anything he'd done previously (also that cast makes it more obvious where IEWU's budget came from, making that 23m for Clouds even more baffling). Also, Baldoni himself said in an interview back in 2020 or 2021 that he did not think he would be directing IEWU, that the subject matter called for a female director. It has never been explained what changed and let him to decide to direct it. I think his first instinct was actually correct -- this was not a good fit for him as a director, especially with that cast and with the intense scrutiny the movie was likely to get from fans of Hoover's books.

He has said that it was Hoover who encouraged him to take the role of Ryle, and I can see how wanting to make Hoover happy could have made him want to do it. I also expect that there was an element of ego involved -- he has not really acted since Jane the Virgin and has said before that he knows his acting career was based on being "eye candy" and having a very specific look as a guy that is very hard to sustain as you get older, which is why he pivoted to directing. So perhaps Hoover saying "oh no you must play the lead in this movie" appealed to the part of him who was likely still kind of sad at where his acting career had gone (or rather, had not gone) and that led him to agree to do it.

But I still contend it was a major misstep for him to both direct and star in this movie, after just two very small films under his belt, and even he knew there were some very good reasons why a woman would be a better choice to direct a film with this content.

Also Sabrina Carpenter has simply stated that she personally had a great experience with Justin on Clouds and was shocked to hear the allegations. She has not accused Blake of lying or weighed in on the ongoing legal battle. Like most sane people, she has chosen to mostly stay out of it.

No, you’re misrepresenting things. Justin is credited on all of those movies. Again, check wayfarer’s website. He’s also the co-owner of the studio.

I also find it really weird that Blake supporters seek to diminish women when they’re not on Blake’s side. Sabrina’s first album came out five years before clouds and she was already friends with Taylor at that time, so it’s unfair to downplay her star power. Finally, no one said she accused Blake of lying, but when Blake came out with her allegations, Sabrina publicly defended Justin. Of course she was careful with her words, she has a PR team and is a big celebrity, but she chose to not stay silent which speaks volumes.

I think you don't understand how movies that diis work generally or how Wayfarer works specifically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The efforts being made by one or two posters here to end discussion of both the VanZan subpoena and the Plank business collab are quite something.

It’s very transparent and no one is buying it - the public is even more outraged after see this latest news drop and they’re simply not coming back from this.

Blake just had the most successful role of her career and her IMDB is crickets. No upcoming films. The only one with any press attached to it was last mentioned by Variety….wait for it….5 years ago. If they wanted an early 30s woman for Blake’s part, well that ship has sailed.

There would have been most likely a sequel to IEWU but that dream has died. No one will touch this franchise again. Stock up on Betty Brown Booze hair crap now cause all those companies will be gone in a matter of months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more likely to me that Liz Plank simply believed one friend over the other. Why she believed Blake over Justin only Liz knows.

Look, I don’t think Justin harassed Blake - I think he offended her, and she couldn’t handle it. Then she got really mad after seeing those texts. But some people want this to be a massive takeover scheme and coverup when it’s really just your garden variety workplace conflict. I’ve seen stuff like this play out in my own workplace, so it makes sense to me how this could happen. Add in much higher financial stakes, and it’s pretty easy to see how this all got so out of hand.

+100, this is it. It's a workplace/employment dispute. I wouldn't describe what happened as harassment. It doesn't seem targeted, it all seems like tone deaf stuff that probably Baldoni/Heath should have known better than to say or do, and that Lively was not inclined to be forgiving about. I do think the stuff with the birth scene gives me a strong "ick" reaction.

But I do think Lively genuinely believed it to be harassment. She clearly complained about it a lot. It was a bad working relationship but it's not clear Baldoni understood that because he was overwhelmed and frankly not doing a good job running the production. Then the hiatus happened, she stewed and came out guns blazing with the list and the Jan 4 meeting, he got super defensive, and then it was war. Which culminated in him hiring Nathan and the texts.

I don't think there was a plot to "steal" the movie. I still don't really know what that means. I don't view anyone involved in this as a victim. Not Lively but also definitely not Baldoni. He made his bed. I don't get the David and Goliath framing. Blake's more famous but I think Baldoni was more instrumental in creating a toxic workplace that led to this point. He should not have directed that movie. He didn't have the skills, it didn't make sense for this particular movie to have a make director, it was absurd for him to start and direct and created a ton of extra problems that were then handled poorly. Blake also screwed up a bunch but it was Baldoni's/Wayfarer's movie so I think more of the blame lies with them.

There’s a lot of things being misrepresented by Blake and her supporters here.

First, this was not Justin’s first bite at the apple as director. He also directed clouds, which went directly to Disney plus due to Covid. Sabrina Carpenter, close friends with Taylor Swift, starred in the movie, adores Justin and has publicly backed him over Blake. He’s also done other movies. Check wayfarer’s website before spreading lies. Justin was transitioning to more behind the scenes work as a producer and director and those people are never as well known as the onscreen talent, but that doesn’t mean they’re inexperienced. Wayfarer also did Garfield and movies with Robert DeNiro and Will Ferrell.

Second, there’s no evidence of a toxic workplace outside of Blake’s allegations, which her supporters are taking as truth. We now have a crew member supporting Justin, co-stars supporting Justin, and texts from Isabella Ferrer thanking him for creating a safe work environment. No one onset has come out supporting Blake’s claims that there was a toxic work environment. Blake’s hit piece in the LAT accusing Justin of toxic positivity is the best they’ve got.

Well now you are misrepresenting things. Baldoni had two feature films under his belt before IEWU -- Clouds and Five Feet Apart. Both are small films. Five Feet Apart was made for just 7 million. Clouds had a budget closer to IEWU (23 million versus 25 million) which actually surprises me because I am unsure where they spent the money. It's a tiny movie with no major names in it (this was before Sabrina Carpenter blew up -- she was just a former Disney star trying to transition to a more mature image) and was filmed in Quebec. But 23m is still a relatively small budget.

But Baldoni didn't make the Garfield movie and has never worked with DeNiro or Will Farrell. Wayfarer co-produced those movies but Baldoni himself was not involved. There have also been reports that Baldoni has a tendency at Wayfarer to not be particularly involved in the day to day of the studio.

Baldoni also directed a docu-series focused on people living with terminal illnesses. Both Five Feet Apart and Clouds were an extension of that work, as both focus on individuals with terminal illnesses.

So IEWU was a major departure for Baldoni. I can see the thinking that a movie about a domestic violence survivor could have some DNA in common with his previous work, but it's different. And then once they cast Lively, Jenny Slate, and Hasan Minhaj, it became a more high profile movie than anything he'd done previously (also that cast makes it more obvious where IEWU's budget came from, making that 23m for Clouds even more baffling). Also, Baldoni himself said in an interview back in 2020 or 2021 that he did not think he would be directing IEWU, that the subject matter called for a female director. It has never been explained what changed and let him to decide to direct it. I think his first instinct was actually correct -- this was not a good fit for him as a director, especially with that cast and with the intense scrutiny the movie was likely to get from fans of Hoover's books.

He has said that it was Hoover who encouraged him to take the role of Ryle, and I can see how wanting to make Hoover happy could have made him want to do it. I also expect that there was an element of ego involved -- he has not really acted since Jane the Virgin and has said before that he knows his acting career was based on being "eye candy" and having a very specific look as a guy that is very hard to sustain as you get older, which is why he pivoted to directing. So perhaps Hoover saying "oh no you must play the lead in this movie" appealed to the part of him who was likely still kind of sad at where his acting career had gone (or rather, had not gone) and that led him to agree to do it.

But I still contend it was a major misstep for him to both direct and star in this movie, after just two very small films under his belt, and even he knew there were some very good reasons why a woman would be a better choice to direct a film with this content.

Also Sabrina Carpenter has simply stated that she personally had a great experience with Justin on Clouds and was shocked to hear the allegations. She has not accused Blake of lying or weighed in on the ongoing legal battle. Like most sane people, she has chosen to mostly stay out of it.

No, you’re misrepresenting things. Justin is credited on all of those movies. Again, check wayfarer’s website. He’s also the co-owner of the studio.

I also find it really weird that Blake supporters seek to diminish women when they’re not on Blake’s side. Sabrina’s first album came out five years before clouds and she was already friends with Taylor at that time, so it’s unfair to downplay her star power. Finally, no one said she accused Blake of lying, but when Blake came out with her allegations, Sabrina publicly defended Justin. Of course she was careful with her words, she has a PR team and is a big celebrity, but she chose to not stay silent which speaks volumes.

I think you don't understand how movies that diis work generally or how Wayfarer works specifically.

And I think you don’t understand facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The efforts being made by one or two posters here to end discussion of both the VanZan subpoena and the Plank business collab are quite something.

It’s very transparent and no one is buying it - the public is even more outraged after see this latest news drop and they’re simply not coming back from this.

Blake just had the most successful role of her career and her IMDB is crickets. No upcoming films. The only one with any press attached to it was last mentioned by Variety….wait for it….5 years ago. If they wanted an early 30s woman for Blake’s part, well that ship has sailed.

There would have been most likely a sequel to IEWU but that dream has died. No one will touch this franchise again. Stock up on Betty Brown Booze hair crap now cause all those companies will be gone in a matter of months.

Agreed. The subpoena news is egregious and hopefully they’ll be held accountable. So let’s take stock of where we are:

Lively raises concerns about workplace issues, wayfarer agrees to make adjustments, and everyone goes back to work with no further issues.

Lively then goes on to seize greater and greater control of the movie, bullies wayfarer into endorsing her for a PGA credit, cuts JB out of the marketing and when that leads to bad press, tries to force Wayfarer to take responsibility publicly or “the gloves are off”.

Blake and Ryan then use a straw lawsuit to get Jen Abel’s text messages without notifying anyone, circumventing the judicial process which gives parties the right to object. She files a CRD complaint to get standing in CA and protection under 47.1 and simultaneously cherrypicks some texts for a hit piece in the NYT.

After the NYT article comes out, JB fights back and releases evidence contradicting what Lively said, the most damaging of which is the dance footage where he clearly never said “I’m not attracted to you” and the “smells good” comment is shown to be wildly mischaracterized.

The cast, which had largely been on Lively’s side at first, because for most people the default is to believe women, start to pull back that support, removing photos and dodging questions on the red carpet.

Talia and Adam, who worked on the movie, speak out supporting Justin and his characterization of the events.

Meanwhile, Blake’s allegations are hanging on by a thread without corroboration. She hires crisis PR, which somehow was a crime for JB to do, and she embarks on a number of PR stunts that only make things worse—donut shop, Times 100 for civil rights of all things.

Mainstream media continues to largely support Blake by not covering things like subpoena gate, only further undermining public trust and people are making t-shirts that say “have you amber heard of Blake lively”.

Did I miss anything?

[Anonymous]

DP. Can someone catch me up on the subpoena issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. Can someone catch me up on the subpoena issue?

Daily Mail and other outlets had been reporting they'd seen the subpoena. A YouTuber called without a crystal ball made a video citing to a Doe lawsuit piecing together some of the available information (Daily Mail had said it was in NY court, October 2024, signed by an attorney from Manatt). A NY state docket was posted to a lawsuit filed by Manatt with Vanzan (a shipping company owned by Blake and Ryan) against John Does 1-10, asserting that plaintiffs believed Does had breached contracts and committed other torts but their identities were unknown. The lawsuit was dismissed a few days before the NYT article drops, so the timeline fits for the subpoena to have been issued under this case number. NY attorneys can sign subpoenas and they don't get posted to the docket, so we have not seen the subpoena itself to know how specific it is. Blake's attorney Esra Hudson commented to Daily Mail to the effect of "Doe lawsuits are perfectly common" which seemingly confirms that this is what happened.

Separately, people have been looking into various filings connected to Vanzan, and one of the findings was the rep listed for Vanzan is someone who works for Taylor Swift and is connected to a Swift video Blake directed, and also, that Liz Plank has a company registered at the same address with the same agent as Vanzan, which is spinning off various tangent theories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Can someone catch me up on the subpoena issue?

Daily Mail and other outlets had been reporting they'd seen the subpoena. A YouTuber called without a crystal ball made a video citing to a Doe lawsuit piecing together some of the available information (Daily Mail had said it was in NY court, October 2024, signed by an attorney from Manatt). A NY state docket was posted to a lawsuit filed by Manatt with Vanzan (a shipping company owned by Blake and Ryan) against John Does 1-10, asserting that plaintiffs believed Does had breached contracts and committed other torts but their identities were unknown. The lawsuit was dismissed a few days before the NYT article drops, so the timeline fits for the subpoena to have been issued under this case number. NY attorneys can sign subpoenas and they don't get posted to the docket, so we have not seen the subpoena itself to know how specific it is. Blake's attorney Esra Hudson commented to Daily Mail to the effect of "Doe lawsuits are perfectly common" which seemingly confirms that this is what happened.

Separately, people have been looking into various filings connected to Vanzan, and one of the findings was the rep listed for Vanzan is someone who works for Taylor Swift and is connected to a Swift video Blake directed, and also, that Liz Plank has a company registered at the same address with the same agent as Vanzan, which is spinning off various tangent theories.

lol, left out the key details. it’s been revealed that the subpoena was obtained via a sham law suit involving no entity related to the This is Us movie inorder to deprive the Wayfarer defendants the notice and a chance to object to the production of the texts they are entitled to. Jones may have turned over the texts even before the subpoena issued, perhaps for payment, and the sham lawsuit may have been an attempt to get them lawfully in Lively’s possession. Whether it rises to sanction able conduct has yet t be determined. Stay tuned. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Can someone catch me up on the subpoena issue?

Daily Mail and other outlets had been reporting they'd seen the subpoena. A YouTuber called without a crystal ball made a video citing to a Doe lawsuit piecing together some of the available information (Daily Mail had said it was in NY court, October 2024, signed by an attorney from Manatt). A NY state docket was posted to a lawsuit filed by Manatt with Vanzan (a shipping company owned by Blake and Ryan) against John Does 1-10, asserting that plaintiffs believed Does had breached contracts and committed other torts but their identities were unknown. The lawsuit was dismissed a few days before the NYT article drops, so the timeline fits for the subpoena to have been issued under this case number. NY attorneys can sign subpoenas and they don't get posted to the docket, so we have not seen the subpoena itself to know how specific it is. Blake's attorney Esra Hudson commented to Daily Mail to the effect of "Doe lawsuits are perfectly common" which seemingly confirms that this is what happened.

Separately, people have been looking into various filings connected to Vanzan, and one of the findings was the rep listed for Vanzan is someone who works for Taylor Swift and is connected to a Swift video Blake directed, and also, that Liz Plank has a company registered at the same address with the same agent as Vanzan, which is spinning off various tangent theories.

lol, left out the key details. it’s been revealed that the subpoena was obtained via a sham law suit involving no entity related to the This is Us movie inorder to deprive the Wayfarer defendants the notice and a chance to object to the production of the texts they are entitled to. Jones may have turned over the texts even before the subpoena issued, perhaps for payment, and the sham lawsuit may have been an attempt to get them lawfully in Lively’s possession. Whether it rises to sanction able conduct has yet t be determined. Stay tuned. . .

Fact check:

- No lawyer would call this a "sham lawsuit". It's called a Doe lawsuit. There may be a dispute over whether they used a doe lawsuit fairly, however there is no question as to whether or not it was legal -- it was.

- Lively would be entitled to the texts no matter what, and even if Wayfarer and Abel had been alerted to the subpoena, they could not have objected to their production. They could have requested a protective order to keep them from being publicized, but the texts did not belong to them and did not contain any protected communications (for instance with a lawyer or doctor). If Lively had not obtained the texts via that subpoena, should could now subpoena them via discovery in the present case and they would have to be produced. Doing the subpoena did give Lively a legal edge because it allowed her team to plead with much more specificity as to the alleged wrongdoing and defendants. Without the Doe lawsuit, Lively would have had to go in nearly blind with her complaint regarding the retaliation allegations, which are the strongest part of her lawsuit. So it was a major advantage for them.

- There is zero evidence anywhere that Jones gave the texts to Lively/Reynolds in exchange for payment prior to the subpoena. We know that Jones shared one or more of the texts with Leslie Sloane (Lively/Reynolds publicist) almost immediately after seizing Jennifer Abel's phone, because Sloane texted Melissa Nathan about it. The most likely explanation for that is that Jones was simply mad and lashing out at Abel by sharing one or more damaging texts with Sloane, knowing of course that Sloane/Lively would be interested. There is no evidence at all that Jones was paid for this info, and she had a clear motive to share it other than getting money (i.e. to embarrass/expose Abel and Nathan).

- The movie in question is called It Ends With Us. This is Us is a television show starring Mandy Moore.

[Anonymous]

Another element on subpoenagate that’s problematic for Stephanie Jones is that Abel was one of her California-based employees, and under California law (which regulates almost everything compared to other states) Jen was to be notified before information pertaining to her was turned over in a subpoena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Can someone catch me up on the subpoena issue?

Daily Mail and other outlets had been reporting they'd seen the subpoena. A YouTuber called without a crystal ball made a video citing to a Doe lawsuit piecing together some of the available information (Daily Mail had said it was in NY court, October 2024, signed by an attorney from Manatt). A NY state docket was posted to a lawsuit filed by Manatt with Vanzan (a shipping company owned by Blake and Ryan) against John Does 1-10, asserting that plaintiffs believed Does had breached contracts and committed other torts but their identities were unknown. The lawsuit was dismissed a few days before the NYT article drops, so the timeline fits for the subpoena to have been issued under this case number. NY attorneys can sign subpoenas and they don't get posted to the docket, so we have not seen the subpoena itself to know how specific it is. Blake's attorney Esra Hudson commented to Daily Mail to the effect of "Doe lawsuits are perfectly common" which seemingly confirms that this is what happened.

Separately, people have been looking into various filings connected to Vanzan, and one of the findings was the rep listed for Vanzan is someone who works for Taylor Swift and is connected to a Swift video Blake directed, and also, that Liz Plank has a company registered at the same address with the same agent as Vanzan, which is spinning off various tangent theories.

lol, left out the key details. it’s been revealed that the subpoena was obtained via a sham law suit involving no entity related to the This is Us movie inorder to deprive the Wayfarer defendants the notice and a chance to object to the production of the texts they are entitled to. Jones may have turned over the texts even before the subpoena issued, perhaps for payment, and the sham lawsuit may have been an attempt to get them lawfully in Lively’s possession. Whether it rises to sanction able conduct has yet t be determined. Stay tuned. . .

Fact check:

- No lawyer would call this a "sham lawsuit". It's called a Doe lawsuit. There may be a dispute over whether they used a doe lawsuit fairly, however there is no question as to whether or not it was legal -- it was.

- Lively would be entitled to the texts no matter what, and even if Wayfarer and Abel had been alerted to the subpoena, they could not have objected to their production. They could have requested a protective order to keep them from being publicized, but the texts did not belong to them and did not contain any protected communications (for instance with a lawyer or doctor). If Lively had not obtained the texts via that subpoena, should could now subpoena them via discovery in the present case and they would have to be produced. Doing the subpoena did give Lively a legal edge because it allowed her team to plead with much more specificity as to the alleged wrongdoing and defendants. Without the Doe lawsuit, Lively would have had to go in nearly blind with her complaint regarding the retaliation allegations, which are the strongest part of her lawsuit. So it was a major advantage for them.

- There is zero evidence anywhere that Jones gave the texts to Lively/Reynolds in exchange for payment prior to the subpoena. We know that Jones shared one or more of the texts with Leslie Sloane (Lively/Reynolds publicist) almost immediately after seizing Jennifer Abel's phone, because Sloane texted Melissa Nathan about it. The most likely explanation for that is that Jones was simply mad and lashing out at Abel by sharing one or more damaging texts with Sloane, knowing of course that Sloane/Lively would be interested. There is no evidence at all that Jones was paid for this info, and she had a clear motive to share it other than getting money (i.e. to embarrass/expose Abel and Nathan).

- The movie in question is called It Ends With Us. This is Us is a television show starring Mandy Moore.

It’s actually called a straw lawsuit. And lively wasn’t entitled to anything. She could make a request, but with a lawsuit as vague as the one she’d filed, a motion to quash would’ve likely been successful. She would’ve needed to file a much stronger pleading than the one in the vanzan lawsuit for that subpoena to survive opposition imo. Additionally, the parties could’ve requested a protective order and limited the scope of the subpoena, if granted, which would’ve prevented the NYT debacle, which for Justin is the entire reason he’s suing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Can someone catch me up on the subpoena issue?

Daily Mail and other outlets had been reporting they'd seen the subpoena. A YouTuber called without a crystal ball made a video citing to a Doe lawsuit piecing together some of the available information (Daily Mail had said it was in NY court, October 2024, signed by an attorney from Manatt). A NY state docket was posted to a lawsuit filed by Manatt with Vanzan (a shipping company owned by Blake and Ryan) against John Does 1-10, asserting that plaintiffs believed Does had breached contracts and committed other torts but their identities were unknown. The lawsuit was dismissed a few days before the NYT article drops, so the timeline fits for the subpoena to have been issued under this case number. NY attorneys can sign subpoenas and they don't get posted to the docket, so we have not seen the subpoena itself to know how specific it is. Blake's attorney Esra Hudson commented to Daily Mail to the effect of "Doe lawsuits are perfectly common" which seemingly confirms that this is what happened.

Separately, people have been looking into various filings connected to Vanzan, and one of the findings was the rep listed for Vanzan is someone who works for Taylor Swift and is connected to a Swift video Blake directed, and also, that Liz Plank has a company registered at the same address with the same agent as Vanzan, which is spinning off various tangent theories.

lol, left out the key details. it’s been revealed that the subpoena was obtained via a sham law suit involving no entity related to the This is Us movie inorder to deprive the Wayfarer defendants the notice and a chance to object to the production of the texts they are entitled to. Jones may have turned over the texts even before the subpoena issued, perhaps for payment, and the sham lawsuit may have been an attempt to get them lawfully in Lively’s possession. Whether it rises to sanction able conduct has yet t be determined. Stay tuned. . .

Another key detail that was left out is that if not for the subpoena hunt No one would’ve discovered that Reynolds and Lively started a company in August 2010 combining their home town names when he was very much still married to Scarlett and she was dating penn her GG costar and long term boyfriend.

Considering how much time and attention they have spent on their origin story, that they met on the set of Green Lantern in spring 2010 and were just friends, and then reconnected on a double date with other people well after his divorce and her break up and just had instant chemistry lol - it just makes them look stupid and sneaky.

Plenty of celebs have affairs and act cruelly toward their partners while married, but these are two people who really, really, really care about their image and spend a lot of time and money and energy constantly crafting it. This is really killing them.