Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I very much enjoyed this little video of how Blake lively and her team tried like hell to get her for Barbie and failed miserably. And Margot Robbie handled it like a true pro without any war in the press…just quietly worked to ensure Blake didn’t ruin the project.

Apparently, Blake’s team lodged a full campaign starting in 2020 about how she should play Barbie, dressing her in pink, and how they wanted a more family friendly version for the big screen, and paying certain influencers to continue to spread on social, calling her Barbie, trying to drum up support online.


https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIzNigusbDZ/?igsh=MWFiZ2t3anVyOW5xdA==

Ugh, I hate defending Blake Lively but this video is dumb because:

(1) It's fine and normal for a working actress to be angling to try to get a big role. That's not trying to steal a job, it's literally just trying to get a job. Every actor does this, including stuff like dressing publicly or doing photo shoots that might make producers/directors think of them for desirable roles. If you are going to criticize Blake for this, you might as well just write off all of Hollywood.

(2) In order to try and make their point seem more convincing, they did a bizarre thing where they put a pink filter on all the photos/footage of Blake in her 2022 Met Gala dress, to make it seem like this is an event where Blake "dressed like Barbie" to try and get the role. The problem is that the dress was NOT pink, and lots of people know this because it's one of the most famous things she's ever worn. The dress was inspired by the Statue of Liberty, which is made of copper that has oxidized to its iconic green color. Blake's dress was that copper but had a huge train that was pinned up and then released on the steps to reveal fabric in the same green as the SoL, to mimic the process of the statue oxidizing. It was designed by Versace and is a truly stunning dress and was a terrific concept for that year's theme. It was not pink and had nothing to do with the Barbie movie, sorry.

It’s not normal at all. Barbie was $1 billion franchise. Are you seriously telling me you think Blake lively could have fronted $1 billion film with her vision? Give me a freaking break. You are beyond delusional.

As the video pointed out, Blake just wanted to play dress up. Margo actually had a vision for the film that she worked for years to develop with her team, and it worked out to be a huge global phenomenon. Blake could have never pulled off.

Last you forget, she would literally have no career if she hadn’t stumbled onto marrying Ryan Reynolds. She can’t really act and she is responsible for the biggest bomb in cinematic history with the rhythm section. I also just discovered another bomb movie of hers called all I see is you. She has a history of unprecedented and massive failures at the box office.

Sony was courting Ryan Reynolds because they are on the verge of bankruptcy. They are the only one in the industry that does not have a streaming service and they are really feeling it. They wanted to get him attached to some projects so they agreed to give her a part in a Colleen Hoover movie, which was a slam dunk. Blake lively had nothing to do with the success of the film. It was all Colleen’s audience. The movie succeeded despite Blakely not because of.

You are so transparent it’s ridiculous and no one‘s buying it. Blake‘s career is over and it should’ve ended a long time ago has she not married well and very likely slept her way into parts. She should be nowhere near Barbie - her failed lifestyle brand proving that she doesn’t really have an audience or a vision. She has an embarrassing list of failed box office and failed businesses.

Thankfully, I doubt we’ll be hearing from her much longer now that she has burned so many bridges.

PP here. I agree Margo was a better choice for the role. She was also producing the movie so it's actually weird to me they ever considered anyone else for the role (but actually they had three other actresses attached or in talks at various points, which is kind of wild).

I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with an actor wanting a very coveted role. You can't get mad at someone for wanting a job they ultimately didn't get? I don't even like Blake Lively and don't see her movies because I don't like her as an actress, and even I think this criticism is a bit much. That's all.

And that the Statue of Liberty dress was not pink. Because it wasn't! It's a famous dress, it's just weird to imply that.

+1

-1 LOL. We see you. Just stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I missed this in the thread, does the new info about the vanzan lawsuit make things worse for the New York Times?

I don’t understand how this didn’t come up in their due diligence. They saw that the subpoena was a doe lawsuit and that didn’t raise any red flags? Can someone please tell me why a journalist would see that and think, oh this is fine. Honestly, I understand that people have said the New York Times will be fine because the bar is so high, but does this change anything? It seems like they ignored a major red.

I have been posting that the sham suit was unethical, but no, I don't think it will change anything for the NYT. This is the article https://archive.is/0icRp
The only thing about the subpoena is here: "Her filing includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by The New York Times."

That statement is true. She did obtain them through a subpoena. Whether that subpoena was lawful is not something the Times is expected to litigate, nor are they expected to thoroughly investigate the claims within her CRD complaint. They just had to accurately quote from the complaint, which they arguably did. I realize that they claim they did investigate, and that makes them look sloppy because, uh, there was a lot to uncover that didn't look great for Blake, but I'm still going to argue they're protected because ultimately they were reporting on the complaint and the texts (and I think the texts they quoted were also in the complaint, but I won't swear to that). And I just don't think a court is ever going to rule that a journalist was obligated to present "full context" and investigate and be fair to both sides, or that claiming to investigate created a duty to do so. That would just be a tremendous sea change in defamation law. What the NYT did is basically PR for Blake, a puff piece reporting her story exactly as she presented it in the CRD, which is very Fake News, but that is not unlawful.

It definitely sucks for the Wayfarer side that the evidence was obtained via a shady lawsuit and a subpoena without notice, but it's not a criminal case and the texts are almost surely going to be admissible in court here, so I certainly would not see any issue in the NYT also relying on them just for an article. Even when documents have been outright hacked and stolen in an illegal manner (like Wikileaks type stuff) the press can still report on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I very much enjoyed this little video of how Blake lively and her team tried like hell to get her for Barbie and failed miserably. And Margot Robbie handled it like a true pro without any war in the press…just quietly worked to ensure Blake didn’t ruin the project.

Apparently, Blake’s team lodged a full campaign starting in 2020 about how she should play Barbie, dressing her in pink, and how they wanted a more family friendly version for the big screen, and paying certain influencers to continue to spread on social, calling her Barbie, trying to drum up support online.


https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIzNigusbDZ/?igsh=MWFiZ2t3anVyOW5xdA==

Ugh, I hate defending Blake Lively but this video is dumb because:

(1) It's fine and normal for a working actress to be angling to try to get a big role. That's not trying to steal a job, it's literally just trying to get a job. Every actor does this, including stuff like dressing publicly or doing photo shoots that might make producers/directors think of them for desirable roles. If you are going to criticize Blake for this, you might as well just write off all of Hollywood.

(2) In order to try and make their point seem more convincing, they did a bizarre thing where they put a pink filter on all the photos/footage of Blake in her 2022 Met Gala dress, to make it seem like this is an event where Blake "dressed like Barbie" to try and get the role. The problem is that the dress was NOT pink, and lots of people know this because it's one of the most famous things she's ever worn. The dress was inspired by the Statue of Liberty, which is made of copper that has oxidized to its iconic green color. Blake's dress was that copper but had a huge train that was pinned up and then released on the steps to reveal fabric in the same green as the SoL, to mimic the process of the statue oxidizing. It was designed by Versace and is a truly stunning dress and was a terrific concept for that year's theme. It was not pink and had nothing to do with the Barbie movie, sorry.

It’s not normal at all. Barbie was $1 billion franchise. Are you seriously telling me you think Blake lively could have fronted $1 billion film with her vision? Give me a freaking break. You are beyond delusional.

As the video pointed out, Blake just wanted to play dress up. Margo actually had a vision for the film that she worked for years to develop with her team, and it worked out to be a huge global phenomenon. Blake could have never pulled off.

Last you forget, she would literally have no career if she hadn’t stumbled onto marrying Ryan Reynolds. She can’t really act and she is responsible for the biggest bomb in cinematic history with the rhythm section. I also just discovered another bomb movie of hers called all I see is you. She has a history of unprecedented and massive failures at the box office.

Sony was courting Ryan Reynolds because they are on the verge of bankruptcy. They are the only one in the industry that does not have a streaming service and they are really feeling it. They wanted to get him attached to some projects so they agreed to give her a part in a Colleen Hoover movie, which was a slam dunk. Blake lively had nothing to do with the success of the film. It was all Colleen’s audience. The movie succeeded despite Blakely not because of.

You are so transparent it’s ridiculous and no one‘s buying it. Blake‘s career is over and it should’ve ended a long time ago has she not married well and very likely slept her way into parts. She should be nowhere near Barbie - her failed lifestyle brand proving that she doesn’t really have an audience or a vision. She has an embarrassing list of failed box office and failed businesses.

Thankfully, I doubt we’ll be hearing from her much longer now that she has burned so many bridges.

PP here. I agree Margo was a better choice for the role. She was also producing the movie so it's actually weird to me they ever considered anyone else for the role (but actually they had three other actresses attached or in talks at various points, which is kind of wild).

I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with an actor wanting a very coveted role. You can't get mad at someone for wanting a job they ultimately didn't get? I don't even like Blake Lively and don't see her movies because I don't like her as an actress, and even I think this criticism is a bit much. That's all.

And that the Statue of Liberty dress was not pink. Because it wasn't! It's a famous dress, it's just weird to imply that.

Did you not watch the videos on the Instagram? Fine if you didn’t, but I don’t think anyone has a problem with Blake wanting the role of Barbie. A four year campaign that finally ended with Mattel basically sending a cease and desist that her team couldn’t launch a lifestyle brand based on Barbie is well beyond simply coveting a role.

Also, did you miss the part where they were trying to literally sabotage the film and all of Margo‘s and the other producers vision? They were going to toe and trying to sabotage what they were doing and muddy things in the press. Sorry that doesn’t seem normal.

This went on well into 2024 after Barbie was shot! She knew she hadn’t gotten the role yet She was still trying to launch some sort of life style brand called dream house or whatever. I don’t know. I didn’t follow the whole thing it was so stupid but if you saw both of the Instagram videos, it’s pretty clear. She didn’t just want the role. Her team launched a full scale campaign complete with bots and paid influencers to sprinkle social media to get people to start calling Blake Barbie and for her to start looking the role. And then when it was well beyond the fact that she wasn’t going to get the role, because the movie had already been shot, she was still trying to leverage a lifestyle brand.

They are power hungry, and unhinged and it’s finally catching up to them.

I watched it. They get key facts wrong. Margo was NOT always cast in the role, even though she was producing. She has spoken publicly about how she and Gerwig were actively looking for another actress, and that Gal Gadot was seriously considered because they felt she had good "Barbie energy." Ultimately Gadot either couldn't do it or didn't want to, and Robbie took the role. But if Blake tried to get the role at that time, there's nothing wrong with that. I personally think Blake looks like Barbie but that her vibe would have been all wrong for the movie. But it would honestly be weird if she hadn't tried to get the role because her physical appearance is pretty spot on, IMO.

Also the video has extremely thin evidence that Lively crossed any lines in campaigning for the role. They have one tween advocating for her as Barbie and they are like "this could have been a plant with a bunch of bot-likes, or not, we don't know." One tweet. And then apparently a power point circulated with a marketing plan for Lively in the role? So? That's normal. It was a movie based on Barbie -- the marketing plan would be central to every major decision made for the movie.

Look, not everything Blake Lively has ever done needs to be evil and suspect. This video is describing an extremely normal thing that happens in Hollywood all the time as though it's a villainous plan. Lots of actors do stuff like this if there's a potentially career-making role on the line. It's a tough business. Nothing Lively did took anything away from Robbie, who wound up being perfect in that movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I very much enjoyed this little video of how Blake lively and her team tried like hell to get her for Barbie and failed miserably. And Margot Robbie handled it like a true pro without any war in the press…just quietly worked to ensure Blake didn’t ruin the project.

Apparently, Blake’s team lodged a full campaign starting in 2020 about how she should play Barbie, dressing her in pink, and how they wanted a more family friendly version for the big screen, and paying certain influencers to continue to spread on social, calling her Barbie, trying to drum up support online.


https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIzNigusbDZ/?igsh=MWFiZ2t3anVyOW5xdA==

Ugh, I hate defending Blake Lively but this video is dumb because:

(1) It's fine and normal for a working actress to be angling to try to get a big role. That's not trying to steal a job, it's literally just trying to get a job. Every actor does this, including stuff like dressing publicly or doing photo shoots that might make producers/directors think of them for desirable roles. If you are going to criticize Blake for this, you might as well just write off all of Hollywood.

(2) In order to try and make their point seem more convincing, they did a bizarre thing where they put a pink filter on all the photos/footage of Blake in her 2022 Met Gala dress, to make it seem like this is an event where Blake "dressed like Barbie" to try and get the role. The problem is that the dress was NOT pink, and lots of people know this because it's one of the most famous things she's ever worn. The dress was inspired by the Statue of Liberty, which is made of copper that has oxidized to its iconic green color. Blake's dress was that copper but had a huge train that was pinned up and then released on the steps to reveal fabric in the same green as the SoL, to mimic the process of the statue oxidizing. It was designed by Versace and is a truly stunning dress and was a terrific concept for that year's theme. It was not pink and had nothing to do with the Barbie movie, sorry.

It’s not normal at all. Barbie was $1 billion franchise. Are you seriously telling me you think Blake lively could have fronted $1 billion film with her vision? Give me a freaking break. You are beyond delusional.

As the video pointed out, Blake just wanted to play dress up. Margo actually had a vision for the film that she worked for years to develop with her team, and it worked out to be a huge global phenomenon. Blake could have never pulled off.

Last you forget, she would literally have no career if she hadn’t stumbled onto marrying Ryan Reynolds. She can’t really act and she is responsible for the biggest bomb in cinematic history with the rhythm section. I also just discovered another bomb movie of hers called all I see is you. She has a history of unprecedented and massive failures at the box office.

Sony was courting Ryan Reynolds because they are on the verge of bankruptcy. They are the only one in the industry that does not have a streaming service and they are really feeling it. They wanted to get him attached to some projects so they agreed to give her a part in a Colleen Hoover movie, which was a slam dunk. Blake lively had nothing to do with the success of the film. It was all Colleen’s audience. The movie succeeded despite Blakely not because of.

You are so transparent it’s ridiculous and no one‘s buying it. Blake‘s career is over and it should’ve ended a long time ago has she not married well and very likely slept her way into parts. She should be nowhere near Barbie - her failed lifestyle brand proving that she doesn’t really have an audience or a vision. She has an embarrassing list of failed box office and failed businesses.

Thankfully, I doubt we’ll be hearing from her much longer now that she has burned so many bridges.

PP here. I agree Margo was a better choice for the role. She was also producing the movie so it's actually weird to me they ever considered anyone else for the role (but actually they had three other actresses attached or in talks at various points, which is kind of wild).

I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with an actor wanting a very coveted role. You can't get mad at someone for wanting a job they ultimately didn't get? I don't even like Blake Lively and don't see her movies because I don't like her as an actress, and even I think this criticism is a bit much. That's all.

And that the Statue of Liberty dress was not pink. Because it wasn't! It's a famous dress, it's just weird to imply that.

+1

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I very much enjoyed this little video of how Blake lively and her team tried like hell to get her for Barbie and failed miserably. And Margot Robbie handled it like a true pro without any war in the press…just quietly worked to ensure Blake didn’t ruin the project.

Apparently, Blake’s team lodged a full campaign starting in 2020 about how she should play Barbie, dressing her in pink, and how they wanted a more family friendly version for the big screen, and paying certain influencers to continue to spread on social, calling her Barbie, trying to drum up support online.


https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIzNigusbDZ/?igsh=MWFiZ2t3anVyOW5xdA==

Ugh, I hate defending Blake Lively but this video is dumb because:

(1) It's fine and normal for a working actress to be angling to try to get a big role. That's not trying to steal a job, it's literally just trying to get a job. Every actor does this, including stuff like dressing publicly or doing photo shoots that might make producers/directors think of them for desirable roles. If you are going to criticize Blake for this, you might as well just write off all of Hollywood.

(2) In order to try and make their point seem more convincing, they did a bizarre thing where they put a pink filter on all the photos/footage of Blake in her 2022 Met Gala dress, to make it seem like this is an event where Blake "dressed like Barbie" to try and get the role. The problem is that the dress was NOT pink, and lots of people know this because it's one of the most famous things she's ever worn. The dress was inspired by the Statue of Liberty, which is made of copper that has oxidized to its iconic green color. Blake's dress was that copper but had a huge train that was pinned up and then released on the steps to reveal fabric in the same green as the SoL, to mimic the process of the statue oxidizing. It was designed by Versace and is a truly stunning dress and was a terrific concept for that year's theme. It was not pink and had nothing to do with the Barbie movie, sorry.

It’s not normal at all. Barbie was $1 billion franchise. Are you seriously telling me you think Blake lively could have fronted $1 billion film with her vision? Give me a freaking break. You are beyond delusional.

As the video pointed out, Blake just wanted to play dress up. Margo actually had a vision for the film that she worked for years to develop with her team, and it worked out to be a huge global phenomenon. Blake could have never pulled off.

Last you forget, she would literally have no career if she hadn’t stumbled onto marrying Ryan Reynolds. She can’t really act and she is responsible for the biggest bomb in cinematic history with the rhythm section. I also just discovered another bomb movie of hers called all I see is you. She has a history of unprecedented and massive failures at the box office.

Sony was courting Ryan Reynolds because they are on the verge of bankruptcy. They are the only one in the industry that does not have a streaming service and they are really feeling it. They wanted to get him attached to some projects so they agreed to give her a part in a Colleen Hoover movie, which was a slam dunk. Blake lively had nothing to do with the success of the film. It was all Colleen’s audience. The movie succeeded despite Blakely not because of.

You are so transparent it’s ridiculous and no one‘s buying it. Blake‘s career is over and it should’ve ended a long time ago has she not married well and very likely slept her way into parts. She should be nowhere near Barbie - her failed lifestyle brand proving that she doesn’t really have an audience or a vision. She has an embarrassing list of failed box office and failed businesses.

Thankfully, I doubt we’ll be hearing from her much longer now that she has burned so many bridges.

PP here. I agree Margo was a better choice for the role. She was also producing the movie so it's actually weird to me they ever considered anyone else for the role (but actually they had three other actresses attached or in talks at various points, which is kind of wild).

I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with an actor wanting a very coveted role. You can't get mad at someone for wanting a job they ultimately didn't get? I don't even like Blake Lively and don't see her movies because I don't like her as an actress, and even I think this criticism is a bit much. That's all.

And that the Statue of Liberty dress was not pink. Because it wasn't! It's a famous dress, it's just weird to imply that.

+1

+2

Heads are about to explode! There can't be 3 of us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I very much enjoyed this little video of how Blake lively and her team tried like hell to get her for Barbie and failed miserably. And Margot Robbie handled it like a true pro without any war in the press…just quietly worked to ensure Blake didn’t ruin the project.

Apparently, Blake’s team lodged a full campaign starting in 2020 about how she should play Barbie, dressing her in pink, and how they wanted a more family friendly version for the big screen, and paying certain influencers to continue to spread on social, calling her Barbie, trying to drum up support online.


https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIzNigusbDZ/?igsh=MWFiZ2t3anVyOW5xdA==

Ugh, I hate defending Blake Lively but this video is dumb because:

(1) It's fine and normal for a working actress to be angling to try to get a big role. That's not trying to steal a job, it's literally just trying to get a job. Every actor does this, including stuff like dressing publicly or doing photo shoots that might make producers/directors think of them for desirable roles. If you are going to criticize Blake for this, you might as well just write off all of Hollywood.

(2) In order to try and make their point seem more convincing, they did a bizarre thing where they put a pink filter on all the photos/footage of Blake in her 2022 Met Gala dress, to make it seem like this is an event where Blake "dressed like Barbie" to try and get the role. The problem is that the dress was NOT pink, and lots of people know this because it's one of the most famous things she's ever worn. The dress was inspired by the Statue of Liberty, which is made of copper that has oxidized to its iconic green color. Blake's dress was that copper but had a huge train that was pinned up and then released on the steps to reveal fabric in the same green as the SoL, to mimic the process of the statue oxidizing. It was designed by Versace and is a truly stunning dress and was a terrific concept for that year's theme. It was not pink and had nothing to do with the Barbie movie, sorry.

It’s not normal at all. Barbie was $1 billion franchise. Are you seriously telling me you think Blake lively could have fronted $1 billion film with her vision? Give me a freaking break. You are beyond delusional.

As the video pointed out, Blake just wanted to play dress up. Margo actually had a vision for the film that she worked for years to develop with her team, and it worked out to be a huge global phenomenon. Blake could have never pulled off.

Last you forget, she would literally have no career if she hadn’t stumbled onto marrying Ryan Reynolds. She can’t really act and she is responsible for the biggest bomb in cinematic history with the rhythm section. I also just discovered another bomb movie of hers called all I see is you. She has a history of unprecedented and massive failures at the box office.

Sony was courting Ryan Reynolds because they are on the verge of bankruptcy. They are the only one in the industry that does not have a streaming service and they are really feeling it. They wanted to get him attached to some projects so they agreed to give her a part in a Colleen Hoover movie, which was a slam dunk. Blake lively had nothing to do with the success of the film. It was all Colleen’s audience. The movie succeeded despite Blakely not because of.

You are so transparent it’s ridiculous and no one‘s buying it. Blake‘s career is over and it should’ve ended a long time ago has she not married well and very likely slept her way into parts. She should be nowhere near Barbie - her failed lifestyle brand proving that she doesn’t really have an audience or a vision. She has an embarrassing list of failed box office and failed businesses.

Thankfully, I doubt we’ll be hearing from her much longer now that she has burned so many bridges.

PP here. I agree Margo was a better choice for the role. She was also producing the movie so it's actually weird to me they ever considered anyone else for the role (but actually they had three other actresses attached or in talks at various points, which is kind of wild).

I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with an actor wanting a very coveted role. You can't get mad at someone for wanting a job they ultimately didn't get? I don't even like Blake Lively and don't see her movies because I don't like her as an actress, and even I think this criticism is a bit much. That's all.

And that the Statue of Liberty dress was not pink. Because it wasn't! It's a famous dress, it's just weird to imply that.

Did you not watch the videos on the Instagram? Fine if you didn’t, but I don’t think anyone has a problem with Blake wanting the role of Barbie. A four year campaign that finally ended with Mattel basically sending a cease and desist that her team couldn’t launch a lifestyle brand based on Barbie is well beyond simply coveting a role.

Also, did you miss the part where they were trying to literally sabotage the film and all of Margo‘s and the other producers vision? They were going to toe and trying to sabotage what they were doing and muddy things in the press. Sorry that doesn’t seem normal.

This went on well into 2024 after Barbie was shot! She knew she hadn’t gotten the role yet She was still trying to launch some sort of life style brand called dream house or whatever. I don’t know. I didn’t follow the whole thing it was so stupid but if you saw both of the Instagram videos, it’s pretty clear. She didn’t just want the role. Her team launched a full scale campaign complete with bots and paid influencers to sprinkle social media to get people to start calling Blake Barbie and for her to start looking the role. And then when it was well beyond the fact that she wasn’t going to get the role, because the movie had already been shot, she was still trying to leverage a lifestyle brand.

They are power hungry, and unhinged and it’s finally catching up to them.

I watched it. They get key facts wrong. Margo was NOT always cast in the role, even though she was producing. She has spoken publicly about how she and Gerwig were actively looking for another actress, and that Gal Gadot was seriously considered because they felt she had good "Barbie energy." Ultimately Gadot either couldn't do it or didn't want to, and Robbie took the role. But if Blake tried to get the role at that time, there's nothing wrong with that. I personally think Blake looks like Barbie but that her vibe would have been all wrong for the movie. But it would honestly be weird if she hadn't tried to get the role because her physical appearance is pretty spot on, IMO.

Also the video has extremely thin evidence that Lively crossed any lines in campaigning for the role. They have one tween advocating for her as Barbie and they are like "this could have been a plant with a bunch of bot-likes, or not, we don't know." One tweet. And then apparently a power point circulated with a marketing plan for Lively in the role? So? That's normal. It was a movie based on Barbie -- the marketing plan would be central to every major decision made for the movie.

Look, not everything Blake Lively has ever done needs to be evil and suspect. This video is describing an extremely normal thing that happens in Hollywood all the time as though it's a villainous plan. Lots of actors do stuff like this if there's a potentially career-making role on the line. It's a tough business. Nothing Lively did took anything away from Robbie, who wound up being perfect in that movie.

Meh, no one ever said this was evil. It just makes her look crazy and unrealistic. She was simply not going to play Barbie in a way that generated 1 billion in box office. It just seems funny that she’dgo up against Margo Robbie for Barbie. I mean, come on. The absolute hubris.

Not one single second in this video seemed out of line are incredible and it was all backed up by evidence. She is someone who was not been particularly successful, but she married someone powerful so she has a team doing a lot of legwork for her. It’s just comical what they tried to do and crazy that she tried to launch a lifestyle brand when she’s arguably even less popular than she was 10 years ago the first time.

I’m not one of those people who think women in Hollywood who hit 35 in should shrivel up and die, but Blake was just too old for the role. She’s three years older than Margot and while Margo could pass for a few years younger, Blake has always very much looked her age to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I missed this in the thread, does the new info about the vanzan lawsuit make things worse for the New York Times?

I don’t understand how this didn’t come up in their due diligence. They saw that the subpoena was a doe lawsuit and that didn’t raise any red flags? Can someone please tell me why a journalist would see that and think, oh this is fine. Honestly, I understand that people have said the New York Times will be fine because the bar is so high, but does this change anything? It seems like they ignored a major red.

I have been posting that the sham suit was unethical, but no, I don't think it will change anything for the NYT. This is the article https://archive.is/0icRp
The only thing about the subpoena is here: "Her filing includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by The New York Times."

That statement is true. She did obtain them through a subpoena. Whether that subpoena was lawful is not something the Times is expected to litigate, nor are they expected to thoroughly investigate the claims within her CRD complaint. They just had to accurately quote from the complaint, which they arguably did. I realize that they claim they did investigate, and that makes them look sloppy because, uh, there was a lot to uncover that didn't look great for Blake, but I'm still going to argue they're protected because ultimately they were reporting on the complaint and the texts (and I think the texts they quoted were also in the complaint, but I won't swear to that). And I just don't think a court is ever going to rule that a journalist was obligated to present "full context" and investigate and be fair to both sides, or that claiming to investigate created a duty to do so. That would just be a tremendous sea change in defamation law. What the NYT did is basically PR for Blake, a puff piece reporting her story exactly as she presented it in the CRD, which is very Fake News, but that is not unlawful.

It definitely sucks for the Wayfarer side that the evidence was obtained via a shady lawsuit and a subpoena without notice, but it's not a criminal case and the texts are almost surely going to be admissible in court here, so I certainly would not see any issue in the NYT also relying on them just for an article. Even when documents have been outright hacked and stolen in an illegal manner (like Wikileaks type stuff) the press can still report on them.

That’s helpful. Doesn’t sound like it’s legally dubious for the times, but agree with you that there is real reputational damage. They just look very sloppy and that they didn’t do their full research.

Reporting on this would’ve been one thing, and totally appropriate, but doing this hit piece like they did - they look sloppy and unprofessional.

I think Megan‘s reputation as someone you would go to to to report sexual harassment is done. This is probably great for Ronan Farrow though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I missed this in the thread, does the new info about the vanzan lawsuit make things worse for the New York Times?

I don’t understand how this didn’t come up in their due diligence. They saw that the subpoena was a doe lawsuit and that didn’t raise any red flags? Can someone please tell me why a journalist would see that and think, oh this is fine. Honestly, I understand that people have said the New York Times will be fine because the bar is so high, but does this change anything? It seems like they ignored a major red.

I have been posting that the sham suit was unethical, but no, I don't think it will change anything for the NYT. This is the article https://archive.is/0icRp
The only thing about the subpoena is here: "Her filing includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by The New York Times."

That statement is true. She did obtain them through a subpoena. Whether that subpoena was lawful is not something the Times is expected to litigate, nor are they expected to thoroughly investigate the claims within her CRD complaint. They just had to accurately quote from the complaint, which they arguably did. I realize that they claim they did investigate, and that makes them look sloppy because, uh, there was a lot to uncover that didn't look great for Blake, but I'm still going to argue they're protected because ultimately they were reporting on the complaint and the texts (and I think the texts they quoted were also in the complaint, but I won't swear to that). And I just don't think a court is ever going to rule that a journalist was obligated to present "full context" and investigate and be fair to both sides, or that claiming to investigate created a duty to do so. That would just be a tremendous sea change in defamation law. What the NYT did is basically PR for Blake, a puff piece reporting her story exactly as she presented it in the CRD, which is very Fake News, but that is not unlawful.

It definitely sucks for the Wayfarer side that the evidence was obtained via a shady lawsuit and a subpoena without notice, but it's not a criminal case and the texts are almost surely going to be admissible in court here, so I certainly would not see any issue in the NYT also relying on them just for an article. Even when documents have been outright hacked and stolen in an illegal manner (like Wikileaks type stuff) the press can still report on them.

Agree. NYT defamation interested person here. The subpoena issue has nothing to do with their case or their reporting. Pentagon papers anyone?

But the rest of your post is not entirely accurate. We shall see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I missed this in the thread, does the new info about the vanzan lawsuit make things worse for the New York Times?

I don’t understand how this didn’t come up in their due diligence. They saw that the subpoena was a doe lawsuit and that didn’t raise any red flags? Can someone please tell me why a journalist would see that and think, oh this is fine. Honestly, I understand that people have said the New York Times will be fine because the bar is so high, but does this change anything? It seems like they ignored a major red.

I have been posting that the sham suit was unethical, but no, I don't think it will change anything for the NYT. This is the article https://archive.is/0icRp
The only thing about the subpoena is here: "Her filing includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by The New York Times."

That statement is true. She did obtain them through a subpoena. Whether that subpoena was lawful is not something the Times is expected to litigate, nor are they expected to thoroughly investigate the claims within her CRD complaint. They just had to accurately quote from the complaint, which they arguably did. I realize that they claim they did investigate, and that makes them look sloppy because, uh, there was a lot to uncover that didn't look great for Blake, but I'm still going to argue they're protected because ultimately they were reporting on the complaint and the texts (and I think the texts they quoted were also in the complaint, but I won't swear to that). And I just don't think a court is ever going to rule that a journalist was obligated to present "full context" and investigate and be fair to both sides, or that claiming to investigate created a duty to do so. That would just be a tremendous sea change in defamation law. What the NYT did is basically PR for Blake, a puff piece reporting her story exactly as she presented it in the CRD, which is very Fake News, but that is not unlawful.

It definitely sucks for the Wayfarer side that the evidence was obtained via a shady lawsuit and a subpoena without notice, but it's not a criminal case and the texts are almost surely going to be admissible in court here, so I certainly would not see any issue in the NYT also relying on them just for an article. Even when documents have been outright hacked and stolen in an illegal manner (like Wikileaks type stuff) the press can still report on them.

Agree. NYT defamation interested person here. The subpoena issue has nothing to do with their case or their reporting. Pentagon papers anyone?

But the rest of your post is not entirely accurate. We shall see.

Ugh. Please stop trying to analyze the law when you don’t know anything. It’s exhausting. For one, the judge here won’t be in a position to rule the NYT was obligated to give the ‘full context’ or not. That’s not what the judge does in cases like this. The factual issues will go to a jury. And yes, to a jury of regular people, context will very much matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I missed this in the thread, does the new info about the vanzan lawsuit make things worse for the New York Times?

I don’t understand how this didn’t come up in their due diligence. They saw that the subpoena was a doe lawsuit and that didn’t raise any red flags? Can someone please tell me why a journalist would see that and think, oh this is fine. Honestly, I understand that people have said the New York Times will be fine because the bar is so high, but does this change anything? It seems like they ignored a major red.

I have been posting that the sham suit was unethical, but no, I don't think it will change anything for the NYT. This is the article https://archive.is/0icRp
The only thing about the subpoena is here: "Her filing includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by The New York Times."

That statement is true. She did obtain them through a subpoena. Whether that subpoena was lawful is not something the Times is expected to litigate, nor are they expected to thoroughly investigate the claims within her CRD complaint. They just had to accurately quote from the complaint, which they arguably did. I realize that they claim they did investigate, and that makes them look sloppy because, uh, there was a lot to uncover that didn't look great for Blake, but I'm still going to argue they're protected because ultimately they were reporting on the complaint and the texts (and I think the texts they quoted were also in the complaint, but I won't swear to that). And I just don't think a court is ever going to rule that a journalist was obligated to present "full context" and investigate and be fair to both sides, or that claiming to investigate created a duty to do so. That would just be a tremendous sea change in defamation law. What the NYT did is basically PR for Blake, a puff piece reporting her story exactly as she presented it in the CRD, which is very Fake News, but that is not unlawful.

It definitely sucks for the Wayfarer side that the evidence was obtained via a shady lawsuit and a subpoena without notice, but it's not a criminal case and the texts are almost surely going to be admissible in court here, so I certainly would not see any issue in the NYT also relying on them just for an article. Even when documents have been outright hacked and stolen in an illegal manner (like Wikileaks type stuff) the press can still report on them.

Agree. NYT defamation interested person here. The subpoena issue has nothing to do with their case or their reporting. Pentagon papers anyone?

But the rest of your post is not entirely accurate. We shall see.

Ugh. Please stop trying to analyze the law when you don’t know anything. It’s exhausting. For one, the judge here won’t be in a position to rule the NYT was obligated to give the ‘full context’ or not. That’s not what the judge does in cases like this. The factual issues will go to a jury. And yes, to a jury of regular people, context will very much matter.

Lawyer here and that's not quite right. Defamation laws do not require news outlets to provide "full context." That's not the standard. For Baldoni, the standard will be "actual malice" as it was for Palin. If it every goes to a jury, the judge will instruct them as to the standard, and they will decide whether the NYT either knowingly published falsehoods (unlikely to apply) or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth (more applicable but NYT is well covered by fair report privilege because of the underlying litigation).

A jury will not be permitted to decide that they think the NYT was obligated to provide full context, because that's not the law. Jury instructions tend to be pretty narrowly drawn.

[Anonymous]

I love that some of the same people posting about how the NYT defamed Baldoni are also posting on the craziest BS YouTube videos (that have a split second disclaimer at the front saying they have nothing to do with reality) and interacting with the information presented therein as if totally factual.

NYT presents texts that Team Baldoni actually sent about doing a smear, and that is defamation, but wacky commenters presenting lies "for entertainment purposes only" are taken as truth and if you debate them on it you're just a biased liar paid to lie.

NYT: Prints actual texts that are facts: DEFAMATION!

Youtuber: Tells lies noting they are lies: HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THESE TRUTHS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I very much enjoyed this little video of how Blake lively and her team tried like hell to get her for Barbie and failed miserably. And Margot Robbie handled it like a true pro without any war in the press…just quietly worked to ensure Blake didn’t ruin the project.

Apparently, Blake’s team lodged a full campaign starting in 2020 about how she should play Barbie, dressing her in pink, and how they wanted a more family friendly version for the big screen, and paying certain influencers to continue to spread on social, calling her Barbie, trying to drum up support online.


https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIzNigusbDZ/?igsh=MWFiZ2t3anVyOW5xdA==

Ugh, I hate defending Blake Lively but this video is dumb because:

(1) It's fine and normal for a working actress to be angling to try to get a big role. That's not trying to steal a job, it's literally just trying to get a job. Every actor does this, including stuff like dressing publicly or doing photo shoots that might make producers/directors think of them for desirable roles. If you are going to criticize Blake for this, you might as well just write off all of Hollywood.

(2) In order to try and make their point seem more convincing, they did a bizarre thing where they put a pink filter on all the photos/footage of Blake in her 2022 Met Gala dress, to make it seem like this is an event where Blake "dressed like Barbie" to try and get the role. The problem is that the dress was NOT pink, and lots of people know this because it's one of the most famous things she's ever worn. The dress was inspired by the Statue of Liberty, which is made of copper that has oxidized to its iconic green color. Blake's dress was that copper but had a huge train that was pinned up and then released on the steps to reveal fabric in the same green as the SoL, to mimic the process of the statue oxidizing. It was designed by Versace and is a truly stunning dress and was a terrific concept for that year's theme. It was not pink and had nothing to do with the Barbie movie, sorry.

It’s not normal at all. Barbie was $1 billion franchise. Are you seriously telling me you think Blake lively could have fronted $1 billion film with her vision? Give me a freaking break. You are beyond delusional.

As the video pointed out, Blake just wanted to play dress up. Margo actually had a vision for the film that she worked for years to develop with her team, and it worked out to be a huge global phenomenon. Blake could have never pulled off.

Last you forget, she would literally have no career if she hadn’t stumbled onto marrying Ryan Reynolds. She can’t really act and she is responsible for the biggest bomb in cinematic history with the rhythm section. I also just discovered another bomb movie of hers called all I see is you. She has a history of unprecedented and massive failures at the box office.

Sony was courting Ryan Reynolds because they are on the verge of bankruptcy. They are the only one in the industry that does not have a streaming service and they are really feeling it. They wanted to get him attached to some projects so they agreed to give her a part in a Colleen Hoover movie, which was a slam dunk. Blake lively had nothing to do with the success of the film. It was all Colleen’s audience. The movie succeeded despite Blakely not because of.

You are so transparent it’s ridiculous and no one‘s buying it. Blake‘s career is over and it should’ve ended a long time ago has she not married well and very likely slept her way into parts. She should be nowhere near Barbie - her failed lifestyle brand proving that she doesn’t really have an audience or a vision. She has an embarrassing list of failed box office and failed businesses.

Thankfully, I doubt we’ll be hearing from her much longer now that she has burned so many bridges.

PP here. I agree Margo was a better choice for the role. She was also producing the movie so it's actually weird to me they ever considered anyone else for the role (but actually they had three other actresses attached or in talks at various points, which is kind of wild).

I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with an actor wanting a very coveted role. You can't get mad at someone for wanting a job they ultimately didn't get? I don't even like Blake Lively and don't see her movies because I don't like her as an actress, and even I think this criticism is a bit much. That's all.

And that the Statue of Liberty dress was not pink. Because it wasn't! It's a famous dress, it's just weird to imply that.

+1

+2

Heads are about to explode! There can't be 3 of us!

Didn't we know this 100+ pages ago from the roll call ha? Maybe there are even more, I'm not sure we're all here at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I missed this in the thread, does the new info about the vanzan lawsuit make things worse for the New York Times?

I don’t understand how this didn’t come up in their due diligence. They saw that the subpoena was a doe lawsuit and that didn’t raise any red flags? Can someone please tell me why a journalist would see that and think, oh this is fine. Honestly, I understand that people have said the New York Times will be fine because the bar is so high, but does this change anything? It seems like they ignored a major red.

I have been posting that the sham suit was unethical, but no, I don't think it will change anything for the NYT. This is the article https://archive.is/0icRp
The only thing about the subpoena is here: "Her filing includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by The New York Times."

That statement is true. She did obtain them through a subpoena. Whether that subpoena was lawful is not something the Times is expected to litigate, nor are they expected to thoroughly investigate the claims within her CRD complaint. They just had to accurately quote from the complaint, which they arguably did. I realize that they claim they did investigate, and that makes them look sloppy because, uh, there was a lot to uncover that didn't look great for Blake, but I'm still going to argue they're protected because ultimately they were reporting on the complaint and the texts (and I think the texts they quoted were also in the complaint, but I won't swear to that). And I just don't think a court is ever going to rule that a journalist was obligated to present "full context" and investigate and be fair to both sides, or that claiming to investigate created a duty to do so. That would just be a tremendous sea change in defamation law. What the NYT did is basically PR for Blake, a puff piece reporting her story exactly as she presented it in the CRD, which is very Fake News, but that is not unlawful.

It definitely sucks for the Wayfarer side that the evidence was obtained via a shady lawsuit and a subpoena without notice, but it's not a criminal case and the texts are almost surely going to be admissible in court here, so I certainly would not see any issue in the NYT also relying on them just for an article. Even when documents have been outright hacked and stolen in an illegal manner (like Wikileaks type stuff) the press can still report on them.

Agree. NYT defamation interested person here. The subpoena issue has nothing to do with their case or their reporting. Pentagon papers anyone?

But the rest of your post is not entirely accurate. We shall see.

Ugh. Please stop trying to analyze the law when you don’t know anything. It’s exhausting. For one, the judge here won’t be in a position to rule the NYT was obligated to give the ‘full context’ or not. That’s not what the judge does in cases like this. The factual issues will go to a jury. And yes, to a jury of regular people, context will very much matter.

Lawyer here and that's not quite right. Defamation laws do not require news outlets to provide "full context." That's not the standard. For Baldoni, the standard will be "actual malice" as it was for Palin. If it every goes to a jury, the judge will instruct them as to the standard, and they will decide whether the NYT either knowingly published falsehoods (unlikely to apply) or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth (more applicable but NYT is well covered by fair report privilege because of the underlying litigation).

A jury will not be permitted to decide that they think the NYT was obligated to provide full context, because that's not the law. Jury instructions tend to be pretty narrowly drawn.

Look, you don’t know defamation law that well. Fine. Fair report is not as broad of a defense as you think here. They werent just straight reporting from a lawsuit. They brought in a much fuller angle and it was clearly collaborative. And I never said ‘full context’ was some written standard in the law. But if you followed Def cases that go to trial, you’d know that context very much comes into play. Juries are human beings and subject to bias and impressions, and jury instructions- which often confuse jurists btw- don’t fully change that human inclination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love that some of the same people posting about how the NYT defamed Baldoni are also posting on the craziest BS YouTube videos (that have a split second disclaimer at the front saying they have nothing to do with reality) and interacting with the information presented therein as if totally factual.

NYT presents texts that Team Baldoni actually sent about doing a smear, and that is defamation, but wacky commenters presenting lies "for entertainment purposes only" are taken as truth and if you debate them on it you're just a biased liar paid to lie.

NYT: Prints actual texts that are facts: DEFAMATION!

Youtuber: Tells lies noting they are lies: HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THESE TRUTHS!

You’re wrong and confusing people. I’m the Nyt poster and don’t really watch YouTube videos but I’ll remind you of a certain reality. random commentator on YouTube = no money, no insurance. NYT = deep pocket with millions in media liability coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I missed this in the thread, does the new info about the vanzan lawsuit make things worse for the New York Times?

I don’t understand how this didn’t come up in their due diligence. They saw that the subpoena was a doe lawsuit and that didn’t raise any red flags? Can someone please tell me why a journalist would see that and think, oh this is fine. Honestly, I understand that people have said the New York Times will be fine because the bar is so high, but does this change anything? It seems like they ignored a major red.

I have been posting that the sham suit was unethical, but no, I don't think it will change anything for the NYT. This is the article https://archive.is/0icRp
The only thing about the subpoena is here: "Her filing includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by The New York Times."

That statement is true. She did obtain them through a subpoena. Whether that subpoena was lawful is not something the Times is expected to litigate, nor are they expected to thoroughly investigate the claims within her CRD complaint. They just had to accurately quote from the complaint, which they arguably did. I realize that they claim they did investigate, and that makes them look sloppy because, uh, there was a lot to uncover that didn't look great for Blake, but I'm still going to argue they're protected because ultimately they were reporting on the complaint and the texts (and I think the texts they quoted were also in the complaint, but I won't swear to that). And I just don't think a court is ever going to rule that a journalist was obligated to present "full context" and investigate and be fair to both sides, or that claiming to investigate created a duty to do so. That would just be a tremendous sea change in defamation law. What the NYT did is basically PR for Blake, a puff piece reporting her story exactly as she presented it in the CRD, which is very Fake News, but that is not unlawful.

It definitely sucks for the Wayfarer side that the evidence was obtained via a shady lawsuit and a subpoena without notice, but it's not a criminal case and the texts are almost surely going to be admissible in court here, so I certainly would not see any issue in the NYT also relying on them just for an article. Even when documents have been outright hacked and stolen in an illegal manner (like Wikileaks type stuff) the press can still report on them.

Agree. NYT defamation interested person here. The subpoena issue has nothing to do with their case or their reporting. Pentagon papers anyone?

But the rest of your post is not entirely accurate. We shall see.

Ugh. Please stop trying to analyze the law when you don’t know anything. It’s exhausting. For one, the judge here won’t be in a position to rule the NYT was obligated to give the ‘full context’ or not. That’s not what the judge does in cases like this. The factual issues will go to a jury. And yes, to a jury of regular people, context will very much matter.

Lawyer here and that's not quite right. Defamation laws do not require news outlets to provide "full context." That's not the standard. For Baldoni, the standard will be "actual malice" as it was for Palin. If it every goes to a jury, the judge will instruct them as to the standard, and they will decide whether the NYT either knowingly published falsehoods (unlikely to apply) or acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth (more applicable but NYT is well covered by fair report privilege because of the underlying litigation).

A jury will not be permitted to decide that they think the NYT was obligated to provide full context, because that's not the law. Jury instructions tend to be pretty narrowly drawn.

Look, you don’t know defamation law that well. Fine. Fair report is not as broad of a defense as you think here. They werent just straight reporting from a lawsuit. They brought in a much fuller angle and it was clearly collaborative. And I never said ‘full context’ was some written standard in the law. But if you followed Def cases that go to trial, you’d know that context very much comes into play. Juries are human beings and subject to bias and impressions, and jury instructions- which often confuse jurists btw- don’t fully change that human inclination.

Agree juries can do weird things but will Baldoni get there?