Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Going back and watching the promotions for IEWU, it seems like she didn't know what the movie was about. She doesn't seem to know anything. It's actually astonishing. They ask her a question about Lily Bloom, she rambles about layers and textures then jumps into platitudes about "strong women". She rarely ever broached the subject of the film, domestic violence. When asked, she actually admitted verbatim she was lucky she never went through anything Lily has. Her cross examination will be one for the ages.

The Sony PR strategy for the film was actually specifically NOT to talk about domestic violence that much. Because people generally don't actively seek to go out and watch a film about a man beating up his wife. Shockingly, that hasn't been shown to sell theater tickets. Lively was advised to sell it as a girls night out movie, something to go and see and talk about with your girlfriends. That's where the "take your friends, wear your florals" line that so gets derided came from.

You can mock this and say it was a terrible and tone deaf strategy. But it's hard to argue with the fact that the film grossed four hundred effing million dollars, which was way, way over what similar romance dramas have made in recent years. The film really outperformed, so honestly everybody and their dog should be asking Blake Lively to do PR for their film while Justin Baldoni cuts some separate interviews about the real meaty issues at the heart of the film in another room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her hair care line, Blake Brown, is still available for purchase but I haven't seen the pro-lively camp endorse, promote, or do any reviews for it. You would think with such mass support, it would be selling out in droves.

The pro-Lively camp on here is generally not fans but people interested in the legal case (I'm not even a supporter, and have criticized her and even called her a liar many times and get lumped in as being pro-Lively because sometimes I defend her side or call out Baldoni's side). As far as the legal case goes, they wouldn't be arguing that her haircare line is super successful. The argument for her side is that it's been damaged and sales were hurt. She's trying to rebuild her brand, and getting attacked for whatever baby steps she's taking while promoting her new film. So I would not expect her supporters on here to be gushing about her successful line, no.

Right. I don't really care about her acting, and less about her brands. I just think she has a legal case.

The other side to the pro-Baldoni argument above is that his movie, A Nice Indian Boy, isn't exactly killing it at the box office even though it (by comparison) has had great reviews. Less than $750,000 in box office receipts so far even though it's been out for a full month. Has it even recouped what it cost to make it (the actor Jonathan Groff must have been paid a good portion of that to appear in it)? Why aren't all the Baldoni fans making this more of a success and making it sell out in droves etc?

I did watch Another Simple Favor this weekend. It was relatively enjoyable -- I think Kendrick is a better actress than Lively tbh. I think Lively does well at sort of playing a jerk with a heart underneath, that's a role not everyone can pull off. The doppleganger was not my favorite. But I found the movie an enjoyable romp, similar to the first in spirit. I thought there were some in jokes relating to the litigation, tbh, but I might have just been reading to much into things (since I don't think Lively had a hand in the writing, ha).

Meanwhile, over on Reddit, the pro-Baldoni people are going a little insane. I haven't totally been keeping up but they seemed to be working on doxxing the pro-Lively lawyer I posted about here, and now they are mad at the Ask2Lawyers creators also because they dared to have an opinion on a legal issue that was slightly pro-Lively. All this and the leaving mean comments about Lively on people's sites etc -- it's a little off the charts. wtf are the pro-Baldoni people thinking? Take a little time, get a little perspective, etc. It's just ... a lot.

Meanwhile, the Baldoni Files subreddit running around and calling Justin a pedophile, but yeah, sure, the pro-Baldoni folks are crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back and watching the promotions for IEWU, it seems like she didn't know what the movie was about. She doesn't seem to know anything. It's actually astonishing. They ask her a question about Lily Bloom, she rambles about layers and textures then jumps into platitudes about "strong women". She rarely ever broached the subject of the film, domestic violence. When asked, she actually admitted verbatim she was lucky she never went through anything Lily has. Her cross examination will be one for the ages.

The Sony PR strategy for the film was actually specifically NOT to talk about domestic violence that much. Because people generally don't actively seek to go out and watch a film about a man beating up his wife. Shockingly, that hasn't been shown to sell theater tickets. Lively was advised to sell it as a girls night out movie, something to go and see and talk about with your girlfriends. That's where the "take your friends, wear your florals" line that so gets derided came from.

You can mock this and say it was a terrible and tone deaf strategy. But it's hard to argue with the fact that the film grossed four hundred effing million dollars, which was way, way over what similar romance dramas have made in recent years. The film really outperformed, so honestly everybody and their dog should be asking Blake Lively to do PR for their film while Justin Baldoni cuts some separate interviews about the real meaty issues at the heart of the film in another room.

I see we're doing this again. Once again, Sony's guidelines were extremely broad, yet Blake insisted on cross-promoting her alcohol line and coming up with names like "Ryle You Wait," while being dismissive about the topic of DV when interviewers did ask about it (e.g. "What, do you want to give out my home address?"). This is what we're talking about when we call the pro-Lively camp "anti-fact." I see someone is still bitter about this insult and is now claiming how the "Baldoners" hate facts, while the pro-Lively people deal only in facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back and watching the promotions for IEWU, it seems like she didn't know what the movie was about. She doesn't seem to know anything. It's actually astonishing. They ask her a question about Lily Bloom, she rambles about layers and textures then jumps into platitudes about "strong women". She rarely ever broached the subject of the film, domestic violence. When asked, she actually admitted verbatim she was lucky she never went through anything Lily has. Her cross examination will be one for the ages.

The Sony PR strategy for the film was actually specifically NOT to talk about domestic violence that much. Because people generally don't actively seek to go out and watch a film about a man beating up his wife. Shockingly, that hasn't been shown to sell theater tickets. Lively was advised to sell it as a girls night out movie, something to go and see and talk about with your girlfriends. That's where the "take your friends, wear your florals" line that so gets derided came from.

You can mock this and say it was a terrible and tone deaf strategy. But it's hard to argue with the fact that the film grossed four hundred effing million dollars, which was way, way over what similar romance dramas have made in recent years. The film really outperformed, so honestly everybody and their dog should be asking Blake Lively to do PR for their film while Justin Baldoni cuts some separate interviews about the real meaty issues at the heart of the film in another room.

Colleen Hoover is wildly popular and It Ends With Us sold a million copies in 2021. You're not on BookTok and clued into trends, I get it, but you are denying reality when you're acting like the reason it was so successful is because of Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back and watching the promotions for IEWU, it seems like she didn't know what the movie was about. She doesn't seem to know anything. It's actually astonishing. They ask her a question about Lily Bloom, she rambles about layers and textures then jumps into platitudes about "strong women". She rarely ever broached the subject of the film, domestic violence. When asked, she actually admitted verbatim she was lucky she never went through anything Lily has. Her cross examination will be one for the ages.

The Sony PR strategy for the film was actually specifically NOT to talk about domestic violence that much. Because people generally don't actively seek to go out and watch a film about a man beating up his wife. Shockingly, that hasn't been shown to sell theater tickets. Lively was advised to sell it as a girls night out movie, something to go and see and talk about with your girlfriends. That's where the "take your friends, wear your florals" line that so gets derided came from.

You can mock this and say it was a terrible and tone deaf strategy. But it's hard to argue with the fact that the film grossed four hundred effing million dollars, which was way, way over what similar romance dramas have made in recent years. The film really outperformed, so honestly everybody and their dog should be asking Blake Lively to do PR for their film while Justin Baldoni cuts some separate interviews about the real meaty issues at the heart of the film in another room.

Regardless, her promo strategy was the reason for the negative public reaction. Those who are saying “but it sold tickets” should tell Blake that since she’s the one who couldn’t handle a little negative publicity and decided to throw a tantrum and blow up her entire life, that of her husband and friends, as well as Justin and co.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back and watching the promotions for IEWU, it seems like she didn't know what the movie was about. She doesn't seem to know anything. It's actually astonishing. They ask her a question about Lily Bloom, she rambles about layers and textures then jumps into platitudes about "strong women". She rarely ever broached the subject of the film, domestic violence. When asked, she actually admitted verbatim she was lucky she never went through anything Lily has. Her cross examination will be one for the ages.

The Sony PR strategy for the film was actually specifically NOT to talk about domestic violence that much. Because people generally don't actively seek to go out and watch a film about a man beating up his wife. Shockingly, that hasn't been shown to sell theater tickets. Lively was advised to sell it as a girls night out movie, something to go and see and talk about with your girlfriends. That's where the "take your friends, wear your florals" line that so gets derided came from.

You can mock this and say it was a terrible and tone deaf strategy. But it's hard to argue with the fact that the film grossed four hundred effing million dollars, which was way, way over what similar romance dramas have made in recent years. The film really outperformed, so honestly everybody and their dog should be asking Blake Lively to do PR for their film while Justin Baldoni cuts some separate interviews about the real meaty issues at the heart of the film in another room.

Colleen Hoover is wildly popular and It Ends With Us sold a million copies in 2021. You're not on BookTok and clued into trends, I get it, but you are denying reality when you're acting like the reason it was so successful is because of Blake.

FWIW, I actually agree with you somewhat re the tone deafness of marketing her liquor brand with the film. But PP above who complaints about Lively "rarely ever broached the subject of the film, domestic violence" is completely ignoring that those were basically the instructions of Sony's marketing plan, and that they actually worked. If you think that millions of people would have shown up for a movie that was actively marketed as a domestic violence film, no matter who authored it, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. You don't get to $400 million with a "this movie is good for you, take your medicine" message.

Maybe Lively is not a great interviewer. I don't know. But she was doing what she was basically told to do, and I saw some later press with her where she talked knowledgeably and movingly (and seemingly extemporaneously) about the subject at the heart of the film, so I don't think she is stupid. but ymmv.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her hair care line, Blake Brown, is still available for purchase but I haven't seen the pro-lively camp endorse, promote, or do any reviews for it. You would think with such mass support, it would be selling out in droves.

The pro-Lively camp on here is generally not fans but people interested in the legal case (I'm not even a supporter, and have criticized her and even called her a liar many times and get lumped in as being pro-Lively because sometimes I defend her side or call out Baldoni's side). As far as the legal case goes, they wouldn't be arguing that her haircare line is super successful. The argument for her side is that it's been damaged and sales were hurt. She's trying to rebuild her brand, and getting attacked for whatever baby steps she's taking while promoting her new film. So I would not expect her supporters on here to be gushing about her successful line, no.

Right. I don't really care about her acting, and less about her brands. I just think she has a legal case.

The other side to the pro-Baldoni argument above is that his movie, A Nice Indian Boy, isn't exactly killing it at the box office even though it (by comparison) has had great reviews. Less than $750,000 in box office receipts so far even though it's been out for a full month. Has it even recouped what it cost to make it (the actor Jonathan Groff must have been paid a good portion of that to appear in it)? Why aren't all the Baldoni fans making this more of a success and making it sell out in droves etc?

I did watch Another Simple Favor this weekend. It was relatively enjoyable -- I think Kendrick is a better actress than Lively tbh. I think Lively does well at sort of playing a jerk with a heart underneath, that's a role not everyone can pull off. The doppleganger was not my favorite. But I found the movie an enjoyable romp, similar to the first in spirit. I thought there were some in jokes relating to the litigation, tbh, but I might have just been reading to much into things (since I don't think Lively had a hand in the writing, ha).

Meanwhile, over on Reddit, the pro-Baldoni people are going a little insane. I haven't totally been keeping up but they seemed to be working on doxxing the pro-Lively lawyer I posted about here, and now they are mad at the Ask2Lawyers creators also because they dared to have an opinion on a legal issue that was slightly pro-Lively. All this and the leaving mean comments about Lively on people's sites etc -- it's a little off the charts. wtf are the pro-Baldoni people thinking? Take a little time, get a little perspective, etc. It's just ... a lot.

Well if I had to guess, the fury for her probably has to do with the fact that she's filed a lawsuit and made incendiary claims that have damaged a man, his family, and career that he has to fight and wait another year to recover from (and that's if the trial is resolved within the same year) while she's essentially been allowed to retain her regular life and make movies and cookies and act like nothing's happened. Women are definitely fighters and alleys for survivors of SA but women also have a strong sense of justice for what's right and wrong. And now that we have heard and seen some of the testimony and evidence from both sides, there is a collective sense of furor over what some perceive as a massive injustice done to this man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back and watching the promotions for IEWU, it seems like she didn't know what the movie was about. She doesn't seem to know anything. It's actually astonishing. They ask her a question about Lily Bloom, she rambles about layers and textures then jumps into platitudes about "strong women". She rarely ever broached the subject of the film, domestic violence. When asked, she actually admitted verbatim she was lucky she never went through anything Lily has. Her cross examination will be one for the ages.

The Sony PR strategy for the film was actually specifically NOT to talk about domestic violence that much. Because people generally don't actively seek to go out and watch a film about a man beating up his wife. Shockingly, that hasn't been shown to sell theater tickets. Lively was advised to sell it as a girls night out movie, something to go and see and talk about with your girlfriends. That's where the "take your friends, wear your florals" line that so gets derided came from.

You can mock this and say it was a terrible and tone deaf strategy. But it's hard to argue with the fact that the film grossed four hundred effing million dollars, which was way, way over what similar romance dramas have made in recent years. The film really outperformed, so honestly everybody and their dog should be asking Blake Lively to do PR for their film while Justin Baldoni cuts some separate interviews about the real meaty issues at the heart of the film in another room.

Colleen Hoover is wildly popular and It Ends With Us sold a million copies in 2021. You're not on BookTok and clued into trends, I get it, but you are denying reality when you're acting like the reason it was so successful is because of Blake.

FWIW, I actually agree with you somewhat re the tone deafness of marketing her liquor brand with the film. But PP above who complaints about Lively "rarely ever broached the subject of the film, domestic violence" is completely ignoring that those were basically the instructions of Sony's marketing plan, and that they actually worked. If you think that millions of people would have shown up for a movie that was actively marketed as a domestic violence film, no matter who authored it, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. You don't get to $400 million with a "this movie is good for you, take your medicine" message.

Maybe Lively is not a great interviewer. I don't know. But she was doing what she was basically told to do, and I saw some later press with her where she talked knowledgeably and movingly (and seemingly extemporaneously) about the subject at the heart of the film, so I don't think she is stupid. but ymmv.

You're just willfully distorting reality to defend Lively. A book that sells a million copies a year, surmounting the publishing industry's woes, is a massive deal and shows that it's prime material to be adapted into a highly successful movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back and watching the promotions for IEWU, it seems like she didn't know what the movie was about. She doesn't seem to know anything. It's actually astonishing. They ask her a question about Lily Bloom, she rambles about layers and textures then jumps into platitudes about "strong women". She rarely ever broached the subject of the film, domestic violence. When asked, she actually admitted verbatim she was lucky she never went through anything Lily has. Her cross examination will be one for the ages.

The Sony PR strategy for the film was actually specifically NOT to talk about domestic violence that much. Because people generally don't actively seek to go out and watch a film about a man beating up his wife. Shockingly, that hasn't been shown to sell theater tickets. Lively was advised to sell it as a girls night out movie, something to go and see and talk about with your girlfriends. That's where the "take your friends, wear your florals" line that so gets derided came from.

You can mock this and say it was a terrible and tone deaf strategy. But it's hard to argue with the fact that the film grossed four hundred effing million dollars, which was way, way over what similar romance dramas have made in recent years. The film really outperformed, so honestly everybody and their dog should be asking Blake Lively to do PR for their film while Justin Baldoni cuts some separate interviews about the real meaty issues at the heart of the film in another room.

On one hand you're saying Lively's tone deaf marketing of the film was a PR strategy by Sony and that talking about DV for a film about DV isn't a winning methodology, but then giving her credit for that tone deaf marketing in reference to the film's successful box office. Someone's confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going back and watching the promotions for IEWU, it seems like she didn't know what the movie was about. She doesn't seem to know anything. It's actually astonishing. They ask her a question about Lily Bloom, she rambles about layers and textures then jumps into platitudes about "strong women". She rarely ever broached the subject of the film, domestic violence. When asked, she actually admitted verbatim she was lucky she never went through anything Lily has. Her cross examination will be one for the ages.

The Sony PR strategy for the film was actually specifically NOT to talk about domestic violence that much. Because people generally don't actively seek to go out and watch a film about a man beating up his wife. Shockingly, that hasn't been shown to sell theater tickets. Lively was advised to sell it as a girls night out movie, something to go and see and talk about with your girlfriends. That's where the "take your friends, wear your florals" line that so gets derided came from.

You can mock this and say it was a terrible and tone deaf strategy. But it's hard to argue with the fact that the film grossed four hundred effing million dollars, which was way, way over what similar romance dramas have made in recent years. The film really outperformed, so honestly everybody and their dog should be asking Blake Lively to do PR for their film while Justin Baldoni cuts some separate interviews about the real meaty issues at the heart of the film in another room.

If Blake wasn't responsible for the marketing, then how is she arguing in the suit that the "smear campaign" and loss of sales were orchestrated by Baldoni's team? Wouldn't she be suing Sony for having her pitch the film incorrectly and causing brand damage and product sales decline?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her hair care line, Blake Brown, is still available for purchase but I haven't seen the pro-lively camp endorse, promote, or do any reviews for it. You would think with such mass support, it would be selling out in droves.

The pro-Lively camp on here is generally not fans but people interested in the legal case (I'm not even a supporter, and have criticized her and even called her a liar many times and get lumped in as being pro-Lively because sometimes I defend her side or call out Baldoni's side). As far as the legal case goes, they wouldn't be arguing that her haircare line is super successful. The argument for her side is that it's been damaged and sales were hurt. She's trying to rebuild her brand, and getting attacked for whatever baby steps she's taking while promoting her new film. So I would not expect her supporters on here to be gushing about her successful line, no.

Right. I don't really care about her acting, and less about her brands. I just think she has a legal case.

The other side to the pro-Baldoni argument above is that his movie, A Nice Indian Boy, isn't exactly killing it at the box office even though it (by comparison) has had great reviews. Less than $750,000 in box office receipts so far even though it's been out for a full month. Has it even recouped what it cost to make it (the actor Jonathan Groff must have been paid a good portion of that to appear in it)? Why aren't all the Baldoni fans making this more of a success and making it sell out in droves etc?

I did watch Another Simple Favor this weekend. It was relatively enjoyable -- I think Kendrick is a better actress than Lively tbh. I think Lively does well at sort of playing a jerk with a heart underneath, that's a role not everyone can pull off. The doppleganger was not my favorite. But I found the movie an enjoyable romp, similar to the first in spirit. I thought there were some in jokes relating to the litigation, tbh, but I might have just been reading to much into things (since I don't think Lively had a hand in the writing, ha).

Meanwhile, over on Reddit, the pro-Baldoni people are going a little insane. I haven't totally been keeping up but they seemed to be working on doxxing the pro-Lively lawyer I posted about here, and now they are mad at the Ask2Lawyers creators also because they dared to have an opinion on a legal issue that was slightly pro-Lively. All this and the leaving mean comments about Lively on people's sites etc -- it's a little off the charts. wtf are the pro-Baldoni people thinking? Take a little time, get a little perspective, etc. It's just ... a lot.

The person who spends her time on multiple IEWU forums is calling other people a “little insane.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her hair care line, Blake Brown, is still available for purchase but I haven't seen the pro-lively camp endorse, promote, or do any reviews for it. You would think with such mass support, it would be selling out in droves.

The pro-Lively camp on here is generally not fans but people interested in the legal case (I'm not even a supporter, and have criticized her and even called her a liar many times and get lumped in as being pro-Lively because sometimes I defend her side or call out Baldoni's side). As far as the legal case goes, they wouldn't be arguing that her haircare line is super successful. The argument for her side is that it's been damaged and sales were hurt. She's trying to rebuild her brand, and getting attacked for whatever baby steps she's taking while promoting her new film. So I would not expect her supporters on here to be gushing about her successful line, no.

Right. I don't really care about her acting, and less about her brands. I just think she has a legal case.

The other side to the pro-Baldoni argument above is that his movie, A Nice Indian Boy, isn't exactly killing it at the box office even though it (by comparison) has had great reviews. Less than $750,000 in box office receipts so far even though it's been out for a full month. Has it even recouped what it cost to make it (the actor Jonathan Groff must have been paid a good portion of that to appear in it)? Why aren't all the Baldoni fans making this more of a success and making it sell out in droves etc?

I did watch Another Simple Favor this weekend. It was relatively enjoyable -- I think Kendrick is a better actress than Lively tbh. I think Lively does well at sort of playing a jerk with a heart underneath, that's a role not everyone can pull off. The doppleganger was not my favorite. But I found the movie an enjoyable romp, similar to the first in spirit. I thought there were some in jokes relating to the litigation, tbh, but I might have just been reading to much into things (since I don't think Lively had a hand in the writing, ha).

Meanwhile, over on Reddit, the pro-Baldoni people are going a little insane. I haven't totally been keeping up but they seemed to be working on doxxing the pro-Lively lawyer I posted about here, and now they are mad at the Ask2Lawyers creators also because they dared to have an opinion on a legal issue that was slightly pro-Lively. All this and the leaving mean comments about Lively on people's sites etc -- it's a little off the charts. wtf are the pro-Baldoni people thinking? Take a little time, get a little perspective, etc. It's just ... a lot.

Well if I had to guess, the fury for her probably has to do with the fact that she's filed a lawsuit and made incendiary claims that have damaged a man, his family, and career that he has to fight and wait another year to recover from (and that's if the trial is resolved within the same year) while she's essentially been allowed to retain her regular life and make movies and cookies and act like nothing's happened. Women are definitely fighters and alleys for survivors of SA but women also have a strong sense of justice for what's right and wrong. And now that we have heard and seen some of the testimony and evidence from both sides, there is a collective sense of furor over what some perceive as a massive injustice done to this man.

+1 and now we know she’s done this before to the paparazzo. He lost two years of his life, his marriage, and his livelihood trying to fight Blake and Ryan’s lies only for the case to be dismissed in the end. And that case was worse because it was a criminal case and she implored the court to throw the book at him.

Some of us here happen to think that they’re horrible people who go around ruining marriages, abusing the legal system, disrespecting journalists and weaponizing social movements, and we simply want them to be held accountable for once in their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her hair care line, Blake Brown, is still available for purchase but I haven't seen the pro-lively camp endorse, promote, or do any reviews for it. You would think with such mass support, it would be selling out in droves.

The pro-Lively camp on here is generally not fans but people interested in the legal case (I'm not even a supporter, and have criticized her and even called her a liar many times and get lumped in as being pro-Lively because sometimes I defend her side or call out Baldoni's side). As far as the legal case goes, they wouldn't be arguing that her haircare line is super successful. The argument for her side is that it's been damaged and sales were hurt. She's trying to rebuild her brand, and getting attacked for whatever baby steps she's taking while promoting her new film. So I would not expect her supporters on here to be gushing about her successful line, no.

Right. I don't really care about her acting, and less about her brands. I just think she has a legal case.

The other side to the pro-Baldoni argument above is that his movie, A Nice Indian Boy, isn't exactly killing it at the box office even though it (by comparison) has had great reviews. Less than $750,000 in box office receipts so far even though it's been out for a full month. Has it even recouped what it cost to make it (the actor Jonathan Groff must have been paid a good portion of that to appear in it)? Why aren't all the Baldoni fans making this more of a success and making it sell out in droves etc?

I did watch Another Simple Favor this weekend. It was relatively enjoyable -- I think Kendrick is a better actress than Lively tbh. I think Lively does well at sort of playing a jerk with a heart underneath, that's a role not everyone can pull off. The doppleganger was not my favorite. But I found the movie an enjoyable romp, similar to the first in spirit. I thought there were some in jokes relating to the litigation, tbh, but I might have just been reading to much into things (since I don't think Lively had a hand in the writing, ha).

Meanwhile, over on Reddit, the pro-Baldoni people are going a little insane. I haven't totally been keeping up but they seemed to be working on doxxing the pro-Lively lawyer I posted about here, and now they are mad at the Ask2Lawyers creators also because they dared to have an opinion on a legal issue that was slightly pro-Lively. All this and the leaving mean comments about Lively on people's sites etc -- it's a little off the charts. wtf are the pro-Baldoni people thinking? Take a little time, get a little perspective, etc. It's just ... a lot.

Well if I had to guess, the fury for her probably has to do with the fact that she's filed a lawsuit and made incendiary claims that have damaged a man, his family, and career that he has to fight and wait another year to recover from (and that's if the trial is resolved within the same year) while she's essentially been allowed to retain her regular life and make movies and cookies and act like nothing's happened. Women are definitely fighters and alleys for survivors of SA but women also have a strong sense of justice for what's right and wrong. And now that we have heard and seen some of the testimony and evidence from both sides, there is a collective sense of furor over what some perceive as a massive injustice done to this man.

+1 and now we know she’s done this before to the paparazzo. He lost two years of his life, his marriage, and his livelihood trying to fight Blake and Ryan’s lies only for the case to be dismissed in the end. And that case was worse because it was a criminal case and she implored the court to throw the book at him.

Some of us here happen to think that they’re horrible people who go around ruining marriages, abusing the legal system, disrespecting journalists and weaponizing social movements, and we simply want them to be held accountable for once in their lives.

+1 I’ve only posted here twice, but have been following. The amount of gaslighting with the pro- Lively posters is astounding. From what I see on social media and they’re really going all out! Look at how many people who have had to disable their comments that are in the lively camp or have had the misfortune of interacting/working/interviewing with her….looking at you Seth. Being pro-lively is not the norm. People are smart. They can clearly see how she and Ryan, as well as their PR are manipulating the public. And we are damn tired of it. Maybe I could have forgiven it and let it go, if only she just went silent. But the amount of mental gymnastics and “look at me” theatrics is cringey and inauthentic. She just keeps digging herself in a hole. Trying to control the narrative and I don’t think I’m the only one that’s sick of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her hair care line, Blake Brown, is still available for purchase but I haven't seen the pro-lively camp endorse, promote, or do any reviews for it. You would think with such mass support, it would be selling out in droves.

The pro-Lively camp on here is generally not fans but people interested in the legal case (I'm not even a supporter, and have criticized her and even called her a liar many times and get lumped in as being pro-Lively because sometimes I defend her side or call out Baldoni's side). As far as the legal case goes, they wouldn't be arguing that her haircare line is super successful. The argument for her side is that it's been damaged and sales were hurt. She's trying to rebuild her brand, and getting attacked for whatever baby steps she's taking while promoting her new film. So I would not expect her supporters on here to be gushing about her successful line, no.

Right. I don't really care about her acting, and less about her brands. I just think she has a legal case.

The other side to the pro-Baldoni argument above is that his movie, A Nice Indian Boy, isn't exactly killing it at the box office even though it (by comparison) has had great reviews. Less than $750,000 in box office receipts so far even though it's been out for a full month. Has it even recouped what it cost to make it (the actor Jonathan Groff must have been paid a good portion of that to appear in it)? Why aren't all the Baldoni fans making this more of a success and making it sell out in droves etc?

I did watch Another Simple Favor this weekend. It was relatively enjoyable -- I think Kendrick is a better actress than Lively tbh. I think Lively does well at sort of playing a jerk with a heart underneath, that's a role not everyone can pull off. The doppleganger was not my favorite. But I found the movie an enjoyable romp, similar to the first in spirit. I thought there were some in jokes relating to the litigation, tbh, but I might have just been reading to much into things (since I don't think Lively had a hand in the writing, ha).

Meanwhile, over on Reddit, the pro-Baldoni people are going a little insane. I haven't totally been keeping up but they seemed to be working on doxxing the pro-Lively lawyer I posted about here, and now they are mad at the Ask2Lawyers creators also because they dared to have an opinion on a legal issue that was slightly pro-Lively. All this and the leaving mean comments about Lively on people's sites etc -- it's a little off the charts. wtf are the pro-Baldoni people thinking? Take a little time, get a little perspective, etc. It's just ... a lot.

Well if I had to guess, the fury for her probably has to do with the fact that she's filed a lawsuit and made incendiary claims that have damaged a man, his family, and career that he has to fight and wait another year to recover from (and that's if the trial is resolved within the same year) while she's essentially been allowed to retain her regular life and make movies and cookies and act like nothing's happened. Women are definitely fighters and alleys for survivors of SA but women also have a strong sense of justice for what's right and wrong. And now that we have heard and seen some of the testimony and evidence from both sides, there is a collective sense of furor over what some perceive as a massive injustice done to this man.

+1 and now we know she’s done this before to the paparazzo. He lost two years of his life, his marriage, and his livelihood trying to fight Blake and Ryan’s lies only for the case to be dismissed in the end. And that case was worse because it was a criminal case and she implored the court to throw the book at him.

Some of us here happen to think that they’re horrible people who go around ruining marriages, abusing the legal system, disrespecting journalists and weaponizing social movements, and we simply want them to be held accountable for once in their lives.

+1 I’ve only posted here twice, but have been following. The amount of gaslighting with the pro- Lively posters is astounding. From what I see on social media and they’re really going all out! Look at how many people who have had to disable their comments that are in the lively camp or have had the misfortune of interacting/working/interviewing with her….looking at you Seth. Being pro-lively is not the norm. People are smart. They can clearly see how she and Ryan, as well as their PR are manipulating the public. And we are damn tired of it. Maybe I could have forgiven it and let it go, if only she just went silent. But the amount of mental gymnastics and “look at me” theatrics is cringey and inauthentic. She just keeps digging herself in a hole. Trying to control the narrative and I don’t think I’m the only one that’s sick of it.

I just do not think it is “manipulating the public” to do press for your new movie or to show up for your husband (at the Wrexham game). I do not think it’s normal to “go silent.” Going silent when you have a new movie would make you more of a liability, and would signal maybe you aren’t someone who should be hired anymore if you don’t have the guts to do press (as is probably required in your contract) in the face of some adversity.

What a weird thing you all are demanding of victims of SH and smear campaigns. I know, you don’t believe her. So I guess the ones who aren’t believed can be shamed into hiding their heads at home and shutting up and staying out of public view. That seems about right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her hair care line, Blake Brown, is still available for purchase but I haven't seen the pro-lively camp endorse, promote, or do any reviews for it. You would think with such mass support, it would be selling out in droves.

The pro-Lively camp on here is generally not fans but people interested in the legal case (I'm not even a supporter, and have criticized her and even called her a liar many times and get lumped in as being pro-Lively because sometimes I defend her side or call out Baldoni's side). As far as the legal case goes, they wouldn't be arguing that her haircare line is super successful. The argument for her side is that it's been damaged and sales were hurt. She's trying to rebuild her brand, and getting attacked for whatever baby steps she's taking while promoting her new film. So I would not expect her supporters on here to be gushing about her successful line, no.

Right. I don't really care about her acting, and less about her brands. I just think she has a legal case.

The other side to the pro-Baldoni argument above is that his movie, A Nice Indian Boy, isn't exactly killing it at the box office even though it (by comparison) has had great reviews. Less than $750,000 in box office receipts so far even though it's been out for a full month. Has it even recouped what it cost to make it (the actor Jonathan Groff must have been paid a good portion of that to appear in it)? Why aren't all the Baldoni fans making this more of a success and making it sell out in droves etc?

I did watch Another Simple Favor this weekend. It was relatively enjoyable -- I think Kendrick is a better actress than Lively tbh. I think Lively does well at sort of playing a jerk with a heart underneath, that's a role not everyone can pull off. The doppleganger was not my favorite. But I found the movie an enjoyable romp, similar to the first in spirit. I thought there were some in jokes relating to the litigation, tbh, but I might have just been reading to much into things (since I don't think Lively had a hand in the writing, ha).

Meanwhile, over on Reddit, the pro-Baldoni people are going a little insane. I haven't totally been keeping up but they seemed to be working on doxxing the pro-Lively lawyer I posted about here, and now they are mad at the Ask2Lawyers creators also because they dared to have an opinion on a legal issue that was slightly pro-Lively. All this and the leaving mean comments about Lively on people's sites etc -- it's a little off the charts. wtf are the pro-Baldoni people thinking? Take a little time, get a little perspective, etc. It's just ... a lot.

Well if I had to guess, the fury for her probably has to do with the fact that she's filed a lawsuit and made incendiary claims that have damaged a man, his family, and career that he has to fight and wait another year to recover from (and that's if the trial is resolved within the same year) while she's essentially been allowed to retain her regular life and make movies and cookies and act like nothing's happened. Women are definitely fighters and alleys for survivors of SA but women also have a strong sense of justice for what's right and wrong. And now that we have heard and seen some of the testimony and evidence from both sides, there is a collective sense of furor over what some perceive as a massive injustice done to this man.

+1 and now we know she’s done this before to the paparazzo. He lost two years of his life, his marriage, and his livelihood trying to fight Blake and Ryan’s lies only for the case to be dismissed in the end. And that case was worse because it was a criminal case and she implored the court to throw the book at him.

Some of us here happen to think that they’re horrible people who go around ruining marriages, abusing the legal system, disrespecting journalists and weaponizing social movements, and we simply want them to be held accountable for once in their lives.

+1 I’ve only posted here twice, but have been following. The amount of gaslighting with the pro- Lively posters is astounding. From what I see on social media and they’re really going all out! Look at how many people who have had to disable their comments that are in the lively camp or have had the misfortune of interacting/working/interviewing with her….looking at you Seth. Being pro-lively is not the norm. People are smart. They can clearly see how she and Ryan, as well as their PR are manipulating the public. And we are damn tired of it. Maybe I could have forgiven it and let it go, if only she just went silent. But the amount of mental gymnastics and “look at me” theatrics is cringey and inauthentic. She just keeps digging herself in a hole. Trying to control the narrative and I don’t think I’m the only one that’s sick of it.

I just do not think it is “manipulating the public” to do press for your new movie or to show up for your husband (at the Wrexham game). I do not think it’s normal to “go silent.” Going silent when you have a new movie would make you more of a liability, and would signal maybe you aren’t someone who should be hired anymore if you don’t have the guts to do press (as is probably required in your contract) in the face of some adversity.

What a weird thing you all are demanding of victims of SH and smear campaigns. I know, you don’t believe her. So I guess the ones who aren’t believed can be shamed into hiding their heads at home and shutting up and staying out of public view. That seems about right.

DP. She wasn’t a victim of SH