Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the glaring hypocrisy in this lawsuit is going to ultimately bode well for Blake’s tone deaf image. Using sex to further and cement her career then complaining about sex in the workplace? Using high-powered PR firms to craft the narrative about her image and marriage and then complaining about PR campaigns being used against her?

Not to mention she’s previously had brand’s fail so one failing now is likely not a result of these new developments.

Not likely. Ok! You are clearly one of the paid PR trolls. Game over.

It is pretty obvious. FTC is coming for you, suggest stopping now.

More deflection. It's all in the complaint it's not like we're reading made up lies in Reddit like the poster still trying to drag Blake rather than responding to the actual claims.

So many of you want to jump to civilly liable on all counts. DCUM is the wrong audience for that.

Better than deciding none of it is true b/c she didn't like some reporters quip about her baby bump several years ago, as if that is remotely similar so sexual harassment in the work place. Clearly Blake doesn't want people discussing her body, that doesn't seem like too much to ask.

[Anonymous]

Her attorneys could subpoena every IP Address of every negative tweet, retweet, blog, Facebook post, YouTube and TikTok clip, forum comment and thread ever said about her and they’ll quickly conclude millions of unconnected people organically do not like her. In contrast to say a Jennifer Hudson or Jessica Alba, who people seem to like overall.

[Anonymous]

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-steph-jones-lawsuit-1236259157/

Down with them all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Her attorneys could subpoena every IP Address of every negative tweet, retweet, blog, Facebook post, YouTube and TikTok clip, forum comment and thread ever said about her and they’ll quickly conclude millions of unconnected people organically do not like her. In contrast to say a Jennifer Hudson or Jessica Alba, who people seem to like overall.

So what? This isn't about randoms liking her. It's about sexual harassment and retaliation. Keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her attorneys could subpoena every IP Address of every negative tweet, retweet, blog, Facebook post, YouTube and TikTok clip, forum comment and thread ever said about her and they’ll quickly conclude millions of unconnected people organically do not like her. In contrast to say a Jennifer Hudson or Jessica Alba, who people seem to like overall.

So what? This isn't about randoms liking her. It's about sexual harassment and retaliation. Keep up.

People have said it multiple times - it relates to damages for some of her claims- you just don’t like the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the glaring hypocrisy in this lawsuit is going to ultimately bode well for Blake’s tone deaf image. Using sex to further and cement her career then complaining about sex in the workplace? Using high-powered PR firms to craft the narrative about her image and marriage and then complaining about PR campaigns being used against her?

Not to mention she’s previously had brand’s fail so one failing now is likely not a result of these new developments.

Not likely. Ok! You are clearly one of the paid PR trolls. Game over.

It is pretty obvious. FTC is coming for you, suggest stopping now.

More deflection. It's all in the complaint it's not like we're reading made up lies in Reddit like the poster still trying to drag Blake rather than responding to the actual claims.

So many of you want to jump to civilly liable on all counts. DCUM is the wrong audience for that.

I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. We’re discussing the claims in the complaint with the full knowledge that it was written by her lawyers to present her side of the story. I will also read his answer when it’s available. But the examples of sexual harassment that are laid out in the complaint are really awful, if true. I do believe they are true because they are (1) easily verifiable because of all the witnesses on the set, (2) seem to have been contemporaneously documented, (3) were apparently uncontested by Baldoni in the meeting (again, with multiple witnesses present) that Lively convened to address her concerns during filming. Also, I generally trust the quality of the NYT’s investigative reporting and that they thoroughly vetted (both factually and legally) what they were printing in the article. And I am personally familiar with the attorneys who filed the complaint (they are based in DC) and I cannot imagine that they would make up facts or perjure themselves in a complaint.

Assuming that the facts in the complaint are true, at least with respect to the sexual harassment that allegedly took place on the set, I am very supportive of Blake Lively filing this lawsuit. This kind of stuff should never happen in any workplace. And again, assuming the facts are true, this is pretty clear-cut sexual harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the glaring hypocrisy in this lawsuit is going to ultimately bode well for Blake’s tone deaf image. Using sex to further and cement her career then complaining about sex in the workplace? Using high-powered PR firms to craft the narrative about her image and marriage and then complaining about PR campaigns being used against her?

Not to mention she’s previously had brand’s fail so one failing now is likely not a result of these new developments.

Not likely. Ok! You are clearly one of the paid PR trolls. Game over.

It is pretty obvious. FTC is coming for you, suggest stopping now.

More deflection. It's all in the complaint it's not like we're reading made up lies in Reddit like the poster still trying to drag Blake rather than responding to the actual claims.

So many of you want to jump to civilly liable on all counts. DCUM is the wrong audience for that.

I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. We’re discussing the claims in the complaint with the full knowledge that it was written by her lawyers to present her side of the story. I will also read his answer when it’s available. But the examples of sexual harassment that are laid out in the complaint are really awful, if true. I do believe they are true because they are (1) easily verifiable because of all the witnesses on the set, (2) seem to have been contemporaneously documented, (3) were apparently uncontested by Baldoni in the meeting (again, with multiple witnesses present) that Lively convened to address her concerns during filming. Also, I generally trust the quality of the NYT’s investigative reporting and that they thoroughly vetted (both factually and legally) what they were printing in the article. And I am personally familiar with the attorneys who filed the complaint (they are based in DC) and I cannot imagine that they would make up facts or perjure themselves in a complaint.

Assuming that the facts in the complaint are true, at least with respect to the sexual harassment that allegedly took place on the set, I am very supportive of Blake Lively filing this lawsuit. This kind of stuff should never happen in any workplace. And again, assuming the facts are true, this is pretty clear-cut sexual harassment.

You must not be a lawyer and are not familiar with lawsuits. If you were, you know that answers are a series of admissions and denials and defenses. If he raises counterclaims, you might hear his story given the high profile nature of the case, but not in an answer.

And no, you can assume the facts in the complaint are true (unless you arguing a motion to dismiss) or that they will be proven at trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the glaring hypocrisy in this lawsuit is going to ultimately bode well for Blake’s tone deaf image. Using sex to further and cement her career then complaining about sex in the workplace? Using high-powered PR firms to craft the narrative about her image and marriage and then complaining about PR campaigns being used against her?

Not to mention she’s previously had brand’s fail so one failing now is likely not a result of these new developments.

Not likely. Ok! You are clearly one of the paid PR trolls. Game over.

It is pretty obvious. FTC is coming for you, suggest stopping now.

More deflection. It's all in the complaint it's not like we're reading made up lies in Reddit like the poster still trying to drag Blake rather than responding to the actual claims.

So many of you want to jump to civilly liable on all counts. DCUM is the wrong audience for that.

I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. We’re discussing the claims in the complaint with the full knowledge that it was written by her lawyers to present her side of the story. I will also read his answer when it’s available. But the examples of sexual harassment that are laid out in the complaint are really awful, if true. I do believe they are true because they are (1) easily verifiable because of all the witnesses on the set, (2) seem to have been contemporaneously documented, (3) were apparently uncontested by Baldoni in the meeting (again, with multiple witnesses present) that Lively convened to address her concerns during filming. Also, I generally trust the quality of the NYT’s investigative reporting and that they thoroughly vetted (both factually and legally) what they were printing in the article. And I am personally familiar with the attorneys who filed the complaint (they are based in DC) and I cannot imagine that they would make up facts or perjure themselves in a complaint.

Assuming that the facts in the complaint are true, at least with respect to the sexual harassment that allegedly took place on the set, I am very supportive of Blake Lively filing this lawsuit. This kind of stuff should never happen in any workplace. And again, assuming the facts are true, this is pretty clear-cut sexual harassment.

You must not be a lawyer and are not familiar with lawsuits. If you were, you know that answers are a series of admissions and denials and defenses. If he raises counterclaims, you might hear his story given the high profile nature of the case, but not in an answer.

And no, you can assume the facts in the complaint are true (unless you arguing a motion to dismiss) or that they will be proven at trial.

Forgot the not. You cannot assume the facts are true unless. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PR vs PR. Anyone with a spirited opinion on this Hollywood crap is a paid bot or a gullible moron.

It may as well be a black mirror episode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her attorneys could subpoena every IP Address of every negative tweet, retweet, blog, Facebook post, YouTube and TikTok clip, forum comment and thread ever said about her and they’ll quickly conclude millions of unconnected people organically do not like her. In contrast to say a Jennifer Hudson or Jessica Alba, who people seem to like overall.

So what? This isn't about randoms liking her. It's about sexual harassment and retaliation. Keep up.

People have said it multiple times - it relates to damages for some of her claims- you just don’t like the answer.

For all you know she is suing for $1 just to prove her point. But you don't want to hear about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the glaring hypocrisy in this lawsuit is going to ultimately bode well for Blake’s tone deaf image. Using sex to further and cement her career then complaining about sex in the workplace? Using high-powered PR firms to craft the narrative about her image and marriage and then complaining about PR campaigns being used against her?

Not to mention she’s previously had brand’s fail so one failing now is likely not a result of these new developments.

Not likely. Ok! You are clearly one of the paid PR trolls. Game over.

It is pretty obvious. FTC is coming for you, suggest stopping now.

More deflection. It's all in the complaint it's not like we're reading made up lies in Reddit like the poster still trying to drag Blake rather than responding to the actual claims.

So many of you want to jump to civilly liable on all counts. DCUM is the wrong audience for that.

I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. We’re discussing the claims in the complaint with the full knowledge that it was written by her lawyers to present her side of the story. I will also read his answer when it’s available. But the examples of sexual harassment that are laid out in the complaint are really awful, if true. I do believe they are true because they are (1) easily verifiable because of all the witnesses on the set, (2) seem to have been contemporaneously documented, (3) were apparently uncontested by Baldoni in the meeting (again, with multiple witnesses present) that Lively convened to address her concerns during filming. Also, I generally trust the quality of the NYT’s investigative reporting and that they thoroughly vetted (both factually and legally) what they were printing in the article. And I am personally familiar with the attorneys who filed the complaint (they are based in DC) and I cannot imagine that they would make up facts or perjure themselves in a complaint.

Assuming that the facts in the complaint are true, at least with respect to the sexual harassment that allegedly took place on the set, I am very supportive of Blake Lively filing this lawsuit. This kind of stuff should never happen in any workplace. And again, assuming the facts are true, this is pretty clear-cut sexual harassment.

You must not be a lawyer and are not familiar with lawsuits. If you were, you know that answers are a series of admissions and denials and defenses. If he raises counterclaims, you might hear his story given the high profile nature of the case, but not in an answer.

And no, you can assume the facts in the complaint are true (unless you arguing a motion to dismiss) or that they will be proven at trial.

Forgot the not. You cannot assume the facts are true unless. . .

If they are facts, then they are true. What kind of facts do you think are untrue. He is welcome to defend himself but the texts speak for themselves here and the lack of anyone coming to his defense, except for his lawyer, is very telling.

[Anonymous]

There is little doubt about the core of the allegations at this point. All you need to know is that all of the costars are with her as is Sony and their agency dropped him not her. Even SAG came out for her. They have the texts and emails. They can’t be explained. Whether there is a civil liability or not that dude is cooked. Never work again cooked.

It was not even that dude’s movie by the end. Sony let her recut.

[Anonymous]

Why did he get the nod to direct and star in the first place? He’s obv inexperienced in many ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the glaring hypocrisy in this lawsuit is going to ultimately bode well for Blake’s tone deaf image. Using sex to further and cement her career then complaining about sex in the workplace? Using high-powered PR firms to craft the narrative about her image and marriage and then complaining about PR campaigns being used against her?

Not to mention she’s previously had brand’s fail so one failing now is likely not a result of these new developments.

Not likely. Ok! You are clearly one of the paid PR trolls. Game over.

It is pretty obvious. FTC is coming for you, suggest stopping now.

More deflection. It's all in the complaint it's not like we're reading made up lies in Reddit like the poster still trying to drag Blake rather than responding to the actual claims.

So many of you want to jump to civilly liable on all counts. DCUM is the wrong audience for that.

I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. We’re discussing the claims in the complaint with the full knowledge that it was written by her lawyers to present her side of the story. I will also read his answer when it’s available. But the examples of sexual harassment that are laid out in the complaint are really awful, if true. I do believe they are true because they are (1) easily verifiable because of all the witnesses on the set, (2) seem to have been contemporaneously documented, (3) were apparently uncontested by Baldoni in the meeting (again, with multiple witnesses present) that Lively convened to address her concerns during filming. Also, I generally trust the quality of the NYT’s investigative reporting and that they thoroughly vetted (both factually and legally) what they were printing in the article. And I am personally familiar with the attorneys who filed the complaint (they are based in DC) and I cannot imagine that they would make up facts or perjure themselves in a complaint.

Assuming that the facts in the complaint are true, at least with respect to the sexual harassment that allegedly took place on the set, I am very supportive of Blake Lively filing this lawsuit. This kind of stuff should never happen in any workplace. And again, assuming the facts are true, this is pretty clear-cut sexual harassment.

+1

Also a number of people who worked on the movie have come out in favor of BL and are supporting her version of events.

One of the publicists is suing Baldinos and the female publicist the PR firm who left a few months before the year contract was done -/ contending that they both were scape gaping her for maligning BL when she alleges she had no knowledge of their behind the scenes smear campaign.

[Anonymous]

What amazing is that this guy would pull this crap with Ryan Reynold’s wife. I’d guess he was 10x worse with the average woman working hair/makeup or women trying out for a small role of whatever.

I was similarly surprised that Weinstein tried his crap with Gwyneth Paltrow or Mira Sorvino, considering they had fathers who had some power on the industry. But he did back off those women at the time, and the fact that they didn’t come forward and make a big stink about it (particularly gwyneth, who didn’t suffer any career harm — I think Mira did but didn’t know that’s why she wasn’t getting roles), means he went on to abuse a lot more women who didn’t have that power.

I may not like Blake but I can’t fault her for exposing jerking behavior like this.