Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stuck by Ryan Reynolds when he was totally bombing and seems like a great mom. She has the wholesome girl next door thing going on with some serious style.

I would be shocked if they ever divorced but I also said that about Pratt/Ferris

You mean the wholesome girl-next-door-who-banged-everyone-in-Hollywood, surely. Before she married and cleaned up that reputation, she was well-known for getting around.

If she was a guy, you wouldn't say that.

[Anonymous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14224787/Justin-Baldoni-sued-publicist-legal-battle-Blake-Lively-smear-campaign.html?ico=article_preview_xp_mobile

Every day it gets wilder…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stuck by Ryan Reynolds when he was totally bombing and seems like a great mom. She has the wholesome girl next door thing going on with some serious style.

I would be shocked if they ever divorced but I also said that about Pratt/Ferris

You mean the wholesome girl-next-door-who-banged-everyone-in-Hollywood, surely. Before she married and cleaned up that reputation, she was well-known for getting around.

If she was a guy, you wouldn't say that.

Of course not, it would be expected and applauded. But, she's a woman and we can't have that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is like saying all of the allegations about Sam Altman are false because all of the OpenAI employees and Microsoft are with him. No, it doesn't necessarily work like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When they are in a complaint, they are merely allegations, not facts.

As for coming to his defense, in 2024, it’s unsurprising that Sony and SAG came to the defense of a union member claiming harassment. Frankly I find it odder that so few people on the set have spoken out about they saw - sounds like they want to stay out of the fray of 2 powerful people:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14224787/Justin-Baldoni-sued-publicist-legal-battle-Blake-Lively-smear-campaign.html?ico=article_preview_xp_mobile

Every day it gets wilder…

Hollywood sleaze and money grabbers on all sides. The public doesn’t care. This is all inside baseball Zzzzzz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14224787/Justin-Baldoni-sued-publicist-legal-battle-Blake-Lively-smear-campaign.html?ico=article_preview_xp_mobile

Every day it gets wilder…

Hollywood sleaze and money grabbers on all sides. The public doesn’t care. This is all inside baseball Zzzzzz.

You care based on your post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stuck by Ryan Reynolds when he was totally bombing and seems like a great mom. She has the wholesome girl next door thing going on with some serious style.

I would be shocked if they ever divorced but I also said that about Pratt/Ferris

You mean the wholesome girl-next-door-who-banged-everyone-in-Hollywood, surely. Before she married and cleaned up that reputation, she was well-known for getting around.

If she was a guy, you wouldn't say that.

It is a single repeat troll poster and they are quite misogynistic and likely paid by a PR company. Their posts are so misogynistic and awful, it seems to be helping Blake's stance, if anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She stuck by Ryan Reynolds when he was totally bombing and seems like a great mom. She has the wholesome girl next door thing going on with some serious style.

I would be shocked if they ever divorced but I also said that about Pratt/Ferris

You mean the wholesome girl-next-door-who-banged-everyone-in-Hollywood, surely. Before she married and cleaned up that reputation, she was well-known for getting around.

If she was a guy, you wouldn't say that.

It is a single repeat troll poster and they are quite misogynistic and likely paid by a PR company. Their posts are so misogynistic and awful, it seems to be helping Blake's stance, if anything.

Agree.

[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.

+100

[Anonymous]

I think Blake is a mean girl. Refute that, paid PR.

[Anonymous]

One of these people has friends coming out on their behalf, the other one has been silent, and doesn't appear to have any friends. I think that says a lot about a person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of these people has friends coming out on their behalf, the other one has been silent, and doesn't appear to have any friends. I think that says a lot about a person.

I think it says more about the current state of society. It is really not of much benefit to publicly come out in defense of a man facing such fresh allegations. Unfortunately, he is going to have to engage more PR to create enough space and safety for others to come to his defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of these people has friends coming out on their behalf, the other one has been silent, and doesn't appear to have any friends. I think that says a lot about a person.

Not really.

First, there are no real “friends” in Hollywood. It’s all about money, and Ryan Reynolds has a lot of it. When people flock to support the person with more power, I would never assume it’s because they’re in the right.

Second, Blake Lively has time and preparation in her favor. Justin has probably been in crisis mode all week and on the phone with his lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When they are in a complaint, they are merely allegations, not facts.

As for coming to his defense, in 2024, it’s unsurprising that Sony and SAG came to the defense of a union member claiming harassment. Frankly I find it odder that so few people on the set have spoken out about they saw - sounds like they want to stay out of the fray of 2 powerful people:

I was replying to someone calling them facts.