Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This is a tale as old as time. A he said she said, the he is a prominent hollywood player who hires a vicious PR firm, the internet rips the woman apart. Zero attempts to look at the situation from both sides. Please provide a single example where in a contentious dispute between a man and a woman in hollywood the woman is believed and the man is injured.

It only happens when someone is SUCH a predator that they assault SO many women that it can't be explained away (weinstein/cosby). And even then they end up getting out of jail!

Prediction: this turns into a 150 page thread talking about what a see you next tuesday you all think she is. Just like all the other multi hundred long page threads in this forum. There isn't one about a man though! It's ALWAYS about the woman. Examine your ingrained misogyny people.

Second prediction: I get a bunch of people replying to me yelling about Blake being awful and Baldoni being her victim and I just blindly take the woman's side.

I'll just get in front of all of those and tell you what I would say in response. These situations are almost always complex with different levels of power at play (in this case, while Lively and Reynolds have significantly higher household name recognition, Baldoni has extremely powerful industry connections, so is not the david to their goliath). And I believe that almost every celebrity is somewhat egotistical/narcissistic almost by the nature of the gig. Therefore it is my belief that there is almost NEVER a party completely innocent here. There is always blame to be found on both sides because it is almost always giant egos fighting with each other. But here, there is never nuance, it is always the woman sucks and the poor man we had a crush on 10 years ago because he was hot in that movie that one time is innocent. [/quote]

lol at Baldoni being considered a Hollywood power player with "extremely powerful industry connections." [b]Baldoni is backed by a billionaire [/b]with no ties to Hollywood. That matters, and is why Blake and Ryan were able to throw around their weight so much. You seem to acknowledge the complicated dynamics here yet are getting so many basic things wrong.[/quote]

Thanks for the bolded, exactly. While blake attended the film with other cast members, baldoni attended with sony execs. He has a whole production studio with deep deep pockets. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to further expound upon that.[/quote]

Yeah, he's so powerful that he was sent to the basement during his own premiere. [/quote]

Yeah because he went against Sony’s marketing plan for the film that he was committed to. Sony explicitly wanted the marketing in line with how Blake and the rest of the cast promoted it. He went rogue and engaged with the DV themes, which won him internet brownie points but put him on the outs with Sony. [/quote]

Sony overruled Justin at every turn in favor of Blake, even going so far as giving her the power of final cut, but Blake was powerless to push back on its marketing guidelines? That makes *no* sense. [/quote]

DP but that's a twisting of Lively's arguments there. Lively didn't want to push back on the marketing guidelines. She agreed with them. She was happy to promote the movie as Sony requested, as a "girls night out" empowerment story and an excuse to break out "your florals."

Her complaint alleges that Baldoni also agreed to that marketing plan (and it was up to Sony to outline a marketing plan and part of the distribution agreement with Wayfarer that Sony would set the marketing tone because they were footing the bill for it) but then he did an end-run around it by insisting on talking up the domestic violence angle. And the documents/texts from his PR agency reveal that this was an intentional tactic to make Lively look stupid and unserious -- they knew if Lively followed Sony's marketing angle and Baldoni instead talked about the movie as a serious look at DV (which, for the record, it isn't), he would look like the feminist advocate for DV survivors and she'd look stupid. Which she did.

Lively's not saying it's unfair Baldoni got to talk about DV and she didn't. She's saying that Baldoni violated the marketing plan by talking about DV and that he did so as part of a coordinated PR attack on Lively.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics