Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol yeah the Baldoni supporters are all totally “organic”

Baldoni people keep talking about how much money Lively is spending, but I suspect Sarowitz is spending a comparable amount. They have all these MTDs to defend and they seem behind on discovery. True, Freedman seems to have fewer lawyers, so maybe they will bill fewer hours over the same period of time. I guess that’s why they’re clearly unable to keep up the pace of Lively’s and are turning in such crappy work product. I wonder how much Freedman billed Baldoni for yesterday? I’m sure it was thousands of dollars.

I know about the cost of litigation having overseen legal budgets and I don’t think lively is getting a ‘deal’ at all from Gottlieb. His firms billing rates are certainly in the big law range, maybe a drop or two below. Very pricey. And as someone said, BL has money but not billionaire money. This has got to hurt. Freedman is likely less expensive by a decent amount, but certainly not cheap. Of course what happened yesterday cost at least a few thousand dollars but freedman played it well and it was a home run. Lively tried to quash the subpoena, he went on record explaining why he was seeking this somewhat unusual request (law firm to law firm communications) and it was HUGE. Money well spent, as opposed to lively’s side which has likely squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more on a case she can’t win that has tanked her life.

Much more. I'm quite confident just counting the six months from December 2024 to May 2025 has cost Blake and Ryan several million dollars in attorney, expert, consulting, and PR billings. And if we're being frank, it's pretty obvious, to me, this scheme dates back much further than December 2024, so who the heck knows how much they blew orchestrating this whole thing.

I seriously hope Blake has a designated settlement counsel on her legal team. She should settle up with JB by mutual withdrawals, a positive joint statement and a confidential $ settlement, and she can agree to cooperate with his NYT case. NYT is a deep pocket with insurance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The National Research Group, a very reputable polling company, looked at which top stars can actually bring people to the movie theaters. As in, they didn't merely ask respondents which celebs they liked. They asked who would actually convince them to go to see a movie. Blake Lively was in the top 25 last year and fell to 101, lol.

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-movie-star-rankings-zazs-admission-lourds-lunch-3/

I agree this is bad but there's additional context there. I listened to a podcast where they interviewed someone from NRG about this list (I think it was The Town with Matt Bellamy). They didn't discuss Lively for more than a moment, but the guy from NRG noted that timing can play a role in where people land on the list due to recency bias. Lively landed in the top 25 last year because they happened to do their poll in the summer as all her IEWU promotion was really gearing up. She was also coming off the success of A Simple Plan, which had gotten a huge second life in streaming. So she was really peaking and wound up much higher ranking than she'd ever had before. An actor who doesn't have a movie coming out or isn't in active promotion is simply not going to rank as high. So even without the lawsuits, you'd expect her to rank lower this year. Yes she had Another Simply Plan, but it was straight to streaming and the promotion has been much more muted than what she did for IEWU.

My takeaway from that is that last year was clearly a huge year for Lively's career, and she really saw her star rise. Probably the biggest year/film of her career.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol yeah the Baldoni supporters are all totally “organic”

Baldoni people keep talking about how much money Lively is spending, but I suspect Sarowitz is spending a comparable amount. They have all these MTDs to defend and they seem behind on discovery. True, Freedman seems to have fewer lawyers, so maybe they will bill fewer hours over the same period of time. I guess that’s why they’re clearly unable to keep up the pace of Lively’s and are turning in such crappy work product. I wonder how much Freedman billed Baldoni for yesterday? I’m sure it was thousands of dollars.

I know about the cost of litigation having overseen legal budgets and I don’t think lively is getting a ‘deal’ at all from Gottlieb. His firms billing rates are certainly in the big law range, maybe a drop or two below. Very pricey. And as someone said, BL has money but not billionaire money. This has got to hurt. Freedman is likely less expensive by a decent amount, but certainly not cheap. Of course what happened yesterday cost at least a few thousand dollars but freedman played it well and it was a home run. Lively tried to quash the subpoena, he went on record explaining why he was seeking this somewhat unusual request (law firm to law firm communications) and it was HUGE. Money well spent, as opposed to lively’s side which has likely squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more on a case she can’t win that has tanked her life.

Much more. I'm quite confident just counting the six months from December 2024 to May 2025 has cost Blake and Ryan several million dollars in attorney, expert, consulting, and PR billings. And if we're being frank, it's pretty obvious, to me, this scheme dates back much further than December 2024, so who the heck knows how much they blew orchestrating this whole thing.

I seriously hope Blake has a designated settlement counsel on her legal team. She should settle up with JB by mutual withdrawals, a positive joint statement and a confidential $ settlement, and she can agree to cooperate with his NYT case. NYT is a deep pocket with insurance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol yeah the Baldoni supporters are all totally “organic”

Baldoni people keep talking about how much money Lively is spending, but I suspect Sarowitz is spending a comparable amount. They have all these MTDs to defend and they seem behind on discovery. True, Freedman seems to have fewer lawyers, so maybe they will bill fewer hours over the same period of time. I guess that’s why they’re clearly unable to keep up the pace of Lively’s and are turning in such crappy work product. I wonder how much Freedman billed Baldoni for yesterday? I’m sure it was thousands of dollars.

I know about the cost of litigation having overseen legal budgets and I don’t think lively is getting a ‘deal’ at all from Gottlieb. His firms billing rates are certainly in the big law range, maybe a drop or two below. Very pricey. And as someone said, BL has money but not billionaire money. This has got to hurt. Freedman is likely less expensive by a decent amount, but certainly not cheap. Of course what happened yesterday cost at least a few thousand dollars but freedman played it well and it was a home run. Lively tried to quash the subpoena, he went on record explaining why he was seeking this somewhat unusual request (law firm to law firm communications) and it was HUGE. Money well spent, as opposed to lively’s side which has likely squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more on a case she can’t win that has tanked her life.

Much more. I'm quite confident just counting the six months from December 2024 to May 2025 has cost Blake and Ryan several million dollars in attorney, expert, consulting, and PR billings. And if we're being frank, it's pretty obvious, to me, this scheme dates back much further than December 2024, so who the heck knows how much they blew orchestrating this whole thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The National Research Group, a very reputable polling company, looked at which top stars can actually bring people to the movie theaters. As in, they didn't merely ask respondents which celebs they liked. They asked who would actually convince them to go to see a movie. Blake Lively was in the top 25 last year and fell to 101, lol.

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-movie-star-rankings-zazs-admission-lourds-lunch-3/

Her audience was 40-ish moms like herself and she destroyed her credibility with them by acting like a beeyotch. Men don't go to watch films about getting beat up while making floral arrangements. Guys prefer action and she's no action star.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol yeah the Baldoni supporters are all totally “organic”

Baldoni people keep talking about how much money Lively is spending, but I suspect Sarowitz is spending a comparable amount. They have all these MTDs to defend and they seem behind on discovery. True, Freedman seems to have fewer lawyers, so maybe they will bill fewer hours over the same period of time. I guess that’s why they’re clearly unable to keep up the pace of Lively’s and are turning in such crappy work product. I wonder how much Freedman billed Baldoni for yesterday? I’m sure it was thousands of dollars.

I know about the cost of litigation having overseen legal budgets and I don’t think lively is getting a ‘deal’ at all from Gottlieb. His firms billing rates are certainly in the big law range, maybe a drop or two below. Very pricey. And as someone said, BL has money but not billionaire money. This has got to hurt. Freedman is likely less expensive by a decent amount, but certainly not cheap. Of course what happened yesterday cost at least a few thousand dollars but freedman played it well and it was a home run. Lively tried to quash the subpoena, he went on record explaining why he was seeking this somewhat unusual request (law firm to law firm communications) and it was HUGE. Money well spent, as opposed to lively’s side which has likely squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more on a case she can’t win that has tanked her life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The National Research Group, a very reputable polling company, looked at which top stars can actually bring people to the movie theaters. As in, they didn't merely ask respondents which celebs they liked. They asked who would actually convince them to go to see a movie. Blake Lively was in the top 25 last year and fell to 101, lol.

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-movie-star-rankings-zazs-admission-lourds-lunch-3/

I agree this is bad but there's additional context there. I listened to a podcast where they interviewed someone from NRG about this list (I think it was The Town with Matt Bellamy). They didn't discuss Lively for more than a moment, but the guy from NRG noted that timing can play a role in where people land on the list due to recency bias. Lively landed in the top 25 last year because they happened to do their poll in the summer as all her IEWU promotion was really gearing up. She was also coming off the success of A Simple Plan, which had gotten a huge second life in streaming. So she was really peaking and wound up much higher ranking than she'd ever had before. An actor who doesn't have a movie coming out or isn't in active promotion is simply not going to rank as high. So even without the lawsuits, you'd expect her to rank lower this year. Yes she had Another Simply Plan, but it was straight to streaming and the promotion has been much more muted than what she did for IEWU.

My takeaway from that is that last year was clearly a huge year for Lively's career, and she really saw her star rise. Probably the biggest year/film of her career.

Yeah she saw her star rise as a litigant. You are delusional if you think Americans are clamoring for more streaming films from Blake Lively. Also, no director will want to get near her since every word and look is labeled as harrassment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The National Research Group, a very reputable polling company, looked at which top stars can actually bring people to the movie theaters. As in, they didn't merely ask respondents which celebs they liked. They asked who would actually convince them to go to see a movie. Blake Lively was in the top 25 last year and fell to 101, lol.

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-movie-star-rankings-zazs-admission-lourds-lunch-3/

I agree this is bad but there's additional context there. I listened to a podcast where they interviewed someone from NRG about this list (I think it was The Town with Matt Bellamy). They didn't discuss Lively for more than a moment, but the guy from NRG noted that timing can play a role in where people land on the list due to recency bias. Lively landed in the top 25 last year because they happened to do their poll in the summer as all her IEWU promotion was really gearing up. She was also coming off the success of A Simple Plan, which had gotten a huge second life in streaming. So she was really peaking and wound up much higher ranking than she'd ever had before. An actor who doesn't have a movie coming out or isn't in active promotion is simply not going to rank as high. So even without the lawsuits, you'd expect her to rank lower this year. Yes she had Another Simply Plan, but it was straight to streaming and the promotion has been much more muted than what she did for IEWU.

My takeaway from that is that last year was clearly a huge year for Lively's career, and she really saw her star rise. Probably the biggest year/film of her career.

Anonymous wrote:The National Research Group, a very reputable polling company, looked at which top stars can actually bring people to the movie theaters. As in, they didn't merely ask respondents which celebs they liked. They asked who would actually convince them to go to see a movie. Blake Lively was in the top 25 last year and fell to 101, lol.

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-movie-star-rankings-zazs-admission-lourds-lunch-3/

Anonymous wrote:The National Research Group, a very reputable polling company, looked at which top stars can actually bring people to the movie theaters. As in, they didn't merely ask respondents which celebs they liked. They asked who would actually convince them to go to see a movie. Blake Lively was in the top 25 last year and fell to 101, lol.

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-movie-star-rankings-zazs-admission-lourds-lunch-3/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol yeah the Baldoni supporters are all totally “organic”

Baldoni people keep talking about how much money Lively is spending, but I suspect Sarowitz is spending a comparable amount. They have all these MTDs to defend and they seem behind on discovery. True, Freedman seems to have fewer lawyers, so maybe they will bill fewer hours over the same period of time. I guess that’s why they’re clearly unable to keep up the pace of Lively’s and are turning in such crappy work product. I wonder how much Freedman billed Baldoni for yesterday? I’m sure it was thousands of dollars.

I don’t think you’re taking into consideration how much wealthier SS is than BL and RR. He’s pledged to donate 36M to the Wayfarer foundation this year alone, which is more than Lively’s entire net worth (independent from Ryan).

Is this the foundation that’s being shut down? Or is this a new one they’re starting up?

Anonymous wrote:lol yeah the Baldoni supporters are all totally “organic”

Baldoni people keep talking about how much money Lively is spending, but I suspect Sarowitz is spending a comparable amount. They have all these MTDs to defend and they seem behind on discovery. True, Freedman seems to have fewer lawyers, so maybe they will bill fewer hours over the same period of time. I guess that’s why they’re clearly unable to keep up the pace of Lively’s and are turning in such crappy work product. I wonder how much Freedman billed Baldoni for yesterday? I’m sure it was thousands of dollars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The National Research Group, a very reputable polling company, looked at which top stars can actually bring people to the movie theaters. As in, they didn't merely ask respondents which celebs they liked. They asked who would actually convince them to go to see a movie. Blake Lively was in the top 25 last year and fell to 101, lol.

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-movie-star-rankings-zazs-admission-lourds-lunch-3/

Oh, and her popularity plummeted from 54% on Jan 1 to 44%. Ouch. https://today.yougov.com/topics/entertainment/trackers/fame-and-popularity-blake-lively

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol yeah the Baldoni supporters are all totally “organic”

Baldoni people keep talking about how much money Lively is spending, but I suspect Sarowitz is spending a comparable amount. They have all these MTDs to defend and they seem behind on discovery. True, Freedman seems to have fewer lawyers, so maybe they will bill fewer hours over the same period of time. I guess that’s why they’re clearly unable to keep up the pace of Lively’s and are turning in such crappy work product. I wonder how much Freedman billed Baldoni for yesterday? I’m sure it was thousands of dollars.

I don’t think you’re taking into consideration how much wealthier SS is than BL and RR. He’s pledged to donate 36M to the Wayfarer foundation this year alone, which is more than Lively’s entire net worth (independent from Ryan).

Anonymous wrote:The National Research Group, a very reputable polling company, looked at which top stars can actually bring people to the movie theaters. As in, they didn't merely ask respondents which celebs they liked. They asked who would actually convince them to go to see a movie. Blake Lively was in the top 25 last year and fell to 101, lol.

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-movie-star-rankings-zazs-admission-lourds-lunch-3/