Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to review: the NYT is trash, not to be trusted. But Perez Hilton and the Daily Mail are infallible.

Go JB! xoxo

Well let’s take inventory. The NYT ran the Baldoni hit piece with the sham subpoena as cover. The Daily Mail did actual investigative journalism exposing the sham subpoena. The NYT still hasn’t reported on the sham subpoena and probably won’t. The Daily Fail may be a tabloid, but even a broke clock is right twice a day.

And to prove how fake this was from the get-go and how it's standard operating procedure at The Times, that hack Megan Twohey is not only not fired, she'll be promoted and/or rewarded with a windfall from Hollywood for being a good foot soldier.

It's also worth noting Twohey is from Washington and is a GU alum. It's not out of the question she is on her personally spinning.

No. She will be mocked and judged by other NYT reporters for messing this stupid non-story up and being blinded into thinking she’s a celebrity insider and friends/confidants with the Blakes of the world.

Totally agree with you. The pp is being nuts. The journalist will be disgraced. I feel bad for her. She was duped

Disgraced? Y'all are naive as hell. Is Jake Tapper disgraced running point for senile Biden? He’s still paid millions a year, still an CNN star, and was just given a multi-million book deal detailing he knew all along Biden was losing his mind (in contrast to his actual coverage on CNN!).

Twohey has not and will not be fired. She will become a multi-millionaire, if she isn’t already, off a career peddling bullshit.

You clearly don’t understand this world. It’s fine. I’m not saying she’ll be fired but she will be put on ice and this will be a major hit to her credibility. She’s not going to become a ‘multi millionaire’ off this. I don’t think you understand News or journalism at all.

+1 that some PPs do not understand this world. Becoming a fake entertainer journalist like Tapper or any of the other CNN etc types could bring her millions, sure. And if that’s her goal, it could happen. But she will never be a respected reporter again and yes, among a certain set, that is something that money can’t buy. Becoming a respected investigative reporter at the NYT, New Yorker, maybe ProPublica - you’ll notice i’m not listing cable news anchor positions here - is all about reputation and the quality of the work, and it is something that Tapper and his ilk can’t buy. Maybe they don’t want it anyway, but among people who do want it or care about these things, it is very hard to achieve. Of course it is gatekeeping, but I’m telling you how it works. Blowing it on Blake Lively was a total waste and disappointing. She can’t get that reputation prestige back. And it reflects poorly on NYT editors and leadership for allowing it to happen, at a time when the paper was already diminished. She has colleagues who are furious about this, I assure you, because the NYT brand erosion also undermines them.

Jake tapper was an anchor for years. Megan is a long time journalist and 50 yo. She’s not suddenly going to pivot to a multi million dollar anchor job and book deals- she’s too old, that’s not really her skill set and you don’t just get handed book huge book deals after a failed piece that will likely cause her employer boat loads of money in legal fees. She got her book deal after Weinstein and I doubt there are any more coming.

Blake has essentially ruined Megan’s career. I still can’t quite figure out what she, her editors and others at NYT let this piece go through. It was essentially a single source piece (sure, w the cover of the filing) with *multiple* potential defamation plaintiffs, and they gave the subjects less than 24 hours to respond. Daily Mail would have gone for comment earlier imo. Why didn’t the times? It’s unfathomable to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to review: the NYT is trash, not to be trusted. But Perez Hilton and the Daily Mail are infallible.

Go JB! xoxo

Well let’s take inventory. The NYT ran the Baldoni hit piece with the sham subpoena as cover. The Daily Mail did actual investigative journalism exposing the sham subpoena. The NYT still hasn’t reported on the sham subpoena and probably won’t. The Daily Fail may be a tabloid, but even a broke clock is right twice a day.

And to prove how fake this was from the get-go and how it's standard operating procedure at The Times, that hack Megan Twohey is not only not fired, she'll be promoted and/or rewarded with a windfall from Hollywood for being a good foot soldier.

It's also worth noting Twohey is from Washington and is a GU alum. It's not out of the question she is on her personally spinning.

No. She will be mocked and judged by other NYT reporters for messing this stupid non-story up and being blinded into thinking she’s a celebrity insider and friends/confidants with the Blakes of the world.

Totally agree with you. The pp is being nuts. The journalist will be disgraced. I feel bad for her. She was duped

Disgraced? Y'all are naive as hell. Is Jake Tapper disgraced running point for senile Biden? He’s still paid millions a year, still an CNN star, and was just given a multi-million book deal detailing he knew all along Biden was losing his mind (in contrast to his actual coverage on CNN!).

Twohey has not and will not be fired. She will become a multi-millionaire, if she isn’t already, off a career peddling bullshit.

You clearly don’t understand this world. It’s fine. I’m not saying she’ll be fired but she will be put on ice and this will be a major hit to her credibility. She’s not going to become a ‘multi millionaire’ off this. I don’t think you understand News or journalism at all.

+1 that some PPs do not understand this world. Becoming a fake entertainer journalist like Tapper or any of the other CNN etc types could bring her millions, sure. And if that’s her goal, it could happen. But she will never be a respected reporter again and yes, among a certain set, that is something that money can’t buy. Becoming a respected investigative reporter at the NYT, New Yorker, maybe ProPublica - you’ll notice i’m not listing cable news anchor positions here - is all about reputation and the quality of the work, and it is something that Tapper and his ilk can’t buy. Maybe they don’t want it anyway, but among people who do want it or care about these things, it is very hard to achieve. Of course it is gatekeeping, but I’m telling you how it works. Blowing it on Blake Lively was a total waste and disappointing. She can’t get that reputation prestige back. And it reflects poorly on NYT editors and leadership for allowing it to happen, at a time when the paper was already diminished. She has colleagues who are furious about this, I assure you, because the NYT brand erosion also undermines them.

Anonymous wrote:There are like 3 pro Baldoni posters on this board who have convinced themselves that Lively is the antichrist and they won’t hear evidence to contradict that. I’m sure there are posters elsewhere like this, but the general public hasn’t yet made up their minds and likely won’t until trial, so insisting they are “done” and need to settle right away is crazy. If they have convincing evidence of a smear, imho, they win and Baldoni does not recover. And if Baldoni ordered the smear, he shouldn’t be settled with.

Anonymous wrote:Ryan is very old in Hollywood acting terms, super hero movies are fading, and he was clearly the mastermind of this psychotic scheme. Neither should have careers after this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to review: the NYT is trash, not to be trusted. But Perez Hilton and the Daily Mail are infallible.

Go JB! xoxo

Well let’s take inventory. The NYT ran the Baldoni hit piece with the sham subpoena as cover. The Daily Mail did actual investigative journalism exposing the sham subpoena. The NYT still hasn’t reported on the sham subpoena and probably won’t. The Daily Fail may be a tabloid, but even a broke clock is right twice a day.

And to prove how fake this was from the get-go and how it's standard operating procedure at The Times, that hack Megan Twohey is not only not fired, she'll be promoted and/or rewarded with a windfall from Hollywood for being a good foot soldier.

It's also worth noting Twohey is from Washington and is a GU alum. It's not out of the question she is on her personally spinning.

No. She will be mocked and judged by other NYT reporters for messing this stupid non-story up and being blinded into thinking she’s a celebrity insider and friends/confidants with the Blakes of the world.

Totally agree with you. The pp is being nuts. The journalist will be disgraced. I feel bad for her. She was duped

Disgraced? Y'all are naive as hell. Is Jake Tapper disgraced running point for senile Biden? He’s still paid millions a year, still an CNN star, and was just given a multi-million book deal detailing he knew all along Biden was losing his mind (in contrast to his actual coverage on CNN!).

Twohey has not and will not be fired. She will become a multi-millionaire, if she isn’t already, off a career peddling bullshit.

You clearly don’t understand this world. It’s fine. I’m not saying she’ll be fired but she will be put on ice and this will be a major hit to her credibility. She’s not going to become a ‘multi millionaire’ off this. I don’t think you understand News or journalism at all.

+1 that some PPs do not understand this world. Becoming a fake entertainer journalist like Tapper or any of the other CNN etc types could bring her millions, sure. And if that’s her goal, it could happen. But she will never be a respected reporter again and yes, among a certain set, that is something that money can’t buy. Becoming a respected investigative reporter at the NYT, New Yorker, maybe ProPublica - you’ll notice i’m not listing cable news anchor positions here - is all about reputation and the quality of the work, and it is something that Tapper and his ilk can’t buy. Maybe they don’t want it anyway, but among people who do want it or care about these things, it is very hard to achieve. Of course it is gatekeeping, but I’m telling you how it works. Blowing it on Blake Lively was a total waste and disappointing. She can’t get that reputation prestige back. And it reflects poorly on NYT editors and leadership for allowing it to happen, at a time when the paper was already diminished. She has colleagues who are furious about this, I assure you, because the NYT brand erosion also undermines them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BL's popularity before IEWU was not based on her acting. It was based on her huge Instagram following, popularity with "fashion people" (hosting Met Gala, Vogue cover, relationships with Versace and other designers), her friendship with Taylor, and her marriage to Ryan Reynolds.

All that stuff together gave her a huge q score. The Shallows, the last movie she opened totally on her own, was a modest success. Hee magazine covers tend to sell. A Simple Favor did decent at the box office and then did really well on streaming, and she has the bigger character in that movie (Kendrick is good but her role is more of the straight man -- Blake for the more fun, showy role).

There are very few people in Hollywood who can do all that. I don't think much of Lively as an actress and find RR really annoying (I have zero interest in Deadpool and find his other ventures grating -- the last time I enjoyed him in a movie was The Proposal), but they both seem to understand celebrity and work it to their advantage, and it makes them a profitable investment. They also seem to have decent work ethics.

I completely understand why Hollywood is backing them. Baldoni is a nobody (sorry) and a lot of the people supporting him now have never seen any of his movies and didn't know who he was a year ago.

It's actually kind of a shame. I know it will get me screamed at on this thread, but having a monster hit like IEWU could have been huge for Baldoni. I think he was in talks to direct the Pacman movie before all this blew up (I mean ugh but that's the kind of garbage Hollywood makes now so it would have been big for him). I tend to think he blew it by not playing the game and figuring out how to work with Lively to his benefit. Even if he "wins" this case and even if Blake's career is in ruins, I think he blew his shot. Not because he'll be labeled a predator (lol this is not the problem in Hollywood people seem to think it is on this thread, look around), but because he showed himself to not know how to work with people like Lively or Reynolds. Are they narcissists? I'm sure they are! Just like everyone else in that town. That's the system. I don't think Baldoni is cut out for it.

I have to question this idea of a huge Q score meaning something in 2025. And middle America women do not care what celebrities where at the Met Gala. The Met Gala is essentially a circus to regular working Americans.

Here's a reality check on Hollywood. Once Taylor Swift dumps you it is a matter of time before everyone else has no use for you. Hollywood follows the cool girls and will shy away from controversy From now on it will be "pap walks" with Robyn and Blake and Ryan looking like a 50 year old lesbian trailing behind.

Except she got a pap walk with Salma Hayek the week Salma had a Sports Illustrated cover.

Saying "oh Q score doesn't matter" is silly. It's literally just a person's name recognition and positive association. It's massive when it comes to casting movies because it's essential to marketing. Blake likely got the role in IEWU based entirely on her "Q score" because they wanted someone who would have a big enough name to draw people to the theater for a summer film. It's not like she got that role because she's such an amazing actress they couldn't imagine anyone else in the role -- there are so many people who would have done a better job. But Blake is more famous and has a wider audience.

Look, I get for JB supporters there's this desire to act like Blake's fame or commercial success doesn't matter because you think of it as a 1:1 competition between the two. But it's not "pro-Blake" to tell the truth, which is that she is majorly famous and did in fact come into this movie with a huge following, and has a lot more goodwill both with the public and within Hollywood going into this mess, simply because Baldoni was/is such a nobody celebrity-wise. I don't say that to be mean to Justin, it's just the truth.

When people are like "WHY is Hollywood taking her side? WHY is the mainstream media taking her side?" the answer is extremely obvious. If you have to bet on one side or the other here and you are savvy enough to understand how fame and public perception works, you'd bet on Blake and RR. Even if they lose the court case. Even if Baldoni wins this whole thing, it will still probably kill his career. He just has no leverage. Maybe he can carve out a niche doing sort of MRA-style programming, but that's going to be a narrow audience and it will close him off to more mainstream audiences and a lot of Hollywood who won't be willing to go along with that politically.

If his goal was Hollywood success, he should have tried to resolve the personal dispute as quietly as possible, avoided trying to go after Blake in the media last summer (IF he did, I get that it's possible the bad press against her might have been organic, I don't think we actually know enough yet to say), made the best of the awkward media campaign, and then gone and filmed Pacman and moved on. There was a path for him here but I think he got up in his feelings over the divided premiere and losing final cut and started acting out emotionally and it was all downhill for him. You need a thick skin to survive in Hollywood and I don't think he has it. This is unlikely to work out for him the way he hopes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BL's popularity before IEWU was not based on her acting. It was based on her huge Instagram following, popularity with "fashion people" (hosting Met Gala, Vogue cover, relationships with Versace and other designers), her friendship with Taylor, and her marriage to Ryan Reynolds.

All that stuff together gave her a huge q score. The Shallows, the last movie she opened totally on her own, was a modest success. Hee magazine covers tend to sell. A Simple Favor did decent at the box office and then did really well on streaming, and she has the bigger character in that movie (Kendrick is good but her role is more of the straight man -- Blake for the more fun, showy role).

There are very few people in Hollywood who can do all that. I don't think much of Lively as an actress and find RR really annoying (I have zero interest in Deadpool and find his other ventures grating -- the last time I enjoyed him in a movie was The Proposal), but they both seem to understand celebrity and work it to their advantage, and it makes them a profitable investment. They also seem to have decent work ethics.

I completely understand why Hollywood is backing them. Baldoni is a nobody (sorry) and a lot of the people supporting him now have never seen any of his movies and didn't know who he was a year ago.

It's actually kind of a shame. I know it will get me screamed at on this thread, but having a monster hit like IEWU could have been huge for Baldoni. I think he was in talks to direct the Pacman movie before all this blew up (I mean ugh but that's the kind of garbage Hollywood makes now so it would have been big for him). I tend to think he blew it by not playing the game and figuring out how to work with Lively to his benefit. Even if he "wins" this case and even if Blake's career is in ruins, I think he blew his shot. Not because he'll be labeled a predator (lol this is not the problem in Hollywood people seem to think it is on this thread, look around), but because he showed himself to not know how to work with people like Lively or Reynolds. Are they narcissists? I'm sure they are! Just like everyone else in that town. That's the system. I don't think Baldoni is cut out for it.

I think this is the wrong take on Baldoni. He’s less known but the behind the scenes people usually are. Justin still has a lot of influential people on his side in Hollywood too, he’s just not out doing pap walks. As mentioned a few pages ago, Patrick Whitesell’s wife liked his Mother’s Day post. Patrick is just as influential as Salma’s husband and Ari. Wayfarer has done movies with Robert DeNiro and Will Ferrell and have a movie with Scarjo right now that’s premiering at Cannes with Oscar buzz. They’re also still doing business with Sony.

Baldoni is in his early 40s and is the co-founder of a budding film studio, something Blake was probably jealous of. These are the sorts of things she seems to want to do but doesn’t have the business acumen and talent for on her own. JB convinced a billionaire to invest in WF, which was really just an investment in him. JB found Colleen Hoover, secured the rights to two of her books, raised funds for the movie and planned the entire production before Blake was ever hired. He’s clearly a talent, and people should stop peddling this idea that he’s not just because Blake lively said so. This is precisely the reason she needs to pay him damages. She’s unfairly tarnished his brand.

JB is being quiet and staying out of the press, which is honestly what Blake should do, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have supporters and will never work again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to review: the NYT is trash, not to be trusted. But Perez Hilton and the Daily Mail are infallible.

Go JB! xoxo

Well let’s take inventory. The NYT ran the Baldoni hit piece with the sham subpoena as cover. The Daily Mail did actual investigative journalism exposing the sham subpoena. The NYT still hasn’t reported on the sham subpoena and probably won’t. The Daily Fail may be a tabloid, but even a broke clock is right twice a day.

And to prove how fake this was from the get-go and how it's standard operating procedure at The Times, that hack Megan Twohey is not only not fired, she'll be promoted and/or rewarded with a windfall from Hollywood for being a good foot soldier.

It's also worth noting Twohey is from Washington and is a GU alum. It's not out of the question she is on her personally spinning.

No. She will be mocked and judged by other NYT reporters for messing this stupid non-story up and being blinded into thinking she’s a celebrity insider and friends/confidants with the Blakes of the world.

Totally agree with you. The pp is being nuts. The journalist will be disgraced. I feel bad for her. She was duped

Disgraced? Y'all are naive as hell. Is Jake Tapper disgraced running point for senile Biden? He’s still paid millions a year, still an CNN star, and was just given a multi-million book deal detailing he knew all along Biden was losing his mind (in contrast to his actual coverage on CNN!).

Twohey has not and will not be fired. She will become a multi-millionaire, if she isn’t already, off a career peddling bullshit.

You clearly don’t understand this world. It’s fine. I’m not saying she’ll be fired but she will be put on ice and this will be a major hit to her credibility. She’s not going to become a ‘multi millionaire’ off this. I don’t think you understand News or journalism at all.

Anonymous wrote:BL's popularity before IEWU was not based on her acting. It was based on her huge Instagram following, popularity with "fashion people" (hosting Met Gala, Vogue cover, relationships with Versace and other designers), her friendship with Taylor, and her marriage to Ryan Reynolds.

All that stuff together gave her a huge q score. The Shallows, the last movie she opened totally on her own, was a modest success. Hee magazine covers tend to sell. A Simple Favor did decent at the box office and then did really well on streaming, and she has the bigger character in that movie (Kendrick is good but her role is more of the straight man -- Blake for the more fun, showy role).

There are very few people in Hollywood who can do all that. I don't think much of Lively as an actress and find RR really annoying (I have zero interest in Deadpool and find his other ventures grating -- the last time I enjoyed him in a movie was The Proposal), but they both seem to understand celebrity and work it to their advantage, and it makes them a profitable investment. They also seem to have decent work ethics.

I completely understand why Hollywood is backing them. Baldoni is a nobody (sorry) and a lot of the people supporting him now have never seen any of his movies and didn't know who he was a year ago.

It's actually kind of a shame. I know it will get me screamed at on this thread, but having a monster hit like IEWU could have been huge for Baldoni. I think he was in talks to direct the Pacman movie before all this blew up (I mean ugh but that's the kind of garbage Hollywood makes now so it would have been big for him). I tend to think he blew it by not playing the game and figuring out how to work with Lively to his benefit. Even if he "wins" this case and even if Blake's career is in ruins, I think he blew his shot. Not because he'll be labeled a predator (lol this is not the problem in Hollywood people seem to think it is on this thread, look around), but because he showed himself to not know how to work with people like Lively or Reynolds. Are they narcissists? I'm sure they are! Just like everyone else in that town. That's the system. I don't think Baldoni is cut out for it.