Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see how anyone thinks Ryan’s career hasn’t taken a huge hit. Deadpool four is dead, Paramount canceled three of his planned projects, and they’re not re-upping his first look development contract when it expires at the end of 2026.

I’m sure not all of this is due to the lawsuit. The fact is he’s old and super hero movies are going out of favor and his brand of humor and things are just starting to seem dated at this point. Plus the Paramount merger is really shaking up the industry and there’s a lot of pairing back until things settle.

But it can’t be argued he’s just not the hot commodity he was a couple years ago and I don’t see him bouncing back from that, lawsuit or not.

Blake’s movie careers over that’s pretty much not debatable at this point. The head of Sony pictures gets paid tens of millions of dollars to be an expert on this and I’m going to take his word that she’ll never work again. And now that the financials of the company she has licensing agreements with have come to light it really seems there’s no there there. Betty buzz has never made a profit, Betty booze is doing OK, and the hair products biz is all but done and dusted.

You are taking that Sanford Panitch quote out of context. Here's what he said:

"It’s quite ironic because she has a huge hit movie headed to $300M-plus. And probably will never work again, or not for a while. Although even Hathaway recovered. Tom thinks she’s probably and bizarrely unhirable right now.”

Then another exec replies "This will pass. She is going to be FINE." And Panitch writes:

"No. Disagree. She is done for, at least for awhile. It's cooked. She said she is retiring to Josh or something. It will take a few years. Eva Mendez time."

What I'm reading here is that he's using hyperbolic language but then constantly walking it back. She'll never work again, but then people said that about Ann Hathaway too, right? Who is working. She's done. But just for a while. She's cooked. But it will take a few years. And so on. Also the hilarious thing is that they are talking about all of this in the context of discussing how bonkers the box office from IEWU is, Panitch later segues effortlessly from complaining that Blake wouldn't listen to Sony regarding the premiere to noting that the international box office is "astounding." He can't even decide what he thinks. Also the comparisons to Hathaway and Mendez are bizarre. Anne Hathaway is currently very hot (actually starring in a different Hoover adaptation coming out later this year I believe). Eva Mendez no longer works at all but also didn't go out due to some big scandal? She had kids and kind of stopped working and later said she doesn't even think she likes acting. If those are the examples they are using for how "done" Blake is, it actually does not indicate that this is an unrecoverable scandal, sorry.

Also one thing I've learned about Hollywood people in this is that a lot of them mean like 2% of what they say and also a huge part of their job is just telling whoever they are talking to what they want to hear. Ange Giannetti called Blake a terrorist when talking to Wayfarer and then when the movie had a big opening, sent Blake a slavering text telling her it was Blake's victory and she earned it and how amazing she was. These people are soulless.

Whether or not Sanford was right or wrong in summer of 2024 is absolutely a moot point now. It’s possible if she had laid low she could’ve recovered and proven him wrong. But two years later, it’s just delusional to think that her career is not over. Not one celeb friend that they turned to for help with this movie is standing by her. Taylor and Gigi or any of those people - they refuse to be seen in public with her. But we are supposed to believe studios or brands are going to want to work with her? It makes no sense.

See I found it fascinating, because it suggested to me there was some behind the scenes Eva Mendez scandal and now I want to know what it is!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see how anyone thinks Ryan’s career hasn’t taken a huge hit. Deadpool four is dead, Paramount canceled three of his planned projects, and they’re not re-upping his first look development contract when it expires at the end of 2026.

I’m sure not all of this is due to the lawsuit. The fact is he’s old and super hero movies are going out of favor and his brand of humor and things are just starting to seem dated at this point. Plus the Paramount merger is really shaking up the industry and there’s a lot of pairing back until things settle.

But it can’t be argued he’s just not the hot commodity he was a couple years ago and I don’t see him bouncing back from that, lawsuit or not.

Blake’s movie careers over that’s pretty much not debatable at this point. The head of Sony pictures gets paid tens of millions of dollars to be an expert on this and I’m going to take his word that she’ll never work again. And now that the financials of the company she has licensing agreements with have come to light it really seems there’s no there there. Betty buzz has never made a profit, Betty booze is doing OK, and the hair products biz is all but done and dusted.

You are taking that Sanford Panitch quote out of context. Here's what he said:

"It’s quite ironic because she has a huge hit movie headed to $300M-plus. And probably will never work again, or not for a while. Although even Hathaway recovered. Tom thinks she’s probably and bizarrely unhirable right now.”

Then another exec replies "This will pass. She is going to be FINE." And Panitch writes:

"No. Disagree. She is done for, at least for awhile. It's cooked. She said she is retiring to Josh or something. It will take a few years. Eva Mendez time."

What I'm reading here is that he's using hyperbolic language but then constantly walking it back. She'll never work again, but then people said that about Ann Hathaway too, right? Who is working. She's done. But just for a while. She's cooked. But it will take a few years. And so on. Also the hilarious thing is that they are talking about all of this in the context of discussing how bonkers the box office from IEWU is, Panitch later segues effortlessly from complaining that Blake wouldn't listen to Sony regarding the premiere to noting that the international box office is "astounding." He can't even decide what he thinks. Also the comparisons to Hathaway and Mendez are bizarre. Anne Hathaway is currently very hot (actually starring in a different Hoover adaptation coming out later this year I believe). Eva Mendez no longer works at all but also didn't go out due to some big scandal? She had kids and kind of stopped working and later said she doesn't even think she likes acting. If those are the examples they are using for how "done" Blake is, it actually does not indicate that this is an unrecoverable scandal, sorry.

Also one thing I've learned about Hollywood people in this is that a lot of them mean like 2% of what they say and also a huge part of their job is just telling whoever they are talking to what they want to hear. Ange Giannetti called Blake a terrorist when talking to Wayfarer and then when the movie had a big opening, sent Blake a slavering text telling her it was Blake's victory and she earned it and how amazing she was. These people are soulless.

Whether or not Sanford was right or wrong in summer of 2024 is absolutely a moot point now. It’s possible if she had laid low she could’ve recovered and proven him wrong. But two years later, it’s just delusional to think that her career is not over. Not one celeb friend that they turned to for help with this movie is standing by her. Taylor and Gigi or any of those people - they refuse to be seen in public with her. But we are supposed to believe studios or brands are going to want to work with her? It makes no sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the real reason people don’t believe Blake: she talks about Justin like she’s annoyed by him, not like she’s scared of him.

It was always a little weird that a harasser would target up. That doesn't jive with most people's experience of harassment.

It isn't unheard of. Didn't Taylor Swift win a judgement against a local radio dj? I'd say he was 'targeting up' in that case.

That's assault, not harassment. Again, this is problem with you pro-Blake people, you keep conflating Justin's actions with assault to obfuscate what actually went on in this case and it's annoying.

This is why earlier on this this thread I was asking if there was any research literature on the difference between assault and workplace harassment; it would be worthwhile to look at the difference, but again, I doubt any researcher would want to tackle this because if any of the findings didn't confirm people's beliefs (i.e. anyone can be harassed no matter what, a white woman's word is law, etc.) then it'd be considered problematic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the real reason people don’t believe Blake: she talks about Justin like she’s annoyed by him, not like she’s scared of him.

It was always a little weird that a harasser would target up. That doesn't jive with most people's experience of harassment.

It isn't unheard of. Didn't Taylor Swift win a judgement against a local radio dj? I'd say he was 'targeting up' in that case.

That's assault, not harassment. Again, this is problem with you pro-Blake people, you keep conflating Justin's actions with assault to obfuscate what actually went on in this case and it's annoying.

This is why earlier on this this thread I was asking if there was any research literature on the difference between assault and workplace harassment; it would be worthwhile to look at the difference, but again, I doubt any researcher would want to tackle this because if any of the findings didn't confirm people's beliefs (i.e. anyone can be harassed no matter what, a white woman's word is law, etc.) then it'd be considered problematic.

DP. It may be a different tort, but I think the logic carries. Why would he grab Taylor Swift's ass when she's powerful enough to get him fired? But he did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the real reason people don’t believe Blake: she talks about Justin like she’s annoyed by him, not like she’s scared of him.

It was always a little weird that a harasser would target up. That doesn't jive with most people's experience of harassment.

It isn't unheard of. Didn't Taylor Swift win a judgement against a local radio dj? I'd say he was 'targeting up' in that case.

That's assault, not harassment. Again, this is problem with you pro-Blake people, you keep conflating Justin's actions with assault to obfuscate what actually went on in this case and it's annoying.

This is why earlier on this this thread I was asking if there was any research literature on the difference between assault and workplace harassment; it would be worthwhile to look at the difference, but again, I doubt any researcher would want to tackle this because if any of the findings didn't confirm people's beliefs (i.e. anyone can be harassed no matter what, a white woman's word is law, etc.) then it'd be considered problematic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the real reason people don’t believe Blake: she talks about Justin like she’s annoyed by him, not like she’s scared of him.

It was always a little weird that a harasser would target up. That doesn't jive with most people's experience of harassment.

It isn't unheard of. Didn't Taylor Swift win a judgement against a local radio dj? I'd say he was 'targeting up' in that case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the real reason people don’t believe Blake: she talks about Justin like she’s annoyed by him, not like she’s scared of him.

It was always a little weird that a harasser would target up. That doesn't jive with most people's experience of harassment.

It isn't unheard of. Didn't Taylor Swift win a judgement against a local radio dj? I'd say he was 'targeting up' in that case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the real reason people don’t believe Blake: she talks about Justin like she’s annoyed by him, not like she’s scared of him.

It was always a little weird that a harasser would target up. That doesn't jive with most people's experience of harassment.

Anonymous wrote:This is the real reason people don’t believe Blake: she talks about Justin like she’s annoyed by him, not like she’s scared of him.

Anonymous wrote:This is the real reason people don’t believe Blake: she talks about Justin like she’s annoyed by him, not like she’s scared of him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see how anyone thinks Ryan’s career hasn’t taken a huge hit. Deadpool four is dead, Paramount canceled three of his planned projects, and they’re not re-upping his first look development contract when it expires at the end of 2026.

I’m sure not all of this is due to the lawsuit. The fact is he’s old and super hero movies are going out of favor and his brand of humor and things are just starting to seem dated at this point. Plus the Paramount merger is really shaking up the industry and there’s a lot of pairing back until things settle.

But it can’t be argued he’s just not the hot commodity he was a couple years ago and I don’t see him bouncing back from that, lawsuit or not.

Blake’s movie careers over that’s pretty much not debatable at this point. The head of Sony pictures gets paid tens of millions of dollars to be an expert on this and I’m going to take his word that she’ll never work again. And now that the financials of the company she has licensing agreements with have come to light it really seems there’s no there there. Betty buzz has never made a profit, Betty booze is doing OK, and the hair products biz is all but done and dusted.

You are taking that Sanford Panitch quote out of context. Here's what he said:

"It’s quite ironic because she has a huge hit movie headed to $300M-plus. And probably will never work again, or not for a while. Although even Hathaway recovered. Tom thinks she’s probably and bizarrely unhirable right now.”

Then another exec replies "This will pass. She is going to be FINE." And Panitch writes:

"No. Disagree. She is done for, at least for awhile. It's cooked. She said she is retiring to Josh or something. It will take a few years. Eva Mendez time."

What I'm reading here is that he's using hyperbolic language but then constantly walking it back. She'll never work again, but then people said that about Ann Hathaway too, right? Who is working. She's done. But just for a while. She's cooked. But it will take a few years. And so on. Also the hilarious thing is that they are talking about all of this in the context of discussing how bonkers the box office from IEWU is, Panitch later segues effortlessly from complaining that Blake wouldn't listen to Sony regarding the premiere to noting that the international box office is "astounding." He can't even decide what he thinks. Also the comparisons to Hathaway and Mendez are bizarre. Anne Hathaway is currently very hot (actually starring in a different Hoover adaptation coming out later this year I believe). Eva Mendez no longer works at all but also didn't go out due to some big scandal? She had kids and kind of stopped working and later said she doesn't even think she likes acting. If those are the examples they are using for how "done" Blake is, it actually does not indicate that this is an unrecoverable scandal, sorry.

Also one thing I've learned about Hollywood people in this is that a lot of them mean like 2% of what they say and also a huge part of their job is just telling whoever they are talking to what they want to hear. Ange Giannetti called Blake a terrorist when talking to Wayfarer and then when the movie had a big opening, sent Blake a slavering text telling her it was Blake's victory and she earned it and how amazing she was. These people are soulless.