Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Side note, I don’t know why you continue to insist that only “manosphere” types would be on Justin’s side. I’m a liberal progressive feminist woman. I’m a practicing layer and mother to tweens. And I can’t stand Blake and I think she is an awful person and has done a disservice to women who suffer real harassment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It's an extremely bland PR statement thay doesn't say much of anything. It's a "being the bigger person" negotiated nod to her not an admission of guilt.

The "being the bigger person" phase ended a long time ago. This doesn't sound like the type of settlement where everyone just walked away, at least one side made a concession.

Yep, Blake did

What did she say?

She dropped her lawsuit and walked away with nothing but severe and self inflicted reputations and financial damage

Sounds like she got an acknowledgment for her complaint, that's not nothing.

Wayfarer could have just given that two years ago when she asked for it instead of hiring Wallace and TAG. They could have negotiated Ryan's OTT apology letter to a statement like this and saved themselves a big scandal. They also could have settled this case early instead of filing their actually frivolous, bad faith claims that were completely dismissed.

But then all of this damaging evidence wouldn’t have come out which has lead to overwhelming public support for Justin. He and the defendants certainly won in the court of public opinion

Lively was actually pretty cooperative about keeping the stuff from the 17 point list private. Justin's biggest concern was "if her concerns came to light," but his own actions fueled the fire. People always say Lively fueled the fire by unfollowing and not walking the carpet with him. But Justin fueled it just as much... if he and TAG had not been caught in their texts saying "we can't write we will destroy her," "this is what we need," etc, the creepy stuff he did on set would not have come to light. Lively didn't even bring it up amid the bad publicity around the premiere. She just wanted an apology that was fairly vague, IIRC it said "troubled set."

So, yeah, I actually do think if they had just paid a lawyer to negotiate the kind of statement she wanted from them in 2024, plus release of any other claims she might have had, Wayfarer would have never needed to win in the court of public opinion because we would never have known anything. They are equally as responsible as Lively for this fiasco, which hurt both sides.

Issuing that apology would have been the end of him. He had no choice

I did say he should have negotiated the apology into something similar to the statement that was issued yesterday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Clearly you don't understand how celebrity PR works. Her reputation was supported by the statement; his wasn't. That is the most important win she needed. She may be tarnished, but no studio will risk liability with the "challenges" he poses and he has no representation. The manosphere will support him--see this thread--but from a professional perspective he was crushed.

Anonymous wrote:Brian was on Billy bush and said they’re still finalizing the terms that’s why nothing has hit the docket. He said there’s a statement and an “intention” to have an agreement but no agreement yet (technically speaking). He was basically giving an it ain’t over til the fat lady sings kind of vibe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm finding it hard to believe that Lively signed a settlement that doesn't include any money and also allows Baldoni to tell his side of the story, which Freedman said he would do.

Lively just needed this to be over. No way she could go to trial.

Agree, but find it very interesting that Wayfarer conceded to her publicly in a meaningful way. That was unexpected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm finding it hard to believe that Lively signed a settlement that doesn't include any money and also allows Baldoni to tell his side of the story, which Freedman said he would do.

Lively just needed this to be over. No way she could go to trial.

Anonymous wrote:I'm finding it hard to believe that Lively signed a settlement that doesn't include any money and also allows Baldoni to tell his side of the story, which Freedman said he would do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Of course it validates her. There is no universe which it doesn't. What does not do: offer a shred of validation for Baldoni or Wayfarer.

There is no apology, or mention of sexual harassment or retaliation. On the other hand, she walked away with zero dollars. I’ve been a litigator for over two decades and have never seen a plaintiff walk away without even a nuisance payment. It’s a huge loss for her.

Anonymous wrote:Is DCUM traffic going to take a nosedive now that this case is settled?