Blake Lively

So Baldoni has released all the receipts on this formal website. Part of why he's doing this is to basically crowd source his defense/case against Lively.

Lively has requested a different lawyer from Baldoni because she does not like Baldoni's representation. (this is insane)

The judge has refused the gag order...obviously because of Lively's ties to legacy corporate media sources. And it seems like the corporate media sources are leaning on the Lively side of the issue for obvious reasons. However a series of Lawyers on Youtube are going through the files and they are having a field day.

To clear up some things...the victimization is not just Baldoni. Blake was involved in firing many people in the production this was done to gain and meet the standards for a PGA credit.

Now the timeline between Baldoni hiring a crisis management team and Lively actions are very interesting. So Baldoni lost his podcast, a feminism award was rescinded and WME dropped him as a client. While this is happening Reynolds/Lively are trying to purchase the rights to the sequel from Baldoni. In addition to this Reynolds and Lively actually wrote a letter of apology that they wanted Baldoni to release and claim this is his own.

Now don't get me wrong...this is awesome and I think I may start taking posts that other people should write and just fake quote them for fun. But this is now the fourth or fifth example of Lively basically extorting Justin.

Now some people don't like the rumor thread...but it's important to note those rumors about Blake go back 15 years. Certain thngs in Hollywood are what we call open secrets...Weinstein, Diddy, Spacey were things people knew but it wasn't legitimized through legal actions for years. Women's reputations are the same thing..Ellen, Sharon Stone, Lea Michelle, Katherine Heigel people knew and talked about this stuff but it wasn't a national case. Lively is in the same boat as those people but now she's made a case about it and all the dirt is coming out.

And just to make something clear because I assume many of you think I'm picking on her because she's a monster. Artists can be monsters, I can look past terrible behavior I'm still able to enjoy Chaplin movies even thought he was y'know a sexual predator. I can still listen to the Beatles even though John Lennon was kinda a bad guy.

But the case is what's fascinating because we are dealing with a power dynamic with the media that we haven't really seen since Richard Jewel. In a case where someone has been so transparently attacked by a Hollywood System and media machine and yet they are winning every legal fight right now.

Siddon, are you ever going to address the fact that the blind item rumors you have posted are possibly merit less and at best treated as rumor and hearsay?

"Winning every legal fight"?

The case is barely just beginning and the judge has warned all parties involved to stop "litigating in the press", so as not to taint any potential jurors.

The case is currently set for March of 2026.

Until the case actually begins, nobody can be "winning every legal fight". That's not how litigation works.

Unless they decided to settle out of court, nobody will "win" until the case is over.

I'm sorry you're having problems, but this doesn't add up. It would be a good excuse for talking awhile (something I've given you no crap for at all), but not for responding multiple times (at length) while always failing to address anything directly.

First, this was happening even before the problems you've been having (you can go check, not that you will). Second, because a page only needs to load once to be read, so the time you spent writing your laundry list of mostly non-sequiturs could've been spent responding to things, so you were still deciding not to do it. And third, because this is exactly how previous interactions have gone.

Let’s leave The Beatles out of this. Lennon was murdered in cold blood & was not a “bad guy”.

That’s all I’m saying on the subject.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

The movie My Dinner With Jimi, an autobiographical movie written by the lead singer of The Turtles-Howard Kaylan...Tells the story of one night when The Turtles were in a London club. In the club Kaylan met the Beatles who were there having drinks, according to Kaylan, Lennon was an ass. But of course Lennon is still one of the world's great artistic talents. Which makes the point: artist are often not super nice likable people, like Blake Lively, but that doesn't make her automatically guilty just because she can be an ass.

Don't wanna hijack the thread to be about Lennon, but it depends on what curve you're grading him on. On all of humanity, sure, he's not a murderer or a criminal or whatever. But on a personal level he did some pretty bad stuff, most notably abandoning his daughter. And yes, he was physically abusive. That's not an allegation: he admitted it.

It's fine if people don't care about the personal lives of artists, but there's no disputing that he did things most of us would find awful if someone we knew did them.

Yeah, this is one of several core problems in these exchanges. One being a basic refusal (or inability) to respond to simple follow-up questions. Another being the same refusal (or inability) to entertain counterfactuals properly. But another is the simple category error of thinking rumors can transmogrify into facts if you have enough of them, and that character defects can similarly transmute into lying.

It's surprising how many artist & celebrities I've read about, only to discover that they had done some very unsavory things. Which brings me back to the Blake Lively Justin Baldoni case.

One might say Lively is a power seeker, an opportunist and a royal pita. But all that maters legally is: Was Blake sexually abused on the set of It Ends With Us or did she just perceive it as sexually abuse? Or did she make up all the charges for some nefarious reason?

Justin Baldoni also has an unsavory past but all that matters is: Did he or did he not sexual abuse Blake Lively on the movie set? And it matters as to the content of his public relations 'smear campaign', did it illegally damage Blake Lively through defamation?

It seems entirely plausible to me that Lively being awful to work with "drove" (drove in the sense of led to, not in a sense that absolves him) Baldoni to do really awful things himself. There are lots of situations where someone can be really awful to you, but provoke a reaction that is worse than the thing it's responding to. Either worse morally, or perhaps just worse legally.

This thread is positively filled with people preemptively conceding likely problems with what Lively did. So what's the sense in trying to establish her as unsavory or manipulative, when most of us have already priced that in? None of that precludes the accusations against Baldoni. In fact, it kinda makes them more likely, since it may have prompted his actions as a form of retaliation.

This is why you need to be able to entertain counterfactuals to have a coherent argument: you need to be able to ask yourself "is this actually at odds with the thing I'm disputing?"

It seems 'doubling down' and defending one's viewpoint/belief even in the light of compellingly contradictory logic happens due to basic human behavior. The most eye opening thing I've ever read on the internet was here at MoFo. This IMO explains why it's often hard to change people's beliefs.https://www.movieforums.com/communit...15#post2198715

Well this is now the third time I've tried making this post. Was Five-Feet Apart stolen by Baldoni...well he didn't write the script, he credits a different person as the inspiration, the the alleged project was with Universal and Five Feet Apart came out through LionsGate.

Blake has a documented pattern of behavior, these rumors have dogged her for 15 years. Today it's been announced that the person she claims ran the smear campaign is now suing her. These blind items exist for liability issues and SLAPP suits are real. The difference being between the two cases here is that one has a tremendous amount of support from the crew with documentation and the other is an artistic interpretation of a story.

That's cool and all...but John Lennon would be considered a terrible person by today's moral standards.

- He beat his first wife
- He had a drinking problem
- He abandoned his child Julian
- He dropped the N word many time

It's sad he got murdered

It's an investment of time and energy...every click that I make can lead to a time out error. So it can take 15 to 20 to an hour for a reply. This board is giving me flashbacks to the internet in 1998 when you would get the blue screen of death and have reboot all the time. Could I spend hours on this board...yes, should I do this, perhaps. Now if you have something specific I'll look into it but I've done so much writing and lost so many posts it feels pointless for my mental health.

You are also more than welcome to PM me your phone number and I will send you a screen shot of error pages.

You know what else is? Combing through a thousand words of rumors and explaining which ones are not correct, or not relevant, and why...and then having that completely ignored over and over.

I didn't say I didn't believe you. I said it doesn't add up as an explanation for why things keep getting ignored. I explained why:

First, this was happening even before the problems you've been having (you can go check, not that you will). Second, because a page only needs to load once to be read, so the time you spent writing your laundry list of mostly non-sequiturs could've been spent responding to things, so you were still deciding not to do it. And third, because this is exactly how previous interactions have gone.

If you can write a thousand words on Lively's reported on-set behavior you can write a couple hundred answering questions. Whatever your time investment, you're choosing to spend it monologuing rather than replying. Especially since those questions were being ignored before you started having problems, and because this same issue comes up every time people try to have a conversation.

I happen to agree...I just don't think for a second you'd be quite so circumspect if the roles were reversed. If Lively had been accused of stealing an idea the way Baldoni has you'd be pretending it was a smoking gun on the subject of her credibility. Like I keep saying: you can be credulous or not, but you can't be selectively credulous.

The word "behavior" is doing a lot of work here. The problem is that you think all bad things can be translated into the same moral currency, that you can then "spend" to "prove" some other kind of badness (or, even weirder, an inverted badness where other people must not have done bad things to her, even in retaliation). It doesn't make sense. People have been pointing this out constantly.

Right, that's one reason for a blind item. The other reason being that it's nonsense. Both are the kinds of reasons people hide their identities to make claims.

This is what I mean about counterfactuals: it's not enough to see some information and then figure out if you can fit it into your preferred interpretation. Engaging in actual critical thought means asking yourself if it fits into another interpretation, too, and if it does, recognizing that it therefore does not constitute evidence for whatever interpretation you've arbitrarily sided with.

Well, this appears to be a lively thread.

Every time I read Yoda's replies to Siddon, it feels kinda like...

Now the PR firm is suing her

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/entertainm...180205448.html

IKR?