Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - New DRAMATIC Turn !!

00:00:00.000 When you let aero truffle bubbles melt, everything takes on a creamy, delicious, chocolatey glow.

00:00:06.320 Like that pile of laundry. You didn't forget to fold it.

00:00:09.220 Nah, it's a new trend. Wrinkled, chic.

00:00:12.080 Feel the aero bubbles melt. It's mind-bubbling.

00:00:15.340 It turns out that Alexa actually smeared Blake Lively.

00:00:25.900 Hi and welcome to Flossom Talk.

00:00:27.520 I'm Kersti Floor, journalist, Hollywood truth teller, and your voice of reason in a town built on delusion.

00:00:34.880 Okay, so last week I spoke about this new lawsuit filed by the ex-Nickelodeon star Alexa Nicholas.

00:00:43.900 She is suing Justin Baldoni's attorney, Brian Friedman, and Melissa Nason, his PR crisis expert,

00:00:51.260 claiming that they're a part of a smear campaign against her.

00:00:55.660 Now, it turns out that Alexa actually smeared Blake Lively.

00:01:03.300 This is so messy.

00:01:05.260 Also, I read this really fascinating story in the Times in the UK this weekend.

00:01:10.700 It's about the villain publicist Judah Engelmayer,

00:01:14.140 and how much money he says that publicists are paying content creators to talk positive about their clients.

00:01:23.940 This is so interesting.

00:01:26.180 Also, now there is an expose about me on Reddit.

00:01:31.400 You won't believe what the Blake Lively supporters came up with this time.

00:01:35.300 I am almost speechless by the stupidity.

00:01:38.940 Also, let's talk about the new fake romance in Hollywood.

00:01:43.240 If you missed it, Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi have been all over each other during the promotion of the movie Weathering Heights.

00:01:52.240 Now it's backfired on them.

00:01:54.840 They call it showmance, and we're not buying it anymore.

00:01:59.020 Okay, so let's get into this article first that I saw in the Times in the UK this weekend.

00:02:05.240 I also noticed that the New York Times did an interview with the same guy last summer.

00:02:11.300 So this guy is called Judah Engelmayer.

00:02:14.240 And the reason why I wanted to mention this article is because he's talking about how he is paying influencers to talk positively about his clients.

00:02:24.460 His clients are the worst of the worst.

00:02:27.020 He's representing Harvey Weinstein.

00:02:30.000 He's representing the Alexander Brothers, those real estate brokers from New York who is accused of a lot of horrific things against women.

00:02:37.220 Also, P. Diddy and Anna Delvey.

00:02:39.600 So his clientele is obviously the people that most publicists don't want to touch.

00:02:44.640 But one thing he's quoted saying here is what caught my attention.

00:02:48.440 So Judah Engelmayer is quoted here saying when they talk about how he is employing influencers,

00:02:54.720 he's saying you look for key placements, people who have a certain amount of followers, he said,

00:03:01.100 paying them between $5,000 to $100,000 for a series of videos supporting his client's case.

00:03:09.480 It's a horse world.

00:03:11.220 As you probably noticed as well, as he's mentioning in this article, there were a lot of content creators starting to question Harvey Weinstein a while back and if he was really guilty or not.

00:03:23.480 And of course, this makes me think of all those content creators that are pushing positive content for Blake Lively.

00:03:31.600 There are about four or five content creators who doesn't really have a big following that are pushing against all the facts that we have right in front of us in all these legal documents.

00:03:43.040 And they're trying to spread misinformation about this as much as possible.

00:03:47.900 And I've been wondering, like, what's in it for them?

00:03:51.100 Anyways, let's get back to this publicist.

00:03:52.980 Because as you know, Leslie Sloan did push and terrorize a lot of journalists to change headlines in articles, 1.00

00:04:02.760 to remove quotes from Justin Baldoni's team in articles,

00:04:06.500 to basically make every article in traditional media favor Blake Lively.

00:04:12.400 And they did.

00:04:13.960 So would we be surprised if she did the same thing to content creators?

00:04:18.940 Not really.

00:04:19.660 And one thing that we can't forget here is that Blake Lively hired an ex-CIA agent.

00:04:25.840 So Variety reported how Blake Lively was quietly working with Nick Shapiro,

00:04:31.280 the CIA former deputy chief of staff and senior advisor to former director John Brennan.

00:04:37.780 It's quoted here saying the litigation team for Ms. Lively retained Mr. Shapiro to advise on the legal communication strategy

00:04:44.820 for the ongoing S-agent retaliation lawsuit occurring in the Southern District of New York,

00:04:50.480 says a member of the actor's legal team.

00:04:53.400 So why would they need a CIA agent for legal communication strategy?

00:05:01.320 Really?

00:05:02.180 We also know how far Ryan Reynolds was willing to go to make people like his wife again.

00:05:09.160 He put pressure, as you know, on WME, on Sony.

00:05:12.680 All these text messages are proving how far he went and was willing to go to ruin Justin Baldoni

00:05:20.980 and to fix his wife's reputation.

00:05:23.820 And we also know that the Wayfairer did not pay anyone to talk badly about Blake.

00:05:29.380 Blake subpoenaed 107 content creators and found nothing, including me.

00:05:35.880 And we also know that both party, it's undisputed from both parties that I had any contact with any of the parties

00:05:44.720 and still don't have any contact with any of the parties.

00:05:48.120 And my little bump video was posted by me independently from everything else that's going on.

00:05:54.260 We also know that Blake manipulated the other cast members to go against Justin

00:05:59.260 and that they followed her lead and that they all agreed to unfollow him at the same day.

00:06:06.180 And also that she refused to be next to him at the red carpet.

00:06:09.720 She didn't allow him into the theater.

00:06:11.480 He had to stay in the basement and all that stuff,

00:06:13.740 which also was so thoroughly planned so that the media and social media would start speculating.

00:06:20.840 Why else would they all unfollow him at the same time?

00:06:24.060 She knew that that would get picked up.

00:06:26.500 So let's talk about how all of this relates back to this article in The Hollywood Reporter

00:06:32.320 and this new lawsuit that was filed by Alexa Nicholas. 0.69

00:06:37.900 She used to be a Nickelodeon star, I think. 1.00

00:06:40.900 And the other day, The Hollywood Reporter did a big story,

00:06:44.280 a really big expose, if you want, about the smear machine in Hollywood.

00:06:49.720 And they based a lot of it on her newly filed lawsuit. 0.99

00:06:54.120 So she is suing Brian Friedman, who is Justin Baldoni's attorney, and Melissa Nathan,

00:07:00.940 although she has zero evidence that they ever did anything to harm her reputation.

00:07:06.320 She's claiming that they created a smear website to harm her. 1.00

00:07:10.880 And the reason for that is because she basically read Blake Lively's lawsuit.

00:07:16.060 And she said, oh, there's parallels here.

00:07:18.180 And the fact that Brian Friedman used to represent her husband, the musician Michael Milos.

00:07:26.200 So she sued her ex-husband. 0.50

00:07:29.380 They used to be married for basically doing terrible things to her.

00:07:33.220 I can't mention those here on my channel.

00:07:34.940 But she sued him.

00:07:36.960 And he ended up suing her lawyers for suing him.

00:07:41.100 And then she ended up dropping her lawsuit in 2022. 0.96

00:07:46.120 And his case was dismissed in February 2023.

00:07:50.220 So for some reason, she just dropped this lawsuit.

00:07:53.580 We don't know what happened there, if this was true or not.

00:07:56.660 But that's kind of besides the point here.

00:07:59.740 But here is the interesting twist.

00:08:02.080 Because it turns out that Alexa was going after Blake Lively when she was promoting It Ends With Us.

00:08:11.940 So she tweeted this.

00:08:15.640 I can't say enough how disappointed I am in Blake Lively and It Ends With Us movie.

00:08:21.860 Not only has your rollout of this film been a complete disaster and shame.

00:08:26.560 But you also put a well-known, blah, blah, blah, read it here, person's music in your film.

00:08:34.520 There is physical evidence of him grooming me when he was 33 and I was 16.

00:08:41.360 It's easily accessible on the internet.

00:08:44.000 Sadly, since I had to also take on the emotional labor of exposing Rye, which is the band her ex-husband is a part of,

00:08:52.780 with evidence, it was also a very public lawsuit that goes into great detail what he did to me.

00:08:59.420 Shame on this film.

00:09:01.600 And then she adds five tomatoes.

00:09:04.820 So looking at this, isn't this exactly what Blake Lively calls a smear campaign?

00:09:13.220 Being a part of a coordinated smear campaign.

00:09:16.880 And also because this tweet was picked up by traditional media.

00:09:21.740 And this is what Blake Lively calls inorganic.

00:09:25.820 So this was picked up by Daily Mail.

00:09:28.340 And they did a headline.

00:09:29.960 Nickelodeon star Alexa Nicholas slams Blake Lively for shameful move in It Ends With Us.

00:09:37.080 Also, the Express Tribune did a story on this.

00:09:40.460 Alexa Nicholas calls out Blake Lively for including groomer Mike Milosz in It Ends With Us promo.

00:09:47.340 Not only has your rollout of this film been a disaster, but you also included blah, blah, blah in your film.

00:09:53.680 So just look at all the irony here that this person who Blake Lively would categorize as part of a smear campaign

00:10:02.680 is doing the same people for smearing her.

00:10:06.000 And guess what? The Hollywood Reporter forgets to mention that in their article that they published

00:10:12.680 that Alexa herself was part of what Blake Lively calls a smear machine. 0.79

00:10:19.220 There is a quote in the article from Brian Friedman who denies his clients are the authors of this site.

00:10:24.980 As I said before, I spoke about this article because it's claiming that he was part of making the smear site against her.

00:10:31.580 These smear websites are not that rare, to be honest with you.

00:10:34.700 I did a little research on them.

00:10:36.640 And the thing is, when you're a celebrity, people love you and people hate you.

00:10:40.820 And some people are really passionate about how much they dislike you.

00:10:44.900 So these could might as well just be fans being annoyed with you about something.

00:10:49.720 Or it could be someone that you're wrong in your life.

00:10:52.920 But just suing someone because you have some kind of feeling that they're behind it, it's ridiculous.

00:10:59.240 And it's really disappointing as well that the Hollywood Reporter is reporting on this as kind of facts.

00:11:06.180 Well, anyways, Brian Friedman is quoted here saying,

00:11:09.020 There is no technical data, no forensic support, no factual basis linking anyone retained by the Wayfair parties to the websites.

00:11:18.720 The forensic analysis commissioned by Stephanie Jones identify no author and no connection to any party.

00:11:25.200 What remains is speculation presented as facts.

00:11:28.320 After more than a year of litigation and no credible evidence, they are attempting to replace evidence with headlines.

00:11:36.400 Well said, as you know, Stephanie Jones, the publicist who owned the company who Justin Baldoni hired for the PR for him and this movie,

00:11:47.760 she claims they're also behind a smear website against her.

00:11:54.080 So it's so easy here to find someone to blame and they're all ganging up against them.

00:11:59.400 And this whole thing, to me, feels very coordinated.

00:12:03.600 And I think now they've been trying to find dirt on Justin Baldoni, in his past, on whatever, for so long and they haven't been able to find anything.

00:12:14.520 So then they need to go after all the other players surrounding him.

00:12:19.840 Because this, as you know, is all about optics.

00:12:23.180 It's all about winning the public opinion.

00:12:26.420 And that's what they're trying to do here.

00:12:28.340 And thank you for sending me this, by the way.

00:12:30.840 So someone is doing the same thing to me today on Reddit.

00:12:34.760 They're saying that I've been exposed now.

00:12:37.700 And you have to keep in mind how important my little bump video is in this litigation.

00:12:43.480 Because Blake Lively really has to prove here that the reactions to that video was not organic.

00:12:50.140 And that the Wayfair party somehow was behind pushing this.

00:12:54.080 So that all these bots could call her a bully. 1.00

00:12:58.060 And so this Reddit post is saying seven things in Kjæshti Flå and the Blake timeline.

00:13:05.200 Listen to this.

00:13:06.840 The interview was in 2016 when reporters were asked not to comment on women's bodies.

00:13:13.980 So that was in 2016.

00:13:15.960 Reporters were told that.

00:13:18.000 This person was obviously also a reporter in 2016.

00:13:22.740 And she got a memo that I never got.

00:13:25.960 And also, when you're congratulating someone on their pregnancy, it's not commenting on their body.

00:13:32.560 But anyways, the video was pretty inconsequential.

00:13:36.600 Well, that's debatable.

00:13:37.660 And then number two here says most comments on the original with big letters 2016 video are mostly calling out flaws and professionalism and not bashing Blake.

00:13:51.140 So where is the original video posted?

00:13:56.140 Nowhere.

00:13:57.760 I did not publish this video until 2024 on YouTube.

00:14:02.440 And where is this person getting this information from?

00:14:05.940 The original and calling out flaws and professionalism?

00:14:10.840 The scary thing about this post, it's got like 300 comments on it and everyone's agreeing with this person.

00:14:17.360 No one is questioning.

00:14:18.840 Hey, where did she post the original video?

00:14:21.760 Where can we see all the comments that were bashing her and not Blake?

00:14:26.680 Where can we see that?

00:14:27.940 Can you please give us some source here?

00:14:30.120 Can you give us a link?

00:14:31.760 No one's asking that.

00:14:33.180 Why?

00:14:33.640 And then it says in August 2024, she edits and reports the 2016 interview with a salacious, salacious new headline.

00:14:42.500 So I had an old headline, apparently.

00:14:44.760 I didn't know about that.

00:14:46.160 And she doesn't or this person doesn't mention what my old headline was.

00:14:50.060 But no one's questioning that either.

00:14:51.860 And it says that Blake Lively made me want to quit my job.

00:14:55.540 It actually says the Blake Lively interview that made me want to quit my job.

00:15:00.280 I didn't say Blake Lively wanted me to quit the job, but the interview did.

00:15:05.260 The situation I was in in that interview made me want to quit my job.

00:15:09.140 Anyways, details.

00:15:10.520 But still, have you facts right?

00:15:12.440 The same week, Tag and Jed Wallace were hired.

00:15:16.460 That could be they were hired in early of August.

00:15:18.860 So yes, that is a fact, maybe, that they got right here.

00:15:23.780 One fact so far.

00:15:25.380 And then point number four, Justin's PR team loves the video, but it's not getting much traction.

00:15:31.580 Sent to Jed Wallace to boost an artificial manipulates views.

00:15:36.720 Voila, seven millions views.

00:15:38.840 Organic my ass.

00:15:40.040 Well, the thing is, when you look at how my video grew on YouTube, it shows every sign of how a video becomes viral.

00:15:50.560 And the most view this video got is not from my original video on YouTube.

00:15:56.640 It is from people posting it on TikTok.

00:15:59.600 People took it and put it on TikTok.

00:16:02.240 And that's where most people actually watch the video.

00:16:04.940 But if they pushed my video, I have no idea if they did.

00:16:09.980 But when I looked at the scale, I think the next day, my video had about 30,000 views, which to me was like, wow, that's a lot.

00:16:20.440 And people started to react to it instantly.

00:16:24.080 I watched it happen from the beginning when I posted the video.

00:16:28.460 And on top of that, as I said before, I received so many DMs from people supporting me.

00:16:33.220 But in Blake Lively's world and these people, the supporters world, those were probably just bots or brainwashed people who thought that they saw a bully.

00:16:43.100 But it was all wrong.

00:16:44.580 She wasn't a bully in that interview at all.

00:16:47.240 And then number five, she deletes the original 2016 video off YouTube.

00:16:53.740 Where did this person get this information from?

00:16:56.800 I deleted the video.

00:16:58.580 So why has no one else talked about this earlier if there was an original video where people were bashing me and not Blake?

00:17:06.000 No one else found out except this person on Reddit, apparently.

00:17:09.920 And then number six, note.

00:17:12.340 Flo interviewed Blake again just two years later in 2018.

00:17:16.340 So she obviously wasn't traumatized for life.

00:17:20.140 Where did I ever say I was traumatized for life after that interview?

00:17:24.980 I said in interviews, I said on my channel that it was a traumatizing experience, but I wasn't traumatized for the rest of my life.

00:17:34.740 I'm not giving Blake that much credit for being a mean girl in that interview.

00:17:39.080 And I never said that I was traumatized for life.

00:17:41.860 What did they expect that I'm in some psychiatric hospital because I was so traumatized by that situation?

00:17:48.720 Come on.

00:17:49.360 And then number seven, Flo goes on to make 500 Blake bashing videos along with a merch store.

00:17:56.660 And she makes estimate of five to ten thousand a week.

00:17:59.880 Wow, that's a lot of money in income for trashing Lively across social platforms.

00:18:05.220 The real bully appears to be, in fact, Miss Flo. 0.92

00:18:09.740 First of all, I have to say, I'm not bashing Blake Lively.

00:18:13.020 I am reporting on court papers here.

00:18:15.800 I am a reporter and I'm reporting on a legal case.

00:18:20.200 If I want to make a 500 or 1,000 videos on Blake Lively, I can do that.

00:18:26.120 And it's so interesting to me that the people who are accusing me of bashing Blake are doing exactly the same thing to me.

00:18:34.240 So this person continues to say, in my opinion, she's been in coordination with Brian Friedman for a while.

00:18:43.360 Well, in her or his opinion, I've been in coordination.

00:18:47.840 Well, even Blake Lively's team has admitted that I've never been in coordination.

00:18:53.500 So, but this person, she has or he has an opinion that she or he is guessing that it must be like this.

00:19:03.260 And then she adds, here's a TikTok video with Flo smugly boasting it's all organic.

00:19:09.400 Can't wait for her 15 minutes to be over. 0.99

00:19:12.020 She's an opportunistic grifter spewing false narratives for clicks, said the person who is spewing a false narrative for clicks on Reddit. 1.00

00:19:22.280 Anyways, this is not really helping Blake making up alternative facts like this to bait people into believing that Blake Lively is a victim.

00:19:31.980 Because the legal system is based on facts.

00:19:35.380 And you can't just make up facts, even though you think that you love Blake Lively for some absurd reason.

00:19:41.280 An intelligent human being with critical thinking skills can see through all of this.

00:19:46.700 Yes, if you watch this and you've seen that thread and you think that there's any truth to it,

00:19:51.080 you should ask this person where they got this information about this old interview that I allegedly posted.

00:19:57.200 That they're the only person in the world that knows about it.

00:20:00.820 Please ask them.

00:20:01.780 It's also interesting to see how they are using the exact same tactics that Blake Lively is accusing Justin Baldoni of doing.

00:20:09.880 Yes, so because of all of this, that's why that article in the Hollywood Reporter really bugs me.

00:20:15.820 Because it doesn't take into consideration that there is no evidence here.

00:20:19.740 All of this is based on assumption of allegations that's not been proven in court or proven anywhere yet.

00:20:26.980 And I know because I see what they're doing to me.

00:20:29.600 And I know what they tried to do to me before.

00:20:32.480 Because as I mentioned, I think it was in February last year,

00:20:36.400 they attacked my Wikipedia page trying to change the narrative,

00:20:41.420 trying to paint me as a bad person,

00:20:44.580 trying to make, take away my credibility as a journalist,

00:20:48.380 trying to make me controversial.

00:20:50.520 It was like a war zone on my Wikipedia page.

00:20:53.540 It got changed about a hundred times every single day and it went on for weeks.

00:20:58.280 And it's interesting because Jed Wallace was talking about this in a recording.

00:21:03.900 And here's a transcript to this recording.

00:21:06.320 So he's saying here, now Wikipedia, I don't know who exactly he said this to.

00:21:11.600 It was a recording, as I said.

00:21:13.660 He said that Wikipedia, and I think we shared this very early on,

00:21:17.260 Wikipedia is like a mind feel, right?

00:21:19.600 So the way it works is even if it's your own page,

00:21:22.880 you don't have enough legacy juice,

00:21:24.820 which is what they determine which editors who have been editing Wikipedia the longest

00:21:30.060 have the most traction and their editors stick, right?

00:21:34.260 So anybody that's in there vandalizing pages is likely somebody,

00:21:38.900 it's most likely somebody that has, and this is the conundrum with Wikipedia,

00:21:45.480 because it's such a corrupt, fraudulent space and it's connected with SEO and Google.

00:21:51.540 But when the interesting thing is that people that are vandalizing your page have more leverage in you.

00:21:56.880 So all they're going to do is see that you're trying to change things

00:21:59.840 and you're trying to change a story that, again, is not to be changed yet, blah, blah, blah.

00:22:05.100 And then he's saying, we're just going to let it unfold.

00:22:08.360 So it's obvious that they attacked the Wayfair Party's Wikipedia pages as well.

00:22:12.700 Why would anyone have any interest of going in and attacking my Wikipedia page full-time?

00:22:18.880 Because that was a full-time job.

00:22:20.700 They were on it and on it and on it.

00:22:22.960 But luckily, some people came in and corrected it back to the way it was.

00:22:27.960 I'm so grateful for those people, by the way.

00:22:30.260 I've said that so many times before, but that was amazing.

00:22:32.720 But apparently, same thing happened here.

00:22:36.000 So who were these people?

00:22:37.200 Just random fans of Blake Lively?

00:22:39.680 I don't think so.

00:22:40.860 He's saying here that we want them to continue doing this,

00:22:44.620 to continue changing the Wikipedia,

00:22:46.660 because then we can prove that they're smearing us.

00:22:50.120 He's saying these people are going in and smearing everybody.

00:22:53.500 Now it's not even, they're not even pretending that they're not.

00:22:57.020 So it's something important for legal to keep in mind.

00:22:59.840 But more importantly, it's for us, the impulse is to stop it and fix it.

00:23:04.040 And the reality is like, you just don't, you just can't, because we need to bait them.

00:23:09.880 We need to establish that we're not getting engaged in this,

00:23:13.020 but that we're actually victims in these things.

00:23:15.120 And that is really exactly what it is.

00:23:18.200 So I didn't know that they were doing the same thing to their Wikipedia pages.

00:23:22.340 I find it so fascinating that Blake Lively has all these people working for her,

00:23:27.620 this army of so skilled people working for her,

00:23:32.580 and she's still not able to change people's opinions about her. 1.00

00:23:35.980 But she's claiming that Justin Baldoni could do it like this.

00:23:39.140 Okay, I wanted to talk quickly about something else.

00:23:41.260 Some people have said, oh, we want you to talk about other things too.

00:23:44.120 So I'm going to try and start doing that as well.

00:23:46.380 So this caught my attention.

00:23:47.840 I've been seeing a lot of content creators talking about this.

00:23:51.080 The backlash that has come after the promotion of the movie Weathering Heights

00:23:57.780 with Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi.

00:24:01.840 And it just reminded me of how cynical this whole PR game really is

00:24:07.420 and how they're trying to trick us into buying their products

00:24:12.160 by pretending that the real world is something very different than it actually is.

00:24:18.160 So during the promotion of Weathering Heights,

00:24:21.660 showmance, which I think is a great word to explain exactly what happened here.

00:24:26.500 So last year, we saw the same thing with Pamela Anderson and Liam Neeson

00:24:31.180 trying to sell us a real romance.

00:24:33.620 And it turned out to be all fake.

00:24:36.260 And everyone was really disappointed because they really wanted them to be together.

00:24:39.980 The same thing happened with Sidney Sweeney and Glenn Powell.

00:24:43.100 I don't know if it was actually just pretending in their case,

00:24:46.220 but they were promoting anyone but you, the movie.

00:24:49.420 And I think both relationships.

00:24:51.180 I think she was engaged at the time and he had a girlfriend.

00:24:54.260 And I think, I don't know what happened there, but they broke up after that.

00:24:57.480 But we also saw it so clearly with Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga for A Star Is Born.

00:25:03.260 Everyone was speculating, are they a couple?

00:25:05.860 And of course, it helps sell a movie.

00:25:08.520 It makes people interested and it makes people speculate about their personal life.

00:25:12.920 And that brings up the interest for the movie.

00:25:15.580 And that's exactly what Margot Robbie and Jacob Allurety did with Weathering Heights. 1.00

00:25:20.420 But this time is more cringe than ever.

00:25:23.620 So BBC is noting some of the things that they said in interviews

00:25:28.420 and how they have appeared together on the red carpet that people have reacted to.

00:25:34.040 And you also have to keep in mind that Margot Robbie's husband here, Tom Ackerley,

00:25:39.700 was the producer of this movie.

00:25:42.060 So he was there with them probably a lot.

00:25:44.560 And she has a one-year-old baby.

00:25:46.040 So I'm also thinking that she brought her baby with her because her husband was there too.

00:25:51.040 So all of this is a little like, I don't know, tasteless.

00:25:54.380 In January, it says here that Robbie told Fandango that when her co-star wasn't close by,

00:25:59.360 I felt quite lost, like a kid without their blanket or something.

00:26:04.040 In the same interview, Allurety confessed he and Robbie had a mutual obsession,

00:26:09.780 adding, I was enamored by her.

00:26:12.780 And then they did this steamy photo shoot in Vogue, Australia with the title Pure Obsession.

00:26:20.260 And somewhere else they're saying here,

00:26:22.200 Robbie described how Allurety made her almost weak at the knees

00:26:25.960 when he lifted her with one arm during one scene.

00:26:29.380 Then there was Allurety's romantic gesture for Robbie during filming on Valentine's Day.

00:26:35.120 You made my day and as Hathcliff filled my room with roses and it was so cute,

00:26:42.940 Robbie told Allurety during a conversation with her co-star.

00:26:46.700 So Hathcliff is his character's name in the movie,

00:26:50.120 but apparently he filled up her room with roses on Valentine's Day.

00:26:54.660 And then she said, I remember thinking on Valentine's Day,

00:26:57.820 oh, he's probably a very good boyfriend because there's a lot of thoughtfulness in this.

00:27:03.200 And then this reporter who wrote this for BBC said that she asked him this question on the red carpet.

00:27:08.660 And he was like, he looked a little startled and paused for a period before answering, oh, yes, yes.

00:27:14.960 And then there are the matching signet rings Robbie gifted to Allurety.

00:27:20.460 And the rings were words from Bronte, the author of the original book saying,

00:27:27.660 whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same.

00:27:32.180 And they were posing with these matching rings saying that.

00:27:35.960 Anyways, now people are like, is this okay?

00:27:38.440 I also thought about the idea if it was a man who had a newborn basically at home,

00:27:44.360 if it would be okay for people to speculate if there was something going on romantically there.

00:27:50.360 And why do they want to plant these ideas in our heads just to sell movie tickets?

00:27:56.480 I think it's quite unethical.

00:27:58.160 Let me know what you think about this.

00:27:59.840 I also hate when they're trying to trick us into watching their movies.

00:28:03.900 And I think sometimes when they are pushing the movie like this and they're trying to make up a story behind the scenes,

00:28:11.740 that's usually when the movie is not that good.

00:28:15.520 And I've heard a lot of people, I haven't watched it myself yet,

00:28:18.760 but I heard a lot of people trashing this movie saying it's awful.

00:28:21.880 But apparently the box office numbers are good.

00:28:25.140 So this maybe have worked.

00:28:26.920 I don't know.

00:28:27.600 But I just feel like I'm kind of tired of people in Hollywood trying to trick us

00:28:31.580 into believing something that's not true.

00:28:34.280 And if it was true, it would be terrible.

00:28:37.760 She'd be cheating on her husband with Jacob Elordi while she has a little baby at home. 1.00

00:28:42.760 That wouldn't be a great look for Margot Robbie. 1.00

00:28:45.220 I remember, by the way, when I did these press junkets myself,

00:28:48.440 if they knew that the movie wasn't going to be a hit,

00:28:51.760 it was kind of obvious that the talents, as we call them,

00:28:54.860 didn't want to talk about the movie necessarily.

00:28:57.080 They were more interested in talking about other things,

00:29:00.520 things that maybe could go viral so they would get some attention around the film.

00:29:05.260 Because if the critics didn't like it, people might listen to the critics.

00:29:09.680 So instead, they wanted to plant other stories out there

00:29:12.980 so that the movie would get attention in another way.

00:29:15.560 Anyways, I also saw a lot of people talk about this,

00:29:18.320 which is something that I'm quite passionate about as well.

00:29:21.800 How can Margot Robbie play this part? 1.00

00:29:23.900 She's a 35-year-old actress and this character is supposed to be between 16 and 18 years old.

00:29:30.860 That's one major issue here.

00:29:33.060 Another thing is, her skin is flawless, her teeth are pearly white,

00:29:39.920 it looks like she just came out of the spa,

00:29:42.800 her forehead is filled with Botox, her brows are perfectly shaped,

00:29:48.300 she doesn't belong in the 1790s.

00:29:51.540 She looks like a woman from 2026.

00:29:54.840 Another problem is when you're trying to portray someone that's so tormented and traumatized

00:30:01.620 and in so much pain, and you can't move your face to show your feelings

00:30:06.740 because it's so stiff from Botox.

00:30:09.300 You could maybe sell a story that's based in today,

00:30:12.740 because a lot of women look like that today. 1.00

00:30:15.080 And I'm not bashing people doing Botox or doing anything to their face.

00:30:18.360 I'm just saying that if you take a person from today with that kind of look

00:30:22.240 and put them in costumes from 1790 or 1800s, it looks really weird.

00:30:29.940 The Brits did it much better.

00:30:31.500 They actually put real people in there with real bad teeth

00:30:34.840 that look like they could have belonged in that era.

00:30:37.620 I actually asked ChatGPT what Margot Robbie's character would look like

00:30:43.440 if she was 35 years old in this century.

00:30:47.980 And it made this photo of her.

00:30:49.980 I think that's what she should have looked like in that movie. 1.00

00:30:53.180 But then again, she was not 35, this character.

00:30:56.680 She was supposed to be between 16 and 18.

00:30:59.280 So then she probably should look more like this,

00:31:03.300 which is the younger version of this person.

00:31:05.840 And when you put her next to what Margot Robbie looked like,

00:31:10.000 I mean, how is that believable in any way?

00:31:13.380 Yes, and how can we relate to her pain when we can't see her pain on her face?

00:31:19.260 I love how Amanda Seyfried put this when she was interviewed

00:31:22.480 about the role that she had in the movie called The Testament of Anne Lee,

00:31:27.580 a movie that's directed by a Norwegian director, by the way.

00:31:30.680 Her name is Mona Fastwell.

00:31:31.820 And she told Amanda, you can't do Botox for a year when you're playing this character.

00:31:36.880 That's also a period piece.

00:31:39.120 And Mona didn't want a Botox face in her movie because she wanted the expressions. 0.97

00:31:45.100 She wanted the emotions to look real.

00:31:47.680 And people back then didn't have Botox.

00:31:50.100 And Amanda actually admitted in interviews that she loves Botox 1.00

00:31:53.800 and she takes Botox regularly.

00:31:55.440 But she also feels like you need to do some sacrifices for a role.

00:32:00.760 As I said before, it's really hard for me to watch a movie with Nicole Kidman these days

00:32:05.180 because I just don't believe her characters.

00:32:08.740 She can't play anything else than a privileged white woman with first world problems. 0.99

00:32:13.800 I also, by the way, had to ask Chatubiti what Nicole Kidman would look like 0.99

00:32:18.820 if she had aged gracefully.

00:32:21.200 And this is the result.

00:32:23.660 I don't know if you put the pictures next to each other.

00:32:26.000 Which look do you prefer?

00:32:27.700 I'm not saying that people shouldn't do Botox or fillers or whatever you feel like.

00:32:31.380 I've done Botox in the past myself.

00:32:33.320 But if you want us to go and watch your movie and believe you in that movie,

00:32:38.820 you also have to play the part.

00:32:40.880 And if your face is not moving, we're not going to believe you.

00:32:43.980 Anyways, that's it from you guys.

00:32:45.420 I hope you enjoyed this episode.

00:32:46.900 Thank you so much for watching.

00:32:48.380 And if you haven't yet, please subscribe, hit the notification bell

00:32:52.420 so you never miss an episode of Lawsome Talk.

00:32:54.700 And I'll see you soon.

00:32:56.140 Bye.

Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - February 17, 2026

New DRAMATIC Turn !!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript