Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Random question-what program is allowing sides to print the text messages out in full and date stamp? I thought could only do screen shots of texts and so would be cut off? Is there app to print whole text chains? It can do that now on iPhones without app?

There’s an app.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New York Times' podcast "The Daily" is about this story today. Meghan Twohey is the guest.

Thank you! I just read the transcript. Great summary of everything.

Summary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

Those cases had MUCH stronger facts - they were outright fabrications by FOX, with a record showing FOX knew they were false. The NYTimes publishes damaging stories about very rich people ALL the time. It is very, very difficult to prove a defamation claim.

also no, you don’t just get to “take a case to a jury” because you have money. The judge decides if the facts are legally sufficient as alleged at the motion to dismiss stage, and if there are any genuine issues in dispute at the summary judgment stage. In a 1A case there are many many legal precedents to draw on for the judge to dispose of the case as a matter of law.

Most individuals can’t afford to bring lawsuits. This case will likely survive a MTD and then it’s on. I don’t think you know this area of the law very well

lol the NYTimes writes about rich and famous people *all the time.* There is not even anything alleged that would be legally sufficient to show actual malice.

What stories does the NYT run that are defamatory about rich people all the time? Curious

well I don’t think the Baldoni story was defamatory, so. the point is the NYTimes pisses off powerful people all the time, yet the only defamation suit to go to trial that I know of (correct me if I am wrong) is Sarah Palin and that one is VERY different - not the least of which the NYTimes knows that the assertion was false. we’re not even anywhere close to that with Baldoni.

What NYT stories are false? Curious.

With Palin, I don’t recall the NYT saying the assertion was false. It was this vague connection being made in an op ed. Such a thin case but it’s been going on for years, and the judge was reversed

Well and she initially lost at trial. If Rakoff hadn’t gone off the rails the case would have been over by now and she would have lost. But in any event her evidence was much stronger. The Op-Ed claimed there was a direct connection between Gabbh Gifford’s shooting with a Palin campaign ad, which there factually was not. they immediately retracted it.

What are you talking about?? The evidence in Palin wasn’t strong. And we certainly don’t know if it’s stronger than the evidence they’ll find in this case. It was an op Ed- so opinion which is supposed to be especially protected speech- and she’s a very public figure which you keep saying is so impossible as a standard, and further there was no malice that could be shown. At worst, a tired editor on many deadlines who forgot to read some materials sent to him by another editor. And the judge let it go to trial. And then was ultimately reversed after he made his wonky decision which arguably affected the jury pool.

I mean it was a stronger case than Baldoni’s and she still lost. Whoever is claiming here that Baldoni has a great defamation claim doesn’t know what they are talking about. And we do know what Baldoni’s evidence was because he put it in his complaint. The idea discovery will uncover some NYTimes animus towards him is just silly.

[Anonymous]

So Blake and Ryan are stupid egomaniacs who muscled this guy’s control, credit and profit of this movie (and sequel?) away from him — using every shameless trick in the book and even Taylor Swift to do it?

This couple is trash.

[Anonymous]

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:Why was the Blake Lively thread locked?

Anyways, a lawyer (or at least one claiming to be) said Justin could have a case if the NYTimes published texts about him and then excluded ones right after if they said "just kidding!" or something.

There actually is kind of an instance of that where a PR person texts that Justin whispered in someone's ear and did other disgusting things...but the NYT excludes the portion where the PR says these are all lies.

To complicate matters even further, I don't see that particular text chain in the piece. I don't know if they updated the story or if they never had it in there in the first place; however, the main NYT reporter for the story did talk this misleading text chain in an Insta post.

They still have to show “actual malice” by the NYT. that high standard was developed specifically to be a sort of safe harbor for the media to make mistakes and yes, even do crappy reporting. because without it, it would be very hard to protect the press from constant litigation and they would withhold a lot of reporting.

People always say this, but it’s not really the full picture at all. The reality is that most journalistic mistakes don’t end up with defamation claims because most people don’t have the money to litigate and these cases are long and slow. But if you have $ to take it to the mat- which Baldoni and his backers seem to- you know you will end up in front of a jury of random people, many of whom don’t trust the ‘main stream media’.

See last year’s Fox old dominion case with a last minute settlement that approached a billion dollars. See the recent Trump settlement for 15m over the difference between rape and sexual assault. Etc

Those cases had MUCH stronger facts - they were outright fabrications by FOX, with a record showing FOX knew they were false. The NYTimes publishes damaging stories about very rich people ALL the time. It is very, very difficult to prove a defamation claim.

also no, you don’t just get to “take a case to a jury” because you have money. The judge decides if the facts are legally sufficient as alleged at the motion to dismiss stage, and if there are any genuine issues in dispute at the summary judgment stage. In a 1A case there are many many legal precedents to draw on for the judge to dispose of the case as a matter of law.

Most individuals can’t afford to bring lawsuits. This case will likely survive a MTD and then it’s on. I don’t think you know this area of the law very well

lol the NYTimes writes about rich and famous people *all the time.* There is not even anything alleged that would be legally sufficient to show actual malice.

What stories does the NYT run that are defamatory about rich people all the time? Curious

well I don’t think the Baldoni story was defamatory, so. the point is the NYTimes pisses off powerful people all the time, yet the only defamation suit to go to trial that I know of (correct me if I am wrong) is Sarah Palin and that one is VERY different - not the least of which the NYTimes knows that the assertion was false. we’re not even anywhere close to that with Baldoni.

What NYT stories are false? Curious.

With Palin, I don’t recall the NYT saying the assertion was false. It was this vague connection being made in an op ed. Such a thin case but it’s been going on for years, and the judge was reversed

Well and she initially lost at trial. If Rakoff hadn’t gone off the rails the case would have been over by now and she would have lost. But in any event her evidence was much stronger. The Op-Ed claimed there was a direct connection between Gabbh Gifford’s shooting with a Palin campaign ad, which there factually was not. they immediately retracted it.

What are you talking about?? The evidence in Palin wasn’t strong. And we certainly don’t know if it’s stronger than the evidence they’ll find in this case. It was an op Ed- so opinion which is supposed to be especially protected speech- and she’s a very public figure which you keep saying is so impossible as a standard, and further there was no malice that could be shown. At worst, a tired editor on many deadlines who forgot to read some materials sent to him by another editor. And the judge let it go to trial. And then was ultimately reversed after he made his wonky decision which arguably affected the jury pool.

I mean it was a stronger case than Baldoni’s and she still lost. Whoever is claiming here that Baldoni has a great defamation claim doesn’t know what they are talking about. And we do know what Baldoni’s evidence was because he put it in his complaint. The idea discovery will uncover some NYTimes animus towards him is just silly.

That Palin case was not strong at all. You’re just plain wrong.

We don’t know all the evidence at all.

It seems that a number of people think Baldoni and his side have a good case, including law professors, experts etc. Not sure if you’re a pro Blake person and just want to shut down anything potentially positive for Jason, but it’s sort of comical how wrong you are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://variety.com/2025/film/news/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-trial-date-march-2026-1236287921/

Hi can someone explain how the trial date has been given so soon? Is it because it's a federal case?

Dude, it’s March 2026. Not 2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

The thing that’s crazy is that HE is the director. He can collaborate but the buck stops with him. They are not co- directing! Would she be this way with Martin Scorsese if he was directing? Hell no! The problem from the beginning was she wanted to star but didn’t respect or trust him as a director and tried to take the reins when she perceived the project going off the rails. He was trying to keep her happy and play ball but it has turned into a big mess. His mistake was not setting clear boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

She was the actress and he was the director. She involved two very high profile people in order to steamroll his directorial vision. This is intimidating and out of line. If she were truly his equal, she would have stayed in her lane and respected his direction and done her job. I think Baldoni seems insufferable based on all his annoying ramblings, but to me she is wrong on this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

I know I’m pedestrian, but how does a mother of 4 stay up until 2 AM and 4AM??

She had a new baby she was breastfeeding. Not uncommon to be up multiple times during the night.

[Anonymous]

I was reading something unrelated about directors and how most actors like a director who really takes charge and who clearly directs and who doesn't look for feedback.

Given how wishy washy and weak as a director Baldoni comes across in these texts and calls, I would say his directing days are over. He could still act again.

Wayfarer has a few other projects still underway. Lively has a A Simple Favor 2 with Anna Kendrick coming out. It will be interesting to see how those go.

[Anonymous]

I think I’m done trying to figure out whose narrative makes more sense. I’ll wait for the trial! My money is on him losing, though, because I don’t necessarily think it will matter whether SH did or did not occur here. Nobody’s going to want to say you can go after a woman who says she feels uncomfortable on set. (Even if the only issue is she was uncomfortable doing intimate scenes with him because she dislikes his personality.) I guess the only question I have is if her list of demands to Wayfair constituted a SH claim. Since one of the demands was “no retaliation” and they signed that, maybe it doesn’t matter?? They said they wouldn’t retaliate, and they did?

In light of all that, can he even win?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

She was the actress and he was the director. She involved two very high profile people in order to steamroll his directorial vision. This is intimidating and out of line. If she were truly his equal, she would have stayed in her lane and respected his direction and done her job. I think Baldoni seems insufferable based on all his annoying ramblings, but to me she is wrong on this point.

She was also an executive producer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

She was the actress and he was the director. She involved two very high profile people in order to steamroll his directorial vision. This is intimidating and out of line. If she were truly his equal, she would have stayed in her lane and respected his direction and done her job. I think Baldoni seems insufferable based on all his annoying ramblings, but to me she is wrong on this point.

She was also an executive producer.

That title was added towards the end when she created her own cut.

[Anonymous]

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:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

She was the actress and he was the director. She involved two very high profile people in order to steamroll his directorial vision. This is intimidating and out of line. If she were truly his equal, she would have stayed in her lane and respected his direction and done her job. I think Baldoni seems insufferable based on all his annoying ramblings, but to me she is wrong on this point.

She was also an executive producer.

That title was added towards the end when she created her own cut.

According to the Baldoni claim, she was an EP from the beginning.