Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

The boots clip was disturbing to me because she was giving bedroom eyes to every man on that crew while her boobs were spilling out. I think she even wanted one to help her up, but they gave her a chair. They were completely uninterested probably very wary of her since she had already gotten some assistant directors fired.

She looked absolutely desperate for attention. I think she is mentally unwell. Maybe there were some postpartum issues or something going on but that was not right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I don't think Blake was sexually harassed. But one question I keep coming back to is: Did she lie about sexual harassment, knowing that she wasn't? Or does she personally believe she actually was sexually harassed?

It's hard to believe the latter based on the way she and Ryan have treated this whole situation (Blake kissing Justin unscripted, Ryan making jokes about Justin, Blake being so flippant about domestic abuse in interviews).

But she did ostensibly get so bothered about Justin at one point that she and Ryan came up with that list and Ryan berated Justin over it. And it's hard for me to wrap my head around her being a complete sociopathic liar.

Does anyone have a good unified theory explaining all of this?

I don't know if this is a good, unified theory as you say, but my 17 yr old DD pointed out to me that in pretty much every movie she has made, BL has got it on with a co-star. She thinks that either this happened on this movie, or BL made a pass at him that was rejected, or she is just dealing with some deep seated need for affirmation with him that has backfired in her relationship with RR. Then this lawsuit is her public apology / get out clause with RR to keep their marriage on track and untainted (in his eyes).

PP At the start of this case, I didn't really believe the whole BL wanted attention from JB and it went awry, or that Ryan Reynolds was that controlling and influenced what went on, but as more time goes on, I feel like one or both of these things are the only things that would help this case make more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I don't think Blake was sexually harassed. But one question I keep coming back to is: Did she lie about sexual harassment, knowing that she wasn't? Or does she personally believe she actually was sexually harassed?

It's hard to believe the latter based on the way she and Ryan have treated this whole situation (Blake kissing Justin unscripted, Ryan making jokes about Justin, Blake being so flippant about domestic abuse in interviews).

But she did ostensibly get so bothered about Justin at one point that she and Ryan came up with that list and Ryan berated Justin over it. And it's hard for me to wrap my head around her being a complete sociopathic liar.

Does anyone have a good unified theory explaining all of this?

I’m not sure what she actually thinks. What is interesting to me is that she really did feel that her ideas were dismissed and not taken seriously which can absolutely be a form of sexual harassment. the problem is she was hired as an actress for this movie and not a director and a writer. And actually doing things like writing scenes as we know violates Guild rules because people were complaining that Ryan might have.

I can’t very well go into another department at work start telling them what to do and then when my ideas get dismissed complain it’s because I’m a woman. It’s actually because it’s not my job to tell that department what to do.

It’s clear she felt really dismissed and not taken seriously but that’s not Wayfarers fault. And at the end of the day, it seems like even Justin said she got 98% of what she wanted, including the movie, cut, etc..

The other form of sexual harassment that she is alleged is things like him being a sleaze onset. Consider considering that probably happens on every Hollywood set I was really behind Blake on this one at first.

But that is just not tracking because I’ve seen a ton of videos that show otherwise. As other people have said, while using the term sexy may not be appropriate at an accounting firm, when they are talking about her character and how she should look it is perfectly appropriate. Especially when we’ve now seen Blake text and say that word onset multiple times to many different people.

The bar scene is an absolute joke. Justin is literally calling for a toothpick to get something out of her teeth. He could not be more professional or seem less like he is coming onto her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I don't think Blake was sexually harassed. But one question I keep coming back to is: Did she lie about sexual harassment, knowing that she wasn't? Or does she personally believe she actually was sexually harassed?

It's hard to believe the latter based on the way she and Ryan have treated this whole situation (Blake kissing Justin unscripted, Ryan making jokes about Justin, Blake being so flippant about domestic abuse in interviews).

But she did ostensibly get so bothered about Justin at one point that she and Ryan came up with that list and Ryan berated Justin over it. And it's hard for me to wrap my head around her being a complete sociopathic liar.

Does anyone have a good unified theory explaining all of this?

I have a theory. I don’t think this was premeditated. I think Blake and Justin didn’t get along and Blake used her power to be a big a-hole. It all would’ve been fine but SJ showed her those texts and Blake really thought the WF parties were trying to smear here. Blake then went to her lawyers and they likely explained to her that retaliation while it sucks is not actionable unless tied to protected activity. Enter the SH. That’s why the SH never made sense. They were cobbling together any minor example they could think of to try to fit the definition of pervasive to give their retaliation claim legs, which it just doesn’t have without SH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I don't think Blake was sexually harassed. But one question I keep coming back to is: Did she lie about sexual harassment, knowing that she wasn't? Or does she personally believe she actually was sexually harassed?

It's hard to believe the latter based on the way she and Ryan have treated this whole situation (Blake kissing Justin unscripted, Ryan making jokes about Justin, Blake being so flippant about domestic abuse in interviews).

But she did ostensibly get so bothered about Justin at one point that she and Ryan came up with that list and Ryan berated Justin over it. And it's hard for me to wrap my head around her being a complete sociopathic liar.

Does anyone have a good unified theory explaining all of this?

I don't know if this is a good, unified theory as you say, but my 17 yr old DD pointed out to me that in pretty much every movie she has made, BL has got it on with a co-star. She thinks that either this happened on this movie, or BL made a pass at him that was rejected, or she is just dealing with some deep seated need for affirmation with him that has backfired in her relationship with RR. Then this lawsuit is her public apology / get out clause with RR to keep their marriage on track and untainted (in his eyes).

This came up early on as a possibility. Specifically that Blake was pretty inappropriate with Justin in early texts that were not reciprocated at all and the complaints really started when RR came back from Australia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I don't think Blake was sexually harassed. But one question I keep coming back to is: Did she lie about sexual harassment, knowing that she wasn't? Or does she personally believe she actually was sexually harassed?

It's hard to believe the latter based on the way she and Ryan have treated this whole situation (Blake kissing Justin unscripted, Ryan making jokes about Justin, Blake being so flippant about domestic abuse in interviews).

But she did ostensibly get so bothered about Justin at one point that she and Ryan came up with that list and Ryan berated Justin over it. And it's hard for me to wrap my head around her being a complete sociopathic liar.

Does anyone have a good unified theory explaining all of this?

I have a theory. I don’t think this was premeditated. I think Blake and Justin didn’t get along and Blake used her power to be a big a-hole. It all would’ve been fine but SJ showed her those texts and Blake really thought the WF parties were trying to smear here. Blake then went to her lawyers and they likely explained to her that retaliation while it sucks is not actionable unless tied to protected activity. Enter the SH. That’s why the SH never made sense. They were cobbling together any minor example they could think of to try to fit the definition of pervasive to give their retaliation claim legs, which it just doesn’t have without SH.

+1

This is more or less what I've always thought. I do think she must have been legitimately annoyed during filming. I can see her being the type that would be like "I can say sexy, but if you say it to me, I'm offended." I think something happened enough that she was refusing to come back to the set unless they signed that demand letter with the 17 points. I know she's known as difficult, but I've never heard about her, or any other actress, going that far as to get lawyers involved before she'll continue filming. I will accept that she, subjectively, must have felt uncomfortable to go that far. (but does not IMO meet the reasonable juror, objective SH standard based on what we've seen). Wayfarer has a good argument that whatever it was, they remediated it because there were zero incidents during the second half when all the intimate scenes were filmed, and that's how it's supposed to work... you're uncomfortable with some minor comments and actions like hugging, you go to HR, and the behaviors stop.

Then she has a slew of bad press and I'm sure many actors have had feelings like "someone is out to get me" but they will never know for sure. In her case Abel got sloppy, and Jones gets actual texts of someone saying "we can't write we want to destroy her." She gets super upset and wants to sue. There's zero evidence they published anything defamatory about her, so the only way for the boosting of negative stories and comments to be illegal is for it to be retaliation, and then it was a matter of having to really dig down and recast these rather mundane interactions as severe and pervasive SH. And it certainly was very compelling when written out in her CRD, but with video, it just falls apart.

[Anonymous]

Birthing scene attire apparently on the video that was too big for docket. Stay tuned as it’s coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Birthing scene attire apparently on the video that was too big for docket. Stay tuned as it’s coming.

Ohhhh!

[Anonymous]

Regarding the birth scene, this is Steve Sarowitz's response to a deposition question about whether he was on set the day the birth scene was filmed: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1owpdq9/the_funniest_depo_response_in_wayfarers_msj/

People in the comments seem to be persuaded by his argument here but it actually seems really dicey to me. Like "I paid her salary so I can be on set during a scene where she is barely clothed if I want." Obviously "non-essential personnel" refers to people who are needed to actually film the scene in question, since an actor was only partially clothed and deserves some dignity and privacy in that setting. Sarowitz was non-essential, as any investor or producer would be. His attitude strikes me as really toxic and I'd be very surprised if other actresses would want to work with Wayfarer or Sarowitz if this is his attitude. He funded the movie presumably because he wanted to make a movie, not so he could see his female star in various states of undress up close.

I don't know why the people in the comments on Reddit think this is good for Wayfarer. I think this would play very badly in front of a jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I don't think Blake was sexually harassed. But one question I keep coming back to is: Did she lie about sexual harassment, knowing that she wasn't? Or does she personally believe she actually was sexually harassed?

It's hard to believe the latter based on the way she and Ryan have treated this whole situation (Blake kissing Justin unscripted, Ryan making jokes about Justin, Blake being so flippant about domestic abuse in interviews).

But she did ostensibly get so bothered about Justin at one point that she and Ryan came up with that list and Ryan berated Justin over it. And it's hard for me to wrap my head around her being a complete sociopathic liar.

Does anyone have a good unified theory explaining all of this?

I have a theory. I don’t think this was premeditated. I think Blake and Justin didn’t get along and Blake used her power to be a big a-hole. It all would’ve been fine but SJ showed her those texts and Blake really thought the WF parties were trying to smear here. Blake then went to her lawyers and they likely explained to her that retaliation while it sucks is not actionable unless tied to protected activity. Enter the SH. That’s why the SH never made sense. They were cobbling together any minor example they could think of to try to fit the definition of pervasive to give their retaliation claim legs, which it just doesn’t have without SH.

+1

This is more or less what I've always thought. I do think she must have been legitimately annoyed during filming. I can see her being the type that would be like "I can say sexy, but if you say it to me, I'm offended." I think something happened enough that she was refusing to come back to the set unless they signed that demand letter with the 17 points. I know she's known as difficult, but I've never heard about her, or any other actress, going that far as to get lawyers involved before she'll continue filming. I will accept that she, subjectively, must have felt uncomfortable to go that far. (but does not IMO meet the reasonable juror, objective SH standard based on what we've seen). Wayfarer has a good argument that whatever it was, they remediated it because there were zero incidents during the second half when all the intimate scenes were filmed, and that's how it's supposed to work... you're uncomfortable with some minor comments and actions like hugging, you go to HR, and the behaviors stop.

Then she has a slew of bad press and I'm sure many actors have had feelings like "someone is out to get me" but they will never know for sure. In her case Abel got sloppy, and Jones gets actual texts of someone saying "we can't write we want to destroy her." She gets super upset and wants to sue. There's zero evidence they published anything defamatory about her, so the only way for the boosting of negative stories and comments to be illegal is for it to be retaliation, and then it was a matter of having to really dig down and recast these rather mundane interactions as severe and pervasive SH. And it certainly was very compelling when written out in her CRD, but with video, it just falls apart.

I think the problem with this is that if there is evidence that they sought to discredit Lively in the press specifically to undermine her if she ever spoke up about the problems on set during the first part of filming, that looks retaliatory. And is actually very in keeping with why retaliation laws even exist, because this has long been a problem for people who experience sexual harassment at work. A person gets harassed at work, they report it, the employer bad mouths the employee all over town so no one believes them.

I don't know if Lively was SHed but I do think she believed herself to be. Most companies understand that in that situation, you have to be careful about how you treat an employee lodging harassment allegations specifically to avoid a retaliation claim. It is often one of the first things an HR professional will tell the employer in these situations -- do not discuss this matter with anyone, and do not discuss the employee with anyone, and especially do not say negative things about this employee to anyone. It's like Rule #1.

[Anonymous]

Lol, Sarowitz does sound like a major ass. There was also a text chain where he wanted to meet with Lively and remind her who was funding this project. But it seems to be fairly well established by testimony that he was only there later in the day, not during that scene, so it is another attempt by Lively to make it all sound worse than it is. And then Sarowitz could not have just left it at that, and has to make these totally gratuitous comments about being non-essential, just like he had to make those Hamas comments to Ayoub.

This is why I find it so easy to stay neutral on this case. They are all horrible!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the birth scene, this is Steve Sarowitz's response to a deposition question about whether he was on set the day the birth scene was filmed: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1owpdq9/the_funniest_depo_response_in_wayfarers_msj/

People in the comments seem to be persuaded by his argument here but it actually seems really dicey to me. Like "I paid her salary so I can be on set during a scene where she is barely clothed if I want." Obviously "non-essential personnel" refers to people who are needed to actually film the scene in question, since an actor was only partially clothed and deserves some dignity and privacy in that setting. Sarowitz was non-essential, as any investor or producer would be. His attitude strikes me as really toxic and I'd be very surprised if other actresses would want to work with Wayfarer or Sarowitz if this is his attitude. He funded the movie presumably because he wanted to make a movie, not so he could see his female star in various states of undress up close.

I don't know why the people in the comments on Reddit think this is good for Wayfarer. I think this would play very badly in front of a jury.

Yep it will remind jurors of every jerk they ever worked for who thought they should just be glad they have a job and take whatever shit is shoveled their way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol, Sarowitz does sound like a major ass. There was also a text chain where he wanted to meet with Lively and remind her who was funding this project. But it seems to be fairly well established by testimony that he was only there later in the day, not during that scene, so it is another attempt by Lively to make it all sound worse than it is. And then Sarowitz could not have just left it at that, and has to make these totally gratuitous comments about being non-essential, just like he had to make those Hamas comments to Ayoub.

This is why I find it so easy to stay neutral on this case. They are all horrible!

Yes, I'm the PP who posted the Sarowitz depo link and I agree -- it doesn't prove he was there for the birthing scene. It's more that I was really almost shocked by his language there and how aggressive and, well, mean he sounds. And yeah, you combine it with the Hamas comment and other stuff coming out about what he's said and he just seems like a really awful person.

It's hard to imagine him testifying at trial and being sympathetic. I can't think of anyone I find less sympathetic at this particular point in time than a billionaire who thinks he's allowed to do whatever he wants to whomever he wants simply because he's rich. Like that's never been a good look but it's extra bad in 2025. Gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the birth scene, this is Steve Sarowitz's response to a deposition question about whether he was on set the day the birth scene was filmed: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1owpdq9/the_funniest_depo_response_in_wayfarers_msj/

People in the comments seem to be persuaded by his argument here but it actually seems really dicey to me. Like "I paid her salary so I can be on set during a scene where she is barely clothed if I want." Obviously "non-essential personnel" refers to people who are needed to actually film the scene in question, since an actor was only partially clothed and deserves some dignity and privacy in that setting. Sarowitz was non-essential, as any investor or producer would be. His attitude strikes me as really toxic and I'd be very surprised if other actresses would want to work with Wayfarer or Sarowitz if this is his attitude. He funded the movie presumably because he wanted to make a movie, not so he could see his female star in various states of undress up close.

I don't know why the people in the comments on Reddit think this is good for Wayfarer. I think this would play very badly in front of a jury.

Yep it will remind jurors of every jerk they ever worked for who thought they should just be glad they have a job and take whatever shit is shoveled their way.

100%, that was my knee jerk reaction, to think of people I've worked for who have this attitude.

It's also not really true. Like yes, Sarowitz was bankrolling the movie. But the idea that the movie only exists because of him is false. There are other people with money. I would argue that Colleen Hoover was far more important for that movie coming into existence than Steve Sarowitz, because she not only created the story but she sold it to people and developed enough of a fan base to create a kind of built-in audience for the movie. And I'd also argue that the name recognition of having Blake Lively signed onto the movie is as important to the movie as Sarowitz's contribution. There's a bunch of dudes with money. But being an actor with a following, whose name and face might motivate people to go out and spend $20 on a movie ticket in an actual theater? That's actually a lot more rare.

And I don't say that as a Blake Lively fan -- I wouldn't go see a movie because she was in it and never have (never saw this movie). I also don't read Colleen Hoover books! But the idea that their contributions are nothing because Steve Sarowitz has $30 million dollars? Nope, I value the contributions of writers, actors, directors, performers over some guy with a bank account. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the birth scene, this is Steve Sarowitz's response to a deposition question about whether he was on set the day the birth scene was filmed: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1owpdq9/the_funniest_depo_response_in_wayfarers_msj/

People in the comments seem to be persuaded by his argument here but it actually seems really dicey to me. Like "I paid her salary so I can be on set during a scene where she is barely clothed if I want." Obviously "non-essential personnel" refers to people who are needed to actually film the scene in question, since an actor was only partially clothed and deserves some dignity and privacy in that setting. Sarowitz was non-essential, as any investor or producer would be. His attitude strikes me as really toxic and I'd be very surprised if other actresses would want to work with Wayfarer or Sarowitz if this is his attitude. He funded the movie presumably because he wanted to make a movie, not so he could see his female star in various states of undress up close.

I don't know why the people in the comments on Reddit think this is good for Wayfarer. I think this would play very badly in front of a jury.

Yep it will remind jurors of every jerk they ever worked for who thought they should just be glad they have a job and take whatever shit is shoveled their way.

100%, that was my knee jerk reaction, to think of people I've worked for who have this attitude.

It's also not really true. Like yes, Sarowitz was bankrolling the movie. But the idea that the movie only exists because of him is false. There are other people with money. I would argue that Colleen Hoover was far more important for that movie coming into existence than Steve Sarowitz, because she not only created the story but she sold it to people and developed enough of a fan base to create a kind of built-in audience for the movie. And I'd also argue that the name recognition of having Blake Lively signed onto the movie is as important to the movie as Sarowitz's contribution. There's a bunch of dudes with money. But being an actor with a following, whose name and face might motivate people to go out and spend $20 on a movie ticket in an actual theater? That's actually a lot more rare.

And I don't say that as a Blake Lively fan -- I wouldn't go see a movie because she was in it and never have (never saw this movie). I also don't read Colleen Hoover books! But the idea that their contributions are nothing because Steve Sarowitz has $30 million dollars? Nope, I value the contributions of writers, actors, directors, performers over some guy with a bank account. Sorry.

He sounds like an evil megalomaniac. Probably a nightmare to deal with.