Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[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.

I will never support a billionaire so I'm not going to write fawning messages about Steve like other JB supporters have on the IEWU sub. But making a movie is a privilege. It's a little miracle, actually, with how much Hollywood is in decline. It really is a gift to be able to have investors pony up millions of dollars for a production. Producers shouldn't be given the leeway to do whatever they want as a result, but they are respected for the resources they pour into a film. It's why Chloe Zhao (Oscar winner) says she never takes it for granted when investors give her money to make films.

And lol, you are so naive. Actresses have encountered way worse than Steve, who doesn't even seem to have done anything bad on this set.

[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.

I will never support a billionaire so I'm not going to write fawning messages about Steve like other JB supporters have on the IEWU sub. But making a movie is a privilege. It's a little miracle, actually, with how much Hollywood is in decline. It really is a gift to be able to have investors pony up millions of dollars for a production. Producers shouldn't be given the leeway to do whatever they want as a result, but they are respected for the resources they pour into a film. It's why Chloe Zhao (Oscar winner) says she never takes it for granted when investors give her money to make films.

And lol, you are so naive. Actresses have encountered way worse than Steve, who doesn't even seem to have done anything bad on this set.

The whole case against Blake seems to boil down to likability. Steve doesn't come across as very likable. How do you really think that is going to play out?

[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.

I will never support a billionaire so I'm not going to write fawning messages about Steve like other JB supporters have on the IEWU sub. But making a movie is a privilege. It's a little miracle, actually, with how much Hollywood is in decline. It really is a gift to be able to have investors pony up millions of dollars for a production. Producers shouldn't be given the leeway to do whatever they want as a result, but they are respected for the resources they pour into a film. It's why Chloe Zhao (Oscar winner) says she never takes it for granted when investors give her money to make films.

And lol, you are so naive. Actresses have encountered way worse than Steve, who doesn't even seem to have done anything bad on this set.

But without Lively signing on to the movie, would Sony have agreed to do distribution? That helped Sarowitz earn his investment back and then some. His investment was not a "gift" -- he got it back.

I think he wants it both ways. He wants the benefits that having Lively in that role offered him and the movie, but he thinks she should have to grovel and be willing to do anything to please him because "he's paying." This is a very obnoxious attitude and if I were a Hollywood actress who has some choice in projects, I would choose not to work with someone who has that attitude. It's disturbing.

I don't even care how these comments impact the case -- they probably have no impact. I'm just saying it's wild to me that he's saying this stuff in depositions with a lawyer sitting next to him. This is not good for Wayfarer. Even if it's what lots of producers/investors secretly think, saying it out loud on the record in a case where you know it will be widely viewed is stupid. He sounds like a total a$$hole.

[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.

I will never support a billionaire so I'm not going to write fawning messages about Steve like other JB supporters have on the IEWU sub. But making a movie is a privilege. It's a little miracle, actually, with how much Hollywood is in decline. It really is a gift to be able to have investors pony up millions of dollars for a production. Producers shouldn't be given the leeway to do whatever they want as a result, but they are respected for the resources they pour into a film. It's why Chloe Zhao (Oscar winner) says she never takes it for granted when investors give her money to make films.

And lol, you are so naive. Actresses have encountered way worse than Steve, who doesn't even seem to have done anything bad on this set.

The whole case against Blake seems to boil down to likability. Steve doesn't come across as very likable. How do you really think that is going to play out?

The burden of proof is on Blake. What matters more in this case is how likable Blake is. No one cares about how Steve comes off other than the weirdos on BaldoniFiles.

[Anonymous]

This bit from Jamey Heath's depo is fascinating: https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1owif3p/ryan_berated_justin_for_56_hours_during_the/

This is Heath describing the return to work meeting (the one with the 17 point list):

"When this first -- when she first started reading a couple of her things and Justin was hearing this, taking this in, and trying to make sense of it, he was frozen by hearing this stuff. And instead of -- well, let me not say instead of -- and his reaction was -- was that he was being a coward. That what you do when a woman says this to you and points out these things, you just stand up and you just apologize and apologize. And Justin was just like, but I didn't do this. And then he raised his voice and used some language and insinuated that he was not a good guy."

The link is from the Baldoni sub so of course the focus is on Ryan's behavior towards Baldoni. Which I think is interesting but also... this is a fascinating way to describe this interaction on Baldoni's side. Heath is saying that Baldoni was cowardly, that instead of owning up to his behavior and apologizing, he started denying it, and it became contentious. And this is from Heath, so obviously a more sympathetic testimony here.

This paints a complicated picture. Which I've always felt was the case. It really sounds like Baldoni was in WAY over his head with this project. Blake clearly has a difficult personality but when you are the boss... that's life. It really sounds like both Blake and Baldoni did stuff to make this conflict worse and worse.

It's just interesting to me that Heath here is basically criticizing Baldoni's response. I also think it tends to undercut the criticism of Ryan because if Baldoni was just denying all of it or refusing to take any responsibility for behavior on set (he's the director, even if he didn't cause problems on set, they are still his responsibility), I could see that making a hot head like Reynolds even angrier. Not defending Reynolds' behavior either, just noting it takes two to tango here.

This case is so fascinating to me. I love being a looky loo on this one.

[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.

I will never support a billionaire so I'm not going to write fawning messages about Steve like other JB supporters have on the IEWU sub. But making a movie is a privilege. It's a little miracle, actually, with how much Hollywood is in decline. It really is a gift to be able to have investors pony up millions of dollars for a production. Producers shouldn't be given the leeway to do whatever they want as a result, but they are respected for the resources they pour into a film. It's why Chloe Zhao (Oscar winner) says she never takes it for granted when investors give her money to make films.

And lol, you are so naive. Actresses have encountered way worse than Steve, who doesn't even seem to have done anything bad on this set.

But without Lively signing on to the movie, would Sony have agreed to do distribution? That helped Sarowitz earn his investment back and then some. His investment was not a "gift" -- he got it back.

I think he wants it both ways. He wants the benefits that having Lively in that role offered him and the movie, but he thinks she should have to grovel and be willing to do anything to please him because "he's paying." This is a very obnoxious attitude and if I were a Hollywood actress who has some choice in projects, I would choose not to work with someone who has that attitude. It's disturbing.

I don't even care how these comments impact the case -- they probably have no impact. I'm just saying it's wild to me that he's saying this stuff in depositions with a lawyer sitting next to him. This is not good for Wayfarer. Even if it's what lots of producers/investors secretly think, saying it out loud on the record in a case where you know it will be widely viewed is stupid. He sounds like a total a$$hole.

Actresses won’t care, especially when Steve wasn’t really on set, especially on the day Blake claimed he was. You’re overthinking this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This bit from Jamey Heath's depo is fascinating: https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1owif3p/ryan_berated_justin_for_56_hours_during_the/

This is Heath describing the return to work meeting (the one with the 17 point list):

"When this first -- when she first started reading a couple of her things and Justin was hearing this, taking this in, and trying to make sense of it, he was frozen by hearing this stuff. And instead of -- well, let me not say instead of -- and his reaction was -- was that he was being a coward. That what you do when a woman says this to you and points out these things, you just stand up and you just apologize and apologize. And Justin was just like, but I didn't do this. And then he raised his voice and used some language and insinuated that he was not a good guy."

The link is from the Baldoni sub so of course the focus is on Ryan's behavior towards Baldoni. Which I think is interesting but also... this is a fascinating way to describe this interaction on Baldoni's side. Heath is saying that Baldoni was cowardly, that instead of owning up to his behavior and apologizing, he started denying it, and it became contentious. And this is from Heath, so obviously a more sympathetic testimony here.

This paints a complicated picture. Which I've always felt was the case. It really sounds like Baldoni was in WAY over his head with this project. Blake clearly has a difficult personality but when you are the boss... that's life. It really sounds like both Blake and Baldoni did stuff to make this conflict worse and worse.

It's just interesting to me that Heath here is basically criticizing Baldoni's response. I also think it tends to undercut the criticism of Ryan because if Baldoni was just denying all of it or refusing to take any responsibility for behavior on set (he's the director, even if he didn't cause problems on set, they are still his responsibility), I could see that making a hot head like Reynolds even angrier. Not defending Reynolds' behavior either, just noting it takes two to tango here.

This case is so fascinating to me. I love being a looky loo on this one.

Every director is on over their head, which is why many become tyrants. Movie making is a lot of pressure. Directors just don’t have the misfortune of having their ship-running being scrutinized due to a high profile court case.

You really are trying to make something out of nothing

[Anonymous]

Come on people. The people who were saying that Steve Sarowitz is a jerk and jurors will see that are completely spinning this and missing the biggest part of that deposition, which is that Blake lively lied.

Blake said that Steve was onset during that scene and she felt uncomfortable, and he said under oath that he didn’t arrive until later in the day. That was also a fact that was established before this deposition when Baldoni and team posted the timeline that sorrows did not arrive until well after that scene was shot.

Was it appropriate for him to say he had the right to be there? No, and he does look like an ass. But the most important part of this whole thing is that Blake was caught in a lie. She said that he was on set and she felt uncomfortable during a scene where she was undressed and we find out later he was not on set until after that scene was shot. She lied. Lied. Lied.

Assuming jurors are going to side with her in that and say, well, she lied, but he IS an ass so…..is really something.

[Anonymous]

Pro-Blake supporters are so funny. “Well, what about THIS inconsequential thing!” *proceeds to write pages and pages of analysis over something meaningless*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I will never support a billionaire so I'm not going to write fawning messages about Steve like other JB supporters have on the IEWU sub. But making a movie is a privilege. It's a little miracle, actually, with how much Hollywood is in decline. It really is a gift to be able to have investors pony up millions of dollars for a production. Producers shouldn't be given the leeway to do whatever they want as a result, but they are respected for the resources they pour into a film. It's why Chloe Zhao (Oscar winner) says she never takes it for granted when investors give her money to make films.

And lol, you are so naive. Actresses have encountered way worse than Steve, who doesn't even seem to have done anything bad on this set.

The whole case against Blake seems to boil down to likability. Steve doesn't come across as very likable. How do you really think that is going to play out?

The burden of proof is on Blake. What matters more in this case is how likable Blake is. No one cares about how Steve comes off other than the weirdos on BaldoniFiles.

Oh please. This thread is littered through out about Blake's attitude. Now you want to stick to the facts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro-Blake supporters are so funny. “Well, what about THIS inconsequential thing!” *proceeds to write pages and pages of analysis over something meaningless*

How many pages were devoted to a meaningless interview a decade ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-Blake supporters are so funny. “Well, what about THIS inconsequential thing!” *proceeds to write pages and pages of analysis over something meaningless*

How many pages were devoted to a meaningless interview a decade ago?

That interview got the whole internet to turn against her in 2024. Jury will not be kind to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I will never support a billionaire so I'm not going to write fawning messages about Steve like other JB supporters have on the IEWU sub. But making a movie is a privilege. It's a little miracle, actually, with how much Hollywood is in decline. It really is a gift to be able to have investors pony up millions of dollars for a production. Producers shouldn't be given the leeway to do whatever they want as a result, but they are respected for the resources they pour into a film. It's why Chloe Zhao (Oscar winner) says she never takes it for granted when investors give her money to make films.

And lol, you are so naive. Actresses have encountered way worse than Steve, who doesn't even seem to have done anything bad on this set.

The whole case against Blake seems to boil down to likability. Steve doesn't come across as very likable. How do you really think that is going to play out?

The burden of proof is on Blake. What matters more in this case is how likable Blake is. No one cares about how Steve comes off other than the weirdos on BaldoniFiles.

Oh please. This thread is littered through out about Blake's attitude. Now you want to stick to the facts?

Huh? All I'm saying is Blake's reputation matters more in this case. She and Baldoni are going to be the ones juries fixate on because, well, they're at the center of the case. Steve is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-Blake supporters are so funny. “Well, what about THIS inconsequential thing!” *proceeds to write pages and pages of analysis over something meaningless*

How many pages were devoted to a meaningless interview a decade ago?

Doesn't that prove your point? She's so unlikeable that it fueled pages of discourse around that interview. Exactly. Juries will hate her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-Blake supporters are so funny. “Well, what about THIS inconsequential thing!” *proceeds to write pages and pages of analysis over something meaningless*

How many pages were devoted to a meaningless interview a decade ago?

Doesn't that prove your point? She's so unlikeable that it fueled pages of discourse around that interview. Exactly. Juries will hate her.

*Doesn't that prove our point?