Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

How often do directors also take a lead role as an actor. I heard an interview with the two principles actors from Fellow Travellers and they were talking about how the actors, especially when there is intimacy, have to form their own bond and dynamic and block out directors, writers, producers to really create the scene.

You couldn't do that if trying to direct and act at the same time.

I am not in film but is it common to do both?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If defamation is difficult to prove for a public figure then false light must be nearly impossible.

I am not familiar with this case but I view it as a dependent claim. If he can prove defamation, he can probably prove false light. But if he can't prove defamation, I think it would be hard to impossible to prove false light. But maybe there is something unique about this case, I don't know.

The law prof sort of said the opposite. That Baldoni may be able to prove false light even if his defamation claims fail, which they might because of the fair report privilege.

I personally think the defamation by implication is the most compelling argument

Me too. NYT supposedly saw all the text messages and chose certain ones. Now the content was still unsavory but didn't portray the whole picture at all.

Which is freggin ironic considering the smear campaign against Livey did just that.

As people have repeatedly said, the smear campaign is nothign compared to the negative publicity she has now brought on herself by filing this complaint. As if she didn't remember past texts, videos, and other things from her past (black face video; plantation wedding).

I am just amazed what she has done and seems not to have understood. I think it was hubris. And bad lawyer advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The voicemail is a lot, I would find it annoying. I could much see creepy but nothing hostile or sexual. His team seems to know it doesn’t make him look great and said they are being transparent.

it is a lot. But I guess there is a pattern of them not actually talking directly to each other. He asks to facetime or meet in person. I agree that both seem unprofessional. Blake too.

[Anonymous]

Baldoni is going to be considered a sexual harasser by some people for life — is it wrong of me to assume this guy just thinks he has nothing to lose and will go scorched earth without being willing to settle?

[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:

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

Of course we know the evidence as alleged by Baldoni. I mean I guess you can posit that there was an internal NYTimes hate fest against him to deliberately ignore the emojis but come on.

and the Palin case wasn’t that strong. That’s my WHOLE point. Palin was weak and Baldoni is weaker. At least Palin had proof of a false statement that caused her harm.

[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.

No ma’am, you have it wrong. You need to read the Baldoni complaint. Baldoni didn’t get mad that she did the edits. His entire team thought she was going overboard and pushed him to deliver the message. then she went crazy with her “dragons” - a literal threat!

[Anonymous]

People definitely think there they had feelings for each other evermore so now

[Anonymous]

The dancing scene and the voicemail come across like they were emotionally enmeshed and then Blake spun it as Justin was creepy to Ryan and the whole thing blew up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dancing scene and the voicemail come across like they were emotionally enmeshed and then Blake spun it as Justin was creepy to Ryan and the whole thing blew up.

100 percent this. All of their communications are so intimate.

[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.

No, it was some other designation beyond that that was added later. I will butcher this explanation, but what she requested later was a PGA mark, which is some sort of special certification for the “producer who performed a majority of the producing functions on a specific motion picture in a decision-making capacity.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Agree with this. I think it might ultimately come down to a breach of contract case over Baldoni/Wayfarer agreeing not to "retaliate" against Lively for raising the issues about how the set was being run, and then the PR campaign they launched in August against Lively. It's pretty clear that the texts with the PR firm show they were going after Lively, not merely pumping up or protecting Baldoni. Baldoni/Wayfarer will argue that this was necessary to protect their own brand and not retaliation for Lively's complaints on set. She'll argue it was retaliation. I honestly don't know how it will be resolved.

Ultimately the question of whether what happened on set was sexual harassment or not might not matter. It also might not matter who is "right" about the creative control issues like which version of the movie was released or whether Lively's version of the rooftop scene was filmed. Those are just creative differences and while I can see being upset about it, I don't know that there is anything that can come from it -- everyone involved made a bunch of money and the movie was a success, so there don't really seem to be any damages. To the degree reputations have been harmed, most of that seems self inflicted on both sides because they are both being stubborn and dramatic about it instead of just letting lawyers hammer out some kind of settlement/agreement behind closed doors, which is what would have been best for everyone.

[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:

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.

No, it was some other designation beyond that that was added later. I will butcher this explanation, but what she requested later was a PGA mark, which is some sort of special certification for the “producer who performed a majority of the producing functions on a specific motion picture in a decision-making capacity.”

Correct, there were two debates over her producer credit.

The first happened before filming even started, when they were giving her a producer credit and she wanted "executive producer." A producer credit is fairly meaningless -- lots of actors get them but it doesn't translate to any actual control. Executive producers are generally much more involved.

Baldoni says Wayfarer didn't want to give her EP but she insisted and eventually they gave in. What is unsaid is why -- they could have said no and if it was a dealbreaker, recast the role. It think the reason they didn't is that Lively's involvement was fairly critical to the financial success of the film -- having her in the lead allows them to market the movie at a much higher level, is going to get you way more exposure on social media and in the fashion press. Plus you'll get more coverage of premieres when she's showing up with Ryan Reynolds (she wound up also bringing Hugh Jackman to the premiere which boosts pickup of those photos).

All of which actually is an argument in favor of her getting the executive producer credit. They wanted the benefit of having Lively involved but they wanted her to be silent and compliant on the creative side. But Lively seemed to understand that she had some leverage and she used it. I don't even like Blake Lively as an actress and I am firmly on her side in that. This business screws women over CONSTANTLY. If she has leverage thanks to her fame level, her social media following, and the side businesses she and her husband have, she should use it. A man would.

I wonder if they would have pushed back so hard on her EP credit and her creative involvement if she were a male star doing the same thing. Impossible to know but interesting to think about.

[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:

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.

No, it was some other designation beyond that that was added later. I will butcher this explanation, but what she requested later was a PGA mark, which is some sort of special certification for the “producer who performed a majority of the producing functions on a specific motion picture in a decision-making capacity.”

Correct, there were two debates over her producer credit.

The first happened before filming even started, when they were giving her a producer credit and she wanted "executive producer." A producer credit is fairly meaningless -- lots of actors get them but it doesn't translate to any actual control. Executive producers are generally much more involved.

This is not true at all. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the film business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dancing scene and the voicemail come across like they were emotionally enmeshed and then Blake spun it as Justin was creepy to Ryan and the whole thing blew up.

I don't get "emotionally enmeshed" from either. I do not think they liked each other. In fact I think this is what Baldoni is referring to in the phone call at one point. He says:

"All I have to say is I'm really looking forward to spending time together and I believe that's going to go a long way for our chemistry, which I believe is there. It's been there from the start so I was so damn excited when you agreed to do this film. I believe it comes from us both being so hard working and having a vision."

Emphasis mine. I think their relationship was pretty bad all the way through but because he was also her co-star, and not just the director, everyone understood this could be an issue because they needed to have chemistry onscreen.

It was a mistake for him to direct and co-star. I think it probably became obvious this was a mistake even before they started filming, but they were committed and couldn't fix it. I actually wonder it his would have been an issue no matter who was cast in the female lead because from all these communications it really becomes clear he was in way over his head, trying to maintain this kind of personal chemistry with Lively while also battling her over creative issues and trying to make his producing partners happy AND trying to make Sony happy. And you just see him fumbling through all of it. What a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dancing scene and the voicemail come across like they were emotionally enmeshed and then Blake spun it as Justin was creepy to Ryan and the whole thing blew up.

100 percent this. All of their communications are so intimate.

yeah that wasn't acting