Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Hey, Gottlieb managed to file an amended complaint on time, and people who stayed up waiting for it didn't go to bed all sad, and nobody sent a google doc to popcorn planet guy talking vaguely about other strategies, and presumably Wallace is questioning Lively *right now* haha.

This is crazy. I thought amended complaints were supposed to be promised to the judge, and then promised to the press, and then never filed?!?! What on earth happened and who has blown this? I will never attend this establishment again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Baldoni. You can find suspicious intent in any movie involving sex scenes. That's because they're sex scenes. Once again, Blake stans keep treating this as if it's a white-collar office job and any mention about the choreographing of sex is "Ew, icky!"

It's a movie about domestic violence. I wouldn't find that conversation about the "thrust" out of place among the creators of a movie like American Pie, or a show like Bridgerton. I find it weird that *this* would be the main point of contention on a movie about DV, where most people involved with the movie agree it's about the empowerment of the female protagonist in surviving and escaping DV. My first thought there is not "but wait, do we zoom in on the thrust in the teen sex scene or not???" Just a bizarre fixation there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Baldoni. You can find suspicious intent in any movie involving sex scenes. That's because they're sex scenes. Once again, Blake stans keep treating this as if it's a white-collar office job and any mention about the choreographing of sex is "Ew, icky!"

It's a movie about domestic violence. I wouldn't find that conversation about the "thrust" out of place among the creators of a movie like American Pie, or a show like Bridgerton. I find it weird that *this* would be the main point of contention on a movie about DV, where most people involved with the movie agree it's about the empowerment of the female protagonist in surviving and escaping DV. My first thought there is not "but wait, do we zoom in on the thrust in the teen sex scene or not???" Just a bizarre fixation there.

Young Lily is having sex with the man she ends up with/her true love interest. You’re acting like it’s the love scene between her and her abuser. The only thing bizarre is your fixation with their discussion about how they want the scene to look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Baldoni. You can find suspicious intent in any movie involving sex scenes. That's because they're sex scenes. Once again, Blake stans keep treating this as if it's a white-collar office job and any mention about the choreographing of sex is "Ew, icky!"

It's a movie about domestic violence. I wouldn't find that conversation about the "thrust" out of place among the creators of a movie like American Pie, or a show like Bridgerton. I find it weird that *this* would be the main point of contention on a movie about DV, where most people involved with the movie agree it's about the empowerment of the female protagonist in surviving and escaping DV. My first thought there is not "but wait, do we zoom in on the thrust in the teen sex scene or not???" Just a bizarre fixation there.

NO but I don’t find it that bizarre. They’re spending a lot of money on this movie and they wanted it to make money and be commercially successful. It’s just part of the game. You’re spending months shooting and editing a two hour film so it doesn’t surprise me that the actual editors and related team are slicing and dicing small parts of it. There is a mention about PG-13 so it’s also just practical conversation, if they do a sex scene, it’s got to fall within certain parameters.

TV and film are filled, absolutely filled, with pointless sex scenes. It’s not my taste and I didn’t go into this business but I think silly to pick apart conversations that are typical on this movie.

It’s a movie about domestic violence and blah blah blah, but notice that they didn’t pick an actress who was not thin, fit, traditionally pretty, and I can go on. Justin Baldoni played a neurosurgeon, but come on, they didn’t say let’s pick someone who looks incredibly smart and like he did really well in medical school. They picked a good looking guy. And technically they didn’t have to do any sex scenes, as most movies don’t and could still be able to move the story along, but they made a choice to have a teen sex scene, and other sex scenes, with attractive people, as countless other movies and shows do. This is still Hollywood people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Baldoni. You can find suspicious intent in any movie involving sex scenes. That's because they're sex scenes. Once again, Blake stans keep treating this as if it's a white-collar office job and any mention about the choreographing of sex is "Ew, icky!"

It's a movie about domestic violence. I wouldn't find that conversation about the "thrust" out of place among the creators of a movie like American Pie, or a show like Bridgerton. I find it weird that *this* would be the main point of contention on a movie about DV, where most people involved with the movie agree it's about the empowerment of the female protagonist in surviving and escaping DV. My first thought there is not "but wait, do we zoom in on the thrust in the teen sex scene or not???" Just a bizarre fixation there.

NO but I don’t find it that bizarre. They’re spending a lot of money on this movie and they wanted it to make money and be commercially successful. It’s just part of the game. You’re spending months shooting and editing a two hour film so it doesn’t surprise me that the actual editors and related team are slicing and dicing small parts of it. There is a mention about PG-13 so it’s also just practical conversation, if they do a sex scene, it’s got to fall within certain parameters.

TV and film are filled, absolutely filled, with pointless sex scenes. It’s not my taste and I didn’t go into this business but I think silly to pick apart conversations that are typical on this movie.

It’s a movie about domestic violence and blah blah blah, but notice that they didn’t pick an actress who was not thin, fit, traditionally pretty, and I can go on. Justin Baldoni played a neurosurgeon, but come on, they didn’t say let’s pick someone who looks incredibly smart and like he did really well in medical school. They picked a good looking guy. And technically they didn’t have to do any sex scenes, as most movies don’t and could still be able to move the story along, but they made a choice to have a teen sex scene, and other sex scenes, with attractive people, as countless other movies and shows do. This is still Hollywood people.

I'm also finding it disingenuous that Blake supporters are acting like Justin filmed two teens taking part in a sex scene, when it's their characters who did, while the actors are in their 20s.

[Anonymous]

This is what Blake supporters do...gripe over the minutiae of everything. If Blake's claims were as strong as they were, they wouldn't need to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what Blake supporters do...gripe over the minutiae of everything. If Blake's claims were as strong as they were, they wouldn't need to do this.

*as strong as the think.

[Anonymous]

Bots and the Freedman obsessed. If forced to chose between the two, I think I would go with bot.

[Anonymous]

What I love about this case is it has so many women standing up to organically (lol!) defend male feminist hero Justin Baldoni and absolutely spitting in the eye of any woman who accuses a guy of harassment because, to defend Baldoni, they *also* have to take all these other positions that completely go against victims of harassment.

Gross and stupid comments about the physical appearance of the alleged victim? WE WILL ALLOW AND IN FACT PARTICIPATE BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR WOMAN IS EVIL, IT'S FUN TO MOCK WOMEN'S BODIES.

Concern about hate being expressed in bullying fashion online to female accuser of harassment? NO THIS WOMAN DESERVES IT AND IN FACT I LEFT HATEFUL COMMENTS ON HER INSTA MYSELF! LET THE HATE FLOW!

Amicus briefs arguing in favor of the victim? NO STRIKE THEM DON'T EVEN OPEN THEM, DO NOT LISTEN.

Laws protecting victims of harassment from retaliatory defamation suits? NO THESE SUITS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SHUT WOMEN UP, PROTECT THE MENS!

There's so many more but you get the jist.

[Anonymous]

Appearing at one’s deposition is the bare minimum for a plaintiff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Baldoni. You can find suspicious intent in any movie involving sex scenes. That's because they're sex scenes. Once again, Blake stans keep treating this as if it's a white-collar office job and any mention about the choreographing of sex is "Ew, icky!"

It's a movie about domestic violence. I wouldn't find that conversation about the "thrust" out of place among the creators of a movie like American Pie, or a show like Bridgerton. I find it weird that *this* would be the main point of contention on a movie about DV, where most people involved with the movie agree it's about the empowerment of the female protagonist in surviving and escaping DV. My first thought there is not "but wait, do we zoom in on the thrust in the teen sex scene or not???" Just a bizarre fixation there.

NO but I don’t find it that bizarre. They’re spending a lot of money on this movie and they wanted it to make money and be commercially successful. It’s just part of the game. You’re spending months shooting and editing a two hour film so it doesn’t surprise me that the actual editors and related team are slicing and dicing small parts of it. There is a mention about PG-13 so it’s also just practical conversation, if they do a sex scene, it’s got to fall within certain parameters.

TV and film are filled, absolutely filled, with pointless sex scenes. It’s not my taste and I didn’t go into this business but I think silly to pick apart conversations that are typical on this movie.

It’s a movie about domestic violence and blah blah blah, but notice that they didn’t pick an actress who was not thin, fit, traditionally pretty, and I can go on. Justin Baldoni played a neurosurgeon, but come on, they didn’t say let’s pick someone who looks incredibly smart and like he did really well in medical school. They picked a good looking guy. And technically they didn’t have to do any sex scenes, as most movies don’t and could still be able to move the story along, but they made a choice to have a teen sex scene, and other sex scenes, with attractive people, as countless other movies and shows do. This is still Hollywood people.

I'm also finding it disingenuous that Blake supporters are acting like Justin filmed two teens taking part in a sex scene, when it's their characters who did, while the actors are in their 20s.

They also tend to forget that Blake was not actually pregnant and therefore couldn’t be filmed completely naked under any scenario.

[Anonymous]

This article from yesterday's hearing has what I believe is new info:
https://www.courthousenews.com/lawyers-in-lively-baldoni-feud-spar-over-subpoenas-of-candace-owens-megyn-kelly/
Excerpt:
Owens, Gottlieb claimed, had shared an “exclusive scoop” about Lively and Baldoni that used information from Freedman’s affidavit.

Gottlieb also argued that he was recently made aware of a text chain in which Freedman introduced Baldoni’s team to another content creator client of his, who then went on to disseminate content attacking Lively.

“I am unable to say the name of this person in open court,” Gottlieb said.

Liman didn’t immediately rule on whether he’d quash the subpoenas, though he did say that he found one — which seeks Freedman’s communications with various media sources — “tremendously broad” and “actually quite chilling.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article from yesterday's hearing has what I believe is new info:
https://www.courthousenews.com/lawyers-in-lively-baldoni-feud-spar-over-subpoenas-of-candace-owens-megyn-kelly/
Excerpt:
Owens, Gottlieb claimed, had shared an “exclusive scoop” about Lively and Baldoni that used information from Freedman’s affidavit.

Gottlieb also argued that he was recently made aware of a text chain in which Freedman introduced Baldoni’s team to another content creator client of his, who then went on to disseminate content attacking Lively.

“I am unable to say the name of this person in open court,” Gottlieb said.

Liman didn’t immediately rule on whether he’d quash the subpoenas, though he did say that he found one — which seeks Freedman’s communications with various media sources — “tremendously broad” and “actually quite chilling.”

Like everything else discussed at the hearing, this occurred after the lawsuit was filed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article from yesterday's hearing has what I believe is new info:
https://www.courthousenews.com/lawyers-in-lively-baldoni-feud-spar-over-subpoenas-of-candace-owens-megyn-kelly/
Excerpt:
Owens, Gottlieb claimed, had shared an “exclusive scoop” about Lively and Baldoni that used information from Freedman’s affidavit.

Gottlieb also argued that he was recently made aware of a text chain in which Freedman introduced Baldoni’s team to another content creator client of his, who then went on to disseminate content attacking Lively.

“I am unable to say the name of this person in open court,” Gottlieb said.

Liman didn’t immediately rule on whether he’d quash the subpoenas, though he did say that he found one — which seeks Freedman’s communications with various media sources — “tremendously broad” and “actually quite chilling.”

No bombshell here, both Blake and Justin can talk to the media or content creators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article from yesterday's hearing has what I believe is new info:
https://www.courthousenews.com/lawyers-in-lively-baldoni-feud-spar-over-subpoenas-of-candace-owens-megyn-kelly/
Excerpt:
Owens, Gottlieb claimed, had shared an “exclusive scoop” about Lively and Baldoni that used information from Freedman’s affidavit.

Gottlieb also argued that he was recently made aware of a text chain in which Freedman introduced Baldoni’s team to another content creator client of his, who then went on to disseminate content attacking Lively.

“I am unable to say the name of this person in open court,” Gottlieb said.

Liman didn’t immediately rule on whether he’d quash the subpoenas, though he did say that he found one — which seeks Freedman’s communications with various media sources — “tremendously broad” and “actually quite chilling.”

No bombshell here, both Blake and Justin can talk to the media or content creators.

Isn't Liman saying one of Lively's requests is chilling significant?