Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Bumping in case this post gets lost amid the debate about the definition of an executive producer vs. producer.

Exactly what did Baldoni do? I am lost here.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or you know nothing about the conflict and are legitimately asking. I'm personally not accusing him of anything, I'm just wondering why we think he's going to settle when he has to repair his image and has nothing to lose at this point vs. Blake and Ryan, who do still have a lot to lose.

I feel like I am missing something, I don’t feel as though Baldoni did anything wrong at all? Like at all.

Did I say he did anything wrong? I'm confused by your reply. I'm saying people do think he sexually harassed Blake, which is why he's going to try and salvage his reputation no matter what.

At this point, most of the comments I’ve seen are people supporting him.

+1 the number on DCUM seemed to be staggering. Interesting in light of his new leaked voicemail to her apologizing and insinuating he made her uncomfortable.

I listened and read about the voicemail on LSA, and the take there is coherent. A director under fire is trying to appease a pain in the a$$ lead actor. I think it’s yet another indicator that Lively was trying to fit her attempt to yank sequel rights from Baldoni and lied about harassment.

[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.

They weren’t equals and Lively was following her ahole husbands example - he had recently gotten the Deadpool director fired in trying to take over.

Lively wasn’t wanted or needed for rewrites. She’s not a writer and on some level knows it but wants the credit anyway. She “edits” aka has no ideas no author relationships and allegedly did not even read the book. She’s controlling and dishonest IMO.

[Anonymous]

I think Blake comes across as a spoiled princess who didn't get her way, despite pulling the rich husband (hello Mint Mobile sale- cha-ching) and uber famous BFF. After seeing that dropping those "dragons" didn't help her get her way, she decided he was an arse. #meangirlstuff, seriously!

[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?

There is no evidence of retaliation whatsoever IMO.

There is no evidence of underlying harassment - sexual or other- IMO.

[Anonymous]

I’m a lawyer and a pretty old one at that. Spent most of my career at a very well regarded BigLaw firm, the kind that doesn’t hire anyone who wasn’t on law review. Baldoni’s lawyer is not bad, he’s put together some of the best work I’ve seen from a plaintiff side attorney. Blake’s lawyers on the other hand, are very mid. If you have reviewed a lot of complaints, you can spot it. Some of her allegations are just drafted in a strange way. For example, the birthing scene allegation with the footnote about what generally is worn in partially nude scenes but avoids identifying what Blake was actually wearing. Further the insinuation that an actor and financier were on set to get close to Blake’s crotch is just, well, odd.

There is definitely at least one poster here who is on Blake’s payroll in some capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There is no evidence of retaliation whatsoever IMO.

There is no evidence of underlying harassment - sexual or other- IMO.

Np, and I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Ed Burns, Ben Affleck, Bradley Cooper, Taika Waititi, Edward Norton - not actually uncommon.

[Anonymous]

Of course The NY Times reporter defends her work. Her entire career and reputation is at risk.

[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.

Stopped clock being right twice a day and all - Candace Owens (I know) thinks by not folding already, Ryan Reynolds is punishing his wife. I don’t even understand how Blake Lively can show her face - she misrepresented so much, and she seemed competitive, insecure, pouty, dumb (not reading a chick lit level book and trying to Google the characters hair color). A nightmare. Why is her rich powerful DH supporting her going through with this? She is broadly - broadly!- seen as faking a me too claim at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a lawyer and a pretty old one at that. Spent most of my career at a very well regarded BigLaw firm, the kind that doesn’t hire anyone who wasn’t on law review. Baldoni’s lawyer is not bad, he’s put together some of the best work I’ve seen from a plaintiff side attorney. Blake’s lawyers on the other hand, are very mid. If you have reviewed a lot of complaints, you can spot it. Some of her allegations are just drafted in a strange way. For example, the birthing scene allegation with the footnote about what generally is worn in partially nude scenes but avoids identifying what Blake was actually wearing. Further the insinuation that an actor and financier were on set to get close to Blake’s crotch is just, well, odd.

There is definitely at least one poster here who is on Blake’s payroll in some capacity.

Lol, yes there are many older Big Law litigators who describe things as "mid" and thinks it's necessary to allege every single detail in an initial complaint or that, alternatively, they should refrain from including an allegation that could, with discovery, be recoverable because it seems "odd ."

Ok, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a lawyer and a pretty old one at that. Spent most of my career at a very well regarded BigLaw firm, the kind that doesn’t hire anyone who wasn’t on law review. Baldoni’s lawyer is not bad, he’s put together some of the best work I’ve seen from a plaintiff side attorney. Blake’s lawyers on the other hand, are very mid. If you have reviewed a lot of complaints, you can spot it. Some of her allegations are just drafted in a strange way. For example, the birthing scene allegation with the footnote about what generally is worn in partially nude scenes but avoids identifying what Blake was actually wearing. Further the insinuation that an actor and financier were on set to get close to Blake’s crotch is just, well, odd.

There is definitely at least one poster here who is on Blake’s payroll in some capacity.

I think Justin's looks put together because he's earnest and is actually telling the truth and he didn't actually do anything that bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Ed Burns, Ben Affleck, Bradley Cooper, Taika Waititi, Edward Norton - not actually uncommon.

Those are all very established actors though, with the exception of Waititi who is a very well established director who has then taken small roles in some of his movies.

Baldoni is a virtually unknown actor with a couple small directing credits under his belt. And he clearly didn't have a team around him who could facilitate him wearing both of those hats.

He even said himself he didn't want to act in it but that Hoover really wanted him to. Another example of him being a pushover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a lawyer and a pretty old one at that. Spent most of my career at a very well regarded BigLaw firm, the kind that doesn’t hire anyone who wasn’t on law review. Baldoni’s lawyer is not bad, he’s put together some of the best work I’ve seen from a plaintiff side attorney. Blake’s lawyers on the other hand, are very mid. If you have reviewed a lot of complaints, you can spot it. Some of her allegations are just drafted in a strange way. For example, the birthing scene allegation with the footnote about what generally is worn in partially nude scenes but avoids identifying what Blake was actually wearing. Further the insinuation that an actor and financier were on set to get close to Blake’s crotch is just, well, odd.

There is definitely at least one poster here who is on Blake’s payroll in some capacity.

I think Justin's looks put together because he's earnest and is actually telling the truth and he didn't actually do anything that bad.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course The NY Times reporter defends her work. Her entire career and reputation is at risk.

Sure, but a PP said that Twohey "must be embarrassed." She doesn't sound embarrassed at all and seems to be standing by the reporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Ed Burns, Ben Affleck, Bradley Cooper, Taika Waititi, Edward Norton - not actually uncommon.

Those are all very established actors though, with the exception of Waititi who is a very well established director who has then taken small roles in some of his movies.

Baldoni is a virtually unknown actor with a couple small directing credits under his belt. And he clearly didn't have a team around him who could facilitate him wearing both of those hats.

He even said himself he didn't want to act in it but that Hoover really wanted him to. Another example of him being a pushover.

The question I answered was regarding whether this is commonly done. I conclude yes, for myself.

Baldoni does not appear to have done anything wrong. Trying to accommodate different POVs is positive when women do it but he sucks - or is Snidely Whiplash tying poor innocent Blake to railroad tracks.