Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

none of those things you list are harassment though. Even in the light most favorable to Lively.

There’s no way to know that right now

[Anonymous]

For the non lawyers, there is nothing special about the law firms representing Blake. They are mid tier. Not sure why one poster is boosting them so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

none of those things you list are harassment though. Even in the light most favorable to Lively.

There’s no way to know that right now

Do, but of course there is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers, there is nothing special about the law firms representing Blake. They are mid tier. Not sure why one poster is boosting them so much.

I think you are conflating size with quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers, there is nothing special about the law firms representing Blake. They are mid tier. Not sure why one poster is boosting them so much.

I think you are conflating size with quality.

Nope, nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

none of those things you list are harassment though. Even in the light most favorable to Lively.

Yes, it can be. It would show that Lively was pressured into doing a scene nude when it had not been scripted that way, and that the production did not take industry-standard precautions to ensure her comfort and protect her from inappropriate filming or interactions. if this happened on multiple scenes (and Lively's complaint alleges it did), this establishes a pattern of behavior that places actors in sexually compromised positions without the protection of an intimacy coordinator or proper riders to cover filming the actor while nude or partially nude.

One of the other scenes mentioned in the complaint is one in which Lively and Baldoni were to be filmed, without audio, dancing. As the scene only featured dancing, fully clothed, it was not deemed an intimate scene and the IC was not consulted and was not on set. However, Lively alleges that Baldoni repeatedly engaged in intimate contact in the scene, not merely kissing her on the lips but elsewhere on her body and dragging his lips across her skin. Lively also alleges that Baldoni engaged in unscripted, out of character sexual commentary during this scene. All of this was filmed. Lively has access to the footage (don't forget that Reynolds did his own cut of the movie -- they have access to everything filmed on set).

Tell me again how that doesn't constitute harassment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers, there is nothing special about the law firms representing Blake. They are mid tier. Not sure why one poster is boosting them so much.

I think you are conflating size with quality.

Nope, nice try.

Yes, you are. To take Baldoni’s lawyer as example, his firm is not huge (most P side firms and entertainment firms are on the smaller side as compared to Big Law) but he is highly skilled and well known.

Please explain to me the issue you have with Blakes firm. What firm would be more ‘legitimate’ to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

none of those things you list are harassment though. Even in the light most favorable to Lively.

Yes, it can be. It would show that Lively was pressured into doing a scene nude when it had not been scripted that way, and that the production did not take industry-standard precautions to ensure her comfort and protect her from inappropriate filming or interactions. if this happened on multiple scenes (and Lively's complaint alleges it did), this establishes a pattern of behavior that places actors in sexually compromised positions without the protection of an intimacy coordinator or proper riders to cover filming the actor while nude or partially nude.

One of the other scenes mentioned in the complaint is one in which Lively and Baldoni were to be filmed, without audio, dancing. As the scene only featured dancing, fully clothed, it was not deemed an intimate scene and the IC was not consulted and was not on set. However, Lively alleges that Baldoni repeatedly engaged in intimate contact in the scene, not merely kissing her on the lips but elsewhere on her body and dragging his lips across her skin. Lively also alleges that Baldoni engaged in unscripted, out of character sexual commentary during this scene. All of this was filmed. Lively has access to the footage (don't forget that Reynolds did his own cut of the movie -- they have access to everything filmed on set).

Tell me again how that doesn't constitute harassment?

Which script are we talking about, the real script or the one that Blake was constantly rewriting with her husband?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers, there is nothing special about the law firms representing Blake. They are mid tier. Not sure why one poster is boosting them so much.

I think you are conflating size with quality.

Nope, nice try.

Yes, you are. To take Baldoni’s lawyer as example, his firm is not huge (most P side firms and entertainment firms are on the smaller side as compared to Big Law) but he is highly skilled and well known.

Please explain to me the issue you have with Blakes firm. What firm would be more ‘legitimate’ to you.

Where did I say the firm was not legitimate? No where, you have an issue with inventing things. The firms are perfectly respectable, just not top tier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

+1

-10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers, there is nothing special about the law firms representing Blake. They are mid tier. Not sure why one poster is boosting them so much.

I think you are conflating size with quality.

Nope, nice try.

Yes, you are. To take Baldoni’s lawyer as example, his firm is not huge (most P side firms and entertainment firms are on the smaller side as compared to Big Law) but he is highly skilled and well known.

Please explain to me the issue you have with Blakes firm. What firm would be more ‘legitimate’ to you.

Where did I say the firm was not legitimate? No where, you have an issue with inventing things. The firms are perfectly respectable, just not top tier.

So please tell me the firms that would be considered ‘top tier’ in these areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers, there is nothing special about the law firms representing Blake. They are mid tier. Not sure why one poster is boosting them so much.

I think you are conflating size with quality.

Nope, nice try.

Yes, you are. To take Baldoni’s lawyer as example, his firm is not huge (most P side firms and entertainment firms are on the smaller side as compared to Big Law) but he is highly skilled and well known.

Please explain to me the issue you have with Blakes firm. What firm would be more ‘legitimate’ to you.

Where did I say the firm was not legitimate? No where, you have an issue with inventing things. The firms are perfectly respectable, just not top tier.

So please tell me the firms that would be considered ‘top tier’ in these areas.

O’Melveny, Latham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the non lawyers, there is nothing special about the law firms representing Blake. They are mid tier. Not sure why one poster is boosting them so much.

I think you are conflating size with quality.

Nope, nice try.

Yes, you are. To take Baldoni’s lawyer as example, his firm is not huge (most P side firms and entertainment firms are on the smaller side as compared to Big Law) but he is highly skilled and well known.

Please explain to me the issue you have with Blakes firm. What firm would be more ‘legitimate’ to you.

Where did I say the firm was not legitimate? No where, you have an issue with inventing things. The firms are perfectly respectable, just not top tier.

So please tell me the firms that would be considered ‘top tier’ in these areas.

O’Melveny, Latham

As I said above, you are confusing size with quality. These are big law firms. They’re good, of course, but in these two particular legal areas, it is often smaller specialized practices that have deeper skill sets, especially on the plaintiff side. Also, both firms are corporate side firms. Big law firms tend to represent companies (that can pay far more than individuals) on the defense side.

[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:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

none of those things you list are harassment though. Even in the light most favorable to Lively.

Yes, it can be. It would show that Lively was pressured into doing a scene nude when it had not been scripted that way, and that the production did not take industry-standard precautions to ensure her comfort and protect her from inappropriate filming or interactions. if this happened on multiple scenes (and Lively's complaint alleges it did), this establishes a pattern of behavior that places actors in sexually compromised positions without the protection of an intimacy coordinator or proper riders to cover filming the actor while nude or partially nude.

One of the other scenes mentioned in the complaint is one in which Lively and Baldoni were to be filmed, without audio, dancing. As the scene only featured dancing, fully clothed, it was not deemed an intimate scene and the IC was not consulted and was not on set. However, Lively alleges that Baldoni repeatedly engaged in intimate contact in the scene, not merely kissing her on the lips but elsewhere on her body and dragging his lips across her skin. Lively also alleges that Baldoni engaged in unscripted, out of character sexual commentary during this scene. All of this was filmed. Lively has access to the footage (don't forget that Reynolds did his own cut of the movie -- they have access to everything filmed on set).

Tell me again how that doesn't constitute harassment?

Which script are we talking about, the real script or the one that Blake was constantly rewriting with her husband?

The "shooting script" which is the script that is used on set and actually gets story-boarded and blocked. A production may make changes on the fly to the shooting script if something isn't working or if an actor ad libs something they want to keep, but certain major decisions are supposed to be made in advance so that production is prepared for them on the day of. One of those decisions would be whether or not an actor would be unclothed or the scene includes intimate elements, so that the actor can negotiate a nudity rider to their contract that will control how their nudity is handled and what the production can film or include in the final cut of the scene, or whether an intimacy coordinator needs to be brought in to choreograph the scene. Often actors will also have contract provisions that dictate body doubles and that needs to be figured out ahead of time.

Whether Ryan Reynolds made changes to or contributed to the script for the movie is beside the point on this issues. If the production was repeatedly taking scenes that were not scripted as intimate or nude scenes and then changing that on the fly on set, this could constitute sexual harassment and create a hostile or unsafe work environment. It's actually exactly the type of scenario that intimacy coordinators are intended to help avoid -- an actress being pressured into nudity or intimate acts on set by pervy directors and producers because "it's just really going to make the scene work, honey" or "you don't want to get a reputation for being hard to work with, do you now?"