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:

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?"

Maybe take a break for a few hours unless you really are getting paid for this. You have posted about a half dozen multiple paragraph posts on this thread is the last half or so. It’s unhealthy and obsessive.

I'm an attorney who is well-versed in these topics and the multi-paragraph posts you are referring to took me a minute or so to draft. But I get it, you can't keep up. I'll lay off so you can rest up.

You keep telling yourself that while you type up your nj sense. You have already had several lawyers call you out.

Not me. Lawyer here who liked her original post and thought it made a great deal of sense, although only time will tell how this all plays out. Personally I think Blake and Baldoni will settle up pretty quickly but I could be wrong. Not as sure about the NYT.

There are two or three of us who disagree. And she is weirdly and oddly obsessed with this thread.

I think there’s only one. The self described litigator who I suspect is junior biglaw

[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:

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?"

Maybe take a break for a few hours unless you really are getting paid for this. You have posted about a half dozen multiple paragraph posts on this thread is the last half or so. It’s unhealthy and obsessive.

I'm an attorney who is well-versed in these topics and the multi-paragraph posts you are referring to took me a minute or so to draft. But I get it, you can't keep up. I'll lay off so you can rest up.

You keep telling yourself that while you type up your nj sense. You have already had several lawyers call you out.

Who has called me out? On what? The critical responses to my posts have been stuff like "that's not harassment, tho" with no explanation. Is that getting called out? I have yet to see anyone take substantive issue with anything I've posted.

Or are you just mad that you have preconceived notions about who is right and who is wrong in this dispute, and it makes you mad when someone comes in with actual knowledge of the issues and complicates the matter? It's way easier when you can base your legal opinions on a vague sense of whether a celebrity seems cool or not.

There are half a dozen people criticizing your analysis. Maybe slow down on the posting and actually read the other posts.

[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:

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?"

Maybe take a break for a few hours unless you really are getting paid for this. You have posted about a half dozen multiple paragraph posts on this thread is the last half or so. It’s unhealthy and obsessive.

I'm an attorney who is well-versed in these topics and the multi-paragraph posts you are referring to took me a minute or so to draft. But I get it, you can't keep up. I'll lay off so you can rest up.

You keep telling yourself that while you type up your nj sense. You have already had several lawyers call you out.

Not me. Lawyer here who liked her original post and thought it made a great deal of sense, although only time will tell how this all plays out. Personally I think Blake and Baldoni will settle up pretty quickly but I could be wrong. Not as sure about the NYT.

There are two or three of us who disagree. And she is weirdly and oddly obsessed with this thread.

I think there’s only one. The self described litigator who I suspect is junior biglaw

Wrong on all counts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ if you’d chosen other small specialized firms as examples of ‘top tier’ in these areas, I might have half believed you. But you went to two ridiculous choices for P side work

Again you don’t know what you are talking about. Both the two firms working with Blake and the two I mentioned are large national firms. Look it up.

I was responding to a different post about Latham and O Melveny

Wilkie, Manatt, Latham and O’Melveny are all large national firms. Not sure why you are prattling on about small specialized firms.

Latham is a global firm and has ten times the # of attorneys as Manatt. It is definitely smaller and more specialized, especially in entertainment.

[Anonymous]

Are we still pretending Wilkie and Manatt are small specialized firms or are you going to admit you were wrong? Let me guess. . Half a dozen posts coming where you continue to spew misinformation.

[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:

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?"

Maybe take a break for a few hours unless you really are getting paid for this. You have posted about a half dozen multiple paragraph posts on this thread is the last half or so. It’s unhealthy and obsessive.

I'm an attorney who is well-versed in these topics and the multi-paragraph posts you are referring to took me a minute or so to draft. But I get it, you can't keep up. I'll lay off so you can rest up.

You keep telling yourself that while you type up your nj sense. You have already had several lawyers call you out.

Who has called me out? On what? The critical responses to my posts have been stuff like "that's not harassment, tho" with no explanation. Is that getting called out? I have yet to see anyone take substantive issue with anything I've posted.

Or are you just mad that you have preconceived notions about who is right and who is wrong in this dispute, and it makes you mad when someone comes in with actual knowledge of the issues and complicates the matter? It's way easier when you can base your legal opinions on a vague sense of whether a celebrity seems cool or not.

There are half a dozen people criticizing your analysis. Maybe slow down on the posting and actually read the other posts.

No, I don’t think so. Just you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ if you’d chosen other small specialized firms as examples of ‘top tier’ in these areas, I might have half believed you. But you went to two ridiculous choices for P side work

Again you don’t know what you are talking about. Both the two firms working with Blake and the two I mentioned are large national firms. Look it up.

I was responding to a different post about Latham and O Melveny

Wilkie, Manatt, Latham and O’Melveny are all large national firms. Not sure why you are prattling on about small specialized firms.

Manatt is a lot smaller than the other firms on that list. But that shouldn't be the metric anyway -- it's about the strength and experience of their entertainment and employment litigation teams. Sometimes a boutique is a better choice for a really unique case. I'm guessing Manatt and Wilkie coordinated on this because Wilkie can provide some additional manpower while Manatt is bringing in the big guns with the industry experience.

Latham and O'Melveney are different kinds of firms. They have great entertainment and L&E lawyers but would be more likely to handle something involving a major studio or complex contractual issues. This dispute is super high profile but the players involved are small -- a single actor bringing a complaint against a first-time director and his tiny production company. A smaller firm is a good choice here because this is the sort of case that could get lost in the shuffle at a firm like Latham with thousands of attorneys. Also you want attorneys who can navigate the PR $hitshow well, and I think Manatt is a good choice for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ if you’d chosen other small specialized firms as examples of ‘top tier’ in these areas, I might have half believed you. But you went to two ridiculous choices for P side work

Again you don’t know what you are talking about. Both the two firms working with Blake and the two I mentioned are large national firms. Look it up.

I was responding to a different post about Latham and O Melveny

Wilkie, Manatt, Latham and O’Melveny are all large national firms. Not sure why you are prattling on about small specialized firms.

Manatt is a lot smaller than the other firms on that list. But that shouldn't be the metric anyway -- it's about the strength and experience of their entertainment and employment litigation teams. Sometimes a boutique is a better choice for a really unique case. I'm guessing Manatt and Wilkie coordinated on this because Wilkie can provide some additional manpower while Manatt is bringing in the big guns with the industry experience.

Latham and O'Melveney are different kinds of firms. They have great entertainment and L&E lawyers but would be more likely to handle something involving a major studio or complex contractual issues. This dispute is super high profile but the players involved are small -- a single actor bringing a complaint against a first-time director and his tiny production company. A smaller firm is a good choice here because this is the sort of case that could get lost in the shuffle at a firm like Latham with thousands of attorneys. Also you want attorneys who can navigate the PR $hitshow well, and I think Manatt is a good choice for that.

Manatt has 450 lawyers in 10 offices and Wilkie has 1200 lawyers in 15 offices. Both are large firms by any definition.

You are just unable to admit you are wrong ever. That’s a horrible trait.

[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?

DP Just to add I saw the movie and she wasn’t nude during that scene. So she won that round. But maybe it can be harassment if she felt pressured to do it even if she was able to get out of it.

Either way, I don’t think there was ever an intent to show Blake nude in this film. I mean, maybe they were trying to make it seem as if she was nude, but it’s not like we were ever going to see Blake lively’s boobs in this summer movie. Come on. The sex scenes were very mainstream and there is no way they wanted an R rating for this film so they weren’t going to push nudity limits.

It sounds like they were trying to push the balance of what she felt comfortable with, and that sucks. But I wonder if more documents get released we get more context about the disagreement here.

[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:

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?"

Maybe take a break for a few hours unless you really are getting paid for this. You have posted about a half dozen multiple paragraph posts on this thread is the last half or so. It’s unhealthy and obsessive.

I'm an attorney who is well-versed in these topics and the multi-paragraph posts you are referring to took me a minute or so to draft. But I get it, you can't keep up. I'll lay off so you can rest up.

You keep telling yourself that while you type up your nj sense. You have already had several lawyers call you out.

Who has called me out? On what? The critical responses to my posts have been stuff like "that's not harassment, tho" with no explanation. Is that getting called out? I have yet to see anyone take substantive issue with anything I've posted.

Or are you just mad that you have preconceived notions about who is right and who is wrong in this dispute, and it makes you mad when someone comes in with actual knowledge of the issues and complicates the matter? It's way easier when you can base your legal opinions on a vague sense of whether a celebrity seems cool or not.

There are half a dozen people criticizing your analysis. Maybe slow down on the posting and actually read the other posts.

I have posted a few long-ish posts on the legal issues and the strength of the Lively complaint. I also posted a two paragraph post clarifying that the "script" I was referring to in a prior comment was the shooting script since someone snarkily posted about whether I was referring to Ryan Reynold's contributions to the script. But that was not a substantive response.

And no, I have not seen anyone criticize my analysis. I have seen a few people say I'm wrong with nothing to back that up. But if you believe I'm wrong on any of my analysis, by all means explain how. I'd love to learn something new today. I'm watching football right now but everyone is playing their B teams and it's not very good.

[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: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?"

Count me as another lawyer who agrees with this post. Especially the last paragraph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ if you’d chosen other small specialized firms as examples of ‘top tier’ in these areas, I might have half believed you. But you went to two ridiculous choices for P side work

Again you don’t know what you are talking about. Both the two firms working with Blake and the two I mentioned are large national firms. Look it up.

I was responding to a different post about Latham and O Melveny

Wilkie, Manatt, Latham and O’Melveny are all large national firms. Not sure why you are prattling on about small specialized firms.

Manatt is a lot smaller than the other firms on that list. But that shouldn't be the metric anyway -- it's about the strength and experience of their entertainment and employment litigation teams. Sometimes a boutique is a better choice for a really unique case. I'm guessing Manatt and Wilkie coordinated on this because Wilkie can provide some additional manpower while Manatt is bringing in the big guns with the industry experience.

Latham and O'Melveney are different kinds of firms. They have great entertainment and L&E lawyers but would be more likely to handle something involving a major studio or complex contractual issues. This dispute is super high profile but the players involved are small -- a single actor bringing a complaint against a first-time director and his tiny production company. A smaller firm is a good choice here because this is the sort of case that could get lost in the shuffle at a firm like Latham with thousands of attorneys. Also you want attorneys who can navigate the PR $hitshow well, and I think Manatt is a good choice for that.

Manatt has 450 lawyers in 10 offices and Wilkie has 1200 lawyers in 15 offices. Both are large firms by any definition.

You are just unable to admit you are wrong ever. That’s a horrible trait.

Uh, well no. Manatt has fewer than 300 lawyers. That 450+ number includes their healthcare consulting arm which adds a lot of professionals to their headcount but they aren't lawyers. Manatt's a really unique firm and it's hard to categorize them. It's hard to know this if you're just googling "how big is Manatt" for the first time today and don't know these firms well.

In any case Manatt's lawyer headcount is a quarter that of Willkie's (again why it makes sense they'd team up on a case like this). Latham has 3000+ lawyers and is in another league in terms of size. O'Melveney meanwhile has a headcount of 750 -- large but not a mega-firm like Latham. No one is going to call it a boutique though.

I am happy to admit I'm wrong, btw! Do it all the time. But not when I am, in fact, correct. Cheers!

[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: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?"

Count me as another lawyer who agrees with this post. Especially the last paragraph.

The last paragraph is the most ridiculous. No one is saying that to Blake Lively, particularly with her husband and their wife on set. PP went from arguing that the complaint was so wonderful because of how explicitly it laid out her claims to imagining conversations that were in fact extremely unlikely to have occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ if you’d chosen other small specialized firms as examples of ‘top tier’ in these areas, I might have half believed you. But you went to two ridiculous choices for P side work

Again you don’t know what you are talking about. Both the two firms working with Blake and the two I mentioned are large national firms. Look it up.

I was responding to a different post about Latham and O Melveny

Wilkie, Manatt, Latham and O’Melveny are all large national firms. Not sure why you are prattling on about small specialized firms.

Manatt is a lot smaller than the other firms on that list. But that shouldn't be the metric anyway -- it's about the strength and experience of their entertainment and employment litigation teams. Sometimes a boutique is a better choice for a really unique case. I'm guessing Manatt and Wilkie coordinated on this because Wilkie can provide some additional manpower while Manatt is bringing in the big guns with the industry experience.

Latham and O'Melveney are different kinds of firms. They have great entertainment and L&E lawyers but would be more likely to handle something involving a major studio or complex contractual issues. This dispute is super high profile but the players involved are small -- a single actor bringing a complaint against a first-time director and his tiny production company. A smaller firm is a good choice here because this is the sort of case that could get lost in the shuffle at a firm like Latham with thousands of attorneys. Also you want attorneys who can navigate the PR $hitshow well, and I think Manatt is a good choice for that.

Manatt has 450 lawyers in 10 offices and Wilkie has 1200 lawyers in 15 offices. Both are large firms by any definition.

You are just unable to admit you are wrong ever. That’s a horrible trait.

Uh, well no. Manatt has fewer than 300 lawyers. That 450+ number includes their healthcare consulting arm which adds a lot of professionals to their headcount but they aren't lawyers. Manatt's a really unique firm and it's hard to categorize them. It's hard to know this if you're just googling "how big is Manatt" for the first time today and don't know these firms well.

In any case Manatt's lawyer headcount is a quarter that of Willkie's (again why it makes sense they'd team up on a case like this). Latham has 3000+ lawyers and is in another league in terms of size. O'Melveney meanwhile has a headcount of 750 -- large but not a mega-firm like Latham. No one is going to call it a boutique though.

I am happy to admit I'm wrong, btw! Do it all the time. But not when I am, in fact, correct. Cheers!

Both Manatt and Wilkie are on all the lists of big law firms, the fact that some are these firms are bigger than others doesn’t change the fact that they are all considered big firms. Cheers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ if you’d chosen other small specialized firms as examples of ‘top tier’ in these areas, I might have half believed you. But you went to two ridiculous choices for P side work

Again you don’t know what you are talking about. Both the two firms working with Blake and the two I mentioned are large national firms. Look it up.

I was responding to a different post about Latham and O Melveny

Wilkie, Manatt, Latham and O’Melveny are all large national firms. Not sure why you are prattling on about small specialized firms.

Manatt is a lot smaller than the other firms on that list. But that shouldn't be the metric anyway -- it's about the strength and experience of their entertainment and employment litigation teams. Sometimes a boutique is a better choice for a really unique case. I'm guessing Manatt and Wilkie coordinated on this because Wilkie can provide some additional manpower while Manatt is bringing in the big guns with the industry experience.

Latham and O'Melveney are different kinds of firms. They have great entertainment and L&E lawyers but would be more likely to handle something involving a major studio or complex contractual issues. This dispute is super high profile but the players involved are small -- a single actor bringing a complaint against a first-time director and his tiny production company. A smaller firm is a good choice here because this is the sort of case that could get lost in the shuffle at a firm like Latham with thousands of attorneys. Also you want attorneys who can navigate the PR $hitshow well, and I think Manatt is a good choice for that.

Manatt has 450 lawyers in 10 offices and Wilkie has 1200 lawyers in 15 offices. Both are large firms by any definition.

You are just unable to admit you are wrong ever. That’s a horrible trait.

Uh, well no. Manatt has fewer than 300 lawyers. That 450+ number includes their healthcare consulting arm which adds a lot of professionals to their headcount but they aren't lawyers. Manatt's a really unique firm and it's hard to categorize them. It's hard to know this if you're just googling "how big is Manatt" for the first time today and don't know these firms well.

In any case Manatt's lawyer headcount is a quarter that of Willkie's (again why it makes sense they'd team up on a case like this). Latham has 3000+ lawyers and is in another league in terms of size. O'Melveney meanwhile has a headcount of 750 -- large but not a mega-firm like Latham. No one is going to call it a boutique though.

I am happy to admit I'm wrong, btw! Do it all the time. But not when I am, in fact, correct. Cheers!

And yet you spend two pages arguing about whether firms that regularly appear on the list of big law firms are in fact big when it is completely irrelevant to the merits of this case. You seem easily distracted from what matters.