Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s turn back to how The NY Times may be screwed or how unpopular Blake is on social media. I think the silence of her gossip girl castmates is interesting. She had to go all the way back to the Traveling Pants movie to get a testimonial from cast mates.

If Trump can crack ABC News for $15 million, it’d be nice to see NYT cracked for the same for this PR smear job.

Earlier lawyer here- agree, the defamation side is very interesting to me. NYT typically fights and they have some good defenses right off the bat, but NYT v Sullivan is in every publication’s minds these days, and no one wants to be the one that risks disturbing that precedent. That’s likely why ABC folded.

I guess it should be, who knows what this Supreme Court would do, if given the opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s turn back to how The NY Times may be screwed or how unpopular Blake is on social media. I think the silence of her gossip girl castmates is interesting. She had to go all the way back to the Traveling Pants movie to get a testimonial from cast mates.

If Trump can crack ABC News for $15 million, it’d be nice to see NYT cracked for the same for this PR smear job.

Earlier lawyer here- agree, the defamation side is very interesting to me. NYT typically fights and they have some good defenses right off the bat, but NYT v Sullivan is in every publication’s minds these days, and no one wants to be the one that risks disturbing that precedent. That’s likely why ABC folded.

I guess it should be, who knows what this Supreme Court would do, if given the opportunity.

Thomas has said he’d overturn it. With a 6 -3 court, it’s a legitimate risk

[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:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

O’Melveny and Latham are both major prestige firms that recruit well at T12 law schools… I have never heard of Manatt and Wilkie is OK, but nowhere near O’M or L&W.

Do you workin entertainment or healthcare? Because Manatt is considered very prestigious in those areas. They are pretty small and very focused on SoCal for litigation though, so outside those areas, there is no reason for you to know about them. The recruit more heavily form West coast law schools especially the LA area.

See my other post. Also I never said they were a bad firm, I just don’t consider them top tier. Manatt had been on the decline for a few decades. In their heyday, they were top tier but the lawyers who made them that are long gone.

I also said that one can’t tell the quality of the complaint by the firm who wrote it so I have no idea why someone has been arguing with me about my OPINION of these firms for three pages, making ridiculous and inaccurate argument like they aren’t big firms.

Your initial comment was stupid. Just admit it.

And there is a difference between ‘top tier’ as in overall $ earned/size/breadth of a firm and whether they are a good choice for a particular suit or area of the law. This is especially especially true for plaintiff side work.

I don’t know why you are going on and on about this. Someone said that Blake’s complaint should be given special deference because of the firm(s) they wrote it. My main point was that’s a completely stupid opinion. I also don’t think either Manatt or Wilkie is deserving of particular deference because they are mid tier. That’a my opinion which you are free to disagree with but are not going to change. Just because Manatt started out as an entertainment law boutique doesn’t mean it hasn’t declined in quality.

Where did they say ‘special deference’ should be given? And by saying ‘mid tier’ and ‘top tier’ you sound like an idiot.

The crazy Blake supporter said several times that she was aware of the reputation of the lawyers that wrote the complaint, and based on that knowledge, felt her allegations should be taken as true. I”m sure you can find it if try.

That’s not at all what she said.

I'm the one who said it and honestly, my comment about the attorneys was more of an aside. Lively's complaint was well-constructed from a legal standpoint and doesn't hinge on Lively's biased perception of isolated interactions with Baldoni. My point about the lawyers was that they aren't some fly-by-night firm who is going to allege a fact pattern they can't support. I never said they were like THE best firm in the industry and I don't really understand why the thread became a debate about whether Latham or Manatt or O'Melveny has the best entertainment attorneys (when the answer is of course: it depends on what you are hiring them for).

My larger point was that if you read the Lively complaint, they are using a lot of indisputable facts (like whether there were nudity riders in place or whether certain intimate acts were described in the shooting script) to construct a fact pattern that proves harassment. People in the thread have started saying "oh it's a he said/she said." Sometimes that's true with harassment claims. And it's true on some of the discrete claims in Lively's complaint, like whether Baldoni entered her trailer without permission while she was breastfeeding. But most of her claims don't rely on believing her interpretation. They rely on easily proven facts about how Wayfarer and Baldoni conducted the film shoot. It's a smart approach and the complaint is very well constructed for this kind of complaint. If I were still in the business I'd be filing it away for future reference.

Good points, so i guarantee the thread will go off on some bizarre tangent any moment to distract.

[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?

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.

The version of the film that made it into theaters was edited by Ryan Reynolds. In part because Lively raised these issues during production about irregularities regarding the movie's intimate and nude scenes. The birth scene was filmed with Lively nude below the waist other than a strip of fabric covering her genitals. That is not in dispute.

It would be interesting to compare the version of the film that Baldoni approved (which is not the one in theaters) and compare how graphic the sex scenes are and in particular how Lively's body is shown. In fact I would not be surprised if at some point that becomes part of the evidentiary showing in the case. Especially since part of the dispute is the production's failure to obtain nudity riders for all nude scenes, which would govern how an actor can be filmed in those scenes (as well as who is on set, where the scene is shot, etc.).

Wait, are you actually saying the production team ever thought they would get a shot of Blake’s V in this movie?

When has that ever happened in a PG 13 movie meant to be marketed to a mainstream American audience??? If That is what they’re implying that strains all credibility.

[Anonymous]

The original, non Reynolds version was also showed to test audiences and was preferrred. If there was truly anything outrageous in it, there would be abundant witnesses but I doubt that is the case, we would have heard about that.

Also, all the ridiculous outfits Lily wears were picked by Blake. Thank god that has come out because some poor costume designer has had to live with that on her credits for the past year.

[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?

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.

The version of the film that made it into theaters was edited by Ryan Reynolds. In part because Lively raised these issues during production about irregularities regarding the movie's intimate and nude scenes. The birth scene was filmed with Lively nude below the waist other than a strip of fabric covering her genitals. That is not in dispute.

It would be interesting to compare the version of the film that Baldoni approved (which is not the one in theaters) and compare how graphic the sex scenes are and in particular how Lively's body is shown. In fact I would not be surprised if at some point that becomes part of the evidentiary showing in the case. Especially since part of the dispute is the production's failure to obtain nudity riders for all nude scenes, which would govern how an actor can be filmed in those scenes (as well as who is on set, where the scene is shot, etc.).

Wait, are you actually saying the production team ever thought they would get a shot of Blake’s V in this movie?

When has that ever happened in a PG 13 movie meant to be marketed to a mainstream American audience??? If That is what they’re implying that strains all credibility.

Of course not. No one even suggested that. And that's not what the comment you're responding to says at all. Learn to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The original, non Reynolds version was also showed to test audiences and was preferrred. If there was truly anything outrageous in it, there would be abundant witnesses but I doubt that is the case, we would have heard about that.

Also, all the ridiculous outfits Lily wears were picked by Blake. Thank god that has come out because some poor costume designer has had to live with that on her credits for the past year.

The point is not whether audiences preferred it. The issue is whether Baldoni's version violated Lively's employment rights. Lively alleges that Baldoni's cut showed graphic content that she did not agree to and that was not in the original script. Actor contracts and riders will often specify what a film can portray an actor doing. If an actor has not agreed to film a scene where they engage in certain graphic sex acts, it can be a contract violation to cut the film to make it look as though an actor is doing something they didn't agree to be filmed doing.

It's not dissimilar to the debate over use of AI and "deep fakes" -- using technology to make it look like someone is doing or saying something they never did or said. Actors have to protect their reputations and how audiences perceive them. Audiences may have liked his cut of the film better, but if it showed Lively doing things that she didn't actually do and didn't agree to be filmed doing, that could have a negative impact on Lively's career moving forward as it would give her the reputation of an actress who does graphic sex scenes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The original, non Reynolds version was also showed to test audiences and was preferrred. If there was truly anything outrageous in it, there would be abundant witnesses but I doubt that is the case, we would have heard about that.

Also, all the ridiculous outfits Lily wears were picked by Blake. Thank god that has come out because some poor costume designer has had to live with that on her credits for the past year.

That was Baldoni's claim that the test audiences preferred it. Where is the proof to his claim? Everyone else, including Hoover, wanted Blake's.

[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:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

O’Melveny and Latham are both major prestige firms that recruit well at T12 law schools… I have never heard of Manatt and Wilkie is OK, but nowhere near O’M or L&W.

Do you workin entertainment or healthcare? Because Manatt is considered very prestigious in those areas. They are pretty small and very focused on SoCal for litigation though, so outside those areas, there is no reason for you to know about them. The recruit more heavily form West coast law schools especially the LA area.

See my other post. Also I never said they were a bad firm, I just don’t consider them top tier. Manatt had been on the decline for a few decades. In their heyday, they were top tier but the lawyers who made them that are long gone.

I also said that one can’t tell the quality of the complaint by the firm who wrote it so I have no idea why someone has been arguing with me about my OPINION of these firms for three pages, making ridiculous and inaccurate argument like they aren’t big firms.

Your initial comment was stupid. Just admit it.

And there is a difference between ‘top tier’ as in overall $ earned/size/breadth of a firm and whether they are a good choice for a particular suit or area of the law. This is especially especially true for plaintiff side work.

I don’t know why you are going on and on about this. Someone said that Blake’s complaint should be given special deference because of the firm(s) they wrote it. My main point was that’s a completely stupid opinion. I also don’t think either Manatt or Wilkie is deserving of particular deference because they are mid tier. That’a my opinion which you are free to disagree with but are not going to change. Just because Manatt started out as an entertainment law boutique doesn’t mean it hasn’t declined in quality.

Where did they say ‘special deference’ should be given? And by saying ‘mid tier’ and ‘top tier’ you sound like an idiot.

The crazy Blake supporter said several times that she was aware of the reputation of the lawyers that wrote the complaint, and based on that knowledge, felt her allegations should be taken as true. I”m sure you can find it if try.

That’s not at all what she said.

I'm the one who said it and honestly, my comment about the attorneys was more of an aside. Lively's complaint was well-constructed from a legal standpoint and doesn't hinge on Lively's biased perception of isolated interactions with Baldoni. My point about the lawyers was that they aren't some fly-by-night firm who is going to allege a fact pattern they can't support. I never said they were like THE best firm in the industry and I don't really understand why the thread became a debate about whether Latham or Manatt or O'Melveny has the best entertainment attorneys (when the answer is of course: it depends on what you are hiring them for).

My larger point was that if you read the Lively complaint, they are using a lot of indisputable facts (like whether there were nudity riders in place or whether certain intimate acts were described in the shooting script) to construct a fact pattern that proves harassment. People in the thread have started saying "oh it's a he said/she said." Sometimes that's true with harassment claims. And it's true on some of the discrete claims in Lively's complaint, like whether Baldoni entered her trailer without permission while she was breastfeeding. But most of her claims don't rely on believing her interpretation. They rely on easily proven facts about how Wayfarer and Baldoni conducted the film shoot. It's a smart approach and the complaint is very well constructed for this kind of complaint. If I were still in the business I'd be filing it away for future reference.

Good points, so i guarantee the thread will go off on some bizarre tangent any moment to distract.

NP, also a lawyer, and agree with the above.

[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: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.

The version of the film that made it into theaters was edited by Ryan Reynolds. In part because Lively raised these issues during production about irregularities regarding the movie's intimate and nude scenes. The birth scene was filmed with Lively nude below the waist other than a strip of fabric covering her genitals. That is not in dispute.

It would be interesting to compare the version of the film that Baldoni approved (which is not the one in theaters) and compare how graphic the sex scenes are and in particular how Lively's body is shown. In fact I would not be surprised if at some point that becomes part of the evidentiary showing in the case. Especially since part of the dispute is the production's failure to obtain nudity riders for all nude scenes, which would govern how an actor can be filmed in those scenes (as well as who is on set, where the scene is shot, etc.).

Wait, are you actually saying the production team ever thought they would get a shot of Blake’s V in this movie?

When has that ever happened in a PG 13 movie meant to be marketed to a mainstream American audience??? If That is what they’re implying that strains all credibility.

Of course not. No one even suggested that. And that's not what the comment you're responding to says at all. Learn to read.

That’s exactly what is being suggested. She is saying they wanted to film her nude and doing graphic sex scenes. I don’t believe for a minute it was ever the intent to remove her cover. It defies credibility.

They may have wanted to film it a different way in a way that she wasn’t comfortable with, but it was always going to be standards for a PG-13 movie they wanted to get to a wide audience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The original, non Reynolds version was also showed to test audiences and was preferrred. If there was truly anything outrageous in it, there would be abundant witnesses but I doubt that is the case, we would have heard about that.

Also, all the ridiculous outfits Lily wears were picked by Blake. Thank god that has come out because some poor costume designer has had to live with that on her credits for the past year.

That was Baldoni's claim that the test audiences preferred it. Where is the proof to his claim? Everyone else, including Hoover, wanted Blake's.

It tested better. It’s not a he said she said.

[Anonymous]

It will come down to the other person who complained about Justin making her feel uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The original, non Reynolds version was also showed to test audiences and was preferrred. If there was truly anything outrageous in it, there would be abundant witnesses but I doubt that is the case, we would have heard about that.

Also, all the ridiculous outfits Lily wears were picked by Blake. Thank god that has come out because some poor costume designer has had to live with that on her credits for the past year.

That was Baldoni's claim that the test audiences preferred it. Where is the proof to his claim? Everyone else, including Hoover, wanted Blake's.

It tested better. It’s not a he said she said.

Where are the receipts? It's a claim. Since we deny all of Blake's claims his are similarly subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will come down to the other person who complained about Justin making her feel uncomfortable.

No, it's really not going to come down to one other person. Keep dreaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TikTok blowing up with people reporting how they personally interacted with Blake on set and that she is a complete nightmare to work with. Mostly crew as opposed to actors. The amount of negative coverage she has managed to elicit is quite something.

Smells like Nathan and Abel.

No, it’s organic. The women on this forum defend her because they are middle/upper class white women and they see themselves in her, which I totally get. But to POC and younger people, she is an extremely privileged mean girl. It’s that simple.

I’ll give you an example, as an immigrant who understands differences in cultural norms, I was genuinely sad for the foreign interviewer who obviously doesn’t know that many white American women consider any commentary on their bodies as offensive. She congratulated Blake on her “cute bump” and then Blake told the interviewer she had a cute bump too or something to that effect. You could see the interviewer’s pain and discomfort. It turned out she’s infertile.

It's not that clear cut though.

I'm a UMC white lady who finds Blake Lively insufferable. She absolutely comes off as a mean girl and I had zero issue with the negative press she got over the summer. I thought that interview she did with the foreign interviewer was awful and a good display of Lively's bad personality. I also don't really like Ryan Reynolds -- he seems really smarmy and glib.

BUT based on what we've learned so far about what happened on the set of the movie, I think there's a strong chance Baldoni harassed her. Obviously we can't know for sure -- we weren't there. But if Lively's team can prove even half of what she's alleging in her complaint, I think what he did was wrong and he should be held accountable. Even though I don't like Blake Lively.

I think it will be very interesting to see how he responds. To me, a lot of what she alleges seems very subjective (what does lingered too long mean?) and given the nature of the film would depend on his intent or what was discussed before. Some of it seems to be in dispute. For example, I have read that the document with the list of terms that starts with “no more” wasn’t the document presented to baldoni, heath, etc.