Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Over and over, I see it mentioned that Baldoni hired Depp’s team. But Lively has been working with Weinstein’s PR team and still does (Leslie Sloane)

Depp really more terrible than Weinstein? I think not. I think they are both plenty terrible but Weinstein is next level…

https://x.com/littlemissjacob/status/1874515770740457595

Leslie Sloane hasn't worked for Weinstein for many years and was not working for him when all the horrible allegations about him came out.

In fact, she reps Uma Thurmon and was her rep when Thurmon made her own allegations against Weinstein.

Weinstein was a central player in Hollywood for many years so lots and lots of people working today worked for him or Miramax at some point. Sloane has a much better and cleaner rep in the industry than Melissa Nathan, who works explicitly with beleaguered clients (whereas Sloane's a regular publicist and not a crisis specialist -- most of her clients are ongoing and hire her to help them promote projects or for awards campaigns, not to rescue them from a scandal) and is known for questionable tactics.

It's really not the same at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut.

Oops, forgot to bold. I was referring to planting stories about her marriage or family or that she slept with Weinstein.

I haven’t seen any such stories, just the various disastrous interviews. Someone should have given her media training long ago.

Yes, that was a hypothetical. Those type stories would be defamation whereas reposting the baby bump interview would not.

DP here. I will say I've seen plenty of posts here and on Reddit that allege Lively slept with Weinstein and report all kinds of wild theories about her marriage and family. And they were absolutely there last August when there was that huge groundswell of anti-Lively activity online. I'm certain some (many? all?) of those posts are just organically people jumping on a bandwagon to hate on Lively. But I would certainly not be shocked to discover some shady PR firm was behind that kind of talk either.

It genuinely was weird how much hate she got online last year, even with that old interview getting dug up and some of her obnoxious comments while promoting the movie. I participated in it, so I saw it happen. But something I remembered after she filed her lawsuit and I read about Baldoni's PR team: at one point in August or September, I remember my DH (who does not follow celebrity news at all and did not really know who Blake Lively was at the time) asking me out of the blue if he should care about what was going on with her. Very few things break through to him in that way, but the Lively stuff did, which is telling to me.

When I learned that Baldoni had hired the same team that worked for Johnny Depp, I'll be honest: I felt stupid. Because I absolutely jumped on that bandwagon and was posting about how horrible she was in that interview and how tone deaf she was and how "I never liked her." And now I genuinely wonder how much of that was organically how I felt and how much of it was me buying into a narrative. It's making me question my instincts and motivations. I'll definitely be paying close attention to this aspect of the case because I feel weirdly implicated in it. I don't think Lively is some kind of saint and any public person has to accept they'll be talked and gossiped about. But the internet hate can get out of control and if it's being pushed by interested parties, that's actually really disturbing.

Look, the bad press about lively has always been there. It’s nothing new and Justin Baldoni and his PR scheme did not generate it. I discovered a podcast called Beyond The Blinds in 2023 before any of this it ends with us mess started. I discovered one episode in 2021 that did a deep dive on Blake lively. Was all about the Weinstein rumors, all about her terrible behavior on gossip girl, all about her failed lifestyle brand preserve and even a lot of accounts of terrible behavior in that workplace and squashed lawsuits by her her PR team, also rampant talk that she facilitated the breakup of Ryan and Scarlett’s marriage, though I truly think that was on its way out anyway. Supposed affair with Ben on the set of the town etc.

After discovering that, I found several Reddit threads that also have all of these theories. For the most part people keep them pretty down low because Blake herself is pretty down low. She hasn’t done a movie since 2018, she basically has been having babies and supporting Ryan on the red carpet and showing up at some fashion events.

As soon as she started getting press with it ends with us, the bad press about her started up in full force because a lot of people don’t like her. This was well before Baldoni did anything. Her being cast as Lilly was very controversial from the start and I think a big part of the stress of this movie was that. Then she and Ryan were always in our faces launching their businesses and hanging out with Taylor Swift. People were really annoyed at last year‘s Super Bowl and her $500,000 worth of jewelry. People have always just thought she is utterly tone deaf and just hanging on coattails. It snowballed from all that and by the time filming resumed in January 2024 I think she was feeling pretty desperate, deeply insecure, and was ready to lash out.

Baldoni and his team didn’t cause any of that. There has been an undercurrent brewing for years and then her complete and total botched marketing of the movie happened. People keep saying Sony did the marketing, but maximum effort was Ryan Reynolds company and they were a huge part of the marketing that she did.

The baby bump interview lady has come out and said she was not hired or prompted by anyone to release that video. Of course she could be lying, but I’m sure there are ways to prove that I guess we shall see.

I’ll say one more thing. There is a celebrity hairstylist called Justin Anderson, if you follow Kristin Cavallari she is BFFs with him. He is very successful with some hair products of his own and being a hairstylist to a lot of celebrities. So he has a platform, but of course isn’t really in the entertainment industry in a way that could be threatened by Ryan so he can speak pretty freely in a way maybe actors can’t. He was on a podcast and said something like the Blake and Ryan Backlash was a long time coming and a bunch more stuff is likely coming out about how difficult they are.

To blame Justin Baldoni for that is insane. This has been brewing for a long time. They were looking for a scapegoat and it’s backfired.

[Anonymous]

Blake is so crazy.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/blake-lively-begged-not-show-170148700.html

[Anonymous]

In his lawsuit against the pair, Baldoni claims Reynolds and Lively pressured the talent agency they shared, WME, to drop him as a client. The Jan. 16 complaint says Reynolds approached a talent executive, called Baldoni a ‘sexual predator’ and demanded they cut ties. The agency has since refuted the claim the couple was involved in its decision to separate from the actor.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2025/01/22/all-of-justin-baldonis-allegations-against-blake-lively-explained-as-he-releases-it-ends-with-us-outtakes/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut.

Oops, forgot to bold. I was referring to planting stories about her marriage or family or that she slept with Weinstein.

I haven’t seen any such stories, just the various disastrous interviews. Someone should have given her media training long ago.

Yes, that was a hypothetical. Those type stories would be defamation whereas reposting the baby bump interview would not.

DP here. I will say I've seen plenty of posts here and on Reddit that allege Lively slept with Weinstein and report all kinds of wild theories about her marriage and family. And they were absolutely there last August when there was that huge groundswell of anti-Lively activity online. I'm certain some (many? all?) of those posts are just organically people jumping on a bandwagon to hate on Lively. But I would certainly not be shocked to discover some shady PR firm was behind that kind of talk either.

It genuinely was weird how much hate she got online last year, even with that old interview getting dug up and some of her obnoxious comments while promoting the movie. I participated in it, so I saw it happen. But something I remembered after she filed her lawsuit and I read about Baldoni's PR team: at one point in August or September, I remember my DH (who does not follow celebrity news at all and did not really know who Blake Lively was at the time) asking me out of the blue if he should care about what was going on with her. Very few things break through to him in that way, but the Lively stuff did, which is telling to me.

When I learned that Baldoni had hired the same team that worked for Johnny Depp, I'll be honest: I felt stupid. Because I absolutely jumped on that bandwagon and was posting about how horrible she was in that interview and how tone deaf she was and how "I never liked her." And now I genuinely wonder how much of that was organically how I felt and how much of it was me buying into a narrative. It's making me question my instincts and motivations. I'll definitely be paying close attention to this aspect of the case because I feel weirdly implicated in it. I don't think Lively is some kind of saint and any public person has to accept they'll be talked and gossiped about. But the internet hate can get out of control and if it's being pushed by interested parties, that's actually really disturbing.

Look, the bad press about lively has always been there. It’s nothing new and Justin Baldoni and his PR scheme did not generate it. I discovered a podcast called Beyond The Blinds in 2023 before any of this it ends with us mess started. I discovered one episode in 2021 that did a deep dive on Blake lively. Was all about the Weinstein rumors, all about her terrible behavior on gossip girl, all about her failed lifestyle brand preserve and even a lot of accounts of terrible behavior in that workplace and squashed lawsuits by her her PR team, also rampant talk that she facilitated the breakup of Ryan and Scarlett’s marriage, though I truly think that was on its way out anyway. Supposed affair with Ben on the set of the town etc.

After discovering that, I found several Reddit threads that also have all of these theories. For the most part people keep them pretty down low because Blake herself is pretty down low. She hasn’t done a movie since 2018, she basically has been having babies and supporting Ryan on the red carpet and showing up at some fashion events.

As soon as she started getting press with it ends with us, the bad press about her started up in full force because a lot of people don’t like her. This was well before Baldoni did anything. Her being cast as Lilly was very controversial from the start and I think a big part of the stress of this movie was that. Then she and Ryan were always in our faces launching their businesses and hanging out with Taylor Swift. People were really annoyed at last year‘s Super Bowl and her $500,000 worth of jewelry. People have always just thought she is utterly tone deaf and just hanging on coattails. It snowballed from all that and by the time filming resumed in January 2024 I think she was feeling pretty desperate, deeply insecure, and was ready to lash out.

Baldoni and his team didn’t cause any of that. There has been an undercurrent brewing for years and then her complete and total botched marketing of the movie happened. People keep saying Sony did the marketing, but maximum effort was Ryan Reynolds company and they were a huge part of the marketing that she did.

The baby bump interview lady has come out and said she was not hired or prompted by anyone to release that video. Of course she could be lying, but I’m sure there are ways to prove that I guess we shall see.

I’ll say one more thing. There is a celebrity hairstylist called Justin Anderson, if you follow Kristin Cavallari she is BFFs with him. He is very successful with some hair products of his own and being a hairstylist to a lot of celebrities. So he has a platform, but of course isn’t really in the entertainment industry in a way that could be threatened by Ryan so he can speak pretty freely in a way maybe actors can’t. He was on a podcast and said something like the Blake and Ryan Backlash was a long time coming and a bunch more stuff is likely coming out about how difficult they are.

To blame Justin Baldoni for that is insane. This has been brewing for a long time. They were looking for a scapegoat and it’s backfired.

Yes! Let’s not forget how she texted Ben affleck nudes and Jennifer garner found them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bolded would be defamation, so even more clear cut.

Oops, forgot to bold. I was referring to planting stories about her marriage or family or that she slept with Weinstein.

I haven’t seen any such stories, just the various disastrous interviews. Someone should have given her media training long ago.

Yes, that was a hypothetical. Those type stories would be defamation whereas reposting the baby bump interview would not.

DP here. I will say I've seen plenty of posts here and on Reddit that allege Lively slept with Weinstein and report all kinds of wild theories about her marriage and family. And they were absolutely there last August when there was that huge groundswell of anti-Lively activity online. I'm certain some (many? all?) of those posts are just organically people jumping on a bandwagon to hate on Lively. But I would certainly not be shocked to discover some shady PR firm was behind that kind of talk either.

It genuinely was weird how much hate she got online last year, even with that old interview getting dug up and some of her obnoxious comments while promoting the movie. I participated in it, so I saw it happen. But something I remembered after she filed her lawsuit and I read about Baldoni's PR team: at one point in August or September, I remember my DH (who does not follow celebrity news at all and did not really know who Blake Lively was at the time) asking me out of the blue if he should care about what was going on with her. Very few things break through to him in that way, but the Lively stuff did, which is telling to me.

When I learned that Baldoni had hired the same team that worked for Johnny Depp, I'll be honest: I felt stupid. Because I absolutely jumped on that bandwagon and was posting about how horrible she was in that interview and how tone deaf she was and how "I never liked her." And now I genuinely wonder how much of that was organically how I felt and how much of it was me buying into a narrative. It's making me question my instincts and motivations. I'll definitely be paying close attention to this aspect of the case because I feel weirdly implicated in it. I don't think Lively is some kind of saint and any public person has to accept they'll be talked and gossiped about. But the internet hate can get out of control and if it's being pushed by interested parties, that's actually really disturbing.

Look, the bad press about lively has always been there. It’s nothing new and Justin Baldoni and his PR scheme did not generate it. I discovered a podcast called Beyond The Blinds in 2023 before any of this it ends with us mess started. I discovered one episode in 2021 that did a deep dive on Blake lively. Was all about the Weinstein rumors, all about her terrible behavior on gossip girl, all about her failed lifestyle brand preserve and even a lot of accounts of terrible behavior in that workplace and squashed lawsuits by her her PR team, also rampant talk that she facilitated the breakup of Ryan and Scarlett’s marriage, though I truly think that was on its way out anyway. Supposed affair with Ben on the set of the town etc.

After discovering that, I found several Reddit threads that also have all of these theories. For the most part people keep them pretty down low because Blake herself is pretty down low. She hasn’t done a movie since 2018, she basically has been having babies and supporting Ryan on the red carpet and showing up at some fashion events.

As soon as she started getting press with it ends with us, the bad press about her started up in full force because a lot of people don’t like her. This was well before Baldoni did anything. Her being cast as Lilly was very controversial from the start and I think a big part of the stress of this movie was that. Then she and Ryan were always in our faces launching their businesses and hanging out with Taylor Swift. People were really annoyed at last year‘s Super Bowl and her $500,000 worth of jewelry. People have always just thought she is utterly tone deaf and just hanging on coattails. It snowballed from all that and by the time filming resumed in January 2024 I think she was feeling pretty desperate, deeply insecure, and was ready to lash out.

Baldoni and his team didn’t cause any of that. There has been an undercurrent brewing for years and then her complete and total botched marketing of the movie happened. People keep saying Sony did the marketing, but maximum effort was Ryan Reynolds company and they were a huge part of the marketing that she did.

The baby bump interview lady has come out and said she was not hired or prompted by anyone to release that video. Of course she could be lying, but I’m sure there are ways to prove that I guess we shall see.

I’ll say one more thing. There is a celebrity hairstylist called Justin Anderson, if you follow Kristin Cavallari she is BFFs with him. He is very successful with some hair products of his own and being a hairstylist to a lot of celebrities. So he has a platform, but of course isn’t really in the entertainment industry in a way that could be threatened by Ryan so he can speak pretty freely in a way maybe actors can’t. He was on a podcast and said something like the Blake and Ryan Backlash was a long time coming and a bunch more stuff is likely coming out about how difficult they are.

To blame Justin Baldoni for that is insane. This has been brewing for a long time. They were looking for a scapegoat and it’s backfired.

Yes! Let’s not forget how she texted Ben affleck nudes and Jennifer garner found them.

Prior to her extensive plastic surgeries she wouldn’t have had the confidence to act like this, she wouldn’t have been sending nudes, etc. her plastic surgeries created an arrogant monster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

It's not clear to me that Reynolds ever called Baldoni a sexual predator. This is a good example of where Baldoni's docs don't always support what he is alleging. There's an allegation that Reynold's called Baldoni's agent and called Baldoni a "deranged predator" but it's not clear where this quote comes from. Is that literally what Reynolds said or is that what Baldoni's agent told Baldoni he said? Or is it how Baldoni interpreted what his agent said? Or how Abel and Nathan interpreted with the agent said? A lot of people involved have a tendency to use very strong language (Abel and Nathan's texts to each other are just constant over-the-top foul language).

And then later in Baldoni's docs it uses this language regarding what Reynolds said to a WME exec at the Deadpool premiere party: "Reynolds approached a senior executive at WME and expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, going as far as to suggest that the agency is working with a 'sexual predator.'" Did Reynolds actually say "sexual predator"? Or did he imply it when he expressed his disdain for Baldoni? Those are two very different accusations and the choice to put the words sexual predator in quotes without attributing that quote to anyone is... interesting.

I know people will yell at me and say I'm shilling for Lively but I'm really not. I think Lively also plays fast and loose with some facts, such as the way her complaint sneakily implies that she was wearing nothing but a modesty shield int he birth scene when it appears she was wearing briefs (though even here I also think Baldoni gets cute by claiming a woman wearing briefs in a birth scene is "fully clothed" -- I don't consider myself fully clothed in my underwear, especially not if I'm lying on a hospital bed with my legs in stirrups, but I digress).

The point is that both complaints have been a bit questionable in terms of presenting "facts" and I would be careful about marrying myself to either narrative. I think both sides have trumped up allegations quite a bit and it's hard to say what is going to be left to believe once answers have been filed and some discovery has been undertaken.

DP, but this part of the Baldoni complaint also really bothered me. I thought it was unfair to call Lively “fully clothed” because she had on briefs or panties or whatever — one layer of protection between her genitals and the obstetrician actors hands etc. With lots of skin showing is not really “fully clothed.” It was clear from Lively’s complaint that she was talking about what covering was on her genetalia, and not so much the rest of her body. Then Baldoni cited to her gown and the pregnancy belly as though that were a second and third layer of covering of her genitalia, which is nonsense. But as you say, Lively’s own complaint shadily talked about a thin strip covering just her genitalia instead of saying she was wearing panties/briefs, which also seemed deceptive if she was, so I didn’t post my complaint.

I will say that, watching the scene, they either edited out the black briefs or the black briefs are a lie, because you can basically see all of Lively’s leg from torso through lower leg, and there are no black briefs there. At one point I thought I saw something that might be a white cloth or tubing. But you definitely don’t get black brief.

Can we get another 800 paragraphs about this please? Do you and Tweedledum think one of you can explain how he lies or misleads? Is it in any responsive material that the fake belly and hospital gown cover her vulva?

Okay, here is the excerpt from his complaint:

Lively’s current complaint states she was “alarmed” when
Baldoni introduced him as his friend, and allowed him to play this “intimate role, in which the
actor’s face and hands were in close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia” [emphasis added],
categorizing the experience as invasive and humiliating. It is Lively’s suggestion that a highly
trained and experienced actor would have an unseemly interest in being in “close proximity to her
nearly nude genitalia” (which, as previously established, was not nude or exposed), that is
inappropriate, invasive, and humiliating to the actor.

120. To reiterate, Lively knowingly made a false statement that “only a small piece of
fabric cover[ed] her genitalia” during the birth scene. In fact, Lively was wearing briefs during the
scene and was covered by a hospital gown, and was wearing a pregnancy suit covering her
midsection; this was not in any way a nude or partially nude scene.

The section of her complaint that they quote here doesn't say she was fully nude, she says her genitalia was "nearly nude" -- and that's actually totally correct! Even Baldoni admits Lively only had one layer of covering on her genitalia, i.e., her reproductive area (he says black briefs). While I can understand that Baldoni might have wanted to correct a false impression given in Lively's complaint (if in fact it was false and Lively was actually wearing briefs) that she was wearing more than a thin strip covering only her genitalia, going on in paragraph 120 here to say she "was covered by a hospital gown" and that the scene "was not in any way a nude or partially nude scene" is not truthful. The hospital gown covering Lively's breasts didn't have anything to do with her "nearly nude genitalia" because that was covering her breasts and those are not her genitalia. Same with the pregnancy belly. If you have a hospital gown covering only your breasts, a pregnancy suit on your midriff, and just "briefs" covering your genitalia (which are not covering enough to be visible from the side), while an actor is hovering over your fully open legs at the catcher's plate, you are doing a partially nude scene and it is absolutely fair of Lively to have said dude was in "close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over and over, I see it mentioned that Baldoni hired Depp’s team. But Lively has been working with Weinstein’s PR team and still does (Leslie Sloane)

Depp really more terrible than Weinstein? I think not. I think they are both plenty terrible but Weinstein is next level…

https://x.com/littlemissjacob/status/1874515770740457595

Leslie Sloane hasn't worked for Weinstein for many years and was not working for him when all the horrible allegations about him came out.

In fact, she reps Uma Thurmon and was her rep when Thurmon made her own allegations against Weinstein.

Weinstein was a central player in Hollywood for many years so lots and lots of people working today worked for him or Miramax at some point. Sloane has a much better and cleaner rep in the industry than Melissa Nathan, who works explicitly with beleaguered clients (whereas Sloane's a regular publicist and not a crisis specialist -- most of her clients are ongoing and hire her to help them promote projects or for awards campaigns, not to rescue them from a scandal) and is known for questionable tactics.

It's really not the same at all.

Dp, but it’s exactly the same. You can’t argue to judge one based on all their clients, but not the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

It's not clear to me that Reynolds ever called Baldoni a sexual predator. This is a good example of where Baldoni's docs don't always support what he is alleging. There's an allegation that Reynold's called Baldoni's agent and called Baldoni a "deranged predator" but it's not clear where this quote comes from. Is that literally what Reynolds said or is that what Baldoni's agent told Baldoni he said? Or is it how Baldoni interpreted what his agent said? Or how Abel and Nathan interpreted with the agent said? A lot of people involved have a tendency to use very strong language (Abel and Nathan's texts to each other are just constant over-the-top foul language).

And then later in Baldoni's docs it uses this language regarding what Reynolds said to a WME exec at the Deadpool premiere party: "Reynolds approached a senior executive at WME and expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, going as far as to suggest that the agency is working with a 'sexual predator.'" Did Reynolds actually say "sexual predator"? Or did he imply it when he expressed his disdain for Baldoni? Those are two very different accusations and the choice to put the words sexual predator in quotes without attributing that quote to anyone is... interesting.

I know people will yell at me and say I'm shilling for Lively but I'm really not. I think Lively also plays fast and loose with some facts, such as the way her complaint sneakily implies that she was wearing nothing but a modesty shield int he birth scene when it appears she was wearing briefs (though even here I also think Baldoni gets cute by claiming a woman wearing briefs in a birth scene is "fully clothed" -- I don't consider myself fully clothed in my underwear, especially not if I'm lying on a hospital bed with my legs in stirrups, but I digress).

The point is that both complaints have been a bit questionable in terms of presenting "facts" and I would be careful about marrying myself to either narrative. I think both sides have trumped up allegations quite a bit and it's hard to say what is going to be left to believe once answers have been filed and some discovery has been undertaken.

DP, but this part of the Baldoni complaint also really bothered me. I thought it was unfair to call Lively “fully clothed” because she had on briefs or panties or whatever — one layer of protection between her genitals and the obstetrician actors hands etc. With lots of skin showing is not really “fully clothed.” It was clear from Lively’s complaint that she was talking about what covering was on her genetalia, and not so much the rest of her body. Then Baldoni cited to her gown and the pregnancy belly as though that were a second and third layer of covering of her genitalia, which is nonsense. But as you say, Lively’s own complaint shadily talked about a thin strip covering just her genitalia instead of saying she was wearing panties/briefs, which also seemed deceptive if she was, so I didn’t post my complaint.

I will say that, watching the scene, they either edited out the black briefs or the black briefs are a lie, because you can basically see all of Lively’s leg from torso through lower leg, and there are no black briefs there. At one point I thought I saw something that might be a white cloth or tubing. But you definitely don’t get black brief.

Can we get another 800 paragraphs about this please? Do you and Tweedledum think one of you can explain how he lies or misleads? Is it in any responsive material that the fake belly and hospital gown cover her vulva?

Okay, here is the excerpt from his complaint:

Lively’s current complaint states she was “alarmed” when
Baldoni introduced him as his friend, and allowed him to play this “intimate role, in which the
actor’s face and hands were in close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia” [emphasis added],
categorizing the experience as invasive and humiliating. It is Lively’s suggestion that a highly
trained and experienced actor would have an unseemly interest in being in “close proximity to her
nearly nude genitalia” (which, as previously established, was not nude or exposed), that is
inappropriate, invasive, and humiliating to the actor.

120. To reiterate, Lively knowingly made a false statement that “only a small piece of
fabric cover[ed] her genitalia” during the birth scene. In fact, Lively was wearing briefs during the
scene and was covered by a hospital gown, and was wearing a pregnancy suit covering her
midsection; this was not in any way a nude or partially nude scene.

The section of her complaint that they quote here doesn't say she was fully nude, she says her genitalia was "nearly nude" -- and that's actually totally correct! Even Baldoni admits Lively only had one layer of covering on her genitalia, i.e., her reproductive area (he says black briefs). While I can understand that Baldoni might have wanted to correct a false impression given in Lively's complaint (if in fact it was false and Lively was actually wearing briefs) that she was wearing more than a thin strip covering only her genitalia, going on in paragraph 120 here to say she "was covered by a hospital gown" and that the scene "was not in any way a nude or partially nude scene" is not truthful. The hospital gown covering Lively's breasts didn't have anything to do with her "nearly nude genitalia" because that was covering her breasts and those are not her genitalia. Same with the pregnancy belly. If you have a hospital gown covering only your breasts, a pregnancy suit on your midriff, and just "briefs" covering your genitalia (which are not covering enough to be visible from the side), while an actor is hovering over your fully open legs at the catcher's plate, you are doing a partially nude scene and it is absolutely fair of Lively to have said dude was in "close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia."

By this criteria, every actress whose appeared on film in a bikini qualifies as nearly nude. Somehow I don’t think every beach or pool scene is treated as requiring a closed set due to partial nudity.

Here she was wearing a hospital gown, pregnancy suit, and briefs which is considerably more than the average woman giving birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

It's not clear to me that Reynolds ever called Baldoni a sexual predator. This is a good example of where Baldoni's docs don't always support what he is alleging. There's an allegation that Reynold's called Baldoni's agent and called Baldoni a "deranged predator" but it's not clear where this quote comes from. Is that literally what Reynolds said or is that what Baldoni's agent told Baldoni he said? Or is it how Baldoni interpreted what his agent said? Or how Abel and Nathan interpreted with the agent said? A lot of people involved have a tendency to use very strong language (Abel and Nathan's texts to each other are just constant over-the-top foul language).

And then later in Baldoni's docs it uses this language regarding what Reynolds said to a WME exec at the Deadpool premiere party: "Reynolds approached a senior executive at WME and expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, going as far as to suggest that the agency is working with a 'sexual predator.'" Did Reynolds actually say "sexual predator"? Or did he imply it when he expressed his disdain for Baldoni? Those are two very different accusations and the choice to put the words sexual predator in quotes without attributing that quote to anyone is... interesting.

I know people will yell at me and say I'm shilling for Lively but I'm really not. I think Lively also plays fast and loose with some facts, such as the way her complaint sneakily implies that she was wearing nothing but a modesty shield int he birth scene when it appears she was wearing briefs (though even here I also think Baldoni gets cute by claiming a woman wearing briefs in a birth scene is "fully clothed" -- I don't consider myself fully clothed in my underwear, especially not if I'm lying on a hospital bed with my legs in stirrups, but I digress).

The point is that both complaints have been a bit questionable in terms of presenting "facts" and I would be careful about marrying myself to either narrative. I think both sides have trumped up allegations quite a bit and it's hard to say what is going to be left to believe once answers have been filed and some discovery has been undertaken.

DP, but this part of the Baldoni complaint also really bothered me. I thought it was unfair to call Lively “fully clothed” because she had on briefs or panties or whatever — one layer of protection between her genitals and the obstetrician actors hands etc. With lots of skin showing is not really “fully clothed.” It was clear from Lively’s complaint that she was talking about what covering was on her genetalia, and not so much the rest of her body. Then Baldoni cited to her gown and the pregnancy belly as though that were a second and third layer of covering of her genitalia, which is nonsense. But as you say, Lively’s own complaint shadily talked about a thin strip covering just her genitalia instead of saying she was wearing panties/briefs, which also seemed deceptive if she was, so I didn’t post my complaint.

I will say that, watching the scene, they either edited out the black briefs or the black briefs are a lie, because you can basically see all of Lively’s leg from torso through lower leg, and there are no black briefs there. At one point I thought I saw something that might be a white cloth or tubing. But you definitely don’t get black brief.

Can we get another 800 paragraphs about this please? Do you and Tweedledum think one of you can explain how he lies or misleads? Is it in any responsive material that the fake belly and hospital gown cover her vulva?

Okay, here is the excerpt from his complaint:

Lively’s current complaint states she was “alarmed” when
Baldoni introduced him as his friend, and allowed him to play this “intimate role, in which the
actor’s face and hands were in close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia” [emphasis added],
categorizing the experience as invasive and humiliating. It is Lively’s suggestion that a highly
trained and experienced actor would have an unseemly interest in being in “close proximity to her
nearly nude genitalia” (which, as previously established, was not nude or exposed), that is
inappropriate, invasive, and humiliating to the actor.

120. To reiterate, Lively knowingly made a false statement that “only a small piece of
fabric cover[ed] her genitalia” during the birth scene. In fact, Lively was wearing briefs during the
scene and was covered by a hospital gown, and was wearing a pregnancy suit covering her
midsection; this was not in any way a nude or partially nude scene.

The section of her complaint that they quote here doesn't say she was fully nude, she says her genitalia was "nearly nude" -- and that's actually totally correct! Even Baldoni admits Lively only had one layer of covering on her genitalia, i.e., her reproductive area (he says black briefs). While I can understand that Baldoni might have wanted to correct a false impression given in Lively's complaint (if in fact it was false and Lively was actually wearing briefs) that she was wearing more than a thin strip covering only her genitalia, going on in paragraph 120 here to say she "was covered by a hospital gown" and that the scene "was not in any way a nude or partially nude scene" is not truthful. The hospital gown covering Lively's breasts didn't have anything to do with her "nearly nude genitalia" because that was covering her breasts and those are not her genitalia. Same with the pregnancy belly. If you have a hospital gown covering only your breasts, a pregnancy suit on your midriff, and just "briefs" covering your genitalia (which are not covering enough to be visible from the side), while an actor is hovering over your fully open legs at the catcher's plate, you are doing a partially nude scene and it is absolutely fair of Lively to have said dude was in "close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia."

So for the dozenth time in this thread, you have mischaracterized what JB asserted. He has handled this well and gave a convincing full response to her tedious nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over and over, I see it mentioned that Baldoni hired Depp’s team. But Lively has been working with Weinstein’s PR team and still does (Leslie Sloane)

Depp really more terrible than Weinstein? I think not. I think they are both plenty terrible but Weinstein is next level…

https://x.com/littlemissjacob/status/1874515770740457595

Leslie Sloane hasn't worked for Weinstein for many years and was not working for him when all the horrible allegations about him came out.

In fact, she reps Uma Thurmon and was her rep when Thurmon made her own allegations against Weinstein.

Weinstein was a central player in Hollywood for many years so lots and lots of people working today worked for him or Miramax at some point. Sloane has a much better and cleaner rep in the industry than Melissa Nathan, who works explicitly with beleaguered clients (whereas Sloane's a regular publicist and not a crisis specialist -- most of her clients are ongoing and hire her to help them promote projects or for awards campaigns, not to rescue them from a scandal) and is known for questionable tactics.

It's really not the same at all.

Dp, but it’s exactly the same. You can’t argue to judge one based on all their clients, but not the other.

DP, and disagree. You're not taking any timing or context into account, and those are important. Seems like the crisis specialists are the ones who do the real dirty work, and that's not Sloane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

It's not clear to me that Reynolds ever called Baldoni a sexual predator. This is a good example of where Baldoni's docs don't always support what he is alleging. There's an allegation that Reynold's called Baldoni's agent and called Baldoni a "deranged predator" but it's not clear where this quote comes from. Is that literally what Reynolds said or is that what Baldoni's agent told Baldoni he said? Or is it how Baldoni interpreted what his agent said? Or how Abel and Nathan interpreted with the agent said? A lot of people involved have a tendency to use very strong language (Abel and Nathan's texts to each other are just constant over-the-top foul language).

And then later in Baldoni's docs it uses this language regarding what Reynolds said to a WME exec at the Deadpool premiere party: "Reynolds approached a senior executive at WME and expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, going as far as to suggest that the agency is working with a 'sexual predator.'" Did Reynolds actually say "sexual predator"? Or did he imply it when he expressed his disdain for Baldoni? Those are two very different accusations and the choice to put the words sexual predator in quotes without attributing that quote to anyone is... interesting.

I know people will yell at me and say I'm shilling for Lively but I'm really not. I think Lively also plays fast and loose with some facts, such as the way her complaint sneakily implies that she was wearing nothing but a modesty shield int he birth scene when it appears she was wearing briefs (though even here I also think Baldoni gets cute by claiming a woman wearing briefs in a birth scene is "fully clothed" -- I don't consider myself fully clothed in my underwear, especially not if I'm lying on a hospital bed with my legs in stirrups, but I digress).

The point is that both complaints have been a bit questionable in terms of presenting "facts" and I would be careful about marrying myself to either narrative. I think both sides have trumped up allegations quite a bit and it's hard to say what is going to be left to believe once answers have been filed and some discovery has been undertaken.

DP, but this part of the Baldoni complaint also really bothered me. I thought it was unfair to call Lively “fully clothed” because she had on briefs or panties or whatever — one layer of protection between her genitals and the obstetrician actors hands etc. With lots of skin showing is not really “fully clothed.” It was clear from Lively’s complaint that she was talking about what covering was on her genetalia, and not so much the rest of her body. Then Baldoni cited to her gown and the pregnancy belly as though that were a second and third layer of covering of her genitalia, which is nonsense. But as you say, Lively’s own complaint shadily talked about a thin strip covering just her genitalia instead of saying she was wearing panties/briefs, which also seemed deceptive if she was, so I didn’t post my complaint.

I will say that, watching the scene, they either edited out the black briefs or the black briefs are a lie, because you can basically see all of Lively’s leg from torso through lower leg, and there are no black briefs there. At one point I thought I saw something that might be a white cloth or tubing. But you definitely don’t get black brief.

I'm not going to pull up the complaint, but I recall it was actually more shadily worded than that in that it didn't discuss what she, specifically, was wearing at all but had some kind of a footnote describing what "might me typically worn" during a scene of that type where it was a "thin strip." But it didn't actually say that's what SHE was wearing.

Dp and a lawyer, this is exactly what she did. I called it out way back when her complaint was initially filed for being strange. Her legal team lost control over her early on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Deadpool character be grounds for a false light suit?

Satire/parody is protected speech.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/significant-and-landmark-cases/satire-is-protected-free-speech/

Thanks PP.

But Reynolds was going around (allegedly) calling him a sexual predator.

It's not clear to me that Reynolds ever called Baldoni a sexual predator. This is a good example of where Baldoni's docs don't always support what he is alleging. There's an allegation that Reynold's called Baldoni's agent and called Baldoni a "deranged predator" but it's not clear where this quote comes from. Is that literally what Reynolds said or is that what Baldoni's agent told Baldoni he said? Or is it how Baldoni interpreted what his agent said? Or how Abel and Nathan interpreted with the agent said? A lot of people involved have a tendency to use very strong language (Abel and Nathan's texts to each other are just constant over-the-top foul language).

And then later in Baldoni's docs it uses this language regarding what Reynolds said to a WME exec at the Deadpool premiere party: "Reynolds approached a senior executive at WME and expressed his deep disdain for Baldoni, going as far as to suggest that the agency is working with a 'sexual predator.'" Did Reynolds actually say "sexual predator"? Or did he imply it when he expressed his disdain for Baldoni? Those are two very different accusations and the choice to put the words sexual predator in quotes without attributing that quote to anyone is... interesting.

I know people will yell at me and say I'm shilling for Lively but I'm really not. I think Lively also plays fast and loose with some facts, such as the way her complaint sneakily implies that she was wearing nothing but a modesty shield int he birth scene when it appears she was wearing briefs (though even here I also think Baldoni gets cute by claiming a woman wearing briefs in a birth scene is "fully clothed" -- I don't consider myself fully clothed in my underwear, especially not if I'm lying on a hospital bed with my legs in stirrups, but I digress).

The point is that both complaints have been a bit questionable in terms of presenting "facts" and I would be careful about marrying myself to either narrative. I think both sides have trumped up allegations quite a bit and it's hard to say what is going to be left to believe once answers have been filed and some discovery has been undertaken.

DP, but this part of the Baldoni complaint also really bothered me. I thought it was unfair to call Lively “fully clothed” because she had on briefs or panties or whatever — one layer of protection between her genitals and the obstetrician actors hands etc. With lots of skin showing is not really “fully clothed.” It was clear from Lively’s complaint that she was talking about what covering was on her genetalia, and not so much the rest of her body. Then Baldoni cited to her gown and the pregnancy belly as though that were a second and third layer of covering of her genitalia, which is nonsense. But as you say, Lively’s own complaint shadily talked about a thin strip covering just her genitalia instead of saying she was wearing panties/briefs, which also seemed deceptive if she was, so I didn’t post my complaint.

I will say that, watching the scene, they either edited out the black briefs or the black briefs are a lie, because you can basically see all of Lively’s leg from torso through lower leg, and there are no black briefs there. At one point I thought I saw something that might be a white cloth or tubing. But you definitely don’t get black brief.

Can we get another 800 paragraphs about this please? Do you and Tweedledum think one of you can explain how he lies or misleads? Is it in any responsive material that the fake belly and hospital gown cover her vulva?

Okay, here is the excerpt from his complaint:

Lively’s current complaint states she was “alarmed” when
Baldoni introduced him as his friend, and allowed him to play this “intimate role, in which the
actor’s face and hands were in close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia” [emphasis added],
categorizing the experience as invasive and humiliating. It is Lively’s suggestion that a highly
trained and experienced actor would have an unseemly interest in being in “close proximity to her
nearly nude genitalia” (which, as previously established, was not nude or exposed), that is
inappropriate, invasive, and humiliating to the actor.

120. To reiterate, Lively knowingly made a false statement that “only a small piece of
fabric cover[ed] her genitalia” during the birth scene. In fact, Lively was wearing briefs during the
scene and was covered by a hospital gown, and was wearing a pregnancy suit covering her
midsection; this was not in any way a nude or partially nude scene.

The section of her complaint that they quote here doesn't say she was fully nude, she says her genitalia was "nearly nude" -- and that's actually totally correct! Even Baldoni admits Lively only had one layer of covering on her genitalia, i.e., her reproductive area (he says black briefs). While I can understand that Baldoni might have wanted to correct a false impression given in Lively's complaint (if in fact it was false and Lively was actually wearing briefs) that she was wearing more than a thin strip covering only her genitalia, going on in paragraph 120 here to say she "was covered by a hospital gown" and that the scene "was not in any way a nude or partially nude scene" is not truthful. The hospital gown covering Lively's breasts didn't have anything to do with her "nearly nude genitalia" because that was covering her breasts and those are not her genitalia. Same with the pregnancy belly. If you have a hospital gown covering only your breasts, a pregnancy suit on your midriff, and just "briefs" covering your genitalia (which are not covering enough to be visible from the side), while an actor is hovering over your fully open legs at the catcher's plate, you are doing a partially nude scene and it is absolutely fair of Lively to have said dude was in "close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia."

So for the dozenth time in this thread, you have mischaracterized what JB asserted. He has handled this well and gave a convincing full response to her tedious nonsense.

I fully quoted and explained two paragraphs from Baldoni's amended complaint, but go off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over and over, I see it mentioned that Baldoni hired Depp’s team. But Lively has been working with Weinstein’s PR team and still does (Leslie Sloane)

Depp really more terrible than Weinstein? I think not. I think they are both plenty terrible but Weinstein is next level…

https://x.com/littlemissjacob/status/1874515770740457595

Leslie Sloane hasn't worked for Weinstein for many years and was not working for him when all the horrible allegations about him came out.

In fact, she reps Uma Thurmon and was her rep when Thurmon made her own allegations against Weinstein.

Weinstein was a central player in Hollywood for many years so lots and lots of people working today worked for him or Miramax at some point. Sloane has a much better and cleaner rep in the industry than Melissa Nathan, who works explicitly with beleaguered clients (whereas Sloane's a regular publicist and not a crisis specialist -- most of her clients are ongoing and hire her to help them promote projects or for awards campaigns, not to rescue them from a scandal) and is known for questionable tactics.

It's really not the same at all.

Dp, but it’s exactly the same. You can’t argue to judge one based on all their clients, but not the other.

DP, and disagree. You're not taking any timing or context into account, and those are important. Seems like the crisis specialists are the ones who do the real dirty work, and that's not Sloane.

Not according to whomever has been listing every controversial client or thing done by anyone employed by Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate PP taking the time to go over how extensive the bad press has been on Lively for years. The part about a hair stylist talking about how this has been a long time coming was new to me. Not surprising. Lively’s hair care line seemed like a bad tie-in to a DV film where she had really bad color and styling. Another own goal.