Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sassy finger snaps all around etc etc.

You did not “explain.” You mischaracterized what his team submitted.

[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."

+1, I was confused by the debate over what she was wearing in that scene based on their competing narratives so I went and watched clips of it on YouTube and I land firmly in Lively's camp in terms of whether she was "partially nude." I think the way Baldoni's complaint presents it ignores the fact of the physical position she's in with her feet in stirrups for the entire scene. And the scene is much more revealing in terms of the actress's body than the vast majority of birth scenes I've seen. Even though I think the way Lively framed it in her complaint is still a little bit misleading, or maybe just confusing, I tend to agree with her that she is partially nude in the scene and it deserved more sensitivity towards her as an actress than it appears Baldoni showed.

It also bothered me that Baldoni doesn't address her allegation that they introduced the idea of her being nude in the scene the morning of the shoot and seemed to imply that because she wasn't fully nude in the scene it doesn't matter what they asked of her. IMO, asking an actress to do a birth scene nude (including topless) the day you are filming with no advance warning is sketchy. If that was their plan, it should have been discussed well in advance and they should have gotten Lively on board with it and made sure there was an IC present. This is one of Lively's stronger claims IMO because I think it's very unprofessional for them to even suggest she do the scene fully nude without the IC and without advanced warning. If they also made comments to her that wearing a hospital gown or other covering during childbirth is not "normal", as she alleges, even worse. That was the allegation from her original complaint that leapt out at me as being the most out-of-bounds and I don't think his defense really changes my opinion of it at this point.

[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.

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.

Omg yes!! Her lawyers have zero control of their client.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I do too. TY PP.

Her hair did look so bad in this movie.

[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."

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.

Generally when an actor/actress is shown in underwear or a bathing suit, they are not lying down with their feet in stirrups and another actor positioned directly between their legs. Generally the only time you'd have an actor in that position with another actor so close to their private parts is during a sex scene.

Also, due to the body work involved in getting ready to be filmed in underwear or a bathing suit, most any actor would expect some warning that they will be doing a scene in minimal clothing -- it would be explicitly scripted and they'd know well in advance. If an actor signed onto a script that did not mention them dressed in that way at all, and then one day they showed up to the set and the director was like "here's the bikini you will be wearing," I think a lot of actors would consider that inappropriate or even harassing behavior.

[Anonymous]

I have never seen so much obsession over giving birth in my life. Move on for the love of god.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have never seen so much obsession over giving birth in my life. Move on for the love of god.

Agreed, it does seem like Baldoni and Heath had an unhealthy obsession with childbirth and strange ideas about what was normal and not normal. Also really weird that they were so obsessed with it that Baldoni asked Heath to show Lively his wife's birth video even after they'd already filmed the birth scene. So weird they wouldn't let it go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never seen so much obsession over giving birth in my life. Move on for the love of god.

Agreed, it does seem like Baldoni and Heath had an unhealthy obsession with childbirth and strange ideas about what was normal and not normal. Also really weird that they were so obsessed with it that Baldoni asked Heath to show Lively his wife's birth video even after they'd already filmed the birth scene. So weird they wouldn't let it go.

I am referring to your obsession.

[Anonymous]

Justin wants all things Nicepool.

https://www.aol.com/justin-baldoni-demands-disney-turn-232000427.html

[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."

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.

Well, the first result that comes back on a google search for partial nudity definitions says that when the nudity is implied and you see naked side shots of the legs, though there may actually be some covering over the genitalia, that is considered by Hollywood to be partial nudity. It's not a sex scene here but I'm pretty sure the sex and delivery standards would be considered the same - this is not some beach scene and the nudity is implied. https://www.quora.com/In-a-sexual-scene-are-the-actors-truly-naked

Another source, this time a wiki, agrees that partial nudity is when the nudity is implied but not completely shown: "a female character is presented as partially nude. Scenes like this may also be construed as implied nudity. It is not uncommon for actresses to use costuming techniques to give the appearance of nudity even though they may be fully clothed." https://moviedatabase.fandom.com/wiki/Female_partial_nudity

I wouldn't say Lively was fully clothed here when her genitalia was just covered by one layer, but I see what they're saying and "partial nudity" describes this scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

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.

Generally when an actor/actress is shown in underwear or a bathing suit, they are not lying down with their feet in stirrups and another actor positioned directly between their legs. Generally the only time you'd have an actor in that position with another actor so close to their private parts is during a sex scene.

Also, due to the body work involved in getting ready to be filmed in underwear or a bathing suit, most any actor would expect some warning that they will be doing a scene in minimal clothing -- it would be explicitly scripted and they'd know well in advance. If an actor signed onto a script that did not mention them dressed in that way at all, and then one day they showed up to the set and the director was like "here's the bikini you will be wearing," I think a lot of actors would consider that inappropriate or even harassing behavior.

Corner A- Liar says someone was murmuring into her neck about how good she smelled out of the blue. Liar says there was no audio. Footage comes out with full audio indicating that the scene is acted for B roll in scene. Liar and her rat-faced spouse go to the Bahamas and release statements on background to tabloids about how easy breezy they feel. Public support for the couple goes poof.

Corner B- director who has developed project for several years releases audio and documentary evidence contradicting the liar. A birth scene that several foolios on a conveniently anon message board become obsessed with becomes the new talking point, where supporters of Liar argue that an actress wearing underpants, a fake belly and a hospital gown to give birth to a human baby is effectively naked. The director shows that the governing doc for the scene requires a closed set. Supporters of liar argue that it’s just like one’s opinion man to note that the director has submitted supporting docs to his version of events. Supporters of Liar repeatedly hammer the point that women’s underwear tends to not be parachute sized, and then scurry away, feeling, incorrectly, that they have made something approaching a point.

Choose your corner I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Justin wants all things Nicepool.

https://www.aol.com/justin-baldoni-demands-disney-turn-232000427.html

Now this will be interesting indeed.

[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."

+1, I was confused by the debate over what she was wearing in that scene based on their competing narratives so I went and watched clips of it on YouTube and I land firmly in Lively's camp in terms of whether she was "partially nude." I think the way Baldoni's complaint presents it ignores the fact of the physical position she's in with her feet in stirrups for the entire scene. And the scene is much more revealing in terms of the actress's body than the vast majority of birth scenes I've seen. Even though I think the way Lively framed it in her complaint is still a little bit misleading, or maybe just confusing, I tend to agree with her that she is partially nude in the scene and it deserved more sensitivity towards her as an actress than it appears Baldoni showed.

It also bothered me that Baldoni doesn't address her allegation that they introduced the idea of her being nude in the scene the morning of the shoot and seemed to imply that because she wasn't fully nude in the scene it doesn't matter what they asked of her. IMO, asking an actress to do a birth scene nude (including topless) the day you are filming with no advance warning is sketchy. If that was their plan, it should have been discussed well in advance and they should have gotten Lively on board with it and made sure there was an IC present. This is one of Lively's stronger claims IMO because I think it's very unprofessional for them to even suggest she do the scene fully nude without the IC and without advanced warning. If they also made comments to her that wearing a hospital gown or other covering during childbirth is not "normal", as she alleges, even worse. That was the allegation from her original complaint that leapt out at me as being the most out-of-bounds and I don't think his defense really changes my opinion of it at this point.

Yes, you said all of this yesterday and the day before and so on. Just go back and look at the replies and save us all some,e time. You are still wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I do too. TY PP.

Her hair did look so bad in this movie.

Does Lily have curly hair in the book? I agree that Blake looks best with straight hair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I do too. TY PP.

Her hair did look so bad in this movie.

Does Lily have curly hair in the book? I agree that Blake looks best with straight hair.

She has red hair and is in her twenties in the book. She would not be someone that could afford louboutins even though Blake insisted she would have them with her wardrobe upgrade.