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.
The orange color was SO bad for her skin tone!
It was Ronald McDonald rather than Young Julianne Moore. Unforced error again to shill her hair line somewhat contemporaneously with the film’s run. It just looked bad.
Why was her hair orange? Was it supposed to look horrible for the movie?
And it was straggly, so so straggly. Why did she look horrendous here? Was she supposed to look bad?
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.
The orange color was SO bad for her skin tone!
It was Ronald McDonald rather than Young Julianne Moore. Unforced error again to shill her hair line somewhat contemporaneously with the film’s run. It just looked bad.
Why was her hair orange? Was it supposed to look horrible for the movie?
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.
Paragraph 120 of Baldoni's amended complaint lists the other things she was wearing as though they were covering her genitalia or as though they made this somehow not a partially nude scene. But the hospital gown and the pregnancy belly weren't covering her "nearly nude genitalia" which is the part of Lively's complaint they've quoted to dispute. She only had briefs or something -- just one layer -- over her genitalia, and her naked legs were fully visible from the side. That makes her claim that Baldoni's friend/actor the obstetrician was "in close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia" (which Baldoni is disputing in paragraph 119) absolutely true and correct, and Baldoni's later claim in paragraph 120 that Lively was not "partially nude" for this scene is also absolutely false under Hollywood standards. (I agree she wasn't nude.)
This is not a mischaracterization. This is simply a careful parsing of the complaint and fwiw I'm a lawyer. Lively's footnote language about the thin strip of fabric was also misleading if she was actually wearing a pair of briefs (though again, those "briefs" are certainly not visible from the side, in the camera shots) -- but this is nowhere near as misleading as these paragraphs of Boldoni's amended complaint. And if you don't agree, feel free to post your actual explanation instead of some easy and sneery insult, but whatever.
Sneer sneer.
How are you characterizing the Baldoni materials as “misleading” if his counsel do not put in writing, in smoke signals, or in some kind of mind meld, any contradicting description of Lively wearing underpants? How is adding detail about what she was wearing in full in the scene (prosthesis, gown, undies) rise to deception on his part, or become tantamount to mischaracterization?
Because Baldoni's lawyers list the prosthesis and the gown as specific support for their statement that Lively's genitalia were covered by more than a small layer of fabric, when those other two items were not covering her genitalia at all. Then they double down and say she wasn't even "partially nude" when that's an industry standard term -- if they didn't want to use an industry standard term to mean the industry standard definition, they should have specifically defined "partially nude" in their complaint to mean something else.
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.
The orange color was SO bad for her skin tone!
It was Ronald McDonald rather than Young Julianne Moore. Unforced error again to shill her hair line somewhat contemporaneously with the film’s run. It just looked bad.
Why was her hair orange? Was it supposed to look horrible for the movie?
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.
The orange color was SO bad for her skin tone!
It was Ronald McDonald rather than Young Julianne Moore. Unforced error again to shill her hair line somewhat contemporaneously with the film’s run. It just looked bad.
Why was her hair orange? Was it supposed to look horrible for the movie?
Probably a bad dye job.
But why? Why would BL agree to that hair?
Why should she choose the outfits she chose? Bad taste is my guess.
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.
Paragraph 120 of Baldoni's amended complaint lists the other things she was wearing as though they were covering her genitalia or as though they made this somehow not a partially nude scene. But the hospital gown and the pregnancy belly weren't covering her "nearly nude genitalia" which is the part of Lively's complaint they've quoted to dispute. She only had briefs or something -- just one layer -- over her genitalia, and her naked legs were fully visible from the side. That makes her claim that Baldoni's friend/actor the obstetrician was "in close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia" (which Baldoni is disputing in paragraph 119) absolutely true and correct, and Baldoni's later claim in paragraph 120 that Lively was not "partially nude" for this scene is also absolutely false under Hollywood standards. (I agree she wasn't nude.)
This is not a mischaracterization. This is simply a careful parsing of the complaint and fwiw I'm a lawyer. Lively's footnote language about the thin strip of fabric was also misleading if she was actually wearing a pair of briefs (though again, those "briefs" are certainly not visible from the side, in the camera shots) -- but this is nowhere near as misleading as these paragraphs of Boldoni's amended complaint. And if you don't agree, feel free to post your actual explanation instead of some easy and sneery insult, but whatever.
Sneer sneer.
How are you characterizing the Baldoni materials as “misleading” if his counsel do not put in writing, in smoke signals, or in some kind of mind meld, any contradicting description of Lively wearing underpants? How is adding detail about what she was wearing in full in the scene (prosthesis, gown, undies) rise to deception on his part, or become tantamount to mischaracterization?
Because Baldoni's lawyers list the prosthesis and the gown as specific support for their statement that Lively's genitalia were covered by more than a small layer of fabric, when those other two items were not covering her genitalia at all. Then they double down and say she wasn't even "partially nude" when that's an industry standard term -- if they didn't want to use an industry standard term to mean the industry standard definition, they should have specifically defined "partially nude" in their complaint to mean something else.
Girl, you are going to get your degree Matthew Martoma’d here. Go look it up.
Where did his attorneys write that the prosthesis and gown covered her vulvar area?
Anonymous wrote:The whole discussion of the birth scene is so stupid. They didn’t want the camera anywhere near Livelys crotch because we all knew she wasn’t pregnant, there was no crowning, there was no baby coming out. And yet people acted like they were trying to get shots of genitalia or something… I don’t get it.
Further, when you look at the scene, you can see the actor playing the doctor‘s full face. He was nowhere near and I mean nowhere near her crotch. You do realize again she was not actually giving birth and he wasn’t actually doing an exam on her and helping her birth a baby right?
The poor man was probably on set for half an hour, and he probably couldn’t get out of there fast enough given how difficult lively is.
+1 and if she was in fact wearing briefs he didn’t SEE anything either… yes she was in stirrups so he saw her thighs, but her private parts were covered.
This isn’t the first birthing scene ever in a film, why were they trying to reinvent the wheel here?
This, it's so weird that Baldoni/Heath somehow got this idea in their head that Lively would be nude (including topless) in the scene, and thought they could throw that at her the day of filming. Baldoni has done birth scenes before (where the actress was fully covered up with no implied nudity at all) and surely they've both seen movies before? Here are a bunch of birth scenes from critically-respected films, none of which required the actress to be topless or featured shots of the actress from the side with her hips and belly exposed:
There are more, these are just the ones that came up when I googled. I also found the birth scene from Children of Men (talk about a pivotal scene) but didn't include it because it does include a shot where you very briefly see the baby emerging from her body, but it's super fast and obviously done with a prosthetic of some kind -- the actress is wearing a dress and you only see her knees in the scene even though it's dramatic and graphic.
So the idea that Lively should have just expected to be totally nude in this birth scene with no warning and that they didn't need an IC or to take some extra care with it is deranged to me. It's a much more exposed version of a birth scene even for a dramatic movie than is typical. But because their wives gave birth nude, they expected Lively to simulate that in this movie? WTF? It's so weird.
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.
Paragraph 120 of Baldoni's amended complaint lists the other things she was wearing as though they were covering her genitalia or as though they made this somehow not a partially nude scene. But the hospital gown and the pregnancy belly weren't covering her "nearly nude genitalia" which is the part of Lively's complaint they've quoted to dispute. She only had briefs or something -- just one layer -- over her genitalia, and her naked legs were fully visible from the side. That makes her claim that Baldoni's friend/actor the obstetrician was "in close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia" (which Baldoni is disputing in paragraph 119) absolutely true and correct, and Baldoni's later claim in paragraph 120 that Lively was not "partially nude" for this scene is also absolutely false under Hollywood standards. (I agree she wasn't nude.)
This is not a mischaracterization. This is simply a careful parsing of the complaint and fwiw I'm a lawyer. Lively's footnote language about the thin strip of fabric was also misleading if she was actually wearing a pair of briefs (though again, those "briefs" are certainly not visible from the side, in the camera shots) -- but this is nowhere near as misleading as these paragraphs of Boldoni's amended complaint. And if you don't agree, feel free to post your actual explanation instead of some easy and sneery insult, but whatever.
Sneer sneer.
How are you characterizing the Baldoni materials as “misleading” if his counsel do not put in writing, in smoke signals, or in some kind of mind meld, any contradicting description of Lively wearing underpants? How is adding detail about what she was wearing in full in the scene (prosthesis, gown, undies) rise to deception on his part, or become tantamount to mischaracterization?
Because Baldoni's lawyers list the prosthesis and the gown as specific support for their statement that Lively's genitalia were covered by more than a small layer of fabric, when those other two items were not covering her genitalia at all. Then they double down and say she wasn't even "partially nude" when that's an industry standard term -- if they didn't want to use an industry standard term to mean the industry standard definition, they should have specifically defined "partially nude" in their complaint to mean something else.
She wasn’t even partially nude by the standard she defines in her own complaint.
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.
The orange color was SO bad for her skin tone!
It was Ronald McDonald rather than Young Julianne Moore. Unforced error again to shill her hair line somewhat contemporaneously with the film’s run. It just looked bad.
Why was her hair orange? Was it supposed to look horrible for the movie?
Probably a bad dye job.
But why? Why would BL agree to that hair?
Why should she choose the outfits she chose? Bad taste is my guess.
The outfits with two pairs of pants are what gets me. Who does that?
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.
Paragraph 120 of Baldoni's amended complaint lists the other things she was wearing as though they were covering her genitalia or as though they made this somehow not a partially nude scene. But the hospital gown and the pregnancy belly weren't covering her "nearly nude genitalia" which is the part of Lively's complaint they've quoted to dispute. She only had briefs or something -- just one layer -- over her genitalia, and her naked legs were fully visible from the side. That makes her claim that Baldoni's friend/actor the obstetrician was "in close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia" (which Baldoni is disputing in paragraph 119) absolutely true and correct, and Baldoni's later claim in paragraph 120 that Lively was not "partially nude" for this scene is also absolutely false under Hollywood standards. (I agree she wasn't nude.)
This is not a mischaracterization. This is simply a careful parsing of the complaint and fwiw I'm a lawyer. Lively's footnote language about the thin strip of fabric was also misleading if she was actually wearing a pair of briefs (though again, those "briefs" are certainly not visible from the side, in the camera shots) -- but this is nowhere near as misleading as these paragraphs of Boldoni's amended complaint. And if you don't agree, feel free to post your actual explanation instead of some easy and sneery insult, but whatever.
Sneer sneer.
How are you characterizing the Baldoni materials as “misleading” if his counsel do not put in writing, in smoke signals, or in some kind of mind meld, any contradicting description of Lively wearing underpants? How is adding detail about what she was wearing in full in the scene (prosthesis, gown, undies) rise to deception on his part, or become tantamount to mischaracterization?
Because Baldoni's lawyers list the prosthesis and the gown as specific support for their statement that Lively's genitalia were covered by more than a small layer of fabric, when those other two items were not covering her genitalia at all. Then they double down and say she wasn't even "partially nude" when that's an industry standard term -- if they didn't want to use an industry standard term to mean the industry standard definition, they should have specifically defined "partially nude" in their complaint to mean something else.
Girl, you are going to get your degree Matthew Martoma’d here. Go look it up.
Where did his attorneys write that the prosthesis and gown covered her vulvar area?
I really don't understand how much clearer I can possibly be. If John says "The only thing I had covering my penis was a jockstrap" and you say "that's completely false: In fact John was wearing briefs and was covered by a hospital gown," then you're being misleading in using the hospital gown as refutation of the specific statement of what the penis was covered with. It's not as misleading as his attorneys actually saying "John's penis was covered by both briefs and a hospital gown" but it's still misleading.
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.
Paragraph 120 of Baldoni's amended complaint lists the other things she was wearing as though they were covering her genitalia or as though they made this somehow not a partially nude scene. But the hospital gown and the pregnancy belly weren't covering her "nearly nude genitalia" which is the part of Lively's complaint they've quoted to dispute. She only had briefs or something -- just one layer -- over her genitalia, and her naked legs were fully visible from the side. That makes her claim that Baldoni's friend/actor the obstetrician was "in close proximity to her nearly nude genitalia" (which Baldoni is disputing in paragraph 119) absolutely true and correct, and Baldoni's later claim in paragraph 120 that Lively was not "partially nude" for this scene is also absolutely false under Hollywood standards. (I agree she wasn't nude.)
This is not a mischaracterization. This is simply a careful parsing of the complaint and fwiw I'm a lawyer. Lively's footnote language about the thin strip of fabric was also misleading if she was actually wearing a pair of briefs (though again, those "briefs" are certainly not visible from the side, in the camera shots) -- but this is nowhere near as misleading as these paragraphs of Boldoni's amended complaint. And if you don't agree, feel free to post your actual explanation instead of some easy and sneery insult, but whatever.
Sneer sneer.
How are you characterizing the Baldoni materials as “misleading” if his counsel do not put in writing, in smoke signals, or in some kind of mind meld, any contradicting description of Lively wearing underpants? How is adding detail about what she was wearing in full in the scene (prosthesis, gown, undies) rise to deception on his part, or become tantamount to mischaracterization?
Because Baldoni's lawyers list the prosthesis and the gown as specific support for their statement that Lively's genitalia were covered by more than a small layer of fabric, when those other two items were not covering her genitalia at all. Then they double down and say she wasn't even "partially nude" when that's an industry standard term -- if they didn't want to use an industry standard term to mean the industry standard definition, they should have specifically defined "partially nude" in their complaint to mean something else.
Girl, you are going to get your degree Matthew Martoma’d here. Go look it up.
Where did his attorneys write that the prosthesis and gown covered her vulvar area?
I really don't understand how much clearer I can possibly be. If John says "The only thing I had covering my penis was a jockstrap" and you say "that's completely false: In fact John was wearing briefs and was covered by a hospital gown," then you're being misleading in using the hospital gown as refutation of the specific statement of what the penis was covered with. It's not as misleading as his attorneys actually saying "John's penis was covered by both briefs and a hospital gown" but it's still misleading.
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.
The orange color was SO bad for her skin tone!
It was Ronald McDonald rather than Young Julianne Moore. Unforced error again to shill her hair line somewhat contemporaneously with the film’s run. It just looked bad.
Why was her hair orange? Was it supposed to look horrible for the movie?
Probably a bad dye job.
But why? Why would BL agree to that hair?
Why should she choose the outfits she chose? Bad taste is my guess.
The outfits with two pairs of pants are what gets me. Who does that?
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}