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.
The actor playing the obstetrician conducted himself professionally, did he not? He was in close proximity, but he didn’t see anything (other than her briefs), he didn’t touch her inappropriately, he did not make inappropriate comments?
Anonymous wrote:The actor playing the obstetrician conducted himself professionally, did he not? He was in close proximity, but he didn’t see anything (other than her briefs), he didn’t touch her inappropriately, he did not make inappropriate comments?
Absolutely correct. Poor actor. Another victim of BL and RR.
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.
The response was not misleading.
The response was in fact misleading.
No, in fact it was not. I’m sure you or your online twin will be back with a manifesto shortly, but that changes nothing.
Yes, in fact it was misleading. I've explained exactly how. You haven't refuted it besides to say "nuh uh" and throw out random insults, so *shrug*
I'm sure other Baldoni supporters here may just mindlessly post their agreement with you, but on this particular point of Baldoni's amended complaint's use of language in the portions of paragraphs 119 and 120 that I've cited, I'm right.
You guys are just arguing about contentions. You don’t even know what she was actually wearing or what happened that day—so who’s to say what’s 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.
The response was not misleading.
The response was in fact misleading.
No, in fact it was not. I’m sure you or your online twin will be back with a manifesto shortly, but that changes nothing.
Yes, in fact it was misleading. I've explained exactly how. You haven't refuted it besides to say "nuh uh" and throw out random insults, so *shrug*
I'm sure other Baldoni supporters here may just mindlessly post their agreement with you, but on this particular point of Baldoni's amended complaint's use of language in the portions of paragraphs 119 and 120 that I've cited, I'm right.
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.
The response was not misleading.
The response was in fact misleading.
No, in fact it was not. I’m sure you or your online twin will be back with a manifesto shortly, but that changes nothing.
Yes, in fact it was misleading. I've explained exactly how. You haven't refuted it besides to say "nuh uh" and throw out random insults, so *shrug*
I'm sure other Baldoni supporters here may just mindlessly post their agreement with you, but on this particular point of Baldoni's amended complaint's use of language in the portions of paragraphs 119 and 120 that I've cited, I'm right.
You guys are just arguing about contentions. You don’t even know what she was actually wearing or what happened that day—so who’s to say what’s misleading.
You can tell from the movie that the hospital gown wasn't in any way covering Lively's genitals, actually.
Anonymous wrote:The actor playing the obstetrician conducted himself professionally, did he not? He was in close proximity, but he didn’t see anything (other than her briefs), he didn’t touch her inappropriately, he did not make inappropriate comments?
Absolutely correct. Poor actor. Another victim of BL and RR.
I feel the worst for that actor and the financial guy. Blake had that weird allegation accusing of them being on set only to be close to her crotch. Really poor work by her lawyers.
I think this whole story is about to get blown wide open with the addition of Jed Wallace to the lawsuit and, ultimately, his deposition as well as discovery of communications between him, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel. I think that aspect of the case is going to flip over the rock that is Hollywood PR and we are all going to get to see what's underneath it and it's going to be grotesque.
I think when that happens, you are going to see a groundswell of support for Lively from Hollywood, especially among other actresses and performers who have been subject to that same PR machine. Especially if/when we see clear discussion of astroturfing tactics and what someone like Jed Wallace does to sway online sentiment against an actress.
I think ultimately this is WHY Lively filed the lawsuit and why she's going to keep going -- to expose how that machine works to capitalize on existing misogyny and hate online to keep actresses in Hollywood disempowered even through metoo. And I think Lively has people supporting her that you can't see -- I believe the reports that Taylor Swift or Anna Kendrick are mad at Lively are bogus, and that when the truth of what Wallace/Nathan/Abel did comes out, you will see these women and others rally around Lively because she is fighting for something that also impact them directly.
I don't think people realize this is just getting started.
Why accuse Baldoni of SH? That’s the part that she should’ve left out. It discredits her in my opinion.
Because you need underlying harassment for the retaliation claim.
I think she is stretching a bit on the harassment claims but also there's enough there that if she has decent documentation and witnesses she can press the claim. Baldoni and Heath did some weird and inappropriate stuff on set and I think they alienated much of the cast plus Colleen Hoover which is going to make that easier -- it would be a different story if everyone else on the set had a great experience and Lively alone was complaining. I think possibly Jenny Slate and/or Isabela Ferrer will testify to inappropriate comments or behavior in their depositions and that's gonna be it for Baldoni -- once you have a corroborating account, it's much easier to prove the behavior was "pervasive."
There have been reports from the set that multiple women -- not just Lively, probably including Hoover based on what I'm seeing in the texts/emails in Baldoni's timeline, but maybe also Slate -- were unhappy with the direction of the film and felt Baldoni was trying to push a a "redemption narrative" for his character, Ryle, and trying to center the movie on Ryle's struggle as an abuser as opposed to Lively's character's story. If Hoover and Slate also testify to this dynamic, it causes real issues for Baldoni because again, it's not just Lively trying to "take over" the movie -- it's multiple women including the author of the book the movie is based on disagreeing with his creative direction and questioning has feminist bona fides.
The interview with Baldoni from the Gents podcast that he recorded in November but just came out this morning actually backs this up. I encourage people to listen to it. He talks extensively about identifying with his character on the movie and wanting to tell the story of Ryle and what caused him to become abusive. But the book, and the movie, is not about Ryle. And most abusers never reform. It's frankly a weird take and paints Baldoni in an alarming light.
I don't think Baldoni set out to harass anyone but I think he's a conflicted person who over-identified with his abuser character on the movie and was unfortunately in a position of authority as director that meant that over-identification had particularly negative impacts on the women in the film, especially Lively who was playing opposite him.
That's not SH though. Changing the focal point of a movie is not a crime.
I think this whole story is about to get blown wide open with the addition of Jed Wallace to the lawsuit and, ultimately, his deposition as well as discovery of communications between him, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel. I think that aspect of the case is going to flip over the rock that is Hollywood PR and we are all going to get to see what's underneath it and it's going to be grotesque.
I think when that happens, you are going to see a groundswell of support for Lively from Hollywood, especially among other actresses and performers who have been subject to that same PR machine. Especially if/when we see clear discussion of astroturfing tactics and what someone like Jed Wallace does to sway online sentiment against an actress.
I think ultimately this is WHY Lively filed the lawsuit and why she's going to keep going -- to expose how that machine works to capitalize on existing misogyny and hate online to keep actresses in Hollywood disempowered even through metoo. And I think Lively has people supporting her that you can't see -- I believe the reports that Taylor Swift or Anna Kendrick are mad at Lively are bogus, and that when the truth of what Wallace/Nathan/Abel did comes out, you will see these women and others rally around Lively because she is fighting for something that also impact them directly.
I don't think people realize this is just getting started.
Why accuse Baldoni of SH? That’s the part that she should’ve left out. It discredits her in my opinion.
Because you need underlying harassment for the retaliation claim.
I think she is stretching a bit on the harassment claims but also there's enough there that if she has decent documentation and witnesses she can press the claim. Baldoni and Heath did some weird and inappropriate stuff on set and I think they alienated much of the cast plus Colleen Hoover which is going to make that easier -- it would be a different story if everyone else on the set had a great experience and Lively alone was complaining. I think possibly Jenny Slate and/or Isabela Ferrer will testify to inappropriate comments or behavior in their depositions and that's gonna be it for Baldoni -- once you have a corroborating account, it's much easier to prove the behavior was "pervasive."
There have been reports from the set that multiple women -- not just Lively, probably including Hoover based on what I'm seeing in the texts/emails in Baldoni's timeline, but maybe also Slate -- were unhappy with the direction of the film and felt Baldoni was trying to push a a "redemption narrative" for his character, Ryle, and trying to center the movie on Ryle's struggle as an abuser as opposed to Lively's character's story. If Hoover and Slate also testify to this dynamic, it causes real issues for Baldoni because again, it's not just Lively trying to "take over" the movie -- it's multiple women including the author of the book the movie is based on disagreeing with his creative direction and questioning has feminist bona fides.
The interview with Baldoni from the Gents podcast that he recorded in November but just came out this morning actually backs this up. I encourage people to listen to it. He talks extensively about identifying with his character on the movie and wanting to tell the story of Ryle and what caused him to become abusive. But the book, and the movie, is not about Ryle. And most abusers never reform. It's frankly a weird take and paints Baldoni in an alarming light.
I don't think Baldoni set out to harass anyone but I think he's a conflicted person who over-identified with his abuser character on the movie and was unfortunately in a position of authority as director that meant that over-identification had particularly negative impacts on the women in the film, especially Lively who was playing opposite him.
That's not SH though. Changing the focal point of a movie is not a crime.
This is why it's helpful to read the entire comment.
It is likely that either Jenny Slate or Isabel Ferrer will testify to inappropriate comments/behavior on set, as Lively's complaint makes several references to another actor on the set either filing a harassment complaint, expressing that they had experienced similar interactions to those Lively experienced, or comments Baldoni allegedly made to Ferrer and the actor playing young Atlas during the filming of their sex scene that were inappropriate.
The rest of the cast and Hoover stopped speaking to Baldoni at some point and unfollowed him on social media and joined together in not eating to do photos with him at the premiere or do promotional appearances with him. This indicates that Lively was not alone in her issues with him and that others will testify to inappropriate behavior, not just unhappiness with his creative direction.
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}