Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Movies are collaborative art and there was a power struggle on the set of this movie."

LOL, nothing collaborative about having your husband make his own cut of the movie, and asking the studio to destroy the delays.

Are you saying movies are not a collaborative art form?

Go make a few movies with no other people involved, see how that works.

Power struggles and personality conflicts are common on film sets specifically because it is not possible to make a movie without the work and input of a bunch of different people. You would be shocked by the stuff people say about their colleagues on films on a daily basis on movies you liked and about which you never heard a negative word. A lot of the drama inherent in Hollywood exists because you need a bunch of different people to make movies, many of those people are the very best at their job and have egos to match their skill. Conflicts over which cut is released are common. Conflicts over what happens to footage that doesn't make the Final Cut are becoming more common because of the fight over AI and actors wanting the ability to control what happens to video footage of them after a movie is done (especially sensitive for actresses whose footage could be used to create AI that looks just like them engaging in lewd sex acts, a particular issue on a movie with romantic scenes and violence like IEWU).

But go off.

Keep up, I know it's hard. Blake was hired as an actress and Ryan had zero responsibility for the film. Yet he literally has been caught making his own cut of the film and trying to pass it off as Blake's. Add in that he asked the studio to destroy the dailies. No wonder they fought unsealing the documents -- they are going to lose this trial, and only work again if self financed. Well deserved for their antics.

Could you point to the document where Ryan requests the destruction of the dailies? Thanks.

oh sorry, he had his mouthpiece Blake do that. Same difference. Document 1429-62.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Movies are collaborative art and there was a power struggle on the set of this movie."

LOL, nothing collaborative about having your husband make his own cut of the movie, and asking the studio to destroy the delays.

Are you saying movies are not a collaborative art form?

Go make a few movies with no other people involved, see how that works.

Power struggles and personality conflicts are common on film sets specifically because it is not possible to make a movie without the work and input of a bunch of different people. You would be shocked by the stuff people say about their colleagues on films on a daily basis on movies you liked and about which you never heard a negative word. A lot of the drama inherent in Hollywood exists because you need a bunch of different people to make movies, many of those people are the very best at their job and have egos to match their skill. Conflicts over which cut is released are common. Conflicts over what happens to footage that doesn't make the Final Cut are becoming more common because of the fight over AI and actors wanting the ability to control what happens to video footage of them after a movie is done (especially sensitive for actresses whose footage could be used to create AI that looks just like them engaging in lewd sex acts, a particular issue on a movie with romantic scenes and violence like IEWU).

But go off.

Keep up, I know it's hard. Blake was hired as an actress and Ryan had zero responsibility for the film. Yet he literally has been caught making his own cut of the film and trying to pass it off as Blake's. Add in that he asked the studio to destroy the dailies. No wonder they fought unsealing the documents -- they are going to lose this trial, and only work again if self financed. Well deserved for their antics.

Could you point to the document where Ryan requests the destruction of the dailies? Thanks.

oh sorry, he had his mouthpiece Blake do that. Same difference. Document 1429-62.

I thought it was Ryan since Blake has said under oath that she did not request this. Let's add some perjury to the mix for ole Blake.

[Anonymous]

It's not really much of a leap to go from Blake asking Sony to destroy the dailies to Blake asking Taylor to destroy texts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Movies are collaborative art and there was a power struggle on the set of this movie."

LOL, nothing collaborative about having your husband make his own cut of the movie, and asking the studio to destroy the delays.

Are you saying movies are not a collaborative art form?

Go make a few movies with no other people involved, see how that works.

Power struggles and personality conflicts are common on film sets specifically because it is not possible to make a movie without the work and input of a bunch of different people. You would be shocked by the stuff people say about their colleagues on films on a daily basis on movies you liked and about which you never heard a negative word. A lot of the drama inherent in Hollywood exists because you need a bunch of different people to make movies, many of those people are the very best at their job and have egos to match their skill. Conflicts over which cut is released are common. Conflicts over what happens to footage that doesn't make the Final Cut are becoming more common because of the fight over AI and actors wanting the ability to control what happens to video footage of them after a movie is done (especially sensitive for actresses whose footage could be used to create AI that looks just like them engaging in lewd sex acts, a particular issue on a movie with romantic scenes and violence like IEWU).

But go off.

Keep up, I know it's hard. Blake was hired as an actress and Ryan had zero responsibility for the film. Yet he literally has been caught making his own cut of the film and trying to pass it off as Blake's. Add in that he asked the studio to destroy the dailies. No wonder they fought unsealing the documents -- they are going to lose this trial, and only work again if self financed. Well deserved for their antics.

Could you point to the document where Ryan requests the destruction of the dailies? Thanks.

oh sorry, he had his mouthpiece Blake do that. Same difference. Document 1429-62.

That document doesn't quote Ryan or Blake. It's Ange Giannetti saying "Blake asked us to destroy some of the dailies. want to tell you what we will and won't do. also going to ask bridget to contact all vendors and ask them to delete all dailies and need them to proof. ok?"

This doesn't reference a request form Blake. It references the fact that her nudity rider required the film to delete any dailies featuring her in any state of nudity (this would include the partial nudity in the birth scene). It is written into a contract to protect an actor who may be concerned about what will become of all the footage of them nude or partially nude on camera. It is not unheard of, and it makes sense that Blake wanted to enforce the provision given the bad blood between her and Wayfarer at that point -- not much trust left by that point.

This is not a big deal at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Movies are collaborative art and there was a power struggle on the set of this movie."

LOL, nothing collaborative about having your husband make his own cut of the movie, and asking the studio to destroy the delays.

Are you saying movies are not a collaborative art form?

Go make a few movies with no other people involved, see how that works.

Power struggles and personality conflicts are common on film sets specifically because it is not possible to make a movie without the work and input of a bunch of different people. You would be shocked by the stuff people say about their colleagues on films on a daily basis on movies you liked and about which you never heard a negative word. A lot of the drama inherent in Hollywood exists because you need a bunch of different people to make movies, many of those people are the very best at their job and have egos to match their skill. Conflicts over which cut is released are common. Conflicts over what happens to footage that doesn't make the Final Cut are becoming more common because of the fight over AI and actors wanting the ability to control what happens to video footage of them after a movie is done (especially sensitive for actresses whose footage could be used to create AI that looks just like them engaging in lewd sex acts, a particular issue on a movie with romantic scenes and violence like IEWU).

But go off.

Keep up, I know it's hard. Blake was hired as an actress and Ryan had zero responsibility for the film. Yet he literally has been caught making his own cut of the film and trying to pass it off as Blake's. Add in that he asked the studio to destroy the dailies. No wonder they fought unsealing the documents -- they are going to lose this trial, and only work again if self financed. Well deserved for their antics.

Could you point to the document where Ryan requests the destruction of the dailies? Thanks.

oh sorry, he had his mouthpiece Blake do that. Same difference. Document 1429-62.

That document doesn't quote Ryan or Blake. It's Ange Giannetti saying "Blake asked us to destroy some of the dailies. want to tell you what we will and won't do. also going to ask bridget to contact all vendors and ask them to delete all dailies and need them to proof. ok?"

This doesn't reference a request form Blake. It references the fact that her nudity rider required the film to delete any dailies featuring her in any state of nudity (this would include the partial nudity in the birth scene). It is written into a contract to protect an actor who may be concerned about what will become of all the footage of them nude or partially nude on camera. It is not unheard of, and it makes sense that Blake wanted to enforce the provision given the bad blood between her and Wayfarer at that point -- not much trust left by that point.

This is not a big deal at all.

You aren't reading the full document if that is what you think it says. Email from Andrea Giametti to Greenstein, both of Sony:

call when u can, not urgent, but Blake asking us to destroy some dailies. want to tell you what we will and won't do. .. . (1st time I've been asked to do this in movie with no nudity, but ok).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Movies are collaborative art and there was a power struggle on the set of this movie."

LOL, nothing collaborative about having your husband make his own cut of the movie, and asking the studio to destroy the delays.

Are you saying movies are not a collaborative art form?

Go make a few movies with no other people involved, see how that works.

Power struggles and personality conflicts are common on film sets specifically because it is not possible to make a movie without the work and input of a bunch of different people. You would be shocked by the stuff people say about their colleagues on films on a daily basis on movies you liked and about which you never heard a negative word. A lot of the drama inherent in Hollywood exists because you need a bunch of different people to make movies, many of those people are the very best at their job and have egos to match their skill. Conflicts over which cut is released are common. Conflicts over what happens to footage that doesn't make the Final Cut are becoming more common because of the fight over AI and actors wanting the ability to control what happens to video footage of them after a movie is done (especially sensitive for actresses whose footage could be used to create AI that looks just like them engaging in lewd sex acts, a particular issue on a movie with romantic scenes and violence like IEWU).

But go off.

Keep up, I know it's hard. Blake was hired as an actress and Ryan had zero responsibility for the film. Yet he literally has been caught making his own cut of the film and trying to pass it off as Blake's. Add in that he asked the studio to destroy the dailies. No wonder they fought unsealing the documents -- they are going to lose this trial, and only work again if self financed. Well deserved for their antics.

Could you point to the document where Ryan requests the destruction of the dailies? Thanks.

oh sorry, he had his mouthpiece Blake do that. Same difference. Document 1429-62.

That document doesn't quote Ryan or Blake. It's Ange Giannetti saying "Blake asked us to destroy some of the dailies. want to tell you what we will and won't do. also going to ask bridget to contact all vendors and ask them to delete all dailies and need them to proof. ok?"

This doesn't reference a request form Blake. It references the fact that her nudity rider required the film to delete any dailies featuring her in any state of nudity (this would include the partial nudity in the birth scene). It is written into a contract to protect an actor who may be concerned about what will become of all the footage of them nude or partially nude on camera. It is not unheard of, and it makes sense that Blake wanted to enforce the provision given the bad blood between her and Wayfarer at that point -- not much trust left by that point.

This is not a big deal at all.

You aren't reading the full document if that is what you think it says. Email from Andrea Giametti to Greenstein, both of Sony:

call when u can, not urgent, but Blake asking us to destroy some dailies. want to tell you what we will and won't do. .. . (1st time I've been asked to do this in movie with no nudity, but ok).

The movie has nudity though, so Ange doesn't know what she's talking about.

The nudity rider is why the dailies were destroyed. Blake may have also asked for dailies involving her in her underwear or in sex scenes where she was not technically nude destroyed, due to general distrust between her and Wayfarer. This is fine. What were they going to do with it if it wasn't destroyed? If you can't comfortably answer that question, ask yourself why. No one needed that footage from a movie that had already been released, so asking to have it destroyed is perfectly reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pro-Justin reddit subs are losing their minds about some stuff from the docket that has been known for months, so I assume something bad is coming down the pike for Justin/Wayfarer, or they are panicking about the trial coming. Usually they don't spin themselves up in this way if things are going well for Justin.

Now is a good time not to rely on Reddit for info. Because if you did, you’d understand that Justin is no longer a defendant. He’s out of this case. It’s now Blake Lively versus the studio.

So things for Justin are going just fine.

And Reddit is probably spinning themselves up because now there’s information that Blake committed perjury. She said under her oath, she never requested to destroy the dailies and now we have Sony in documents saying she did in fact say to destroy the dailies. And confirming that it wasn’t the nudity ones it was all the dailies. But please tell me how that’s bad for Justin who is no longer even involved in this case lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Movies are collaborative art and there was a power struggle on the set of this movie."

LOL, nothing collaborative about having your husband make his own cut of the movie, and asking the studio to destroy the delays.

Are you saying movies are not a collaborative art form?

Go make a few movies with no other people involved, see how that works.

Power struggles and personality conflicts are common on film sets specifically because it is not possible to make a movie without the work and input of a bunch of different people. You would be shocked by the stuff people say about their colleagues on films on a daily basis on movies you liked and about which you never heard a negative word. A lot of the drama inherent in Hollywood exists because you need a bunch of different people to make movies, many of those people are the very best at their job and have egos to match their skill. Conflicts over which cut is released are common. Conflicts over what happens to footage that doesn't make the Final Cut are becoming more common because of the fight over AI and actors wanting the ability to control what happens to video footage of them after a movie is done (especially sensitive for actresses whose footage could be used to create AI that looks just like them engaging in lewd sex acts, a particular issue on a movie with romantic scenes and violence like IEWU).

But go off.

Keep up, I know it's hard. Blake was hired as an actress and Ryan had zero responsibility for the film. Yet he literally has been caught making his own cut of the film and trying to pass it off as Blake's. Add in that he asked the studio to destroy the dailies. No wonder they fought unsealing the documents -- they are going to lose this trial, and only work again if self financed. Well deserved for their antics.

Could you point to the document where Ryan requests the destruction of the dailies? Thanks.

oh sorry, he had his mouthpiece Blake do that. Same difference. Document 1429-62.

That document doesn't quote Ryan or Blake. It's Ange Giannetti saying "Blake asked us to destroy some of the dailies. want to tell you what we will and won't do. also going to ask bridget to contact all vendors and ask them to delete all dailies and need them to proof. ok?"

This doesn't reference a request form Blake. It references the fact that her nudity rider required the film to delete any dailies featuring her in any state of nudity (this would include the partial nudity in the birth scene). It is written into a contract to protect an actor who may be concerned about what will become of all the footage of them nude or partially nude on camera. It is not unheard of, and it makes sense that Blake wanted to enforce the provision given the bad blood between her and Wayfarer at that point -- not much trust left by that point.

This is not a big deal at all.

You aren't reading the full document if that is what you think it says. Email from Andrea Giametti to Greenstein, both of Sony:

call when u can, not urgent, but Blake asking us to destroy some dailies. want to tell you what we will and won't do. .. . (1st time I've been asked to do this in movie with no nudity, but ok).

The movie has nudity though, so Ange doesn't know what she's talking about.

The nudity rider is why the dailies were destroyed. Blake may have also asked for dailies involving her in her underwear or in sex scenes where she was not technically nude destroyed, due to general distrust between her and Wayfarer. This is fine. What were they going to do with it if it wasn't destroyed? If you can't comfortably answer that question, ask yourself why. No one needed that footage from a movie that had already been released, so asking to have it destroyed is perfectly reasonable.

We have no idea what she specifically asked because the document doesn’t note that or why she requested it. That ‘s all your invention. Further, the email indicates that all dailies were destroyed in response to her request.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro-Justin reddit subs are losing their minds about some stuff from the docket that has been known for months, so I assume something bad is coming down the pike for Justin/Wayfarer, or they are panicking about the trial coming. Usually they don't spin themselves up in this way if things are going well for Justin.

Now is a good time not to rely on Reddit for info. Because if you did, you’d understand that Justin is no longer a defendant. He’s out of this case. It’s now Blake Lively versus the studio.

So things for Justin are going just fine.

And Reddit is probably spinning themselves up because now there’s information that Blake committed perjury. She said under her oath, she never requested to destroy the dailies and now we have Sony in documents saying she did in fact say to destroy the dailies. And confirming that it wasn’t the nudity ones it was all the dailies. But please tell me how that’s bad for Justin who is no longer even involved in this case lol

There is zero evidence Blake committed perjury. Ange is referring to Blake's team requesting to enforce an existing nudity rider. Blake did not personally make requests to destroy dailies. Reddit is absolutely spinning themselves up over something that doesn't matter and isn't real, as they frequently do.

Ask yourself, if Blake had perjured herself on this issues, do you not think Bryan Freedman would have made hay of it earlier?

This is not a thing.

[Anonymous]

Freedman has been disciplined lately… didn’t judge Liman scold him for his past antics? I don’t think Friedman not making a big deal of this means it’s not a thing. The trial is in two weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Freedman has been disciplined lately… didn’t judge Liman scold him for his past antics? I don’t think Friedman not making a big deal of this means it’s not a thing. The trial is in two weeks.

Oh I thought that ruling was a big win for Freedman and that a court sanction without money damages wasn't actually "disciplining" Freedman. At least that's what I was told by Baldoni supporters at the time. You'd think Freedman would be emboldened after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman has been disciplined lately… didn’t judge Liman scold him for his past antics? I don’t think Friedman not making a big deal of this means it’s not a thing. The trial is in two weeks.

Oh I thought that ruling was a big win for Freedman and that a court sanction without money damages wasn't actually "disciplining" Freedman. At least that's what I was told by Baldoni supporters at the time. You'd think Freedman would be emboldened after that.

I don’t know. Perhaps I’m not following this case as closely as others. I just think it’s a stretch to say that because BF is not publicly celebrating it means it’s not a thing? The trial is in two weeks so that just seems a strange take.

The fact that there’s a trial at all means Blake already lost. I can’t imagine any scenario that gets her more work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman has been disciplined lately… didn’t judge Liman scold him for his past antics? I don’t think Friedman not making a big deal of this means it’s not a thing. The trial is in two weeks.

Oh I thought that ruling was a big win for Freedman and that a court sanction without money damages wasn't actually "disciplining" Freedman. At least that's what I was told by Baldoni supporters at the time. You'd think Freedman would be emboldened after that.

I don’t know. Perhaps I’m not following this case as closely as others. I just think it’s a stretch to say that because BF is not publicly celebrating it means it’s not a thing? The trial is in two weeks so that just seems a strange take.

The fact that there’s a trial at all means Blake already lost. I can’t imagine any scenario that gets her more work.

This is such an interesting take? Can you elaborate? It isn't intuitive to me based on what I know about lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pro-Justin reddit subs are losing their minds about some stuff from the docket that has been known for months, so I assume something bad is coming down the pike for Justin/Wayfarer, or they are panicking about the trial coming. Usually they don't spin themselves up in this way if things are going well for Justin.

Now is a good time not to rely on Reddit for info. Because if you did, you’d understand that Justin is no longer a defendant. He’s out of this case. It’s now Blake Lively versus the studio.

So things for Justin are going just fine.

And Reddit is probably spinning themselves up because now there’s information that Blake committed perjury. She said under her oath, she never requested to destroy the dailies and now we have Sony in documents saying she did in fact say to destroy the dailies. And confirming that it wasn’t the nudity ones it was all the dailies. But please tell me how that’s bad for Justin who is no longer even involved in this case lol

There is zero evidence Blake committed perjury. Ange is referring to Blake's team requesting to enforce an existing nudity rider. Blake did not personally make requests to destroy dailies. Reddit is absolutely spinning themselves up over something that doesn't matter and isn't real, as they frequently do.

Ask yourself, if Blake had perjured herself on this issues, do you not think Bryan Freedman would have made hay of it earlier?

This is not a thing.

It is a thing. There is zero mention of a nudity rider as the reason for the request -- it simply says that Blake is asking for "some" dailies to be destroyed. And it clearly says "Blake is asking." not Blake's team or people or anything else, just Blake.

This document was sealed until this week. It was simply not possible for WF's attorneys to publicly reference it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman has been disciplined lately… didn’t judge Liman scold him for his past antics? I don’t think Friedman not making a big deal of this means it’s not a thing. The trial is in two weeks.

Oh I thought that ruling was a big win for Freedman and that a court sanction without money damages wasn't actually "disciplining" Freedman. At least that's what I was told by Baldoni supporters at the time. You'd think Freedman would be emboldened after that.

I don’t know. Perhaps I’m not following this case as closely as others. I just think it’s a stretch to say that because BF is not publicly celebrating it means it’s not a thing? The trial is in two weeks so that just seems a strange take.

The fact that there’s a trial at all means Blake already lost. I can’t imagine any scenario that gets her more work.

It hasn't been mentioned because this particular document was just unsealed. It had been sealed at Lively's request.