Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge quashed the subpoenas, at least on a temporary basis. Has anyone seen the order?

That’s a weird take on the text of the order as I see it. The judge ordered the parties to meet and confer and requires Lively not to move to enforce the subpoenas while the parties confer. Which is what Lively was asking for in their letter. So, yeah, this board is so odd.

“The parties are directed to meet and confer and report back to the Court by Monday, February 24, 2025, whether the Court can deny the motion as moot or whether any dispute remains for the Courts decision. The Lively parties shall not move to enforce the subpoenas while the motion is pending. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lewis J. Liman)(Text Only Order.”

Not enforcible means quashed. Don’t play dumb.

Per this order, Lively does precisely what they wanted to do from the start, which is further negotiate the language of the subpoenas without bothering the judge with it any more. They don't go back to the telecom companies first. They just negotiate with Freedman. That's what they asked for and that's what they have. The judge forbids them from "mov[ing] to enforce the subpoenas" -- which means he forbids them from asking the court to compel the telecom companies to comply with the subpoenas. OKAY - Lively specifically said they never wanted to do that anyway, they thought they were still negotiating, but Freedman came in with mouth and guns blazing. This judge is going to get tired of this after a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the pro Justin people - why do you think he suggested to the PR team early on that he should go on a tv show and talk about his neuro divergence and how his brain works differenlty and how the accusations could be explained by social awkwardness and impulsive speech?

I don't think it proves anything especially considering she was already trashing him during the shoot. If anything it shows he was about to defend himself, not attack.

Except there are plenty of texts about him wanting to attack?

To me it's defense and not attack because there was so much she said during the shoot (including new texts she released and her own texts to him) that showed she was hostile.

You don't even seem to have read the complaints as Baldoni himself referred to it as an offensive move.

You can make an offensive move in a war not initiated by you. I don't see a contradiction here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something seems fishy to me when the flood of negative Instagram comments on Lively's hair launch or whatever involved user accounts that had no followers or no prior posts.

I think Wallace flooded social media with negative commentary about Lively, in the same way Heard was flooded, and that it generally turned public opinion against Lively in the same way it worked for Heard. Both of these women had negative personality traits that could easily be used against them, both had stuff out there that could be posted and made fun of. Abel was out there doing some of this work on her own, i.e., having "our digital side boost this [TikTok of some woman defending Baldoni] in the am." So they were boosting stories and pumping negatives at Lively. Meanwhile Abel was also saying they were using far more sophisticated techniques on social media than just using bots.

I also saw the complaint alleges at paras. 280-81 that Lively or her PR rep were checking in with each other and making sure they weren't doing the same against Baldoni & co. at some point - i.e., making sure they were not retaliating/planting stories so that they would have clean hands when the time came etc. So basically the flood of negatives coming from Abel/Wallace and co. were undefended, and maybe in some ways still are because of the lawsuit. And after a certain point, it doesn't matter, because everyone has read all the negative stuff and believes it, and believes that's what defines the case.

I think a lot will depend on what discovery is obtained from Wallace. Precisely what was he doing to earn the $75-$175K that he proposed to be paid for this work, and how much was he ultimately paid etc?

I don't think Sarowitz comes off well.

Nah, Blair is very very good at making the public hate her all on her own.

Doesn’t seem to be what happened here from the events described in the complaint, and clearly Wallace was doing *something*. It will depend on discovery imho.

Yes, but I find the Complaint overwrought and not persuasive in the least.

Okay. I disagree. The Baldoni team social media campaign seems retaliatory and punitive and, frankly (since folks on Baldoni’s side have used the word repeatedly), evil. Sarowitz’s remarks about retaliation don’t seem like they’re coming from a good place. They wanted Lively to get the Amber Heard treatment and they got what they wanted. Don’t understand how some people are seeing Baldoni as some kind of hero here — but given the PR campaign, I guess I do. He went after her deliberately. That sucks.

I think you must have not been aware of what has been happening since leaked photos of filming of it ends with us started in May 2023.

This started a huge backlash against Blake lively. Not all of it was totally her fault, a lot of fans of the book really resented that she was cast, that she was 35 and not 23 like the character, and they really just hated her out of touch outfits and didn’t think it was Lily at all. If you weren’t following this, you may not have been aware, but the backlash was extensive.

Then, when the marketing of the movie started, you must’ve missed the intense backlash against Blake advertising her husband’s gin company, and her cocktail line Betty Buzz at the film premiere. Including naming an alcoholic drink after the abuser in the film. Drink was called Ryle you can wait.

You don’t have to be an expert in domestic violence to know that you just don’t do that and it is vile.

What I didn’t understand is why when there was such early backlash to how she was doing interviews for the film, she never course corrected. She seemed to actually just double down. Didn’t matter to me when I saw the few bullet points Sony had about the marketing plan that basically said don’t emphasize domestic violence, but emphasize her strength. All the rest was up to her, and she could not have botched it more. There was plenty of leeway in that marketing plan for her to be a little bit more respectful, not launch a hairline, and not market she and her husband’s alcohol lines.

This was not Justin‘s fault. I think it actually stood out more because she wasn’t promoting the movie with him and he was taking it seriously. I actually think if she hadn’t kicked him off promotions, ironically, people would have been more forgiving toward her because her part would’ve stood out less. They could have done interviews together, where he took on the heavier themes.

Finally, I think you underestimate the amount of bad interviews that Blake has had that people have been annoyed with for years. Seriously go listen to the 2021 Beyond The Blinds podcast on Blake if you really care. There has been a lot of hate toward her for many years. And the extreme over exposure of both she and Ryan in the year leading up to the movie wasn’t helping things.

[Anonymous]

Can we just fast forward to the part where Ryan and Blake have to pay Justin $50 million cash, apologize publicly, and never work again in Hollywood? This evil couple has crashed out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge quashed the subpoenas, at least on a temporary basis. Has anyone seen the order?

That’s a weird take on the text of the order as I see it. The judge ordered the parties to meet and confer and requires Lively not to move to enforce the subpoenas while the parties confer. Which is what Lively was asking for in their letter. So, yeah, this board is so odd.

“The parties are directed to meet and confer and report back to the Court by Monday, February 24, 2025, whether the Court can deny the motion as moot or whether any dispute remains for the Courts decision. The Lively parties shall not move to enforce the subpoenas while the motion is pending. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lewis J. Liman)(Text Only Order.”

Not enforcible means quashed. Don’t play dumb.

It doesn't though. The subpoenas are in limbo pending the parties engaging in further discussion (which is what Lively's lawyers specifically asked for). The motion to quash is still pending and the judge hopes that he can deny the motion to quash as moot when the parties come to an agreement as to how the subpoenas will be carried out.

You seem to think this decision means the subpoenas aren't going to happen but it actually means they probably are going to happen, with some parameters as agree to by the parties.

Baldoni's lawyers also should probably be careful here because the wording of the decision emphasizes the importance of the meet and confer. If they don't engage in good faith with an effort to reach a compromise on the subpoenas, the judge might just deny the motion nd let the subpoenas proceed in their broadest form.

I expressly said quashed until the parties agree on content or judge rules. How you got permanently quashed from that is beyond me. Do you read or just start ranting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge quashed the subpoenas, at least on a temporary basis. Has anyone seen the order?

That’s a weird take on the text of the order as I see it. The judge ordered the parties to meet and confer and requires Lively not to move to enforce the subpoenas while the parties confer. Which is what Lively was asking for in their letter. So, yeah, this board is so odd.

“The parties are directed to meet and confer and report back to the Court by Monday, February 24, 2025, whether the Court can deny the motion as moot or whether any dispute remains for the Courts decision. The Lively parties shall not move to enforce the subpoenas while the motion is pending. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Lewis J. Liman)(Text Only Order.”

Not enforcible means quashed. Don’t play dumb.

Per this order, Lively does precisely what they wanted to do from the start, which is further negotiate the language of the subpoenas without bothering the judge with it any more. They don't go back to the telecom companies first. They just negotiate with Freedman. That's what they asked for and that's what they have. The judge forbids them from "mov[ing] to enforce the subpoenas" -- which means he forbids them from asking the court to compel the telecom companies to comply with the subpoenas. OKAY - Lively specifically said they never wanted to do that anyway, they thought they were still negotiating, but Freedman came in with mouth and guns blazing. This judge is going to get tired of this after a while.

They both got what they wanted. Freedman wanted to make sure no documents were delivered until the subpoena was narrowed. That is now guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the pro Justin people - why do you think he suggested to the PR team early on that he should go on a tv show and talk about his neuro divergence and how his brain works differenlty and how the accusations could be explained by social awkwardness and impulsive speech?

Because the majority of her claims do not describe sexual harassment but annoying behavior. And this type of behavior could be attributed to someone being awkward and impulsive.

I am a neurodivergent person and so is my daughter, and have never heard of neurodivergence being the reason someone pressured an actress to do a scene nude despite it not being scripted that way and despite not having a intimacy coordinator on set. That's a new one!

Okay, she wasn’t nude. She actually wasn’t giving birth, contrary to what you may be led to believe, as this was a film. She also consciously neglected to meet with the IC. She is The Blake Lively, what Blake wants, Blake gets. Why didn’t The Blake lively speak up if she didn’t like faking giving birth?

She was only not nude because she DID speak up. And she was still wearing less clothing than she requested to wear -- she assumed she would be clothed on the bottom as actresses typically are during birth scenes, which usually do not focus the camera anywhere close to an actor's private parts and instead focuses on faces and upper bodies. And even after she'd agreed to do the scene with less clothing and already filmed it, Baldoni and Heath still tracked her down on set the next day to try and show her a video of Heath's wife giving birth nude because... they are neurodivergent I guess?

This is more than "annoying" behavior. It's sexual harassment.

You think that he camera was focused on her private parts. How odd. That would make it completely obvious she wasn’t, you know, giving birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we just fast forward to the part where Ryan and Blake have to pay Justin $50 million cash, apologize publicly, and never work again in Hollywood? This evil couple has crashed out.

Yes please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we just fast forward to the part where Ryan and Blake have to pay Justin $50 million cash, apologize publicly, and never work again in Hollywood? This evil couple has crashed out.[/quote



I’m with you. I have only barely skimmed the past 5 pages and realized that I am just burned out from this whole thing. I think I’ll take a break from this whole thing for a while. 3/2026 is a long ways away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the pro Justin people - why do you think he suggested to the PR team early on that he should go on a tv show and talk about his neuro divergence and how his brain works differenlty and how the accusations could be explained by social awkwardness and impulsive speech?

Because the majority of her claims do not describe sexual harassment but annoying behavior. And this type of behavior could be attributed to someone being awkward and impulsive.

I am a neurodivergent person and so is my daughter, and have never heard of neurodivergence being the reason someone pressured an actress to do a scene nude despite it not being scripted that way and despite not having a intimacy coordinator on set. That's a new one!

Do you know what “most” means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the pro Justin people - why do you think he suggested to the PR team early on that he should go on a tv show and talk about his neuro divergence and how his brain works differenlty and how the accusations could be explained by social awkwardness and impulsive speech?

Because the majority of her claims do not describe sexual harassment but annoying behavior. And this type of behavior could be attributed to someone being awkward and impulsive.

I am a neurodivergent person and so is my daughter, and have never heard of neurodivergence being the reason someone pressured an actress to do a scene nude despite it not being scripted that way and despite not having a intimacy coordinator on set. That's a new one!

Okay, she wasn’t nude. She actually wasn’t giving birth, contrary to what you may be led to believe, as this was a film. She also consciously neglected to meet with the IC. She is The Blake Lively, what Blake wants, Blake gets. Why didn’t The Blake lively speak up if she didn’t like faking giving birth?

She was only not nude because she DID speak up. And she was still wearing less clothing than she requested to wear -- she assumed she would be clothed on the bottom as actresses typically are during birth scenes, which usually do not focus the camera anywhere close to an actor's private parts and instead focuses on faces and upper bodies. And even after she'd agreed to do the scene with less clothing and already filmed it, Baldoni and Heath still tracked her down on set the next day to try and show her a video of Heath's wife giving birth nude because... they are neurodivergent I guess?

This is more than "annoying" behavior. It's sexual harassment.

You don’t actually know any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all the pro Justin people - why do you think he suggested to the PR team early on that he should go on a tv show and talk about his neuro divergence and how his brain works differenlty and how the accusations could be explained by social awkwardness and impulsive speech?

You don’t think there were some red flags early on? The first time she had her husband humiliate him for fat shaming him when he in fact didn’t do anything near fat shaming?

The sixth time she had lawyers draw up emails saying that she would walk away from the film for good if he didn’t meet certain demands?

The 17 point document she made him sign that the team said they did not agree with, but were forced to sign in under duress, again, or she would walk away from the film?

I think Justin and the team were in way over their head and they realized this fairly early, but by then it was too late. You could tell from early on just saw that he was dealing with someone who needed to walk on eggshells. Within just a weeks of communicating, she had the fat shaming thing over his head, which would’ve looked bad for any man, but especially him given his pro feminism brand.

[Anonymous]

He’s not a child and he has multiple lawyers and a production company, as well as a billionaire friend supporting him. He was far from powerless here and not some poor little boy with no volition.

[Anonymous]

The judge is telling them to met and confer until the 24th. If there's still issues the judge will decide on the motion which will then decided lively containing with the supenoa.

In ny you have to meet and confer first. You can't skip over it or the judge will order one like this.

[Anonymous]

It just doesn’t add up to me that all of a sudden he’s making all these women uncomfortable, yet he has had no complaints before working on all these-female-centered shows (in fact, the opposite). He just decided to one day wake up and harass one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. He also was very careful to keep all these records and documents (trainings, call sheets, etc) yet she claims he kept a “chaotic and disorganized” set. She also claims he tried to take credit for her work on the movie, and that she downplayed her work on it, when we’ve seen with our own eyes her taking credit all over the place. She just lies, and I can’t get past it. I’m going to need to see some hard proof to change my mind. And I’m done arguing with misogyny poster. You win—I’m a misogynist! Enjoy fighting with other posters about the birth scene.