Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Horse trading. Ex. We can deliver all these A-listers but can you do us a favor and help two clients… |
Anonymous
They were there as former hosts. A lot of former hosts were there. And the audience crowd work was definitely planned by the show's writing staff (who included Tina Fey for this episode) and was not structured around Reynolds/Lively. Did you watch the whole bit? It featured Jon Hamm, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Bad Bunny, Fred Armisen, Jon Levitz, Al Sharpton, Peyton Manning, Quinta Brunson, and a bunch of other people. You think everyone was in on it? Like 30 people were all strong-armed into doing a 10 minute bit just so Ryan Reynolds could say one quick line about "why what have you heard?" referencing their ongoing legal issues? It's fine if you believe Baldoni over Lively. Truly, I don't care. But this level of conspiracy mongering is bizarre. It was nothing. A tossed off line meant to acknowledge an ongoing issue without getting into it. It didn't land, either in the room or with the television audience, but some of you are making it into a much bigger thing than it was. I think some of you have just gotten into a mode where hating Lively and Reynolds is like your favorite hobby, and you'll go looking for reasons to criticize them wherever you can find them. This was nothing. It doesn't matter. |
Anonymous
|
So it looks like it was Freedman's plan all along to *require* personal service during the LA wildfires rather than just agree to waive personal service and receive service through a third party. That way Freedman could go on tv and complain about Lively serving Baldoni etc during the wildfires, while meanwhile Freedman was chasing people down dark roads etc. Lively agreed to waive service and didn't go on tv about it or anything, so missed opportunity I guess:
"This filing [of voluntary waivers of service for Lively] was necessitated by Plaintiffs’ curious decision to insist upon personally hand-serving Defendants notwithstanding prior correspondence in which counsel for Ms. Lively informed Plaintiffs of their preference to work with opposing counsel to effectuate service in a collegial and efficient manner. See Ex. A at 5. Despite this history, Plaintiffs’ process servers made attempts at service on the evening of January 18, 2025, which resulted in one of Defendants’ employees (who is not a party to this action) being followed to the residence in which she was staying by an unknown vehicle down a dark road late at night; this conduct was sufficiently alarming as to cause that employee to file a police report. See Ex. A at 1. Accordingly, undersigned counsel reached out to Mr. Freedman on the evening of January 18, 2025 to express serious safety and privacy concerns that Plaintiffs’ attempts at service were creating, and advised Plaintiffs’ counsel of the requirement under Rule 4(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that any “individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4(e), (f), or (h) has a duty … avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons.” Undersigned counsel therefore told Mr. Freedman that Ms. Lively and Mr. Reynolds would waive service, and that this firm was authorized to accept service on their behalf. See Ex. A at 2. Earlier today, I provided Mr. Freedman and his colleagues with copies of the waivers and requested confirmation of receipt, Ex. A at 1, but as of the time of this filing, I have received no reply." Really classy, Mr. Freedman. All for show. Great guy. |
Anonymous
I disagree here. There was a lot of attention paid to Jenny Slate and others purposely avoiding saying anything complementary or anything at all about Justin during the awkward promotion of this film. What people are talking about was prior to the promotion when they were making the movie or right after the movie doing panel interviews and things, they praised Justin. So there is a history of them praising Justin, and then all of a sudden in August 2024, they refused to talk about him or acknowledge him. So something did change. And you can’t say oh they were just saying nice things about him earlier to market the movie. During the thick of the formal marketing once Blake had gotten hold of them it seems like that’s when they changed their tune. So it’s going to look really flimsy and they are going to have to explain why. |
Anonymous
Just... no. Everyone at that show was there because of ties to SNL. There was no "horse trading" involved. Jon Hamm showed up because he loves doing SNL and has close relationships with many people involved in the show. Nate Bargatze showed up because he's hosted twice in the last two years and those appearances have catapulted his career into another level. Bad Bunny showed up because he was a recent host and, I think, likes it. Julia Louis Dreyfus, Jon Lovitz, Fred Armisen, and others were there as former cast members. WME and Ryan Reynolds did not have to "deliver" them to the show. It was a hot ticket. People wanted to be there. There were like four days of parties surrounding it and NBC hyped it for two full weeks. They didn't need to rely on WME to ensure they had a star studded cast and audience. |
Anonymous
Freedman is all about dirty tricks for PR. He once waived around a document that said "Slave Contract" on air during TMZ Live claiming it was a real document between Bravo and one if it's reality show cast members. It was not. It was a prop contract from a different case of his (involving a BDSM relationship). He's shameless. |
Anonymous
She’s saying that he didn’t seem to object to her help at the time, because it was beneficial to him. She wants the question to be “wait, so you liked the boost from an A lister then, but now it’s annoying?” |
Anonymous
There is protocol for this, though, and protocol was not followed. If anyone has a complaint about what is happening on the set, they are to go to SAG. That way there is no conflict of interest. Why would you want to go to complain to HR to Justin‘s company about Justin? The SAG route is there to protect everyone. There was no formal complaints made to sag by anyone it has been confirmed. If there were do you not think Blakely’s team would’ve pointed that out at this point? They said she tried to go to Sony and Sony said they couldn’t handle it but they did not lay out the protocol which is very well known. You don’t exactly have to be a Hollywood insider to know the protocol. The next step is that production is shut down and an investigation is launched. Again to make it to February 2025 and not hear that there was any kind of investigation conducted, means that there wasn’t one. So nobody followed protocol here. But then all of a sudden in fall of 2024 or later, when the film wrapped on February 9, women came forward with HR complaints? It just doesn’t add up. |
Anonymous
I don't get what is exploitative here: she wasn't doing charity work. She got paid for her "star power", more so than a lesser known actor. This makes absolutely zero sense. Neither does claiming it's odd for a director to claim a movie is "his work". |
Anonymous
SAG is the union. They wouldn't be considered HR for the production. So when they say no complaints were made to HR, it doesn't mean no one went to the union. SAG was on strike for months so no idea if that was a factor as well. SAG will not shut down production if they receive a complaint. This is from their website about reporting harrassment and or discrimination "For specific information on how you might go about pursuing these avenues, you will need to consult outside counsel, but SAG-AFTRA can assist you in locating attorneys who work in this area. If you choose to complete the Complaint Questionnaire, you and the Equity & Inclusion staff can then review the details of your complaint in order to determine with you whether or not SAG-AFTRA should file a claim on your behalf. If filing a claim is determined to be the most appropriate course of action, SAG-AFTRA will send the producer a formal complaint along with a copy of our policy regarding discrimination and harassment. The complaint will require that the company investigate the complaint and take immediate action to remedy any inappropriate conduct. Upon completion of its investigation, the producer is required to provide SAG-AFTRA with a response as to the results of its investigation and any action taken to remedy the misconduct (i.e., suspension or another form of discipline against the person who engaged in the misconduct). We will then provide you with formal notice of the results and findings of the investigation and discuss with you the action(s) taken, if any." |
Anonymous
Different poster. I agree Blake and Ryan had a right to be there as they each hosted one time and they’ve also each made an appearance one time separately, Blake on a lonely Island digital short in 2010 and Ryan more recently at the update desk with Colin. I did find it a little annoying that he had a speaking role when most of those went to either former cast members or longtime friends of the show, people who had hosted for years. Or even Nate Bargatze, who hosted twice in one season because he’s so popular right now, and his one skit went viral and got a ton of attention. So yes, I was kind of annoyed that Ryan was allowed to have a speaking role on the show when he really doesn’t have any kind of special relationship with the show. But the thing that really annoys me is that you could tell it was last minute. I mean, the conehead joke just bombed. It didn’t make any sense for it to be there. Why would Ryan be backstage in the make up area of SNL eating conehead parts? Whereas the rest of the skit went really well and I thought everyone nailed it. So it did seem like someone was calling in a last minute favor. And I’m sure SNL liked it because it did create a lot of buzz and they were able to make a joke about the whole How are you? Why? What have you heard? I also think it stands out for people because Scarlett Johansson was all over the show, it was partly her night, and Colin’s night, and it just felt weird that Ryan had to make it partly about him. And given it didn’t exactly turn the public to their favor it felt like a misstep on everyone’s part. So agreed there wasn’t some big conspiracy, but I do think a favor was called in. |
Anonymous
|
Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.
So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment. |
Anonymous
I agree formal protocols weren't followed. I'm just saying it's not accurate to say that Wayfarer had no idea that there were problems on the set. Both Baldoni's complaint and timeline, as well as Lively's complaint, detail numerous times that Wayfarer was alerted to issues with Baldoni's or Heath's behavior, starting before filming began. They knew. I don't know about the other actress's complaints -- I don't think we know when those were registered exactly. I'll confess I haven't read through the amended complaint fully so maybe that's answered there. Yes, I think it would have been better for everyone involved if Lively and others had registered complaints with SAG. I wonder if people genuinely hoped to resolve these issues without a formal process. It does seem Wayfarer was receptive to addressing issues even if they grumbled about it amongst themselves. And it doesn't look like Lively intended to sue until she became aware of the retaliation campaign via the Jonesworks texts. The fact that Lively didn't register formal complaints with SAG or Sony actually indicates that this wasn't some long con for her to take over the movie, but that she genuinely didn't intend to sue until she saw the texts. If she'd been planning this all along, she would have used more formal methods for registering her issues with the behavior on set instead of these ad hoc complaints and meetings. |
Anonymous
This is insane, binary thinking. Ryan did not claim harassment. His wife did. Tina and Amy asked Ryan how things are going, and he replied with faux concern about what they had heard. About him. They didn’t say “how is Blake?” They didn’t say “what’s up with SH?” They said, how’s it going. There are crazy texts out there that RR sent to JB, including the weird joke about his perenium. The comment was CLEARLY about RR and his own weird engagement in this goat rodeo. You all can be convinced it was ill advised (probably was) but to say “he is making a joke about his wife’s harassment” is insane. Not to mention, she never said the harassment was her biggest issue. She felt she handled that, or she would have gone for different claims. She’s mad that JB later retaliated. I don’t like either of them, and find them all cringey but man do you all struggle with flexible thinking. |
Anonymous
He also launched a smear campaign against Spacey's victims sharing lots of personal details of their past sexual activities to show they wanted whatever sexual acts happened with Spacey. Finding out about Jed has been eye opening. Seems the two have 'been close' for a long time. I wonder if this is the first time Jed has been outed and has to now defend hiself. I am sure he spent the first few days deleting, deleting, deleting! I am sure he had a lot ot scrub from the internet. He kind of used the same tactic here too saying well if Blake told Justin to come in to her trailer once when she was breastfeeding and covered then she can't get upset if he comes in when he wants and she isn't covered. That her prior actions mean consent is no longer needed. |