Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

What is interesting to me having seen the movie is that there were two much more intimate scenes that Blake must’ve felt comfortable with because after all those months, I’ve not seen a word written or spoken about it.

There was one scene where Justin’s character basically almost attempts rape and she talks him down. It was probably a tough scene to film, and she didn’t seem to have a problem with that. I imagine because it was such a tough scene that protocol was followed to the letter and she couldn’t really say anything about it. I’m sure the intimacy coordinator was on set, even though they were clothed, as his character does overpower her, even though it doesn’t get very sexual and is stopped.

There is one other scene where he undresses her a little bit. She’s in high waisted fishnet stockings, and a bra, so not nude, and I think they kiss and he kind of tucked her in bed and leaves.

Those two seemed much more intimate, harder to film scenes, and she didn’t have a problem with that. Clearly, the IC must’ve been there and protocol followed.

But given all the rest that I’ve seen, it just seems like maybe she took advantage of the scenes where there wouldn’t be an IC and there would be more left to people to interpret. For example an IC has come out and said the dancing scene would not typically require an IC, because they were fully clothed, and there was no simulating sex. I mean, they were clearly in public in a bar. So it just seems like she took advantage of that to talk about how she didn’t feel comfortable in intimate scenes.

Same with the birthing scene. I’m not sure that there would’ve been a ic there because she wasn’t nude. I know there’s back-and-forth and whether they wanted her nude, but given the fact that there was no IC there it leads me to believe, well, she’s lying. She was covered and there was clearly no sex being simulated. I’ve watched the scene again and I just don’t get it. The guy playing the doctor was pretty far away from her. There were just lots of close-up shots of her face. And one of her legs.

I feel like she just took whatever scenes might be somewhat ambiguous and made them sound worse than they were.

[Anonymous]

Just kiss the dude, act like you’re falling in love and then run to the bank. Why must this be so difficult? What a tedious little life.

[Anonymous]

Blake is not a good actor. She’s certainly not method actor material as she lacks any raw talent. She is letting her personal feelings interfere with the character way too much. She’s way too self involved to be a believable character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting to me having seen the movie is that there were two much more intimate scenes that Blake must’ve felt comfortable with because after all those months, I’ve not seen a word written or spoken about it.

There was one scene where Justin’s character basically almost attempts rape and she talks him down. It was probably a tough scene to film, and she didn’t seem to have a problem with that. I imagine because it was such a tough scene that protocol was followed to the letter and she couldn’t really say anything about it. I’m sure the intimacy coordinator was on set, even though they were clothed, as his character does overpower her, even though it doesn’t get very sexual and is stopped.

There is one other scene where he undresses her a little bit. She’s in high waisted fishnet stockings, and a bra, so not nude, and I think they kiss and he kind of tucked her in bed and leaves.

Those two seemed much more intimate, harder to film scenes, and she didn’t have a problem with that. Clearly, the IC must’ve been there and protocol followed.

But given all the rest that I’ve seen, it just seems like maybe she took advantage of the scenes where there wouldn’t be an IC and there would be more left to people to interpret. For example an IC has come out and said the dancing scene would not typically require an IC, because they were fully clothed, and there was no simulating sex. I mean, they were clearly in public in a bar. So it just seems like she took advantage of that to talk about how she didn’t feel comfortable in intimate scenes.

Same with the birthing scene. I’m not sure that there would’ve been a ic there because she wasn’t nude. I know there’s back-and-forth and whether they wanted her nude, but given the fact that there was no IC there it leads me to believe, well, she’s lying. She was covered and there was clearly no sex being simulated. I’ve watched the scene again and I just don’t get it. The guy playing the doctor was pretty far away from her. There were just lots of close-up shots of her face. And one of her legs.

I feel like she just took whatever scenes might be somewhat ambiguous and made them sound worse than they were.

All scripted sex scenes and nudity were filmed after the hiatus. The scenes you are referencing were filmed after they came back from hiatus and after Baldoni and Wayfarer had agreed to her demands. Her amended complaint even references how a major reason she felt she needed to voice her concerns and get an agreement regarding having an IC with her at all times was because she was dreading going back to set and having to film these scenes with him.

This is in Baldoni's complaint as well, btw. His timeline specifically talks about how all the scripted sex scenes were filmed post-hiatus. You can control+F it if you don't believe me.

So she was comfortable with those scenes because they were handled professionally thanks to her intervention to ensure that an IC would be present and they would be choreographed and that all elements of the scenes would have consent of all parties. And also that the *scripted* nudity in these scenes would be covered by a valid nudity rider. Whereas the nudity in the birth scene was unscripted and they didn't even have a nudity rider in place when it happened (because Lively's team was not expecting it to be a nude scene so they didn't realize this was potentially why Wayfarer was trying to push them to sign the nudity rider with very little time to review and before an IC had reviewed and approved it).

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, as I reported a page or two ago, Leslie Sloane and Lively's PR firm Vision PR, have today filed a motion to dismiss, a motion for attys fees, and a motion to strike Baldoni's Exhibit A "timeline."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

She would have a much stronger case if she made a sexual harassment claim during filming. By not doing that she seemingly was OK about all of those other than saying she wanted things changed on set. Even the document that she had him sign, it appears after January 4 with the meeting where Blake blew up at him about fat shaming, everyone moved on. There’s just not a case for sexual harassment here, but that is why they’re not actually suing for sexual harassment. They are suing for retaliation and trying to backtrack into claims that she made turning those into harassment. I think people are greatly underestimating how difficult that is going to be.

There are protocols here for a reason. And if she had made a formal complaint, or any of the other women had made formal complaints, this would be much much easier. But not doing that really weakens their case. We can debate back-and-forth about Justin, his social awkwardness, unprofessionalism on set, and so on, but there is a standard for sexual harassment, and they really really botched any claims to that by not making any complaints at all.

You can really see in the Sony text with Wayfair, they were clearly just trying to please Blake and do what they could to make her more comfortable. Sony saying OK let’s let her have a producer of her choosing on set. OK, we can agree to this OK, we do agree to that. OK we can let her see the dailies. OK we can let her have a crack at editing. But I’m not seen anyone produce text about safety onset, or stemming, sexual harassment, or again SAG would be getting involved.

There’s no doubt that she wanted things changed on that set. Things were not going like she wanted. But that does not mean you can months later claim sexual harassment and retaliation.

I think it’s going to be very easy for Justin to show that he was just trying to protect his reputation from her spearheading having everyone Unfollow him, her putting forth that really awkward premiere, where he was in the basement and separate from the cast, and her not letting anyone do interviews with him. He has a really strong case that he had every right to hire a PR crisis firm.

I don't understand how any of this has anything to do with what I wrote in the previous post. I'm talking about whether their handling of the birth scene could constitute harassment. My point is that based on industry standards and what Baldoni acknowledge himself happened, I do think it could. Regardless of whether Lively ever used the words "sexual harassment" or contacted her union or whatever, the fact pattern here could definitely constitute harassment. That's all I'm saying.

It could just as easily constitute creative differences. I think some of this comes with making a movie that includes intimate scenes. So a director can’t advocate for their vision without being accused of harassment? If there was a power imbalance in Justin’s favor perhaps this would be a bigger concern, but the power imbalance was in Lively’s favor on that set and at no point was she at any real risk of having to do something she didn’t want. She was the a-lister. The highest paid by far. They accommodated everything she asked for.

Again, your comment doesn't seem related to mine. You can't have "creative differences" over whether or not an actor is nude in a scene. It's a contractual issue. Either the scene is scripted as a nude scene and you follow certain protocols for it (including plenty of notice to the actor and efforts to protect their privacy on set, plus having a valid nudity rider in place in advance of filming) or you don't.

It is unclear to me why they woudn't have just scripted the scene as a nude scene and made it clear to Lively well in advance that this is what they were going for. Even rookie directors generally know that you need actors to be on board with any nude and intimate scenes from the start because they don't have to agree to it on set. So it strikes me as sloppy and lazy at a minimum that they would think they could just spring the nudity on her the day of. That's not creative differences, that's mismanagement.

How do you know they sprung nudity on her that day?

+1
According to Justin's amended complaint, Blake was aware of the birthing scene because she was heavily involved in rewriting the script.

[Anonymous]

Blake was playing a victim of domestic violence, Justin was playing the abusive boyfriend. Maybe the role was too difficult for Blake to take on, to truly immerse herself in. Justin was playing the role of an abusive man which I am sure isn’t mentally easy. It’s like Blake couldn’t separate fantasy from reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

Th whole reason nudity riders, closed sets, intimacy coordinators etc came into being was because when there are vulnerabilities like nudity, simulated sex, and physical intimacy in the workplace environment, there needs to be strict controls and oversight to ensure a safe and professional work environment. There are a multitude of stories online from women (and maybe men) who had very negative and even traumatic experiences on set related to the nudity, sex, and intimate scenes. It isn't a free for all. Just because acting in those scenes is part of your job, it doesn't mean boundaries can be crossed, consent doesn't matter, exploitation is fine, or that the director can do whatever they want. It isnt unreasonable to expect those aspects of your job to happen in a professional and safe manner. It should be a very controlled environment to protect people in the workplace from harm. So the fact that a birth scene was part of her acting role doesn't mean she has to be naked on set in front of everyone or else she is unreasonable. There are many stories you can read about how awful actors have felt after sex and romance scenes over the years. You might feel they are all unreasonable but the industry doesn't and has put more parameters in place to create safer work environments.

Isn't part of the issue that she herself didn't meet with the intimacy person?

No, we don’t have evidence of that. We do know she declined a meeting BEFORE filming started. I too would decline work for a job I haven’t started yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

She would have a much stronger case if she made a sexual harassment claim during filming. By not doing that she seemingly was OK about all of those other than saying she wanted things changed on set. Even the document that she had him sign, it appears after January 4 with the meeting where Blake blew up at him about fat shaming, everyone moved on. There’s just not a case for sexual harassment here, but that is why they’re not actually suing for sexual harassment. They are suing for retaliation and trying to backtrack into claims that she made turning those into harassment. I think people are greatly underestimating how difficult that is going to be.

There are protocols here for a reason. And if she had made a formal complaint, or any of the other women had made formal complaints, this would be much much easier. But not doing that really weakens their case. We can debate back-and-forth about Justin, his social awkwardness, unprofessionalism on set, and so on, but there is a standard for sexual harassment, and they really really botched any claims to that by not making any complaints at all.

You can really see in the Sony text with Wayfair, they were clearly just trying to please Blake and do what they could to make her more comfortable. Sony saying OK let’s let her have a producer of her choosing on set. OK, we can agree to this OK, we do agree to that. OK we can let her see the dailies. OK we can let her have a crack at editing. But I’m not seen anyone produce text about safety onset, or stemming, sexual harassment, or again SAG would be getting involved.

There’s no doubt that she wanted things changed on that set. Things were not going like she wanted. But that does not mean you can months later claim sexual harassment and retaliation.

I think it’s going to be very easy for Justin to show that he was just trying to protect his reputation from her spearheading having everyone Unfollow him, her putting forth that really awkward premiere, where he was in the basement and separate from the cast, and her not letting anyone do interviews with him. He has a really strong case that he had every right to hire a PR crisis firm.

I don't understand how any of this has anything to do with what I wrote in the previous post. I'm talking about whether their handling of the birth scene could constitute harassment. My point is that based on industry standards and what Baldoni acknowledge himself happened, I do think it could. Regardless of whether Lively ever used the words "sexual harassment" or contacted her union or whatever, the fact pattern here could definitely constitute harassment. That's all I'm saying.

It could just as easily constitute creative differences. I think some of this comes with making a movie that includes intimate scenes. So a director can’t advocate for their vision without being accused of harassment? If there was a power imbalance in Justin’s favor perhaps this would be a bigger concern, but the power imbalance was in Lively’s favor on that set and at no point was she at any real risk of having to do something she didn’t want. She was the a-lister. The highest paid by far. They accommodated everything she asked for.

Again, your comment doesn't seem related to mine. You can't have "creative differences" over whether or not an actor is nude in a scene. It's a contractual issue. Either the scene is scripted as a nude scene and you follow certain protocols for it (including plenty of notice to the actor and efforts to protect their privacy on set, plus having a valid nudity rider in place in advance of filming) or you don't.

It is unclear to me why they woudn't have just scripted the scene as a nude scene and made it clear to Lively well in advance that this is what they were going for. Even rookie directors generally know that you need actors to be on board with any nude and intimate scenes from the start because they don't have to agree to it on set. So it strikes me as sloppy and lazy at a minimum that they would think they could just spring the nudity on her the day of. That's not creative differences, that's mismanagement.

How do you know they sprung nudity on her that day?

+1
According to Justin's amended complaint, Blake was aware of the birthing scene because she was heavily involved in rewriting the script.

But according to Lively's amended complaint, which contains the scene in question as scripted, there was no nudity indicated in the script.

Also, if they didn't suggest the nudity that day as Lively alleges, Baldoni would presumably have explained that in his complaint with evidence that the nudity was planned in advance. And yet he doesn't even discuss this aspect of her allegations, which is telling when you consider everything he does address -- this is a core aspect of her SH allegations.

And if the nudity had been planned and discussed with Lively beforehand, why would Baldoni or Heath thought it necessary to try and show Lively the video of Heath's wife giving birth nude? Much less to show it to her after the birth scene had been filmed? It's clear there was disagreement over nudity in the birth scene, it's clear any nudity was unscripted, and it's clear the disagreement was big enough that Baldoni thought he could "win" it by showing Lively that birth video. Yet at no point in his complaint does he say that the nudity was planned and Lively was aware of it prior to filming. He only says that she knew what would happen in this scene because she was involved in writing it, but since the script pages she produces don't involve any nudity, how could she be aware of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, as I reported a page or two ago, Leslie Sloane and Lively's PR firm Vision PR, have today filed a motion to dismiss, a motion for attys fees, and a motion to strike Baldoni's Exhibit A "timeline."

Do you have a link? I'd be interested in reading it.

[Anonymous]

Maybe Baldoni is a perfectionist. He may need to go over scenes multiple times before he is satisfied. He may often share new ideas and modifications for the film. As both an actor and director, that is understandable. This was a film about DV, it’s supposed to look messy, even the falling in love part. It’s not a romcom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Baldoni is a perfectionist. He may need to go over scenes multiple times before he is satisfied. He may often share new ideas and modifications for the film. As both an actor and director, that is understandable. This was a film about DV, it’s supposed to look messy, even the falling in love part. It’s not a romcom.

The final movie cut can look messy but the production is a work environment and it has to be professional and safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Baldoni is a perfectionist. He may need to go over scenes multiple times before he is satisfied. He may often share new ideas and modifications for the film. As both an actor and director, that is understandable. This was a film about DV, it’s supposed to look messy, even the falling in love part. It’s not a romcom.

The final movie cut can look messy but the production is a work environment and it has to be professional and safe.

It was safe, if not safer, than any movie set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Baldoni is a perfectionist. He may need to go over scenes multiple times before he is satisfied. He may often share new ideas and modifications for the film. As both an actor and director, that is understandable. This was a film about DV, it’s supposed to look messy, even the falling in love part. It’s not a romcom.

The final movie cut can look messy but the production is a work environment and it has to be professional and safe.

It was safe, if not safer, than any movie set.

Clearly not before the hiatus. Any of the complaints make that clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, as I reported a page or two ago, Leslie Sloane and Lively's PR firm Vision PR, have today filed a motion to dismiss, a motion for attys fees, and a motion to strike Baldoni's Exhibit A "timeline."

Do you have a link? I'd be interested in reading it.

Nevermind, I found it. And... daaaaaamn. They go hard on this: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/87/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

Basically they are saying that Baldoni et al have failed to state a claim that can possibly be proven (against Sloane and Vision PR). Like they accuse them of extortion but don't state what possible benefit Sloane or Vision PR could have possibly received out of the alleged extortion. They allege defamation but don't identify a single article or quote that is (1) defamatory and (2) planted or issued by Sloane/Vision.

It's very strong. I think Baldoni made a mistake in throwing Sloane and Vision into the suit. I wonder why he did?