Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to highlight that according to Lively's complaint, the conflict between Baldoni and Lively (and Wayfarer and Lively) started almost immediately during the filming of the movie.

This is the timeline of the first two days of shooting, according to her complaint:

Day 1
- Shooting scenes of Lively that depict the aftermath of abuse of her character by Lively's character
- Paparazzi get photos of Lively in costume and these are posted online
- Online commentary criticizes the costuming in these scenes and is critical of Lively's figure, saying she looks overweight

Day 2
- Baldoni goes to Lively's trailer to discuss this incident. Narratives diverge as to how this meeting went, but they don't dispute it happened and that it was in Lively's trailer.
- According to Lively, this meeting delayed shooting of what she describes as an "emotional scene" and she claims it was shot haphazardly.
- On this same day, Lively says she made a complaint to Wayfarer about Baldoni's behavior in that meeting in her trailer and requested a meeting to address it.
- Lively says that rather than schedule the meeting, Jamey Heath came into the makeup trailer where Lively was topless while makeup artists removed body makeup from her torso, to discuss the issues with her meeting with Baldoni. She says she asked if he would wait outside and he wouldn't, and that she asked him to look away and he didn't. Baldoni's complaint mostly confirms this narrative but says Lively was not actually bothered by this and joked about it later.

But the point is that this is supposed to have happened ON THE SECOND DAY OF FILMING.

That's how toxic this set was. By the end of the second day of filming, there was a PR crisis over Lively's costuming due to paparazzi shots and online criticism, the director apparently cried in the stars trailer, the star complained to the production company that the director was inappropriate while he was in her trailer, and one of the executive producers walked in on the star topless in the makeup trailer with a dispute over whether he copped a peak at her or not.

Regardless of whose version of events you think is more truthful, that is an absolutely nightmare set and it should help highlight why both sides are digging in so hard here -- these people HATE each other and the couldn't even go 48 hours without major inter-personal issues.

Why would Blake be upset about pictures in herself in costume? She’s bragged all over the media about what a great job she did picking out the wardrobe.

PS Literally nothing in these paragraphs sounds remotely like a nightmare.

PP here. There's no indication Lively was upset about the photographs. Both complaints indicate that it was Baldoni who was upset about the photos. Lively's complaint says that Lively pointed out that the photos were taken of her in costume for scenes where her character has just been abused by her partner, so it makes sense the character looks disheveled and not at her best. It was Baldoni et al who were concerned about it.

And agree to disagree on whether this sounds like a nightmare. I think regardless of who you believe, this is an insane amount of conflict for the first two days of filming. Then fact that Lively was complaining to Wayfarere about Baldoni's behavior toward her on Day 2 is a really bad sign.

Well I saw the movie and this isn’t right. None of these scenes are after abuse. This was her going to work and about her day as a flower shop owner.

There are only a couple scenes of abuse and they are very specific and none of them have her out and about at the flower shop after.

If things were chaotic on day one, it seems like in part because Blake doesn’t respect hierarchy at all. She completely dismissed the wardrobe department that they hired and use all of her own clothes and Gigi hadid’s clothes, which makes no sense for the character who is not wealthy. And then she disregarded the director and later the editing team entirely.

The two scenes I can think of that would be "after abuse" are the scenes in the brown dress where they go to dinner, after he hits her in the face, and the scene with Atlas after the almost rape.

I don't know when they filmed those scenes, but I do remember Lively's costumes in both definitely got criticized online. People especially criticized the scene with Atlas because she's wearing a plaid shacket which is oversized. But if those were the photos in question, it makes perfect sense that her character is dressed down and wearing something comfortable and covered in that scene. It is an emotional scene and Lily is upset.

They don't film movies in chronological order so they could have filmed any scenes first.

But after the almost rape she went straight to atlas’s restaurant and then he took her to the hospital and then days passed with her in the house, none of those outfits were worn.

And after the fall down the steps, she was bruised up for days and so it wasn’t after that either.

The only one I can think of that it could’ve been was after the first incident where he hit her in the face after he burns his hand, but she wasn’t out and about in the city disheveled. She was still high off the relationship thinking that it was a mistake.

There weren’t outfits she put together, that were supposed to look to disheveled. No one looks to shoveled and $5000 Louboutins. That wasn’t the vibe she was going for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

Sure maybe she’ll get it - there’s always a chance. But acting like Baldoni is violating something called “normal discovery” is just more of the dumbsh*t commentary along the lines of insisting that there is such thing as a “toxic work environment” cause of action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

It’s just so odd? hypocritical? for a litigant who literally kicked off their own litigation with a “bombshell” leak to the NYT to seek a protective order to stop the other side from releasing things to the press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

Sure maybe she’ll get it - there’s always a chance. But acting like Baldoni is violating something called “normal discovery” is just more of the dumbsh*t commentary along the lines of insisting that there is such thing as a “toxic work environment” cause of action.

"Normal discovery" is a perfectly legitimate way of explaining to a layperson how Baldoni's current approach to the case (releasing little bits of evidence to the press while teasing the release of more in the future) is not usually how litigants release evidence or develop their cases. This was is not "normal" because the people involved are famous and wealthy.

I have not seen anyone claim there is a cause of action called "toxic work environment" but if I did, as a lawyer, I would say "do you mean hostile work environment?" Because that's probably what they mean.

You have to assume on this board that not everyone has technical legal knowledge and might need to have certain things taken out of legalese or dumbed down a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

It’s just so odd? hypocritical? for a litigant who literally kicked off their own litigation with a “bombshell” leak to the NYT to seek a protective order to stop the other side from releasing things to the press.

not only that - she got the material she dropped through a collateral lawsuit that Baldoni knew nothing about.

I don’t know all the case law on gag orders. But it would seem excessive to bar Baldoni from releasing the same kind of information she’s released, when that information is documentary (the footage) and not some kind of incindiary or threatening language, or even anything that anyone has a colorable confidentiality claim over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

Sure maybe she’ll get it - there’s always a chance. But acting like Baldoni is violating something called “normal discovery” is just more of the dumbsh*t commentary along the lines of insisting that there is such thing as a “toxic work environment” cause of action.

"Normal discovery" is a perfectly legitimate way of explaining to a layperson how Baldoni's current approach to the case (releasing little bits of evidence to the press while teasing the release of more in the future) is not usually how litigants release evidence or develop their cases. This was is not "normal" because the people involved are famous and wealthy.

I have not seen anyone claim there is a cause of action called "toxic work environment" but if I did, as a lawyer, I would say "do you mean hostile work environment?" Because that's probably what they mean.

You have to assume on this board that not everyone has technical legal knowledge and might need to have certain things taken out of legalese or dumbed down a bit.

Disagree. Litigants have a first amendment right to talk to the media and they frequently do. I have no idea where you’re getting this idea that there’s some default to self-gag once litigation starts. It’s just not true. I don’t think there’s anything at all unusual about what he’s done legally or strategically. Some PPs and apparently you as well seem to have the totally incorrect notion that the “normal” thing to do is “develop your case” in silence.

and you haven’t been reading this thread if you haven’t seen all the dumb*ss stuff people are writing about sexual harassment claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to highlight that according to Lively's complaint, the conflict between Baldoni and Lively (and Wayfarer and Lively) started almost immediately during the filming of the movie.

This is the timeline of the first two days of shooting, according to her complaint:

Day 1
- Shooting scenes of Lively that depict the aftermath of abuse of her character by Lively's character
- Paparazzi get photos of Lively in costume and these are posted online
- Online commentary criticizes the costuming in these scenes and is critical of Lively's figure, saying she looks overweight

Day 2
- Baldoni goes to Lively's trailer to discuss this incident. Narratives diverge as to how this meeting went, but they don't dispute it happened and that it was in Lively's trailer.
- According to Lively, this meeting delayed shooting of what she describes as an "emotional scene" and she claims it was shot haphazardly.
- On this same day, Lively says she made a complaint to Wayfarer about Baldoni's behavior in that meeting in her trailer and requested a meeting to address it.
- Lively says that rather than schedule the meeting, Jamey Heath came into the makeup trailer where Lively was topless while makeup artists removed body makeup from her torso, to discuss the issues with her meeting with Baldoni. She says she asked if he would wait outside and he wouldn't, and that she asked him to look away and he didn't. Baldoni's complaint mostly confirms this narrative but says Lively was not actually bothered by this and joked about it later.

But the point is that this is supposed to have happened ON THE SECOND DAY OF FILMING.

That's how toxic this set was. By the end of the second day of filming, there was a PR crisis over Lively's costuming due to paparazzi shots and online criticism, the director apparently cried in the stars trailer, the star complained to the production company that the director was inappropriate while he was in her trailer, and one of the executive producers walked in on the star topless in the makeup trailer with a dispute over whether he copped a peak at her or not.

Regardless of whose version of events you think is more truthful, that is an absolutely nightmare set and it should help highlight why both sides are digging in so hard here -- these people HATE each other and the couldn't even go 48 hours without major inter-personal issues.

I don’t see how any rational person can blame Baldoni for this. Maybe this is controversial - who cares. She -did- look utterly ridiculous and out of shape in those shots. In the remorselessly ugly clothes she wanted the character to wear because they were more expensive - allegedly. So. I don’t think he hated his star. I think she was a pain in the a$$ and is a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

It’s just so odd? hypocritical? for a litigant who literally kicked off their own litigation with a “bombshell” leak to the NYT to seek a protective order to stop the other side from releasing things to the press.

It could be considered hypocritical, yes. But that does not mean the motion won't be granted. This situation has become a circus and there are good reasons to tamp it down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

A protective order and a gag order are not the same thing. A typical protective order would not prohibit a party from releasing their own documents or film, it would limit how they could use discovery produced by the other party. She wants a gag order, which would require a different show uc,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

A protective order and a gag order are not the same thing. A typical protective order would not prohibit a party from releasing their own documents or film, it would limit how they could use discovery produced by the other party. She wants a gag order, which would require a different show uc,

different showing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What gets me is something else Blake lied about in her complaint that I don’t see being discussed: the fact that she tries to bolster her point by saying Justin was being creepy because he was not supposed to be talking at all. She’s the one who says they should be talking.

I understand victims’ recollections are imperfect but the inaccuracy is so odd. I feel like if she were talking to get him to stop being physical she would have remembered the psychology behind her actions at the time.

We see the footage from the takes but not what happens before or in between.

According to Baldoni, Lively wanted the characters to be talking to each other in the scene, which she thought would be more reflective of what it would look like for the characters to fall in love. The footage he's released shows three long takes. In the first, Lively is talking a lot and you hear her talking specifically about this, how she thinks it makes sense for the characters and will help the audience understand how her character winds up with a guy who has a lot of red flags, if they are seen connecting via talking.

However in the subsequent two takes shown in the footage, Lively is talking significantly less, and is doing more of what Baldoni seems to have wanted, which is to look at each other and be affectionate. She still talks some, but not nearly as much as in the first take.

The moment in question, where he says "it smells good", happens in the third and last take, which is also the one where Lively is speaking the least. In fact Baldoni is the one who initiates the conversation where it happens, saying "I'm probably getting my beard all over you," prompting Lively to say, "I'm probably getting spray tan all over you," which is when Baldoni says, "it smells good."

Based on Baldoni's own account, it seems highly likely that Lively was given the direction NOT to talk during filming so that they could get shots of the two not talking. So for him to then initiate a not-in-character conversation after telling her not to talk, and not only that but to say something that would be inappropriate for him to say while not in character, would be extra frustrating. Lively's not allowed to talk but he is? I think the conflict here is very much related to what was obviously a power struggle between the two of them and this is an instance where Livley lost the power struggle and felt he took advantage of that.

Except Blake was given a chance to respond to the footage’s release and didn’t say any of this which would have bolstered what she initially said. She goes with the contradictory psychological argument.

They issued a statement, it's not like we saw Lively speak at length about the shoot. And I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, just nothing that footage does not actually show us everything that happened and we don't know what was said between takes. At the point in the footage where Baldoni says the thing that Lively took issue with, she is really not talking much at all.

But this is why it makes more sense to look at evidence via normal discovery instead of releasing it in dribs and drabs to the press. In discovery you could depose Lively or get a statement from her on the footage Baldoni has released. You could also depose Baldoni or, usefully, one of the other people on the set who might have a less biased account of what happened. You could get to the truth of what happened. But releasing footage that shows us some but not all of what happened on the set that day does not help us get to the truth. It forces us to guess. There is no reason to guess -- people actually do know what happened and this footage is one piece, though incomplete, of the picture.

“Normal discovery”? are you under the impression that DCUM is a court of law? lol.

PPs comments make sense in the context of Lively's request to the court that Baldoni stop releasing prejudicial info from the set in bits in ways that benefit him. Aren't you guys supporting Baldoni all attorneys who would know this lol, what's going on?

yeah her frivolous protective motion. The idea that there’s some kind of “normal discovery” that Baldoni is violating is just silly and uninformed. it takes a lot to get a gag order imposed, and there is no default “normal” discovery that gags litigants. For very good reasons!

You sound crazy.

This is a high profile case where both sides are claiming that the PR activities of the other side has damaged their public reputations, and both work in a field where public perception of them is worth a lot of $$$. So it's actually a good candidate for a protective order that limits what they can release to the press until discovery proceedings, at least, are finished. It likely wouldn't restrict their ability to talk to the press, but could limit their ability to release evidence to the press prior to disclosing it to all parties in litigation.

This is not typical litigation because of the high profile of the litigants and the unusually high interest in proceedings even in this early evidentiary stage. I'd put it at 50/50 odds they get a protective order, maybe even a bit higher. Whereas in a regular case with non-famous litigants I would view the gag order motion as frivolous. In this case it makes sense and would be surprised if Lively's team didn't file for one given how Baldoni's team is approaching the situation with this website and constantly teasing the press that he has more evidence to share.

Sure maybe she’ll get it - there’s always a chance. But acting like Baldoni is violating something called “normal discovery” is just more of the dumbsh*t commentary along the lines of insisting that there is such thing as a “toxic work environment” cause of action.

"Normal discovery" is a perfectly legitimate way of explaining to a layperson how Baldoni's current approach to the case (releasing little bits of evidence to the press while teasing the release of more in the future) is not usually how litigants release evidence or develop their cases. This was is not "normal" because the people involved are famous and wealthy.

I have not seen anyone claim there is a cause of action called "toxic work environment" but if I did, as a lawyer, I would say "do you mean hostile work environment?" Because that's probably what they mean.

You have to assume on this board that not everyone has technical legal knowledge and might need to have certain things taken out of legalese or dumbed down a bit.

Discovery has nothing to do with what he’s released. Discovery is the process of requesting documents and testimony from the other party. He’s releasing film already in his possession.

[Anonymous]

https://www.reddit.com/r/blakelivelysnark/comments/1i8vcd3/im_howling/

Who did Lilly Bloom.Blossom better, BL or this person?