Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47.1 motion is really interesting to me because I think all of Wayfarer's best arguments against it are procedural/technical, but that the facts favor Lively if she can overcome those challenges.

There are absolutely questions about whether the court can even apply 47.1, including the jurisdictional issues and the question of whether the dismissal of Wayfarer's defamation lawsuit can be considered a final decision in Lively's favor.

However, if those objections are overcome, I think Lively has strong arguments both that there is a protected communication and that her allegations were made without malice. I know the Baldoni folks on here will yell at me for that, but just taking the "without malice" issue, we have the settlement statement saying Lively's concerns deserved to be heard, and we have a text from Baldoni saying that Lively truly believed she had been wronged. And that's on top of Lively's own testimony, texts, and emails, all of which seem to back up the idea that she was genuinely upset about what had happened on set and believed lines had been crossed. I think that's hard to overcome.

I actually don’t think the facts favor lively on the question of without malice when you consider Vanzan and the email from Sony saying Blake wanted to destroy the dailies. Taken together that shows a person who was invested in controlling the narrative not in the truth or a redress of grievances. Also explains why there were so many “lies.” I use quotes b/c Blake’s fans will say they weren’t lies and that she just misremembered. But the dance scene and smells so good comes to mind. As well as the birthing scene where she made it seem like Adam was flown in just to look at her half dressed when in fact he had been on set the entire time as Justin’s acting coach. She also made it seem intimate when the baby and the baby’s parents were in the room just off camera. But if Blake could have controlled the narrative as she wanted we’d never know that. That shows malice.

Explain how Vanzan or the Sony email show that Lively brought her lawsuit "with malice."

The argument from Lively's side is/will be: she made the complaints about both on set behavior and Baldoni's other behavior in real time as they happened, to Wayfarer and to Sony. She has contemporaneous texts and emails with other people expressing her distress about what was happening on set. She has the 17 point list asking for certain conditions to be met to ensure a safe set before she returned. She has Baldoni telling his PR team that Lively clearly really believed she'd been wronged. And she has the joint announcement of the settlement which states that both sides agree Lively's claims "deserved to be heard."

On the other side, the argument is what exactly? Her lawyers used a tricky subpoena to get Jen Abel's text messages in advance of her lawsuit? How does that show malice? Or that she requested to have some dailies destroyed (not all as some of you keep saying, just those featuring intimate scenes/nudity) and a Sony exec thought that was irregular? Again, how does that show malice? Make the legal argument.

Y'all are going to try this motion on Reddit in your little echo chamber and then once again be so shocked when the actual ruling has nothing to do with all your little pet obsessions like Vanzan or Taylor Swift or Ryan Reynold's finances or whatever. Has Vanzan ever even been raised in any legal argument by Wayfarer in the Lively case? I don't think it has. Shouldn't that tell you something about whether it's a relevant argument? Baldoni's own lawyers haven't even used it for anything.

Wishful thinking on your part. The judge has already hinted that the evidence shows lively may have acted with the intent to harm. He brought it up in one of the recent hearings. Saying the record is suggestive she leaked her complaint to the NYT and I quote “may have been seeking to harm”. The judge has all the evidence now and will have to make a determination on malice based on the information he has. If Lively wasn’t seeking to harm, why did she file a sham lawsuit denying defendants the opportunity to fire an MTQ. And in her own spoliation motion lively said WF had a duty to preserve going back to the 17 point list yet she was actively trying to destroy evidence around the time of vamzan (both are from sept 2024).

The judge definitely didn't say that, who is engaging in wishful thinking now

If Vanzan were a sham lawsuit that violated any rule, it would have been addressed by now. It was a shady lawyer trick, but it's allowed, and it didn't prevent the defendants in Lively v. Wayfarer from making whatever motions they wanted to make to keep them out of the litigation. Unfortunately, they aren't privileged in any way. They also would have come out in Jones v. Abel regardless. Vanzan is such a nothing burger, it is hilarious to me that people still think it matters.

There is zero evidence that Lively was trying to destroy evidence. The dailies she requested to be destroyed were those involving intimate scenes or nudity, and she didn't even make the request directly. Her representation made it because they were seeking to enforce her nudity rider which required it. Ange Giannetti was speaking out of her a$$ when she commented on it in that text, because she said she'd never seen that in a movie "without nudity." But there was nudity in the film. Giannetti was just mistaken and a single text from someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about isn't evidence of anything, much less malice.

There is absolutely no nudity in this film. Absolutely none.

What do you mean she was talking out of her ass? Do you think she was just lying? So everyone’s lying but lively? She had never seen someone ask for dailies to be destroyed that didn’t have nudity. Lively was clearly asking for broad dailies to be destroyed and not just selective ones. You could see that clearly from the text.

Further in her deposition, she was asked did you ask to have dailies destroyed, she said no. She could’ve easily said, obviously my team stipulated that dailies with nudity would be destroyed. She didn’t say that because there were no scenes with nudity.

If there were no scenes with nudity then why did Lively have a nudity rider.

And how can you say "Lively was clearly asking for broad dailies to be destroyed"? That's not even what Gianetti's text said.

You understand who was in the possession of the dailies and would responsible for deleting them, right? Wayfarer. So if this really happened, if Lively demanded that a bunch of dailies that weren't even related to her nudity rider be destroyed, there would be a paper trail. It would not come down to an offhand remark by a Sony executive. There would be communications either from Lively or her team detailing the destruction of dailies, including the scope of these dailies. And then someone at Wayfarerer would actually have to sign off on their destruction (probably multiple someones because this is IP, so likely Jamey Heath and a lawyer), and then someone on staff would actually have to go delete them and report back that it had been done. And Wayfarer would have evidence of all of this. It's a documented process.

So where is it? Why is everyone relying on this one comment from Giannetti, who wouldn't even be directly involved?

Y'all are making a mountain out of literally nothing. There isn't even a molehill here.

Are you really the stupid? The nudity rider stipulates… Wait for it… No nudity.

Do you know anything about Blake? For the past several years she doesn’t do nudity. And I’ve actually seen the film. With my own eyes. There’s no nudity. Sony had actually pushed for more sex scenes and they dropped it when it just wasn’t happening with her. She was incredibly concerned with her postpartum body and they watered down a lot of the scenes that they wanted to put in.

Look, it's not my job to help you justify your parasocial hatred of Blake Lively. I'm expressing my opinion. And my opinion is that you are wrong.

"Nudity" in the context of filming a movie does not just mean full frontal or a butt shot or something. It covers a wide range of physical exposure that can include side boob (but no nipple), a profile of a butt (but not the butt straight on), etc. Blake's nudity rider didn't specify that Blake would remain fully clothed at all times. It detailed what amount of this sort of nudity she would do. It was limited, as is her right, because an actor may always contractually limit how much nudity they will do. If it was very important to Wayfarer to do more nudity than Blake was comfortable with, they were welcome to specify this up front. Especially since, as you point out, Blake famously is limited about the amount of sex and nudity she does on screen. They didn't, for some reason. Maybe ask them why.

As for sex scenes in the movie, it's interesting you bring up that Baldoni and Wayfarer wanted more, and more explicit, sex scenes in this movie. Because when you are talking about the promotion of the movie and times Blake mentioned florals or her alcohol brand, there is a lot of pearl clutching about how this is a domestic violence movie targeted at women and that is inappropriate. Yet apparently Baldoni's desire to fill this movie about domestic violence with more explicit sex scenes is totally appropriate. After all, that's what female audiences want, right? Lots of hot, hot sex between a woman and the man who smacks her around. But here comes dumb old Blake Lively with her postpartum body (gross) wanting to limit the sex scenes and do them more chastely, with her stupid nudity rider that won't let them film her exposed breasts or butt. Ugh. What a lady boner killer, amiright?

Oops, but wait, it turns out Colleen Hoover told Justin that doing too much sex, especially explicit sex, in the movie could be uncomfortable for audiences. Hoover explained that while readers might enjoy reading about a more graphic sex scene in a book, which they can read at home on their own, they wont' necessarily want to see that on a big screen in a movie theater surrounded by other movie goers, where it could feel embarrassing or over the top. I thought Baldoni cared deeply about doing right by the book and the book readers, and that he wanted to make sure the movie was told with "the female gaze." But then he wanted to add more and more explicit sex to the movie over the objection not only of its start but the author of the book it was based on, both women? Interesting.

Also, I don't know if you're aware of this, but not every second of footage filmed for a movie is released to the public. And in this particular movie, there was actually a big battle between Blake and Baldoni about exactly what footage would be released. One of the reasons Blake sought to control the Sony cut of the film was specifically because she was concerned that Baldoni's desire to make a really sexy movie would lead to a more explicit, sexual version of the film being released, one that centered that sex between the leads instead of the emotional arc of the Blake's character (which is what the book is about and Hoover wanted the film to be about). You describe a power struggle between Wayfarer and Blake over how sexual and explicit the movie would be, and this power struggle played out in the competing cuts. It thus makes sense that Blake, who wanted to make a more chaste movie and release a more chaste version of said movie, would also be concerned what Baldoni and Wayfarer, who had repeated and aggressively tried to get her to take her clothes off and do more sex in the movie, might do with what was filmed. Thus it makes sense that she'd seek to enforce the provision of the nudity rider specifying that dailies involving her in various states of undress or simulating certain sexual acts that did NOT make the Final Cut of the movie, be destroyed. Which means this was done not to try and "destroy evidence" but to protect an actress who believed she'd been sexually harassed by her horny, porn-obsessed director and his buddy producer.

But sure, please go on and tell me how a brief text between two Sony producers proves that Blake brought her entire lawsuit with malice. I'm sure Judge Liman will find it very convincing. Except... I dont' think Liman gets his takes from Reddit. Fair warning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47.1 motion is really interesting to me because I think all of Wayfarer's best arguments against it are procedural/technical, but that the facts favor Lively if she can overcome those challenges.

There are absolutely questions about whether the court can even apply 47.1, including the jurisdictional issues and the question of whether the dismissal of Wayfarer's defamation lawsuit can be considered a final decision in Lively's favor.

However, if those objections are overcome, I think Lively has strong arguments both that there is a protected communication and that her allegations were made without malice. I know the Baldoni folks on here will yell at me for that, but just taking the "without malice" issue, we have the settlement statement saying Lively's concerns deserved to be heard, and we have a text from Baldoni saying that Lively truly believed she had been wronged. And that's on top of Lively's own testimony, texts, and emails, all of which seem to back up the idea that she was genuinely upset about what had happened on set and believed lines had been crossed. I think that's hard to overcome.

I actually don’t think the facts favor lively on the question of without malice when you consider Vanzan and the email from Sony saying Blake wanted to destroy the dailies. Taken together that shows a person who was invested in controlling the narrative not in the truth or a redress of grievances. Also explains why there were so many “lies.” I use quotes b/c Blake’s fans will say they weren’t lies and that she just misremembered. But the dance scene and smells so good comes to mind. As well as the birthing scene where she made it seem like Adam was flown in just to look at her half dressed when in fact he had been on set the entire time as Justin’s acting coach. She also made it seem intimate when the baby and the baby’s parents were in the room just off camera. But if Blake could have controlled the narrative as she wanted we’d never know that. That shows malice.

Explain how Vanzan or the Sony email show that Lively brought her lawsuit "with malice."

The argument from Lively's side is/will be: she made the complaints about both on set behavior and Baldoni's other behavior in real time as they happened, to Wayfarer and to Sony. She has contemporaneous texts and emails with other people expressing her distress about what was happening on set. She has the 17 point list asking for certain conditions to be met to ensure a safe set before she returned. She has Baldoni telling his PR team that Lively clearly really believed she'd been wronged. And she has the joint announcement of the settlement which states that both sides agree Lively's claims "deserved to be heard."

On the other side, the argument is what exactly? Her lawyers used a tricky subpoena to get Jen Abel's text messages in advance of her lawsuit? How does that show malice? Or that she requested to have some dailies destroyed (not all as some of you keep saying, just those featuring intimate scenes/nudity) and a Sony exec thought that was irregular? Again, how does that show malice? Make the legal argument.

Y'all are going to try this motion on Reddit in your little echo chamber and then once again be so shocked when the actual ruling has nothing to do with all your little pet obsessions like Vanzan or Taylor Swift or Ryan Reynold's finances or whatever. Has Vanzan ever even been raised in any legal argument by Wayfarer in the Lively case? I don't think it has. Shouldn't that tell you something about whether it's a relevant argument? Baldoni's own lawyers haven't even used it for anything.

Wishful thinking on your part. The judge has already hinted that the evidence shows lively may have acted with the intent to harm. He brought it up in one of the recent hearings. Saying the record is suggestive she leaked her complaint to the NYT and I quote “may have been seeking to harm”. The judge has all the evidence now and will have to make a determination on malice based on the information he has. If Lively wasn’t seeking to harm, why did she file a sham lawsuit denying defendants the opportunity to fire an MTQ. And in her own spoliation motion lively said WF had a duty to preserve going back to the 17 point list yet she was actively trying to destroy evidence around the time of vamzan (both are from sept 2024).

The judge definitely didn't say that, who is engaging in wishful thinking now

If Vanzan were a sham lawsuit that violated any rule, it would have been addressed by now. It was a shady lawyer trick, but it's allowed, and it didn't prevent the defendants in Lively v. Wayfarer from making whatever motions they wanted to make to keep them out of the litigation. Unfortunately, they aren't privileged in any way. They also would have come out in Jones v. Abel regardless. Vanzan is such a nothing burger, it is hilarious to me that people still think it matters.

There is zero evidence that Lively was trying to destroy evidence. The dailies she requested to be destroyed were those involving intimate scenes or nudity, and she didn't even make the request directly. Her representation made it because they were seeking to enforce her nudity rider which required it. Ange Giannetti was speaking out of her a$$ when she commented on it in that text, because she said she'd never seen that in a movie "without nudity." But there was nudity in the film. Giannetti was just mistaken and a single text from someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about isn't evidence of anything, much less malice.

There is absolutely no nudity in this film. Absolutely none.

What do you mean she was talking out of her ass? Do you think she was just lying? So everyone’s lying but lively? She had never seen someone ask for dailies to be destroyed that didn’t have nudity. Lively was clearly asking for broad dailies to be destroyed and not just selective ones. You could see that clearly from the text.

Further in her deposition, she was asked did you ask to have dailies destroyed, she said no. She could’ve easily said, obviously my team stipulated that dailies with nudity would be destroyed. She didn’t say that because there were no scenes with nudity.

If there were no scenes with nudity then why did Lively have a nudity rider.

And how can you say "Lively was clearly asking for broad dailies to be destroyed"? That's not even what Gianetti's text said.

You understand who was in the possession of the dailies and would responsible for deleting them, right? Wayfarer. So if this really happened, if Lively demanded that a bunch of dailies that weren't even related to her nudity rider be destroyed, there would be a paper trail. It would not come down to an offhand remark by a Sony executive. There would be communications either from Lively or her team detailing the destruction of dailies, including the scope of these dailies. And then someone at Wayfarerer would actually have to sign off on their destruction (probably multiple someones because this is IP, so likely Jamey Heath and a lawyer), and then someone on staff would actually have to go delete them and report back that it had been done. And Wayfarer would have evidence of all of this. It's a documented process.

So where is it? Why is everyone relying on this one comment from Giannetti, who wouldn't even be directly involved?

Y'all are making a mountain out of literally nothing. There isn't even a molehill here.

The text clearly says the dailies were destroyed at Lively’s request. Seems like a paper trail.

She asked Sony because she had cut WF out of the process by September 2024. She presumably didn’t realize they had their own copies.

The text to Josh Greenstein, another Sony exec, word for word:

"call when u can. not urgent but Blake asking us to destroy some of the dailies. want to tell you what we will and won't do. also going to ask Bridget to contact all vendors and ask them to delete all dailies and need them to proof. ok? (1st time ive ever been asked to do this in movie with no nudity but ok.)"

She is saying Blake (unclear if Blake herself asked or someone else on her behalf -- it is normal in Hollywood where people are represented for something like this to go through multiple people) asked SONY for some dailies destroyed but doesn't specify which and even says they will not necessarily delete them all. She does does that she is asking vendors to delete all dailies and provide proof of destruction (this is standard). The comment about nudity is unclear. Is she saying that the request to destroy dailies at all is unusual or that the request for vendors to provide proof of destruction is unusual when there is no nudity? Who knows.

Also this is a text between two Sony execs. Sony of course had access to the dailies because they did a cut of the film (with Blake) plus the promotion of the film (dailies footage might be used in trailers and other promo even if it's a moment not specifically included in the film or from another cut). But Wayfarer owned the dailies and would have all originals. It's their intellectual property.

This is a very incomplete picture of what happened with the dailies and actually proves very little. It shows that Blake asked SONY to delete some dailies and also that Sony directed vendors to delete all dailies, and that Giannetti thought this seemed overzealous for this particular film but also agreed to it.

Here's what it doesn't prove: anything about destruction of Wayfarer's original copies of the dailies. IF Blake asked them to delete the dailies, there would be evidence of that request plus evidence it had occurred. Yet we have none. Wayfarer isn't even a party to this text.

It's nothing. This is nothing. It certainly doesn't prove that Blake lied in her deposition, or that she was attempting to destroy evidence, or that she filed her lawsuit with malice. It's not enough.

You say it’s not enough but this is the problem with CA 47.1 and why it will be ruled unconstitutional. It’s a sloppy overbroad law that allows the prevailing defendant in a defamation case to seek treble damages without clarifying if the defendant needs to actually prevail on 47.1. Baldoni lost on litigation privilege and fair report, not 47.1. Jed lost on jurisdiction. A ruling on 47.1 requires a fact finding on malice which cannot happen here because there was no trial. This is why Liman is asking whose burden is it. Blake is going to lose this one. And if you care about the constitution you should want her to lose. California is notorious for passing sloppy and extreme laws. We don’t need their mess imposed on the rest of the country.

I like it when you don't even pretend not to be a misogynist MAGA. When we drop the "I'm really a feminist but I just think Blake is a liar" nonsense and you admit what you really think: that a law designed to protect survivors should be declared unconstitutional because we don't want those yucky, liberal California values to get in the way of a totally innocent game of grab a$$ at work.

Tell me again about how you totally believed Amber Heard all along and that's why we should trust you when you declare that Blake is a liar and all the feminist and survivor advocacy orgs supporting her 47.1 motion are the enemy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47.1 motion is really interesting to me because I think all of Wayfarer's best arguments against it are procedural/technical, but that the facts favor Lively if she can overcome those challenges.

There are absolutely questions about whether the court can even apply 47.1, including the jurisdictional issues and the question of whether the dismissal of Wayfarer's defamation lawsuit can be considered a final decision in Lively's favor.

However, if those objections are overcome, I think Lively has strong arguments both that there is a protected communication and that her allegations were made without malice. I know the Baldoni folks on here will yell at me for that, but just taking the "without malice" issue, we have the settlement statement saying Lively's concerns deserved to be heard, and we have a text from Baldoni saying that Lively truly believed she had been wronged. And that's on top of Lively's own testimony, texts, and emails, all of which seem to back up the idea that she was genuinely upset about what had happened on set and believed lines had been crossed. I think that's hard to overcome.

I actually don’t think the facts favor lively on the question of without malice when you consider Vanzan and the email from Sony saying Blake wanted to destroy the dailies. Taken together that shows a person who was invested in controlling the narrative not in the truth or a redress of grievances. Also explains why there were so many “lies.” I use quotes b/c Blake’s fans will say they weren’t lies and that she just misremembered. But the dance scene and smells so good comes to mind. As well as the birthing scene where she made it seem like Adam was flown in just to look at her half dressed when in fact he had been on set the entire time as Justin’s acting coach. She also made it seem intimate when the baby and the baby’s parents were in the room just off camera. But if Blake could have controlled the narrative as she wanted we’d never know that. That shows malice.

Explain how Vanzan or the Sony email show that Lively brought her lawsuit "with malice."

The argument from Lively's side is/will be: she made the complaints about both on set behavior and Baldoni's other behavior in real time as they happened, to Wayfarer and to Sony. She has contemporaneous texts and emails with other people expressing her distress about what was happening on set. She has the 17 point list asking for certain conditions to be met to ensure a safe set before she returned. She has Baldoni telling his PR team that Lively clearly really believed she'd been wronged. And she has the joint announcement of the settlement which states that both sides agree Lively's claims "deserved to be heard."

On the other side, the argument is what exactly? Her lawyers used a tricky subpoena to get Jen Abel's text messages in advance of her lawsuit? How does that show malice? Or that she requested to have some dailies destroyed (not all as some of you keep saying, just those featuring intimate scenes/nudity) and a Sony exec thought that was irregular? Again, how does that show malice? Make the legal argument.

Y'all are going to try this motion on Reddit in your little echo chamber and then once again be so shocked when the actual ruling has nothing to do with all your little pet obsessions like Vanzan or Taylor Swift or Ryan Reynold's finances or whatever. Has Vanzan ever even been raised in any legal argument by Wayfarer in the Lively case? I don't think it has. Shouldn't that tell you something about whether it's a relevant argument? Baldoni's own lawyers haven't even used it for anything.

Wishful thinking on your part. The judge has already hinted that the evidence shows lively may have acted with the intent to harm. He brought it up in one of the recent hearings. Saying the record is suggestive she leaked her complaint to the NYT and I quote “may have been seeking to harm”. The judge has all the evidence now and will have to make a determination on malice based on the information he has. If Lively wasn’t seeking to harm, why did she file a sham lawsuit denying defendants the opportunity to fire an MTQ. And in her own spoliation motion lively said WF had a duty to preserve going back to the 17 point list yet she was actively trying to destroy evidence around the time of vamzan (both are from sept 2024).

The judge definitely didn't say that, who is engaging in wishful thinking now

If Vanzan were a sham lawsuit that violated any rule, it would have been addressed by now. It was a shady lawyer trick, but it's allowed, and it didn't prevent the defendants in Lively v. Wayfarer from making whatever motions they wanted to make to keep them out of the litigation. Unfortunately, they aren't privileged in any way. They also would have come out in Jones v. Abel regardless. Vanzan is such a nothing burger, it is hilarious to me that people still think it matters.

There is zero evidence that Lively was trying to destroy evidence. The dailies she requested to be destroyed were those involving intimate scenes or nudity, and she didn't even make the request directly. Her representation made it because they were seeking to enforce her nudity rider which required it. Ange Giannetti was speaking out of her a$$ when she commented on it in that text, because she said she'd never seen that in a movie "without nudity." But there was nudity in the film. Giannetti was just mistaken and a single text from someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about isn't evidence of anything, much less malice.

There is absolutely no nudity in this film. Absolutely none.

What do you mean she was talking out of her ass? Do you think she was just lying? So everyone’s lying but lively? She had never seen someone ask for dailies to be destroyed that didn’t have nudity. Lively was clearly asking for broad dailies to be destroyed and not just selective ones. You could see that clearly from the text.

Further in her deposition, she was asked did you ask to have dailies destroyed, she said no. She could’ve easily said, obviously my team stipulated that dailies with nudity would be destroyed. She didn’t say that because there were no scenes with nudity.

If there were no scenes with nudity then why did Lively have a nudity rider.

And how can you say "Lively was clearly asking for broad dailies to be destroyed"? That's not even what Gianetti's text said.

You understand who was in the possession of the dailies and would responsible for deleting them, right? Wayfarer. So if this really happened, if Lively demanded that a bunch of dailies that weren't even related to her nudity rider be destroyed, there would be a paper trail. It would not come down to an offhand remark by a Sony executive. There would be communications either from Lively or her team detailing the destruction of dailies, including the scope of these dailies. And then someone at Wayfarerer would actually have to sign off on their destruction (probably multiple someones because this is IP, so likely Jamey Heath and a lawyer), and then someone on staff would actually have to go delete them and report back that it had been done. And Wayfarer would have evidence of all of this. It's a documented process.

So where is it? Why is everyone relying on this one comment from Giannetti, who wouldn't even be directly involved?

Y'all are making a mountain out of literally nothing. There isn't even a molehill here.

The text clearly says the dailies were destroyed at Lively’s request. Seems like a paper trail.

She asked Sony because she had cut WF out of the process by September 2024. She presumably didn’t realize they had their own copies.

The text to Josh Greenstein, another Sony exec, word for word:

"call when u can. not urgent but Blake asking us to destroy some of the dailies. want to tell you what we will and won't do. also going to ask Bridget to contact all vendors and ask them to delete all dailies and need them to proof. ok? (1st time ive ever been asked to do this in movie with no nudity but ok.)"

She is saying Blake (unclear if Blake herself asked or someone else on her behalf -- it is normal in Hollywood where people are represented for something like this to go through multiple people) asked SONY for some dailies destroyed but doesn't specify which and even says they will not necessarily delete them all. She does does that she is asking vendors to delete all dailies and provide proof of destruction (this is standard). The comment about nudity is unclear. Is she saying that the request to destroy dailies at all is unusual or that the request for vendors to provide proof of destruction is unusual when there is no nudity? Who knows.

Also this is a text between two Sony execs. Sony of course had access to the dailies because they did a cut of the film (with Blake) plus the promotion of the film (dailies footage might be used in trailers and other promo even if it's a moment not specifically included in the film or from another cut). But Wayfarer owned the dailies and would have all originals. It's their intellectual property.

This is a very incomplete picture of what happened with the dailies and actually proves very little. It shows that Blake asked SONY to delete some dailies and also that Sony directed vendors to delete all dailies, and that Giannetti thought this seemed overzealous for this particular film but also agreed to it.

Here's what it doesn't prove: anything about destruction of Wayfarer's original copies of the dailies. IF Blake asked them to delete the dailies, there would be evidence of that request plus evidence it had occurred. Yet we have none. Wayfarer isn't even a party to this text.

It's nothing. This is nothing. It certainly doesn't prove that Blake lied in her deposition, or that she was attempting to destroy evidence, or that she filed her lawsuit with malice. It's not enough.

You say it’s not enough but this is the problem with CA 47.1 and why it will be ruled unconstitutional. It’s a sloppy overbroad law that allows the prevailing defendant in a defamation case to seek treble damages without clarifying if the defendant needs to actually prevail on 47.1. Baldoni lost on litigation privilege and fair report, not 47.1. Jed lost on jurisdiction. A ruling on 47.1 requires a fact finding on malice which cannot happen here because there was no trial. This is why Liman is asking whose burden is it. Blake is going to lose this one. And if you care about the constitution you should want her to lose. California is notorious for passing sloppy and extreme laws. We don’t need their mess imposed on the rest of the country.

I like it when you don't even pretend not to be a misogynist MAGA. When we drop the "I'm really a feminist but I just think Blake is a liar" nonsense and you admit what you really think: that a law designed to protect survivors should be declared unconstitutional because we don't want those yucky, liberal California values to get in the way of a totally innocent game of grab a$$ at work.

Tell me again about how you totally believed Amber Heard all along and that's why we should trust you when you declare that Blake is a liar and all the feminist and survivor advocacy orgs supporting her 47.1 motion are the enemy.

You can use as much offensive language as you want. Not going to change the fact the law is unconstitutional. Also not going to change the fact that California is wildly out of touch with the rest of the country.

Signed a Democrat. Sure that kills you though.

[Anonymous]

Oh please. It was Sony that asked for more explicit seems not Justin. He did everything to try to make her comfortable. There were countless emails and text where he told Sony he would be more prominently featured if they wanted more explicit scenes and not her. He offered to get her a body double. He tried to get her to meet with the intimacy coordinator. He was not pushing for more scenes for her, they were.

But I’m sorry, there was no side boob in the damn movie. I saw the movie with my own eyes. It was not explicit at all.

You have nothing, so you have to resort to just lies. These things that you described simply did not happen.

[Anonymous]

It doesn’t make any sense for the blake bot but to be arguing about nudity, what Sony flagged as strange was that Blake was not asking for scenes with nudity to be deleted. She was explicitly asking for all the dailies to be destroyed.

The reason ange thought it was strange, because never in her decades long career has she seen someone request dailies to be deleted when there was no nudity.

So please, post seven more paragraphs about nudity in the film that you clearly haven’t seen or don’t know anything about. What Ange was explicitly talking about in that email exchange to other Sony executives, was the shock and strangeness of Blake’s request.

We will say it again because it’s clear that you are slow. When Blake was asked about this in her deposition, she denied it. We now have a paper trail that proved that she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47.1 motion is really interesting to me because I think all of Wayfarer's best arguments against it are procedural/technical, but that the facts favor Lively if she can overcome those challenges.

There are absolutely questions about whether the court can even apply 47.1, including the jurisdictional issues and the question of whether the dismissal of Wayfarer's defamation lawsuit can be considered a final decision in Lively's favor.

However, if those objections are overcome, I think Lively has strong arguments both that there is a protected communication and that her allegations were made without malice. I know the Baldoni folks on here will yell at me for that, but just taking the "without malice" issue, we have the settlement statement saying Lively's concerns deserved to be heard, and we have a text from Baldoni saying that Lively truly believed she had been wronged. And that's on top of Lively's own testimony, texts, and emails, all of which seem to back up the idea that she was genuinely upset about what had happened on set and believed lines had been crossed. I think that's hard to overcome.

I actually don’t think the facts favor lively on the question of without malice when you consider Vanzan and the email from Sony saying Blake wanted to destroy the dailies. Taken together that shows a person who was invested in controlling the narrative not in the truth or a redress of grievances. Also explains why there were so many “lies.” I use quotes b/c Blake’s fans will say they weren’t lies and that she just misremembered. But the dance scene and smells so good comes to mind. As well as the birthing scene where she made it seem like Adam was flown in just to look at her half dressed when in fact he had been on set the entire time as Justin’s acting coach. She also made it seem intimate when the baby and the baby’s parents were in the room just off camera. But if Blake could have controlled the narrative as she wanted we’d never know that. That shows malice.

Explain how Vanzan or the Sony email show that Lively brought her lawsuit "with malice."

The argument from Lively's side is/will be: she made the complaints about both on set behavior and Baldoni's other behavior in real time as they happened, to Wayfarer and to Sony. She has contemporaneous texts and emails with other people expressing her distress about what was happening on set. She has the 17 point list asking for certain conditions to be met to ensure a safe set before she returned. She has Baldoni telling his PR team that Lively clearly really believed she'd been wronged. And she has the joint announcement of the settlement which states that both sides agree Lively's claims "deserved to be heard."

On the other side, the argument is what exactly? Her lawyers used a tricky subpoena to get Jen Abel's text messages in advance of her lawsuit? How does that show malice? Or that she requested to have some dailies destroyed (not all as some of you keep saying, just those featuring intimate scenes/nudity) and a Sony exec thought that was irregular? Again, how does that show malice? Make the legal argument.

Y'all are going to try this motion on Reddit in your little echo chamber and then once again be so shocked when the actual ruling has nothing to do with all your little pet obsessions like Vanzan or Taylor Swift or Ryan Reynold's finances or whatever. Has Vanzan ever even been raised in any legal argument by Wayfarer in the Lively case? I don't think it has. Shouldn't that tell you something about whether it's a relevant argument? Baldoni's own lawyers haven't even used it for anything.

Wishful thinking on your part. The judge has already hinted that the evidence shows lively may have acted with the intent to harm. He brought it up in one of the recent hearings. Saying the record is suggestive she leaked her complaint to the NYT and I quote “may have been seeking to harm”. The judge has all the evidence now and will have to make a determination on malice based on the information he has. If Lively wasn’t seeking to harm, why did she file a sham lawsuit denying defendants the opportunity to fire an MTQ. And in her own spoliation motion lively said WF had a duty to preserve going back to the 17 point list yet she was actively trying to destroy evidence around the time of vamzan (both are from sept 2024).

The judge definitely didn't say that, who is engaging in wishful thinking now

If Vanzan were a sham lawsuit that violated any rule, it would have been addressed by now. It was a shady lawyer trick, but it's allowed, and it didn't prevent the defendants in Lively v. Wayfarer from making whatever motions they wanted to make to keep them out of the litigation. Unfortunately, they aren't privileged in any way. They also would have come out in Jones v. Abel regardless. Vanzan is such a nothing burger, it is hilarious to me that people still think it matters.

There is zero evidence that Lively was trying to destroy evidence. The dailies she requested to be destroyed were those involving intimate scenes or nudity, and she didn't even make the request directly. Her representation made it because they were seeking to enforce her nudity rider which required it. Ange Giannetti was speaking out of her a$$ when she commented on it in that text, because she said she'd never seen that in a movie "without nudity." But there was nudity in the film. Giannetti was just mistaken and a single text from someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about isn't evidence of anything, much less malice.

There is absolutely no nudity in this film. Absolutely none.

What do you mean she was talking out of her ass? Do you think she was just lying? So everyone’s lying but lively? She had never seen someone ask for dailies to be destroyed that didn’t have nudity. Lively was clearly asking for broad dailies to be destroyed and not just selective ones. You could see that clearly from the text.

Further in her deposition, she was asked did you ask to have dailies destroyed, she said no. She could’ve easily said, obviously my team stipulated that dailies with nudity would be destroyed. She didn’t say that because there were no scenes with nudity.

If there were no scenes with nudity then why did Lively have a nudity rider.

And how can you say "Lively was clearly asking for broad dailies to be destroyed"? That's not even what Gianetti's text said.

You understand who was in the possession of the dailies and would responsible for deleting them, right? Wayfarer. So if this really happened, if Lively demanded that a bunch of dailies that weren't even related to her nudity rider be destroyed, there would be a paper trail. It would not come down to an offhand remark by a Sony executive. There would be communications either from Lively or her team detailing the destruction of dailies, including the scope of these dailies. And then someone at Wayfarerer would actually have to sign off on their destruction (probably multiple someones because this is IP, so likely Jamey Heath and a lawyer), and then someone on staff would actually have to go delete them and report back that it had been done. And Wayfarer would have evidence of all of this. It's a documented process.

So where is it? Why is everyone relying on this one comment from Giannetti, who wouldn't even be directly involved?

Y'all are making a mountain out of literally nothing. There isn't even a molehill here.

Are you really the stupid? The nudity rider stipulates… Wait for it… No nudity.

Do you know anything about Blake? For the past several years she doesn’t do nudity. And I’ve actually seen the film. With my own eyes. There’s no nudity. Sony had actually pushed for more sex scenes and they dropped it when it just wasn’t happening with her. She was incredibly concerned with her postpartum body and they watered down a lot of the scenes that they wanted to put in.

Look, it's not my job to help you justify your parasocial hatred of Blake Lively. I'm expressing my opinion. And my opinion is that you are wrong.

"Nudity" in the context of filming a movie does not just mean full frontal or a butt shot or something. It covers a wide range of physical exposure that can include side boob (but no nipple), a profile of a butt (but not the butt straight on), etc. Blake's nudity rider didn't specify that Blake would remain fully clothed at all times. It detailed what amount of this sort of nudity she would do. It was limited, as is her right, because an actor may always contractually limit how much nudity they will do. If it was very important to Wayfarer to do more nudity than Blake was comfortable with, they were welcome to specify this up front. Especially since, as you point out, Blake famously is limited about the amount of sex and nudity she does on screen. They didn't, for some reason. Maybe ask them why.

As for sex scenes in the movie, it's interesting you bring up that Baldoni and Wayfarer wanted more, and more explicit, sex scenes in this movie. Because when you are talking about the promotion of the movie and times Blake mentioned florals or her alcohol brand, there is a lot of pearl clutching about how this is a domestic violence movie targeted at women and that is inappropriate. Yet apparently Baldoni's desire to fill this movie about domestic violence with more explicit sex scenes is totally appropriate. After all, that's what female audiences want, right? Lots of hot, hot sex between a woman and the man who smacks her around. But here comes dumb old Blake Lively with her postpartum body (gross) wanting to limit the sex scenes and do them more chastely, with her stupid nudity rider that won't let them film her exposed breasts or butt. Ugh. What a lady boner killer, amiright?

Oops, but wait, it turns out Colleen Hoover told Justin that doing too much sex, especially explicit sex, in the movie could be uncomfortable for audiences. Hoover explained that while readers might enjoy reading about a more graphic sex scene in a book, which they can read at home on their own, they wont' necessarily want to see that on a big screen in a movie theater surrounded by other movie goers, where it could feel embarrassing or over the top. I thought Baldoni cared deeply about doing right by the book and the book readers, and that he wanted to make sure the movie was told with "the female gaze." But then he wanted to add more and more explicit sex to the movie over the objection not only of its start but the author of the book it was based on, both women? Interesting.

Also, I don't know if you're aware of this, but not every second of footage filmed for a movie is released to the public. And in this particular movie, there was actually a big battle between Blake and Baldoni about exactly what footage would be released. One of the reasons Blake sought to control the Sony cut of the film was specifically because she was concerned that Baldoni's desire to make a really sexy movie would lead to a more explicit, sexual version of the film being released, one that centered that sex between the leads instead of the emotional arc of the Blake's character (which is what the book is about and Hoover wanted the film to be about). You describe a power struggle between Wayfarer and Blake over how sexual and explicit the movie would be, and this power struggle played out in the competing cuts. It thus makes sense that Blake, who wanted to make a more chaste movie and release a more chaste version of said movie, would also be concerned what Baldoni and Wayfarer, who had repeated and aggressively tried to get her to take her clothes off and do more sex in the movie, might do with what was filmed. Thus it makes sense that she'd seek to enforce the provision of the nudity rider specifying that dailies involving her in various states of undress or simulating certain sexual acts that did NOT make the Final Cut of the movie, be destroyed. Which means this was done not to try and "destroy evidence" but to protect an actress who believed she'd been sexually harassed by her horny, porn-obsessed director and his buddy producer.

But sure, please go on and tell me how a brief text between two Sony producers proves that Blake brought her entire lawsuit with malice. I'm sure Judge Liman will find it very convincing. Except... I dont' think Liman gets his takes from Reddit. Fair warning.

Fair warning: Reddit didn’t dismiss all the sexual harassment claims….a federal judge did after months of carefully looking at all the evidence and weighing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 47.1 motion is really interesting to me because I think all of Wayfarer's best arguments against it are procedural/technical, but that the facts favor Lively if she can overcome those challenges.

There are absolutely questions about whether the court can even apply 47.1, including the jurisdictional issues and the question of whether the dismissal of Wayfarer's defamation lawsuit can be considered a final decision in Lively's favor.

However, if those objections are overcome, I think Lively has strong arguments both that there is a protected communication and that her allegations were made without malice. I know the Baldoni folks on here will yell at me for that, but just taking the "without malice" issue, we have the settlement statement saying Lively's concerns deserved to be heard, and we have a text from Baldoni saying that Lively truly believed she had been wronged. And that's on top of Lively's own testimony, texts, and emails, all of which seem to back up the idea that she was genuinely upset about what had happened on set and believed lines had been crossed. I think that's hard to overcome.

I actually don’t think the facts favor lively on the question of without malice when you consider Vanzan and the email from Sony saying Blake wanted to destroy the dailies. Taken together that shows a person who was invested in controlling the narrative not in the truth or a redress of grievances. Also explains why there were so many “lies.” I use quotes b/c Blake’s fans will say they weren’t lies and that she just misremembered. But the dance scene and smells so good comes to mind. As well as the birthing scene where she made it seem like Adam was flown in just to look at her half dressed when in fact he had been on set the entire time as Justin’s acting coach. She also made it seem intimate when the baby and the baby’s parents were in the room just off camera. But if Blake could have controlled the narrative as she wanted we’d never know that. That shows malice.

Explain how Vanzan or the Sony email show that Lively brought her lawsuit "with malice."

The argument from Lively's side is/will be: she made the complaints about both on set behavior and Baldoni's other behavior in real time as they happened, to Wayfarer and to Sony. She has contemporaneous texts and emails with other people expressing her distress about what was happening on set. She has the 17 point list asking for certain conditions to be met to ensure a safe set before she returned. She has Baldoni telling his PR team that Lively clearly really believed she'd been wronged. And she has the joint announcement of the settlement which states that both sides agree Lively's claims "deserved to be heard."

On the other side, the argument is what exactly? Her lawyers used a tricky subpoena to get Jen Abel's text messages in advance of her lawsuit? How does that show malice? Or that she requested to have some dailies destroyed (not all as some of you keep saying, just those featuring intimate scenes/nudity) and a Sony exec thought that was irregular? Again, how does that show malice? Make the legal argument.

Y'all are going to try this motion on Reddit in your little echo chamber and then once again be so shocked when the actual ruling has nothing to do with all your little pet obsessions like Vanzan or Taylor Swift or Ryan Reynold's finances or whatever. Has Vanzan ever even been raised in any legal argument by Wayfarer in the Lively case? I don't think it has. Shouldn't that tell you something about whether it's a relevant argument? Baldoni's own lawyers haven't even used it for anything.

Wishful thinking on your part. The judge has already hinted that the evidence shows lively may have acted with the intent to harm. He brought it up in one of the recent hearings. Saying the record is suggestive she leaked her complaint to the NYT and I quote “may have been seeking to harm”. The judge has all the evidence now and will have to make a determination on malice based on the information he has. If Lively wasn’t seeking to harm, why did she file a sham lawsuit denying defendants the opportunity to fire an MTQ. And in her own spoliation motion lively said WF had a duty to preserve going back to the 17 point list yet she was actively trying to destroy evidence around the time of vamzan (both are from sept 2024).

The judge definitely didn't say that, who is engaging in wishful thinking now

If Vanzan were a sham lawsuit that violated any rule, it would have been addressed by now. It was a shady lawyer trick, but it's allowed, and it didn't prevent the defendants in Lively v. Wayfarer from making whatever motions they wanted to make to keep them out of the litigation. Unfortunately, they aren't privileged in any way. They also would have come out in Jones v. Abel regardless. Vanzan is such a nothing burger, it is hilarious to me that people still think it matters.

There is zero evidence that Lively was trying to destroy evidence. The dailies she requested to be destroyed were those involving intimate scenes or nudity, and she didn't even make the request directly. Her representation made it because they were seeking to enforce her nudity rider which required it. Ange Giannetti was speaking out of her a$$ when she commented on it in that text, because she said she'd never seen that in a movie "without nudity." But there was nudity in the film. Giannetti was just mistaken and a single text from someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about isn't evidence of anything, much less malice.

There is absolutely no nudity in this film. Absolutely none.

What do you mean she was talking out of her ass? Do you think she was just lying? So everyone’s lying but lively? She had never seen someone ask for dailies to be destroyed that didn’t have nudity. Lively was clearly asking for broad dailies to be destroyed and not just selective ones. You could see that clearly from the text.

Further in her deposition, she was asked did you ask to have dailies destroyed, she said no. She could’ve easily said, obviously my team stipulated that dailies with nudity would be destroyed. She didn’t say that because there were no scenes with nudity.

If there were no scenes with nudity then why did Lively have a nudity rider.

And how can you say "Lively was clearly asking for broad dailies to be destroyed"? That's not even what Gianetti's text said.

You understand who was in the possession of the dailies and would responsible for deleting them, right? Wayfarer. So if this really happened, if Lively demanded that a bunch of dailies that weren't even related to her nudity rider be destroyed, there would be a paper trail. It would not come down to an offhand remark by a Sony executive. There would be communications either from Lively or her team detailing the destruction of dailies, including the scope of these dailies. And then someone at Wayfarerer would actually have to sign off on their destruction (probably multiple someones because this is IP, so likely Jamey Heath and a lawyer), and then someone on staff would actually have to go delete them and report back that it had been done. And Wayfarer would have evidence of all of this. It's a documented process.

So where is it? Why is everyone relying on this one comment from Giannetti, who wouldn't even be directly involved?

Y'all are making a mountain out of literally nothing. There isn't even a molehill here.

Are you really the stupid? The nudity rider stipulates… Wait for it… No nudity.

Do you know anything about Blake? For the past several years she doesn’t do nudity. And I’ve actually seen the film. With my own eyes. There’s no nudity. Sony had actually pushed for more sex scenes and they dropped it when it just wasn’t happening with her. She was incredibly concerned with her postpartum body and they watered down a lot of the scenes that they wanted to put in.

Look, it's not my job to help you justify your parasocial hatred of Blake Lively. I'm expressing my opinion. And my opinion is that you are wrong.

"Nudity" in the context of filming a movie does not just mean full frontal or a butt shot or something. It covers a wide range of physical exposure that can include side boob (but no nipple), a profile of a butt (but not the butt straight on), etc. Blake's nudity rider didn't specify that Blake would remain fully clothed at all times. It detailed what amount of this sort of nudity she would do. It was limited, as is her right, because an actor may always contractually limit how much nudity they will do. If it was very important to Wayfarer to do more nudity than Blake was comfortable with, they were welcome to specify this up front. Especially since, as you point out, Blake famously is limited about the amount of sex and nudity she does on screen. They didn't, for some reason. Maybe ask them why.

As for sex scenes in the movie, it's interesting you bring up that Baldoni and Wayfarer wanted more, and more explicit, sex scenes in this movie. Because when you are talking about the promotion of the movie and times Blake mentioned florals or her alcohol brand, there is a lot of pearl clutching about how this is a domestic violence movie targeted at women and that is inappropriate. Yet apparently Baldoni's desire to fill this movie about domestic violence with more explicit sex scenes is totally appropriate. After all, that's what female audiences want, right? Lots of hot, hot sex between a woman and the man who smacks her around. But here comes dumb old Blake Lively with her postpartum body (gross) wanting to limit the sex scenes and do them more chastely, with her stupid nudity rider that won't let them film her exposed breasts or butt. Ugh. What a lady boner killer, amiright?

Oops, but wait, it turns out Colleen Hoover told Justin that doing too much sex, especially explicit sex, in the movie could be uncomfortable for audiences. Hoover explained that while readers might enjoy reading about a more graphic sex scene in a book, which they can read at home on their own, they wont' necessarily want to see that on a big screen in a movie theater surrounded by other movie goers, where it could feel embarrassing or over the top. I thought Baldoni cared deeply about doing right by the book and the book readers, and that he wanted to make sure the movie was told with "the female gaze." But then he wanted to add more and more explicit sex to the movie over the objection not only of its start but the author of the book it was based on, both women? Interesting.

Also, I don't know if you're aware of this, but not every second of footage filmed for a movie is released to the public. And in this particular movie, there was actually a big battle between Blake and Baldoni about exactly what footage would be released. One of the reasons Blake sought to control the Sony cut of the film was specifically because she was concerned that Baldoni's desire to make a really sexy movie would lead to a more explicit, sexual version of the film being released, one that centered that sex between the leads instead of the emotional arc of the Blake's character (which is what the book is about and Hoover wanted the film to be about). You describe a power struggle between Wayfarer and Blake over how sexual and explicit the movie would be, and this power struggle played out in the competing cuts. It thus makes sense that Blake, who wanted to make a more chaste movie and release a more chaste version of said movie, would also be concerned what Baldoni and Wayfarer, who had repeated and aggressively tried to get her to take her clothes off and do more sex in the movie, might do with what was filmed. Thus it makes sense that she'd seek to enforce the provision of the nudity rider specifying that dailies involving her in various states of undress or simulating certain sexual acts that did NOT make the Final Cut of the movie, be destroyed. Which means this was done not to try and "destroy evidence" but to protect an actress who believed she'd been sexually harassed by her horny, porn-obsessed director and his buddy producer.

But sure, please go on and tell me how a brief text between two Sony producers proves that Blake brought her entire lawsuit with malice. I'm sure Judge Liman will find it very convincing. Except... I dont' think Liman gets his takes from Reddit. Fair warning.

It’s almost baffling how many facts you got wrong here. This just reads like fanfiction. You accuse people of having a para social relationship with Blake, but you created this character and this entire ahead story that didn’t happen.

I know the case inside and out, and even if you didn’t, AI is super helpful and you can just search. Colleen Hoover never, not once, told anyone involved in the film to tone down the sex scenes. It didn’t happen. Colleen and Blake did not have a shared vision of the film - they actually didn’t have that many interactions. In the latest depo dump after the case settled there was a text exchange between Jenny Slate and Blake with Jenny saying how cold and unfriendly Colleen seemed, paraphrasing here, but something along those lines and did she do something to offend her? And Blake saying no that’s just how she is which is why she keeps her distance.

Colleen doesn’t follow Blake and deleted every image of them together. They only met a couple of times for photo ops and she went along with Blake because she was clearly fan girling over Taylor and obsessed with celebrity, but no, they didn’t share some vision and collude on reducing the number of sex scenes. You’re just blatantly making that up.

It was Sony that wanted the sex scenes because the book has a lot of them. Blake, of course, didn’t read the book. Justin is not perfect and he some missteps during this film, but at every turn he wanted to do whatever Blake was comfortable with in terms of theses scenes, and he made that clear from the start. As soon as she started ranting about not being ready to do body scenes, he told her don’t worry about it. We’re only going to do what you’re comfortable with. Again, he offered the body double, he offered meetings with the intimacy coordinator, he offered to take the brunt of any sexy scenes and have it be the female gaze. It was Sanford the head of the studio who complained that Blake did not look good in one of the scenes and they needed to re-shoot it. It was Sony who was pushing for more sex scenes not Wayfarer. But funny how Blake isn’t suing Sony is she? Wonder why that is? Maybe because they’re a major studio with billions of dollars and not an independent studio that she thought she could just F over.

Look, if the only arguments you got are made up ones that you’re just pulling out of thin air, this is just getting weird. You were like Blake in that way. We are only here because a number of out of context situations and blatant lies that she made up. I don’t know why you want to believe Blake so badly. She’s not a good person. And sadly as much as I liked Taylor, what she did was really petty, cruel, and quite frankly pathetic. They just set out to ruin a man’s life for sport.

Fortunately this did not end with a one sided New York Times article like they thought it would. It actually did go to a court of law and we were able to hear both sides. And now that we’ve heard both sides, the public and the courts have sided with the one that isn’t Blake.

[Anonymous]

I know the case inside and out, and even if you didn’t, AI is super helpful and you can just search. Colleen Hoover never, not once, told anyone involved in the film to tone down the sex scenes. It didn’t happen. Colleen and Blake did not have a shared vision of the film - they actually didn’t have that many interactions.

Maybe don't trust AI to be able to read a bunch of screen shotted documents on a court docket friend. It 100% did happen, see below. Text exchange between Hoover and Baldoni from April 2023 before filming even started. Key takeaways (I wrote these myself but I know you like AI to summarize things tidily for you so you don't have to think too hard so I'll do my best AI impression):

- Yes, Colleen clearly pushes for less sex in the movie and tells Justin that what her readers, and film viewers generally, want from a movie like this is the romantic build up and the first kiss, not a bunch of explicit sex scenes. She also says the sex in the book is not what matters to readers as much as the emotion.
- Justin tells her that this is also what Blake wants and then says Blake hasn't read the book. Keep in mind Colleen had not met Blake at this point but they already have a "shared vision" -- they are both telling Justin before production that the movie will work better with less explicit sex and more focus on the romance and emotion.
- Colleen says she actually likes that Blake has not read the book because it's valuable to get that perspective. Presumably they want non-book readers to see the movie and the movie has to appeal to them too.
- Justin is worried because he wants the movie to have an R rating for some reason and toning down the sex will push it to PG-13. Colleen says this is fine and even says she'd like the movie to be something teenagers can go see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I know the case inside and out, and even if you didn’t, AI is super helpful and you can just search. Colleen Hoover never, not once, told anyone involved in the film to tone down the sex scenes. It didn’t happen. Colleen and Blake did not have a shared vision of the film - they actually didn’t have that many interactions.

Maybe don't trust AI to be able to read a bunch of screen shotted documents on a court docket friend. It 100% did happen, see below. Text exchange between Hoover and Baldoni from April 2023 before filming even started. Key takeaways (I wrote these myself but I know you like AI to summarize things tidily for you so you don't have to think too hard so I'll do my best AI impression):

- Yes, Colleen clearly pushes for less sex in the movie and tells Justin that what her readers, and film viewers generally, want from a movie like this is the romantic build up and the first kiss, not a bunch of explicit sex scenes. She also says the sex in the book is not what matters to readers as much as the emotion.
- Justin tells her that this is also what Blake wants and then says Blake hasn't read the book. Keep in mind Colleen had not met Blake at this point but they already have a "shared vision" -- they are both telling Justin before production that the movie will work better with less explicit sex and more focus on the romance and emotion.
- Colleen says she actually likes that Blake has not read the book because it's valuable to get that perspective. Presumably they want non-book readers to see the movie and the movie has to appeal to them too.
- Justin is worried because he wants the movie to have an R rating for some reason and toning down the sex will push it to PG-13. Colleen says this is fine and even says she'd like the movie to be something teenagers can go see.

This doesn’t conflict with anything that I said. It was Sony who was pushing for the R rating not Justin. It was Sony that was pushing for more explicit sex scenes.

Ironically, as much conflict as there was in this movie, Blake was not upset about the number of sex scenes. She was really upset at the beginning of the film about doing any kind of body scenes so close to postpartum and wanted the schedule to change, but she wasn’t trying to get anything changed except for the birth scene, which, by the way, is not a sex scene. That was the scene that was continually raised in the docket about being problematic.

Blake and Colleen actually didn’t talk about staging scenes or anything like that. They actually did not meet until the movie was filmed and Blake got her on her side about some of the different edited scenes. Their main interactions were during the promotion of the film when they had this photo ops together.

Blake’s cut actually tested worse with young women.

Acting as if Justin was pushing for more sex scenes, and that was an issue in the sexual harassment case is just wrong. Blake had an issue around the birth scene, around Jamie coming into her trailer, around comments Justin was making (hot, sexy), but she never said she was pushed into doing inappropriate scenes. You are trying to make something a thing that was just not a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I know the case inside and out, and even if you didn’t, AI is super helpful and you can just search. Colleen Hoover never, not once, told anyone involved in the film to tone down the sex scenes. It didn’t happen. Colleen and Blake did not have a shared vision of the film - they actually didn’t have that many interactions.

Maybe don't trust AI to be able to read a bunch of screen shotted documents on a court docket friend. It 100% did happen, see below. Text exchange between Hoover and Baldoni from April 2023 before filming even started. Key takeaways (I wrote these myself but I know you like AI to summarize things tidily for you so you don't have to think too hard so I'll do my best AI impression):

- Yes, Colleen clearly pushes for less sex in the movie and tells Justin that what her readers, and film viewers generally, want from a movie like this is the romantic build up and the first kiss, not a bunch of explicit sex scenes. She also says the sex in the book is not what matters to readers as much as the emotion.
- Justin tells her that this is also what Blake wants and then says Blake hasn't read the book. Keep in mind Colleen had not met Blake at this point but they already have a "shared vision" -- they are both telling Justin before production that the movie will work better with less explicit sex and more focus on the romance and emotion.
- Colleen says she actually likes that Blake has not read the book because it's valuable to get that perspective. Presumably they want non-book readers to see the movie and the movie has to appeal to them too.
- Justin is worried because he wants the movie to have an R rating for some reason and toning down the sex will push it to PG-13. Colleen says this is fine and even says she'd like the movie to be something teenagers can go see.

This doesn’t conflict with anything that I said. It was Sony who was pushing for the R rating not Justin. It was Sony that was pushing for more explicit sex scenes.

Ironically, as much conflict as there was in this movie, Blake was not upset about the number of sex scenes. She was really upset at the beginning of the film about doing any kind of body scenes so close to postpartum and wanted the schedule to change, but she wasn’t trying to get anything changed except for the birth scene, which, by the way, is not a sex scene. That was the scene that was continually raised in the docket about being problematic.

Blake and Colleen actually didn’t talk about staging scenes or anything like that. They actually did not meet until the movie was filmed and Blake got her on her side about some of the different edited scenes. Their main interactions were during the promotion of the film when they had this photo ops together.

Blake’s cut actually tested worse with young women.

Acting as if Justin was pushing for more sex scenes, and that was an issue in the sexual harassment case is just wrong. Blake had an issue around the birth scene, around Jamie coming into her trailer, around comments Justin was making (hot, sexy), but she never said she was pushed into doing inappropriate scenes. You are trying to make something a thing that was just not a thing.

You said Colleen never pushed to tone down the sex in the movie. It clearly shows she did, and also that she and Blake were on the same page with the vision for the movie, even though they had never met. You claimed this never happened. It did.

You are also wrong that Sony pushed for the R rating. Justin pushed for it to Sony. See below, where Justin tells Ange Giannetti that he will do anything to get this movie to an R rating and she doesn't even agree to it but says they will decide later if it will be R or PG-13 (it is nonsensical that the distributing studio would want an R rating, studios almost always push for lower ratings because it means more $$$). Transcribing instead of screen shotting to avoid violating Jeff's language rules, here's the exchange, from April 28, two days before the conversation with Colleen posted above:

Justin: Il [sic] do everything I can to shoot an R film

Ange: Gotcha. Ok I'll update Sony you are going to try and get as much tasteful hot sex as you can and we decide in post if PG-13 or R. I am going to set mtg without ratings board head. Maybe Mon or tues? You find out if we are PG-13 will Colleen be okay and does she think her readers will be okay? Xx

Justin: And look for alts for f***s etc - I need to know if I can say "I want to f*** you" it's so important - not having that in there would kill it

Justin then goes to Collen who tells him explicitly that the movie should have less sex than the book, that the book doesn't even have that much sex, that readers will be way more interested in the emotion, and that she wants a rating low enough for teenagers to see the movie.

Sony was NOT pushing for a sexually explicit, R rated movie. Justin was, and he was playing people off each other to try and get it. He really wanted to film as much sex as he could. This is despite the fact that they knew when they hired Blake that she does not do much nudity and on screen sex.

[Anonymous]

This is fine! Now post the script that Blake(Ryan) sent Wayfair with a p-rn term so disturbing that Redditers were confused.

In describing background for the rooftop scene, he used the word husk-rhymes with duck.

But grab your girls and grab your florals!

Mind you, Blake and Ryan condoned having over 70 takes of their young daughter making a gay male joke that made her so uncomfortable she was near tears. But yes, they were absolutely appalled by scenes in a Colleen Hoover book.

[Anonymous]

Still waiting for you to say, "Oh, I was wrong. It turns out Colleen Hoover did tell Justin to tone down the sex in the movie, and it turns out Sony was not pushing for the R rating -- Justin was. I see now that I had incorrect ideas about what happened and might not not know as much as I thought I did."

But if you need to spin out first, ok I guess. Do you need to talk about how Ryan is closeted and they're gonna get divorced and how hot Justin's abs are? Go for it babe. I know it's hard.

[Anonymous]

Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lively was right about Justin. He is porn and sex obsessed and he was trying to turn a movie about DV into a vehicle for his sexual fantasies. He was gross and many of the women on the movie thought so. Jamey Heath enables him and they both have boundary issues. And when they realized people might find this stuff out about them, their egos led them to hire sketchy people like Melissa Nathan, Jed Wallace, and Bryan Freedman to try and destroy Lively's reputation so no one would ever believe her. And they basically got away with it.

I do think Lively lost this case, the 47.1 motion not withstanding (we'll see, I have no faith), and I think that's fundamentally unfair because: she was right.

But life is unfair and 2026 America is not a bastion of truth or justice. I hate it, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything else.

Yep. And Lively personally is not very sympathetic so whatever, but the whole thing is just skeevy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for you to say, "Oh, I was wrong. It turns out Colleen Hoover did tell Justin to tone down the sex in the movie, and it turns out Sony was not pushing for the R rating -- Justin was. I see now that I had incorrect ideas about what happened and might not not know as much as I thought I did."

But if you need to spin out first, ok I guess. Do you need to talk about how Ryan is closeted and they're gonna get divorced and how hot Justin's abs are? Go for it babe. I know it's hard.

I wasn’t wrong though. Sony and Colleen and Blake seemed to have different visions. You will recall Colleen handpicked Justin to tell the story and pushed him to play the lead. Why rewrite history.

Justin realized early on Blake was very self conscious and was more than willing to work with her. She was the one who was improvising kissing scenes with him. You are just leaving a lot out to fit your version of the story.

The rooftop scene she sent over had that totally gross and inappropriate term. And the scene was over the top.