Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are regular people so invested in this and so defensive of Blake Lively when all the evidence thus far is against her? What am I missing?

You're missing that most of the "evidence" against her is not even connected to her allegations and that Lively has evidence to back up her side as well. For instance the texts between the PR people, the fact that Wayfarer was willing to sign the document agreeing to her demands (which were not unreasonable and were designed to provide for a respectful workplace where consent was prioritized), and the fact that Livley had documented several complaints even before that and which Wayfarer admitted to in the form of apologies and promises that it wouldn't happen again. I also think the video that was released of the dance thing shows a bad dynamic in which Baldoni was clearly pushing for more physical contact/kissing in the scene than Lively was comfortable with, which raises red flags for me about how scenes like that were conducted. Of course their characters kiss and are intimate during the movie, but the video backs up Lively's claims that Baldoni would add kissing and other intimate behavior to scene that were no scripted as such, which raises consent issues for me.

But I'm sure I will be told that I'm crazy, I must work for Lively's PR team, and that Lively is obviously a lying liar who lies and Baldoni is the second coming. So no need to tell me, I've heard it already, thanks.

A movie is not real life though, Blake signed up for this knowing fully well that there were intimate scenes, she declined the initial IC meeting and possible subsequent meetings, she was also aware that Justin was the director. It’s a film, it is all fake, yes he may have been aggressively kissing her but that’s his character. She signed up to play the role of a DV victim. How should an abusive character act? Justin was playing the role the way he felt it should be played and Blake had a choice to say no to acting in this film.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I be previously reported a Blake supporter for sock puppeting and Jeff removed it. I am not going to constantly be reporting posts but suspect it is still occurring to some extent. That doesn’t mean that all Blake supporting posts are from the same poster, I don’t believe that to be true, but there is one prolific Blake poster who sometimes sock puppets and her style is easy to identify. I’ll leave it there.

The problem with your theory is that I am a Blake supporter who sometimes posts long posts but I have seen other longer posts from other Blake supporters that I know weren't mine. I've also seen long posts from Baldoni supporters.

I think people sometimes post long posts on this subject because it's complex and the debate is heated, and it takes more than a couple sentences to make an argument.

I'm a DP who's more interested in the legal case and have posted long posts at different times defending either Lively or Baldoni!

The only posts I find worthy of reporting are the screeds about looks and sex lives, which are always against Lively, never Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I be previously reported a Blake supporter for sock puppeting and Jeff removed it. I am not going to constantly be reporting posts but suspect it is still occurring to some extent. That doesn’t mean that all Blake supporting posts are from the same poster, I don’t believe that to be true, but there is one prolific Blake poster who sometimes sock puppets and her style is easy to identify. I’ll leave it there.

Reported in website feedback or reported it here in thread, and Jeff removed the post you reported it removed your post here? He would remove your post here because it doesn’t belong here. I haven’t seen any true reports of sock purporting here in this thread and I have been here a while. Again, I strongly urge you to go to website feedback. Those posts do not belong here in thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has the judge ruled on the discovery motion yet? I know Blake’s team made some concessions about scope, so maybe not necessary,

No. As of yesterday Blake withdrew requests for all documents and location data but Baldoni moved to quash on grounds that call logs for all phone numbers is still overbroad. Blake's attorneys responded with some caselaw to support their side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was an interesting read.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14416677/truth-Blake-Lively-Justin-Baldoni-composer-brian-tyler.html#comments-14416677

She sounds like a total agent of chaos.

BL is a horrible person.

I mean, all it took for me was the horrible baby bump interview and she never explained or apologized or anything. That was all it took for many people. The lawsuit etc. is just expected of someone like her. Typical narcissist.

Yes that was also bad. I feel sorry for the poor composer that she fired for no reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are regular people so invested in this and so defensive of Blake Lively when all the evidence thus far is against her? What am I missing?

You're missing that most of the "evidence" against her is not even connected to her allegations and that Lively has evidence to back up her side as well. For instance the texts between the PR people, the fact that Wayfarer was willing to sign the document agreeing to her demands (which were not unreasonable and were designed to provide for a respectful workplace where consent was prioritized), and the fact that Livley had documented several complaints even before that and which Wayfarer admitted to in the form of apologies and promises that it wouldn't happen again. I also think the video that was released of the dance thing shows a bad dynamic in which Baldoni was clearly pushing for more physical contact/kissing in the scene than Lively was comfortable with, which raises red flags for me about how scenes like that were conducted. Of course their characters kiss and are intimate during the movie, but the video backs up Lively's claims that Baldoni would add kissing and other intimate behavior to scene that were no scripted as such, which raises consent issues for me.

But I'm sure I will be told that I'm crazy, I must work for Lively's PR team, and that Lively is obviously a lying liar who lies and Baldoni is the second coming. So no need to tell me, I've heard it already, thanks.

Them signing the document does not equal guilt. It means they agreed to the conditions. I would happily sign an agreement stating I will not murder anyone. That does not make me a murderer.

I think it’s all well and good to say let’s wait to hear all the evidence. I think it’s also fine to say “I believe so-and-so” based on what we know so far.

But the fuzzy math on here drive me insane. And people stating allegations as fact drives me insane. I just can’t help myself but to argue when I see it.

We really seem to struggle with the laws of logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I be previously reported a Blake supporter for sock puppeting and Jeff removed it. I am not going to constantly be reporting posts but suspect it is still occurring to some extent. That doesn’t mean that all Blake supporting posts are from the same poster, I don’t believe that to be true, but there is one prolific Blake poster who sometimes sock puppets and her style is easy to identify. I’ll leave it there.

The problem with your theory is that I am a Blake supporter who sometimes posts long posts but I have seen other longer posts from other Blake supporters that I know weren't mine. I've also seen long posts from Baldoni supporters.

I think people sometimes post long posts on this subject because it's complex and the debate is heated, and it takes more than a couple sentences to make an argument.

Yes, me too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the whole idea of an actress making an HR complaint is new. How many times have actresses been invited to "private meetings" in the producer's hotel room? How many times were they asked to take off their clothes or be sexier in an audition? How many times did actors insist on extra rehearsal time for kissing scenes, in their trailers? How many times did directors tell actresses how sexy they were, out of character? How many times has last minute nudity been spring on an actress?

And that's tame stuff. Obviously way worse has happened.

It doesn't surprise me that there aren't clear cut concepts of an actress in a romantic film "going to HR" and how she files a complaint and what HR does with her complaint. In fact, many of the mentions of HR in the Lively filing are references to males sarcastically mentioning "HR reports" when an actress pushes back on something. And I think that's probably endemic in Hollywood.

I can see where she didn't know exactly how and where to bring the issues and I can see how Baldoni et al thought they were actually being progressive and feminist and the HR-type complaints were diva behavior.

I'm glad this conversation is happening.

But what conversation is happening? How is this advancing anything? Whether or not you think Blake is in the right or not, her career is likely over or if not, if she bounces back later, she’s at least in for a rough year and on a downward spiral. She’s lost hundreds of thousands of Instagram followers, any future movies are on hold, Taylor Swift wont be not seen with her in public anymore and she and anyone close to her has had to hide their social comments. She’s watched her costars and others who had supported her now go silent or retract their support.

I mean, maybe we’re learning something, but I think when I’m learning is you really need to have an airtight case and you really need to follow proper protocols or else it’s really, really hard to make a claim like this and go about your life. And you probably shouldn’t benefit from the bad behavior by appearing as if you’ve gotten things because at one point you used it as leverage to get things like a producer credit, things like having a final copy of the movie, things like having editing power over the director.

I don’t know if Blake was sexually harassed but I do knew she was at least part of crating a really messy chaotic situation that at least at some point she greatly benefited from.

This is a great point and I feel like it greatly diminishes her credibility. If everything seemed "normal" (from the outside,) and then an actress filled a SH complaint, there wouldn't really be a reason to distrust them. Here is all the word stuff with the premiere etc that was playing out publicly and it just felt like she sprung this after everything else was making her look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both parties agree there should be a protective order, but apparently Lively wants more than the model order, including a distinction called attorney's eyes only. Baldoni's counsel argues that in order to invoke that, they should have to give particular reasons each time.

To be honest, I don't understand what the salient difference is, other than it appears Lively's team wants to make it easier to seal things than Baldoni's team.

Watched some lawyers explain it earlier. Apparently attorneys eyes only is really tedious and expensive. There’s lots of things attorneys outsource like printing, shredding etc that would have to be hand carried/monitored by an attorney. Millions and millions more in costs and a lot more time for little gain b/c so much in this case has already leaked and will likely leak no matter what they do. There’s just too much public interest, too many people willing to pay etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both parties agree there should be a protective order, but apparently Lively wants more than the model order, including a distinction called attorney's eyes only. Baldoni's counsel argues that in order to invoke that, they should have to give particular reasons each time.

To be honest, I don't understand what the salient difference is, other than it appears Lively's team wants to make it easier to seal things than Baldoni's team.

Watched some lawyers explain it earlier. Apparently attorneys eyes only is really tedious and expensive. There’s lots of things attorneys outsource like printing, shredding etc that would have to be hand carried/monitored by an attorney. Millions and millions more in costs and a lot more time for little gain b/c so much in this case has already leaked and will likely leak no matter what they do. There’s just too much public interest, too many people willing to pay etc.

I'm the PP. Thank you for explaining!

[Anonymous]

I wonder if how BL or even TS will try to counter the narrative about the composer.

[Anonymous]

I hadn’t heard this before. Seems to help Baldoni’s claims:

Sony’s legal team advised Wayfarer in an email to sign the list of 17 demands but reminded that “overall, the tone of the response has to be part denying the underlying insinuations/allegations but doing so in a way that doesn’t inflame or escalate further since most of what’s on this list Wayfarer is acknowledging/addressing,”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are regular people so invested in this and so defensive of Blake Lively when all the evidence thus far is against her? What am I missing?

You're missing that most of the "evidence" against her is not even connected to her allegations and that Lively has evidence to back up her side as well. For instance the texts between the PR people, the fact that Wayfarer was willing to sign the document agreeing to her demands (which were not unreasonable and were designed to provide for a respectful workplace where consent was prioritized), and the fact that Livley had documented several complaints even before that and which Wayfarer admitted to in the form of apologies and promises that it wouldn't happen again. I also think the video that was released of the dance thing shows a bad dynamic in which Baldoni was clearly pushing for more physical contact/kissing in the scene than Lively was comfortable with, which raises red flags for me about how scenes like that were conducted. Of course their characters kiss and are intimate during the movie, but the video backs up Lively's claims that Baldoni would add kissing and other intimate behavior to scene that were no scripted as such, which raises consent issues for me.

But I'm sure I will be told that I'm crazy, I must work for Lively's PR team, and that Lively is obviously a lying liar who lies and Baldoni is the second coming. So no need to tell me, I've heard it already, thanks.

A movie is not real life though, Blake signed up for this knowing fully well that there were intimate scenes, she declined the initial IC meeting and possible subsequent meetings, she was also aware that Justin was the director. It’s a film, it is all fake, yes he may have been aggressively kissing her but that’s his character. She signed up to play the role of a DV victim. How should an abusive character act? Justin was playing the role the way he felt it should be played and Blake had a choice to say no to acting in this film.

A movie set is a work environment. Directors do not have free to do anything they want to actors, including harming them to make their movie. Over the years many more safeguards and protections have been put in place primarily due to past complaints, injured and assaulted actors, and people refusing to work in unsafe conditions. Signing on to act in a movie doesn’t mean you give up your human rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I be previously reported a Blake supporter for sock puppeting and Jeff removed it. I am not going to constantly be reporting posts but suspect it is still occurring to some extent. That doesn’t mean that all Blake supporting posts are from the same poster, I don’t believe that to be true, but there is one prolific Blake poster who sometimes sock puppets and her style is easy to identify. I’ll leave it there.

Reported in website feedback or reported it here in thread, and Jeff removed the post you reported it removed your post here? He would remove your post here because it doesn’t belong here. I haven’t seen any true reports of sock purporting here in this thread and I have been here a while. Again, I strongly urge you to go to website feedback. Those posts do not belong here in thread.

He removed the post I reported as sock puppeting. I didn’t post anywhere, just alerted him. He has enough data to tell if it’s accurate. Not sure why you are so concerned about this if you don’t sock puppets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both parties agree there should be a protective order, but apparently Lively wants more than the model order, including a distinction called attorney's eyes only. Baldoni's counsel argues that in order to invoke that, they should have to give particular reasons each time.

To be honest, I don't understand what the salient difference is, other than it appears Lively's team wants to make it easier to seal things than Baldoni's team.

Watched some lawyers explain it earlier. Apparently attorneys eyes only is really tedious and expensive. There’s lots of things attorneys outsource like printing, shredding etc that would have to be hand carried/monitored by an attorney. Millions and millions more in costs and a lot more time for little gain b/c so much in this case has already leaked and will likely leak no matter what they do. There’s just too much public interest, too many people willing to pay etc.

Attorneys eyes only is typically reserved for things like trade secrets, that would obviously do a lot of damage if shared with a competitor. Not for things one party simply deems embarsssing.