Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the”all hands” meeting sort of shifted everyone’s views about balding and/or Heath. Before then some members of the cast did not know these events had happened (or Blake’s view that they had happened). But they had an all hands meeting to say that unwanted kissing would not continue to happen, and talking about porn would not continue to happen, and surprise naked/kissing scenes would not continue to happen. I would think that would turn the cast off Baldoni somewhat, but I don’t know.

I thought they all hands meeting had happened at Blake‘s apartment and it was just a small group of people - mainly wayfarer leadership, Blake and Ryan, and a few Sony executives.

Just to add, I’m almost certain young lily’s scenes had been shot by that point and she was not needed after the strike. I recall she texted Justin that really sweet note in July 2023, during the strike, to talk about what a wonderful experience she had had. I’ll check the timeline though.

Correct. Isabel Ferrer wrapped prior to the strike.

It is not weird at all that an actor who did not have a good experience with a director would claim to have had a wonderful experience and thank him for it, especially on her first film. In fact I am sure this is the experience of many if not most actors and actresses on their first movies. It's a tough business. There are thousands of actors peering over your shoulder happy to take your part. You say "thank you, you're amazing" and act grateful even if you can't stand the director/producer/casting director/etc. That's one place your acting skills come in handy!

Agree, it is not weird for her to thank him. What people have been paying attention to is her wording. She gushed about how comfortable he made everything - that seems kind of weird. There are plenty of ways to think someone and even blow smoke up their ass without using that word if in fact, you felt uncomfortable.

I can't say why Ferrer used that word -- maybe she really did feel comfortable.

But also maybe Ferrer knew that the question of people being uncomfortable on the set was a whole issue, and thought she could reassure/ingratiate herself to Baldoni by making a point of saying "I was so comfortable! You made me really comfortable! Good job creating such a comfortable set!" This is kind of a classic form of kissing up, but it's like maybe you fixate on that specifically because it's a big issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

That's true, it doesn't always make sense to file an MTD if you don't think you can win it.

But I will note that at the last hearing, Lively's attorney indicated that they would be filing a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. So they appear to think they can at least narrow the claims against them via MTD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case.

Not just this case, but every case and every news article. Every time you read "the Associated Press is reporting," "per accounts," "according to a source close to the situation," "the lawsuit states..." these are all examples of the reporters covering themselves, because they are reporting what was said, rather than the underlying facts. You will find thousands of such examples every day if you look for them.

This is so much more than just this case. These are basic tenets of defamation law in the US. It should not be assumed that anyone who thinks NYT will win is a Blake Lively supporter. It has nothing to do with her, it's just the example currently being discussed.

Megan wasn’t careful in her video though. Go back and watch it. She says as fact something like “hundreds of text messages reveal what really happened, a calculated smear campaign”. She didn’t use caveats at all.

The problem is, the smear campaign rests on the fact that there was sexual harassment. When he came out with his side of the story, we see that the sexual harassment is a very gray area and going to be hard to prove. It seems like it was just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior and then you start seeing her take over of the movie and how uncomfortable and stressed out he was the entire time and you see why he has hired a PR crisis campaign.

The man was not allowed in his own premiere, and his director a film by credit was stripped. His version of the film did not go out into the world. She completely took over the movie, of course he was going to hire help. He was afraid of what she would continue to do and rightly so.

That is the context the times left out that we are all getting now.

And this is what should’ve given the times pause. Sexual harassment is about power and Blake lively pretty much complete power on that film. Her version of things simply does not add up.

I can't tell if you are simply lying on purpose or just repeating lies other people have told you.

Baldoni attended the premiere. Here he is on the red carpet, posing for photos and giving interviews (he also watched the film in a theater full of friends, family, and Wayfarer personnel):
Arriving at the premiere: https://www.tiktok.com/@hollywoodreporter/video/7400456757102873898?lang=en
Walking the red carpet, posing for photos: https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?events=776185420&family=editorial&phrase=Justin%20Baldoni%20it%20ends%20with%20us%20premiere&recommendconfig=recommendonly
One of several red carpet interviews: https://youtu.be/BDOLAlZ_1dc?si=-b0KbssCGfNQswVO

Baldoni is credited as the director of the movie. He received a "directed by" credit.

The "a film by" credit, also called a possessory credit, is pretty rare. It is *often* an extremely political decision, and many fights have been had over it. It is most common when the director is also the screenwriter, though not all directors who write their movies take it. The biggest criticism of the "a film by" credit is that it diminished the contributions of everyone else who worked on the movie, making it seem like the act of a single person when filmmaking is inherently collaborative. It is somewhat comical that Baldoni, a newbie director, would claim the credit on a movie he did not write, based on a novel he did not write, and where the distributing studio had decided to release someone else's edit. Of course he did not receive this credit! You can read more about the history, and politics, of the possessory credit here: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/vanity-credit-a-film-by

And going to your claim that the sexual harassment was "just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior" and doesn't count -- what do you think sexual harassment is?

It’s really not up to you to explain how Justin felt about a film by being stripped from his name. Maybe it wouldn’t be a big deal to you, it was a big deal to him and it would be for most filmmakers.

I know you keep saying, and saying again, that Blake experience sexual harassment, but we are what we are telling you is that many of us don’t believe she did.

The point is that the film was not "stripped of his name." The movie said "Directed by Justin Baldoni." He was the director. His name is on the movie.

"A film by" credits are not super common and often controversial. It would be very unusual for a newish director to claim it on a movie like this, where he didn't write the script AND the script was based on a book by someone else AND the version released wasn't even edited by Baldoni. I've never heard of someone in a situation like that taking a possessory credit.

Justin might have still felt sad about that, I don't know. But then he felt sad about something that it was frankly weird for him to feel entitled to in the first place. The Cohen brothers don't even take a possessory credit on their movies, and they write all their films and have a distinctive and recognizable style and have been nominated for many Oscars. Baldoni thinks he's a bigger deal than the Cohen brothers. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the”all hands” meeting sort of shifted everyone’s views about balding and/or Heath. Before then some members of the cast did not know these events had happened (or Blake’s view that they had happened). But they had an all hands meeting to say that unwanted kissing would not continue to happen, and talking about porn would not continue to happen, and surprise naked/kissing scenes would not continue to happen. I would think that would turn the cast off Baldoni somewhat, but I don’t know.

I thought they all hands meeting had happened at Blake‘s apartment and it was just a small group of people - mainly wayfarer leadership, Blake and Ryan, and a few Sony executives.

Just to add, I’m almost certain young lily’s scenes had been shot by that point and she was not needed after the strike. I recall she texted Justin that really sweet note in July 2023, during the strike, to talk about what a wonderful experience she had had. I’ll check the timeline though.

Correct. Isabel Ferrer wrapped prior to the strike.

It is not weird at all that an actor who did not have a good experience with a director would claim to have had a wonderful experience and thank him for it, especially on her first film. In fact I am sure this is the experience of many if not most actors and actresses on their first movies. It's a tough business. There are thousands of actors peering over your shoulder happy to take your part. You say "thank you, you're amazing" and act grateful even if you can't stand the director/producer/casting director/etc. That's one place your acting skills come in handy!

Agree, it is not weird for her to thank him. What people have been paying attention to is her wording. She gushed about how comfortable he made everything - that seems kind of weird. There are plenty of ways to think someone and even blow smoke up their ass without using that word if in fact, you felt uncomfortable.

DP. I'm cynical enough that I feel the opposite. I posted earlier a quote from the Anora actress saying how she was super comfortable with the director and his wife (!) showing her sex positions and didn't want an IC. I think it's BS and the actresses basically implicitly understand that the more uncomfortable they are, the more they need to emphasize how comfortable and safe they felt. And I'm bringing that example because it's just how I feel about Hollywood and not because I'm Blake's PR. Actually this makes Baldoni just talking about his wife and Heath showing the birth video seem not so bad!

I just think so many actresses go through hell and the IEWU set was probably not nearly as bad as others, precisely because Blake has some power over Baldoni to shut some stuff down, but yet some of the things he did were inappropriate. It's such a messy case.

Very much agree with this.

I had several close friends from high school who move to LA to try to get into Hollywood after HS. My sister also went after college to try and work in the production side. A couple of people I know even made it -- I know one woman who has acted pretty consistently in character roles and commercials for the last couple decades, another who worked on a bunch of movies as an AD and has made his own movies, and another who was an extra in a bunch of films and then made several indie features before calling it quits in her 30s. So no big stars but lots and lots of hours logged on film sets.

It is incredibly common for people to gush enthusiastically about objectively miserable, uncomfortable experiences. It is especially common for young actors to claim to enjoy putting themselves in dangerous or very unpleasant situations, to brag that they cannot be embarrassed or put off by problematic or inappropriate behavior. That's because that's how so many jobs are, and especially early in your career, your goal is to convince everyone (your agent, casting agents, producers, and directors) that you are game for anything, you won't complain, and nothing will faze you.

I don't know what Ferrer's experience on the set was at all. It was her first movie. I don't think her thank you text to Baldoni is indicative of anything. I think it would be far more useful to see footage of the set and to find out what she told her best friend or her roommate when she got home -- that's much more likely to be the truth than what she said in that note.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Could be that they are arguing that their own claims involve issues for the trier of fact that can't be dealt with in a motion to dismiss, and arguing that other claims could be dismissed at this stage could get in the way of that. And also as PP says, the Lively complaint is strong enough to survive such a motion.

I also found it interesting that Freedman is basically immediately conceding the group pleading point and noting that they will amend their complaint immediately (basically ignoring/evading NYTs argument that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice on that basis alone). In other words, had Freedman not so amended, the complaint likely would have been dismissed on these grounds (likely without prejudice).

This is how one builds credibility with the Court. Now the judge doesn’t have to waste time on that argument.

lol no. You don’t build credibility by filing a crap complaint then amending it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.


Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

MTD can definitely be granted in the scenario where the complaint is poorly drafted (perhaps because the point was never to actually win the case …)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

That's true, it doesn't always make sense to file an MTD if you don't think you can win it.

But I will note that at the last hearing, Lively's attorney indicated that they would be filing a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. So they appear to think they can at least narrow the claims against them via MTD.

Lively’s legal team hasn’t made a single good strategic decision, so this is hardly surprising. At least her lawyers are maximizing their billings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.


Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

MTD can definitely be granted in the scenario where the complaint is poorly drafted (perhaps because the point was never to actually win the case …)

Sure, but the Court will typically allow plaintiff to replead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Could be that they are arguing that their own claims involve issues for the trier of fact that can't be dealt with in a motion to dismiss, and arguing that other claims could be dismissed at this stage could get in the way of that. And also as PP says, the Lively complaint is strong enough to survive such a motion.

I also found it interesting that Freedman is basically immediately conceding the group pleading point and noting that they will amend their complaint immediately (basically ignoring/evading NYTs argument that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice on that basis alone). In other words, had Freedman not so amended, the complaint likely would have been dismissed on these grounds (likely without prejudice).

This is how one builds credibility with the Court. Now the judge doesn’t have to waste time on that argument.

lol no. You don’t build credibility by filing a crap complaint then amending it.

The judge would have allowed them to replead anyway. This just moves up the timeline and saves the judge time. Now he just has to consider the actual dispositive arguments made by The NY Times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the”all hands” meeting sort of shifted everyone’s views about balding and/or Heath. Before then some members of the cast did not know these events had happened (or Blake’s view that they had happened). But they had an all hands meeting to say that unwanted kissing would not continue to happen, and talking about porn would not continue to happen, and surprise naked/kissing scenes would not continue to happen. I would think that would turn the cast off Baldoni somewhat, but I don’t know.

I thought they all hands meeting had happened at Blake‘s apartment and it was just a small group of people - mainly wayfarer leadership, Blake and Ryan, and a few Sony executives.

Just to add, I’m almost certain young lily’s scenes had been shot by that point and she was not needed after the strike. I recall she texted Justin that really sweet note in July 2023, during the strike, to talk about what a wonderful experience she had had. I’ll check the timeline though.

Correct. Isabel Ferrer wrapped prior to the strike.

It is not weird at all that an actor who did not have a good experience with a director would claim to have had a wonderful experience and thank him for it, especially on her first film. In fact I am sure this is the experience of many if not most actors and actresses on their first movies. It's a tough business. There are thousands of actors peering over your shoulder happy to take your part. You say "thank you, you're amazing" and act grateful even if you can't stand the director/producer/casting director/etc. That's one place your acting skills come in handy!

Agree, it is not weird for her to thank him. What people have been paying attention to is her wording. She gushed about how comfortable he made everything - that seems kind of weird. There are plenty of ways to think someone and even blow smoke up their ass without using that word if in fact, you felt uncomfortable.

I can't say why Ferrer used that word -- maybe she really did feel comfortable.

But also maybe Ferrer knew that the question of people being uncomfortable on the set was a whole issue, and thought she could reassure/ingratiate herself to Baldoni by making a point of saying "I was so comfortable! You made me really comfortable! Good job creating such a comfortable set!" This is kind of a classic form of kissing up, but it's like maybe you fixate on that specifically because it's a big issue.

People should stop infantalizing IF. Her words were her words. Making assumptions that she couldn’t have meant them because she’s a young actress sucking up to the director makes no sense once you learn she’s a freaking Clooney. People just stop. Neither BL nor IF were powerless on that set. IF isn’t speaking up because she wasn’t harassed.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone speak to how kindly the judge is likely to look up on Wayfarer having to replead to address the group pleading issue when they've already filed an amended complaint?

It just seems like a really obvious defect in the original complaint that they could have resolved with the first amended complaint. Wondering if judge's ever say "nope, you had your shot."

Another legal question: would the judge tell them to replead to address the group pleading issue BEFORE looking at the other arguments in the MTD? This seems a little unfair because the MTD was drafted based on the amended complaint. If they file a second amended complaint, won't NYT have to then file a new MTD, since there may be substantive changes to the complaint that could impact their other arguments. Plus they will be able to amend with the NYT's other arguments in mind.

It just seems to me like Wayfarer wasted the court's time by filing not one but two defective pleadings with an obvious technical issue that will get it dismissed, and this is forcing the NYT to spend a lot more money and time just to get to the substantive issues. Does the court ever call out behavior like that in a plaintiff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case.

Not just this case, but every case and every news article. Every time you read "the Associated Press is reporting," "per accounts," "according to a source close to the situation," "the lawsuit states..." these are all examples of the reporters covering themselves, because they are reporting what was said, rather than the underlying facts. You will find thousands of such examples every day if you look for them.

This is so much more than just this case. These are basic tenets of defamation law in the US. It should not be assumed that anyone who thinks NYT will win is a Blake Lively supporter. It has nothing to do with her, it's just the example currently being discussed.

Megan wasn’t careful in her video though. Go back and watch it. She says as fact something like “hundreds of text messages reveal what really happened, a calculated smear campaign”. She didn’t use caveats at all.

The problem is, the smear campaign rests on the fact that there was sexual harassment. When he came out with his side of the story, we see that the sexual harassment is a very gray area and going to be hard to prove. It seems like it was just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior and then you start seeing her take over of the movie and how uncomfortable and stressed out he was the entire time and you see why he has hired a PR crisis campaign.

The man was not allowed in his own premiere, and his director a film by credit was stripped. His version of the film did not go out into the world. She completely took over the movie, of course he was going to hire help. He was afraid of what she would continue to do and rightly so.

That is the context the times left out that we are all getting now.

And this is what should’ve given the times pause. Sexual harassment is about power and Blake lively pretty much complete power on that film. Her version of things simply does not add up.

I can't tell if you are simply lying on purpose or just repeating lies other people have told you.

Baldoni attended the premiere. Here he is on the red carpet, posing for photos and giving interviews (he also watched the film in a theater full of friends, family, and Wayfarer personnel):
Arriving at the premiere: https://www.tiktok.com/@hollywoodreporter/video/7400456757102873898?lang=en
Walking the red carpet, posing for photos: https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?events=776185420&family=editorial&phrase=Justin%20Baldoni%20it%20ends%20with%20us%20premiere&recommendconfig=recommendonly
One of several red carpet interviews: https://youtu.be/BDOLAlZ_1dc?si=-b0KbssCGfNQswVO

Baldoni is credited as the director of the movie. He received a "directed by" credit.

The "a film by" credit, also called a possessory credit, is pretty rare. It is *often* an extremely political decision, and many fights have been had over it. It is most common when the director is also the screenwriter, though not all directors who write their movies take it. The biggest criticism of the "a film by" credit is that it diminished the contributions of everyone else who worked on the movie, making it seem like the act of a single person when filmmaking is inherently collaborative. It is somewhat comical that Baldoni, a newbie director, would claim the credit on a movie he did not write, based on a novel he did not write, and where the distributing studio had decided to release someone else's edit. Of course he did not receive this credit! You can read more about the history, and politics, of the possessory credit here: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/vanity-credit-a-film-by

And going to your claim that the sexual harassment was "just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior" and doesn't count -- what do you think sexual harassment is?

It’s really not up to you to explain how Justin felt about a film by being stripped from his name. Maybe it wouldn’t be a big deal to you, it was a big deal to him and it would be for most filmmakers.

I know you keep saying, and saying again, that Blake experience sexual harassment, but we are what we are telling you is that many of us don’t believe she did.

The point is that the film was not "stripped of his name." The movie said "Directed by Justin Baldoni." He was the director. His name is on the movie.

"A film by" credits are not super common and often controversial. It would be very unusual for a newish director to claim it on a movie like this, where he didn't write the script AND the script was based on a book by someone else AND the version released wasn't even edited by Baldoni. I've never heard of someone in a situation like that taking a possessory credit.

Justin might have still felt sad about that, I don't know. But then he felt sad about something that it was frankly weird for him to feel entitled to in the first place. The Cohen brothers don't even take a possessory credit on their movies, and they write all their films and have a distinctive and recognizable style and have been nominated for many Oscars. Baldoni thinks he's a bigger deal than the Cohen brothers. Please.

Since you seem to have some knowledge of this, what did you make of Blake claiming the PGA mark?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the”all hands” meeting sort of shifted everyone’s views about balding and/or Heath. Before then some members of the cast did not know these events had happened (or Blake’s view that they had happened). But they had an all hands meeting to say that unwanted kissing would not continue to happen, and talking about porn would not continue to happen, and surprise naked/kissing scenes would not continue to happen. I would think that would turn the cast off Baldoni somewhat, but I don’t know.

I thought they all hands meeting had happened at Blake‘s apartment and it was just a small group of people - mainly wayfarer leadership, Blake and Ryan, and a few Sony executives.

Just to add, I’m almost certain young lily’s scenes had been shot by that point and she was not needed after the strike. I recall she texted Justin that really sweet note in July 2023, during the strike, to talk about what a wonderful experience she had had. I’ll check the timeline though.

Correct. Isabel Ferrer wrapped prior to the strike.

It is not weird at all that an actor who did not have a good experience with a director would claim to have had a wonderful experience and thank him for it, especially on her first film. In fact I am sure this is the experience of many if not most actors and actresses on their first movies. It's a tough business. There are thousands of actors peering over your shoulder happy to take your part. You say "thank you, you're amazing" and act grateful even if you can't stand the director/producer/casting director/etc. That's one place your acting skills come in handy!

Agree, it is not weird for her to thank him. What people have been paying attention to is her wording. She gushed about how comfortable he made everything - that seems kind of weird. There are plenty of ways to think someone and even blow smoke up their ass without using that word if in fact, you felt uncomfortable.

I can't say why Ferrer used that word -- maybe she really did feel comfortable.

But also maybe Ferrer knew that the question of people being uncomfortable on the set was a whole issue, and thought she could reassure/ingratiate herself to Baldoni by making a point of saying "I was so comfortable! You made me really comfortable! Good job creating such a comfortable set!" This is kind of a classic form of kissing up, but it's like maybe you fixate on that specifically because it's a big issue.

People should stop infantalizing IF. Her words were her words. Making assumptions that she couldn’t have meant them because she’s a young actress sucking up to the director makes no sense once you learn she’s a freaking Clooney. People just stop. Neither BL nor IF were powerless on that set. IF isn’t speaking up because she wasn’t harassed.

It's not infantilizing to note that Ferrer is 23, and this was her first film. She's barely worked in Hollywood and had very recently graduated from college. She didn't grow up on film sets, wasn't a child actor. She was a novice and it is highly unlikely that she would provide a director with any honest negative feedback in that situation. Being related to George Clooney doesn't change that (and they are somewhat distantly related -- I think her dad is Clooney's cousin? It's not a tight connection).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official
proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms.
Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

That's true, it doesn't always make sense to file an MTD if you don't think you can win it.

But I will note that at the last hearing, Lively's attorney indicated that they would be filing a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. So they appear to think they can at least narrow the claims against them via MTD.

They probably have a good argument that Baldoni didn't sufficiently plead facts to establish extortion. The defamation and intentional interference with contractual relations (with WME) will probably survive an MTD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if you can argue the NYT article is defamation, then this is too. And there are literally hundred of articles like this online about this case.

Not just this case, but every case and every news article. Every time you read "the Associated Press is reporting," "per accounts," "according to a source close to the situation," "the lawsuit states..." these are all examples of the reporters covering themselves, because they are reporting what was said, rather than the underlying facts. You will find thousands of such examples every day if you look for them.

This is so much more than just this case. These are basic tenets of defamation law in the US. It should not be assumed that anyone who thinks NYT will win is a Blake Lively supporter. It has nothing to do with her, it's just the example currently being discussed.

Megan wasn’t careful in her video though. Go back and watch it. She says as fact something like “hundreds of text messages reveal what really happened, a calculated smear campaign”. She didn’t use caveats at all.

The problem is, the smear campaign rests on the fact that there was sexual harassment. When he came out with his side of the story, we see that the sexual harassment is a very gray area and going to be hard to prove. It seems like it was just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior and then you start seeing her take over of the movie and how uncomfortable and stressed out he was the entire time and you see why he has hired a PR crisis campaign.

The man was not allowed in his own premiere, and his director a film by credit was stripped. His version of the film did not go out into the world. She completely took over the movie, of course he was going to hire help. He was afraid of what she would continue to do and rightly so.

That is the context the times left out that we are all getting now.

And this is what should’ve given the times pause. Sexual harassment is about power and Blake lively pretty much complete power on that film. Her version of things simply does not add up.

I can't tell if you are simply lying on purpose or just repeating lies other people have told you.

Baldoni attended the premiere. Here he is on the red carpet, posing for photos and giving interviews (he also watched the film in a theater full of friends, family, and Wayfarer personnel):
Arriving at the premiere: https://www.tiktok.com/@hollywoodreporter/video/7400456757102873898?lang=en
Walking the red carpet, posing for photos: https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?events=776185420&family=editorial&phrase=Justin%20Baldoni%20it%20ends%20with%20us%20premiere&recommendconfig=recommendonly
One of several red carpet interviews: https://youtu.be/BDOLAlZ_1dc?si=-b0KbssCGfNQswVO

Baldoni is credited as the director of the movie. He received a "directed by" credit.

The "a film by" credit, also called a possessory credit, is pretty rare. It is *often* an extremely political decision, and many fights have been had over it. It is most common when the director is also the screenwriter, though not all directors who write their movies take it. The biggest criticism of the "a film by" credit is that it diminished the contributions of everyone else who worked on the movie, making it seem like the act of a single person when filmmaking is inherently collaborative. It is somewhat comical that Baldoni, a newbie director, would claim the credit on a movie he did not write, based on a novel he did not write, and where the distributing studio had decided to release someone else's edit. Of course he did not receive this credit! You can read more about the history, and politics, of the possessory credit here: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/vanity-credit-a-film-by

And going to your claim that the sexual harassment was "just inappropriate and uncomfortable behavior" and doesn't count -- what do you think sexual harassment is?

It’s really not up to you to explain how Justin felt about a film by being stripped from his name. Maybe it wouldn’t be a big deal to you, it was a big deal to him and it would be for most filmmakers.

I know you keep saying, and saying again, that Blake experience sexual harassment, but we are what we are telling you is that many of us don’t believe she did.

The point is that the film was not "stripped of his name." The movie said "Directed by Justin Baldoni." He was the director. His name is on the movie.

"A film by" credits are not super common and often controversial. It would be very unusual for a newish director to claim it on a movie like this, where he didn't write the script AND the script was based on a book by someone else AND the version released wasn't even edited by Baldoni. I've never heard of someone in a situation like that taking a possessory credit.

Justin might have still felt sad about that, I don't know. But then he felt sad about something that it was frankly weird for him to feel entitled to in the first place. The Cohen brothers don't even take a possessory credit on their movies, and they write all their films and have a distinctive and recognizable style and have been nominated for many Oscars. Baldoni thinks he's a bigger deal than the Cohen brothers. Please.

Since you seem to have some knowledge of this, what did you make of Blake claiming the PGA mark?

I think it's highly irregular and that it was especially ballsy of her to insist on them recommending her for it even though Wayfarer clearly didn't want to. However, I still don't have a good sense of how this movie was actually made. Like I still don't have a sense of how involved Lively was in the final edit, for instance, or exactly how much of the production she had a hand in. In a weird way, the argument that she stole the movie from Baldoni actually works in favor of her argument that she deserved the p.g.a. mark -- if she genuinely took over, then maybe she does deserve it? But it's super unusual. Usually that mark is reserved for someone who really shepherded the project through to completion. Here, the production was so contentious with all these power struggles, not just Baldoni and Lively but also Wayfarer and Sony, and it's really unclear to me. I still think it's crazy she got the p.g.a. mark but I'm also open to learning more about exactly who production decisions were made on the movie and how those power struggles unfolded and got resolved on a case by case basis.

I have read the texts/emails between Wayfarer producers and between Wayfarer and Sony but there's still a lot missing (most notably the communications between Lively and Sony, and between Lively and other professionals on the production, like editors, set designers, costumers, etc.) that would provide a much fuller picture of exactly who was doing what.