Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It is not common at all. I am sure the actors on don’t worry, darling had signed their letter of engagement. Further it is absolutely unprecedented for an actor who also earned a pga credit to act like this. The pga credit is no joke. You are essentially binding yourself to the film and committing to being a good steward of the budget. You have to commit to acting responsibly and constructively on all decisions made on the film, and considering that lively ballooned the budget at every turn she violated that agreement. The original composer had completed scoring of the phone, they fired him, but had to pay out his full contract and then hire a new one because of her demand. They also fired the editors and replaced it with a Deadpool editors, which was costly. Because of her wardrobe decision, the wardrobe budget was six times over what they had originally budgeted it. These are really irresponsible decision decisions that go against what the PGA credit stands for.. There is speculation that the producers guild might launch in investigation to strip her of the title. |
Anonymous
It’s all listed in Justin‘s legal complaint. You certainly don’t have to believe me, but her lawyer sent emails that she was threatening to walk several times. She also threatened to not promote the film, even after shooting. This is all really well documented. |
Anonymous
| That's really interesting, thanks PGA poster. But is there no room to argue that some of these decisions were costly short term but ultimately made the film more money? How could you quantify whether more glamorous clothes or better music led to more box office, or is the argument that you should have budgeted for that originally? |
Anonymous
I'm not disbelieving. The PP asked if she only threatened to walk once, after hiatus, and I immediately remembered another example where she said they could just recast her, so searched the keyword and posted the example to confirm that she did threaten at another time. That took two seconds, if anyone wants to read his whole timeline and post more examples, that would be fine, and I'm not being sarcastic. |
Anonymous
Lol. The motion is not dismissed yet so I don’t yet count them out but I am experiencing a modicum of schaudenfreude. |
Anonymous
Twist! It's actually Blake herself. She's been planning a takeover of the SDNY since November 2022. It's all coming to fruition now. |
Anonymous
Ha! Good lord will this obnoxious plantation wedding having, writing credit thief, save the federal judiciary from fascistic takeover? Have I given BL her own original ideas for a screenplay now?? |
Anonymous
I'm just not sure if Blake should steal Gone with the Wind or Legally Blonde next! Go Blake! |
Anonymous
*prior comment’s mockery of Baldoni conspiracists whizzing over her head like Emily Baldoni’s hospital gown in the delivery room* |
Anonymous
Crying laughing now |
Anonymous
So part of getting the PGA credit is satisfying a list of requirements. There are three categories. One is a series of actions in the development of the movie. This includes securing the rights to the film, securing funding for the movie, which is usually why a person earning a PGA credit has some sort of production company stake in the movie, and hiring the creative team as well as setting the budget. Blake was not attached to this movie until the end of December 2022 so it would be impossible for her to have worked on the development of the film. Because she missed out on that crucial category, she had to really double down on the other categories. The other two categories are in things like creative decisions during the film, not related to your character, because this would just be your obligations as an actor, and then at the end, making significant editing contributions to the movie, making marketing decisions, etc. etc. This is where Blake really wanted to show her stuff and clearly she did have a lot of control over those things, even if her control was given under duress. Where it becomes a challenge for her is showing those decisions weren’t self-serving - they were for the good movie. You are right and that some of them probably did serve the movie. The biggest strike against her is the continual documentation that she threatened to walk. This would cost the movie millions, and frankly, it is just an existential threat to the movie. It’s hard to imagine at certain points even being able to finish it if she walked. I’ve never heard of someone earning a PGA credit or having a producer stake in the movie that would do that. It’s literally shooting yourself in the foot, since part of having the PGA credit is typically you’ve secured funding for the movie and you have skin in the game through your own production company and the fact that you get back end profits. Because she threatened to walk so many times before securing the PGA credit, this going to be hard to justify. As for taking over the marketing, she hired her husband‘s company, maximum effort, saying that they would work for free, then charging it back to the movie. That was a significant addition to the budget. Ryan is a talented guy so you could argue that helped the movie, but, given that her husband, and therefore her, benefited financially from it, it’s kind of twisted and looks self serving. Also their marketing still got significant pushback. A lot of the fans were unhappy because they were the ones that did all the stunts with the pushing their alcohol lines and the naming the drink after the abuser. The original composer was apparently renowned and award-winning. It’s hard to justify that subbing him out the movie any better. But who knows. At one point, she threatened to pull Taylor Swift my tears ricochet song that was used in the marketing of the film. It’s going to be really hard to argue that pulling that song wasn’t 100% for her leverage and not for the good of the movie. Using a Taylor Swift song in 2024 when Taylor is as popular as she’s ever going to be is always going to be a good thing. So threatening that does not seem like it was for the good of the movie. Finally, another area where she really is in jeopardy, is by not signing her letter of engagement or her SAG union contract, which is really unprecedented. She put the whole film in grave danger They were frankly non-compliant. She and the film were not supposed to move forward without the signed union agreement. She really risk shutting the film down and costing them big fines. It’s really going to be hard to argue that was for the good of the movie or being a good steward of the budget. There is also controversy with the way she talked about Ryan writing the rooftop scene. It greatly offended the head screenwriter as you could tell from her lengthy apology letter in her amendment. Maybe the rooftop scene contributed to the success of the film, but it was definitely disruptive and ruffled a lot of feathers. Sony was also dismayed because Ryan Reynolds did not have a formal attachment to the film and really was not supposed to be writing. It’s possible they violated the writers guild, another compliance violation, which is not for the good of the film. Finally, by not giving Justin his 10 days in the editing bay to put out his director’s cut, there are also people saying she violated the directors guild which again is another violation. So, it’s really tough to argue that a lot of of these decisions, which were made before she had producer credit and had new skin in the game, were for the good of the movie and not self serving. There is a petition with over 11,000 signatures to rescind her PGA credit, but I don’t know if it will have an effect. Aside from the legal case, it’s really a fascinating layer of this whole thing. |
Anonymous
DP — one who was happy about this news — but I read the Order and I don’t see this necessarily as saying that NYT is likely to succeed on more than their general pleading grounds, necessarily. The judge says “The NY Times’s motion presents ‘substantial grounds for dismissal’ and The NY Times has made a strong showing that its motion to dismiss is likely to succeed in the merits. [cite]. Indeed, the Wayfarer Parties note that their complaint may need to be amended to address the issues raised by the motion to dismiss.” Liman then goes on to note that if Wayfarer is concerned with delay, “they have it within their power to accelerate their contemplated further amended complaint or their opposition to the motion to dismiss.” In other words, it sounds to me like the judge certainly expects NYT’s MTD to succeed at least on the general pleading grounds — which is the only one Wayfarer’s letter specifically addressed as requiring an amended complaint — and is not necessarily providing his opinion on the rest. But the general pleading deficiency on its own would be enough reason to grant the motion to dismiss — on the merits — alone, and would require an amended complaint for Wayfarer to proceed against NYT. So I’m not sure if I’m reading this wrong or if you are, but I see this as less of a big win for NYT on the bigger issues of the MTD. Though I hope they will be successful there as well. |
Anonymous
Thank you. Not enough people talk about one of the worst war crimes in history and how The NY Times manufactured consent (as it tends to still do). |
Anonymous
Oh, I got it. I never thought the Times claims would win. She’s still a lying thieving sack who married at a plantation. |
Anonymous
Hey, remember in Chapter 5 of his book Man Enough where Justin Baldoni mentioned that he himself had attended a plantation wedding and threw cotton balls at the married couple? Didn’t seem to have a problem with that at the time. Plantation weddings for everyone I guess. |