Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

Thank you, this is an excellent overview. Now I'm kind of hoping they do the investigation!

I wonder if she can argue she threatened to walk over harassment if that mitigates that aspect, but then again maybe not because there's a process for filing a union complaint and she, to our knowledge, never did that.

It's really interesting about the contract stuff in light of the strikes, like people were fighting like hell and giving up income to negotiate SAG contracts and she doesn't even sign hers? And with the whole Ryan thing, ghostwriting and such was a big deal in the WGA at the time due to non union scab writers working uncredited on some projects, such as daytime soaps. I don't know if Blake or Ryan are WGA members, it just seems like bad optics given everything.

The rumor was Taylor refused the song unless they fired that composer but if Blake wants to use that as a defense I think that torches that relationship if she hasn't already.

There's so many interesting angles!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the court granted the NYT's stay of discovery pending the decision on the MTD.

Oh damn -- more than that. Liman basically said the NYT's MTD is very strong and that it is "likely to succeed on the merits" (meaning not just on the group pleading issue). Which is probably why he agreed to the stay of discovery, because he already thinks it's unlikely the NYTs will remain a party.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-signals-he-may-dismiss-ny-times-400-million-baldoni-lively-defamation-case-2025-03-04/

That's a major blow for Wayfarer. If NYT case is dismissed on it's merits, it's very likely the defamation case against Lively will also be dismissed since it's primarily based on the article (at least as to Wayfarer, Jed Wallace is claiming defamation in Texas based on the CRD complaint but that action has not been moved to or consolidated with the SDNY cases yet).

Wait... is the judge Blake Lively's mother?!

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.

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??

*prior comment’s mockery of Baldoni conspiracists whizzing over her head like Emily Baldoni’s hospital gown in the delivery room*

Oh, I got it. I never thought the Times claims would win. She’s still a lying thieving sack who married at a plantation.

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.

This would have been in 2014 btw, two years after Lively’s wedding, and Baldoni’s black friend Kay looked at Baldoni and his white friends throwing cotton and started to cry and explain how hurt she was. In response, Baldoni and company totally gaslit her and negated her feelings. Baldoni told Kay that when he looked at her, he didn’t see color. Lol!! Later, Kay sent them all a group email where she tried to explain to them how their actions had hurt her, which they all ignored while making excuses amongst themselves for their insensitivity. Nice job, Justin! 👍

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the court granted the NYT's stay of discovery pending the decision on the MTD.

Oh damn -- more than that. Liman basically said the NYT's MTD is very strong and that it is "likely to succeed on the merits" (meaning not just on the group pleading issue). Which is probably why he agreed to the stay of discovery, because he already thinks it's unlikely the NYTs will remain a party.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-signals-he-may-dismiss-ny-times-400-million-baldoni-lively-defamation-case-2025-03-04/

That's a major blow for Wayfarer. If NYT case is dismissed on it's merits, it's very likely the defamation case against Lively will also be dismissed since it's primarily based on the article (at least as to Wayfarer, Jed Wallace is claiming defamation in Texas based on the CRD complaint but that action has not been moved to or consolidated with the SDNY cases yet).

Wait... is the judge Blake Lively's mother?!

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.

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??

*prior comment’s mockery of Baldoni conspiracists whizzing over her head like Emily Baldoni’s hospital gown in the delivery room*

Oh, I got it. I never thought the Times claims would win. She’s still a lying thieving sack who married at a plantation.

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.

This would have been in 2014 btw, two years after Lively’s wedding, and Baldoni’s black friend Kay looked at Baldoni and his white friends throwing cotton and started to cry and explain how hurt she was. In response, Baldoni and company totally gaslit her and negated her feelings. Baldoni told Kay that when he looked at her, he didn’t see color. Lol!! Later, Kay sent them all a group email where she tried to explain to them how their actions had hurt her, which they all ignored while making excuses amongst themselves for their insensitivity. Nice job, Justin! 👍

I legit can't tell if this is just a parody you are making up lol. Wild if true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the court granted the NYT's stay of discovery pending the decision on the MTD.

Oh damn -- more than that. Liman basically said the NYT's MTD is very strong and that it is "likely to succeed on the merits" (meaning not just on the group pleading issue). Which is probably why he agreed to the stay of discovery, because he already thinks it's unlikely the NYTs will remain a party.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-signals-he-may-dismiss-ny-times-400-million-baldoni-lively-defamation-case-2025-03-04/

That's a major blow for Wayfarer. If NYT case is dismissed on it's merits, it's very likely the defamation case against Lively will also be dismissed since it's primarily based on the article (at least as to Wayfarer, Jed Wallace is claiming defamation in Texas based on the CRD complaint but that action has not been moved to or consolidated with the SDNY cases yet).

Wait... is the judge Blake Lively's mother?!

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.

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??

*prior comment’s mockery of Baldoni conspiracists whizzing over her head like Emily Baldoni’s hospital gown in the delivery room*

Oh, I got it. I never thought the Times claims would win. She’s still a lying thieving sack who married at a plantation.

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.

This would have been in 2014 btw, two years after Lively’s wedding, and Baldoni’s black friend Kay looked at Baldoni and his white friends throwing cotton and started to cry and explain how hurt she was. In response, Baldoni and company totally gaslit her and negated her feelings. Baldoni told Kay that when he looked at her, he didn’t see color. Lol!! Later, Kay sent them all a group email where she tried to explain to them how their actions had hurt her, which they all ignored while making excuses amongst themselves for their insensitivity. Nice job, Justin! 👍

I legit can't tell if this is just a parody you are making up lol. Wild if true.

It’s true and from chapter 5 of his book where he talks about his white privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the court granted the NYT's stay of discovery pending the decision on the MTD.

Oh damn -- more than that. Liman basically said the NYT's MTD is very strong and that it is "likely to succeed on the merits" (meaning not just on the group pleading issue). Which is probably why he agreed to the stay of discovery, because he already thinks it's unlikely the NYTs will remain a party.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-signals-he-may-dismiss-ny-times-400-million-baldoni-lively-defamation-case-2025-03-04/

That's a major blow for Wayfarer. If NYT case is dismissed on it's merits, it's very likely the defamation case against Lively will also be dismissed since it's primarily based on the article (at least as to Wayfarer, Jed Wallace is claiming defamation in Texas based on the CRD complaint but that action has not been moved to or consolidated with the SDNY cases yet).

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.

I also wondered if the article was a little over the top but I don't know the judge's style. He did say they had strong grounds. If it were only about the group pleading, he could have said something more dry like the NYT has identified grounds for dismissal on the basis of group pleading which Freedman has signaled he'll correct and not get any further into merits til then. It seems the judge was signaling more than that but he did leave it open to interpretation. Overall good news for NYT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the court granted the NYT's stay of discovery pending the decision on the MTD.

Oh damn -- more than that. Liman basically said the NYT's MTD is very strong and that it is "likely to succeed on the merits" (meaning not just on the group pleading issue). Which is probably why he agreed to the stay of discovery, because he already thinks it's unlikely the NYTs will remain a party.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-signals-he-may-dismiss-ny-times-400-million-baldoni-lively-defamation-case-2025-03-04/

That's a major blow for Wayfarer. If NYT case is dismissed on it's merits, it's very likely the defamation case against Lively will also be dismissed since it's primarily based on the article (at least as to Wayfarer, Jed Wallace is claiming defamation in Texas based on the CRD complaint but that action has not been moved to or consolidated with the SDNY cases yet).

Wait... is the judge Blake Lively's mother?!

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.

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??

*prior comment’s mockery of Baldoni conspiracists whizzing over her head like Emily Baldoni’s hospital gown in the delivery room*

Oh, I got it. I never thought the Times claims would win. She’s still a lying thieving sack who married at a plantation.

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.

This would have been in 2014 btw, two years after Lively’s wedding, and Baldoni’s black friend Kay looked at Baldoni and his white friends throwing cotton and started to cry and explain how hurt she was. In response, Baldoni and company totally gaslit her and negated her feelings. Baldoni told Kay that when he looked at her, he didn’t see color. Lol!! Later, Kay sent them all a group email where she tried to explain to them how their actions had hurt her, which they all ignored while making excuses amongst themselves for their insensitivity. Nice job, Justin! 👍

I legit can't tell if this is just a parody you are making up lol. Wild if true.

It’s true and from chapter 5 of his book where he talks about his white privilege.

That's nuts, he's so weird and lacking in self-awareness.

[Anonymous]

I will have to reread the complaint again but as I recall here isn’t much direct evidence in it of BL or her team saying she would walk if…
Most of it is wayfarer or baldoni saying BL says she will do x of if we don’t do y she will walk. They didn’t include most of the original texts / emails where she says what they allege she says about wanting power / taking over or she will walk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the court granted the NYT's stay of discovery pending the decision on the MTD.

Oh damn -- more than that. Liman basically said the NYT's MTD is very strong and that it is "likely to succeed on the merits" (meaning not just on the group pleading issue). Which is probably why he agreed to the stay of discovery, because he already thinks it's unlikely the NYTs will remain a party.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-signals-he-may-dismiss-ny-times-400-million-baldoni-lively-defamation-case-2025-03-04/

That's a major blow for Wayfarer. If NYT case is dismissed on it's merits, it's very likely the defamation case against Lively will also be dismissed since it's primarily based on the article (at least as to Wayfarer, Jed Wallace is claiming defamation in Texas based on the CRD complaint but that action has not been moved to or consolidated with the SDNY cases yet).

Wait... is the judge Blake Lively's mother?!

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.

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??

*prior comment’s mockery of Baldoni conspiracists whizzing over her head like Emily Baldoni’s hospital gown in the delivery room*

Oh, I got it. I never thought the Times claims would win. She’s still a lying thieving sack who married at a plantation.

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.

This would have been in 2014 btw, two years after Lively’s wedding, and Baldoni’s black friend Kay looked at Baldoni and his white friends throwing cotton and started to cry and explain how hurt she was. In response, Baldoni and company totally gaslit her and negated her feelings. Baldoni told Kay that when he looked at her, he didn’t see color. Lol!! Later, Kay sent them all a group email where she tried to explain to them how their actions had hurt her, which they all ignored while making excuses amongst themselves for their insensitivity. Nice job, Justin! 👍

I legit can't tell if this is just a parody you are making up lol. Wild if true.

It’s true and from chapter 5 of his book where he talks about his white privilege.

That's nuts, he's so weird and lacking in self-awareness.

Haven’t read it, but if it was a chapter on white privilege, it sounds like he was telling a story about a time he messed up and didn’t realize it at the time. Essentially it sounds like he’s acknowledging his privilege and the prior mistake, which is something Blake hasn’t done. I think that’s the difference. People are pretty forgiving when you take accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will have to reread the complaint again but as I recall here isn’t much direct evidence in it of BL or her team saying she would walk if…
Most of it is wayfarer or baldoni saying BL says she will do x of if we don’t do y she will walk. They didn’t include most of the original texts / emails where she says what they allege she says about wanting power / taking over or she will walk

This was also my impression. That doesn't mean she didn't threaten to walk, but the way a lot of these people talk, I don't necessarily trust them to accurately represent what someone else said, or especially what they were told someone said.

Also, this is just fundamentally something I am struggling to reconcile between their two accounts: if Wayfarer was genuinely worried that Lively would leave the production, some of the behavior that they have even admitted to on the set is crazy to me. Like if you genuinely think an actress might just up and quit and leave you in the lurch, why would you drag out an argument over whether or not her birth scene should be done nude over multiple days even after you'd shot the birth scene? According the WAyfarer's own timeline, Baldoni asked Heath to show Lively the birthing video the day after they filmed the birth scene. Let's set aside for a moment the whole issue of the video containing nudity and whether it was sexual harassment or inappropriate. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Lively was not bothered by the content of the video itself. It's still weird behavior to me if this is an actress threatening to quit all the time. You already filmed the scene, a compromise was reached on her wardrobe for it, why not drop it? Why bring it up again knowing it's almost certainly going to make her mad?

I'm having a hard time with Wayfarer's allegations because they just don't really seem reflected in the evidence. Lively is always enthusiastic in her texts and emails -- she doesn't come off as demanding. She even says things like "I don't want to step on toes" or "please tell me if this isn't my place." But then the messages among Wayfarer execs will be like "omg someone needs to tell her to butt out" or complaining that she's trying to run things.

Perhaps I'm missing something. Maybe her agent was on the phone with people at Wayfarer all the time telling them Lively had one foot out the door. But if that's what happened, why not just say it?

I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

Thank you, this is an excellent overview. Now I'm kind of hoping they do the investigation!

I wonder if she can argue she threatened to walk over harassment if that mitigates that aspect, but then again maybe not because there's a process for filing a union complaint and she, to our knowledge, never did that.

It's really interesting about the contract stuff in light of the strikes, like people were fighting like hell and giving up income to negotiate SAG contracts and she doesn't even sign hers? And with the whole Ryan thing, ghostwriting and such was a big deal in the WGA at the time due to non union scab writers working uncredited on some projects, such as daytime soaps. I don't know if Blake or Ryan are WGA members, it just seems like bad optics given everything.

The rumor was Taylor refused the song unless they fired that composer but if Blake wants to use that as a defense I think that torches that relationship if she hasn't already.

There's so many interesting angles!

Ryan is, and was at the time, a member of the writers guild, so it is a serious violation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

Thank you, this is an excellent overview. Now I'm kind of hoping they do the investigation!

I wonder if she can argue she threatened to walk over harassment if that mitigates that aspect, but then again maybe not because there's a process for filing a union complaint and she, to our knowledge, never did that.

It's really interesting about the contract stuff in light of the strikes, like people were fighting like hell and giving up income to negotiate SAG contracts and she doesn't even sign hers? And with the whole Ryan thing, ghostwriting and such was a big deal in the WGA at the time due to non union scab writers working uncredited on some projects, such as daytime soaps. I don't know if Blake or Ryan are WGA members, it just seems like bad optics given everything.

The rumor was Taylor refused the song unless they fired that composer but if Blake wants to use that as a defense I think that torches that relationship if she hasn't already.

There's so many interesting angles!

I’ll add, it would be hard to argue that all the threats to leave were because of harassment. She started a pattern of not getting her away and threatening to walk pretty early, first one was in April 2023, before shooting began. At that point, I think the only thing that happened between them was the famous fat shaming incident. But even so, she never stated that was the reason why - she blamed it on not getting her way about something.

Her whole harassment claim really hedges on the fact that it was a series of problematic behaviors over time. But most of the times you threatened to walk away we’re about a specific incident where she wasn’t getting her way.

Also, when she brought the inappropriate behaviors that made her uncomfortable to light, after the strike and before the next phase of shooting began, they addressed them and move forward with no further incidents.

I think it’s very rare for an actor to have violated SAG by not signing that agreement and not signing a letter of engagement. I have never heard of another incident like that. I think she got away with it for a combination of reasons, wayfarer being an independent production company, not having a lot of power and relying heavily on Sony, who was very much in bed with Blake and Ryan. And Blake bringing the kind of star power she did to the film and them wanting to keep her happy, but I am betting there is less likelihood of something like that ever happening again. This will certainly serve as a cautionary tale.

I also think this looks really bad for Sony given they were the big studio in this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will have to reread the complaint again but as I recall here isn’t much direct evidence in it of BL or her team saying she would walk if…
Most of it is wayfarer or baldoni saying BL says she will do x of if we don’t do y she will walk. They didn’t include most of the original texts / emails where she says what they allege she says about wanting power / taking over or she will walk

Her lawyers sent several emails stating that. I’ll try to go to the original complaint when I’m on my laptop later and pull them - this happened periodically from preproduction through the final days of promoting the film.

I think what is particularly interesting- and I’m really glad Friedman included it, is there is some proof that Sony knew what was going on and were siding with Blake. At one point Sony sent an email to a very frustrated Wayfarer team after another Blake threatening to walk incident essentially saying something like you better play ball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will have to reread the complaint again but as I recall here isn’t much direct evidence in it of BL or her team saying she would walk if…
Most of it is wayfarer or baldoni saying BL says she will do x of if we don’t do y she will walk. They didn’t include most of the original texts / emails where she says what they allege she says about wanting power / taking over or she will walk

Her lawyers sent several emails stating that. I’ll try to go to the original complaint when I’m on my laptop later and pull them - this happened periodically from preproduction through the final days of promoting the film.

I think what is particularly interesting- and I’m really glad Friedman included it, is there is some proof that Sony knew what was going on and were siding with Blake. At one point Sony sent an email to a very frustrated Wayfarer team after another Blake threatening to walk incident essentially saying something like you better play ball.

Right, I think it was either one Sony email or a sequence of Sony emails that started with empathy (we get it, we feel the pain too but it’s going to be over soon and we’re all going to make a lot of money) and ended with rage threats (“you’re gonna eff it up, just do it or we’re all going to lose a bunch of money, is that what you want!!). paraphrasing because I’m not looking this up, but that was the gist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the court granted the NYT's stay of discovery pending the decision on the MTD.

Oh damn -- more than that. Liman basically said the NYT's MTD is very strong and that it is "likely to succeed on the merits" (meaning not just on the group pleading issue). Which is probably why he agreed to the stay of discovery, because he already thinks it's unlikely the NYTs will remain a party.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-signals-he-may-dismiss-ny-times-400-million-baldoni-lively-defamation-case-2025-03-04/

That's a major blow for Wayfarer. If NYT case is dismissed on it's merits, it's very likely the defamation case against Lively will also be dismissed since it's primarily based on the article (at least as to Wayfarer, Jed Wallace is claiming defamation in Texas based on the CRD complaint but that action has not been moved to or consolidated with the SDNY cases yet).

So satisfying to see that my legal analysis is solid. I told you so!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will have to reread the complaint again but as I recall here isn’t much direct evidence in it of BL or her team saying she would walk if…
Most of it is wayfarer or baldoni saying BL says she will do x of if we don’t do y she will walk. They didn’t include most of the original texts / emails where she says what they allege she says about wanting power / taking over or she will walk

This was also my impression. That doesn't mean she didn't threaten to walk, but the way a lot of these people talk, I don't necessarily trust them to accurately represent what someone else said, or especially what they were told someone said.

Also, this is just fundamentally something I am struggling to reconcile between their two accounts: if Wayfarer was genuinely worried that Lively would leave the production, some of the behavior that they have even admitted to on the set is crazy to me. Like if you genuinely think an actress might just up and quit and leave you in the lurch, why would you drag out an argument over whether or not her birth scene should be done nude over multiple days even after you'd shot the birth scene? According the WAyfarer's own timeline, Baldoni asked Heath to show Lively the birthing video the day after they filmed the birth scene. Let's set aside for a moment the whole issue of the video containing nudity and whether it was sexual harassment or inappropriate. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Lively was not bothered by the content of the video itself. It's still weird behavior to me if this is an actress threatening to quit all the time. You already filmed the scene, a compromise was reached on her wardrobe for it, why not drop it? Why bring it up again knowing it's almost certainly going to make her mad?

I'm having a hard time with Wayfarer's allegations because they just don't really seem reflected in the evidence. Lively is always enthusiastic in her texts and emails -- she doesn't come off as demanding. She even says things like "I don't want to step on toes" or "please tell me if this isn't my place." But then the messages among Wayfarer execs will be like "omg someone needs to tell her to butt out" or complaining that she's trying to run things.

Perhaps I'm missing something. Maybe her agent was on the phone with people at Wayfarer all the time telling them Lively had one foot out the door. But if that's what happened, why not just say it?

I don't get it.

You have to understand that Blake is a master manipulator and interprets everything as an attack against her. I won’t list the DSM dx because that triggers people, but it is very characteristic behavior. So even very innocent conduct (like continuing the convo about the birth scene - because it still needed to be edited and as artists they may just be interested in discussing it) could be distorted by her. Conversely of course she knows that her texts need to appear cheery and nice when she wants to get her way.