Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinking Ryan and Blake are going to apologize should quickly rethink that lmao

Apologize to who? Baldoni? Why?

Yes people thought Blake and Ryan would settle then publicly apology. That's never ever happening

I don't see why anyone would expect them to file a blockbuster lawsuit and then immediately settle and apologize. The case is just starting. There would be no reason to file if not willing to see it through.

The reason would be to preserve their images and likely careers. They have little to nothing to gain at this point by fighting a protracted legal battle while having the court of public opinion and their peers turn against them. It's not clear to me how you don't understand that. Even with a win I like, "well, the bad guy wins again. Woohoo?"

But you can flip this logic the other direction. There are people saying they will hate BL/RR even if they win the case on the merits. And there are people saying they will hate BL/RR even if they dropped their case and agreed with Wayfarer's narrative and said they were sorry. If that's the case, they might as well just do what they want, since people will literally hate them no matter what they do.

BL/RR believe they are in the right. They believe Baldoni and Heath are hypocritical grifters who posed as male feminists for clout, and then harassed women including Lively on the set of this movie. Lively believes Baldoni sought to film gratuitous sex scenes in this movie featuring domestic violence and sought to prevent that and to prevent Baldoni from making a more salacious cut of the movie. Lively believes that Baldoni and Heath then retaliated against her for doing this by hiring Abel, Nathan, and Jed Wallace to destroy her rep online. And Lively and Reynolds believe that Sarowitz has sworn to spend 100 million dollars to destroy them and kill their careers.

You might think all of that is delusional, but they really believe it. That is their reality. So the idea that they would apologize makes no sense at all. It's actually logical, from their perspective, to continue to pursue this. Because Baldoni supporters will hate them no matter what, and their sincere belief is that Baldoni, Heath, and Sarowitz harmed them, maliciously, and have sworn to destroy them anyway. So they might as well fight.

I'm sure I'll be called a shameless BL supporter now but note I'm not saying I agree with all this. I just find it bizarre when people are like "oh they're on the ropes, surely they will settle any minute now." It's completely illogical.

It's actually not clear at all to me what BL believes or doesn't. There's an alternate theory RR is behind basically all of this and BL is basically along for the ride with a power hungry, super controlling spouse. If she's aligned, sure they'll go to the end of this, but if that's at all at play, they might settle for her own mental health and well being. BUT he appears to be a man who treats his wife like shit so maybe that is not a factor? A lot of the Hollywood PR people come down more on this side. It's a dick measuring contest of power between RR and Baldoni. It's actually a pretty sympathetic take towards Lively without making her a Baldoni victim.

This all just sounds like a bunch of projection and speculation to me. Like something people hope is true but it's based on nothing.

Occam's razor says that Lively sued because she believes her allegations and her husband supports her because he believes his wife. This just feels like a gossip columnist trying to make it more interesting than it is.

Actually, I think the prevailing theory is that Blake never intended to sue and had planned for this to be a PR battle only. Remember this all started with a CRD complaint and an article. She was backed into a corner to sue after JB’s strong reaction to the nyt article.

+1 Lively has a history of successfully harassing and threatening people to get her way, with the support of Reynolds. Baldoni and others caved to their demands under duress throughout this production. Lively and Reynolds clearly thought they would up the ante to get the rights to the sequel and everything else they wanted.

They weren't expecting Baldoni to fight back. They again tried to harass and threaten him into giving in to their demands, knowing that they could afford exorbitant legal fees but Baldoni couldn't. The only reason that it didn't work is because Sarowitz agreed to fund Baldoni's legal fees. Now the horrible behavior of Lively and Reynolds and their associates has been exposed in a way that they never intended when they started their hostilities against Baldoni, Heath, and others.

This is my take. I don't think Lively was harassed and I don't think her team is playing some kind of legal jiu jitsu. I think she and Reynolds overplayed their hand and never, ever expected it to get to where we are now (both PR wise and legally) because they thought they had an easy mark to steamroll and destroy. As they themselves have been open about, they've pulled similar moves before. They flexed their power and they did not expect this level of push back from someone they consider a nobody. They wanted total control and rights to the sequel, end of. They were prepared for this to all play out in sick Hollywood PR world and have to be freaking out they've lost that with the public. Again, you can lawyer need out about every motion filed in the lead up to this legal battle, but they've lost the public and the PR war. And that's what you need to maintain celeb status and popularity. If I were Blake or Ryan I'd be flipping my shit right now and it has nothing to do with their lawyers or this case, they shouldn't be in this position in the first place.

+1 I finally read the infamous timeline and it was heartbreaking. There was a point in time during the strike break when BL reached out a few times for the dailies and didn’t get her way, and BL started to escalate from there. It’s pretty hard to read honestly.

She presented the 17 pt complaint and demands for editing and other concessions near simultaneously, which to me really undermines her SH claims. The law requires these claims to be made in good faith and without malice (in other words the goal is supposed to be remedy not to extract something you want from someone else).

From this point fwd JB and BL only interact through Sony, not directly, and she just gets meaner and meaner. Ryan’s marketing firm takes over the promo at a much greater expense than budgeted and they set up all these promo opportunities with the entire cast excluding Justin.

Jen Abel reaches out to Sony multiple times to see how they can include JB to avoid the predictable speculation that would come from this behavior. Saddest of all, JB had thought of this great idea for him to do book Bonanza with Colleen Hoover (before things with BL had soured) but BL even took over that promo engagement too and excluded JB. She takes his face off the poster, his film by credit removed. She threatens TS multiple times (no wonder TS isn’t speaking to her) telling Sony she won’t even make the call to ask for My Tears Richochet if they don’t concede to her demands. Also threatens to not promote the movie if she doesn’t get her edit, which didn’t perform well. She can do all of this because she refused to sign her contract throughout, allowing her to threaten to walk at every turn and waste everyone’s time and money.

The texts between Jen and Melissa, when read in their totality, seem above board. They were pretty much taking a don’t fuel the fire approach and let this die down. Heath shared feedback multiple times with Sony to include more talk of DV in Blake’s PR, so this idea that they set her up to look bad is just unfounded. They recommended adjustments multiple times. It goes on and on, but I think there’s more than enough here to show malice and survive MTD. BL is a horrible person.

It’s hard for me to believe at this point that there are still people who side with her. Because what you described is spot on.

She is very much enabled by her team - there are actually adults who presumably went to law school and likely practiced for many years before working for Blake lively who agreed to send multiple emails, threatening her walk offs, knowing full well they had all the power because she had never signed a contract. I cannot imagine that the management and legal team have any credibility left. But I get that Hollywood plays dirty so maybe this is just another power move and I guess I’m naïve to expect lawyers and management for Blake to play fair or think the rules apply to them.

I do think it’s a bunch of really crappy people who work with her and for her and it explains why they were able to get this far. Someone rationally tried to explain up thread that blake and Ryan knew this was coming because before any sexual harassment suit would be filed, their team would have sat down and calmly explained to them, your texts will be fair game. Your emails will be fair game, this is going to come out, that is going to come out, and they forged ahead anyway. I now do not believe any of that happened. I now believe they have a team who are as blinded by power as they are or at this point they only have people working for them who tell them what they want to hear. They were very ill advised.

You both sound naive to me. I'm an attorney and the stuff in the timeline about her lawyers playing hardball with Wayfarer over her contract does not strike me as out of line. It's aggressive in terms of negotiating, but there are also so many instances of Wayfarer being shady or disorganized that it doesn't really bother me.

In particular, they appear to have been negligent in getting the nudity riders reviewed by an IC and submitted to Lively and Ferrer, in Lively's case not sending her nudity rider to her until days after she was originally supposed to film the first sex scene, in Vegas (this was ultimately postponed until after the hiatus, ostensibly because Lively had a sick family member, but I would believe and have no problem with her lying about a family illness to avoid filming a sex scene before nudity riders were signed -- that's a perfectly reasonable delay tactic IMO because she'd be looking to get a key workplace protection in place before doing a scene that required intimacy and nudity, which carries real risks for an actress in terms of producing footage of your body in compromising situations).

Baldoni was also TERRIBLE at communicating with Blake, often promising her one thing while promising other producers the opposite, and then acting as though the problem was Blake when there is no evidence he ever actually said "no, you cannot do that." In fact on numerous occasions he would tell her she could do something, or even use enthusiastic and encouraging language ("hell yes, please do") all while assuring his producing partners that he was trying to rein her in. It's very hard for me to believe a narrative that Blake somehow plotted all of this from the start when there are texts and emails of her asking politely for certain things (to make a pass at rewriting a scene, to see dailies, etc.) and Baldoni never saying no. And when someone else would tell her no (never Baldoni, he clearly was incapable of setting a boundary with her, which is on him, not her) she would acquiesce. As when she was told she couldn't see dailies.

People seem upset and angry that she was persistent in seeking the influence she wanted to have over the production, or aggressive in her contract negotiations. I have no idea why this would offend people. It's a business, she's using the leverage she has to get the best deal for herself. This is what everyone in the business does. It's also what Baldoni and Heath do. Baldoni has a different style, and frankly one I find way more deceptive than what Lively does. He clearly relies on trying to get the other side to like him, personally, sometimes leaning on telling sob stories about himself to induce sympathy, sometimes just telling the other person exactly what he thinks they want to hear in people pleasing mode (but with the ulterior motive of wanting something specific from them). He did this with Blake but he also did this with Colleen Hoover, promising her a bunch of stuff he probably should not have promised in order to get the rights to the movie (agreeing to star in the movie even though he originally didn't want to, agreeing to give her a lot of veto power over aspects of the script and characters, etc.). It is inevitable that Baldoni gets himself into situations where people are angry with him because he over promises and under delivers, over and over again. He compulsively agrees with people but lacks much courage of conviction, and essentially tries to get what he wants by being pleasing and weasely.

Give me Blake's straightforward, if sometimes pushy and demanding, asks any day of the week. She's not manipulative. She's literally like "can I do this? I would like to do XYZ, is that okay?" And sure, she'll have her team apply pressure if she thinks it will help, but she will also accept a no when she gets one.

Note that when she got angry with him over the rooftop scene, it wasn't because they didn't want to use the version she sent him. It's because he was wishy washy and indirect about it, talking out of both sides of his mouth, telling her how great it was but then making no commitments. She read this as a condescending pat on the head because it was.

I will say that both Lively and Baldoni made mistakes in their communication because they were both trying to preserve their character chemistry, and I'm sympathetic to both of them about that. BUT I also view that as the result of Wayfarer's boneheaded choice to have Baldoni direct and star. This was stupid and I think they knew that before they made the choice -- Baldoni was originally not set to direct and had even said publicly that he though a woman should direct it because of the content matter, only to then reneg on this later even as he was also promising Hoover he would play the Ryle role. Another example of Wayfarer being messy and dysfunctional in ways that had serious consequences for the production, but then later trying to blame Lively for the problems it caused. Baldoni had no business directing this movie and they knew it, but they had him do it anyway. Huge mistake.

Didn’t read it all because it’s too long, but on your leverage point, it’s illegal to use SH as leverage. That’s the crux of the problem. A lot of your other points (that I admittedly only skimmed) are irrelevant in that regard. This issue of using SH as leverage is why the MTD will fail. Baldoni will be able show malice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

DP I'm sort of lost on them having a rider when she didn't even have a contract. They should have insisted on having both signed and halted production until it was all signed. Would have saved more money in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense because Wayfarer has decided to only provide the handful of emails that they think back up their story that Lively unreasonably delayed the rider. And these emails aren't even that supportive -- they don't even send the rider until the first day of filming and the attorney is apologizing for the "rush job" and requesting that it be signed and returned overnight even though SAG guidelines require more time and specify that riders should not be signed under duress.

Why did it take them so long to get Lively a rider? Why was it a "rush job"? Why did Lively's team have to request confirmation from the IC that they had reviewed it and signed off (this should have been provided when submitted)? And then we have no other emails to show negotiations over the rider, including no emails showing they were "begging" her for it. But we do know that within the first few days of filming, Lively was already concerned about Baldoni's behavior on set during kissing scenes (not designated as "intimate" scenes in the script and thus not covered by the nudity rider), so we don't know to what degree Lively's experience on set with Baldoni may have slowed her willingness to sign off on the nudity rider, having discovered that Baldoni's behavior regarding even mild on-screen intimacy left a lot to be desired. Discovery should shed some light on this.

One thing we do have is Lively telling a fellow actress, during the hiatus, that she dreaded returning to set and having to work with Baldoni again, and that she was still schedule to film all of her intimate scenes with him, as they'd been delayed due to pushing back those Vegas scenes and then the strike. Why would an actress who was in the middle of executing a long-planned heist of a movie be so stressed about returning to set that she (1) tells another actress she doesn't want to do it, and (2) insists on a bunch of protections being put into place before she agrees, none of which give her greater control over the movie but all of which ensure that consent will be observed and that Baldoni will not have opportunities to pressure her or force additional nudity or intimacy onto her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

DP I'm sort of lost on them having a rider when she didn't even have a contract. They should have insisted on having both signed and halted production until it was all signed. Would have saved more money in the end.

The contract stuff is a weird red herring. Baldoni's own complaint says that Lively was contracted to do the move and performed under her contract. They don't even allege this theory that people have picked up, that Lively delayed signing her contract to gain control -- it's not in his complaint or in the timeline of events. Rather, it's something Freedman has floated in interviews with friendly media, that JB fans and TikTok "sleuths" have picked up and run with.

I think it's a non-issue. And I think Wayfarer/Baldoni agree or they would be pleading actual allegations around it. They aren't. In fact, they are arguing almost the opposite. They argue that Lively was contractually obligated to promote the movie and that she threatened to breach that contract, by refusing to promote, in order to extract certain commitments from Wayfarer, including the divided premiere and the endorsement for the p.g.a. mark. They don't argue that Lively used her delay in signing the Certificate of Engagement to extract control over the movie. This is essentially a fan theory that has gotten a lot of traction online but has yet to be advanced by Freedman in court or pleadings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense because Wayfarer has decided to only provide the handful of emails that they think back up their story that Lively unreasonably delayed the rider. And these emails aren't even that supportive -- they don't even send the rider until the first day of filming and the attorney is apologizing for the "rush job" and requesting that it be signed and returned overnight even though SAG guidelines require more time and specify that riders should not be signed under duress.

Why did it take them so long to get Lively a rider? Why was it a "rush job"? Why did Lively's team have to request confirmation from the IC that they had reviewed it and signed off (this should have been provided when submitted)? And then we have no other emails to show negotiations over the rider, including no emails showing they were "begging" her for it. But we do know that within the first few days of filming, Lively was already concerned about Baldoni's behavior on set during kissing scenes (not designated as "intimate" scenes in the script and thus not covered by the nudity rider), so we don't know to what degree Lively's experience on set with Baldoni may have slowed her willingness to sign off on the nudity rider, having discovered that Baldoni's behavior regarding even mild on-screen intimacy left a lot to be desired. Discovery should shed some light on this.

One thing we do have is Lively telling a fellow actress, during the hiatus, that she dreaded returning to set and having to work with Baldoni again, and that she was still schedule to film all of her intimate scenes with him, as they'd been delayed due to pushing back those Vegas scenes and then the strike. Why would an actress who was in the middle of executing a long-planned heist of a movie be so stressed about returning to set that she (1) tells another actress she doesn't want to do it, and (2) insists on a bunch of protections being put into place before she agrees, none of which give her greater control over the movie but all of which ensure that consent will be observed and that Baldoni will not have opportunities to pressure her or force additional nudity or intimacy onto her?

It’s been pretty well established that once she decided what she was going to do she was establishing a paper trial. That text was so out of context, it’s just blatantly obvious that’s what she was trying to do. It was just me too language in a text “their gaze, their tongue…” Give me a break. They will never live this down.

lively violated every SAG rule in the book by doing a movie without signing her contract. She put the whole movie at risk. It’s part of why there’s a huge petition to get her PGA revoked from the film, because she acted without the best interest of the movie in so many examples.

She’s lost the public. She can’t engage with fans through social media, her brands are stagnant because she can’t do any marketing, her other movie projects have stalled. Even the NYC pap walks that Ryan and Blake loved to do have been stopped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

DP I'm sort of lost on them having a rider when she didn't even have a contract. They should have insisted on having both signed and halted production until it was all signed. Would have saved more money in the end.

The contract stuff is a weird red herring. Baldoni's own complaint says that Lively was contracted to do the move and performed under her contract. They don't even allege this theory that people have picked up, that Lively delayed signing her contract to gain control -- it's not in his complaint or in the timeline of events. Rather, it's something Freedman has floated in interviews with friendly media, that JB fans and TikTok "sleuths" have picked up and run with.

I think it's a non-issue. And I think Wayfarer/Baldoni agree or they would be pleading actual allegations around it. They aren't. In fact, they are arguing almost the opposite. They argue that Lively was contractually obligated to promote the movie and that she threatened to breach that contract, by refusing to promote, in order to extract certain commitments from Wayfarer, including the divided premiere and the endorsement for the p.g.a. mark. They don't argue that Lively used her delay in signing the Certificate of Engagement to extract control over the movie. This is essentially a fan theory that has gotten a lot of traction online but has yet to be advanced by Freedman in court or pleadings.

It’s my understanding that she signed the certificate of engagement, but not the actual contract. That is what allowed her to keep threatening to walk away from the movie. I don’t get why that is a fan theory, if in fact, she was legally obligated to perform the film without paying back her salary or something, then why would they be in this mess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

DP I'm sort of lost on them having a rider when she didn't even have a contract. They should have insisted on having both signed and halted production until it was all signed. Would have saved more money in the end.

The contract stuff is a weird red herring. Baldoni's own complaint says that Lively was contracted to do the move and performed under her contract. They don't even allege this theory that people have picked up, that Lively delayed signing her contract to gain control -- it's not in his complaint or in the timeline of events. Rather, it's something Freedman has floated in interviews with friendly media, that JB fans and TikTok "sleuths" have picked up and run with.

I think it's a non-issue. And I think Wayfarer/Baldoni agree or they would be pleading actual allegations around it. They aren't. In fact, they are arguing almost the opposite. They argue that Lively was contractually obligated to promote the movie and that she threatened to breach that contract, by refusing to promote, in order to extract certain commitments from Wayfarer, including the divided premiere and the endorsement for the p.g.a. mark. They don't argue that Lively used her delay in signing the Certificate of Engagement to extract control over the movie. This is essentially a fan theory that has gotten a lot of traction online but has yet to be advanced by Freedman in court or pleadings.

It’s definitely in the timeline in multiple places with email evidence backing it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense because Wayfarer has decided to only provide the handful of emails that they think back up their story that Lively unreasonably delayed the rider. And these emails aren't even that supportive -- they don't even send the rider until the first day of filming and the attorney is apologizing for the "rush job" and requesting that it be signed and returned overnight even though SAG guidelines require more time and specify that riders should not be signed under duress.

Why did it take them so long to get Lively a rider? Why was it a "rush job"? Why did Lively's team have to request confirmation from the IC that they had reviewed it and signed off (this should have been provided when submitted)? And then we have no other emails to show negotiations over the rider, including no emails showing they were "begging" her for it. But we do know that within the first few days of filming, Lively was already concerned about Baldoni's behavior on set during kissing scenes (not designated as "intimate" scenes in the script and thus not covered by the nudity rider), so we don't know to what degree Lively's experience on set with Baldoni may have slowed her willingness to sign off on the nudity rider, having discovered that Baldoni's behavior regarding even mild on-screen intimacy left a lot to be desired. Discovery should shed some light on this.

One thing we do have is Lively telling a fellow actress, during the hiatus, that she dreaded returning to set and having to work with Baldoni again, and that she was still schedule to film all of her intimate scenes with him, as they'd been delayed due to pushing back those Vegas scenes and then the strike. Why would an actress who was in the middle of executing a long-planned heist of a movie be so stressed about returning to set that she (1) tells another actress she doesn't want to do it, and (2) insists on a bunch of protections being put into place before she agrees, none of which give her greater control over the movie but all of which ensure that consent will be observed and that Baldoni will not have opportunities to pressure her or force additional nudity or intimacy onto her?

It’s been pretty well established that once she decided what she was going to do she was establishing a paper trial. That text was so out of context, it’s just blatantly obvious that’s what she was trying to do. It was just me too language in a text “their gaze, their tongue…” Give me a break. They will never live this down.

lively violated every SAG rule in the book by doing a movie without signing her contract. She put the whole movie at risk. It’s part of why there’s a huge petition to get her PGA revoked from the film, because she acted without the best interest of the movie in so many examples.

She’s lost the public. She can’t engage with fans through social media, her brands are stagnant because she can’t do any marketing, her other movie projects have stalled. Even the NYC pap walks that Ryan and Blake loved to do have been stopped.

+1 all of the examples of her telling another actress she was dreading returning etc were AFTER JB denied her the dailies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

DP I'm sort of lost on them having a rider when she didn't even have a contract. They should have insisted on having both signed and halted production until it was all signed. Would have saved more money in the end.

The contract stuff is a weird red herring. Baldoni's own complaint says that Lively was contracted to do the move and performed under her contract. They don't even allege this theory that people have picked up, that Lively delayed signing her contract to gain control -- it's not in his complaint or in the timeline of events. Rather, it's something Freedman has floated in interviews with friendly media, that JB fans and TikTok "sleuths" have picked up and run with.

I think it's a non-issue. And I think Wayfarer/Baldoni agree or they would be pleading actual allegations around it. They aren't. In fact, they are arguing almost the opposite. They argue that Lively was contractually obligated to promote the movie and that she threatened to breach that contract, by refusing to promote, in order to extract certain commitments from Wayfarer, including the divided premiere and the endorsement for the p.g.a. mark. They don't argue that Lively used her delay in signing the Certificate of Engagement to extract control over the movie. This is essentially a fan theory that has gotten a lot of traction online but has yet to be advanced by Freedman in court or pleadings.

It’s my understanding that she signed the certificate of engagement, but not the actual contract. That is what allowed her to keep threatening to walk away from the movie. I don’t get why that is a fan theory, if in fact, she was legally obligated to perform the film without paying back her salary or something, then why would they be in this mess?

The Certificate of Engagement is the contract. Your understanding is incorrect.

Even without a signed C&E, the production would be protected by contact law once Lively started filming, because if you start to perform a contract and the other side acts on that performance, you are generally bound regardless of signing.

But go look at the complaint and timeline if you want. They complain about Lively not signing the contract but don't allege any claims based on it. They do this with a bunch of their facts -- it's in there to make Lively look bad but isn't related a cause of action. A lot of them will be thrown out as irrelevant by the judge. It was a PR move and it worked because now a bunch of JB stans will sit around arguing the theory that Lively was refusing to sign her contract to gain control of the production, even though Baldoni doesn't even allege this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense because Wayfarer has decided to only provide the handful of emails that they think back up their story that Lively unreasonably delayed the rider. And these emails aren't even that supportive -- they don't even send the rider until the first day of filming and the attorney is apologizing for the "rush job" and requesting that it be signed and returned overnight even though SAG guidelines require more time and specify that riders should not be signed under duress.

Why did it take them so long to get Lively a rider? Why was it a "rush job"? Why did Lively's team have to request confirmation from the IC that they had reviewed it and signed off (this should have been provided when submitted)? And then we have no other emails to show negotiations over the rider, including no emails showing they were "begging" her for it. But we do know that within the first few days of filming, Lively was already concerned about Baldoni's behavior on set during kissing scenes (not designated as "intimate" scenes in the script and thus not covered by the nudity rider), so we don't know to what degree Lively's experience on set with Baldoni may have slowed her willingness to sign off on the nudity rider, having discovered that Baldoni's behavior regarding even mild on-screen intimacy left a lot to be desired. Discovery should shed some light on this.

One thing we do have is Lively telling a fellow actress, during the hiatus, that she dreaded returning to set and having to work with Baldoni again, and that she was still schedule to film all of her intimate scenes with him, as they'd been delayed due to pushing back those Vegas scenes and then the strike. Why would an actress who was in the middle of executing a long-planned heist of a movie be so stressed about returning to set that she (1) tells another actress she doesn't want to do it, and (2) insists on a bunch of protections being put into place before she agrees, none of which give her greater control over the movie but all of which ensure that consent will be observed and that Baldoni will not have opportunities to pressure her or force additional nudity or intimacy onto her?

Wayfarer has released lots of evidence that doesn’t paint them in the best light (the voice note is cringe, for example) but they did this precisely to establish credibility. They’re putting it all out there—good, bad, ugly. I think it’s pretty baseless to accuse them of cherry picking emails. In fact BL and RR have accused them of oversharing and sought to strike their exhibit and get their website taken down (unsuccessfully). If BL and RR had receipts to contradict JB’s narrative, they would’ve dropped them by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

DP I'm sort of lost on them having a rider when she didn't even have a contract. They should have insisted on having both signed and halted production until it was all signed. Would have saved more money in the end.

The contract stuff is a weird red herring. Baldoni's own complaint says that Lively was contracted to do the move and performed under her contract. They don't even allege this theory that people have picked up, that Lively delayed signing her contract to gain control -- it's not in his complaint or in the timeline of events. Rather, it's something Freedman has floated in interviews with friendly media, that JB fans and TikTok "sleuths" have picked up and run with.

I think it's a non-issue. And I think Wayfarer/Baldoni agree or they would be pleading actual allegations around it. They aren't. In fact, they are arguing almost the opposite. They argue that Lively was contractually obligated to promote the movie and that she threatened to breach that contract, by refusing to promote, in order to extract certain commitments from Wayfarer, including the divided premiere and the endorsement for the p.g.a. mark. They don't argue that Lively used her delay in signing the Certificate of Engagement to extract control over the movie. This is essentially a fan theory that has gotten a lot of traction online but has yet to be advanced by Freedman in court or pleadings.

It’s definitely in the timeline in multiple places with email evidence backing it up.

They mention it in the timeline but (1) there is way less email evidence than you think, because you are remembering the narrative description, not actual email evidence, and (2) even though they mention it, it is not part of their claims against Lively. Again, the opposite -- they rely on the terms of the contract to allege Lively was trying to break it.

As I just said, Lively would be bound by the contract once she started filming even if it was not signed, based on a theory of promissory estoppel as well as likely how a contact is defined in the relevant jurisdiction. This is why handshake deals can be enforceable. But they had way more than a handshake deal -- Wayfarer had spent a bunch of money based on Lively's commitment to the production. Had she tried to backout at Amy point once production started, they could have sued her for breach regardless of whether she signed the contract.

It's a red herring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense because Wayfarer has decided to only provide the handful of emails that they think back up their story that Lively unreasonably delayed the rider. And these emails aren't even that supportive -- they don't even send the rider until the first day of filming and the attorney is apologizing for the "rush job" and requesting that it be signed and returned overnight even though SAG guidelines require more time and specify that riders should not be signed under duress.

Why did it take them so long to get Lively a rider? Why was it a "rush job"? Why did Lively's team have to request confirmation from the IC that they had reviewed it and signed off (this should have been provided when submitted)? And then we have no other emails to show negotiations over the rider, including no emails showing they were "begging" her for it. But we do know that within the first few days of filming, Lively was already concerned about Baldoni's behavior on set during kissing scenes (not designated as "intimate" scenes in the script and thus not covered by the nudity rider), so we don't know to what degree Lively's experience on set with Baldoni may have slowed her willingness to sign off on the nudity rider, having discovered that Baldoni's behavior regarding even mild on-screen intimacy left a lot to be desired. Discovery should shed some light on this.

One thing we do have is Lively telling a fellow actress, during the hiatus, that she dreaded returning to set and having to work with Baldoni again, and that she was still schedule to film all of her intimate scenes with him, as they'd been delayed due to pushing back those Vegas scenes and then the strike. Why would an actress who was in the middle of executing a long-planned heist of a movie be so stressed about returning to set that she (1) tells another actress she doesn't want to do it, and (2) insists on a bunch of protections being put into place before she agrees, none of which give her greater control over the movie but all of which ensure that consent will be observed and that Baldoni will not have opportunities to pressure her or force additional nudity or intimacy onto her?

Wayfarer has released lots of evidence that doesn’t paint them in the best light (the voice note is cringe, for example) but they did this precisely to establish credibility. They’re putting it all out there—good, bad, ugly. I think it’s pretty baseless to accuse them of cherry picking emails. In fact BL and RR have accused them of oversharing and sought to strike their exhibit and get their website taken down (unsuccessfully). If BL and RR had receipts to contradict JB’s narrative, they would’ve dropped them by now.

Yes, if you simply take all the words coming out of Bryan Freedman's mouth at face value, this is the case.

I think they info dumped before the judge could tell them to stop to get out a bunch of embarrassing (but not legally actionable) stuff about Ryan and Blake, but included a few less than favorable details so that Freedman could say "were being fully transparent." It's clever PR, and Freedman is very smart at the PR aspect of litigation, but it's intentionally misleading.

A lot of you argue constantly that Baldoni's pleadings show things THEY DON'T SHOW. But go ahead and point me to all the emails in Baldoni's pleadings that show Lively was using her unsigned contract to get control of the movie. Happy to admit I'm wrong if I missed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except it was Blake’s team that didn’t turn in the nudity rider in team. Wayfarer was BEGGING her to return it and they didn’t.

Nope, in their own timeline, they don't even submit the nudity rider to her team until May 8th, which was the day filming was supposed to start, in Vegas, with nude/sex scenes. From their timeline:

May 8, 2023: Lively’s attorney is provided with a Nudity Rider, in which Wayfarer includes the intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider, followed by written confirmation of the approval. (For clarity, providing the “intimacy-coordinator-approved Nudity Rider” serves as confirmation that Lively and the intimacy coordinator discussed and mutually approved the sex scenes.)
Notably, the sex scenes scheduled for the week of May 8, 2023, had to be rescheduled multiple times due to illness and subsequent strikes. As a result, they were ultimately Filmed in January 2024, meaning no sex scenes were shot during Phase 1 (May 15-June 27, 2023).

SAG-AFTRA guidelines require that a nudity rider has been reviewed by an IC prior to signing and require that they be in place 48 hours before any scheduled nude scenes. Yet Wayfarer schedule sex scenes for the first week of filming and didn't even sent Lively's team a nudity rider to review until the first scheduled day of filming. Then they blame Lively for the delay in filming. This is exactly the kind of bush-league behavior by Wayfarer I'm talking about. That rider should have been in place well in advance, yet they provide zero evidence that they tried to get it in place in advance of filming. They also left no margin for error, no room for Lively to negotiate any aspect of the rider even though the entire point of a nudity rider is to provide an actor with some control over how their body will be filmed while exposed an in compromising, intimate scenes. Wayfarer clearly didn't take that seriously or think it mattered, which is why I don't blame Blake for making a stink about it and playing hardball regarding signing of contracts. Wayfarer was acting like they'd never done this before, because in fact, they had not -- they'd never made a movie involving nudity and intimacy. Rather than bringing in an experienced producer to help guide them through that process (something Lively later insisted on in the 17-point demand list) they decided to wing it, with Heath (who had zero experience with these issues and clearly only a passing understanding of the legal concerns involved) just sort of winging it.

Following up, because I forgot to include this. In the emails that Baldoni provides in his OWN timeline, here is the email from Wayfarer Counsel to Lively's counsel on May 8th (the scheduled first day of filming, in Vegas, where nude scenes were scheduled):

"Attaching here Blakes Nudity Rider for your review that has been reviewed by SAG intimacy coordinator. Apologies for the rush job but please note we will need this signed by tomorrow."

Bush. League.

Right, but she never signed it and delayed for weeks. If she had changes to the writer, why not update it to reflect what she was willing to do? It makes no sense.

DP I'm sort of lost on them having a rider when she didn't even have a contract. They should have insisted on having both signed and halted production until it was all signed. Would have saved more money in the end.

The contract stuff is a weird red herring. Baldoni's own complaint says that Lively was contracted to do the move and performed under her contract. They don't even allege this theory that people have picked up, that Lively delayed signing her contract to gain control -- it's not in his complaint or in the timeline of events. Rather, it's something Freedman has floated in interviews with friendly media, that JB fans and TikTok "sleuths" have picked up and run with.

I think it's a non-issue. And I think Wayfarer/Baldoni agree or they would be pleading actual allegations around it. They aren't. In fact, they are arguing almost the opposite. They argue that Lively was contractually obligated to promote the movie and that she threatened to breach that contract, by refusing to promote, in order to extract certain commitments from Wayfarer, including the divided premiere and the endorsement for the p.g.a. mark. They don't argue that Lively used her delay in signing the Certificate of Engagement to extract control over the movie. This is essentially a fan theory that has gotten a lot of traction online but has yet to be advanced by Freedman in court or pleadings.

It’s definitely in the timeline in multiple places with email evidence backing it up.

They mention it in the timeline but (1) there is way less email evidence than you think, because you are remembering the narrative description, not actual email evidence, and (2) even though they mention it, it is not part of their claims against Lively. Again, the opposite -- they rely on the terms of the contract to allege Lively was trying to break it.

As I just said, Lively would be bound by the contract once she started filming even if it was not signed, based on a theory of promissory estoppel as well as likely how a contact is defined in the relevant jurisdiction. This is why handshake deals can be enforceable. But they had way more than a handshake deal -- Wayfarer had spent a bunch of money based on Lively's commitment to the production. Had she tried to backout at Amy point once production started, they could have sued her for breach regardless of whether she signed the contract.

It's a red herring.

1. I literally just read it yesterday, so I’m not misremembering.
2. You’re missing the forest for the trees. Would they have had a basis to sue her, perhaps, but litigation takes years, lots of money had already been spent, Young Lily’s likeness was cast around BL and those scenes had been shot, and the big whopper is that she was holding SH over their heads as leverage.

There was nothing business as usual about her behavior. I feel like you’re trying to strip out all of the context and make a technical argument, but that’s just not real life. This is exactly why this case has to go to a jury. There are many many questions of fact, not just of law.

[Anonymous]

She didn’t like him. That’s clear. Making it into sexual harassment was just the easiest way to get people on her side and control the narrative, IMO.

Haven’t we all had that certain coworker who claim ageism or sexism or whateverism when the truth is they’re actually just terrible at their job? And they get to stay at the job since everyone is afraid they’ll sue? My former boss had at least 5 HR complaints from 5 separate people within her first three months at the job—and she was not let go because when HR got involved she claimed a mental health issue made her treat people poorly. When people feel like they can’t control a situation the normal way, they will often use their protected status to gain more control. And it works. I’ve seen it firsthand—actually many times—and that’s why this whole thing smells fishy.

Also: I think the “actress” that PP said Blake complained to via text was probably her friend Liz Plank, or maybe her sister.