Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he SHed her and I think he and the others worked together to try and smear her name so that if she went public with allegations, people would be predisposed to distrust her.

And it worked.

I also think they are still doing it.

Why would he SH the star of his directorial debut and Ryan Reynolds wife? Post me too era. With cameras and witnesses all around? That doesn't make any sense.

PP here. I don't think Baldoni decided to SH Lively. I don't think it was intentional. I think he's weird and has boundary issues and didn't understand that the things he was doing were not okay. I also think that like a lot of actors/directors/celebs (including Blake Lively) that he has narcissistic tendencies and when Lively (and others) started to complain about his and Heath's behavior, they were not really capable of taking responsibility or changing course. I also think Wayfarer has a lot of insular group think because it's a mission-based org where most people belong to the same religious organization. I've worked in an environment like that and it can produce a lot of obliviousness to how other people experience or view their behavior.

But I still think he crossed lines and that the things he did would also have felt harassing to me if I were in Lively's position. I don't think it's the worst example of SH I've heard of -- it's on the mild side and I also think Lively was able to deal with it because she has support and leverage and that if it had just ended with the 17 point list and that Jan. 4 meeting, no one would be suing and everyone would have moved on.

But I think Wayfarer doubled down on their behavior by going after her with TAG last August, and this is what precipitated the lawsuit. I also think that while Baldoni's and Heath's onset behavior was harassing but not poorly intentioned, the retaliation campaign *was* very intentional and they knew exactly what they were doing -- they wanted to discredit Blake and destroy her reputation. It was vindictive.

I know a lot of y'all don't see it that way. That's fine. But it's how I see it.

You jump from 17 pt list to the alleged smear campaign (which may never be proven) completely overlooking everything that happened in between. You should’ve said had Blake left it at the 17 pt list and not taken away Baldoni’s film credit, extorted him for a pga credit, kicked him out of the editing bay, kicked him off the promo tour, had the cast unfollow him and tell the press “everybody hates Justin” he wouldn’t have needed to hire TAG. There, I fixed it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he SHed her and I think he and the others worked together to try and smear her name so that if she went public with allegations, people would be predisposed to distrust her.

And it worked.

I also think they are still doing it.

Why would he SH the star of his directorial debut and Ryan Reynolds wife? Post me too era. With cameras and witnesses all around? That doesn't make any sense.

PP here. I don't think Baldoni decided to SH Lively. I don't think it was intentional. I think he's weird and has boundary issues and didn't understand that the things he was doing were not okay. I also think that like a lot of actors/directors/celebs (including Blake Lively) that he has narcissistic tendencies and when Lively (and others) started to complain about his and Heath's behavior, they were not really capable of taking responsibility or changing course. I also think Wayfarer has a lot of insular group think because it's a mission-based org where most people belong to the same religious organization. I've worked in an environment like that and it can produce a lot of obliviousness to how other people experience or view their behavior.

But I still think he crossed lines and that the things he did would also have felt harassing to me if I were in Lively's position. I don't think it's the worst example of SH I've heard of -- it's on the mild side and I also think Lively was able to deal with it because she has support and leverage and that if it had just ended with the 17 point list and that Jan. 4 meeting, no one would be suing and everyone would have moved on.

But I think Wayfarer doubled down on their behavior by going after her with TAG last August, and this is what precipitated the lawsuit. I also think that while Baldoni's and Heath's onset behavior was harassing but not poorly intentioned, the retaliation campaign *was* very intentional and they knew exactly what they were doing -- they wanted to discredit Blake and destroy her reputation. It was vindictive.

I know a lot of y'all don't see it that way. That's fine. But it's how I see it.

You jump from 17 pt list to the alleged smear campaign (which may never be proven) completely overlooking everything that happened in between. You should’ve said had Blake left it at the 17 pt list and not taken away Baldoni’s film credit, extorted him for a pga credit, kicked him out of the editing bay, kicked him off the promo tour, had the cast unfollow him and tell the press “everybody hates Justin” he wouldn’t have needed to hire TAG. There, I fixed it for you.

I didn't forget any of that.

I do not believe Lively stole his film credit. He is the credited director on the film. He wanted a "film by" credit which I personally think is super vain -- a lot of filmmakers I greatly respect (like the Cohen brothers) don't even take that. I also think he was a really weak director who was super wishy washy and didn't have great control of the set, which makes him even more unworthy of it.

I don't think she "extorted" the p.g.a. credit, though I do agree she probably didn't deserve it. But it's a borderline issue and I get why she thinks she deserved it. I do think that the point of the 17 point list and all the changes she insisted on was because she believed this was necessary to make the set a safe place not just for her, but for everyone. I also think she had become concerned that Baldoni was going to make the sex in this film, which is not a romance and is about domestic violence, gratuitous, and that she believes the changes she requested and her involvement in the editing of the movie helped avoid that. So in her mind, I think she really felt like she fought for this movie and was instrumental in ensuring it was made responsibly. I don't know if that's really enough for a p.g.a. credit -- I think it's iffy. But I don't get mad about it because I don't view what she did as extortion. I think Baldoni and Wayfarer had put themselves in a terrible position by behaving badly on the set, and thus were over a barrel when it came to the p.g.a. request. A lesson -- don't harass people while making a movie I guess.

My understanding is that Sony supported Blake's involvement in editing. It does sound funky, as Baldoni didn't get his opportunity to edit that the DGA usually guarantees. But again -- if you want to be treated seriously as a director, don't pull all this weird crap on set to the point where multiple actresses are making complaints. Don't go springing nudity on actors at the last second or making comments about what is "normal" in childbirth or pushing a clearly uncomfortable costar to do physical intimacy they clearly don't want to do. Also, if it's true that he handled the Isabel Ferrer sex scene as alleged, that's way beyond the pale -- a new actress should NOT be pressured into something like climaxing on screen and the comment about them "practicing" before hand was not okay. Again, if true. Right now that's just an allegation but also Baldoni hasn't denied any of that and hasn't provided an alternative explanation for it.

Anyway, I think if he did that stuff then it makes sense Blake wanted more control over editing (since the movie featured a lot of intimate scenes with her and an actress who looks like her and she wanted to control how those scenes were handled) and it also makes sense that Sony would endorse it because Baldoni had shown himself to be unprofessional at that point.

He wasn't kicked off the promo tour, he did a bunch of promotion for the film and attended the premiere. She didn't want to have to stand next to him and take photos with him. Given his behavior, I get it. I also think if he'd just dealt with it and not tried to retaliate, it would have blown over for him. There are MANY examples of movies where costars or directors/stars did not get along and there are some awkward red carpets and interviews as a result, and those people are still working. I think he went nuclear about it because he was scared people would find out how he behaved on set. Which I get, because his behavior sucked. But her just refusing to do press with him was not as big of a deal as he's making it out to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he SHed her and I think he and the others worked together to try and smear her name so that if she went public with allegations, people would be predisposed to distrust her.

And it worked.

I also think they are still doing it.

Why would he SH the star of his directorial debut and Ryan Reynolds wife? Post me too era. With cameras and witnesses all around? That doesn't make any sense.

PP here. I don't think Baldoni decided to SH Lively. I don't think it was intentional. I think he's weird and has boundary issues and didn't understand that the things he was doing were not okay. I also think that like a lot of actors/directors/celebs (including Blake Lively) that he has narcissistic tendencies and when Lively (and others) started to complain about his and Heath's behavior, they were not really capable of taking responsibility or changing course. I also think Wayfarer has a lot of insular group think because it's a mission-based org where most people belong to the same religious organization. I've worked in an environment like that and it can produce a lot of obliviousness to how other people experience or view their behavior.

But I still think he crossed lines and that the things he did would also have felt harassing to me if I were in Lively's position. I don't think it's the worst example of SH I've heard of -- it's on the mild side and I also think Lively was able to deal with it because she has support and leverage and that if it had just ended with the 17 point list and that Jan. 4 meeting, no one would be suing and everyone would have moved on.

But I think Wayfarer doubled down on their behavior by going after her with TAG last August, and this is what precipitated the lawsuit. I also think that while Baldoni's and Heath's onset behavior was harassing but not poorly intentioned, the retaliation campaign *was* very intentional and they knew exactly what they were doing -- they wanted to discredit Blake and destroy her reputation. It was vindictive.

I know a lot of y'all don't see it that way. That's fine. But it's how I see it.

You jump from 17 pt list to the alleged smear campaign (which may never be proven) completely overlooking everything that happened in between. You should’ve said had Blake left it at the 17 pt list and not taken away Baldoni’s film credit, extorted him for a pga credit, kicked him out of the editing bay, kicked him off the promo tour, had the cast unfollow him and tell the press “everybody hates Justin” he wouldn’t have needed to hire TAG. There, I fixed it for you.

I didn't forget any of that.

I do not believe Lively stole his film credit. He is the credited director on the film. He wanted a "film by" credit which I personally think is super vain -- a lot of filmmakers I greatly respect (like the Cohen brothers) don't even take that. I also think he was a really weak director who was super wishy washy and didn't have great control of the set, which makes him even more unworthy of it.

I don't think she "extorted" the p.g.a. credit, though I do agree she probably didn't deserve it. But it's a borderline issue and I get why she thinks she deserved it. I do think that the point of the 17 point list and all the changes she insisted on was because she believed this was necessary to make the set a safe place not just for her, but for everyone. I also think she had become concerned that Baldoni was going to make the sex in this film, which is not a romance and is about domestic violence, gratuitous, and that she believes the changes she requested and her involvement in the editing of the movie helped avoid that. So in her mind, I think she really felt like she fought for this movie and was instrumental in ensuring it was made responsibly. I don't know if that's really enough for a p.g.a. credit -- I think it's iffy. But I don't get mad about it because I don't view what she did as extortion. I think Baldoni and Wayfarer had put themselves in a terrible position by behaving badly on the set, and thus were over a barrel when it came to the p.g.a. request. A lesson -- don't harass people while making a movie I guess.

My understanding is that Sony supported Blake's involvement in editing. It does sound funky, as Baldoni didn't get his opportunity to edit that the DGA usually guarantees. But again -- if you want to be treated seriously as a director, don't pull all this weird crap on set to the point where multiple actresses are making complaints. Don't go springing nudity on actors at the last second or making comments about what is "normal" in childbirth or pushing a clearly uncomfortable costar to do physical intimacy they clearly don't want to do. Also, if it's true that he handled the Isabel Ferrer sex scene as alleged, that's way beyond the pale -- a new actress should NOT be pressured into something like climaxing on screen and the comment about them "practicing" before hand was not okay. Again, if true. Right now that's just an allegation but also Baldoni hasn't denied any of that and hasn't provided an alternative explanation for it.

Anyway, I think if he did that stuff then it makes sense Blake wanted more control over editing (since the movie featured a lot of intimate scenes with her and an actress who looks like her and she wanted to control how those scenes were handled) and it also makes sense that Sony would endorse it because Baldoni had shown himself to be unprofessional at that point.

He wasn't kicked off the promo tour, he did a bunch of promotion for the film and attended the premiere. She didn't want to have to stand next to him and take photos with him. Given his behavior, I get it. I also think if he'd just dealt with it and not tried to retaliate, it would have blown over for him. There are MANY examples of movies where costars or directors/stars did not get along and there are some awkward red carpets and interviews as a result, and those people are still working. I think he went nuclear about it because he was scared people would find out how he behaved on set. Which I get, because his behavior sucked. But her just refusing to do press with him was not as big of a deal as he's making it out to be.

Enough with the alternative facts. Blake requested his film by credit be taken away and he had to sign paperwork consenting to this because he was entitled to it. Blake demanded a pga credit “or the gloves are off” and WF kept a record with their lawyers that they were agreeing under duress. JB came up with the idea to do book bonanza and Blake kicked him off and took his place. As Director, he was entitled to a certain amount of time in the editing bay, which she encroached on. His cut also tested higher, not once but twice. These are provable facts.

On your other claims about young Lily and the birthing scene, Lively’s accounts (which is what they are, they aren’t facts) have been disputed by other witnesses. The man who played the doctor said she was lying about the birthing scene. And Isabella’s own words to Justin contradict Blake’s account.

You can keep twisting the truth but that’s why you’re in the minority here with your alternative facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he SHed her and I think he and the others worked together to try and smear her name so that if she went public with allegations, people would be predisposed to distrust her.

And it worked.

I also think they are still doing it.

Why would he SH the star of his directorial debut and Ryan Reynolds wife? Post me too era. With cameras and witnesses all around? That doesn't make any sense.

PP here. I don't think Baldoni decided to SH Lively. I don't think it was intentional. I think he's weird and has boundary issues and didn't understand that the things he was doing were not okay. I also think that like a lot of actors/directors/celebs (including Blake Lively) that he has narcissistic tendencies and when Lively (and others) started to complain about his and Heath's behavior, they were not really capable of taking responsibility or changing course. I also think Wayfarer has a lot of insular group think because it's a mission-based org where most people belong to the same religious organization. I've worked in an environment like that and it can produce a lot of obliviousness to how other people experience or view their behavior.

But I still think he crossed lines and that the things he did would also have felt harassing to me if I were in Lively's position. I don't think it's the worst example of SH I've heard of -- it's on the mild side and I also think Lively was able to deal with it because she has support and leverage and that if it had just ended with the 17 point list and that Jan. 4 meeting, no one would be suing and everyone would have moved on.

But I think Wayfarer doubled down on their behavior by going after her with TAG last August, and this is what precipitated the lawsuit. I also think that while Baldoni's and Heath's onset behavior was harassing but not poorly intentioned, the retaliation campaign *was* very intentional and they knew exactly what they were doing -- they wanted to discredit Blake and destroy her reputation. It was vindictive.

I know a lot of y'all don't see it that way. That's fine. But it's how I see it.

You jump from 17 pt list to the alleged smear campaign (which may never be proven) completely overlooking everything that happened in between. You should’ve said had Blake left it at the 17 pt list and not taken away Baldoni’s film credit, extorted him for a pga credit, kicked him out of the editing bay, kicked him off the promo tour, had the cast unfollow him and tell the press “everybody hates Justin” he wouldn’t have needed to hire TAG. There, I fixed it for you.

I didn't forget any of that.

I do not believe Lively stole his film credit. He is the credited director on the film. He wanted a "film by" credit which I personally think is super vain -- a lot of filmmakers I greatly respect (like the Cohen brothers) don't even take that. I also think he was a really weak director who was super wishy washy and didn't have great control of the set, which makes him even more unworthy of it.

I don't think she "extorted" the p.g.a. credit, though I do agree she probably didn't deserve it. But it's a borderline issue and I get why she thinks she deserved it. I do think that the point of the 17 point list and all the changes she insisted on was because she believed this was necessary to make the set a safe place not just for her, but for everyone. I also think she had become concerned that Baldoni was going to make the sex in this film, which is not a romance and is about domestic violence, gratuitous, and that she believes the changes she requested and her involvement in the editing of the movie helped avoid that. So in her mind, I think she really felt like she fought for this movie and was instrumental in ensuring it was made responsibly. I don't know if that's really enough for a p.g.a. credit -- I think it's iffy. But I don't get mad about it because I don't view what she did as extortion. I think Baldoni and Wayfarer had put themselves in a terrible position by behaving badly on the set, and thus were over a barrel when it came to the p.g.a. request. A lesson -- don't harass people while making a movie I guess.

My understanding is that Sony supported Blake's involvement in editing. It does sound funky, as Baldoni didn't get his opportunity to edit that the DGA usually guarantees. But again -- if you want to be treated seriously as a director, don't pull all this weird crap on set to the point where multiple actresses are making complaints. Don't go springing nudity on actors at the last second or making comments about what is "normal" in childbirth or pushing a clearly uncomfortable costar to do physical intimacy they clearly don't want to do. Also, if it's true that he handled the Isabel Ferrer sex scene as alleged, that's way beyond the pale -- a new actress should NOT be pressured into something like climaxing on screen and the comment about them "practicing" before hand was not okay. Again, if true. Right now that's just an allegation but also Baldoni hasn't denied any of that and hasn't provided an alternative explanation for it.

Anyway, I think if he did that stuff then it makes sense Blake wanted more control over editing (since the movie featured a lot of intimate scenes with her and an actress who looks like her and she wanted to control how those scenes were handled) and it also makes sense that Sony would endorse it because Baldoni had shown himself to be unprofessional at that point.

He wasn't kicked off the promo tour, he did a bunch of promotion for the film and attended the premiere. She didn't want to have to stand next to him and take photos with him. Given his behavior, I get it. I also think if he'd just dealt with it and not tried to retaliate, it would have blown over for him. There are MANY examples of movies where costars or directors/stars did not get along and there are some awkward red carpets and interviews as a result, and those people are still working. I think he went nuclear about it because he was scared people would find out how he behaved on set. Which I get, because his behavior sucked. But her just refusing to do press with him was not as big of a deal as he's making it out to be.

Enough with the alternative facts. Blake requested his film by credit be taken away and he had to sign paperwork consenting to this because he was entitled to it. Blake demanded a pga credit “or the gloves are off” and WF kept a record with their lawyers that they were agreeing under duress. JB came up with the idea to do book bonanza and Blake kicked him off and took his place. As Director, he was entitled to a certain amount of time in the editing bay, which she encroached on. His cut also tested higher, not once but twice. These are provable facts.

On your other claims about young Lily and the birthing scene, Lively’s accounts (which is what they are, they aren’t facts) have been disputed by other witnesses. The man who played the doctor said she was lying about the birthing scene. And Isabella’s own words to Justin contradict Blake’s account.

You can keep twisting the truth but that’s why you’re in the minority here with your alternative facts.

Sony backed Blake in all those debates with Wayfarer. You will say it's because they wanted to work with RR. I think it's because Baldoni had screwed up with the set and Wayfarer hadn't handled it well and they felt their interests aligned with Blake more than Baldoni. So I don't have an issue with Blake playing hardball with the editing, his film by credit, or the promotion. I also don't care if his cut tested higher if it contained more gratuitous sex or skewed the movie to be more empathetic to his character. I find that distasteful even if an audience rated it higher.

Ferrer doesn't contradict Lively's account of her sex scene. Ferrer, on her very first movie, sent a glowing thank you to the director afterwards. To me that's not evidence of anything one way or another. I think Ferrer will almost certainly be deposed or testifying, so we'll see what she has to say. That's why I say "if true." Lively wasn't there the day that sex scene was filmed so the details in her complaint are second hand. But presumably they are second hand *from* Ferrer or someone else who was there. If they testify that's what happened, that's really damning IMO. We don't know yet how that will shake out.

I disagree the actor who played the doctor contradicts Lively's account of the birth scene. First, he has nothing to say about the conversation about what Lively would be wearing in the scene because he wasn't part of that conversation. No one has denied that Baldoni and Heath pressured Lively to do the scene nude the day of (in violation of SAG guidelines) or that Baldoni made comments about how it is not "normal" for a woman to give birth with a hospital gown on. And while there is a discrepancy over what exactly Lively was wearing, pretty much everyone agrees that she was wearing no more than a pair of briefs or underwear on the bottom. And you can see if you watch the scene that she was indeed "simulating partial nudity" as she contends, as her character is nude from the waist down in the scene (yes, I know that she was wearing a prosthetic belly, she didn't contend she wasn't, she said she was simulating partial nudity which is what she did). And Lively contends that she was not comfortable with what she ultimately wound up wearing but felt she had to agree to it to avoid film delays. The fact that the actor playing the doctor, who got to be fully dressed for that scene, thought it was all fine, is not actually very compelling to me.

None of this is "alternative facts." I have a different take on the situation. That's all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he SHed her and I think he and the others worked together to try and smear her name so that if she went public with allegations, people would be predisposed to distrust her.

And it worked.

I also think they are still doing it.

Why would he SH the star of his directorial debut and Ryan Reynolds wife? Post me too era. With cameras and witnesses all around? That doesn't make any sense.

PP here. I don't think Baldoni decided to SH Lively. I don't think it was intentional. I think he's weird and has boundary issues and didn't understand that the things he was doing were not okay. I also think that like a lot of actors/directors/celebs (including Blake Lively) that he has narcissistic tendencies and when Lively (and others) started to complain about his and Heath's behavior, they were not really capable of taking responsibility or changing course. I also think Wayfarer has a lot of insular group think because it's a mission-based org where most people belong to the same religious organization. I've worked in an environment like that and it can produce a lot of obliviousness to how other people experience or view their behavior.

But I still think he crossed lines and that the things he did would also have felt harassing to me if I were in Lively's position. I don't think it's the worst example of SH I've heard of -- it's on the mild side and I also think Lively was able to deal with it because she has support and leverage and that if it had just ended with the 17 point list and that Jan. 4 meeting, no one would be suing and everyone would have moved on.

But I think Wayfarer doubled down on their behavior by going after her with TAG last August, and this is what precipitated the lawsuit. I also think that while Baldoni's and Heath's onset behavior was harassing but not poorly intentioned, the retaliation campaign *was* very intentional and they knew exactly what they were doing -- they wanted to discredit Blake and destroy her reputation. It was vindictive.

I know a lot of y'all don't see it that way. That's fine. But it's how I see it.

You jump from 17 pt list to the alleged smear campaign (which may never be proven) completely overlooking everything that happened in between. You should’ve said had Blake left it at the 17 pt list and not taken away Baldoni’s film credit, extorted him for a pga credit, kicked him out of the editing bay, kicked him off the promo tour, had the cast unfollow him and tell the press “everybody hates Justin” he wouldn’t have needed to hire TAG. There, I fixed it for you.

I didn't forget any of that.

I do not believe Lively stole his film credit. He is the credited director on the film. He wanted a "film by" credit which I personally think is super vain -- a lot of filmmakers I greatly respect (like the Cohen brothers) don't even take that. I also think he was a really weak director who was super wishy washy and didn't have great control of the set, which makes him even more unworthy of it.

I don't think she "extorted" the p.g.a. credit, though I do agree she probably didn't deserve it. But it's a borderline issue and I get why she thinks she deserved it. I do think that the point of the 17 point list and all the changes she insisted on was because she believed this was necessary to make the set a safe place not just for her, but for everyone. I also think she had become concerned that Baldoni was going to make the sex in this film, which is not a romance and is about domestic violence, gratuitous, and that she believes the changes she requested and her involvement in the editing of the movie helped avoid that. So in her mind, I think she really felt like she fought for this movie and was instrumental in ensuring it was made responsibly. I don't know if that's really enough for a p.g.a. credit -- I think it's iffy. But I don't get mad about it because I don't view what she did as extortion. I think Baldoni and Wayfarer had put themselves in a terrible position by behaving badly on the set, and thus were over a barrel when it came to the p.g.a. request. A lesson -- don't harass people while making a movie I guess.

My understanding is that Sony supported Blake's involvement in editing. It does sound funky, as Baldoni didn't get his opportunity to edit that the DGA usually guarantees. But again -- if you want to be treated seriously as a director, don't pull all this weird crap on set to the point where multiple actresses are making complaints. Don't go springing nudity on actors at the last second or making comments about what is "normal" in childbirth or pushing a clearly uncomfortable costar to do physical intimacy they clearly don't want to do. Also, if it's true that he handled the Isabel Ferrer sex scene as alleged, that's way beyond the pale -- a new actress should NOT be pressured into something like climaxing on screen and the comment about them "practicing" before hand was not okay. Again, if true. Right now that's just an allegation but also Baldoni hasn't denied any of that and hasn't provided an alternative explanation for it.

Anyway, I think if he did that stuff then it makes sense Blake wanted more control over editing (since the movie featured a lot of intimate scenes with her and an actress who looks like her and she wanted to control how those scenes were handled) and it also makes sense that Sony would endorse it because Baldoni had shown himself to be unprofessional at that point.

He wasn't kicked off the promo tour, he did a bunch of promotion for the film and attended the premiere. She didn't want to have to stand next to him and take photos with him. Given his behavior, I get it. I also think if he'd just dealt with it and not tried to retaliate, it would have blown over for him. There are MANY examples of movies where costars or directors/stars did not get along and there are some awkward red carpets and interviews as a result, and those people are still working. I think he went nuclear about it because he was scared people would find out how he behaved on set. Which I get, because his behavior sucked. But her just refusing to do press with him was not as big of a deal as he's making it out to be.

Enough with the alternative facts. Blake requested his film by credit be taken away and he had to sign paperwork consenting to this because he was entitled to it. Blake demanded a pga credit “or the gloves are off” and WF kept a record with their lawyers that they were agreeing under duress. JB came up with the idea to do book bonanza and Blake kicked him off and took his place. As Director, he was entitled to a certain amount of time in the editing bay, which she encroached on. His cut also tested higher, not once but twice. These are provable facts.

On your other claims about young Lily and the birthing scene, Lively’s accounts (which is what they are, they aren’t facts) have been disputed by other witnesses. The man who played the doctor said she was lying about the birthing scene. And Isabella’s own words to Justin contradict Blake’s account.

You can keep twisting the truth but that’s why you’re in the minority here with your alternative facts.

Sony backed Blake in all those debates with Wayfarer. You will say it's because they wanted to work with RR. I think it's because Baldoni had screwed up with the set and Wayfarer hadn't handled it well and they felt their interests aligned with Blake more than Baldoni. So I don't have an issue with Blake playing hardball with the editing, his film by credit, or the promotion. I also don't care if his cut tested higher if it contained more gratuitous sex or skewed the movie to be more empathetic to his character. I find that distasteful even if an audience rated it higher.

Ferrer doesn't contradict Lively's account of her sex scene. Ferrer, on her very first movie, sent a glowing thank you to the director afterwards. To me that's not evidence of anything one way or another. I think Ferrer will almost certainly be deposed or testifying, so we'll see what she has to say. That's why I say "if true." Lively wasn't there the day that sex scene was filmed so the details in her complaint are second hand. But presumably they are second hand *from* Ferrer or someone else who was there. If they testify that's what happened, that's really damning IMO. We don't know yet how that will shake out.

I disagree the actor who played the doctor contradicts Lively's account of the birth scene. First, he has nothing to say about the conversation about what Lively would be wearing in the scene because he wasn't part of that conversation. No one has denied that Baldoni and Heath pressured Lively to do the scene nude the day of (in violation of SAG guidelines) or that Baldoni made comments about how it is not "normal" for a woman to give birth with a hospital gown on. And while there is a discrepancy over what exactly Lively was wearing, pretty much everyone agrees that she was wearing no more than a pair of briefs or underwear on the bottom. And you can see if you watch the scene that she was indeed "simulating partial nudity" as she contends, as her character is nude from the waist down in the scene (yes, I know that she was wearing a prosthetic belly, she didn't contend she wasn't, she said she was simulating partial nudity which is what she did). And Lively contends that she was not comfortable with what she ultimately wound up wearing but felt she had to agree to it to avoid film delays. The fact that the actor playing the doctor, who got to be fully dressed for that scene, thought it was all fine, is not actually very compelling to me.

None of this is "alternative facts." I have a different take on the situation. That's all.

It’s well documented that Sony backed Blake because of power dynamics and not because Baldoni had screwed up. Let’s not forget the emails they sent to Justin saying “we all feel this pain”. It’s pretty crappy that Blake had and continues to have all the power but never stops playing the victim.

[Anonymous]

Could we stick to new developments and not argue the same things day after day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he SHed her and I think he and the others worked together to try and smear her name so that if she went public with allegations, people would be predisposed to distrust her.

And it worked.

I also think they are still doing it.

Why would he SH the star of his directorial debut and Ryan Reynolds wife? Post me too era. With cameras and witnesses all around? That doesn't make any sense.

PP here. I don't think Baldoni decided to SH Lively. I don't think it was intentional. I think he's weird and has boundary issues and didn't understand that the things he was doing were not okay. I also think that like a lot of actors/directors/celebs (including Blake Lively) that he has narcissistic tendencies and when Lively (and others) started to complain about his and Heath's behavior, they were not really capable of taking responsibility or changing course. I also think Wayfarer has a lot of insular group think because it's a mission-based org where most people belong to the same religious organization. I've worked in an environment like that and it can produce a lot of obliviousness to how other people experience or view their behavior.

But I still think he crossed lines and that the things he did would also have felt harassing to me if I were in Lively's position. I don't think it's the worst example of SH I've heard of -- it's on the mild side and I also think Lively was able to deal with it because she has support and leverage and that if it had just ended with the 17 point list and that Jan. 4 meeting, no one would be suing and everyone would have moved on.

But I think Wayfarer doubled down on their behavior by going after her with TAG last August, and this is what precipitated the lawsuit. I also think that while Baldoni's and Heath's onset behavior was harassing but not poorly intentioned, the retaliation campaign *was* very intentional and they knew exactly what they were doing -- they wanted to discredit Blake and destroy her reputation. It was vindictive.

I know a lot of y'all don't see it that way. That's fine. But it's how I see it.

You jump from 17 pt list to the alleged smear campaign (which may never be proven) completely overlooking everything that happened in between. You should’ve said had Blake left it at the 17 pt list and not taken away Baldoni’s film credit, extorted him for a pga credit, kicked him out of the editing bay, kicked him off the promo tour, had the cast unfollow him and tell the press “everybody hates Justin” he wouldn’t have needed to hire TAG. There, I fixed it for you.

I didn't forget any of that.

I do not believe Lively stole his film credit. He is the credited director on the film. He wanted a "film by" credit which I personally think is super vain -- a lot of filmmakers I greatly respect (like the Cohen brothers) don't even take that. I also think he was a really weak director who was super wishy washy and didn't have great control of the set, which makes him even more unworthy of it.

I don't think she "extorted" the p.g.a. credit, though I do agree she probably didn't deserve it. But it's a borderline issue and I get why she thinks she deserved it. I do think that the point of the 17 point list and all the changes she insisted on was because she believed this was necessary to make the set a safe place not just for her, but for everyone. I also think she had become concerned that Baldoni was going to make the sex in this film, which is not a romance and is about domestic violence, gratuitous, and that she believes the changes she requested and her involvement in the editing of the movie helped avoid that. So in her mind, I think she really felt like she fought for this movie and was instrumental in ensuring it was made responsibly. I don't know if that's really enough for a p.g.a. credit -- I think it's iffy. But I don't get mad about it because I don't view what she did as extortion. I think Baldoni and Wayfarer had put themselves in a terrible position by behaving badly on the set, and thus were over a barrel when it came to the p.g.a. request. A lesson -- don't harass people while making a movie I guess.

My understanding is that Sony supported Blake's involvement in editing. It does sound funky, as Baldoni didn't get his opportunity to edit that the DGA usually guarantees. But again -- if you want to be treated seriously as a director, don't pull all this weird crap on set to the point where multiple actresses are making complaints. Don't go springing nudity on actors at the last second or making comments about what is "normal" in childbirth or pushing a clearly uncomfortable costar to do physical intimacy they clearly don't want to do. Also, if it's true that he handled the Isabel Ferrer sex scene as alleged, that's way beyond the pale -- a new actress should NOT be pressured into something like climaxing on screen and the comment about them "practicing" before hand was not okay. Again, if true. Right now that's just an allegation but also Baldoni hasn't denied any of that and hasn't provided an alternative explanation for it.

Anyway, I think if he did that stuff then it makes sense Blake wanted more control over editing (since the movie featured a lot of intimate scenes with her and an actress who looks like her and she wanted to control how those scenes were handled) and it also makes sense that Sony would endorse it because Baldoni had shown himself to be unprofessional at that point.

He wasn't kicked off the promo tour, he did a bunch of promotion for the film and attended the premiere. She didn't want to have to stand next to him and take photos with him. Given his behavior, I get it. I also think if he'd just dealt with it and not tried to retaliate, it would have blown over for him. There are MANY examples of movies where costars or directors/stars did not get along and there are some awkward red carpets and interviews as a result, and those people are still working. I think he went nuclear about it because he was scared people would find out how he behaved on set. Which I get, because his behavior sucked. But her just refusing to do press with him was not as big of a deal as he's making it out to be.

Enough with the alternative facts. Blake requested his film by credit be taken away and he had to sign paperwork consenting to this because he was entitled to it. Blake demanded a pga credit “or the gloves are off” and WF kept a record with their lawyers that they were agreeing under duress. JB came up with the idea to do book bonanza and Blake kicked him off and took his place. As Director, he was entitled to a certain amount of time in the editing bay, which she encroached on. His cut also tested higher, not once but twice. These are provable facts.

On your other claims about young Lily and the birthing scene, Lively’s accounts (which is what they are, they aren’t facts) have been disputed by other witnesses. The man who played the doctor said she was lying about the birthing scene. And Isabella’s own words to Justin contradict Blake’s account.

You can keep twisting the truth but that’s why you’re in the minority here with your alternative facts.

Sony backed Blake in all those debates with Wayfarer. You will say it's because they wanted to work with RR. I think it's because Baldoni had screwed up with the set and Wayfarer hadn't handled it well and they felt their interests aligned with Blake more than Baldoni. So I don't have an issue with Blake playing hardball with the editing, his film by credit, or the promotion. I also don't care if his cut tested higher if it contained more gratuitous sex or skewed the movie to be more empathetic to his character. I find that distasteful even if an audience rated it higher.

Ferrer doesn't contradict Lively's account of her sex scene. Ferrer, on her very first movie, sent a glowing thank you to the director afterwards. To me that's not evidence of anything one way or another. I think Ferrer will almost certainly be deposed or testifying, so we'll see what she has to say. That's why I say "if true." Lively wasn't there the day that sex scene was filmed so the details in her complaint are second hand. But presumably they are second hand *from* Ferrer or someone else who was there. If they testify that's what happened, that's really damning IMO. We don't know yet how that will shake out.

I disagree the actor who played the doctor contradicts Lively's account of the birth scene. First, he has nothing to say about the conversation about what Lively would be wearing in the scene because he wasn't part of that conversation. No one has denied that Baldoni and Heath pressured Lively to do the scene nude the day of (in violation of SAG guidelines) or that Baldoni made comments about how it is not "normal" for a woman to give birth with a hospital gown on. And while there is a discrepancy over what exactly Lively was wearing, pretty much everyone agrees that she was wearing no more than a pair of briefs or underwear on the bottom. And you can see if you watch the scene that she was indeed "simulating partial nudity" as she contends, as her character is nude from the waist down in the scene (yes, I know that she was wearing a prosthetic belly, she didn't contend she wasn't, she said she was simulating partial nudity which is what she did). And Lively contends that she was not comfortable with what she ultimately wound up wearing but felt she had to agree to it to avoid film delays. The fact that the actor playing the doctor, who got to be fully dressed for that scene, thought it was all fine, is not actually very compelling to me.

None of this is "alternative facts." I have a different take on the situation. That's all.

It’s well documented that Sony backed Blake because of power dynamics and not because Baldoni had screwed up. Let’s not forget the emails they sent to Justin saying “we all feel this pain”. It’s pretty crappy that Blake had and continues to have all the power but never stops playing the victim.

DP. Exactly. The victimhood and twisting of facts is close to pathological at this point. The woman ran to the NYT and tried to wreck the lives of multiple people (and may have tanked a journalists career as well), and her supporters/shills want people to feel sorry for her because people are criticizing her outfit on a pap walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he SHed her and I think he and the others worked together to try and smear her name so that if she went public with allegations, people would be predisposed to distrust her.

And it worked.

I also think they are still doing it.

Why would he SH the star of his directorial debut and Ryan Reynolds wife? Post me too era. With cameras and witnesses all around? That doesn't make any sense.

PP here. I don't think Baldoni decided to SH Lively. I don't think it was intentional. I think he's weird and has boundary issues and didn't understand that the things he was doing were not okay. I also think that like a lot of actors/directors/celebs (including Blake Lively) that he has narcissistic tendencies and when Lively (and others) started to complain about his and Heath's behavior, they were not really capable of taking responsibility or changing course. I also think Wayfarer has a lot of insular group think because it's a mission-based org where most people belong to the same religious organization. I've worked in an environment like that and it can produce a lot of obliviousness to how other people experience or view their behavior.

But I still think he crossed lines and that the things he did would also have felt harassing to me if I were in Lively's position. I don't think it's the worst example of SH I've heard of -- it's on the mild side and I also think Lively was able to deal with it because she has support and leverage and that if it had just ended with the 17 point list and that Jan. 4 meeting, no one would be suing and everyone would have moved on.

But I think Wayfarer doubled down on their behavior by going after her with TAG last August, and this is what precipitated the lawsuit. I also think that while Baldoni's and Heath's onset behavior was harassing but not poorly intentioned, the retaliation campaign *was* very intentional and they knew exactly what they were doing -- they wanted to discredit Blake and destroy her reputation. It was vindictive.

I know a lot of y'all don't see it that way. That's fine. But it's how I see it.

You jump from 17 pt list to the alleged smear campaign (which may never be proven) completely overlooking everything that happened in between. You should’ve said had Blake left it at the 17 pt list and not taken away Baldoni’s film credit, extorted him for a pga credit, kicked him out of the editing bay, kicked him off the promo tour, had the cast unfollow him and tell the press “everybody hates Justin” he wouldn’t have needed to hire TAG. There, I fixed it for you.

I didn't forget any of that.

I do not believe Lively stole his film credit. He is the credited director on the film. He wanted a "film by" credit which I personally think is super vain -- a lot of filmmakers I greatly respect (like the Cohen brothers) don't even take that. I also think he was a really weak director who was super wishy washy and didn't have great control of the set, which makes him even more unworthy of it.

I don't think she "extorted" the p.g.a. credit, though I do agree she probably didn't deserve it. But it's a borderline issue and I get why she thinks she deserved it. I do think that the point of the 17 point list and all the changes she insisted on was because she believed this was necessary to make the set a safe place not just for her, but for everyone. I also think she had become concerned that Baldoni was going to make the sex in this film, which is not a romance and is about domestic violence, gratuitous, and that she believes the changes she requested and her involvement in the editing of the movie helped avoid that. So in her mind, I think she really felt like she fought for this movie and was instrumental in ensuring it was made responsibly. I don't know if that's really enough for a p.g.a. credit -- I think it's iffy. But I don't get mad about it because I don't view what she did as extortion. I think Baldoni and Wayfarer had put themselves in a terrible position by behaving badly on the set, and thus were over a barrel when it came to the p.g.a. request. A lesson -- don't harass people while making a movie I guess.

My understanding is that Sony supported Blake's involvement in editing. It does sound funky, as Baldoni didn't get his opportunity to edit that the DGA usually guarantees. But again -- if you want to be treated seriously as a director, don't pull all this weird crap on set to the point where multiple actresses are making complaints. Don't go springing nudity on actors at the last second or making comments about what is "normal" in childbirth or pushing a clearly uncomfortable costar to do physical intimacy they clearly don't want to do. Also, if it's true that he handled the Isabel Ferrer sex scene as alleged, that's way beyond the pale -- a new actress should NOT be pressured into something like climaxing on screen and the comment about them "practicing" before hand was not okay. Again, if true. Right now that's just an allegation but also Baldoni hasn't denied any of that and hasn't provided an alternative explanation for it.

Anyway, I think if he did that stuff then it makes sense Blake wanted more control over editing (since the movie featured a lot of intimate scenes with her and an actress who looks like her and she wanted to control how those scenes were handled) and it also makes sense that Sony would endorse it because Baldoni had shown himself to be unprofessional at that point.

He wasn't kicked off the promo tour, he did a bunch of promotion for the film and attended the premiere. She didn't want to have to stand next to him and take photos with him. Given his behavior, I get it. I also think if he'd just dealt with it and not tried to retaliate, it would have blown over for him. There are MANY examples of movies where costars or directors/stars did not get along and there are some awkward red carpets and interviews as a result, and those people are still working. I think he went nuclear about it because he was scared people would find out how he behaved on set. Which I get, because his behavior sucked. But her just refusing to do press with him was not as big of a deal as he's making it out to be.

Enough with the alternative facts. Blake requested his film by credit be taken away and he had to sign paperwork consenting to this because he was entitled to it. Blake demanded a pga credit “or the gloves are off” and WF kept a record with their lawyers that they were agreeing under duress. JB came up with the idea to do book bonanza and Blake kicked him off and took his place. As Director, he was entitled to a certain amount of time in the editing bay, which she encroached on. His cut also tested higher, not once but twice. These are provable facts.

On your other claims about young Lily and the birthing scene, Lively’s accounts (which is what they are, they aren’t facts) have been disputed by other witnesses. The man who played the doctor said she was lying about the birthing scene. And Isabella’s own words to Justin contradict Blake’s account.

You can keep twisting the truth but that’s why you’re in the minority here with your alternative facts.

Sony backed Blake in all those debates with Wayfarer. You will say it's because they wanted to work with RR. I think it's because Baldoni had screwed up with the set and Wayfarer hadn't handled it well and they felt their interests aligned with Blake more than Baldoni. So I don't have an issue with Blake playing hardball with the editing, his film by credit, or the promotion. I also don't care if his cut tested higher if it contained more gratuitous sex or skewed the movie to be more empathetic to his character. I find that distasteful even if an audience rated it higher.

Ferrer doesn't contradict Lively's account of her sex scene. Ferrer, on her very first movie, sent a glowing thank you to the director afterwards. To me that's not evidence of anything one way or another. I think Ferrer will almost certainly be deposed or testifying, so we'll see what she has to say. That's why I say "if true." Lively wasn't there the day that sex scene was filmed so the details in her complaint are second hand. But presumably they are second hand *from* Ferrer or someone else who was there. If they testify that's what happened, that's really damning IMO. We don't know yet how that will shake out.

I disagree the actor who played the doctor contradicts Lively's account of the birth scene. First, he has nothing to say about the conversation about what Lively would be wearing in the scene because he wasn't part of that conversation. No one has denied that Baldoni and Heath pressured Lively to do the scene nude the day of (in violation of SAG guidelines) or that Baldoni made comments about how it is not "normal" for a woman to give birth with a hospital gown on. And while there is a discrepancy over what exactly Lively was wearing, pretty much everyone agrees that she was wearing no more than a pair of briefs or underwear on the bottom. And you can see if you watch the scene that she was indeed "simulating partial nudity" as she contends, as her character is nude from the waist down in the scene (yes, I know that she was wearing a prosthetic belly, she didn't contend she wasn't, she said she was simulating partial nudity which is what she did). And Lively contends that she was not comfortable with what she ultimately wound up wearing but felt she had to agree to it to avoid film delays. The fact that the actor playing the doctor, who got to be fully dressed for that scene, thought it was all fine, is not actually very compelling to me.

None of this is "alternative facts." I have a different take on the situation. That's all.

It’s well documented that Sony backed Blake because of power dynamics and not because Baldoni had screwed up. Let’s not forget the emails they sent to Justin saying “we all feel this pain”. It’s pretty crappy that Blake had and continues to have all the power but never stops playing the victim.

DP. Exactly. The victimhood and twisting of facts is close to pathological at this point. The woman ran to the NYT and tried to wreck the lives of multiple people (and may have tanked a journalists career as well), and her supporters/shills want people to feel sorry for her because people are criticizing her outfit on a pap walk.

I'm the one who pointed out the hypocrisy of Baldoni supporters who criticized her totally benign outfit, and I don't think people should feel sorry for her.

I just also don't feel sorry for Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Ok here’s some breaking news. Stephanie Jones asked the judge if they could reply to BF’s response to their motion to quash the Edgewood subpoena, in which BF asserts the crime fraud exception. Get this, Liman apparently said sure but you only have until midnight tonight. He sounds mad if you ask me. Buckle up kids, it’s getting spicy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok here’s some breaking news. Stephanie Jones asked the judge if they could reply to BF’s response to their motion to quash the Edgewood subpoena, in which BF asserts the crime fraud exception. Get this, Liman apparently said sure but you only have until midnight tonight. He sounds mad if you ask me. Buckle up kids, it’s getting spicy.

That's wild. I wonder what time he posted it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok here’s some breaking news. Stephanie Jones asked the judge if they could reply to BF’s response to their motion to quash the Edgewood subpoena, in which BF asserts the crime fraud exception. Get this, Liman apparently said sure but you only have until midnight tonight. He sounds mad if you ask me. Buckle up kids, it’s getting spicy.

That's wild. I wonder what time he posted it.

Not sure. Not Actually Golden posted a tik tok.

[Anonymous]

Can any federal litigators explain what the guidelines normally are for how much time the parties get to respond to these letter motions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can any federal litigators explain what the guidelines normally are for how much time the parties get to respond to these letter motions?

Not a litigator, but technically they didn’t have the right to respond that’s why they had to ask the judge if they could. Jones filed the motion to quash. WF responded. Jones is now asking to respond to their response.

[Anonymous]

The underlying issue in the request to respond is that Jones' lawyers are saying Wayfarer "ambushed" them with the crime-fraud argument, which they say should have been raised in the meet and conference prior to the motion to quash.

Jones also argued that the crime-fraud argument has no merit and was added for PR reasons and not for legal reasons.

I personally have no idea how any of this works so I don't know who is right. It seems a bit passive,-aggressive for Liman to say "yeah you can respond but you have to do it today." On the other hand he has repeatedly refused to grant extensions or only granted very short ones, so maybe his deal is just that he is stingy with time.

[Anonymous]

Wayfarer responded to BL’s motion to compel documents on their assets and tax returns. They basically said lively doesn’t need their tax returns or net worth to calculate damages, that business losses could be ascertained from less invasive means, and that the motion was premature and was filed for media headlines. They also said that while lively files motions to compel them for documents, she’s given them zero.