Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sean Baker, who won Best Director this year, simulated sex with his wife to give Mikey Madison an idea of how he wanted scenes to look like in "Anora."

Film is a visual medium that can require some unusual behind the scenes methods to achieve the intended result, and Heath showing Blake one-second of that video is just so minor.

I know the pro-Lively people will say, "Well, the difference is that Mikey consented." But even the mere suggestion of certain things or the mere asking of questions was enough for Blake to include these instances in her complaint.

That's revolting, sorry.

But yeah, consent is relevant. Also relevant is the fact that Heath showed Lively the video AFTER they had already shot the birth scene. It was not shown to her as an instruction for how they wanted the scene to look. If that's what they wanted to do, they could have suggested it and made sure she was cool with it (just as I sure hope Sean Baker presumably did with Madison) before the scene was shot.

Also, I just want to add that it's insane to me that they wanted to use Heath's wife's birth experience and video as a model for how the birth scene looked. To be clear, this was a movie about a woman who has a kid with a guy who is physically and emotionally abusing her, and it is the birth of her daughter that makes her realize she cannot stay with him and needs to leave (the phrase "it ends with us" refers to the character's pledge to her baby). It's just really weird that they felt that was appropriate inspiration for the movie.

After seeing the video and not just the image, I think I get what Baldoni was trying to convey. In the water birth where Heath is cradling his wife, it’s such a tender and emotional moment. I think Baldoni wanted to show the complexity of the love between Ryle and Lily, which is true of most DV situations in real life. Instead we end up with a scene in which Ryle is just holding lily’s hand. The closeness and emotion is not as palpable. Honestly Blake is just not that great of an artist and there are no Oscars in her future, especially if she can’t even have a creative discussion without accusing someone of harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

I thought people would be interested, because I was interested. And I didn't "try" to connect him to Weinstein. I discovered the connection and shared it. It's just true. Look up Ken Sunshine on wikipedia. He used to rep Harvey. It is what it is.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

True.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing remotely creepy about the video. It’s a BIRTH VIDEO and Blake was shown it as” part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film.” Heath’s wife posted the video on her IG on Mother’s Day. It is not porn. Stop grabbing at straws.

Incorrect. By Baldoni's own admission, the video was shown the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed.

No one said it was porn. It was still inappropriate and harassing.

It's not sexual harassment nor general harassment when Lively reportedly requested to see it per Baldoni's testimony. You're grasping at straws.

Ok, so Baldoni has not given testimony yet.

Baldoni's timeline (in his Exhibit A, which is irregular and should be struck but whatever) says that Baldoni believed Lively "presumably" would like to see the video. This presumption was clearly wrong given that when Heath tried to show it to her, she immediately stopped him and asked if his wife even knew he was sharing it with people.

And yes, showing someone unwanted videos could be part of a harassment campaign at work. Especially videos of a "deeply personal" nature (Heath's words, not mine).

Your boss says “ Hey, underlying, I would like you and the team to see this great video of the new sales process that I would like you and the team to take notes on. This is what we’re looking for on the project.”

And you would say”my boss harassed me. He wanted me and the team to watch this video that I thought was absurd and totally inappropriate just because. I want to file a harassment complaint. How dare he!”

That’s akin to what you are saying.

Blake never, ever ever was a victim, except in her own twisted mind

1) No one, including Baldoni or Heath, has asserted that Heath told Lively that the video was intended to show her what they were going for in the birth scene. They both described he interaction as starting with Heath showing the video. Also, if Heath had said, "Hey Blake, I want you to look at this video of my wife's birth experience for you to take notes on. This is what we are looking for on the birth scene," I think Lively would have said "We filmed that yesterday, and no I do not want to look at this video, thank you."

2) If the video in question was of my boss's wife giving birth, I would absolutely think it was "absurd" and "totally inappropriate." What world do you live in that people show videos of their wives' nude water births at work? My mom was a nurse and midwife and even she would find that weird unless they asked for specific consent to show that because it is personal. Deeply personal, as Heath described it.

Don't show "deeply personal" videos to colleagues at work without explaining what it is, how it's relevant to your job, and getting their consent first. I didn't think people needed to be told that but apparently they do. Maybe this case will help HR managers revise their training materials to include birth videos.

Stop comparing film sets with office jobs.

It was the PP who did that, not me.

Though some things area actually universal to all workplaces, and "don't show your wife's birth video to a colleague without explaining what it is and getting consent first" is one of them.

Unless one is filming a birth scene and try to provide direction to said colleague.

Which wasn’t the case here, since filming of the birth scene has already been completed.

And they never reshoot scenes in Hollywood? Stupid point.

They have never said they wanted to reshoot it.

And if they *did* want to reshoot it, why the heck was Lively pressured to do the scene nude on the say of. If they could reshoot, they also could have postponed, so there would have been no need to force the issue of nudity that day. They could have said we'll film it in a couple weeks and in the meantime we'll discuss our vision and you can see this video Heath has and we'll all get on the same page.

The birth scene was done. Baldoni didn't tell Lively in advance he wanted her nude and they certainly didn't give her Heath's video as "research." They just showed it to her later because they knew she was bothered by them trying to force her to do nudity and they wanted to "prove" that it was "normal" for all women to give birth naked.*


*I mean Natasha Heath was doing a home water birth surrounded by like a midwife and family and friends so that's why she was naked and why her birth looked like that, and Lively's character was giving birth in a hospital with a physician and she's alone until her abusive husband who is also a medical doctor shows up. So it's actually kind of a totally different situation and it would frankly be weird for a woman to be totally nude in a hospital birth where she has no one there to support her and she's in the midst of this personal crisis where she's realized she's in an abusive relationship but her abuser is the father of her baby and she's feeling conflicted because she wants to leave him but also now she's connected to him forever via this baby. It kind of seems like to me that someone in the character's situation would do the opposite of what Natasha Heath did. She'd want to cover up and she'd feel vulnerable and exposed in that moment and not like free and supported. But what do I know, I'm just a woman who has given birth before, and in the target demographic for this movie they were making. My opinion about childbirth doesn't matter -- if Justin Baldoni says that all women are nude when they give birth, and Jaime Heath says that it's weird to not want to look at some stranger's home water birth video, then I guess that's just the way it is. Thanks for mansplaining it fellas -- you sure are Man Enough (tm) to tell women how to feel about their own experiences and bodies!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sean Baker, who won Best Director this year, simulated sex with his wife to give Mikey Madison an idea of how he wanted scenes to look like in "Anora."

Film is a visual medium that can require some unusual behind the scenes methods to achieve the intended result, and Heath showing Blake one-second of that video is just so minor.

I know the pro-Lively people will say, "Well, the difference is that Mikey consented." But even the mere suggestion of certain things or the mere asking of questions was enough for Blake to include these instances in her complaint.

That's revolting, sorry.

But yeah, consent is relevant. Also relevant is the fact that Heath showed Lively the video AFTER they had already shot the birth scene. It was not shown to her as an instruction for how they wanted the scene to look. If that's what they wanted to do, they could have suggested it and made sure she was cool with it (just as I sure hope Sean Baker presumably did with Madison) before the scene was shot.

Also, I just want to add that it's insane to me that they wanted to use Heath's wife's birth experience and video as a model for how the birth scene looked. To be clear, this was a movie about a woman who has a kid with a guy who is physically and emotionally abusing her, and it is the birth of her daughter that makes her realize she cannot stay with him and needs to leave (the phrase "it ends with us" refers to the character's pledge to her baby). It's just really weird that they felt that was appropriate inspiration for the movie.

After seeing the video and not just the image, I think I get what Baldoni was trying to convey. In the water birth where Heath is cradling his wife, it’s such a tender and emotional moment. I think Baldoni wanted to show the complexity of the love between Ryle and Lily, which is true of most DV situations in real life. Instead we end up with a scene in which Ryle is just holding lily’s hand. The closeness and emotion is not as palpable. Honestly Blake is just not that great of an artist and there are no Oscars in her future, especially if she can’t even have a creative discussion without accusing someone of harassment.

I agree, I thought it was beautiful,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

I thought people would be interested, because I was interested. And I didn't "try" to connect him to Weinstein. I discovered the connection and shared it. It's just true. Look up Ken Sunshine on wikipedia. He used to rep Harvey. It is what it is.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

As creepy and weird as showing someone your wife's nude birth video at work with no warning. Or less creepy and weird than that. I would like some kind of benchmarking here because I'm guessing the people who think it's weird to look up the publicly available info of people involved in a very public piece of litigation are also the people who think it's totally normal to show video of your wife nude and giving birth at work.

[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:There is nothing remotely creepy about the video. It’s a BIRTH VIDEO and Blake was shown it as” part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film.” Heath’s wife posted the video on her IG on Mother’s Day. It is not porn. Stop grabbing at straws.

Incorrect. By Baldoni's own admission, the video was shown the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed.

No one said it was porn. It was still inappropriate and harassing.

It's not sexual harassment nor general harassment when Lively reportedly requested to see it per Baldoni's testimony. You're grasping at straws.

Ok, so Baldoni has not given testimony yet.

Baldoni's timeline (in his Exhibit A, which is irregular and should be struck but whatever) says that Baldoni believed Lively "presumably" would like to see the video. This presumption was clearly wrong given that when Heath tried to show it to her, she immediately stopped him and asked if his wife even knew he was sharing it with people.

And yes, showing someone unwanted videos could be part of a harassment campaign at work. Especially videos of a "deeply personal" nature (Heath's words, not mine).

Your boss says “ Hey, underlying, I would like you and the team to see this great video of the new sales process that I would like you and the team to take notes on. This is what we’re looking for on the project.”

And you would say”my boss harassed me. He wanted me and the team to watch this video that I thought was absurd and totally inappropriate just because. I want to file a harassment complaint. How dare he!”

That’s akin to what you are saying.

Blake never, ever ever was a victim, except in her own twisted mind

1) No one, including Baldoni or Heath, has asserted that Heath told Lively that the video was intended to show her what they were going for in the birth scene. They both described he interaction as starting with Heath showing the video. Also, if Heath had said, "Hey Blake, I want you to look at this video of my wife's birth experience for you to take notes on. This is what we are looking for on the birth scene," I think Lively would have said "We filmed that yesterday, and no I do not want to look at this video, thank you."

2) If the video in question was of my boss's wife giving birth, I would absolutely think it was "absurd" and "totally inappropriate." What world do you live in that people show videos of their wives' nude water births at work? My mom was a nurse and midwife and even she would find that weird unless they asked for specific consent to show that because it is personal. Deeply personal, as Heath described it.

Don't show "deeply personal" videos to colleagues at work without explaining what it is, how it's relevant to your job, and getting their consent first. I didn't think people needed to be told that but apparently they do. Maybe this case will help HR managers revise their training materials to include birth videos.

Stop comparing film sets with office jobs.

It was the PP who did that, not me.

Though some things area actually universal to all workplaces, and "don't show your wife's birth video to a colleague without explaining what it is and getting consent first" is one of them.

Unless one is filming a birth scene and try to provide direction to said colleague.

Which wasn’t the case here, since filming of the birth scene has already been completed.

And they never reshoot scenes in Hollywood? Stupid point.

They have never said they wanted to reshoot it.

And if they *did* want to reshoot it, why the heck was Lively pressured to do the scene nude on the say of. If they could reshoot, they also could have postponed, so there would have been no need to force the issue of nudity that day. They could have said we'll film it in a couple weeks and in the meantime we'll discuss our vision and you can see this video Heath has and we'll all get on the same page.

The birth scene was done. Baldoni didn't tell Lively in advance he wanted her nude and they certainly didn't give her Heath's video as "research." They just showed it to her later because they knew she was bothered by them trying to force her to do nudity and they wanted to "prove" that it was "normal" for all women to give birth naked.*


*I mean Natasha Heath was doing a home water birth surrounded by like a midwife and family and friends so that's why she was naked and why her birth looked like that, and Lively's character was giving birth in a hospital with a physician and she's alone until her abusive husband who is also a medical doctor shows up. So it's actually kind of a totally different situation and it would frankly be weird for a woman to be totally nude in a hospital birth where she has no one there to support her and she's in the midst of this personal crisis where she's realized she's in an abusive relationship but her abuser is the father of her baby and she's feeling conflicted because she wants to leave him but also now she's connected to him forever via this baby. It kind of seems like to me that someone in the character's situation would do the opposite of what Natasha Heath did. She'd want to cover up and she'd feel vulnerable and exposed in that moment and not like free and supported. But what do I know, I'm just a woman who has given birth before, and in the target demographic for this movie they were making. My opinion about childbirth doesn't matter -- if Justin Baldoni says that all women are nude when they give birth, and Jaime Heath says that it's weird to not want to look at some stranger's home water birth video, then I guess that's just the way it is. Thanks for mansplaining it fellas -- you sure are Man Enough (tm) to tell women how to feel about their own experiences and bodies!

Once again, she was not nude. We have witnesses and footage corroborating that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

I thought people would be interested, because I was interested. And I didn't "try" to connect him to Weinstein. I discovered the connection and shared it. It's just true. Look up Ken Sunshine on wikipedia. He used to rep Harvey. It is what it is.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

As creepy and weird as showing someone your wife's nude birth video at work with no warning. Or less creepy and weird than that. I would like some kind of benchmarking here because I'm guessing the people who think it's weird to look up the publicly available info of people involved in a very public piece of litigation are also the people who think it's totally normal to show video of your wife nude and giving birth at work.

Yes, directors and actors looking at films of births in the context of filming a birth scene, normal. Posting about the work history of family members of the lawyers in the case on public forums, creepy. Next question?

[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:There is nothing remotely creepy about the video. It’s a BIRTH VIDEO and Blake was shown it as” part of a creative discussion in preparation for a birthing scene in the Film.” Heath’s wife posted the video on her IG on Mother’s Day. It is not porn. Stop grabbing at straws.

Incorrect. By Baldoni's own admission, the video was shown the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed.

No one said it was porn. It was still inappropriate and harassing.

It's not sexual harassment nor general harassment when Lively reportedly requested to see it per Baldoni's testimony. You're grasping at straws.

Ok, so Baldoni has not given testimony yet.

Baldoni's timeline (in his Exhibit A, which is irregular and should be struck but whatever) says that Baldoni believed Lively "presumably" would like to see the video. This presumption was clearly wrong given that when Heath tried to show it to her, she immediately stopped him and asked if his wife even knew he was sharing it with people.

And yes, showing someone unwanted videos could be part of a harassment campaign at work. Especially videos of a "deeply personal" nature (Heath's words, not mine).

Your boss says “ Hey, underlying, I would like you and the team to see this great video of the new sales process that I would like you and the team to take notes on. This is what we’re looking for on the project.”

And you would say”my boss harassed me. He wanted me and the team to watch this video that I thought was absurd and totally inappropriate just because. I want to file a harassment complaint. How dare he!”

That’s akin to what you are saying.

Blake never, ever ever was a victim, except in her own twisted mind

1) No one, including Baldoni or Heath, has asserted that Heath told Lively that the video was intended to show her what they were going for in the birth scene. They both described he interaction as starting with Heath showing the video. Also, if Heath had said, "Hey Blake, I want you to look at this video of my wife's birth experience for you to take notes on. This is what we are looking for on the birth scene," I think Lively would have said "We filmed that yesterday, and no I do not want to look at this video, thank you."

2) If the video in question was of my boss's wife giving birth, I would absolutely think it was "absurd" and "totally inappropriate." What world do you live in that people show videos of their wives' nude water births at work? My mom was a nurse and midwife and even she would find that weird unless they asked for specific consent to show that because it is personal. Deeply personal, as Heath described it.

Don't show "deeply personal" videos to colleagues at work without explaining what it is, how it's relevant to your job, and getting their consent first. I didn't think people needed to be told that but apparently they do. Maybe this case will help HR managers revise their training materials to include birth videos.

Stop comparing film sets with office jobs.

It was the PP who did that, not me.

Though some things area actually universal to all workplaces, and "don't show your wife's birth video to a colleague without explaining what it is and getting consent first" is one of them.

Unless one is filming a birth scene and try to provide direction to said colleague.

Which wasn’t the case here, since filming of the birth scene has already been completed.

And they never reshoot scenes in Hollywood? Stupid point.

They have never said they wanted to reshoot it.

And if they *did* want to reshoot it, why the heck was Lively pressured to do the scene nude on the say of. If they could reshoot, they also could have postponed, so there would have been no need to force the issue of nudity that day. They could have said we'll film it in a couple weeks and in the meantime we'll discuss our vision and you can see this video Heath has and we'll all get on the same page.

The birth scene was done. Baldoni didn't tell Lively in advance he wanted her nude and they certainly didn't give her Heath's video as "research." They just showed it to her later because they knew she was bothered by them trying to force her to do nudity and they wanted to "prove" that it was "normal" for all women to give birth naked.*


*I mean Natasha Heath was doing a home water birth surrounded by like a midwife and family and friends so that's why she was naked and why her birth looked like that, and Lively's character was giving birth in a hospital with a physician and she's alone until her abusive husband who is also a medical doctor shows up. So it's actually kind of a totally different situation and it would frankly be weird for a woman to be totally nude in a hospital birth where she has no one there to support her and she's in the midst of this personal crisis where she's realized she's in an abusive relationship but her abuser is the father of her baby and she's feeling conflicted because she wants to leave him but also now she's connected to him forever via this baby. It kind of seems like to me that someone in the character's situation would do the opposite of what Natasha Heath did. She'd want to cover up and she'd feel vulnerable and exposed in that moment and not like free and supported. But what do I know, I'm just a woman who has given birth before, and in the target demographic for this movie they were making. My opinion about childbirth doesn't matter -- if Justin Baldoni says that all women are nude when they give birth, and Jaime Heath says that it's weird to not want to look at some stranger's home water birth video, then I guess that's just the way it is. Thanks for mansplaining it fellas -- you sure are Man Enough (tm) to tell women how to feel about their own experiences and bodies!

Once again, she was not nude. We have witnesses and footage corroborating that.

I didn't say Livley was nude, I said she was pressured to do the scene nude. Which Baldoni has not contradicted.

Natasha Heath was nude though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

Which is funny because Blake and Leslie are the ones with connections to Harvey Weinstein.

I mean, false, because Baldoni's lawyer's dad has a PR firm that used to rep Weinstein. So Baldoni's side also has a connection to Weinstein. The whole point is that it's not actually surprising that a bunch of people who have worked in the film industry for years would have connections of some kind to Harvey Weinstein. The implication is not that this lawyer is a bad person because his dad used to be Weinstein's PR rep. It's that Lively's and Sloane's connections to Weinstein's are also silly and irrelevant, just like this one is.

I get it, when you are a huge hypocrite sometimes it's hard to remember what hypocrisy even is.

You're the one who pointed out his connection to Weinstein first. Now you're trying to All Lives Matter the case because you were called out for your own gross neglience and hypocrisy. You all are a perfect representation of Lively.

Alternatively, Sunshine was grossly negligent in using Google AI to respond to a discovery request (or rather to ignore an effort to discuss a discovery request for confidential documents), and it's hypocritical to get mad about someone pointing out Sunshine's connection to Harvey Weinstein when you've spent month alleging that Lively and Sloane must be in the wrong here because they too have connections to Weinstein.

Except no one has argued that Lively and Sloane are in the wrong BECAUSE OF their Weinstein connection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

I thought people would be interested, because I was interested. And I didn't "try" to connect him to Weinstein. I discovered the connection and shared it. It's just true. Look up Ken Sunshine on wikipedia. He used to rep Harvey. It is what it is.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

As creepy and weird as showing someone your wife's nude birth video at work with no warning.

She was told ahead of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sean Baker, who won Best Director this year, simulated sex with his wife to give Mikey Madison an idea of how he wanted scenes to look like in "Anora."

Film is a visual medium that can require some unusual behind the scenes methods to achieve the intended result, and Heath showing Blake one-second of that video is just so minor.

I know the pro-Lively people will say, "Well, the difference is that Mikey consented." But even the mere suggestion of certain things or the mere asking of questions was enough for Blake to include these instances in her complaint.

That's revolting, sorry.

But yeah, consent is relevant. Also relevant is the fact that Heath showed Lively the video AFTER they had already shot the birth scene. It was not shown to her as an instruction for how they wanted the scene to look. If that's what they wanted to do, they could have suggested it and made sure she was cool with it (just as I sure hope Sean Baker presumably did with Madison) before the scene was shot.

Also, I just want to add that it's insane to me that they wanted to use Heath's wife's birth experience and video as a model for how the birth scene looked. To be clear, this was a movie about a woman who has a kid with a guy who is physically and emotionally abusing her, and it is the birth of her daughter that makes her realize she cannot stay with him and needs to leave (the phrase "it ends with us" refers to the character's pledge to her baby). It's just really weird that they felt that was appropriate inspiration for the movie.

Also determined that you and the other Lively posters are childless and probably unmarried. Your lack of context shows. I’m guessing that one of you is late twenties, early thirties and the other main one, I’d say 50s or older. Im sure that I’m in the ballpark with all comments.

Lol are you JD Vance?

lol!!! 😂 😂 😂. I am also eager to find my piles of cash someone apparently owes me, if anyone knows where this is please share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, still think it’s creepy for an anonymous dcum user to be personally attacking the lawyers in this case. The others are celebrities and the scrutiny comes with the job. Further, 90 percent of what you are complaining about, if not more, has nothing to do with the posters here.

Freedman talks to the press constantly and goes on TMZ every chance he gets.

I looked up the lawyer because I thought it was weird and unprofessional that he'd clearly just googled some AI legal gobbeldy-gook to respond to a discovery dispute with opposing counsel and I was like "where they heck did this guy go to school." We talk a lot in this thread about the quality of lawyering in this case. Well, he's a lawyer on this case. Also he's not that private -- his wedding was in Town & Country magazine.

You not only looked him up, you posted about him and tried to connect him to Harvey Weinstein. Creepy and weird.

I thought people would be interested, because I was interested. And I didn't "try" to connect him to Weinstein. I discovered the connection and shared it. It's just true. Look up Ken Sunshine on wikipedia. He used to rep Harvey. It is what it is.

Others think it’s creepy, just so you know. And weird.

As creepy and weird as showing someone your wife's nude birth video at work with no warning. Or less creepy and weird than that. I would like some kind of benchmarking here because I'm guessing the people who think it's weird to look up the publicly available info of people involved in a very public piece of litigation are also the people who think it's totally normal to show video of your wife nude and giving birth at work.

Yes, directors and actors looking at films of births in the context of filming a birth scene, normal. Posting about the work history of family members of the lawyers in the case on public forums, creepy. Next question?

They were not filming a birth scene.