Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone keeps quibbling over the finer details, and while I believe Justin even if we dissect the arguments on a microscopic level, what's just as important is I believe Justin when it comes to the big picture.

Justin did not like her, and felt like he had to appease her every step of the way based on his exchanges with others. He just comes off as so resigned and as someone who wants to get the whole thing over with. He's berated by her husband before they even begin filming but then he can't control himself and wants to ogle her? It's just bizarre.

Sexual harassment doesn't automatically mean that the perpetrator "wants to ogle" the victim or is trying to have sex with them. Sexual harassment can happen specifically *because* a boss or manager doesn't like someone working for them, and uses things of a sexual or gendered nature to make them feel uncomfortable. It's really about power.

Lively has never alleged that he hit on her. Just that his behavior was harassing. She also alleges that he repeatedly told her that he was speaking with her dead father.

He is creepy.

Honestly, how is it that we barely ever talk about Baldoni’s repeated insistence to Lively that he has talked to her dead father?

If my supervisor said this to me, and seemed to be using it as a way to try to bond with or get closer to me, I would have such an ick. Ew ew ew!!!

You sound like an 8 year old. Blake initiated the spiritual conversations her and Justin had by claiming she felt her late father on the set, guiding her through the emotional scenes, helping her through the challenges of the role. What Baldoni states actually happened is that there was a moment he felt a deep emotional connection to Blake and the project that he spoke outloud asking for her father's blessing for the film. He felt like he was speaking to him and asking for his guidance as they worked on the film. That is quite a different context to blatantly going to someone and saying they spoke with their dead father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Nobody (but you) has indicated that showing Lively the water birth video was supposed to be about “the complexity of love between Ryle and Lily.” That is something you have made up in your own head, based on nothing but your own desire to justify sharing this video with Lively as totes normal. The precursor to this discussion w Lively was how all “normal” women wanted to give birth naked and how Lively should be naked for the birth scene, which already had been shot.

I also find it weird how you are equating the closeness in the video between Heath and his wife as similar to “the complexity of love between Ryle and Lily.” I’m not sure exactly how Ryle was going to be doing anything besides holding Lily’s hand unless you wanted Baldoni to slip up behind Lively there in the stirrups and force himself into a cradle hug in the scene. lily wasn’t doing a tub birth. And man, if Baldoni *wanted* her to be doing a tub birth with him cradling her from behind, when the two were barely speaking at the time of the birth, that would just be totally insane. But also somewhat consistent with how Baldoni seems to have wanted to creepily represent himself/Ryle as being violent DV abusers who were also really good guys by making their partners simultaneously orgasm and being total hotties etc etc. *blech*

That's Lively's account, not what actually happened. So you too are making up a complete conjecture on what you believed happened based on nothing more than hearsay. A one second video is not second harassment or porn in any world. You're not intelligent and neither is Blake.

Okay. Where in Baldoni’s complaint, his crazy exhibit, or other filings does Baldoni say that Heath showing the tub birth to Lively was supposed to explain “the complexity of love between Ryle and Lily” and not how normal women give birth nude? I’m not remembering that and I think you made it up.

He describes it as a creative discussion. The whole normal woman thing is again coming from lively. She seems to be very literal which is stifling in a creative setting. Like I said, no Oscar’s coming. Her top award is a people’s choice award after nearly 20 years in the business. That should tell you something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

DP but I think the biggest difference is most of us here are just sharing what we’ve read online, which sometimes includes internet sleuth finds, whereas you did this research on sunshine yourself. That seems a bit more strange.

That makes no sense. How do you think these "internet sleuths" get this info.

What I shared is on Sunshine's LinkedIn page and his dad's Wikipedia page. They are both public people. It took a couple minutes to look up.

Having a LinkedIn page does not make one a public person. You are truly despicable

I am arlington mom, and I look up people’s firm bio and linked in pages all the time. I go much further than this if I’m researching a potential expert witness or an arbitrator. This is a thing lawyers and other law firm people do. If you are a lawyer, you wouldn’t be surprised by this. There are specific searches on Westlaw and Lexis designed to ferret out publicly available information about people that are much, much more invasive than this and every lawyer would be aware they are used, and not be at all surprised by a *horrors!* mere LinkedIn search.

Been a lawyer for two decades, and never posted about opposing counsel on dcum or any other message board. Can’t say I know anyone who has.

Well duh of course no one is going to post about their opposing counsel on DCUM, that would be an ethics violation.

But I've posted about the lawyers involved in a case many times on DCUM because I'm a lawyer and whenever I'm posting about legal stuff on here, one of my first questions is "oh who represents them?"

In fact I've posted in this thread (or predecessor threads) about Gottlieb, Freedman, Ezra Hudson, the firms generally, places these folks worked previously, etc. I'm always interested in the firms and lawyers involved and their backgrounds.

Frankly, that is creepy if one is posting not about the lawyer’s professional background, but their family members, or personal life. And that is exactly what was done here.

+100000 I’m disturbed by this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP but I think the biggest difference is most of us here are just sharing what we’ve read online, which sometimes includes internet sleuth finds, whereas you did this research on sunshine yourself. That seems a bit more strange.

That makes no sense. How do you think these "internet sleuths" get this info.

What I shared is on Sunshine's LinkedIn page and his dad's Wikipedia page. They are both public people. It took a couple minutes to look up.

Having a LinkedIn page does not make one a public person. You are truly despicable

I am arlington mom, and I look up people’s firm bio and linked in pages all the time. I go much further than this if I’m researching a potential expert witness or an arbitrator. This is a thing lawyers and other law firm people do. If you are a lawyer, you wouldn’t be surprised by this. There are specific searches on Westlaw and Lexis designed to ferret out publicly available information about people that are much, much more invasive than this and every lawyer would be aware they are used, and not be at all surprised by a *horrors!* mere LinkedIn search.

Been a lawyer for two decades, and never posted about opposing counsel on dcum or any other message board. Can’t say I know anyone who has.

Well duh of course no one is going to post about their opposing counsel on DCUM, that would be an ethics violation.

But I've posted about the lawyers involved in a case many times on DCUM because I'm a lawyer and whenever I'm posting about legal stuff on here, one of my first questions is "oh who represents them?"

In fact I've posted in this thread (or predecessor threads) about Gottlieb, Freedman, Ezra Hudson, the firms generally, places these folks worked previously, etc. I'm always interested in the firms and lawyers involved and their backgrounds.

Frankly, that is creepy if one is posting not about the lawyer’s professional background, but their family members, or personal life. And that is exactly what was done here.

+100000 I’m disturbed by this.

Incredible that the same team who posts literally pages of comments denigrating the physical appearance of an actress has a problem with others posting public info about someone who had a spread in Town and Country and is therefore also a public figure. Okay for me but not for thee, again, as always.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Nobody (but you) has indicated that showing Lively the water birth video was supposed to be about “the complexity of love between Ryle and Lily.” That is something you have made up in your own head, based on nothing but your own desire to justify sharing this video with Lively as totes normal. The precursor to this discussion w Lively was how all “normal” women wanted to give birth naked and how Lively should be naked for the birth scene, which already had been shot.

I also find it weird how you are equating the closeness in the video between Heath and his wife as similar to “the complexity of love between Ryle and Lily.” I’m not sure exactly how Ryle was going to be doing anything besides holding Lily’s hand unless you wanted Baldoni to slip up behind Lively there in the stirrups and force himself into a cradle hug in the scene. lily wasn’t doing a tub birth. And man, if Baldoni *wanted* her to be doing a tub birth with him cradling her from behind, when the two were barely speaking at the time of the birth, that would just be totally insane. But also somewhat consistent with how Baldoni seems to have wanted to creepily represent himself/Ryle as being violent DV abusers who were also really good guys by making their partners simultaneously orgasm and being total hotties etc etc. *blech*

That's Lively's account, not what actually happened. So you too are making up a complete conjecture on what you believed happened based on nothing more than hearsay. A one second video is not second harassment or porn in any world. You're not intelligent and neither is Blake.

Okay. Where in Baldoni’s complaint, his crazy exhibit, or other filings does Baldoni say that Heath showing the tub birth to Lively was supposed to explain “the complexity of love between Ryle and Lily” and not how normal women give birth nude? I’m not remembering that and I think you made it up.

He describes it as a creative discussion. The whole normal woman thing is again coming from lively. She seems to be very literal which is stifling in a creative setting. Like I said, no Oscar’s coming. Her top award is a people’s choice award after nearly 20 years in the business. That should tell you something.

Right. A creative discussion about how naked she should be. 👌

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Nobody (but you) has indicated that showing Lively the water birth video was supposed to be about “the complexity of love between Ryle and Lily.” That is something you have made up in your own head, based on nothing but your own desire to justify sharing this video with Lively as totes normal. The precursor to this discussion w Lively was how all “normal” women wanted to give birth naked and how Lively should be naked for the birth scene, which already had been shot.

I also find it weird how you are equating the closeness in the video between Heath and his wife as similar to “the complexity of love between Ryle and Lily.” I’m not sure exactly how Ryle was going to be doing anything besides holding Lily’s hand unless you wanted Baldoni to slip up behind Lively there in the stirrups and force himself into a cradle hug in the scene. lily wasn’t doing a tub birth. And man, if Baldoni *wanted* her to be doing a tub birth with him cradling her from behind, when the two were barely speaking at the time of the birth, that would just be totally insane. But also somewhat consistent with how Baldoni seems to have wanted to creepily represent himself/Ryle as being violent DV abusers who were also really good guys by making their partners simultaneously orgasm and being total hotties etc etc. *blech*

That's Lively's account, not what actually happened. So you too are making up a complete conjecture on what you believed happened based on nothing more than hearsay. A one second video is not second harassment or porn in any world. You're not intelligent and neither is Blake.

Okay. Where in Baldoni’s complaint, his crazy exhibit, or other filings does Baldoni say that Heath showing the tub birth to Lively was supposed to explain “the complexity of love between Ryle and Lily” and not how normal women give birth nude? I’m not remembering that and I think you made it up.

He describes it as a creative discussion. The whole normal woman thing is again coming from lively. She seems to be very literal which is stifling in a creative setting. Like I said, no Oscar’s coming. Her top award is a people’s choice award after nearly 20 years in the business. That should tell you something.

Right. A creative discussion about how naked she should be. 👌

He's the director.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP but I think the biggest difference is most of us here are just sharing what we’ve read online, which sometimes includes internet sleuth finds, whereas you did this research on sunshine yourself. That seems a bit more strange.

That makes no sense. How do you think these "internet sleuths" get this info.

What I shared is on Sunshine's LinkedIn page and his dad's Wikipedia page. They are both public people. It took a couple minutes to look up.

Having a LinkedIn page does not make one a public person. You are truly despicable

I am arlington mom, and I look up people’s firm bio and linked in pages all the time. I go much further than this if I’m researching a potential expert witness or an arbitrator. This is a thing lawyers and other law firm people do. If you are a lawyer, you wouldn’t be surprised by this. There are specific searches on Westlaw and Lexis designed to ferret out publicly available information about people that are much, much more invasive than this and every lawyer would be aware they are used, and not be at all surprised by a *horrors!* mere LinkedIn search.

Been a lawyer for two decades, and never posted about opposing counsel on dcum or any other message board. Can’t say I know anyone who has.

Well duh of course no one is going to post about their opposing counsel on DCUM, that would be an ethics violation.

But I've posted about the lawyers involved in a case many times on DCUM because I'm a lawyer and whenever I'm posting about legal stuff on here, one of my first questions is "oh who represents them?"

In fact I've posted in this thread (or predecessor threads) about Gottlieb, Freedman, Ezra Hudson, the firms generally, places these folks worked previously, etc. I'm always interested in the firms and lawyers involved and their backgrounds.

Frankly, that is creepy if one is posting not about the lawyer’s professional background, but their family members, or personal life. And that is exactly what was done here.

+100000 I’m disturbed by this.

Incredible that the same team who posts literally pages of comments denigrating the physical appearance of an actress has a problem with others posting public info about someone who had a spread in Town and Country and is therefore also a public figure. Okay for me but not for thee, again, as always.

First, I did not post anything about anyone’s appearance, but I did see that some people commented on her outfit. She’s a Hollywood celebrity who walks red carpets and who actively seeks out pap attention. She’s signed up for it. This is a private lawyer and just bc his wedding was featured does not make him a public figure. You are once again twisting facts, and legal concepts. Again, disturbing and so disingenuous. Stop stalking people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Nobody (but you) has indicated that showing Lively the water birth video was supposed to be about “the complexity of love between Ryle and Lily.” That is something you have made up in your own head, based on nothing but your own desire to justify sharing this video with Lively as totes normal. The precursor to this discussion w Lively was how all “normal” women wanted to give birth naked and how Lively should be naked for the birth scene, which already had been shot.

I also find it weird how you are equating the closeness in the video between Heath and his wife as similar to “the complexity of love between Ryle and Lily.” I’m not sure exactly how Ryle was going to be doing anything besides holding Lily’s hand unless you wanted Baldoni to slip up behind Lively there in the stirrups and force himself into a cradle hug in the scene. lily wasn’t doing a tub birth. And man, if Baldoni *wanted* her to be doing a tub birth with him cradling her from behind, when the two were barely speaking at the time of the birth, that would just be totally insane. But also somewhat consistent with how Baldoni seems to have wanted to creepily represent himself/Ryle as being violent DV abusers who were also really good guys by making their partners simultaneously orgasm and being total hotties etc etc. *blech*

It’s not nobody but me, because you are responding to at least two different posters who liked Heath’s video. We don’t know what exactly was suggested but whatever it was, it wasn’t pursued because Blake said no.

Intimacy isn’t creepy to me. I actually feel bad for you that you are so threatened by it.

She's exactly was was suspected earlier. A childless, husbandless, cat lady, that spends her days feigning shock and disgust at a liar's expense because she's never been through child birth and really thinks in her microscopic mind that a 1 second home birthing video is akin to sexual harassment in any logical woman's world.

DP but I'm a mom who has given birth (in a hospital, wearing hospital gown, though I think women should do what they want and it's a very personal choice), have a husband, and think it's really inappropriate to try and share your wife's birth video to someone without getting consent first.

I *do* have a cat though, I guess I have to disclose that

👋 I’m arlington mom and I work weekdays in NW DC, so if you are nearby and ever want to get a coffee or have a zoom call, let me know!! (No worries if not tho!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ in an effort to try to attack and undermine wherever you can. Similar to accusing a private lawyer of ‘gross negligence’ bc of a font change

Yea, a font change leads to cries of “gross negligence” but it’s a nothing burger when Lively is caught filing sham litigation. And she tries to claim others don’t have critical reasoning skills or are creepy.

Here's a list of other things the Lively loons don't consider creepy. "No teeth" isn't creepy. Inviting a male co-star into your trailer while you're pumping your breast isn't creepy. Texting your male costar at 2 am isn't creepy. Allowing your child to say sexual expletives repeatedly isn't creepy. Getting married on a plantation isn't creepy. Grabbing a co-stars balls isn't creepy.

Don't forget boasting about scamming and coercing writing and production credits while you're just a low IQ actress. And strong-arming random reporters into drinking and shilling your husband's gin while they're on the job while you claim you don't drink. She and Ryan are repulsive and detestable people. And their team's response shows they are crashing out. They must be going nuts behind the scenes if these are the orders sent out to their grifter team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP but I think the biggest difference is most of us here are just sharing what we’ve read online, which sometimes includes internet sleuth finds, whereas you did this research on sunshine yourself. That seems a bit more strange.

That makes no sense. How do you think these "internet sleuths" get this info.

What I shared is on Sunshine's LinkedIn page and his dad's Wikipedia page. They are both public people. It took a couple minutes to look up.

Having a LinkedIn page does not make one a public person. You are truly despicable

I am arlington mom, and I look up people’s firm bio and linked in pages all the time. I go much further than this if I’m researching a potential expert witness or an arbitrator. This is a thing lawyers and other law firm people do. If you are a lawyer, you wouldn’t be surprised by this. There are specific searches on Westlaw and Lexis designed to ferret out publicly available information about people that are much, much more invasive than this and every lawyer would be aware they are used, and not be at all surprised by a *horrors!* mere LinkedIn search.

Been a lawyer for two decades, and never posted about opposing counsel on dcum or any other message board. Can’t say I know anyone who has.

Well duh of course no one is going to post about their opposing counsel on DCUM, that would be an ethics violation.

But I've posted about the lawyers involved in a case many times on DCUM because I'm a lawyer and whenever I'm posting about legal stuff on here, one of my first questions is "oh who represents them?"

In fact I've posted in this thread (or predecessor threads) about Gottlieb, Freedman, Ezra Hudson, the firms generally, places these folks worked previously, etc. I'm always interested in the firms and lawyers involved and their backgrounds.

Frankly, that is creepy if one is posting not about the lawyer’s professional background, but their family members, or personal life. And that is exactly what was done here.

+100000 I’m disturbed by this.

Incredible that the same team who posts literally pages of comments denigrating the physical appearance of an actress has a problem with others posting public info about someone who had a spread in Town and Country and is therefore also a public figure. Okay for me but not for thee, again, as always.

There is no "team, " there is you trying to rationalize dragging non-celebrities and their family members onto this board for no reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ in an effort to try to attack and undermine wherever you can. Similar to accusing a private lawyer of ‘gross negligence’ bc of a font change

Yea, a font change leads to cries of “gross negligence” but it’s a nothing burger when Lively is caught filing sham litigation. And she tries to claim others don’t have critical reasoning skills or are creepy.

Here's a list of other things the Lively loons don't consider creepy. "No teeth" isn't creepy. Inviting a male co-star into your trailer while you're pumping your breast isn't creepy. Texting your male costar at 2 am isn't creepy. Allowing your child to say sexual expletives repeatedly isn't creepy. Getting married on a plantation isn't creepy. Grabbing a co-stars balls isn't creepy.

Don't forget boasting about scamming and coercing writing and production credits while you're just a low IQ actress. And strong-arming random reporters into drinking and shilling your husband's gin while they're on the job while you claim you don't drink. She and Ryan are repulsive and detestable people. And their team's response shows they are crashing out. They must be going nuts behind the scenes if these are the orders sent out to their grifter team.

100%. A special place in Hell is waiting and warm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ in an effort to try to attack and undermine wherever you can. Similar to accusing a private lawyer of ‘gross negligence’ bc of a font change

Yea, a font change leads to cries of “gross negligence” but it’s a nothing burger when Lively is caught filing sham litigation. And she tries to claim others don’t have critical reasoning skills or are creepy.

Here's a list of other things the Lively loons don't consider creepy. "No teeth" isn't creepy. Inviting a male co-star into your trailer while you're pumping your breast isn't creepy. Texting your male costar at 2 am isn't creepy. Allowing your child to say sexual expletives repeatedly isn't creepy. Getting married on a plantation isn't creepy. Grabbing a co-stars balls isn't creepy.

Don't forget boasting about scamming and coercing writing and production credits while you're just a low IQ actress. And strong-arming random reporters into drinking and shilling your husband's gin while they're on the job while you claim you don't drink. She and Ryan are repulsive and detestable people. And their team's response shows they are crashing out. They must be going nuts behind the scenes if these are the orders sent out to their grifter team.

So weird that you hold yourself higher than the commenters who disagree with you while at the same time calling them loons and I guess your “grifters” also refers to the dcum posters, whom you continuously insist are getting paid, despite my own invite to meet you people and show I am a normal person (though you seem scary). I note that it’s the Baldoni people in here who aren’t willing to show they are “normal” people posting on Dcum because they live in the DMV and could meet up here. Hmmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ in an effort to try to attack and undermine wherever you can. Similar to accusing a private lawyer of ‘gross negligence’ bc of a font change

Yea, a font change leads to cries of “gross negligence” but it’s a nothing burger when Lively is caught filing sham litigation. And she tries to claim others don’t have critical reasoning skills or are creepy.

Here's a list of other things the Lively loons don't consider creepy. "No teeth" isn't creepy. Inviting a male co-star into your trailer while you're pumping your breast isn't creepy. Texting your male costar at 2 am isn't creepy. Allowing your child to say sexual expletives repeatedly isn't creepy. Getting married on a plantation isn't creepy. Grabbing a co-stars balls isn't creepy.

Don't forget boasting about scamming and coercing writing and production credits while you're just a low IQ actress. And strong-arming random reporters into drinking and shilling your husband's gin while they're on the job while you claim you don't drink. She and Ryan are repulsive and detestable people. And their team's response shows they are crashing out. They must be going nuts behind the scenes if these are the orders sent out to their grifter team.

100%. A special place in Hell is waiting and warm.

Wait a minute. Have you been communicating with anyone’s dead father?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ in an effort to try to attack and undermine wherever you can. Similar to accusing a private lawyer of ‘gross negligence’ bc of a font change

Yea, a font change leads to cries of “gross negligence” but it’s a nothing burger when Lively is caught filing sham litigation. And she tries to claim others don’t have critical reasoning skills or are creepy.

Here's a list of other things the Lively loons don't consider creepy. "No teeth" isn't creepy. Inviting a male co-star into your trailer while you're pumping your breast isn't creepy. Texting your male costar at 2 am isn't creepy. Allowing your child to say sexual expletives repeatedly isn't creepy. Getting married on a plantation isn't creepy. Grabbing a co-stars balls isn't creepy.

Don't forget boasting about scamming and coercing writing and production credits while you're just a low IQ actress. And strong-arming random reporters into drinking and shilling your husband's gin while they're on the job while you claim you don't drink. She and Ryan are repulsive and detestable people. And their team's response shows they are crashing out. They must be going nuts behind the scenes if these are the orders sent out to their grifter team.

So weird that you hold yourself higher than the commenters who disagree with you while at the same time calling them loons and I guess your “grifters” also refers to the dcum posters, whom you continuously insist are getting paid, despite my own invite to meet you people and show I am a normal person (though you seem scary). I note that it’s the Baldoni people in here who aren’t willing to show they are “normal” people posting on Dcum because they live in the DMV and could meet up here. Hmmmm.

Dp. Huh? This is nonsensical. And wait, you think that weird post above from ‘Arlington mom’ asking to meet up (which was probably you or your partner) somehow proves something? And people like me not offering to meet up in person means something? Huh?? I agree with PP…. times must be desperate. Jeesh. Give it up already. It’s not working

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone keeps quibbling over the finer details, and while I believe Justin even if we dissect the arguments on a microscopic level, what's just as important is I believe Justin when it comes to the big picture.

Justin did not like her, and felt like he had to appease her every step of the way based on his exchanges with others. He just comes off as so resigned and as someone who wants to get the whole thing over with. He's berated by her husband before they even begin filming but then he can't control himself and wants to ogle her? It's just bizarre.

Sexual harassment doesn't automatically mean that the perpetrator "wants to ogle" the victim or is trying to have sex with them. Sexual harassment can happen specifically *because* a boss or manager doesn't like someone working for them, and uses things of a sexual or gendered nature to make them feel uncomfortable. It's really about power.

Lively has never alleged that he hit on her. Just that his behavior was harassing. She also alleges that he repeatedly told her that he was speaking with her dead father.

He is creepy.

Honestly, how is it that we barely ever talk about Baldoni’s repeated insistence to Lively that he has talked to her dead father?

If my supervisor said this to me, and seemed to be using it as a way to try to bond with or get closer to me, I would have such an ick. Ew ew ew!!!

You sound like an 8 year old. Blake initiated the spiritual conversations her and Justin had by claiming she felt her late father on the set, guiding her through the emotional scenes, helping her through the challenges of the role. What Baldoni states actually happened is that there was a moment he felt a deep emotional connection to Blake and the project that he spoke outloud asking for her father's blessing for the film. He felt like he was speaking to him and asking for his guidance as they worked on the film. That is quite a different context to blatantly going to someone and saying they spoke with their dead father.

Wait. What?

I had never heard this explanation before even though I thought I'd read everything. But I just tried to find this in Baldoni's filings or a news report and can't find anything.

Where are you getting this?