Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article from yesterday's hearing has what I believe is new info:
https://www.courthousenews.com/lawyers-in-lively-baldoni-feud-spar-over-subpoenas-of-candace-owens-megyn-kelly/
Excerpt:
Owens, Gottlieb claimed, had shared an “exclusive scoop” about Lively and Baldoni that used information from Freedman’s affidavit.

Gottlieb also argued that he was recently made aware of a text chain in which Freedman introduced Baldoni’s team to another content creator client of his, who then went on to disseminate content attacking Lively.

“I am unable to say the name of this person in open court,” Gottlieb said.

Liman didn’t immediately rule on whether he’d quash the subpoenas, though he did say that he found one — which seeks Freedman’s communications with various media sources — “tremendously broad” and “actually quite chilling.”

No bombshell here, both Blake and Justin can talk to the media or content creators.

Anonymous wrote:This article from yesterday's hearing has what I believe is new info:
https://www.courthousenews.com/lawyers-in-lively-baldoni-feud-spar-over-subpoenas-of-candace-owens-megyn-kelly/
Excerpt:
Owens, Gottlieb claimed, had shared an “exclusive scoop” about Lively and Baldoni that used information from Freedman’s affidavit.

Gottlieb also argued that he was recently made aware of a text chain in which Freedman introduced Baldoni’s team to another content creator client of his, who then went on to disseminate content attacking Lively.

“I am unable to say the name of this person in open court,” Gottlieb said.

Liman didn’t immediately rule on whether he’d quash the subpoenas, though he did say that he found one — which seeks Freedman’s communications with various media sources — “tremendously broad” and “actually quite chilling.”

Anonymous wrote:This article from yesterday's hearing has what I believe is new info:
https://www.courthousenews.com/lawyers-in-lively-baldoni-feud-spar-over-subpoenas-of-candace-owens-megyn-kelly/
Excerpt:
Owens, Gottlieb claimed, had shared an “exclusive scoop” about Lively and Baldoni that used information from Freedman’s affidavit.

Gottlieb also argued that he was recently made aware of a text chain in which Freedman introduced Baldoni’s team to another content creator client of his, who then went on to disseminate content attacking Lively.

“I am unable to say the name of this person in open court,” Gottlieb said.

Liman didn’t immediately rule on whether he’d quash the subpoenas, though he did say that he found one — which seeks Freedman’s communications with various media sources — “tremendously broad” and “actually quite chilling.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Baldoni. You can find suspicious intent in any movie involving sex scenes. That's because they're sex scenes. Once again, Blake stans keep treating this as if it's a white-collar office job and any mention about the choreographing of sex is "Ew, icky!"

It's a movie about domestic violence. I wouldn't find that conversation about the "thrust" out of place among the creators of a movie like American Pie, or a show like Bridgerton. I find it weird that *this* would be the main point of contention on a movie about DV, where most people involved with the movie agree it's about the empowerment of the female protagonist in surviving and escaping DV. My first thought there is not "but wait, do we zoom in on the thrust in the teen sex scene or not???" Just a bizarre fixation there.

NO but I don’t find it that bizarre. They’re spending a lot of money on this movie and they wanted it to make money and be commercially successful. It’s just part of the game. You’re spending months shooting and editing a two hour film so it doesn’t surprise me that the actual editors and related team are slicing and dicing small parts of it. There is a mention about PG-13 so it’s also just practical conversation, if they do a sex scene, it’s got to fall within certain parameters.

TV and film are filled, absolutely filled, with pointless sex scenes. It’s not my taste and I didn’t go into this business but I think silly to pick apart conversations that are typical on this movie.

It’s a movie about domestic violence and blah blah blah, but notice that they didn’t pick an actress who was not thin, fit, traditionally pretty, and I can go on. Justin Baldoni played a neurosurgeon, but come on, they didn’t say let’s pick someone who looks incredibly smart and like he did really well in medical school. They picked a good looking guy. And technically they didn’t have to do any sex scenes, as most movies don’t and could still be able to move the story along, but they made a choice to have a teen sex scene, and other sex scenes, with attractive people, as countless other movies and shows do. This is still Hollywood people.

I'm also finding it disingenuous that Blake supporters are acting like Justin filmed two teens taking part in a sex scene, when it's their characters who did, while the actors are in their 20s.

Anonymous wrote:This is what Blake supporters do...gripe over the minutiae of everything. If Blake's claims were as strong as they were, they wouldn't need to do this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Baldoni. You can find suspicious intent in any movie involving sex scenes. That's because they're sex scenes. Once again, Blake stans keep treating this as if it's a white-collar office job and any mention about the choreographing of sex is "Ew, icky!"

It's a movie about domestic violence. I wouldn't find that conversation about the "thrust" out of place among the creators of a movie like American Pie, or a show like Bridgerton. I find it weird that *this* would be the main point of contention on a movie about DV, where most people involved with the movie agree it's about the empowerment of the female protagonist in surviving and escaping DV. My first thought there is not "but wait, do we zoom in on the thrust in the teen sex scene or not???" Just a bizarre fixation there.

NO but I don’t find it that bizarre. They’re spending a lot of money on this movie and they wanted it to make money and be commercially successful. It’s just part of the game. You’re spending months shooting and editing a two hour film so it doesn’t surprise me that the actual editors and related team are slicing and dicing small parts of it. There is a mention about PG-13 so it’s also just practical conversation, if they do a sex scene, it’s got to fall within certain parameters.

TV and film are filled, absolutely filled, with pointless sex scenes. It’s not my taste and I didn’t go into this business but I think silly to pick apart conversations that are typical on this movie.

It’s a movie about domestic violence and blah blah blah, but notice that they didn’t pick an actress who was not thin, fit, traditionally pretty, and I can go on. Justin Baldoni played a neurosurgeon, but come on, they didn’t say let’s pick someone who looks incredibly smart and like he did really well in medical school. They picked a good looking guy. And technically they didn’t have to do any sex scenes, as most movies don’t and could still be able to move the story along, but they made a choice to have a teen sex scene, and other sex scenes, with attractive people, as countless other movies and shows do. This is still Hollywood people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Baldoni. You can find suspicious intent in any movie involving sex scenes. That's because they're sex scenes. Once again, Blake stans keep treating this as if it's a white-collar office job and any mention about the choreographing of sex is "Ew, icky!"

It's a movie about domestic violence. I wouldn't find that conversation about the "thrust" out of place among the creators of a movie like American Pie, or a show like Bridgerton. I find it weird that *this* would be the main point of contention on a movie about DV, where most people involved with the movie agree it's about the empowerment of the female protagonist in surviving and escaping DV. My first thought there is not "but wait, do we zoom in on the thrust in the teen sex scene or not???" Just a bizarre fixation there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Baldoni. You can find suspicious intent in any movie involving sex scenes. That's because they're sex scenes. Once again, Blake stans keep treating this as if it's a white-collar office job and any mention about the choreographing of sex is "Ew, icky!"

It's a movie about domestic violence. I wouldn't find that conversation about the "thrust" out of place among the creators of a movie like American Pie, or a show like Bridgerton. I find it weird that *this* would be the main point of contention on a movie about DV, where most people involved with the movie agree it's about the empowerment of the female protagonist in surviving and escaping DV. My first thought there is not "but wait, do we zoom in on the thrust in the teen sex scene or not???" Just a bizarre fixation there.

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Baldoni. You can find suspicious intent in any movie involving sex scenes. That's because they're sex scenes. Once again, Blake stans keep treating this as if it's a white-collar office job and any mention about the choreographing of sex is "Ew, icky!"