Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing the scores don't matter.

The screening scores only mattered in one way: if Justin's cut had scored above a certain threshold, his contract dictated that Sony would release his cut. That's the only scenario in which screening scores would dictate which cut was released.

Since Justin's cut didn't meet that threshold, Sony could release any cut for any reason. Literally. They were the distributor. It sounds like Sony chose to release Blake's cut because it got a very good response at Book Bonanza and because Blake and Colleen were both very enthusiastic about it, and Sony wanted them to sell the movie very hard to their fan bases (which they did). Sony's concern was getting people to buy tickets to the movie.

I also think Sony wanted to push the women's empowerment angle in selling the movie, and it was easier to do that with a cut that had been put together by Blake and Colleen.

Again, Justin could have avoided any of this had his cut scored high enough to trigger his "final cut" rights in his contract. But it didn't, so it was out of his hands and Sony made the decision based on marketing strategy, which is a completely valid reason to choose one cut over another.

Sony released Blake’s cut b/c she threatened them. She said she did not care that her version scored lower. That the decision had been made as far as she, Colleen and Taylor were concerned. It had nothing to do with Justin’s contract. His contract also included a film by credit that she had taken away. Sony made their feelings clear about Blake on more than one occasion that they considered her an effing terrorist.

But where did she threaten them? Where was the threat? Saying she's decided, and that Colleen has decided (or that Taylor has, lol, who wasn't even involved with the movie) is meaningless. That's no different than Justin telling them "I've decided my cut is the best cut." Ultimately Sony decides. They went with Blake's cut, as was their right since Justin's didn't hit the score thresholds.

I don't even understand why this matters. I think at one point Justin said that the cut they released was like 98% identical to his cut. So who cares?? Good enough, these people should move on with their lives. It all seems soooooo petty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this irrelevant to the case?

It’s relevant to the question of whether or not she was an employee. Wayfarer is arguing, and I agree, that she had far too much power to be considered an employee. If she is ruled an independent contractor she can’t even bring her title 7 claims.

I don't think the squabbling over which cut was released is relevant to whether or not she was an employee on the set. Wayfarer was the shooting studio, they ran the set. The question is whether or not Lively was an employee or an independent contractor *on that set* since that's where the alleged harassment is supposed to have taken place.

All the stuff about which cut was released is related to post-production, distribution, and marketing. Sony was the distribution studio. Blake isn't suing Sony and there's no conversation about whether she was an employee of Sony's.

I just don't think which cut Sony chose to release has any bearing on whether Blake was an employee on the set of the movie. They are separate operations, as per the agreement between Wayfarer and Sony.

The fact that Blake, who was nominally an actress, made her own cut is extremely relevant to her employment status. How many non-director, actors make their own cut? It all goes into the calculus of whether she had more control than a normal emp”eye send the answers is a definite yes with the facts that you are pushing.

She wasn't just an actress, she was also an executive producer:

"Yes, an executive producer (EP) can make their own cut of a film, particularly if they control the financing, own the production rights, or if the director lacks final cut authority. While usually focusing on business, EPs often review the editor's cut and can hire others to re-edit or reshoot scenes to ensure the project matches the studio's vision."

Anonymous wrote:The most persuasive arguments for me from Wayfarer were the demonstrations of Lively extensively negotiating her contract, arranging for the location of the shoot to be moved and door to door pickup, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this irrelevant to the case?

It’s relevant to the question of whether or not she was an employee. Wayfarer is arguing, and I agree, that she had far too much power to be considered an employee. If she is ruled an independent contractor she can’t even bring her title 7 claims.

I don't think the squabbling over which cut was released is relevant to whether or not she was an employee on the set. Wayfarer was the shooting studio, they ran the set. The question is whether or not Lively was an employee or an independent contractor *on that set* since that's where the alleged harassment is supposed to have taken place.

All the stuff about which cut was released is related to post-production, distribution, and marketing. Sony was the distribution studio. Blake isn't suing Sony and there's no conversation about whether she was an employee of Sony's.

I just don't think which cut Sony chose to release has any bearing on whether Blake was an employee on the set of the movie. They are separate operations, as per the agreement between Wayfarer and Sony.

The fact that Blake, who was nominally an actress, made her own cut is extremely relevant to her employment status. How many non-director, actors make their own cut? It all goes into the calculus of whether she had more control than a normal emp”eye send the answers is a definite yes with the facts that you are pushing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing the scores don't matter.

The screening scores only mattered in one way: if Justin's cut had scored above a certain threshold, his contract dictated that Sony would release his cut. That's the only scenario in which screening scores would dictate which cut was released.

Since Justin's cut didn't meet that threshold, Sony could release any cut for any reason. Literally. They were the distributor. It sounds like Sony chose to release Blake's cut because it got a very good response at Book Bonanza and because Blake and Colleen were both very enthusiastic about it, and Sony wanted them to sell the movie very hard to their fan bases (which they did). Sony's concern was getting people to buy tickets to the movie.

I also think Sony wanted to push the women's empowerment angle in selling the movie, and it was easier to do that with a cut that had been put together by Blake and Colleen.

Again, Justin could have avoided any of this had his cut scored high enough to trigger his "final cut" rights in his contract. But it didn't, so it was out of his hands and Sony made the decision based on marketing strategy, which is a completely valid reason to choose one cut over another.

Exactly this. The contract was the contract and he did not hit the necessary metrics, period. It's not complicated. Also agree Sony wanted Blake and Colleen to sell the movie hard, which they then did. Justin's interviews were deemed problematic (in addition to concerns about the SH claims), he was much less famous which meant no leverage, and he was held to the terms of his contract.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this irrelevant to the case?

It’s relevant to the question of whether or not she was an employee. Wayfarer is arguing, and I agree, that she had far too much power to be considered an employee. If she is ruled an independent contractor she can’t even bring her title 7 claims.

I don't think the squabbling over which cut was released is relevant to whether or not she was an employee on the set. Wayfarer was the shooting studio, they ran the set. The question is whether or not Lively was an employee or an independent contractor *on that set* since that's where the alleged harassment is supposed to have taken place.

All the stuff about which cut was released is related to post-production, distribution, and marketing. Sony was the distribution studio. Blake isn't suing Sony and there's no conversation about whether she was an employee of Sony's.

I just don't think which cut Sony chose to release has any bearing on whether Blake was an employee on the set of the movie. They are separate operations, as per the agreement between Wayfarer and Sony.

Wrong. This entire debacle with the cut shows that both wayfarer and Blake were independent entities negotiating terms with a third independent entity (Sony). If Blake were an employee that could not happen period. When’s the last time you went to one of your employer’s business partners and negotiated for your own interests in contradiction to your employer’s?

I'm not even arguing that Blake was an employee of the movie -- I tend to think she was probably an independent contractor, though I'm waiting to see what the court says because there are some situations where an IC may be deemed an employee simply for the application of certain protective statutes, so I'm trying to stay open minded.

But even IF she was an employee of the movie, that employment ended with the filming ended. So Blake was no longer an employee when the bake off was happening.

I also disagree that Blake was arguing against Wayfarer's interests. She might have been arguing against Justin's personal interests, but I do think Blake was trying to ensure a successful and profitable film release. I actually think this is a major reason Sony went with her cut. She's trying to sell the movie. She's getting Colleen on board, she's taking it to Book Bonanza to get Colleen's fans on board, she's getting Taylor's song for the trailer, etc. I think Blake was trying to sell the heck out of the movie. Justin and Wayfarer were not, and that was the problem. Justin was going on vacation, he was begging out of marketing commitments claiming a back injury, etc. And if Wayfarere really did hire TAG and Jed Wallace to attack Lively online as the movie was coming out, that is also counter to the interests of the movie, which is counter to Sony's interests, as well as of course Blake's.

This has been something that annoyed me from the start. If I were Sony and I saw those text messages from Jen Abel's phone, I'm pissed because Sony had a lot invested in the movie being successful, plus they are dealing with this meltdown between Justin and Blake and all the bickering back and forth. They just want to successfully launch the movie and make money. In that situation, if I then found out that Justin had hired a PR team to try and go after the star of the film as the film was premiering? Honestly, in that situation I'd be suing Wayfarer for breach of our partnership agreement because that could jeopardize my money as the distributing studio. I think this is likely why Sony came out in support of Blake when she filed her complaint, because those texts make Justin and Wayfarer look pretty duplicitous from Sony's perspective. Even if you understand why Justin thought he had to do that to protect himself, going after the star of your own movie the week it premieres is bad behavior, made worse if another studio has millions on the line as part of a distribution agreement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Celeb Legal Drama has a fantastic breakdown of the "bakeoff." Before Blake even signed on, this was in the Sony contract: Baldoni only got final cut if he met very specific metrics against Sony's cut. There was always going to be a bakeoff per the contract he agreed to. Sony let Blake and Colleen take the lead on their cut (Colleen was upset Justin had cut her out of the creative process, Blake invited her to join).

Much of the info on this thread is either cherrypicked or just plain wrong. CLD breaks down all the data. Justin's cut did not meet a single metric benchmark stipulated in the contract. Therefore he did not get final cut, period. This happens all the time, which is why we sometimes later see "director's cuts."

..

Sony’s cut and Blake’s cut are not the same thing, plus Blake’s version scored even lower than Justin’s.

CLD has the actual numbers. Justin's cut did not meet any metric stipulated in the contract. Her version scored lower than his in one screening (only in one age group) but not in another. It didn't matter because the contract said Justin's score had to be 7 points higher, and it wasn't. He lost final cut per the terms of the contract, nothing else.

Justin scored 94% and Blake scored 82%. They gave Blake a second chance and she only got her score up to 83%. This whole 7 point thing that’s being spread isn’t true. The scores were unsealed.

Anonymous wrote:Comparing the scores don't matter.

The screening scores only mattered in one way: if Justin's cut had scored above a certain threshold, his contract dictated that Sony would release his cut. That's the only scenario in which screening scores would dictate which cut was released.

Since Justin's cut didn't meet that threshold, Sony could release any cut for any reason. Literally. They were the distributor. It sounds like Sony chose to release Blake's cut because it got a very good response at Book Bonanza and because Blake and Colleen were both very enthusiastic about it, and Sony wanted them to sell the movie very hard to their fan bases (which they did). Sony's concern was getting people to buy tickets to the movie.

I also think Sony wanted to push the women's empowerment angle in selling the movie, and it was easier to do that with a cut that had been put together by Blake and Colleen.

Again, Justin could have avoided any of this had his cut scored high enough to trigger his "final cut" rights in his contract. But it didn't, so it was out of his hands and Sony made the decision based on marketing strategy, which is a completely valid reason to choose one cut over another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this irrelevant to the case?

It’s relevant to the question of whether or not she was an employee. Wayfarer is arguing, and I agree, that she had far too much power to be considered an employee. If she is ruled an independent contractor she can’t even bring her title 7 claims.

I don't think the squabbling over which cut was released is relevant to whether or not she was an employee on the set. Wayfarer was the shooting studio, they ran the set. The question is whether or not Lively was an employee or an independent contractor *on that set* since that's where the alleged harassment is supposed to have taken place.

All the stuff about which cut was released is related to post-production, distribution, and marketing. Sony was the distribution studio. Blake isn't suing Sony and there's no conversation about whether she was an employee of Sony's.

I just don't think which cut Sony chose to release has any bearing on whether Blake was an employee on the set of the movie. They are separate operations, as per the agreement between Wayfarer and Sony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this irrelevant to the case?

It’s relevant to the question of whether or not she was an employee. Wayfarer is arguing, and I agree, that she had far too much power to be considered an employee. If she is ruled an independent contractor she can’t even bring her title 7 claims.

I don't think the squabbling over which cut was released is relevant to whether or not she was an employee on the set. Wayfarer was the shooting studio, they ran the set. The question is whether or not Lively was an employee or an independent contractor *on that set* since that's where the alleged harassment is supposed to have taken place.

All the stuff about which cut was released is related to post-production, distribution, and marketing. Sony was the distribution studio. Blake isn't suing Sony and there's no conversation about whether she was an employee of Sony's.

I just don't think which cut Sony chose to release has any bearing on whether Blake was an employee on the set of the movie. They are separate operations, as per the agreement between Wayfarer and Sony.

Wrong. This entire debacle with the cut shows that both wayfarer and Blake were independent entities negotiating terms with a third independent entity (Sony). If Blake were an employee that could not happen period. When’s the last time you went to one of your employer’s business partners and negotiated for your own interests in contradiction to your employer’s?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this irrelevant to the case?

It’s relevant to the question of whether or not she was an employee. Wayfarer is arguing, and I agree, that she had far too much power to be considered an employee. If she is ruled an independent contractor she can’t even bring her title 7 claims.

I don't think the squabbling over which cut was released is relevant to whether or not she was an employee on the set. Wayfarer was the shooting studio, they ran the set. The question is whether or not Lively was an employee or an independent contractor *on that set* since that's where the alleged harassment is supposed to have taken place.

All the stuff about which cut was released is related to post-production, distribution, and marketing. Sony was the distribution studio. Blake isn't suing Sony and there's no conversation about whether she was an employee of Sony's.

I just don't think which cut Sony chose to release has any bearing on whether Blake was an employee on the set of the movie. They are separate operations, as per the agreement between Wayfarer and Sony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing the scores don't matter.

The screening scores only mattered in one way: if Justin's cut had scored above a certain threshold, his contract dictated that Sony would release his cut. That's the only scenario in which screening scores would dictate which cut was released.

Since Justin's cut didn't meet that threshold, Sony could release any cut for any reason. Literally. They were the distributor. It sounds like Sony chose to release Blake's cut because it got a very good response at Book Bonanza and because Blake and Colleen were both very enthusiastic about it, and Sony wanted them to sell the movie very hard to their fan bases (which they did). Sony's concern was getting people to buy tickets to the movie.

I also think Sony wanted to push the women's empowerment angle in selling the movie, and it was easier to do that with a cut that had been put together by Blake and Colleen.

Again, Justin could have avoided any of this had his cut scored high enough to trigger his "final cut" rights in his contract. But it didn't, so it was out of his hands and Sony made the decision based on marketing strategy, which is a completely valid reason to choose one cut over another.

Sony released Blake’s cut b/c she threatened them. She said she did not care that her version scored lower. That the decision had been made as far as she, Colleen and Taylor were concerned. It had nothing to do with Justin’s contract. His contract also included a film by credit that she had taken away. Sony made their feelings clear about Blake on more than one occasion that they considered her an effing terrorist.

But where did she threaten them? Where was the threat? Saying she's decided, and that Colleen has decided (or that Taylor has, lol, who wasn't even involved with the movie) is meaningless. That's no different than Justin telling them "I've decided my cut is the best cut." Ultimately Sony decides. They went with Blake's cut, as was their right since Justin's didn't hit the score thresholds.

I don't even understand why this matters. I think at one point Justin said that the cut they released was like 98% identical to his cut. So who cares?? Good enough, these people should move on with their lives. It all seems soooooo petty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this irrelevant to the case?

It’s relevant to the question of whether or not she was an employee. Wayfarer is arguing, and I agree, that she had far too much power to be considered an employee. If she is ruled an independent contractor she can’t even bring her title 7 claims.