Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is the ideal client because he literally saved every text, voice mail and scrap of film. Talk about receipts.

On the other hand, I think Blake’s lawyers have opened themselves up to Rule 11 sanctions for the birthing scene allegations. The footnote dropped about what generally is worn in semi nude scenes is proof they knew that wasn’t what she was wearing— a hospital gown, pregnancy suit and underwear.

I actually don't think he Baldoni saved everything. I think he's benefitting from having been a producer and being part of Wayfarer, so there are dozens of people from whom he can get stuff because they work for him or with him.

Also, I don't think there is any Rule 11 exposure in Lively's lawsuit, sorry.

Clearly they knew she was fully clothed (underwear, pregnancy suit and robe). Had they not dropped the footnote, probably not. But that makes it clear they are part of an active misrepresentation to the Court.

I do not consider underwear, a fake belly, and a hospital gown to be "fully clothed." Especially not if the scene required my legs to be up in stirrups in a way that would obviously keep the gown from covering most of my body.

Most people do wear ski bibs in childbirth and birthing scenes.

Wait…. Did that birth scene get slipped in like so much pornography into the script when her back was turned?

Most birth scenes actually don't show much of the woman's body. It's very common for a birthing scene to mostly just show the woman from the waist up, you might see her knees at some point. But especially because the position the actress is in during filming, it's pretty common for actresses to be truly fully clothed during a birth scene. Not just wearing underwear but wearing pants. If you look at the scene in the movie, they have chosen to go for a much more exposed treatment -- Lively is seen from the side and it looks like she's not wearing anything at all on the bottom (if she was in fact wearing briefs, they were removed in post -- I actually would be interested to know exactly what they mean by "briefs" because I would actually assume they would use something with less fabric on the sides to make it easier to remove). There are also shots from behind the doctor with Lively's legs spread on either side.

It's treated tastefully in the movie (it's not pornographic) but also recall that Reynolds wound up doing the Final Cut of the movie and an editor would have a lot of control over how those shots were used.

I also think it's relevant that they had a conversation about her being completely nude (with no hospital gown and presumably no "briefs" whatever that means) in the scene, and that the conversation about that happened on the morning the scene was shot. Even if she ultimately was partially clothed and more covered up in the scene, I could see how being surprised by that request on the day of shooting that scene would be unsettling and make an actress feel particularly vulnerable about how her body is being filmed in a scene where she's in such a compromised position. And I could also see why Lively would feel that the discussion of full or even simulated nudity, the way the scene was filmed, and the way her body was portrayed in the scene, would suggest it would be helpful to have the intimacy coordinator on set for that sequence. It is not a typical birth scene where the focus is mostly on the characters faces and the shots are done from the neck/chest up with everyone clothed and what is actually happening with the birth mostly just implied. They really sought to make it look realistically like Lively was naked. There are a lot of shots of her belly, of Baldoni's face framed by her belly and legs, of Baldoni touching her belly and legs (I know it's a fake belly, he's not putting his hands on her actual stomach, I'm just saying that the framing of the shots is actually pretty focused on her midsection in a way that is atypical for birth scenes.

I agree we’ve yet to hear from both parties on some of the more credible complaints. Also, him saying he had a porn addiction could have set the stage for her to be especially concerned about how he’s choosing to cast these scenes. It’s easy to say she was being controlling for wanting to see the dailies, but it could be that she was really was feeling uncomfortable.

But whenever I start to think this way, it just always comes back to the power dynamic for me. It seems like she could have had whatever clothes she wanted to wear on during that birthing scene. He never pushed back on anything. He’s firing people for her, he’s rearranging schedules to accommodate her family’s illnesses, he’s letting her see his cuts and rewrite scenes, he’s Covid testing people for her, he’s apologizing all the time, he’s giving her a huge wardrobe budget and letting her make wardrobe decisions. Forget every little contention: this is the through-line that people are expressing.

YES THIS

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that Blake lied and omitted information about the dance scene. This is not he said/she said. It’s like bizarro world here.

Did she lie/omit info, or did she present the facts the way she saw them, in the light most favorable to her?

Did she claim Baldoni said anything he didn't say, or did anything he didn't do? Because I don't think she did.

And that is why your many posts have no influence with the majority of us. Because yes, he has documentation that proves that she lied.

You know what, whatever. Let's see what happens in the case. Some of you are reading an amended complaint like it's the Bible and salivating over the idea that "Blake lied" based on nothing but an opposing filing. Okay. Enjoy. Lose your minds, call an evil, ugly liar online. It's obviously meeting some need you have to do this. Knock yourselves out.

Let's see what truth comes out when there is full discovery, actual footage comes out, witnesses are deposed, etc. I think both complaints are skewing the truth, and I think if the truth ever actually comes out, that will be obvious. Just like it was obvious during Depp/Heard, when it was shown that Johnny Depp was in fact an abusive drunk but for some reason everyone was convinced that Amber Heard was a manipulative, conniving liar. Sound familiar?

Yes you have said this many times and we don’t find it convincing. The evidence that has been public is insurmountable for her.

I mean, I'm a DP from PP and *I* find it very convincing. I think I was the first person in these threads (way back in the closed thread) to connect the rhetoric in here to the old Heard/Depp thread. Some people posting in here just sound kind of bananas. I very much agree with PP who also thinks you sound kind of off and I think has very patiently been posting in here how the evidence could be interpreted the other way. But, carry on being super angry at this person you don't know. That seems like a good plan.

Good for you. There are multiple people responding to her and I am not in the least bit angry. The above is my post but you’ll have to respond to the “angry” post seperately as it is not mine.

You seem to want to respond for everyone and imply you represent everyone's point of view in here by saying "we don't find it convincing" when you are just one person. I mean, "good for you" that you have an opinion and can write full sentences and everything. But other people are entitled to their opinion which is different from yours, and you don't speak for me so don't pretend you do, thanks.

Anonymous wrote:I previously said Blake’s lawyers were mid, but now it is clear they are just bad. Clearly they will parrot anything their client asks them to, regardless of whether based in law or fact. The part about a standard protective order being insufficient because of the level of celebrity is complete bs.

Adding new SH allegations to BL’s complaint is certainly a move. I am biased at this point and I will not believe a word of it. I’m with PP, who was obviously kidding - I’m partially convinced that they’re going to try to claim RR was stalked or harassed or abused. I think Swift is too smart to consent to having her name in this ever again but Reynolds strikes me as being really dumb about perceptions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is the ideal client because he literally saved every text, voice mail and scrap of film. Talk about receipts.

On the other hand, I think Blake’s lawyers have opened themselves up to Rule 11 sanctions for the birthing scene allegations. The footnote dropped about what generally is worn in semi nude scenes is proof they knew that wasn’t what she was wearing— a hospital gown, pregnancy suit and underwear.

I actually don't think he Baldoni saved everything. I think he's benefitting from having been a producer and being part of Wayfarer, so there are dozens of people from whom he can get stuff because they work for him or with him.

Also, I don't think there is any Rule 11 exposure in Lively's lawsuit, sorry.

Clearly they knew she was fully clothed (underwear, pregnancy suit and robe). Had they not dropped the footnote, probably not. But that makes it clear they are part of an active misrepresentation to the Court.

I do not consider underwear, a fake belly, and a hospital gown to be "fully clothed." Especially not if the scene required my legs to be up in stirrups in a way that would obviously keep the gown from covering most of my body.

Most people do wear ski bibs in childbirth and birthing scenes.

Wait…. Did that birth scene get slipped in like so much pornography into the script when her back was turned?

Most birth scenes actually don't show much of the woman's body. It's very common for a birthing scene to mostly just show the woman from the waist up, you might see her knees at some point. But especially because the position the actress is in during filming, it's pretty common for actresses to be truly fully clothed during a birth scene. Not just wearing underwear but wearing pants. If you look at the scene in the movie, they have chosen to go for a much more exposed treatment -- Lively is seen from the side and it looks like she's not wearing anything at all on the bottom (if she was in fact wearing briefs, they were removed in post -- I actually would be interested to know exactly what they mean by "briefs" because I would actually assume they would use something with less fabric on the sides to make it easier to remove). There are also shots from behind the doctor with Lively's legs spread on either side.

It's treated tastefully in the movie (it's not pornographic) but also recall that Reynolds wound up doing the Final Cut of the movie and an editor would have a lot of control over how those shots were used.

I also think it's relevant that they had a conversation about her being completely nude (with no hospital gown and presumably no "briefs" whatever that means) in the scene, and that the conversation about that happened on the morning the scene was shot. Even if she ultimately was partially clothed and more covered up in the scene, I could see how being surprised by that request on the day of shooting that scene would be unsettling and make an actress feel particularly vulnerable about how her body is being filmed in a scene where she's in such a compromised position. And I could also see why Lively would feel that the discussion of full or even simulated nudity, the way the scene was filmed, and the way her body was portrayed in the scene, would suggest it would be helpful to have the intimacy coordinator on set for that sequence. It is not a typical birth scene where the focus is mostly on the characters faces and the shots are done from the neck/chest up with everyone clothed and what is actually happening with the birth mostly just implied. They really sought to make it look realistically like Lively was naked. There are a lot of shots of her belly, of Baldoni's face framed by her belly and legs, of Baldoni touching her belly and legs (I know it's a fake belly, he's not putting his hands on her actual stomach, I'm just saying that the framing of the shots is actually pretty focused on her midsection in a way that is atypical for birth scenes.

I think she wound up wearing exactly what one would expect to wear in a birthing scene. Briefs, a hospital gown and pregnancy suit. Hard to imagine any other clothing that would have been appropriate.

And this is based on extensive experience filming childbirth scenes, yes?

There was a detailed story about the filming of a birth scene for the We Live in Time with Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield in the NYT last year (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/13/movies/andrew-garfield-florence-pugh-we-live-in-time.html). A few details jump out at me:

"Before filming the actors rehearsed with a midwife consultant, Penny Taylor, who used a doll as she walked them through the blocking."

"An intimacy coordinator was also on set given that Pugh was naked except for a bra and a heavy prosthetic belly, which gave her knee and back pain almost 'instantly.'"

"In between takes, Pugh said, they would rarely leave the set. 'We would apply each other’s ‘scene sweat’ so no one from the makeup department had to enter our safe space,' she wrote."

And here's a discussion of nudity in birth scenes, and how it has been fairly taboo for a long time even while nudity of women in sexual situations became more common (https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-first-omens-full-frontal-060000975.html):

"Full-frontal female nudity still feels more familiar, and therefore acceptable, when it can be sexualised, as Stevenson suggests. Meanwhile, the mystic of childbirth as a pure, almost out-of-body experience too often leaves the goriest bits out – let alone detailing them in a closeup – putting more pressure on women to 'perform' to fit that narrative of effortlessness."

I'll note the childbirth scene in IEWU is not gory -- it's softly lit, tender, and meant to be emotional (I didn't find it emotional because I don't think the movie is very good, but that's clearly what they are going for). But I think it's interesting to think about how nudity in such scenes is not common and Hollywood has usually taken a more hands off approach.

It seems like the way Baldoni and Heath chose to approach this scene left something to be desired, especially as it concerned the body of the woman at the center of the scene. One unusual thing about a birth scene is that the actress portraying childbirth is in a particularly vulnerable physical position -- both portraying something primal and deeply personal and also potentially in a state of undress -- while everyone else in the scene is clothed and portraying something far less physical. This makes it a very intimate scene for one person but perhaps not that intimate for everyone else. Which might be why there was such a disconnect between Baldoni/Heath and Lively on how the scene was handled, and why Lively felt violated or compromised by their approach to her wardrobe, the casting of the doctor who would spend the scene between her legs, and who else was on set or had access to monitors of the shoot.

I do think you can make a compelling argument that springing the proposed nudity on her last minute, failing to have an intimacy coordinator on set, and being someone dismissive of what the scene required of Lively as an actress, was enough to prompt a valid complaint from Lively on the handling of the scene. I also think that given how much Baldoni talked about the "empowering" message of the film in its promotion, and the importance of not subjecting the move to "the male gaze," that he perhaps didn't really walk the walk when it came to actually filming the movie.

Anonymous wrote:I previously said Blake’s lawyers were mid, but now it is clear they are just bad. Clearly they will parrot anything their client asks them to, regardless of whether based in law or fact. The part about a standard protective order being insufficient because of the level of celebrity is complete bs.

What did you make of the hearing today? Were there wins for either party?

I previously said Blake’s lawyers were mid, but now it is clear they are just bad. Clearly they will parrot anything their client asks them to, regardless of whether based in law or fact. The part about a standard protective order being insufficient because of the level of celebrity is complete bs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lawyer, please give me their takeaways on this:

-------------

Blake Lively intends to hit Justin Baldoni with fresh allegations in her sexual harassment case, her lawyer has revealed.

And the actress' lawyer Michael Gottlieb said in court on Monday that protecting the couple's celebrity friends was going to be 'very important'.

Gottlieb told the court during the hearing that they intend to add 'both claims and parties' to a revised complaint which will be filed by Valentine's Day.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14354989/Justin-Baldoni-Blake-Lively-court-400M-defamation-case.html

They are going to add claims related to Ryan and possibly Taylor, other I can not imagine what that would be.

Did Justin sexually harass Ryan and Taylor now too? lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is the ideal client because he literally saved every text, voice mail and scrap of film. Talk about receipts.

On the other hand, I think Blake’s lawyers have opened themselves up to Rule 11 sanctions for the birthing scene allegations. The footnote dropped about what generally is worn in semi nude scenes is proof they knew that wasn’t what she was wearing— a hospital gown, pregnancy suit and underwear.

I actually don't think he Baldoni saved everything. I think he's benefitting from having been a producer and being part of Wayfarer, so there are dozens of people from whom he can get stuff because they work for him or with him.

Also, I don't think there is any Rule 11 exposure in Lively's lawsuit, sorry.

Clearly they knew she was fully clothed (underwear, pregnancy suit and robe). Had they not dropped the footnote, probably not. But that makes it clear they are part of an active misrepresentation to the Court.

I do not consider underwear, a fake belly, and a hospital gown to be "fully clothed." Especially not if the scene required my legs to be up in stirrups in a way that would obviously keep the gown from covering most of my body.

Most people do wear ski bibs in childbirth and birthing scenes.

Wait…. Did that birth scene get slipped in like so much pornography into the script when her back was turned?

Most birth scenes actually don't show much of the woman's body. It's very common for a birthing scene to mostly just show the woman from the waist up, you might see her knees at some point. But especially because the position the actress is in during filming, it's pretty common for actresses to be truly fully clothed during a birth scene. Not just wearing underwear but wearing pants. If you look at the scene in the movie, they have chosen to go for a much more exposed treatment -- Lively is seen from the side and it looks like she's not wearing anything at all on the bottom (if she was in fact wearing briefs, they were removed in post -- I actually would be interested to know exactly what they mean by "briefs" because I would actually assume they would use something with less fabric on the sides to make it easier to remove). There are also shots from behind the doctor with Lively's legs spread on either side.

It's treated tastefully in the movie (it's not pornographic) but also recall that Reynolds wound up doing the Final Cut of the movie and an editor would have a lot of control over how those shots were used.

I also think it's relevant that they had a conversation about her being completely nude (with no hospital gown and presumably no "briefs" whatever that means) in the scene, and that the conversation about that happened on the morning the scene was shot. Even if she ultimately was partially clothed and more covered up in the scene, I could see how being surprised by that request on the day of shooting that scene would be unsettling and make an actress feel particularly vulnerable about how her body is being filmed in a scene where she's in such a compromised position. And I could also see why Lively would feel that the discussion of full or even simulated nudity, the way the scene was filmed, and the way her body was portrayed in the scene, would suggest it would be helpful to have the intimacy coordinator on set for that sequence. It is not a typical birth scene where the focus is mostly on the characters faces and the shots are done from the neck/chest up with everyone clothed and what is actually happening with the birth mostly just implied. They really sought to make it look realistically like Lively was naked. There are a lot of shots of her belly, of Baldoni's face framed by her belly and legs, of Baldoni touching her belly and legs (I know it's a fake belly, he's not putting his hands on her actual stomach, I'm just saying that the framing of the shots is actually pretty focused on her midsection in a way that is atypical for birth scenes.

I agree we’ve yet to hear from both parties on some of the more credible complaints. Also, him saying he had a porn addiction could have set the stage for her to be especially concerned about how he’s choosing to cast these scenes. It’s easy to say she was being controlling for wanting to see the dailies, but it could be that she was really was feeling uncomfortable.

But whenever I start to think this way, it just always comes back to the power dynamic for me. It seems like she could have had whatever clothes she wanted to wear on during that birthing scene. He never pushed back on anything. He’s firing people for her, he’s rearranging schedules to accommodate her family’s illnesses, he’s letting her see his cuts and rewrite scenes, he’s Covid testing people for her, he’s apologizing all the time, he’s giving her a huge wardrobe budget and letting her make wardrobe decisions. Forget every little contention: this is the through-line that people are expressing.

Anonymous wrote:A lawyer, please give me their takeaways on this:

-------------

Blake Lively intends to hit Justin Baldoni with fresh allegations in her sexual harassment case, her lawyer has revealed.

And the actress' lawyer Michael Gottlieb said in court on Monday that protecting the couple's celebrity friends was going to be 'very important'.

Gottlieb told the court during the hearing that they intend to add 'both claims and parties' to a revised complaint which will be filed by Valentine's Day.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14354989/Justin-Baldoni-Blake-Lively-court-400M-defamation-case.html

They are going to add claims related to Ryan and possibly Taylor, other I can not imagine what that would be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is the ideal client because he literally saved every text, voice mail and scrap of film. Talk about receipts.

On the other hand, I think Blake’s lawyers have opened themselves up to Rule 11 sanctions for the birthing scene allegations. The footnote dropped about what generally is worn in semi nude scenes is proof they knew that wasn’t what she was wearing— a hospital gown, pregnancy suit and underwear.

I actually don't think he Baldoni saved everything. I think he's benefitting from having been a producer and being part of Wayfarer, so there are dozens of people from whom he can get stuff because they work for him or with him.

Also, I don't think there is any Rule 11 exposure in Lively's lawsuit, sorry.

Clearly they knew she was fully clothed (underwear, pregnancy suit and robe). Had they not dropped the footnote, probably not. But that makes it clear they are part of an active misrepresentation to the Court.

I do not consider underwear, a fake belly, and a hospital gown to be "fully clothed." Especially not if the scene required my legs to be up in stirrups in a way that would obviously keep the gown from covering most of my body.

Most people do wear ski bibs in childbirth and birthing scenes.

Wait…. Did that birth scene get slipped in like so much pornography into the script when her back was turned?

Most birth scenes actually don't show much of the woman's body. It's very common for a birthing scene to mostly just show the woman from the waist up, you might see her knees at some point. But especially because the position the actress is in during filming, it's pretty common for actresses to be truly fully clothed during a birth scene. Not just wearing underwear but wearing pants. If you look at the scene in the movie, they have chosen to go for a much more exposed treatment -- Lively is seen from the side and it looks like she's not wearing anything at all on the bottom (if she was in fact wearing briefs, they were removed in post -- I actually would be interested to know exactly what they mean by "briefs" because I would actually assume they would use something with less fabric on the sides to make it easier to remove). There are also shots from behind the doctor with Lively's legs spread on either side.

It's treated tastefully in the movie (it's not pornographic) but also recall that Reynolds wound up doing the Final Cut of the movie and an editor would have a lot of control over how those shots were used.

I also think it's relevant that they had a conversation about her being completely nude (with no hospital gown and presumably no "briefs" whatever that means) in the scene, and that the conversation about that happened on the morning the scene was shot. Even if she ultimately was partially clothed and more covered up in the scene, I could see how being surprised by that request on the day of shooting that scene would be unsettling and make an actress feel particularly vulnerable about how her body is being filmed in a scene where she's in such a compromised position. And I could also see why Lively would feel that the discussion of full or even simulated nudity, the way the scene was filmed, and the way her body was portrayed in the scene, would suggest it would be helpful to have the intimacy coordinator on set for that sequence. It is not a typical birth scene where the focus is mostly on the characters faces and the shots are done from the neck/chest up with everyone clothed and what is actually happening with the birth mostly just implied. They really sought to make it look realistically like Lively was naked. There are a lot of shots of her belly, of Baldoni's face framed by her belly and legs, of Baldoni touching her belly and legs (I know it's a fake belly, he's not putting his hands on her actual stomach, I'm just saying that the framing of the shots is actually pretty focused on her midsection in a way that is atypical for birth scenes.

I think she wound up wearing exactly what one would expect to wear in a birthing scene. Briefs, a hospital gown and pregnancy suit. Hard to imagine any other clothing that would have been appropriate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that Blake lied and omitted information about the dance scene. This is not he said/she said. It’s like bizarro world here.

Did she lie/omit info, or did she present the facts the way she saw them, in the light most favorable to her?

Did she claim Baldoni said anything he didn't say, or did anything he didn't do? Because I don't think she did.

And that is why your many posts have no influence with the majority of us. Because yes, he has documentation that proves that she lied.

You know what, whatever. Let's see what happens in the case. Some of you are reading an amended complaint like it's the Bible and salivating over the idea that "Blake lied" based on nothing but an opposing filing. Okay. Enjoy. Lose your minds, call an evil, ugly liar online. It's obviously meeting some need you have to do this. Knock yourselves out.

Let's see what truth comes out when there is full discovery, actual footage comes out, witnesses are deposed, etc. I think both complaints are skewing the truth, and I think if the truth ever actually comes out, that will be obvious. Just like it was obvious during Depp/Heard, when it was shown that Johnny Depp was in fact an abusive drunk but for some reason everyone was convinced that Amber Heard was a manipulative, conniving liar. Sound familiar?

Yes you have said this many times and we don’t find it convincing. The evidence that has been public is insurmountable for her.

I mean, I'm a DP from PP and *I* find it very convincing. I think I was the first person in these threads (way back in the closed thread) to connect the rhetoric in here to the old Heard/Depp thread. Some people posting in here just sound kind of bananas. I very much agree with PP who also thinks you sound kind of off and I think has very patiently been posting in here how the evidence could be interpreted the other way. But, carry on being super angry at this person you don't know. That seems like a good plan.

Good for you. There are multiple people responding to her and I am not in the least bit angry. The above is my post but you’ll have to respond to the “angry” post seperately as it is not mine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that Blake lied and omitted information about the dance scene. This is not he said/she said. It’s like bizarro world here.

Did she lie/omit info, or did she present the facts the way she saw them, in the light most favorable to her?

Did she claim Baldoni said anything he didn't say, or did anything he didn't do? Because I don't think she did.

And that is why your many posts have no influence with the majority of us. Because yes, he has documentation that proves that she lied.

You know what, whatever. Let's see what happens in the case. Some of you are reading an amended complaint like it's the Bible and salivating over the idea that "Blake lied" based on nothing but an opposing filing. Okay. Enjoy. Lose your minds, call an evil, ugly liar online. It's obviously meeting some need you have to do this. Knock yourselves out.

Let's see what truth comes out when there is full discovery, actual footage comes out, witnesses are deposed, etc. I think both complaints are skewing the truth, and I think if the truth ever actually comes out, that will be obvious. Just like it was obvious during Depp/Heard, when it was shown that Johnny Depp was in fact an abusive drunk but for some reason everyone was convinced that Amber Heard was a manipulative, conniving liar. Sound familiar?

Yes you have said this many times and we don’t find it convincing. The evidence that has been public is insurmountable for her.

Who is "we"?

The majority of the people,posting here.

Unless you are coordinating your posts with other people, you have no idea (1) how many people are posting, or (2) which posts belong to which poster.

Are you coordinating your posts with other people?

You are the one who has been squawking about the majority of this board being pro JB. It isn’t due to inability to read your many posts.
And of course I am not coordinating with anyone else. But I can identify the number of posts that I didn’t write that take a similar position.

I'm the immediate PP and I have never written anything about what the "majority" of the board thinks, precisely because it's never possible on DCUM to know if you are arguing with 12 people or 1. I also never use the abbreviation "JB" if that helps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is the ideal client because he literally saved every text, voice mail and scrap of film. Talk about receipts.

On the other hand, I think Blake’s lawyers have opened themselves up to Rule 11 sanctions for the birthing scene allegations. The footnote dropped about what generally is worn in semi nude scenes is proof they knew that wasn’t what she was wearing— a hospital gown, pregnancy suit and underwear.

I actually don't think he Baldoni saved everything. I think he's benefitting from having been a producer and being part of Wayfarer, so there are dozens of people from whom he can get stuff because they work for him or with him.

Also, I don't think there is any Rule 11 exposure in Lively's lawsuit, sorry.

Clearly they knew she was fully clothed (underwear, pregnancy suit and robe). Had they not dropped the footnote, probably not. But that makes it clear they are part of an active misrepresentation to the Court.

I do not consider underwear, a fake belly, and a hospital gown to be "fully clothed." Especially not if the scene required my legs to be up in stirrups in a way that would obviously keep the gown from covering most of my body.

Most people do wear ski bibs in childbirth and birthing scenes.

Wait…. Did that birth scene get slipped in like so much pornography into the script when her back was turned?

Most birth scenes actually don't show much of the woman's body. It's very common for a birthing scene to mostly just show the woman from the waist up, you might see her knees at some point. But especially because the position the actress is in during filming, it's pretty common for actresses to be truly fully clothed during a birth scene. Not just wearing underwear but wearing pants. If you look at the scene in the movie, they have chosen to go for a much more exposed treatment -- Lively is seen from the side and it looks like she's not wearing anything at all on the bottom (if she was in fact wearing briefs, they were removed in post -- I actually would be interested to know exactly what they mean by "briefs" because I would actually assume they would use something with less fabric on the sides to make it easier to remove). There are also shots from behind the doctor with Lively's legs spread on either side.

It's treated tastefully in the movie (it's not pornographic) but also recall that Reynolds wound up doing the Final Cut of the movie and an editor would have a lot of control over how those shots were used.

I also think it's relevant that they had a conversation about her being completely nude (with no hospital gown and presumably no "briefs" whatever that means) in the scene, and that the conversation about that happened on the morning the scene was shot. Even if she ultimately was partially clothed and more covered up in the scene, I could see how being surprised by that request on the day of shooting that scene would be unsettling and make an actress feel particularly vulnerable about how her body is being filmed in a scene where she's in such a compromised position. And I could also see why Lively would feel that the discussion of full or even simulated nudity, the way the scene was filmed, and the way her body was portrayed in the scene, would suggest it would be helpful to have the intimacy coordinator on set for that sequence. It is not a typical birth scene where the focus is mostly on the characters faces and the shots are done from the neck/chest up with everyone clothed and what is actually happening with the birth mostly just implied. They really sought to make it look realistically like Lively was naked. There are a lot of shots of her belly, of Baldoni's face framed by her belly and legs, of Baldoni touching her belly and legs (I know it's a fake belly, he's not putting his hands on her actual stomach, I'm just saying that the framing of the shots is actually pretty focused on her midsection in a way that is atypical for birth scenes.

A lawyer, please give me their takeaways on this:

-------------

Blake Lively intends to hit Justin Baldoni with fresh allegations in her sexual harassment case, her lawyer has revealed.

And the actress' lawyer Michael Gottlieb said in court on Monday that protecting the couple's celebrity friends was going to be 'very important'.

Gottlieb told the court during the hearing that they intend to add 'both claims and parties' to a revised complaint which will be filed by Valentine's Day.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14354989/Justin-Baldoni-Blake-Lively-court-400M-defamation-case.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that Blake lied and omitted information about the dance scene. This is not he said/she said. It’s like bizarro world here.

Did she lie/omit info, or did she present the facts the way she saw them, in the light most favorable to her?

Did she claim Baldoni said anything he didn't say, or did anything he didn't do? Because I don't think she did.

And that is why your many posts have no influence with the majority of us. Because yes, he has documentation that proves that she lied.

You know what, whatever. Let's see what happens in the case. Some of you are reading an amended complaint like it's the Bible and salivating over the idea that "Blake lied" based on nothing but an opposing filing. Okay. Enjoy. Lose your minds, call an evil, ugly liar online. It's obviously meeting some need you have to do this. Knock yourselves out.

Let's see what truth comes out when there is full discovery, actual footage comes out, witnesses are deposed, etc. I think both complaints are skewing the truth, and I think if the truth ever actually comes out, that will be obvious. Just like it was obvious during Depp/Heard, when it was shown that Johnny Depp was in fact an abusive drunk but for some reason everyone was convinced that Amber Heard was a manipulative, conniving liar. Sound familiar?

Yes you have said this many times and we don’t find it convincing. The evidence that has been public is insurmountable for her.

I mean, I'm a DP from PP and *I* find it very convincing. I think I was the first person in these threads (way back in the closed thread) to connect the rhetoric in here to the old Heard/Depp thread. Some people posting in here just sound kind of bananas. I very much agree with PP who also thinks you sound kind of off and I think has very patiently been posting in here how the evidence could be interpreted the other way. But, carry on being super angry at this person you don't know. That seems like a good plan.