Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

Seems like hiring someone to retaliate is a problem, even if they didn't actually retaliate. Just like hiring a hit man is a crime, even if they botch the job.

Is this true? Like say they hired Wallace but he never actually had bots posting for Baldoni, would the mere act of hiring him with the *intention* of astroturfing be retaliation?

I find this aspect of the case very interesting from a legal perspective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

Seems like hiring someone to retaliate is a problem, even if they didn't actually retaliate. Just like hiring a hit man is a crime, even if they botch the job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JB engaged a crisis management team in order to protect his reputation from the rumors and gossip being promoted by three public refusal of BL and cast to work with JB. This was most publicized by BL shutting him away from the cast at the premier. It was not a result of any claim made by BL in regards to the workplace

But will a court see it that way? Did his team just seek to protect Baldoni's rep or did it explicitly seek to destroy Lively's?

“Will a court see it that way” is not a synonym with establishing a fact pattern. Do better, okay?

What are you talking about? It's a valid question. I'm not trying to "establish a fact pattern." I'm trying to have a conversation about this case, which I think is interesting. Sorry if you thought this was a Justin Baldoni fan club website? I don't actually care about any of these people.

If Baldoni's team hired Jed Wallace and Jed Wallace employed bots to post on popular sites and stir up negative sentiment about Lively, and they did, would that be viewed as retaliation? I'm genuinely asking because it seems like that's kind of the crux of her retaliation case.

The whole basis of the retaliation is that JB’s actions were the result of BL’s sexual harassment complaints. If that wasn’t what happened there’s not a retaliation case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JB engaged a crisis management team in order to protect his reputation from the rumors and gossip being promoted by three public refusal of BL and cast to work with JB. This was most publicized by BL shutting him away from the cast at the premier. It was not a result of any claim made by BL in regards to the workplace

But will a court see it that way? Did his team just seek to protect Baldoni's rep or did it explicitly seek to destroy Lively's?

“Will a court see it that way” is not a synonym with establishing a fact pattern. Do better, okay?

What are you talking about? It's a valid question. I'm not trying to "establish a fact pattern." I'm trying to have a conversation about this case, which I think is interesting. Sorry if you thought this was a Justin Baldoni fan club website? I don't actually care about any of these people.

If Baldoni's team hired Jed Wallace and Jed Wallace employed bots to post on popular sites and stir up negative sentiment about Lively, and they did, would that be viewed as retaliation? I'm genuinely asking because it seems like that's kind of the crux of her retaliation case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

She wasn’t retaliated against. She does not have strong retaliation claims.

Dp is that because you think what Justin and team did doesn’t constitute retaliation, or do you think Jed didn’t do anything period because the Blake backlash was self-inflicted? Would love to hear your thoughts on why she doesn’t have strong retaliation claims because there’s one poster here who insists those claims are extremely strong

She insists in the absence of evidence, it’s her thing 😊.

Because I’m on LSA and a long-term reader of sites like Datalounge and Dlisted, not Reddit, I was completely familiar with how Blake Lively has been viewed. She’s deeply unpopular and has been for a very long time. I think Wallace did not have to campaign and did not do so, and that Lively’s attorneys and the NYT excerpted to strip content from the texts of Abel. The chart team Lievely threw together wasn’t the only theoretically relevant one — a chart showing consistent positive mentions over prior years contrasted with only negative mentions for this press period. She’s had a toilet-swirling rep for forever. I reference other sites because they have far larger readership than this part of DCUM, and because part of her deep unpopularity is explicitly predicated on racial insensitivity. She has been despised for well over a decade for not giving a sht about celebrating plantations. She doubled down. It is what it is, which is to say, a definitional self-own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Rearranging a schedule to accommodate a family illness is normal. Normalize sick leave, including for parents of sick kids.

Covid testing should be required, especially if there is a Covid outbreak in the workplace.

The other stuff, fine, but let's not act like someone who wants to be home with their sick baby while they are still nursing, or who would like testing protocols to prevent spread of illness, is automatically being a diva. Those are normal things to do and don't belong in that list with stuff like wardrobe demands or getting people fired.

Let’s strive harder for honesty here. Let’s try.

PP did not carve out those accommodations as extravagances or extol Wayfarer for being run by saints motivated by maternal health during cold and flu season. The discussion was about relative power and the ability of someone who is claiming falsely IMO to have been disempowered in her workplace to have every complaint and concerned heard, and answered in her affirmative favor.

Nothing I said is dishonest.

I just think it gross to lump in what I view to be perfectly legitimate employee requests with the other behavior. Literally any employee should be allowed to request a scheduling change to accommodate a sick child. Anyone. And Covid testing in a workplace that has had a Covid outbreak seems normal to me.

I'm not even commenting on her relative power level on the set. I'm just saying that throwing those two requests in with a laundry list of other requests as being somehow indicative of diva behavior isn't fair. I'm not a diva at work and have never demanded thousands in wardrobe funds, but I have every right to say "look by 6 month old is sick with Covid and I'm nursing right now and it's the only thing that soothes her, I would like to bump this meeting until next week." That's a totally normal request.

I didn't mean to imply that BL was acting like a diva. I said that the through-line of his complaint was him striving hard to be accommodating and meet all of her requests. I don't know if her requests were reasonable or excessive, because I've never worked on a movie set. (Some seem excessive to me, but I'm also not a movie star; I bet most of what she does would feel excessive to me).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

She wasn’t retaliated against. She does not have strong retaliation claims.

Dp is that because you think what Justin and team did doesn’t constitute retaliation, or do you think Jed didn’t do anything period because the Blake backlash was self-inflicted? Would love to hear your thoughts on why she doesn’t have strong retaliation claims because there’s one poster here who insists those claims are extremely strong

She insists in the absence of evidence, it’s her thing 😊.

Because I’m on LSA and a long-term reader of sites like Datalounge and Dlisted, not Reddit, I was completely familiar with how Blake Lively has been viewed. She’s deeply unpopular and has been for a very long time. I think Wallace did not have to campaign and did not do so, and that Lively’s attorneys and the NYT excerpted to strip content from the texts of Abel. The chart team Lievely threw together wasn’t the only theoretically relevant one — a chart showing consistent positive mentions over prior years contrasted with only negative mentions for this press period. She’s had a toilet-swirling rep for forever. I reference other sites because they have far larger readership than this part of DCUM, and because part of her deep unpopularity is explicitly predicated on racial insensitivity. She has been despised for well over a decade for not giving a sht about celebrating plantations. She doubled down. It is what it is, which is to say, a definitional self-own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Rearranging a schedule to accommodate a family illness is normal. Normalize sick leave, including for parents of sick kids.

Covid testing should be required, especially if there is a Covid outbreak in the workplace.

The other stuff, fine, but let's not act like someone who wants to be home with their sick baby while they are still nursing, or who would like testing protocols to prevent spread of illness, is automatically being a diva. Those are normal things to do and don't belong in that list with stuff like wardrobe demands or getting people fired.

Let’s strive harder for honesty here. Let’s try.

PP did not carve out those accommodations as extravagances or extol Wayfarer for being run by saints motivated by maternal health during cold and flu season. The discussion was about relative power and the ability of someone who is claiming falsely IMO to have been disempowered in her workplace to have every complaint and concerned heard, and answered in her affirmative favor.

Nothing I said is dishonest.

I just think it gross to lump in what I view to be perfectly legitimate employee requests with the other behavior. Literally any employee should be allowed to request a scheduling change to accommodate a sick child. Anyone. And Covid testing in a workplace that has had a Covid outbreak seems normal to me.

I'm not even commenting on her relative power level on the set. I'm just saying that throwing those two requests in with a laundry list of other requests as being somehow indicative of diva behavior isn't fair. I'm not a diva at work and have never demanded thousands in wardrobe funds, but I have every right to say "look by 6 month old is sick with Covid and I'm nursing right now and it's the only thing that soothes her, I would like to bump this meeting until next week." That's a totally normal request.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JB engaged a crisis management team in order to protect his reputation from the rumors and gossip being promoted by three public refusal of BL and cast to work with JB. This was most publicized by BL shutting him away from the cast at the premier. It was not a result of any claim made by BL in regards to the workplace

But will a court see it that way? Did his team just seek to protect Baldoni's rep or did it explicitly seek to destroy Lively's?

“Will a court see it that way” is not a synonym with establishing a fact pattern. Do better, okay?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JB engaged a crisis management team in order to protect his reputation from the rumors and gossip being promoted by three public refusal of BL and cast to work with JB. This was most publicized by BL shutting him away from the cast at the premier. It was not a result of any claim made by BL in regards to the workplace

But will a court see it that way? Did his team just seek to protect Baldoni's rep or did it explicitly seek to destroy Lively's?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JB engaged a crisis management team in order to protect his reputation from the rumors and gossip being promoted by three public refusal of BL and cast to work with JB. This was most publicized by BL shutting him away from the cast at the premier. It was not a result of any claim made by BL in regards to the workplace

But will a court see it that way? Did his team just seek to protect Baldoni's rep or did it explicitly seek to destroy Lively's?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JB engaged a crisis management team in order to protect his reputation from the rumors and gossip being promoted by three public refusal of BL and cast to work with JB. This was most publicized by BL shutting him away from the cast at the premier. It was not a result of any claim made by BL in regards to the workplace

But will a court see it that way? Did his team just seek to protect Baldoni's rep or did it explicitly seek to destroy Lively's?

Anonymous wrote:JB engaged a crisis management team in order to protect his reputation from the rumors and gossip being promoted by three public refusal of BL and cast to work with JB. This was most publicized by BL shutting him away from the cast at the premier. It was not a result of any claim made by BL in regards to the workplace

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.

Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him.

Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).

She wasn’t retaliated against. She does not have strong retaliation claims.

Dp is that because you think what Justin and team did doesn’t constitute retaliation, or do you think Jed didn’t do anything period because the Blake backlash was self-inflicted? Would love to hear your thoughts on why she doesn’t have strong retaliation claims because there’s one poster here who insists those claims are extremely strong