Blake Lively

Well of course.

Here is a podcast I just listened to concerning misogyny in cases like this, including misogyny coming from women towards other women; if you are interested.

It's one of my favorite movies The Shallows (2016)

They seemed pretty cozy from these outtakes, not sure what it says

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...th-abusee.html

Yeah, no way at all someone accused of sexual harassment would resort to selectively edited videos.... No, no way at all!

Let's try posting yet again to list all the things Blake lied about in this case.

Incident 1 - Blake took control of her own wardrobe. The Paparazzi photographed her, Sony did not find the images flattering for the film or whatever reason. Blake claims Baldoni flipped out on her, the production was delayed.

Incident 2 - Blake rewrote the rooftop scene (or Ryan Reynolds did so), When Baldoni didn't agree with Blake rewriting the scene she went silent for a few days then brought in Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift for a meeting with Baldoni. Swift ofcourse put a song in the film...another incident of Blake's leverage techniques.

Incident 3 - Baldoni spoke to a personal trainer about lifting Lively. Lively found out about the question of her weight and Reynold blew up on Baldoni. Lively reassured Lively that her body was fine which is where the sexual harassment charge comes in. Now does this sound like sexual harassment or the director of the film dealing with logistical issues of a scene. She was not sexually harassed rather she manipulated the truth.

Incident 4 - Blake Lively claims she was shown pornography on set. It was a birthing video and you had a birth scene in the film. Blake was also not okay with the birthing scene claiming that Baldoni had his friend play the doctor. She neglects to mention that she was wearing black shorts and was not nude.

Incident 5 - The film goes on hiatus during the strike, Blake decides at this point to set forth a series of demands for Baldoni's behavior on set. It was a 17 point list of demands...this is after she insisted on getting her grubby little hands on the dailies. This comes into play later.

Incident 6 - The 17 demands include an intimacy coordinator to be on set. He had to sign this list even though he claims that an intimacy coordinator was already on set...Lively didn't want to use her. Or Lively wanted a paper trail that could be used later.Another claim was that only authorized people on set for nude scenes. Baldoni argues they did this...but they had to sign this point for Blake to return.

Incident 7 - Baldoni is accused of doing inappropriate things during a filming scene. Now the entire point of an intimacy coordinator is to function as a gobetween with the actors. Baldoni is claiming that Blake shock of shockers did not meet with the intimacy coordinator. Now she gets to claim sexual harassment but yet she was the person who was driving this action. And I want to make this clear here...had Blake read the book she would know the subject matter. It's also batshit insanity that these sexual harassment claims are based not on Baldoni's actions but rather the filming of the scenes. This is the sort of thing that is provable in court which is why I believe Baldoni people will not perjure themselves for Blake.

Incident 8 - Blake claims Justin improvised a kiss on set...Justin claims it was Blake. Baldoni claims they have Blake on film pulling Justin in for the kiss. So if we are claiming sexual harassment for basic filming elements it sounds like Blake is actually guilty of sexual harassment based on the standards that many of you would like to use against Baldoni.

Incident 9 - Blake in her 17 points says that their will be no talking about body parts on set. Well Baldoni claims on camera they have Blake making fun of Baldoni's appearances and suggesting he get plastic surgery. Once again another incident that he has documented. Does Blake have any evidence against Baldoni...probably not.

Incident 10 - Blake exposed a scene where she wore a one piece and claims Baldoni said it was sexy. Baldoni's argument was that this was part of the job and it was her request that the costuming be sexy. And just so people understand here...Blake was the one who was in charge of dressing herself. Does this sound like sexual harassment
...is this sexy outfit sexy
...yes
---well now I've been sexually harassed

Incident 11 - No talking about sex onset. Now the intention is to paint this as Baldoni speaking about inappropriate things on set. Baldoni claims the conversation was not lewd but rather about his porn addiction when he was younger. Lively claims she's never seen pornography which...I mean c'mon now. This is the sort of conversation that I've heard nuns talk about in sunday school lessons not sexual harassment. It seems clearly that Lively is manipulating the situation here. And let's not forget Baldoni has to sign off on her takes on these issues for her to finish the film. Basically holding the production hostage.

Incident 12 - She insists on a nudity rider, she says she never got it, he says they sent it to her and she just didn't sign it. She also did not sign the COE..which is needed for copyright claims. Once he has receipts about these requests.

Incident 13 - Baldoni is not allowed to retaliate against Lively. To me this is ballgame, Lively did a series of manipulative and shady things on set and tried to do back end NDA. Her later actions with the cast, premiere and edits of the film are now covered with a legal gotcha. This is also why Baldoni hired a crisis management team because...yeah they got put in a crisis.

Incident 14 - The editing, Baldoni has texts from himself and the editors putting together the film per Blake's wishes. The editors talk amongst themselves about how crazy this is...and yet they were still fired Lively brought in her own editors made her own cut of the film which was not as well received and Sony still released that cut. Baldoni the credited director of the film never saw Blake's cut of the film and that Blake did not sign her COE. Blake holding to copyright issues to block the film if she wishes. But we wouldn't want Baldoni to retaliate against her by smearing her...with the things she said and did on set.

Now we move into post-filming incidents.

Baldoni was dropped by his talent agency WME. He is claiming this came from the bigger celebrity in WME Ryan Reynolds.

Deadpool and Wolverine had a joke character named nicepool who was a parody of Baldoni. In the scenes Nicepool mentions being a feminist to economically exploit the movement for a podcast and refers to Ladypools body after post pregnancy.

During the premiere of the film the cast was segregated with the Wayfare people the ones that owned the IP having to stay away from Blake and cast. And nothing says innocent person like controlling information. They were also not allowed to attend the post-film party...that Wayfare paid for. We're not just talking about Baldoni but 16 other people that had to go to the basement. Y'know like Fraggles, or Ninja Turtles or Morlocks. Once again talking about something that actually happened...specifics that mentioning this is hating on Blake Lively and shaming a survivor of sexual harassment.

Does all this count as controlling information? This is the thing I asked you about point-blank at the beginning.

Yeah, every time I feel someone's being unfair to me, I argue with them by paying a PR firm to pretend to be a bunch of people to talk about them. I mean, how else are you gonna defend yourself?

Thanks for posting this, Siddon. I was not likely to write up a list of the things that made me change my mind about Blake and Justin. I am generally vague as anything. But this is the information that made me believe Justin rather than Blake.

No, this one-scene, one-act play you have made up does not constitute sexual harassment. I just don't know why you're including your Baldoni-Lively fan fiction into what was ostensibly a description of events.

Basically your whole post is like this. Taking a claim and a counterclaim and then randomly speculating about how it might have gone down, conveniently always in a way that fits with the side you took reflexively. I notice you usually say "X happened" when it's a Baldoni claim and always "Blake claims" when it's one of hers, which is an almost insultingly transparent attempt at spin.

There is definitely a big difference between "information" and "speculation".

Something like the presence of an intimacy coordinator (before the rider) on set is so absolutely easy to prove. Either this person existed or they did not exist.

And if this person exists and will say, "I wanted to meet with Blake Lively but she refused," that's also really clear cut.

Same with things like knowing if Lively was given covering to wear for the entirety of the birth scene (it is disputed as to whether she had covering the whole time or only after a while).

Like others have said, I hope this all does go to an actual trial. Plenty (but not all) of what's being discussed would be answered unambiguously.

Claims and counterclaims are relatively easy to make on interviews and social media.

But only in a court would you be able to have experts go over the evidence and the testimony, question and cross-examine participants and witnesses, get experts to testify about matters which might require clarification, etc etc etc.

Baldoni seems much more interested in winning on the court of pubic opinion, and smearing Blake is one way of accomplishing that, imho.

To be caught, as Yoda described it, "paying a PR firm to pretend to be a bunch of people to talk about them" is... well, it's really a choice.

And that choice speaks volumes about the kind of person who'd resort to that kind of underhanded trickery. I don't see how an innocent person resorts to that.

Ah, but waiting for trial means less dopamine when one or the other is proven wrong about something. Plus, you get triple internet CloutPoints for getting your bet in early.

Exactly. I honestly think that some of the claims could be seen in an ambiguous light. Do I think that someone being okay with you being in the room while they were breastfeeding is the same is giving them permission to just walk in when they want? No. Could someone argue that Baldoni perceived it that way? Yes.

But so much comes down to yes or no questions, and at this point we need to hear those answers. Name the intimacy coordinator. Have him/her tell what happened. Talk to the other actors in the birth scene. Have them say if Lively was covered the whole time. Because both sides have made opposing claims (there was an intimacy coordinator vs there wasn't), the answers to those questions will make it a lot easier to judge who is being truthful and who isn't.

I can't wait for Baldoni's lawyer to sarcastically perform a fictional conversation about sexual harassment during cross-examination. I wonder if he'll be shrewd enough to have Lively's parts read in a Dumb Guy voice. That stuff's really persuasive.

Blake's team has been quick to hit back and totally rebuke Baldoni's claims.

He is really starting to seem like a noob at this.

Like Blake's attorneys ask, why release the footage to the media, instead of presenting it in federal court, where the case currently is, and where Baldoni and others would have to answer questions about it under oath?

I think this is exactly right, yeah. A few of these claims are obviously dependent entirely on context. I can easily imagine a version of "mentioning your porn addiction" that is in keeping with the established topic, tone, and level of familiarity in a given interaction.

I can also easily imagine a version that's pervy as hell and clearly designed to be suggestive with deniability. And if someone can't imagine both possibilities, or can somehow convince themselves that only one is possible (based on what?), then they really don't understand social interactions at all.

Of course, what I wouldn't do is imagine one of these, scribble it down messily, and then present it as if it were a fact or argument or any kind.

Honestly, 9 times out of 10 if you show me a situation like this, where one "side" (since people tellingly insist on thinking in those terms) is expressing a healthy amount of humility and nuance, and the other is expressing exactly zero of either, I wouldn't need to hear anything else. That's plainly indicative of motivated reasoning and a busted thought process, whatever the reality turns out to be.

I kind of want it to be revealed that Lively did want to steal the rights to the film, and she just lucked out on the director being a total trash bag.

Like Lively is on the phone trying to coordinate the illicit production of fabricated images showing Baldoni groping her, and then he pops his head in her trailer and goes "Yo, my bro Trevor is going to be playing your OB/GYN? Tear them clothes off, right?" and Lively is like "Debbie, cancel the deepfakes. We won't be needing them."

Not really related to the current case against Lively, but there is an Interesting story going around that apparently, according to newly surfaced court documents, Freedman, Baldroni’s lawyer, previously represented a person with cystic fibrosis who sued Baldoni, 40, for alleged copyright infringement and breach of contract over Baldroni’s debut film Five Feet Apart. *

Justin Baldoni heard apologizing to Blake Lively in ‘It Ends With Us’ audio message:

Does this prove anything? Nope. But it is perfectly consistent with the "seems like both sides did some awful stuff" posture. And, if true, it's definitely inconsistent with the reflexive cheerleading that makes this out to be simple or obviously one-sided.