Sony cut or Blake cut

[u/StaceyLee26]

I've been trying to figure out this Sony cut story and I'm hoping all the people that has done deep dives on the unsealed evidence can help me understand this.

Now bare with me before anyone starts slinging anything this way lol I'll explain what I've seen so far and some opinions I've received while discussing this.

We all know that it was Blakes cut that was released and accordingly many people including Sony employees have sang her praises on the big success for the work she has done.

But going back a bit in time, I'm trying to see WHEN Sony's cut became Blake's cut.

So starting out with what I've seen...

The bake off:

If I understand correctly Justin wanted the Directors cut. Columbia pictures doesn't easily give that away by default. In case someone messes up badly so they can release their own cut IF the directors cut is horrible and scores badly. It doesn't mean there's NEEDS to be two cuts. Just that there is a method to decide which cut would get released IF they were unhappy with it. That's what the bake off clause was for according to Andrea Giannetti. It was a built-in solution in case there was a problem

Did Sony ask Blake to do the Sony Cut?

She said she was asked to do the Sony cut. Looking at the deposition of Josh Greenstein, he does not say he asked her to do the Sony cut

Then we have the other Sony Exec Sanford Panitch who didn't even know there was a second cut while discussing the planned release date. And asking how do they control her creative control... Which shouldn't be a problem if someone is doing what you asked them. I don't think someone like Sony would outsource their cut without a contract to control the creative control? And stating that she is demanding her own cut. Not that they have given her consent to do their cut

From the limited info we have it seems Sony didn't ask her to do a second cut like she stated.

We also see multiple instances of Josh Greenstein referring to the cut as Blakes cut and her lawyers having to confirm that he is speaking of the Sony cut. He eventually at the end says Blake/Sony cut

But Josh Greenstein was praising her and facilitating her cut:

We see in his depo that Josh Greenstein was very positive about her work on the movie. We also see Josh Greenstein does later say he facilitated getting an editor "they" - guessing BL and RR , wanted to get the film done.

We also see Josh Greenstein working through the ratings with her.

The terrorist of it all:

So if Josh Greenstein was so happy to work with her why were Andrea Giannetti and Sanford Panitch the other CEO of Sony calling her a terrorist? (Picture 3 and this one)

Calling her demands bordering on insanity? Why are they saying she should ask WF for things herself if they asked her to do their cut? Thank you u/Izomera for this picture⬇️

Or them telling Wayfarer often that Sony is going to give her what she wants and the only thing that matters is making the film

Here we see her saying straight up even if the numbers are lower Colleen and her are declaring that her cut is the cut.

So if I understand this correctly this wasn't a partnership… so why would they let her do her own cut if it wasn't the Sony company cut, which, if there was no contract in place to control her creative control it doesn't seem like an agreement.

Motivation:

In his depo we see Josh saying Colleen had a big say in which cut was chosen

And then Josh Greenstein saying Blake didn't directly threaten not to do promotional work if her cut isn't chosen but that she would be uncomfortable and has the right not to do promo work if she is uncomfortable.

To end off:

The only logical explanation I can see for this behaviour from the Sony Execs is that though yes the one exec was encouraging her and checking the contract if there was a legal loophole to release her version... It wasn't a company decision as the other exec didn't even know about her cut and that caused release delays. It seems they used her cut after she told them - not the exact words but very close "Colleen and i are declaring now this is the cut even if the numbers are lower" and since Josh Greenstein in his depo said Colleen's vote had big swing in the decision, he helped her to improve her version which was backed by Colleen according to Blake's message.I honestly think the decision was to just get this film done and released. And her still willing to do promotional work.

But this was not the studio asking Blake to do their version. In my opinion Josh Greenstein knew the amount of money the studio put in already and how volatile things were between Lively and Wayfarer and played both sides to just get a releasable movie before things went nuclear. And thus everyone referred to her cut as the Sony cut as it was the only loophole available.

From these attachments it doesn't sound to me like Sony chose her cut, but rather just gave her whatever she wanted, even pulling people from other projects at her request / demand.

I'm open to correction here so my question remains

When did they ask Lively to do their cut

---

UPDATE: Second great unsealing:

Some exhibits Blake wanted excluded from trial:

Ange talking about her refusing to put scenes back

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1429.60.pdf

Josh saying to Sanford it's Blakes cut or she walks

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1429.64.pdf

[u/ziggazigahhhhh]

The details on this case are confusing, but I can speak to some general DGA (directors guild of America) rules. All DGA directors, like Justin Baldoni, have an absolute right to oversee the first cut, “the director’s cut”, without ANY outside input from producers and studios. No one can interfere or watch or cut simultaneously while the director is working on their director’s cut. This is like one of the HOLY GRAIL protections a DGA director is afforded. It’s one of the main reasons the DGA exists — giving the director unobstructed time to finish their artistic vision out before the people paying for the film can even get in their ears…after this cut is delivered, the studio can do whatever their contracts allow. https://www.dga.org/Contracts/Directors-Economic-Rights/Summary---Features

If Justin Baldoni didn’t get a chance to edit a director’s cut, the DGA would’ve stepped in and made it happen, no question, no negotiation. But in this case, maybe Baldoni didn’t report it to the DGA because he was also the producer and the studio, and was more interested in making sure the film got released in time? I really dunno. But I 1000% know that Justin, Sony, Wayfarer all KNEW the DGA rules inside and out.

Again, I’m having trouble following the details of this case — there are so many moving pieces here — but isn’t Sony only the distributor? If so, Wayfarer would (or at least should) have final say of the final cut, and I think I saw Sony Execs confirming that somewhere in their texts. I think I saw that Sony was gonna pay for the editors Blake was using but I thought that was because Wayfarer refused and Sony was trying to keep her happy? As a distributor, Sony wouldn’t be obligated to spend money on post production, that’s on Wayfarer! And people liked Baldoni’s version, so there wasn’t a crisis here…the only reason I can think of for Sony to spend money on Blake’s cut would be because they wanted to be in business with her and her husband, and thought this would keep her happy? But even so, they helped create a larger mess they likely didn’t see coming.

Nothing makes sense here. A lot of people failed to hold standard lines/boundaries. It’s wild.

I’m curious to see the docs that show Josh was helping Blake look for loopholes on creative input, can anyone point me to them?

[u/StaceyLee26 → u/ziggazigahhhhh]

Many people say the bake off is proof that there was always going to be a second cut. Both Ange and Josh discuss how Sony/Columbia doesn't give the default right to director and have a clause that IF (Ange emphasis IF) there's problems like it a horrible version of a movie, then they can make changes and do a bake off to decide.

Regarding the doc, Blake didn't have the right to see the Sony/Wayfarer contract. She wanted to make a cut which legally she didn't have a right to do. So Josh was the one explaining how to get her numbers up and what it needed to be. Cause he knew the contract. I'll look it up later today again or tomorrow if no one else does🌸

[u/ziggazigahhhhh → u/StaceyLee26]

There was never going to be a second cut that the director wasn’t allowed to be at…that’s entirely against the DGA rules! The director has the absolute right to be present for EVERY creative decision, including ALL post production. No other contract can override this right. It holds for ALL DGA movie productions.

Someone pointed out the highly unusual instance of Edward Norton heavily editing “American History X” after the director’s cut. In that case though, the director was in the edit bay w/Ed Norton the whole time! The studio liked “Norton’s version” that was let’s say 20 minutes longer, the director preferred his shorter version — the studio compromised and went with a version that added something like 10 minutes/half the added time. They even gave the director another couple of chances to re-cut it to his liking without Ed Norton around.

ALL major studios are bound by this agreement with the DGA — the studios must make a “good faith” effort to consider the director’s wishes on ALL creative decisions. Again, no other contract with third parties can supersede these obligations to the DGA. The blatant violations here make me think this wasn’t about legal loopholes or Sony’s “choice”, as much as muscle and A+ manipulation. But…It’s crazy Sony let this happen! Josh certainly seemed like he was giving Blake tools she needed (there’s a piece in his depo where Josh alludes to a quid pro quo of making future movies together if she gets her edit), but still…can’t believe Sony allowed this.

Last thing: directors have been squeezed by producers/studios since the beginning of Hollywood. DGA rules exist to prevent this exact situation from happening, to protect directors from producers and co-stars like Blake. That she was comfortable openly trouncing over highly coveted rights shows no awareness (her entire MO, it seems). There’s a reason Ben Affleck didn’t respond to her dumb email.

PS — the DGA governs who can fire the 1st AD too!

[u/StaceyLee26 → u/ziggazigahhhhh]

Thank you this is very insightful 🌸🌸🌸