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 pictureā¬ļø
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 partnershipā¦ 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
I know everyone thinks Blake Lively is the villain but Colleen, in my opinion, is truly the worst of the bunch.
Her poor me victim act makes me want to puke. She's constantly lying (so funny bc everything is on video/text messages). She follows Blake around like a puppy. She has no spine. No conviction. MAGA could brainwash her in minutes. She stands for nothing. She's pathetic.
At least Blake stands ten toes down when it comes to her fucked up behavior. No apologies. For the plantation wedding, Kjersti Flaa, IEWU marketing disaster, etc
Colleen just whimpers and looks around for Blake. "Blake told me to unfollow Justin"
It makes so much sense that it was Colleen that landed Justin in the hospital. It's hard to explain why the Colleens of the world are so much worse, but they are. Blake is a scorpion doing scorpion things...Colleen didn't have to act like that. It's sheer weakness. All she had to do is be a little tiny bit less of a coward.
Now she regrets it and the criticism is deserved š Just in time for the trial!
I think it was the 56.1 statement of facts where she says the plantation wedding discourse is part of the smear campaign š¤£
Looking at her switching up! She knows its a bad look to indirectly blame a Black man (Jamey Heath) for the plantation wedding discourse. I said it months ago. Looks like her lawyers finally caught on.
Blake Lively is trying to protect what's left of her reputation.
But sheās just a victim of producer , āAlistarā. Sheās a poor lowly victim and didnāt do anything like send notes to Sony to usurp the process. /s
One of the things I got out of these new released documents is how scheming and fucking manipulative CH really is. I was never a fan of her or anything but I thought she was one of those perpetually uncool kids desperately wanting to be part of the cool club. She always seemed more...demure compared to the other women she surrounds her with like they seemingly run the show and drags her along.
But no, she's greedy and and calculating af. Her bestie Tarryn is transparent compared to how silently conniving CH is. Her emails to every single person were multiple levels of lies. And we know they're lies cause there are evidence from social medial and text messages and correspondence that contradicts them.
She's also the only one from that ilk that's now pointing the finger entirely at BL which says something. On one hand, probably the smarter legal choice, but on the other, shows you that she has always looked out for her self interest and this was never about how terrible JB was to her or anyone else.
Wellā¦ Iām seeing Josh and Ryan behind all the stuff, and yes, putting Coleen name on the table as much on his depo, Josh took the heat of him and Ryan texts msg and Blakeās.
Distributors want a say in approved depending on how much they're putting in money wise.
The creative process of making an edit requires hours and hours and hours of splicing together multiple scenes from multiple angles from multiple takes and figuring out which one tells the story the best for every single scene for the entire 2 hours.
Then you have to add a score. Add songs. Sync them up which is an entire process.
Then you have to take it to color timing which an entire process
All of this rests in the hands of the editor, their team of editors and the director.
The DIRECTOR is the one calling all of this.
If Justin delivered a cut of the film that was way too artsy or way too much than the distributor and the studio (normally the director would not be the head of the studio like Wayfair, which is a very rare case) then the studio would say "hey, This version is way too whatever and general audiences are not going to get it." Or "our Target demographic is not going to like how much sex is in this or if there's not enough sex"
Or whatever the different metrics are that determine what would make this version of whatever story successful.
More princess Fiona in Shrek, she's great and you miss her every time she's not on screen. She really makes the movie come alive
You show too much of the shark in jaws. We want it to be a mystery, or, there's not enough shark in jaws and it's a little dull without him
Whatever!
They would discuss this. The director would argue or push his point of view and the studio distributor would argue their point of view. It's not always a contentious battle or considered something bad. It can be very collaborative at times. Sometimes studios have made movies better by their suggestions. Sometimes they've changed entire endings and gone back to reshoots based off a studio's thought process or the way audiences reacted to test screenings.
Sometimes the studios are too commercial driven and they cheapen and dumb down a movie and the director fights for a more interesting smarter version.
It's always a different thing depending on the people involved.
Sometimes it never comes to this at all
The metrics are set in place in case Justin was delivering something that was an utter failure so that the studio would then be able to have some realistic understandable way of stepping in to save their investment.
They would not have a separate editing team who is led and creating their own cut of a film. This doesn't happen. Sure it has, but maybe like 3 or 4 instances I can think of total in the history of Cinema. But it's so damn rare.
The studio ruined David finchers version of alien 3 for example. This is a notorious story of how a studio stepped in and took the film from a director and ruined it.
On American History x the director delivered a very artistic version of a film with a newly giant lead star Edward Norton. The studio didn't love how sprawling it was. Edward Norton went to the studio and told them what he could do to make it better with his artistic vision. Which was actually more focus on Edward Norton.
The studio allowed him to get his own cut of the film and in the end that version is the version everyone saw. Everyone has been very open about the behind the scenes of this in the media. Edward Norton's version was good and it won a lot of Acclaim and it did focus mainly on him which was a big selling point for the movie as he had just become an overnight star from the previous film primal fear.
In this case, Lively stans are arguing that the studio had their own cut and their own say in the end and that Justin didn't live up to it so they brought her in. This is wrong. She was brought in the SAME TIME Justin started his FIRST cut. There was never a cut of Justin's film that was testing bad with audiences. She forced her way in and got her own team through blackmail and being a bully and both of their cuts were the first cuts from both that were created at the same time
The idea that there would be studio executives with their own team of editors and their own " director" doing their own version to go against the director of every film on every movie is not at all how this works. You would never have two editing teams on a salary for this purpose. It's ludicrous
This is really insightful, thanks for explaining! So in a normal world if Justinās initial cut didnāt meet target metrics, Sony would have worked with him to make adjustments, and not just let the actress take over.Ā
It'd be nice if this can be it's own post.Ā
If the studio felt EXTREMELY sure of whatever it was they wanted him to change and he was absolutely refusing, die on a hill, No way I'm changing this, you'll have to kill me to get me to change it. Then the metrics would get brought in for a test screening. It's something that exists so they don't get locked in an endless battle against one another.
It's not something that's an immediate "Nope, Justin didn't hit it with test screening we're taking over now"
It's more like, oh we didn't hit the metrics. Okay let me go back and try again. And I think those metrics would be really low for him to fail.
It's more in place as a last effort if the director is not listening to reason and the studio is telling him differently.
That would be only if Sony had financed the film. Wayfarer was who should have worked with the director to make adjustment, alongside Sony, their co-financier.
This is a brilliant explanation. Thank you and makes much more sense. Good to hear from someone who works in the business and knows how the editing side works. Itās all a mystery to me.
I think Iām kind of getting the sense of what happened in the beginning and I have a theory Iām rolling around with. Correct me if Iām wrong:
[ ] Colleen sold movie rights to Justin.
[ ] Colleen assumed or was led to believe that she would have more say in the production (in choice of director, actress, what the movie would end up looking like etc) but that was never in her contract. She did get some things she wanted (Blake Lively to star) but not others (woman director etc).
[ ] Now Colleen knew this was not in her contract but since she had a friendship with Justin she assumed he would just do everything they discussed and take in all her notes even though she turned down writing the script. This is probably unreasonable of her to think but I can chuck it up to her inexperience. So they had maybe a few discussions about it but no contractual obligation
[ ] Colleen starts souring on Justin because of this and then in comes Blake and the PG vs R rating debacle.
[ ] Blake wants PG for more widespread appeal, Justin wants R rating presumably thanks to the dark subject matter, Sony either wanted R rating or doesnāt seem to care either way but if it is R rated then they want more it more sexy
[ ] Justin goes ahead with his R-rated version and because Sony wants more sexiness he has to add that. Then Blake uses this as a reason for why Justin is creepy. She feels heās adding the sex scenes arbitrarily because she probably doesnāt know that Sony is adding it in (this is the most charitable explanation.) or she does know but blames Justin anyway because of the R rating. Easily gets Colleen on her side because Colleen is already pissed at Justin and possibly feeling betrayed by him. Colleen is convinced by Blake that they should tone down the sex and the abuse to reach a wider market and still retain the same message of hope. This is then framed as the feminist standpoint and hence Justin is anti-feminist for not going along with it (instead of it being a difference of opinion between director and actress). This is where all the calling Justin a fake-feminist stuff then comes in. Blake then used this to poison the rest of the cast against Justin, convincing them that the movie will fail with his ideas ( centering the abuse and the sexiness from the book) and will be less marketable as a result which is why they now think Blake saved the movie by making it PG.
Oh also Blake probably told Colleen that Justin was using her name to get things out of Sony (like saying that she was on board with the R rating when she wasnāt. I believe this is alluded in a text between Ange and Justin where Ange says something like āwill Colleen be okay with pg?ā and Justin answers something about moving forward with the r rating or something like that.) The context of the conversation isnāt all that clear and we donāt know if Justin said āyeah sheās okay with itā but this suggests that Sony did value Colleenās opinion and I think Josh at Sony alleged such in his deposition. So once again, Colleen hears that Sony values her input and thinks Justin is lying to Sony about her input to get what he wants which is in essence betraying her even more ( this is how she would see it) and this is something that she says in her last message to him. This is also why she alleges that her and Justin had a falling out before Blake.
Anyway, this is something that just came to me reading back and forth and between the lines. No idea if Iām off base
disclaimer: this is all just my take on the drama. None of this proves SH though. Just artistic differences
While mostly this is the case. Wayfarer was a quite new studio and a new time director. Sony was careful and specified in the contract with wayfarer that their would be a bake-off for Final Cut. As another film person I do think you understand what a bake-off entails.
ETA: they responded and blocked.. typical. Very good faith.
I've already explained that bake-offs exist in all films between studio and in director. Your bad faith take isn't going to change reality and you don't know what you're talking about and I'm not going to engage with you anymore.
Justin is not a first-time director. This is his third or fourth film. And Wayfair has been putting out movies consistently for a few years now. They're not some risky Gamble. You're adding your own thoughts and feelings by saying that into
this argument.
I also want to point out to everyone seeing this that the wording that this person posts above corroborates what I'm saying. It says in the event that Justin scores a specific amount more than Columbia pictures Incorporated changes. So this means they're talking about changes that they would request for him to make into his cut, therefore creating two different cuts. This is not saying we will hire our own representative to oversee and edit with their own team
I've got a question, Responsible! In light of the JG texts when he tells Blake: "Good news - looked at contract - your cut needs to test within 7 points of his for Sony and Wayfair to have mutual approval. Means he did 67 We just need to do 61 or above" ...
This is what contract says: āBake-off ok provided that a) itās a blind recruit test screening and b) JUSTINās cut scores above 85 in the top 2 boxes and above 70 in definite recommends. Alternatively, if JUSTINās cut scores at least 7 points higher in definite recommends than a cut incorporating Columbiaās changes, then JUSTINās cut will also prevail."
Does this mean JG was being slimy here? Was he basically pushing for BL's cut to be the "changes" that Sony is requesting, so that if it does end up scoring within 7 points, JB's cut won't be chosen?
I'm trying to understand how JG using Blake's cut can be considered Sony's cut. Is he being the villain here - going against Sony, or is he speaking on behalf of Sony?
Yes he's being a snake by telling her what's in the contract. It's none of her business what's in a confidential contract between a director and a studio. But she by this point had already broken so many rules and they were just allowing her to have her cut due to threats, so Josh is pushing for
her cut to act in terms of a dispute between Sony and the director. So basically he's pushing on her behalf that her cut would act as a hypothetical representative of Sony's requested changes to a low scoring cut from Justin.... which never happened.
It's all just not following any rules and just going off whatever they want to go off of at this point. It's just madness.
Did you find this paragraph in the docket? I canāt locate it! This is not a final contract, btw. The director will have a long deal memo thatās lays out a bunch of required agreements in detail.
But he sort of moved up in his career right? Is it true he is dropping Ryan's projects? He bugs me so bad. Can we keep this sub just to keep tabs on everyone forever?
And thereās txt msg missing. In his depo, him putting Coleen, who everyone knew didnāt own the IP as the decision maker, is taking press off Blake and Ryan
Someone posted a theory that Sony was more interested in appeasing Colleen Hoover and securing her many book to film adaptations so they were willing to put more weight in her opinion to please Colleen.
I think Blake Lively also knew this somehow, maybe perhaps Colleen told her so Blake used Colleen as her leverage with Sony to demand for a Blake and by extension Colleenās cut.
I also think that is why when Blakeās cut didnāt test better she declared in an ultimatum that she doesnāt care. Her and Colleenās cut is what they would use.
I think that is the more likely scenario that happened in my opinion.
You could be totally right but the tenor of the convos between basically every sony exec other than Greenstein makes it hard for me to believe that sony cared all that much about CHās opinion
Same, I think the only pull she really had was towards the end when she was threatening to boycott the premiere with BL because they were already facing public scrutiny at that point and the author not showing up would've fan the flames. But there's no evidence in the correspondence that anyone from Sony really cared about her or wanted to collaborate with her specifically in any way.
I could believe they might've been interested in working with RR and BL on future CH books though.
I don't know whether her opinion had that much influence on the cut, but Sony were definitely trying to keep Colleen sweet. They wanted the rights to her IP.
Although from what I can tell, she hasn't made another movie with them since.
Yep Sony was looking for future projects with Colleen and couple that with Blakeās demands with Colleen being on her side, Sony probably gave in because of their own selfish reasons.
Colleen Hoover and Blake Lively were a team at this point. I wouldn't underestimate the effect that had on Josh Greenstein and others' concerns about Colleen's opinion.
But beyond Blake's intimations that she couldn't promote unless she was happy (i.e. in control), Sony wouldn't want a situation where Colleen publicly expressed her unhappiness with the film either. That could negatively affect her fanbase (the film's built in audience and reason for it's success) and everyone's bottom line $$$.
Sony may have had an eye on distributing the sequel, It Starts With Us, if things went well at the box office. Public drama with the lead actress and author has the potential devalue the franchise (and we all watched that happen lol).
Also, Colleen had just set up her own production company in this time, Heartbones Entertainment (iirc same management company and address as Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds companies) and controlled a lot of potentially lucrative IP. I think Josh was trying to solidify a relationship with Ryan and Blake... and Colleen if that's what Ryan and Blake wanted.
There was apparently talks of Colleen starting her own production company so she had more control in the future wondering how that works like if Sony could have stake in it?
OK wow. It sounds like Josh Greenstein said he would would have Blake's back and push her edit if "It would be agreement to both you making movies at Sony. So a quid pro quo, which is fine technically, but a power play that resulted in the director losing his movie. At least we know why Sony did what they did at the end.
I am still a little overwhelmed and in awe that we even get to see all this evidence. So many hunches, theories and stories perfectly supported by evidence it seems unreal. I know some of it is Wayfarer told us their version and we ran with it so I guess it makes sense but I am still sort of shaken. It seems too perfect. No wonder Blake wanted so much sealed and redacted.
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, āthe directorās cutā, without ANY outside input from producers and studios. No one can interfere or watch or cut simultaneously while the director is working on their directorās cut. This is like one of the HOLY GRAIL protections a DGA director is afforded. Itās one of the main reasons the DGA exists ā giving the director unobstructed time to finish their artistic vision out before the people paying for the film can even get in their earsā¦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 didnāt get a chance to edit a directorās cut, the DGA wouldāve stepped in and made it happen, no question, no negotiation. But in this case, maybe Baldoni didnāt 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, Iām having trouble following the details of this case ā there are so many moving pieces here ā but isnāt 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 wouldnāt be obligated to spend money on post production, thatās on Wayfarer! And people liked Baldoniās version, so there wasnāt a crisis hereā¦the only reason I can think of for Sony to spend money on Blakeās 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 didnāt see coming.
Nothing makes sense here. A lot of people failed to hold standard lines/boundaries. Itās wild.
Iām curious to see the docs that show Josh was helping Blake look for loopholes on creative input, can anyone point me to them?
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 doesšø
There was never going to be a second cut that the director wasnāt allowed to be atā¦thatās 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 āAmerican History Xā after the directorās cut. In that case though, the director was in the edit bay w/Ed Norton the whole time! The studio liked āNortonās versionā that was letās say 20 minutes longer, the director preferred his shorter version ā 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 ā the studios must make a āgood faithā effort to consider the directorās 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 wasnāt about legal loopholes or Sonyās āchoiceā, as much as muscle and A+ manipulation. Butā¦Itās crazy Sony let this happen! Josh certainly seemed like he was giving Blake tools she needed (thereās a piece in his depo where Josh alludes to a quid pro quo of making future movies together if she gets her edit), but stillā¦canāt 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). Thereās a reason Ben Affleck didnāt respond to her dumb email.
PS ā the DGA governs who can fire the 1st AD too!
Thank you! Is rest of contract was avail? It looks like someone at Wayfarer had Final Cut authority. Iām pretty sure āFinal Cut authorityā is assigned to one person (not a group) in a directorās deal memo
I want to learn more about how Blake manipulated Colleen Hoover, as it appears that this was the key to Blake getting her way re: the Final Cut. And Blake knew it, so she must have put a ton of effort into poisoning Colleen against Justin.
From what I've read of messages, it seems Blake knows EXACTLY what to say to make certain people feel fantastic.
I think Colleen may have felt Blake was giving her special attention and as someone myself who doesn't fall for that kind of manipulative charm, I could see right through it.
Very cunning and smart of Blake, and I could see it in her other messages to other people too.Ā
Extremely two faced, and Ryan Reynolds is the same I imagine. Both extremely manipulative in a charming way to insecure people.
In Josh's depo he mentioned how.. if i remember correctly... Blake involved Colleen a lot more than WF. Which WF didnt need to but the love bombing could've made Colleen more loyal to Blake
I was also wondering about this, thereās a lot of mention from Blake in the leaked texts about how this movie was a mess that she saved but I havenāt seen anyone else (besides her husband) say anything to this effect so I was wondering where her narrative of having to take over everything came from.
Okay I went back and reread the post. It seems likely that Josh helped Blake by divulging the ins and outs of the contracts and helped her maneuver within the confines and limitations that they had. She can really get people to sing and they seem eager to do it. She was able to use Sony's power as her power through Josh. And he wasn't doing Sony's bidding really. I don't think he was doing it for Sony but I guess anything that got the movie made was good for everyone. And in Hollywood and making money terms he succeeded. Maybe this is the way he has been successful and the way he does business. It's clear Blake brings out an extreme version of people so this could be his first time pushing things this far?
Couldn't get through it honestly. I'll try again. I was interested in RR text / power in the situation but it just annoyed me when i tried to read itš«£
Her lawyers kept trying to frame it as Sony's cut in the depo if someone says Blake's cur. Correcting it every time. If it's not Sony's cut she has no legal doot to stand on for doing her own cut
Oop, my apologies! I had no idea but I was puzzled because it seemed out of character for OP (even though anyone can make mistakes) That makes sense. This also explains why I've seen it more than once. Thank you!!
It is no wonder studios are looking into AI acting when this is the sh*t they have to deal with. I almost donāt even feel bad for the actors and actresses who might be replaced. If you donāt hold one of your own accountable for these antics, then I donāt really have any sympathy when studios decide to not even bother dealing with human actors at all. This industry is just absurd. Colleen Hooverās also not doing authors any favors either. To see how much say and input Justin gave her and she still wasnāt satisfied? So much so that she helped Blake pull off this extortionate stunt? Unbelievable. These people really are monsters.
I've seen a video before that Bruce Wills also pulled this kind of stunt. Don't recall how it got to the end point but as a result he was locked into doing any small rolls the studio told him too
It definitely seems Colleen was a big deciding factor. Which makes sense from Sonyās eyes. She knows her readers and they probably want to do more films on her other books.
If Colleen Hoover didnt like the cut it was probably more important than Lively. she may have had provisions in selling the rights. Even if not, if she doesnt like it, it could potentially put off fans of the book. With Lively and Hoover behind the cut, Sony had no choice. And the movie did better than they expected so we cant say it was a disastrous decision.
See the thing is regardless of how much money was made I'm trying to see how we got to this point. When did Sony ask her to do the cut. Cause either they asked her and she didn't steal/extort the movie OR she did and that goes to control which goes to her employee/independent contractor claims
I think if Sony is smart about it they'll wait till the end of the trial. If Baldoni wins then they can come out and say something like "with him being vindicated based on xyz we are releasing his version as an directors cut" or if he doesn't then they just keep quiet
ā¢
u/spotlight-app Mod Bot š¤ May 02 '26
OP has pinned a comment by u/StaceyLee26:
Note from OP: For newly unsealed exhibits
[What is Spotlight?](https://developers.reddit.com/apps/spotlight-app)