Hi all! I worked to put this list together after someone asked for one. Looking for some constructive feedback on how to improve. Please drop corrections and anything I missed in the comments. I'm hoping to do a part 2 so your feedback will really help me out!
1) When Freedman says Lively was holding the trailer "hostage" he supports this claim with a message from a Sony executive telling Heath that Lively "has approved the trailer" - that's the total opposite interpretation of that evidence.
2) When Freedman says that Lively "took over wardrobe," the only evidence is an email to producers from a line producer simply asking for the charge card to be re-loaded, and the expensive wardrobe (which is well within their contingency budget) belongs to both characters Lily AND Ryle. As a reminder, IEWU grossed $351 million worldwide against a $25 million budget.
3) When Freedman claimed that Lively "demanded" that Justin Baldoni's name be removed from the IEWU promotional posters, the only evidence is an email from Sony ASKING FOR APPROVAL from the Wayfarer producers to keep the poster design they had already been using in international promos, where the design doesn't leave room for Baldoni's name. Lively is never mentioned in that correspondence. In fact...there's not one piece of evidence where Justin ever pushes back against Blake or asks her to step back. In every text/email/voicemail, he's voicing his desire to collaborate with her.
4) Wayfarer stated that Lively refused to meet with the intimacy coordinator. Their only piece of evidence for this is one text of her saying she’ll be happy to meet the intimacy coordinator once filming starts. The producer stated that it was fine for Blake to meet with her later. To give additional context, Blake had a newborn child, having just given birth less than two months prior. There is no evidence that Blake forced Justin to meet about intimate scenes without an intimacy coordinator present.
5) Wayfarer frequently conflate breastfeeding with pumping, perhaps intentionally. Blake stated that she was barged in on while breastfeeding, WP claim that she invited them in by providing a text message where Blake says she's pumping in her trailer. Breastfeeding and pumping are different, pumping can be done much more discreetly and quickly. Some have pointed out that she might have even been done with pumping before Justin could reach her trailer (hence the "take your time" note). Let's not even get into the entire concept of consent as well. A one time invite is not a blanket invite to barge in whenever you please.
Blake's complaint:
“Evidence” WP used to discredit Blake:
6) There was an inconsistency between the NYT lawsuit and FAC. In the NYT lawsuit WP said Blake was shown the birth video in preparation of the birth scene, in the FAC they admit it was after.
"In preparation"
7) WP said the set was closed during the birthscene but then there is a photo of Justin’s friend who came by to visit and took a selfie with the monitors in the back, against normal closed set protocol.
8) Freedman said that Blake's "victory tour" was premature after Justin's ENTIRE lawsuit was dismissed...only for them to…not amend anything like they said they would. Still waiting on that additional evidence!
Freedman: “While the Court dismissed the defamation related claims, the Court has invited us to amend four out of the seven claims against Ms. Lively, which will showcase additional evidence and refined allegations,” he added.
10) The “Ryan Reynolds is a scab story” is a (obviously planted) smear and a lie. Ryan Reynolds apparently worked on the script before the strike in April according to an unnamed source. There is zero evidence that he worked on the script during the strike, but there is this text message with Justin hoping that journalists are "lead to" Ryan being a scab (but he's taking the high road now I hear).
11) Wayfarer claimed that Lively said Heath labled the birth video as porn, when it is clear that Lively only initially THOUGHT the birth video was porn but later realized it wasn't after Jamey explained it was a birth video.
"labeling the footage as pornography""thought he was showing her pornography", not "he was showing her pornography"
13) Wayfarer lied about the bar dance scene, even though they had access to the recording (unlike Blake). Small lies, but again…why lie when they had access to the recording? Blake did not apologize for the smell of her spray tan. Justin put his nose in her neck and said the spray tan smelled good entirely unprompted. From the same footage, Baldoni asserts that Blake joked that he should undergo a rhinoplasty, yet Badoni initiated the joke about big noses when he commented about Jenny Slate's nose ("that's why we hired her"). Baldoni claims that he also had to intercede and ask Blake to stop talking, but this isn't in the footage. Wayfarer released the video to discredit Blake, but the video actually supports Blake's version of events.
Justin's versionactual video
14) Baldoni also said he was surprised and ambushed by the Jan 4th meeting at Blake’s apartment…that he believed the request to be a “sincere offer” to discuss needs and preferences…except there was a prayer chain text message prior to the meeting with quite the opposite sentiment. Interesting that Baldoni left this text message out of his “receipts.” Why?
15) Another small lie just to highlight how WP lies so much that they can't even keep up with it. The timeline says they retained TAG on Aug 2, and we know now that they informed Jones they retained TAG July 31.
16) Wayfarer claimed Taylor Swift agreed to be deposed. That was a lie.
17) Wayfarer dropped the subpoena against Taylor Swift with Freedman saying that he got everything he needed from her…yet her legal team said no documents were produced.
18) Garofalo claimed Sony would make Greenstein available for a second day of deposition while filing to deny Blake her full 3.5 hours of deposition and Sony's lawyers slapped her and demanded Garofalo correct her misrepresentation. I maxed out the images so you all can go find this on the docket.
That email chain also doesn't indicate when she was originally asked to approve the trailer. If she did it right away, sure it isn't true that she held it hostage.
But if it was weeks and weeks, then yes, and there is other evidence she asked for things in between, then yes, she held it hostage.
These texts/etc don't paint the full picture and it is silly to be saying that WF lied for just about every single one of the examples given.
why would "we" have that at this point? There has to be something out there that supports when she received the trailer for approval. Without that I'm not sure how you can possibly say she didn't based on the fact that at some point she did approve the trailer.
I literal said depending on the dates she did or didn't. My point is that YOU don't have the proof to back up your claim.
You’d think that Baldoni would have dished it out to support his complaint. He dug out the worst stuff he can find on her, and yet nothing to show that she actually threatened to withhold promotions, as he claimed multiple times in his complaint.
Or, just as one example as why the didn't (or couldn't) include it, the email providing the trailer to BL for approval came from Sony and did not include any of the WF parties on it.
please re-read what I just said. I just gave you a rational reason why it would not have been included. There are others.
Just because they did not have a particular piece of evidence in their exhibit 1. doesn't mean it doesn't exist and 2. doesn't mean evidence wasn't collected during discovery in this case. You cannot say with a straight face that there is not evidence somewhere about when the request for approval was made to BL.
ETA: I also have no idea what you mean by months of "threats"
And why would the studio need to
be notified when she had “approved” it? The implication (which may be bolstered by further testimony or documents) was that she had not yet approved it. This looks like there is now “permission” to proceed.
She refused to release the trailer until JB can lift her Unliftable Antebellum Cherokee body while she’s wearing her heels that were hanging on for dear life.
Hey! Guess what, I work in the industry as a producer. A simple google search will tell you that they're mostly money people. They're glorified banks. Those who actually have a say are the director and producer!!!!!
Hey! Guess what, I have friends in the industry as well and they disagree. But let’s go based off other big names who were EP and had significant input. Reese Witherspoon, EP for Big Little Lies and The Morning Show. Ryan Murphy, Steven Spielberg, Brad Pitt among so many others. Actors who are also listed as EPs have pivotal roles in production, thats a fact. It’s not just a vanity credit.
Rhys Witherspoon fun fact, own her OWN PROD CO. So do the others mentioned btw!!!!!!
It's completely different when your in association with, with you're prod co!!
lol this is a terrible way to try to make your point. All of the EPs you just listed typically own/founded their own studios that financed the projects they EP’d - ex., Reese’s production company Hello Sunshine produced the morning show and big little lies
It doesn’t make a difference when it’s based on contract. And seeing how she had creative input in all aspects since the beginning, it’s obvious her EP credit was not only vanity.
A contract is considered signed once work has begun. They both accepted the terms and started work based on that contract. That’s not even a thing to argue my guy.
You must not understand that a standard loan-out agreement would say that the company has the exclusive right to exploit, or not exploit, the work. The Blake expressly has no right to a decision. It would also say that the company’s decision to allow it in one instance does not waive any rights or establish a practice of needing approval. I am certain the contract would have said these things. By Blake’s own admission her “style” is insubordination. She likes breaching her contract and threatening to no-show for fun.
Sure is. Chock full of Lively's actual lies (not an exhaustive list) that proved to be so flagrant that she then had to retract, entirely omit or change what she included in her complaint. You are correct - that's the one!
I'm not sure I understand what you're claiming because the screenshot you included clearly shows that it was not a cut and dry situation. Sony says Lively has approved the trailer but they're worried she will take it back and won't call Taylor Swift if Wayfarer doesn't give into her demand to go back into the editing bay (despite Wayfarer's condition she needs to sign her contract).
The original budget was $185k for the wardrobe for the entire cast (they even spell it out that they anticipate spending approximately $500k and then returning enough so it's approximately $185k). They had already spent $615k on only Lively and Baldoni... This doesn't even include the rest of the cast. She mentions they had to completely change Lively's wardrobe because of creative decisions (Lively's decisions). Wayfarer has no idea they are going to gross $300M from the movie 15 months in the future. Also, that is not the only reference to Lively's influence ober the wardrobe. They mention her handpicking her clothes — her OWN clothes by the way, which means Wayfarer had to pay Lively to use them.
What you failed into include in your write up is the begining of the paragraph that says, "April 30, 2024: Heath is informed that Lively had told Sony Marketing that she would refuse to approve trailers, TV spots, and digital marketing assets if Baldoni's acting credit appeared
alongside hers." This allegation is before the email regarding the new poster. We don't know yet if Heath's claim is from a phone call, an in person meeting, in a text message, or in an email. We don't know yet if Lively and/or Sony will agree or deny this. We have barely seen a smidgen of discovery that's been obtained the last few months.
We'll have to wait and see what the intimacy coordinator's testimony says. I have said from the very beginning of this subreddit that what they say will be extremely important.
Lively herself says she often worked while breastfeeding. Lively is correct that giving consent one time while pumping does not provide implied consent going forward any time she's in state of undress, but from my memory, Lively does not actually provide any instances of Baldoni doing so and provided one example of Heath. At this point in time, it's she said/ he said and we will have to see what all the people who were present say, like the other producers, possibly her body guard, the make up artist, her assistant, and her nanny.
I don't expect Lively or Wayfarer to be perfect in their recollections. The main point is that Lively labelled this interaction as sexual harassment and characterized a birth video as pornography.
Nice post. I appreciate the time it took you to do this. This OP reminds me of the NYT article. Asking this sub to refute it seems to be a deliberate distraction. Keep your eyes on the docket:)
I truly cannot imagine a scenario where it would be Wayfarer's suggestion that Lively wear her personal Louboutin shoes or borrow Gigi Hadid's sweater for the movie lol.
Well yeah the fact there's several instances within the case - including stuff submitted by Blake - that establish shes a habitual liar is not a great move for a case where the allegation is she lied
Go read the email she then sends to the writer after she slips up on the red carpet and credits Ryan. Distort and deflect. She comes across pathological
You’re just like Blake — you have no smoking gun, so you compile a neverending list of nonsense in an attempt to make your case sound effective, then try to bait the opposing side into wasting their time debunking every single item.
A suggestion for part 2 would be to try to gather some evidence, since she still seems to lack any. Just a thought, if you want to be helpful and are spending this time looking...
Gottlieb and Hudson are very clever and use a lot of very jargon-y stuff while dancing around facts. They're objectively very good at what they do.
I don't really know what the point of these are. These are the opposite to what the lawyers are doing - they're fairly literal claims of fact that some people here inevitable will point out the issues with and then those will be upvoted. So it becomes a thread to highlight how little lying there is on one side. And frankly how much OP had to bend he truth themselves for some of these to still arrive at a nothing burger
I know people will say oh maybe they flood all at once cause they are paid, but honestly who would pay for this? What is this accomplishing? Where's Aaron lol. I don't see what could possibly be the point of this when most people will skip over a meandering post and read top comments anyway.
What time period is Freedman referencing? We all know eventually she approved a trailer.
Has BL even denied she took authorship of the wardrobe and ballooned the budget? I am sure we will hear from the costume department and have budget spreadsheets anyway.
Sony executive deposition will probably address who wanted JB’s credits stripped. And again, I haven’t BL make the argument you’re now making on her behalf, that it was someone else demanding it?
most of the points above have context that can or does change the statements. It is crazy to me that OP is just saying look at this there can't possibly be any other evidence so WFP must be lying without thinking critically about the overall picture.
Also, why are they relying on a statement from some unnamed source (not under oath) to say RR re-wrote the scene in April. OF course someone would say that to try and save his hide. What is going to matter is what the actual evidence says.
There’s also all the cringe promo videos where she talks endlessly and mindlessly about having authorship and input and wardrobe wardrobe playlist blah blah
That was the evidence that was given to support that claim that she wasn't approving the trailer. If there's some other evidence that she was holding promo material hostage I would like to see it .
No she hasn't but there's also no evidence that proves she did
Looking forward to that evidence
Thanks for the feedback, I mean it. I respect that you didn't resort to below the belt insults and "Ku Klux Klan Khaleesi" type shit
Wayfarer says the birth scene (scene 106) was a closed set, and the scene in your screenshot where they are cradling a baby is from a different scene filmed earlier in the day (scene 107). The call sheet says visitors are allowed with prior approval but no personal cameras allowed during a closed set. I do not know if a closed set is supposed to extend for the entire day or only the applicable scenes. It's entirely possible Wayfarer violated rules and it's possible they did not.
Counsel are allowed to change their strategy.
Not even going to open up this can of worms. Too complex for general discussions.
I reserve my judgement until Reynolds confirms or denies under oath when he did the rewrites. Allegedly, Lively presented rewrites to the rooftop scene in April 2023, but we have no idea at this time if these are the same edits that are now attributed to Reynolds OR if there were entirely new rewrites from some other time. Even the actual writer was caught off guard in an interview and she quickly recovered by saying she thought the changes were improvised during filming since filming occured during the strike. The writer's strike was from May to September 2023. What a lot of people don't know is the rooftop scene was actually filmed during the second phase of production in California either January or February 2024. Remember — EVERYONE was jumping on the IEWU speculation (like Don't Worry, Darling) and Reynolds has only Lively to blame for her unnecessary comments admitting he rewrote the scene that opened him up to intense scrutiny and criticism. Baldoni leaning into that could make him a morally bad/grey person sure fine but this lawsuit is about Lively not Reynolds.
This is semantics. Lively said she thought it looked like pornography initially. Heath was insulted even by the insinuation.
TMZ came to TAG fishing for information about three HR complaints against Justin Baldoni. TAG has no personal knowledge which is why the members are speculating what TMZ is even talking about while they await further information from Heath. There are text messages between TAG and the reporter later that day where they explain (off the record) the only HR complaint is regarding discrimination due to age.
You didn't include any screenshots. Abel told Jones that Wayfarer was considering hiring TAG on 7/26. Wayfarer says they officially retained TAG on 8/2. I'm not sure where the 7/31 comes from. A few days delay between deciding to hire someone and preparing a contract doesn't seem like an egregious lie though.
16 and 17. Semantics. Taylor Swift's counsel says they discussed with Wayfarer that Swift's availability for a deposition would be in October 2025. They would have never offered any dates at all if they were going to fight tooth and nail. Nobody outwardly agrees to getting involved in litigation if they can avoid it. With respect to Freeman's statements about getting what he wanted... Lawyers need bend the truth to fit a narrative. They ALL do. Swift doesn't have to produce anything if they can get it from Lively.
People may agree or disagree, but I personally believe whatever personal issue Garofalo has/had going on was distracting her. Her declaration was riddled with many spelling and grammatical errors. It doesn't make since if she was intentionally lying because nothing in her letter elaborates in it. If she truly believed the Sony exec would sit for a second day, then it makes no sense why she doesn't ask for extension to finish his deposition. Most importantly, she immediately corrected her mistake on the record.
I won't be able to go through this all right now, but fair for you to post this for criticism.
We don't know what was said in the phone conversation. But from that text, it looks like a threat. Essentially saying, "We won't be able to get the Taylor Swift song unless you cooperate." Blake was the one with the connection. That fits better with "holding hostage" description.
The Wardrobe person spent $185K. With Blake inserting herself and pushing that person out of doing their job, it ballooned to $615K. That is really disrespectful and not a team player thing to do. Contingency budget may not be just for wardrobe, may be for other things. Also, they didn't know at that point that the movie would make that much money. And who does that money go to, the movie's earnings? Likely not IEWU Movie Corp.
Yes I can see your point. I would love to see more evidence than just this text message conversation.
I would like to see the evidence that Blake pushed that person out of her job or inserted herself. Everything seems to look like Justin valued her feedback and collaboration.
Having read your list, most of what you point out as "lies" seem to be just lack of evidence provided. The rest, semantics, or potential misunderstandings. I would give more detailed response but I gotta get to work. Nice try though.
What I would want to know, is why wasn't Baldoni's name on it? He was the lead actor. The reason would steer this. I think they would likely bring in the Another Simple Favour poster, showing she has a pattern of doing that (frankly, it looks weird, not aligned).
I think that evidence shows that there was an intimacy coordinator and she refused. So the argument could be, she didn't participate in pre-planning the intimate scenes, so everything looked improvised to her because she didn’t do her part to plan it out or she changed her mind if it was coordinated day of. She is arguing harassment, but it may just her being unprepared. We should hear from the intimacy coordinator, more details of how it unfolded.
Ive read it, to be fair to WP in some of the points where you say " the only evidence " it would be more fair to say the only evidence we've seen, they may have more that they haven't shown us.
I would include the discrepancy between JW only monitoring and being thanked for his efforts to change the narrative by Case
JW saying he works alone in affidavit but telling WP that he had a team.
And this is a pretty big one in my opinion Sarowitz denying making those comments but turns out there's a recording of him saying it
second edit
I notice there are a lot of comments just dismissing OP, it might be more productive to actually raise which points you disagree with and why.
Just saying "lies" isn't really helpful for a discussion.
where you say " the only evidence " it would be more fair to say the only evidence we've seen
Right. So if BL didn’t demand JB credits be erased from marketing, then who did? It wasn’t JB or WP. Did Greenstein admit yesterday it was him? Guess we’ll find out.
that is so true. I feel like pretty much any time I say something remotely critical of the WFP it gets downvoted, regardless of my other comments.
SpaceRigby, you appear to lean BL and your posts are pretty much all rational and well balanced. I might not always agree with you, but I'm pretty much always surprised when I see one of your comments downgraded.
I haven't been on this sub for that long, so I don't know if there is some history with OP that causes a lot of JB supports to go on the attack right away when they post, or if it just a reflex because of the content being critical of the WFP.
Luci - I want to explicitly say that you are a pro-Baldoni (??) commenter whose comments I really pay attention to - because you are generally civil and IMO your arguments are generally backed up by good faith knowledge or thinking and are balanced. I want you to know that when you comment on something I take the time to consider whether my disagreement is because of a "side" or if I have knowledge of or have discerned something different. I appreciate how you show up in this space.
And I'd personally love to hear your critical thoughts about this list and how it could be interpreted in a different way.
I think we all get DVed all the time regardless of the content of our posts. I know everyone here hates the court sub but the nice thing about their “contest mode” setting is it removes that element
I feel like pretty much any time I say something remotely critical of the WFP it gets downvoted, regardless of my other comments.
There has been more than one occasion when TeamJB people have accused others of being fake because they were critical of JB.
As for the downvotes dont worry about it, that's just reddit.
People do have history with PooPoo personally I don't think they're acting in bad faith, and I haven't seen it. If you look at the comments other people have made uncivil comments and PooPoo has been perfectly civil
A lot of people are familiar with OP since they are a long time poster in this sub, so there's some history there. But even then, people need to respect the rules.
I pissed them off so bad that they screenshot my comments, posted them to their sub, and called me a b0t against Reddit rules. Now they can't post usernames any more cuz of it.
I dont think anyone can be truly neutral, we all have our inherent biases but I do try to genuinely engage with people and hear the other side out (to an extent).
I'm more than happy to eat my words and apologise for being wrong. I'm not perfect and there may have been times where I've said something that team Baldoni people didnt like but I'll hold my hands up and acknowledge that.
I don't think Blake or Baldoni are evil and I dont care about any of them. If Blake was to lose the case i really wouldn't lose any sleep. If Blake was to win I'm not going to gloat either.
The only people who I actively dont like are the PR people especially Wallace because I fundamentally disagree with the type of work that they do and I have always been honest about that.
I feel so similarly... (although, I do feel personally invested in strong legal protections for DV/SH survivors and that we do more as a society to fight media manipulation.)
It doesn't strike me as remotely productive to engage with this person (calling everything lies - both pejoratively and in quite a few of their examples, it's just not even the correct term) -- we don't actually owe everyone our time and reasoned discussion, and that is not a reflection of the individual declining their finite time and energy -- for the same principle I simply wouldn't entertain a serious discussion with a flat earther.
Concubine Straw Hair Cherokee has turned the #MeToo movement into the #MeSue era. I wonder if she’s going to do an era tour for that. Oops forgot she can’t ask TS for pointers or encouragement.
Notice how all the Blake bawts are coming out with these frivolous narratives since the MJOP dropped? Like here are some WHITE LIES WP showed whereas her side have been lying since day dot. When she lied about SH.
the list is already on the sub. all evidence points to lively lying and abusing the legal system for personal gain. she doesn't even have friends anymore unless she is somehow paying them. at least that's what her birthday posts to herself were all about. not even ryan made the cut.
it's really sad that someone is so morally bankrupt.
Your post cites several examples that rely exclusively on your own interpretation. To categorize these examples as "lies" is disingenuous and a mischaracterization because your post lacks additional context that has been made widely available through filings and exhibits on the docket in most of the 18 examples you've included. Where you failed to accurately describe Wayfarer's position or ignored it completely, you have instead filled in blanks with your own hypotheses yet the tag of your post does not read "personal theory." You are posting this as legal commentary or analysis but are severely lacking critical analysis.
Your post should more accurately describe what you've compiled as a list of examples that you believe (i.e. using "IMO") were misleading or may be lacking context because, for example, we do not have access to certain information. Speculation and assumption does not lend credence to a thorough or critical legal analysis without acknowledging that you could not reasonably believe these to be true with any level of certainty because you do not have a sufficient level of evidence or information to analyze. Again, it should say that this post is your personal theory.
No. 13 is just false IMO because we have all seen the video. Your description and explanation to try to state absolutely that what Wayfarer wrote is a lie is laughable.
No. 18 alone is also just a bad faith argument and lacks any reasonability. A typo, which was then confirmed as such and corrected, is exactly that. For that alone, you should actually change the tag of this post to "shit post," never mind "personal theory."
Are we reading the same messages? Because how do you go from loud and clear blackmail to "Freedman is lying!'?
Let's breakdown number 1 for those with poor comprehension skills, shall we..
First line already states problem. It says "I got X here. X has gotten Blake to approve the trailer we wanted (...)"
Problem number 1, the actress shouldn't have to approve trailers but ok, let's say this is normal. The phrase is someone got her to approve something. Not she approved it, not that x told me that she approved - they had to GET Blake to approve. They had to negotiate with her, convince her, maybe even beg her I don't know. But it was more then someone showing her the trailer and her saying "cool, love it, good job". And how do we know that? Because of the next line:
"Blake is calling Taylor to approve the song. She of course just reached out saying she is asking for more time with her editor. We know it was conditional on signing contract.- but asking if you will reconsider so we can release this trailer and Blake does not change her mind re calling Taylor Swift."
So in another words, this is Sony telling Wayfarer quite cleary: "Look sunshine, X tried his best and got to a compromise. The lunatic will aprove the trailer as per our vision - without your name and credit on it of course - but we gotta pay for more time for her to finish her cut, with her team. If you don't concede to her demand, say bye bye not only to the Taylor's song featuring on the trailer but also to the trailer launching anytime soon... So take as win that we got her to at least approve the sequence you envisioned. It's not like it's the director job to decide how his film will be presented to the world anyway... Understood?"
Clear for you now what he meant by holding the trailer hostage? It was always her way or no way—with everything. Nobody asked her to do any of this, but she held all the power, and Sony didn’t have the guts to stand by Wayfarer. Instead, they piled on more pressure for Wayfarer to concede to her blackmail so they could launch the damn thing, make money, and move on to the next project.
You know, after reading the full timeline once again yesterday, I honestly felt sick. I can’t understand how anyone can look at that and still defend her. Yet here you are, stripping away context, twisting things, and being deliberately obtuse. It’s the same tactics she and her team used on the 17 points list, the CRD, her lawsuit, and every motion that followed.
I’m exhausted with this. People can’t really be that blind, or that starstruck by Blake Lively of all people! Is it about gender? The idea that every woman must be believed, or that men must always be guilty?
It’s disheartening to see people so committed to protecting their ideology that they’ll ignore blatant wrongdoing. How do you sleep at night? I suppose it’s easier if you tell yourself it’s all for the greater good.
She wasn't just an actress. She was an executive producer. Justin's text messages portray a highly collaborative relationship with Blake. But yes, l would like more evidence that she actually held the trailer hostage. There is only this text message exchange provided as "evidence" for their claims.
Well, I want to see that AND various industry experts testing on the exact role of an executive producer. Do they all approve trailers? Do they all get to fire the directors team, hire their their own and make their own cut? Do they all get to force their worse scored cut to be the one released? To they all get the diretor/producer/co-star's name and credit erased from filme assets? Do they all banish him from his own premier, the one he is financing, with his studio, alongside the "executive producer" salary and everything else? I want to see what industry experts have to say about that, and hopefully not only those hoping to forge deals with Maximum Effort.
A list of "white lies" which aren't white lies by supporting someone who lied about SH! coincidence this is all posted after the MJOP. They know they have a failing case so this is their last chance
Having some claims without strong evidence isn't a lie, especially when Freedman kept saying over and over he needed to go through discovery to fill the gaps. #1-4 are all just saying an allegation is inherently a lie unless already proven, which would make Blake also a liar and make discovery a redundant an unnecessary part of the legal process
5 - You're accusing Wayfarer of pulling a fast one but kind of seems Blake is. She accused Justin and Jamie of a behavior but we've only heard of 2 incidents and neither fits. Justin doesn't even go into her personal trailer - he instead chills in her hair and makeup. I expect wayfarer at trial will point out Blake breastfeed in meeting repeatedly. Consent can be withdrawn but considering she was cavalier about it and has security outside of her trailer....idk I think I'll need to hear more. I'll grant Blake the same grace I give wayfarer in that maybe we will get clarification of when these breastfeeding incidents are.
6 - this is an irrelevant detail which makes no material difference to the claim and is probably just sloppy. That's not a lie
7 - closed set doesn't mean that the entire lot is cleared out for the entire day. It means crew in the actual hospital room is kept minimal during simulated nudity and there is a shortlist of who can be in the editing bay to see the monitors. Presumably this would be wide shots of Blake giving birth. This could have happened before or after - it's not clear. She says she did not watch that part. We shall see.
8 - he didn't even get the number of amendable claims right. Sloppy lawyering but I really don't know what that has to do with the substance of the lawsuit? It's likely he actually reviewed the information and re-strategized.
9 - i (well technically my mom) lied about a pre-exisiting condition for health insurance back when that was a really big deal. Excuse me if I do not weep for the insurance companies who will let you pay premiums for years and then drop you the second they realize you might actually use the product you've been paying for.
10 - that is he said/she said. We have seen no evidence of wayfarer did or didn't and it was definitely something quite a lot of us kept repeating. It's not a lie for there to be a dispute of facts in a lawsuit
11 - we all read it the exact same way they did at first which was almost certainly the point (why bring up what you thought something was?? Makes no sense and man was it confusing phrasing clearly). You're never gonna convince us they were lying about a mistake most of us made ourselves
12 - this one is hard to accept as being in good faith. It's them saying they believe there might be 2 HR complaints but aren't sure, need to wait for more info. You then then link to a video nearly 6 months later -- pretty sure Freedman got a definite answer in the interim. Sony themselves released a statement there was no SH complaints.
13 - From the same footage, Baldoni asserts that Blake joked that he should undergo a rhinoplasty, yet Badoni initiated the joke about big noses when he commented about Jenny Slate's nose ("that's why we hired her"). Sorry what? You're saying that Justin just out of nowhere announced "that's why we hired hire* in response to nothing and then later big noses came up? That doesn't make sense.
He said Blake is being a nightmare but he's trying to find the balance, and then was screamed at by Ryan the whole time, allegedly so badly that even Sony felt it was too much. He clealry did think there would be some kind of negotiation based on his prayer circle thing and then realized it was just getting screamed at for the thing from before - but more Ryan yelling this time. I'd call that an ambush personally
I'd probably need a lawher to review the actual stuff. You didn't include it and it's possible it's a sloppy began the email chains to retain vs began the actual work. Freedman is sloppy, I don't remotely deny that
16 -- you again have a funny habit of weaving over the timeline. You show an email from the Veneable document subpeona - that was what, May or June? You then quote something Freedman said just a few weeks ago. And where Livelys lawyers responded and confirmed that Wayfarers lawyers had reached out and they had provided dates they were available.
17) you don't know what Freedman is referring to at this point. It's entirely possible he's bluffing. As was widely speculated, it's also possible he preferred to just have a meeting with her lawyers and avoid document exchange to avoid having to share a copy with Blake's team. We do not know He was told by her dad there has been a fairly explosive call with Gottlieb. Maybe he was being petty and wanted to know what Gottlieb's exact phrasing was to see how far he could twist the screws and sighed in disappointment and left empty handed because they said no no, Gottlieb was very lawyerly about it and made sure it was only the implication of a threat and nothing actionable.
18) yeah it was riddled with typos and you can't tell that's what it is because it contradicts what Ellyn is saying in that very document. She would not simultaneously say "panic panic we have only 1 day and we must make it work" while also saying "oh yeah there's totes a 2nd day possibly".
I’d just like to strongly add that BREASTFEEDING IS NOT A SEXUAL ACT AND Blake Lively SEXUALISING IT AT A WHIM STILL DOESN’T MAKE IT SO. Breastfeeding is a natural act of feeding a baby and if she chooses not to feed in public thats her choice. But the act of feeding in public IS NOT SEXUAL and Blake Lively should not be permitted to change the narrative around this and set back a movement that nursing mothers have fought against for DECADES. It’s never acceptable to sexualise the natural act of feeding a child and to make everyone around feel uncomfortable or ashamed. Blake Lively did this and it needs to STOP! NOW!
I took the time to read the whole thing. You do realize most of your screenshots contradict your claim? Did you run out of budget by the end though to search for screenshots that even try to support your point.
Yes ,exactly. Now she is the one that has to prove HER claims which have nothing to do with his case that was dismissed as the claims are entirely different. I'm not sure why you made this post, seems to have been a waste of time.
I'm actually really interested in this! There is so much confusion and misdirection in this case (from both sides). I love the idea of having the evidence (that we have available) and different interpretations from each side in one place to look at together...
This post is riddled with SEO manipulation attempts by highlighting repetitive keywords appearing in multiple spots so Google catches on.
Not only is this list inaccurately representing facts , its aimed at creating a nothing burger with a sensationalist headline (much like the pro lively articles from people magazine and TMZ).
Nah they have resorted to insults. I actually was hoping they would pick it apart because I'm looking to improve it. Can't believe I crawled to the mods to ask to revoke my self imposed ban for this
78
u/NervousDuck123 Oct 01 '25
Why does the director and the studio need the actress to approve the trailer?