Lively v. Baldoni 15 - Blake Livelys Hate This One Weird Trick to Double Your Evidence by Repeating It

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:26 Thomas: And welcome to Gavel Gavel. This is episode 15. I'm Thomas Smith. That over there is Lydia Smith. How you doing?

0:00:33 Lydia: I am doing pretty well. I am feeling invigorated because I'm ready to keep poking holes in this thing.

0:00:40 Thomas: You crossed that halfway marker? Yeah.

0:00:42 Lydia: I am.

0:00:43 Thomas: Yeah. Well, that's a good time to say, patrons, this is that very episode that you'll be caught up if you go to that timestamp in the show notes. Where you will want to skip to. You already did. I don't even know why I'm saying this. Maybe did that. That.

0:00:52 Lydia: Maybe you're not even hearing this.

0:00:58 Thomas: But is part five of Wayfair v. New York Times. Make sure you've listened to parts one through four, three times each. Going to get through some graphs. We're graph. We'll just graph, graph, graphic. We getting through some graphs or speed speeding a little bit. Yeah, we're gonna we're to make some graph progress today.

0:01:13 Lydia: Dang. But because you're so obsessed with math, every single time you say graph, I'm just picturing literally like a visual graph like to display data um

0:01:24 Thomas: Wish this complaint had a good graph. You know, this complaint could have used a graph instead. No, it has screenshots and, and, I don't even know. MS paint. Yeah. It's just awful.

0:01:27 Lydia: Things that want to be screenshots like they're it's bad

0:01:36 Thomas: And we're going to get into it. We're So, going take a break, support the show at patreon.com/gavel-pod. And then you get to avoid these breaks and you get the goodies and you go ahead to hear more stuff. Off it's great you're the best oh right well after this break we'll get right into with it with paragraph 25 we're

0:01:45 Lydia: You are the best I we get back to some more messages with the dream team between Justin and the editors. Editor number one messages him on February 25th, 2024. This is according to the timeline. This Yeah, his cut. Just checking in. Hope you're hanging in there. We're going to get through this, damn it. Justin responds, thanks for checking in I've sat with it and I think the best path forward spiritually and what's best for the movie is that I suck it up and let her in. Sent a message requesting that it start on the 18th and then we would just let her until she leaves and then her cuts and updates throughout the process. Let you guys know what she says. Thanks for being awesome, Dream Team. Number two says, we got you. Editor number one responds, I think that sounds like a very good plan on all fronts. Then this is... way later, we don't know the exact date, but Justin says, we made a beautiful baby together. The baby might not grow up to be exactly who we thought, but it's still beautiful. That's what I'm holding on to. Very proud of us. July 1st, editor number one responds, wow, I can't say I'm shocked because I was hoping that you were going to be able to not let this beat you down. And it sounds like you've achieved that. And yes, the movie we handed her was so good that even if it's been screwed with, the base work will still shine through. The last I heard was that she was putting back a fair amount of our version. Just not sure what that entailed or to what extent. I guess you'll find out today. Hang in there and we'll all catch up when the wounds are not quite as fresh. Sending love to you both.

0:02:13 Thomas: After he started editing. Okay. Right. I don't know. I Don't really have anything on this. Sounds like a creative dispute. I would have To see the cuts. I'd have to see the merits to have an opinion on this creative dispute, but it doesn't have anything to do with the lawsuit.

0:03:31 Lydia: I'd have to see the contracts agreement between Wayfarer and Sony. And, you know, there's a lot of stuff here.

0:03:36 Thomas: I guess. I mean, if that's, but, now, I mean this is a suit for defamation against the New York Times. So it's, I don't know, this is nothing. Like it's irrelevant. I don'T know why this is in this complaint. Let's see.

0:03:47 Lydia: Let's let's get back to The Times. The Times assertion that plaintiffs orchestrated a campaign to tarnish Lively's reputation blatantly disregards her bizarre behavior at the time and misrepresents plaintiffs actions, which were modest, transparent and purely defensive. The article entirely sidesteps the real source of conflict between Lively and plaintiffs. Lively is calculated an audacious attempt to seize control of the film. So then we get some text messages between Baldoni and Abel, Jen Abel. Is, let's 3rd from what I can tell from this very blurry. Message. Hi. Jamie just filled me in about BookCon. I know this is devastating and such a kick in the gut. It's petty and childish at this point. I'm just making sure you're OK. We will get through this. Eye on the prize. Her attending BookCon is a win for the film ultimately. And if she wants to drag her ass to Texas, then let her. You can be home with your family, which is important. Note on BookCon, originally Justin was supposed to go with Colleen Hoover. Found out through this process that Colleen with her sisters um it's her event uh

0:04:50 Thomas: And we know from Baldoni's own words that she didn't a problem with him.

0:04:52 Lydia: They had a falling out

0:04:54 Thomas: Yeah。 Sounds

0:04:55 Lydia: Some way some and so blake went with colleen hoover instead um justin was asked not to go yeah

0:04:59 Thomas: Like it's for the best.

0:05:00 Lydia: Uh justin responds she's kicked me out officially from the film now she's finishing it all I can't be involved music sound vfx everything I'll make it through somehow just need to feel it all

0:05:12 Thomas: OK, for a moment, though, he's still the director. He's still like in it. He's on it. He's all over it. Disagree with the creative decision she's making. And who knows? We can I don't know if we'll ever find out all the differences or something. He wasn't stripped of his credit. It like still had all that and get he's sad about I get him sad about yeah

0:05:31 Lydia: Know, like, I feel for a person experiencing something like that, yeah.

0:05:35 Thomas: But kicked me out of the official how how how did she kick you out officially from the film like actually like I don't even understand that how did that happen I don'T get it like show us the proof that that happened for for one, and show us that it was related to like these accusations, which I mean, they're not false, like you haven't refuted any of them at all. Don't even know if they're related. Like, I honestly don't know from this. Maybe we'll find out someday. And again, I'm totally open to any evidence. Could be two totally unrelated things. Could be that she was like, boy, this cut of the film sucks. Don't like what he's doing with this very important project. And just to remind everyone this movie made a gajillion fucking dollars so I don't know maybe his version would have made a gazillion and one dollars but that's a hard thing to hang your hat on like the movie ended up being successful I don t know maybe the editing that she did made no difference it's possible but like is disconnected from any important to the lawsuit. Here's what the article says. One, the article says, and it notes that in their talking points and their planning and all that they're And planning to use this narrative that she wanted control of the film. Again, in your complaint that the New York Times didn't tell the real story of how she wanted creative control ofthe film, but did see the evidence that your planned talking point was that she won creative control the film, I mean, I kind of like get why they aren't giving that that much credence, especially here's another quote the article, a ready when we are when they're planning to do the campaign thing a flurry of articles followed the hollywood reporter piece many made it seem as if the only rift was over creative control so they mentioned that but then here's what they do say about halfway through the article by the spring miss lively told people she worked with that the men's behavior had improved with the new protections again a sign of honesty in my opinion but she was now in a creative battle With the support of Sony, the film's distributor, she made her own cut of the movie, bringing in editors and a composer and adding one of Taylor Swift's songs. In the end, Sony with Miss Lively's cut and she got a producer credit. Credit. I don't know. Sony do that? I don'T know. Do can we see evidence of hasn' t shown us anything. May be evidence of that. Again, now, I just see them saying that Sony did this, which is actually just corroborating what the New York Times article said.

0:07:48 Lydia: Not liable, yeah Notably absent from the Times narrative is Lively's insistence on obtaining editing privileges and demanding her own version of the film, a departure from industry standards.

0:08:00 Thomas: So, okay. But I just read you where they said she was locked in a creative battle and she wanted it like so they said that she did that

0:08:05 Lydia: And that she did her own version of the film. More egregiously, Lively leveraged her promotional commitments to pressure for the release of her cut. Evidence of Baldoni's efforts to accommodate Lively's demands, including a series of text exchanges with editors who were later replaced by Lively in favor of her husband's editor. You look at the IMDb page, that's not accurate. Of those editors are getting credit for this.

0:08:24 Thomas: Well they still got their credit for what they did but then she didn't use them to do her cut is that all that's saying because yeah fine

0:08:33 Lydia: From from my understanding, after Justin saw the film, he said it's like 98 percent the original. See. A lot of words to say a lot to nothing.

0:09:03 Thomas: Is I got nothing yeah I mean your claim is that wait it was all about this thing but that's just not a credible claim like at all like on its face so the new york times because they're not idiots saw all the proof saw how over fucking documented her claims were and decided there were some there there and also saw how they did a smear campaign I was like boy this sure looks like a smear campaign and presented that all as her allegations uh didn't say that that was the truth of the matter presented it as her story as her allegations which they are free to do that's a thing they can do as reporters um unhappy that they didn't tell his version okay cool man that's something to write a letter to the editor about but

0:09:47 Lydia: Then we get a series of text messages with the dream team, Baldoni and Editor 1 and 2, basically coordinating. I don't know that we need to necessarily read all this here, but.

0:09:58 Thomas: But it's actually interesting what they underline actually strikes me as like for them because this seems to be Blake using the by the way so it says Blake wants to know when you could be there next week and editor number two says I can fly blah blah blah so Blake is going to use editor two then editor one says and so it begins which is okay I like editor one whoever that is is suspicious um justin baldoni says we could push for you to stay home it's up to you editor two says both have pros and cons but editor two and they they underline this editor two say I want blake to feel like she's getting what she wants so can move on from this need of hers, which that seem like a thing? Like editor is saying she's got this need to do this and I want to feel like she's getting what she wants. Doesn't really sound like she has used fake allegations to seize control of the film. You know, like it's, at best it's neutral, but it doesn't really fit. It sort of sounds like she really wants to do a cut of the film for some reason.

0:10:55 Lydia: And so editor one and two, we don't know who's who, but they are Una Flaherty with just 10 credits to her name and Rob Sullivan with over 30 credits to his name as editors. I don't see any projects that either of them have worked with Justin in the past at, at this quickly. I don'T think that they have an existing relationship necessarily.

0:11:15 Thomas: Says, for the record, she's been getting what she wants this entire movie. Okay. And I understand, which is interesting. So it sounds like Editor 2 is a little bit resistant to Justin Baldoni's whole here.

0:11:27 Lydia: His framing of it. Yeah.

0:11:29 Thomas: And Baldoni says, and she's getting to edit, which is what she wants. Let's remember that, LOL. Editor two says, yes and yet, Justin Baldoni says, true. I don't know what that's to. Editor two says I don' t want to give her any opportunity well, because blank was in L .A., we could only work certain hours, so I need more time and I didn't really get what I needed or whatever it may be. Baldoni's point is if you feel it's best and you want to go there no problem at all and also if you would like to stay home that's something we can just say I just want you to to do what's best for you I don't know that sounds like editor two has decided uh just give her what she wants if she has an idea as she wants to do this don'T want to short change it and then she's still upset because we didn't do the thing we're gonna do and it sounds like Baldoni wants like editor two to kind of go for how Baldoni is you framing it and editor two is like no let's just fucking do it you know yeah

0:12:16 Lydia: Hmm. I just found an interview that Una did with No Film School in October 2024, where it says we had the pleasure of sitting down with Una to talk about the movie and her process for editing it. Interesting. Like, I mean, there's here. Can you describe the working relationship on the film between yourself and co -editor Rob Sullivan? Is a wonderful person and editor. We were put together on this project not having ever met before. However, because of the time constraints that the film had due to the strike, Justin and the producers felt it would be advantageous to have two editors working simultaneously on the Rob and I really complimented one another and how we worked on the film. As the dailies came in, we would each gravitate towards certain scenes and take a first pass on those, then pass them to each other for notes. Or if we felt inspired by the other's cut, we'd take a stab at the scene ourselves, then review both versions and do what Rob coined our greatest hits of the scene, combining the best moments of each cut together. It was a really fun, collaborative way to work, and it went really smoothly because neither of us have big egos. Interesting.

0:13:14 Thomas: They don't say I didn't get to do it then later with this book bonanza there's more text it does seem like uh one and two are kind justin now we you know I don't know how much I I don' t know what that again what what is it what is what is this okay they're They're showing it at Book Bonanza. The whole movie? Yep, hers. Wow. It was supposed to be ours, and then I was uninvited. The whole thing is cruel and intense. Editor 1 says, Un -fucking -believable. All caps. Editor 2 says, Oh, sorry, Justin. Love you both. Editor 1 with the hearts. 2 with the different color hearts. Oh, I feel like Editor 2 is the woman because they're purple.

0:13:45 Lydia: Think it's Una? Yeah.

0:13:46 Thomas: Editor 1 is red. I don't know. Editor 1, Just hope you love, or at least stomach, the cut that is going out to the world. Me, says, Haven't seen it, can't, yet. Then it's cut off. Okay. This? Again, She did an edit. Justin's upset. Okay. Also missing from the article is Lively's demand for an unearned producer credit and coveted PGA. I feel she earned a producer credit. Like just from what I know, like there's all kinds of input she had, all that. It says a coveted pga mark, a demand that Wayfarer and Baldoni were forced to concede under duress yeah

0:13:55 Lydia: We'll talk about this, I think, a lot more later, because this really has nothing to do with the New York Times defamation claims. Is a lot there. I will say this is something that is highly debated online, this PGA request of Blake's.

0:14:23 Thomas: At yeah yeah get some stuff here that's jamie and justin writing to the pga saying she should get this credit essentially okay Okay.

0:14:39 Lydia: Yeah. So there's a couple of things. This first this email in here is Jamie saying, we did this, but we feel it was unreasonable. Says, as you know, we received a request to write a recommendation. This is obviously not to the Producers Guild. This

0:14:53 Thomas: And it's the next day, it looks like. Okay.

0:14:55 Lydia: Yeah. You know, we received a request to write a recommendation on behalf of Blake for her to receive the PGA mark. This was a request that we feel was unreasonable and cold hearted. Essentially, the movie IEWU has been taken unjustly from Justin as a director and essentially from Wayfarer's control due to the extortion of Blake. Without going into all of the details of the events that have transpired over the months, Justin and I ended up agreeing to write the letter due to feeling trapped. She continues to hold a threat over our heads, and every time we try and hold a line, she uses that threat either directly or indirectly to get us to fold. Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting that we were literally forced to acquiesce, but given the high profile of the movie, the partnership with Sony, the amount of money invested, and the need to complete the movie we have written the letter on her behalf, omitting the truth of how and why she was able to contribute. In the ways we listed. Nothing to do with this letter now. It only serves as a way to memorialize why the letter was sent in the first place should we ever need to explain it. Thank you.

0:15:50 Thomas: What?

0:15:50 Lydia: Yeah.

0:15:51 Thomas: Is all very weird.

0:15:53 Lydia: And then the letter itself, I mean, I feel like this probably does not look good for standing with the Producers Guild if they submitted that they believe to be false. Acquire a producer's credit for somebody that that have earned it otherwise. Like, I don't know, I would be curious to see what the PGA has to say about that regarding Jamie and Justin. So they they list in their letter to the Producers Guild the that Blake had contributed to the production of the film.

0:16:20 Thomas: Yeah, it seems like she did do that, though, so I don't, it be on the PGA to be like, this doesn't sound like enough, not getting them, or something, what is it, what are the stakes of this? I don' t get it. She get a percentage or something? Like, what does this do?

0:16:28 Lydia: So that's a good question. According to producers. Guild um to get a pga mark uh be license the producers mark the produced by must have performed in a decision -making capacity a major portion of the producing functions on the motion picture they for folks who are trying to get this PGA credit and are also are in a non -producing role for the film, it says that. Will only be licensed the producer's mark if it is demonstrated that without taking into account decisions they made in their non -producing role, they performed a major portion of the producing functions and a decision -making capacity on the film in their role as a producer, as evidenced by having substantial responsibility for the overall production and delivery of the film, and two, making regular, continuous, and substantial decisions regarding production, budgetary, and legal concerns in a constructive and responsible manner. It would be folks like directors, writers, actors, editors, managers, and other representatives. The non -producing roles that might be on set. For an actor, if in addition to performing the producing functions listed in category A, which I'll name shortly. Actor also personally performs at least two of the functions from category B. That would be considered strong evidence that the actor has met the producer's mark standards. So category A, required. Actor demonstrated that they personally made regular, continuous, and substantial decisions regarding production, budgetary, and legal concerns in a constructive and responsible manner. B, item one. Actor personally was involved with the project prior to all other producers. Not applicable. Created, identified or secured the intellectual property on which the project was based. Not applicable, secured the director, writer or financing before the before film was greenlit or a majority of the financing was obtained. Actor does not get credit for securing themselves as a critical element of the film. Yeah, not applicable or resurrected an otherwise stagnant project or significantly reimagined the script or production before the

0:18:27 Lydia: Number one applies at all for her. Two, actor personally rendered substantial creative contributions to pre -production and production that are beyond those typical of an actor. I think she met that. And item three, actor, personally rendered. Substantial creative contributions. To post -production. That are beyond. Those typical of. An actor. And I think. She met that as well. So. Yeah.

0:18:45 Thomas: Well, there you go. Guess, again, my question is, what does this cost them? It just their ego that going to get a PGA that basically the audience does not give a single shit about? And when they already see Blake in the movie, that's doesn't like forfeit money or something like what is that? I don't even understand. Is just weird. It strikes me that they that she got some control over the edit. They're upset about it. They also are writing this letter. They could have just not written the letter. I don' t know. Like, he even says, like, well, we weren' t literally forced. But it' s just a. I don'' t understand this.

0:18:52 Lydia: Probably. They don't think deserves it.

0:19:17 Thomas: I their point of view, if they think that she used their bad conduct as a way to get control of something, again, I think another way of looking at that, and it's funny, Jamie even says like, oh, you know, implying it, if not saying, it's like, another way of looking AT that is she wanted control because the people who were in charge of the film were sexually harassing gross people.

0:19:16 Lydia: Yeah, mm -hmm.

0:19:39 Thomas: Be mad at her about that if if you want. Doesn't undermine her claims, which seem very well documented, confirmed by Baldoni's own complaint in a lot of ways, and most of them not explained. Of them are not responded to as of now. We get a paragraph that, it's just more of this silly kind of writing, lively, cynical abuse of sexual harassment allegations to assert unilateral control over every aspect of the production was both strategic and manipulative. Simultaneously her public image suffered as a result of a series of high -profile blunders which she tried to deflect by blaming plaintiffs for the public's prying interest into the foibles of an a -list celebrity this is nothing but an excuse fame is a double -edged sword what is this this is so silly 30 is double -edsged sword but lively's tactics here are unconscionable alongside the time she orchestrated a malicious attack on the reputation careers and personal the lives of plaintiffs, subjecting threats and vitriol. The Times accountable for its role in this defamation defamation campaign, but plaintiffs are not done. There are other bad actors involved, and make no mistake, this will not be the last lawsuit.

0:20:43 Thomas: It's so dramatic. Then it includes a death threat I guess that saying is because of this article uh death threat for melissa nathan who said we can bury anyone yeah okay uh do you want to do you wanna trade death threats uh I could imagine that um lively has more like I'm going to go ahead and say that right now. That's almost certain.

0:20:42 Lydia: It's such bad writing.

0:21:01 Thomas: So we got through all of that part and it's on to the parties and jurisdiction. It's going to. On more.

0:21:00 Lydia: Yep, and then it's gonna be all this again.

0:21:10 Thomas: Yeah, I guess. I don't. Yeah. Okay. Now we go to facts common to all causes of action, and what we're going to do is we're going to reset and redo it, but different. I don'T UNDERSTAND IT. I feel like this is normal in complaints that we've talked about it, you it it's does the highlights lights, and then it does the full thing. We're on page 45 of 90, at least of the PDF document. I guess it's 41 of 87. So, yeah, Almost halfway, though.

0:21:39 Lydia: It feels like to me like they had two different people write the story and then like didn't want to choose which approach to the story that they would do mm

0:21:46 Thomas: Get it. Because to be honest with you, the stuff in this next section that we're going to read. Of it is actually better for them, including some stuff where they already included messages in the first section. Then in this section, they include the same ones, but then there's like a little bit more that actually is better for themselves. I don't understand it. I have no idea how they made this decision. I guess, you know, very rushed and something. I do not know because okay. Are resetting everybody. Everybody. We'll get back to the beginning, I guess. Now we're on A. Lively uses unsubstantiated claims to bully Wayfair and Baldoni in an effort to take over the film. Okay. Talked a little bit about that theory. I think it's silly. I don't think it doesn't make any sense. We them flesh out their argument, though. Paragraph 46. it talks about how in 2019 Baldoni, you got the film rights. We're going way back for some reason. Is this relevant to a defamation suit against the New York times? No idea.

0:22:42 Thomas: Absolutely no idea, but it's just like a Baldoni puff piece a little bit. It's like Baldoni envisioned a film that would shed light on the struggles of domestic violence survivors, amplify their voices and inspire societal change and whatever. Fine. Yeah. I think that's probably true.

0:22:56 Lydia: You have to read the next sentence, though.

0:22:58 Thomas: By his unwavering commitment, often at a significant personal sacrifice, Baldoni ensured the film stayed true to this vision, ultimately achieving its purpose. Okay. That kind of undercuts That's the editing stuff, right? I the film stayed true to his vision and he achieved that, then what's all the talk about the then her taking over? Though? It's kind of interesting to say if the film stay true to him. His vision.

0:23:19 Lydia: What are the damages?

0:23:20 Thomas: Yeah. Then, then, then we're going to have to talk about it. What are we talking about here? And he says ultimately achieving his purpose. Okay. Talks about the book rights. Don't think we have to go too much into this

0:23:27 Lydia: We've talked about that plenty. Interestingly, does not mention how he felt he wasn't the right person to direct it. Instead that his passion and creative vision were central to the project and he would direct and star in it. Just skipping over that complete interview like on the record no

0:23:33 Thomas: Let that out yeah was gonna say yeah that wasn't something where it was like blake says or anything like that was something that was in black and white right

0:23:51 Lydia: Yeah yep can read it to this day it was printed yeah then we get into um partnership with sony and in paragraph 49 it says wayfarer partnered with sony to co -finance and distribute the film that agreement included at wayfarers and baldoni's assistance I think they mean insistence, requirement that 1 % of the film's proceeds be donated to survivors of domestic violence. That 1 % was ultimately earmarked for the organization No More, with which Baldoni had wanted to partner as early as September 2022.

0:24:06 Thomas: Their assistance. Yeah, insistence. Okay, sure. We track that down? Because 1 % of the film's proceeds, I wonder how they define that.

0:24:26 Lydia: Yeah, there's a lot of really interesting stuff there because, you know, there is also like a non -profit foundation that's affiliated with Wayfarer Studios that just announced that they're closing. They're going to be sunsetting. Steve Sarowitz just announced that. Breaking news, everybody. I am curious. I don't know if anyone has tracked down that this actually got donated.

0:24:47 Thomas: I wonder if we could reach out to them or if anyone did. Let's put a pin in that and we can search it up or see or even try to reach out see and if they would be willing to comment. Because 1%, like how do you define proceeds? Is proceeds profit or is proceeds revenue, gross revenue? Because, think I just definition, I think would be all of it, wouldn't it?

0:25:06 Lydia: Yeah. Revenue. That's how I

0:25:07 Thomas: Anything that comes in, yeah.

0:25:07 Lydia: Would interpret that. Yeah I think otherwise they would have called it profits.

0:25:10 Thomas: So, yeah, 1 % of, you know, yeah that's a lot, yeah and counting probably, that's, you know, that a chunk of change, that's at three, four million dollars, which, you know, maybe they did it, it's possible they did it I'd be curious to figure that out sure

0:25:12 Lydia: Hundred and fifty million dollars. Yeah yeah. Then we get that Blake Lively is joining um the film and granted an executive producer credit a title often associated with talent of her stature and then this last sentence here in paragraph 50 wayfarer did not request that lively contribute to the film in any capacity but her performance and this credit um

0:25:42 Thomas: But I mean executive producer does stuff right are they saying it just doesn't do anything

0:25:47 Lydia: What I understand it's kind of like a title alone like Like they're expected to help, you know, promote the as an executive producer. But it's kind of like a vanity credit. I note that this Know, Wayfair did not request. However, Blake Lively has had, youknow, that interview that kind of made the rounds a bit where she had said that is learning to be more open and honest about.

0:26:07 Lydia: Yeah, about having more creative control in projects that she's participating in. And if that's not an option, she's not participating. So there well could have been a conversation where she said, like, this is the kind of role I would like to take because I care about this stuff and I feel passionate about these things. And for Wayfair to say, okay, that's still not them requesting it, but that would be them agreeing to that collaboration.

0:26:06 Thomas: Assertive yeah that's up to her yeah I think one thing we need to look out for here in general is the things once we put Put a microscope on an individual like and how it went down. And two, if we're looking at a woman, I think that there are all kinds of things that people will look at and think, oh, my God, this horrible slur for women that I don't like. She is taking control, doing all the stuff. Meanwhile, it might be par for the fucking course. Like it might be totally normal for especially celebrities of her stature if they're men or even if they are not. You know, like there are so many actors who are men who get to be nightmares to work with, but doesn't really matter and never, you know, like no one cares, like we don't hear news about it. This strikes me as someone who has made a name for herself. Again, I didn't even know who this was before this. I but we did watch this movie. So that was, that was fun. And So yeah, she's fine. She's okay.

0:27:22 Thomas: But like, but earned it. She's earned a reputation. I'm not the barometer for like how popular things are at all. I'M ALMOST THE OPPOSITE. And seems like she's earned you know she's she seems like box office gold in a lot of ways and there's absolutely nothing wrong I mean look at any marlon brando movie you know it's like I and I get that he earned his reputation but the way we talk about men is just different we're just like ah what a genius he was you know yeah and it's like it sucks he was kind of a pain in the ass but man what a what a What a genius whereas women it's she should die like they're just People are so, they're just like, she should go away and never be seen again because she wanted to help out on a movie that was very successful, you I think there's going to be a lot of that. See. I mean, I'll see what these facts are, but just to say a celebrity who's a very big draw, who's inarguably a much bigger celebrity than Justin fucking Baldoni at this this point, right?

0:27:41 Lydia: An how she. Yeah Yeah. Mm hmm.

0:28:16 Thomas: I'm asking you genuinely don't know. But my impression is, yeah, he's barely done movies. He's done TV and maybe some small stuff. And she's a big movie star. I mean, that's just not even close. So the idea that it's like, well, my little studio that just now exists with a couple people, one of whom has like no experience, the other is a billionaire and then it's him or whatever, essentially, should have all this control. And the actress, you office gold. How dare she demand or even want or try to have any control over the end product? I think it's silly. I think it's sexist and silly, personally.

0:28:51 Lydia: Again, everybody keep in the back of your mind. This is again, the complaint against the New York Times. Why we're digging into all the Blake Lively stuff here specifically, is, just you them getting their early draft ready for their cross complaint.

0:28:57 Thomas: Tons. Yeah, tons of irrelevant garbage. But, you know, it's narrative. They want to get it out and it's relevant to us. It's not relevant to this complaint. So, yeah.

0:29:12 Lydia: So we're gonna talk about it. But But, you know, keep that in mind.

0:29:13 Thomas: So it says she overstepped the boundaries. I feel like you've already talked a little bit about this costuming stuff. Do you want to, do you remember how this went down?

0:29:21 Lydia: Say while lead actors are sometimes granted approval over the general look of their onscreen character, this authority typically does not include full control over wardrobe decisions without input from the director and producers. Producers um then they footnote here lively went so far as to purchase items for her wardrobe albeit at her own expense without the approval of the director or producers um

0:29:43 Thomas: Hold on. Pretty sure we've already seen messages where they're discussing wardrobe. Fact, they were his excuse for the sexy comment. Mean, that's input. That's like she's not like hey showed up to work this is my final thing no discussion this

0:29:59 Lydia: Yeah let me tell you a quick story about when I was in sound of music and the rolf showed up with, he wanted to dye his hair blonde.

0:30:07 Thomas: Is the original movie by the way

0:30:09 Lydia: Yeah. Community theater. And this guy had brown hair and he was like, well, Rolf's supposed to be a Nazi. So I'm going to dye my hair blonde and he just decided it one night. Didn't talk to the director. Didn't talk to anybody at all. Didn' t like ask any actors like what their thoughts were. Just showed up with orange hair the next day. He just tried to bleach it at home by himself and it was terrible he never got it fixed and so that's what he looked like that's what Rolf looked like

0:30:35 Thomas: And it was a precursor in the end to the great orange nazi that we now have wow it was assigned he started a whole genre of nazi that we didn't even know existed back then yeah

0:30:41 Lydia: There you go exactly God, foreshadowing but the production team was pissed like that'S what that looks like when you have literally no idea if Justin Baldoni didn't have the courage or the fortitude or what have you to respond to Blake saying hey I think the beanie is a better look to be like no I actually disagree like why don't we talk about it tomorrow with so -and -so the costume designer um that wasn't happening then it's like encouragement and encouragement and encouragement like that's not on her why would that be on her

0:31:14 Thomas: Well here's another thing that I want to make sure I say once again echoing for the millionth time that I don't know Blake Lively really I've gotten to know some things about her from this but like maybe she does suck to work with someone or or maybe she would be like but that's the deal that was made like you make a deal deal to get Marlon Brando and pay him $11 trillion to do four minutes of work, that's a choice you make. And it sucks.

0:31:37 Lydia: And gonna have the persona of Marlon Brando on set and off

0:31:42 Thomas: And it's kind of make you a lot of money. And that's it. That's a transaction that you can do or not do. You could have, Baldoni could have if he wanted to cast a nobody as that. Maybe it would have worked. I kind of doubt it. I think it would've been like moderately successful because it seems like the book is a lot why it was successful. So I think that would have made some money, but there's no way it would have made the kind of money it did with Blake Lively behind it. The deal you make. And maybe the person you hire or you sign on to a big role is a bit of someone who wants control to an extent that you don't agree with. Well, tough luck. This is what you signed on for. And far as I'm concerned, this is just complaining about little professional jealousies and little in the office and stuff. This is nothing that like at all relevant to anything oh

0:32:27 Lydia: Yeah. And, you know, it goes on in this paragraph, too, to say that, say that she sidelined the production's costume designer and then and then they clarify a seasoned professional with a longstanding working relationship with Lively. Understanding of this relationship is a costume designer that worked on Gossip Girl for years with Blake Lively, that they have a positive working relationship that they view costuming in like really similar ways that the costuming for Lily is very similar to how he costumes things elsewhere like it's a little maximalist it's like kind of blending feminine masculine sort of things like he does interviews about this right about sort of his approach to costuming and what excites him and I think that they probably have similar like feelings like approaching clothing in this way um it's setting this up that this you was a boundary that she sidelined the costume designer but that she also has a long -standing working relationship with him um

0:33:28 Thomas: The same guy I just assumed you're saying she he brought a different one in oh then that's probably not what that is yeah that sounds like yeah and A lot of this stuff is just it's so petty and airing trying to embarrass her and I think in his mind he's like well she embarrassed me with all this stuff. But I think if you read her complaint, a there's few things I think that she probably went a little overboard on because, you mad at someone she perceives has sexually harassed her and wronged her. Fair enough, you're not like we can look at that. But this, I mean, Lively also several times refused to participate in wardrobe fittings at the production office a mere 15 minutes away from Lively's Tribeca residence. Instead, she insisted did the costume department pack up the wardrobe department and deliver all her wardrobe items to her loading the wardrobe apartment on trucks and delivering to them to lively's residence for fittings added both time to the production schedule and expense to the film two things productions work hard to avoid with careful planning these demands were never mentioned at the contract negotiation I'm just imagining the new york times reading this complaint being Being like, interesting that demands demands were never mentioned in the contract between Lively and Baldun. What does this have to do with me? What does

0:33:29 Lydia: Same same person. No, no. been working together for over a decade. Yeah. Yeah, yeah,

0:34:36 Thomas: That have to deal with anything? It's so silly. Therefore, we're not included in the budget. It already said she bought some of her own stuff, but whatever. Lively, herself a further obligation to the studios as an executive producer, paid no mind to the budget and the months of planning that had already occurred. Okay. Off, this is all nothing. Nothing secondly what the budget balloon and this turned into you water world or whatever whatever that movie was made where it the biggest flop because it or you I think this is because the set burned down they had to like rebuild the whole thing or whatever but like lost tons of money or was it immensely successful and these numbers are probably a drop in the the bucket yeah

0:35:10 Lydia: So I'm saying it was only 15 minutes away from her house okay that means it was also 15 minutes way for the costume department to bring it to her house So like like that time is the exact same.

0:35:19 Thomas: And she has a baby at this point right or not yet

0:35:22 Lydia: Yes. No, she has a baby. So this is pre -production. So we're talking like like maybe a two month old. Like it's so reasonable

0:35:24 Thomas: So fuck off you know how annoying it is to take a two -month -old somewhere she

0:35:30 Lydia: To say like, hey, this is a huge pain in the butt for me to get over there. Like, you please like bring it over here instead? Dead also she was using a lot of the stuff from her own closet so in terms of like yeah

0:35:43 Thomas: Would have to like bring her closet there to this

0:35:45 Lydia: She would have to bring her closet there with a two -month -old as opposed to like costuming coming over to her house and then maybe they're picking up the items that she's like hey I was thinking this this and this what do you guys think like that could be something where they're literally walking into her closet together they would need to be at her house for something like that um I I think this is really silly um in terms of the time that that it's adding to it the expense I can understand like the expense that there are certain things where they do have to like um uh specific insurance but it's really more tied to like if they're going to be using an actor's clothing like it's almost treated like a rental in some ways um there is like a protection of of the individual's property for something like that to happen. But again, we're talking drops

0:35:47 Thomas: Just doesn't sound like anything yeah it just seems like nothing Nothing.

0:36:31 Lydia: In the bucket.

0:36:31 Thomas: This is nothing. I mean, oh,

0:36:32 Lydia: Drops in the Bucket. And there's great article with interview with the costume designer where he goes through some of his favorite pieces that are worn in the movie. Remember, if anyone is listening to this and has seen the movie, if you saw Jenny Slate's character. She was wearing lots of money, lots of money. Her costume. And it makes sense because like her like character is supposed to be very well off. She's married very well off. We're talking like the purses are like tens of thousands of dollars.

0:36:59 Thomas: Oh, wow. These, you have to tell me these things because I have no idea. It's all, I'm, this is all the Westworld robots to me or whatever.

0:37:02 Lydia: It's so much money. She wears she a coat. I think it's like a Valentino coat. And it is like, I don't know, nine grand by itself. And And so, like, Blake Lively's, no, no.

0:37:13 Thomas: Did Blake Lively do that or? Oh.

0:37:16 Lydia: She did not. So I think, like at the grand scheme of things, if they're complaining about the budget for wardrobe, you really have to remember it's not just Blake Lively that is part of that budget. And he highlights some of the things that she's wearing and, like – you know, yeah, there's some expensive things, some of which were her own. So that wasn't the full dollar amount for um costume department but there are also things like um the coveralls that she's wearing and it's like you hundred dollars that they bought like vintage off of ebay or something like that so it's it's a real mix of things um just taking like away all of that nuance all of the details and saying she's running running up the budget because of X, Y, and Z is completely unfair.

0:37:57 Thomas: It'S, this is playing into stereotypes about women as well. This IS just, this IS, they know know who they're trying to make mad. And it's the people who are very mad right now on the internet. And it'S effective to be honest with you, but it's, this is nonsense to me. This is minor celebrity working stuff. Like this is nothing.

0:38:16 Lydia: Um the previous paragraph too just one thing I want to highlight here it says at one point Lively insisted that her character quote had money and could afford five thousand dollar shoes which had Baldoni rethinking the entire script that had been being worked on that had had been being worked on for well over a year and had been approved by both studios because of this one thing. And it's this moment where she's walking in with these, you of mesh like that go over the knee and they have, you not rhinestones, but they're like, no, yeah, it is.

0:38:29 Thomas: What? God. Hope none of that is actually $5 ,000. Is that real? Yeah,

0:38:49 Lydia: They were her shoes. Also, if you watch the the movie I it's reasonable to say her character probably had money because they did Lily older where she already had a full career and the book she's supposed to be like young she's like 23 or something right but in the movie she's already had her full career and she's pivoting and doing a career change and she is buying I think maybe we've talked about this before, but like she's buying retail space that's Boston. Expensive.

0:39:15 Lydia: Like I I think it's reasonable to say that like she is not struggling for money. Her father was like the mayor, right, of of that town.

0:39:24 Thomas: Was that what it was? I forget.

0:39:24 Lydia: Think so.

0:39:25 Thomas: It? Or was he like

0:39:25 Lydia: I mean, I don't know. I don' t know. He's the mayor.

0:39:26 Thomas: A, Oh, it wasn't like police involved stuff.

0:39:28 Lydia: I think he I think He's The Mayor. So so her family, you know, is like like politics and stuff like like don't think it's unreasonable to say, she was a marketing professional as her first career. She came from a comfortable life, you know, and

0:39:32 Thomas: Mean, that's true. Yeah. Okay. I mean sounds insane to me, but also who cares? And you're probably right. Like, I, I mean even having money to me sounds like $5 ,000 shoes is insane. You that still sounds insane to be, but I, I means whatever, like also who gives a shit? Like, okay, to to say something you can feel free to laugh what percentage of people watching know that those shoes are that amount of money really oh thank god okay because I have no

0:39:52 Lydia: That's fair. I would not I would not do it. But yeah.

0:40:02 Lydia: The only I mean, I I will tell you, because because I got shoes that were similar that I like tried, they looked so similar, but they were a fraction.

0:40:05 Thomas: Fucking idea could not tell you that look just like that but for yeah they don't have real blood diamonds like these ones yeah

0:40:14 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah. It wasn't like Swarovski crystals or whatever. Right. It was like rhinestones, but like the fraction of the cost.

0:40:18 Thomas: So like whatever yeah it could have been a knockoff or something who Who cares? Yeah, this is nothing. This is nothing, this one, and this gets so silly. Paragraph 54, even if Lively had the contractual authority to, again, why does this have to do with anything? Had the contractural authority to approve her character's wardrobe, which she did not, a grant of such authority, this isn't great, a grant to such authority would not and could not imply the right to blow up the film's budget with additional unanticipated costs. This is such a nothing sentence like or it could yeah

0:40:24 Lydia: It is not. Yeah, where's my red pen? Like, just cut the whole thing. Like it's not it say anything like grammatically.

0:40:53 Thomas: It's just it's nothing the right to blow it up yeah like so did she blow it I don't understand did how did this even happen when wouldn't what happened you'd be like we don't literally can't afford that end of discussion right if that's really blowing up the budget or is this just kind of bullshit and they didn't really do all all of that yeah

0:41:15 Lydia: I think it's bullshit or they don't know how to run a production and stand up for their budget. It in like that role as producers as director as you know studio heads etc.

0:41:25 Thomas: And again I'm trying not to spend too much time on this because it's all nothing but then it shifts to a different a flavor of nothing which is ah but it was um mistake because and you talked about this so that's why I kind of want to make sure we at least mention it he alleges or he says that captured and published photos of lively in a care in character wearing wearing her self -selected wardrobe. These images were described as unflattering and sparked a backlash from the film's distributor, Sony. Received direct criticism from Sony, who voiced concerns about the impact of the photos on the film. The film's public perception. That what happened? Is he representing that accurately, as far as you can tell?

0:41:29 Lydia: Know. I mean from as far as I can tell there were pictures that were taken during filming from paparazzi and was quite a bit of negativity online from the public being like, what is she wearing? Like they were very confused. They were like, she doesn't look good. She looks frumpy. She Looks gross, blah, blah. Is also really interesting, because then these are the same people who are like, but this is a movie about domestic violence. It's like, well, then why are we talking about the yeah notably

0:42:25 Thomas: Yeah. Well, that's kind of a dumb way to look at it. Yeah, I mean, OK, let's say I'll grant for fun because it has no impact on any of this. I'll go ahead and grant Baldoni that maybe she butted into the wardrobe and maybe she just sucks at wardrobe or something. I don't know. Maybe that maybe it was bad. This Is a place where um we'd be on Baldoni's side of the facts I guess possible I won't speak for you but like is the time where she alleged that he came in. Well, let me just read the paragraph, I suppose. This is back from Blake Lively's complaint. We'll go back and see how she described it. The one hand, Mr. Baldoni was objectifying Miss Lively as a sex object, on the other hand, he went out of his way to message criticisms of her age and weight, of which she could change during filming. Second day of filming, for example, Mr Baldoni made the rest of the cast and crew wait for hours while he cried in Miss Livedy's dressing room, claiming social media commentators were saying that Miss Lividy looked old and unattractive based on paparazzi photos from the set. That. Lively tried to reassure him that she should look authentic in the scenes depicted in the photos, which were just after her character had been abused by a fictional husband rather than hot. Mr. Baldoni, however, appeared focused on Miss Lively's sexual appeal above all else. His lengthy outburst caused a delay in shooting, forcing an emotional scene to be shot haphazardly. One, I will note back at the time, I remember thinking like, this sounds a little bit it too far for me. Like, I don't, I

0:43:47 Thomas: Think it's weird for him to be saying like, I'm going to cry and say like, oh, I can't believe they're saying you look old and unattractive. I mean, but it felt a little like, I don't know, that seems extreme to me. I think that a little extreme. I don' t know. Like that conversation might have possibly gone differently. Now, I I want to note is she's saying that the problem with the photos was she looked old and unattractive from what you're saying I don't think she's maybe representing that accurately what do you think was the problem the wardrobe or is the problem she looks old well

0:43:46 Lydia: I remember you saying that hmm well So I found on Reddit, posting you the photos and stuff. We have some comments saying, these are the kind of outfits my friend would see me in and gently ask if everything was okay um the actual hell fire fire all the stylists for this movie right now isn't she meant to be playing a 23 year old looks like a crazy aunt who practices alternative medicine and does pottery lmao how is he supposed to be the character from the book gives it gives me an unhinged unhidden amateur psychic who is way too invested in tarot card readings and healing crystal wives professor trelawney energy high key I mean

0:44:49 Thomas: So yeah, I think this is her maybe, and again, we're we're dealing dealing with Hollywood celebrities. Could be some narcissism here. There could be a little cluelessness here. Don't know. Sounds like she's wanting to represent this as a problem with her age, which I think is obviously more sympathetic seeming versus the choice of wardrobe, which, you know, I think, is more squarely on on her and her maybe making bad decisions.

0:45:11 Lydia: I mean there are comments here saying you know that the the outfits are definitely aging her um sincerely thought she was going for like 40 to 50 years old um these outfits so it's tough I mean like and that's just a reddit thread you know so um there was a lot of talk about this those when pictures came out. So, So who knows, like if she's cluing in on something in particular that really, caught you Leslie Sloan's eye, her publicist. Not sure. Please note, The New York Times does not talk about this at all.

0:45:39 Lydia: No, I searched wardrobe outburst, crying costumes, paparazzi like none of that's in there. It talks about them entering her trailer, but not related to that. It's about, you know, the undressing and all that here.

0:45:38 Thomas: Even at all. The lengthy outburst one. Right. Not relevant.

0:45:55 Lydia: Here's here like were kind of blowing up with people hating the looks and stuff. Um was an interview with the costumer eric damon uh was with the hollywood reporter he said quote it's exciting that there's just so much buzz around the looks themselves whether it's positive and haters are gonna hate um said that he worked closely with lively to develop the looks called her an amazing creative force with an incredible eye and amazing taste yeah

0:46:18 Thomas: On my searching too at the time, it does seem like people were not liking the wardrobe and this is I are comments from again two years ago when this was happening this is before all the blow -ups I think we can read this as you know it may still be a collection of people that aren't like the greatest but uh it seems like people did not uh

0:46:36 Lydia: At not influenced by everything that's been happening now

0:46:38 Thomas: People did Not react well to these choices um so I think this is her trying to word that a different way and blaming it on the age. It sounds like it's not that. And so I think kind Baldoni is telling more of the truth on that. Now it says this account later published by the Times. Are you sure it's not?

0:46:40 Lydia: But in paragraph 57 um acknowledge the conversation happened and say that it was professional but it did take considerable time and was later grossly misrepresented in lively crd complaint falsely characterizing the exchange as quote a lengthy outburst that delayed filming and caused the crew to, quote, wait for hours while cried in Lively's dressing room. Account, later published by The Times, is false. You and I both just spent some time, like, triple -checking that New York Times article.

0:47:21 Thomas: Think we're into the like hundred checking like I've read this article so many times, but we even still went through it just now again.

0:47:24 Lydia: Because this sentence is implying that the account of Baldoni entering her trailer for this particular purpose is something that was present in the New York Times article. And it is not.

0:47:39 Thomas: And that sounded a little bit nitpicky, more nitpicking than it even is. None of this is in there. The whole thing about the trailer and the wardrobe and that none of that is in THERE.

0:47:44 Lydia: None of it. Wardrobe. Paparazzi picture. Yeah.

0:47:48 Thomas: And they specifically say this account later published by the Times is false. Where they don't they don'T have a site. And by the way, if you're alleging defamation, you have to point to specifically where it is. So this should be footnoted. This just not in the article. They just decided it was and it wasn't by

0:48:03 Lydia: Yeah. It's not there at all. So interesting. Not to do with the New New York Times specifically but like this conversation at all if were the director of a film the director the producer the studio head right you did not you know like you got reamed by your co -studio that's helping to put down put by Sony yeah and like trying to their you know financing part of the movie they are they're huge for distribution like without them it looks a lot different what how you roll this movie out um you had a conversation that needed to be had regarding costuming you're gonna have it with just the actress like you're not going to talk to the costume designer that seems insane to me yeah

0:48:21 Thomas: Sony. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mm hmm. Yeah, yeah. Does. So OK. Think this is worth talking again. It's nothing the fuck to do with New York Times, but like we're here, we're talking about it's going to be later, too. Think that Blake, in my opinion, from from all I'm seeing, I think she was a bit dishonest in terms of what this was. I sounded weird to me. It never it's not just too mustache twirly bad guy or for lack of a better term, but or just like raging narcissist, completely oblivious. I don't get me wrong. I think Baldoni is somewhat of that, but it just I always thought this sounded a little weird because it made it out like he was crying. On her behalf and was saying, and it just like, ah, yeah,

0:49:19 Lydia: Truth is like in the middle I

0:49:20 Thomas: And so, um, think she was a little fast and loose with the facts that I think she was dishonest in that. You bring up a good point that let's take Baldoni's word is truth in terms of that. I honestly, I could see it. If paparazzi capture photos of lively leading character. And we, we went and we saw the Reddit comments that have thousands of upvotes that like, people were like, this doesn't look good. And I'll be honest, I know nothing about this. When I look at it, it looks kind of weird to me. I don't get it. I mean, if somebody told me like, Oh no, Thomas, that's like the best fashion ever. I'd be like, okay, fine. Nevermind. I won't say anything, but like just my looking at it as like, you know, kind of a weird, the Trelawney vibes for sure. So I could see, yeah. Films distributor, Sony being like, like, Hey, that's kind of sucks. Like, can we maybe not do that weird costuming? Like, especially if you're Sony, if YOU'RE you'RE the money people, you're like, look, just fucking dress her up. Like whatever this doesn't you that wouldn't want this to be a reason that you were getting bad publicity and that the film didn't do well. Like there's nothing in it for you as Sony. Like you're not like, Oh no, we really want the avant -garde costume. Like they don't care. So I get it. I'll totally believe them there. Maybe Sony was like, Like, hey, what's going on here? Like, this seems weird.

0:50:26 Lydia: Isn't the Met Gala.

0:50:27 Thomas: And your point, if that's the case, that conversation should happen. And Baldoni's director, Yeah, cool. He should be in on that. Maybe other people should also be in Onnit. Like, maybe there's other people. Maybe you talk to them ahead of time and say, hey. This seem to be important to Blake doing these costuming things. But like this, man, this got bad PR. We got to find a way to convince her. And you have a conversation and you say hey and and whatever you do it however you want you could even say look look sony said we're like they're they're just really mad whatever put on them who cares like something um agree with you that it's very weird for it to be a personal one -on -one in which he's he's in her trailer crying which he does acknowledge but he says we should read this next paragraph 58 although baldoni did briefly tear up during the conversation it was was in response to what he believed was a genuine compliment from Lively praising his work as a director and actor. In hindsight, Baldoni recognized, recognized? Well, no, that's the opposite. You mean recognizes, but whatever. In Hindsight, Baldani recognized this as a manipulation tactic. What is that tense? Sorry. I'm just like, you would want to say in hindsight, I now recognize it at, you know, like in hindsight Baldani, Baldini recognized this has a manipulation tactic likely intended to persuade him to continue allowing her unchecked control of her wardrobe decisions.

0:51:42 Lydia: A stretch.

0:51:43 Thomas: You're doing some tactics to get her to stop doing her thing. And it feels like that kind of cancels out to me. Like they're both probably a little full of shit here and she wants to do her costuming maybe. Maybe she's got it in her head and her excuse is that it's about her age and so she thinks it's unfair and maybe he's saying like it's not you know it's like this costume and whatever maybe they didn't meet the minds there maybe she I think she was probably in the wrong in terms of the costuming stuff um don't know what to think about this conversation uh could imagine that maybe he did interpret something as a compliment and teared up um so I honestly I'm kind of more on on Baldoni's side of this for this interaction. I do think that you make a great point about like, this should not have been how this conversation went. Like, why would this be how you do it? Yeah.

0:52:23 Lydia: It's inappropriate. Yeah and do want to push back a little bit on like characterizing her account as dishonest. I do think that the way that like you perceive comments about yourself like she was absorbing and stuff like like that, certain like things can really stick out to you. And so like, if there are comments about like, wow, she looks really ugly. Wow. She looks really old. Those things are probably areas where she's sensitive. And sort of like that potentially like weighed more heavily on it. And she wasn't like looking at it from that bird's eye view and being like, okay, no, the general consensus is this yada, she's a human being and, And and clearly those are things that she's sensitive about and it can color her perception, her memory of this in particular.

0:52:58 Thomas: I don't know. I, I think that's it. Cause if you read the sentence again, it says on the second day of filming, for example, Mr. Baldoni made the rest of the cast and crew wait for hours while he cried in Ms. Lively's dressing room, claiming social media commentators were saying that Ms. lively looked old and unattractive based on paparazzi pose from the set so claiming he's saying that and he's

0:53:19 Lydia: Yeah. So that he said that. Yeah. OK, I see what you're saying.

0:53:22 Thomas: Saying no it's the costumes now I could imagine that like maybe I don't know maybe he did say that as a way to try to spare feelings on the costumes maybe but at that point we're speculating so hard so one way or the other I feel like the way the way she describes this is not really fully in reality I just don't I just don'T think it is and I think if you're I get that you're saying that you might be sensitive to things but yeah this is a legal complaint I I don't really think, yeah, I don' t go for that, that he is focusing on sex appeal above all else, which, kind of doubt it, I kind of feel like, I feel like Sony' s like, we' re getting, this is bad publicity, like, this just looks, you don' T, nobody, if you were about to spend a bunch of money, and they don' d know the ending of this, they don't know that' s going to be successful, successful if they're like hey the movie we're about to bankroll we are bankrolling the distribution of I'm seeing online people are like holy shit this looks I mean you I would I could easily look you're a money person I could see panicking like oh my god is this gonna flop are we gonna lose all our money like yeah no I I that's entirely reasonable to believe that sony would have reacted that way personally um also like I said they have no there's no upside side to them you know they probably just would want you to just do normal stuff um don't know in the end I feel like this in this instance I feel like I'm more on his side of this interaction but I also think that we always want to keep the bigger picture in mind personally

0:53:41 Lydia: I'm just saying, yeah, I I just don't think I know. I just I just, I, I just Don't agree with the motivation there. I don't Think it's motivated dishonesty or anything like that. I feel like Sony probably was. Hmm.

0:54:44 Thomas: You know agree to disagree so that's where we're calling it for today on part five but we crossed that halfway mark I feel like that's a big accomplishment you

0:55:00 Lydia: Think so we got through a lot of crazy screenshots that were challenging to read to

0:55:04 Thomas: This was a tough one. It's also the, being excluded from stuff. There was that. There's Was a tough One because it's like so much of it was the theory. Well, she did this all to overstep her role and take over. And it's just like, it'S so on its face, not plausible that struggle. It, I struggle to go through this with

0:55:18 Lydia: And so funny you little thought about something I saw again on the internet related to this where it Was like you movie made so much money of course she wanted to try and take it over etc etc and it's like she married to ryan reynolds who's leading the deadpool franchise like affiliated like with marvel I don't think that desperate for money like that's Not Not a motivating factor even if all of this stuff happened that not be the motivating factor I'm

0:55:40 Thomas: It's not about money. It's just so not plausible and by the way you could could even maintain that all of this stuff is true. You could even be like, yeah, she wanted to take over. Selfish mode. She wanted to takeover. She could even say she threatened to pull out or threatened to pulled out of the promo or threatened, like all that could be true. All that could Be true. That doesn't mean the sexual harassment stuff wasn't true. And it doesn't the retaliation stuff isn't true, you it, and it like, Like you have to count that you can't be like, Oh, you know, he created a sexual harassing environment for literally of people who complained and hated it and, uh, and all that. She was kind of a B word about the control of the, it's like, yeah, that's not, those aren't even things at all. You know? Cause she did, I mean, she had to go through Sony. She had to, you I suspect a lot of this stuff isn't represented accurately by Baldoni.

0:56:20 Lydia: It's even it's Even it tied yeah

0:56:32 Thomas: Even But if it is, for one, like I've said, I mean, her position, like she's been sexually harassed by this guy and this whole studio, like a whole studio of these weirdos is like a toxic mess.

0:56:41 Lydia: It just Just uncomfortable. Yeah.

0:56:42 Thomas: And they're the whole name behind this. And he's the name behind it. And he like I could imagine being like, no, fuck this. I want to take control because like, fuck that. Like, you treat her as an actual decision -making human and think, how would you feel about Justin Baldoni if he did all this stuff to you? In her mind, again. If you want to say she's making everything up, I can't help you. I don't know what, that just doesn't make sense. It's not how life works. And made it all up as part of some plot that she hatched it where involved like all this documentation, all this paper trail, all these other people having complaints. Like, it's just silly.

0:56:59 Lydia: From her perspective.

0:57:16 Thomas: Holy.

0:57:15 Lydia: I also think it's a little ridiculous to someone else is making up their discomfort in this sense, their feelings like that. That's a really big leap to make and honestly pretty offensive. Offensive um you can say that her interpretation of it is it's her interpretation and maybe that's not exactly how things played out but that has nothing to do with her comfort level which is what drives the harassment in the workplace okay

0:57:38 Thomas: Think in people's minds, they can just be like, well, no the whole thing's made up. It'S I don't know. I'M not sure HOW they're doing that. Like

0:57:44 Lydia: In a workplace even if it seems ridiculous it still has to be treated as if it's 100 % true, 100 % like and investigated.

0:57:52 Thomas: Right. And And you still not allowed to retaliate against someone who files a bogus claim that's still how that works but to your point it's would be one thing I'm just trying to think of like I feel like that argument maybe the people who disagree like won't go you know I mean I'm trying to put into words like I think I think in their minds they're not even looking at that they're like no the whole thing like she's just creating a story so it doesn't matter that it's It's her opinion of her being uncomfortable. But to that, I would say, like, he's again, confirming every single part of this. He tries to put his spin on it, but isn't that wild? Like, are the odds that he would present her with all these possibilities of places that she could very justifiably take harassed? Like, what are the odds he that and Heath would give her and others in the cast this opportunity to have very plausible claims of sexual harassment? Not a single time is he ever like, that just didn't happen. Totally made up.

0:58:44 Lydia: Exactly. That's And my point is that even from the Wayfair perspective, the in you general, remain the same for a lot of this stuff. It's just the interpretation. And so then you can't say as an observer of this that this did not happen at all because you have the Wayfarer parties saying, yes, it did happen. Just not in the way that blake lively interpreted it so now we're coming down to you don't believe her because you've decided that you can tell if her discomfort is real or not her feelings are real or and that is insane to me oh I know I

0:59:18 Thomas: For sure. And this is one of the weirdest ones. You know, just all the like the PGA credit thing and, you that are always through Sony where it's like, well, Sony told us that it's just I just want to know more. Like there's so much where it'S like I need to get more sides to the story. And again, maybe so it'S true. Like, honestly, I so many levels. I don'T keep saying it, but on one level, it'S Like who cares if this IS true because it DOESN'T change the harassment and the other side and the retaliation. But also then if harassment is true then like this would be in a totally different lens I I were in this movie and or whoever the director is was awful was to me and others I'm I might want to take control in some parts you know like especially and I can't even put myself in there because it's really only it's not it's really applicable because it is about women and it is about the very fact that he's making this like quote unquote female empowerment movie and his name's all over it and he's being a piece of shit and he's gonna get that credit yeah like there's so many layers of hypocrisy and things that would piss you off if you were Blake Lively that yeah I get if she did try to like take control in these ways I actually get it I it makes sense to me but which way I feel like these claims fail. You we'll see. We'll see how we go. We got more paragraphs to get through, but finally crossed that halfway mark.

1:00:08 Lydia: He's regarded as a feminist yeah yeah and also reminder that this is the complaint against the new york times and And we just went off about the sexual harassment and retaliation. Yeah.

1:00:36 Thomas: Yeah, well, there's a whole lot more not about the New York Times to get through. Well, occasionally they make up for that by just saying and the New Year's Times uncritically said this, but they're just lying every time. So it doesn't really work. It's like if the it's like a complaint was against. Against don't know like uh that's good it's like if the complaint was against danny devito and they say all this stuff about blake lively and then like occasionally they're like and Danny DeVito agreed with her there that's perfect good job bud incredible poll this

1:00:53 Lydia: DeVito. Thanks. Just kind of closed my eyes and waited until someone popped up in my head. And it was, yeah, Danny De Vito came into my brain.

1:01:17 Thomas: David davido came into your head is there something you need to tell me is this a is that having a lot or

1:01:23 Lydia: No you know why it's it's I'll

1:01:25 Thomas: Let's get on let's go all right everybody okay that's awesome it really is like that it's like and the new york times agreed with it and And it's like, it's just nothing, man. It's nothing.

1:01:27 Lydia: Tell you later

1:01:37 Thomas: But, oh, well. Right. Well, that's it for this episode. We'll see you for episode 16. Thanks so much for listening. Thanks to our patrons for pledging at patreon .com slash gavelpod.

1:01:47 Thomas: See you soon. Danny davido agreed with her

1:01:46 Lydia: Yeah you're the best