Lively v. Baldoni 18 - What She Promised the Cast Remains Unclear

Transcript

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

0:00:26 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Gavel Gavel. This is episode 18. I'm Thomas Smith. That over there is Lydia Smith. How you doing?

0:00:32 Lydia: I am really pleased. I think we have made some fantastic progress in this complaint. It's been a long journey, but we're getting close, folks. We're

0:00:43 Thomas: You say you're pleased as punch?

0:00:48 Lydia: I think so.

0:00:50 Thomas: That's always my favorite. You know, I think people have caught on that you, for some reason, don't know idioms. I don't get it. Like, have you? Okay.

0:00:56 Lydia: Well, like, I've heard that. Heard it from, like people from the 50s.

0:01:02 Thomas: Well, fair. I am from the 50s. No, as long as you've heard it. You don't have to know. I mean, no one knows what the fuck that means. Like, I'm not saying, no, we don't all have to know the etymology of idioms. That's not the, it's the fact that you haven't ever, it is actually, that's what it says. Well, okay. Sorry. I want to clarify. What the AI search result says. So that may either be completely true or completely false and I'll never know.

0:01:09 Lydia: Where'd it come from? Is like Punch and Judy. Is it? I'm AI and yeah.

0:01:27 Thomas: But that's where I'm seeing, uh, it makes sense because I what else would that mean I think it is I think I think IT DOES seem to be there but anyway you've heard it that's all that matters you've HEARD that idiom that's it's funnier when you haven't heard them like when I said like as the crow flies and you didn't know what that was

0:01:42 Lydia: I didn't understand that. Was like Edgar Allan Poe. A raven. Boy. Could gonna be a fun episode yeah

0:01:51 Thomas: You only know ones from the 1850s or something I don't um of that very relevant banter aside, we're on we're on the homestretch on the home stretch. I will say it's a bit of a deceptive homestretch because the last episode was like a little short and these ones are chunk. Chonk. These, these last two are Chonky's.

0:02:00 Lydia: Are real

0:02:10 Thomas: Yeah. So we're getting, we're that's just somehow, how it breaks up. We left off, we were kind of at a cliffhanger as to what like Blake Lively was going to force them to do in the post -production, you know, he sort of introduced the post production phase and how that's going. Will pick it up where right we left off. So, So, uh. Do that after this break, which you can avoid at patreon.com/gavelpod, where you can enjoy more bonuses. You can enjoy additional content. You can enjoy the warm feeling of supporting the show. Can talk to us. You can message us. You can post on stuff on Patreon. We love reading Patreon comments, by the way. We don't say that enough.

0:02:09 Lydia: Chonky yeah oh it's the best

0:02:40 Thomas: I actually really enjoy it. Be disturbed by how much we enjoy Patreon comment. Like it's actually, you'd be like, oh, that's a little, you know, not healthy that you guys like reading our comments so much, you know, if we actually told them the truth. So we shouldn't say this on the show. Then they go, they talk about how after they were forced to sign a thing saying they wouldn't sexually harass anyone anymore, they stopped sexually harassing people, which sure, again, I already said what I wanted to say on that. I think it stands. I think that makes her allegations more plausible. The fact that if she were making it up, it sure would be way more effective to be like, and then after I made them sign a thing. They still did it. That would be a better lie. That'd be a more effective lie, wouldn't it? So that strikes me as something that makes her claims more legitimate, not less. It says, however, it's paragraph 79. However, the lasting effects of Lively's allegations left Baldoni uneasy. And Wayfair continued to make considerable concessions throughout production, all in the interest of successfully delivering an outstanding film. Film. Now we're going to go into, and I think we've talked about a lot of this. We'll see if we can skip any of it. Takes over editing, fires the film's editor and composer. Didn't you say that didn't happen?

0:03:52 Lydia: No. Composer did change.

0:03:54 Thomas: Okay. Creates her own version of the film at Wayfarer's expense while the rightful director continues to edit his cut of the title is kind of interesting uh paragraph 80 starts the director's guild of america mandates a 10 -week protected period during which the director of a feature film is entitled to privately edit the film and assemble their director's cut that's interesting this period is considered sacred providing the director with uninterrupted time to creatively shape the final product an opportunity to experiment take risks and refine fine until the film fully reflects their artistic vision. For Baldoni, this period represents the pinnacle of the process, a time to immerse himself in the creative craft free from external influences. Unfortunately, he was denied this essential experience.

0:04:39 Lydia: Considering that, you that this is something that is protected by the union for directors, right? Far as I know, Baldoni did not raise the issue with the union, and I would think that if is something thing that is entitled to him to be protected, something that he, you know, really valued and stuff. Why wasn't a complaint made to the union?

0:05:00 Thomas: And this all strikes me as, look, Look, Baldoni felt to give in to these things because he was a sexual harasser who a bad environment, then this is just more of that doesn't add anything. It's like, well, yeah, you agreed, though, like she requested it and you agreed to it because says like her request explicitly acknowledged the fact that it infringed upon Baldoni's protected period. Nonetheless, in the aftermath of the serious false allegations she had leveled against the production, Baldoni reluctantly agreed to grant her access to the editing bay for two days, notably despite her allegations that baldoni made her uncomfortable lively sought to spend prolonged close time with him in the combined and collaborative space of the editing bay um well she had him sign a thing saying or had them I guess to sign a things saying they wouldn't yeah Yeah. Legal protection, you know, and she figured only an insane person would continue to sexually harass me after that. So, yeah, yeah.

0:05:47 Lydia: She had some legal protection now. Is also like a very classic, victims and stuff, right? Like, you if you were so uncomfortable, why did you continue to work with him? Oh, if you're so uncomfortable? Why did you, you spend time in a shared space with him and other people? Yeah, etc, etc. Right? Like, it's time and time again, we see this kind of stuff. So

0:06:11 Thomas: As the two day extended into days during which Lively sought to work alone in the editing bay without Baldoni, Baldoni incorporating seven pages of her notes into his own edit at the very onset. Set. And, you know, I mean, that may sound like a lot, but like, honestly, that if had to write out edits to like what a thing like a video was going to be like, I could take up seven pages pretty quickly and be not that much.

0:06:36 Lydia: I mean, just it could be the exactly. The timestamps.

0:06:38 Thomas: Scene three started 10 seconds. Yeah, maybe

0:06:42 Lydia: And yeah, Yeah, just takes up more room.

0:06:44 Thomas: Okay. Know. Again, this is back into the, like, okay, get it. All right. She wanted to do this and you let her, um, did you let her? Say it's because it's fake allegations. I don't believe you. Cause that's silly. So this is just you saying, well, because I sexually harassed her, I felt pressured into agreeing to do this stuff. And I don'T know what to make of that. Sorry. You know, like I I don't know. Think this is interesting. I think I want some more details of this. It has any impact on the weight of what's going on, I am curious how this interaction went down with Sony, I you what, like it would be more evidence of Baldoni's sony's view of things if they're able to produce a bunch of emails that's that that's like blake lively telling sony hey you're gonna have a problem if you don't let me do this I'm gonna report blah blah blah versus I imagine it is is probably her saying hey I think that making a bad choice creatively here I would like to do this for creative reasons reasons that then just strikes me as it's on sony or it's on baldoni to say no um if sony's not saying no I don't know I'm interested in why and maybe she is using her position to get her way creatively um she's uh t I don'' t think that's abnormal and I think that''s something that probably happens every day that we

0:07:59 Lydia: I mean, to kind on that a little bit, specifically this claim that she fired the film's composer to replace with an winning composer replacing with composers from Reynolds' recent project. Project, from my understanding, and this is from Reddit r slash film scoring, brought this up and they said, you know, like, it really breaks my heart that this composer was fired, etc., etc. And someone responds, did I miss something? Can't say I've heard of anything here, but composers get replaced slash quote fired a lot off projects for various reasons. It's no biggie in the grand scheme of things. In fact, you'll be hard pushed to find a working top composer who hasn't been been fired from some project for one reason or another. Then they go back and forth a little bit. Else chimes in and says, it's not an uncommon thing in this business, unfortunately. Business itself is a cross section of a lot of different types, often with different agendas, personalities, etc. You have filmmakers who only care about the art mixed with those who just want to rise as fast as possible at the ranks in the studio. Know, everyone's coming at it from different lens lens with politics and all of these things. The person, the poster original wrote, I think I'll just keep film scoring a hobby then. So I there's probably plenty of information related to change. Know there's like some rumors about like Taylor Swift's involvement there but no like corroboration exactly and just ultimately it's like okay this is not an uncommon thing for the business it could be a variety of reasons why this person was let go and replaced with another and it could very well be that the reason was because Blake Lively said so like it could Very Well Be

0:09:29 Lydia: Yeah

0:09:29 Thomas: Could be. Why I want to know more about this, because it says Sony later informed Wayfair that Lively would not promote the film unless their demands were met. And I'm just thinking like, yeah, but wouldn't she have a contract with somebody like I don't understand how she could just do that. Like, it seems like at certain point, if things are getting insane, couldn't you be like, hey, he signed a contract that says you're going to do this. So, yeah, yeah.

0:09:44 Lydia: I think it would really alienate like a huge huge production company too like if if Sony's like what are you doing like might not get work with any project affiliated with Sony ever again like like you burn those bridges you burn them um something else is going on here I

0:09:55 Thomas: That's a good point. Because saying that, know, faced you with the possibility of Lively refusing to promote the film or approve any related marketing materials such as trailers, posters and social media posts. That's making it sound like she can filibuster the movie. And I just I don't I it. Like, it seems.

0:10:17 Lydia: Would make her like one of the most powerful people in all of Hollywood yeah

0:10:20 Thomas: And it would just be insane. Like you say, I mean, you make an enemy of Sony forever. It just doesn't make sense. I don't know.

0:10:27 Lydia: Um I also wanted to Maybe I talked about this as well, too, but says it that she fired the film's editors, replacing them with her own choice, an editor often used by Reynolds. The original editors are credited for IMDb in different way. I mean, the composer is also the original composer is also credited on IMDb, but it says like unused score. The editors don't have any sort of like exactly, exactly.

0:10:49 Thomas: Like unused edit. Huh.

0:10:52 Lydia: It seems like they're still getting that credit on their IMDbs. And you Justin Baldoni, it was 97 % their edit. 98

0:11:00 Thomas: And so it's just talking about more how they feel they have to acquiesce. This included funding a friends and family screening of a version of the film they had not approved or even seen. Entirely at Lively's insistence. It says you know this is the part we've talked about where they have two different cuts and it does say that you know they say that Baldoni's cut tested better um understood that if it tested better they go with theirs but then it unsurprisingly despite Baldoni cut scoring significantly higher with audiences in the film's target demographic lively reneged on her promise she insisted that her cut be of the version released to the public even going far as to claim that the author of the book would also refuse to promote the film if lively's version was not chosen under immense pleasure sony and wayfarer once again conceded yeah interesting I want to know more I because I again if your theory is that blake lively is an insane narcissist megalomaniac whatever like okay maybe yeah maybe that yeah just but part of me thinks that if she's saying the author won't even do it, like maybe there's something in his cut that isn't good. That's like compromises the message severely. And she wanted to advocate for that. And I don't know. I'm not saying I know that's true, but I'm just saying it like it would make it make a little more sense or it could just be creative differences and she feels wronged. And so she wants to, have you her way. Like she went through a lot. If her version of the story is true, she went Through a lot And she's not a huge fan of this guy and doesn't want his hands to be all over the final cut. And, you know, you could judge her for that. But like, I don't know. I don' know. So, again, I just I would love to see more of this interaction, emails with Sony, anything like give me give me more stuff. We'll see. There's this demands a producer credit. And we talked about this. But this this I know we're in the second. We've got the two edits of the complaint. We're in the second edit

0:11:49 Lydia: Can bend Sony to her will like, yeah. Yeah,

0:12:41 Thomas: It's testing poorly

0:12:43 Lydia: Have the original Additional editors. And then we have the Blake Lively's editor. Yeah.

0:12:46 Thomas: One talks about it a little differently so I thought that was interesting yeah why don't you read 88 um

0:12:51 Lydia: Lively demanded that Baldoni Heath and other producers and department heads send letters to the PGA in support of her certification for the P .G .A. Mark. Despite unanimous recognition of the absurdity and the unsettling nature of what appeared to be an attempt at coercion, Sony and other parties ultimately acquiesced and submitted letters of support. However, because Lively did not perform the duties of a producer, and therefore, in the professional opinion of the studios, did not qualify for the PGA mark.

0:13:19 Thomas: The studio has made what two things at this point three things they're not yeah a handful of things and the professional opinion of the studio that has existed for five seconds I

0:13:25 Lydia: A handful. And I guess, is what they're implying there, too. Say distinction highly valued and taken seriously within the industry, Wayfair and Baldoni refused to misrepresent her contributions to the film. Despite having conceded on nearly every other demand to this point, they believed it unjust and unethical to falsely represent to the PGA that she producing responsibilities. In turn, instructed Sony to tell Wayfair and Baldoni that, quote, any goodwill left between us is done.

0:13:31 Thomas: Guess yeah I guess they're implying that yeah that's fair hmm so she's telling Sony so she's not telling she's that sounds like a threat she's not delivering to Sony she's delivering it through Sony so don't know if that means like they tried to as you said kind of imply that Sony felt the same way but based on that I don'T I mean I guess guess yeah I mean I guess you could say they sent sony back with it as the one survivor of the massacre to say hey it's a massacre we them blake lively's coming they said to tell you you I don't know okay I want to see more about this yeah yeah

0:14:15 Lydia: Like the mediator here. Here and I mean yeah there's like also a piece of me here too where it's like you know the the professional opinion of the studios and like wayfarer the party speaking on behalf of of sony here I don't know if sony sony like they might have been playing both sides a little bit trying to just get through it um lively what she wants to hear telling wayfarers what they want to of here. That just made an even bigger mess. Who knows? As said in the previous piece too, hopefully we'll get some more information about Sony.

0:14:52 Thomas: It says we already talked about this letter but it says they were left with a little choice but to draft and sign a letter on lively's behalf upon doing so heath provided a copy of the letter to Wayfarer's lawyers, accompanied by a statement indicating that they signed the letter under duress. Don't really know what that does. You know, like, I I'm I mean you're kind of documenting at time that you don't want to be doing this, but you did it and you admitted that you literally forced to.

0:15:17 Lydia: I mean, yeah, but I imagine because he and Baldoni both have a PGA credit. So, And you turned around and they're like, like, why did you lie here? You know, it would put their marks in jeopardy potentially. And so this was kind of a way for them to see why a little bit and say, like, all right, we're going to give in here. But like, we'RE going to let our council know that we were forced to do this. Their PGA marks wouldn't be at risk. Maybe.

0:15:43 Thomas: It's weird. I'm, I don' know. I want to see more emails. And then I love 91. After that, That Lively proceeded to made good on her threat.

0:15:50 Lydia: Yeah, make good. Yeah?

0:15:51 Thomas: Proceeded to made Good on her Threat. So even though she got that. But how? Well, whatever. We're on section B. Lively's successful bullying tactics result in Baldoni's exile from his own film.

0:15:53 Lydia: Know. Finally, section B.

0:16:04 Thomas: This part gets a little crazy and it gets a little like, OK, this I want to hear more. Um, could be that elements of, you Lively's reaction could have been too harsh. I don't know. I could Be Persuaded of that.

0:16:16 Lydia: Yeah yeah I I definitely think so too I I think it would be in the same way that we're saying like certain elements um baldoni's perspective on the situation with lively would make lively seem like absolutely insane it doesn't make sense I think the opposite can be said true for some of these things too like um know we'll get into it but it but wouldbe would seem just preposterous some of this stuff not actually being true and justin baldoni putting it in here yeah

0:16:40 Thomas: Yeah. We check on this first part where it says, uh, with her pattern of vindictiveness as the premiere of the film approached Lively instructed Sony that she and the cast would not participate in any marketing or promotion of the the film alongside baldoni she made certain that baldoni was removed from all artwork for the film posters included and stripped him of his a film by credit furthermore lively and reynolds unfollowed him on social media as did the author of the book someone with whom baldoni had maintained a five year personal relationship and for whom baldomi created this opportunity and for who baldoni what the author of the book someone with whom had maintained a five -year personal relationship and for whom baldoni created this opportunity wow he's saying like how dare you because I created I'll be honest I thought that would be too shitty like I was like that I think he means the opposite way like I thought he He meant that she kind of created this opportunity for him.

0:17:21 Lydia: The film itself if it weren't for me yeah if it wasn't for michaeline yeah no I think this reads that he's saying I'm the reason this movie's happening because I I I caught on to it before book talk.

0:17:38 Thomas: My God. OK, you created the opportunity. Yeah, OK. And other cast members creating the false impression that Baldoni had done something wrong. Well, I don't know, man. How is she able to do that? I just don't buy this idea. Think on a personal level, every person you've ever meet who tells you that like, Like, yeah, they poisoned everybody at work against me. Then they poisoned this person against me, and then they poison that person. They're always the poison themselves.

0:18:06 Thomas: I've never met a thing that was that, where it was not that person's fault. Like, like, otherwise, certain people have this superhuman ability to convince other people to, you really cruel things to a totally innocent guy. Other story is just so much simpler. The other story is he acted shitty and the whole cast was like, God, you know, 90 % of the casting crew was like this guy sucks. Can't just persuade people to just do things like this. It doesn't, it doesn't work. Like there's no way. I mean, you might get a few people to sort of do some stuff, But like the extent to which she would have to be actively, you their brains like a puppet master to get them to do this and all for what? Like for what purpose? Like, honestly, again, another way this doesn't make sense. If his version of the story is true, he didn't actually do anything wrong to her and she just wanted control. At this point, she has control. Be the motivation to continue to do these stuff? Then she once again becomes an insane person. She not only wanted control from this innocent guy, this saint of a man who did nothing wrong. She not только wanted to take the project, she then wanted to like punish him and like torment him for no reason. It's like if she won control and that was the goal, she be like, all right, cool. I got control of the film. Great. Let's all go to the premiere. Awesome. Know, just much more obvious explanation is that he sucked and she hated being around him

0:19:29 Lydia: To fact check this film by stuff, right? Where, you she required that his credits be the film by credit, et cetera, et cetera. Ex -Patriarch on in the Baldoni file subreddit, had posted kind of like a long piece here, looking into the trailers that were released around the same time. So I want to just share some of the work that they did. Says, on May 6, the trailer is shown at a launch event, and on May 16, the trailers released on the internet. And then he has screen captures here. The title card on the trailer does not feature any acting credits. It does, however, credit twice, and Christy Hall. Lively's name is not featured. First promotional trailer and Wayfarer having already agreed to remove Baldoni from the title card, instead throughout June and July, a number of TV spots and digital marketing assets are released that do indeed feature Baldoni's A Film by Credit and Baldoni and Livelys name on the title And there's some screenshots here of It Ends With Us with Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni listed at the top, on, know, you the bestselling novel by Colleen Hoover, a film by Justin Baldini, etc., etc. are several instances of that. And he closes it out.

0:20:49 Thomas: Does this person know for sure that they did agree to that or

0:20:53 Lydia: So so specifically, specifically, cited in a timeline that we have not gotten to yet. There is a date indicated on that timeline. It'll be in Baldoni's complaint against Lively at all. Um that's how we know like the timing of it um ahead to the future a tiny tiny bit but it's just for context so we can evaluate the film by uh here

0:21:11 Thomas: This isn't exactly my area, you but the a film by thing is kind of interesting I found an article from 2015 so not influenced by this at all which talks about that credit and it's and kind of controversial like people think that that really diminishes the contributions of everybody else um not too you many people use it but usually the ones who do means they like wrote it directed it You know, it means usually it means like it's their entire thing.

0:21:36 Thomas: Yeah, it's it I mean, I'll be honest, a film by Justin Baldoni doesn't make sense in this context to me at all. I think that's honestly, I kind of think that'S shitty. Like, I think THAT'S pretty narcissistic because it's not your book. You didn't even write the script. You did direct it and you're in it. Sure. Sure. But like a film by it's already, as said, a credit that everybody that but the Directors Guild is kind of like this is a little shitty because it takes a lot of credit. But that said, some people do it, you

0:21:35 Lydia: Of it yeah yeah yeah is also in line with you commentary here about the relationship with colleen and for whom baldoni created this opportunity right like it's kind of of in line with that yeah

0:22:09 Thomas: That's a little narcissistic. Narcissistic you know Tarantino does but he writes his and they are they are Taranteno movies like there's there's some directors where I think it's more justified than others you know but most a lot of them just say directed by they don't want to take that whole credit you Wes Anderson Wes Anderson's someone where the movies the are very much like him but he says directed by like he does does that credit?

0:22:31 Lydia: Despite it always being like a very clear style and like

0:22:34 Thomas: Clint Eastwood directed and produced was, it's just going through like some of the past best directors winners and how they credited it. Scorsese does do so. So call. The Departed was credited as a Martin Scorsesi picture. Enough. For the screen and directed by Joel and Ethan Cohen is No Country for Old Men. And that's, that's an interesting comparison because that's a book and they usually actually just write their screenplays as originals but this one was adapted and even the coen brothers who in my opinion might be the best filmmakers of all time for what that's worth um are certainly better fucking directors than justin goddamn baltoni uh did written for the screen and directed by joel and ethan coen so you there's that um hurt locker a catherine bigelow film you know it's it's again it's some some directors do it it's controversial it seems entirely inappropriate in this instance to me yeah

0:22:40 Lydia: Martin scorsese okay right this one was adapted yeah gonna say it definitely seems like an inflated uh here.

0:23:24 Thomas: A film by stripped him of his a film buy credit yeah I don't know man I just don't know yeah

0:23:30 Lydia: Then you're getting into the contractual situation, right? Like if that is something that's in his contract and to have that removed, I mean like one thing to say that like, yeah, that's kind of inappropriate for this film and a little narcissistic and maybe you shouldn't have had it to begin with, but if he negotiated it for his contract, and then it's removed in violation of his contract in breach of his contract, then I understand with

0:23:49 Thomas: Well was contract with whom I guess would that would like with sony because otherwise it's with his own company anyway okay

0:23:52 Lydia: Sony, I think. No, I think it would be with Sony. He's not suing them for breach of contract. So I don't know.

0:23:55 Thomas: Dont know yeah yeah and it's it not like the film says a film bye blake lively and what was the bottom line on on you just looked at in terms of the promotional materials like

0:24:03 Lydia: Yeah that it doesn't seem to have been removed from the promotional materials that there's plenty of trailers and digital marketing that went out with his film by credit with his name listed alongside Blake like, livelihoods for acting. Seem to corroborate what they are claiming here. That supposedly they agreed to it and then didn't do it.

0:24:27 Thomas: Right after the, um, the false impression that Baldoni had done something wrong, it goes on. I think it's worth reading this. It became clear that Lively was working diligently to contrive a narrative that would explain why she took over the film and exiled Baldoni. Why, why would that be? Don't see how that follows from what we've seen, but, and then it says Baldoni has no intention of ever making this information public ever. He promoted the film as originally intended, gave Lively full credit and praise, and wanted the film to succeed. He wanted to move on. Lively, however, refused to let it go. Baldoni later received word that during the premiere of his movie, Deadpool and Wolverine, Reynolds approached Baldoni's agent at William Morris Endeavor and demanded that the agent drop Baldoni. Wielding of power and influence became undeniable.

0:25:22 Thomas: So, what's the story here? Do we have any proof of this?

0:25:26 Lydia: WME issued a statement about this this when was was brought up. Let the agency denied the accusations in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. Say, in Baldoni's filing, there's a claim that Reynolds pressured Baldoni agent at the Deadpool and Wolverine premiere. This is not true. Baldoni former representative was not at the Deadpool and Wolverines premiere, nor was there any pressure from Reynolds or Lively at any time to drop Baldoni as a client.

0:25:50 Thomas: Okay. Well, that's about as big a refutation as you can find. So, that was a lie. Say maybe he was mistaken somehow, I suppose, but that seems to be completely wrong. Wrong. To ask I this. How does this work? Paragraph 94. systematically excluded Baldoni from all marketing and promotional efforts with her and the cast for the film. He was not invited to any cast promotional events, cast screenings, premieres, photo shoots, or other cast campaigns. Baldoni was marginalized from the marketing process and left in the dark about the purported marketing plan allegedly created by Lively and Sony, which was later Later referenced in Lively's CRD complaint as agreed to bile. Does the director and part of the studio who made the film, how is he just like, huh, they left me off the invitation? Wouldn't doing this? I don't understand. Is it all like, and Sony are just doing all of that and he's not invited? It just seems weird to me.

0:26:42 Lydia: It's also not true because there was the um flower shop pop -up that he did participate in um gave like guided tours and stuff and so it's I don't know exactly what happened between that event and everything else that Because then he did change his approach to the marketing, but he was participating in this pop up that seemed to like actually go over pretty well with folks. And I seen anyone.

0:27:06 Thomas: Not with the other cast. Is that just him?

0:27:08 Lydia: Believe not with the other cast, but He participated there.

0:27:10 Thomas: Your point is he wasn't not in the marketing plan.

0:27:13 Lydia: Exactly. And he was participating in this marketing plan that I think is, I would be surprised if it's Lively and Sony came up with this marketing plan and Wayfair was not involved in coming up with its marketing plan.

0:27:24 Thomas: It doesn't make much sense to me. We get to things where if these happen, how he said it feels a little over the line for me in terms of like how much she's inflicting on him. It feels like if it were if again, if true as he's presenting, which I think we've seen that a of what he says is just not true. So I don't know. But if true, this would be like, OK, why don't you just maybe you should Just get through this and just like stop, you know, like. So it says while in Sweden celebrating his wife's irrelevant, whatever Baldoni was informed that Lively demanded he not attend the film's premiere on August 9th. Lively further threatened that if bald only attended the premiere she and the majority of the cast would boycott it remained unclear what lively had communicated or promised to the cast I love that had communicated oder promise to the casts as though there's some chance she's like paying them to do that or something sure I mean that's silly to me but they now also refuse to attend if baldoni was present you know how hard okay one more sentence the fact that sony advised buys Wayfair to concede underscores Lively and Reynolds immense power and influence once again do you think Blake Lively, and Ryan Reynolds are bigger than Sony I know I don'T know how this stuff works yeah

0:28:13 Lydia: Yeah, I mean, it's how they're going to create this persona, right? The extortionist. Distortionist. It ends with us.

0:28:37 Thomas: I but but also the idea that the majority of the cast apropos relation to nothing, just based on Blake Lively making stuff up that she could tell them, hey, not only should you hate this guy, you should boycott a premiere if he comes. And they're like, yes, I am an automaton who will do whatever you say. Like, that's crazy. Like, just don't think that could happen without there being significant problems with Baldoni. Me like it might be that most of them would have just gone along to get along and not you know it might it sure she could have persuaded them like to uh don't want him here and and maybe she could have said I I can't be around him uh you kind join me in asking that he not come sure sure but it's not gonna be out of nothing like there's no way that anyone is gonna convince convince that big of a number of people to just fuck over an innocent amazing guy it's just not gonna happen

0:29:28 Lydia: Yeah. For about Sony's power in this situation too, revenue, this is just for Sony Pictures, which is an entity of the broader Sony corporation.

0:29:39 Thomas: I don't count the tvs and stuff I guess

0:29:40 Lydia: Exactly, or the calculators or whatever. And this This is also separate from their television entity, Sony Pictures Entertainment Incorporated. Revenue is 10 10 billion dollars as of 2022.

0:29:46 Thomas: Like an annual revenue so hard to evaluate um that means I don'T know how how much the company is worth as a whole or whatever, but yeah, I mean, it just seems so far -fetched to think this comes from nothing. I just don't see how that's possible, especially with all the other stuff we have, which so clearly points to the simplest explanation being this guy sucked and a lot of people thought he sucked. Just so much more, as you said, parsimonious. Then it says, Baldonian Wayfarer refused to succumb to the bullying tactics aimed at preventing them from attending the premiere of their film, a project they had financed, produced, and owned. This threat marked the culmination of a year -long campaign of intimidation and harassment. Although objectively egregious and shocking, the Wayfair team had unfortunately grown accustomed to the bullying, fully aware of the immense power this couple, it's just, it says that so many times, wielded in the far -reaching extent of their influence. However, they refused to concede to this demand. Days before the film's premiere, Baldoni was still unsure if he would be allowed to attend well then that sounds like you're not okay not up to you I don't know um it says you sony wayfarer persuaded lively to quote permit baldoni and the wayfarers team along with friends and family to attend though only under demeaning and humiliating conditions they were relegated to a separate theater to view the film required to arrive at a different time than the rest of the cast and instructed to leave the venue immediately after lively arrived. Baldoni was also excluded from the official celebrity after party, despite it being an event paid for by Wayfarer. As a result, Baldoni had to quickly organize and personally fund a separate after party for himself and the Wayfarers team, forcing the company to cover the cost of two. OK, two parties. Darn. Like, come on. Come on. I not going to. Refuse to care about that. I'm sorry. You made three hundred and fifty million bajillion dollars on on this. And then you had to pay for two parties. Okay. I will say that like does strike me as like pretty extreme. Now, I don't know if there's maybe there's a way that it makes sense. Maybe there's away that.

0:31:45 Lydia: Maybe I do I feel for him in this situation because like there are pictures of him next to a bunch of like soda cans and stuff and his friends and family. And they're like, clearly it's concrete and, and whatever that they're hanging out in. And seeing that yeah, it, it makes me sad. Like, from a human being standpoint and obviously someone who like care about doing the work and, And, you there were issues on set and creative differences in post -production, etc., etc. And unfortunate that that's how it ended up. And I'm not OK with it Up, if unless there is a good reason for they needed to continue to be separated like that.

0:31:47 Thomas: Same. Yeah. All along it might be possible that uh don't totally love who blake lively is I don't know could be um doesn't diminish most of her claims if any of them um yeah it sounds a little extreme to me it sounds like you know it's hard to I can't put you myself especially in like a woman's place who's gone through something like that I have no idea but like it strikes me that if I was wronged in a serious way like that I like think I would probably lean more toward like all right I'll just pretend they're not here whatever like let's just get through this like you know I don't know but I is there information we don't have uh the and more to the point even if you wanted to say that's blake lively and she's being evil the fact that it's pretty sad and honestly I I with you when I see that like I don' t feel bad for him like I I genuinely feel bad for him. Fact that a bunch of other people are going along with that tells me that there's something some, there, you a bunch of other People are not going to look at that and be like, this is cool. I'm glad we're doing this to a totally great guy for no reason. They're just not that's

0:33:15 Thomas: That's that's not going To happen. But if he's somebody who really creeped a bunch Of people out to the point where like the women of the cast are like, I don't want to be around this creep. Then all of a sudden it starts to look like it makes more sense. All Like of the sudden the world makes more sense, you just doesn't make sense the way he's telling it. And it does make sense a different way. Now, I'm still open, though, to this being maybe overly cruel, maybe too far, maybe too much, Know, revenge you kind of thing. Like, yeah, sure. Be. I'm open to that. Maybe that means she kind of sucks. That mean that he's great? No, not at all.

0:33:47 Lydia: It doesn't necessarily erase like everything that led that up to that moment either. Right.

0:33:52 Thomas: 98 is kind of what we already talked about it's more about you lively's on her way so they have to you go to a basement and dramatized quite a bit

0:34:01 Lydia: They characterize as basement, we don't know exactly what it is. But would be really surprised if it's a basement for like as part of a theater for a movie premiere. I don't know I just find that unlikely how

0:34:04 Thomas: Yeah yeah that's that's a good point yeah yeah they were in a yeah separate theater to view the film by security out of the building I I mean it seems I whole thing seems uh little heightened yeah um then he takes pains to emphasize it was a dry gathering reflecting the values that they stand for etc etc well

0:34:23 Lydia: A little dramatized yeah oh yeah lively doesn't drink either so she

0:34:33 Thomas: She has that that line of whatever but

0:34:35 Lydia: Does but she doesn't drank and and it started off as like a non -alcoholic like mixer thing sorry one one second just about her not drinking specifically like she has not really ever participated in the drinking scene at all even though she's been involved in acting since she was a teenager and you know pretty well known name and stuff she never really got sucked into it because she just didn't drink and she used to date her co -star from Gossip Girl Penn Badgley and he with his alcohol. And he said when he was dating her, her not drinking actually encouraged him to stop and get healthier. And what's interesting is he's actually Baha 'i, like

0:34:37 Thomas: Got her 99 oh wow

0:35:12 Lydia: Justin Baldoni. So they're good friends now. It's just kind of an interesting, yeah, I guess. What I'm here for.

0:35:19 Thomas: Uh 99 says um no 99 talks about I think this is trying to justify his um to the the, like, focusing on domestic violence. He would characterize it as, no, it's the whole original thing. That's why they partnered with no more. Says his original proposal to Sony, which, I guess I could take that a couple of ways. Either that means, oh, yeah, this has been the plan that long, or that means that was the original plan and they all shifted to a different thing, in which case that's not very powerful to be like, well, my original thing was this. Because think this, to me, signals that they're trying to that, whether or not it's true. Maybe it is true, but trying to justify it so that it doesn't look like merely a response to the bad press she was getting and trying to, like, you take advantage of that.

0:36:06 Lydia: Interestingly, no text messages cited here about how this was always the plan all along. But we do have text messages where he said, hey, let's make sure my strategy is focusing on this again in response to the fallout.

0:36:20 Thomas: Yep. I mean, e -references, we can assume that that document, planning documents kind of thing, would all be in discovery. So we can see. We're on section C. we're somehow still not done with this complaint. Even close. Baldoni forced to hire Crisis Public Relations to combat Lively's negative press push. Here we go.

0:36:48 Lydia: We're getting into some meaty stuff here.

0:36:51 Thomas: A little bit about this. Again, we're talking about all of this because it's a repeat, but tries to make it as though it's just preparing for worst case scenarios. Scenarios, no aggressive tactics, e .g. astroturfing, were ever employed.

0:37:02 Lydia: Again, I mean, he's talking about specifically the agency group and their role in this.

0:37:09 Thomas: Interesting.

0:37:10 Lydia: And so we could say, okay, yeah, Melissa Nathan and her team did not do the astroturfing because maybe they contracted with another entity, namely street relations yeah there's

0:37:15 Thomas: Outsourced it. Yeah. Yeah. Jed Wallace. 101. Meanwhile, Lively's publicist Sloan launched a negative press push against Baldoni. Let's see. She launched a positive press push. As early as August 1st, Tagg was made aware of Sloan planting an unfavorable false and defamatory story about Baldoni's Baha 'i faith to page six. Okay. Right. Do we have something here? This is the first I'm hearing about this. This is interesting this wasn't in the above part we already did so okay this is the first I've heard about a baha 'i faith thing she proceeds to feed false stories to the daily mail new york post containing allegations that baldoni was a sexual predator wow that's a big claim sloan would also plant a false story alleging that there were multiple hr complaints during production this in addition to sloane weaponizing baldoni and wayfarer hiring Tagg and Nathan. That's one sentence. Oh, in addition to... No, that's nothing.

0:38:07 Lydia: That's an incomplete sentence yeah no

0:38:12 Thomas: Weaponizing Bald... This... What?

0:38:15 Lydia: It's an incomplete sentence yeah

0:38:17 Thomas: In addition to Sloan weaponizing Baldoni. Baldoni?

0:38:22 Lydia: No no weaponizing their hiring of tag and nathan no

0:38:24 Thomas: This in additional... So it still doesn't work. Yeah. This in addition Sloan Weaponize Baldoni and and Wayfarer Wayfarer hiring Tagg Nathan.

0:38:27 Lydia: it'S AN INCOMPLETE SENTENCE that would be underlined red if they were in microsoft word I don't know how they missed it yeah yeah

0:38:33 Thomas: It's also so unclear, too. We get text. Okay, is this going to be a Baha 'i faith thing? Is this going... Oh, wouldn't you know, it is the exact same text we already saw. And it is literally the opposite of what they claim. Let's see. Is there anything different here?

0:38:43 Lydia: This is also the conversation with the daily mail reporter um they had to exclude previously um to reporter privilege that he claimed

0:38:55 Thomas: The name, I guess. Much all... It is all the same. Yes, again, it starts with with Leslie saying, yes, please, as this info is all wrong. It's so obvious that a story was already there. And this reporter, we already know this. The reporter is already saying, actually, okay, we get a little, this is where we get a little bit more to this though. I think it's interesting. Hate this fucking reporter. I think he's a lying piece of shit.

0:39:19 Thomas: I don't He might lie to both sides. It is not about the fact that he's lying to Leslie Sloan. I think he's the kind of person who lies to all sides all the time. And I hate people like that. And a big paragraph of like this Weasley crap. Let's go through this again. Can kind of skip over what we've already said, but it's essentially, like I said, the reporting there, you know, so clearly he's getting a comment from her. She's trying to stop it. She's definitely trying to stop the story. It's exactly not what they're her saying. I promise she's lying. This will not look good for your site. We already did that. The entire cast I'll have go on record. You give me anything at all on what the issue is then if it's not her and it's him? No, I'm in a plane and this needs to hold. Sounds good. I'd like to clear this shit up. And then seemingly later, although again, no timestamps, we know how much later.

0:39:18 Lydia: He's the worst no yep but after a story had been published

0:40:05 Thomas: Yeah. So probably after this story was published, maybe. Your story is mean. I guess you you and Melissa are in cahoots. Then this asshole says, hi, I reached out to you on Thursday via text above to let you know that our reporter Lillian, gosh, sent some quotes and I was asked to write it. Oh, see, it's not his fault. Included what they were. I ended up calling out on Friday so I could paint. So she ended up writing it. Not putting the blame on her, but the reason my name is also on the piece is because half the reporting in it was mine, line, i.e. the following quotes below. And I do talk to Melissa, but she is in no way giving me any anti-Blake info. Blake's backlash is due to her own words and actions in the interviews. Only thing he told me is what she told you, and is all organic. Were my quotes used in the piece. During scenes, the band then cuts off. Okay, we don't get to see the rest of that, okay? To those quotes that we don't get to see. Leslie says, yes, mean your quotes are, uh, your quotes are kind and true. Of the bullying she hates and then PP. I don't know what that, that means. Hmm.

0:41:01 Lydia: I know and and sorry and she means your quotes are kind untrue are kind of untrue yes mean your quotes are kind and true I don't know how to interpret that because we can't see the quotes but if the story is mean I don''t think she is supportive of the quotes yeah

0:41:17 Thomas: I yeah. I was taking it as she was buying, or at least seeming to buy into the idea that his his part of the article is fine and her and the other person's wasn't. What I was taking it to mean. But yeah, kind and true is kind of and

0:41:27 Lydia: I dont know no I think I think she mistyped it's not not clear

0:41:32 Thomas: Can't think of what that would be. Your quotes are I don't I don' t know what that would be, huh?

0:41:37 Lydia: Having to spend a lot of time interpreting people's mistyping and typos.

0:41:41 Thomas: And this one, I don't know. Knew early on it was going to happen, which is that first time I called you before movie came out and trying to prevent anti-Blake BS. Again, this is, so we didn't get this before. This wasn't in the above and this makes it even worse. Was calling her. Well, I mean, no, that's not true, but like we at least know the timing of when he was calling here was when an anti-Blake story was coming out. Was getting so bad for him and he had to hire Melissa. But then after that one interview where she said her GPS cell phone thing—it's obvious she was kidding, but it just snowballed and kept going and going. It will all turn around. You know how to flip the script better than anyone. Says, please make it turn around, I know you are friends with Melissa. Yeah, we are, and

0:42:25 Lydia: Just a reminder, that GPS cell phone thing, that's where the interviewer asked her, hey, if someone's going through a rough time or maybe experiencing domestic violence, how can they get a hold of you, essentially?

0:42:37 Thomas: This is incredibly weird, now it possibly continues but it's different so is a new screenshot dark

0:42:44 Lydia: They switched from dark mode to light mode.

0:42:46 Thomas: Mode to light mode and the texts are not consistent because we just saw I know you're friends with Melissa and the response was yeah we are and then in the next one it's not that it says they're liking city good for you I know you are friends with Melissa. Yeah, we are. There's different messages. Do you mean? Uh -huh. What is that? How could that be?

0:43:06 Lydia: I see what you're saying.

0:43:07 Thomas: Different.

0:43:07 Lydia: I know you're friends with Melissa. Please make a turn around.

0:43:09 Thomas: Before it was, please make it turn around. I know your friends with melissa. Yeah we are now. It's they're liking the city. Good for you. I know you're friends with Melissa. We are so Is that even possible? Actually, maybe.

0:43:18 Lydia: Yeah, that's weird. It a different, does Leslie just say it again like a week later?

0:43:26 Thomas: And he says the exact and the yeah it's the exact wording for both of them the exact same capitalization punctuation I mean, it's possible but that's fucking weird I don't know what that is light mode to dark mode like maybe the other one I don't know the only thing that maybe makes sense is that she said the exact same thing later I

0:43:28 Lydia: Exact same thing? Punctuation. Yeah. We can be pretty confident this is the same person, right? Is still James from Daily Mail? That's so weird what

0:43:52 Thomas: Think it has to be yeah I it could be different do we see any I'm just looking below to see if there's any if it like references anything else but it doesn't yeah this was the one that I really wanted to show you because I'm like what, what is happening here I don't understand literally the text is like you could say criminally doctored or coincidentally they had the same same exact interaction, but another time where the stuff before it, all I don't know. We don't know. It could be, is it a different reporter? But anyway, this is all new stuff we don't have. Yeah, we are. And then Leslie says, I'm not paid to take people down. I'm honest. This person, which we think is the same reporter, says she hasn't done anything literally anti, but wait, yeah, we did have that before, but not some of it. Okay. Backlash is organic it's not she did nothing but helped get a movie make tons of money justin makes tons and she was kind of off promoting it as if it was barbie it's just based on things that she said directly um definitely doesn't talk shit she's like you incredibly honest and fair she told me what she did to steer justin away from the drama but nothing about blake not fair says leslie was zero blake then leslie says got it but there are others at your paper and site and he says 15 000 I

0:44:07 Lydia: Is happening yeah liking city yeah Mm-hmm, okay know I looked up how many people work for daily mail and it says approximately 4034 so I don't know

0:45:15 Thomas: Um mind you, what what were we set up for with that? It was supposed to be Sloan launches a negative press push at as early as August 1st. Tag was made aware of Sloan planting an unfavorable, false and defamatory story about Baldoni's Baha 'i faith. That's nowhere.

0:45:30 Lydia: No footnote for a link nothing not not specifically on this one this is not cited.

0:45:32 Thomas: Because there are those, but not that one. I'm looking

0:45:37 Lydia: Is no source.

0:45:37 Thomas: Through them all. There's nothing. So they just said that and there's no proof. The allegations that Baldoni was a sexual predator, that's nowhere at we've covered that before. It would be inappropriate if it were. And then they try to criticize her for not bringing up the sexual harassment to the reporter, contradicts the entire thing about the sexual predator stuff. So this is a mess. Mess and all we get are that same that same text thread we already talked about which doesn't at all prove that in fact it demonstrates the opposite and then we get um tag team lying to the reporter and I guess we've talked about before which I guess they're trying to say the fact that they heard there were multiple HR complaints from cast and crew they're just saying Sloan did it with no evidence that we know of there could be evidence but it's not here and then they even include them lying and they're like off the record the only complaint which not confirmed if it was official HR complaint was a guy up for a gig on the crew complained that a younger guy got it a lie well we get a billion links that are not demonstrations of what we thought from the last paragraph they're just a bunch of articles about not liking Blake Lively and they, is, I suppose, to try to make the case that it's all her fault, which, okay, I don't know. I don'T know how much is her fault and how much isn't. I DON'T know. One It, thing I am very open to, because again, it's a depressing reality about the internet, is it's possible that most of this was organic. Like, it'S possible that there was a, you know, a little bit here and there that they did, but then the, the internet ran with it, because they do that um

0:46:13 Lydia: We've talked about before. -hmm.

0:47:11 Thomas: Possible I still think that'll mainly be a question of like damages I I don'T think that gets you out of the fact that they tried or or they planted like a few things so we'll see yeah

0:47:21 Lydia: But it's essentially a page, an entire page of links.

0:47:25 Thomas: Of articles cool I don' t know what I'm supposed to do with that uh deaf encouraging viewers to grab your friends and wear your florals that's

0:47:32 Lydia: Think that was also, like a tagline specifically in the marketing plan. Honestly don't think that grab your friends to go to a movie is really that big of a a deal.

0:47:40 Thomas: Can only go with enemies it's a serious film you're abuser

0:47:44 Lydia: You know, your partner who you need to awaken. Again, wear your florals because her name's Lily Bloom and she's opening a flower shop. And that was a key part of the marketing strategy, including the flower pop -up that we talked about. Flower shop pop -ups.

0:47:59 Thomas: This is another thing that this -patriarch has a thing on oh what this ex -patriarch uh points out is that the grab your florals thing was everywhere it wasn't just blake it was like that was how a bunch of the official promo was um I mean that doesn't mean like it could be true both that blake was obviously doing nothing wrong there but that also is what started a backlash because the people who backlash clash are idiots and are unfair. So I suppose that's possible. It wouldn't mean she deserved it, but it could be possible that it was things that she said that were what people were reacting to, even though they were wrong. A distinction that may matter legally somewhat. I after that litany of links that seems pointless to me, that she's so so embarrassed by the backlash, she now seeks to vilify Baldoni, I though she was already doing that because of the other plan. I don't know. She's got so many different schemes that she's got going on here. You got to read this really terrible sentence because I love a good, terrible sentence.

0:48:58 Lydia: While the Times thrusts allegations of of an offensive smear campaign concocted by plaintiffs, the incomplete and misleading evidence supplied by Lively and on which the Times purports to rely, proffers a warped view of reality. Is like a much simpler way of saying what you're trying to say there.

0:49:16 Thomas: That's such a bad bad sentence. Thrusts, it's just terrible. Aside the unscrupulous means, it goes on, by which the cited communications were obtained. Again, are they fake? They are real and you're just complaining about getting caught. Times, as with lively CRD complaint, deliberately takes these communications out of context to bolster a fallacious narrative. Interesting because we we're going back to the included excluded thing and I think this time we actually get even more stuff yeah I think that this is important now what's funny here is that in this instance I think the the evidence is better for baldoni than it is in the above so I feel like they should have included this in the first thing because like no one's reading this far but you and I uh and I guess other I know people on the internet yeah Yeah, because because like actually some of this does make Justin look a little better, like it makes his side look a Little better. So I think it's ought to consider it. So get the not in love with the document they sent. Not sure I'm feeling the protection and we're getting back to the included thing. Jen Abel Oldnumber says this is the first time I've personally gone through this. We've heard this part at least because this was included. The important part. Justin yeah, it just feels very much like there is much defense and also them feeling strong like she's going to do something just a bit concerning what everyone had originally we get an excluded. It is. Jen Abel, truth is your defense. You have done nothing wrong. And there is over a year worth of facts and paper trails and people who can go on background as your defense, this document is an overview and I think as the situation evolved and as it has become realized the great lengths she has gone in order to cut you out of not just the film but promo premiere etc we need to prepare as if she will also go through any great lengths with press with good a thing if we all prepare for the worst outcome because then if and when it's not as bad, we are overprepared. So elements of that, I think, yeah, fair enough. Like that that's, is slightly better looking for him. I have a number of points to make about it, but fair enough,

0:49:59 Lydia: Handful of Redditors. Yeah, right.

0:51:12 Thomas: But we already knew we were in a planning phase here. Like this doesn't add to, I, I Don't think this adds to the idea that he only prep.

0:51:21 Lydia: That was only just.

0:51:21 Thomas: Yes. That he only prep because we already knew we were in that conversation like I guess you could say like it's her saying we need to prepare but he is the one that is urging more offense you and she's saying well we needto prepare so okay we don't know what happened after that like

0:51:35 Lydia: They underlined in red defense when Jen Abel said it twice in there, so.

0:51:38 Thomas: Yeah and the truth is your defense is what she says now I want to say something about that once again I can talk a little bit about my experience and I think it's it's actually kind of valuable here because here's the thing about humans. No one goes around saying we're going to do a bad thing because we're the bad people. Just don't. Andrew Torrez was trying to smear me and making up lies and telling laughably untrue stuff to try to get out of his Me Too controversy, the PR people, keep in mind, they are only using the information they're given and And they have every incentive to flatter and buy into their client's version of the story. Think when you first read that, you might think that Jen has some secret insight or some, like, she's telling like the truth, like she has a bird's eye view of the situation. And she's saying, hey, you've done nothing wrong. She has the facts that you don't actually that's not true what she has is what Justin has told her that's it and she might not even have primary sources at this point in time when she's talking to Justin about this she might only have Justin's word on some stuff and it is just not in their incentives to push back that much like they're They're going to buy into it because if go to crisis PR people and you're like, here's what's going on and not going to be like, oh, well, you're kind of fucked. So no,

0:52:56 Lydia: They're motivated to keep you on.

0:52:57 Thomas: They're always motivated to be Like, wow, you are being so wrong right now. Need to get out and correct the record on here. Cause that's work for them. That's paid work for that. That's going to pay for it. That's not going be their incentive. I I don'T even think that they're like consciously necessarily doing it. They might be. But just all the incentives, both kind but also most importantly, financially, all the initiatives are to buy into the bullshit. The stuff that I saw in discovery of Andrew and the PR firm talking about, like when, I made my accusations, they were not in reality.

0:53:04 Lydia: Protect you. Mm. Hm.

0:53:27 Thomas: Were not. And you could look at those same messages you could Look at them and think like, Oh, well, that's them saying that, you know, Andrew's right about this whole thing and Thomas is wrong. It's like, yeah, but that's just him talking to himself. That's him talking to the people who are paid to agree with him and they're agreeing with him. Not, I mean, you I can consider it, you know, like she is saying defense, fair enough, consider that, you Know, I don't know. Prepare, sure, take I that into consideration and I'll tell you what I still, I want to emphasize for the nth time, personally, and you don't have to agree agree anybody am actually still open to the idea that they didn't have to do all that much proactively it looks bad like again all the evidence that I've seen most of it shows that like were doing stuff like we got the jed wallace stuff where they're like well that's we didn't send that to him you know strongly implying they send other stuff we've got other quotes we've got the fact that um description of what they were even being paid for um Got all kinds of other evidence that they were the ones planting stuff and they were working offensively, but I'm I don't think it's a hundred percent. Like, I think it is possible that there a chance that maybe they didn't do, um. Much stuff on the offense. I think there's an opportunity. I, I, there I don' t know. I'm still rather open to that. And we'll see. That I, doesn't, in my opinion, I dont think that'll get them off the hook for like everything, thing, but that could get them off the hook for some of the legal liability if the truth is that they were more responsive than Blake Lively is alleging. Possible. I'm open to it.

0:53:43 Lydia: Hem. Hum. Yeah I mean that's the crux of her retaliation claim right and and so if it's it's shown shown shown that like well they didn't actually really do anything they were just prepared and then the internet was internetting then that kind of you apart a bit quite a bit her retaliation uh of action

0:55:02 Thomas: Yeah, it could. I think that are already pretty established, but I'm just saying in my mind, there's still a range. There's still range. It could go all All the way over to like as as Blake thinks it's possible. Because again, we still only have messages up to a certain point and we still only have messages from one person's phone.

0:55:19 Thomas: So it could be a whole lot worse or maybe not. Maybe Like it looks really bad because this is what Blake has chosen to share. And that's what the New York Times, I mean, the fact that the New Year's Times is convinced me that I think there's a lot more we haven't seen. I've said that before, reinforces that the case. I don't know. It's not 100%. Who knows? So I'm still open to that. This is evidence. Consider it. You know, they're preparing. However, the very next thing, and I love this because they try to say they do the included excluded thing. We can't write it down. And they say this is included.

0:55:50 Thomas: We can'T write it DOWN to him. We can 'T write, we will destroy her. We will go to this. We will do this. We will do this. We will do this.

0:55:49 Lydia: This from melissa yeah we -hmm.

0:55:58 Thomas: Sorry, it's a little confusing. I think that's a typo. It's probably go do this, but whatever. And then excluded is, of course not, but I told him that's the point of talking it through as though that's a gotcha. Like, literally, that's just Melissa saying, yeah we can't write it all down. We can't say all this bad stuff. Then Jen says, yeah,

0:56:16 Lydia: Then Jen said yeah that's why we're gonna talk on the phone.

0:56:19 Thomas: I agree. Let's make sure we only say the really bad stuff and these dinguses put a red arrow excluded next to that as though that's like a gotcha. Literally more proof. Saying, of course not. That is the point of talking it through. Okay. Then included, he has to look at it as an information document for us to be armed with, that's that's all. Imagine if a document saying all the things that he wants ends up in the wrong hands. Work is not the document. The Work is, oh, and this was excluded.

0:56:49 Lydia: This part's excluded.

0:56:49 Thomas: The work is the fucking crisis, LOL. Make it look better?

0:56:55 Lydia: Nope.

0:56:55 Thomas: Makes it look like, again, point of the previous text was, imagine if a documents saying all the things he wants end up in the wrong hand. This further text is justifying, yeah, that's why we're not putting everything he wants in a document. The work is not the document.

0:57:08 Lydia: We don't we put our our in the document itself. We Don't put our like like our literal responsibilities and our plan land of action. To keep a high level.

0:57:16 Thomas: So once again, they're trying to do a gotcha of excluded, but this actually further reinforces the point. Then there's two more excluded from Jen. If it's any consolation, he's like this with everything, overthink, stresses, high anxiety. He just needs to be educated on how this process works. I don't, that I guess they're trying to say like, that's why he's asking for this. It's just him stressing maybe, I guess.

0:57:38 Lydia: Yeah, yeah. I think it's Jen probably like, being don't take this personally, Melissa. This isn't because of you guys.

0:57:43 Thomas: Sorry. I should explain my thinking. Plain understanding of it is exactly what you're saying, in which case this doesn't help them at all. So I was jumping to what's the interpretation that they think helps them here? Because they're staying excluded as though this helps them. Like, oh, how dare they not include this? Sorry, so I skipped a few thoughts ahead. My thought was, because I agree with you, that that's what I would think this is. Like, hey, don't take it personally. Know, I know you're a great evil schemer who's going to do awful things we can't write down. Don't worry. I know. I know your great.

0:58:12 Lydia: I've seen your work with Johnny

0:58:13 Thomas: You're evil and amoral. I get it. But, you know, he stresses. Overthinker. That's how I take it because that's What the Words say pretty much. But are they thinking, you this show, like in their minds, maybe this shows, not oh, that they really wanted to do these things. It's that he's so stressed and overthinks everything. He just wants to be overly prepared with a bunch of stuff. Like, I think that's probably how they're hoping it would come across. But my is the same as yours. I think it's just pretty much that. And then the next thing, which is included, says, you know, we can bury anyone, but I can't write that to him. Yep. And then it says, I will, I'll be very tough. It does an arrow saying that's a direct response to he just needs to be educated. Okay, I Will, I 'LL Be Very Tough is not talking about tough on Blake. That's the gotcha here.

0:58:13 Lydia: Depp. Huh.

0:59:02 Thomas: The way they include, the way New York Times included it was, you know, we can bury anyone, but I can't write that to him. I Will I'll Be Very Tuff. But what it seems to be well actually no this is the complaint the CRD complaint let actually yeah the New York Times thanks for saying that includes a lot less this is a CRD complain in the New Year's Times article we have of course but you know when we send over documents we can send over the work or we will or could do because that could get us in a lot of trouble adding Nathan said adding we can't write we will destroy her moments later she said imagine if a document saying all the things that he wants ends up in the wrong hands and then she says you know we can bury anyone so the New York Times article doesn't include the will be tough and I think in their minds this is a big gotcha because oh in the CRD complaint again irrelevant to this complaint against the New York times. Cause as you point out, this is not in the New York times, but in the CRD complaint, if we take this as just a response to Blake, I guess we're to believe that I the, will, I'll be very tough was like, Oh, everyone took that to mean she'll be tough on, Blake. On

0:59:09 Lydia: The New York Times did include that I will I'll be very tough. Yeah yeah.

1:00:04 Thomas: Didn't even really read it like that, to be honest with like a hundred percent God's honest truth. It does to me kind of read as being tough in the conversation that we already knew about, you has to look at it as an information document to be armed with you know like I already took that as her talking about justin yeah

1:00:19 Lydia: Honestly like the way that I took it is that it's been really hard to interpret their conversation sometimes because they'll say things that don't make sense that respond to other things and so like I honestly didn't even necessarily like wasn't married to the idea that this was even even relevant to the rest of the lines that came before it. Weird when you see like the data extraction versus like the screenshots and stuff. And like, you do lose that it was a direct response to a previous comment.

1:00:46 Thomas: Fair enough uh but I that was never part of like sentence I I promise you I actually did read it that way because it comes out of nowhere like I will all be very tough it does sound like I just assumed she was talking about in the conversation because we kind of had enough context for that I don't think this makes or breaks anything. But okay, I guess if you want to say, hey, that was actually a response to he just needs to be educated on how this process works. Okay. Nothing for me. Now we some other stuff that's excluded. This is new. All new.

1:01:13 Lydia: Then the conversation continues with additional messages that we don't see in the CRD complaint or the New York Times article. Is from Melissa to Jen. Also, as you know, this is twisting turning because we don'T know their moves. But don'T worry, I get it. I may just drink half a tank of Pepto -Bismol and I'll be ready for the call. And Jen Laff reacts to that. Jen responds, yes, exactly. And maybe that's how you approach the Baha 'i thing, that we had no idea of this approach and why we can't be proactive as we have no idea what she will come out with. Melissa says, done. Then Jen responds, Pepto mixed with espresso and you're good to go. That sounds like a really bad idea. My own commentary. Then Melissa responds, he also cannot come across as a victim here. We are walking a very fine line. Jen responds. Exactly. He can't look guilty either by shying away from this stuff. Then there's a picture that we don't get to see.

1:02:02 Thomas: Yeah this so is excluded and I think this is interesting I things I want to say here I and I open with this I think the stuff is better for him than what's in the above part that we already did and I feel like he should have put that they I don't know why they wouldn't put this in the about part like you could probably get rid of a bunch of stuff from the above that sucked and put this stuff because these quotes do make it look more More like, hey, we're just being reactive. We can't be proactive. Again, I will emphasize that we already knew this was the playing face. He hasn't even hired them yet. This is the, audition, you isn't it? Like they the, prepared a document or way, it's either that or right around, you know, the first interactions. So we already knew that we already know they weren't working already because they're just starting. They're just still pitching stuff. Can't put a document with all the stuff we want to do. They'RE not working right now. TheyRE just starting and but like fair enough, it does say we can't be proactive as we have no idea what she will come out with it does say that that's maybe that'S what happened we'll see um maybe they just were planning

1:02:32 Lydia: I think she has been retained for service at Right.

1:02:54 Lydia: Mm hmm. It does look like this is probably the first like deliverable that they issued as part of their working relationship because the group was hired July 31st. And then this document was provided August 2nd.

1:03:09 Thomas: So this is better evidence for them than a lot of stuff. I think this is a pretty good thing for them to put. Can imagine a lot of ways that this will go. I think we need more information. Yeah, okay that's good evidence. Thing I I want to say is I out and maybe that's how you approach the Baha 'i thing. No idea of this approach. Think that's them referencing what they believe was Sloan planting a Baha', whatever, right?

1:03:25 Lydia: I I see, yeah.

1:03:36 Thomas: Think it is. But here's the thing about this. Tell you enough how much this echoes exactly my experience when I saw in discovery the conversations between andrew and the pr firm they would say stuff like oh well thomas's bot troll army is all over the and And, listener, really? Yeah.

1:03:54 Lydia: Don't think you ever told me that. Yeah Yeah.

1:03:56 Thomas: Listener, I cannot emphasize enough how much I don't have a troll army. Like, just not even close. Like, I just, there were people who were mad at Andrew because they were, honestly, there were more fans of him than me, and they were really mad about what he did, said stuff to him. I had nothing the fuck to do with it whatsoever in terms of these things, but they would just say that in their interactions. And, again, there's no incentive for the PR people to be like, uh, I don' t know if this This is my troll army that he had. It looks like just a guy.

1:04:22 Lydia: I think those are just real people. Well,

1:04:23 Thomas: And so they would say things like that. And this is so reminiscent of that to me. Oh, yeah. The Baha 'i thing that they're coming after you with. I'm not saying they have no proof. Saying we haven't seen any proof and they didn't put any proof in their document whatsoever about Leslie Sloan planting the Baha'. But them when they say they were convinced of that. But that doesn't fix it because incentives are to goad each other on. Oh, yeah, bet that's Thomas again. Yeah, it is. So we need to do that. Like everything is incentivized that way because that continues them working, that continues then billing, that continuous. It also is the camaraderie of the weird thing they're doing. All the incentives are to not question each other but to just go with what they think to validate his conspiracy theories yeah it's

1:05:06 Lydia: It's an importante psychological approach, too, right? Because like you have to create your in -group and out -group.

1:05:09 Thomas: Us and them yeah yeah yeah

1:05:12 Lydia: Going to strengthen the bonds and the relationship for your team and vilify anyone who's not part of your team. And like it's just it's you get greater buy in, deeper buy in for an approach like that. And it's hard to shake. Effective.

1:05:26 Thomas: Another example is in the text we saw where the or Melissa I forget is talking to the reporter And is like, yeah, she is so awful. She's a psycho. She was saying she saying that he sexually assaulted her. It's insane. You know, and are running with that stuff because that again creates that in group that incentivized to buy into every single impulse that he might have along those lines. And maybe some of them are right, but I feel like a lot of them might be wrong. And a lot of them Might be, Hey, I Bet you this is her. And then all of a sudden, a few days later, now it's a fact, like they've reinforced it to each other enough times to where it's fact.

1:05:35 Lydia: Think it's Melissa. Yeah. Well, exactly. Exactly. And then like you layer in the celebrity culture and the gossip, you know, like tendencies of folks that are really into celebrity culture. And like it's just yeah, a pretty potion, I think.

1:06:19 Thomas: Wow. What an episode. There's so much there. This was a weird one though. This we struggled a bit, you in retrospect, because this was all this weird shit that doesn't really matter, but it's also, it's interesting, but you know all this post -production stuff. I got to be honest. It's It's been hard to know what to say about it because it's like, OK, I don't buy any of this argument. So then it becomes like this totally irrelevant thing that might be like legitimate, you interpersonal gripes for all I know. Like, yeah, maybe maybe this is bad. Maybe that Blake did this, but it doesn't It's it's almost like if they were just talking about two other people that weren't related to this, but

1:06:58 Lydia: Or it's totally commonplace in the industry and

1:07:02 Thomas: Too, I think it probably is. Yeah, I want to make very clear, granting them a lot of this because there's no stakes to it. For the most part, I just don't believe Baldoni's representation because here's why. It's not because of any bias I had going into this. It's because I've now read hours of this guy's complaint and he lies about stuff. They lie. Their side lies about staff, misrepresents stuff, and it's not plausible. A lot of their stuff is not plausible and reduces their credibility. So I just do not trust this. But also, it does not mean I am 100%. I am skeptical. I think a lot of this could be, for all I know, Maybe Blake did suck, but that's not me saying I believe it. It's just like, it I'll grant them that, you a little invested in the story, but in terms of a legal complaint against the New York Times or even a legal complaint against her like even if this was the counter complaint it doesn't it's nothing because it's like there's no cause of unless she violated a contract or something like that um because of how successful the film was it's one thing if the end result of this was that the film spent 500 million dollars and made 13 then it would be like well yeah okay tell Tell me about how this went wrong. And like, yeah, if she like took control and she did

1:08:13 Thomas: This stuff, sure. Yeah. Maybe you have damages for something. Some, I still don't Know that you would have recourse. It depends on how the contract works and you know, but like, maybe I'm at least listening, but the fact that it was a wildly successful film and it's just not relevant to like any of the legal complaint. It just, it's like, what do we say about this? You know?

1:08:13 Lydia: Are your damages yeah yeah I mean it's essentially becomes just like a um post on tumblr saying that this person is difficult to work with

1:08:36 Thomas: Yeah. Okay. Maybe, maybe the other person is. I don't know. But will say this. This section did contain randomly a few of the best points for Baldoni. Like that quote where they say, hey, doesn't matter if it's not true. Yeah, that's evidence. Put that in there right away. You know, like I've, I've given you the reasons why I'm skeptical of it. I I really do have flashbacks to what I read in discovery with the Andrew thing. Like, look like, at the incentives for how PR people are incentivized. Like don'T look take Sloan's word the other way, really. Example Like to be fair. A, it's a little hard to make the comparison because we don't have the same kinds of info on them. But like when it comes to Leslie Sloan, Blake Lively's publicist, when she says Blake did nothing wrong and is bullshit, it is all a whatever. I do not take her word for that. I get the situation Sloan is in as well. She is paid to do this job and she is going to have her biases. And I do think that, um, going to be reasons that are not, I don't, I don't think they're valid reasons, but I think there are a lot of reasons that are like local to Blake and Blake's actions that are reasons why a bunch of people got mad at her. So I don, I didn't want to say it's her quote unquote fault, but like, I, I'm not taking Sloan's word for it. That's all Baldoni. I don't think it is. Like,

1:08:40 Lydia: Yeah or maybe they both are yeah yeah yeah

1:09:49 Thomas: I think a lot that is because of the internet and is because of how they perceive what Blake did. And don't take either of these publicists word for it, um, on any of this stuff, the, the business arrangement is all, especially with this crisis PR fucks, like on Baldoni side, it's all, all incentivized to feed into his crap to gives them further employment too, to be feeding into this narrative that they need to go after someone or someone's going after them. Like that's why he's going to pay them more money.

1:10:02 Lydia: And being I think also keeping in mind like we've seen a lot of their texts right and so keeping all of that in mind when we're evaluating how truthful this text might be I think it's reasonable to be like, yeah, don't totally trust it.

1:10:27 Thomas: Exactly. That's kind of been my reaction. It's like, I in terms of probabilities, you know, I know I'm always bringing the math into it, but it's like when it comes to anything a crisis PR person says, probability the is 100 % that it's a lie, first off.

1:10:40 Thomas: But no, no, but joking aside, like, especially when it's in service of their client publicly, then there's just, there's no point in even listening to it. Like, honestly, if speaking publicly in service to their client, if it's private communications, which we've seen, hey, that's a different story. Some of those may be a very honest window into their thinking, but you have to look at who they're talking to and why. And if they're taking to a fucking reporter, even if it's a private conversation, they're incentivized to say certain things for the benefit of their client. So it's like, like, you have look at what the specific conversation is, the specific purpose of it to the best you can figure out and the specific people involved. And that gives you at least an indicator of your prior probability. Like the the the amount that you should be kind of defaulted to everything else aside. And then you take a look at like what they're saying and do your best to figure out if you can determine truth or falsity just based on that. But we don't have access to enough information for a lot of that now. You know, we're still in a wait and see mode. So of where I'm it's like I've got my percentages, you know, and I you tally all that up I as kind of do mentally as I go along with this, there's not a whole lot. There's not a whole lot there for just inside you know there's a little bit and that that's not zero like it could be that all the facts work out that the little bits of probability hit hit you the fucking aces you hit all you the opposite of snake eyes

1:11:52 Lydia: Emoji.

1:11:53 Thomas: Yeah yeah and the in the fat you know all the little stuff um I did want to say one thing uh I interesting found do you remember when I was saying um had one of the gotchas as I'll will I'll I'll be tough as, that's as actually referring to this speaking to Justin.

1:11:53 Lydia: The trailer crying. Yeah oh

1:12:07 Thomas: And I said to you, I was like, yeah, I don't, ever took it any other way. And I was kind of just like scouts honor on that. And then I realized as I've been, you doing all this work, getting everything out, I actually said that the first time before we had seen that. So like when we read that in the first chunk, the fucking first introductory half of this, and we didn't have that part, actually said, oh, I will all be tough. Oh, in the conversation, like you know, so it's just kind of funny to actually hear that. Like recollection was accurate that I never took it that way. Like I never took it that her saying I'll be tough was about Blake at all. It was about her talking to Justin, which makes it worse. Like it doesn't help them. And it's so funny that there's so much that they put in their own complaint that is incriminating. It's

1:12:07 Lydia: Right mm -hmm mm -hm yeah yeah

1:12:52 Thomas: Just, all right. Well, we are, can you believe it? On the, the last one. This next we meet, it'll be the furthest from home that I've ever been.

1:12:59 Lydia: Is the penultimate it.

1:13:00 Thomas: Is the penultimate. Wow. When something's not an idiom, you do know it. No, I don't know. That's just a word. So, you know that one.

1:13:06 Lydia: It's vocabulary. Yes.

1:13:08 Thomas: Yeah. Sure.

1:13:09 Lydia: I do know words.

1:13:10 Thomas: I mean, I guess if that's your thing, like if you just like knowing like words, you know, that's cool. I like knowing weird combinations of words that have meanings that are odd.

1:13:20 Lydia: An unknown etymology.

1:13:22 Thomas: Yeah, yeah. Then sometimes thinking about it and Googling it and then probably forgetting very quickly.

1:13:23 Lydia: Unless yeah, immediately.

1:13:28 Thomas: But actually, those things do stick in my mind. Like the other shoe to drop is one that sticks in my head. I love that. I read the etymology of that like 20 years ago. And I still remember that I'll leave that as a teaser. I'm not going to tell you what it is. Maybe time.

1:13:32 Lydia: Maybe

1:13:40 Thomas: Sometime buy me a drink sometime no because

1:13:40 Lydia: The next episode you will. Can it be the intro of episode 19?

1:13:46 Thomas: I still want us to have listeners so all

1:13:50 Lydia: Listeners, if you're interested in hearing about the etymology of shoot a drop,

1:13:54 Thomas: Oh okay is that you saying you don't even know what that is no you've heard that waiting for the other shoe to drop yeah okay uh it when I read it 20 years ago now here's the other thing here's well you put this in the post-credits or something here's a call ahead to that's the post-credits. I'm going to, now I'm back in normal times, see, we're losing our minds, folks. This has been a hard thing to do, but we are almost done going through this entire complaint, the legal parts that we're going to go over with a lawyer right after this. That'll be episode nine. Next episode of Wayfair v. New York Times. That'll be gavel gavel 19 of course uh time so listeners and thank you patrons at patreon.com/gavelpod most of all uh

1:13:57 Lydia: I've heard it. I don't know the etymology. You're gonna tell me. Best.

1:14:32 Thomas: We will see you all next episode

1:14:55 Lydia: Not mean for that to sound as creepy as it did all

1:14:57 Thomas: OK. I cut it anyway. Anyway, um, You're evil and amoral. I get it. But, you know, he stresses. Overthinker. That's other thing when I read it was long enough ago that I don't know how reliable that info was like, know, but it probably, I think it was because it was like it it might've been more reliable because it was probably like, You websters .com wrote a blog about, you Know, it was Like actually, and it Was waiting for the other shoe to drop is like one knows for sure, but the, the is that it comes from something like a story of someone coming home late in the night and, and waking you up because they are getting undressed for bed. Like they've had to work late.

1:15:14 Lydia: Oldwives tales dot com. OK. Oh, yeah. Taking off their shoes.

1:15:34 Thomas: They take off a shoe and one drops and wakes you up and then you don't want to go back to sleep because you're waiting for the other one to drop.

1:15:40 Lydia: Interesting.

1:15:40 Thomas: Yeah. Oh, that always stuck with me. It's like kind of interesting. I that might not be right though, is what I, it was, it's one of those things where you read it and you're like, that well, sounds right to me. I'd love that to be right. And then the people who study this are like, yeah, but we really don't know if that's right.

1:15:51 Thomas: I mean like, darn it, nerd. Just tell me it's right. God damn it.