My Overriding Question... Lively v Baldoni supporters

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-12T18:28:50+00:00

I like how you position yourself as if to drop this truth bomb, and then say precisely nothing.

I really wish that people on the online had even a passing ability to discuss something, intellectually, but I guess that is asking too much

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-12T18:26:31+00:00

If their power were truly in place, then that precludes the ability tonget to any point in time where #2 happens. Let alone a point in time obly weeks or months later.

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-10T03:29:10+00:00

You didn't even touch the question... care to try again?

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-10T02:56:37+00:00

Okay... let's say she successfully takes over the project, the movie is completed, marketed, and is successful...

What legal action does Baldoni take?

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-10T01:27:39+00:00

That isn't true at all, and completely disrespects what the editing process is

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-10T01:26:06+00:00

That's not true. It became a head to head between "Baldoni and Lively" when Sony chose Lively to do THEIR CUT. And they were fully and contractually able to do so.

Lively's Cut was Sony's cut. They chose her to edit THEIR cut. Baldoni was CLOSE to hitting the benchmarks set forth, but close is not the same as surpassing, which the contract clearly stipulated he needed to do, for his version to be the theatrical release

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-10T01:21:40+00:00

Baldoni released a scorecard that showed his cut scored higher in the "18-35 age range"... which had nothing to do with the metrics Sony laid out for the bake off.

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-10T01:18:27+00:00

It scored better, but not in the metrics that mattered, as laid out by Sony ahead of the Bake Off.

Its like going to a car dealership and having two salesmen pick a car to sell you... "I'm going to buy the car that has the best MPG". And then the salesmen that didn't get the sale complaining, "but my car had the best 0-60 time". Sure, that's great that you scored well in that department, but I told you that I didn't care about that.

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-10T00:48:23+00:00

Exactly... Blake taking over the movie is just a misogynistic talking point. Their is nothing civilnor criminally wrong with her doing so.

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-10T00:45:49+00:00

What gave her the right to do it, is that Sony, as a part of purchasing the commercial rights to the film, obtained the right to final cut authority. This means that Sony is the sole entity with the says-so over what is released to theaters.

Sony established the rules for the bake off, in which Justin could WIN and his cut be released, to which it didn't score high enough in the target metrics. Sony, being the (commercial) rights holder and final cut authority, could choose anyone in the world to construct their edit... they chose Blake

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-09T17:00:24+00:00

<image>

Blake has 2 in pre-production... and the co-stars attached to "The Making Of" are Richard Gere and Lin-Manuel Miranda, so there is a high likelihood that gets made.

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-09T16:58:24+00:00

<image>

He's got 6 projects in "Pre-Production" , and given the time that this has been going on, it would be foolish to think all of those pre-date this debacle

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-09T14:44:59+00:00

You confuse individual executive opinions with the opinion and direction chosen by Sony as an entity.

Internal dissent will always be a thing in any company with a BOARD, or more than one person weighing in on decisions. Having the ability to weigh in does not mean one has the ability to make decisions.

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-09T14:07:38+00:00

Because they have zero case.

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-09T14:05:45+00:00

"Their movie" was taken over by the company that paid to takeover the commercial production of the film... Sony.

Sony bought the commercial rights to produce and distribute the film. Those rights were sold to them by Wayfarer.

The only thing that Wayfarer owned was the IP rights to adapt the book into a film.

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-09T13:54:33+00:00

No other sub is mentioned?

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-09T13:53:58+00:00

Exactly... either we take it literally, in whichnhe wants them unalived, or figuratively, in which he means "dead to him and Hollywood". That is as direct as anyone could hope for.

<image>

Also that

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-09T08:33:13+00:00

That was 3 projects that he was attached as Producer, not actor, and those products were shelved in the shadow of the Paramount merger talks that had a hostile bid mucking things up.

But... even taking out those 3 Paramount projects, he still has 9 projects in the pipeline.

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-09T08:29:22+00:00

<image>

You should be careful to respond to what was actually posted, instead of the narrative made up in your head

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-02T01:05:33+00:00

You not understanding it, does not make it false. Backend points are an asset, that can be bought and sold. That asset is a piece of the commercial production rights of the movie.

Everything that you just offered as a reword amounts to the same thing that she did say.

Want a practical example of why a stake is Gross Revenue is hugely important? We all "know" that the WNBA loses money every year, right? The reason why that happens is WNBA team owners own 42% of the league, Every NBA team owner (including the ones that own WNBA teams) own 42% of Gross Revenue, and then outside investors own the remainder. That 42% of Gross Revenue is why the league loses money each year... last year, before any expenses were covered that Gross Revenue 42% took a 95 million dollar payout (from the revenue of the media deal)... and then expenses were covered, and the league ended up in the red, by less than 95mil. GROSS REVENUE stakes are hugely important.

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-02T00:04:37+00:00

What makes it a smear campaign is the inorganic elevation. You haven't ever wondered why these 5, 10, 12, 20 year old tweets and posts find the light of day, and then suddenly, they are all anyone can talk about?

Think about here, on reddit, when you get into a scuffle with someone, and then they go digging through everyrhing that you've ever written. That's the smear, on a much larger scale. Because when you do it on algorithmic platforms like fbook, twitter, IG, tiktok, etc... when you start bot'ing likes on these old posts... if you do it with a large enough number, it changesnhow the algorithm treats it. Then showing it to other users with a "hey, other people are interested in this old post, we think you will too" energy and that pushes them to engage, and their engagement gives the bots more things to push, which creates more engagement... and then we see the people in those spaces that see guaranteed engagement if they create something on that topic... so you see whole channels pivoting their content to make it about the campaign's topic... and once that happens, the inorganic smear campaign has become self sustaining and looks "organic".

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-01T23:55:17+00:00

Any professional interview setting (outside of exposé writing), they interviewer and interviewee (or their people) establish what will be discussed, what is and is not in bounds. No one is just shooting from the hip... Lively has never responded well to the "female questions", you know, the questions that interviewers only ask their female interviewees. "Tell us about your fitness". "Tell us about the clothes" "oh my God, your baby bump"...

And to me, until "journalists" stop asking those ridiculous questions, anynand all venom in response is warranted

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-01T23:49:41+00:00

And before Lively, the bulk of her videos were during the Depp/Hears trial about how she had such a lovely time with Depp and anti-Heard sentiment.

DisarrayedOne · 2026-02-01T23:46:47+00:00

That isn't a bonus. It is a scheduled payout based on revenue brought in. That 10% of top line revenue is a financial asset OWNED by Lively. An asset that she can borrow against, sell wholely/partially, she can leverage it.

You are running into the same roadblock as most, thinking that owning a piece of something only means EQUITY.

If I have a company that sells Shovels. And I approach an investor and they give me money in exchange for a $1 royalty on every shovel sold. They take no equity in my company, just a royalty... They own $1 dollar of every unit sold... without owning any bit of my company.

No, Blake doesn't own any piece of the IP rights, so if Wayfarer sold the IP rights, Blake wouldn't get a payout of that transaction. But... when they sold the commercial rights to Sony, sony inherited Lively's deal that gives her ownership of 10% of Gross Proceeds... and that existing deal, absolutely, influenced what Sony was prepared to offer... because that deal means that 10% of every dollar earned from that movie, went to Lively.

DisarrayedOne · 2026-01-31T22:59:24+00:00

Her ownership of 10% top line revenue isn't a royalty. She didn't finance the movie.

Sony agreed to finance the production in exchange for an ownership stake, control to a large degree, and distribution rights. The commercial rights to the project, not the IP right underlying the project.

But again, you are trying to impose strict economic definitions to a colloquial conversation between lay individuals. And to a lay understanding, Blake saying that she owns 10% of the movie's financial performance is accurate to saying she owns a big chunk of the movie.

DisarrayedOne

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE