Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

I have no personal opinion on BL or Baldoni but applaud her going after his misogynistic smear campaign.

So sick of women being demonized online for minor crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it looks more like a coordinated effort against Baldoni because he is much lower on the Hollywood power structure than Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.I had never even heard of Justin Baldoni until this movie, but I have known about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for years, even though I have never seen Gossip Girl or a Deadpool film.

A coordinated effort with backing by the author of the book and other cast members on set. Sure, sure.

I actually think it's hard to deny that Lively and Reynolds have been coordinating an attack on Baldoni (legally and in the press) with their lawyers and PR people since the strike hiatus. I think the attack was prompted by Baldoni's on set behavior, so he brought it on himself, but it's pretty clear that the lawsuit and recent PR attack (including the NYT piece that was quite clearly planted by Lively's team and is kind of weird in it's focus) are part of a multi step and coordinated campaign. They are incredibly wealthy and no doubt see this as a necessary action to protect their brand.

Now explain why Baldoni launched a preemptive strike.

Bad blood on set, Reynolds being brought in to write scenes, Reynolds doing his own cut if the movie and that's the cut that was released, Lively freezing out Baldoni during promotion of the film, potentially Lively trying to undermine the film with some if her antics during promotion (her weird responses on DV issues, using film events to promote her branded products). Baldoni likely could already see Lively/Reynolds building a narrative against him and sought to undermine her in the press.

It really looks to me like they were both playing stupid games with this movie. I think they just didn't like each other, both have bad personalities and have done weird/inappropriate things, and now it's just a battle of publicists and lawyers to see who is left standing. It will be Lively but it's not really a fair fight.

You really haven't read the docs, have you?

DP and not only have I "read the docs", I've also read the NYT piece, and the Puck piece that gets into some of the inside baseball stuff on this.

I think a lot of people are just buying Lively's PR onslaught on this without any thoughtfulness. Reading the legal document Lively's team prepared means you read a carefully crafted narrative designed to portray Baldoni and his behavior as negatively as possible while putting Lively in the best light possible. It's manipulative, but intentionally so -- that's the lawyers job. But it's not the same as knowing all the facts. At all.

I will give major kudos to Lively's team for nailing the timing on this. By the time Baldoni has had a chance to file legal documents or get his narrative into the press, it will be 2025 and Lively's version will have been floating around for two full weeks during a time when people are particularly susceptible to this kind of PR -- distracted by the holidays but also more open o frivolous entertainment news because work is slow or on break. Truly expert.

But this whole thing is a lot more nuanced than some of you seem to think. Most of the PR stuff being alleged is run of the mill in Hollywood and Lively's own team is engaging in it (including the "astroturf" campaign and the attempt to totally discredit the other person online using social media). It's gross but standard and Lively knows it. The public doesn't, so everyone is getting the impression that Baldoni's PR team did something unusually bad. Getting the texts from the PR folks was especially fortuitous. But the truth is that is how PR people talk and none of it is shocking for anyone who works in the industry. Hollywood PR is one of the nastiest, least scrupulous industries out there. It's gross. the term insiders use is "ratf**king" and it is apt.

Whether the allegations of Baldoni's behavior on set pan out I'll be interested to see. He certainly seems like a hypocritical tool. But Lively pulled a lot of her own BS stunts on this movie too -- getting her spouse involved in production, her terrible behavior during promotion of the film.

My current opinion is that these are both kind of awful people who made a bad movie together, with an immature and unprofessional work environment they both helped create. No heroes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it looks more like a coordinated effort against Baldoni because he is much lower on the Hollywood power structure than Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.I had never even heard of Justin Baldoni until this movie, but I have known about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for years, even though I have never seen Gossip Girl or a Deadpool film.

A coordinated effort with backing by the author of the book and other cast members on set. Sure, sure.

I actually think it's hard to deny that Lively and Reynolds have been coordinating an attack on Baldoni (legally and in the press) with their lawyers and PR people since the strike hiatus. I think the attack was prompted by Baldoni's on set behavior, so he brought it on himself, but it's pretty clear that the lawsuit and recent PR attack (including the NYT piece that was quite clearly planted by Lively's team and is kind of weird in it's focus) are part of a multi step and coordinated campaign. They are incredibly wealthy and no doubt see this as a necessary action to protect their brand.

Now explain why Baldoni launched a preemptive strike.

Bad blood on set, Reynolds being brought in to write scenes, Reynolds doing his own cut if the movie and that's the cut that was released, Lively freezing out Baldoni during promotion of the film, potentially Lively trying to undermine the film with some if her antics during promotion (her weird responses on DV issues, using film events to promote her branded products). Baldoni likely could already see Lively/Reynolds building a narrative against him and sought to undermine her in the press.

It really looks to me like they were both playing stupid games with this movie. I think they just didn't like each other, both have bad personalities and have done weird/inappropriate things, and now it's just a battle of publicists and lawyers to see who is left standing. It will be Lively but it's not really a fair fight.

You really haven't read the docs, have you?

Why would anyone care to "read the docs" when they are not getting paid to? If people have to read the docs to be convinced after all of this publicity, then Lively is losing.

People need to understand how things look to someone who has a few minutes for celebrity gossip. And it looks like two of the richest people in Hollywood trying to convince me that one of them was victimized by a much lesser known actor and director.

So keep supporting your winning horse, then.

DP. I think generally if you’re commenting on something, particularly a controversy, it makes sense to be informed first. I read the complaint because I am a lawyer and was curious about the legal case here, but I understand why not everyone wants to do that. But if you care enough to comment on this thread, you should read the NYT article at minimum.

I do think both sides are using/have used strategic PR. I don’t know either one of them personally, so this is based entirely on media narratives, but I don’t think Blake Lively is a perfect person or an aspirational celebrity. But the complaint (as summarized in the NYT article) alleges sexual harassment during the filming of the movie and some really shitty motivations (preemptive retaliation) for the alleged smear campaign that any decent person should be horrified by.

Whether this lawsuit is also motivated by money or ego or whatever, I don’t know, and it’s possible. But if those allegations are true, I really don’t care what the secondary motivations are. She still doesn’t deserve that behavior and I am glad she’s standing up to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it looks more like a coordinated effort against Baldoni because he is much lower on the Hollywood power structure than Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.I had never even heard of Justin Baldoni until this movie, but I have known about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for years, even though I have never seen Gossip Girl or a Deadpool film.

A coordinated effort with backing by the author of the book and other cast members on set. Sure, sure.

I actually think it's hard to deny that Lively and Reynolds have been coordinating an attack on Baldoni (legally and in the press) with their lawyers and PR people since the strike hiatus. I think the attack was prompted by Baldoni's on set behavior, so he brought it on himself, but it's pretty clear that the lawsuit and recent PR attack (including the NYT piece that was quite clearly planted by Lively's team and is kind of weird in it's focus) are part of a multi step and coordinated campaign. They are incredibly wealthy and no doubt see this as a necessary action to protect their brand.

Now explain why Baldoni launched a preemptive strike.

Bad blood on set, Reynolds being brought in to write scenes, Reynolds doing his own cut if the movie and that's the cut that was released, Lively freezing out Baldoni during promotion of the film, potentially Lively trying to undermine the film with some if her antics during promotion (her weird responses on DV issues, using film events to promote her branded products). Baldoni likely could already see Lively/Reynolds building a narrative against him and sought to undermine her in the press.

It really looks to me like they were both playing stupid games with this movie. I think they just didn't like each other, both have bad personalities and have done weird/inappropriate things, and now it's just a battle of publicists and lawyers to see who is left standing. It will be Lively but it's not really a fair fight.

You really haven't read the docs, have you?

Why would anyone care to "read the docs" when they are not getting paid to? If people have to read the docs to be convinced after all of this publicity, then Lively is losing.

People need to understand how things look to someone who has a few minutes for celebrity gossip. And it looks like two of the richest people in Hollywood trying to convince me that one of them was victimized by a much lesser known actor and director.

So keep supporting your winning horse, then.

DP. I think generally if you’re commenting on something, particularly a controversy, it makes sense to be informed first. I read the complaint because I am a lawyer and was curious about the legal case here, but I understand why not everyone wants to do that. But if you care enough to comment on this thread, you should read the NYT article at minimum.

I do think both sides are using/have used strategic PR. I don’t know either one of them personally, so this is based entirely on media narratives, but I don’t think Blake Lively is a perfect person or an aspirational celebrity. But the complaint (as summarized in the NYT article) alleges sexual harassment during the filming of the movie and some really shitty motivations (preemptive retaliation) for the alleged smear campaign that any decent person should be horrified by.

Whether this lawsuit is also motivated by money or ego or whatever, I don’t know, and it’s possible. But if those allegations are true, I really don’t care what the secondary motivations are. She still doesn’t deserve that behavior and I am glad she’s standing up to it.

Exactly this. And I'm horrified that others on this thread don't get this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it looks more like a coordinated effort against Baldoni because he is much lower on the Hollywood power structure than Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.I had never even heard of Justin Baldoni until this movie, but I have known about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for years, even though I have never seen Gossip Girl or a Deadpool film.

A coordinated effort with backing by the author of the book and other cast members on set. Sure, sure.

I actually think it's hard to deny that Lively and Reynolds have been coordinating an attack on Baldoni (legally and in the press) with their lawyers and PR people since the strike hiatus. I think the attack was prompted by Baldoni's on set behavior, so he brought it on himself, but it's pretty clear that the lawsuit and recent PR attack (including the NYT piece that was quite clearly planted by Lively's team and is kind of weird in it's focus) are part of a multi step and coordinated campaign. They are incredibly wealthy and no doubt see this as a necessary action to protect their brand.

Now explain why Baldoni launched a preemptive strike.

Bad blood on set, Reynolds being brought in to write scenes, Reynolds doing his own cut if the movie and that's the cut that was released, Lively freezing out Baldoni during promotion of the film, potentially Lively trying to undermine the film with some if her antics during promotion (her weird responses on DV issues, using film events to promote her branded products). Baldoni likely could already see Lively/Reynolds building a narrative against him and sought to undermine her in the press.

It really looks to me like they were both playing stupid games with this movie. I think they just didn't like each other, both have bad personalities and have done weird/inappropriate things, and now it's just a battle of publicists and lawyers to see who is left standing. It will be Lively but it's not really a fair fight.

You really haven't read the docs, have you?

Why would anyone care to "read the docs" when they are not getting paid to? If people have to read the docs to be convinced after all of this publicity, then Lively is losing.

People need to understand how things look to someone who has a few minutes for celebrity gossip. And it looks like two of the richest people in Hollywood trying to convince me that one of them was victimized by a much lesser known actor and director.

So keep supporting your winning horse, then.

DP. I think generally if you’re commenting on something, particularly a controversy, it makes sense to be informed first. I read the complaint because I am a lawyer and was curious about the legal case here, but I understand why not everyone wants to do that. But if you care enough to comment on this thread, you should read the NYT article at minimum.

I do think both sides are using/have used strategic PR. I don’t know either one of them personally, so this is based entirely on media narratives, but I don’t think Blake Lively is a perfect person or an aspirational celebrity. But the complaint (as summarized in the NYT article) alleges sexual harassment during the filming of the movie and some really shitty motivations (preemptive retaliation) for the alleged smear campaign that any decent person should be horrified by.

Whether this lawsuit is also motivated by money or ego or whatever, I don’t know, and it’s possible. But if those allegations are true, I really don’t care what the secondary motivations are. She still doesn’t deserve that behavior and I am glad she’s standing up to it.

Exactly this. And I'm horrified that others on this thread don't get this.

I don't think it's that people don't get it.

I think the details in the complaint sound really bad if it happened as described. It's just that as I've read more about the situation I've become more skeptical that the complaint is an accurate reporting. There have been some details that don't sit well with me and given that the power disparity between the two parties actually runs in favor of Lively in this specific instance (which is not typical in a scenario where a male director is alleged to have harassed a female actor but is the case here), I think it's worthwhile to proceed with cautious.

I am a survivor of workplace sexual harassment and experienced being smeared by my harasser in order to discredit my allegations. My initial instinct was to be fully on Lively's side here. But I'm thrown by the power issues. My own personal experience tells me that power differentials are central to these scenarios. In my case, the person who harassed me had a lot more power than me in the workplace and they were supported by a bunch of people who depended on the harasser for their jobs. I never stood a chance because I was a recent hire, newer to the industry, and low ranking in the organization -- no one wanted to believe me because doing so couldn't help their careers at all, whereas supporting my harasser *could* (and did) benefit them.

So after initially thinking a totally support Lively, I've realized I need to be more thoughtful. Because while the harassment alleged certainly makes Baldoni look like the aggressor and bad actor, the power dynamics don't. In this scenario, Lively had more power on that set and it is far more beneficial for others to support her than to support Baldoni.

I'm not saying she wasn't harassed and definitely not saying Baldoni is a good guy. But I am not buying into a narrative that this is a clearcut case of harassment because the power issues are way more complex. Lively had more power and control. That doesn't mean Baldoni didn't do what is alleged, but it changes my perception a lot and makes me ask some questions about what Lively did or didn't do (like why wasn't there an intimacy coordinator on set from the start -- that is something Lively would have had control over as star and co-producer). It raises questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it looks more like a coordinated effort against Baldoni because he is much lower on the Hollywood power structure than Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.I had never even heard of Justin Baldoni until this movie, but I have known about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for years, even though I have never seen Gossip Girl or a Deadpool film.

A coordinated effort with backing by the author of the book and other cast members on set. Sure, sure.

I actually think it's hard to deny that Lively and Reynolds have been coordinating an attack on Baldoni (legally and in the press) with their lawyers and PR people since the strike hiatus. I think the attack was prompted by Baldoni's on set behavior, so he brought it on himself, but it's pretty clear that the lawsuit and recent PR attack (including the NYT piece that was quite clearly planted by Lively's team and is kind of weird in it's focus) are part of a multi step and coordinated campaign. They are incredibly wealthy and no doubt see this as a necessary action to protect their brand.

Now explain why Baldoni launched a preemptive strike.

Bad blood on set, Reynolds being brought in to write scenes, Reynolds doing his own cut if the movie and that's the cut that was released, Lively freezing out Baldoni during promotion of the film, potentially Lively trying to undermine the film with some if her antics during promotion (her weird responses on DV issues, using film events to promote her branded products). Baldoni likely could already see Lively/Reynolds building a narrative against him and sought to undermine her in the press.

It really looks to me like they were both playing stupid games with this movie. I think they just didn't like each other, both have bad personalities and have done weird/inappropriate things, and now it's just a battle of publicists and lawyers to see who is left standing. It will be Lively but it's not really a fair fight.

You really haven't read the docs, have you?

Why would anyone care to "read the docs" when they are not getting paid to? If people have to read the docs to be convinced after all of this publicity, then Lively is losing.

People need to understand how things look to someone who has a few minutes for celebrity gossip. And it looks like two of the richest people in Hollywood trying to convince me that one of them was victimized by a much lesser known actor and director.

So keep supporting your winning horse, then.

DP. I think generally if you’re commenting on something, particularly a controversy, it makes sense to be informed first. I read the complaint because I am a lawyer and was curious about the legal case here, but I understand why not everyone wants to do that. But if you care enough to comment on this thread, you should read the NYT article at minimum.

I do think both sides are using/have used strategic PR. I don’t know either one of them personally, so this is based entirely on media narratives, but I don’t think Blake Lively is a perfect person or an aspirational celebrity. But the complaint (as summarized in the NYT article) alleges sexual harassment during the filming of the movie and some really shitty motivations (preemptive retaliation) for the alleged smear campaign that any decent person should be horrified by.

Whether this lawsuit is also motivated by money or ego or whatever, I don’t know, and it’s possible. But if those allegations are true, I really don’t care what the secondary motivations are. She still doesn’t deserve that behavior and I am glad she’s standing up to it.

Exactly this. And I'm horrified that others on this thread don't get this.

I don't think it's that people don't get it.

I think the details in the complaint sound really bad if it happened as described. It's just that as I've read more about the situation I've become more skeptical that the complaint is an accurate reporting. There have been some details that don't sit well with me and given that the power disparity between the two parties actually runs in favor of Lively in this specific instance (which is not typical in a scenario where a male director is alleged to have harassed a female actor but is the case here), I think it's worthwhile to proceed with cautious.

I am a survivor of workplace sexual harassment and experienced being smeared by my harasser in order to discredit my allegations. My initial instinct was to be fully on Lively's side here. But I'm thrown by the power issues. My own personal experience tells me that power differentials are central to these scenarios. In my case, the person who harassed me had a lot more power than me in the workplace and they were supported by a bunch of people who depended on the harasser for their jobs. I never stood a chance because I was a recent hire, newer to the industry, and low ranking in the organization -- no one wanted to believe me because doing so couldn't help their careers at all, whereas supporting my harasser *could* (and did) benefit them.

So after initially thinking a totally support Lively, I've realized I need to be more thoughtful. Because while the harassment alleged certainly makes Baldoni look like the aggressor and bad actor, the power dynamics don't. In this scenario, Lively had more power on that set and it is far more beneficial for others to support her than to support Baldoni.

I'm not saying she wasn't harassed and definitely not saying Baldoni is a good guy. But I am not buying into a narrative that this is a clearcut case of harassment because the power issues are way more complex. Lively had more power and control. That doesn't mean Baldoni didn't do what is alleged, but it changes my perception a lot and makes me ask some questions about what Lively did or didn't do (like why wasn't there an intimacy coordinator on set from the start -- that is something Lively would have had control over as star and co-producer). It raises questions.

I get what you're saying, but I think you're underestimating Baldoni's power in this situation. I was also harassed at work, and looking in from the outside, my harasser did not have power over me because they were my peer. But there WAS a power differential that had more to do with social cache and the fact that they were not a minority (I am). Baldoni is man in an industry where men continue to have a LOT of power. Lively's power comes from who she's married to, what she looks like and how nice everyone thinks she is - that's the shitty deal that women get. That power (as we're seeing in this very thread) is ephemeral and weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it looks more like a coordinated effort against Baldoni because he is much lower on the Hollywood power structure than Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.I had never even heard of Justin Baldoni until this movie, but I have known about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for years, even though I have never seen Gossip Girl or a Deadpool film.

A coordinated effort with backing by the author of the book and other cast members on set. Sure, sure.

I actually think it's hard to deny that Lively and Reynolds have been coordinating an attack on Baldoni (legally and in the press) with their lawyers and PR people since the strike hiatus. I think the attack was prompted by Baldoni's on set behavior, so he brought it on himself, but it's pretty clear that the lawsuit and recent PR attack (including the NYT piece that was quite clearly planted by Lively's team and is kind of weird in it's focus) are part of a multi step and coordinated campaign. They are incredibly wealthy and no doubt see this as a necessary action to protect their brand.

Now explain why Baldoni launched a preemptive strike.

Bad blood on set, Reynolds being brought in to write scenes, Reynolds doing his own cut if the movie and that's the cut that was released, Lively freezing out Baldoni during promotion of the film, potentially Lively trying to undermine the film with some if her antics during promotion (her weird responses on DV issues, using film events to promote her branded products). Baldoni likely could already see Lively/Reynolds building a narrative against him and sought to undermine her in the press.

It really looks to me like they were both playing stupid games with this movie. I think they just didn't like each other, both have bad personalities and have done weird/inappropriate things, and now it's just a battle of publicists and lawyers to see who is left standing. It will be Lively but it's not really a fair fight.

You really haven't read the docs, have you?

Why would anyone care to "read the docs" when they are not getting paid to? If people have to read the docs to be convinced after all of this publicity, then Lively is losing.

People need to understand how things look to someone who has a few minutes for celebrity gossip. And it looks like two of the richest people in Hollywood trying to convince me that one of them was victimized by a much lesser known actor and director.

So keep supporting your winning horse, then.

DP. I think generally if you’re commenting on something, particularly a controversy, it makes sense to be informed first. I read the complaint because I am a lawyer and was curious about the legal case here, but I understand why not everyone wants to do that. But if you care enough to comment on this thread, you should read the NYT article at minimum.

I do think both sides are using/have used strategic PR. I don’t know either one of them personally, so this is based entirely on media narratives, but I don’t think Blake Lively is a perfect person or an aspirational celebrity. But the complaint (as summarized in the NYT article) alleges sexual harassment during the filming of the movie and some really shitty motivations (preemptive retaliation) for the alleged smear campaign that any decent person should be horrified by.

Whether this lawsuit is also motivated by money or ego or whatever, I don’t know, and it’s possible. But if those allegations are true, I really don’t care what the secondary motivations are. She still doesn’t deserve that behavior and I am glad she’s standing up to it.

Exactly this. And I'm horrified that others on this thread don't get this.

I don't think it's that people don't get it.

I think the details in the complaint sound really bad if it happened as described. It's just that as I've read more about the situation I've become more skeptical that the complaint is an accurate reporting. There have been some details that don't sit well with me and given that the power disparity between the two parties actually runs in favor of Lively in this specific instance (which is not typical in a scenario where a male director is alleged to have harassed a female actor but is the case here), I think it's worthwhile to proceed with cautious.

I am a survivor of workplace sexual harassment and experienced being smeared by my harasser in order to discredit my allegations. My initial instinct was to be fully on Lively's side here. But I'm thrown by the power issues. My own personal experience tells me that power differentials are central to these scenarios. In my case, the person who harassed me had a lot more power than me in the workplace and they were supported by a bunch of people who depended on the harasser for their jobs. I never stood a chance because I was a recent hire, newer to the industry, and low ranking in the organization -- no one wanted to believe me because doing so couldn't help their careers at all, whereas supporting my harasser *could* (and did) benefit them.

So after initially thinking a totally support Lively, I've realized I need to be more thoughtful. Because while the harassment alleged certainly makes Baldoni look like the aggressor and bad actor, the power dynamics don't. In this scenario, Lively had more power on that set and it is far more beneficial for others to support her than to support Baldoni.

I'm not saying she wasn't harassed and definitely not saying Baldoni is a good guy. But I am not buying into a narrative that this is a clearcut case of harassment because the power issues are way more complex. Lively had more power and control. That doesn't mean Baldoni didn't do what is alleged, but it changes my perception a lot and makes me ask some questions about what Lively did or didn't do (like why wasn't there an intimacy coordinator on set from the start -- that is something Lively would have had control over as star and co-producer). It raises questions.

I get what you're saying, but I think you're underestimating Baldoni's power in this situation. I was also harassed at work, and looking in from the outside, my harasser did not have power over me because they were my peer. But there WAS a power differential that had more to do with social cache and the fact that they were not a minority (I am). Baldoni is man in an industry where men continue to have a LOT of power. Lively's power comes from who she's married to, what she looks like and how nice everyone thinks she is - that's the shitty deal that women get. That power (as we're seeing in this very thread) is ephemeral and weak.

PP here and that is a fair take. I agree the gender issues are important. And to be clear, I am NOT saying I support Baldoni. I am not defending him at all and have zero invested in him coming out of this looking good. It's more that I've realized that while obviously Baldoni and his team have been trying to manipulate press against Lively (as documented in the NYT piece), it's also clear that Lively and her team are currently engaged in the exact same behavior against Baldoni.

The upshot for me is that I don't know what to think and I am checking my initial instinct to just support Lively and stop my personal inquiry there. I will wait and see what other facts come out, where the legal case goes, etc. I'm just a regular person, I don't need to throw my support anywhere. I'm just trying to be smart about how I think about this, especially because my own experience is increasing my interest in it.

There were people I worked with when I was harassed who wrote me off as a person and completely supported my harasser without once trying to learn the truth. I didn't forget that. I had to start over in a new job and a part of me will always wonder if the untrue crap that was said about me at that job will find its way into my current life. It's one of several ways that experience continues to impact me now. So I'm trying to not make the same mistake. It's okay to wait and see and not make snap judgments. It's okay to ask valid questions about power differentials and to recognize we don't know enough to draw firm conclusions at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it looks more like a coordinated effort against Baldoni because he is much lower on the Hollywood power structure than Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.I had never even heard of Justin Baldoni until this movie, but I have known about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for years, even though I have never seen Gossip Girl or a Deadpool film.

A coordinated effort with backing by the author of the book and other cast members on set. Sure, sure.

I actually think it's hard to deny that Lively and Reynolds have been coordinating an attack on Baldoni (legally and in the press) with their lawyers and PR people since the strike hiatus. I think the attack was prompted by Baldoni's on set behavior, so he brought it on himself, but it's pretty clear that the lawsuit and recent PR attack (including the NYT piece that was quite clearly planted by Lively's team and is kind of weird in it's focus) are part of a multi step and coordinated campaign. They are incredibly wealthy and no doubt see this as a necessary action to protect their brand.

Now explain why Baldoni launched a preemptive strike.

Bad blood on set, Reynolds being brought in to write scenes, Reynolds doing his own cut if the movie and that's the cut that was released, Lively freezing out Baldoni during promotion of the film, potentially Lively trying to undermine the film with some if her antics during promotion (her weird responses on DV issues, using film events to promote her branded products). Baldoni likely could already see Lively/Reynolds building a narrative against him and sought to undermine her in the press.

It really looks to me like they were both playing stupid games with this movie. I think they just didn't like each other, both have bad personalities and have done weird/inappropriate things, and now it's just a battle of publicists and lawyers to see who is left standing. It will be Lively but it's not really a fair fight.

You really haven't read the docs, have you?

Why would anyone care to "read the docs" when they are not getting paid to? If people have to read the docs to be convinced after all of this publicity, then Lively is losing.

People need to understand how things look to someone who has a few minutes for celebrity gossip. And it looks like two of the richest people in Hollywood trying to convince me that one of them was victimized by a much lesser known actor and director.

So keep supporting your winning horse, then.

DP. I think generally if you’re commenting on something, particularly a controversy, it makes sense to be informed first. I read the complaint because I am a lawyer and was curious about the legal case here, but I understand why not everyone wants to do that. But if you care enough to comment on this thread, you should read the NYT article at minimum.

I do think both sides are using/have used strategic PR. I don’t know either one of them personally, so this is based entirely on media narratives, but I don’t think Blake Lively is a perfect person or an aspirational celebrity. But the complaint (as summarized in the NYT article) alleges sexual harassment during the filming of the movie and some really shitty motivations (preemptive retaliation) for the alleged smear campaign that any decent person should be horrified by.

Whether this lawsuit is also motivated by money or ego or whatever, I don’t know, and it’s possible. But if those allegations are true, I really don’t care what the secondary motivations are. She still doesn’t deserve that behavior and I am glad she’s standing up to it.

Exactly this. And I'm horrified that others on this thread don't get this.

I don't think it's that people don't get it.

I think the details in the complaint sound really bad if it happened as described. It's just that as I've read more about the situation I've become more skeptical that the complaint is an accurate reporting. There have been some details that don't sit well with me and given that the power disparity between the two parties actually runs in favor of Lively in this specific instance (which is not typical in a scenario where a male director is alleged to have harassed a female actor but is the case here), I think it's worthwhile to proceed with cautious.

I am a survivor of workplace sexual harassment and experienced being smeared by my harasser in order to discredit my allegations. My initial instinct was to be fully on Lively's side here. But I'm thrown by the power issues. My own personal experience tells me that power differentials are central to these scenarios. In my case, the person who harassed me had a lot more power than me in the workplace and they were supported by a bunch of people who depended on the harasser for their jobs. I never stood a chance because I was a recent hire, newer to the industry, and low ranking in the organization -- no one wanted to believe me because doing so couldn't help their careers at all, whereas supporting my harasser *could* (and did) benefit them.

So after initially thinking a totally support Lively, I've realized I need to be more thoughtful. Because while the harassment alleged certainly makes Baldoni look like the aggressor and bad actor, the power dynamics don't. In this scenario, Lively had more power on that set and it is far more beneficial for others to support her than to support Baldoni.

I'm not saying she wasn't harassed and definitely not saying Baldoni is a good guy. But I am not buying into a narrative that this is a clearcut case of harassment because the power issues are way more complex. Lively had more power and control. That doesn't mean Baldoni didn't do what is alleged, but it changes my perception a lot and makes me ask some questions about what Lively did or didn't do (like why wasn't there an intimacy coordinator on set from the start -- that is something Lively would have had control over as star and co-producer). It raises questions.

I get what you're saying, but I think you're underestimating Baldoni's power in this situation. I was also harassed at work, and looking in from the outside, my harasser did not have power over me because they were my peer. But there WAS a power differential that had more to do with social cache and the fact that they were not a minority (I am). Baldoni is man in an industry where men continue to have a LOT of power. Lively's power comes from who she's married to, what she looks like and how nice everyone thinks she is - that's the shitty deal that women get. That power (as we're seeing in this very thread) is ephemeral and weak.

PP. I’m going to be upfront and tell you that I am a brown woman, and I gather from your examples you are a white woman. I find your framing of power troubling and contradictory. Power differential due to social cache? Rich, white (blond!) women have an incredible amount of social cache when it comes to calling out sexual harassment in 2024. I would not agree with you at all that it is “weak and ephemeral.”

[Anonymous]

Blake and Ryan are such low watt deluded power drunk Hollyweird egomaniacs they think proles who simply don’t like them MUST be caught up in a conspiracy smear campaign. lol

Friendly reminder Blake and Ryan are both uneducated idiots with precisely zero post secondary credentials between the two of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake and Ryan are such low watt deluded power drunk Hollyweird egomaniacs they think proles who simply don’t like them MUST be caught up in a conspiracy smear campaign. lol

Friendly reminder Blake and Ryan are both uneducated idiots with precisely zero post secondary credentials between the two of them.

Wow, you have completely changed my opinion with your in depth analysis. Thank you so much for sharing this insight!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it looks more like a coordinated effort against Baldoni because he is much lower on the Hollywood power structure than Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.I had never even heard of Justin Baldoni until this movie, but I have known about Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for years, even though I have never seen Gossip Girl or a Deadpool film.

A coordinated effort with backing by the author of the book and other cast members on set. Sure, sure.

I actually think it's hard to deny that Lively and Reynolds have been coordinating an attack on Baldoni (legally and in the press) with their lawyers and PR people since the strike hiatus. I think the attack was prompted by Baldoni's on set behavior, so he brought it on himself, but it's pretty clear that the lawsuit and recent PR attack (including the NYT piece that was quite clearly planted by Lively's team and is kind of weird in it's focus) are part of a multi step and coordinated campaign. They are incredibly wealthy and no doubt see this as a necessary action to protect their brand.

Now explain why Baldoni launched a preemptive strike.

Bad blood on set, Reynolds being brought in to write scenes, Reynolds doing his own cut if the movie and that's the cut that was released, Lively freezing out Baldoni during promotion of the film, potentially Lively trying to undermine the film with some if her antics during promotion (her weird responses on DV issues, using film events to promote her branded products). Baldoni likely could already see Lively/Reynolds building a narrative against him and sought to undermine her in the press.

It really looks to me like they were both playing stupid games with this movie. I think they just didn't like each other, both have bad personalities and have done weird/inappropriate things, and now it's just a battle of publicists and lawyers to see who is left standing. It will be Lively but it's not really a fair fight.

You really haven't read the docs, have you?

DP and not only have I "read the docs", I've also read the NYT piece, and the Puck piece that gets into some of the inside baseball stuff on this.

I think a lot of people are just buying Lively's PR onslaught on this without any thoughtfulness. Reading the legal document Lively's team prepared means you read a carefully crafted narrative designed to portray Baldoni and his behavior as negatively as possible while putting Lively in the best light possible. It's manipulative, but intentionally so -- that's the lawyers job. But it's not the same as knowing all the facts. At all.

I will give major kudos to Lively's team for nailing the timing on this. By the time Baldoni has had a chance to file legal documents or get his narrative into the press, it will be 2025 and Lively's version will have been floating around for two full weeks during a time when people are particularly susceptible to this kind of PR -- distracted by the holidays but also more open o frivolous entertainment news because work is slow or on break. Truly expert.

But this whole thing is a lot more nuanced than some of you seem to think. Most of the PR stuff being alleged is run of the mill in Hollywood and Lively's own team is engaging in it (including the "astroturf" campaign and the attempt to totally discredit the other person online using social media). It's gross but standard and Lively knows it. The public doesn't, so everyone is getting the impression that Baldoni's PR team did something unusually bad. Getting the texts from the PR folks was especially fortuitous. But the truth is that is how PR people talk and none of it is shocking for anyone who works in the industry. Hollywood PR is one of the nastiest, least scrupulous industries out there. It's gross. the term insiders use is "ratf**king" and it is apt.

Whether the allegations of Baldoni's behavior on set pan out I'll be interested to see. He certainly seems like a hypocritical tool. But Lively pulled a lot of her own BS stunts on this movie too -- getting her spouse involved in production, her terrible behavior during promotion of the film.

My current opinion is that these are both kind of awful people who made a bad movie together, with an immature and unprofessional work environment they both helped create. No heroes.

Maybe this is what is needed to expose all this awful PR BS.

[Anonymous]

In our steamy sex scenes, which is like the thousandth steamy sex scene I’ve done in my 25 years of being the token talentless eye candy on set, this actor my husband and I I are trying to shake down for money and rights sucked my lip. Clutch the pearls!

Imagine caring about this mud slinging nonsense. Shameless schemers and prostitutes on all sides of this fake drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In our steamy sex scenes, which is like the thousandth steamy sex scene I’ve done in my 25 years of being the token talentless eye candy on set, this actor my husband and I I are trying to shake down for money and rights sucked my lip. Clutch the pearls!

Imagine caring about this mud slinging nonsense. Shameless schemers and prostitutes on all sides of this fake drama.

And yet you never criticize Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake and Ryan are such low watt deluded power drunk Hollyweird egomaniacs they think proles who simply don’t like them MUST be caught up in a conspiracy smear campaign. lol

Friendly reminder Blake and Ryan are both uneducated idiots with precisely zero post secondary credentials between the two of them.

They have both been pretty successful. Only elitists care about “secondary credentials” (seriously who talks like that?). They are both millionaires many times over. Who’s the idiot for paying ungodly amounts of money for “secondary credentials” and not being worth anywhere near that much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake and Ryan are such low watt deluded power drunk Hollyweird egomaniacs they think proles who simply don’t like them MUST be caught up in a conspiracy smear campaign. lol

Friendly reminder Blake and Ryan are both uneducated idiots with precisely zero post secondary credentials between the two of them.

They have both been pretty successful. Only elitists care about “secondary credentials” (seriously who talks like that?). They are both millionaires many times over. Who’s the idiot for paying ungodly amounts of money for “secondary credentials” and not being worth anywhere near that much?

Are you Blake? You don’t realize secondary is high school, post secondary is college. They are both uneducated idiots. This is also how the left characterizes Trump voters without college degrees: “uneducated voters.” Common vernacular.