Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

I guess the AI analyzer determined DCUM is highly educated and thought this line would work. Very sophisticated.

[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.

False equivalences/ both sideisms


No sexual harassment and retaliatory smear campaign is way worse than BL and RR seeking boundaries and defending themselves.

[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.

And yet they are far wealthier and more powerful than my spouse and I who both have multiple post secondary credentials.

They are clearly far from stupid. They are defending themselves well.

I have no personal opinions on any of them but am grateful they are taking on misogynistic online Slander that so many women and men buy into.

[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:

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.”

Actually I’m a brown woman. And given the past couple of months, my eyes are even more open to how little our society values women. At least the rich white ones have somewhat of a voice - should they not use it because others don’t have a platform?

[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:

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.”

Ok second response here: how the f did you decide I was white from my post?!

[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:

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.”

Ok second response here: how the f did you decide I was white from my post?!

I misread your post on who is a minority. I’m sorry.

As for whether a white woman should use her power to call it out, of course she should. But I don’t buy that she has less power than Baldoni by virtue of their sexes.

[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:

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.”

Actually I’m a brown woman. And given the past couple of months, my eyes are even more open to how little our society values women. At least the rich white ones have somewhat of a voice - should they not use it because others don’t have a platform?

I agree

BL is obviously not everywoman but grateful she is using her many resources to battle this online misogynistic beast that hurts so many women .

[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:

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.”

Ok second response here: how the f did you decide I was white from my post?!

I misread your post on who is a minority. I’m sorry.

As for whether a white woman should use her power to call it out, of course she should. But I don’t buy that she has less power than Baldoni by virtue of their sexes.

Fair enough, I guess my original post was a bit word-soupy. I think this is hitting a nerve for many of us because we’ve witnessed plenty of famous women take-downs, but rarely men. Men get away with much more, and rebound much faster from PR disasters. But you’re of course right that we don’t have all the details here.

[Anonymous]

I don’t have the faintest clue who the accused is but I’m taking his side because Harvey’s whore and her closeted twink husband are so freakin’ phony and insufferable. Right up there with Ashton Kutcher and his troll-looking wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have the faintest clue who the accused is but I’m taking his side because Harvey’s whore and her closeted twink husband are so freakin’ phony and insufferable. Right up there with Ashton Kutcher and his troll-looking wife.

Exhibit A -
Online misogyny at work - BL is cast as Harvey and AK’s wife is nameless but degraded on grounds of her appearance.

Sick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have the faintest clue who the accused is but I’m taking his side because Harvey’s whore and her closeted twink husband are so freakin’ phony and insufferable. Right up there with Ashton Kutcher and his troll-looking wife.

Exhibit A -
Online misogyny at work - BL is cast as Harvey and AK’s wife is nameless but degraded on grounds of her appearance.

Sick

^^^^
One photo and she is dismissed as Harvey’s whore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have the faintest clue who the accused is but I’m taking his side because Harvey’s whore and her closeted twink husband are so freakin’ phony and insufferable. Right up there with Ashton Kutcher and his troll-looking wife.

Exhibit A -
Online misogyny at work - BL is cast as Harvey and AK’s wife is nameless but degraded on grounds of her appearance.

Sick

^^^^
One photo and she is dismissed as Harvey’s whore

This is why people should stand with Blake, these are the low life sorts who are easily manipulated or more likely paid to spew their bile, to destroy successful women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have the faintest clue who the accused is but I’m taking his side because Harvey’s whore and her closeted twink husband are so freakin’ phony and insufferable. Right up there with Ashton Kutcher and his troll-looking wife.

Exhibit A -
Online misogyny at work - BL is cast as Harvey and AK’s wife is nameless but degraded on grounds of her appearance.

Sick

^^^^
One photo and she is dismissed as Harvey’s whore

It does not sound like HE raped her and she wore a wedding dress designed by his ex wife to her 2012 wedding to RR.

“Blake Lively says the Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations are "devastating to hear." In a new interview with The Hollywood Reporter, the 30-year-old actress shares her thoughts on the claims made about the movie producer. Lively, who wore a Marchesa dress co-designed by Weinstein's estranged wife Georgina Chapman during her 2012 wedding to Ryan Reynolds, tells the publication that she never heard the rumors about Weinstein's misconduct in the past. "That was never my experience with Harvey in any way whatsoever, and I think that if people heard these stories…I do believe in humanity enough to think that this wouldn't have just continued,"...
https://m.imdb.com/news/ni61609444/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have the faintest clue who the accused is but I’m taking his side because Harvey’s whore and her closeted twink husband are so freakin’ phony and insufferable. Right up there with Ashton Kutcher and his troll-looking wife.

Exhibit A -
Online misogyny at work - BL is cast as Harvey and AK’s wife is nameless but degraded on grounds of her appearance.

Sick

^^^^
One photo and she is dismissed as Harvey’s whore

This is why people should stand with Blake, these are the low life sorts who are easily manipulated or more likely paid to spew their bile, to destroy successful women.

Exactly. Where’s the creds that Ryan is gay? Not every actor is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have the faintest clue who the accused is but I’m taking his side because Harvey’s whore and her closeted twink husband are so freakin’ phony and insufferable. Right up there with Ashton Kutcher and his troll-looking wife.

Exhibit A -
Online misogyny at work - BL is cast as Harvey and AK’s wife is nameless but degraded on grounds of her appearance.

Sick

^^^^
One photo and she is dismissed as Harvey’s whore

This is why people should stand with Blake, these are the low life sorts who are easily manipulated or more likely paid to spew their bile, to destroy successful women.

Plus one million