Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who had time to read this stuff? Can someone summarize it?

Read the NYT article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does she pronounce cucumber?

Y’all are going HB

Can you translate for the oldies! Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does she pronounce cucumber?

Y’all are going HB

Can you translate for the oldies! Thanks!

The poster is referencing Hilaria Baldwin, who grew up in Boston but pretends to be Spanish, speaks with a Spanish accent, and pretends to forget the English word for vegetables while filming cooking shows.

However, even with that background, the joke doesn’t make any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does she pronounce cucumber?

Y’all are going HB

Can you translate for the oldies! Thanks!

The poster is referencing Hilaria Baldwin, who grew up in Boston but pretends to be Spanish, speaks with a Spanish accent, and pretends to forget the English word for vegetables while filming cooking shows.

However, even with that background, the joke doesn’t make any sense.

The obsession with this thread is similar to the Hilaria ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who had time to read this stuff? Can someone summarize it?

Also it seems like she’s accusing him of smearing her name? My impression is actually that she is smearing his name. Since I’d never heard of him before this drama

+1. He does not have the influence in Hollywood to smear her. He's a virtual no one compared to her and her husband.

His team’s docs say what they say. His backer is a billionaire. Presumably he paid the pr bill.

Does anyone know why a billionaire would back Baldoni? I literally never heard of this guy until this movie.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand why BL wouldn’t have expected nudity when filming a scene about childbirth? That doesn’t even make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why BL wouldn’t have expected nudity when filming a scene about childbirth? That doesn’t even make sense.

Was Jennifer Aniston nude in her friends birth scene? I seem to remember that being a pretty long scene, but I don’t remember her being nude and considering it was NBC primetime in the 90s, I’m thinking she wasn’t.

There are plenty of ways to shoot a realistic birth scene without showing nudity. She could have a gown on and the camera could focus on her face. I saw the movie - it was a few months ago and I liked it but I don’t remember the details but I think the point was just to show that she had a baby. There are certainly dozens of ways to shoot it to get that point across and none of them involve having to shoot her naked body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who had time to read this stuff? Can someone summarize it?

Also it seems like she’s accusing him of smearing her name? My impression is actually that she is smearing his name. Since I’d never heard of him before this drama

+1. He does not have the influence in Hollywood to smear her. He's a virtual no one compared to her and her husband.

His team’s docs say what they say. His backer is a billionaire. Presumably he paid the pr bill.

Does anyone know why a billionaire would back Baldoni? I literally never heard of this guy until this movie.

Co-investor in the studio. They know each other through being in the same weird religious group that their PR folks warned them to downplay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who had time to read this stuff? Can someone summarize it?

Also it seems like she’s accusing him of smearing her name? My impression is actually that she is smearing his name. Since I’d never heard of him before this drama

+1. He does not have the influence in Hollywood to smear her. He's a virtual no one compared to her and her husband.

His team’s docs say what they say. His backer is a billionaire. Presumably he paid the pr bill.

Does anyone know why a billionaire would back Baldoni? I literally never heard of this guy until this movie.

Co-investor in the studio. They know each other through being in the same weird religious group that their PR folks warned them to downplay.

Justin is part of a weird religious group? That explains a lot.

[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 agree with you, but I have recently found out that Lively was only added as a co-producer or an executive producer after the film was shot. She did not have exec producing credentials during filming.

The lack of an intimacy coordinator from the start is very odd given the budget and the themes of the film. I would like to understand more about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who had time to read this stuff? Can someone summarize it?

Also it seems like she’s accusing him of smearing her name? My impression is actually that she is smearing his name. Since I’d never heard of him before this drama

+1. He does not have the influence in Hollywood to smear her. He's a virtual no one compared to her and her husband.

His team’s docs say what they say. His backer is a billionaire. Presumably he paid the pr bill.

Does anyone know why a billionaire would back Baldoni? I literally never heard of this guy until this movie.

Co-investor in the studio. They know each other through being in the same weird religious group that their PR folks warned them to downplay.

Justin is part of a weird religious group? That explains a lot.

Bahai.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Blake and her husband also employ numerous of these "low life sorts" who are paid to "spew their bile" and destroy people. Just like everyone else in Hollywood.

It's fascinating to see this spun as Baldoni and his PR team doing something that isn't commonplace in Hollywood. The NYT's piece exposing the texts and emails from and between his PR team even went out of it's way not to mention the PR outfit that employed those particular flaks (likely as part of an agreement with the firm not to mention it by name even though that's the company who was hired by Baldoni in the first place. They are trying to make it seem like "a few bad apples." It's the whole industry, including Blake and Ryan's team. This is how Hollywood PR works.

And it's terrible! But the idea that Lively is an innocent victim of it and not someone who has paid people for years to undertake these same tactics on her behalf is so rich.

I don't see it that way at all. I'm sure it happens all the time. There are so many things that pop up out of nowhere that suddenly "everyone" agrees on and are clearly astroturfed. This one is catching attention because there is proof. They suspected it, they got the text messages from the PR firm, and the messages were a freaking goldmine including meta-commentary from the PR morons saying "we can't put this in writing" while putting it in writing. We don't normally get to see the inside track that confirms out suspicions, so that's interesting and fun.

Sure. But you don't know what Blake's own team is saying this week about how well they've good and hosed Baldoni. If you don't think there are celebratory texts and emails right now congratulating themselves for getting the online chatter to run the other way, you are incorrect. And if you assume "well yeah but they are working for the good guys so it's okay".... well you've bought right into a narrative someone else sold you without realizing it.

Lively and Reynolds are not the good guys here. There are no good guys.

Beyond what is in her complaint what negative stories are there about Baldoni? What dirt has been dug up on him that trolls are spinning that is outside of what is happening currently? This isn't a both sides situation no matter how many times you try to compare them.

Perhaps there aren't negative stories out there about Baldoni because he doesn't have a history of doing negative stuff and people who have previously worked with him liked him?

I find it kind of surprising that this complaint has come out and there are no reports of him being questionable on prior projects. He did 5 full years of Jane the Virgin, 100 episodes, and not a peep from anyone on that show that he's a jerk or that he talks about sex all the time or is inappropriate with casemates, etc. It seems like having someone as high profile as Lively come out and say "this guy is awful" would empower other, less powerful women to step forward, if they were out there. That's what has happened in every other metoo incident.

It is the rare woman who speaks up. And those who are younger, and less powerful, usually do not.

Men count on that.

Probably the crap she described (eg, him casting his FRIEND as her gynecologist), are so embedded in the industry…that you have to be very evolved to even see the violation involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyhXSDeU_Oc

I’m not getting why casting his friend in a big part is some kind of evidence of something? Of course he hands out parts to his friends. The kitchen-sink nature of the allegations kind of tips me towards Baldoni.

+1, especially small roles that don't require much. It even makes some sense from a production standpoint -- as long as they are professional and can do the job, a friend will take SAG minimum and typically be easy to work with. You don't waste time and money casting someone for a small role only to discover they are difficult or don't take direction.

Also the thing about him casting his wife as the gynocologist-- she wasn't a real gynocologist. It's not like she was actually examining Lively. It's a movie.

The problem is they weren't legit employees. She asked that they be classified as actors or working actors if they were on set during nude scenes. Not cool to just have your wife hanging out between her legs during a birth scene as a friend. People are trying to downplay his actions here but it won't be successful

Why does his wife have some secret kink? I would think she would be happy it was a woman and not an unknown man. I just don't see the scandal. One way to avoid having someone between your legs during "birth scenes" is not to take a part that requires a birth scene. What did she expect when she signed up for that?

Professionalism and respect?

Sure, but my point is for a birth scene someone had to be between her legs. SoO fail to see the scandal of having an actor placed there. Maybe you can explain. Did Justin's wife diddle her?

So your position is that on the set they should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as there is no "diddling"? It's all or nothing?

My point is please explain what the person did that was terrible.Just sitting there in that area seems normal for a scene that portrays giving birth. You don't help your case with the vagueness of the allegation.

If you are interested in a good faith discussion, here is a list of issues with the birth scene: https://themusicessentials.com/trending-pop-culture-news/blake-lively-nightmare-justin-baldoni-shocking-on-set-actions/

Of course, you can pick one or two of those and say "it's not that bad." Just casting his friend, if everything leading up to it had been professional, would probably not be a big deal. Sexual harassment is about a pattern of unwelcome or hostile actions. It's the totaly of the circumstances that are so damning. It's a million little boundaries being pushed on these Hollywood sets (and of course, it's not just Baldoni), and then you can claim innocence and say "what! I was just doing (minor thing)! what's the big deal?!"

Alternatively, unreliable narrators turn innocuous events into claims of harassment.

The one thing tipping me to Team Baldoni is that her litany of complaints mostly rings false/exaggerated.

What rings as false or exaggerated?

Reading the complaint, it paints a realistic picture to me and it seems to be very careful not to use exaggerating or dramatic language. It's very matter of fact. But the facts they share, taken together, indicate that she was pressured into nudity and intimacy on set that was not in the script or suggested beforehand, that the production failed to provide intimacy coordinators for these ad hoc nude/intimate scenes, that some of the improvised nudity in the production was not covered by nudity riders that allow actors to draw clear lines about how nudity is filmed, that Baldoni and his production partner were consistently inappropriate and boundary-violating on set, and that there were complaints filed about all of the above starting on the second day of production but that nothing changed until after the strike when Lively refused to come back to the set unless they agreed in writing to her stipulations.

It really sounds like Lively did everything in her power to address these issues on set in a professional, fair way and that Baldoni and his partners ignored a myriad of valid complaints and behaved horribly.

He should never direct another film.

Everything listed seemed exaggerated or fake except for the part about Baldoni’s business partner (not Baldoni) entering her trailer when she was changing.

I don't understand why though. Why does that sound true to you but other things don't? If you think the other stuff is false then why would you believe that? You've provided no reason for your thinking.

because some of the things she lists are extremely subjective and sound like they are just normal things she decided to interpret or claim as harassment. The kiss, the OB GYB actor, comments on her weight, etc.

[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: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.

Blake and her husband also employ numerous of these "low life sorts" who are paid to "spew their bile" and destroy people. Just like everyone else in Hollywood.

It's fascinating to see this spun as Baldoni and his PR team doing something that isn't commonplace in Hollywood. The NYT's piece exposing the texts and emails from and between his PR team even went out of it's way not to mention the PR outfit that employed those particular flaks (likely as part of an agreement with the firm not to mention it by name even though that's the company who was hired by Baldoni in the first place. They are trying to make it seem like "a few bad apples." It's the whole industry, including Blake and Ryan's team. This is how Hollywood PR works.

And it's terrible! But the idea that Lively is an innocent victim of it and not someone who has paid people for years to undertake these same tactics on her behalf is so rich.

I don't see it that way at all. I'm sure it happens all the time. There are so many things that pop up out of nowhere that suddenly "everyone" agrees on and are clearly astroturfed. This one is catching attention because there is proof. They suspected it, they got the text messages from the PR firm, and the messages were a freaking goldmine including meta-commentary from the PR morons saying "we can't put this in writing" while putting it in writing. We don't normally get to see the inside track that confirms out suspicions, so that's interesting and fun.

Sure. But you don't know what Blake's own team is saying this week about how well they've good and hosed Baldoni. If you don't think there are celebratory texts and emails right now congratulating themselves for getting the online chatter to run the other way, you are incorrect. And if you assume "well yeah but they are working for the good guys so it's okay".... well you've bought right into a narrative someone else sold you without realizing it.

Lively and Reynolds are not the good guys here. There are no good guys.

Beyond what is in her complaint what negative stories are there about Baldoni? What dirt has been dug up on him that trolls are spinning that is outside of what is happening currently? This isn't a both sides situation no matter how many times you try to compare them.

Perhaps there aren't negative stories out there about Baldoni because he doesn't have a history of doing negative stuff and people who have previously worked with him liked him?

I find it kind of surprising that this complaint has come out and there are no reports of him being questionable on prior projects. He did 5 full years of Jane the Virgin, 100 episodes, and not a peep from anyone on that show that he's a jerk or that he talks about sex all the time or is inappropriate with casemates, etc. It seems like having someone as high profile as Lively come out and say "this guy is awful" would empower other, less powerful women to step forward, if they were out there. That's what has happened in every other metoo incident.

It is the rare woman who speaks up. And those who are younger, and less powerful, usually do not.

Men count on that.

Probably the crap she described (eg, him casting his FRIEND as her gynecologist), are so embedded in the industry…that you have to be very evolved to even see the violation involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyhXSDeU_Oc

I’m not getting why casting his friend in a big part is some kind of evidence of something? Of course he hands out parts to his friends. The kitchen-sink nature of the allegations kind of tips me towards Baldoni.

You must be a man.

The person allowed close access to her private parts should have been a professional.

Why not just sell tickets to the set, if you can dole that (a peep show) out as a personal perk??

Female employees have dignity!!

his friend was an actor …

Untrue.

citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why BL wouldn’t have expected nudity when filming a scene about childbirth? That doesn’t even make sense.

because she’s a dumb*ss that’s why.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Blake and her husband also employ numerous of these "low life sorts" who are paid to "spew their bile" and destroy people. Just like everyone else in Hollywood.

It's fascinating to see this spun as Baldoni and his PR team doing something that isn't commonplace in Hollywood. The NYT's piece exposing the texts and emails from and between his PR team even went out of it's way not to mention the PR outfit that employed those particular flaks (likely as part of an agreement with the firm not to mention it by name even though that's the company who was hired by Baldoni in the first place. They are trying to make it seem like "a few bad apples." It's the whole industry, including Blake and Ryan's team. This is how Hollywood PR works.

And it's terrible! But the idea that Lively is an innocent victim of it and not someone who has paid people for years to undertake these same tactics on her behalf is so rich.

I don't see it that way at all. I'm sure it happens all the time. There are so many things that pop up out of nowhere that suddenly "everyone" agrees on and are clearly astroturfed. This one is catching attention because there is proof. They suspected it, they got the text messages from the PR firm, and the messages were a freaking goldmine including meta-commentary from the PR morons saying "we can't put this in writing" while putting it in writing. We don't normally get to see the inside track that confirms out suspicions, so that's interesting and fun.

Sure. But you don't know what Blake's own team is saying this week about how well they've good and hosed Baldoni. If you don't think there are celebratory texts and emails right now congratulating themselves for getting the online chatter to run the other way, you are incorrect. And if you assume "well yeah but they are working for the good guys so it's okay".... well you've bought right into a narrative someone else sold you without realizing it.

Lively and Reynolds are not the good guys here. There are no good guys.

Beyond what is in her complaint what negative stories are there about Baldoni? What dirt has been dug up on him that trolls are spinning that is outside of what is happening currently? This isn't a both sides situation no matter how many times you try to compare them.

Perhaps there aren't negative stories out there about Baldoni because he doesn't have a history of doing negative stuff and people who have previously worked with him liked him?

I find it kind of surprising that this complaint has come out and there are no reports of him being questionable on prior projects. He did 5 full years of Jane the Virgin, 100 episodes, and not a peep from anyone on that show that he's a jerk or that he talks about sex all the time or is inappropriate with casemates, etc. It seems like having someone as high profile as Lively come out and say "this guy is awful" would empower other, less powerful women to step forward, if they were out there. That's what has happened in every other metoo incident.

It is the rare woman who speaks up. And those who are younger, and less powerful, usually do not.

Men count on that.

Probably the crap she described (eg, him casting his FRIEND as her gynecologist), are so embedded in the industry…that you have to be very evolved to even see the violation involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyhXSDeU_Oc

I’m not getting why casting his friend in a big part is some kind of evidence of something? Of course he hands out parts to his friends. The kitchen-sink nature of the allegations kind of tips me towards Baldoni.

+1, especially small roles that don't require much. It even makes some sense from a production standpoint -- as long as they are professional and can do the job, a friend will take SAG minimum and typically be easy to work with. You don't waste time and money casting someone for a small role only to discover they are difficult or don't take direction.

Also the thing about him casting his wife as the gynocologist-- she wasn't a real gynocologist. It's not like she was actually examining Lively. It's a movie.

The problem is they weren't legit employees. She asked that they be classified as actors or working actors if they were on set during nude scenes. Not cool to just have your wife hanging out between her legs during a birth scene as a friend. People are trying to downplay his actions here but it won't be successful

Why does his wife have some secret kink? I would think she would be happy it was a woman and not an unknown man. I just don't see the scandal. One way to avoid having someone between your legs during "birth scenes" is not to take a part that requires a birth scene. What did she expect when she signed up for that?

Professionalism and respect?

Sure, but my point is for a birth scene someone had to be between her legs. SoO fail to see the scandal of having an actor placed there. Maybe you can explain. Did Justin's wife diddle her?

So your position is that on the set they should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as there is no "diddling"? It's all or nothing?

My point is please explain what the person did that was terrible.Just sitting there in that area seems normal for a scene that portrays giving birth. You don't help your case with the vagueness of the allegation.

If you are interested in a good faith discussion, here is a list of issues with the birth scene: https://themusicessentials.com/trending-pop-culture-news/blake-lively-nightmare-justin-baldoni-shocking-on-set-actions/

Of course, you can pick one or two of those and say "it's not that bad." Just casting his friend, if everything leading up to it had been professional, would probably not be a big deal. Sexual harassment is about a pattern of unwelcome or hostile actions. It's the totaly of the circumstances that are so damning. It's a million little boundaries being pushed on these Hollywood sets (and of course, it's not just Baldoni), and then you can claim innocence and say "what! I was just doing (minor thing)! what's the big deal?!"

Alternatively, unreliable narrators turn innocuous events into claims of harassment.

The one thing tipping me to Team Baldoni is that her litany of complaints mostly rings false/exaggerated.

What rings as false or exaggerated?

Reading the complaint, it paints a realistic picture to me and it seems to be very careful not to use exaggerating or dramatic language. It's very matter of fact. But the facts they share, taken together, indicate that she was pressured into nudity and intimacy on set that was not in the script or suggested beforehand, that the production failed to provide intimacy coordinators for these ad hoc nude/intimate scenes, that some of the improvised nudity in the production was not covered by nudity riders that allow actors to draw clear lines about how nudity is filmed, that Baldoni and his production partner were consistently inappropriate and boundary-violating on set, and that there were complaints filed about all of the above starting on the second day of production but that nothing changed until after the strike when Lively refused to come back to the set unless they agreed in writing to her stipulations.

It really sounds like Lively did everything in her power to address these issues on set in a professional, fair way and that Baldoni and his partners ignored a myriad of valid complaints and behaved horribly.

He should never direct another film.

Everything listed seemed exaggerated or fake except for the part about Baldoni’s business partner (not Baldoni) entering her trailer when she was changing.

I don't understand why though. Why does that sound true to you but other things don't? If you think the other stuff is false then why would you believe that? You've provided no reason for your thinking.

because some of the things she lists are extremely subjective and sound like they are just normal things she decided to interpret or claim as harassment. The kiss, the OB GYB actor, comments on her weight, etc.

+1. There is going to be kissing in a film with sex scenes and filming birth scenes seems like am awkward experience for everyone. I find all birth scenes cringeworthy because it is just weird pretending to have a baby while another actor pretends to deliver it. Those scenes serve no purpose.