Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

She was the actress and he was the director. She involved two very high profile people in order to steamroll his directorial vision. This is intimidating and out of line. If she were truly his equal, she would have stayed in her lane and respected his direction and done her job. I think Baldoni seems insufferable based on all his annoying ramblings, but to me she is wrong on this point.

She was also an executive producer.

That title was added towards the end when she created her own cut.

No, it was some other designation beyond that that was added later. I will butcher this explanation, but what she requested later was a PGA mark, which is some sort of special certification for the “producer who performed a majority of the producing functions on a specific motion picture in a decision-making capacity.”

Correct, there were two debates over her producer credit.

The first happened before filming even started, when they were giving her a producer credit and she wanted "executive producer." A producer credit is fairly meaningless -- lots of actors get them but it doesn't translate to any actual control. Executive producers are generally much more involved.

This is not true at all. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the film business.

I know how to read, which is all you need to understand this. Here are excerpts from Baldoni's complaint against Lively:

Page 17:
27. On or about December 31, 2022, Lively agreed to take the lead role of Lily Bloom. As part of the subsequent negotiations, Lively was granted an executive producer credit, a title often given to talent of her stature. (Lively had requested a producer credit, but Wayfarer and Sony demurred, given that such a title would not accurately reflect the role she was asked to play in the production). Wayfarer did not request nor require that Lively contribute to the Film in any capacity beyond her roles as actor and executive producer.

So she was given the executive producer credit before filming started in may of 2023.

Page 88, referring to post-production battles over which cut of the film would be released:
152. Lively was still not satisfied. She continued to extort Wayfarer, Baldoni, and even Sony, threatening to abandon her contractual obligation to promote the Film or approve marketing materials if she wasn’t awarded a producer credit, and though Wayfarer had refused long ago to accede to this request when it was made during initial negotiations, Wayfarer now had its back against the wall and again, had to concede.
153. This still wasn’t enough. Lively later sought the coveted p.g.a. mark on her producer credit—a certified designation licensed by the Producers Guild of America (“PGA”) to identify producers who have performed the majority of the producing work on a motion picture. Neither Baldoni nor Wayfarer believed Lively fulfilled the requisite criteria to earn this mark, but that did not matter to Lively.

I'll note here that these parts of Baldoni's complaint are directly contradictory. He says she asked for an EP credit in 2022 and was given one. He then claims that there was a debate over whether Lively would get any producer credit on the movie when it came out at all. Were they suddenly trying to strip her of any producer credit at all, after agreeing to to make her an executive producer?

But in any case, his own complaint shows that she was made an EP before shooting on the movie began.

[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:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

She was the actress and he was the director. She involved two very high profile people in order to steamroll his directorial vision. This is intimidating and out of line. If she were truly his equal, she would have stayed in her lane and respected his direction and done her job. I think Baldoni seems insufferable based on all his annoying ramblings, but to me she is wrong on this point.

She was also an executive producer.

That title was added towards the end when she created her own cut.

No, it was some other designation beyond that that was added later. I will butcher this explanation, but what she requested later was a PGA mark, which is some sort of special certification for the “producer who performed a majority of the producing functions on a specific motion picture in a decision-making capacity.”

Correct, there were two debates over her producer credit.

The first happened before filming even started, when they were giving her a producer credit and she wanted "executive producer." A producer credit is fairly meaningless -- lots of actors get them but it doesn't translate to any actual control. Executive producers are generally much more involved.

This is not true at all. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the film business.

I know how to read, which is all you need to understand this. Here are excerpts from Baldoni's complaint against Lively:

Page 17:
27. On or about December 31, 2022, Lively agreed to take the lead role of Lily Bloom. As part of the subsequent negotiations, Lively was granted an executive producer credit, a title often given to talent of her stature. (Lively had requested a producer credit, but Wayfarer and Sony demurred, given that such a title would not accurately reflect the role she was asked to play in the production). Wayfarer did not request nor require that Lively contribute to the Film in any capacity beyond her roles as actor and executive producer.

So she was given the executive producer credit before filming started in may of 2023.

Page 88, referring to post-production battles over which cut of the film would be released:
152. Lively was still not satisfied. She continued to extort Wayfarer, Baldoni, and even Sony, threatening to abandon her contractual obligation to promote the Film or approve marketing materials if she wasn’t awarded a producer credit, and though Wayfarer had refused long ago to accede to this request when it was made during initial negotiations, Wayfarer now had its back against the wall and again, had to concede.
153. This still wasn’t enough. Lively later sought the coveted p.g.a. mark on her producer credit—a certified designation licensed by the Producers Guild of America (“PGA”) to identify producers who have performed the majority of the producing work on a motion picture. Neither Baldoni nor Wayfarer believed Lively fulfilled the requisite criteria to earn this mark, but that did not matter to Lively.

I'll note here that these parts of Baldoni's complaint are directly contradictory. He says she asked for an EP credit in 2022 and was given one. He then claims that there was a debate over whether Lively would get any producer credit on the movie when it came out at all. Were they suddenly trying to strip her of any producer credit at all, after agreeing to to make her an executive producer?

But in any case, his own complaint shows that she was made an EP before shooting on the movie began.

The way you double down when called out on your inaccuracies is strange. A producer credit is not "meaningless" as you said in your original post and signifies more hands-on involvement compared to an executive producer, who may just help secure funding and may be perceived a bit more as a vanity credit, although some would find that definition reductive.

I'm also not sure how your quotes support your initial argument? Your post says they pushed back on the EP credit. No, they pushed back on the producer credit. Okay. So...?

[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:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

She was the actress and he was the director. She involved two very high profile people in order to steamroll his directorial vision. This is intimidating and out of line. If she were truly his equal, she would have stayed in her lane and respected his direction and done her job. I think Baldoni seems insufferable based on all his annoying ramblings, but to me she is wrong on this point.

She was also an executive producer.

That title was added towards the end when she created her own cut.

No, it was some other designation beyond that that was added later. I will butcher this explanation, but what she requested later was a PGA mark, which is some sort of special certification for the “producer who performed a majority of the producing functions on a specific motion picture in a decision-making capacity.”

Correct, there were two debates over her producer credit.

The first happened before filming even started, when they were giving her a producer credit and she wanted "executive producer." A producer credit is fairly meaningless -- lots of actors get them but it doesn't translate to any actual control. Executive producers are generally much more involved.

This is not true at all. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the film business.

I know how to read, which is all you need to understand this. Here are excerpts from Baldoni's complaint against Lively:

Page 17:
27. On or about December 31, 2022, Lively agreed to take the lead role of Lily Bloom. As part of the subsequent negotiations, Lively was granted an executive producer credit, a title often given to talent of her stature. (Lively had requested a producer credit, but Wayfarer and Sony demurred, given that such a title would not accurately reflect the role she was asked to play in the production). Wayfarer did not request nor require that Lively contribute to the Film in any capacity beyond her roles as actor and executive producer.

So she was given the executive producer credit before filming started in may of 2023.

Page 88, referring to post-production battles over which cut of the film would be released:
152. Lively was still not satisfied. She continued to extort Wayfarer, Baldoni, and even Sony, threatening to abandon her contractual obligation to promote the Film or approve marketing materials if she wasn’t awarded a producer credit, and though Wayfarer had refused long ago to accede to this request when it was made during initial negotiations, Wayfarer now had its back against the wall and again, had to concede.
153. This still wasn’t enough. Lively later sought the coveted p.g.a. mark on her producer credit—a certified designation licensed by the Producers Guild of America (“PGA”) to identify producers who have performed the majority of the producing work on a motion picture. Neither Baldoni nor Wayfarer believed Lively fulfilled the requisite criteria to earn this mark, but that did not matter to Lively.

I'll note here that these parts of Baldoni's complaint are directly contradictory. He says she asked for an EP credit in 2022 and was given one. He then claims that there was a debate over whether Lively would get any producer credit on the movie when it came out at all. Were they suddenly trying to strip her of any producer credit at all, after agreeing to to make her an executive producer?

But in any case, his own complaint shows that she was made an EP before shooting on the movie began.

Np. This shows that you were wrong. Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is going to be considered a sexual harasser by some people for life — is it wrong of me to assume this guy just thinks he has nothing to lose and will go scorched earth without being willing to settle?

Bumping in case this post gets lost amid the debate about the definition of an executive producer vs. producer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dancing scene and the voicemail come across like they were emotionally enmeshed and then Blake spun it as Justin was creepy to Ryan and the whole thing blew up.

100 percent this. All of their communications are so intimate.

yeah that wasn't acting

Welp, Blake can’t act her way out of a paper bag, so most likely was not acting. But again, who gives a fig about a B-C list actress?

Better than talking about Trump all day

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is going to be considered a sexual harasser by some people for life — is it wrong of me to assume this guy just thinks he has nothing to lose and will go scorched earth without being willing to settle?

Bumping in case this post gets lost amid the debate about the definition of an executive producer vs. producer.

I think he will eventually settle but he is definitely making some interesting power moves with the website and releasing tapes etc. I like his lawyer. He’s got guts.

Where was the defamation case filed? Was that in SDNY too? Curious what lawyer is appearing for the NYT for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is going to be considered a sexual harasser by some people for life — is it wrong of me to assume this guy just thinks he has nothing to lose and will go scorched earth without being willing to settle?

Bumping in case this post gets lost amid the debate about the definition of an executive producer vs. producer.

Exactly what did Baldoni do? I am lost here.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or you know nothing about the conflict and are legitimately asking. I'm personally not accusing him of anything, I'm just wondering why we think he's going to settle when he has to repair his image and has nothing to lose at this point vs. Blake and Ryan, who do still have a lot to lose.

[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:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

She was the actress and he was the director. She involved two very high profile people in order to steamroll his directorial vision. This is intimidating and out of line. If she were truly his equal, she would have stayed in her lane and respected his direction and done her job. I think Baldoni seems insufferable based on all his annoying ramblings, but to me she is wrong on this point.

She was also an executive producer.

That title was added towards the end when she created her own cut.

No, it was some other designation beyond that that was added later. I will butcher this explanation, but what she requested later was a PGA mark, which is some sort of special certification for the “producer who performed a majority of the producing functions on a specific motion picture in a decision-making capacity.”

Correct, there were two debates over her producer credit.

The first happened before filming even started, when they were giving her a producer credit and she wanted "executive producer." A producer credit is fairly meaningless -- lots of actors get them but it doesn't translate to any actual control. Executive producers are generally much more involved.

This is not true at all. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the film business.

I know how to read, which is all you need to understand this. Here are excerpts from Baldoni's complaint against Lively:

Page 17:
27. On or about December 31, 2022, Lively agreed to take the lead role of Lily Bloom. As part of the subsequent negotiations, Lively was granted an executive producer credit, a title often given to talent of her stature. (Lively had requested a producer credit, but Wayfarer and Sony demurred, given that such a title would not accurately reflect the role she was asked to play in the production). Wayfarer did not request nor require that Lively contribute to the Film in any capacity beyond her roles as actor and executive producer.

So she was given the executive producer credit before filming started in may of 2023.

Page 88, referring to post-production battles over which cut of the film would be released:
152. Lively was still not satisfied. She continued to extort Wayfarer, Baldoni, and even Sony, threatening to abandon her contractual obligation to promote the Film or approve marketing materials if she wasn’t awarded a producer credit, and though Wayfarer had refused long ago to accede to this request when it was made during initial negotiations, Wayfarer now had its back against the wall and again, had to concede.
153. This still wasn’t enough. Lively later sought the coveted p.g.a. mark on her producer credit—a certified designation licensed by the Producers Guild of America (“PGA”) to identify producers who have performed the majority of the producing work on a motion picture. Neither Baldoni nor Wayfarer believed Lively fulfilled the requisite criteria to earn this mark, but that did not matter to Lively.

I'll note here that these parts of Baldoni's complaint are directly contradictory. He says she asked for an EP credit in 2022 and was given one. He then claims that there was a debate over whether Lively would get any producer credit on the movie when it came out at all. Were they suddenly trying to strip her of any producer credit at all, after agreeing to to make her an executive producer?

But in any case, his own complaint shows that she was made an EP before shooting on the movie began.

The way you double down when called out on your inaccuracies is strange. A producer credit is not "meaningless" as you said in your original post and signifies more hands-on involvement compared to an executive producer, who may just help secure funding and may be perceived a bit more as a vanity credit, although some would find that definition reductive.

I'm also not sure how your quotes support your initial argument? Your post says they pushed back on the EP credit. No, they pushed back on the producer credit. Okay. So...?

Ok I get it now -- a producer credit is actually more prestigious than an executive producer credit? That is not intuitive at all but now I think I understand.

They gave her an executive producer credit which they viewed as meaningless, she wanted a producer credit which would have been meaningful but the refused to give it to her until after the movie was made and she threatened not to do marketing for the movie unless she got it.

That's interesting. I suspect many people were confused in the same way I was, assuming an executive producer was a step up from a producer. I had it backwards. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is going to be considered a sexual harasser by some people for life — is it wrong of me to assume this guy just thinks he has nothing to lose and will go scorched earth without being willing to settle?

Bumping in case this post gets lost amid the debate about the definition of an executive producer vs. producer.

Exactly what did Baldoni do? I am lost here.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or you know nothing about the conflict and are legitimately asking. I'm personally not accusing him of anything, I'm just wondering why we think he's going to settle when he has to repair his image and has nothing to lose at this point vs. Blake and Ryan, who do still have a lot to lose.

I feel like I am missing something, I don’t feel as though Baldoni did anything wrong at all? Like at all.

Did I say he did anything wrong? I'm confused by your reply. I'm saying people do think he sexually harassed Blake, which is why he's going to try and salvage his reputation no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is going to be considered a sexual harasser by some people for life — is it wrong of me to assume this guy just thinks he has nothing to lose and will go scorched earth without being willing to settle?

Bumping in case this post gets lost amid the debate about the definition of an executive producer vs. producer.

He is experiencing what a lot of directors deal with when working with powerful actors. Ryan Reynolds may not be in the movie but he was in the movie and wow is he scary. I look at him very differently now.
Exactly what did Baldoni do? I am lost here.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or you know nothing about the conflict and are legitimately asking. I'm personally not accusing him of anything, I'm just wondering why we think he's going to settle when he has to repair his image and has nothing to lose at this point vs. Blake and Ryan, who do still have a lot to lose.

I feel like I am missing something, I don’t feel as though Baldoni did anything wrong at all? Like at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni is going to be considered a sexual harasser by some people for life — is it wrong of me to assume this guy just thinks he has nothing to lose and will go scorched earth without being willing to settle?

Bumping in case this post gets lost amid the debate about the definition of an executive producer vs. producer.

He is experiencing what a lot of directors deal with when working with powerful actors. Ryan Reynolds may not be in the movie but he was in the movie and wow is he scary. I look at him very differently now.
Exactly what did Baldoni do? I am lost here.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or you know nothing about the conflict and are legitimately asking. I'm personally not accusing him of anything, I'm just wondering why we think he's going to settle when he has to repair his image and has nothing to lose at this point vs. Blake and Ryan, who do still have a lot to lose.

I feel like I am missing something, I don’t feel as though Baldoni did anything wrong at all? Like at all.

He didn’t do anything. He got played.

[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:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

The thing that’s crazy is that HE is the director. He can collaborate but the buck stops with him. They are not co- directing! Would she be this way with Martin Scorsese if he was directing? Hell no! The problem from the beginning was she wanted to star but didn’t respect or trust him as a director and tried to take the reins when she perceived the project going off the rails. He was trying to keep her happy and play ball but it has turned into a big mess. His mistake was not setting clear boundaries.

+1000 Blake didn’t belong in that film. There are many superior actors out there. You live and learn.

I think they cast her because they wanted her star power.

I think this happens all the time in Hollywood. The best actors don't get all the roles. It's the people whose name or image will get people to go see the movie. For better or worse, Blake Lively has more "box office clout" than a lot of better actresses. And not just because she's married to Ryan Reynolds or is friends with Taylor Swift (though those things help a lot). She's done a lot to cultivate a high profile for herself.

And I genuinely think her involvement made the movie money. I think she made it way more visible and helped it get a much wider release. A lot of people actually went out and saw this movie in the theater, which is actually a big ask at this point, and I think the marketing campaign that had Lively very front and center and decked out in Versace at the premier with Ryan on one arm and her buddy Hugh Jackman (not involved in the film, just a friend she brought along to no doubt get more attention on the movie) on the other got way more traction than it would have with another actress.

Like I could see someone like Haley Lu Richardson in this role. She's a great actress who is younger and in theory would connect more with a younger audience and has a good track record doing emotionally resonant performances. But I guarantee a lot of people would be like "who?" And no one knew who Baldoni was before this whole conflict either. So a movie starring HLR and Baldoni might have been a better movie, but also no one would have seen it and it might not even have broken even.

[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:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

The thing that’s crazy is that HE is the director. He can collaborate but the buck stops with him. They are not co- directing! Would she be this way with Martin Scorsese if he was directing? Hell no! The problem from the beginning was she wanted to star but didn’t respect or trust him as a director and tried to take the reins when she perceived the project going off the rails. He was trying to keep her happy and play ball but it has turned into a big mess. His mistake was not setting clear boundaries.

+1000 Blake didn’t belong in that film. There are many superior actors out there. You live and learn.

I think they cast her because they wanted her star power.

I think this happens all the time in Hollywood. The best actors don't get all the roles. It's the people whose name or image will get people to go see the movie. For better or worse, Blake Lively has more "box office clout" than a lot of better actresses. And not just because she's married to Ryan Reynolds or is friends with Taylor Swift (though those things help a lot). She's done a lot to cultivate a high profile for herself.

And I genuinely think her involvement made the movie money. I think she made it way more visible and helped it get a much wider release. A lot of people actually went out and saw this movie in the theater, which is actually a big ask at this point, and I think the marketing campaign that had Lively very front and center and decked out in Versace at the premier with Ryan on one arm and her buddy Hugh Jackman (not involved in the film, just a friend she brought along to no doubt get more attention on the movie) on the other got way more traction than it would have with another actress.

Like I could see someone like Haley Lu Richardson in this role. She's a great actress who is younger and in theory would connect more with a younger audience and has a good track record doing emotionally resonant performances. But I guarantee a lot of people would be like "who?" And no one knew who Baldoni was before this whole conflict either. So a movie starring HLR and Baldoni might have been a better movie, but also no one would have seen it and it might not even have broken even.

Colleen's books are VERY popular, and gained hype thanks to BookTok. (I was shocked to find that out, since they had never been on my radar.) So I disagree no one would have seen it -- I don't think having a lower profile actor would have necessarily been a death knell, although of course Blake's visibility did help, and the production clearly didn't want to risk otherwise.

[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:Judging by this article (did not have a chance to listen) it sounds fairly pointless and whiny: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14330807/listen-justin-baldoni-voicemail-blake-lively-apologizing-rooftop-scene-ends-us.html

Daily Mail is affiliated with Baldoni. Guessing he was the one who released this because he makes references to "fall[ing] short" and being a "flawed man" and he probably would rather have them out in their full context than have Lively leak selectively. That's my best guess. Doesn't seem like a big bombshell.

How is Daily Mail affiliated with Baldoni? That makes zero sense

They've broken stories for him before, including the dance scene footage. It's a friendly outline for him.

That's true. We also have to remember even if it's coming from a particular team it's spun to be in their favor.

Its the "source close to actor" articles that you should take with grain of salt. 9 out of 10 times even if it's coming from a PR agent, it's fake. This voicemail was given to DM by i am assuming Justin's team.

I think the way they conversed with each other was....odd but I don't sense any hostility at this moment. The truth is in the middle with these two.

I assume Justin team put out to say what a nice guy he sounds and maybe so if listen to voicemail cold, but imagine Blake’s team will ask public, if a woman has told her boss and HR that she is uncomfortable at work and hostile environment, it is not super okay to get a 6+ minute work voicemail from your boss, left at 2 am, fawning on you, telling how much he wants to work with her, mentions she is breastfeeding child on “boob”… a 2 am, 6 minute “your awesome” voicemail from anyone….

If this keeps going will be another Depp trial that people will be glued to because parties will introduce same evidence to have it mean entirely different things.

To be fair, there's a pattern of her communicating with him at odd hours too (which I doubt are "odd" for people working on a big project in the film industry). She set him a long rambling text message at 4 a.m. talking about Khaleesi and dragons.

But while I don't quite believe Blake, I don't think the voicemail makes him look good. Lots of people online who are finding it creepy.

[Raises hand for creepy]

I also think her khaleesi text was nuts but where that seemed hyperbolic and "extra", a 6 minute voicemail left at 2am is worse.

It seems like they are both unprofessional but he seems slightly worse. I think also as the director he should have been the one to rein it back in. Instead he escalated.

It sounds like he was bending over backwards to placate her. Her text that mentioned Taylor being one of her dragons, supporting her rewrite sounded like she wanted to pressure him into rewriting the script.

It sounds like he was trying to rein that in, keep her happy. But in doing so, it seems excessive.

However, it was not hostile and he was not threatening her.

I only know her from that video of her interview where she ignored the interviewer and was basically mean.
Her texts to Baldoni have the same mean girl bully flavour. That’s my impression.
I don’t think she will win.

Here's how the text/voicemail exchange over the roof scene she wrote reads to me:

- she sent him the scene and either got a slow or lukewarm response, felt ignored
- so she advocated for it more, including having her husband and Swift advocate, which I think she honestly viewed as having other artists who she thinks he might respect give their stamp if approval
- but he reads this as very threatening and becomes angry at her for "using" Reynolds and Swift to pressure him
- so she goes into over-explaining mode to try and explain that's not how she meant it, but at this point the conflict was set

This whole thing about "he was trying to rein her in" or "she was overstepping" doesn't really make sense to me. This is a debate between creatives about their joint project. They both have leverage. I tend to agree with Lively's approach because I think she's right -- if you are a creative professional and you want a say in your art, you need to advocate for yourself and lean on your network to help. I see nothing wrong with what she did AND I think the degree to which Baldoni/Wayfarer felt threatened by it to be eyeroll inducing. They wanted an actress who would say her lines and hit her marks and nothing more, but they hired someone with a high profile who is more ambitious than that. They are just some tiny studio has only ever made very small movies.

It just comes off as Baldoni feeling threatened by a woman who views herself as his equal, and trying to put her in her place but in a passive aggressive way so that he doesn't appear to be doing that.

I don't know if that's "sexual harassment", maybe not. I do think it shows him to be small and insecure.

The thing that’s crazy is that HE is the director. He can collaborate but the buck stops with him. They are not co- directing! Would she be this way with Martin Scorsese if he was directing? Hell no! The problem from the beginning was she wanted to star but didn’t respect or trust him as a director and tried to take the reins when she perceived the project going off the rails. He was trying to keep her happy and play ball but it has turned into a big mess. His mistake was not setting clear boundaries.

+1000 Blake didn’t belong in that film. There are many superior actors out there. You live and learn.

I think they cast her because they wanted her star power.

I think this happens all the time in Hollywood. The best actors don't get all the roles. It's the people whose name or image will get people to go see the movie. For better or worse, Blake Lively has more "box office clout" than a lot of better actresses. And not just because she's married to Ryan Reynolds or is friends with Taylor Swift (though those things help a lot). She's done a lot to cultivate a high profile for herself.

And I genuinely think her involvement made the movie money. I think she made it way more visible and helped it get a much wider release. A lot of people actually went out and saw this movie in the theater, which is actually a big ask at this point, and I think the marketing campaign that had Lively very front and center and decked out in Versace at the premier with Ryan on one arm and her buddy Hugh Jackman (not involved in the film, just a friend she brought along to no doubt get more attention on the movie) on the other got way more traction than it would have with another actress.

Like I could see someone like Haley Lu Richardson in this role. She's a great actress who is younger and in theory would connect more with a younger audience and has a good track record doing emotionally resonant performances. But I guarantee a lot of people would be like "who?" And no one knew who Baldoni was before this whole conflict either. So a movie starring HLR and Baldoni might have been a better movie, but also no one would have seen it and it might not even have broken even.

This +100000

[Anonymous]

After the Olivia Wilde drama, Hollywood should ban actors from trying to become directors. Whether or not you're on Justin's side, it's clear the actors don't respect them.