Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure what will happen in court. But I repeat both complaints and I’ll say that I found a lot of Baldoni’s complaint ring true in terms of how things likely went down. At this point, I really want to see what the other people on the film say during the actual proceedings. Sony people, other producers, editors, the case, the intimacy coordinator who was hired before the movie even began and Baldoni says scripted the scenes. I feel like it’s hard to believe any particular PR team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what will happen in court. But I repeat both complaints and I’ll say that I found a lot of Baldoni’s complaint ring true in terms of how things likely went down. At this point, I really want to see what the other people on the film say during the actual proceedings. Sony people, other producers, editors, the case, the intimacy coordinator who was hired before the movie even began and Baldoni says scripted the scenes. I feel like it’s hard to believe any particular PR team.

I think Blake has a lot of witnesses to her claims b/c they almost all say "Blake and her employees or other cast and crew" like stop trying to sage everyone, no inappropriate jokes or touching, no disparaging comments. Also things like stop asking everyone about her weight and stop telling Blake you (Justin) are communicating with her dead father. Gross. Sounds like there were plenty of witnesses to the antics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what will happen in court. But I repeat both complaints and I’ll say that I found a lot of Baldoni’s complaint ring true in terms of how things likely went down. At this point, I really want to see what the other people on the film say during the actual proceedings. Sony people, other producers, editors, the case, the intimacy coordinator who was hired before the movie even began and Baldoni says scripted the scenes. I feel like it’s hard to believe any particular PR team.

I think Blake has a lot of witnesses to her claims b/c they almost all say "Blake and her employees or other cast and crew" like stop trying to sage everyone, no inappropriate jokes or touching, no disparaging comments. Also things like stop asking everyone about her weight and stop telling Blake you (Justin) are communicating with her dead father. Gross. Sounds like there were plenty of witnesses to the antics.

The fact that almost all seem to be on Blake's side confirms she's in the right to me. But I guess we'll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been a BL fan and I guess I'm still a fan of her work. I dont get why she needed to publicly destroy her coworker (and presumably boss? Since he is also director?). I get maybe a quiet lawsuit or mediation but she's dragging him in a very public manner, while also kind of ruining the movie.

Um did you miss the part where he hired a PR agency that basically destroyed her on the internet all year? I think that ruined the movie which is streaming and available to anyone who wants to watch it at this point.

Right. Their reputations are ruined. The reason Abel's response leak was because other PR agents for entertainers were discussing how immoral the tactics was in a FB group. Only a few agencies are that low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been a BL fan and I guess I'm still a fan of her work. I dont get why she needed to publicly destroy her coworker (and presumably boss? Since he is also director?). I get maybe a quiet lawsuit or mediation but she's dragging him in a very public manner, while also kind of ruining the movie.

Um did you miss the part where he hired a PR agency that basically destroyed her on the internet all year? I think that ruined the movie which is streaming and available to anyone who wants to watch it at this point.

Right. Their reputations are ruined. The reason Abel's response leak was because other PR agents for entertainers were discussing how immoral the tactics was in a FB group. Only a few agencies are that low.

That agent seemed so dumb. Using the company phone? A long rambling defense on FB? Stealing from her previous employer? She did nothing right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what will happen in court. But I repeat both complaints and I’ll say that I found a lot of Baldoni’s complaint ring true in terms of how things likely went down. At this point, I really want to see what the other people on the film say during the actual proceedings. Sony people, other producers, editors, the case, the intimacy coordinator who was hired before the movie even began and Baldoni says scripted the scenes. I feel like it’s hard to believe any particular PR team.

I think Blake has a lot of witnesses to her claims b/c they almost all say "Blake and her employees or other cast and crew" like stop trying to sage everyone, no inappropriate jokes or touching, no disparaging comments. Also things like stop asking everyone about her weight and stop telling Blake you (Justin) are communicating with her dead father. Gross. Sounds like there were plenty of witnesses to the antics.

The fact that almost all seem to be on Blake's side confirms she's in the right to me. But I guess we'll see.

If she was actually so mean and awful you would think the people in the know would be jumping on the anti-Blake bandwagon. But, curiously, she has everyone's support. Baldoni and his weird cronies have none.

[Anonymous]

I’m not making any judgments until the whole story is out. At this point it feels like this is two powerful people who didn’t get along but have too much at stake to just move on like the rest of us would.

Did you see this part (excerpt from People):

“For example, the Times article wrote that ‘[Baldoni] repeatedly entered [Lively's] makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including when she was breastfeeding.’

However, Baldoni's complaint shows alleged text messages from Lively that read, ‘I’m just pumping in my trailer if you wanna work out our lines.’ Baldoni responded, ‘Copy. Eating with crew and will head that way,’ which the lawsuit claims shows Baldoni did not enter uninvited.

It’s not fair to want to normalize breastfeeding/pumping (it’s just feeding your kid!) but then also ascribe it a sexual component. How would anyone understand how to behave there? I think a lot of her sexual harassment claims could be similarly NBD. Like when she says he hired his friend for some intimate scene. Is that a problem if the friend is a professional? Everyone knows everyone in Hollywood. What did this “friend” or JB do to make this problematic? There has to be more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not making any judgments until the whole story is out. At this point it feels like this is two powerful people who didn’t get along but have too much at stake to just move on like the rest of us would.

Did you see this part (excerpt from People):

“For example, the Times article wrote that ‘[Baldoni] repeatedly entered [Lively's] makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including when she was breastfeeding.’

However, Baldoni's complaint shows alleged text messages from Lively that read, ‘I’m just pumping in my trailer if you wanna work out our lines.’ Baldoni responded, ‘Copy. Eating with crew and will head that way,’ which the lawsuit claims shows Baldoni did not enter uninvited.

It’s not fair to want to normalize breastfeeding/pumping (it’s just feeding your kid!) but then also ascribe it a sexual component. How would anyone understand how to behave there? I think a lot of her sexual harassment claims could be similarly NBD. Like when she says he hired his friend for some intimate scene. Is that a problem if the friend is a professional? Everyone knows everyone in Hollywood. What did this “friend” or JB do to make this problematic? There has to be more.

Pumping and breastfeeding are not the same! One text is not a blanket invitation to enter whenever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm on Lively's side here and think Baldoni seems like he sucks, but I think NYT screwed up here. Their article felt off to me, and my sense is that it was fed to NYT by Lively's team to coincide with the complaint coming out. It was too heavy handed and putting Megan Twohey on the byline ensured it got a certain kind of attention. I suspect there was kind of a handshake between the Lively folks and NYT and they didn't go the due diligence they should have in getting Baldoni's side and reporting it neutrally.

I agree for the most part but he's going to lose. He contends the NYT uncritically pushed forward her narrative and cherry picked the facts that supported her. That's probably true. But that's not unlawful. All journalism is like that. They didn’t publish anything untrue, and as a public figure he has an even higher bar to clear. This is just an expensive way to get his story out and legitimize it.

PP here and I agree with you. I'm a lawyer and I think his case is weak on the law and precedent and that NYT will easily be able to hire the best possible 1st Amendment lawyers here.

But I just say this as someone who read the NYT piece when it came out and it immediately smelled bad to me. Like it smelled like PR plant so much that initially I was really skeptical of Lively's claims. It's a poorly sourced piece that uses too much "color" from Lively's side without offering any perspective from Baldoni or Wayfarer on those issues, and worst of all, fails to provide proper context. Like the piece should have provided more context about industry norms in order to more clearly explain what Lively was claiming. It was not until I read the full complaint that I more clearly understood Lively's claims and felt they had merit. As someone well versed in these issues, the NYT piece felt like a hit piece on Baldoni placed by Lively's people. Which is basically what it was.

NYT has a good track record on the Hollywood #metoo issues so I was particularly disappointed, and disappointed to see Twohey's byline on a piece that was so poorly written and sourced. I hope they do an internal review because I think it's an embarrassment to a paper that has a deservedly good reputation in this arena.

And yes Baldoni's PR people did the same thing to Lively over the summer but (1) that's part of why she's suing, because it's wrong, and (2) the NYT should have higher standards than Reddit and tabloid rags.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not making any judgments until the whole story is out. At this point it feels like this is two powerful people who didn’t get along but have too much at stake to just move on like the rest of us would.

Did you see this part (excerpt from People):

“For example, the Times article wrote that ‘[Baldoni] repeatedly entered [Lively's] makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including when she was breastfeeding.’

However, Baldoni's complaint shows alleged text messages from Lively that read, ‘I’m just pumping in my trailer if you wanna work out our lines.’ Baldoni responded, ‘Copy. Eating with crew and will head that way,’ which the lawsuit claims shows Baldoni did not enter uninvited.

It’s not fair to want to normalize breastfeeding/pumping (it’s just feeding your kid!) but then also ascribe it a sexual component. How would anyone understand how to behave there? I think a lot of her sexual harassment claims could be similarly NBD. Like when she says he hired his friend for some intimate scene. Is that a problem if the friend is a professional? Everyone knows everyone in Hollywood. What did this “friend” or JB do to make this problematic? There has to be more.

Pumping and breastfeeding are not the same! One text is not a blanket invitation to enter whenever.

As someone who pumped and BF, pumping in front a stranger is way weirder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm on Lively's side here and think Baldoni seems like he sucks, but I think NYT screwed up here. Their article felt off to me, and my sense is that it was fed to NYT by Lively's team to coincide with the complaint coming out. It was too heavy handed and putting Megan Twohey on the byline ensured it got a certain kind of attention. I suspect there was kind of a handshake between the Lively folks and NYT and they didn't go the due diligence they should have in getting Baldoni's side and reporting it neutrally.

I agree for the most part but he's going to lose. He contends the NYT uncritically pushed forward her narrative and cherry picked the facts that supported her. That's probably true. But that's not unlawful. All journalism is like that. They didn’t publish anything untrue, and as a public figure he has an even higher bar to clear. This is just an expensive way to get his story out and legitimize it.

PP here and I agree with you. I'm a lawyer and I think his case is weak on the law and precedent and that NYT will easily be able to hire the best possible 1st Amendment lawyers here.

But I just say this as someone who read the NYT piece when it came out and it immediately smelled bad to me. Like it smelled like PR plant so much that initially I was really skeptical of Lively's claims. It's a poorly sourced piece that uses too much "color" from Lively's side without offering any perspective from Baldoni or Wayfarer on those issues, and worst of all, fails to provide proper context. Like the piece should have provided more context about industry norms in order to more clearly explain what Lively was claiming. It was not until I read the full complaint that I more clearly understood Lively's claims and felt they had merit. As someone well versed in these issues, the NYT piece felt like a hit piece on Baldoni placed by Lively's people. Which is basically what it was.

NYT has a good track record on the Hollywood #metoo issues so I was particularly disappointed, and disappointed to see Twohey's byline on a piece that was so poorly written and sourced. I hope they do an internal review because I think it's an embarrassment to a paper that has a deservedly good reputation in this arena.

And yes Baldoni's PR people did the same thing to Lively over the summer but (1) that's part of why she's suing, because it's wrong, and (2) the NYT should have higher standards than Reddit and tabloid rags.

+1. Well said. I am a little more conflicted on the use of PR people to circulate unflattering but true statements, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not making any judgments until the whole story is out. At this point it feels like this is two powerful people who didn’t get along but have too much at stake to just move on like the rest of us would.

Did you see this part (excerpt from People):

“For example, the Times article wrote that ‘[Baldoni] repeatedly entered [Lively's] makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including when she was breastfeeding.’

However, Baldoni's complaint shows alleged text messages from Lively that read, ‘I’m just pumping in my trailer if you wanna work out our lines.’ Baldoni responded, ‘Copy. Eating with crew and will head that way,’ which the lawsuit claims shows Baldoni did not enter uninvited.

It’s not fair to want to normalize breastfeeding/pumping (it’s just feeding your kid!) but then also ascribe it a sexual component. How would anyone understand how to behave there? I think a lot of her sexual harassment claims could be similarly NBD. Like when she says he hired his friend for some intimate scene. Is that a problem if the friend is a professional? Everyone knows everyone in Hollywood. What did this “friend” or JB do to make this problematic? There has to be more.

Agree those texts would show that on that specific occasion, Baldoni had a kind of invitation to her trailer and also indicate that Lively did not seem concerned about being seen pumping or breastfeeding (IME it is harder to conceal your boobs while pumping than while nursing, and I personally find pumping to be a more awkward experience during which to interact with another person).

However, that doesn't undermine Lively's complaint that much. She's alleging a pattern of harassing behavior. Even if the court or a jury finds that Baldoni had permission to enter her trailer on that occasion, or that Lively was comfortable with him nearby while nursing or pumping, there are a bunch of other claims in her complaint that would be unaffected by that defense. For instance, Lively reports being pressured to do scenes nude or partially nude that were not originally written that way and for which the intimacy coordinator had not been consulted and there were no nudity riders in place. She also reports that Baldoni went "off script" in scenes not written to be intimate in nature (for instance a scene in which they were dancing together and that was filmed without audio) and engaged in intimate activity with Lively without the intimacy coordinator or cleaning that with Lively in advance so that she could prepare and feel comfortable. She also alleges that both she and her staff were shown videos of a naked woman giving birth, without their consent, engaged in conversations about porn and sexual experiences, and that Baldoni on multiple occasions off the set made comments about Lively's body and clothing that was sexual in nature.

Baldoni's complaint does not address all of these and most of them have multiple witnesses and documentation to support the claims.

So even if Baldoni had permission to enter Lively's trailer while she was pumping, that doesn't disprove her entire complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not making any judgments until the whole story is out. At this point it feels like this is two powerful people who didn’t get along but have too much at stake to just move on like the rest of us would.

Did you see this part (excerpt from People):

“For example, the Times article wrote that ‘[Baldoni] repeatedly entered [Lively's] makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including when she was breastfeeding.’

However, Baldoni's complaint shows alleged text messages from Lively that read, ‘I’m just pumping in my trailer if you wanna work out our lines.’ Baldoni responded, ‘Copy. Eating with crew and will head that way,’ which the lawsuit claims shows Baldoni did not enter uninvited.

It’s not fair to want to normalize breastfeeding/pumping (it’s just feeding your kid!) but then also ascribe it a sexual component. How would anyone understand how to behave there? I think a lot of her sexual harassment claims could be similarly NBD. Like when she says he hired his friend for some intimate scene. Is that a problem if the friend is a professional? Everyone knows everyone in Hollywood. What did this “friend” or JB do to make this problematic? There has to be more.

Pumping and breastfeeding are not the same! One text is not a blanket invitation to enter whenever.

As someone who pumped and BF, pumping in front a stranger is way weirder.

I wouldn't want to either, but I think because the baby is there for BF it can be more personal or at least crosses a boundary between work and family time. If she's with her baby she probably doesn't want to practice her lines or whatever Baldoni want to discuss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not making any judgments until the whole story is out. At this point it feels like this is two powerful people who didn’t get along but have too much at stake to just move on like the rest of us would.

Did you see this part (excerpt from People):

“For example, the Times article wrote that ‘[Baldoni] repeatedly entered [Lively's] makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including when she was breastfeeding.’

However, Baldoni's complaint shows alleged text messages from Lively that read, ‘I’m just pumping in my trailer if you wanna work out our lines.’ Baldoni responded, ‘Copy. Eating with crew and will head that way,’ which the lawsuit claims shows Baldoni did not enter uninvited.

It’s not fair to want to normalize breastfeeding/pumping (it’s just feeding your kid!) but then also ascribe it a sexual component. How would anyone understand how to behave there? I think a lot of her sexual harassment claims could be similarly NBD. Like when she says he hired his friend for some intimate scene. Is that a problem if the friend is a professional? Everyone knows everyone in Hollywood. What did this “friend” or JB do to make this problematic? There has to be more.

Pumping and breastfeeding are not the same! One text is not a blanket invitation to enter whenever.

As someone who pumped and BF, pumping in front a stranger is way weirder.

Very much so. I never had any issue breastfeeding in front of people (it's not that hard to conceal most of what is happening either). But pumping feels so mechanical and dehumanizing. It always reminded me the milking machines they hook milk cows up to on factor farms (for good reason, it's essentially the same technology). And I found the lack of support from my work regarding giving me privacy for pumping to be extra frustrating as a result. It would be like if you had to give yourself insulin shots in your butt multiple times a day and your work was like "can't you just do that in your cubicle? we'll ask people not to look over the half wall while you're doing it -- maybe hang a sign to announce to everyone that your pants are down and explaining your medical condition so they know exactly what is going on."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not making any judgments until the whole story is out. At this point it feels like this is two powerful people who didn’t get along but have too much at stake to just move on like the rest of us would.

Did you see this part (excerpt from People):

“For example, the Times article wrote that ‘[Baldoni] repeatedly entered [Lively's] makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including when she was breastfeeding.’

However, Baldoni's complaint shows alleged text messages from Lively that read, ‘I’m just pumping in my trailer if you wanna work out our lines.’ Baldoni responded, ‘Copy. Eating with crew and will head that way,’ which the lawsuit claims shows Baldoni did not enter uninvited.

It’s not fair to want to normalize breastfeeding/pumping (it’s just feeding your kid!) but then also ascribe it a sexual component. How would anyone understand how to behave there? I think a lot of her sexual harassment claims could be similarly NBD. Like when she says he hired his friend for some intimate scene. Is that a problem if the friend is a professional? Everyone knows everyone in Hollywood. What did this “friend” or JB do to make this problematic? There has to be more.

Pumping and breastfeeding are not the same! One text is not a blanket invitation to enter whenever.

As someone who pumped and BF, pumping in front a stranger is way weirder.

I wouldn't want to either, but I think because the baby is there for BF it can be more personal or at least crosses a boundary between work and family time. If she's with her baby she probably doesn't want to practice her lines or whatever Baldoni want to discuss.

Do you see all this extra explanation you are making between the two? A jury is not going to parse that deeply. It’s a sexual harassment claim- it’s about her boob exposure. This isn’t good for her.