Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following Perez Hilton on instagram? He has done several short deep dive videos on this.

His latest goes on to say that the suing of the New York Times was not actually to win, but to be able to do discovery. What that allowed them to do was bring several notes and texts and other proof that Justin hired an intimacy coordinator before filming began and set up a meeting. Blake did not want to attend the meeting and said she’d like to start meeting when production began. Texts prove this.

Justin emailed other producers that this would delay workflows but they’d work around it. The intimacy coordinator is there to help them coordinate and choreograph scenes so not really something that’s done on set, it’s done before -it’s part of the scripting. What sex scenes will there be, what will they look like, etc. It’s not supposed to be done on the fly on set.

Justin met with the intimacy coordinator SEVERAL TIMES and Blake didn’t want to attend those meetings - he was then tasked with sharing his handwritten and dated notes with Blake – that is what she said in the times article was her being uncomfortable with him talking about sexual experiences! If she been at the damn meetings that would have been a lot more professional. the intimacy coordinator suggested a few sex scenes and since Blake wasn’t at the meeting, Justin had to relay them . but the intimacy coordinator would’ve helped them work through any awkwardness -that is why she is there! She was trying to choreograph scenes that would make them both comfortable.

The NYT really dropped the ball with leaving out that critical context. It made it look like Blake all of a sudden had to demand an intimacy coordinator when there was one all along that she wouldn’t meet with.

That was one of the strangest things I thought about this whole suit, that in a big budget production like this, with such demanding physical scenes given the domestic violence theme, that there wouldn’t be an intimacy coordinator which is at this point an industry standard. Well, this shows there very much was one from the beginning that Justin was forced to work with alone - which her lawsuit and the times article deliberately obscures.

Before filming began? So filming began in May 2023. She had a baby in February 2023. Maybe that had something to do with it and why she wanted to wait until filming began. Just a hunch that she had other things going on.

Lol, like attending Taylor swifts eras tour in Madrid? Please.

In addition, she was getting ready to launch a hair care line and she had two other businesses with her mock tail and cocktail lines. Maybe she just took on too much. I firmly believe women can have it all, but maybe not all at one time.

If she was not prepared to do a big movie so soon after having her child, she simply should not have signed the contract for the film. I’m sorry, but this makes all women look bad if you just say well she just had a baby she couldn’t possibly be expected to uphold the standards of the industry!

Prrez Hilton just published another video which completely gives another depiction of what happened in the early days of production with her getting feedback about her appearance. Apparently sony the distributor was very upset that paparazzi had gotten photos of Blake out in New York on set in some of her characters outfits. If you recall the photos got a lot of backlash on Instagram that Blake was too old to play Lily. Lily was 23 in the book, but Colleen Hoover explained for the movie they had to make the characters older because an acclaimed neurosurgeon could not have been 27 years old like in the book. So they aged up all the characters so that Ryle could be an actual experienced neurosurgeon, and then it made sense that Lily was older too.

But it generated a lot of backlash from fans. It was Sony who had concerns about this that they bought to Justin the director. He says he was conveying notes from Sony in her trailer along the lines of changing some of the wardrobe choices, so he claims. He said he didn’t tear up about Blake looking old, but toward the end of the conversation, she complimented him on what a great job he was doing, and what a great director he was and he teared up. It sounds like she completely distorted that conversation? But who knows, it does sound like a lot of he said she said, but. if Justin’s team can show that Sony gave those notes that would probably help his case and hurt hers.

I don't view that as exonerating. The issue with the paparazzi photos, the online complaining about Lively's age, and Sony's unhappiness are all things that Baldoni was in charge of dealing with and Lively... was not. He was the director and his company was producing. Dealing with unhappiness from the studio is part of that job. Going to Lively and saying "everyone is saying you're too old for this role and your outfits are bad" is totally unproductive and unprofessional. What is Lively going to do? Be younger? Recast herself? If Baldoni wanted to change up her costuming that was within his control even though Lively had played a big role in selecting Lily's clothes. He was the director, he could have overruled her if he wanted to.

So no I don't think it helps his case that Sony gave those notes, at least not on this issue. Lively wasn't directing or producing the movie. Baldoni was her boss. What would you do if your boss came into your office, started complaining about some conflict with higher ups that impacts you but over which you have zero control, and then started crying? I would view that as very unprofessional and burdening me with stuff way beyond my actual job.

Baldoni was the director, that was his problem to figure out. He should have worked with the film's PR team to combat the negative press, sought to do a better job securing the set, and perhaps worked with the costume department if he was worried about Lily's look for the film. I don't see what going to Lively and complaining about it did except make his star actress feel self conscious about her age, something she has no control. It comes off as immature and unprofessional.

He even says he did have that conversation with her, upset over online reactions to her age. She said he cried about it to her, he says he merely "teared up" either way WTF? How is any of that appropriate?

It's not appropriate in a regular professional setting. But I think actors tend to share more emotions than average co-workers due to the intimate nature of their work. That's why there are so many issues with romantic entanglement on film sets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following Perez Hilton on instagram? He has done several short deep dive videos on this.

His latest goes on to say that the suing of the New York Times was not actually to win, but to be able to do discovery. What that allowed them to do was bring several notes and texts and other proof that Justin hired an intimacy coordinator before filming began and set up a meeting. Blake did not want to attend the meeting and said she’d like to start meeting when production began. Texts prove this.

Justin emailed other producers that this would delay workflows but they’d work around it. The intimacy coordinator is there to help them coordinate and choreograph scenes so not really something that’s done on set, it’s done before -it’s part of the scripting. What sex scenes will there be, what will they look like, etc. It’s not supposed to be done on the fly on set.

Justin met with the intimacy coordinator SEVERAL TIMES and Blake didn’t want to attend those meetings - he was then tasked with sharing his handwritten and dated notes with Blake – that is what she said in the times article was her being uncomfortable with him talking about sexual experiences! If she been at the damn meetings that would have been a lot more professional. the intimacy coordinator suggested a few sex scenes and since Blake wasn’t at the meeting, Justin had to relay them . but the intimacy coordinator would’ve helped them work through any awkwardness -that is why she is there! She was trying to choreograph scenes that would make them both comfortable.

The NYT really dropped the ball with leaving out that critical context. It made it look like Blake all of a sudden had to demand an intimacy coordinator when there was one all along that she wouldn’t meet with.

That was one of the strangest things I thought about this whole suit, that in a big budget production like this, with such demanding physical scenes given the domestic violence theme, that there wouldn’t be an intimacy coordinator which is at this point an industry standard. Well, this shows there very much was one from the beginning that Justin was forced to work with alone - which her lawsuit and the times article deliberately obscures.

Before filming began? So filming began in May 2023. She had a baby in February 2023. Maybe that had something to do with it and why she wanted to wait until filming began. Just a hunch that she had other things going on.

Lol, like attending Taylor swifts eras tour in Madrid? Please.

In addition, she was getting ready to launch a hair care line and she had two other businesses with her mock tail and cocktail lines. Maybe she just took on too much. I firmly believe women can have it all, but maybe not all at one time.

If she was not prepared to do a big movie so soon after having her child, she simply should not have signed the contract for the film. I’m sorry, but this makes all women look bad if you just say well she just had a baby she couldn’t possibly be expected to uphold the standards of the industry!

Prrez Hilton just published another video which completely gives another depiction of what happened in the early days of production with her getting feedback about her appearance. Apparently sony the distributor was very upset that paparazzi had gotten photos of Blake out in New York on set in some of her characters outfits. If you recall the photos got a lot of backlash on Instagram that Blake was too old to play Lily. Lily was 23 in the book, but Colleen Hoover explained for the movie they had to make the characters older because an acclaimed neurosurgeon could not have been 27 years old like in the book. So they aged up all the characters so that Ryle could be an actual experienced neurosurgeon, and then it made sense that Lily was older too.

But it generated a lot of backlash from fans. It was Sony who had concerns about this that they bought to Justin the director. He says he was conveying notes from Sony in her trailer along the lines of changing some of the wardrobe choices, so he claims. He said he didn’t tear up about Blake looking old, but toward the end of the conversation, she complimented him on what a great job he was doing, and what a great director he was and he teared up. It sounds like she completely distorted that conversation? But who knows, it does sound like a lot of he said she said, but. if Justin’s team can show that Sony gave those notes that would probably help his case and hurt hers.

I don't view that as exonerating. The issue with the paparazzi photos, the online complaining about Lively's age, and Sony's unhappiness are all things that Baldoni was in charge of dealing with and Lively... was not. He was the director and his company was producing. Dealing with unhappiness from the studio is part of that job. Going to Lively and saying "everyone is saying you're too old for this role and your outfits are bad" is totally unproductive and unprofessional. What is Lively going to do? Be younger? Recast herself? If Baldoni wanted to change up her costuming that was within his control even though Lively had played a big role in selecting Lily's clothes. He was the director, he could have overruled her if he wanted to.

So no I don't think it helps his case that Sony gave those notes, at least not on this issue. Lively wasn't directing or producing the movie. Baldoni was her boss. What would you do if your boss came into your office, started complaining about some conflict with higher ups that impacts you but over which you have zero control, and then started crying? I would view that as very unprofessional and burdening me with stuff way beyond my actual job.

Baldoni was the director, that was his problem to figure out. He should have worked with the film's PR team to combat the negative press, sought to do a better job securing the set, and perhaps worked with the costume department if he was worried about Lily's look for the film. I don't see what going to Lively and complaining about it did except make his star actress feel self conscious about her age, something she has no control. It comes off as immature and unprofessional.

He even says he did have that conversation with her, upset over online reactions to her age. She said he cried about it to her, he says he merely "teared up" either way WTF? How is any of that appropriate?

It's not appropriate in a regular professional setting. But I think actors tend to share more emotions than average co-workers due to the intimate nature of their work. That's why there are so many issues with romantic entanglement on film sets.

The irony being the entire conversation would not have happened if they had left it up to the professionals to dress Blake. In all films of that budget, you would hire professional costume designers. But Blake insisted on using her pieces from her own wardrobe and from her best friend‘s wardrobe and coordinating the design of her outfits. If anyone saw the movie, you’d know she looked like a damn clown show. I didn’t really notice that much but my 16-year-old daughter and her friends who all liked the movie,thought Blake’s ‘s clothes were terrible. I think at one point Blake was known as this it girl when it comes to style, but that’s been over a decade ago. Times have moved on and I don’t know why she was given full power to design her wardrobe in this film.

A lot of the backlash from social media early on were about the clothes. And Justin could have taken that to a costume person and had that conversation. Of course had there been a professional costume designer they wouldn’t have needed to have that conversation. But the point is Blake would never have needed to be brought in on conversations like that had she not insisted on wearing and choosing her own clothes.

I think Blake has gotten really high on herself because of her proximity to power through her marriage. She thinks she is a wonderful business woman, despite failed and failing businesses, that she is the style powerhouse when that time passed along time ago, that she can executive produce films, when it seems like this was just a title that was plastered on after the movie had been shot to assuage her. She also fancies herself a writer because she’s made some suggestions in her husband’s movies. I just think if left to her own devices and if she had married someone less successful than Ryan, she wouldn’t be having these problems. I frankly think her marriage to Ryan benefits him a lot more than it benefit her.

A lot of lines were crossed in this movie, it sounds like everyone on all sides. It’s kind of fascinating to see the sausage making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following Perez Hilton on instagram? He has done several short deep dive videos on this.

His latest goes on to say that the suing of the New York Times was not actually to win, but to be able to do discovery. What that allowed them to do was bring several notes and texts and other proof that Justin hired an intimacy coordinator before filming began and set up a meeting. Blake did not want to attend the meeting and said she’d like to start meeting when production began. Texts prove this.

Justin emailed other producers that this would delay workflows but they’d work around it. The intimacy coordinator is there to help them coordinate and choreograph scenes so not really something that’s done on set, it’s done before -it’s part of the scripting. What sex scenes will there be, what will they look like, etc. It’s not supposed to be done on the fly on set.

Justin met with the intimacy coordinator SEVERAL TIMES and Blake didn’t want to attend those meetings - he was then tasked with sharing his handwritten and dated notes with Blake – that is what she said in the times article was her being uncomfortable with him talking about sexual experiences! If she been at the damn meetings that would have been a lot more professional. the intimacy coordinator suggested a few sex scenes and since Blake wasn’t at the meeting, Justin had to relay them . but the intimacy coordinator would’ve helped them work through any awkwardness -that is why she is there! She was trying to choreograph scenes that would make them both comfortable.

The NYT really dropped the ball with leaving out that critical context. It made it look like Blake all of a sudden had to demand an intimacy coordinator when there was one all along that she wouldn’t meet with.

That was one of the strangest things I thought about this whole suit, that in a big budget production like this, with such demanding physical scenes given the domestic violence theme, that there wouldn’t be an intimacy coordinator which is at this point an industry standard. Well, this shows there very much was one from the beginning that Justin was forced to work with alone - which her lawsuit and the times article deliberately obscures.

Before filming began? So filming began in May 2023. She had a baby in February 2023. Maybe that had something to do with it and why she wanted to wait until filming began. Just a hunch that she had other things going on.

Lol, like attending Taylor swifts eras tour in Madrid? Please.

In late May?

Yes. May 29th, 2023. Blake lively does not do life or maternity the same way us peasants do.

May 29, 2023 was one of the three NYC shows (at MetLife stadium in NJ). I know because I attended that day. That date was smack in the middle of the US leg of the tour. I assure you neither Blake nor Taylor was in Madrid.

Sorry you’re right. Blake lively was actually at the Philadelphia show on May 14th, 2023. Madrid was May 2024. Either way, she was certainly out and about and not at home breastfeeding a crying baby every three hours and watching wake windows. She may be a good mom (I honestly have no idea) but let’s not pretend she’s not a celebrity mom with a thousand Nannies.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2023/05/14/taylor-swift-greets-blake-lively-ryan-reynolds-kids-eagles-debate/70216406007/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following Perez Hilton on instagram? He has done several short deep dive videos on this.

His latest goes on to say that the suing of the New York Times was not actually to win, but to be able to do discovery. What that allowed them to do was bring several notes and texts and other proof that Justin hired an intimacy coordinator before filming began and set up a meeting. Blake did not want to attend the meeting and said she’d like to start meeting when production began. Texts prove this.

Justin emailed other producers that this would delay workflows but they’d work around it. The intimacy coordinator is there to help them coordinate and choreograph scenes so not really something that’s done on set, it’s done before -it’s part of the scripting. What sex scenes will there be, what will they look like, etc. It’s not supposed to be done on the fly on set.

Justin met with the intimacy coordinator SEVERAL TIMES and Blake didn’t want to attend those meetings - he was then tasked with sharing his handwritten and dated notes with Blake – that is what she said in the times article was her being uncomfortable with him talking about sexual experiences! If she been at the damn meetings that would have been a lot more professional. the intimacy coordinator suggested a few sex scenes and since Blake wasn’t at the meeting, Justin had to relay them . but the intimacy coordinator would’ve helped them work through any awkwardness -that is why she is there! She was trying to choreograph scenes that would make them both comfortable.

The NYT really dropped the ball with leaving out that critical context. It made it look like Blake all of a sudden had to demand an intimacy coordinator when there was one all along that she wouldn’t meet with.

That was one of the strangest things I thought about this whole suit, that in a big budget production like this, with such demanding physical scenes given the domestic violence theme, that there wouldn’t be an intimacy coordinator which is at this point an industry standard. Well, this shows there very much was one from the beginning that Justin was forced to work with alone - which her lawsuit and the times article deliberately obscures.

Before filming began? So filming began in May 2023. She had a baby in February 2023. Maybe that had something to do with it and why she wanted to wait until filming began. Just a hunch that she had other things going on.

Lol, like attending Taylor swifts eras tour in Madrid? Please.

In late May?

Yes. May 29th, 2023. Blake lively does not do life or maternity the same way us peasants do.

May 29, 2023 was one of the three NYC shows (at MetLife stadium in NJ). I know because I attended that day. That date was smack in the middle of the US leg of the tour. I assure you neither Blake nor Taylor was in Madrid.

Sorry you’re right. Blake lively was actually at the Philadelphia show on May 14th, 2023. Madrid was May 2024. Either way, she was certainly out and about and not at home breastfeeding a crying baby every three hours and watching wake windows. She may be a good mom (I honestly have no idea) but let’s not pretend she’s not a celebrity mom with a thousand Nannies.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2023/05/14/taylor-swift-greets-blake-lively-ryan-reynolds-kids-eagles-debate/70216406007/

But still May. How do you know what she was doing in the 8-12 weeks after birth? This isn’t some winning point. They even said they would work around it and it wouldn’t cause delays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following Perez Hilton on instagram? He has done several short deep dive videos on this.

His latest goes on to say that the suing of the New York Times was not actually to win, but to be able to do discovery. What that allowed them to do was bring several notes and texts and other proof that Justin hired an intimacy coordinator before filming began and set up a meeting. Blake did not want to attend the meeting and said she’d like to start meeting when production began. Texts prove this.

Justin emailed other producers that this would delay workflows but they’d work around it. The intimacy coordinator is there to help them coordinate and choreograph scenes so not really something that’s done on set, it’s done before -it’s part of the scripting. What sex scenes will there be, what will they look like, etc. It’s not supposed to be done on the fly on set.

Justin met with the intimacy coordinator SEVERAL TIMES and Blake didn’t want to attend those meetings - he was then tasked with sharing his handwritten and dated notes with Blake – that is what she said in the times article was her being uncomfortable with him talking about sexual experiences! If she been at the damn meetings that would have been a lot more professional. the intimacy coordinator suggested a few sex scenes and since Blake wasn’t at the meeting, Justin had to relay them . but the intimacy coordinator would’ve helped them work through any awkwardness -that is why she is there! She was trying to choreograph scenes that would make them both comfortable.

The NYT really dropped the ball with leaving out that critical context. It made it look like Blake all of a sudden had to demand an intimacy coordinator when there was one all along that she wouldn’t meet with.

That was one of the strangest things I thought about this whole suit, that in a big budget production like this, with such demanding physical scenes given the domestic violence theme, that there wouldn’t be an intimacy coordinator which is at this point an industry standard. Well, this shows there very much was one from the beginning that Justin was forced to work with alone - which her lawsuit and the times article deliberately obscures.

Before filming began? So filming began in May 2023. She had a baby in February 2023. Maybe that had something to do with it and why she wanted to wait until filming began. Just a hunch that she had other things going on.

Lol, like attending Taylor swifts eras tour in Madrid? Please.

In addition, she was getting ready to launch a hair care line and she had two other businesses with her mock tail and cocktail lines. Maybe she just took on too much. I firmly believe women can have it all, but maybe not all at one time.

If she was not prepared to do a big movie so soon after having her child, she simply should not have signed the contract for the film. I’m sorry, but this makes all women look bad if you just say well she just had a baby she couldn’t possibly be expected to uphold the standards of the industry!

Prrez Hilton just published another video which completely gives another depiction of what happened in the early days of production with her getting feedback about her appearance. Apparently sony the distributor was very upset that paparazzi had gotten photos of Blake out in New York on set in some of her characters outfits. If you recall the photos got a lot of backlash on Instagram that Blake was too old to play Lily. Lily was 23 in the book, but Colleen Hoover explained for the movie they had to make the characters older because an acclaimed neurosurgeon could not have been 27 years old like in the book. So they aged up all the characters so that Ryle could be an actual experienced neurosurgeon, and then it made sense that Lily was older too.

But it generated a lot of backlash from fans. It was Sony who had concerns about this that they bought to Justin the director. He says he was conveying notes from Sony in her trailer along the lines of changing some of the wardrobe choices, so he claims. He said he didn’t tear up about Blake looking old, but toward the end of the conversation, she complimented him on what a great job he was doing, and what a great director he was and he teared up. It sounds like she completely distorted that conversation? But who knows, it does sound like a lot of he said she said, but. if Justin’s team can show that Sony gave those notes that would probably help his case and hurt hers.

I don't view that as exonerating. The issue with the paparazzi photos, the online complaining about Lively's age, and Sony's unhappiness are all things that Baldoni was in charge of dealing with and Lively... was not. He was the director and his company was producing. Dealing with unhappiness from the studio is part of that job. Going to Lively and saying "everyone is saying you're too old for this role and your outfits are bad" is totally unproductive and unprofessional. What is Lively going to do? Be younger? Recast herself? If Baldoni wanted to change up her costuming that was within his control even though Lively had played a big role in selecting Lily's clothes. He was the director, he could have overruled her if he wanted to.

So no I don't think it helps his case that Sony gave those notes, at least not on this issue. Lively wasn't directing or producing the movie. Baldoni was her boss. What would you do if your boss came into your office, started complaining about some conflict with higher ups that impacts you but over which you have zero control, and then started crying? I would view that as very unprofessional and burdening me with stuff way beyond my actual job.

Baldoni was the director, that was his problem to figure out. He should have worked with the film's PR team to combat the negative press, sought to do a better job securing the set, and perhaps worked with the costume department if he was worried about Lily's look for the film. I don't see what going to Lively and complaining about it did except make his star actress feel self conscious about her age, something she has no control. It comes off as immature and unprofessional.

He even says he did have that conversation with her, upset over online reactions to her age. She said he cried about it to her, he says he merely "teared up" either way WTF? How is any of that appropriate?

It's not appropriate in a regular professional setting. But I think actors tend to share more emotions than average co-workers due to the intimate nature of their work. That's why there are so many issues with romantic entanglement on film sets.

The irony being the entire conversation would not have happened if they had left it up to the professionals to dress Blake. In all films of that budget, you would hire professional costume designers. But Blake insisted on using her pieces from her own wardrobe and from her best friend‘s wardrobe and coordinating the design of her outfits. If anyone saw the movie, you’d know she looked like a damn clown show. I didn’t really notice that much but my 16-year-old daughter and her friends who all liked the movie,thought Blake’s ‘s clothes were terrible. I think at one point Blake was known as this it girl when it comes to style, but that’s been over a decade ago. Times have moved on and I don’t know why she was given full power to design her wardrobe in this film.

A lot of the backlash from social media early on were about the clothes. And Justin could have taken that to a costume person and had that conversation. Of course had there been a professional costume designer they wouldn’t have needed to have that conversation. But the point is Blake would never have needed to be brought in on conversations like that had she not insisted on wearing and choosing her own clothes.

I think Blake has gotten really high on herself because of her proximity to power through her marriage. She thinks she is a wonderful business woman, despite failed and failing businesses, that she is the style powerhouse when that time passed along time ago, that she can executive produce films, when it seems like this was just a title that was plastered on after the movie had been shot to assuage her. She also fancies herself a writer because she’s made some suggestions in her husband’s movies. I just think if left to her own devices and if she had married someone less successful than Ryan, she wouldn’t be having these problems. I frankly think her marriage to Ryan benefits him a lot more than it benefit her.

A lot of lines were crossed in this movie, it sounds like everyone on all sides. It’s kind of fascinating to see the sausage making.

I didn't know that she picked her own outfits. I remember some when she was photographed on the set in some ugly jeans and everyone on DM was wondering why she was wearing such an unflattering outfit. I frankly think this was never going to be a mega-hit because the writer is basically for upper middle class women. I thought the book and movie sounded so stupid - mainly the name "Lilly Bloom" - and the simplicity turned me off. Then I thought the cast controversy was a publicity ploy a la the "Don't Worry Darling" press tour. Apparently the controversy here is real, but I can't be the only one that was turned off by all the crap and doesn't care to see any sequel to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following Perez Hilton on instagram? He has done several short deep dive videos on this.

His latest goes on to say that the suing of the New York Times was not actually to win, but to be able to do discovery. What that allowed them to do was bring several notes and texts and other proof that Justin hired an intimacy coordinator before filming began and set up a meeting. Blake did not want to attend the meeting and said she’d like to start meeting when production began. Texts prove this.

Justin emailed other producers that this would delay workflows but they’d work around it. The intimacy coordinator is there to help them coordinate and choreograph scenes so not really something that’s done on set, it’s done before -it’s part of the scripting. What sex scenes will there be, what will they look like, etc. It’s not supposed to be done on the fly on set.

Justin met with the intimacy coordinator SEVERAL TIMES and Blake didn’t want to attend those meetings - he was then tasked with sharing his handwritten and dated notes with Blake – that is what she said in the times article was her being uncomfortable with him talking about sexual experiences! If she been at the damn meetings that would have been a lot more professional. the intimacy coordinator suggested a few sex scenes and since Blake wasn’t at the meeting, Justin had to relay them . but the intimacy coordinator would’ve helped them work through any awkwardness -that is why she is there! She was trying to choreograph scenes that would make them both comfortable.

The NYT really dropped the ball with leaving out that critical context. It made it look like Blake all of a sudden had to demand an intimacy coordinator when there was one all along that she wouldn’t meet with.

That was one of the strangest things I thought about this whole suit, that in a big budget production like this, with such demanding physical scenes given the domestic violence theme, that there wouldn’t be an intimacy coordinator which is at this point an industry standard. Well, this shows there very much was one from the beginning that Justin was forced to work with alone - which her lawsuit and the times article deliberately obscures.

Before filming began? So filming began in May 2023. She had a baby in February 2023. Maybe that had something to do with it and why she wanted to wait until filming began. Just a hunch that she had other things going on.

Lol, like attending Taylor swifts eras tour in Madrid? Please.

In late May?

Yes. May 29th, 2023. Blake lively does not do life or maternity the same way us peasants do.

May 29, 2023 was one of the three NYC shows (at MetLife stadium in NJ). I know because I attended that day. That date was smack in the middle of the US leg of the tour. I assure you neither Blake nor Taylor was in Madrid.

Sorry you’re right. Blake lively was actually at the Philadelphia show on May 14th, 2023. Madrid was May 2024. Either way, she was certainly out and about and not at home breastfeeding a crying baby every three hours and watching wake windows. She may be a good mom (I honestly have no idea) but let’s not pretend she’s not a celebrity mom with a thousand Nannies.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2023/05/14/taylor-swift-greets-blake-lively-ryan-reynolds-kids-eagles-debate/70216406007/

But still May. How do you know what she was doing in the 8-12 weeks after birth? This isn’t some winning point. They even said they would work around it and it wouldn’t cause delays.

Text said it would cause the ways but it would work around it. Justin was trying to placate her, which makes sense if she’s the leading lady. But it did cause delays.

Either way that’s beside the point, the initial lawsuit and the times article acted as if she was not given the option of working with an intimacy coordinator at all. It got a lot of pushback because since 2020 it’s been industry standard to work with one. It just seemed lazy on the part of the lawsuit unless they just wanted to get the public attention and hoped that would be that. It certainly worked for a new cycle, but when Justin came back with texts refuting it now it just makes her look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following Perez Hilton on instagram? He has done several short deep dive videos on this.

His latest goes on to say that the suing of the New York Times was not actually to win, but to be able to do discovery. What that allowed them to do was bring several notes and texts and other proof that Justin hired an intimacy coordinator before filming began and set up a meeting. Blake did not want to attend the meeting and said she’d like to start meeting when production began. Texts prove this.

Justin emailed other producers that this would delay workflows but they’d work around it. The intimacy coordinator is there to help them coordinate and choreograph scenes so not really something that’s done on set, it’s done before -it’s part of the scripting. What sex scenes will there be, what will they look like, etc. It’s not supposed to be done on the fly on set.

Justin met with the intimacy coordinator SEVERAL TIMES and Blake didn’t want to attend those meetings - he was then tasked with sharing his handwritten and dated notes with Blake – that is what she said in the times article was her being uncomfortable with him talking about sexual experiences! If she been at the damn meetings that would have been a lot more professional. the intimacy coordinator suggested a few sex scenes and since Blake wasn’t at the meeting, Justin had to relay them . but the intimacy coordinator would’ve helped them work through any awkwardness -that is why she is there! She was trying to choreograph scenes that would make them both comfortable.

The NYT really dropped the ball with leaving out that critical context. It made it look like Blake all of a sudden had to demand an intimacy coordinator when there was one all along that she wouldn’t meet with.

That was one of the strangest things I thought about this whole suit, that in a big budget production like this, with such demanding physical scenes given the domestic violence theme, that there wouldn’t be an intimacy coordinator which is at this point an industry standard. Well, this shows there very much was one from the beginning that Justin was forced to work with alone - which her lawsuit and the times article deliberately obscures.

Before filming began? So filming began in May 2023. She had a baby in February 2023. Maybe that had something to do with it and why she wanted to wait until filming began. Just a hunch that she had other things going on.

Lol, like attending Taylor swifts eras tour in Madrid? Please.

In late May?

Yes. May 29th, 2023. Blake lively does not do life or maternity the same way us peasants do.

May 29, 2023 was one of the three NYC shows (at MetLife stadium in NJ). I know because I attended that day. That date was smack in the middle of the US leg of the tour. I assure you neither Blake nor Taylor was in Madrid.

Sorry you’re right. Blake lively was actually at the Philadelphia show on May 14th, 2023. Madrid was May 2024. Either way, she was certainly out and about and not at home breastfeeding a crying baby every three hours and watching wake windows. She may be a good mom (I honestly have no idea) but let’s not pretend she’s not a celebrity mom with a thousand Nannies.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2023/05/14/taylor-swift-greets-blake-lively-ryan-reynolds-kids-eagles-debate/70216406007/

But still May. How do you know what she was doing in the 8-12 weeks after birth? This isn’t some winning point. They even said they would work around it and it wouldn’t cause delays.

Text said it would cause the ways but it would work around it. Justin was trying to placate her, which makes sense if she’s the leading lady. But it did cause delays.

Either way that’s beside the point, the initial lawsuit and the times article acted as if she was not given the option of working with an intimacy coordinator at all. It got a lot of pushback because since 2020 it’s been industry standard to work with one. It just seemed lazy on the part of the lawsuit unless they just wanted to get the public attention and hoped that would be that. It certainly worked for a new cycle, but when Justin came back with texts refuting it now it just makes her look bad.

The delay was the writer's strike. And she said she wanted an IC present at all time in scenes together. The complaint doesn't say what you say it says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue with the intimacy coordinator is still an open question and we don't know the full truth yet.

Yes they hired an intimacy coordinator (this is standard in the industry now) and yes it looks like Baldoni did his due diligence in meeting with her and choreographing sex scenes before shooting began. I would also assume the coordinator was on set for the scenes she choreographed.

It looks like from the texts Baldoni has released that Lively didn't meet with the intimacy coordinator prior to filming. I agree that raises questions and would like more context there. Lively has done plenty of sex scenes before so maybe she just didn't think it was necessary to have extra meetings, I don't know.

But none of this is what Lively raises in her complaint.

She is not saying the production failed to hire an intimacy coordinator at all, she's saying that Baldoni and Wayfarer turned scenes that were not scripted as intimate scenes into intimate scenes, failed to work with the intimacy coordinator on those scenes (which the coordinator didn't choreograph because they were not written to have intimacy or nudity in them), and that the filming of these scenes was unprofessional and compromised Lively and other actors.

Two examples: (1) a scene in which Lively's and Baldoni's character were filmed dancing, without audio It was scripted as them just slow dancing with no dialogue and no other touching. Lively alleges that Baldoni started kissing her on her mouth and neck during the scene (not scripted, not run by the IC) and that he was speaking to her in a sexual way out of character. (2) The birth scene, which was not choreographed with the IC, was made into a nude scene on the fly without it being scripted that way, and that Lively wound up partially nude in the scene and working in very close proximity with the actor playing the OB in the scene (she describes him as being position very close to her crotch which was covered only by a thin strip of fabric), but this scene was not written as a nude scene, Lively didn't have a nudity rider in place, the IC didn't choreograph it, and the IC was not on set.

Lively's version implies that it would not have mattered if she'd met with the IC prior to filming because these scenes were never scripted as intimate/nude scenes. Baldoni seems to be implying that if Lively had issues she could have raised them with the IC prior to filming.

Also Lively's complaint mentions Baldoni trying to add things like Lively's character climaxing or the characters engaging in oral sex that, according to Lively, were not in the script and not choreographed by the IC. This is the part that needs a lot more clarification because the IC absolutely should have been imon set for those scenes so it would be good to hear from her because she'd be able to clarify what was scripted and what was not, but also if Baldoni was adding unscripted elements, it's the IC's job to intervene on behalf of the actors and say "hey, this is not what was agreed to." This is the part where Lively not meeting with the IC becomes an issue, though we'd also need to know what is described in the shooting script, which should detail the shots they wanted to get and which Lively would have received copies of in advance (though if Baldoni made last minute changes after shooting had begun, that's another issue).

I don't think it's possible to take a side based on what we know now. The facts are in dispute.

All good points. The Perez Hilton videos specifically mentioned the oral sex scene. Apparently, according to Justin‘s notes, the intimacy coordinator had suggested that scene. So he had the awkwardness of having to explain that to her without the intimacy coordinator present, which again was not supposed to happen… A key point of having an intimacy coordinator is to have conversations in a safe space where she is present.

Blake didn’t want to do that scene in part because she volunteered information, something along the lines of if I climax (from oral) and then he didn’t I would be mortified. Justin explained that those were some of the most intimate moments with his wife.

It seems conversations like that was what she objected to later in the lawsuit. But it’s a little unfair because again he was tasked with relaying those types of information to her without the intimacy coordinator present, and also because she volunteered information about her own personal life or preferences, prompting him to say something personal about him and his wife.

I’m not saying he was in the right here. I’m just saying there’s just a little bit more context than what the New York Times presents.

I said it earlier in this thread, I think both of them were playing fast and loose with the standards and were both, because of their initial friendly personal relationship, crossing too many boundaries. I don’t think Blake probably should’ve signed texts with x, and I don’t think she should’ve invited him to run lines while she was pumping. I’m not saying she did anything wrong, or that those things would be inappropriate if the relationship had stayed steady, but it just seems like they both got too comfortable with each other and then when things started going bad, she was the first one to initially use that against him.

Of course more facts could come out. It was presented in her pre Christmas lawsuit made him sound like a downright psychopath and now with more context, I’m less sure what actually went down.

PP. Right, I don't disagree -- both sides have presented information that indicates the other person did not behave 100% professionally and may have contributed to issues on set. My bigger point is that they are talking past each other on some of these issues. Baldoni's complaint contextualizes some of what Lively alleges and adds some accusations against Lively that make her look bad. But the complaint does not address everything Lively alleges, and in particular the dispute over the intimate scenes and intimacy coordinator seem to be addressing different things.

So far, if I assume that everything in Lively's complaint that is not addressed by Baldoni is true, he still looks pretty bad to me. However, Baldoni's complaint indicates that Lively may have set herself up to be in an awkward negotiating position by not participating fully in the pre-production discussions of the intimate scenes -- if she had, she may have been alerted to Baldoni's style and his preferences for these scenes sooner, and the IC might have been able to head off issues in advance. Lively also would have had a relationship with the IC that might have made it easier for her to turn to the IC for help during shooting when she was feeling pressured to do things in scenes that were not written as intimate but seem to have become that.

However on a professionally run set where people are behaving themselves, an actor should not actually need that level of involvement from the IC, outside of the scripted sex scenes. Lively has filmed plenty of intimate scenes before, perhaps they were more professionally run than this film and she was surprised by the issues that came up during the shoot.

I'm an attorney and I just would caution people to think Baldoni has somehow totally exonerated himself here. One major sticking point is that no matter what Lively did or didn't do with regards to meeting pre-production, this was Baldoni's set. He was the director and his production company was bankrolling it. So if it was an unprofessional set where industry rules were being flouted and where many cast and crew felt uncomfortable or harassed, that falls to him, even if Lively engaged in problematic behavior too. His burden is higher because he has more liability exposure. He needs to prove that he and Wayfarer did everything by the book and that any problems were 100% caused by Lively or other actors not following clear procedures. What he's alleged in his complaint isn't that. He has contextualized some of her allegations. Since his complaint is actually a separate lawsuit, he wasn't required to respond directly to all her allegations. I will be interested to see how he answers Lively complaint and how her complaint (which is broader in scope than his, which is focused on the allegations in the NYTs) proceeds. He is far from out of the woods here.

It was his set but lively wielded a tremendous amount of power on it. She got to pick all of her costuming, which is from what I understand kind of unheard of. she got to select the music, in addition to getting Taylor songs, she’s also done an interviewer saying she was responsible for picking Lana Del ray songs. She also hired the Deadpool editor for the final edit. She also chose the final cut of the picture which essentially means she had full control. Justin‘s cut tested better, but Sony let her proceed with her cut. Why? Was it Ryan Reynolds? And at what point did he berate Justin in his apartment? Because that should be looked at too and he should not be off the hook for harassment.

You keep saying Justin was the director and had full control, but given everything that I just listed, someone took control away from him, and I want to know when and why. If it was because he was sexually harassing people why wasn’t he fired? There was just a lot of conflicting timelines and stories here.

This is not accurate.

Lively had more input than would be typical in the industry into her character's costuming on set as well as the design of her flower shop. But that's not really that weird for an actor at her fame level -- they often get more leeway in things related to character development and she is far from the first actress to use some of her own clothes or to dictate aspects of the set that are very relevant to the character. From Baldoni's, Wayfarer's, and Sony's point of view, these impositions would be worth having someone with Lively's name recognition attached to the production. Her involvement likely helped get the project greenlit and would guarantee a broader release than with a less famous actress. All of this is independent of Lively's acting skill or suitability for the role -- star power is enormously useful in filmmaking, especially for a newbie and fairly unknown director. Lively was a meal ticket for almost everyone else involved in the production because without her, maybe there's no movie or maybe no one sees it.

But the other stuff you mention was not in place during filming. Her input into songs happened in post production, as did Reynold's involvement in cutting the released version. Lively's producer credit was also not added until post-production -- on set her only credit was as an actor. And the production of course had costuming and set designers. Their job in that setting is to work with Lively to both make her happy with what is being used while also serving the director's vision. If he or Sony were unhappy with her costuming, but Lively's contract specifies that she has final approval on all costumes, then that's a management issue you need to address. Find a costumer who can work with Lively and find ways to tweak what she wants to make it look better.

That's the job. Do you know how many people get an opportunity to direct a feature film with a big name star, based on a bestselling book with a built-in fan base, and with Sony signed on to distribute. Like 10 people and most of them are directors who have done it before. This movie was an absolute gift for Baldoni and it sounds like he was disorganized, unprofessional, and ineffectual in key aspects of his job. If he also has boundary issues and a habit of sexualizing professional situations and making a lot of comments about the physical appearance of women around him, that's a problem.

Lively doesn't sound like a dream to work with but it also sounds like she did her job on the movie. It doesn't sound like Baldoni did his and that's the source of the problems right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following Perez Hilton on instagram? He has done several short deep dive videos on this.

His latest goes on to say that the suing of the New York Times was not actually to win, but to be able to do discovery. What that allowed them to do was bring several notes and texts and other proof that Justin hired an intimacy coordinator before filming began and set up a meeting. Blake did not want to attend the meeting and said she’d like to start meeting when production began. Texts prove this.

Justin emailed other producers that this would delay workflows but they’d work around it. The intimacy coordinator is there to help them coordinate and choreograph scenes so not really something that’s done on set, it’s done before -it’s part of the scripting. What sex scenes will there be, what will they look like, etc. It’s not supposed to be done on the fly on set.

Justin met with the intimacy coordinator SEVERAL TIMES and Blake didn’t want to attend those meetings - he was then tasked with sharing his handwritten and dated notes with Blake – that is what she said in the times article was her being uncomfortable with him talking about sexual experiences! If she been at the damn meetings that would have been a lot more professional. the intimacy coordinator suggested a few sex scenes and since Blake wasn’t at the meeting, Justin had to relay them . but the intimacy coordinator would’ve helped them work through any awkwardness -that is why she is there! She was trying to choreograph scenes that would make them both comfortable.

The NYT really dropped the ball with leaving out that critical context. It made it look like Blake all of a sudden had to demand an intimacy coordinator when there was one all along that she wouldn’t meet with.

That was one of the strangest things I thought about this whole suit, that in a big budget production like this, with such demanding physical scenes given the domestic violence theme, that there wouldn’t be an intimacy coordinator which is at this point an industry standard. Well, this shows there very much was one from the beginning that Justin was forced to work with alone - which her lawsuit and the times article deliberately obscures.

Before filming began? So filming began in May 2023. She had a baby in February 2023. Maybe that had something to do with it and why she wanted to wait until filming began. Just a hunch that she had other things going on.

Lol, like attending Taylor swifts eras tour in Madrid? Please.

In late May?

Yes. May 29th, 2023. Blake lively does not do life or maternity the same way us peasants do.

May 29, 2023 was one of the three NYC shows (at MetLife stadium in NJ). I know because I attended that day. That date was smack in the middle of the US leg of the tour. I assure you neither Blake nor Taylor was in Madrid.

Sorry you’re right. Blake lively was actually at the Philadelphia show on May 14th, 2023. Madrid was May 2024. Either way, she was certainly out and about and not at home breastfeeding a crying baby every three hours and watching wake windows. She may be a good mom (I honestly have no idea) but let’s not pretend she’s not a celebrity mom with a thousand Nannies.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2023/05/14/taylor-swift-greets-blake-lively-ryan-reynolds-kids-eagles-debate/70216406007/

But still May. How do you know what she was doing in the 8-12 weeks after birth? This isn’t some winning point. They even said they would work around it and it wouldn’t cause delays.

Text said it would cause the ways but it would work around it. Justin was trying to placate her, which makes sense if she’s the leading lady. But it did cause delays.

Either way that’s beside the point, the initial lawsuit and the times article acted as if she was not given the option of working with an intimacy coordinator at all. It got a lot of pushback because since 2020 it’s been industry standard to work with one. It just seemed lazy on the part of the lawsuit unless they just wanted to get the public attention and hoped that would be that. It certainly worked for a new cycle, but when Justin came back with texts refuting it now it just makes her look bad.

The delay was the writer's strike. And she said she wanted an IC present at all time in scenes together. The complaint doesn't say what you say it says.

+1, I was confused about this too until I read her full complaint.

The production had an IC and the IC choreographed the sex scenes. Lively doesn't take issue with that.

She is saying that Baldoni made scenes that were *not* scripted as intimate and which the IC had not choreographed into intimate scenes, and then the IC was not involved in those scenes and Lively felt lines were crossed. So when they went on hiatus for the strike, one of her conditions for returning to set was that an IC be on set at all times to prevent this from happening, and also that Baldoni agree not to add in any additional intimate scenarios that were not already in the shooting script, as he had done several times.

The issue was with Baldoni improvising intimacy on set and crossing lines without following proper procedure with having an IC choreograph and on set, and not having nudity riders in place. And notably Lively alleges that he did this not just with her but with other actors in the movie, most notably with the actors who played the younger versions of Lily and her high school boyfriend. If those actors corroborate those accusations, this is very problematic for Baldoni. And I would assume that Lively's attorneys would not have put that in the complaint if those actors were not willing to back this up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue with the intimacy coordinator is still an open question and we don't know the full truth yet.

Yes they hired an intimacy coordinator (this is standard in the industry now) and yes it looks like Baldoni did his due diligence in meeting with her and choreographing sex scenes before shooting began. I would also assume the coordinator was on set for the scenes she choreographed.

It looks like from the texts Baldoni has released that Lively didn't meet with the intimacy coordinator prior to filming. I agree that raises questions and would like more context there. Lively has done plenty of sex scenes before so maybe she just didn't think it was necessary to have extra meetings, I don't know.

But none of this is what Lively raises in her complaint.

She is not saying the production failed to hire an intimacy coordinator at all, she's saying that Baldoni and Wayfarer turned scenes that were not scripted as intimate scenes into intimate scenes, failed to work with the intimacy coordinator on those scenes (which the coordinator didn't choreograph because they were not written to have intimacy or nudity in them), and that the filming of these scenes was unprofessional and compromised Lively and other actors.

Two examples: (1) a scene in which Lively's and Baldoni's character were filmed dancing, without audio It was scripted as them just slow dancing with no dialogue and no other touching. Lively alleges that Baldoni started kissing her on her mouth and neck during the scene (not scripted, not run by the IC) and that he was speaking to her in a sexual way out of character. (2) The birth scene, which was not choreographed with the IC, was made into a nude scene on the fly without it being scripted that way, and that Lively wound up partially nude in the scene and working in very close proximity with the actor playing the OB in the scene (she describes him as being position very close to her crotch which was covered only by a thin strip of fabric), but this scene was not written as a nude scene, Lively didn't have a nudity rider in place, the IC didn't choreograph it, and the IC was not on set.

Lively's version implies that it would not have mattered if she'd met with the IC prior to filming because these scenes were never scripted as intimate/nude scenes. Baldoni seems to be implying that if Lively had issues she could have raised them with the IC prior to filming.

Also Lively's complaint mentions Baldoni trying to add things like Lively's character climaxing or the characters engaging in oral sex that, according to Lively, were not in the script and not choreographed by the IC. This is the part that needs a lot more clarification because the IC absolutely should have been imon set for those scenes so it would be good to hear from her because she'd be able to clarify what was scripted and what was not, but also if Baldoni was adding unscripted elements, it's the IC's job to intervene on behalf of the actors and say "hey, this is not what was agreed to." This is the part where Lively not meeting with the IC becomes an issue, though we'd also need to know what is described in the shooting script, which should detail the shots they wanted to get and which Lively would have received copies of in advance (though if Baldoni made last minute changes after shooting had begun, that's another issue).

I don't think it's possible to take a side based on what we know now. The facts are in dispute.

All good points. The Perez Hilton videos specifically mentioned the oral sex scene. Apparently, according to Justin‘s notes, the intimacy coordinator had suggested that scene. So he had the awkwardness of having to explain that to her without the intimacy coordinator present, which again was not supposed to happen… A key point of having an intimacy coordinator is to have conversations in a safe space where she is present.

Blake didn’t want to do that scene in part because she volunteered information, something along the lines of if I climax (from oral) and then he didn’t I would be mortified. Justin explained that those were some of the most intimate moments with his wife.

It seems conversations like that was what she objected to later in the lawsuit. But it’s a little unfair because again he was tasked with relaying those types of information to her without the intimacy coordinator present, and also because she volunteered information about her own personal life or preferences, prompting him to say something personal about him and his wife.

I’m not saying he was in the right here. I’m just saying there’s just a little bit more context than what the New York Times presents.

I said it earlier in this thread, I think both of them were playing fast and loose with the standards and were both, because of their initial friendly personal relationship, crossing too many boundaries. I don’t think Blake probably should’ve signed texts with x, and I don’t think she should’ve invited him to run lines while she was pumping. I’m not saying she did anything wrong, or that those things would be inappropriate if the relationship had stayed steady, but it just seems like they both got too comfortable with each other and then when things started going bad, she was the first one to initially use that against him.

Of course more facts could come out. It was presented in her pre Christmas lawsuit made him sound like a downright psychopath and now with more context, I’m less sure what actually went down.

PP. Right, I don't disagree -- both sides have presented information that indicates the other person did not behave 100% professionally and may have contributed to issues on set. My bigger point is that they are talking past each other on some of these issues. Baldoni's complaint contextualizes some of what Lively alleges and adds some accusations against Lively that make her look bad. But the complaint does not address everything Lively alleges, and in particular the dispute over the intimate scenes and intimacy coordinator seem to be addressing different things.

So far, if I assume that everything in Lively's complaint that is not addressed by Baldoni is true, he still looks pretty bad to me. However, Baldoni's complaint indicates that Lively may have set herself up to be in an awkward negotiating position by not participating fully in the pre-production discussions of the intimate scenes -- if she had, she may have been alerted to Baldoni's style and his preferences for these scenes sooner, and the IC might have been able to head off issues in advance. Lively also would have had a relationship with the IC that might have made it easier for her to turn to the IC for help during shooting when she was feeling pressured to do things in scenes that were not written as intimate but seem to have become that.

However on a professionally run set where people are behaving themselves, an actor should not actually need that level of involvement from the IC, outside of the scripted sex scenes. Lively has filmed plenty of intimate scenes before, perhaps they were more professionally run than this film and she was surprised by the issues that came up during the shoot.

I'm an attorney and I just would caution people to think Baldoni has somehow totally exonerated himself here. One major sticking point is that no matter what Lively did or didn't do with regards to meeting pre-production, this was Baldoni's set. He was the director and his production company was bankrolling it. So if it was an unprofessional set where industry rules were being flouted and where many cast and crew felt uncomfortable or harassed, that falls to him, even if Lively engaged in problematic behavior too. His burden is higher because he has more liability exposure. He needs to prove that he and Wayfarer did everything by the book and that any problems were 100% caused by Lively or other actors not following clear procedures. What he's alleged in his complaint isn't that. He has contextualized some of her allegations. Since his complaint is actually a separate lawsuit, he wasn't required to respond directly to all her allegations. I will be interested to see how he answers Lively complaint and how her complaint (which is broader in scope than his, which is focused on the allegations in the NYTs) proceeds. He is far from out of the woods here.

It was his set but lively wielded a tremendous amount of power on it. She got to pick all of her costuming, which is from what I understand kind of unheard of. she got to select the music, in addition to getting Taylor songs, she’s also done an interviewer saying she was responsible for picking Lana Del ray songs. She also hired the Deadpool editor for the final edit. She also chose the final cut of the picture which essentially means she had full control. Justin‘s cut tested better, but Sony let her proceed with her cut. Why? Was it Ryan Reynolds? And at what point did he berate Justin in his apartment? Because that should be looked at too and he should not be off the hook for harassment.

You keep saying Justin was the director and had full control, but given everything that I just listed, someone took control away from him, and I want to know when and why. If it was because he was sexually harassing people why wasn’t he fired? There was just a lot of conflicting timelines and stories here.

This is not accurate.

Lively had more input than would be typical in the industry into her character's costuming on set as well as the design of her flower shop. But that's not really that weird for an actor at her fame level -- they often get more leeway in things related to character development and she is far from the first actress to use some of her own clothes or to dictate aspects of the set that are very relevant to the character. From Baldoni's, Wayfarer's, and Sony's point of view, these impositions would be worth having someone with Lively's name recognition attached to the production. Her involvement likely helped get the project greenlit and would guarantee a broader release than with a less famous actress. All of this is independent of Lively's acting skill or suitability for the role -- star power is enormously useful in filmmaking, especially for a newbie and fairly unknown director. Lively was a meal ticket for almost everyone else involved in the production because without her, maybe there's no movie or maybe no one sees it.

But the other stuff you mention was not in place during filming. Her input into songs happened in post production, as did Reynold's involvement in cutting the released version. Lively's producer credit was also not added until post-production -- on set her only credit was as an actor. And the production of course had costuming and set designers. Their job in that setting is to work with Lively to both make her happy with what is being used while also serving the director's vision. If he or Sony were unhappy with her costuming, but Lively's contract specifies that she has final approval on all costumes, then that's a management issue you need to address. Find a costumer who can work with Lively and find ways to tweak what she wants to make it look better.

That's the job. Do you know how many people get an opportunity to direct a feature film with a big name star, based on a bestselling book with a built-in fan base, and with Sony signed on to distribute. Like 10 people and most of them are directors who have done it before. This movie was an absolute gift for Baldoni and it sounds like he was disorganized, unprofessional, and ineffectual in key aspects of his job. If he also has boundary issues and a habit of sexualizing professional situations and making a lot of comments about the physical appearance of women around him, that's a problem.

Lively doesn't sound like a dream to work with but it also sounds like she did her job on the movie. It doesn't sound like Baldoni did his and that's the source of the problems right there.

Reynolds and Lively probably saw lots of issues with the film and got involved so it wasn't a total flop, which it wasn't. You would think Baldoni would be more grateful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue with the intimacy coordinator is still an open question and we don't know the full truth yet.

Yes they hired an intimacy coordinator (this is standard in the industry now) and yes it looks like Baldoni did his due diligence in meeting with her and choreographing sex scenes before shooting began. I would also assume the coordinator was on set for the scenes she choreographed.

It looks like from the texts Baldoni has released that Lively didn't meet with the intimacy coordinator prior to filming. I agree that raises questions and would like more context there. Lively has done plenty of sex scenes before so maybe she just didn't think it was necessary to have extra meetings, I don't know.

But none of this is what Lively raises in her complaint.

She is not saying the production failed to hire an intimacy coordinator at all, she's saying that Baldoni and Wayfarer turned scenes that were not scripted as intimate scenes into intimate scenes, failed to work with the intimacy coordinator on those scenes (which the coordinator didn't choreograph because they were not written to have intimacy or nudity in them), and that the filming of these scenes was unprofessional and compromised Lively and other actors.

Two examples: (1) a scene in which Lively's and Baldoni's character were filmed dancing, without audio It was scripted as them just slow dancing with no dialogue and no other touching. Lively alleges that Baldoni started kissing her on her mouth and neck during the scene (not scripted, not run by the IC) and that he was speaking to her in a sexual way out of character. (2) The birth scene, which was not choreographed with the IC, was made into a nude scene on the fly without it being scripted that way, and that Lively wound up partially nude in the scene and working in very close proximity with the actor playing the OB in the scene (she describes him as being position very close to her crotch which was covered only by a thin strip of fabric), but this scene was not written as a nude scene, Lively didn't have a nudity rider in place, the IC didn't choreograph it, and the IC was not on set.

Lively's version implies that it would not have mattered if she'd met with the IC prior to filming because these scenes were never scripted as intimate/nude scenes. Baldoni seems to be implying that if Lively had issues she could have raised them with the IC prior to filming.

Also Lively's complaint mentions Baldoni trying to add things like Lively's character climaxing or the characters engaging in oral sex that, according to Lively, were not in the script and not choreographed by the IC. This is the part that needs a lot more clarification because the IC absolutely should have been imon set for those scenes so it would be good to hear from her because she'd be able to clarify what was scripted and what was not, but also if Baldoni was adding unscripted elements, it's the IC's job to intervene on behalf of the actors and say "hey, this is not what was agreed to." This is the part where Lively not meeting with the IC becomes an issue, though we'd also need to know what is described in the shooting script, which should detail the shots they wanted to get and which Lively would have received copies of in advance (though if Baldoni made last minute changes after shooting had begun, that's another issue).

I don't think it's possible to take a side based on what we know now. The facts are in dispute.

All good points. The Perez Hilton videos specifically mentioned the oral sex scene. Apparently, according to Justin‘s notes, the intimacy coordinator had suggested that scene. So he had the awkwardness of having to explain that to her without the intimacy coordinator present, which again was not supposed to happen… A key point of having an intimacy coordinator is to have conversations in a safe space where she is present.

Blake didn’t want to do that scene in part because she volunteered information, something along the lines of if I climax (from oral) and then he didn’t I would be mortified. Justin explained that those were some of the most intimate moments with his wife.

It seems conversations like that was what she objected to later in the lawsuit. But it’s a little unfair because again he was tasked with relaying those types of information to her without the intimacy coordinator present, and also because she volunteered information about her own personal life or preferences, prompting him to say something personal about him and his wife.

I’m not saying he was in the right here. I’m just saying there’s just a little bit more context than what the New York Times presents.

I said it earlier in this thread, I think both of them were playing fast and loose with the standards and were both, because of their initial friendly personal relationship, crossing too many boundaries. I don’t think Blake probably should’ve signed texts with x, and I don’t think she should’ve invited him to run lines while she was pumping. I’m not saying she did anything wrong, or that those things would be inappropriate if the relationship had stayed steady, but it just seems like they both got too comfortable with each other and then when things started going bad, she was the first one to initially use that against him.

Of course more facts could come out. It was presented in her pre Christmas lawsuit made him sound like a downright psychopath and now with more context, I’m less sure what actually went down.

PP. Right, I don't disagree -- both sides have presented information that indicates the other person did not behave 100% professionally and may have contributed to issues on set. My bigger point is that they are talking past each other on some of these issues. Baldoni's complaint contextualizes some of what Lively alleges and adds some accusations against Lively that make her look bad. But the complaint does not address everything Lively alleges, and in particular the dispute over the intimate scenes and intimacy coordinator seem to be addressing different things.

So far, if I assume that everything in Lively's complaint that is not addressed by Baldoni is true, he still looks pretty bad to me. However, Baldoni's complaint indicates that Lively may have set herself up to be in an awkward negotiating position by not participating fully in the pre-production discussions of the intimate scenes -- if she had, she may have been alerted to Baldoni's style and his preferences for these scenes sooner, and the IC might have been able to head off issues in advance. Lively also would have had a relationship with the IC that might have made it easier for her to turn to the IC for help during shooting when she was feeling pressured to do things in scenes that were not written as intimate but seem to have become that.

However on a professionally run set where people are behaving themselves, an actor should not actually need that level of involvement from the IC, outside of the scripted sex scenes. Lively has filmed plenty of intimate scenes before, perhaps they were more professionally run than this film and she was surprised by the issues that came up during the shoot.

I'm an attorney and I just would caution people to think Baldoni has somehow totally exonerated himself here. One major sticking point is that no matter what Lively did or didn't do with regards to meeting pre-production, this was Baldoni's set. He was the director and his production company was bankrolling it. So if it was an unprofessional set where industry rules were being flouted and where many cast and crew felt uncomfortable or harassed, that falls to him, even if Lively engaged in problematic behavior too. His burden is higher because he has more liability exposure. He needs to prove that he and Wayfarer did everything by the book and that any problems were 100% caused by Lively or other actors not following clear procedures. What he's alleged in his complaint isn't that. He has contextualized some of her allegations. Since his complaint is actually a separate lawsuit, he wasn't required to respond directly to all her allegations. I will be interested to see how he answers Lively complaint and how her complaint (which is broader in scope than his, which is focused on the allegations in the NYTs) proceeds. He is far from out of the woods here.

It was his set but lively wielded a tremendous amount of power on it. She got to pick all of her costuming, which is from what I understand kind of unheard of. she got to select the music, in addition to getting Taylor songs, she’s also done an interviewer saying she was responsible for picking Lana Del ray songs. She also hired the Deadpool editor for the final edit. She also chose the final cut of the picture which essentially means she had full control. Justin‘s cut tested better, but Sony let her proceed with her cut. Why? Was it Ryan Reynolds? And at what point did he berate Justin in his apartment? Because that should be looked at too and he should not be off the hook for harassment.

You keep saying Justin was the director and had full control, but given everything that I just listed, someone took control away from him, and I want to know when and why. If it was because he was sexually harassing people why wasn’t he fired? There was just a lot of conflicting timelines and stories here.

This is not accurate.

Lively had more input than would be typical in the industry into her character's costuming on set as well as the design of her flower shop. But that's not really that weird for an actor at her fame level -- they often get more leeway in things related to character development and she is far from the first actress to use some of her own clothes or to dictate aspects of the set that are very relevant to the character. From Baldoni's, Wayfarer's, and Sony's point of view, these impositions would be worth having someone with Lively's name recognition attached to the production. Her involvement likely helped get the project greenlit and would guarantee a broader release than with a less famous actress. All of this is independent of Lively's acting skill or suitability for the role -- star power is enormously useful in filmmaking, especially for a newbie and fairly unknown director. Lively was a meal ticket for almost everyone else involved in the production because without her, maybe there's no movie or maybe no one sees it.

But the other stuff you mention was not in place during filming. Her input into songs happened in post production, as did Reynold's involvement in cutting the released version. Lively's producer credit was also not added until post-production -- on set her only credit was as an actor. And the production of course had costuming and set designers. Their job in that setting is to work with Lively to both make her happy with what is being used while also serving the director's vision. If he or Sony were unhappy with her costuming, but Lively's contract specifies that she has final approval on all costumes, then that's a management issue you need to address. Find a costumer who can work with Lively and find ways to tweak what she wants to make it look better.

That's the job. Do you know how many people get an opportunity to direct a feature film with a big name star, based on a bestselling book with a built-in fan base, and with Sony signed on to distribute. Like 10 people and most of them are directors who have done it before. This movie was an absolute gift for Baldoni and it sounds like he was disorganized, unprofessional, and ineffectual in key aspects of his job. If he also has boundary issues and a habit of sexualizing professional situations and making a lot of comments about the physical appearance of women around him, that's a problem.

Lively doesn't sound like a dream to work with but it also sounds like she did her job on the movie. It doesn't sound like Baldoni did his and that's the source of the problems right there.

Reynolds and Lively probably saw lots of issues with the film and got involved so it wasn't a total flop, which it wasn't. You would think Baldoni would be more grateful.

But Justin’s cut tested better with audiences. And Blake’s outfits were hideous. They should have used professionals. And Ryan’s rooftop scene was a joke and didn’t fit in with the book or movie. This movie did well despite Blake not because of her. Though I disagree with people saying she can’t act. She’s not the best actress in the world but she picks good roles for her skillset. I thought she did well in this movie. But the drama surrounding it is too bad and on her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue with the intimacy coordinator is still an open question and we don't know the full truth yet.

Yes they hired an intimacy coordinator (this is standard in the industry now) and yes it looks like Baldoni did his due diligence in meeting with her and choreographing sex scenes before shooting began. I would also assume the coordinator was on set for the scenes she choreographed.

It looks like from the texts Baldoni has released that Lively didn't meet with the intimacy coordinator prior to filming. I agree that raises questions and would like more context there. Lively has done plenty of sex scenes before so maybe she just didn't think it was necessary to have extra meetings, I don't know.

But none of this is what Lively raises in her complaint.

She is not saying the production failed to hire an intimacy coordinator at all, she's saying that Baldoni and Wayfarer turned scenes that were not scripted as intimate scenes into intimate scenes, failed to work with the intimacy coordinator on those scenes (which the coordinator didn't choreograph because they were not written to have intimacy or nudity in them), and that the filming of these scenes was unprofessional and compromised Lively and other actors.

Two examples: (1) a scene in which Lively's and Baldoni's character were filmed dancing, without audio It was scripted as them just slow dancing with no dialogue and no other touching. Lively alleges that Baldoni started kissing her on her mouth and neck during the scene (not scripted, not run by the IC) and that he was speaking to her in a sexual way out of character. (2) The birth scene, which was not choreographed with the IC, was made into a nude scene on the fly without it being scripted that way, and that Lively wound up partially nude in the scene and working in very close proximity with the actor playing the OB in the scene (she describes him as being position very close to her crotch which was covered only by a thin strip of fabric), but this scene was not written as a nude scene, Lively didn't have a nudity rider in place, the IC didn't choreograph it, and the IC was not on set.

Lively's version implies that it would not have mattered if she'd met with the IC prior to filming because these scenes were never scripted as intimate/nude scenes. Baldoni seems to be implying that if Lively had issues she could have raised them with the IC prior to filming.

Also Lively's complaint mentions Baldoni trying to add things like Lively's character climaxing or the characters engaging in oral sex that, according to Lively, were not in the script and not choreographed by the IC. This is the part that needs a lot more clarification because the IC absolutely should have been imon set for those scenes so it would be good to hear from her because she'd be able to clarify what was scripted and what was not, but also if Baldoni was adding unscripted elements, it's the IC's job to intervene on behalf of the actors and say "hey, this is not what was agreed to." This is the part where Lively not meeting with the IC becomes an issue, though we'd also need to know what is described in the shooting script, which should detail the shots they wanted to get and which Lively would have received copies of in advance (though if Baldoni made last minute changes after shooting had begun, that's another issue).

I don't think it's possible to take a side based on what we know now. The facts are in dispute.

All good points. The Perez Hilton videos specifically mentioned the oral sex scene. Apparently, according to Justin‘s notes, the intimacy coordinator had suggested that scene. So he had the awkwardness of having to explain that to her without the intimacy coordinator present, which again was not supposed to happen… A key point of having an intimacy coordinator is to have conversations in a safe space where she is present.

Blake didn’t want to do that scene in part because she volunteered information, something along the lines of if I climax (from oral) and then he didn’t I would be mortified. Justin explained that those were some of the most intimate moments with his wife.

It seems conversations like that was what she objected to later in the lawsuit. But it’s a little unfair because again he was tasked with relaying those types of information to her without the intimacy coordinator present, and also because she volunteered information about her own personal life or preferences, prompting him to say something personal about him and his wife.

I’m not saying he was in the right here. I’m just saying there’s just a little bit more context than what the New York Times presents.

I said it earlier in this thread, I think both of them were playing fast and loose with the standards and were both, because of their initial friendly personal relationship, crossing too many boundaries. I don’t think Blake probably should’ve signed texts with x, and I don’t think she should’ve invited him to run lines while she was pumping. I’m not saying she did anything wrong, or that those things would be inappropriate if the relationship had stayed steady, but it just seems like they both got too comfortable with each other and then when things started going bad, she was the first one to initially use that against him.

Of course more facts could come out. It was presented in her pre Christmas lawsuit made him sound like a downright psychopath and now with more context, I’m less sure what actually went down.

PP. Right, I don't disagree -- both sides have presented information that indicates the other person did not behave 100% professionally and may have contributed to issues on set. My bigger point is that they are talking past each other on some of these issues. Baldoni's complaint contextualizes some of what Lively alleges and adds some accusations against Lively that make her look bad. But the complaint does not address everything Lively alleges, and in particular the dispute over the intimate scenes and intimacy coordinator seem to be addressing different things.

So far, if I assume that everything in Lively's complaint that is not addressed by Baldoni is true, he still looks pretty bad to me. However, Baldoni's complaint indicates that Lively may have set herself up to be in an awkward negotiating position by not participating fully in the pre-production discussions of the intimate scenes -- if she had, she may have been alerted to Baldoni's style and his preferences for these scenes sooner, and the IC might have been able to head off issues in advance. Lively also would have had a relationship with the IC that might have made it easier for her to turn to the IC for help during shooting when she was feeling pressured to do things in scenes that were not written as intimate but seem to have become that.

However on a professionally run set where people are behaving themselves, an actor should not actually need that level of involvement from the IC, outside of the scripted sex scenes. Lively has filmed plenty of intimate scenes before, perhaps they were more professionally run than this film and she was surprised by the issues that came up during the shoot.

I'm an attorney and I just would caution people to think Baldoni has somehow totally exonerated himself here. One major sticking point is that no matter what Lively did or didn't do with regards to meeting pre-production, this was Baldoni's set. He was the director and his production company was bankrolling it. So if it was an unprofessional set where industry rules were being flouted and where many cast and crew felt uncomfortable or harassed, that falls to him, even if Lively engaged in problematic behavior too. His burden is higher because he has more liability exposure. He needs to prove that he and Wayfarer did everything by the book and that any problems were 100% caused by Lively or other actors not following clear procedures. What he's alleged in his complaint isn't that. He has contextualized some of her allegations. Since his complaint is actually a separate lawsuit, he wasn't required to respond directly to all her allegations. I will be interested to see how he answers Lively complaint and how her complaint (which is broader in scope than his, which is focused on the allegations in the NYTs) proceeds. He is far from out of the woods here.

It was his set but lively wielded a tremendous amount of power on it. She got to pick all of her costuming, which is from what I understand kind of unheard of. she got to select the music, in addition to getting Taylor songs, she’s also done an interviewer saying she was responsible for picking Lana Del ray songs. She also hired the Deadpool editor for the final edit. She also chose the final cut of the picture which essentially means she had full control. Justin‘s cut tested better, but Sony let her proceed with her cut. Why? Was it Ryan Reynolds? And at what point did he berate Justin in his apartment? Because that should be looked at too and he should not be off the hook for harassment.

You keep saying Justin was the director and had full control, but given everything that I just listed, someone took control away from him, and I want to know when and why. If it was because he was sexually harassing people why wasn’t he fired? There was just a lot of conflicting timelines and stories here.

This is not accurate.

Lively had more input than would be typical in the industry into her character's costuming on set as well as the design of her flower shop. But that's not really that weird for an actor at her fame level -- they often get more leeway in things related to character development and she is far from the first actress to use some of her own clothes or to dictate aspects of the set that are very relevant to the character. From Baldoni's, Wayfarer's, and Sony's point of view, these impositions would be worth having someone with Lively's name recognition attached to the production. Her involvement likely helped get the project greenlit and would guarantee a broader release than with a less famous actress. All of this is independent of Lively's acting skill or suitability for the role -- star power is enormously useful in filmmaking, especially for a newbie and fairly unknown director. Lively was a meal ticket for almost everyone else involved in the production because without her, maybe there's no movie or maybe no one sees it.

But the other stuff you mention was not in place during filming. Her input into songs happened in post production, as did Reynold's involvement in cutting the released version. Lively's producer credit was also not added until post-production -- on set her only credit was as an actor. And the production of course had costuming and set designers. Their job in that setting is to work with Lively to both make her happy with what is being used while also serving the director's vision. If he or Sony were unhappy with her costuming, but Lively's contract specifies that she has final approval on all costumes, then that's a management issue you need to address. Find a costumer who can work with Lively and find ways to tweak what she wants to make it look better.

That's the job. Do you know how many people get an opportunity to direct a feature film with a big name star, based on a bestselling book with a built-in fan base, and with Sony signed on to distribute. Like 10 people and most of them are directors who have done it before. This movie was an absolute gift for Baldoni and it sounds like he was disorganized, unprofessional, and ineffectual in key aspects of his job. If he also has boundary issues and a habit of sexualizing professional situations and making a lot of comments about the physical appearance of women around him, that's a problem.

Lively doesn't sound like a dream to work with but it also sounds like she did her job on the movie. It doesn't sound like Baldoni did his and that's the source of the problems right there.

Reynolds and Lively probably saw lots of issues with the film and got involved so it wasn't a total flop, which it wasn't. You would think Baldoni would be more grateful.

But Justin’s cut tested better with audiences. And Blake’s outfits were hideous. They should have used professionals. And Ryan’s rooftop scene was a joke and didn’t fit in with the book or movie. This movie did well despite Blake not because of her. Though I disagree with people saying she can’t act. She’s not the best actress in the world but she picks good roles for her skillset. I thought she did well in this movie. But the drama surrounding it is too bad and on her.

Despite her but not because of her? That's pure speculation and opinion. The fact is, it did well. And Baldoni had some very questionable actions. Asking Blake constantly about her religion and going on and on unsolicited about his? It's pretty clear this was a weird and uncomfortable workplace for Blake and others. Don't forget nobody took his side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue with the intimacy coordinator is still an open question and we don't know the full truth yet.

Yes they hired an intimacy coordinator (this is standard in the industry now) and yes it looks like Baldoni did his due diligence in meeting with her and choreographing sex scenes before shooting began. I would also assume the coordinator was on set for the scenes she choreographed.

It looks like from the texts Baldoni has released that Lively didn't meet with the intimacy coordinator prior to filming. I agree that raises questions and would like more context there. Lively has done plenty of sex scenes before so maybe she just didn't think it was necessary to have extra meetings, I don't know.

But none of this is what Lively raises in her complaint.

She is not saying the production failed to hire an intimacy coordinator at all, she's saying that Baldoni and Wayfarer turned scenes that were not scripted as intimate scenes into intimate scenes, failed to work with the intimacy coordinator on those scenes (which the coordinator didn't choreograph because they were not written to have intimacy or nudity in them), and that the filming of these scenes was unprofessional and compromised Lively and other actors.

Two examples: (1) a scene in which Lively's and Baldoni's character were filmed dancing, without audio It was scripted as them just slow dancing with no dialogue and no other touching. Lively alleges that Baldoni started kissing her on her mouth and neck during the scene (not scripted, not run by the IC) and that he was speaking to her in a sexual way out of character. (2) The birth scene, which was not choreographed with the IC, was made into a nude scene on the fly without it being scripted that way, and that Lively wound up partially nude in the scene and working in very close proximity with the actor playing the OB in the scene (she describes him as being position very close to her crotch which was covered only by a thin strip of fabric), but this scene was not written as a nude scene, Lively didn't have a nudity rider in place, the IC didn't choreograph it, and the IC was not on set.

Lively's version implies that it would not have mattered if she'd met with the IC prior to filming because these scenes were never scripted as intimate/nude scenes. Baldoni seems to be implying that if Lively had issues she could have raised them with the IC prior to filming.

Also Lively's complaint mentions Baldoni trying to add things like Lively's character climaxing or the characters engaging in oral sex that, according to Lively, were not in the script and not choreographed by the IC. This is the part that needs a lot more clarification because the IC absolutely should have been imon set for those scenes so it would be good to hear from her because she'd be able to clarify what was scripted and what was not, but also if Baldoni was adding unscripted elements, it's the IC's job to intervene on behalf of the actors and say "hey, this is not what was agreed to." This is the part where Lively not meeting with the IC becomes an issue, though we'd also need to know what is described in the shooting script, which should detail the shots they wanted to get and which Lively would have received copies of in advance (though if Baldoni made last minute changes after shooting had begun, that's another issue).

I don't think it's possible to take a side based on what we know now. The facts are in dispute.

All good points. The Perez Hilton videos specifically mentioned the oral sex scene. Apparently, according to Justin‘s notes, the intimacy coordinator had suggested that scene. So he had the awkwardness of having to explain that to her without the intimacy coordinator present, which again was not supposed to happen… A key point of having an intimacy coordinator is to have conversations in a safe space where she is present.

Blake didn’t want to do that scene in part because she volunteered information, something along the lines of if I climax (from oral) and then he didn’t I would be mortified. Justin explained that those were some of the most intimate moments with his wife.

It seems conversations like that was what she objected to later in the lawsuit. But it’s a little unfair because again he was tasked with relaying those types of information to her without the intimacy coordinator present, and also because she volunteered information about her own personal life or preferences, prompting him to say something personal about him and his wife.

I’m not saying he was in the right here. I’m just saying there’s just a little bit more context than what the New York Times presents.

I said it earlier in this thread, I think both of them were playing fast and loose with the standards and were both, because of their initial friendly personal relationship, crossing too many boundaries. I don’t think Blake probably should’ve signed texts with x, and I don’t think she should’ve invited him to run lines while she was pumping. I’m not saying she did anything wrong, or that those things would be inappropriate if the relationship had stayed steady, but it just seems like they both got too comfortable with each other and then when things started going bad, she was the first one to initially use that against him.

Of course more facts could come out. It was presented in her pre Christmas lawsuit made him sound like a downright psychopath and now with more context, I’m less sure what actually went down.

PP. Right, I don't disagree -- both sides have presented information that indicates the other person did not behave 100% professionally and may have contributed to issues on set. My bigger point is that they are talking past each other on some of these issues. Baldoni's complaint contextualizes some of what Lively alleges and adds some accusations against Lively that make her look bad. But the complaint does not address everything Lively alleges, and in particular the dispute over the intimate scenes and intimacy coordinator seem to be addressing different things.

So far, if I assume that everything in Lively's complaint that is not addressed by Baldoni is true, he still looks pretty bad to me. However, Baldoni's complaint indicates that Lively may have set herself up to be in an awkward negotiating position by not participating fully in the pre-production discussions of the intimate scenes -- if she had, she may have been alerted to Baldoni's style and his preferences for these scenes sooner, and the IC might have been able to head off issues in advance. Lively also would have had a relationship with the IC that might have made it easier for her to turn to the IC for help during shooting when she was feeling pressured to do things in scenes that were not written as intimate but seem to have become that.

However on a professionally run set where people are behaving themselves, an actor should not actually need that level of involvement from the IC, outside of the scripted sex scenes. Lively has filmed plenty of intimate scenes before, perhaps they were more professionally run than this film and she was surprised by the issues that came up during the shoot.

I'm an attorney and I just would caution people to think Baldoni has somehow totally exonerated himself here. One major sticking point is that no matter what Lively did or didn't do with regards to meeting pre-production, this was Baldoni's set. He was the director and his production company was bankrolling it. So if it was an unprofessional set where industry rules were being flouted and where many cast and crew felt uncomfortable or harassed, that falls to him, even if Lively engaged in problematic behavior too. His burden is higher because he has more liability exposure. He needs to prove that he and Wayfarer did everything by the book and that any problems were 100% caused by Lively or other actors not following clear procedures. What he's alleged in his complaint isn't that. He has contextualized some of her allegations. Since his complaint is actually a separate lawsuit, he wasn't required to respond directly to all her allegations. I will be interested to see how he answers Lively complaint and how her complaint (which is broader in scope than his, which is focused on the allegations in the NYTs) proceeds. He is far from out of the woods here.

It was his set but lively wielded a tremendous amount of power on it. She got to pick all of her costuming, which is from what I understand kind of unheard of. she got to select the music, in addition to getting Taylor songs, she’s also done an interviewer saying she was responsible for picking Lana Del ray songs. She also hired the Deadpool editor for the final edit. She also chose the final cut of the picture which essentially means she had full control. Justin‘s cut tested better, but Sony let her proceed with her cut. Why? Was it Ryan Reynolds? And at what point did he berate Justin in his apartment? Because that should be looked at too and he should not be off the hook for harassment.

You keep saying Justin was the director and had full control, but given everything that I just listed, someone took control away from him, and I want to know when and why. If it was because he was sexually harassing people why wasn’t he fired? There was just a lot of conflicting timelines and stories here.

This is not accurate.

Lively had more input than would be typical in the industry into her character's costuming on set as well as the design of her flower shop. But that's not really that weird for an actor at her fame level -- they often get more leeway in things related to character development and she is far from the first actress to use some of her own clothes or to dictate aspects of the set that are very relevant to the character. From Baldoni's, Wayfarer's, and Sony's point of view, these impositions would be worth having someone with Lively's name recognition attached to the production. Her involvement likely helped get the project greenlit and would guarantee a broader release than with a less famous actress. All of this is independent of Lively's acting skill or suitability for the role -- star power is enormously useful in filmmaking, especially for a newbie and fairly unknown director. Lively was a meal ticket for almost everyone else involved in the production because without her, maybe there's no movie or maybe no one sees it.

But the other stuff you mention was not in place during filming. Her input into songs happened in post production, as did Reynold's involvement in cutting the released version. Lively's producer credit was also not added until post-production -- on set her only credit was as an actor. And the production of course had costuming and set designers. Their job in that setting is to work with Lively to both make her happy with what is being used while also serving the director's vision. If he or Sony were unhappy with her costuming, but Lively's contract specifies that she has final approval on all costumes, then that's a management issue you need to address. Find a costumer who can work with Lively and find ways to tweak what she wants to make it look better.

That's the job. Do you know how many people get an opportunity to direct a feature film with a big name star, based on a bestselling book with a built-in fan base, and with Sony signed on to distribute. Like 10 people and most of them are directors who have done it before. This movie was an absolute gift for Baldoni and it sounds like he was disorganized, unprofessional, and ineffectual in key aspects of his job. If he also has boundary issues and a habit of sexualizing professional situations and making a lot of comments about the physical appearance of women around him, that's a problem.

Lively doesn't sound like a dream to work with but it also sounds like she did her job on the movie. It doesn't sound like Baldoni did his and that's the source of the problems right there.

I guess I’d need to see allegations of him being disorganized and unprofessional.

There’s a podcaster going a deep dive on Sonys utter dependency on ryan Reynolds’s financially. They are one of their only competitors that doesnt have a streaming platform and they have been oozing money. Reynolds is banking a franchise base on the boardgame clue for them. They are heavily indebted to him.

Something stinks about all of this and I think it’s more than just baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue with the intimacy coordinator is still an open question and we don't know the full truth yet.

Yes they hired an intimacy coordinator (this is standard in the industry now) and yes it looks like Baldoni did his due diligence in meeting with her and choreographing sex scenes before shooting began. I would also assume the coordinator was on set for the scenes she choreographed.

It looks like from the texts Baldoni has released that Lively didn't meet with the intimacy coordinator prior to filming. I agree that raises questions and would like more context there. Lively has done plenty of sex scenes before so maybe she just didn't think it was necessary to have extra meetings, I don't know.

But none of this is what Lively raises in her complaint.

She is not saying the production failed to hire an intimacy coordinator at all, she's saying that Baldoni and Wayfarer turned scenes that were not scripted as intimate scenes into intimate scenes, failed to work with the intimacy coordinator on those scenes (which the coordinator didn't choreograph because they were not written to have intimacy or nudity in them), and that the filming of these scenes was unprofessional and compromised Lively and other actors.

Two examples: (1) a scene in which Lively's and Baldoni's character were filmed dancing, without audio It was scripted as them just slow dancing with no dialogue and no other touching. Lively alleges that Baldoni started kissing her on her mouth and neck during the scene (not scripted, not run by the IC) and that he was speaking to her in a sexual way out of character. (2) The birth scene, which was not choreographed with the IC, was made into a nude scene on the fly without it being scripted that way, and that Lively wound up partially nude in the scene and working in very close proximity with the actor playing the OB in the scene (she describes him as being position very close to her crotch which was covered only by a thin strip of fabric), but this scene was not written as a nude scene, Lively didn't have a nudity rider in place, the IC didn't choreograph it, and the IC was not on set.

Lively's version implies that it would not have mattered if she'd met with the IC prior to filming because these scenes were never scripted as intimate/nude scenes. Baldoni seems to be implying that if Lively had issues she could have raised them with the IC prior to filming.

Also Lively's complaint mentions Baldoni trying to add things like Lively's character climaxing or the characters engaging in oral sex that, according to Lively, were not in the script and not choreographed by the IC. This is the part that needs a lot more clarification because the IC absolutely should have been imon set for those scenes so it would be good to hear from her because she'd be able to clarify what was scripted and what was not, but also if Baldoni was adding unscripted elements, it's the IC's job to intervene on behalf of the actors and say "hey, this is not what was agreed to." This is the part where Lively not meeting with the IC becomes an issue, though we'd also need to know what is described in the shooting script, which should detail the shots they wanted to get and which Lively would have received copies of in advance (though if Baldoni made last minute changes after shooting had begun, that's another issue).

I don't think it's possible to take a side based on what we know now. The facts are in dispute.

All good points. The Perez Hilton videos specifically mentioned the oral sex scene. Apparently, according to Justin‘s notes, the intimacy coordinator had suggested that scene. So he had the awkwardness of having to explain that to her without the intimacy coordinator present, which again was not supposed to happen… A key point of having an intimacy coordinator is to have conversations in a safe space where she is present.

Blake didn’t want to do that scene in part because she volunteered information, something along the lines of if I climax (from oral) and then he didn’t I would be mortified. Justin explained that those were some of the most intimate moments with his wife.

It seems conversations like that was what she objected to later in the lawsuit. But it’s a little unfair because again he was tasked with relaying those types of information to her without the intimacy coordinator present, and also because she volunteered information about her own personal life or preferences, prompting him to say something personal about him and his wife.

I’m not saying he was in the right here. I’m just saying there’s just a little bit more context than what the New York Times presents.

I said it earlier in this thread, I think both of them were playing fast and loose with the standards and were both, because of their initial friendly personal relationship, crossing too many boundaries. I don’t think Blake probably should’ve signed texts with x, and I don’t think she should’ve invited him to run lines while she was pumping. I’m not saying she did anything wrong, or that those things would be inappropriate if the relationship had stayed steady, but it just seems like they both got too comfortable with each other and then when things started going bad, she was the first one to initially use that against him.

Of course more facts could come out. It was presented in her pre Christmas lawsuit made him sound like a downright psychopath and now with more context, I’m less sure what actually went down.

PP. Right, I don't disagree -- both sides have presented information that indicates the other person did not behave 100% professionally and may have contributed to issues on set. My bigger point is that they are talking past each other on some of these issues. Baldoni's complaint contextualizes some of what Lively alleges and adds some accusations against Lively that make her look bad. But the complaint does not address everything Lively alleges, and in particular the dispute over the intimate scenes and intimacy coordinator seem to be addressing different things.

So far, if I assume that everything in Lively's complaint that is not addressed by Baldoni is true, he still looks pretty bad to me. However, Baldoni's complaint indicates that Lively may have set herself up to be in an awkward negotiating position by not participating fully in the pre-production discussions of the intimate scenes -- if she had, she may have been alerted to Baldoni's style and his preferences for these scenes sooner, and the IC might have been able to head off issues in advance. Lively also would have had a relationship with the IC that might have made it easier for her to turn to the IC for help during shooting when she was feeling pressured to do things in scenes that were not written as intimate but seem to have become that.

However on a professionally run set where people are behaving themselves, an actor should not actually need that level of involvement from the IC, outside of the scripted sex scenes. Lively has filmed plenty of intimate scenes before, perhaps they were more professionally run than this film and she was surprised by the issues that came up during the shoot.

I'm an attorney and I just would caution people to think Baldoni has somehow totally exonerated himself here. One major sticking point is that no matter what Lively did or didn't do with regards to meeting pre-production, this was Baldoni's set. He was the director and his production company was bankrolling it. So if it was an unprofessional set where industry rules were being flouted and where many cast and crew felt uncomfortable or harassed, that falls to him, even if Lively engaged in problematic behavior too. His burden is higher because he has more liability exposure. He needs to prove that he and Wayfarer did everything by the book and that any problems were 100% caused by Lively or other actors not following clear procedures. What he's alleged in his complaint isn't that. He has contextualized some of her allegations. Since his complaint is actually a separate lawsuit, he wasn't required to respond directly to all her allegations. I will be interested to see how he answers Lively complaint and how her complaint (which is broader in scope than his, which is focused on the allegations in the NYTs) proceeds. He is far from out of the woods here.

It was his set but lively wielded a tremendous amount of power on it. She got to pick all of her costuming, which is from what I understand kind of unheard of. she got to select the music, in addition to getting Taylor songs, she’s also done an interviewer saying she was responsible for picking Lana Del ray songs. She also hired the Deadpool editor for the final edit. She also chose the final cut of the picture which essentially means she had full control. Justin‘s cut tested better, but Sony let her proceed with her cut. Why? Was it Ryan Reynolds? And at what point did he berate Justin in his apartment? Because that should be looked at too and he should not be off the hook for harassment.

You keep saying Justin was the director and had full control, but given everything that I just listed, someone took control away from him, and I want to know when and why. If it was because he was sexually harassing people why wasn’t he fired? There was just a lot of conflicting timelines and stories here.

This is not accurate.

Lively had more input than would be typical in the industry into her character's costuming on set as well as the design of her flower shop. But that's not really that weird for an actor at her fame level -- they often get more leeway in things related to character development and she is far from the first actress to use some of her own clothes or to dictate aspects of the set that are very relevant to the character. From Baldoni's, Wayfarer's, and Sony's point of view, these impositions would be worth having someone with Lively's name recognition attached to the production. Her involvement likely helped get the project greenlit and would guarantee a broader release than with a less famous actress. All of this is independent of Lively's acting skill or suitability for the role -- star power is enormously useful in filmmaking, especially for a newbie and fairly unknown director. Lively was a meal ticket for almost everyone else involved in the production because without her, maybe there's no movie or maybe no one sees it.

But the other stuff you mention was not in place during filming. Her input into songs happened in post production, as did Reynold's involvement in cutting the released version. Lively's producer credit was also not added until post-production -- on set her only credit was as an actor. And the production of course had costuming and set designers. Their job in that setting is to work with Lively to both make her happy with what is being used while also serving the director's vision. If he or Sony were unhappy with her costuming, but Lively's contract specifies that she has final approval on all costumes, then that's a management issue you need to address. Find a costumer who can work with Lively and find ways to tweak what she wants to make it look better.

That's the job. Do you know how many people get an opportunity to direct a feature film with a big name star, based on a bestselling book with a built-in fan base, and with Sony signed on to distribute. Like 10 people and most of them are directors who have done it before. This movie was an absolute gift for Baldoni and it sounds like he was disorganized, unprofessional, and ineffectual in key aspects of his job. If he also has boundary issues and a habit of sexualizing professional situations and making a lot of comments about the physical appearance of women around him, that's a problem.

Lively doesn't sound like a dream to work with but it also sounds like she did her job on the movie. It doesn't sound like Baldoni did his and that's the source of the problems right there.

I guess I’d need to see allegations of him being disorganized and unprofessional.

There’s a podcaster going a deep dive on Sonys utter dependency on ryan Reynolds’s financially. They are one of their only competitors that doesnt have a streaming platform and they have been oozing money. Reynolds is banking a franchise base on the boardgame clue for them. They are heavily indebted to him.

Something stinks about all of this and I think it’s more than just baldoni.

Lively's complaint is filled with examples of Baldoni and his producer partner being unprofessional on set, changing scenes last minute, failing to get proper riders in place for certain scenes, etc. The complaint describes unprofessional comments and behavior from both men both on set and during off set social events, and not just towards Lively but towards the people on staff including other actors and members of Lively's staff. Multiple cast members have come out in support of Lively in the last few weeks while none of come out in support of Baldoni, which indicates that Lively was not the only one who found his behavior unprofessional and inappropriate.

I can't stand Ryan Reynolds and have no doubt that Sony has some kind of indebtedness to him -- Reynolds has very strategically invested in a variety of places in the industry to maximize his power and leverage. I'm sure Sony was invested in making him happy and still is.

That doesn't mean that Lively's complaint is a lie. It may mean that Baldoni was stupid enough to harass the wife of one of the most powerful people in Hollywood on set. Baldoni doesn't seem like the brightest bulb, so I wouldn't put this past him. Reynold's seems like a real pill but I wouldn't accuse him of being dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue with the intimacy coordinator is still an open question and we don't know the full truth yet.

Yes they hired an intimacy coordinator (this is standard in the industry now) and yes it looks like Baldoni did his due diligence in meeting with her and choreographing sex scenes before shooting began. I would also assume the coordinator was on set for the scenes she choreographed.

It looks like from the texts Baldoni has released that Lively didn't meet with the intimacy coordinator prior to filming. I agree that raises questions and would like more context there. Lively has done plenty of sex scenes before so maybe she just didn't think it was necessary to have extra meetings, I don't know.

But none of this is what Lively raises in her complaint.

She is not saying the production failed to hire an intimacy coordinator at all, she's saying that Baldoni and Wayfarer turned scenes that were not scripted as intimate scenes into intimate scenes, failed to work with the intimacy coordinator on those scenes (which the coordinator didn't choreograph because they were not written to have intimacy or nudity in them), and that the filming of these scenes was unprofessional and compromised Lively and other actors.

Two examples: (1) a scene in which Lively's and Baldoni's character were filmed dancing, without audio It was scripted as them just slow dancing with no dialogue and no other touching. Lively alleges that Baldoni started kissing her on her mouth and neck during the scene (not scripted, not run by the IC) and that he was speaking to her in a sexual way out of character. (2) The birth scene, which was not choreographed with the IC, was made into a nude scene on the fly without it being scripted that way, and that Lively wound up partially nude in the scene and working in very close proximity with the actor playing the OB in the scene (she describes him as being position very close to her crotch which was covered only by a thin strip of fabric), but this scene was not written as a nude scene, Lively didn't have a nudity rider in place, the IC didn't choreograph it, and the IC was not on set.

Lively's version implies that it would not have mattered if she'd met with the IC prior to filming because these scenes were never scripted as intimate/nude scenes. Baldoni seems to be implying that if Lively had issues she could have raised them with the IC prior to filming.

Also Lively's complaint mentions Baldoni trying to add things like Lively's character climaxing or the characters engaging in oral sex that, according to Lively, were not in the script and not choreographed by the IC. This is the part that needs a lot more clarification because the IC absolutely should have been imon set for those scenes so it would be good to hear from her because she'd be able to clarify what was scripted and what was not, but also if Baldoni was adding unscripted elements, it's the IC's job to intervene on behalf of the actors and say "hey, this is not what was agreed to." This is the part where Lively not meeting with the IC becomes an issue, though we'd also need to know what is described in the shooting script, which should detail the shots they wanted to get and which Lively would have received copies of in advance (though if Baldoni made last minute changes after shooting had begun, that's another issue).

I don't think it's possible to take a side based on what we know now. The facts are in dispute.

All good points. The Perez Hilton videos specifically mentioned the oral sex scene. Apparently, according to Justin‘s notes, the intimacy coordinator had suggested that scene. So he had the awkwardness of having to explain that to her without the intimacy coordinator present, which again was not supposed to happen… A key point of having an intimacy coordinator is to have conversations in a safe space where she is present.

Blake didn’t want to do that scene in part because she volunteered information, something along the lines of if I climax (from oral) and then he didn’t I would be mortified. Justin explained that those were some of the most intimate moments with his wife.

It seems conversations like that was what she objected to later in the lawsuit. But it’s a little unfair because again he was tasked with relaying those types of information to her without the intimacy coordinator present, and also because she volunteered information about her own personal life or preferences, prompting him to say something personal about him and his wife.

I’m not saying he was in the right here. I’m just saying there’s just a little bit more context than what the New York Times presents.

I said it earlier in this thread, I think both of them were playing fast and loose with the standards and were both, because of their initial friendly personal relationship, crossing too many boundaries. I don’t think Blake probably should’ve signed texts with x, and I don’t think she should’ve invited him to run lines while she was pumping. I’m not saying she did anything wrong, or that those things would be inappropriate if the relationship had stayed steady, but it just seems like they both got too comfortable with each other and then when things started going bad, she was the first one to initially use that against him.

Of course more facts could come out. It was presented in her pre Christmas lawsuit made him sound like a downright psychopath and now with more context, I’m less sure what actually went down.

PP. Right, I don't disagree -- both sides have presented information that indicates the other person did not behave 100% professionally and may have contributed to issues on set. My bigger point is that they are talking past each other on some of these issues. Baldoni's complaint contextualizes some of what Lively alleges and adds some accusations against Lively that make her look bad. But the complaint does not address everything Lively alleges, and in particular the dispute over the intimate scenes and intimacy coordinator seem to be addressing different things.

So far, if I assume that everything in Lively's complaint that is not addressed by Baldoni is true, he still looks pretty bad to me. However, Baldoni's complaint indicates that Lively may have set herself up to be in an awkward negotiating position by not participating fully in the pre-production discussions of the intimate scenes -- if she had, she may have been alerted to Baldoni's style and his preferences for these scenes sooner, and the IC might have been able to head off issues in advance. Lively also would have had a relationship with the IC that might have made it easier for her to turn to the IC for help during shooting when she was feeling pressured to do things in scenes that were not written as intimate but seem to have become that.

However on a professionally run set where people are behaving themselves, an actor should not actually need that level of involvement from the IC, outside of the scripted sex scenes. Lively has filmed plenty of intimate scenes before, perhaps they were more professionally run than this film and she was surprised by the issues that came up during the shoot.

I'm an attorney and I just would caution people to think Baldoni has somehow totally exonerated himself here. One major sticking point is that no matter what Lively did or didn't do with regards to meeting pre-production, this was Baldoni's set. He was the director and his production company was bankrolling it. So if it was an unprofessional set where industry rules were being flouted and where many cast and crew felt uncomfortable or harassed, that falls to him, even if Lively engaged in problematic behavior too. His burden is higher because he has more liability exposure. He needs to prove that he and Wayfarer did everything by the book and that any problems were 100% caused by Lively or other actors not following clear procedures. What he's alleged in his complaint isn't that. He has contextualized some of her allegations. Since his complaint is actually a separate lawsuit, he wasn't required to respond directly to all her allegations. I will be interested to see how he answers Lively complaint and how her complaint (which is broader in scope than his, which is focused on the allegations in the NYTs) proceeds. He is far from out of the woods here.

It was his set but lively wielded a tremendous amount of power on it. She got to pick all of her costuming, which is from what I understand kind of unheard of. she got to select the music, in addition to getting Taylor songs, she’s also done an interviewer saying she was responsible for picking Lana Del ray songs. She also hired the Deadpool editor for the final edit. She also chose the final cut of the picture which essentially means she had full control. Justin‘s cut tested better, but Sony let her proceed with her cut. Why? Was it Ryan Reynolds? And at what point did he berate Justin in his apartment? Because that should be looked at too and he should not be off the hook for harassment.

You keep saying Justin was the director and had full control, but given everything that I just listed, someone took control away from him, and I want to know when and why. If it was because he was sexually harassing people why wasn’t he fired? There was just a lot of conflicting timelines and stories here.

This is not accurate.

Lively had more input than would be typical in the industry into her character's costuming on set as well as the design of her flower shop. But that's not really that weird for an actor at her fame level -- they often get more leeway in things related to character development and she is far from the first actress to use some of her own clothes or to dictate aspects of the set that are very relevant to the character. From Baldoni's, Wayfarer's, and Sony's point of view, these impositions would be worth having someone with Lively's name recognition attached to the production. Her involvement likely helped get the project greenlit and would guarantee a broader release than with a less famous actress. All of this is independent of Lively's acting skill or suitability for the role -- star power is enormously useful in filmmaking, especially for a newbie and fairly unknown director. Lively was a meal ticket for almost everyone else involved in the production because without her, maybe there's no movie or maybe no one sees it.

But the other stuff you mention was not in place during filming. Her input into songs happened in post production, as did Reynold's involvement in cutting the released version. Lively's producer credit was also not added until post-production -- on set her only credit was as an actor. And the production of course had costuming and set designers. Their job in that setting is to work with Lively to both make her happy with what is being used while also serving the director's vision. If he or Sony were unhappy with her costuming, but Lively's contract specifies that she has final approval on all costumes, then that's a management issue you need to address. Find a costumer who can work with Lively and find ways to tweak what she wants to make it look better.

That's the job. Do you know how many people get an opportunity to direct a feature film with a big name star, based on a bestselling book with a built-in fan base, and with Sony signed on to distribute. Like 10 people and most of them are directors who have done it before. This movie was an absolute gift for Baldoni and it sounds like he was disorganized, unprofessional, and ineffectual in key aspects of his job. If he also has boundary issues and a habit of sexualizing professional situations and making a lot of comments about the physical appearance of women around him, that's a problem.

Lively doesn't sound like a dream to work with but it also sounds like she did her job on the movie. It doesn't sound like Baldoni did his and that's the source of the problems right there.

I guess I’d need to see allegations of him being disorganized and unprofessional.

There’s a podcaster going a deep dive on Sonys utter dependency on ryan Reynolds’s financially. They are one of their only competitors that doesnt have a streaming platform and they have been oozing money. Reynolds is banking a franchise base on the boardgame clue for them. They are heavily indebted to him.

Something stinks about all of this and I think it’s more than just baldoni.

Lively's complaint is filled with examples of Baldoni and his producer partner being unprofessional on set, changing scenes last minute, failing to get proper riders in place for certain scenes, etc. The complaint describes unprofessional comments and behavior from both men both on set and during off set social events, and not just towards Lively but towards the people on staff including other actors and members of Lively's staff. Multiple cast members have come out in support of Lively in the last few weeks while none of come out in support of Baldoni, which indicates that Lively was not the only one who found his behavior unprofessional and inappropriate.

I can't stand Ryan Reynolds and have no doubt that Sony has some kind of indebtedness to him -- Reynolds has very strategically invested in a variety of places in the industry to maximize his power and leverage. I'm sure Sony was invested in making him happy and still is.

That doesn't mean that Lively's complaint is a lie. It may mean that Baldoni was stupid enough to harass the wife of one of the most powerful people in Hollywood on set. Baldoni doesn't seem like the brightest bulb, so I wouldn't put this past him. Reynold's seems like a real pill but I wouldn't accuse him of being dumb.

He is filing this counter claim in her suit soon, and it contains additional texts not yet released. He’s also saying he will release all texts between them publicly. So much more to come. . .