Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

none of those things you list are harassment though. Even in the light most favorable to Lively.

Yes, it can be. It would show that Lively was pressured into doing a scene nude when it had not been scripted that way, and that the production did not take industry-standard precautions to ensure her comfort and protect her from inappropriate filming or interactions. if this happened on multiple scenes (and Lively's complaint alleges it did), this establishes a pattern of behavior that places actors in sexually compromised positions without the protection of an intimacy coordinator or proper riders to cover filming the actor while nude or partially nude.

One of the other scenes mentioned in the complaint is one in which Lively and Baldoni were to be filmed, without audio, dancing. As the scene only featured dancing, fully clothed, it was not deemed an intimate scene and the IC was not consulted and was not on set. However, Lively alleges that Baldoni repeatedly engaged in intimate contact in the scene, not merely kissing her on the lips but elsewhere on her body and dragging his lips across her skin. Lively also alleges that Baldoni engaged in unscripted, out of character sexual commentary during this scene. All of this was filmed. Lively has access to the footage (don't forget that Reynolds did his own cut of the movie -- they have access to everything filmed on set).

Tell me again how that doesn't constitute harassment?

DP Just to add I saw the movie and she wasn’t nude during that scene. So she won that round. But maybe it can be harassment if she felt pressured to do it even if she was able to get out of it.

Either way, I don’t think there was ever an intent to show Blake nude in this film. I mean, maybe they were trying to make it seem as if she was nude, but it’s not like we were ever going to see Blake lively’s boobs in this summer movie. Come on. The sex scenes were very mainstream and there is no way they wanted an R rating for this film so they weren’t going to push nudity limits.

It sounds like they were trying to push the balance of what she felt comfortable with, and that sucks. But I wonder if more documents get released we get more context about the disagreement here.

The version of the film that made it into theaters was edited by Ryan Reynolds. In part because Lively raised these issues during production about irregularities regarding the movie's intimate and nude scenes. The birth scene was filmed with Lively nude below the waist other than a strip of fabric covering her genitals. That is not in dispute.

It would be interesting to compare the version of the film that Baldoni approved (which is not the one in theaters) and compare how graphic the sex scenes are and in particular how Lively's body is shown. In fact I would not be surprised if at some point that becomes part of the evidentiary showing in the case. Especially since part of the dispute is the production's failure to obtain nudity riders for all nude scenes, which would govern how an actor can be filmed in those scenes (as well as who is on set, where the scene is shot, etc.).

[Anonymous]

TikTok blowing up with people reporting how they personally interacted with Blake on set and that she is a complete nightmare to work with. Mostly crew as opposed to actors. The amount of negative coverage she has managed to elicit is quite something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ if you’d chosen other small specialized firms as examples of ‘top tier’ in these areas, I might have half believed you. But you went to two ridiculous choices for P side work

Again you don’t know what you are talking about. Both the two firms working with Blake and the two I mentioned are large national firms. Look it up.

I was responding to a different post about Latham and O Melveny

Wilkie, Manatt, Latham and O’Melveny are all large national firms. Not sure why you are prattling on about small specialized firms.

Manatt is a lot smaller than the other firms on that list. But that shouldn't be the metric anyway -- it's about the strength and experience of their entertainment and employment litigation teams. Sometimes a boutique is a better choice for a really unique case. I'm guessing Manatt and Wilkie coordinated on this because Wilkie can provide some additional manpower while Manatt is bringing in the big guns with the industry experience.

Latham and O'Melveney are different kinds of firms. They have great entertainment and L&E lawyers but would be more likely to handle something involving a major studio or complex contractual issues. This dispute is super high profile but the players involved are small -- a single actor bringing a complaint against a first-time director and his tiny production company. A smaller firm is a good choice here because this is the sort of case that could get lost in the shuffle at a firm like Latham with thousands of attorneys. Also you want attorneys who can navigate the PR $hitshow well, and I think Manatt is a good choice for that.

Manatt has 450 lawyers in 10 offices and Wilkie has 1200 lawyers in 15 offices. Both are large firms by any definition.

You are just unable to admit you are wrong ever. That’s a horrible trait.

Uh, well no. Manatt has fewer than 300 lawyers. That 450+ number includes their healthcare consulting arm which adds a lot of professionals to their headcount but they aren't lawyers. Manatt's a really unique firm and it's hard to categorize them. It's hard to know this if you're just googling "how big is Manatt" for the first time today and don't know these firms well.

In any case Manatt's lawyer headcount is a quarter that of Willkie's (again why it makes sense they'd team up on a case like this). Latham has 3000+ lawyers and is in another league in terms of size. O'Melveney meanwhile has a headcount of 750 -- large but not a mega-firm like Latham. No one is going to call it a boutique though.

I am happy to admit I'm wrong, btw! Do it all the time. But not when I am, in fact, correct. Cheers!

Both Manatt and Wilkie are on all the lists of big law firms, the fact that some are these firms are bigger than others doesn’t change the fact that they are all considered big firms. Cheers!

This is hilarious. What list of "big firms"? You get that big is a relative term, yes? All of these firms appear on the NLJ 500 which ranks the largest 500 firms in the US by size. But Latham is ranked much higher than Manatt because it is a much larger firm. Are you trying to argue that a 3000+ lawyer firm is the same size as a 300 lawyer firm? Because that's dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

none of those things you list are harassment though. Even in the light most favorable to Lively.

Yes, it can be. It would show that Lively was pressured into doing a scene nude when it had not been scripted that way, and that the production did not take industry-standard precautions to ensure her comfort and protect her from inappropriate filming or interactions. if this happened on multiple scenes (and Lively's complaint alleges it did), this establishes a pattern of behavior that places actors in sexually compromised positions without the protection of an intimacy coordinator or proper riders to cover filming the actor while nude or partially nude.

One of the other scenes mentioned in the complaint is one in which Lively and Baldoni were to be filmed, without audio, dancing. As the scene only featured dancing, fully clothed, it was not deemed an intimate scene and the IC was not consulted and was not on set. However, Lively alleges that Baldoni repeatedly engaged in intimate contact in the scene, not merely kissing her on the lips but elsewhere on her body and dragging his lips across her skin. Lively also alleges that Baldoni engaged in unscripted, out of character sexual commentary during this scene. All of this was filmed. Lively has access to the footage (don't forget that Reynolds did his own cut of the movie -- they have access to everything filmed on set).

Tell me again how that doesn't constitute harassment?

Which script are we talking about, the real script or the one that Blake was constantly rewriting with her husband?

The "shooting script" which is the script that is used on set and actually gets story-boarded and blocked. A production may make changes on the fly to the shooting script if something isn't working or if an actor ad libs something they want to keep, but certain major decisions are supposed to be made in advance so that production is prepared for them on the day of. One of those decisions would be whether or not an actor would be unclothed or the scene includes intimate elements, so that the actor can negotiate a nudity rider to their contract that will control how their nudity is handled and what the production can film or include in the final cut of the scene, or whether an intimacy coordinator needs to be brought in to choreograph the scene. Often actors will also have contract provisions that dictate body doubles and that needs to be figured out ahead of time.

Whether Ryan Reynolds made changes to or contributed to the script for the movie is beside the point on this issues. If the production was repeatedly taking scenes that were not scripted as intimate or nude scenes and then changing that on the fly on set, this could constitute sexual harassment and create a hostile or unsafe work environment. It's actually exactly the type of scenario that intimacy coordinators are intended to help avoid -- an actress being pressured into nudity or intimate acts on set by pervy directors and producers because "it's just really going to make the scene work, honey" or "you don't want to get a reputation for being hard to work with, do you now?"

Count me as another lawyer who agrees with this post. Especially the last paragraph.

The last paragraph is the most ridiculous. No one is saying that to Blake Lively, particularly with her husband and their wife on set. PP went from arguing that the complaint was so wonderful because of how explicitly it laid out her claims to imagining conversations that were in fact extremely unlikely to have occurred.

I guess you don't understand the difference between PP saying this was literally what was said to Lively vs explaining why intimacy coordinators are necessary generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TikTok blowing up with people reporting how they personally interacted with Blake on set and that she is a complete nightmare to work with. Mostly crew as opposed to actors. The amount of negative coverage she has managed to elicit is quite something.

Smells like Nathan and Abel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ if you’d chosen other small specialized firms as examples of ‘top tier’ in these areas, I might have half believed you. But you went to two ridiculous choices for P side work

Again you don’t know what you are talking about. Both the two firms working with Blake and the two I mentioned are large national firms. Look it up.

I was responding to a different post about Latham and O Melveny

Wilkie, Manatt, Latham and O’Melveny are all large national firms. Not sure why you are prattling on about small specialized firms.

Manatt is a lot smaller than the other firms on that list. But that shouldn't be the metric anyway -- it's about the strength and experience of their entertainment and employment litigation teams. Sometimes a boutique is a better choice for a really unique case. I'm guessing Manatt and Wilkie coordinated on this because Wilkie can provide some additional manpower while Manatt is bringing in the big guns with the industry experience.

Latham and O'Melveney are different kinds of firms. They have great entertainment and L&E lawyers but would be more likely to handle something involving a major studio or complex contractual issues. This dispute is super high profile but the players involved are small -- a single actor bringing a complaint against a first-time director and his tiny production company. A smaller firm is a good choice here because this is the sort of case that could get lost in the shuffle at a firm like Latham with thousands of attorneys. Also you want attorneys who can navigate the PR $hitshow well, and I think Manatt is a good choice for that.

Manatt has 450 lawyers in 10 offices and Wilkie has 1200 lawyers in 15 offices. Both are large firms by any definition.

You are just unable to admit you are wrong ever. That’s a horrible trait.

Uh, well no. Manatt has fewer than 300 lawyers. That 450+ number includes their healthcare consulting arm which adds a lot of professionals to their headcount but they aren't lawyers. Manatt's a really unique firm and it's hard to categorize them. It's hard to know this if you're just googling "how big is Manatt" for the first time today and don't know these firms well.

In any case Manatt's lawyer headcount is a quarter that of Willkie's (again why it makes sense they'd team up on a case like this). Latham has 3000+ lawyers and is in another league in terms of size. O'Melveney meanwhile has a headcount of 750 -- large but not a mega-firm like Latham. No one is going to call it a boutique though.

I am happy to admit I'm wrong, btw! Do it all the time. But not when I am, in fact, correct. Cheers!

And yet you spend two pages arguing about whether firms that regularly appear on the list of big law firms are in fact big when it is completely irrelevant to the merits of this case. You seem easily distracted from what matters.

I think you are under the mistaken impression that this thread is just you and one other person.

I have posted about the relative size of these firms because I happen to know these firms are all very different in headcount. I don't really understand why it's in dispute on this thread but if it is, I'm happy to correct the record because several people (including you, in this post I am replying to) have made inaccurate statements about the size of these firms.

[Anonymous]

I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TikTok blowing up with people reporting how they personally interacted with Blake on set and that she is a complete nightmare to work with. Mostly crew as opposed to actors. The amount of negative coverage she has managed to elicit is quite something.

Smells like Nathan and Abel.

Nope she is just not a nice person and people are happy to talk about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TikTok blowing up with people reporting how they personally interacted with Blake on set and that she is a complete nightmare to work with. Mostly crew as opposed to actors. The amount of negative coverage she has managed to elicit is quite something.

Smells like Nathan and Abel.

No, it’s organic. The women on this forum defend her because they are middle/upper class white women and they see themselves in her, which I totally get. But to POC and younger people, she is an extremely privileged mean girl. It’s that simple.

I’ll give you an example, as an immigrant who understands differences in cultural norms, I was genuinely sad for the foreign interviewer who obviously doesn’t know that many white American women consider any commentary on their bodies as offensive. She congratulated Blake on her “cute bump” and then Blake told the interviewer she had a cute bump too or something to that effect. You could see the interviewer’s pain and discomfort. It turned out she’s infertile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TikTok blowing up with people reporting how they personally interacted with Blake on set and that she is a complete nightmare to work with. Mostly crew as opposed to actors. The amount of negative coverage she has managed to elicit is quite something.

Interesting. This is consistent with her crappy treatment of that reporter. She has vastly overestimated how much control she has over her image.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TikTok blowing up with people reporting how they personally interacted with Blake on set and that she is a complete nightmare to work with. Mostly crew as opposed to actors. The amount of negative coverage she has managed to elicit is quite something.

Interesting. This is consistent with her crappy treatment of that reporter. She has vastly overestimated how much control she has over her image.

Her actions have given people the freedom to speak their mind and it is damming.

[Anonymous]

Just want to say that not all of us white women are supporting her. I would also say that one very prolific, very pro Blake poster is skewing the perception of where support lies on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TikTok blowing up with people reporting how they personally interacted with Blake on set and that she is a complete nightmare to work with. Mostly crew as opposed to actors. The amount of negative coverage she has managed to elicit is quite something.

Smells like Nathan and Abel.

No, it’s organic. The women on this forum defend her because they are middle/upper class white women and they see themselves in her, which I totally get. But to POC and younger people, she is an extremely privileged mean girl. It’s that simple.

I’ll give you an example, as an immigrant who understands differences in cultural norms, I was genuinely sad for the foreign interviewer who obviously doesn’t know that many white American women consider any commentary on their bodies as offensive. She congratulated Blake on her “cute bump” and then Blake told the interviewer she had a cute bump too or something to that effect. You could see the interviewer’s pain and discomfort. It turned out she’s infertile.

It's not that clear cut though.

I'm a UMC white lady who finds Blake Lively insufferable. She absolutely comes off as a mean girl and I had zero issue with the negative press she got over the summer. I thought that interview she did with the foreign interviewer was awful and a good display of Lively's bad personality. I also don't really like Ryan Reynolds -- he seems really smarmy and glib.

BUT based on what we've learned so far about what happened on the set of the movie, I think there's a strong chance Baldoni harassed her. Obviously we can't know for sure -- we weren't there. But if Lively's team can prove even half of what she's alleging in her complaint, I think what he did was wrong and he should be held accountable. Even though I don't like Blake Lively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

I'm not going to get into it because it's a side convo and not important, but this is again not exactly accurate. Some of these posts really sound like someone plugging these firms into ChatGPT. They are sort of right but off and include inaccuracies that anyone who works in the industry would pick up on. Please, just stop. This doesn't matter but also why are you arguing something you are obviously not educated about?