Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Also worth noting that Justin alleges that Blake was rewriting nearly every one of her scenes, either herself or having Ryan do it. So all of her talk about sticking to the script was exactly that, talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post a link to JB's complaint?

Scroll down. It's worth the read and raises a lot of questions about her complaint:

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/justin-baldoni-sues-new-york-times-blake-lively-allegations-story-1236263099/

I think it raises good questions about how the New York Times covered this conflict but I don't think it really provides much in the way of defense regarding what Lively is alleging. It provides some context for some of her allegations but other than the texts where she invites him to her trailer while pumping, it doesn't provide much that changes my mind about much. It still really sounds like this was a very unprofessional production where a lot of boundaries were crossed and Baldoni specifically engaged in inappropriate behavior.

I do think he has a case against the NYT but also their 1st Amendment protection is pretty strong. It think they mishandled their coverage and presented a really biased version of the story. But since I'm basing my perception on their legal filings and not the NYT coverage, that's not that relevant to me.

Really? Sony and Baldoni claim no HR complaint was ever filed. That’s a pretty big lie from Blake’s side if shown to be true.

When Blake tried to file a complaint with Sony, they wouldn't accept it. Perhaps the same happened to this other person. We'll see what happens in discovery. Really shitty if people try to make HR complaints and are told there's no one to take them other than the alleged harassers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post a link to JB's complaint?

Scroll down. It's worth the read and raises a lot of questions about her complaint:

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/justin-baldoni-sues-new-york-times-blake-lively-allegations-story-1236263099/

I think it raises good questions about how the New York Times covered this conflict but I don't think it really provides much in the way of defense regarding what Lively is alleging. It provides some context for some of her allegations but other than the texts where she invites him to her trailer while pumping, it doesn't provide much that changes my mind about much. It still really sounds like this was a very unprofessional production where a lot of boundaries were crossed and Baldoni specifically engaged in inappropriate behavior.

I do think he has a case against the NYT but also their 1st Amendment protection is pretty strong. It think they mishandled their coverage and presented a really biased version of the story. But since I'm basing my perception on their legal filings and not the NYT coverage, that's not that relevant to me.

Really? Sony and Baldoni claim no HR complaint was ever filed. That’s a pretty big lie from Blake’s side if shown to be true.

I have wondered about that as well. She doesn’t identify a complainant and obviously, no one has come forward over the past few weeks. You’d think she would be working overtime to get some proof on this. If it’s false, it’s a big hit to her credibility. If it’s true, to his.

I think his complaint really hurts her retaliation claim and shows that her side edited texts to change their meaning. For me, that really weakens her credibility. If you lie about one part of your claim, you likely (no pun intended), lied about more.

His side was to make all the texts public, hers has been quiet on releasing them. Again, this suggests they both know the texts support his claims.

[Anonymous]

What does it mean that he made "all texts public"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post a link to JB's complaint?

Scroll down. It's worth the read and raises a lot of questions about her complaint:

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/justin-baldoni-sues-new-york-times-blake-lively-allegations-story-1236263099/

I think it raises good questions about how the New York Times covered this conflict but I don't think it really provides much in the way of defense regarding what Lively is alleging. It provides some context for some of her allegations but other than the texts where she invites him to her trailer while pumping, it doesn't provide much that changes my mind about much. It still really sounds like this was a very unprofessional production where a lot of boundaries were crossed and Baldoni specifically engaged in inappropriate behavior.

I do think he has a case against the NYT but also their 1st Amendment protection is pretty strong. It think they mishandled their coverage and presented a really biased version of the story. But since I'm basing my perception on their legal filings and not the NYT coverage, that's not that relevant to me.

Really? Sony and Baldoni claim no HR complaint was ever filed. That’s a pretty big lie from Blake’s side if shown to be true.

When Blake tried to file a complaint with Sony, they wouldn't accept it. Perhaps the same happened to this other person. We'll see what happens in discovery. Really shitty if people try to make HR complaints and are told there's no one to take them other than the alleged harassers.

So she claims. But there is also an email, attached to her complaint, in which she declines to go through the HR process with her concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what his complaint says about the IC:
Contrary to Lively’s assertion, it was she who refused to meet with the intimacy
coordinator to plan out scenes, putting Baldoni in the awkward position of meeting with the
intimacy coordinator alone and later relaying sex scene suggestions to Lively in the intimacy
coordinator’s absence—not only defeating the purpose but resulting in accusations by the Times that,
before shooting began, Baldoni wanted to add sex scenes that Lively considered gratuitous; in fact,
these scenes were proposed by the intimacy coordinator. This is well-documented in hand-written
notes Baldoni took during meetings with the intimacy coordinator.

But this doesn't really make sense. Baldoni was the director, it's his job to meet with the IC and map out the sex scenes and it's also his job (or the job of the production company, and he was also producing) to get the actors on board with what is mapped out.

Like literally it is his job to figure out how he wants to tell this story (it's his movie) and work that out with everyone involved. Lively wasn't contractually obligated to participate in pre-production meetings and didn't want to (presumably because she was on maternity leave) but that doesn't mean she refused to work with the IC.

Also it's such a copout for him to say "oh the IC suggested these gratuitous sex scenes." Whose movie is this? Sorry but intimacy coordinators are not hired to determine how graphic or sexual a movie is. That is 100% within the purview of the director. An IC is like a stunt coordinator -- their job is to ensure the director's vision for the intimate scenes is carried out in a safe and respectful way for the actors, following industry standards. Can you imagine if an actor complained that a stunt was too dangerous or not necessary for the movie and the director said "oh well that wasn't even my idea, the stunt coordinator suggested it and I said okay."

The director is the boss. It sounds like Baldoni was really bad at it. This is what happens when you hire a total novice to direct a feature like this. Sounds like he only go the gig because his production company has loads of money and was able to get the full rights to the movie. I don't think a studio would have hired someone this inept and if they did, I think they would have brought in someone to hold his hand when it became obvious that he didn't know what he was doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does it mean that he made "all texts public"?

He wants to release all relevant texts publicly, and I believe has said he would do so when he files his counterclaim. Of course, it is possible Blake has relevant texts he doesn’t but she has not said she will be releasing any texts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post a link to JB's complaint?

Scroll down. It's worth the read and raises a lot of questions about her complaint:

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/justin-baldoni-sues-new-york-times-blake-lively-allegations-story-1236263099/

I think it raises good questions about how the New York Times covered this conflict but I don't think it really provides much in the way of defense regarding what Lively is alleging. It provides some context for some of her allegations but other than the texts where she invites him to her trailer while pumping, it doesn't provide much that changes my mind about much. It still really sounds like this was a very unprofessional production where a lot of boundaries were crossed and Baldoni specifically engaged in inappropriate behavior.

I do think he has a case against the NYT but also their 1st Amendment protection is pretty strong. It think they mishandled their coverage and presented a really biased version of the story. But since I'm basing my perception on their legal filings and not the NYT coverage, that's not that relevant to me.

Really? Sony and Baldoni claim no HR complaint was ever filed. That’s a pretty big lie from Blake’s side if shown to be true.

When Blake tried to file a complaint with Sony, they wouldn't accept it. Perhaps the same happened to this other person. We'll see what happens in discovery. Really shitty if people try to make HR complaints and are told there's no one to take them other than the alleged harassers.

Sony was asked in August when the film was being promoted and people were seeing the bad blood, was there an HR complaint filed on this film? Sony said no there wasn’t. It doesn’t seem like anyone, Blake or any other person, filed an official HR complaint.

Are you saying someone tried to and Sony wouldn’t let them? I guess that will come out eventually. If someone emailed a representative with an HR complaint, even if they didn’t officially accept it, someone must have that email. Of course, if it never happened, I guess they wouldn’t.

It seems like it’s easily provable one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what his complaint says about the IC:
Contrary to Lively’s assertion, it was she who refused to meet with the intimacy
coordinator to plan out scenes, putting Baldoni in the awkward position of meeting with the
intimacy coordinator alone and later relaying sex scene suggestions to Lively in the intimacy
coordinator’s absence—not only defeating the purpose but resulting in accusations by the Times that,
before shooting began, Baldoni wanted to add sex scenes that Lively considered gratuitous; in fact,
these scenes were proposed by the intimacy coordinator. This is well-documented in hand-written
notes Baldoni took during meetings with the intimacy coordinator.

But this doesn't really make sense. Baldoni was the director, it's his job to meet with the IC and map out the sex scenes and it's also his job (or the job of the production company, and he was also producing) to get the actors on board with what is mapped out.

Like literally it is his job to figure out how he wants to tell this story (it's his movie) and work that out with everyone involved. Lively wasn't contractually obligated to participate in pre-production meetings and didn't want to (presumably because she was on maternity leave) but that doesn't mean she refused to work with the IC.

Also it's such a copout for him to say "oh the IC suggested these gratuitous sex scenes." Whose movie is this? Sorry but intimacy coordinators are not hired to determine how graphic or sexual a movie is. That is 100% within the purview of the director. An IC is like a stunt coordinator -- their job is to ensure the director's vision for the intimate scenes is carried out in a safe and respectful way for the actors, following industry standards. Can you imagine if an actor complained that a stunt was too dangerous or not necessary for the movie and the director said "oh well that wasn't even my idea, the stunt coordinator suggested it and I said okay."

The director is the boss. It sounds like Baldoni was really bad at it. This is what happens when you hire a total novice to direct a feature like this. Sounds like he only go the gig because his production company has loads of money and was able to get the full rights to the movie. I don't think a studio would have hired someone this inept and if they did, I think they would have brought in someone to hold his hand when it became obvious that he didn't know what he was doing.

I think it would be within the stunt’s coordinator’s purview to say that a stunt was too dangerous as proposed or that it would be better performed in a different manner. Similarly, an intimacy coordinator could say that a scene might be too graphic or otherwise uncomfortable for the other party. Of course, Blake should have gone and given her own perspective, but maybe she was too busy rewriting her scenes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what his complaint says about the IC:
Contrary to Lively’s assertion, it was she who refused to meet with the intimacy
coordinator to plan out scenes, putting Baldoni in the awkward position of meeting with the
intimacy coordinator alone and later relaying sex scene suggestions to Lively in the intimacy
coordinator’s absence—not only defeating the purpose but resulting in accusations by the Times that,
before shooting began, Baldoni wanted to add sex scenes that Lively considered gratuitous; in fact,
these scenes were proposed by the intimacy coordinator. This is well-documented in hand-written
notes Baldoni took during meetings with the intimacy coordinator.

But this doesn't really make sense. Baldoni was the director, it's his job to meet with the IC and map out the sex scenes and it's also his job (or the job of the production company, and he was also producing) to get the actors on board with what is mapped out.

Like literally it is his job to figure out how he wants to tell this story (it's his movie) and work that out with everyone involved. Lively wasn't contractually obligated to participate in pre-production meetings and didn't want to (presumably because she was on maternity leave) but that doesn't mean she refused to work with the IC.

Also it's such a copout for him to say "oh the IC suggested these gratuitous sex scenes." Whose movie is this? Sorry but intimacy coordinators are not hired to determine how graphic or sexual a movie is. That is 100% within the purview of the director. An IC is like a stunt coordinator -- their job is to ensure the director's vision for the intimate scenes is carried out in a safe and respectful way for the actors, following industry standards. Can you imagine if an actor complained that a stunt was too dangerous or not necessary for the movie and the director said "oh well that wasn't even my idea, the stunt coordinator suggested it and I said okay."

The director is the boss. It sounds like Baldoni was really bad at it. This is what happens when you hire a total novice to direct a feature like this. Sounds like he only go the gig because his production company has loads of money and was able to get the full rights to the movie. I don't think a studio would have hired someone this inept and if they did, I think they would have brought in someone to hold his hand when it became obvious that he didn't know what he was doing.

The intimacy coordinator is supposed to script out scenes with the actors and make sure they are comfortable. She is supposed to meet with them and get input on what is comfortable and what’s not. The director does not necessarily script those scenes, the director does not write every scene in the movie. A director is also not the screenwriter. A director is in charge of how things are shot, an intimacy coordinator’s job is to script out scenes.

On a few occasions, it seems like he had to meet with the intimacy coordinator and had to relay notes to her. That puts him in an awkward position of relaying thinks of a sexual nature to her. But he had signed and dated notes apparently.

[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:" On the day of shooting the scene in which Ms. Lively's character gives birth, Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath suddenly pressured Ms. Lively to simulate full nudity, despite no mention of nudity
for this scene in the script, her contract, or in previous creative discussions. Mr. Baldoni insisted to Ms.
Lively that women give birth naked, and that his wife had “ripped her clothes off” during labor. He
claimed it was “not normal” for women to remain in their hospital gowns while giving birth. Ms. Lively
disagreed, but felt forced into a compromise that she would be naked from below the chest down"

"To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth. Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied "She isn't weird about this stuff,” as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video."

This is all extremely messed up. Why are people defending these two? The mental gymnastics to make this seem ok is exhausting.

Because they are filmmakers making a movie where the pivotal scene is childbirth. It literally gives the name of the movie. It’s completely normal that they would discuss nudity in the CHILDBIRTH scene with the actress knowingly being paid to act out a scene of CHILDBIRTH.

All caps doesn't make your point any more compelling. The childbirth scene is pivotal for emotional reasons, and birth scenes are regularly filmed from the chest up and focus on the actors' faces and interactions, because frankly making a birth scene more graphic than that is going to take most viewers out of the scene emotionally. Also many, many women give birth wearing a hospital gown and most birth scenes are filmed with the actress mostly clothed. So no, it was actually not at all normal for the director to assume that the scene would be filmed nude or that Lively would know they expected her to be nude. It's not what is typical for the industry.

And Baldoni and his team either knew that or were very stupid because, as Lively points out, if they'd planned for the birth scene to be done nude all along, they would have scripted it as a nude scene, obtained a nudity rider, and enlisted the intimacy coordinator in choreographing the scene and had her on set that day. They didn't do any of those things. So either they also didn't expect the scene to be nude and just decided on the fly that day that it would be, or they are just extremely bad at their jobs and failed to properly script, storyboard, and follow normal procedure for something that was always planned to be a nude scene.

Either way, they screwed up.

The scene was filmed with her dressed, no? So they suggested something she didn’t want to do, and after she said no, they filmed it the way she wanted it filmed.

No. Read the complaint. She was nude from the waist down with only a small strip of nude fabric covering her genitals, and when she repeatedly asked for something to cover herself with between takes, she was ignored even after multiple requests. It was not even remotely how she wanted it to be filmed.

They also sprang the nudity request on her on the day of filming instead of setting it up in advance. Extremely unprofessional. You don't ask an actor to do a scene nude the day it's shot -- there's intense pressure because if you can't reach a compromise, the scene can be delayed and can cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the cost of the location, other actors and personnel, as well as the costs associated with booking all of that again for a future date.

The Complaint quite clearly says they compromised on this disagreement by covering the upper half of her body.

Is that really a compromise if that was how the scene was initially meant to play out, and they were asking her for more?

If that was how it was suppose to be and they didn’t change it, I would say she got her way. But she calls it a compromise.

Oh my god I feel like I'm conversing with the village idiot. I'll try to use small words and simple sentences.

The scene was scripted with no nudity. Lively wanted to do the scene with clothes on -- a hospital gown and some kind of shorts on the bottom.

Baldoni decided he wanted Blake to simulate full nudity for the scene. Simulating full nudity means no clothes at all, but with strips of fabric glued to her genitals. That's how most nude scenes are filmed.

The compromised on partial nudity. That means Blake wore a hospital gown on top but was nude from the waist down, with just a strip of nude fabric taped to her genitals.

Do you see how the compromise was different from what both Lively and Baldoni wanted? Do you see how it was different from how the scene was scripted?

If she had a gown on but pushed up, seems like it would have been easy to cover up between takes, just saying.

While laying with legs spread in stirrups? No.

Why in the world would she stay in that position if there was enough time to cover up. That makes zero sense.

It was likely not up to her. In a scene like that they are setting up blocking, lighting, camera angles. If you are one of the people who is just standing there, they will tell you to please stay on your mark so that they can ensure your face is properly lit and they can frame the shot. But Lively was in stirrups, presumably reclined in a hospital bed. She's not going to be permitted to just sit up and take her legs out of the stirrups between shots. This could cause delays because then every time she gets back down into position, they have to check everything and make sure she's still lit and framed correctly, that she hasn't shifted slightly in a way that blocks her face or another actor's face. It can also make editing a pain if her position is a little different between each take -- there can be glaring inconsistencies between takes that make it difficult for an editor to splice the best part of one take with the best part of another. It compromises the movie.

But it would be really easy to just provide a sheet to drape over her legs between shots so that she could stay in position without having to be exposed. Like literally this takes two seconds. It is ridiculous that it wasn't provided the first time she asked.

This is also something that an IC would be paying attention to and address immediately -- one of the things an IC is charged with directly is the physical comfort of actors between takes especially if they are nude or in a physically compromised position. Also an IC would have asked for the set to be closed to non-essential crew for the same reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post a link to JB's complaint?

Scroll down. It's worth the read and raises a lot of questions about her complaint:

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/justin-baldoni-sues-new-york-times-blake-lively-allegations-story-1236263099/

I think it raises good questions about how the New York Times covered this conflict but I don't think it really provides much in the way of defense regarding what Lively is alleging. It provides some context for some of her allegations but other than the texts where she invites him to her trailer while pumping, it doesn't provide much that changes my mind about much. It still really sounds like this was a very unprofessional production where a lot of boundaries were crossed and Baldoni specifically engaged in inappropriate behavior.

I do think he has a case against the NYT but also their 1st Amendment protection is pretty strong. It think they mishandled their coverage and presented a really biased version of the story. But since I'm basing my perception on their legal filings and not the NYT coverage, that's not that relevant to me.

Really? Sony and Baldoni claim no HR complaint was ever filed. That’s a pretty big lie from Blake’s side if shown to be true.

When Blake tried to file a complaint with Sony, they wouldn't accept it. Perhaps the same happened to this other person. We'll see what happens in discovery. Really shitty if people try to make HR complaints and are told there's no one to take them other than the alleged harassers.

Sony was asked in August when the film was being promoted and people were seeing the bad blood, was there an HR complaint filed on this film? Sony said no there wasn’t. It doesn’t seem like anyone, Blake or any other person, filed an official HR complaint.

Are you saying someone tried to and Sony wouldn’t let them? I guess that will come out eventually. If someone emailed a representative with an HR complaint, even if they didn’t officially accept it, someone must have that email. Of course, if it never happened, I guess they wouldn’t.

It seems like it’s easily provable one way or the other.

Also, no HR department of a major studio is not going to open an investigation if there is a complaint. They might do a shitty investigation and whitewash the allegations, but they absolutely would conduct an investigation if there is a complaint, simply because it would be gross malpractice not to.

[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:" On the day of shooting the scene in which Ms. Lively's character gives birth, Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath suddenly pressured Ms. Lively to simulate full nudity, despite no mention of nudity
for this scene in the script, her contract, or in previous creative discussions. Mr. Baldoni insisted to Ms.
Lively that women give birth naked, and that his wife had “ripped her clothes off” during labor. He
claimed it was “not normal” for women to remain in their hospital gowns while giving birth. Ms. Lively
disagreed, but felt forced into a compromise that she would be naked from below the chest down"

"To add insult to injury, Mr. Heath approached Ms. Lively and her assistant on set and started playing a video of a fully nude woman with her legs spread apart. Ms. Lively thought he was showing her pornography and stopped him. Mr. Heath explained that the video was his wife giving birth. Ms. Lively was alarmed and asked Mr. Heath if his wife knew he was sharing the video, to which he replied "She isn't weird about this stuff,” as if Ms. Lively was weird for not welcoming it. Ms. Lively and her assistant excused themselves, stunned that Mr. Heath had shown them a nude video."

This is all extremely messed up. Why are people defending these two? The mental gymnastics to make this seem ok is exhausting.

Because they are filmmakers making a movie where the pivotal scene is childbirth. It literally gives the name of the movie. It’s completely normal that they would discuss nudity in the CHILDBIRTH scene with the actress knowingly being paid to act out a scene of CHILDBIRTH.

All caps doesn't make your point any more compelling. The childbirth scene is pivotal for emotional reasons, and birth scenes are regularly filmed from the chest up and focus on the actors' faces and interactions, because frankly making a birth scene more graphic than that is going to take most viewers out of the scene emotionally. Also many, many women give birth wearing a hospital gown and most birth scenes are filmed with the actress mostly clothed. So no, it was actually not at all normal for the director to assume that the scene would be filmed nude or that Lively would know they expected her to be nude. It's not what is typical for the industry.

And Baldoni and his team either knew that or were very stupid because, as Lively points out, if they'd planned for the birth scene to be done nude all along, they would have scripted it as a nude scene, obtained a nudity rider, and enlisted the intimacy coordinator in choreographing the scene and had her on set that day. They didn't do any of those things. So either they also didn't expect the scene to be nude and just decided on the fly that day that it would be, or they are just extremely bad at their jobs and failed to properly script, storyboard, and follow normal procedure for something that was always planned to be a nude scene.

Either way, they screwed up.

The scene was filmed with her dressed, no? So they suggested something she didn’t want to do, and after she said no, they filmed it the way she wanted it filmed.

No. Read the complaint. She was nude from the waist down with only a small strip of nude fabric covering her genitals, and when she repeatedly asked for something to cover herself with between takes, she was ignored even after multiple requests. It was not even remotely how she wanted it to be filmed.

They also sprang the nudity request on her on the day of filming instead of setting it up in advance. Extremely unprofessional. You don't ask an actor to do a scene nude the day it's shot -- there's intense pressure because if you can't reach a compromise, the scene can be delayed and can cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the cost of the location, other actors and personnel, as well as the costs associated with booking all of that again for a future date.

The Complaint quite clearly says they compromised on this disagreement by covering the upper half of her body.

Is that really a compromise if that was how the scene was initially meant to play out, and they were asking her for more?

If that was how it was suppose to be and they didn’t change it, I would say she got her way. But she calls it a compromise.

Oh my god I feel like I'm conversing with the village idiot. I'll try to use small words and simple sentences.

The scene was scripted with no nudity. Lively wanted to do the scene with clothes on -- a hospital gown and some kind of shorts on the bottom.

Baldoni decided he wanted Blake to simulate full nudity for the scene. Simulating full nudity means no clothes at all, but with strips of fabric glued to her genitals. That's how most nude scenes are filmed.

The compromised on partial nudity. That means Blake wore a hospital gown on top but was nude from the waist down, with just a strip of nude fabric taped to her genitals.

Do you see how the compromise was different from what both Lively and Baldoni wanted? Do you see how it was different from how the scene was scripted?

If she had a gown on but pushed up, seems like it would have been easy to cover up between takes, just saying.

While laying with legs spread in stirrups? No.

Why in the world would she stay in that position if there was enough time to cover up. That makes zero sense.

It was likely not up to her. In a scene like that they are setting up blocking, lighting, camera angles. If you are one of the people who is just standing there, they will tell you to please stay on your mark so that they can ensure your face is properly lit and they can frame the shot. But Lively was in stirrups, presumably reclined in a hospital bed. She's not going to be permitted to just sit up and take her legs out of the stirrups between shots. This could cause delays because then every time she gets back down into position, they have to check everything and make sure she's still lit and framed correctly, that she hasn't shifted slightly in a way that blocks her face or another actor's face. It can also make editing a pain if her position is a little different between each take -- there can be glaring inconsistencies between takes that make it difficult for an editor to splice the best part of one take with the best part of another. It compromises the movie.

But it would be really easy to just provide a sheet to drape over her legs between shots so that she could stay in position without having to be exposed. Like literally this takes two seconds. It is ridiculous that it wasn't provided the first time she asked.

This is also something that an IC would be paying attention to and address immediately -- one of the things an IC is charged with directly is the physical comfort of actors between takes especially if they are nude or in a physically compromised position. Also an IC would have asked for the set to be closed to non-essential crew for the same reason.

There is literally no way she was sitting in stirrups all day. I am willing to bet a lot of money on this. Further, her complaint states that she was wearing a hospital gown pushed up from the waist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what his complaint says about the IC:
Contrary to Lively’s assertion, it was she who refused to meet with the intimacy
coordinator to plan out scenes, putting Baldoni in the awkward position of meeting with the
intimacy coordinator alone and later relaying sex scene suggestions to Lively in the intimacy
coordinator’s absence—not only defeating the purpose but resulting in accusations by the Times that,
before shooting began, Baldoni wanted to add sex scenes that Lively considered gratuitous; in fact,
these scenes were proposed by the intimacy coordinator. This is well-documented in hand-written
notes Baldoni took during meetings with the intimacy coordinator.

But this doesn't really make sense. Baldoni was the director, it's his job to meet with the IC and map out the sex scenes and it's also his job (or the job of the production company, and he was also producing) to get the actors on board with what is mapped out.

Like literally it is his job to figure out how he wants to tell this story (it's his movie) and work that out with everyone involved. Lively wasn't contractually obligated to participate in pre-production meetings and didn't want to (presumably because she was on maternity leave) but that doesn't mean she refused to work with the IC.

Also it's such a copout for him to say "oh the IC suggested these gratuitous sex scenes." Whose movie is this? Sorry but intimacy coordinators are not hired to determine how graphic or sexual a movie is. That is 100% within the purview of the director. An IC is like a stunt coordinator -- their job is to ensure the director's vision for the intimate scenes is carried out in a safe and respectful way for the actors, following industry standards. Can you imagine if an actor complained that a stunt was too dangerous or not necessary for the movie and the director said "oh well that wasn't even my idea, the stunt coordinator suggested it and I said okay."

The director is the boss. It sounds like Baldoni was really bad at it. This is what happens when you hire a total novice to direct a feature like this. Sounds like he only go the gig because his production company has loads of money and was able to get the full rights to the movie. I don't think a studio would have hired someone this inept and if they did, I think they would have brought in someone to hold his hand when it became obvious that he didn't know what he was doing.

The intimacy coordinator is supposed to script out scenes with the actors and make sure they are comfortable. She is supposed to meet with them and get input on what is comfortable and what’s not. The director does not necessarily script those scenes, the director does not write every scene in the movie. A director is also not the screenwriter. A director is in charge of how things are shot, an intimacy coordinator’s job is to script out scenes.

On a few occasions, it seems like he had to meet with the intimacy coordinator and had to relay notes to her. That puts him in an awkward position of relaying thinks of a sexual nature to her. But he had signed and dated notes apparently.

Sorry you clearly don't have experience with this. I do.

An IC does not "script out" scenes. The IC works closely with the director to choreograph a scene based on what the director says they want. The IC will make suggestions on the content of a scene only insofar as it's relevant to protecting the actors. So like a director might say they want a sex scene to to take place on a balcony because they want the scene framed with a view behind the actors. The IC might say "ok but we need to find a way to frame it so there can be some kind of padding underneath the actors since it could be painful or injurious to film this on the cement of this particular balcony." Then the director will say "okay but I want to do these two close ups of the actors from above and I don't want to be able to see any padding underneath them." And the IC will way okay so we'll do the following shots from the interior with the padding and the view behind them, and then we'll set up these closeups separately so that we can minimize the time the actors have to be on the cement without the padding -- also since we are only doing closeups for this part of the shoot, we can have the actors clothed from the waist down which will make that less uncomfortable for them." And so on.

What an IC doesn't do is say "oh it would be really cool if at this point your character went down on the other character." That's a story element, that's not up to the IC. A professional IC would not make a suggestion like that, and if they did, a professional director would not view it as necessary to follow the IC's suggestion -- it's just not their place.

The only thing I can think of is if a director suggested filming a sex act that an IC knows would be really uncomfortable for an actor to perform, they might say "okay what if instead we make this part of the scene an oral sex scene -- does that achieve your goal of showing the characters in a more intimate position without putting the actors in a really compromised position?" But it that case the IC isn't scripting the scene. They are proposing an alternative to something they view as particularly hard to film in a way that wouldn't compromise the actors.

In any case, it is completely normal for a director to meet with an IC to choreograph a sex scene and then for the director to relay what they figured out to the actors involved. And it's normal for an actor who is uncomfortable with any of it to say "ok I'm not comfortable with XYZ" and for the director to have to go back to the IC to address that issue. That's the director's job.

Directing a movie is really, really hard. Especially a feature length film with well known actors and a fairly large budget (for this sort of movie). But that's not an excuse for sexual harassment or being unprofessional on set or creating a creepy, sexualized environment.

[Anonymous]

Just saw latest clips from Justin’s lawyer, he is promising a counter claim filled with documentary evidence. Let’s see if he delivers.