Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see some clips from the birth scene in this compilation starting at about the 3:50 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEW5ddIhhg

Lively is naked below her boobs. There are multiple closeups of her belly and upper legs. Her legs are up in stirrups in a way that if she tried to pull that hospital gown over her lower half, it would ride up because her legs are up in the air.

It was a nude scene. If the actress filming that scene asked for a sheet between takes to cover up her lower body (even just for warmth, not modesty) it should have been provided. I'm sure there were points when she was able to take her legs out of the stirrups and cover up with the gown, but there were also definitely points where she had to lie there in the stirrups between takes because her legs are up for the full scene so I'm sure they were up for much of the shoot.

Those of you quibbling over "oh she could have pulled her hospital gown down" or "she wasn't really nude, she was wearing clothes" just sound dumb. She's obviously nude and the position of her body would have made it impossible to fully cover up with her gown unless she was lying there holding the gown in place the entire time with her hands (and she probably had to do other things with her hands between takes, like review notes about the scene, drink from a water bottle, etc.).

Why didn't they just give her a sheet? Like this is not explained. What possible reason would the production have for not giving her something to cover up during the scene? She shouldn't have to prove that she needs one, it should just be provided.

Do you understand Blake's not actually giving birth? Its called movie making. That's not her nude belly. It's a thick, warm prosthetic torso. Do while she looks like she's naked, she's actually not.

Still legs spread with a tiny piece of fabric covering her labia while mimicking pushing on an open set, visible camera screens posting the uncut scenesz and regardless of whether she could move to close her legs or move the gown during the shot, nobody could be bothered to give her a coverup when she asked for one.

I am one hundred percent sure that the camera was not focused on her labia — for one thing the friend of the director actor would be blocking it, for the other, she wasn’t actually pushing a baby out and aiming a camera there would make it obvious, and lastly, this was a PG 13 movie. Again, your fiction reads well though.

Of course it wasn't -- she was wearing a strip of fabric over her genitals anyway. No one has suggested they tried to film her genitals.

That does not mean it wasn't uncomfortable to film a scene with no pants on and an actor you just met sitting inches from your vag. It would also be weird to constantly be moving your legs between takes and pulling down the gown and she shouldn't have to do that.

There's also no excuse for springing the nudity on her the day of the shoot and failing to have the intimacy coordinator on set, and also for not closing the set when one of your actors is not only partially nude but has let you know she's not totally comfortable with it.

Baldoni hasn't explained any of this. Why wasn't she given a sheet? Why didn't he raise the issue of nudity earlier? If he planned for Lively to be nude, why didn't he enlist the intimacy coordinator to be there and why didn't he make it a closed set?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see some clips from the birth scene in this compilation starting at about the 3:50 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEW5ddIhhg

Lively is naked below her boobs. There are multiple closeups of her belly and upper legs. Her legs are up in stirrups in a way that if she tried to pull that hospital gown over her lower half, it would ride up because her legs are up in the air.

It was a nude scene. If the actress filming that scene asked for a sheet between takes to cover up her lower body (even just for warmth, not modesty) it should have been provided. I'm sure there were points when she was able to take her legs out of the stirrups and cover up with the gown, but there were also definitely points where she had to lie there in the stirrups between takes because her legs are up for the full scene so I'm sure they were up for much of the shoot.

Those of you quibbling over "oh she could have pulled her hospital gown down" or "she wasn't really nude, she was wearing clothes" just sound dumb. She's obviously nude and the position of her body would have made it impossible to fully cover up with her gown unless she was lying there holding the gown in place the entire time with her hands (and she probably had to do other things with her hands between takes, like review notes about the scene, drink from a water bottle, etc.).

Why didn't they just give her a sheet? Like this is not explained. What possible reason would the production have for not giving her something to cover up during the scene? She shouldn't have to prove that she needs one, it should just be provided.

Do you understand Blake's not actually giving birth? Its called movie making. That's not her nude belly. It's a thick, warm prosthetic torso. Do while she looks like she's naked, she's actually not.

A prosthetic belly doesn't cover your genitals weirdo.

Can't fool us, fool!

What does this even mean.

Do you think a prosthetic belly covers a person's genitalia? It doesn't. A naked person wearing a prostethic belly is still naked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see some clips from the birth scene in this compilation starting at about the 3:50 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEW5ddIhhg

Lively is naked below her boobs. There are multiple closeups of her belly and upper legs. Her legs are up in stirrups in a way that if she tried to pull that hospital gown over her lower half, it would ride up because her legs are up in the air.

It was a nude scene. If the actress filming that scene asked for a sheet between takes to cover up her lower body (even just for warmth, not modesty) it should have been provided. I'm sure there were points when she was able to take her legs out of the stirrups and cover up with the gown, but there were also definitely points where she had to lie there in the stirrups between takes because her legs are up for the full scene so I'm sure they were up for much of the shoot.

Those of you quibbling over "oh she could have pulled her hospital gown down" or "she wasn't really nude, she was wearing clothes" just sound dumb. She's obviously nude and the position of her body would have made it impossible to fully cover up with her gown unless she was lying there holding the gown in place the entire time with her hands (and she probably had to do other things with her hands between takes, like review notes about the scene, drink from a water bottle, etc.).

Why didn't they just give her a sheet? Like this is not explained. What possible reason would the production have for not giving her something to cover up during the scene? She shouldn't have to prove that she needs one, it should just be provided.

Do you understand Blake's not actually giving birth? Its called movie making. That's not her nude belly. It's a thick, warm prosthetic torso. Do while she looks like she's naked, she's actually not.

Still legs spread with a tiny piece of fabric covering her labia while mimicking pushing on an open set, visible camera screens posting the uncut scenesz and regardless of whether she could move to close her legs or move the gown during the shot, nobody could be bothered to give her a coverup when she asked for one.

I am one hundred percent sure that the camera was not focused on her labia — for one thing the friend of the director actor would be blocking it, for the other, she wasn’t actually pushing a baby out and aiming a camera there would make it obvious, and lastly, this was a PG 13 movie. Again, your fiction reads well though.

Of course it wasn't -- she was wearing a strip of fabric over her genitals anyway. No one has suggested they tried to film her genitals.

That does not mean it wasn't uncomfortable to film a scene with no pants on and an actor you just met sitting inches from your vag. It would also be weird to constantly be moving your legs between takes and pulling down the gown and she shouldn't have to do that.

There's also no excuse for springing the nudity on her the day of the shoot and failing to have the intimacy coordinator on set, and also for not closing the set when one of your actors is not only partially nude but has let you know she's not totally comfortable with it.

Baldoni hasn't explained any of this. Why wasn't she given a sheet? Why didn't he raise the issue of nudity earlier? If he planned for Lively to be nude, why didn't he enlist the intimacy coordinator to be there and why didn't he make it a closed set?

That’s why we all want to see the counterclaim. He focused primarily on the retaliation claim in The NY Times suit because that’s where the texts were manipulated. That makes it easier for him to win his case against the newspaper. It does do a ton of damage to her credibility though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see some clips from the birth scene in this compilation starting at about the 3:50 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEW5ddIhhg

Lively is naked below her boobs. There are multiple closeups of her belly and upper legs. Her legs are up in stirrups in a way that if she tried to pull that hospital gown over her lower half, it would ride up because her legs are up in the air.

It was a nude scene. If the actress filming that scene asked for a sheet between takes to cover up her lower body (even just for warmth, not modesty) it should have been provided. I'm sure there were points when she was able to take her legs out of the stirrups and cover up with the gown, but there were also definitely points where she had to lie there in the stirrups between takes because her legs are up for the full scene so I'm sure they were up for much of the shoot.

Those of you quibbling over "oh she could have pulled her hospital gown down" or "she wasn't really nude, she was wearing clothes" just sound dumb. She's obviously nude and the position of her body would have made it impossible to fully cover up with her gown unless she was lying there holding the gown in place the entire time with her hands (and she probably had to do other things with her hands between takes, like review notes about the scene, drink from a water bottle, etc.).

Why didn't they just give her a sheet? Like this is not explained. What possible reason would the production have for not giving her something to cover up during the scene? She shouldn't have to prove that she needs one, it should just be provided.

Do you understand Blake's not actually giving birth? Its called movie making. That's not her nude belly. It's a thick, warm prosthetic torso. Do while she looks like she's naked, she's actually not.

A prosthetic belly doesn't cover your genitals weirdo.

Can't fool us, fool!

What does this even mean.

Do you think a prosthetic belly covers a person's genitalia? It doesn't. A naked person wearing a prostethic belly is still naked.

Dp, but I think the point was her belly wasn’t exposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers are nerds. Writing long posts is what we do for entertainment.

-not an entertainment lawyer

Word.

I also think non-lawyers don't understand that an attorney can write a 5 paragraph post about some inane legal topic in no time at all. These posts that seem like they took a bunch of effort and research to compose were all probably written in a few minutes. Lawyers think in paragraphs.

Again, protesting too much.

Nope, but the LA people may. Hopefully they aren’t personally affected.

I don't get your motivation here. Like let's pretend for a minute that you are right. Some attorney at Lively's law firm is on DCUM in the middle of the night posting lengthy legal analysis of these complaints that are favorable to Lively.

Why do you care? Are the posts lies? Do you think some jury pool in NYC or LA is going to be negatively impacted by these posts? Do you think the media is combing through DCUM posts to help them craft a pro-Lively narrative? Like what do you think is going to happen here?

I don’t care, just making an observation.

Also, it’s 9 pm in Los Angeles, not the middle of the night.

Don’t you have real fires to put out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers are nerds. Writing long posts is what we do for entertainment.

-not an entertainment lawyer

Word.

I also think non-lawyers don't understand that an attorney can write a 5 paragraph post about some inane legal topic in no time at all. These posts that seem like they took a bunch of effort and research to compose were all probably written in a few minutes. Lawyers think in paragraphs.

Again, protesting too much.

Nope, but the LA people may. Hopefully they aren’t personally affected.

I don't get your motivation here. Like let's pretend for a minute that you are right. Some attorney at Lively's law firm is on DCUM in the middle of the night posting lengthy legal analysis of these complaints that are favorable to Lively.

Why do you care? Are the posts lies? Do you think some jury pool in NYC or LA is going to be negatively impacted by these posts? Do you think the media is combing through DCUM posts to help them craft a pro-Lively narrative? Like what do you think is going to happen here?

I don’t care, just making an observation.

Also, it’s 9 pm in Los Angeles, not the middle of the night.

Don’t you have real fires to put out?

This seems in bad taste when half of LA is currently in flames.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see some clips from the birth scene in this compilation starting at about the 3:50 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEW5ddIhhg

Lively is naked below her boobs. There are multiple closeups of her belly and upper legs. Her legs are up in stirrups in a way that if she tried to pull that hospital gown over her lower half, it would ride up because her legs are up in the air.

It was a nude scene. If the actress filming that scene asked for a sheet between takes to cover up her lower body (even just for warmth, not modesty) it should have been provided. I'm sure there were points when she was able to take her legs out of the stirrups and cover up with the gown, but there were also definitely points where she had to lie there in the stirrups between takes because her legs are up for the full scene so I'm sure they were up for much of the shoot.

Those of you quibbling over "oh she could have pulled her hospital gown down" or "she wasn't really nude, she was wearing clothes" just sound dumb. She's obviously nude and the position of her body would have made it impossible to fully cover up with her gown unless she was lying there holding the gown in place the entire time with her hands (and she probably had to do other things with her hands between takes, like review notes about the scene, drink from a water bottle, etc.).

Why didn't they just give her a sheet? Like this is not explained. What possible reason would the production have for not giving her something to cover up during the scene? She shouldn't have to prove that she needs one, it should just be provided.

Do you understand Blake's not actually giving birth? Its called movie making. That's not her nude belly. It's a thick, warm prosthetic torso. Do while she looks like she's naked, she's actually not.

A prosthetic belly doesn't cover your genitals weirdo.

Can't fool us, fool!

What does this even mean.

Do you think a prosthetic belly covers a person's genitalia? It doesn't. A naked person wearing a prostethic belly is still naked.

Dp, but I think the point was her belly wasn’t exposed.

I don't think it was the exposure of her belly she was concerned about? There are other scenes in the movie where the belly (the prosthetic belly) was exposed and she doesn't have an issue with how those scenes were shot. She was uncomfortable with the lower body nudity in the birth scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see some clips from the birth scene in this compilation starting at about the 3:50 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEW5ddIhhg

Lively is naked below her boobs. There are multiple closeups of her belly and upper legs. Her legs are up in stirrups in a way that if she tried to pull that hospital gown over her lower half, it would ride up because her legs are up in the air.

It was a nude scene. If the actress filming that scene asked for a sheet between takes to cover up her lower body (even just for warmth, not modesty) it should have been provided. I'm sure there were points when she was able to take her legs out of the stirrups and cover up with the gown, but there were also definitely points where she had to lie there in the stirrups between takes because her legs are up for the full scene so I'm sure they were up for much of the shoot.

Those of you quibbling over "oh she could have pulled her hospital gown down" or "she wasn't really nude, she was wearing clothes" just sound dumb. She's obviously nude and the position of her body would have made it impossible to fully cover up with her gown unless she was lying there holding the gown in place the entire time with her hands (and she probably had to do other things with her hands between takes, like review notes about the scene, drink from a water bottle, etc.).

Why didn't they just give her a sheet? Like this is not explained. What possible reason would the production have for not giving her something to cover up during the scene? She shouldn't have to prove that she needs one, it should just be provided.

Do you understand Blake's not actually giving birth? Its called movie making. That's not her nude belly. It's a thick, warm prosthetic torso. Do while she looks like she's naked, she's actually not.

Still legs spread with a tiny piece of fabric covering her labia while mimicking pushing on an open set, visible camera screens posting the uncut scenesz and regardless of whether she could move to close her legs or move the gown during the shot, nobody could be bothered to give her a coverup when she asked for one.

I am one hundred percent sure that the camera was not focused on her labia — for one thing the friend of the director actor would be blocking it, for the other, she wasn’t actually pushing a baby out and aiming a camera there would make it obvious, and lastly, this was a PG 13 movie. Again, your fiction reads well though.

Of course it wasn't -- she was wearing a strip of fabric over her genitals anyway. No one has suggested they tried to film her genitals.

That does not mean it wasn't uncomfortable to film a scene with no pants on and an actor you just met sitting inches from your vag. It would also be weird to constantly be moving your legs between takes and pulling down the gown and she shouldn't have to do that.

There's also no excuse for springing the nudity on her the day of the shoot and failing to have the intimacy coordinator on set, and also for not closing the set when one of your actors is not only partially nude but has let you know she's not totally comfortable with it.

Baldoni hasn't explained any of this. Why wasn't she given a sheet? Why didn't he raise the issue of nudity earlier? If he planned for Lively to be nude, why didn't he enlist the intimacy coordinator to be there and why didn't he make it a closed set?

That’s why we all want to see the counterclaim. He focused primarily on the retaliation claim in The NY Times suit because that’s where the texts were manipulated. That makes it easier for him to win his case against the newspaper. It does do a ton of damage to her credibility though.

I think it impacts the NYT's credibility but doesn't really undermine Lively's. Which makes sense since it's a lawsuit against at the Times. The texts they've released with that lawsuit contextualize some of Lively's allegations but don't really refute them. Like okay so Lively failed to meet with the intimacy coordinator before the production. That raises some questions but doesn't explain why there were multiple nude/intimate scenes shot without an IC on the set at all. Also some of his context takes issue with stuff that wasn't even in Lively's complaint. Like her complaint does not call the video of the producer's wife giving birth pornography -- it states that Lively and her assistant did not know what they were looking at when when they saw a naked woman with her legs spread, they initially *thought* they were being shown pornography. So actually Lively's complaint provides more context than Baldoni's regarding that incident.

But sure, we'll see what Baldoni's answer to Lively's complaint says. But I don't think Lively's credibility has taken the hit you seem to think it has. Baldoni has yet to release anything that addresses the major issues raised by Lively's complaint. And because Lively's complaint relies on the idea that a series of lots of inappropriate behavior added up to harassment, he needs to refute most of what she's alleging. So far he's really only refuted one or two things. That's not going to cut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see some clips from the birth scene in this compilation starting at about the 3:50 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEW5ddIhhg

Lively is naked below her boobs. There are multiple closeups of her belly and upper legs. Her legs are up in stirrups in a way that if she tried to pull that hospital gown over her lower half, it would ride up because her legs are up in the air.

It was a nude scene. If the actress filming that scene asked for a sheet between takes to cover up her lower body (even just for warmth, not modesty) it should have been provided. I'm sure there were points when she was able to take her legs out of the stirrups and cover up with the gown, but there were also definitely points where she had to lie there in the stirrups between takes because her legs are up for the full scene so I'm sure they were up for much of the shoot.

Those of you quibbling over "oh she could have pulled her hospital gown down" or "she wasn't really nude, she was wearing clothes" just sound dumb. She's obviously nude and the position of her body would have made it impossible to fully cover up with her gown unless she was lying there holding the gown in place the entire time with her hands (and she probably had to do other things with her hands between takes, like review notes about the scene, drink from a water bottle, etc.).

Why didn't they just give her a sheet? Like this is not explained. What possible reason would the production have for not giving her something to cover up during the scene? She shouldn't have to prove that she needs one, it should just be provided.

Do you understand Blake's not actually giving birth? Its called movie making. That's not her nude belly. It's a thick, warm prosthetic torso. Do while she looks like she's naked, she's actually not.

Still legs spread with a tiny piece of fabric covering her labia while mimicking pushing on an open set, visible camera screens posting the uncut scenesz and regardless of whether she could move to close her legs or move the gown during the shot, nobody could be bothered to give her a coverup when she asked for one.

I am one hundred percent sure that the camera was not focused on her labia — for one thing the friend of the director actor would be blocking it, for the other, she wasn’t actually pushing a baby out and aiming a camera there would make it obvious, and lastly, this was a PG 13 movie. Again, your fiction reads well though.

Of course it wasn't -- she was wearing a strip of fabric over her genitals anyway. No one has suggested they tried to film her genitals.

That does not mean it wasn't uncomfortable to film a scene with no pants on and an actor you just met sitting inches from your vag. It would also be weird to constantly be moving your legs between takes and pulling down the gown and she shouldn't have to do that.

There's also no excuse for springing the nudity on her the day of the shoot and failing to have the intimacy coordinator on set, and also for not closing the set when one of your actors is not only partially nude but has let you know she's not totally comfortable with it.

Baldoni hasn't explained any of this. Why wasn't she given a sheet? Why didn't he raise the issue of nudity earlier? If he planned for Lively to be nude, why didn't he enlist the intimacy coordinator to be there and why didn't he make it a closed set?

That’s why we all want to see the counterclaim. He focused primarily on the retaliation claim in The NY Times suit because that’s where the texts were manipulated. That makes it easier for him to win his case against the newspaper. It does do a ton of damage to her credibility though.

I think it impacts the NYT's credibility but doesn't really undermine Lively's. Which makes sense since it's a lawsuit against at the Times. The texts they've released with that lawsuit contextualize some of Lively's allegations but don't really refute them. Like okay so Lively failed to meet with the intimacy coordinator before the production. That raises some questions but doesn't explain why there were multiple nude/intimate scenes shot without an IC on the set at all. Also some of his context takes issue with stuff that wasn't even in Lively's complaint. Like her complaint does not call the video of the producer's wife giving birth pornography -- it states that Lively and her assistant did not know what they were looking at when when they saw a naked woman with her legs spread, they initially *thought* they were being shown pornography. So actually Lively's complaint provides more context than Baldoni's regarding that incident.

But sure, we'll see what Baldoni's answer to Lively's complaint says. But I don't think Lively's credibility has taken the hit you seem to think it has. Baldoni has yet to release anything that addresses the major issues raised by Lively's complaint. And because Lively's complaint relies on the idea that a series of lots of inappropriate behavior added up to harassment, he needs to refute most of what she's alleging. So far he's really only refuted one or two things. That's not going to cut it.

You are ignoring the manipulated texts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see some clips from the birth scene in this compilation starting at about the 3:50 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEW5ddIhhg

Lively is naked below her boobs. There are multiple closeups of her belly and upper legs. Her legs are up in stirrups in a way that if she tried to pull that hospital gown over her lower half, it would ride up because her legs are up in the air.

It was a nude scene. If the actress filming that scene asked for a sheet between takes to cover up her lower body (even just for warmth, not modesty) it should have been provided. I'm sure there were points when she was able to take her legs out of the stirrups and cover up with the gown, but there were also definitely points where she had to lie there in the stirrups between takes because her legs are up for the full scene so I'm sure they were up for much of the shoot.

Those of you quibbling over "oh she could have pulled her hospital gown down" or "she wasn't really nude, she was wearing clothes" just sound dumb. She's obviously nude and the position of her body would have made it impossible to fully cover up with her gown unless she was lying there holding the gown in place the entire time with her hands (and she probably had to do other things with her hands between takes, like review notes about the scene, drink from a water bottle, etc.).

Why didn't they just give her a sheet? Like this is not explained. What possible reason would the production have for not giving her something to cover up during the scene? She shouldn't have to prove that she needs one, it should just be provided.

Do you understand Blake's not actually giving birth? Its called movie making. That's not her nude belly. It's a thick, warm prosthetic torso. Do while she looks like she's naked, she's actually not.

A prosthetic belly doesn't cover your genitals weirdo.

Can't fool us, fool!

What does this even mean.

Do you think a prosthetic belly covers a person's genitalia? It doesn't. A naked person wearing a prostethic belly is still naked.

Dp, but I think the point was her belly wasn’t exposed.

I don't think it was the exposure of her belly she was concerned about? There are other scenes in the movie where the belly (the prosthetic belly) was exposed and she doesn't have an issue with how those scenes were shot. She was uncomfortable with the lower body nudity in the birth scene.

Wondering where Blake’s assistant disappeared to? She was on set that day per the complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like it happens differently on different sets. I just listened to a podcast of it and Timothy coordinator that does tell me lies which is a great show on Hulu with a lot of sex scenes and she mentioned different elements of the job.

Either way, Justin has come out and said the intimacy coordinator suggested the oral sex scene. Maybe he’s lying maybe he’s not, should be easily provable in trial which I’m sure someone will interview the intimacy coordinator. Sounds like there’s also written notes.

[Anonymous]

The main thing the Vanity Fair article showed me is that Blake’s team laid out in their complaint that she came to a meeting with a formal list of complaints.

No more….walking in on her breast-feeding.

No more…. Talking about p—-n

No more…. On the fly sex scenes

Whatever they were, her team framed it like there was a formal meeting with a list of complaints and Justin and Jamey agreed to move forward, addressing those complaints or not doing those things anymore.

Justin is saying he’s never seen that list and the teams embellishment of “no more” before each thing makes it sound like it was constantly happening and it wasn’t, in other words, maybe someone walked in on her once breast-feeding and apologized, it didn’t happen multiple times and it was an honest mistake. Something like that I guess.

Either there was a meeting or there wasn’t. I would call that a formal complaint. I can’t imagine a world in which a written document like that did not cross paths with HR or that an HR rep wasn’t in that meeting. Maybe they were, and Sony considered the matter closed and therefore does not consider that formal complaint? But Justin is saying it didn’t happen at all.

It should be easily provable: either there was a meeting and people can show it on the schedule or someone documented and took notes about what happened. Someone can produce a document with a list of “no more” things that Blake wanted in January 2024 when filming resumed after the strike.

Someone has to pony that up because right now Justin is saying it never happened and Sony is not helping Blake claim by saying no one filed anything with HR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers are nerds. Writing long posts is what we do for entertainment.

-not an entertainment lawyer

Word.

I also think non-lawyers don't understand that an attorney can write a 5 paragraph post about some inane legal topic in no time at all. These posts that seem like they took a bunch of effort and research to compose were all probably written in a few minutes. Lawyers think in paragraphs.

Again, protesting too much.

Nope, but the LA people may. Hopefully they aren’t personally affected.

I don't get your motivation here. Like let's pretend for a minute that you are right. Some attorney at Lively's law firm is on DCUM in the middle of the night posting lengthy legal analysis of these complaints that are favorable to Lively.

Why do you care? Are the posts lies? Do you think some jury pool in NYC or LA is going to be negatively impacted by these posts? Do you think the media is combing through DCUM posts to help them craft a pro-Lively narrative? Like what do you think is going to happen here?

I don’t care, just making an observation.

Also, it’s 9 pm in Los Angeles, not the middle of the night.

Don’t you have real fires to put out?

This seems in bad taste when half of LA is currently in flames.

No its not because i used to live in LA and have lots of friends there and i can’t believe someone from LA is wasting time on this right now. I doubt that person is actually in LA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sounds like it happens differently on different sets. I just listened to a podcast of it and Timothy coordinator that does tell me lies which is a great show on Hulu with a lot of sex scenes and she mentioned different elements of the job.

Either way, Justin has come out and said the intimacy coordinator suggested the oral sex scene. Maybe he’s lying maybe he’s not, should be easily provable in trial which I’m sure someone will interview the intimacy coordinator. Sounds like there’s also written notes.

I just think it's weird that a director would frame it that way even if the IC *did* suggest the scene. It's his movie. The IC doesn't make that decision. The IC could have suggested it, and Blake could have objected to it, and none of that really makes a difference for whether Baldoni ran a professional set or harassed Lively. I don't think it's exculpatory even if it happened as he said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The main thing the Vanity Fair article showed me is that Blake’s team laid out in their complaint that she came to a meeting with a formal list of complaints.

No more….walking in on her breast-feeding.

No more…. Talking about p—-n

No more…. On the fly sex scenes

Whatever they were, her team framed it like there was a formal meeting with a list of complaints and Justin and Jamey agreed to move forward, addressing those complaints or not doing those things anymore.

Justin is saying he’s never seen that list and the teams embellishment of “no more” before each thing makes it sound like it was constantly happening and it wasn’t, in other words, maybe someone walked in on her once breast-feeding and apologized, it didn’t happen multiple times and it was an honest mistake. Something like that I guess.

Either there was a meeting or there wasn’t. I would call that a formal complaint. I can’t imagine a world in which a written document like that did not cross paths with HR or that an HR rep wasn’t in that meeting. Maybe they were, and Sony considered the matter closed and therefore does not consider that formal complaint? But Justin is saying it didn’t happen at all.

It should be easily provable: either there was a meeting and people can show it on the schedule or someone documented and took notes about what happened. Someone can produce a document with a list of “no more” things that Blake wanted in January 2024 when filming resumed after the strike.

Someone has to pony that up because right now Justin is saying it never happened and Sony is not helping Blake claim by saying no one filed anything with HR.

Lively's complaint rests very heavily on the "January 4th meeting" -- like it's how the complaint starts and the entire thing revolves around what happened before that meeting and what was discussed at that meeting and what was decided as a result of that meeting. So if there was no meeting one January 4th involving this group of people, her entire complaint falls apart.

But as a result I would be very surprised if there was no meeting because it's described in such detail and involved numerous people. Memories may differ as to what happened.

I don't put much stock in Sony saying no formal harassment complaint was filed with HR. Sony was the producer and they told Lively that they had no authority over Baldoni or Wayfarere -- they were just signed on to distribute the movie. So Sony's HR would have no authority over the set either -- none of the actors, the director, nor the producers were employees of Sony so they would not be able to process an HR complaint from anyone on the set.

Also Sony doesn't want to be implicated in any of this -- definitely better for them if Wayfarer/Baldoni are viewed as separate entities.