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:I just reread his Complaint. He claims that Blake refused to meet with the intimacy coordinator so he had to meet with them alone, relay that discussion with Blake and then get her buy in. Very strange that Blake wouldn’t want the intimacy coordinator directly involved with her.

He is alleging that she declined to meet with the intimacy coordinator prior to filming. She said she trusted the coordinator and didn't feel they needed to meet. But that's not the same as Lively not wanting the coordinator "directly involved" with her. Lively had just had a baby and didn't want to disrupt her maternity leave with pre-production meetings. Once on the set, Lively worked directly with the intimacy coordinator.

Lively's complaints regarding the coordinator have to do with scenes that were not scripted as intimate scenes and for which the intimacy coordinator was not brought in. So meeting with the IC before production wouldn't have changed that dynamic. The IC was never charged with choreographing the birth scene or the dancing scene that Lively alleges were changed on set to become nude/intimate scenes without input from the IC. That was sprung on Lively the day of filming.

Actually her claims are also that she didn’t like the way changes were made to the intimacy scenes. She also said she wanted everything mapped out before filming started. Then she refused to meet with the intimacy coordinator before filming started. He is saying that any changes made to intimacy scenes were discussed with and approved by the intimacy coordinator.

I can't find a searchable pdf of Baldoni's complaint but just going by the article in Variety, she only refused one, unscheduled, meet and greet type meeting with the intimiacy coordinator. It was nice of him to offer that meeting and fine for her to decline if that's the only one she declined. That does not in any way mean she did not engage with the IC in the appropriate way during filming. It would be different if he established a pattern of her no showing at scheduled meetings to discuss the substance of the scenes, and then she complained about the lack of IC.

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/justin-baldoni-sues-new-york-times-blake-lively-allegations-story-1236263099/
In one text message sent by Lively before production included in the suit, she indicates that she is in no hurry to meet with the film’s intimacy coordinator. “I feel good. I can meet her when we start thank you though!”

He says she refused to meet with the intimacy coordinator generally in his complaint, and that he discussed any changes that were made with the intimacy coordinator pending Blake’s later input.

There's a disconnect on this issue that Baldoni has not addressed.

Lively's complaint mostly does not focus on scripted intimate scenes aside from two incidents: (1) the scene in which Lively felt Baldoni lingered overlong while filming a kiss and bit her lip after the scene had concluded, and (2) a sex scene where Baldoni proposed adding an oral sex sequence that was not in the original script.

Regarding #1, Lively's complaint has to do with Baldoni's behavior and the IC is beside the point. The kiss was scripted. Lively feels Baldoni crossed the line at the end of the scene by continuing to kiss her after cut had been called. Unclear if Lively said anything about this in the moment or if the IC noticed anything amiss. Presumably that will be explored.

Regarding #2, there is a clear dispute over exactly how this was handled. According to Lively, the scene was scripted and choreographed by the IC without an oral sex scene (presumably based on the shooting pages Lively was given prior to filming) and Baldoni wanted to add the oral sex in at the last minute. According to Baldoni, the oral sex scene was suggested by the IC during a meeting Lively refused to attend. I view this as an open question of disputed facts and don't know who to believe. The truth might actually be something else. The IC's potential testimony is pretty central to this specific claim.

The rest of Lively's complaints concern actions set by Baldoni and his producer partner unrelated to scripted intimate scenes. This includes making scenes not scripted as intimate (and that the IC did not choreograph and wasn't present) intimate at the last minute, as well as a host of behaviors unrelated to the actual filming of the movie (Baldoni's and Heath's behaviors in Lively's trailer and makeup trailer, comments to Lively and her staff regarding Lively's appearance, weight, and sexuality, etc.). None of the stuff in this category concerns the IC or could have been prevented by the IC. So whether Lively met with the IC or not prior to filming is irrelevant to these claims.

Why would an IC suggest adding more sex? Is that typical for them to have creative license?

Either the director doesn't know what he's doing or the IC is being thrown under the bus.

Surprise! It's actually both.

I don’t understand the controversy here. First thing that comes up when you Google what is the role of an intimacy coordinator, is that the intimacy coordinator choreographs sex scenes. People are acting as if the director is the boss of everything, writes the script, and choreographed all the intimate scenes. That is not what happened here nor is that his role.

According to Justin Baldoni, he worked with the intimacy coordinator to choreograph and set up those scenes. He says that the intimacy coordinator suggested the oral sex scene, which is completely appropriate for her to do, I don’t know why people are acting like that could not be true. He is alleging a Blake missed some of those meetings and he had to relay some of this to her via handwritten notes which put him in an awkward position.

of course maybe he’s lying but he’s saying he has documentation and of course assuming the IC is a real person she could be interviewed and I suppose she will.

The other wrinkle in this is that even though he is the director, because he is an actor in some of these scenes, obviously someone else was directing those scenes! He cant be kissing his costar and yelling cut.

Who cares if the IC suggested the oral sex scene? I don't get why this even matters. Who cares where the suggestion came from? What does this have to do with Lively's harassment complaint. I don't think her complaint hinges on who suggested an oral sex scene. As an actor she's allowed to draw boundaries around what she will or won't do on screen and she didn't want to do the oral sex scene, either because she didn't like how it was being shot or she didn't think it worked with the character.

Like let's assume the IC suggested the oral sex scene. How does this exonerate Baldoni for stuff like repeatedly discussing his porn addiction on set, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude and not closing the set for that scene, turning a dance scene into a more intimate/lewd scene without checking with Lively first, etc. I just don't get why this matters.

A huge part of this whole thing is context. if Baldoni was just suggesting an oral sex scene randomly, that is a little bit different than bringing notes from the intimacy coordinator to her.

Lively was alleging Baldoni suggested all of these extra scenes, but if the intimacy coordinator suggested them, and he was relaying that, that context matters. And if she was invited to a meeting that she skipped that makes it all the more annoying because they were trying to do their best to make her comfortable. She was making that really difficult.

I’m not saying that’s true, but this is part of the problem is that people are bringing up different situations and the context really matters.

[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?

I think if this is true, it could be a result of him being green (inexperienced) and less about him being a predator.

In this one instance but that doesn't mean you walk in on people nursing, bother them about their porn watching habits, tell them you can communicate with their dead father, hassle them about religion, show them videos of naked wives, and on and on. It sounds like a nightmare.

[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?

I think if this is true, it could be a result of him being green (inexperienced) and less about him being a predator.

I do think a lot of the bad behavior Lively alleges was due to Baldoni being an inexperienced director and the production company just not having a lot of experience and being unprofessional. But that doesn't absolve him of liability if his behavior or the productions actions led to a hostile work environment. Like he doesn't have to be a predator to engage in sexual harassment if his ineptitude led to consistently inappropriate, invasive, sexualized behavior on set.

I worked for a time in the fitness industry, and one of the companies I worked for had this issue -- just incredibly poorly run by people who didn't have leadership/management experience. They mostly had good (or at least okay) intentions but their employment practices were awful. The fitness industry, like acting, is an industry where people might interact in a way that would be considered totally inappropriate in other setting but is normal in that industry -- people touching each other to adjust form, people wearing very little clothing and changing/showering at work, etc. The result of having a green and unprofessional management in an industry like that is that it gets bad very quickly. It also makes it very easy for someone who *is* a predator to do bad things without getting in trouble. I was groped by a colleague at that job and there was just no recourse and it was written off by higher ups because they had no formal HR, no workplace policy governing that kind of behavior (and certainly no training on what is and is not permitted). It was an unequivocal groping, not something that could be misinterpreted on my end (his hands were literally on my boobs and crotch) but because it was a workplace where people did sometimes touch each other in a way that elsewhere might be considered sexual (putting hands on someone's waist or midsection to address form), management believed it had been an accident and that he "didn't mean anything." I don't think all of those people were "predators" but the guy who groped me was and they made it extremely easy for him to get away with it.

That's what I think happened here. When you have a workplace where people might be nude or semi-nude, where part of their job might be to portray childbirth or sex, then you need to maintaining very high standards of professionalism and following protocols for maintaining consent and respect for everyone in the workplace. They did not do that and I think it resulted in a hostile work environment like the one I wound up working in. The fact that it was caused as much by ineptitude as bad intentions doesn't really make it any better. I think they are still liable for creating an unsafe, hostile work environment.

[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:I just reread his Complaint. He claims that Blake refused to meet with the intimacy coordinator so he had to meet with them alone, relay that discussion with Blake and then get her buy in. Very strange that Blake wouldn’t want the intimacy coordinator directly involved with her.

He is alleging that she declined to meet with the intimacy coordinator prior to filming. She said she trusted the coordinator and didn't feel they needed to meet. But that's not the same as Lively not wanting the coordinator "directly involved" with her. Lively had just had a baby and didn't want to disrupt her maternity leave with pre-production meetings. Once on the set, Lively worked directly with the intimacy coordinator.

Lively's complaints regarding the coordinator have to do with scenes that were not scripted as intimate scenes and for which the intimacy coordinator was not brought in. So meeting with the IC before production wouldn't have changed that dynamic. The IC was never charged with choreographing the birth scene or the dancing scene that Lively alleges were changed on set to become nude/intimate scenes without input from the IC. That was sprung on Lively the day of filming.

Actually her claims are also that she didn’t like the way changes were made to the intimacy scenes. She also said she wanted everything mapped out before filming started. Then she refused to meet with the intimacy coordinator before filming started. He is saying that any changes made to intimacy scenes were discussed with and approved by the intimacy coordinator.

I can't find a searchable pdf of Baldoni's complaint but just going by the article in Variety, she only refused one, unscheduled, meet and greet type meeting with the intimiacy coordinator. It was nice of him to offer that meeting and fine for her to decline if that's the only one she declined. That does not in any way mean she did not engage with the IC in the appropriate way during filming. It would be different if he established a pattern of her no showing at scheduled meetings to discuss the substance of the scenes, and then she complained about the lack of IC.

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/justin-baldoni-sues-new-york-times-blake-lively-allegations-story-1236263099/
In one text message sent by Lively before production included in the suit, she indicates that she is in no hurry to meet with the film’s intimacy coordinator. “I feel good. I can meet her when we start thank you though!”

He says she refused to meet with the intimacy coordinator generally in his complaint, and that he discussed any changes that were made with the intimacy coordinator pending Blake’s later input.

There's a disconnect on this issue that Baldoni has not addressed.

Lively's complaint mostly does not focus on scripted intimate scenes aside from two incidents: (1) the scene in which Lively felt Baldoni lingered overlong while filming a kiss and bit her lip after the scene had concluded, and (2) a sex scene where Baldoni proposed adding an oral sex sequence that was not in the original script.

Regarding #1, Lively's complaint has to do with Baldoni's behavior and the IC is beside the point. The kiss was scripted. Lively feels Baldoni crossed the line at the end of the scene by continuing to kiss her after cut had been called. Unclear if Lively said anything about this in the moment or if the IC noticed anything amiss. Presumably that will be explored.

Regarding #2, there is a clear dispute over exactly how this was handled. According to Lively, the scene was scripted and choreographed by the IC without an oral sex scene (presumably based on the shooting pages Lively was given prior to filming) and Baldoni wanted to add the oral sex in at the last minute. According to Baldoni, the oral sex scene was suggested by the IC during a meeting Lively refused to attend. I view this as an open question of disputed facts and don't know who to believe. The truth might actually be something else. The IC's potential testimony is pretty central to this specific claim.

The rest of Lively's complaints concern actions set by Baldoni and his producer partner unrelated to scripted intimate scenes. This includes making scenes not scripted as intimate (and that the IC did not choreograph and wasn't present) intimate at the last minute, as well as a host of behaviors unrelated to the actual filming of the movie (Baldoni's and Heath's behaviors in Lively's trailer and makeup trailer, comments to Lively and her staff regarding Lively's appearance, weight, and sexuality, etc.). None of the stuff in this category concerns the IC or could have been prevented by the IC. So whether Lively met with the IC or not prior to filming is irrelevant to these claims.

Why would an IC suggest adding more sex? Is that typical for them to have creative license?

Either the director doesn't know what he's doing or the IC is being thrown under the bus.

Surprise! It's actually both.

I don’t understand the controversy here. First thing that comes up when you Google what is the role of an intimacy coordinator, is that the intimacy coordinator choreographs sex scenes. People are acting as if the director is the boss of everything, writes the script, and choreographed all the intimate scenes. That is not what happened here nor is that his role.

According to Justin Baldoni, he worked with the intimacy coordinator to choreograph and set up those scenes. He says that the intimacy coordinator suggested the oral sex scene, which is completely appropriate for her to do, I don’t know why people are acting like that could not be true. He is alleging a Blake missed some of those meetings and he had to relay some of this to her via handwritten notes which put him in an awkward position.

of course maybe he’s lying but he’s saying he has documentation and of course assuming the IC is a real person she could be interviewed and I suppose she will.

The other wrinkle in this is that even though he is the director, because he is an actor in some of these scenes, obviously someone else was directing those scenes! He cant be kissing his costar and yelling cut.

Who cares if the IC suggested the oral sex scene? I don't get why this even matters. Who cares where the suggestion came from? What does this have to do with Lively's harassment complaint. I don't think her complaint hinges on who suggested an oral sex scene. As an actor she's allowed to draw boundaries around what she will or won't do on screen and she didn't want to do the oral sex scene, either because she didn't like how it was being shot or she didn't think it worked with the character.

Like let's assume the IC suggested the oral sex scene. How does this exonerate Baldoni for stuff like repeatedly discussing his porn addiction on set, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude and not closing the set for that scene, turning a dance scene into a more intimate/lewd scene without checking with Lively first, etc. I just don't get why this matters.

A huge part of this whole thing is context. if Baldoni was just suggesting an oral sex scene randomly, that is a little bit different than bringing notes from the intimacy coordinator to her.

Lively was alleging Baldoni suggested all of these extra scenes, but if the intimacy coordinator suggested them, and he was relaying that, that context matters. And if she was invited to a meeting that she skipped that makes it all the more annoying because they were trying to do their best to make her comfortable. She was making that really difficult.

I’m not saying that’s true, but this is part of the problem is that people are bringing up different situations and the context really matters.

She doesn't allege that he "suggested all these extra scenes." Yes, her complaint mentions that he wanted to add an oral sex scene to one of the existing sex scenes. He says that was suggested by the intimacy coordinator, not him. Fine, have discovery and figure out how that suggestion came about and how it was handled.

But most of her other allegations are not related to adding a sex scene. Rather, they are about Baldoni taking a scene that was scripted to not be intimate and making it more intimate without advanced warning and without getting the intimacy coordinator involved or nudity riders in place. Specifically there were two scenes that were scripted to not be intimate (the birth scene and the dancing scene) and which on the day of filming (or in the case of the dancing scene, literally as they were filming) Baldoni introduced intimate elements.

So yes the context matters, which is why we should be specific about what is being alleged. Perhaps Baldoni had a reasonable explanation for why he suggested including an oral sex scene. But that has no bearing on why he decided Lively would be nude in the birth scene on the day of filming and failed to close the set, engage the IC, or get a nudity rider in place. It also has no bearing on Baldoni's behavior in the dancing scene where, Lively alleges, Baldoni engaged in unscripted and lewd commentary and behavior without warning (or consent).

Context matters so let's talk about the context.

[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?

I think if this is true, it could be a result of him being green (inexperienced) and less about him being a predator.

I do think a lot of the bad behavior Lively alleges was due to Baldoni being an inexperienced director and the production company just not having a lot of experience and being unprofessional. But that doesn't absolve him of liability if his behavior or the productions actions led to a hostile work environment. Like he doesn't have to be a predator to engage in sexual harassment if his ineptitude led to consistently inappropriate, invasive, sexualized behavior on set.

I worked for a time in the fitness industry, and one of the companies I worked for had this issue -- just incredibly poorly run by people who didn't have leadership/management experience. They mostly had good (or at least okay) intentions but their employment practices were awful. The fitness industry, like acting, is an industry where people might interact in a way that would be considered totally inappropriate in other setting but is normal in that industry -- people touching each other to adjust form, people wearing very little clothing and changing/showering at work, etc. The result of having a green and unprofessional management in an industry like that is that it gets bad very quickly. It also makes it very easy for someone who *is* a predator to do bad things without getting in trouble. I was groped by a colleague at that job and there was just no recourse and it was written off by higher ups because they had no formal HR, no workplace policy governing that kind of behavior (and certainly no training on what is and is not permitted). It was an unequivocal groping, not something that could be misinterpreted on my end (his hands were literally on my boobs and crotch) but because it was a workplace where people did sometimes touch each other in a way that elsewhere might be considered sexual (putting hands on someone's waist or midsection to address form), management believed it had been an accident and that he "didn't mean anything." I don't think all of those people were "predators" but the guy who groped me was and they made it extremely easy for him to get away with it.

That's what I think happened here. When you have a workplace where people might be nude or semi-nude, where part of their job might be to portray childbirth or sex, then you need to maintaining very high standards of professionalism and following protocols for maintaining consent and respect for everyone in the workplace. They did not do that and I think it resulted in a hostile work environment like the one I wound up working in. The fact that it was caused as much by ineptitude as bad intentions doesn't really make it any better. I think they are still liable for creating an unsafe, hostile work environment.

Pp here. I am sorry this happened to you. People can be such jerks.

[Anonymous]

She is just looking worse and worse and he is looking better. Now Ryan Reynolds has entered the scene and he is looking maybe the wrist like a controlling and paranoid spouse. He always had such a nice way about him. He should try to get away from this. This whole thing should not be lawsuits though. Just don’t like each other and move on. All these celebrities need to understand that the public gets tired of the complaining.

[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?

I think if this is true, it could be a result of him being green (inexperienced) and less about him being a predator.

I do think a lot of the bad behavior Lively alleges was due to Baldoni being an inexperienced director and the production company just not having a lot of experience and being unprofessional. But that doesn't absolve him of liability if his behavior or the productions actions led to a hostile work environment. Like he doesn't have to be a predator to engage in sexual harassment if his ineptitude led to consistently inappropriate, invasive, sexualized behavior on set.

I worked for a time in the fitness industry, and one of the companies I worked for had this issue -- just incredibly poorly run by people who didn't have leadership/management experience. They mostly had good (or at least okay) intentions but their employment practices were awful. The fitness industry, like acting, is an industry where people might interact in a way that would be considered totally inappropriate in other setting but is normal in that industry -- people touching each other to adjust form, people wearing very little clothing and changing/showering at work, etc. The result of having a green and unprofessional management in an industry like that is that it gets bad very quickly. It also makes it very easy for someone who *is* a predator to do bad things without getting in trouble. I was groped by a colleague at that job and there was just no recourse and it was written off by higher ups because they had no formal HR, no workplace policy governing that kind of behavior (and certainly no training on what is and is not permitted). It was an unequivocal groping, not something that could be misinterpreted on my end (his hands were literally on my boobs and crotch) but because it was a workplace where people did sometimes touch each other in a way that elsewhere might be considered sexual (putting hands on someone's waist or midsection to address form), management believed it had been an accident and that he "didn't mean anything." I don't think all of those people were "predators" but the guy who groped me was and they made it extremely easy for him to get away with it.

That's what I think happened here. When you have a workplace where people might be nude or semi-nude, where part of their job might be to portray childbirth or sex, then you need to maintaining very high standards of professionalism and following protocols for maintaining consent and respect for everyone in the workplace. They did not do that and I think it resulted in a hostile work environment like the one I wound up working in. The fact that it was caused as much by ineptitude as bad intentions doesn't really make it any better. I think they are still liable for creating an unsafe, hostile work environment.

And it seems like we wouldn't have heard about any of this but for Baldoni's misguided smear attempt to "bury her" after the fact. Seems like she was going to look the other way and let it go until and keep it private until that happened, and then she came out guns blazing. Who wouldn't in her case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is just looking worse and worse and he is looking better. Now Ryan Reynolds has entered the scene and he is looking maybe the wrist like a controlling and paranoid spouse. He always had such a nice way about him. He should try to get away from this. This whole thing should not be lawsuits though. Just don’t like each other and move on. All these celebrities need to understand that the public gets tired of the complaining.

We had intelligent discussion for awhile, but back to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is just looking worse and worse and he is looking better. Now Ryan Reynolds has entered the scene and he is looking maybe the wrist like a controlling and paranoid spouse. He always had such a nice way about him. He should try to get away from this. This whole thing should not be lawsuits though. Just don’t like each other and move on. All these celebrities need to understand that the public gets tired of the complaining.

We had intelligent discussion for awhile, but back to this.

Wishful thinking by that PP. People think if they repeat the same mantra other people will start to believe it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think if this is true, it could be a result of him being green (inexperienced) and less about him being a predator.

I do think a lot of the bad behavior Lively alleges was due to Baldoni being an inexperienced director and the production company just not having a lot of experience and being unprofessional. But that doesn't absolve him of liability if his behavior or the productions actions led to a hostile work environment. Like he doesn't have to be a predator to engage in sexual harassment if his ineptitude led to consistently inappropriate, invasive, sexualized behavior on set.

I worked for a time in the fitness industry, and one of the companies I worked for had this issue -- just incredibly poorly run by people who didn't have leadership/management experience. They mostly had good (or at least okay) intentions but their employment practices were awful. The fitness industry, like acting, is an industry where people might interact in a way that would be considered totally inappropriate in other setting but is normal in that industry -- people touching each other to adjust form, people wearing very little clothing and changing/showering at work, etc. The result of having a green and unprofessional management in an industry like that is that it gets bad very quickly. It also makes it very easy for someone who *is* a predator to do bad things without getting in trouble. I was groped by a colleague at that job and there was just no recourse and it was written off by higher ups because they had no formal HR, no workplace policy governing that kind of behavior (and certainly no training on what is and is not permitted). It was an unequivocal groping, not something that could be misinterpreted on my end (his hands were literally on my boobs and crotch) but because it was a workplace where people did sometimes touch each other in a way that elsewhere might be considered sexual (putting hands on someone's waist or midsection to address form), management believed it had been an accident and that he "didn't mean anything." I don't think all of those people were "predators" but the guy who groped me was and they made it extremely easy for him to get away with it.

That's what I think happened here. When you have a workplace where people might be nude or semi-nude, where part of their job might be to portray childbirth or sex, then you need to maintaining very high standards of professionalism and following protocols for maintaining consent and respect for everyone in the workplace. They did not do that and I think it resulted in a hostile work environment like the one I wound up working in. The fact that it was caused as much by ineptitude as bad intentions doesn't really make it any better. I think they are still liable for creating an unsafe, hostile work environment.

And it seems like we wouldn't have heard about any of this but for Baldoni's misguided smear attempt to "bury her" after the fact. Seems like she was going to look the other way and let it go until and keep it private until that happened, and then she came out guns blazing. Who wouldn't in her case?

Hard to say -- I really don't know what her intentions were prior to the summer PR campaign. It certainly didn't make it *less* likely that she would sue him. It's probably possible that if that had not happened and the film had been a success without all the online chatter about Lively, it might have been resolved more quietly.

This will sound Pollyanna-ish, but I think situations like this could be resolved without litigation if people weren't so egotistical. Like there's a parallel universe where Baldoni was more responsive to Lively's concerns on set and sought to address them, and that results in Lively being more amenable to not only working with Baldoni but his vision for the movie, and Ryan Reynolds is never brought in to write scenes or do the final cut, and they promote the movie together without Baldoni trying to smear Lively online or Lively freezing him out and getting the rest of the cast to do so as well, and then there's no litigation.

But it all starts with people being willing to be self-critical, admit mistakes, apologize, and forgive. And I don't think the people involved in this situation have the ability. Baldoni strikes me as vain, oblivious, self-important, and obnoxious. Lively strikes me as the kind of person who, once she's decided she doesnt' like you, will just go nuclear until you are nothing. It's a terrible combination. I think Baldoni's more in the wrong here -- it really looks like he did some very skeevy, harassing stuff on set and he was the director and needed to take responsibility for the lack of professionalism -- but also Lively probably handled this in a way that maximized the conflict and now it's a death match. On the one hand, good for her for standing up for herself. On the other hand, I question whether anything good will come of this in the end because they are going scorched earth.

[Anonymous]

Baldoni’s lawyer is now saying there is video footage disproving some of Blake’s complaints. And that the countersuit will include Ryan Reynolds as a defendant. I would hold off on getting too attached to Blake’s claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni’s lawyer is now saying there is video footage disproving some of Blake’s complaints. And that the countersuit will include Ryan Reynolds as a defendant. I would hold off on getting too attached to Blake’s claims.

You have Baldoni's claims in a death grip. Any minute now he's going to sue and refute all. Any time now. Still waiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think if this is true, it could be a result of him being green (inexperienced) and less about him being a predator.

I do think a lot of the bad behavior Lively alleges was due to Baldoni being an inexperienced director and the production company just not having a lot of experience and being unprofessional. But that doesn't absolve him of liability if his behavior or the productions actions led to a hostile work environment. Like he doesn't have to be a predator to engage in sexual harassment if his ineptitude led to consistently inappropriate, invasive, sexualized behavior on set.

I worked for a time in the fitness industry, and one of the companies I worked for had this issue -- just incredibly poorly run by people who didn't have leadership/management experience. They mostly had good (or at least okay) intentions but their employment practices were awful. The fitness industry, like acting, is an industry where people might interact in a way that would be considered totally inappropriate in other setting but is normal in that industry -- people touching each other to adjust form, people wearing very little clothing and changing/showering at work, etc. The result of having a green and unprofessional management in an industry like that is that it gets bad very quickly. It also makes it very easy for someone who *is* a predator to do bad things without getting in trouble. I was groped by a colleague at that job and there was just no recourse and it was written off by higher ups because they had no formal HR, no workplace policy governing that kind of behavior (and certainly no training on what is and is not permitted). It was an unequivocal groping, not something that could be misinterpreted on my end (his hands were literally on my boobs and crotch) but because it was a workplace where people did sometimes touch each other in a way that elsewhere might be considered sexual (putting hands on someone's waist or midsection to address form), management believed it had been an accident and that he "didn't mean anything." I don't think all of those people were "predators" but the guy who groped me was and they made it extremely easy for him to get away with it.

That's what I think happened here. When you have a workplace where people might be nude or semi-nude, where part of their job might be to portray childbirth or sex, then you need to maintaining very high standards of professionalism and following protocols for maintaining consent and respect for everyone in the workplace. They did not do that and I think it resulted in a hostile work environment like the one I wound up working in. The fact that it was caused as much by ineptitude as bad intentions doesn't really make it any better. I think they are still liable for creating an unsafe, hostile work environment.

And it seems like we wouldn't have heard about any of this but for Baldoni's misguided smear attempt to "bury her" after the fact. Seems like she was going to look the other way and let it go until and keep it private until that happened, and then she came out guns blazing. Who wouldn't in her case?

Hard to say -- I really don't know what her intentions were prior to the summer PR campaign. It certainly didn't make it *less* likely that she would sue him. It's probably possible that if that had not happened and the film had been a success without all the online chatter about Lively, it might have been resolved more quietly.

This will sound Pollyanna-ish, but I think situations like this could be resolved without litigation if people weren't so egotistical. Like there's a parallel universe where Baldoni was more responsive to Lively's concerns on set and sought to address them, and that results in Lively being more amenable to not only working with Baldoni but his vision for the movie, and Ryan Reynolds is never brought in to write scenes or do the final cut, and they promote the movie together without Baldoni trying to smear Lively online or Lively freezing him out and getting the rest of the cast to do so as well, and then there's no litigation.

But it all starts with people being willing to be self-critical, admit mistakes, apologize, and forgive. And I don't think the people involved in this situation have the ability. Baldoni strikes me as vain, oblivious, self-important, and obnoxious. Lively strikes me as the kind of person who, once she's decided she doesnt' like you, will just go nuclear until you are nothing. It's a terrible combination. I think Baldoni's more in the wrong here -- it really looks like he did some very skeevy, harassing stuff on set and he was the director and needed to take responsibility for the lack of professionalism -- but also Lively probably handled this in a way that maximized the conflict and now it's a death match. On the one hand, good for her for standing up for herself. On the other hand, I question whether anything good will come of this in the end because they are going scorched earth.

Worth noting that during the writer’s strike, Blake made a list of demands and Baldoni agreed to all of them “happily.” I think all of her allegations in the complaint were before that date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is just looking worse and worse and he is looking better. Now Ryan Reynolds has entered the scene and he is looking maybe the wrist like a controlling and paranoid spouse. He always had such a nice way about him. He should try to get away from this. This whole thing should not be lawsuits though. Just don’t like each other and move on. All these celebrities need to understand that the public gets tired of the complaining.

We had intelligent discussion for awhile, but back to this.

Wishful thinking by that PP. People think if they repeat the same mantra other people will start to believe it.

It works though. This is how Trump got re-elected. If you repeat a simple, appealing message over and over without nuance or a willingness to compromise or debate the premise, some people will eventually just acquiesce. People do not want nuance. They want to be spoonfed the same story over and over again. And "beautiful woman is hysterical, lies about a man hurting her" is an old story that people love going back to. It scratches a lot of different itches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is just looking worse and worse and he is looking better. Now Ryan Reynolds has entered the scene and he is looking maybe the wrist like a controlling and paranoid spouse. He always had such a nice way about him. He should try to get away from this. This whole thing should not be lawsuits though. Just don’t like each other and move on. All these celebrities need to understand that the public gets tired of the complaining.

We had intelligent discussion for awhile, but back to this.

Wishful thinking by that PP. People think if they repeat the same mantra other people will start to believe it.

It works though. This is how Trump got re-elected. If you repeat a simple, appealing message over and over without nuance or a willingness to compromise or debate the premise, some people will eventually just acquiesce. People do not want nuance. They want to be spoonfed the same story over and over again. And "beautiful woman is hysterical, lies about a man hurting her" is an old story that people love going back to. It scratches a lot of different itches.

It's not working here, lol.