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.
I disagree on how you view Baldoni. I don’t think he gives off this vibe at all. He seems pretty down to earth, sensitive and overall a good human which is why people are shocked at the allegations.
I guess he seems that way if you discount everything in Lively's complaint and the fact that the entire cast of the movie has come out in support of Lively. They were there.
And the crew supports him. Further, there are allegations that Ryan and Blake have threatened people to get them on their side.
Should probably note that Megyn Kelly is a former client of Bryan Freedman. He represented her when she was let go from NBC after defending blackface as "ok" in certain circumstances on her show.
Anonymous wrote:Should probably note that Megyn Kelly is a former client of Bryan Freedman. He represented her when she was let go from NBC after defending blackface as "ok" in certain circumstances on her show.
What difference does the source make when it’s literally a video of him talking? Also, I’m feeling very jaded about reputation of news source after NYT involvement in this fiasco. Why not wait to report on an actual lawsuit and response, perhaps some factual development…?
Anonymous wrote:Should probably note that Megyn Kelly is a former client of Bryan Freedman. He represented her when she was let go from NBC after defending blackface as "ok" in certain circumstances on her show.
I don’t think she was an overly sympathetic interviewer.
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.
I disagree on how you view Baldoni. I don’t think he gives off this vibe at all. He seems pretty down to earth, sensitive and overall a good human which is why people are shocked at the allegations.
I guess he seems that way if you discount everything in Lively's complaint and the fact that the entire cast of the movie has come out in support of Lively. They were there.
I think I may not have written my response clear. What I was trying to articulate is that in the public overall Justin doesn’t have this reputation. I do think that most people would put those traits on Blake as she seems to have had the reputation of being self important and vain long before the allegations. I think people are genuinely shocked to hear these allegations simply due to the fact that Justin appeared to be one of the good guys. Now whether or not he is a good guy, I cannot answer. I was just shocked at how you saw him is all, but now I understand that you are viewing him through the lens of the lawsuit and not on anything outside of it.
Well, she is seeing him through the lens of the Blake’s lawsuit, but is willfully blind to his complaint against The NY Times, which raises serious issues about Blake’s credibility and motivation.
It really doesn't since he barely addressed most of her complaints. But keep harping on it.
Anonymous wrote:Should probably note that Megyn Kelly is a former client of Bryan Freedman. He represented her when she was let go from NBC after defending blackface as "ok" in certain circumstances on her show.
What difference does the source make when it’s literally a video of him talking? Also, I’m feeling very jaded about reputation of news source after NYT involvement in this fiasco. Why not wait to report on an actual lawsuit and response, perhaps some factual development…?
I mean, my jadedness about the news is why I think it's important to point out that Kelly is one of his clients. She really pumps him up at the beginning of the interview as someone who helps "the little guy" (I guess when the little guy is a millionaire entertainer like Kelly or Baldoni) and then gives a very biased summary of the case that belittles Lively's claims while lifting up Baldoni's. It's totally biased.
I also think the NYT's reporting was totally biased the other way.
We should all be aware of the ways in which the reporting in this case has been incredibly slanted. So I point out Kelly's conflict of interest not to say "don't watch this" but just so people can go in with their eyes open. If someone were sharing the NYT's piece I would point out some of the ways in which it was biased (and in fact have done so on this thread).
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.
I disagree on how you view Baldoni. I don’t think he gives off this vibe at all. He seems pretty down to earth, sensitive and overall a good human which is why people are shocked at the allegations.
I guess he seems that way if you discount everything in Lively's complaint and the fact that the entire cast of the movie has come out in support of Lively. They were there.
I think I may not have written my response clear. What I was trying to articulate is that in the public overall Justin doesn’t have this reputation. I do think that most people would put those traits on Blake as she seems to have had the reputation of being self important and vain long before the allegations. I think people are genuinely shocked to hear these allegations simply due to the fact that Justin appeared to be one of the good guys. Now whether or not he is a good guy, I cannot answer. I was just shocked at how you saw him is all, but now I understand that you are viewing him through the lens of the lawsuit and not on anything outside of it.
Well, she is seeing him through the lens of the Blake’s lawsuit, but is willfully blind to his complaint against The NY Times, which raises serious issues about Blake’s credibility and motivation.
It really doesn't since he barely addressed most of her complaints. But keep harping on it.
He addressed her credibility or lack there of which goes to all her claims. If she is willing to edit texts to deliberately change their meaning and present them with no indication of such edits, why should we find her credible at all? And that’s a rhetorical question, because I know you will support her regardless of how much evidence piles up against her.
Anonymous wrote:Should probably note that Megyn Kelly is a former client of Bryan Freedman. He represented her when she was let go from NBC after defending blackface as "ok" in certain circumstances on her show.
I don’t think she was an overly sympathetic interviewer.
She was completely sympathetic and basically reiterates Baldoni's legal claims as facts while portraying Lively and Reynolds in the worst possible light. It is not an unbiased reporting at all. Go watch it -- good to get both sides here. But don't watch it thinking you're getting some neutral take on the case from Kelly. She's 100% in the tank for her former lawyer and his current client.
Just as Lively's team probably reached out to people at the NYT they knew and leaned on them to report this story in a way favorable to their client, it's pretty obvious Freedman reached out to his former client and was like "hey can I be on your show and can you help me advocate for my client" and she did. I think the NYT thing is worse because they actually have a rep for journalism whereas Kelly is a talking head who is expected to share her opinion. But still, it's important to recognize it's her opinion and its likely heavily influenced by the fact that she is friends with and has a history with Baldoni's lawyer.
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.
I disagree on how you view Baldoni. I don’t think he gives off this vibe at all. He seems pretty down to earth, sensitive and overall a good human which is why people are shocked at the allegations.
I guess he seems that way if you discount everything in Lively's complaint and the fact that the entire cast of the movie has come out in support of Lively. They were there.
I think I may not have written my response clear. What I was trying to articulate is that in the public overall Justin doesn’t have this reputation. I do think that most people would put those traits on Blake as she seems to have had the reputation of being self important and vain long before the allegations. I think people are genuinely shocked to hear these allegations simply due to the fact that Justin appeared to be one of the good guys. Now whether or not he is a good guy, I cannot answer. I was just shocked at how you saw him is all, but now I understand that you are viewing him through the lens of the lawsuit and not on anything outside of it.
Well, she is seeing him through the lens of the Blake’s lawsuit, but is willfully blind to his complaint against The NY Times, which raises serious issues about Blake’s credibility and motivation.
It really doesn't since he barely addressed most of her complaints. But keep harping on it.
He addressed her credibility or lack there of which goes to all her claims. If she is willing to edit texts to deliberately change their meaning and present them with no indication of such edits, why should we find her credible at all? And that’s a rhetorical question, because I know you will support her regardless of how much evidence piles up against her.
I'd be more worried about Baldoni if I were you. He really didn't do anything you claim with his NYT suit. So delusional.
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.
I disagree on how you view Baldoni. I don’t think he gives off this vibe at all. He seems pretty down to earth, sensitive and overall a good human which is why people are shocked at the allegations.
I guess he seems that way if you discount everything in Lively's complaint and the fact that the entire cast of the movie has come out in support of Lively. They were there.
I think I may not have written my response clear. What I was trying to articulate is that in the public overall Justin doesn’t have this reputation. I do think that most people would put those traits on Blake as she seems to have had the reputation of being self important and vain long before the allegations. I think people are genuinely shocked to hear these allegations simply due to the fact that Justin appeared to be one of the good guys. Now whether or not he is a good guy, I cannot answer. I was just shocked at how you saw him is all, but now I understand that you are viewing him through the lens of the lawsuit and not on anything outside of it.
Well, she is seeing him through the lens of the Blake’s lawsuit, but is willfully blind to his complaint against The NY Times, which raises serious issues about Blake’s credibility and motivation.
It really doesn't since he barely addressed most of her complaints. But keep harping on it.
He addressed her credibility or lack there of which goes to all her claims. If she is willing to edit texts to deliberately change their meaning and present them with no indication of such edits, why should we find her credible at all? And that’s a rhetorical question, because I know you will support her regardless of how much evidence piles up against her.
Lively didn't do that though. The NYT did that. And he's suing them for it! Good for him. But that argument doesn't have any impact on Lively's credibility -- she is not the one who decided how to present those texts.
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.
I disagree on how you view Baldoni. I don’t think he gives off this vibe at all. He seems pretty down to earth, sensitive and overall a good human which is why people are shocked at the allegations.
I guess he seems that way if you discount everything in Lively's complaint and the fact that the entire cast of the movie has come out in support of Lively. They were there.
I think I may not have written my response clear. What I was trying to articulate is that in the public overall Justin doesn’t have this reputation. I do think that most people would put those traits on Blake as she seems to have had the reputation of being self important and vain long before the allegations. I think people are genuinely shocked to hear these allegations simply due to the fact that Justin appeared to be one of the good guys. Now whether or not he is a good guy, I cannot answer. I was just shocked at how you saw him is all, but now I understand that you are viewing him through the lens of the lawsuit and not on anything outside of it.
Well, she is seeing him through the lens of the Blake’s lawsuit, but is willfully blind to his complaint against The NY Times, which raises serious issues about Blake’s credibility and motivation.
It really doesn't since he barely addressed most of her complaints. But keep harping on it.
He addressed her credibility or lack there of which goes to all her claims. If she is willing to edit texts to deliberately change their meaning and present them with no indication of such edits, why should we find her credible at all? And that’s a rhetorical question, because I know you will support her regardless of how much evidence piles up against her.
I'd be more worried about Baldoni if I were you. He really didn't do anything you claim with his NYT suit. So delusional.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about which of us is delusional.
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.
I disagree on how you view Baldoni. I don’t think he gives off this vibe at all. He seems pretty down to earth, sensitive and overall a good human which is why people are shocked at the allegations.
I guess he seems that way if you discount everything in Lively's complaint and the fact that the entire cast of the movie has come out in support of Lively. They were there.
I think I may not have written my response clear. What I was trying to articulate is that in the public overall Justin doesn’t have this reputation. I do think that most people would put those traits on Blake as she seems to have had the reputation of being self important and vain long before the allegations. I think people are genuinely shocked to hear these allegations simply due to the fact that Justin appeared to be one of the good guys. Now whether or not he is a good guy, I cannot answer. I was just shocked at how you saw him is all, but now I understand that you are viewing him through the lens of the lawsuit and not on anything outside of it.
Well, she is seeing him through the lens of the Blake’s lawsuit, but is willfully blind to his complaint against The NY Times, which raises serious issues about Blake’s credibility and motivation.
It really doesn't since he barely addressed most of her complaints. But keep harping on it.
He addressed her credibility or lack there of which goes to all her claims. If she is willing to edit texts to deliberately change their meaning and present them with no indication of such edits, why should we find her credible at all? And that’s a rhetorical question, because I know you will support her regardless of how much evidence piles up against her.
Lively didn't do that though. The NYT did that. And he's suing them for it! Good for him. But that argument doesn't have any impact on Lively's credibility -- she is not the one who decided how to present those texts.
And where did The NY Times get those texts? Lively and her publicist. You think it was The NY Times who sliced and diced them? Lively presented them that way, and The NY Times did not fully investigate her claims.
Anonymous wrote:Should probably note that Megyn Kelly is a former client of Bryan Freedman. He represented her when she was let go from NBC after defending blackface as "ok" in certain circumstances on her show.
What difference does the source make when it’s literally a video of him talking? Also, I’m feeling very jaded about reputation of news source after NYT involvement in this fiasco. Why not wait to report on an actual lawsuit and response, perhaps some factual development…?
I mean, my jadedness about the news is why I think it's important to point out that Kelly is one of his clients. She really pumps him up at the beginning of the interview as someone who helps "the little guy" (I guess when the little guy is a millionaire entertainer like Kelly or Baldoni) and then gives a very biased summary of the case that belittles Lively's claims while lifting up Baldoni's. It's totally biased.
I also think the NYT's reporting was totally biased the other way.
We should all be aware of the ways in which the reporting in this case has been incredibly slanted. So I point out Kelly's conflict of interest not to say "don't watch this" but just so people can go in with their eyes open. If someone were sharing the NYT's piece I would point out some of the ways in which it was biased (and in fact have done so on this thread).
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}