Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The allegations in Blake’s complaint are old news at this point. Everyone that is going to have paid attention already has made a decision. It’s wild how Justin had the foresight to keep receipts. He’s winning public opinion sentiment by mile.

+1. We can rehash this birth scene a million times over, but she'll never work again in anything she and her husband don't fully fund and produce. It's done. Even a victory in court (unlikely) is not going to change that. As a super high maintenance, mind-bogglingly entitled, combative, and difficult person with limited talent, she had a decent run, but no one will hire her. The men will be afraid of frivolous lawsuits and the older actresses/producers/directors producing their own content will blame her for weaponizing MeToo. She's putting herself in the bucket with the 2% of rapes that are found to be false accusations. This is a wildly, wildly unpopular group to join. Unless she has something mind-blowing that somehow never entered into her complaint, she's toast. This isn't a story of SH, this is a David and Goliath powerplay by her and her husband. It's ludicrous they're not settling.

I actually think she's definitely work again and don't understand why you (or others) keep asserting this. Whatever happens with the SH claims, the movie was a success and Lively's marketing for it drove that success. Paul Feig, who directed her on a movie after this one, is backing her up publicly and that movie is getting a fairly showy premiere at SXSW (even though it's just a streaming feature without a theater release). They announced the SXSW premiere after all Baldoni's evidence came out.

I guess if that movie is a big flop that could impact whether she works again, but I actually bet all the interest in this conflict will drive more interest in that movie, just like it drove more interest in IEWU. Actors don't always have to be likable to be bankable -- Tom Cruise is a great example of an actor with a weird, often unpleasant public persona but it doesn't stop people from going to his movies. A lot of people dislike JLo but she still works a ton. I think sometimes being a controversial person actually helps attract attention to their projects.

And I don't think people will worry about Lively accusing them of SH either, even if they think her claims here are overblown. Badoni is not some well-respected or well-known director and a lot of the details of his set indicate that even if he didn't commit SH, it was an unprofessional, disorganized production. I think if a director thought Lively would be a good addition to a project, they wouldn't care that much about this because they don't run their sets like that. Sometimes there are disagreements on set and people wind up hating each other, that's what happened here.

No. No interest at all at seeing her movies. This was more than just a disagreement. She took out an ad in the Times to take him down.

And now you’re saying that it may not have been sh after all.

That’s the whole point. It never was sh, yet she cried it.

I'd still go see her movies. I intend to watch her upcoming movie with Kendrick. I also heard she is in talks to do a movie with Richard Gere, Diane Keaton, and Lin-Manuel Miranda that sounds funny -- the premise is the Gere and Keaton play married actors who have been together a long time, and Lively and LMM play "overemotional actors" who are cast to play younger versions of them in a movie about their love life, but as filming begins, their marriage starts to fall apart. It sounds like a fun premise!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty modest birth scene. Nothing odd about it at all.

Her issues are with the requests for nudity that were made of her, the lack of following protocol, the pressure on her to do things not in the script that she wasn’t comfortable with in this specific context, the sharing of personal experiences by Baldoni and Heath to pressure her, and Baldoni’s friend being in between her legs.

She has done far less clothed scenes in her life…with her consent and within the proper protocols.

Yes, and not a single one of those is sexual haesssment. Further much of it didn’t actually happen in the way she claims, but even if it had, not sexual harassment.

The court will decide if the pattern of behavior was sexual harassment. Your personal view that none of it was isn’t all that relevant. The court will see all the evidence and hear the testimonies and make that decision.

I didn’t say it was my personal view, there is a whole bunch of case law that establishes what sexual harassment is and isn’t. Blake Lively was not sexually harassed.

Oh then please by all means point us to this case law, and then that will resolve it once and for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty modest birth scene. Nothing odd about it at all.

Her issues are with the requests for nudity that were made of her, the lack of following protocol, the pressure on her to do things not in the script that she wasn’t comfortable with in this specific context, the sharing of personal experiences by Baldoni and Heath to pressure her, and Baldoni’s friend being in between her legs.

She has done far less clothed scenes in her life…with her consent and within the proper protocols.

Yes, and not a single one of those is sexual haesssment. Further much of it didn’t actually happen in the way she claims, but even if it had, not sexual harassment.

The court will decide if the pattern of behavior was sexual harassment. Your personal view that none of it was isn’t all that relevant. The court will see all the evidence and hear the testimonies and make that decision.

I didn’t say it was my personal view, there is a whole bunch of case law that establishes what sexual harassment is and isn’t. Blake Lively was not sexually harassed.

It is your personal view. The people involved haven’t even been deposed yet. Complaints are being amended. There is film and other documentation that hasn’t been made public. Your view that Justin did nothing wrong is based on what his own lawyer and PR team have released. That is always going to be full of bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. Last time I will comment on this thread. It’s weird for me to see how the delivery scene is being made a big deal by the fanatical poster, and here is why.

When I had my first kid, I took all of those prenatal classes that hospitals offer. One of the main takeaways from those classes is the bond that you want to form with your baby in those first few hours after birth. They emphasize connecting with your baby because birthing can be a very traumatic experience for the baby.

I remember both me and my husband with thin tshirts on, because we were told that skin to skin was the best bonding experience with the newborn baby those first few hours. And we followed the guidance given (along with breastfeeding, swaddling, ferbering, etc). No one in the delivery room viewed our actions as abnormal or uncomfortable or sexual. Moreover, our kids (we have more than one) were delivered by both male and female doctors.

I remember clearly that when I gave birth to one of my kids that there were at least 3 male doctors/assistants in the room, along with my female doctor and husband. [The female doctor was delivering for us because my main doctor (a male) was not on duty when I went into labor].

Nothing about me being unclothed from the waist down was viewed as weird, etc. because everyone was there for a purpose—to deliver that baby. There is always more than one doctor/assistant/nurse in the delivery room. And they all see your body as is because they are there to deliver that baby safely and whisk that baby away soon thereafter for testing, etc.

This is why it’s hard for me to wrap my head around discomfort for the delivery scene by BL. Maybe for a movie, the scene didn’t have to be 100 percent authentic to be believable, and she is right to want to negotiate that. But that doesn't knock the effort by the director. That’s just how babies are born.

And my baby was born at a top hospital, from a top ob practice. Nothing seems weird or off to me so far about how this delivery scene in context was scripted.

Baldoni wanted to film Lively in the birth scene, and tried hard to coerce Lively to agree to film the scene, with Lively topless, nearly naked except for the bump and some panties. You talk about being naked from the waist down, but if Baldini had gotten his way, you would have seen her breasts. That wasn’t your experience, and it wasn’t my experience, and that amount of nudity for a delivery scene would be unusual given the other scenes PP noted. Baldoni said being mostly covered with a hospital gown, as you and I were, was “not normal.”

Lawsuits are not about what if’s. I personally was not mostly covered in a hospital gown, nor was I wearing briefs or a pregnancy suit. Moreover, you continue to mix up Heath and Baldoni. They are two separate people.

DP but asking an actor to do nudity that is not in the script without an IC present on the day the scene is filmed could be considered harassment, even if the actor manages to convince the director that they should be able to wear more than what has been asked. It's coercive. If the actor refuses, the scene could be postponed and the actor will be blamed for costing the production money.

That's why nudity is always supposed to be in the script and flagged ahead of time, no surprises. Because otherwise there's a ton of pressure on actors to just do what is being asked of them so they can get the shot and keep to schedule. It is a very unprofessional for a director to spring nudity on an actor right before a scene.

Unprofessional is not sexual harassment.

Trying to coerce an actor into doing nudity they didn't sign on for is kind of textbook harassment on a film set though, isn't it? Even if the actor fights back and winds up wearing more clothes. The whole reason they started using ICs and requiring nudity riders was because directors and producers used to abuse their positions to get actresses to do things they weren't comfortable with.

It's a major red flag to me that they suggested the nudity all of a sudden not the day they filmed the scene, and that they didn't involve the IC. They had an IC on the movie, why wouldn't they flag this scene and involve her? The fact that they didn't is a sign that either (1) they are stupid or (2) they were trying to get away with something.

What it isn’t is sexual harassment.

You keep saying this like it's a fact but unless you can provide some textbook definition that will make that clear, people will continue to argue with you.

Lively's SH claim is that Baldoni and Heath created a hostile or abusvie work environment by misconduct that is "severe and pervasive." Her claims of misconduct will thus not be considered individually but cumulatively. So you can't say that as a discrete act, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude is not SH. It is supposed to be considered as part of a pattern of behavior, most of which we don't have enough evidence on either way at this point.

So the truth is, you don't know if it was SH or not. It certainly could be.

Even if I did explain why it wasn’t sexual harassment, and I and others have dozens of times at this point, you would and have continued to post as if it was never explained. So here we are and I’m quite sure you’ll roll this all out again tomorrow.

I have not seen explanations as to why this isn't sexual harassment, only assertions that it isn't, or that one person who keeps saying "it's not actionable" over and over.

I'd actually love an intelligent breakdown of why what she's alleging doesn't constitute SH. Not just "she's lying!" but something where you take her allegations at face value and then explain why it doesn't add up to SH. That would be more interesting than reading the weird speculation about her marriage or reposting some innocuous interview from 2022 over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty modest birth scene. Nothing odd about it at all.

Her issues are with the requests for nudity that were made of her, the lack of following protocol, the pressure on her to do things not in the script that she wasn’t comfortable with in this specific context, the sharing of personal experiences by Baldoni and Heath to pressure her, and Baldoni’s friend being in between her legs.

She has done far less clothed scenes in her life…with her consent and within the proper protocols.

Yes, and not a single one of those is sexual haesssment. Further much of it didn’t actually happen in the way she claims, but even if it had, not sexual harassment.

The court will decide if the pattern of behavior was sexual harassment. Your personal view that none of it was isn’t all that relevant. The court will see all the evidence and hear the testimonies and make that decision.

I didn’t say it was my personal view, there is a whole bunch of case law that establishes what sexual harassment is and isn’t. Blake Lively was not sexually harassed.

DP but, lol, okay I guess, since you say so. I mean, a bunch of attorneys clearly disagree with you (not talking about this board specifically but at minimum the ones that agreed to represent Lively and write the complaint and sign their name to it before filing it with the court) — but hey, some anonymous lady on DCUM (and likely a bunch of other anonymous ladies here) have read parts of the filings and watched some Tik Toks and they have decreed “this is not sexual harassment” before any discovery or depositions even so I guess that’s that!

Like Justin Baldoni would say, that’s cute!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. Last time I will comment on this thread. It’s weird for me to see how the delivery scene is being made a big deal by the fanatical poster, and here is why.

When I had my first kid, I took all of those prenatal classes that hospitals offer. One of the main takeaways from those classes is the bond that you want to form with your baby in those first few hours after birth. They emphasize connecting with your baby because birthing can be a very traumatic experience for the baby.

I remember both me and my husband with thin tshirts on, because we were told that skin to skin was the best bonding experience with the newborn baby those first few hours. And we followed the guidance given (along with breastfeeding, swaddling, ferbering, etc). No one in the delivery room viewed our actions as abnormal or uncomfortable or sexual. Moreover, our kids (we have more than one) were delivered by both male and female doctors.

I remember clearly that when I gave birth to one of my kids that there were at least 3 male doctors/assistants in the room, along with my female doctor and husband. [The female doctor was delivering for us because my main doctor (a male) was not on duty when I went into labor].

Nothing about me being unclothed from the waist down was viewed as weird, etc. because everyone was there for a purpose—to deliver that baby. There is always more than one doctor/assistant/nurse in the delivery room. And they all see your body as is because they are there to deliver that baby safely and whisk that baby away soon thereafter for testing, etc.

This is why it’s hard for me to wrap my head around discomfort for the delivery scene by BL. Maybe for a movie, the scene didn’t have to be 100 percent authentic to be believable, and she is right to want to negotiate that. But that doesn't knock the effort by the director. That’s just how babies are born.

And my baby was born at a top hospital, from a top ob practice. Nothing seems weird or off to me so far about how this delivery scene in context was scripted.

Baldoni wanted to film Lively in the birth scene, and tried hard to coerce Lively to agree to film the scene, with Lively topless, nearly naked except for the bump and some panties. You talk about being naked from the waist down, but if Baldini had gotten his way, you would have seen her breasts. That wasn’t your experience, and it wasn’t my experience, and that amount of nudity for a delivery scene would be unusual given the other scenes PP noted. Baldoni said being mostly covered with a hospital gown, as you and I were, was “not normal.”

Lawsuits are not about what if’s. I personally was not mostly covered in a hospital gown, nor was I wearing briefs or a pregnancy suit. Moreover, you continue to mix up Heath and Baldoni. They are two separate people.

DP but asking an actor to do nudity that is not in the script without an IC present on the day the scene is filmed could be considered harassment, even if the actor manages to convince the director that they should be able to wear more than what has been asked. It's coercive. If the actor refuses, the scene could be postponed and the actor will be blamed for costing the production money.

That's why nudity is always supposed to be in the script and flagged ahead of time, no surprises. Because otherwise there's a ton of pressure on actors to just do what is being asked of them so they can get the shot and keep to schedule. It is a very unprofessional for a director to spring nudity on an actor right before a scene.

Unprofessional is not sexual harassment.

Trying to coerce an actor into doing nudity they didn't sign on for is kind of textbook harassment on a film set though, isn't it? Even if the actor fights back and winds up wearing more clothes. The whole reason they started using ICs and requiring nudity riders was because directors and producers used to abuse their positions to get actresses to do things they weren't comfortable with.

It's a major red flag to me that they suggested the nudity all of a sudden not the day they filmed the scene, and that they didn't involve the IC. They had an IC on the movie, why wouldn't they flag this scene and involve her? The fact that they didn't is a sign that either (1) they are stupid or (2) they were trying to get away with something.

What it isn’t is sexual harassment.

You keep saying this like it's a fact but unless you can provide some textbook definition that will make that clear, people will continue to argue with you.

Lively's SH claim is that Baldoni and Heath created a hostile or abusvie work environment by misconduct that is "severe and pervasive." Her claims of misconduct will thus not be considered individually but cumulatively. So you can't say that as a discrete act, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude is not SH. It is supposed to be considered as part of a pattern of behavior, most of which we don't have enough evidence on either way at this point.

So the truth is, you don't know if it was SH or not. It certainly could be.

You’re back again, and you are reaching. But for her feeling discomfort in filming this scene, just not seeing the SH. Again, didn’t she reject the IC that was offered?

Yes, I'm "back again" because like you, I am participating in the conversation in this thread. Where would I go? Why are you allowed to post multiple times but apparently if I do, it's wrong?

But anyway, no she did not "reject the IC that was offered." She declined to attend a pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss scripted intimate scenes, saying that she "felt comfortable." She didn't say "no no please fire the IC, I don't want one!" She just declined to go to one meeting with the IC prior to filming. I don't know why. Maybe on prior projects she's worked on, they've just gone through the choreography with the IC on the day of the scene and she didn't see the point in getting into those details so long before filming those scenes. Maybe she just at the time trusted Baldoni to handle it on his end. Maybe she was playing hardball with a contract provision at the time and was declining meetings as a negotiating tactic. No one knows! But there's no indication she rejected the IC altogether, only that she declined to attend one meeting with the IC.

Then you can’t make the argument that an IC was not present at the delivery scene to make her feel more comfortable or to provide guidance with the script when she did not feel comfortable with it. By declining the IC initially when offered, she made herself unavailable for that assistance. It was offered.

Don’t know about you but if I offer someone help and they turn it down, it’s likely that I’m not going to offer it again unless obligated. Was the producer obligated to keep asking her for IC assistance after she turned it down already? And is he legally bound to do so, under law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The allegations in Blake’s complaint are old news at this point. Everyone that is going to have paid attention already has made a decision. It’s wild how Justin had the foresight to keep receipts. He’s winning public opinion sentiment by mile.

+1. We can rehash this birth scene a million times over, but she'll never work again in anything she and her husband don't fully fund and produce. It's done. Even a victory in court (unlikely) is not going to change that. As a super high maintenance, mind-bogglingly entitled, combative, and difficult person with limited talent, she had a decent run, but no one will hire her. The men will be afraid of frivolous lawsuits and the older actresses/producers/directors producing their own content will blame her for weaponizing MeToo. She's putting herself in the bucket with the 2% of rapes that are found to be false accusations. This is a wildly, wildly unpopular group to join. Unless she has something mind-blowing that somehow never entered into her complaint, she's toast. This isn't a story of SH, this is a David and Goliath powerplay by her and her husband. It's ludicrous they're not settling.

I actually think she's definitely work again and don't understand why you (or others) keep asserting this. Whatever happens with the SH claims, the movie was a success and Lively's marketing for it drove that success. Paul Feig, who directed her on a movie after this one, is backing her up publicly and that movie is getting a fairly showy premiere at SXSW (even though it's just a streaming feature without a theater release). They announced the SXSW premiere after all Baldoni's evidence came out.

I guess if that movie is a big flop that could impact whether she works again, but I actually bet all the interest in this conflict will drive more interest in that movie, just like it drove more interest in IEWU. Actors don't always have to be likable to be bankable -- Tom Cruise is a great example of an actor with a weird, often unpleasant public persona but it doesn't stop people from going to his movies. A lot of people dislike JLo but she still works a ton. I think sometimes being a controversial person actually helps attract attention to their projects.

And I don't think people will worry about Lively accusing them of SH either, even if they think her claims here are overblown. Badoni is not some well-respected or well-known director and a lot of the details of his set indicate that even if he didn't commit SH, it was an unprofessional, disorganized production. I think if a director thought Lively would be a good addition to a project, they wouldn't care that much about this because they don't run their sets like that. Sometimes there are disagreements on set and people wind up hating each other, that's what happened here.

No. No interest at all at seeing her movies. This was more than just a disagreement. She took out an ad in the Times to take him down.

And now you’re saying that it may not have been sh after all.

That’s the whole point. It never was sh, yet she cried it.

Also not her first time with SH allegations. Shr also alleged this of a makeup artist back in 2017. It's kind of remarkable actually, nothing from a guy like Weinstein with 80+ victims yet she's been repeatedly harassed on set and is comfortable citing incidents like, "applied lipstick/gloss with his finger" as a triggering sexual harassment complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty modest birth scene. Nothing odd about it at all.

Her issues are with the requests for nudity that were made of her, the lack of following protocol, the pressure on her to do things not in the script that she wasn’t comfortable with in this specific context, the sharing of personal experiences by Baldoni and Heath to pressure her, and Baldoni’s friend being in between her legs.

She has done far less clothed scenes in her life…with her consent and within the proper protocols.

Yes, and not a single one of those is sexual haesssment. Further much of it didn’t actually happen in the way she claims, but even if it had, not sexual harassment.

The court will decide if the pattern of behavior was sexual harassment. Your personal view that none of it was isn’t all that relevant. The court will see all the evidence and hear the testimonies and make that decision.

I didn’t say it was my personal view, there is a whole bunch of case law that establishes what sexual harassment is and isn’t. Blake Lively was not sexually harassed.

Oh then please by all means point us to this case law, and then that will resolve it once and for all.

Pp here- just look it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. Last time I will comment on this thread. It’s weird for me to see how the delivery scene is being made a big deal by the fanatical poster, and here is why.

When I had my first kid, I took all of those prenatal classes that hospitals offer. One of the main takeaways from those classes is the bond that you want to form with your baby in those first few hours after birth. They emphasize connecting with your baby because birthing can be a very traumatic experience for the baby.

I remember both me and my husband with thin tshirts on, because we were told that skin to skin was the best bonding experience with the newborn baby those first few hours. And we followed the guidance given (along with breastfeeding, swaddling, ferbering, etc). No one in the delivery room viewed our actions as abnormal or uncomfortable or sexual. Moreover, our kids (we have more than one) were delivered by both male and female doctors.

I remember clearly that when I gave birth to one of my kids that there were at least 3 male doctors/assistants in the room, along with my female doctor and husband. [The female doctor was delivering for us because my main doctor (a male) was not on duty when I went into labor].

Nothing about me being unclothed from the waist down was viewed as weird, etc. because everyone was there for a purpose—to deliver that baby. There is always more than one doctor/assistant/nurse in the delivery room. And they all see your body as is because they are there to deliver that baby safely and whisk that baby away soon thereafter for testing, etc.

This is why it’s hard for me to wrap my head around discomfort for the delivery scene by BL. Maybe for a movie, the scene didn’t have to be 100 percent authentic to be believable, and she is right to want to negotiate that. But that doesn't knock the effort by the director. That’s just how babies are born.

And my baby was born at a top hospital, from a top ob practice. Nothing seems weird or off to me so far about how this delivery scene in context was scripted.

Baldoni wanted to film Lively in the birth scene, and tried hard to coerce Lively to agree to film the scene, with Lively topless, nearly naked except for the bump and some panties. You talk about being naked from the waist down, but if Baldini had gotten his way, you would have seen her breasts. That wasn’t your experience, and it wasn’t my experience, and that amount of nudity for a delivery scene would be unusual given the other scenes PP noted. Baldoni said being mostly covered with a hospital gown, as you and I were, was “not normal.”

Lawsuits are not about what if’s. I personally was not mostly covered in a hospital gown, nor was I wearing briefs or a pregnancy suit. Moreover, you continue to mix up Heath and Baldoni. They are two separate people.

DP but asking an actor to do nudity that is not in the script without an IC present on the day the scene is filmed could be considered harassment, even if the actor manages to convince the director that they should be able to wear more than what has been asked. It's coercive. If the actor refuses, the scene could be postponed and the actor will be blamed for costing the production money.

That's why nudity is always supposed to be in the script and flagged ahead of time, no surprises. Because otherwise there's a ton of pressure on actors to just do what is being asked of them so they can get the shot and keep to schedule. It is a very unprofessional for a director to spring nudity on an actor right before a scene.

Unprofessional is not sexual harassment.

Trying to coerce an actor into doing nudity they didn't sign on for is kind of textbook harassment on a film set though, isn't it? Even if the actor fights back and winds up wearing more clothes. The whole reason they started using ICs and requiring nudity riders was because directors and producers used to abuse their positions to get actresses to do things they weren't comfortable with.

It's a major red flag to me that they suggested the nudity all of a sudden not the day they filmed the scene, and that they didn't involve the IC. They had an IC on the movie, why wouldn't they flag this scene and involve her? The fact that they didn't is a sign that either (1) they are stupid or (2) they were trying to get away with something.

What it isn’t is sexual harassment.

You keep saying this like it's a fact but unless you can provide some textbook definition that will make that clear, people will continue to argue with you.

Lively's SH claim is that Baldoni and Heath created a hostile or abusvie work environment by misconduct that is "severe and pervasive." Her claims of misconduct will thus not be considered individually but cumulatively. So you can't say that as a discrete act, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude is not SH. It is supposed to be considered as part of a pattern of behavior, most of which we don't have enough evidence on either way at this point.

So the truth is, you don't know if it was SH or not. It certainly could be.

You’re back again, and you are reaching. But for her feeling discomfort in filming this scene, just not seeing the SH. Again, didn’t she reject the IC that was offered?

Yes, I'm "back again" because like you, I am participating in the conversation in this thread. Where would I go? Why are you allowed to post multiple times but apparently if I do, it's wrong?

But anyway, no she did not "reject the IC that was offered." She declined to attend a pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss scripted intimate scenes, saying that she "felt comfortable." She didn't say "no no please fire the IC, I don't want one!" She just declined to go to one meeting with the IC prior to filming. I don't know why. Maybe on prior projects she's worked on, they've just gone through the choreography with the IC on the day of the scene and she didn't see the point in getting into those details so long before filming those scenes. Maybe she just at the time trusted Baldoni to handle it on his end. Maybe she was playing hardball with a contract provision at the time and was declining meetings as a negotiating tactic. No one knows! But there's no indication she rejected the IC altogether, only that she declined to attend one meeting with the IC.

Then you can’t make the argument that an IC was not present at the delivery scene to make her feel more comfortable or to provide guidance with the script when she did not feel comfortable with it. By declining the IC initially when offered, she made herself unavailable for that assistance. It was offered.

Don’t know about you but if I offer someone help and they turn it down, it’s likely that I’m not going to offer it again unless obligated. Was the producer obligated to keep asking her for IC assistance after she turned it down already? And is he legally bound to do so, under law?

She didn’t decline the IC. The IC is hired onto the project. She didn’t go to the first meeting. From her account, it sounds like she did work with the IC and even requested the IC be present for certain scenes. Declining a meeting during preproduction does not mean she turned down working with the IC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp here. Last time I will comment on this thread. It’s weird for me to see how the delivery scene is being made a big deal by the fanatical poster, and here is why.

When I had my first kid, I took all of those prenatal classes that hospitals offer. One of the main takeaways from those classes is the bond that you want to form with your baby in those first few hours after birth. They emphasize connecting with your baby because birthing can be a very traumatic experience for the baby.

I remember both me and my husband with thin tshirts on, because we were told that skin to skin was the best bonding experience with the newborn baby those first few hours. And we followed the guidance given (along with breastfeeding, swaddling, ferbering, etc). No one in the delivery room viewed our actions as abnormal or uncomfortable or sexual. Moreover, our kids (we have more than one) were delivered by both male and female doctors.

I remember clearly that when I gave birth to one of my kids that there were at least 3 male doctors/assistants in the room, along with my female doctor and husband. [The female doctor was delivering for us because my main doctor (a male) was not on duty when I went into labor].

Nothing about me being unclothed from the waist down was viewed as weird, etc. because everyone was there for a purpose—to deliver that baby. There is always more than one doctor/assistant/nurse in the delivery room. And they all see your body as is because they are there to deliver that baby safely and whisk that baby away soon thereafter for testing, etc.

This is why it’s hard for me to wrap my head around discomfort for the delivery scene by BL. Maybe for a movie, the scene didn’t have to be 100 percent authentic to be believable, and she is right to want to negotiate that. But that doesn't knock the effort by the director. That’s just how babies are born.

And my baby was born at a top hospital, from a top ob practice. Nothing seems weird or off to me so far about how this delivery scene in context was scripted.

Baldoni wanted to film Lively in the birth scene, and tried hard to coerce Lively to agree to film the scene, with Lively topless, nearly naked except for the bump and some panties. You talk about being naked from the waist down, but if Baldini had gotten his way, you would have seen her breasts. That wasn’t your experience, and it wasn’t my experience, and that amount of nudity for a delivery scene would be unusual given the other scenes PP noted. Baldoni said being mostly covered with a hospital gown, as you and I were, was “not normal.”

Lawsuits are not about what if’s. I personally was not mostly covered in a hospital gown, nor was I wearing briefs or a pregnancy suit. Moreover, you continue to mix up Heath and Baldoni. They are two separate people.

DP but asking an actor to do nudity that is not in the script without an IC present on the day the scene is filmed could be considered harassment, even if the actor manages to convince the director that they should be able to wear more than what has been asked. It's coercive. If the actor refuses, the scene could be postponed and the actor will be blamed for costing the production money.

That's why nudity is always supposed to be in the script and flagged ahead of time, no surprises. Because otherwise there's a ton of pressure on actors to just do what is being asked of them so they can get the shot and keep to schedule. It is a very unprofessional for a director to spring nudity on an actor right before a scene.

Unprofessional is not sexual harassment.

Trying to coerce an actor into doing nudity they didn't sign on for is kind of textbook harassment on a film set though, isn't it? Even if the actor fights back and winds up wearing more clothes. The whole reason they started using ICs and requiring nudity riders was because directors and producers used to abuse their positions to get actresses to do things they weren't comfortable with.

It's a major red flag to me that they suggested the nudity all of a sudden not the day they filmed the scene, and that they didn't involve the IC. They had an IC on the movie, why wouldn't they flag this scene and involve her? The fact that they didn't is a sign that either (1) they are stupid or (2) they were trying to get away with something.

What it isn’t is sexual harassment.

You keep saying this like it's a fact but unless you can provide some textbook definition that will make that clear, people will continue to argue with you.

Lively's SH claim is that Baldoni and Heath created a hostile or abusvie work environment by misconduct that is "severe and pervasive." Her claims of misconduct will thus not be considered individually but cumulatively. So you can't say that as a discrete act, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude is not SH. It is supposed to be considered as part of a pattern of behavior, most of which we don't have enough evidence on either way at this point.

So the truth is, you don't know if it was SH or not. It certainly could be.

You’re back again, and you are reaching. But for her feeling discomfort in filming this scene, just not seeing the SH. Again, didn’t she reject the IC that was offered?

Yes, I'm "back again" because like you, I am participating in the conversation in this thread. Where would I go? Why are you allowed to post multiple times but apparently if I do, it's wrong?

But anyway, no she did not "reject the IC that was offered." She declined to attend a pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss scripted intimate scenes, saying that she "felt comfortable." She didn't say "no no please fire the IC, I don't want one!" She just declined to go to one meeting with the IC prior to filming. I don't know why. Maybe on prior projects she's worked on, they've just gone through the choreography with the IC on the day of the scene and she didn't see the point in getting into those details so long before filming those scenes. Maybe she just at the time trusted Baldoni to handle it on his end. Maybe she was playing hardball with a contract provision at the time and was declining meetings as a negotiating tactic. No one knows! But there's no indication she rejected the IC altogether, only that she declined to attend one meeting with the IC.

Then you can’t make the argument that an IC was not present at the delivery scene to make her feel more comfortable or to provide guidance with the script when she did not feel comfortable with it. By declining the IC initially when offered, she made herself unavailable for that assistance. It was offered.

Don’t know about you but if I offer someone help and they turn it down, it’s likely that I’m not going to offer it again unless obligated. Was the producer obligated to keep asking her for IC assistance after she turned it down already? And is he legally bound to do so, under law?

No, it doesn't work that way. She didn't decline having an IC on set altogether, she just declined to attend one meeting. And that meeting would not have addressed the birth scene anyway because these scenes was not scripted with any nudity and would thus not have been flagged by the IC (or Lively) as a concern.

Perhaps if Baldoni has been up front about his plans for the birth scene, Lively would have gone to the meeting specifically to address any concerns she had. But instead he kept his plans for the nudity in the scene to himself until the day the scene was filmed and then sprang the idea of nudity on Lively without consulting the IC at all. Lively had no chance to incorporate an IC into that discussion because there was no time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty modest birth scene. Nothing odd about it at all.

Her issues are with the requests for nudity that were made of her, the lack of following protocol, the pressure on her to do things not in the script that she wasn’t comfortable with in this specific context, the sharing of personal experiences by Baldoni and Heath to pressure her, and Baldoni’s friend being in between her legs.

She has done far less clothed scenes in her life…with her consent and within the proper protocols.

Yes, and not a single one of those is sexual haesssment. Further much of it didn’t actually happen in the way she claims, but even if it had, not sexual harassment.

The court will decide if the pattern of behavior was sexual harassment. Your personal view that none of it was isn’t all that relevant. The court will see all the evidence and hear the testimonies and make that decision.

I didn’t say it was my personal view, there is a whole bunch of case law that establishes what sexual harassment is and isn’t. Blake Lively was not sexually harassed.

DP but, lol, okay I guess, since you say so. I mean, a bunch of attorneys clearly disagree with you (not talking about this board specifically but at minimum the ones that agreed to represent Lively and write the complaint and sign their name to it before filing it with the court) — but hey, some anonymous lady on DCUM (and likely a bunch of other anonymous ladies here) have read parts of the filings and watched some Tik Toks and they have decreed “this is not sexual harassment” before any discovery or depositions even so I guess that’s that!

Like Justin Baldoni would say, that’s cute!

You truly do not understand the role of an attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty modest birth scene. Nothing odd about it at all.

Her issues are with the requests for nudity that were made of her, the lack of following protocol, the pressure on her to do things not in the script that she wasn’t comfortable with in this specific context, the sharing of personal experiences by Baldoni and Heath to pressure her, and Baldoni’s friend being in between her legs.

She has done far less clothed scenes in her life…with her consent and within the proper protocols.

Yes, and not a single one of those is sexual haesssment. Further much of it didn’t actually happen in the way she claims, but even if it had, not sexual harassment.

The court will decide if the pattern of behavior was sexual harassment. Your personal view that none of it was isn’t all that relevant. The court will see all the evidence and hear the testimonies and make that decision.

I didn’t say it was my personal view, there is a whole bunch of case law that establishes what sexual harassment is and isn’t. Blake Lively was not sexually harassed.

Oh then please by all means point us to this case law, and then that will resolve it once and for all.

Pp here- just look it up.

I have and gosh, I can't find all the case law that says this fact pattern equals "no SH." Maybe I'm missing it? Why don't you just mention a couple of the cases to give me a jumping off point?

[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:Pp here. Last time I will comment on this thread. It’s weird for me to see how the delivery scene is being made a big deal by the fanatical poster, and here is why.

When I had my first kid, I took all of those prenatal classes that hospitals offer. One of the main takeaways from those classes is the bond that you want to form with your baby in those first few hours after birth. They emphasize connecting with your baby because birthing can be a very traumatic experience for the baby.

I remember both me and my husband with thin tshirts on, because we were told that skin to skin was the best bonding experience with the newborn baby those first few hours. And we followed the guidance given (along with breastfeeding, swaddling, ferbering, etc). No one in the delivery room viewed our actions as abnormal or uncomfortable or sexual. Moreover, our kids (we have more than one) were delivered by both male and female doctors.

I remember clearly that when I gave birth to one of my kids that there were at least 3 male doctors/assistants in the room, along with my female doctor and husband. [The female doctor was delivering for us because my main doctor (a male) was not on duty when I went into labor].

Nothing about me being unclothed from the waist down was viewed as weird, etc. because everyone was there for a purpose—to deliver that baby. There is always more than one doctor/assistant/nurse in the delivery room. And they all see your body as is because they are there to deliver that baby safely and whisk that baby away soon thereafter for testing, etc.

This is why it’s hard for me to wrap my head around discomfort for the delivery scene by BL. Maybe for a movie, the scene didn’t have to be 100 percent authentic to be believable, and she is right to want to negotiate that. But that doesn't knock the effort by the director. That’s just how babies are born.

And my baby was born at a top hospital, from a top ob practice. Nothing seems weird or off to me so far about how this delivery scene in context was scripted.

Baldoni wanted to film Lively in the birth scene, and tried hard to coerce Lively to agree to film the scene, with Lively topless, nearly naked except for the bump and some panties. You talk about being naked from the waist down, but if Baldini had gotten his way, you would have seen her breasts. That wasn’t your experience, and it wasn’t my experience, and that amount of nudity for a delivery scene would be unusual given the other scenes PP noted. Baldoni said being mostly covered with a hospital gown, as you and I were, was “not normal.”

Lawsuits are not about what if’s. I personally was not mostly covered in a hospital gown, nor was I wearing briefs or a pregnancy suit. Moreover, you continue to mix up Heath and Baldoni. They are two separate people.

DP but asking an actor to do nudity that is not in the script without an IC present on the day the scene is filmed could be considered harassment, even if the actor manages to convince the director that they should be able to wear more than what has been asked. It's coercive. If the actor refuses, the scene could be postponed and the actor will be blamed for costing the production money.

That's why nudity is always supposed to be in the script and flagged ahead of time, no surprises. Because otherwise there's a ton of pressure on actors to just do what is being asked of them so they can get the shot and keep to schedule. It is a very unprofessional for a director to spring nudity on an actor right before a scene.

Unprofessional is not sexual harassment.

Trying to coerce an actor into doing nudity they didn't sign on for is kind of textbook harassment on a film set though, isn't it? Even if the actor fights back and winds up wearing more clothes. The whole reason they started using ICs and requiring nudity riders was because directors and producers used to abuse their positions to get actresses to do things they weren't comfortable with.

It's a major red flag to me that they suggested the nudity all of a sudden not the day they filmed the scene, and that they didn't involve the IC. They had an IC on the movie, why wouldn't they flag this scene and involve her? The fact that they didn't is a sign that either (1) they are stupid or (2) they were trying to get away with something.

What it isn’t is sexual harassment.

You keep saying this like it's a fact but unless you can provide some textbook definition that will make that clear, people will continue to argue with you.

Lively's SH claim is that Baldoni and Heath created a hostile or abusvie work environment by misconduct that is "severe and pervasive." Her claims of misconduct will thus not be considered individually but cumulatively. So you can't say that as a discrete act, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude is not SH. It is supposed to be considered as part of a pattern of behavior, most of which we don't have enough evidence on either way at this point.

So the truth is, you don't know if it was SH or not. It certainly could be.

You’re back again, and you are reaching. But for her feeling discomfort in filming this scene, just not seeing the SH. Again, didn’t she reject the IC that was offered?

Yes, I'm "back again" because like you, I am participating in the conversation in this thread. Where would I go? Why are you allowed to post multiple times but apparently if I do, it's wrong?

But anyway, no she did not "reject the IC that was offered." She declined to attend a pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss scripted intimate scenes, saying that she "felt comfortable." She didn't say "no no please fire the IC, I don't want one!" She just declined to go to one meeting with the IC prior to filming. I don't know why. Maybe on prior projects she's worked on, they've just gone through the choreography with the IC on the day of the scene and she didn't see the point in getting into those details so long before filming those scenes. Maybe she just at the time trusted Baldoni to handle it on his end. Maybe she was playing hardball with a contract provision at the time and was declining meetings as a negotiating tactic. No one knows! But there's no indication she rejected the IC altogether, only that she declined to attend one meeting with the IC.

Then you can’t make the argument that an IC was not present at the delivery scene to make her feel more comfortable or to provide guidance with the script when she did not feel comfortable with it. By declining the IC initially when offered, she made herself unavailable for that assistance. It was offered.

Don’t know about you but if I offer someone help and they turn it down, it’s likely that I’m not going to offer it again unless obligated. Was the producer obligated to keep asking her for IC assistance after she turned it down already? And is he legally bound to do so, under law?

She didn’t decline the IC. The IC is hired onto the project. She didn’t go to the first meeting. From her account, it sounds like she did work with the IC and even requested the IC be present for certain scenes. Declining a meeting during preproduction does not mean she turned down working with the IC.

He alleges that she wouldn’t work with the IC directly and he had to act as a go between.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty modest birth scene. Nothing odd about it at all.

Her issues are with the requests for nudity that were made of her, the lack of following protocol, the pressure on her to do things not in the script that she wasn’t comfortable with in this specific context, the sharing of personal experiences by Baldoni and Heath to pressure her, and Baldoni’s friend being in between her legs.

She has done far less clothed scenes in her life…with her consent and within the proper protocols.

Yes, and not a single one of those is sexual haesssment. Further much of it didn’t actually happen in the way she claims, but even if it had, not sexual harassment.

The court will decide if the pattern of behavior was sexual harassment. Your personal view that none of it was isn’t all that relevant. The court will see all the evidence and hear the testimonies and make that decision.

I didn’t say it was my personal view, there is a whole bunch of case law that establishes what sexual harassment is and isn’t. Blake Lively was not sexually harassed.

DP but, lol, okay I guess, since you say so. I mean, a bunch of attorneys clearly disagree with you (not talking about this board specifically but at minimum the ones that agreed to represent Lively and write the complaint and sign their name to it before filing it with the court) — but hey, some anonymous lady on DCUM (and likely a bunch of other anonymous ladies here) have read parts of the filings and watched some Tik Toks and they have decreed “this is not sexual harassment” before any discovery or depositions even so I guess that’s that!

Like Justin Baldoni would say, that’s cute!

You truly do not understand the role of an attorney.

Dp, but agree. No understanding of how litigation works or what constitutes sexual harassment. But she’ll try to convince us she’s a lawyer.

[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:Pp here. Last time I will comment on this thread. It’s weird for me to see how the delivery scene is being made a big deal by the fanatical poster, and here is why.

When I had my first kid, I took all of those prenatal classes that hospitals offer. One of the main takeaways from those classes is the bond that you want to form with your baby in those first few hours after birth. They emphasize connecting with your baby because birthing can be a very traumatic experience for the baby.

I remember both me and my husband with thin tshirts on, because we were told that skin to skin was the best bonding experience with the newborn baby those first few hours. And we followed the guidance given (along with breastfeeding, swaddling, ferbering, etc). No one in the delivery room viewed our actions as abnormal or uncomfortable or sexual. Moreover, our kids (we have more than one) were delivered by both male and female doctors.

I remember clearly that when I gave birth to one of my kids that there were at least 3 male doctors/assistants in the room, along with my female doctor and husband. [The female doctor was delivering for us because my main doctor (a male) was not on duty when I went into labor].

Nothing about me being unclothed from the waist down was viewed as weird, etc. because everyone was there for a purpose—to deliver that baby. There is always more than one doctor/assistant/nurse in the delivery room. And they all see your body as is because they are there to deliver that baby safely and whisk that baby away soon thereafter for testing, etc.

This is why it’s hard for me to wrap my head around discomfort for the delivery scene by BL. Maybe for a movie, the scene didn’t have to be 100 percent authentic to be believable, and she is right to want to negotiate that. But that doesn't knock the effort by the director. That’s just how babies are born.

And my baby was born at a top hospital, from a top ob practice. Nothing seems weird or off to me so far about how this delivery scene in context was scripted.

Baldoni wanted to film Lively in the birth scene, and tried hard to coerce Lively to agree to film the scene, with Lively topless, nearly naked except for the bump and some panties. You talk about being naked from the waist down, but if Baldini had gotten his way, you would have seen her breasts. That wasn’t your experience, and it wasn’t my experience, and that amount of nudity for a delivery scene would be unusual given the other scenes PP noted. Baldoni said being mostly covered with a hospital gown, as you and I were, was “not normal.”

Lawsuits are not about what if’s. I personally was not mostly covered in a hospital gown, nor was I wearing briefs or a pregnancy suit. Moreover, you continue to mix up Heath and Baldoni. They are two separate people.

DP but asking an actor to do nudity that is not in the script without an IC present on the day the scene is filmed could be considered harassment, even if the actor manages to convince the director that they should be able to wear more than what has been asked. It's coercive. If the actor refuses, the scene could be postponed and the actor will be blamed for costing the production money.

That's why nudity is always supposed to be in the script and flagged ahead of time, no surprises. Because otherwise there's a ton of pressure on actors to just do what is being asked of them so they can get the shot and keep to schedule. It is a very unprofessional for a director to spring nudity on an actor right before a scene.

Unprofessional is not sexual harassment.

Trying to coerce an actor into doing nudity they didn't sign on for is kind of textbook harassment on a film set though, isn't it? Even if the actor fights back and winds up wearing more clothes. The whole reason they started using ICs and requiring nudity riders was because directors and producers used to abuse their positions to get actresses to do things they weren't comfortable with.

It's a major red flag to me that they suggested the nudity all of a sudden not the day they filmed the scene, and that they didn't involve the IC. They had an IC on the movie, why wouldn't they flag this scene and involve her? The fact that they didn't is a sign that either (1) they are stupid or (2) they were trying to get away with something.

What it isn’t is sexual harassment.

You keep saying this like it's a fact but unless you can provide some textbook definition that will make that clear, people will continue to argue with you.

Lively's SH claim is that Baldoni and Heath created a hostile or abusvie work environment by misconduct that is "severe and pervasive." Her claims of misconduct will thus not be considered individually but cumulatively. So you can't say that as a discrete act, pressuring Lively to do the birth scene nude is not SH. It is supposed to be considered as part of a pattern of behavior, most of which we don't have enough evidence on either way at this point.

So the truth is, you don't know if it was SH or not. It certainly could be.

You’re back again, and you are reaching. But for her feeling discomfort in filming this scene, just not seeing the SH. Again, didn’t she reject the IC that was offered?

Yes, I'm "back again" because like you, I am participating in the conversation in this thread. Where would I go? Why are you allowed to post multiple times but apparently if I do, it's wrong?

But anyway, no she did not "reject the IC that was offered." She declined to attend a pre-production meeting with the IC to discuss scripted intimate scenes, saying that she "felt comfortable." She didn't say "no no please fire the IC, I don't want one!" She just declined to go to one meeting with the IC prior to filming. I don't know why. Maybe on prior projects she's worked on, they've just gone through the choreography with the IC on the day of the scene and she didn't see the point in getting into those details so long before filming those scenes. Maybe she just at the time trusted Baldoni to handle it on his end. Maybe she was playing hardball with a contract provision at the time and was declining meetings as a negotiating tactic. No one knows! But there's no indication she rejected the IC altogether, only that she declined to attend one meeting with the IC.

Then you can’t make the argument that an IC was not present at the delivery scene to make her feel more comfortable or to provide guidance with the script when she did not feel comfortable with it. By declining the IC initially when offered, she made herself unavailable for that assistance. It was offered.

Don’t know about you but if I offer someone help and they turn it down, it’s likely that I’m not going to offer it again unless obligated. Was the producer obligated to keep asking her for IC assistance after she turned it down already? And is he legally bound to do so, under law?

No, it doesn't work that way. She didn't decline having an IC on set altogether, she just declined to attend one meeting. And that meeting would not have addressed the birth scene anyway because these scenes was not scripted with any nudity and would thus not have been flagged by the IC (or Lively) as a concern.

Perhaps if Baldoni has been up front about his plans for the birth scene, Lively would have gone to the meeting specifically to address any concerns she had. But instead he kept his plans for the nudity in the scene to himself until the day the scene was filmed and then sprang the idea of nudity on Lively without consulting the IC at all. Lively had no chance to incorporate an IC into that discussion because there was no time.

And no, it doesn’t work ‘that’ way. She never once advocated for an IC to be called in when she felt uncomfortable with the birthing scene. Not once.

But she had no problem calling in her dragons to fight for her and explain her vision/why her rewrite should be supported when she wanted to gain leverage against JB.

So she could have fought to have an IC there if she wanted one there. It’s not legally up to him to keep asking at every turn, especially after she declined once. The obligation is not on him to keep asking. It’s on her to request one if she felt one was needed since he offered once and she declined.