Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally I haven’t seen anything that shows JB is “insufferable.” People seem to hate him simply for having money and being involved in this case, which they’re bored of. But if BL really did make his life as difficult as it seems, and he capitulated at every turn as it seems, and she still then went and made false allegations as it seems, do we really have to hate him for defending himself in the ways his lawyer is recommending? If he didn’t file this lawsuit, everyone would still be firmly with Blake. I’m not sure what he is supposed to do to continue on in this career as a director, which is presumably what he wants to do. It just seems like a lose lose lose situation.

Or, what am I missing? Because I keep seeing people say, well I guess they both suck. Why. Why does he have to be a terrible person if she’s really falsified accusations?

I agree. I don’t think any of the details that Justin has brought forth are pretty. The issue with this is that she came out with a list of concerning interactions, but it’s only concerning in certain context. He is adding more context that make it seem a lot less inappropriate.

What is he supposed to do, just let the New York Times article stand without defending himself? He literally has been let go by his agency, his co-host on the podcast quit. He had to come forth and provide these details. Sure they seem kind of maddening, but it paints a very different picture. I just don’t see how he has a choice.

Sorry, meant petty not pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally I haven’t seen anything that shows JB is “insufferable.” People seem to hate him simply for having money and being involved in this case, which they’re bored of. But if BL really did make his life as difficult as it seems, and he capitulated at every turn as it seems, and she still then went and made false allegations as it seems, do we really have to hate him for defending himself in the ways his lawyer is recommending? If he didn’t file this lawsuit, everyone would still be firmly with Blake. I’m not sure what he is supposed to do to continue on in this career as a director, which is presumably what he wants to do. It just seems like a lose lose lose situation.

Or, what am I missing? Because I keep seeing people say, well I guess they both suck. Why. Why does he have to be a terrible person if she’s really falsified accusations?

A lot of people find the whole "male feminist" persona insufferable. I still don't really have an opinion on Baldoni (never heard his podcast, never seen his movies, I've only seen photos of him and read about him) but that is a personality type a lot of people find grating, especially when someone is profiting off of it with books and the podcast and the production company like Baldoni has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally I haven’t seen anything that shows JB is “insufferable.” People seem to hate him simply for having money and being involved in this case, which they’re bored of. But if BL really did make his life as difficult as it seems, and he capitulated at every turn as it seems, and she still then went and made false allegations as it seems, do we really have to hate him for defending himself in the ways his lawyer is recommending? If he didn’t file this lawsuit, everyone would still be firmly with Blake. I’m not sure what he is supposed to do to continue on in this career as a director, which is presumably what he wants to do. It just seems like a lose lose lose situation.

Or, what am I missing? Because I keep seeing people say, well I guess they both suck. Why. Why does he have to be a terrible person if she’s really falsified accusations?

Agree with you to a point, but I called Justin insufferable because some of the things just sound a little bit crazy like him saging the set, saying he can speak to Blake’s dead father, maybe even discussing his past porn addiction.

With more context, I don’t think any of those were sexual harassment though. I just think there are a lot of people in Hollywood who are insufferable and self important. I think Blake and Justin are both of those people, but I don’t think he did anything illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both men and women can be difficult on set. Plenty of evidence of both.

Agree men being difficult on set also have short careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m baffled as to how either one of them thinks this public display of he said/she said by genetically and financially privileged actors kvetching about a few bad days at work could possibly end well…particularly when the court of public opinion is dragged into it thanks to constant media and social media attention.

Nobody likes hearing celebs whine. Nobody.

In the real world, we have real problems.

The Queen was soooo right about the “never complain” part.

I predict both actors won’t work again unless a friend takes pity on them.

I thought the same. These are pretty petty issues to be discussing over 80 pages and 180 pages.

Blake has a right to bring forward a complaint of sexual harrassment and Justin has a right to defend himself but both complaints and especially Justins have excessive amounts of extraneous information and pettiness that make both look immature.

I don’t think either has lots of extraneous information. What exactly are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The timeline isn't completely clear but she signed onto the project at the end of December 2022, and had her baby mid February. The complaint alleges that almost immediately the conflict over the wardrobe started and that is when they went to her house. So it seems the going to her house might have been shortly after she had given birth and was more of an accommodation for her family status than her wielding power. She may have had provisos in her contract related to her work commitments post birth / while breastfeeding for the first few months.

Yeah I don't think the thing about sending wardrobe to her house actually signifies anything. I think Baldoni's complaint throws it in gratuitously to paint Lively as difficult to work with (which it absolutely sounds like she is).

But Baldoni's actual cause of action is defamation. He's not suing Lively for her behavior with relation to the production. So stuff like this is thrown in as part of the ongoing PR war between the two. It's not really related to the case.

And to the person who suggested a male actor wouldn't get away with a demand like this -- yeah he would, if he were famous enough. Actors of both genders make these kinds of flexes all the time.

It is related to the case. She has to show a pattern of harassment and toxicity in the work place. He is using her behavior to show a pattern atypical demands by her to exert control of the movie. It’s her motivation, eventually, for her “false” claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The timeline isn't completely clear but she signed onto the project at the end of December 2022, and had her baby mid February. The complaint alleges that almost immediately the conflict over the wardrobe started and that is when they went to her house. So it seems the going to her house might have been shortly after she had given birth and was more of an accommodation for her family status than her wielding power. She may have had provisos in her contract related to her work commitments post birth / while breastfeeding for the first few months.

You really think some random no-name new actress could have gotten that accomodation after having a baby? It still shows she had power to make unconventional requests.

[Anonymous]

I get that people are skeezed out by the male feminist thing, but I’m not sure it makes him a terrible person.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I think this shows what happens in any business when there isn’t a clear delineation of power. When people’s values line up, everything can go well. But when they don’t, it’s a total mess. Who even can tell what BL was supposed to be doing or not doing. Seems like she wanted to be doing it all, but the studio wanted to limit her role because it was slowing things down. And JB was just stuck in the middle, going back and forth asking what he was supposed to do at every turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The timeline isn't completely clear but she signed onto the project at the end of December 2022, and had her baby mid February. The complaint alleges that almost immediately the conflict over the wardrobe started and that is when they went to her house. So it seems the going to her house might have been shortly after she had given birth and was more of an accommodation for her family status than her wielding power. She may have had provisos in her contract related to her work commitments post birth / while breastfeeding for the first few months.

You really think some random no-name new actress could have gotten that accomodation after having a baby? It still shows she had power to make unconventional requests.

Unfortunately, they might not be able to but I think they should. Given Blake had only recenly given birth, I don't think it is unreasonable at all to accomodate that by going to her house rather than having her go to the studio for wardrobe fittings. I think that would be reasonable for anyone. And while she had some power, that is why they wanted her. They thought her star power would help sell the movie. Just like Justin had perks also that a randome no name actor wouldn't have. But I don't think a request to have wardrobe come to you in the weeks post birth is some ridiculous diva demand of someone trying to control others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally I haven’t seen anything that shows JB is “insufferable.” People seem to hate him simply for having money and being involved in this case, which they’re bored of. But if BL really did make his life as difficult as it seems, and he capitulated at every turn as it seems, and she still then went and made false allegations as it seems, do we really have to hate him for defending himself in the ways his lawyer is recommending? If he didn’t file this lawsuit, everyone would still be firmly with Blake. I’m not sure what he is supposed to do to continue on in this career as a director, which is presumably what he wants to do. It just seems like a lose lose lose situation.

Or, what am I missing? Because I keep seeing people say, well I guess they both suck. Why. Why does he have to be a terrible person if she’s really falsified accusations?

I agree. I don’t think any of the details that Justin has brought forth are pretty. The issue with this is that she came out with a list of concerning interactions, but it’s only concerning in certain context. He is adding more context that make it seem a lot less inappropriate.

What is he supposed to do, just let the New York Times article stand without defending himself? He literally has been let go by his agency, his co-host on the podcast quit. He had to come forth and provide these details. Sure they seem kind of maddening, but it paints a very different picture. I just don’t see how he has a choice.

The details in Justin's complaint that sound petty to me, especially the way they are presented:

- Lively not reading the book. Who cares? She read the script. A lot of actors specifically choose not to read source material when preparing for a role because they don't want to confuse their character development. I don't see why it matters either way -- there's no special prize for "most faithful representation of the book." Movies that hew too closely to the books they are based on are often bad because they are such different mediums.

- Lively having wardrobe sent to her house. Perhaps I've read too much celeb gossip over the years but this just doesn't register for me as over the top for a big name actor. Why is this a big deal? What does it have to do with Baldoni's claims?

- A lot of the contract negotiation stuff comes off as petty to me. Like so they haggled over Lively getting a "p.g.a." credit on the movie. Okay. I have no idea whether she "deserved" that or not but it seems like a normal thing to argue about. She did wind up having a lot of creative input on the movie, even if she muscled her way into it. I can see how that would be annoying to Baldoni/Wayfarer but I look at it like this: getting Lively to do the movie in the first place probably helped them secure wide distribution and made it significantly more likely the movie was commercially successful (which it was). Well the flip side is that you've got a more famous actor involved who is going to be kind of a pain and want more power and control on set. That's business. It comes off as whining to me. They could have cast a lesser known actor who was cheaper, would have read the book if the director told her to, would come to wardrobe instead of the other way around, wore what she wanted them to, and maybe even would have been better in the role (I think Lively is a mediocre actress, personally). But they hired Lively because they wanted her name attached to the movie. Of *course* she's going to leverage that to her benefit, who wouldn't.

I also just think a lot of the language in Baldoni's complaint is melodramatic. Lively's complaint had a more professional vibe IMO, which made it sound less whiny. Though I do think some of her complaints sound petty too.

I think the lawsuits ultimately come down to how the intimate scenes were actually handled (it's very she said/he said at this point -- let's hear from others like the IC and see footage), whether Baldoni/Heath were inappropriate or harassing on and off set (again we have competing narratives and need to hear from others and get more evidence), and whether Baldoni actually tried to torpedo Lively in the press (I think the evidence here is fairly weak and Baldoni will likely prevail here). Everything else just seems like noise to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The timeline isn't completely clear but she signed onto the project at the end of December 2022, and had her baby mid February. The complaint alleges that almost immediately the conflict over the wardrobe started and that is when they went to her house. So it seems the going to her house might have been shortly after she had given birth and was more of an accommodation for her family status than her wielding power. She may have had provisos in her contract related to her work commitments post birth / while breastfeeding for the first few months.

You really think some random no-name new actress could have gotten that accomodation after having a baby? It still shows she had power to make unconventional requests.

Unfortunately, they might not be able to but I think they should. Given Blake had only recenly given birth, I don't think it is unreasonable at all to accomodate that by going to her house rather than having her go to the studio for wardrobe fittings. I think that would be reasonable for anyone. And while she had some power, that is why they wanted her. They thought her star power would help sell the movie. Just like Justin had perks also that a randome no name actor wouldn't have. But I don't think a request to have wardrobe come to you in the weeks post birth is some ridiculous diva demand of someone trying to control others.

She was costing them tens of thousands of dollars because she refused to walk a few blocks, obviously that can have a big effect on a smaller budget movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally I haven’t seen anything that shows JB is “insufferable.” People seem to hate him simply for having money and being involved in this case, which they’re bored of. But if BL really did make his life as difficult as it seems, and he capitulated at every turn as it seems, and she still then went and made false allegations as it seems, do we really have to hate him for defending himself in the ways his lawyer is recommending? If he didn’t file this lawsuit, everyone would still be firmly with Blake. I’m not sure what he is supposed to do to continue on in this career as a director, which is presumably what he wants to do. It just seems like a lose lose lose situation.

Or, what am I missing? Because I keep seeing people say, well I guess they both suck. Why. Why does he have to be a terrible person if she’s really falsified accusations?

I agree. I don’t think any of the details that Justin has brought forth are pretty. The issue with this is that she came out with a list of concerning interactions, but it’s only concerning in certain context. He is adding more context that make it seem a lot less inappropriate.

What is he supposed to do, just let the New York Times article stand without defending himself? He literally has been let go by his agency, his co-host on the podcast quit. He had to come forth and provide these details. Sure they seem kind of maddening, but it paints a very different picture. I just don’t see how he has a choice.

The details in Justin's complaint that sound petty to me, especially the way they are presented:

- Lively not reading the book. Who cares? She read the script. A lot of actors specifically choose not to read source material when preparing for a role because they don't want to confuse their character development. I don't see why it matters either way -- there's no special prize for "most faithful representation of the book." Movies that hew too closely to the books they are based on are often bad because they are such different mediums.

- Lively having wardrobe sent to her house. Perhaps I've read too much celeb gossip over the years but this just doesn't register for me as over the top for a big name actor. Why is this a big deal? What does it have to do with Baldoni's claims?

- A lot of the contract negotiation stuff comes off as petty to me. Like so they haggled over Lively getting a "p.g.a." credit on the movie. Okay. I have no idea whether she "deserved" that or not but it seems like a normal thing to argue about. She did wind up having a lot of creative input on the movie, even if she muscled her way into it. I can see how that would be annoying to Baldoni/Wayfarer but I look at it like this: getting Lively to do the movie in the first place probably helped them secure wide distribution and made it significantly more likely the movie was commercially successful (which it was). Well the flip side is that you've got a more famous actor involved who is going to be kind of a pain and want more power and control on set. That's business. It comes off as whining to me. They could have cast a lesser known actor who was cheaper, would have read the book if the director told her to, would come to wardrobe instead of the other way around, wore what she wanted them to, and maybe even would have been better in the role (I think Lively is a mediocre actress, personally). But they hired Lively because they wanted her name attached to the movie. Of *course* she's going to leverage that to her benefit, who wouldn't.

I also just think a lot of the language in Baldoni's complaint is melodramatic. Lively's complaint had a more professional vibe IMO, which made it sound less whiny. Though I do think some of her complaints sound petty too.

I think the lawsuits ultimately come down to how the intimate scenes were actually handled (it's very she said/he said at this point -- let's hear from others like the IC and see footage), whether Baldoni/Heath were inappropriate or harassing on and off set (again we have competing narratives and need to hear from others and get more evidence), and whether Baldoni actually tried to torpedo Lively in the press (I think the evidence here is fairly weak and Baldoni will likely prevail here). Everything else just seems like noise to me.

What you deem extraneous is actually relevant to their claims. This case may likely to be decided by the judge, the lawyers can’t wait for a jury at trial to weave a narrative that makes sense. Her not reading the book supports his assertions that she viewed the project differently from him (romcom v. message movie) and also makes the idea of her wrong scenes ridiculous. How can you adapt a book to script having not read the book?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that people are skeezed out by the male feminist thing, but I’m not sure it makes him a terrible person.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I think this shows what happens in any business when there isn’t a clear delineation of power. When people’s values line up, everything can go well. But when they don’t, it’s a total mess. Who even can tell what BL was supposed to be doing or not doing. Seems like she wanted to be doing it all, but the studio wanted to limit her role because it was slowing things down. And JB was just stuck in the middle, going back and forth asking what he was supposed to do at every turn.

I just wrote about this in a longer post but wanted to reiterate it here: the stuff about Lively being demanding strikes me as dumb because that's just what happens when you hire a big name actor. The tradeoff is she brings a lot more commercial viability to the project. They hired her because she's very well known and recognizable, which will result in more people going to the movie (news flash: it worked). Well with her fame comes power and that is going to mean she might want to have more creative input into the movie, might make demands a lesser known actor wouldn't dare to make, etc. They know this going in. The vast majority of actors at Lively's fame level will be a PITA in similar ways.

I also think a huge part of the problem was Baldoni's approach to directing and collaborating. You can see it in the texts he includes in his complaint. He doesn't know how to stand up to anyone (not Lively, not his producing partners, not the studio). He's "collaborative" but how this really comes off is wishy-washy and indirect. Everyone is talking about how Lively was hard to work with (which I'm sure she is) but he also sounds like a bad director. It sounds like he basically let her take over a bunch of stuff in the production and then when his studio/partners got mad and told him to rein her in, he couldn't do it. I suspect this dynamic is where a lot of the problems arose. Maybe in trying to rein her in, he crossed lines that felt harassing to Lively. And maybe they were harassing if he did it in an unprofessional way, which seems likely because he really does come off as inexperienced. He might have tried to soft pedal studio demands to Lively because he was afraid of being direct, but his soft pedaling came off to her like him trying to exploit their friendliness in inappropriate ways.

I really think they are both responsible for the toxicity here and that the studio effed up in casting and didn't think about what it would be like for a star at Lively's level to work with a director at Baldoni's level with his specific personality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The timeline isn't completely clear but she signed onto the project at the end of December 2022, and had her baby mid February. The complaint alleges that almost immediately the conflict over the wardrobe started and that is when they went to her house. So it seems the going to her house might have been shortly after she had given birth and was more of an accommodation for her family status than her wielding power. She may have had provisos in her contract related to her work commitments post birth / while breastfeeding for the first few months.

You really think some random no-name new actress could have gotten that accomodation after having a baby? It still shows she had power to make unconventional requests.

Unfortunately, they might not be able to but I think they should. Given Blake had only recenly given birth, I don't think it is unreasonable at all to accomodate that by going to her house rather than having her go to the studio for wardrobe fittings. I think that would be reasonable for anyone. And while she had some power, that is why they wanted her. They thought her star power would help sell the movie. Just like Justin had perks also that a randome no name actor wouldn't have. But I don't think a request to have wardrobe come to you in the weeks post birth is some ridiculous diva demand of someone trying to control others.

of course it’s a demand only an actress with a lot of power could make. I agree that it could be reasonable and not diva-ish, but it’s not sending one dress to her. It’s packing up the entire wardrobe she needs to try on, loading it into a van, sending the costume staff, making the costume staff unavailable to others during all that time …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The timeline isn't completely clear but she signed onto the project at the end of December 2022, and had her baby mid February. The complaint alleges that almost immediately the conflict over the wardrobe started and that is when they went to her house. So it seems the going to her house might have been shortly after she had given birth and was more of an accommodation for her family status than her wielding power. She may have had provisos in her contract related to her work commitments post birth / while breastfeeding for the first few months.

Yeah I don't think the thing about sending wardrobe to her house actually signifies anything. I think Baldoni's complaint throws it in gratuitously to paint Lively as difficult to work with (which it absolutely sounds like she is).

But Baldoni's actual cause of action is defamation. He's not suing Lively for her behavior with relation to the production. So stuff like this is thrown in as part of the ongoing PR war between the two. It's not really related to the case.

And to the person who suggested a male actor wouldn't get away with a demand like this -- yeah he would, if he were famous enough. Actors of both genders make these kinds of flexes all the time.

It absolutely is related to the case, because it provides more context. A lot of the issues that Blake had could have probably been avoided if she didn’t have absolute power on set. I doubt there would’ve been that breast-feeding interaction if she hadn’t had a producer come to her trailer when she was with her baby and getting makeup off. The meeting likely would’ve happened in a more neutral setting on the set.

She was a big part of why there were so many blurred lines that opened the door to inappropriate interactions. Seems like a lot of this could’ve been minimized if it was a more professional set. People blame Justin for that, but I think the producers were trying to make her happy given she had so much power. So it just wasn’t all their fault.

Doesn’t mean inappropriate things didn’t happen, but she really has blurred the lines here and contributed to at least some of them.

This is really insightful and seems like a big explanation for how things unraveled. I also think that Baldoni probably never dealt with A-listers before and may not have had the skills that must be needed there. He’s done a lot of work but it’s been on ensemble TV shows and directed much smaller scale films. Seems like he could have used a better mentor - but unfortunately he ended up in the middle of the crazy internal battle in his PR agency instead of getting good advice.