Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just to be clear, she had the baby at the end of January. They publicly announced on Super Bowl Sunday, which was I think February 4, but she had given birth earlier. You can tell she didn’t have much of a baby bump at that point. They deliberately kept the birthdate vague, and her announcement was, “been busy” with a picture of her clearly not pregnant any more.

I just want to note as a woman who has given birth that even if they kept the birthdate vague, asking to do fittings at home in the spring of 2023 after having a baby in the winter of 2023 is reasonable in my book. I don't care if it was 1 month or three. Pregnancy is hard on your body. Also you might have looked at me in clothes within a couple weeks of childbirth and thought "she doesn't have much of a baby bump," but the reality was very different if I was changing in front of you.

There are other things Lively is alleged to have done that sound bad to me, but this isn't one. It honestly sounds trumped up -- stuff gets delivered in Manhattan every day, but Baldoni is alleging that delivering wardrobe to her apartment caused cost overruns? I don't buy it.

But the set was in Hoboken, New Jersey. So yeah, I could see why it might cause overruns.

Sure. But also the movie made $350 million on a $25 million budget, and Lively could make a very strong argument that it makes nowhere near that if she's not in it -- she's the biggest name in the movie and I almost guarantee you that Sony's agreement to distribute the film hinged on having an actor with Lively's star power attached in the movie because I'm sorry you don't get wide distribution and a big marketing campaign for a movie starring Justin Baldoni.

Baldoni made a TON of money off this movie and Lively's involvement was central to him making that money. Complaining that it cost extra money to ship the wardrobe to her house instead of her coming out to Hoboken strikes me as incredibly petty in that context, especially when Lively had a valid personal reason for not wanting to truck out to Hoboken for fittings -- she had a new baby at home and was breastfeeding.

She was paid 3 million for the movie. It's not charity. Both of them are generally being petty in their complaints, but I don't think showing up to work when paid millions is too much to ask. All of us here show up to work for so much less and with no accommodations.

Again: how much does this movie make without Lively's involvement? She knows it's not charity. She also knows her value to the production. Does your contribution to your company make them hundreds of millions of dollars? Could they replace you with someone who has pretty similar skills/qualities without losing money? Well that's why you have to go work where they say to work.

I feel confident in saying that if you had the value to your company that Lively had to this production (again, her participation was likely make or break for the film and may have been central to getting Sony to agree to a wide release with a major marketing campaign), I am confident that you would make similar demands to this. Almost everyone does. Do you think A list actors are all dutifully driving out to Hoboken for fittings all the time? No.

[Anonymous]

I don’t feel like Justin‘s claim posted a lot of extraneous details. They were trying to tell a story and paint a picture of what happened from beginning to end. I think a lot of of those details really matter because they show the power that Blake had, and the demands that she made. Not just to make her appear difficult though I’m sure that’s part of it, but to make it clear that some of what happened were because of her power on the set.

Of course, big name celebrity actresses get special accommodations all the time. No one is doubting or questioning that. But in this case it opened the door for some blurred lines. If everything else had gone right on set, it probably would just be no big deal, but in this case, I think it open the door for innocuous interactions to look more harmful than they were. A new name actress would not have had the power to call Jamie Heath to her make up trailer to have a conversation with her while she’s both getting makeup off and trying to breast-feed her baby. That’s ridiculous. He would’ve called the meeting and probably in his office or something. So that’s an example of when her power put him in frankly an awkward situation.

I think a big part of the tension early on was when early fan photos leaked of Blake in her ridiculous clothing in her first public appearance as Lily. Fans freaked out that she was old and that her wardrobe was terrible. Now that sucks for her - she was older than the character in the book but there were good reasons for that. And I’m sure especially having just delivered a baby she might not be feeling great about herself and it’s not fun to be called old even though she was 35 at that time so not let’s go crazy.

But the wardrobe was definitely her fault. They reluctantly agreed to let her pick out her clothes and she looked absolutely ridiculous. There were tons of TikTok’s about how ridiculous the wardrobe was and that is 100% Blake’s fault.

Should Justin and team have pushed back? Yes, of course, but I think they paint a picture that she was unreasonably demanding, and those last several texts of when the editing takeover was happening actually made it seem like she was bordering on unhinged. They were really trying to handle her with kid gloves, and be very delicate. I really don’t blame them for that.

To me, it seems like they were collaborative and warm throughout this whole process, clearly he was nervous that she was taking over during the final editing of the film, but they still seem to be getting along. Then it seemed like she had this idea to have her and all the cast Unfollow him on social media which of course fans pick up on. Then there was chatter about him fat shaming her, and that was maybe why there was tension on set. Then there was the whole premier debacle when it was clear he was separated from the rest of the cast. At that point he really had no choice but to hire PR. I don’t know what made her flip the switch and go full on burn it all down at that point.

Part of me just thinks it was trying to get control over the next film. I also think she wanted credit for her and Ryan - to shut him out and get credit for some of the writing, the editing, just show everyone that she had a big part in making this movie and minimizing his part. But she has to make him look like he’s the bad guy in order to get away with that.

Seems like the story needed to be, Ryan and Blake had to take over because he wasn’t managing the set, people were uncomfortable and he was sexually harassing everyone, and they swept in and saved the film. Conveniently leaving out the part where it was almost impossible for him to manage the set with her demands and power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. The problem was that she didn’t make these demands during contract negotiations, she kept adding them as the movie went through production, which really hurt both the film’s budget and timeline. Had she made them during negotiations, they could have easily decided to go with another actress. Because she waited to make her demands until they were in production, they were hamstrung.

The movie made $325 million, a large portion of which Baldoni pockets ad director and co-producer. Did it really "hurt" the movie's budget?

What other actress do you think they could have hired that would bring the box office leverage Lively brought but would not have made similar demands during production?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. The problem was that she didn’t make these demands during contract negotiations, she kept adding them as the movie went through production, which really hurt both the film’s budget and timeline. Had she made them during negotiations, they could have easily decided to go with another actress. Because she waited to make her demands until they were in production, they were hamstrung.

The movie made $325 million, a large portion of which Baldoni pockets ad director and co-producer. Did it really "hurt" the movie's budget?

What other actress do you think they could have hired that would bring the box office leverage Lively brought but would not have made similar demands during production?

There are many, the actress playing the part should have been younger anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t feel like Justin‘s claim posted a lot of extraneous details. They were trying to tell a story and paint a picture of what happened from beginning to end. I think a lot of of those details really matter because they show the power that Blake had, and the demands that she made. Not just to make her appear difficult though I’m sure that’s part of it, but to make it clear that some of what happened were because of her power on the set.

Of course, big name celebrity actresses get special accommodations all the time. No one is doubting or questioning that. But in this case it opened the door for some blurred lines. If everything else had gone right on set, it probably would just be no big deal, but in this case, I think it open the door for innocuous interactions to look more harmful than they were. A new name actress would not have had the power to call Jamie Heath to her make up trailer to have a conversation with her while she’s both getting makeup off and trying to breast-feed her baby. That’s ridiculous. He would’ve called the meeting and probably in his office or something. So that’s an example of when her power put him in frankly an awkward situation.

I think a big part of the tension early on was when early fan photos leaked of Blake in her ridiculous clothing in her first public appearance as Lily. Fans freaked out that she was old and that her wardrobe was terrible. Now that sucks for her - she was older than the character in the book but there were good reasons for that. And I’m sure especially having just delivered a baby she might not be feeling great about herself and it’s not fun to be called old even though she was 35 at that time so not let’s go crazy.

But the wardrobe was definitely her fault. They reluctantly agreed to let her pick out her clothes and she looked absolutely ridiculous. There were tons of TikTok’s about how ridiculous the wardrobe was and that is 100% Blake’s fault.

Should Justin and team have pushed back? Yes, of course, but I think they paint a picture that she was unreasonably demanding, and those last several texts of when the editing takeover was happening actually made it seem like she was bordering on unhinged. They were really trying to handle her with kid gloves, and be very delicate. I really don’t blame them for that.

To me, it seems like they were collaborative and warm throughout this whole process, clearly he was nervous that she was taking over during the final editing of the film, but they still seem to be getting along. Then it seemed like she had this idea to have her and all the cast Unfollow him on social media which of course fans pick up on. Then there was chatter about him fat shaming her, and that was maybe why there was tension on set. Then there was the whole premier debacle when it was clear he was separated from the rest of the cast. At that point he really had no choice but to hire PR. I don’t know what made her flip the switch and go full on burn it all down at that point.

Part of me just thinks it was trying to get control over the next film. I also think she wanted credit for her and Ryan - to shut him out and get credit for some of the writing, the editing, just show everyone that she had a big part in making this movie and minimizing his part. But she has to make him look like he’s the bad guy in order to get away with that.

Seems like the story needed to be, Ryan and Blake had to take over because he wasn’t managing the set, people were uncomfortable and he was sexually harassing everyone, and they swept in and saved the film. Conveniently leaving out the part where it was almost impossible for him to manage the set with her demands and power.

I think this perception (in bold) is false. You're basing it on text message you're reading. The "collaborative and warm" tone you read in those texts is fake. It's Hollywood people being fake and then running to their agents and lawyers and partners and saying "this person is the worst, no way are we doing this scene she wrote" or "this guy is an idiot, he doesn't get I'm trying to make his crap movie better."

These people were never actually friends and did not like each other, sorry. That's just how people in the movie business interact. It's all fake smiles and "you're amazing" because everyone has a big ego so everyone kisses butt all the time.

[Anonymous]

She’s awful, so they both must be awful is not logic I can follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. The problem was that she didn’t make these demands during contract negotiations, she kept adding them as the movie went through production, which really hurt both the film’s budget and timeline. Had she made them during negotiations, they could have easily decided to go with another actress. Because she waited to make her demands until they were in production, they were hamstrung.

The movie made $325 million, a large portion of which Baldoni pockets ad director and co-producer. Did it really "hurt" the movie's budget?

What other actress do you think they could have hired that would bring the box office leverage Lively brought but would not have made similar demands during production?

There are many, the actress playing the part should have been younger anyway.

Name one who has the same recognizability as Lively but who you think would not make a demand like this wardrobe thing. Just one.

They could have hired a younger, less well-known actress who was a dream to work with. Does the movie make as much money if they do? Almost definitely not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. The problem was that she didn’t make these demands during contract negotiations, she kept adding them as the movie went through production, which really hurt both the film’s budget and timeline. Had she made them during negotiations, they could have easily decided to go with another actress. Because she waited to make her demands until they were in production, they were hamstrung.

The movie made $325 million, a large portion of which Baldoni pockets ad director and co-producer. Did it really "hurt" the movie's budget?

What other actress do you think they could have hired that would bring the box office leverage Lively brought but would not have made similar demands during production?

So which is it? On the one hand, a lot of people are criticizing Baldoni for letting her have that much power and giving into her that much creating these situations, but it seems like he literally had no choice. She bought a lot of power to the movie and so she was given every accommodation. And yet people are saying, it was Justin’s film, he was the director and producer, he set the tone on set. I mean, that’s not really fair. I feel like he was in a no win situation.

We should accommodate breast-feeding women on set, but it kind of sucks that now people are being accused of trying to cop a look when Blake was breast-feeding in front of them? Sounds like she’s really wanted all the accommodations and that is really twisting everything around. Don’t invite a producer in your trailer to multitask a meeting while you’re getting makeup off and breast-feeding if you don’t want him to maybe catch a glimpse of something inappropriate if your top falls. I really don’t think that Jamie Heath called a meeting with Blake’s nanny, assistant, and makeup artist. Seems like that was her idea. She wants it both ways and she got it both ways and now she’s dealing with the fallout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She’s awful, so they both must be awful is not logic I can follow.

He's awful because he's created this whole "I'm a male feminist" persona, he decided to make a romance movie about domestic violence while claiming he was very invested in "the female gaze", and he naval gazes about how hard it is to be a man who isn't a misogynist on his podcast and in his book. He is also the sort of person who would tell a coworker he is communing with her recently deceased father (huuuuuge ick there) and just comes off as incredibly whiny and self-important in interviews.

He's awful on his own without her help. I don't know if he harassed her, I wasn't there, and I think Lively is also obnoxious, but literally nothing I have learned about Justin Baldoni here has made me think "he seems cool." He seems awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t feel like Justin‘s claim posted a lot of extraneous details. They were trying to tell a story and paint a picture of what happened from beginning to end. I think a lot of of those details really matter because they show the power that Blake had, and the demands that she made. Not just to make her appear difficult though I’m sure that’s part of it, but to make it clear that some of what happened were because of her power on the set.

Of course, big name celebrity actresses get special accommodations all the time. No one is doubting or questioning that. But in this case it opened the door for some blurred lines. If everything else had gone right on set, it probably would just be no big deal, but in this case, I think it open the door for innocuous interactions to look more harmful than they were. A new name actress would not have had the power to call Jamie Heath to her make up trailer to have a conversation with her while she’s both getting makeup off and trying to breast-feed her baby. That’s ridiculous. He would’ve called the meeting and probably in his office or something. So that’s an example of when her power put him in frankly an awkward situation.

I think a big part of the tension early on was when early fan photos leaked of Blake in her ridiculous clothing in her first public appearance as Lily. Fans freaked out that she was old and that her wardrobe was terrible. Now that sucks for her - she was older than the character in the book but there were good reasons for that. And I’m sure especially having just delivered a baby she might not be feeling great about herself and it’s not fun to be called old even though she was 35 at that time so not let’s go crazy.

But the wardrobe was definitely her fault. They reluctantly agreed to let her pick out her clothes and she looked absolutely ridiculous. There were tons of TikTok’s about how ridiculous the wardrobe was and that is 100% Blake’s fault.

Should Justin and team have pushed back? Yes, of course, but I think they paint a picture that she was unreasonably demanding, and those last several texts of when the editing takeover was happening actually made it seem like she was bordering on unhinged. They were really trying to handle her with kid gloves, and be very delicate. I really don’t blame them for that.

To me, it seems like they were collaborative and warm throughout this whole process, clearly he was nervous that she was taking over during the final editing of the film, but they still seem to be getting along. Then it seemed like she had this idea to have her and all the cast Unfollow him on social media which of course fans pick up on. Then there was chatter about him fat shaming her, and that was maybe why there was tension on set. Then there was the whole premier debacle when it was clear he was separated from the rest of the cast. At that point he really had no choice but to hire PR. I don’t know what made her flip the switch and go full on burn it all down at that point.

Part of me just thinks it was trying to get control over the next film. I also think she wanted credit for her and Ryan - to shut him out and get credit for some of the writing, the editing, just show everyone that she had a big part in making this movie and minimizing his part. But she has to make him look like he’s the bad guy in order to get away with that.

Seems like the story needed to be, Ryan and Blake had to take over because he wasn’t managing the set, people were uncomfortable and he was sexually harassing everyone, and they swept in and saved the film. Conveniently leaving out the part where it was almost impossible for him to manage the set with her demands and power.

I think this perception (in bold) is false. You're basing it on text message you're reading. The "collaborative and warm" tone you read in those texts is fake. It's Hollywood people being fake and then running to their agents and lawyers and partners and saying "this person is the worst, no way are we doing this scene she wrote" or "this guy is an idiot, he doesn't get I'm trying to make his crap movie better."

These people were never actually friends and did not like each other, sorry. That's just how people in the movie business interact. It's all fake smiles and "you're amazing" because everyone has a big ego so everyone kisses butt all the time.

Agree it was all fake - fine. Rest of the points stand. They were professional acting for a while even if all fake and then it all imploded. I still think it is all about lively and reynolds taking control of the film, the sequel and the narrative. And not at all about standing up to harassment on set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. The problem was that she didn’t make these demands during contract negotiations, she kept adding them as the movie went through production, which really hurt both the film’s budget and timeline. Had she made them during negotiations, they could have easily decided to go with another actress. Because she waited to make her demands until they were in production, they were hamstrung.

The movie made $325 million, a large portion of which Baldoni pockets ad director and co-producer. Did it really "hurt" the movie's budget?

What other actress do you think they could have hired that would bring the box office leverage Lively brought but would not have made similar demands during production?

There are many, the actress playing the part should have been younger anyway.

Name one who has the same recognizability as Lively but who you think would not make a demand like this wardrobe thing. Just one.

They could have hired a younger, less well-known actress who was a dream to work with. Does the movie make as much money if they do? Almost definitely not.

Lively is not nearly as special as you think. That blond actress who dated Cole Sprouse-Lilly something? - could have played this. I don't know her name but she is the face of Cover Girl cosmetics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. The problem was that she didn’t make these demands during contract negotiations, she kept adding them as the movie went through production, which really hurt both the film’s budget and timeline. Had she made them during negotiations, they could have easily decided to go with another actress. Because she waited to make her demands until they were in production, they were hamstrung.

The movie made $325 million, a large portion of which Baldoni pockets ad director and co-producer. Did it really "hurt" the movie's budget?

What other actress do you think they could have hired that would bring the box office leverage Lively brought but would not have made similar demands during production?

There are many, the actress playing the part should have been younger anyway.

Name one who has the same recognizability as Lively but who you think would not make a demand like this wardrobe thing. Just one.

They could have hired a younger, less well-known actress who was a dream to work with. Does the movie make as much money if they do? Almost definitely not.

It was either Blake or a no name. No well known actress wanted this freaking role. It was a fluffy dumb book made into to a fluffy dumb movie. It’s not like Jennifer Lawrence was approached about this.

Blake is unique because she’s not super respected as an actress but has a ton of followers because she married Ryan Reynolds’s. If she had married her gossip girl costar she would probably have gone the way of Kate bosworth. Who I love but is much less famous at this point but still gets acting jobs cause she is a decent actress and gets endorsements for being gorgeous.

So they got a big name with Blake but I doubt any other big name actress would have done this role.

It came with a double edge sword because she wielded a lot of power that she probably shouldn’t have had and certainly didnt earn and clearly didn’t use responsibly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. The problem was that she didn’t make these demands during contract negotiations, she kept adding them as the movie went through production, which really hurt both the film’s budget and timeline. Had she made them during negotiations, they could have easily decided to go with another actress. Because she waited to make her demands until they were in production, they were hamstrung.

The movie made $325 million, a large portion of which Baldoni pockets ad director and co-producer. Did it really "hurt" the movie's budget?

What other actress do you think they could have hired that would bring the box office leverage Lively brought but would not have made similar demands during production?

So which is it? On the one hand, a lot of people are criticizing Baldoni for letting her have that much power and giving into her that much creating these situations, but it seems like he literally had no choice. She bought a lot of power to the movie and so she was given every accommodation. And yet people are saying, it was Justin’s film, he was the director and producer, he set the tone on set. I mean, that’s not really fair. I feel like he was in a no win situation.

We should accommodate breast-feeding women on set, but it kind of sucks that now people are being accused of trying to cop a look when Blake was breast-feeding in front of them? Sounds like she’s really wanted all the accommodations and that is really twisting everything around. Don’t invite a producer in your trailer to multitask a meeting while you’re getting makeup off and breast-feeding if you don’t want him to maybe catch a glimpse of something inappropriate if your top falls. I really don’t think that Jamie Heath called a meeting with Blake’s nanny, assistant, and makeup artist. Seems like that was her idea. She wants it both ways and she got it both ways and now she’s dealing with the fallout.

This is precisely Baldoni's argument and it comes off as whiny to me.

The answer is this: you hire a big name actor for a movie like this, you assume it's going to come with some demands. You manage the talent. You figure out what concessions you need to make to make her happy and you do it because she's essential to the commercial viability of the movie. Is he between a rock and a hard place there? Yes -- that's the job. You try to give her what she wants and you manage the complaints of producers complaining about costs. If you feel her demands are hurting the film (as with the costuming suggestions) maybe you have to bring in a new costumer who can work with her -- Lively fancies herself a fashion girl, maybe you see if you can get a designer or editor she respects to weight in and say "oh you know this costumer is great, you should listen to her" or to steer her away from her worst instincts. This is the job of a director or producer.

Same with the breastfeeding issue. You manage it. If lines are being crossed on set, then Baldoni or Heath or someone at Wayfarer should have stepped in and smoothed it over. Say "hey we want to make sure you have the privacy you need with your baby, we're setting up a privacy curtain in your trailer so if you are nursing and someone walks in, you can converse with them without any lines being crossed -- that way there's never any confusion." Whatever you need to do. It's your job.

Do people not understand how much money Baldoni made off this movie? Millions. And the opportunity itself is worth significant future money because if he successfully makes a movie with a cast/distribution at this level, it gets his name in the mix for additional films he'd never be considered for based on his prior work. This was a stepping stone movie for him, to prove he had what it takes to move up a level from the little low budget films he was making before. And he failed that test, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just to be clear, she had the baby at the end of January. They publicly announced on Super Bowl Sunday, which was I think February 4, but she had given birth earlier. You can tell she didn’t have much of a baby bump at that point. They deliberately kept the birthdate vague, and her announcement was, “been busy” with a picture of her clearly not pregnant any more.

I just want to note as a woman who has given birth that even if they kept the birthdate vague, asking to do fittings at home in the spring of 2023 after having a baby in the winter of 2023 is reasonable in my book. I don't care if it was 1 month or three. Pregnancy is hard on your body. Also you might have looked at me in clothes within a couple weeks of childbirth and thought "she doesn't have much of a baby bump," but the reality was very different if I was changing in front of you.

There are other things Lively is alleged to have done that sound bad to me, but this isn't one. It honestly sounds trumped up -- stuff gets delivered in Manhattan every day, but Baldoni is alleging that delivering wardrobe to her apartment caused cost overruns? I don't buy it.

But the set was in Hoboken, New Jersey. So yeah, I could see why it might cause overruns.

Sure. But also the movie made $350 million on a $25 million budget, and Lively could make a very strong argument that it makes nowhere near that if she's not in it -- she's the biggest name in the movie and I almost guarantee you that Sony's agreement to distribute the film hinged on having an actor with Lively's star power attached in the movie because I'm sorry you don't get wide distribution and a big marketing campaign for a movie starring Justin Baldoni.

Baldoni made a TON of money off this movie and Lively's involvement was central to him making that money. Complaining that it cost extra money to ship the wardrobe to her house instead of her coming out to Hoboken strikes me as incredibly petty in that context, especially when Lively had a valid personal reason for not wanting to truck out to Hoboken for fittings -- she had a new baby at home and was breastfeeding.

She was paid 3 million for the movie. It's not charity. Both of them are generally being petty in their complaints, but I don't think showing up to work when paid millions is too much to ask. All of us here show up to work for so much less and with no accommodations.

Again: how much does this movie make without Lively's involvement? She knows it's not charity. She also knows her value to the production. Does your contribution to your company make them hundreds of millions of dollars? Could they replace you with someone who has pretty similar skills/qualities without losing money? Well that's why you have to go work where they say to work.

I feel confident in saying that if you had the value to your company that Lively had to this production (again, her participation was likely make or break for the film and may have been central to getting Sony to agree to a wide release with a major marketing campaign), I am confident that you would make similar demands to this. Almost everyone does. Do you think A list actors are all dutifully driving out to Hoboken for fittings all the time? No.

I'm not sure she ads as much value as you say she does. She's not an A list actress and was wrong for the part. For star power and a better fit, Florence Pugh would have been best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree. The problem was that she didn’t make these demands during contract negotiations, she kept adding them as the movie went through production, which really hurt both the film’s budget and timeline. Had she made them during negotiations, they could have easily decided to go with another actress. Because she waited to make her demands until they were in production, they were hamstrung.

The movie made $325 million, a large portion of which Baldoni pockets ad director and co-producer. Did it really "hurt" the movie's budget?

What other actress do you think they could have hired that would bring the box office leverage Lively brought but would not have made similar demands during production?

So which is it? On the one hand, a lot of people are criticizing Baldoni for letting her have that much power and giving into her that much creating these situations, but it seems like he literally had no choice. She bought a lot of power to the movie and so she was given every accommodation. And yet people are saying, it was Justin’s film, he was the director and producer, he set the tone on set. I mean, that’s not really fair. I feel like he was in a no win situation.

We should accommodate breast-feeding women on set, but it kind of sucks that now people are being accused of trying to cop a look when Blake was breast-feeding in front of them? Sounds like she’s really wanted all the accommodations and that is really twisting everything around. Don’t invite a producer in your trailer to multitask a meeting while you’re getting makeup off and breast-feeding if you don’t want him to maybe catch a glimpse of something inappropriate if your top falls. I really don’t think that Jamie Heath called a meeting with Blake’s nanny, assistant, and makeup artist. Seems like that was her idea. She wants it both ways and she got it both ways and now she’s dealing with the fallout.

This is precisely Baldoni's argument and it comes off as whiny to me.

The answer is this: you hire a big name actor for a movie like this, you assume it's going to come with some demands. You manage the talent. You figure out what concessions you need to make to make her happy and you do it because she's essential to the commercial viability of the movie. Is he between a rock and a hard place there? Yes -- that's the job. You try to give her what she wants and you manage the complaints of producers complaining about costs. If you feel her demands are hurting the film (as with the costuming suggestions) maybe you have to bring in a new costumer who can work with her -- Lively fancies herself a fashion girl, maybe you see if you can get a designer or editor she respects to weight in and say "oh you know this costumer is great, you should listen to her" or to steer her away from her worst instincts. This is the job of a director or producer.

Same with the breastfeeding issue. You manage it. If lines are being crossed on set, then Baldoni or Heath or someone at Wayfarer should have stepped in and smoothed it over. Say "hey we want to make sure you have the privacy you need with your baby, we're setting up a privacy curtain in your trailer so if you are nursing and someone walks in, you can converse with them without any lines being crossed -- that way there's never any confusion." Whatever you need to do. It's your job.

Do people not understand how much money Baldoni made off this movie? Millions. And the opportunity itself is worth significant future money because if he successfully makes a movie with a cast/distribution at this level, it gets his name in the mix for additional films he'd never be considered for based on his prior work. This was a stepping stone movie for him, to prove he had what it takes to move up a level from the little low budget films he was making before. And he failed that test, sorry.

You don’t have to be sorry. All that matters now in public discourse is the “khaleesi” text. It’s hilarious and pathetic that she said that and it’s sticking. So you can waste your time writing walls of paragraph defending her but that doesn’t matter.