Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. But they knew this going in. I guarantee you the day Lively signed on to do the movie, Baldoni et al popped champagne. Because it took it from a little movie that would have grossed less than 100m, if that, to a much bigger movie with significantly higher exposures and a chance to make hundreds of millions at box office and with way more potential for future streaming revenue.

It was a double edged sword, like you said. To me the question is what it was actually like on set and if Baldoni genuinely crossed lines with her that could constitute harassment. If not, I do feel bad for him and hope he wins. But some of her allegations raise real questions. Did he pressure her to be nude in the birthing scene? Did he actually tell her [allegeldy repeatedly] that he was talking to her dead dad? What was it really like in those scenes between the two of them where she alleges he crossed lines? I honestly don't know but I hope we find out.

If Lively is alleging harassment as a tool to get Baldoni to sell the sequel rights to her and Ryan -- blech. I've never liked her but I would hope if that's the case, this ruins her and is a big black mark on Reynolds too. A wealthy, privileged woman crying harassment as a bargaining tactic is revolting to me.

If it turns out she was actually harassed, then Baldoni should be held responsible for that. Even though she's mega famous and seems like a pill, that doesn't mean she's not entitled to a professional set and baseline respect for her bodily autonomy.

I'm withholding judgment. I do not think we know enough to say what actually happened here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That actually isn’t awful, annonying to some perhaps, but not awful. Having worked with someone with a personality disorder, that is far worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, I’d argue it’s m a lot more than this, but I think what is clear is that he was in a no win situation. Not accommodating her would piss her off and probably have had the same end result. Accommodating her didn’t go well either.

I really don’t see how Justin was going to get out of this in one piece. Ryan and Blake are a machine. I think what they did not count on was the billionaire backer willing to take this to court vs just dropping Justin. Justin is not wealthy enough to take all this on. And since the WM agency dropped him no problem it was a safe gamble the backer would too and move on. Doesn’t seem like they were prepared for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh my god, Pugh would NEVER sign on for this schlock. No way. But if she did, I can easily see her demanding that wardrobe come to her, and I can also see her running over such a weak, inexperienced director. She's worked with Christopher Nolan and Daniel Villeneuve and Greta Gerwig. No lightweights. Pugh would have made mincemeat out of Justing freaking Baldoni.

[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.

You present this as if Blake is some A list actress, rather than a past her prime tv actress who married well. There are probably a dozen or more former Disney stars who could have done this movie and brought in a more desirable demographic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That actually isn’t awful, annonying to some perhaps, but not awful. Having worked with someone with a personality disorder, that is far worse.

I think it sounds awful. I've worked with guys like Baldoni and they are awful. No thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh my god, Pugh would NEVER sign on for this schlock. No way. But if she did, I can easily see her demanding that wardrobe come to her, and I can also see her running over such a weak, inexperienced director. She's worked with Christopher Nolan and Daniel Villeneuve and Greta Gerwig. No lightweights. Pugh would have made mincemeat out of Justing freaking Baldoni.

So you went from Justin must be awful because Blake is awful to every successful female actress would make insane demands during production. You seem out of touch with reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kind of cute that people are reading his complaint and not recognizing that if the allegations are true, Blake has a full fledged personality disorder.

But isn't that also true of Baldoni if Lively's accusations are true? He claimed to be communing with Lively's dead father during the production of the movie. He told a woman with four kids what is "normal" for women during childbirth. And so on.

One option is neither of them is as bad as portrayed and both complaints are exaggerated and cherry picking incidents to make the other look totally insane. Another option is that they are both fairly awful. I actually think at this point is is incredibly unlikely that one of them is a great person and the other has a "full fledged personality" disorder -- I don't think anyone comes out smelling like a rose here.

They're both nuts.

[Anonymous]

In the end, the movie did really well and given the assertions in the complaint that apparently Blake controlled everything, made all the decisions, took over the set and all roles and directed, produced, and edited the movie herself...she did a pretty damn good job considering how well it did at the box office and how much money it made all the key players involved. Maybe if she hadn't stepped in and hadn't done it all herself, it would have flopped. Who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You present this as if Blake is some A list actress, rather than a past her prime tv actress who married well. There are probably a dozen or more former Disney stars who could have done this movie and brought in a more desirable demographic.

Nope, the PP upthread who pointed out Lively is truly unique in this respect was right. She's weird because she's not truly A-list as an actress (no A-list actress would make this movie) but her star power is huge. And yes it is partly due to Ryan Reynolds. But it's also due to Taylor Swift and Lively's own hustle -- she is good at courting the right kinds of publicity, like all her involvement with the Met Ball over the years which has netted her a ton of positive press and helps her gain a following on social media. Remember her whole stunt with that "Statue of Liberty" dress at the Ball a few years back where there was this dramatic reveal on the stairs as the dress changed color to mimic the verdigris process or whatever? That kind of stunt is genius and I don't think Ryan Reynolds came up with it.

I don't think there are any former Disney stars who could have offered what she did in terms of exposure and box office. Zendaya is way too big, she'd never do it. Someone like Dove Cameron does not have anywhere near the name recognition. I just don't see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh my god, Pugh would NEVER sign on for this schlock. No way. But if she did, I can easily see her demanding that wardrobe come to her, and I can also see her running over such a weak, inexperienced director. She's worked with Christopher Nolan and Daniel Villeneuve and Greta Gerwig. No lightweights. Pugh would have made mincemeat out of Justing freaking Baldoni.

Why do you assume Pugh is some sort of diva just because she is an excellent actress? She has seemed very down to earth her entire career, and has worked with lesser known directors too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, I’d argue it’s m a lot more than this, but I think what is clear is that he was in a no win situation. Not accommodating her would piss her off and probably have had the same end result. Accommodating her didn’t go well either.

I really don’t see how Justin was going to get out of this in one piece. Ryan and Blake are a machine. I think what they did not count on was the billionaire backer willing to take this to court vs just dropping Justin. Justin is not wealthy enough to take all this on. And since the WM agency dropped him no problem it was a safe gamble the backer would too and move on. Doesn’t seem like they were prepared for that.

The billionaire backer (Steve Sarowitz) owns Wayfarer Studios that bought and made this movie. Blake sued both Wayferer and Steve Sarowitz himself. They would have to have known he would respond to being sued. She sued him the indiviudal and his company Wayferer Studios.

"Blake Lively,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAYFARER STUDIOS LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, JUSTIN
BALDONI, an individual, JAMEY HEATH, an
individual, STEVE SAROWITZ, an individual,
IT ENDS WITH US MOVIE LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, MELISSA
NATHAN, an individual, THE AGENCY
GROUP PR LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, JENNIFER ABEL, an individual,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You present this as if Blake is some A list actress, rather than a past her prime tv actress who married well. There are probably a dozen or more former Disney stars who could have done this movie and brought in a more desirable demographic.

Nope, the PP upthread who pointed out Lively is truly unique in this respect was right. She's weird because she's not truly A-list as an actress (no A-list actress would make this movie) but her star power is huge. And yes it is partly due to Ryan Reynolds. But it's also due to Taylor Swift and Lively's own hustle -- she is good at courting the right kinds of publicity, like all her involvement with the Met Ball over the years which has netted her a ton of positive press and helps her gain a following on social media. Remember her whole stunt with that "Statue of Liberty" dress at the Ball a few years back where there was this dramatic reveal on the stairs as the dress changed color to mimic the verdigris process or whatever? That kind of stunt is genius and I don't think Ryan Reynolds came up with it.

I don't think there are any former Disney stars who could have offered what she did in terms of exposure and box office. Zendaya is way too big, she'd never do it. Someone like Dove Cameron does not have anywhere near the name recognition. I just don't see it.

I agree, Blake is a big name with 45 million followers on IG but not for her acting. This movie was a way for her to also up her status as an actor. Her connection to Taylor and Ryan are huge parts of that. I think JB's team was very clueless in bringing Taylor into the complaint. Turned social media against him for millions who never read anything other than headlines. I am not on Justin's side but that kind of social media power wins over right or wrong, fact or fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the end, the movie did really well and given the assertions in the complaint that apparently Blake controlled everything, made all the decisions, took over the set and all roles and directed, produced, and edited the movie herself...she did a pretty damn good job considering how well it did at the box office and how much money it made all the key players involved. Maybe if she hadn't stepped in and hadn't done it all herself, it would have flopped. Who knows.

I was just thinking about this. Even the issue over wardrobe -- yes her wardrobe is weird in the movie and I don't like it. But in an odd way I think it helped the movie? I think Lively views part of her value as being a fashion plate. But she's not like a Natalie Portman type. She's not elegant. Her whole thing is sort of being this buxom blonde who likes colorful, kind of kooky clothes. She likes loud clothes or stuff that's kind of funny. I think a lot of her clothes are tacky but... she has a massive Instagram following and people seem to respond to it. So can I really say her instincts are wrong? I actually think her approach to fashion is appealing to a lot of women (hey, there's no accounting for taste) and it's possible her choices helped drive interest in the movie. It is very hard to argue with the success of the movie, despite Lively getting a bunch of terrible press as it came out.

I do not like Blake Lively but the argument that she someone torpedoed the film doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The movie was wildly successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the end, the movie did really well and given the assertions in the complaint that apparently Blake controlled everything, made all the decisions, took over the set and all roles and directed, produced, and edited the movie herself...she did a pretty damn good job considering how well it did at the box office and how much money it made all the key players involved. Maybe if she hadn't stepped in and hadn't done it all herself, it would have flopped. Who knows.

I saw the photo of Justin and family friends being forced to watch premiere in basement room and that tells me all I need to know.