Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[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.

Young people don't care about the MET gala or Blake Lively. She's not famous to them, she's just an old lady with a bunch of kids who hangs out with Taylor Swift sometimes, so they might have heard her name due to that. She was a good 10-15 years too old for that part (Baldoni is much too old too and should have just directed).

[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.

Agree, and I feel like Justin was very grateful. During the premier, his separate one by the way, since he was kicked out of the actual one, he did nothing but gush about Blake there, and throughout the marketing of the movie. He gave her all the credit. He said he had she had her hands in everything and made it a much better movie. He said she should direct the next film!

So great that she, or she and Ryan, or whatever, improved the film because of Baldoni‘s inexperience.

But it was a $25 million movie so it seemed appropriate that Justin direct, and produce. Especially since Colleen Hoover hand picked him to do that. People questioning that are definitely rewriting history. He was picked to do it, it was a $25 million movie, definitely appropriate that a director of his caliber would do this. Sorry, but Martin Scorsese is not going to direct it ends with us.

Blake seemed the one that should not have been in the role. It seems like she is used to much better accommodations, calling the shots in her companies, and wielding the power. It doesn’t seem like she was a good fit for this role. Great that she did such great things with it, but at what cost? Why shut him out? If he was sexually harassing her, it makes sense, but I seriously doubt that at this point. It sounds like things were really murky and I’m just not ready to say he’s a sexual harasser. Too many things don’t add up, all of which have been listed on this thread.

I’m going with the theory that Ryan and Blake wanted full control and they did not see him hiring a bulldog lawyer since he himself couldn’t have afforded it but his backer could. Like I just posted upthread, the talent agency dropped him, his podcast dropped him, and they probably thought his backer would drop him but instead he’s going to toe to toe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t know, the tide still seems to be leaning toward Justin after this latest lawsuit. It could turn again, but he is definitely hanging on. Amber and the sisterhood crew have been awfully quiet in the last several weeks. I haven’t seen any actresses come out and want to talk about the Blake lively case anymore and sexual harassment in Hollywood now that more details have come out. It seems like Blake and Ryan may be more hurt by this than Justin. But I absolutely think they will be fine and move on with their lives. But I don’t think they won this particular PR battle.

[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.

My college age kid would definitely go see a Dove Cameron movie over a Blake Lively film.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t know, the tide still seems to be leaning toward Justin after this latest lawsuit. It could turn again, but he is definitely hanging on. Amber and the sisterhood crew have been awfully quiet in the last several weeks. I haven’t seen any actresses come out and want to talk about the Blake lively case anymore and sexual harassment in Hollywood now that more details have come out. It seems like Blake and Ryan may be more hurt by this than Justin. But I absolutely think they will be fine and move on with their lives. But I don’t think they won this particular PR battle.

I wonder about the state of Blake’s marriage after all this. I think some of the allegations in Justin’s complaint are going to be a surprise to Ryan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Young people don't care about the MET gala or Blake Lively. She's not famous to them, she's just an old lady with a bunch of kids who hangs out with Taylor Swift sometimes, so they might have heard her name due to that. She was a good 10-15 years too old for that part (Baldoni is much too old too and should have just directed).

Then movie wasn't successful because young people went to see it (young people are too busy watching TikTok to go to the movies). It was successful because middle aged women saw it. Which is precisely the demographic for both Colleen Hoover and Blake Lively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They didn't watch the premiere in a basement room. They watched it in a theatre. In the same building but in a different theatre than Blake. They were ushered through the basement into the other theatre and stopped to take pictures along the way. The agreement was that Blake would not see Justin or be in the same location as Justin so Justin arrived first and did the whole red carpet / press stuff then when Blake arrived he and his group were escorted through the basement to the other theatre. They stopped briefly in that storage area to avoid Blake running into Justin in the hallway on his way to the theatre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My college age kid would definitely go see a Dove Cameron movie over a Blake Lively film.

Great, so that's $20. Go find me the other $349,999,980 in box office revenue for a Dove Cameron movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The social media I see is overwhelmingly in his favor post complaint, even some former Blake supporters. But what you wrote, if true, is proof of the threat behind Blake invoking Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Young people don't care about the MET gala or Blake Lively. She's not famous to them, she's just an old lady with a bunch of kids who hangs out with Taylor Swift sometimes, so they might have heard her name due to that. She was a good 10-15 years too old for that part (Baldoni is much too old too and should have just directed).

The age criticism really bugs me. Did you see the movie? Justin‘s character is an acclaimed neurosurgeon which you can’t really do at a young age. Lily owns a successful flower shop in the heart of Boston, and Atlas, the other character her age, owns one of Boston’s hottest restaurants. How exactly would like 25-year-olds be believable in those roles. The book was laughable and kind of a joke enough, aging the characters down like this would’ve just made the movie even more implausible.

And everyone was really good looking. I don’t get the assertion that people aren’t interested in watching characters in their 30s be romantic? Have you seen any Hallmark Christmas movie, they’re all led by aging actresses and their ratings are huge. Lacey Chabert is like 42 and she has a romantic storyline in every one.

The Morning Show is a huge hit and Reese and Jen are the stars. They are both late 40s to mid 50s. Throw in Juliana Marguiles who I think is in her 60s at this point.

I don’t know, I just don’t get that 35, which is when Blake started this movie, is too old to be on film.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My college age kid would definitely go see a Dove Cameron movie over a Blake Lively film.

Same with my dd. But people wanted Abigail Cowen and Theo James, that's who was most talked about prior to casting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My college age kid would definitely go see a Dove Cameron movie over a Blake Lively film.

You are just out of touch, Gen Z as a whole prefers Dove to Blake. Blake is an old lady with 4 kids.

Great, so that's $20. Go find me the other $349,999,980 in box office revenue for a Dove Cameron movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Young people don't care about the MET gala or Blake Lively. She's not famous to them, she's just an old lady with a bunch of kids who hangs out with Taylor Swift sometimes, so they might have heard her name due to that. She was a good 10-15 years too old for that part (Baldoni is much too old too and should have just directed).

The age criticism really bugs me. Did you see the movie? Justin‘s character is an acclaimed neurosurgeon which you can’t really do at a young age. Lily owns a successful flower shop in the heart of Boston, and Atlas, the other character her age, owns one of Boston’s hottest restaurants. How exactly would like 25-year-olds be believable in those roles. The book was laughable and kind of a joke enough, aging the characters down like this would’ve just made the movie even more implausible.

And everyone was really good looking. I don’t get the assertion that people aren’t interested in watching characters in their 30s be romantic? Have you seen any Hallmark Christmas movie, they’re all led by aging actresses and their ratings are huge. Lacey Chabert is like 42 and she has a romantic storyline in every one.

The Morning Show is a huge hit and Reese and Jen are the stars. They are both late 40s to mid 50s. Throw in Juliana Marguiles who I think is in her 60s at this point.

I don’t know, I just don’t get that 35, which is when Blake started this movie, is too old to be on film.

Yes we realize that, but you don’t realize you are not the target demographic. And Hallmark channel is for old people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My college age kid would definitely go see a Dove Cameron movie over a Blake Lively film.

Great, so that's $20. Go find me the other $349,999,980 in box office revenue for a Dove Cameron movie.

I think people debating what other actresses should play in this movie should go on another thread. I’m not sure what it has to do with this case. I think we can establish that Blake lively was a huge part of the money making power behind this movie. I still don’t think it gives her the right to burn people’s careers down and accuse people of sexual harassment, do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They didn't watch the premiere in a basement room. They watched it in a theatre. In the same building but in a different theatre than Blake. They were ushered through the basement into the other theatre and stopped to take pictures along the way. The agreement was that Blake would not see Justin or be in the same location as Justin so Justin arrived first and did the whole red carpet / press stuff then when Blake arrived he and his group were escorted through the basement to the other theatre. They stopped briefly in that storage area to avoid Blake running into Justin in the hallway on his way to the theatre.

This. When I first heard his attorney talking about this, it made it sound like Baldoni watched the premier at home in an actual basement. But he attended the premier, talked to the press, and watched the film in a screening room at the theater. I can still see why he is upset about being excluded from being with the cast on the red carpet, but it's not what he's said it was. And I also don't know if it was just Lively or if other members of the cast also didn't want him there -- the comments from Jenny Slate and Brendan Sklenar indicate that they, at least, have issues with him.