Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[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.

They are supposed to be younger in the books. Lily is 23 and Ryle is 30. That's why it's been criticized. The age switch changes the dynamic.

[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).

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.

Again, not true. Under 35 set is the target move demo. My teens go to way more movies than I do.

[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.

This argument supposes that just because people know who someone is, they will go and buy a ticket to their movie. That's simply not true. There are many celebrities thar saturate the media and are unavoidable - current example include Taylor Swift and Sidney Sweeney. I have never bought a Taylor Swift album or seen a Sidney Sweeney film, despite seeing them in "celebrity" media constantly. I am not buying their stuff just because they are in magazines.

[Anonymous]

I don't think he intentionally harrassed her but she experienced his behaviour as uncomfortable and harrassing. I guess it comes down to how much intentions matter. If someone doesn't harm you intentionally but you are still harmed, do you have a claim?

There are many scenarios where girls and women feel harrassed even though the men have very different intentions and think they are doing something else and are upset at being told that what they are doing is harrassment.

I think her scenario is similar. For example with Heath in her trailer. She had asked him to turn around and keep his back to her but then her top slipped and she looked up and he was looking at her. Was he intentionally trying to get a look at her breasts - likely not, but he didn't feel the need to have his back turned as she had requested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But, not the point at all. The point was $350 million worth of movie tickets were sold for this movie so clearly aging them 35 and 40 was not too old.

And Hallmark, regardless of who is watching, is a cash cow.

Maybe they were originally going for a younger demographic, but I think the demographic that made this movie successful was older.

My teen had not heard much about this movie and had no interest in seeing it. No clue who Blake lively is and doesn’t give a crap about Ryan Reynolds. But we went to the beach this summer and had some time and I really wanted to see it so I filled her in on some of the drama, and we saw it together. She ended up liking it, but absolutely would not have gone on her own. And when we were in the movie, it was all women about my age and older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What it has to do with it is there are people saying that Blake Lively is so unique that no one else could play the part of Lilly Flower Bloom or WTF the character is called. People are pointing at the plenty of similar actresses can play the Flower Bloom role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don't think it's actually been established, and the casting choice is part of that discussion: would the movie have been MORE successful if cast with actors the age of the characters in the book or better actors, and marketed to a different audience? It's fine to discuss more than opinions about the lawsuits, which ultimately they both had a right to file. Whether either lawsuit has merit can be discussed as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are supposed to be younger in the books. Lily is 23 and Ryle is 30. That's why it's been criticized. The age switch changes the dynamic.

They had to change the ages. The book author wanted them to. There were too many things in the book that would be completely inconsistent with Lily being 23 and Ryle being 30 - errors the author made when writing the book that created problems for the story line. The author was completely on board with aging the characters and said she should have made them older in the first place. She had been under pressure to write young adult books but never felt that young was what the characters should be.

[Anonymous]

Here is an example of Justin Baldoni being a ridiculous tool:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/how-deadpool-justin-baldoni-blake-lively-nicepool-1236110331/

He is claiming that the character "Nicepool" in the Deadpool & Wolverine movie is based on him, Baldoni, and was intended as an intentional slight.

Even if it's true... isn't this a self-own by Baldoni? Nicepool is an annoying character to hides being a passive-aggressive jerk behind being a feminist. Here's how the article describes the relevant scene:

In one scene involving Nicepool, played by an unmasked Reynolds, the character comments that Ladypool (Lively) just had a baby, and she’s so gorgeous that “you can’t even tell.” Deadpool responds, “I don’t think you’re supposed to say that,” to which Nicepool rejoins, “That’s OK. I identify as a feminist.” In an outtake available on home entertainment, Nicepool notes his “calling is to one day start a podcast that monetizes the women’s movement.”

First of all, that's funny. Second, if Baldoni self identifies with Nicepool, the problem there is that he sees too much truth in the send up. Not that Ryan Reynold's was inspired by Baldoni to write/perform the part. Sometimes the truth hurts.

All Baldoni has done by raising this issue is highlight the ways in which he is, indeed, like Nicepool. Not smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are supposed to be younger in the books. Lily is 23 and Ryle is 30. That's why it's been criticized. The age switch changes the dynamic.

Yes, but it would’ve been completely unrealistic given the jobs these people needed to play. If you saw the movie, you would understand. A pivotal scene is when Atlas’s hot restaurant gets written up in the same magazine article as lilies flower shop.

It is why Ryle was able to make a connection between them, and it led to a really violent scene. Why would a magazine be doing profiles of a random 23 year-old? It just makes no sense, the movie wanted these people to be adults, they were doing a lot of adult things. They did not want 23-year-olds. It would’ve been a different movie and we have no idea if it would have been as successful.

I haven’t read Colleen Hoover‘s book, so I don’t know how she navigated it. I know for one she made Ryle a neurosurgeon at 27 which is just not a thing people. She admitted that that was a mistake. I’m sorry the book sounds really stupid and I feel like they did the best thing they could to try to make it at least a somewhat mainstream movie that people would see. I’m sure the lifetime version of the movie would have been appropriate with 23-year-olds but not what they ended up putting on the screen.

[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.

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.

Your first part is really Justin's problem. He is very two faced. He gushes effusive praise when he is actually thinking the opposite. There are so many contradictions and examples of this in the complaint. He is saying completely opposite things at the same time. He is trying to people please everyone and seem like everyone's ally and best friend but isn't really true or direct about his own feelings or opinions. He is wishy washy and like a chameleon changing his spots to fit in with whomever he is around. This may be due to his inexperience but given other accounts of this in his career by at least 2 other people, it seems it is more his personality. Not what a director needs to run a film set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

What it has to do with it is there are people saying that Blake Lively is so unique that no one else could play the part of Lilly Flower Bloom or WTF the character is called. People are pointing at the plenty of similar actresses can play the Flower Bloom role.

No, what we are arguing is that casting Lively made the movie significantly more commercially successful than casting another actor (because high profile actresses wouldn't touch the role which isn't very good). Thus it was reasonable for Lively to, for instance, expect the production to spend extra money to bring wardrobe to her instead of making her go out to Hoboken for fittings. She made the production far more money than she cost them. Thus the allegation that she someone ruined the production doesn't hold water. The movie likely would not even have gotten Sony's full distribution or the major marketing campaign without Lively attached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I don't think it's actually been established, and the casting choice is part of that discussion: would the movie have been MORE successful if cast with actors the age of the characters in the book or better actors, and marketed to a different audience? It's fine to discuss more than opinions about the lawsuits, which ultimately they both had a right to file. Whether either lawsuit has merit can be discussed as well.

But what does the movie being more successful have to do with the sexual harassment claims? The movie was incredibly successful. You think casting it with a younger actor would’ve made it make 500 million instead of 350 million? Possibly. But why is that relevant to the discussion here?

It definitely seems like the casting of Blake lively helped the success of the movie. Good for her for being able to bring in that star power and if her creative decisions made the movie better, that’s awesome. It still doesn’t mean that he should be accused of sexual harassment if he actually didn’t sexually harassed anyone.

[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.

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.

Your first part is really Justin's problem. He is very two faced. He gushes effusive praise when he is actually thinking the opposite. There are so many contradictions and examples of this in the complaint. He is saying completely opposite things at the same time. He is trying to people please everyone and seem like everyone's ally and best friend but isn't really true or direct about his own feelings or opinions. He is wishy washy and like a chameleon changing his spots to fit in with whomever he is around. This may be due to his inexperience but given other accounts of this in his career by at least 2 other people, it seems it is more his personality. Not what a director needs to run a film set.

You can’t be serious. Hollywood is riddled with costars that hate each other, but play nice to get the marketing of the movie done. What he did was his job and it was professional. You think he should’ve gone off to the press and whined about what a diva Blake lively was? Do you think that would’ve helped the movie? I think he did his job just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is an example of Justin Baldoni being a ridiculous tool:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/how-deadpool-justin-baldoni-blake-lively-nicepool-1236110331/

He is claiming that the character "Nicepool" in the Deadpool & Wolverine movie is based on him, Baldoni, and was intended as an intentional slight.

Even if it's true... isn't this a self-own by Baldoni? Nicepool is an annoying character to hides being a passive-aggressive jerk behind being a feminist. Here's how the article describes the relevant scene:

In one scene involving Nicepool, played by an unmasked Reynolds, the character comments that Ladypool (Lively) just had a baby, and she’s so gorgeous that “you can’t even tell.” Deadpool responds, “I don’t think you’re supposed to say that,” to which Nicepool rejoins, “That’s OK. I identify as a feminist.” In an outtake available on home entertainment, Nicepool notes his “calling is to one day start a podcast that monetizes the women’s movement.”

First of all, that's funny. Second, if Baldoni self identifies with Nicepool, the problem there is that he sees too much truth in the send up. Not that Ryan Reynold's was inspired by Baldoni to write/perform the part. Sometimes the truth hurts.

All Baldoni has done by raising this issue is highlight the ways in which he is, indeed, like Nicepool. Not smart.

I think you’re exactly wrong. the Nicepool thing just demonstrates that Ryan and Blake are fixated on Baldoni and have the power & inclination to crush him. They are actually doing what they claim Baldoni was doing.