Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

They aren’t seen as heroes. If someone could just post some credible proof that Justin was wrong that may sway some opinions. All that’s been proven so far is that a double standard existed and Blake appeared to be permitted do and say whatever she pleased. Justin was the producer of the film, as well as playing character Ryle. Justin was trying to produce a perfect film presumably. Producing a perfect film may look different from various perspectives, this was Justin’s perspective.

Nah, about 5 pages ago we had a pretty good consensus going that both sides here had overreached a bit and thereby assured relatively mutual destruction, and that Baldoni was no saint. But now someone is posting like "the billionaire backer [came in] with guns blazing with Freedman" as though they are truly saving the day for the righteous, when Baldoni is no princess in need of rescue here. He caused much of this all by himself. And plenty of "credible proof" has been shown to you throughout here, you hate Lively too much to see it that way, so I guess Baldoni's PR firm did their job really well. A+ for them.

Nope, don’t really care about Baldoni, I’m not familiar with him at all. He is no saint, who is? Certainly neither Blake nor Ryan. Objectively speaking, Justin looks less malicious here. He may be a pervert, he may cross boundaries, but he didn’t try to maliciously slander someone. He is now defending himself, and rightfully so. Both Blake and Ryan are coming across very badly here, maybe I am missing something? Some of the claims seem to be very exaggerated, if not outright lies. I don’t personally care about any of these people.

Again, we are just living in two realities if you think Baldoni hired Johnny Depo’s PR firm and questioned whether they were going hard enough for him for some purpose *other* than to destroy her in the public opinion.

You should email the judge that we can skip the trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

They aren’t seen as heroes. If someone could just post some credible proof that Justin was wrong that may sway some opinions. All that’s been proven so far is that a double standard existed and Blake appeared to be permitted do and say whatever she pleased. Justin was the producer of the film, as well as playing character Ryle. Justin was trying to produce a perfect film presumably. Producing a perfect film may look different from various perspectives, this was Justin’s perspective.

Nah, about 5 pages ago we had a pretty good consensus going that both sides here had overreached a bit and thereby assured relatively mutual destruction, and that Baldoni was no saint. But now someone is posting like "the billionaire backer [came in] with guns blazing with Freedman" as though they are truly saving the day for the righteous, when Baldoni is no princess in need of rescue here. He caused much of this all by himself. And plenty of "credible proof" has been shown to you throughout here, you hate Lively too much to see it that way, so I guess Baldoni's PR firm did their job really well. A+ for them.

Nope, don’t really care about Baldoni, I’m not familiar with him at all. He is no saint, who is? Certainly neither Blake nor Ryan. Objectively speaking, Justin looks less malicious here. He may be a pervert, he may cross boundaries, but he didn’t try to maliciously slander someone. He is now defending himself, and rightfully so. Both Blake and Ryan are coming across very badly here, maybe I am missing something? Some of the claims seem to be very exaggerated, if not outright lies. I don’t personally care about any of these people.

Again, we are just living in two realities if you think Baldoni hired Johnny Depo’s PR firm and questioned whether they were going hard enough for him for some purpose *other* than to destroy her in the public opinion.

PP I just wanted to let you know I agree with you and do not understand these wild pro-JB takes at all. It just feels like a fantasy. I understand someone arguing that what happened to Lively on set doesn't amount to sexual harassment, and I understand the argument that the PR attacks on Lively were defensive because of what they perceived as Lively's team attacking them. I don't agree with these arguments but I understand them.

I do not understand the people who have made Baldoni or Bryan Freedman (omg) their personal warrior in some David and Goliath story where Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are evil masterminds who orchestrated this whole thing to... steal some IP? Which, for the record, they do not and never will own the rights to? It's wild. And seems to feed into fantasies that dovetail really neatly with weird alt-right and MRA beliefs about women. Which is sad. It's hard to have a conversation with people in this mindset because they are fact proof -- the narrative, and their gut feelings, are king and nothing else matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

They aren’t seen as heroes. If someone could just post some credible proof that Justin was wrong that may sway some opinions. All that’s been proven so far is that a double standard existed and Blake appeared to be permitted do and say whatever she pleased. Justin was the producer of the film, as well as playing character Ryle. Justin was trying to produce a perfect film presumably. Producing a perfect film may look different from various perspectives, this was Justin’s perspective.

Nah, about 5 pages ago we had a pretty good consensus going that both sides here had overreached a bit and thereby assured relatively mutual destruction, and that Baldoni was no saint. But now someone is posting like "the billionaire backer [came in] with guns blazing with Freedman" as though they are truly saving the day for the righteous, when Baldoni is no princess in need of rescue here. He caused much of this all by himself. And plenty of "credible proof" has been shown to you throughout here, you hate Lively too much to see it that way, so I guess Baldoni's PR firm did their job really well. A+ for them.

Nope, don’t really care about Baldoni, I’m not familiar with him at all. He is no saint, who is? Certainly neither Blake nor Ryan. Objectively speaking, Justin looks less malicious here. He may be a pervert, he may cross boundaries, but he didn’t try to maliciously slander someone. He is now defending himself, and rightfully so. Both Blake and Ryan are coming across very badly here, maybe I am missing something? Some of the claims seem to be very exaggerated, if not outright lies. I don’t personally care about any of these people.

Again, we are just living in two realities if you think Baldoni hired Johnny Depo’s PR firm and questioned whether they were going hard enough for him for some purpose *other* than to destroy her in the public opinion.

Hogwash! Why would Baldoni want to destroy Blake and Ryan? Blake and Ryan started this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

I truly don’t get this take. If you look at any victim of anything, harassment, rape, murder, any unjust action, they are going to be flawed humans. They are going to have a history of some problems. They are going to have treated someone badly somewhere. They are going to have handled something unprofessionally. All of us are humans.

Why does the standard have to be justin Baldoni has to be a perfect man who has never made one woman feel uncomfortable ever?

Its not fair to want extort someone’s movie from them and then ruin their career just so you don’t have to ever apologize or say hey I’ve had some bad interviews or I could’ve handled that better or yeah we clashed on the set and I’m sorry for my part.

Ryan and Blake have never once backed down. They double down in every return and they continue to dig a hole.

And this is a woman who got everything she wanted! Before she started any of this trouble, she got the producer credit she wanted under duress of the other producers who went on record saying she didn’t deserve it, but they would do it. She got Justin‘s name taken off the film. She got his image taken off the poster. She got her husband‘s company to handle the marketing. Bad marketing, but she got it nonetheless. She got her edit of the movie as the final cut. She literally got everything. I think maybe they were after the rights to the sequel. So they were that greedy after getting everything and more, but they still just wanted more. The audacity, I mean, there’s just no words for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

I truly don’t get this take. If you look at any victim of anything, harassment, rape, murder, any unjust action, they are going to be flawed humans. They are going to have a history of some problems. They are going to have treated someone badly somewhere. They are going to have handled something unprofessionally. All of us are humans.

Why does the standard have to be justin Baldoni has to be a perfect man who has never made one woman feel uncomfortable ever?

Its not fair to want extort someone’s movie from them and then ruin their career just so you don’t have to ever apologize or say hey I’ve had some bad interviews or I could’ve handled that better or yeah we clashed on the set and I’m sorry for my part.

Ryan and Blake have never once backed down. They double down in every return and they continue to dig a hole.

And this is a woman who got everything she wanted! Before she started any of this trouble, she got the producer credit she wanted under duress of the other producers who went on record saying she didn’t deserve it, but they would do it. She got Justin‘s name taken off the film. She got his image taken off the poster. She got her husband‘s company to handle the marketing. Bad marketing, but she got it nonetheless. She got her edit of the movie as the final cut. She literally got everything. I think maybe they were after the rights to the sequel. So they were that greedy after getting everything and more, but they still just wanted more. The audacity, I mean, there’s just no words for it.

Oh the irony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

I truly don’t get this take. If you look at any victim of anything, harassment, rape, murder, any unjust action, they are going to be flawed humans. They are going to have a history of some problems. They are going to have treated someone badly somewhere. They are going to have handled something unprofessionally. All of us are humans.

Why does the standard have to be justin Baldoni has to be a perfect man who has never made one woman feel uncomfortable ever?

Its not fair to want extort someone’s movie from them and then ruin their career just so you don’t have to ever apologize or say hey I’ve had some bad interviews or I could’ve handled that better or yeah we clashed on the set and I’m sorry for my part.

Ryan and Blake have never once backed down. They double down in every return and they continue to dig a hole.

And this is a woman who got everything she wanted! Before she started any of this trouble, she got the producer credit she wanted under duress of the other producers who went on record saying she didn’t deserve it, but they would do it. She got Justin‘s name taken off the film. She got his image taken off the poster. She got her husband‘s company to handle the marketing. Bad marketing, but she got it nonetheless. She got her edit of the movie as the final cut. She literally got everything. I think maybe they were after the rights to the sequel. So they were that greedy after getting everything and more, but they still just wanted more. The audacity, I mean, there’s just no words for it.

Oh the irony

Should Justin have apologized for setting up an IC meeting that Blake failed to attend? Should he apologize for directing this film? How about for watching a childbirth video in front of pure Blake? Maybe he should apologize for his character acting too in love with her character? He should definitely apologize for even mentioning a nude childbirth scene.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, clearly we're not going to convince one another here. Somehow this guy specifically hires the same PR firm as Amber Heard so that Lively can be decimated in the same way online -- to the extent that Baldoni wonders if the PR people are going hard enough, multiple times, except he draws the line at bots that look like bots because he doesn't want it coming back at him -- classy. This is the guy who has become some sort of cultural hero to you who you want to win $300 million. I think that's sad. *shrug*

So what should he have done? Honest question. He hired a crisis PR firm, it’s hard to believe if this were your husband or friend you wouldn’t support him doing that.

I think Hollywood PR is a nasty business for sure but she gave him no choice. She had 45 plus million followers (she’s lost a few hundred thousand recently). She leaked that she was fat shamed and worse. She banned him from the premiere, and was setting up to take over the sequel. People were starting to speculate and who could blame them? Wow, he must’ve really acted horribly onset. He must be a harasser or abuser. This is not great if you’re trying to build up your career as a producer and a director and a podcaster. And sure enough She ended up going to the meet to writer of the New York Times. And I think her PR team completely swayed the times as we have seen because they did really sloppy reporting and even if they don’t end up losing this case, a lot of people have questioned their tactics here and whether it was fair reporting.

There were texts to the PR team showing how scared he was of her. He knew more was coming and he was trying to be proactive and no one could freaking blame him. It seems like he hired the right guy with Freedman. I don’t exactly like the guy, but I think he’s been smart and how he has handled this.

He didn't sound scared to me when he was saying he didn't think the PR firm had his back enough, or when he was sending around a picture of some embattled woman saying "this is exactly the kind of thing we need" or when he was saying oh but wait let's not use bots (because that would be too obvious). He sounded like he was hiring a service to decimate someone he hated. He is not some victim for hiring this PR firm that destroyed Amber Heard's life. I don't feel sorry for him for doing that. That wasn't his only way out.

I don't agree with much of what you say above (she didn't ban him from the premier, he watched it in a different theater in the same building, walked the red carpet, etc). He made a sh!t ton of money on the film, and yet somehow the social media accounts of all the women were attacked. Maybe the lawyers should have gotten together and tried harder to work out some sort of agreement that both sides could have been happy with. Maybe he should have taken his pile of money, bit his tongue, and said something nice about Lively that was perhaps less than she originally wanted but more than he originally did, and worked it out and gone to the finish line together. And maybe, just maybe, he shouldn't ever have done some of this stuff on set in the first place. One thing he certainly should not have done is hired the same PR firm that took down Amber Heard and told them to go even harder than they were planning to, especially when he specifically agreed that he would not retaliate against Lively in the first place. That's why the NYT got involved in the first place, which is how everybody heard about this case. For that, he's the villain to me and not the victim.

He didn’t do anything to her let’s get that straight. I have heard zero inappropriate stuff including that she invited him in her trailer breast feeding and he questioned whether he should go. Was that a set up? Was the txt in the middle of the night a set up? It’s his movie and why is his name
not on it? He was also starring and is not on any of the posters? Why did he have to go to the basement at the premiere? It was crazy? His mistake was being to nice and trying to let her crazy behavior go. Can you imagine telling Robert Dinero to sit in the basement for a premiere? He would have said no it is
my movie. Sheesh

If you look at her allegations and honestly think that he did "zero inappropriate stuff," then we just see the case very differently and will not be able to agree on much at all.

You are moving the goal post. Justin is not the perfect victim for sure. He probably could’ve done better on that set. But to say that he deserved to have his whole career trashed and his reputation in the toilet forever so that Blake and Ryan could get another high grossing movie under their belt is insane. And you know it, you just have nothing left so you’re just going to keep posting about random slightly inappropriate behavior that was really not that bad and probably tame compared to what happens on most sets.

I didn't move the goalposts, I responded to a PP who said, literally word for word, "He didn't do anything to her let's get that straight. I have heard zero inappropriate stuff including that she invited him in her trailer breast feeding and he questioned whether he should go." I'm responding to PP who is literally comparing Justin Baldoni to Robert De Niro, so in all fairness I really don't think I'm the one moving the goalposts here, but in any case I suspect we're just not going to agree.

You are nitpicking. Simply nitpicking about minor offenses when Ryan and Blake literally threw a bomb into this man’s house.

Funny thing is, it doesn’t even matter. Even if Blake and Ryan win this lawsuit, they will never be seen in the same light again. 10 years from now, people are still going to be saying “hi kaleesi!” in Blake’s social media posts. She’s never going to live that down.

No more double date nights with Taylor either lol. she burned that bridge by dragging her into the drama.

And I’d be shocked if she ever did a movie that Ryan doesn’t produce. Men are going to be very wary of working with her.

They did not literally throw a bomb under his house? What?

What is it you think they did that is so much worse than what he is alleged to have done. I genuinely don't understand.

NP. Obviously she didn’t mean literally but we all get it, and agree. Ryan and Blake went nuclear and then BL ran to play the victim. No one’s buying it

See, I feel JB is playing the victim. He makes it sound like he had no agency in any of this. That anything he might have done wrong was just a misunderstanding, and that everything bad that happened was the result if malice on the other side. I don't buy it.

I wonder if all of us who can “buy it”have had firsthand experiences with narcissistic people. I’m not saying she’s a narcissist or that he is innocent —I’m just wondering where the deep divide stems from. I have been on the wrong end of offending a narcissist (or some similar personality disorder), and it’s truly terrifying how they can turn on you and actually believe they are the victim. It takes a minute for you to catch up! Your first instinct is that you are misunderstood, so you try even harder, but they just feed off of it and then they think you are weak. And then while they’re busy being evil to you, they will work that much harder to make others love them. I can imagine that happened here. It’s possible it didn’t.

I'm PP and I find them both to have narcissistic tendencies. I think Baldoni has a tendency towards vulnerable narcissism (where he is constantly sympathy seeking and using his supposed deficiencies or challenges as an excuse for never being accountable and always being the center of attention). Lively strikes me as someone with Main Character Syndrome, though I suspect that's very common in Hollywood.

This makes a lot of sense.

But he has nothing to have to be accountable here. That’s the issue with this both sides-ing. BL has zero credibility.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, clearly we're not going to convince one another here. Somehow this guy specifically hires the same PR firm as Amber Heard so that Lively can be decimated in the same way online -- to the extent that Baldoni wonders if the PR people are going hard enough, multiple times, except he draws the line at bots that look like bots because he doesn't want it coming back at him -- classy. This is the guy who has become some sort of cultural hero to you who you want to win $300 million. I think that's sad. *shrug*

So what should he have done? Honest question. He hired a crisis PR firm, it’s hard to believe if this were your husband or friend you wouldn’t support him doing that.

I think Hollywood PR is a nasty business for sure but she gave him no choice. She had 45 plus million followers (she’s lost a few hundred thousand recently). She leaked that she was fat shamed and worse. She banned him from the premiere, and was setting up to take over the sequel. People were starting to speculate and who could blame them? Wow, he must’ve really acted horribly onset. He must be a harasser or abuser. This is not great if you’re trying to build up your career as a producer and a director and a podcaster. And sure enough She ended up going to the meet to writer of the New York Times. And I think her PR team completely swayed the times as we have seen because they did really sloppy reporting and even if they don’t end up losing this case, a lot of people have questioned their tactics here and whether it was fair reporting.

There were texts to the PR team showing how scared he was of her. He knew more was coming and he was trying to be proactive and no one could freaking blame him. It seems like he hired the right guy with Freedman. I don’t exactly like the guy, but I think he’s been smart and how he has handled this.

He didn't sound scared to me when he was saying he didn't think the PR firm had his back enough, or when he was sending around a picture of some embattled woman saying "this is exactly the kind of thing we need" or when he was saying oh but wait let's not use bots (because that would be too obvious). He sounded like he was hiring a service to decimate someone he hated. He is not some victim for hiring this PR firm that destroyed Amber Heard's life. I don't feel sorry for him for doing that. That wasn't his only way out.

I don't agree with much of what you say above (she didn't ban him from the premier, he watched it in a different theater in the same building, walked the red carpet, etc). He made a sh!t ton of money on the film, and yet somehow the social media accounts of all the women were attacked. Maybe the lawyers should have gotten together and tried harder to work out some sort of agreement that both sides could have been happy with. Maybe he should have taken his pile of money, bit his tongue, and said something nice about Lively that was perhaps less than she originally wanted but more than he originally did, and worked it out and gone to the finish line together. And maybe, just maybe, he shouldn't ever have done some of this stuff on set in the first place. One thing he certainly should not have done is hired the same PR firm that took down Amber Heard and told them to go even harder than they were planning to, especially when he specifically agreed that he would not retaliate against Lively in the first place. That's why the NYT got involved in the first place, which is how everybody heard about this case. For that, he's the villain to me and not the victim.

He didn’t do anything to her let’s get that straight. I have heard zero inappropriate stuff including that she invited him in her trailer breast feeding and he questioned whether he should go. Was that a set up? Was the txt in the middle of the night a set up? It’s his movie and why is his name
not on it? He was also starring and is not on any of the posters? Why did he have to go to the basement at the premiere? It was crazy? His mistake was being to nice and trying to let her crazy behavior go. Can you imagine telling Robert Dinero to sit in the basement for a premiere? He would have said no it is
my movie. Sheesh

If you look at her allegations and honestly think that he did "zero inappropriate stuff," then we just see the case very differently and will not be able to agree on much at all.

You are moving the goal post. Justin is not the perfect victim for sure. He probably could’ve done better on that set. But to say that he deserved to have his whole career trashed and his reputation in the toilet forever so that Blake and Ryan could get another high grossing movie under their belt is insane. And you know it, you just have nothing left so you’re just going to keep posting about random slightly inappropriate behavior that was really not that bad and probably tame compared to what happens on most sets.

I didn't move the goalposts, I responded to a PP who said, literally word for word, "He didn't do anything to her let's get that straight. I have heard zero inappropriate stuff including that she invited him in her trailer breast feeding and he questioned whether he should go." I'm responding to PP who is literally comparing Justin Baldoni to Robert De Niro, so in all fairness I really don't think I'm the one moving the goalposts here, but in any case I suspect we're just not going to agree.

You are nitpicking. Simply nitpicking about minor offenses when Ryan and Blake literally threw a bomb into this man’s house.

Funny thing is, it doesn’t even matter. Even if Blake and Ryan win this lawsuit, they will never be seen in the same light again. 10 years from now, people are still going to be saying “hi kaleesi!” in Blake’s social media posts. She’s never going to live that down.

No more double date nights with Taylor either lol. she burned that bridge by dragging her into the drama.

And I’d be shocked if she ever did a movie that Ryan doesn’t produce. Men are going to be very wary of working with her.

They did not literally throw a bomb under his house? What?

What is it you think they did that is so much worse than what he is alleged to have done. I genuinely don't understand.

NP. Obviously she didn’t mean literally but we all get it, and agree. Ryan and Blake went nuclear and then BL ran to play the victim. No one’s buying it

See, I feel JB is playing the victim. He makes it sound like he had no agency in any of this. That anything he might have done wrong was just a misunderstanding, and that everything bad that happened was the result if malice on the other side. I don't buy it.

I wonder if all of us who can “buy it”have had firsthand experiences with narcissistic people. I’m not saying she’s a narcissist or that he is innocent —I’m just wondering where the deep divide stems from. I have been on the wrong end of offending a narcissist (or some similar personality disorder), and it’s truly terrifying how they can turn on you and actually believe they are the victim. It takes a minute for you to catch up! Your first instinct is that you are misunderstood, so you try even harder, but they just feed off of it and then they think you are weak. And then while they’re busy being evil to you, they will work that much harder to make others love them. I can imagine that happened here. It’s possible it didn’t.

I'm PP and I find them both to have narcissistic tendencies. I think Baldoni has a tendency towards vulnerable narcissism (where he is constantly sympathy seeking and using his supposed deficiencies or challenges as an excuse for never being accountable and always being the center of attention). Lively strikes me as someone with Main Character Syndrome, though I suspect that's very common in Hollywood.

This makes a lot of sense.

I especially see this with his health issues. I used to work for a vulnerable narcissist and she was like this. She always has an ailment she was nursing, she over shared a lot about it, and it was a frequently used excuse for her bad behavior. Baldoni is like this with his back issues, which seems to flare up when he is feeling threatened or stressed. Now, I do believe in the mind-body connection and i believe he has back issues, but narcissists will lean into it for sympathy any time they are getting criticism -- it detracts from valid criticism and changes the subject.

He also does this in his communications a lot -- very sympathy seeking and woe is me in his texts and emails to both fellow producers and to Blake. He likes being the victim.

It can be a really tough personality because it's very hard to ever have a direct conversation about Amy if their flaws or mistakes. They are brilliant at twisting it around. The focus is always on how your criticism hurt them, and never on whatever it was you were criticizing them for.

Blake claimed to have strep 4 separate times and a flu another in a very short time frame - and also took time for her kids when she is rich, has a rich spouse, and does in fact have childcare help (someone I know used to have a child at the school where the BL/RR kids attend). She had constant health issues and a real written out need to be praised for her body. From looking at external forces, this becomes Baldonis living hell once people laugh at Livelys appearance in “costume.” She has a ton of health issues, claimed. He has a bad back, likely doctor-verified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

I truly don’t get this take. If you look at any victim of anything, harassment, rape, murder, any unjust action, they are going to be flawed humans. They are going to have a history of some problems. They are going to have treated someone badly somewhere. They are going to have handled something unprofessionally. All of us are humans.

Why does the standard have to be justin Baldoni has to be a perfect man who has never made one woman feel uncomfortable ever?

Its not fair to want extort someone’s movie from them and then ruin their career just so you don’t have to ever apologize or say hey I’ve had some bad interviews or I could’ve handled that better or yeah we clashed on the set and I’m sorry for my part.

Ryan and Blake have never once backed down. They double down in every return and they continue to dig a hole.

And this is a woman who got everything she wanted! Before she started any of this trouble, she got the producer credit she wanted under duress of the other producers who went on record saying she didn’t deserve it, but they would do it. She got Justin‘s name taken off the film. She got his image taken off the poster. She got her husband‘s company to handle the marketing. Bad marketing, but she got it nonetheless. She got her edit of the movie as the final cut. She literally got everything. I think maybe they were after the rights to the sequel. So they were that greedy after getting everything and more, but they still just wanted more. The audacity, I mean, there’s just no words for it.

Oh the irony

Should Justin have apologized for setting up an IC meeting that Blake failed to attend? Should he apologize for directing this film? How about for watching a childbirth video in front of pure Blake? Maybe he should apologize for his character acting too in love with her character? He should definitely apologize for even mentioning a nude childbirth scene.

He actually apologized a ton. I mean the seven minute voice text, was cringe, but he certainly was not afraid to admit when he made mistakes. I’ve never seen Blake do that once. Including being partially responsible for the biggest movie bomb in US movie history lol

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, clearly we're not going to convince one another here. Somehow this guy specifically hires the same PR firm as Amber Heard so that Lively can be decimated in the same way online -- to the extent that Baldoni wonders if the PR people are going hard enough, multiple times, except he draws the line at bots that look like bots because he doesn't want it coming back at him -- classy. This is the guy who has become some sort of cultural hero to you who you want to win $300 million. I think that's sad. *shrug*

So what should he have done? Honest question. He hired a crisis PR firm, it’s hard to believe if this were your husband or friend you wouldn’t support him doing that.

I think Hollywood PR is a nasty business for sure but she gave him no choice. She had 45 plus million followers (she’s lost a few hundred thousand recently). She leaked that she was fat shamed and worse. She banned him from the premiere, and was setting up to take over the sequel. People were starting to speculate and who could blame them? Wow, he must’ve really acted horribly onset. He must be a harasser or abuser. This is not great if you’re trying to build up your career as a producer and a director and a podcaster. And sure enough She ended up going to the meet to writer of the New York Times. And I think her PR team completely swayed the times as we have seen because they did really sloppy reporting and even if they don’t end up losing this case, a lot of people have questioned their tactics here and whether it was fair reporting.

There were texts to the PR team showing how scared he was of her. He knew more was coming and he was trying to be proactive and no one could freaking blame him. It seems like he hired the right guy with Freedman. I don’t exactly like the guy, but I think he’s been smart and how he has handled this.

He didn't sound scared to me when he was saying he didn't think the PR firm had his back enough, or when he was sending around a picture of some embattled woman saying "this is exactly the kind of thing we need" or when he was saying oh but wait let's not use bots (because that would be too obvious). He sounded like he was hiring a service to decimate someone he hated. He is not some victim for hiring this PR firm that destroyed Amber Heard's life. I don't feel sorry for him for doing that. That wasn't his only way out.

I don't agree with much of what you say above (she didn't ban him from the premier, he watched it in a different theater in the same building, walked the red carpet, etc). He made a sh!t ton of money on the film, and yet somehow the social media accounts of all the women were attacked. Maybe the lawyers should have gotten together and tried harder to work out some sort of agreement that both sides could have been happy with. Maybe he should have taken his pile of money, bit his tongue, and said something nice about Lively that was perhaps less than she originally wanted but more than he originally did, and worked it out and gone to the finish line together. And maybe, just maybe, he shouldn't ever have done some of this stuff on set in the first place. One thing he certainly should not have done is hired the same PR firm that took down Amber Heard and told them to go even harder than they were planning to, especially when he specifically agreed that he would not retaliate against Lively in the first place. That's why the NYT got involved in the first place, which is how everybody heard about this case. For that, he's the villain to me and not the victim.

He didn’t do anything to her let’s get that straight. I have heard zero inappropriate stuff including that she invited him in her trailer breast feeding and he questioned whether he should go. Was that a set up? Was the txt in the middle of the night a set up? It’s his movie and why is his name
not on it? He was also starring and is not on any of the posters? Why did he have to go to the basement at the premiere? It was crazy? His mistake was being to nice and trying to let her crazy behavior go. Can you imagine telling Robert Dinero to sit in the basement for a premiere? He would have said no it is
my movie. Sheesh

If you look at her allegations and honestly think that he did "zero inappropriate stuff," then we just see the case very differently and will not be able to agree on much at all.

You are moving the goal post. Justin is not the perfect victim for sure. He probably could’ve done better on that set. But to say that he deserved to have his whole career trashed and his reputation in the toilet forever so that Blake and Ryan could get another high grossing movie under their belt is insane. And you know it, you just have nothing left so you’re just going to keep posting about random slightly inappropriate behavior that was really not that bad and probably tame compared to what happens on most sets.

I didn't move the goalposts, I responded to a PP who said, literally word for word, "He didn't do anything to her let's get that straight. I have heard zero inappropriate stuff including that she invited him in her trailer breast feeding and he questioned whether he should go." I'm responding to PP who is literally comparing Justin Baldoni to Robert De Niro, so in all fairness I really don't think I'm the one moving the goalposts here, but in any case I suspect we're just not going to agree.

You are nitpicking. Simply nitpicking about minor offenses when Ryan and Blake literally threw a bomb into this man’s house.

Funny thing is, it doesn’t even matter. Even if Blake and Ryan win this lawsuit, they will never be seen in the same light again. 10 years from now, people are still going to be saying “hi kaleesi!” in Blake’s social media posts. She’s never going to live that down.

No more double date nights with Taylor either lol. she burned that bridge by dragging her into the drama.

And I’d be shocked if she ever did a movie that Ryan doesn’t produce. Men are going to be very wary of working with her.

They did not literally throw a bomb under his house? What?

What is it you think they did that is so much worse than what he is alleged to have done. I genuinely don't understand.

NP. Obviously she didn’t mean literally but we all get it, and agree. Ryan and Blake went nuclear and then BL ran to play the victim. No one’s buying it

See, I feel JB is playing the victim. He makes it sound like he had no agency in any of this. That anything he might have done wrong was just a misunderstanding, and that everything bad that happened was the result if malice on the other side. I don't buy it.

I wonder if all of us who can “buy it”have had firsthand experiences with narcissistic people. I’m not saying she’s a narcissist or that he is innocent —I’m just wondering where the deep divide stems from. I have been on the wrong end of offending a narcissist (or some similar personality disorder), and it’s truly terrifying how they can turn on you and actually believe they are the victim. It takes a minute for you to catch up! Your first instinct is that you are misunderstood, so you try even harder, but they just feed off of it and then they think you are weak. And then while they’re busy being evil to you, they will work that much harder to make others love them. I can imagine that happened here. It’s possible it didn’t.

I'm PP and I find them both to have narcissistic tendencies. I think Baldoni has a tendency towards vulnerable narcissism (where he is constantly sympathy seeking and using his supposed deficiencies or challenges as an excuse for never being accountable and always being the center of attention). Lively strikes me as someone with Main Character Syndrome, though I suspect that's very common in Hollywood.

This makes a lot of sense.

I especially see this with his health issues. I used to work for a vulnerable narcissist and she was like this. She always has an ailment she was nursing, she over shared a lot about it, and it was a frequently used excuse for her bad behavior. Baldoni is like this with his back issues, which seems to flare up when he is feeling threatened or stressed. Now, I do believe in the mind-body connection and i believe he has back issues, but narcissists will lean into it for sympathy any time they are getting criticism -- it detracts from valid criticism and changes the subject.

He also does this in his communications a lot -- very sympathy seeking and woe is me in his texts and emails to both fellow producers and to Blake. He likes being the victim.

It can be a really tough personality because it's very hard to ever have a direct conversation about Amy if their flaws or mistakes. They are brilliant at twisting it around. The focus is always on how your criticism hurt them, and never on whatever it was you were criticizing them for.

Blake claimed to have strep 4 separate times and a flu another in a very short time frame - and also took time for her kids when she is rich, has a rich spouse, and does in fact have childcare help (someone I know used to have a child at the school where the BL/RR kids attend). She had constant health issues and a real written out need to be praised for her body. From looking at external forces, this becomes Baldonis living hell once people laugh at Livelys appearance in “costume.” She has a ton of health issues, claimed. He has a bad back, likely doctor-verified.

Her health issues were constant and really concerning. They also have multiple nanny’s. She seems extremely fragile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way some of you see all these people as heros, from Baldoni to Freedman to billionaire Sarowitz, is crazy to me. We truly are living in two different realities.

They aren’t seen as heroes. If someone could just post some credible proof that Justin was wrong that may sway some opinions. All that’s been proven so far is that a double standard existed and Blake appeared to be permitted do and say whatever she pleased. Justin was the producer of the film, as well as playing character Ryle. Justin was trying to produce a perfect film presumably. Producing a perfect film may look different from various perspectives, this was Justin’s perspective.

Nah, about 5 pages ago we had a pretty good consensus going that both sides here had overreached a bit and thereby assured relatively mutual destruction, and that Baldoni was no saint. But now someone is posting like "the billionaire backer [came in] with guns blazing with Freedman" as though they are truly saving the day for the righteous, when Baldoni is no princess in need of rescue here. He caused much of this all by himself. And plenty of "credible proof" has been shown to you throughout here, you hate Lively too much to see it that way, so I guess Baldoni's PR firm did their job really well. A+ for them.

Nope, don’t really care about Baldoni, I’m not familiar with him at all. He is no saint, who is? Certainly neither Blake nor Ryan. Objectively speaking, Justin looks less malicious here. He may be a pervert, he may cross boundaries, but he didn’t try to maliciously slander someone. He is now defending himself, and rightfully so. Both Blake and Ryan are coming across very badly here, maybe I am missing something? Some of the claims seem to be very exaggerated, if not outright lies. I don’t personally care about any of these people.

Again, we are just living in two realities if you think Baldoni hired Johnny Depp’s PR firm and questioned whether they were going hard enough for him for some purpose *other* than to destroy her in the public opinion.

PP I just wanted to let you know I agree with you and do not understand these wild pro-JB takes at all. It just feels like a fantasy. I understand someone arguing that what happened to Lively on set doesn't amount to sexual harassment, and I understand the argument that the PR attacks on Lively were defensive because of what they perceived as Lively's team attacking them. I don't agree with these arguments but I understand them.

I do not understand the people who have made Baldoni or Bryan Freedman (omg) their personal warrior in some David and Goliath story where Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are evil masterminds who orchestrated this whole thing to... steal some IP? Which, for the record, they do not and never will own the rights to? It's wild. And seems to feed into fantasies that dovetail really neatly with weird alt-right and MRA beliefs about women. Which is sad. It's hard to have a conversation with people in this mindset because they are fact proof -- the narrative, and their gut feelings, are king and nothing else matters.

I'm the PP. Thanks very much for this reality check. Like you, I can understand (and even sometimes agree with, sometimes not) many of the middle ground pro-Baldoni opinions, but the whole "they are evil people" or "she's a compulsive lying con artist" or "low lives with zero integrity" or "manic coddling husband" etc - these are all real quotes from the last two pages and I've stopped responding to this sort of rhetoric, these people are just too out there for me. Your "fact proof" phrasing is perfect, and I agree with you on the alt-right/MRA crossover as well. The best part of this thread to me was 5-10 pages ago where we had late night agreement between 4-5 people that everyone involved had done some wrong, to varying degrees. But the super-pro-Baldoni folks, I just can't even talk to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting to me having seen the movie is that there were two much more intimate scenes that Blake must’ve felt comfortable with because after all those months, I’ve not seen a word written or spoken about it.

There was one scene where Justin’s character basically almost attempts rape and she talks him down. It was probably a tough scene to film, and she didn’t seem to have a problem with that. I imagine because it was such a tough scene that protocol was followed to the letter and she couldn’t really say anything about it. I’m sure the intimacy coordinator was on set, even though they were clothed, as his character does overpower her, even though it doesn’t get very sexual and is stopped.

There is one other scene where he undresses her a little bit. She’s in high waisted fishnet stockings, and a bra, so not nude, and I think they kiss and he kind of tucked her in bed and leaves.

Those two seemed much more intimate, harder to film scenes, and she didn’t have a problem with that. Clearly, the IC must’ve been there and protocol followed.

But given all the rest that I’ve seen, it just seems like maybe she took advantage of the scenes where there wouldn’t be an IC and there would be more left to people to interpret. For example an IC has come out and said the dancing scene would not typically require an IC, because they were fully clothed, and there was no simulating sex. I mean, they were clearly in public in a bar. So it just seems like she took advantage of that to talk about how she didn’t feel comfortable in intimate scenes.

Same with the birthing scene. I’m not sure that there would’ve been a ic there because she wasn’t nude. I know there’s back-and-forth and whether they wanted her nude, but given the fact that there was no IC there it leads me to believe, well, she’s lying. She was covered and there was clearly no sex being simulated. I’ve watched the scene again and I just don’t get it. The guy playing the doctor was pretty far away from her. There were just lots of close-up shots of her face. And one of her legs.

I feel like she just took whatever scenes might be somewhat ambiguous and made them sound worse than they were.

All scripted sex scenes and nudity were filmed after the hiatus. The scenes you are referencing were filmed after they came back from hiatus and after Baldoni and Wayfarer had agreed to her demands. Her amended complaint even references how a major reason she felt she needed to voice her concerns and get an agreement regarding having an IC with her at all times was because she was dreading going back to set and having to film these scenes with him.

This is in Baldoni's complaint as well, btw. His timeline specifically talks about how all the scripted sex scenes were filmed post-hiatus. You can control+F it if you don't believe me.

So she was comfortable with those scenes because they were handled professionally thanks to her intervention to ensure that an IC would be present and they would be choreographed and that all elements of the scenes would have consent of all parties. And also that the *scripted* nudity in these scenes would be covered by a valid nudity rider. Whereas the nudity in the birth scene was unscripted and they didn't even have a nudity rider in place when it happened (because Lively's team was not expecting it to be a nude scene so they didn't realize this was potentially why Wayfarer was trying to push them to sign the nudity rider with very little time to review and before an IC had reviewed and approved it).

But isn’t this how the courts want these claims to be handled? There were complaints made, she was given a platform to address her concerns, they heard her concerns, changes were made.

I guess I don’t understand why there would be retaliation if things didn’t escalate to the point of an investigation. She had issues, they were addressed. What is to retaliate against?

And if the scenes that were shot did not require an IC, why did she sort of turn it act like they didn’t have an IC on set? You just said that the scenes I mentioned that would require an IC, were shot after the complaints were made, and there was an IC in set. So she was sort of preemptively complaining that there wouldn’t be an IC onset? I don’t understand. The scene that she was complaining about weren’t standard for an IC.

Certainly when she pulled in Sony those emails seem to be very cordial to wayfarer, even sort of agreeing with them, gosh she is pretty demanding, but sigh, sure we can add another producer on set. Obviously, I’m paraphrasing, but the emails were certainly not wow we need to address safety issues. Or yikes there’s harassment going on in this set. They were like isn’t there a producer for this? Yes but she wants another? OK I guess we can do that. We will send Angie on set or whoever that woman was to make her more comfortable. Things like that. It just seemed very mundane and by the book and certainly there didn’t seem to be among executives any escalation of anything near harassment.

That’s why it just all seems to be coming out of left field. And then to say that others complained months after production and just seems very odd to me.

Nude scenes are always supposed to have an IC. Even if it's partial nudity. There was actually a profile of a birth scene in another movie (recent movie with Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh) in the NYT last fall that mentioned that they had an IC for the scene because Pugh was nude below the waist for the scene. So if they expected Lively to be nude in that birth scene, they should have let her know in advance and had an IC.

I think also that while the issues were handled during the hiatus and there are no reports of problems after they came back from hiatus, it's not clear that Wayfarer handled the issues prior to the hiatus well at all. If there were complaints from multiple actresses and some of these problems happened multiple times even after Lively or others had complained, that's a real sign of a problem on set. Lively is getting dragged for the "17 point list" and criticized for making demands at that Jan. 4 meeting, but it sounds like her actions actually solved the problem in a way that nothing Wayfarer had done did. It should not be on an actress to address it in that way -- Wayfarer should have taken a stronger stance and proactively made some of the adjustments Lively ultimately had to demand under threat of not returning. If only to protect their own interest in the film. So no, I don't think courts want it to be handled "this way." I think the expectation is that employers should proactively seek to address problems and that you shouldn't have to rely on an employee willing to stick their neck out the way Lively did -- she was only able to do that because she does have market power and as star of the movie had sway with the studio. If she'd been an actress with a smaller role or less sway, she probably wouldn't have felt she could stand up for herself in that way and it's possible the problems from the first few weeks of filming would have persisted. That's a problem.

And given that not every employee is going to be empowered the way Lively was, it's all the more reason for courts to protect employees from retaliation for coming forth with harassment allegations. Because if someone with Lively's fame and power can be effectively trashed in the media in retaliation for making valid complaints about SH on set, then what message does that send to other employees with far less power? It tells them they better shut up or they, too, can be "buried."

If her 17 point list solved the problem, why was he put in the basement? This is the question they’ll need to answer b/c the retaliation seems to be on Blake’s part. She made her demands then proceeded to completely railroad over him with the threat of making her concerns (which everyone agrees had been addressed) public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting to me having seen the movie is that there were two much more intimate scenes that Blake must’ve felt comfortable with because after all those months, I’ve not seen a word written or spoken about it.

There was one scene where Justin’s character basically almost attempts rape and she talks him down. It was probably a tough scene to film, and she didn’t seem to have a problem with that. I imagine because it was such a tough scene that protocol was followed to the letter and she couldn’t really say anything about it. I’m sure the intimacy coordinator was on set, even though they were clothed, as his character does overpower her, even though it doesn’t get very sexual and is stopped.

There is one other scene where he undresses her a little bit. She’s in high waisted fishnet stockings, and a bra, so not nude, and I think they kiss and he kind of tucked her in bed and leaves.

Those two seemed much more intimate, harder to film scenes, and she didn’t have a problem with that. Clearly, the IC must’ve been there and protocol followed.

But given all the rest that I’ve seen, it just seems like maybe she took advantage of the scenes where there wouldn’t be an IC and there would be more left to people to interpret. For example an IC has come out and said the dancing scene would not typically require an IC, because they were fully clothed, and there was no simulating sex. I mean, they were clearly in public in a bar. So it just seems like she took advantage of that to talk about how she didn’t feel comfortable in intimate scenes.

Same with the birthing scene. I’m not sure that there would’ve been a ic there because she wasn’t nude. I know there’s back-and-forth and whether they wanted her nude, but given the fact that there was no IC there it leads me to believe, well, she’s lying. She was covered and there was clearly no sex being simulated. I’ve watched the scene again and I just don’t get it. The guy playing the doctor was pretty far away from her. There were just lots of close-up shots of her face. And one of her legs.

I feel like she just took whatever scenes might be somewhat ambiguous and made them sound worse than they were.

All scripted sex scenes and nudity were filmed after the hiatus. The scenes you are referencing were filmed after they came back from hiatus and after Baldoni and Wayfarer had agreed to her demands. Her amended complaint even references how a major reason she felt she needed to voice her concerns and get an agreement regarding having an IC with her at all times was because she was dreading going back to set and having to film these scenes with him.

This is in Baldoni's complaint as well, btw. His timeline specifically talks about how all the scripted sex scenes were filmed post-hiatus. You can control+F it if you don't believe me.

So she was comfortable with those scenes because they were handled professionally thanks to her intervention to ensure that an IC would be present and they would be choreographed and that all elements of the scenes would have consent of all parties. And also that the *scripted* nudity in these scenes would be covered by a valid nudity rider. Whereas the nudity in the birth scene was unscripted and they didn't even have a nudity rider in place when it happened (because Lively's team was not expecting it to be a nude scene so they didn't realize this was potentially why Wayfarer was trying to push them to sign the nudity rider with very little time to review and before an IC had reviewed and approved it).

But isn’t this how the courts want these claims to be handled? There were complaints made, she was given a platform to address her concerns, they heard her concerns, changes were made.

I guess I don’t understand why there would be retaliation if things didn’t escalate to the point of an investigation. She had issues, they were addressed. What is to retaliate against?

And if the scenes that were shot did not require an IC, why did she sort of turn it act like they didn’t have an IC on set? You just said that the scenes I mentioned that would require an IC, were shot after the complaints were made, and there was an IC in set. So she was sort of preemptively complaining that there wouldn’t be an IC onset? I don’t understand. The scene that she was complaining about weren’t standard for an IC.

Certainly when she pulled in Sony those emails seem to be very cordial to wayfarer, even sort of agreeing with them, gosh she is pretty demanding, but sigh, sure we can add another producer on set. Obviously, I’m paraphrasing, but the emails were certainly not wow we need to address safety issues. Or yikes there’s harassment going on in this set. They were like isn’t there a producer for this? Yes but she wants another? OK I guess we can do that. We will send Angie on set or whoever that woman was to make her more comfortable. Things like that. It just seemed very mundane and by the book and certainly there didn’t seem to be among executives any escalation of anything near harassment.

That’s why it just all seems to be coming out of left field. And then to say that others complained months after production and just seems very odd to me.

Nude scenes are always supposed to have an IC. Even if it's partial nudity. There was actually a profile of a birth scene in another movie (recent movie with Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh) in the NYT last fall that mentioned that they had an IC for the scene because Pugh was nude below the waist for the scene. So if they expected Lively to be nude in that birth scene, they should have let her know in advance and had an IC.

I think also that while the issues were handled during the hiatus and there are no reports of problems after they came back from hiatus, it's not clear that Wayfarer handled the issues prior to the hiatus well at all. If there were complaints from multiple actresses and some of these problems happened multiple times even after Lively or others had complained, that's a real sign of a problem on set. Lively is getting dragged for the "17 point list" and criticized for making demands at that Jan. 4 meeting, but it sounds like her actions actually solved the problem in a way that nothing Wayfarer had done did. It should not be on an actress to address it in that way -- Wayfarer should have taken a stronger stance and proactively made some of the adjustments Lively ultimately had to demand under threat of not returning. If only to protect their own interest in the film. So no, I don't think courts want it to be handled "this way." I think the expectation is that employers should proactively seek to address problems and that you shouldn't have to rely on an employee willing to stick their neck out the way Lively did -- she was only able to do that because she does have market power and as star of the movie had sway with the studio. If she'd been an actress with a smaller role or less sway, she probably wouldn't have felt she could stand up for herself in that way and it's possible the problems from the first few weeks of filming would have persisted. That's a problem.

And given that not every employee is going to be empowered the way Lively was, it's all the more reason for courts to protect employees from retaliation for coming forth with harassment allegations. Because if someone with Lively's fame and power can be effectively trashed in the media in retaliation for making valid complaints about SH on set, then what message does that send to other employees with far less power? It tells them they better shut up or they, too, can be "buried."

If her 17 point list solved the problem, why was he put in the basement? This is the question they’ll need to answer b/c the retaliation seems to be on Blake’s part. She made her demands then proceeded to completely railroad over him with the threat of making her concerns (which everyone agrees had been addressed) public.

It's a question I'd love to see answered, since I don't think it benefited her in any way to have him walk the red carpet separately (he did not view the film from the basement, but a separate theater).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting to me having seen the movie is that there were two much more intimate scenes that Blake must’ve felt comfortable with because after all those months, I’ve not seen a word written or spoken about it.

There was one scene where Justin’s character basically almost attempts rape and she talks him down. It was probably a tough scene to film, and she didn’t seem to have a problem with that. I imagine because it was such a tough scene that protocol was followed to the letter and she couldn’t really say anything about it. I’m sure the intimacy coordinator was on set, even though they were clothed, as his character does overpower her, even though it doesn’t get very sexual and is stopped.

There is one other scene where he undresses her a little bit. She’s in high waisted fishnet stockings, and a bra, so not nude, and I think they kiss and he kind of tucked her in bed and leaves.

Those two seemed much more intimate, harder to film scenes, and she didn’t have a problem with that. Clearly, the IC must’ve been there and protocol followed.

But given all the rest that I’ve seen, it just seems like maybe she took advantage of the scenes where there wouldn’t be an IC and there would be more left to people to interpret. For example an IC has come out and said the dancing scene would not typically require an IC, because they were fully clothed, and there was no simulating sex. I mean, they were clearly in public in a bar. So it just seems like she took advantage of that to talk about how she didn’t feel comfortable in intimate scenes.

Same with the birthing scene. I’m not sure that there would’ve been a ic there because she wasn’t nude. I know there’s back-and-forth and whether they wanted her nude, but given the fact that there was no IC there it leads me to believe, well, she’s lying. She was covered and there was clearly no sex being simulated. I’ve watched the scene again and I just don’t get it. The guy playing the doctor was pretty far away from her. There were just lots of close-up shots of her face. And one of her legs.

I feel like she just took whatever scenes might be somewhat ambiguous and made them sound worse than they were.

All scripted sex scenes and nudity were filmed after the hiatus. The scenes you are referencing were filmed after they came back from hiatus and after Baldoni and Wayfarer had agreed to her demands. Her amended complaint even references how a major reason she felt she needed to voice her concerns and get an agreement regarding having an IC with her at all times was because she was dreading going back to set and having to film these scenes with him.

This is in Baldoni's complaint as well, btw. His timeline specifically talks about how all the scripted sex scenes were filmed post-hiatus. You can control+F it if you don't believe me.

So she was comfortable with those scenes because they were handled professionally thanks to her intervention to ensure that an IC would be present and they would be choreographed and that all elements of the scenes would have consent of all parties. And also that the *scripted* nudity in these scenes would be covered by a valid nudity rider. Whereas the nudity in the birth scene was unscripted and they didn't even have a nudity rider in place when it happened (because Lively's team was not expecting it to be a nude scene so they didn't realize this was potentially why Wayfarer was trying to push them to sign the nudity rider with very little time to review and before an IC had reviewed and approved it).

But isn’t this how the courts want these claims to be handled? There were complaints made, she was given a platform to address her concerns, they heard her concerns, changes were made.

I guess I don’t understand why there would be retaliation if things didn’t escalate to the point of an investigation. She had issues, they were addressed. What is to retaliate against?

And if the scenes that were shot did not require an IC, why did she sort of turn it act like they didn’t have an IC on set? You just said that the scenes I mentioned that would require an IC, were shot after the complaints were made, and there was an IC in set. So she was sort of preemptively complaining that there wouldn’t be an IC onset? I don’t understand. The scene that she was complaining about weren’t standard for an IC.

Certainly when she pulled in Sony those emails seem to be very cordial to wayfarer, even sort of agreeing with them, gosh she is pretty demanding, but sigh, sure we can add another producer on set. Obviously, I’m paraphrasing, but the emails were certainly not wow we need to address safety issues. Or yikes there’s harassment going on in this set. They were like isn’t there a producer for this? Yes but she wants another? OK I guess we can do that. We will send Angie on set or whoever that woman was to make her more comfortable. Things like that. It just seemed very mundane and by the book and certainly there didn’t seem to be among executives any escalation of anything near harassment.

That’s why it just all seems to be coming out of left field. And then to say that others complained months after production and just seems very odd to me.

Nude scenes are always supposed to have an IC. Even if it's partial nudity. There was actually a profile of a birth scene in another movie (recent movie with Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh) in the NYT last fall that mentioned that they had an IC for the scene because Pugh was nude below the waist for the scene. So if they expected Lively to be nude in that birth scene, they should have let her know in advance and had an IC.

I think also that while the issues were handled during the hiatus and there are no reports of problems after they came back from hiatus, it's not clear that Wayfarer handled the issues prior to the hiatus well at all. If there were complaints from multiple actresses and some of these problems happened multiple times even after Lively or others had complained, that's a real sign of a problem on set. Lively is getting dragged for the "17 point list" and criticized for making demands at that Jan. 4 meeting, but it sounds like her actions actually solved the problem in a way that nothing Wayfarer had done did. It should not be on an actress to address it in that way -- Wayfarer should have taken a stronger stance and proactively made some of the adjustments Lively ultimately had to demand under threat of not returning. If only to protect their own interest in the film. So no, I don't think courts want it to be handled "this way." I think the expectation is that employers should proactively seek to address problems and that you shouldn't have to rely on an employee willing to stick their neck out the way Lively did -- she was only able to do that because she does have market power and as star of the movie had sway with the studio. If she'd been an actress with a smaller role or less sway, she probably wouldn't have felt she could stand up for herself in that way and it's possible the problems from the first few weeks of filming would have persisted. That's a problem.

And given that not every employee is going to be empowered the way Lively was, it's all the more reason for courts to protect employees from retaliation for coming forth with harassment allegations. Because if someone with Lively's fame and power can be effectively trashed in the media in retaliation for making valid complaints about SH on set, then what message does that send to other employees with far less power? It tells them they better shut up or they, too, can be "buried."

If her 17 point list solved the problem, why was he put in the basement? This is the question they’ll need to answer b/c the retaliation seems to be on Blake’s part. She made her demands then proceeded to completely railroad over him with the threat of making her concerns (which everyone agrees had been addressed) public.

It's a question I'd love to see answered, since I don't think it benefited her in any way to have him walk the red carpet separately (he did not view the film from the basement, but a separate theater).

I have many questions.

I just googled so I didn’t have to go back to the complaints, but there’s a great article that shows all the texts with dates. It seems like all through the first part of the shoot, preproduction, and all they shot in May and June 2023 before the strike, they were getting along famously. Like really sweet texts to each other, she invites him on a private plane with her and her children so that they can work and not lose time, she’s picking him up Matcha tea orders. Just like going out of their way to be kind and respectful to each other. Not only in a professional way, but in a true friendly way.

Then production obviously shut down that summer. Texts pick back up in August, he reaches out with a sweet birthday message and talks about editing. And then some of her requests for viewing the dailys start up. But like it really seems like the first part of the shoot they got along really well. I think, were they stunned to find that in November she starts talking about this list and putting together this list for this January 4 meeting? And Ryan berates him for fat shaming at the January 4, 2024 meeting, but that happened almost a year prior and preproduction when he was working with the trainer. Why the delay? Did he just find out about it during the shutdown? Did they go to the trainer and say hey did you experience anything weird with Justin when you were talking with him? And the trainer said well yeah he did ask me about Blake’s weight? I’m so confused why they were getting along for months and months, production shut down, she wanted to get more in the editing process and maybe wasn’t getting her way for a little while, and then things just really really took a turn. I’m not seeing any gradual drop off. I’m seeing really friendly, respectful texts, and then all of a sudden him being screamed at at a meeting with the 17 point list that he has to respond to.

It seems like tension started when she didn’t feel like she was getting her way with requests to see the dailies? Which is weird because eventually they did let her see all the dailies and she got everything that she wanted, including full editing power of the film. Or people’s theories that Ryan got a hold of the dailies and didn’t like what he was seeing with flirtatious behavior? I can’t figure it out, but it just seems really really weird that there was this turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is interesting to me having seen the movie is that there were two much more intimate scenes that Blake must’ve felt comfortable with because after all those months, I’ve not seen a word written or spoken about it.

There was one scene where Justin’s character basically almost attempts rape and she talks him down. It was probably a tough scene to film, and she didn’t seem to have a problem with that. I imagine because it was such a tough scene that protocol was followed to the letter and she couldn’t really say anything about it. I’m sure the intimacy coordinator was on set, even though they were clothed, as his character does overpower her, even though it doesn’t get very sexual and is stopped.

There is one other scene where he undresses her a little bit. She’s in high waisted fishnet stockings, and a bra, so not nude, and I think they kiss and he kind of tucked her in bed and leaves.

Those two seemed much more intimate, harder to film scenes, and she didn’t have a problem with that. Clearly, the IC must’ve been there and protocol followed.

But given all the rest that I’ve seen, it just seems like maybe she took advantage of the scenes where there wouldn’t be an IC and there would be more left to people to interpret. For example an IC has come out and said the dancing scene would not typically require an IC, because they were fully clothed, and there was no simulating sex. I mean, they were clearly in public in a bar. So it just seems like she took advantage of that to talk about how she didn’t feel comfortable in intimate scenes.

Same with the birthing scene. I’m not sure that there would’ve been a ic there because she wasn’t nude. I know there’s back-and-forth and whether they wanted her nude, but given the fact that there was no IC there it leads me to believe, well, she’s lying. She was covered and there was clearly no sex being simulated. I’ve watched the scene again and I just don’t get it. The guy playing the doctor was pretty far away from her. There were just lots of close-up shots of her face. And one of her legs.

I feel like she just took whatever scenes might be somewhat ambiguous and made them sound worse than they were.

All scripted sex scenes and nudity were filmed after the hiatus. The scenes you are referencing were filmed after they came back from hiatus and after Baldoni and Wayfarer had agreed to her demands. Her amended complaint even references how a major reason she felt she needed to voice her concerns and get an agreement regarding having an IC with her at all times was because she was dreading going back to set and having to film these scenes with him.

This is in Baldoni's complaint as well, btw. His timeline specifically talks about how all the scripted sex scenes were filmed post-hiatus. You can control+F it if you don't believe me.

So she was comfortable with those scenes because they were handled professionally thanks to her intervention to ensure that an IC would be present and they would be choreographed and that all elements of the scenes would have consent of all parties. And also that the *scripted* nudity in these scenes would be covered by a valid nudity rider. Whereas the nudity in the birth scene was unscripted and they didn't even have a nudity rider in place when it happened (because Lively's team was not expecting it to be a nude scene so they didn't realize this was potentially why Wayfarer was trying to push them to sign the nudity rider with very little time to review and before an IC had reviewed and approved it).

But isn’t this how the courts want these claims to be handled? There were complaints made, she was given a platform to address her concerns, they heard her concerns, changes were made.

I guess I don’t understand why there would be retaliation if things didn’t escalate to the point of an investigation. She had issues, they were addressed. What is to retaliate against?

And if the scenes that were shot did not require an IC, why did she sort of turn it act like they didn’t have an IC on set? You just said that the scenes I mentioned that would require an IC, were shot after the complaints were made, and there was an IC in set. So she was sort of preemptively complaining that there wouldn’t be an IC onset? I don’t understand. The scene that she was complaining about weren’t standard for an IC.

Certainly when she pulled in Sony those emails seem to be very cordial to wayfarer, even sort of agreeing with them, gosh she is pretty demanding, but sigh, sure we can add another producer on set. Obviously, I’m paraphrasing, but the emails were certainly not wow we need to address safety issues. Or yikes there’s harassment going on in this set. They were like isn’t there a producer for this? Yes but she wants another? OK I guess we can do that. We will send Angie on set or whoever that woman was to make her more comfortable. Things like that. It just seemed very mundane and by the book and certainly there didn’t seem to be among executives any escalation of anything near harassment.

That’s why it just all seems to be coming out of left field. And then to say that others complained months after production and just seems very odd to me.

Nude scenes are always supposed to have an IC. Even if it's partial nudity. There was actually a profile of a birth scene in another movie (recent movie with Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh) in the NYT last fall that mentioned that they had an IC for the scene because Pugh was nude below the waist for the scene. So if they expected Lively to be nude in that birth scene, they should have let her know in advance and had an IC.

I think also that while the issues were handled during the hiatus and there are no reports of problems after they came back from hiatus, it's not clear that Wayfarer handled the issues prior to the hiatus well at all. If there were complaints from multiple actresses and some of these problems happened multiple times even after Lively or others had complained, that's a real sign of a problem on set. Lively is getting dragged for the "17 point list" and criticized for making demands at that Jan. 4 meeting, but it sounds like her actions actually solved the problem in a way that nothing Wayfarer had done did. It should not be on an actress to address it in that way -- Wayfarer should have taken a stronger stance and proactively made some of the adjustments Lively ultimately had to demand under threat of not returning. If only to protect their own interest in the film. So no, I don't think courts want it to be handled "this way." I think the expectation is that employers should proactively seek to address problems and that you shouldn't have to rely on an employee willing to stick their neck out the way Lively did -- she was only able to do that because she does have market power and as star of the movie had sway with the studio. If she'd been an actress with a smaller role or less sway, she probably wouldn't have felt she could stand up for herself in that way and it's possible the problems from the first few weeks of filming would have persisted. That's a problem.

And given that not every employee is going to be empowered the way Lively was, it's all the more reason for courts to protect employees from retaliation for coming forth with harassment allegations. Because if someone with Lively's fame and power can be effectively trashed in the media in retaliation for making valid complaints about SH on set, then what message does that send to other employees with far less power? It tells them they better shut up or they, too, can be "buried."

If her 17 point list solved the problem, why was he put in the basement? This is the question they’ll need to answer b/c the retaliation seems to be on Blake’s part. She made her demands then proceeded to completely railroad over him with the threat of making her concerns (which everyone agrees had been addressed) public.

It's a question I'd love to see answered, since I don't think it benefited her in any way to have him walk the red carpet separately (he did not view the film from the basement, but a separate theater).

I have many questions.

I just googled so I didn’t have to go back to the complaints, but there’s a great article that shows all the texts with dates. It seems like all through the first part of the shoot, preproduction, and all they shot in May and June 2023 before the strike, they were getting along famously. Like really sweet texts to each other, she invites him on a private plane with her and her children so that they can work and not lose time, she’s picking him up Matcha tea orders. Just like going out of their way to be kind and respectful to each other. Not only in a professional way, but in a true friendly way.

Then production obviously shut down that summer. Texts pick back up in August, he reaches out with a sweet birthday message and talks about editing. And then some of her requests for viewing the dailys start up. But like it really seems like the first part of the shoot they got along really well. I think, were they stunned to find that in November she starts talking about this list and putting together this list for this January 4 meeting? And Ryan berates him for fat shaming at the January 4, 2024 meeting, but that happened almost a year prior and preproduction when he was working with the trainer. Why the delay? Did he just find out about it during the shutdown? Did they go to the trainer and say hey did you experience anything weird with Justin when you were talking with him? And the trainer said well yeah he did ask me about Blake’s weight? I’m so confused why they were getting along for months and months, production shut down, she wanted to get more in the editing process and maybe wasn’t getting her way for a little while, and then things just really really took a turn. I’m not seeing any gradual drop off. I’m seeing really friendly, respectful texts, and then all of a sudden him being screamed at at a meeting with the 17 point list that he has to respond to.

It seems like tension started when she didn’t feel like she was getting her way with requests to see the dailies? Which is weird because eventually they did let her see all the dailies and she got everything that she wanted, including full editing power of the film. Or people’s theories that Ryan got a hold of the dailies and didn’t like what he was seeing with flirtatious behavior? I can’t figure it out, but it just seems really really weird that there was this turn.

Google the Molly McPherson podcast. She lays out a very convincing timeline for all of this and notes the abrupt shift. That shift coincides with Ryan coming back from filming in Australia.