Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP again and I’m not responding to most of what Baldoni people write above but it’s bananas to say you can’t invite someone on your private jet if you’re worried about their behavior. Putting them on your own turf instead of theirs, where your own staff will be present, is a great way to keep their behavior in check if in fact you must work together (which they had to).

If you are implying Baldoni felt sexually harassed by Lively, this seems to be more distraction since he has not made any sort of claim for that in his bombastic $400M complaint against her though he has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

But why is it bananas? Serious question. She is trying to paint a picture that she felt like she was in a hostile work environment, being sexually harassed. She was not going to return the set because she felt uncomfortable and yet, in the mix of all this is happening, we have her inviting him to private spaces. Her trailer, her private jet with her CHILDREN, and her apartment with Taylor Swift, a victim of sexual harassment.

They call him a predator, yet he said there are multiple pictures of him, holding her children, which he didn’t include in his website out of respect for her privacy.

It just does not make sense and it’s not bananas to bring it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again and I’m not responding to most of what Baldoni people write above but it’s bananas to say you can’t invite someone on your private jet if you’re worried about their behavior. Putting them on your own turf instead of theirs, where your own staff will be present, is a great way to keep their behavior in check if in fact you must work together (which they had to).

If you are implying Baldoni felt sexually harassed by Lively, this seems to be more distraction since he has not made any sort of claim for that in his bombastic $400M complaint against her though he has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

But why is it bananas? Serious question. She is trying to paint a picture that she felt like she was in a hostile work environment, being sexually harassed. She was not going to return the set because she felt uncomfortable and yet, in the mix of all this is happening, we have her inviting him to private spaces. Her trailer, her private jet with her CHILDREN, and her apartment with Taylor Swift, a victim of sexual harassment.

They call him a predator, yet he said there are multiple pictures of him, holding her children, which he didn’t include in his website out of respect for her privacy.

It just does not make sense and it’s not bananas to bring it up.

Save your breath. Blake’s supporters believe in rules for thee not rules for me, just like BL and RR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are "àll" the sexual texts from Blake? I only remember the never with teeth one.

They’ve been rehashed multiple times on this thread or you can just go to Justin‘s timeline. Like Justin‘s actions there there is a lot of nuance. It’s not like she was sending him nudes.

she made a joke about her a hole and suppositories. Which again is not really a big deal, but so much of what he did didn’t seem like a big deal. It seems hypocritical to call him out for something subtle when she crossed boundaries herself.

She also had no problem talking about the sexiness of her characters wardrobe, but when Justin did, it was sexual harassment.

If there was a hostile work environment, she should not have invited Heath to her trailer while she was getting makeup off and breast feeding. He was trying to accommodate her because she wanted to go home and was going to miss the larger producers meeting happening later.

She also should not have invited Justin to private spaces like her private jet if she was uncomfortable with him, and since he clearly had sent that text to Ryan, he just seems like the guy that doesn’t like to be alone with women who are not his wife. When she invited him to run lines while she was pumping, he did not go. He actually said I’m eating right now, will come over later, which implies after she’s done pumping, and then even said I’ll find you on that side of the set. Clearly implying he wasn’t interested in going in her trailer.

I thought he did a good job of putting boundaries up she continually kept crossing them.

+1 and let’s just reverse the roles for a second with the Heath thing. Imagine you’re in a movie and the half naked A-list male lead invites you into his trailer b/c he’s multitasking. He tells you to look at the wall while speaking at him. You at some point inadvertently look him in the eye b/c that’s what people do when they’re speaking to others. Then he turns it around on YOU and accuses you of trying to cop a look (because of course he knows you want him). If Blake were a man, she’d clearly be the harasser in this scenario.

That's a pretty good point. I feel that way about several of the things Blake did and said, that you could easily turn them around to make her the harasser if you were so inclined. It does sound like Baldoni was a little smarter than Heath, when he didn't go to her dressing room when she was pumping, or in replying to one of her spiecier texts (I forgot which) he didn't respond for a long time and then mentioned he was offline because his kids were sick. It felt like something a woman would do to diffuse an uncomfortable situation, which was interesting.

I noticed that too. He frequently waited to respond to her. Likely because he was uncomfortable and trying to think of what to say. There are several exchanges where he’s like sorry I was doing this or that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again and I’m not responding to most of what Baldoni people write above but it’s bananas to say you can’t invite someone on your private jet if you’re worried about their behavior. Putting them on your own turf instead of theirs, where your own staff will be present, is a great way to keep their behavior in check if in fact you must work together (which they had to).

If you are implying Baldoni felt sexually harassed by Lively, this seems to be more distraction since he has not made any sort of claim for that in his bombastic $400M complaint against her though he has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

But why is it bananas? Serious question. She is trying to paint a picture that she felt like she was in a hostile work environment, being sexually harassed. She was not going to return the set because she felt uncomfortable and yet, in the mix of all this is happening, we have her inviting him to private spaces. Her trailer, her private jet with her CHILDREN, and her apartment with Taylor Swift, a victim of sexual harassment.

They call him a predator, yet he said there are multiple pictures of him, holding her children, which he didn’t include in his website out of respect for her privacy.

It just does not make sense and it’s not bananas to bring it up.

Save your breath. Blake’s supporters believe in rules for thee not rules for me, just like BL and RR.

I don’t believe there are any organic Blake and Ryan supporters. Just paid shills and bots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again and I’m not responding to most of what Baldoni people write above but it’s bananas to say you can’t invite someone on your private jet if you’re worried about their behavior. Putting them on your own turf instead of theirs, where your own staff will be present, is a great way to keep their behavior in check if in fact you must work together (which they had to).

If you are implying Baldoni felt sexually harassed by Lively, this seems to be more distraction since he has not made any sort of claim for that in his bombastic $400M complaint against her though he has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

But why is it bananas? Serious question. She is trying to paint a picture that she felt like she was in a hostile work environment, being sexually harassed. She was not going to return the set because she felt uncomfortable and yet, in the mix of all this is happening, we have her inviting him to private spaces. Her trailer, her private jet with her CHILDREN, and her apartment with Taylor Swift, a victim of sexual harassment.

They call him a predator, yet he said there are multiple pictures of him, holding her children, which he didn’t include in his website out of respect for her privacy.

It just does not make sense and it’s not bananas to bring it up.

1. I clearly explained how it’s bananas to say you can’t invite someone into YOUR private jet filled with your staff if you need to work with them but want to have your people surrounding you if you are concerned about his behavior. You can control it. It’s your 10 people vs just him. To me, that sounds like a great solution. Someone else explained very patiently about 10 pages ago how just because you invite someone to your trailer one time under certain circumstances doesn’t mean that you are inviting them to your trailer in perpetuity under different circumstances, or even the same circumstances! But if you need to get work done with someone who is making you uncomfortable, being on your own turf for that work makes sense to me. (You seem to be assuming she didn’t have her own staff in her trailer, which is not at all clear to me.)

2. Life is not a perfectly rational straight line, and also people eff up. Victims aren’t perfect and we shouldn’t require them to be. The people we work with may at times be challenging monsters, but we still have to work with them, or quit our jobs. There is a period before you come to grips with reality when you are realizing, oh, hey, maybe this guy is really off, and your outward actions don’t match up with your inward turmoil. Frankly, your outward actions may never totally match up. When the IT dude showed me porn in his office in the 1990s, in front of my boss, I continued to work with that IT guy for several years. I didn’t report him. I saw him and smiled at the summer picnic. I did not rock the boat because I had made a decision to just keep going. That doesn’t mean it was a-okay for him to whip out his porn. Lively did better than me and made her 17 point list setting out what behavior wasn’t acceptable for her and others — I applaud her for that honestly. And it worked and helped them finish the movie. A++.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I don't have any interest in defending RR for the Olivia Wilde thing (or the thing with his kid). He can figure that out for himself. Maybe someone should talk to Wilde about how she felt about it. Maybe CPS should look in on their kid.

But it's a distraction. We actually do not have to decide who's worse, RR or Baldoni. That's not even on the table. And even if RR is guilty of everything people are suggesting about him, even if it turns out BL is a jerk too and none of her former costars like her, it still doesn't mean it's okay if Baldoni did what he is alleged to have done.

Accountability for all. You cannot absolve Baldoni of accountability for his actions by arguing that RR might have done something as bad or worse. Baldoni has to stand on his own two feet here. He needs to be accountable for his own behavior. When you refuse to discuss what he is alleged to have done but insist on constantly changing the subject to BL being rude to an interviewer years ago, or something RR said about a sex scene with Olivia Wilde even longer ago, I can't take you seriously.

Try treating the allegations against Baldoni as seriously as you treat the allegations against RR and BL. Just try.

But, it’s not a distraction. People are simply pointing out the utter hypocrisy. Blake knew what she had signed up for. There was a nudity rider being prepared, she texted Justin that she wanted the body scenes to be delayed, knowing that there would be intimate scenes where she shows her body, and she was going to be self-conscious. She knew in pre production there was an intimacy coordinator he wanted her to meet, early on.

It seems like Hollywood has made great strides to make women more comfortable on sets, and the introduction of intimacy coordinators is a great thing. But there has to be some kind of balance. What people who are against Blake and don’t believe her clearly think is that she took several things out of context and made them into sexual harassment to serve her own purposes.

Pointing out that Ryan behaves terribly onset, makes jokes about awkward intimate scenes, clearly improvised grabbing a woman’s boobs to put back on pasties, which obviously must’ve taken her by surprise and she wasn’t expecting nor was it scripted, and that Blake herself can be quite bawdy and have sexual innuendos with Justin. And the latest rounds making the Internet is her grabbing Justin, and biting his lower lip during a kissing scene, which she had accused him of doing.

It makes it look like Ryan and Blake have two sets of rules, one for people they want to destroy and steal movies from, and then for everybody else.

The dancing scene was not scripted with kissing, that was added in the moment on set. She was not prepared for that on the day of shooting and tried to advocate for something else and was ignored.

The birth scene was not scripted as a nude scene and they didn't even mention they wanted it nude until the day it was filmed. Lively had to fight to have her breasts covered in the scene. She's also simulating lower body nudity in the scene, which was more than was scripted.

It would have been SO EASY for Wayfarer to tell Blake's team "we want to get the nudity rider in place by [date of birth scene] because Baldoni wants to film that with full or partial nudity," which would have given her warning they wanted nudity in that scene and resolved the issue with the nudity rider before any nudity was filmed. From Blake's perspective, there was no rush on the nudity rider because none of the *scripted* nude/intimate scenes were to be filmed imminently. Whey didn't Wayfarer do that? Why not tell your lead actress that you expect her to be nude in a scene? It's either incompetence or they were hoping to force her into it by pushing it last minute.

Blake did not decline to meet the IC. She says in her response to Justin that she wants to meet the IC on the set instead of at a meet and greet before filming. Her declining that one pre-production meeting has no meaning whatsoever. Justin has also given the impression that he was trying to arrange a meeting for Justin, Blake, and the IC to go through all the intimate scenes together and that's what Blake declined, but his own text messages disprove that. He tells her he just hired an intimacy coordinator and would like to set up a time for them to meet or FaceTime within the next week, and Lively says she will meet her on set. There is no proposal for Lively to review intimacy scenes with her and no indication that Lively is turning down the IC altogether (the opposite, she says she will see her onset) or that Lively is disinterested in having an IC. Baldoni and Freedman have twisted the facts on the IC to try and make it seem like Blake didn't want one, but that's not what happened even according to Baldoni's own timeline.

Regarding Ryan, he and Blake are two different people. If he is a harasser on set, that doesn't make her a hypocrite for alleging she was harassed. If anything, if it turns out Blake is married to a guy who is harassing and violates boundaries, it would make sense that she'd be sensitive to that kind of behavior. If Ryan is such a terrible guy, maybe he is terrible to Blake, in which case no wonder she felt unsafe when she was in a car with Baldoni and he started talking about having violated consent with women in the past.

The stuff about the onscreen intimacy in IEWU and whether they were doing things that were scripted or not and whether either of them crossed lines in scenes will need to be hashed out in litigation. It's impossible to know from a paparazzi clip if they were doing something explicitly scripted and choreographed, or if one of them was improvising. If it turns out that Lively improvised lip biting in scenes then yes, that would change my view on those allegations against Baldoni. But it hasn't been determined yet. And it also would not change my current view on stuff like the birth scene, the birth video, the conversations on set about sex and pornography, and others of her allegations.

Wow, you’re making up a lot of of information here. she never said I will meet her on set. He said, I hired an intimacy coordinator and I’m really excited, I would love for you to meet her. I’ll set something up. And she said no I’m good. She didn’t make any plans to meet with her later on set so you’re just pulling that out of thin air.

She heavily implied in her 17 point list there was no coordinator. New York Times did nothing to clarify, it was only 10 days later when Justin clarified how involved the intimacy coordinator actually was. She was hired in preproduction, and Blake couldn’t be bothered to meet with her, forcing Justin to share notes Which Blake later turned against him and accused him of sexual harassment.

Further, I love it when people act as if they wanted to lower body nude scene when Blake was not in fact, pregnant. Why would they want to show a clearly non-pregnant woman in this scene. Please explain to me how they were going to have lower body nudity? The scene that they ended up being used there’s a shot of her thighs. If that is what you were talking about, I don’t think that is what would necessitate an intimacy coordinator considering I’ve seen that same shot of Blake walking around New York in shorts and short skirts.

From Baldoni's timeline, which I am looking at right now (typing out the texts since I can't paste the picture of them here):

April 5, 2023: Baldoni hires an intimacy coordinator and texts Lively to coordinate a time for them to meet. Lively declines to meet with the intimacy coordinator ahead of filming.

Baldoni text to Blake on 4/5/23:
Just hired intimacy coordinator who I LOVE. Will set you up to meet/FT with her next week for intro.

Blake "likes" Baldoni message

Blake response to Baldoni 4/5/23:
I feel good. I can meet her when we start. Thanks though!

So yes, Blake said she'd meet the IC when they "start" meaning when they start filming. And Baldoni does not indicate he wants Blake to do anything more than say hello and put a name with a face -- no mention of reviewing scenes or doing choreography. She turned down a brief FaceTime introduction and clearly states she will meet the IC on set.

Blake did not "imply" in her 17-point l list that there was no coordinator. She was complaining that there had been unscripted intimacy and nudity and felt that an IC would prevent that from happening moving forward. So while there had not been an IC on set to that point, because they had not yet filmed their sex scenes, Lively asked to have an IC on set for all of her scenes/interactions with Baldoni moving forward, as a protection against him imposing unscripted kissing, intimacy, and nudity on her. Lively wanted an advocate on set who could ensure consent was followed. There is nothing wrong with this and it was actually a good, mutually-beneficial solution to the problem of Baldoni and Blake clearly not seeing eye-to-eye on consent and intimacy on set. She's not implying anything -- she's describing the set conditions to that point, describing a problem she has with them, and suggesting a solution for that problem. It's pragmatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again and I’m not responding to most of what Baldoni people write above but it’s bananas to say you can’t invite someone on your private jet if you’re worried about their behavior. Putting them on your own turf instead of theirs, where your own staff will be present, is a great way to keep their behavior in check if in fact you must work together (which they had to).

If you are implying Baldoni felt sexually harassed by Lively, this seems to be more distraction since he has not made any sort of claim for that in his bombastic $400M complaint against her though he has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

But why is it bananas? Serious question. She is trying to paint a picture that she felt like she was in a hostile work environment, being sexually harassed. She was not going to return the set because she felt uncomfortable and yet, in the mix of all this is happening, we have her inviting him to private spaces. Her trailer, her private jet with her CHILDREN, and her apartment with Taylor Swift, a victim of sexual harassment.

They call him a predator, yet he said there are multiple pictures of him, holding her children, which he didn’t include in his website out of respect for her privacy.

It just does not make sense and it’s not bananas to bring it up.

Save your breath. Blake’s supporters believe in rules for thee not rules for me, just like BL and RR.

I don’t believe there are any organic Blake and Ryan supporters. Just paid shills and bots.

I am having real trouble believing that 3 people on Team Baldoni made it through law school tbh. You are falling for all of Freedman’s lies and dodges, hook line and sinker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. I don't have any interest in defending RR for the Olivia Wilde thing (or the thing with his kid). He can figure that out for himself. Maybe someone should talk to Wilde about how she felt about it. Maybe CPS should look in on their kid.

But it's a distraction. We actually do not have to decide who's worse, RR or Baldoni. That's not even on the table. And even if RR is guilty of everything people are suggesting about him, even if it turns out BL is a jerk too and none of her former costars like her, it still doesn't mean it's okay if Baldoni did what he is alleged to have done.

Accountability for all. You cannot absolve Baldoni of accountability for his actions by arguing that RR might have done something as bad or worse. Baldoni has to stand on his own two feet here. He needs to be accountable for his own behavior. When you refuse to discuss what he is alleged to have done but insist on constantly changing the subject to BL being rude to an interviewer years ago, or something RR said about a sex scene with Olivia Wilde even longer ago, I can't take you seriously.

Try treating the allegations against Baldoni as seriously as you treat the allegations against RR and BL. Just try.

But, it’s not a distraction. People are simply pointing out the utter hypocrisy. Blake knew what she had signed up for. There was a nudity rider being prepared, she texted Justin that she wanted the body scenes to be delayed, knowing that there would be intimate scenes where she shows her body, and she was going to be self-conscious. She knew in pre production there was an intimacy coordinator he wanted her to meet, early on.

It seems like Hollywood has made great strides to make women more comfortable on sets, and the introduction of intimacy coordinators is a great thing. But there has to be some kind of balance. What people who are against Blake and don’t believe her clearly think is that she took several things out of context and made them into sexual harassment to serve her own purposes.

Pointing out that Ryan behaves terribly onset, makes jokes about awkward intimate scenes, clearly improvised grabbing a woman’s boobs to put back on pasties, which obviously must’ve taken her by surprise and she wasn’t expecting nor was it scripted, and that Blake herself can be quite bawdy and have sexual innuendos with Justin. And the latest rounds making the Internet is her grabbing Justin, and biting his lower lip during a kissing scene, which she had accused him of doing.

It makes it look like Ryan and Blake have two sets of rules, one for people they want to destroy and steal movies from, and then for everybody else.

The dancing scene was not scripted with kissing, that was added in the moment on set. She was not prepared for that on the day of shooting and tried to advocate for something else and was ignored.

The birth scene was not scripted as a nude scene and they didn't even mention they wanted it nude until the day it was filmed. Lively had to fight to have her breasts covered in the scene. She's also simulating lower body nudity in the scene, which was more than was scripted.

It would have been SO EASY for Wayfarer to tell Blake's team "we want to get the nudity rider in place by [date of birth scene] because Baldoni wants to film that with full or partial nudity," which would have given her warning they wanted nudity in that scene and resolved the issue with the nudity rider before any nudity was filmed. From Blake's perspective, there was no rush on the nudity rider because none of the *scripted* nude/intimate scenes were to be filmed imminently. Whey didn't Wayfarer do that? Why not tell your lead actress that you expect her to be nude in a scene? It's either incompetence or they were hoping to force her into it by pushing it last minute.

Blake did not decline to meet the IC. She says in her response to Justin that she wants to meet the IC on the set instead of at a meet and greet before filming. Her declining that one pre-production meeting has no meaning whatsoever. Justin has also given the impression that he was trying to arrange a meeting for Justin, Blake, and the IC to go through all the intimate scenes together and that's what Blake declined, but his own text messages disprove that. He tells her he just hired an intimacy coordinator and would like to set up a time for them to meet or FaceTime within the next week, and Lively says she will meet her on set. There is no proposal for Lively to review intimacy scenes with her and no indication that Lively is turning down the IC altogether (the opposite, she says she will see her onset) or that Lively is disinterested in having an IC. Baldoni and Freedman have twisted the facts on the IC to try and make it seem like Blake didn't want one, but that's not what happened even according to Baldoni's own timeline.

Regarding Ryan, he and Blake are two different people. If he is a harasser on set, that doesn't make her a hypocrite for alleging she was harassed. If anything, if it turns out Blake is married to a guy who is harassing and violates boundaries, it would make sense that she'd be sensitive to that kind of behavior. If Ryan is such a terrible guy, maybe he is terrible to Blake, in which case no wonder she felt unsafe when she was in a car with Baldoni and he started talking about having violated consent with women in the past.

The stuff about the onscreen intimacy in IEWU and whether they were doing things that were scripted or not and whether either of them crossed lines in scenes will need to be hashed out in litigation. It's impossible to know from a paparazzi clip if they were doing something explicitly scripted and choreographed, or if one of them was improvising. If it turns out that Lively improvised lip biting in scenes then yes, that would change my view on those allegations against Baldoni. But it hasn't been determined yet. And it also would not change my current view on stuff like the birth scene, the birth video, the conversations on set about sex and pornography, and others of her allegations.

Wow, you’re making up a lot of of information here. she never said I will meet her on set. He said, I hired an intimacy coordinator and I’m really excited, I would love for you to meet her. I’ll set something up. And she said no I’m good. She didn’t make any plans to meet with her later on set so you’re just pulling that out of thin air.

She heavily implied in her 17 point list there was no coordinator. New York Times did nothing to clarify, it was only 10 days later when Justin clarified how involved the intimacy coordinator actually was. She was hired in preproduction, and Blake couldn’t be bothered to meet with her, forcing Justin to share notes Which Blake later turned against him and accused him of sexual harassment.

Further, I love it when people act as if they wanted to lower body nude scene when Blake was not in fact, pregnant. Why would they want to show a clearly non-pregnant woman in this scene. Please explain to me how they were going to have lower body nudity? The scene that they ended up being used there’s a shot of her thighs. If that is what you were talking about, I don’t think that is what would necessitate an intimacy coordinator considering I’ve seen that same shot of Blake walking around New York in shorts and short skirts.

From Baldoni's timeline, which I am looking at right now (typing out the texts since I can't paste the picture of them here):

April 5, 2023: Baldoni hires an intimacy coordinator and texts Lively to coordinate a time for them to meet. Lively declines to meet with the intimacy coordinator ahead of filming.

Baldoni text to Blake on 4/5/23:
Just hired intimacy coordinator who I LOVE. Will set you up to meet/FT with her next week for intro.

Blake "likes" Baldoni message

Blake response to Baldoni 4/5/23:
I feel good. I can meet her when we start. Thanks though!

So yes, Blake said she'd meet the IC when they "start" meaning when they start filming. And Baldoni does not indicate he wants Blake to do anything more than say hello and put a name with a face -- no mention of reviewing scenes or doing choreography. She turned down a brief FaceTime introduction and clearly states she will meet the IC on set.

Blake did not "imply" in her 17-point l list that there was no coordinator. She was complaining that there had been unscripted intimacy and nudity and felt that an IC would prevent that from happening moving forward. So while there had not been an IC on set to that point, because they had not yet filmed their sex scenes, Lively asked to have an IC on set for all of her scenes/interactions with Baldoni moving forward, as a protection against him imposing unscripted kissing, intimacy, and nudity on her. Lively wanted an advocate on set who could ensure consent was followed. There is nothing wrong with this and it was actually a good, mutually-beneficial solution to the problem of Baldoni and Blake clearly not seeing eye-to-eye on consent and intimacy on set. She's not implying anything -- she's describing the set conditions to that point, describing a problem she has with them, and suggesting a solution for that problem. It's pragmatic.

I should also note that this was not Lively's first film with sex and nudity -- she's done both before, so it makes sense that she would not need a lot of handholding with the IC and would feel confident that these issues could be worked out on set.

Justin had never directed a film with nudity or sex scenes before. He seems clearly confused about how it works. After the above exchange with Lively, he screenshots and sends it to a producer and says:

Justin to Producer:
Just wanted to tell you about this - seems she doesn't want to meet intimacy coordinator until we start which may mess up workflow, but I can still meet with her of course.

Producer response to Justin:
That's fine if she doesn't want to meet her now. You'll just have to walk her through what you and [IC] are thinking.

So first -- Justin clearly understand Blake intends to meet and work with the IC on set. No confusion there. But he seems flummoxed by Blake not meeting with the IC beforehand even though all he suggested they do is an introduction. This is an example of Justin's absolutely pisspoor communication and management skills which are on display throughout his timeline and complaint. But also, notice how both Blake and the producer (likely both veterans of this kind of film) are both fine with this situation, and only Baldoni is flipping out. It's because he doesn't know how to do it. Which is why it's then unsurprising later that he will start doing stupid things like trying to suggest nudity at the last second with no advance warning and no IC, or push kissing on Blake in a scene where it's not scripted and she's clearly saying "I don't think our characters would be kissing here." These are obvious boundary violations that are inappropriate, where he used his position as director to push Blake to do things she was not comfortable with and stated clearly she wasn't comfortable with, but it's like he's unaware of the dynamic because he's overwhelmed and basically has no idea how to make a movie like this.

No wonder Blake then insisted on having an experienced producer from Sony on set for the second half of filming, just to have someone present who knew what they were doing.

[Anonymous]

No wonder Blake then insisted on having an experienced producer from Sony on set for the second half of filming, just to have someone present who knew what they were doing.


This is what irks me, right here. Again, she is not the Director of the film. She is just a paid actor. But she insists on taking control of what she asserts is a poorly managed movie. So what if it is? Then remove your ass from the movie and have Baldoni hire someone else for the role. That’s how it works everywhere else. But this is the point exactly.

She was not going to quit. She just wanted things to go her way. As I e shared before, she wanted to control the vision and execution of the film, as she said was her goal on most film sets.

You do not get to tell your management team “no, I don’t like it that way. I see another vision for the project. Yours sucks.”


She wanted control. She went in wanting it, forced Baldoni to cave to it, and got her Khalessis, etc to back her efforts to control this film. His name was on the line, not hers. Yet, she just couldn’t help herself, even though his vision won over audiences more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again and I’m not responding to most of what Baldoni people write above but it’s bananas to say you can’t invite someone on your private jet if you’re worried about their behavior. Putting them on your own turf instead of theirs, where your own staff will be present, is a great way to keep their behavior in check if in fact you must work together (which they had to).

If you are implying Baldoni felt sexually harassed by Lively, this seems to be more distraction since he has not made any sort of claim for that in his bombastic $400M complaint against her though he has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

But why is it bananas? Serious question. She is trying to paint a picture that she felt like she was in a hostile work environment, being sexually harassed. She was not going to return the set because she felt uncomfortable and yet, in the mix of all this is happening, we have her inviting him to private spaces. Her trailer, her private jet with her CHILDREN, and her apartment with Taylor Swift, a victim of sexual harassment.

They call him a predator, yet he said there are multiple pictures of him, holding her children, which he didn’t include in his website out of respect for her privacy.

It just does not make sense and it’s not bananas to bring it up.

1. I clearly explained how it’s bananas to say you can’t invite someone into YOUR private jet filled with your staff if you need to work with them but want to have your people surrounding you if you are concerned about his behavior. You can control it. It’s your 10 people vs just him. To me, that sounds like a great solution. Someone else explained very patiently about 10 pages ago how just because you invite someone to your trailer one time under certain circumstances doesn’t mean that you are inviting them to your trailer in perpetuity under different circumstances, or even the same circumstances! But if you need to get work done with someone who is making you uncomfortable, being on your own turf for that work makes sense to me. (You seem to be assuming she didn’t have her own staff in her trailer, which is not at all clear to me.)

2. Life is not a perfectly rational straight line, and also people eff up. Victims aren’t perfect and we shouldn’t require them to be. The people we work with may at times be challenging monsters, but we still have to work with them, or quit our jobs. There is a period before you come to grips with reality when you are realizing, oh, hey, maybe this guy is really off, and your outward actions don’t match up with your inward turmoil. Frankly, your outward actions may never totally match up. When the IT dude showed me porn in his office in the 1990s, in front of my boss, I continued to work with that IT guy for several years. I didn’t report him. I saw him and smiled at the summer picnic. I did not rock the boat because I had made a decision to just keep going. That doesn’t mean it was a-okay for him to whip out his porn. Lively did better than me and made her 17 point list setting out what behavior wasn’t acceptable for her and others — I applaud her for that honestly. And it worked and helped them finish the movie. A++.

I guess we will just agree to disagree. I still don’t see how inviting someone into private spaces with your children and best friend, who again has been a victim, when they make you feel uncomfortable makes sense, especially when you’re going to be breast-feeding and undressing. It just feels really strange to me. I understand the Blake is not a perfect victim, but some of her actions just run completely counter and makes it seem like she put this list together to serve other purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No wonder Blake then insisted on having an experienced producer from Sony on set for the second half of filming, just to have someone present who knew what they were doing.


This is what irks me, right here. Again, she is not the Director of the film. She is just a paid actor. But she insists on taking control of what she asserts is a poorly managed movie. So what if it is? Then remove your ass from the movie and have Baldoni hire someone else for the role. That’s how it works everywhere else. But this is the point exactly.

She was not going to quit. She just wanted things to go her way. As I e shared before, she wanted to control the vision and execution of the film, as she said was her goal on most film sets.

You do not get to tell your management team “no, I don’t like it that way. I see another vision for the project. Yours sucks.”


She wanted control. She went in wanting it, forced Baldoni to cave to it, and got her Khalessis, etc to back her efforts to control this film. His name was on the line, not hers. Yet, she just couldn’t help herself, even though his vision won over audiences more.

At the point she issued the 17 point list, no, she could not just quit and walk away. She'd already filmed a bunch of scenes, they'd cast the young version of her character based on looking like Blake and THAT actor had filmed scenes. Plus they were coming out of two major strikes that had put everyone involved in the movie out of work for months. Had she walked away at that point, very likely Wayfarer sues her for losses related to having to recast and shoot, plus it means firing Isabel Ferrer, plus would have only further delayed the film, maybe killed it, putting all those grips and assistants and craft services people who'd been out of work during the strike completely out of a job.

Also, she was not "just" an actor on the film. She is much more important to the movie than that. This has been discussed on the thread before but not for a while, so I'll repeat it: this movie likely doesn't get Sony signed on to distribute and market without a name as big as Blake's, and there's zero evidence that they had other actresses waiting in the wings to take the role. Blake's partnership with Ryan Reynolds is valuable to Sony, but it's also valuable to Wayfarer on this film. Lively's fashion and industry connections are valuable. Taylor is valuable. Ryan's marketing company is valuable. Her ability to get people like Hugh Jackman to pop up at their premiere is valuable. And this was true from the day they asked Lively to do the movie. She always had that leverage, which means she always had some measure of control over the movie, just as any actor with a big, recognizable name and lots of industry support, agreeing to take the lead role in a movie produced by a small studio, would have that leverage. This was not something she manufactured later to "take control." Lively always had this leverage. She just didn't use it early in the movie.

But when she saw what a bad job Baldoni was doing, when she became aware of his behavior on set and the problems it caused her and others, she decided to flex that muscle. And what is the first thing she does? She uses it to ask for a safer set. To request things like an experienced producer, and IC to make sure consent is followed, and commitments from Wayfarer about how they will portray Blake and Isabella's bodies and the sex scenes. Not a bigger trailer, a cut of the film proceeds, to replace Justin as director, etc. A safe set.

Sure, later she also uses that muscle to get a p.g.a. credit, editing control, put Taylor's song on the movie and replace the composer, etc. But she always had the power to do those things. They knew what they were doing when they hired Blake, they hired her specifically because of her name, face, and industry connections, and then they acted shocked and offended when she used those assets to get what she wanted.

They could have hired someone else. They didn't want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again and I’m not responding to most of what Baldoni people write above but it’s bananas to say you can’t invite someone on your private jet if you’re worried about their behavior. Putting them on your own turf instead of theirs, where your own staff will be present, is a great way to keep their behavior in check if in fact you must work together (which they had to).

If you are implying Baldoni felt sexually harassed by Lively, this seems to be more distraction since he has not made any sort of claim for that in his bombastic $400M complaint against her though he has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

But why is it bananas? Serious question. She is trying to paint a picture that she felt like she was in a hostile work environment, being sexually harassed. She was not going to return the set because she felt uncomfortable and yet, in the mix of all this is happening, we have her inviting him to private spaces. Her trailer, her private jet with her CHILDREN, and her apartment with Taylor Swift, a victim of sexual harassment.

They call him a predator, yet he said there are multiple pictures of him, holding her children, which he didn’t include in his website out of respect for her privacy.

It just does not make sense and it’s not bananas to bring it up.

Save your breath. Blake’s supporters believe in rules for thee not rules for me, just like BL and RR.

I don’t believe there are any organic Blake and Ryan supporters. Just paid shills and bots.

I am having real trouble believing that 3 people on Team Baldoni made it through law school tbh. You are falling for all of Freedman’s lies and dodges, hook line and sinker.

Well I’m one of them. I find it strange that you’re so focused on Freedman. He’s just the lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No wonder Blake then insisted on having an experienced producer from Sony on set for the second half of filming, just to have someone present who knew what they were doing.


This is what irks me, right here. Again, she is not the Director of the film. She is just a paid actor. But she insists on taking control of what she asserts is a poorly managed movie. So what if it is? Then remove your ass from the movie and have Baldoni hire someone else for the role. That’s how it works everywhere else. But this is the point exactly.

She was not going to quit. She just wanted things to go her way. As I e shared before, she wanted to control the vision and execution of the film, as she said was her goal on most film sets.

You do not get to tell your management team “no, I don’t like it that way. I see another vision for the project. Yours sucks.”


She wanted control. She went in wanting it, forced Baldoni to cave to it, and got her Khalessis, etc to back her efforts to control this film. His name was on the line, not hers. Yet, she just couldn’t help herself, even though his vision won over audiences more.

At the point she issued the 17 point list, no, she could not just quit and walk away. She'd already filmed a bunch of scenes, they'd cast the young version of her character based on looking like Blake and THAT actor had filmed scenes. Plus they were coming out of two major strikes that had put everyone involved in the movie out of work for months. Had she walked away at that point, very likely Wayfarer sues her for losses related to having to recast and shoot, plus it means firing Isabel Ferrer, plus would have only further delayed the film, maybe killed it, putting all those grips and assistants and craft services people who'd been out of work during the strike completely out of a job.

Also, she was not "just" an actor on the film. She is much more important to the movie than that. This has been discussed on the thread before but not for a while, so I'll repeat it: this movie likely doesn't get Sony signed on to distribute and market without a name as big as Blake's, and there's zero evidence that they had other actresses waiting in the wings to take the role. Blake's partnership with Ryan Reynolds is valuable to Sony, but it's also valuable to Wayfarer on this film. Lively's fashion and industry connections are valuable. Taylor is valuable. Ryan's marketing company is valuable. Her ability to get people like Hugh Jackman to pop up at their premiere is valuable. And this was true from the day they asked Lively to do the movie. She always had that leverage, which means she always had some measure of control over the movie, just as any actor with a big, recognizable name and lots of industry support, agreeing to take the lead role in a movie produced by a small studio, would have that leverage. This was not something she manufactured later to "take control." Lively always had this leverage. She just didn't use it early in the movie.

But when she saw what a bad job Baldoni was doing, when she became aware of his behavior on set and the problems it caused her and others, she decided to flex that muscle. And what is the first thing she does? She uses it to ask for a safer set. To request things like an experienced producer, and IC to make sure consent is followed, and commitments from Wayfarer about how they will portray Blake and Isabella's bodies and the sex scenes. Not a bigger trailer, a cut of the film proceeds, to replace Justin as director, etc. A safe set.

Sure, later she also uses that muscle to get a p.g.a. credit, editing control, put Taylor's song on the movie and replace the composer, etc. But she always had the power to do those things. They knew what they were doing when they hired Blake, they hired her specifically because of her name, face, and industry connections, and then they acted shocked and offended when she used those assets to get what she wanted.

They could have hired someone else. They didn't want to.

TLDR

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro Baldoni poster again.

You keep forgetting that Baldoni is the Director of the film. Like any job, you have a boss. They may be wonderful or incompetent or severely lacking in one area or another. But they are the boss and they hired you. Employment contracts work two ways. You can agree to perform the job with that boss in charge, or you can find a new job more to your liking. That applied to Blake and all others who were not satisfied with Baldoni.

I have zero support for Blake as an actor thinking that she alone could save this movie. It was not hers to rewrite scenes for, it was not hers to save. She executed prima donna moves and pushed her Khalessi backed authority to get what she wanted, which was more input, control and authority at every turn. In a normal business environment, her actions would have caused her to get fired or demoted or transferred out and definitely blacklisted.

I strongly disagree with the assertions that ‘she “had to step in and save the movie her way.’” Let the movie fail because then it would have reflected on Baldoni’s
/Director’s shortcomings, which is where it should fall. But sorry Lively supporters, Blake aimed to take over as much as she could, which she said she would. And even when she agreed to let audiences decided, she still wanted her edit to prevail, reneging on her promise. Disguising it as anything else is shameful.

Can we as employees go over the heads of our bosses whenever we feel like we have a better vision or strategy for a project or task? Or would we be shown the door by our bosses for trying to usurp the chain of command in management? Blake and Ryan had plenty of dollars and plenty of influence to direct their own film together and to see their own visions thru. It was just more enticing and easier to attach themselves to a feminist cause which they hoped would blow up the box office like Margot’s Barbie.

Blake wanted to be a hero here. I sincerely believe that this was always some part of the plan for her. Makes sense if they wanted the whole Barbie/Oppenheimer thing with Deadpool and IEWU. She really is that transparent, and has supported this view in countless interviews. She has said that this is who she is. Believe her.

It just angers me that she used an issue like sexual harassment and has made a mockery of it.

I want her to produce receipts to prove that she has concrete evidence of his harassment, and to prove all of us Baldoni supporters wrong. Gathering another co-worker to say “yep, I thought he/they were weird for paying my rent when I complained about it,” just doesn’t cut it.

TLDR

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would she make it public? Because of the smear. Once she believed there was a smear, after he said he wouldn’t retaliate, the reason to go public was to make the smear stop and show that smear campaigns happened in the business and had probably hurt other me too victims like Amber Heard (same PR firm), but were not known to the public. But okay I’m stepping off now.

I think when PP said make it public she was talking well before this lawsuit. They started the marketing of this movie icing Justin out. The maximum effort produced marketing was done weeks before the premiere. Before the premier Blake and Ryan made a conscious effort to fly Brandon and Isabella on their own dime to certain events and have time alone with them and do promos without Justin.

This is what started the whole thing. People were like why are they doing separate marketing events for this film and why is nobody being seen with Justin? So she didn’t make it public after the smear, she made it public and he hired the PR firm because she was smearing him.

I don’t know if he made the rest of the cast uncomfortable, sounds like he probably did some things that did that, but I don’t think they crossed the line of sexual harassment and I think the cast would’ve followed Blake’s lead and acted professionally for the good of the film if she had not smeared him. I also have some doubts given the supportive text Isabella sent, and the panel where she and Brandon spoke really highly about him before all this mess started.

That is one of the things I think we will find out in trial. If people are deposed, we will possibly hear about side conversations, or texts that Blake sent to try to turn the cast against him. Or conversely, we will hear them say that they felt really uncomfortable on that, in a way that would fit sexual harassment.

The thing is, she has fully admitted poisoning the gossip girl cast against Penn Badgley, and having to reverse that when she decided that she liked him. So she has a history of doing this. She strikes me as very manipulative.

Blake started this smear campaign against Justin and he retaliated. We will see if what he did was a true smear campaign or not. So far, Jed Wallace is making it look like he really didn’t do anything wrong besides hiring crisis communications which people do all the time.

What she didn’t account for was people getting really really annoyed. You can say oh well she made $350 million with her marketing, but she pissed a lot of people off including a lot of Colleen Hoover fans. Maybe some people hate watched the film, maybe some people watch the film in spite of Blake, maybe some watched because of Blake, but she did not serve herself well by playing Barbie. And that is why the most infamous smear video - that baby bump interview -gained so much traction, and The journalist who posted that with a very provocative headline has come out and said she was not part of any campaign, and she just did it to get clicks. The fact is stories about Blake being clueless get a lot of hits. Stories about her, not getting along with Anna Kendrick, stories about her, not getting along with the gossip girl cast, they all persisted well before this smear campaign, and they get clicks and hits. People like to read about it. So to say that just created, this universe is just wrong. There are all kinds of influencers capitalizing on Blake being super problematic and saying dumb things.

Blake was pissed that the criticism was taking away from her biggest box office hit ever, and she got with her team and went to the New York Times to share the list, which was according to Justin very different than the list he saw in January 2024. It is so clear to me that they were not prepared for this counter suit. They never wanted to drag Taylor into it, she never wanted those texts exposed. They wanted Justin to go away and disappear. They didn’t care about the consequences for him and they wanted rights to the sequel.

Well, good luck with all that now.

TLDR