Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Hoping that those MTD updates come soon!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni could have directing talent while still being a poor manager. Different skills.

Nope, not on a major movie. If you can't manage people and processes, you can't direct. You want to be an artist? Become a director of cinematography. You want to direct a major motion picture? Learn how to manage people.

Some directors do lean heavily on people around them to handle logistics, as it frees them to focus on the artistic aspect of their job. But that's called delegation, and choosing the right people and knowing how to collaborate with them is part of being a good manager. Baldoni didn't have that. He had enablers like Heath who let him get way underwater with this movie.

It's actually funny to me because one of the things Lively asked for in that "17 point list" was a Sony producer on set daily who could help keep things on track. That producer, Alex Saks, had been involved with the movie from the beginning and has really good experience on movies with similar budgets, star power, and audiences (Book Club, No Hard Feelings). This was actually a great suggestion and Saks would have been a terrific person to bring on earlier as an on-set producer and basically assign her to Lively -- Lively likes Saks, who has a strong Hollywood rep and would not have felt like a babysitter, and Saks has enough experience with stars at that level to function as a good liaison. This could have liberated Baldoni a lot and also made a lot of the awkward conversations smoother, including the conversations about wardrobe and rewrites. I bet if Baldoni had, for instance, talked to Saks about his concerns about the lift and wanting to find out Lively's weight without asking her directly by reaching out to Lively's trainer, Saks would have very quickly explained why that was an extremely bad idea and suggested a more prudent path.

So Lively (I think inadvertently) wound up suggesting a solution that probably helped Baldoni and Wayfarer a great deal in terms of finishing the movie -- an intermediary between Baldoni and Lively. But a better director probably could have come up with that on their own instead of letting things devolve as much as they did first. Baldoni was clueless and thought he could handle Blake himself when every piece of evidence we currently have indicates that he was doing a TERRIBLE job at it.

I post a lot in this thread defending Lively, but I basically agree with every thing this poster has been laying down over the last few pages. Baldoni was not a good director and didn’t have the skills or experience to wrangle a production of this size with its deeper well of experienced actors and keep it on track.

The point is this- who the heck is she, just an actor, to bring in her ideas on what should be done on the set? It’s not her film. You two tend to do this “I normally don’t agree with Lively, but here I would have to agree” thing that we are on to.

Imagine you’re a boss and you hire a worker to do a specific job. The worker believes you two don’t know what the hell you are talking about and goes up the ladder and requests new bosses on the job. That worker just went over your head and tried to demote you.

And don’t say “well if I wasn’t doing a great job I would understand and they would be correct.” BS—you would be pissed and would feel that this is your program and you are the boss and call the shots. That’s what your title infers, what your job description infers, that’s the hierarchy of responsibility. And I’m sure you’d both go to the higher ups and explain that this worker is out of line and perhaps needs to be transferred to another department where their “vision” is a better fit.

There is no way in heck that the both of you would take orders from the worker. So why do you expect Baldoni to take orders from Lively? Sony didn’t hire her to direct. They only hired her to act.

But it’s amazing how you continue to assert that Baldoni couldn’t handle this or that, so she was justified.

I want to see a new worker and underling come for your jobs and tell everyone that you are both incompetent and need to be fired!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni could have directing talent while still being a poor manager. Different skills.

Nope, not on a major movie. If you can't manage people and processes, you can't direct. You want to be an artist? Become a director of cinematography. You want to direct a major motion picture? Learn how to manage people.

Some directors do lean heavily on people around them to handle logistics, as it frees them to focus on the artistic aspect of their job. But that's called delegation, and choosing the right people and knowing how to collaborate with them is part of being a good manager. Baldoni didn't have that. He had enablers like Heath who let him get way underwater with this movie.

It's actually funny to me because one of the things Lively asked for in that "17 point list" was a Sony producer on set daily who could help keep things on track. That producer, Alex Saks, had been involved with the movie from the beginning and has really good experience on movies with similar budgets, star power, and audiences (Book Club, No Hard Feelings). This was actually a great suggestion and Saks would have been a terrific person to bring on earlier as an on-set producer and basically assign her to Lively -- Lively likes Saks, who has a strong Hollywood rep and would not have felt like a babysitter, and Saks has enough experience with stars at that level to function as a good liaison. This could have liberated Baldoni a lot and also made a lot of the awkward conversations smoother, including the conversations about wardrobe and rewrites. I bet if Baldoni had, for instance, talked to Saks about his concerns about the lift and wanting to find out Lively's weight without asking her directly by reaching out to Lively's trainer, Saks would have very quickly explained why that was an extremely bad idea and suggested a more prudent path.

So Lively (I think inadvertently) wound up suggesting a solution that probably helped Baldoni and Wayfarer a great deal in terms of finishing the movie -- an intermediary between Baldoni and Lively. But a better director probably could have come up with that on their own instead of letting things devolve as much as they did first. Baldoni was clueless and thought he could handle Blake himself when every piece of evidence we currently have indicates that he was doing a TERRIBLE job at it.

I post a lot in this thread defending Lively, but I basically agree with every thing this poster has been laying down over the last few pages. Baldoni was not a good director and didn’t have the skills or experience to wrangle a production of this size with its deeper well of experienced actors and keep it on track.

The point is this- who the heck is she, just an actor, to bring in her ideas on what should be done on the set? It’s not her film. You two tend to do this “I normally don’t agree with Lively, but here I would have to agree” thing that we are on to.

Imagine you’re a boss and you hire a worker to do a specific job. The worker believes you two don’t know what the hell you are talking about and goes up the ladder and requests new bosses on the job. That worker just went over your head and tried to demote you.

And don’t say “well if I wasn’t doing a great job I would understand and they would be correct.” BS—you would be pissed and would feel that this is your program and you are the boss and call the shots. That’s what your title infers, what your job description infers, that’s the hierarchy of responsibility. And I’m sure you’d both go to the higher ups and explain that this worker is out of line and perhaps needs to be transferred to another department where their “vision” is a better fit.

There is no way in heck that the both of you would take orders from the worker. So why do you expect Baldoni to take orders from Lively? Sony didn’t hire her to direct. They only hired her to act.

But it’s amazing how you continue to assert that Baldoni couldn’t handle this or that, so she was justified.

I want to see a new worker and underling come for your jobs and tell everyone that you are both incompetent and need to be fired![/quote


Blah blah blah blah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni could have directing talent while still being a poor manager. Different skills.

Nope, not on a major movie. If you can't manage people and processes, you can't direct. You want to be an artist? Become a director of cinematography. You want to direct a major motion picture? Learn how to manage people.

Some directors do lean heavily on people around them to handle logistics, as it frees them to focus on the artistic aspect of their job. But that's called delegation, and choosing the right people and knowing how to collaborate with them is part of being a good manager. Baldoni didn't have that. He had enablers like Heath who let him get way underwater with this movie.

It's actually funny to me because one of the things Lively asked for in that "17 point list" was a Sony producer on set daily who could help keep things on track. That producer, Alex Saks, had been involved with the movie from the beginning and has really good experience on movies with similar budgets, star power, and audiences (Book Club, No Hard Feelings). This was actually a great suggestion and Saks would have been a terrific person to bring on earlier as an on-set producer and basically assign her to Lively -- Lively likes Saks, who has a strong Hollywood rep and would not have felt like a babysitter, and Saks has enough experience with stars at that level to function as a good liaison. This could have liberated Baldoni a lot and also made a lot of the awkward conversations smoother, including the conversations about wardrobe and rewrites. I bet if Baldoni had, for instance, talked to Saks about his concerns about the lift and wanting to find out Lively's weight without asking her directly by reaching out to Lively's trainer, Saks would have very quickly explained why that was an extremely bad idea and suggested a more prudent path.

So Lively (I think inadvertently) wound up suggesting a solution that probably helped Baldoni and Wayfarer a great deal in terms of finishing the movie -- an intermediary between Baldoni and Lively. But a better director probably could have come up with that on their own instead of letting things devolve as much as they did first. Baldoni was clueless and thought he could handle Blake himself when every piece of evidence we currently have indicates that he was doing a TERRIBLE job at it.

I post a lot in this thread defending Lively, but I basically agree with every thing this poster has been laying down over the last few pages. Baldoni was not a good director and didn’t have the skills or experience to wrangle a production of this size with its deeper well of experienced actors and keep it on track.

The point is this- who the heck is she, just an actor, to bring in her ideas on what should be done on the set? It’s not her film. You two tend to do this “I normally don’t agree with Lively, but here I would have to agree” thing that we are on to.

Imagine you’re a boss and you hire a worker to do a specific job. The worker believes you two don’t know what the hell you are talking about and goes up the ladder and requests new bosses on the job. That worker just went over your head and tried to demote you.

And don’t say “well if I wasn’t doing a great job I would understand and they would be correct.” BS—you would be pissed and would feel that this is your program and you are the boss and call the shots. That’s what your title infers, what your job description infers, that’s the hierarchy of responsibility. And I’m sure you’d both go to the higher ups and explain that this worker is out of line and perhaps needs to be transferred to another department where their “vision” is a better fit.

There is no way in heck that the both of you would take orders from the worker. So why do you expect Baldoni to take orders from Lively? Sony didn’t hire her to direct. They only hired her to act.

But it’s amazing how you continue to assert that Baldoni couldn’t handle this or that, so she was justified.

I want to see a new worker and underling come for your jobs and tell everyone that you are both incompetent and need to be fired![/quote


Blah blah blah blah

Precisely why many of us continue to call you out. It’s okay for Lively to do, but how dare anyone do the same to you.

Oops, I guess we already are and you don’t like it too much.

[Anonymous]

Now Lively is saying that she will testify next year at the trial.

Sounds great!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni could have directing talent while still being a poor manager. Different skills.

Nope, not on a major movie. If you can't manage people and processes, you can't direct. You want to be an artist? Become a director of cinematography. You want to direct a major motion picture? Learn how to manage people.

Some directors do lean heavily on people around them to handle logistics, as it frees them to focus on the artistic aspect of their job. But that's called delegation, and choosing the right people and knowing how to collaborate with them is part of being a good manager. Baldoni didn't have that. He had enablers like Heath who let him get way underwater with this movie.

It's actually funny to me because one of the things Lively asked for in that "17 point list" was a Sony producer on set daily who could help keep things on track. That producer, Alex Saks, had been involved with the movie from the beginning and has really good experience on movies with similar budgets, star power, and audiences (Book Club, No Hard Feelings). This was actually a great suggestion and Saks would have been a terrific person to bring on earlier as an on-set producer and basically assign her to Lively -- Lively likes Saks, who has a strong Hollywood rep and would not have felt like a babysitter, and Saks has enough experience with stars at that level to function as a good liaison. This could have liberated Baldoni a lot and also made a lot of the awkward conversations smoother, including the conversations about wardrobe and rewrites. I bet if Baldoni had, for instance, talked to Saks about his concerns about the lift and wanting to find out Lively's weight without asking her directly by reaching out to Lively's trainer, Saks would have very quickly explained why that was an extremely bad idea and suggested a more prudent path.

So Lively (I think inadvertently) wound up suggesting a solution that probably helped Baldoni and Wayfarer a great deal in terms of finishing the movie -- an intermediary between Baldoni and Lively. But a better director probably could have come up with that on their own instead of letting things devolve as much as they did first. Baldoni was clueless and thought he could handle Blake himself when every piece of evidence we currently have indicates that he was doing a TERRIBLE job at it.

I post a lot in this thread defending Lively, but I basically agree with every thing this poster has been laying down over the last few pages. Baldoni was not a good director and didn’t have the skills or experience to wrangle a production of this size with its deeper well of experienced actors and keep it on track.

The point is this- who the heck is she, just an actor, to bring in her ideas on what should be done on the set? It’s not her film. You two tend to do this “I normally don’t agree with Lively, but here I would have to agree” thing that we are on to.

Imagine you’re a boss and you hire a worker to do a specific job. The worker believes you two don’t know what the hell you are talking about and goes up the ladder and requests new bosses on the job. That worker just went over your head and tried to demote you.

And don’t say “well if I wasn’t doing a great job I would understand and they would be correct.” BS—you would be pissed and would feel that this is your program and you are the boss and call the shots. That’s what your title infers, what your job description infers, that’s the hierarchy of responsibility. And I’m sure you’d both go to the higher ups and explain that this worker is out of line and perhaps needs to be transferred to another department where their “vision” is a better fit.

There is no way in heck that the both of you would take orders from the worker. So why do you expect Baldoni to take orders from Lively? Sony didn’t hire her to direct. They only hired her to act.

But it’s amazing how you continue to assert that Baldoni couldn’t handle this or that, so she was justified.

I want to see a new worker and underling come for your jobs and tell everyone that you are both incompetent and need to be fired!

+1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now Lively is saying that she will testify next year at the trial.

Sounds great!!

Well obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni could have directing talent while still being a poor manager. Different skills.

Nope, not on a major movie. If you can't manage people and processes, you can't direct. You want to be an artist? Become a director of cinematography. You want to direct a major motion picture? Learn how to manage people.

Some directors do lean heavily on people around them to handle logistics, as it frees them to focus on the artistic aspect of their job. But that's called delegation, and choosing the right people and knowing how to collaborate with them is part of being a good manager. Baldoni didn't have that. He had enablers like Heath who let him get way underwater with this movie.

It's actually funny to me because one of the things Lively asked for in that "17 point list" was a Sony producer on set daily who could help keep things on track. That producer, Alex Saks, had been involved with the movie from the beginning and has really good experience on movies with similar budgets, star power, and audiences (Book Club, No Hard Feelings). This was actually a great suggestion and Saks would have been a terrific person to bring on earlier as an on-set producer and basically assign her to Lively -- Lively likes Saks, who has a strong Hollywood rep and would not have felt like a babysitter, and Saks has enough experience with stars at that level to function as a good liaison. This could have liberated Baldoni a lot and also made a lot of the awkward conversations smoother, including the conversations about wardrobe and rewrites. I bet if Baldoni had, for instance, talked to Saks about his concerns about the lift and wanting to find out Lively's weight without asking her directly by reaching out to Lively's trainer, Saks would have very quickly explained why that was an extremely bad idea and suggested a more prudent path.

So Lively (I think inadvertently) wound up suggesting a solution that probably helped Baldoni and Wayfarer a great deal in terms of finishing the movie -- an intermediary between Baldoni and Lively. But a better director probably could have come up with that on their own instead of letting things devolve as much as they did first. Baldoni was clueless and thought he could handle Blake himself when every piece of evidence we currently have indicates that he was doing a TERRIBLE job at it.

I post a lot in this thread defending Lively, but I basically agree with every thing this poster has been laying down over the last few pages. Baldoni was not a good director and didn’t have the skills or experience to wrangle a production of this size with its deeper well of experienced actors and keep it on track.

You two tend to do this “I normally don’t agree with Lively, but here I would have to agree” thing that we are on to.

I'm very curious to hear what they normally don't agree with Lively on. I want a list, it must be long, since they say they are usually not on her side!

[Anonymous]

Catching up. Was Lively’s MTD ruled on? Is this why her lawyer is saying she’ll testify at the trial next year?

Also, Freedman suggests a public deposition in NYC—a pay per view event. Do you think she will go for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Catching up. Was Lively’s MTD ruled on? Is this why her lawyer is saying she’ll testify at the trial next year?

Also, Freedman suggests a public deposition in NYC—a pay per view event. Do you think she will go for this?

Freedman was just making a joke because her lawyer said she would testify “live”, but federal court doesn’t allow cameras. So from what I understand the joke was essentially what does she mean “live,” does she want to livestream it lol.

[Anonymous]

The MTDs haven't been ruled on. Remember, only the Lively parties filed MTDs, so even if all of Wayfarer's claims got dismissed (not suggesting this will happen), Lively's claims would continue to move forward for a possible trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how the "Baldoni sucks as a director" and the pro-Lively posters are supposedly different, yet they both have time to leave paragraphs and paragraphs of nonsense.

Yes, it’s like it’s their job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the "Baldoni sucks as a director" and the pro-Lively posters are supposedly different, yet they both have time to leave paragraphs and paragraphs of nonsense.

Yes, it’s like it’s their job.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s literally their job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the "Baldoni sucks as a director" and the pro-Lively posters are supposedly different, yet they both have time to leave paragraphs and paragraphs of nonsense.

Yes, it’s like it’s their job.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s literally their job

It is their job. It’s so obvious.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone else notice that Blake’s lawyer said the retaliation is the core of the case? I honestly read that as suggesting that even her lawyers know the actual SH claims are weak. Another telling statement in Gottlieb’s interview was that he said they “expect” and “hope” to focus on the smear campaign in discovery, which to me is an admission that they don’t actually have evidence of a smear campaign.