Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Agree with we poster who said the lively supporter was victim blaming Baldoni. Why should Baldoni have been put in the situation? It’s absolutely miserable what they did. Why should he be forced to go to their penthouse for meetings? It’s a power move.

That text about Taylor and Ryan being on her dragons was threatening - essentially you want them on your side and you definitely don’t want them not on your side. That’s what Taylor ended their friendship over according to the media - she felt used.

You are blaming Justin for “giving in” but i don’t see where he had a choice. I think connecting him with the trainer was another power move. Same with lying to him about Ryan’s company taking over the marketing for free and then charging them.

These are nasty, deceitful people. I don’t blame Justin. [/quote]

He was the director. If he could not stand up for what he thought was right for the movie, then he shouldn't be in that position.

I don't buy that he's a victim here. Victim implies that he truly had no choice in any of this. But he had choices all along, he just made bad ones. He didn't need to bring Sony in on this movie -- that was a decision Wayfarer made willingly because they knew that Sony's distribution could make them a lot more money off the movie (which, btw, it did -- they made a crap ton of money off this movie, I am certain exceeding anyone's wildest predictions). Going in with Sony meant giving up some control over the movie. I would not be surprised if Sony pressured them to cast Lively in the role. But that is precisely the kind of thing you know up front is going to be the cost of working with a big studio on a movie -- they are going to say "hey in order to market this movie, we need a big name, here are some we like" and there will be pressure to go with their choices. It's just the reality.

Now, once it became clear that Sony wanted to go with Lively, and early in the process when it became obvious that Baldoni just didn't have the management skills to helm a movie with her involved, Wayfarer could have said "you know what, this dynamic doesn't make sense, let's bring in another director." Baldoni had even previously said that he didn't plan to direct the movie, that he thought it needed a female director. So that's an easy out for bringing someone else in, just as Disney brought Ron Howard in to direct Solo. Baldoni could still star, and he'd still be a producer, so it's not like he's being kicked out, but it simplifies his role and would have been best for the movie.

But Wayfarer didn't do that, they barreled ahead with Baldoni in this three-part role, clearly just absolutely drowning in it, and lacking the experience or industry clout necessary to stand up to Blake (or go toe-to-toe with Sony on creative choices, I think).

And they still could have pulled out of the dive by recognizing what was happening and bringing people in to help support Baldoni properly, experienced people who had either worked with Blake before or worked with people like her and could help him navigate that. But there's no indication Wayfarer even considered that, and all the reports from the early weeks of filming before hiatus revolve around Baldoni and Heath, neither of whom seemed to have a good handle on the cast or the production (to me it is a major red flag that there appears to have been issues between Heath and Jenny Slate as well as what was happening with Lively, it shows that Baldoni's right-hand man also may have had communications and talent issues and therefore probably wasn't helping to support Baldoni in areas that were also a weakness for him). What a mess.

Baldoni was not a "victim" here. It was his movie. He messed it up. It sounds like Blake also messed it up (hilariously, everyone made a ton of money, I cannot get over how commercially successful this bad movie with this screwed up production was, it makes me laugh so hard). But this narrative where Baldoni was somehow screwed over is so weird to me. He put himself in this position! He signed the deal with Sony, he hired Blake. He produced the movie, he directed the movie, he even says in texts with his editors that the Final Cut of the movie was like 99% the movie he wanted, so it doesn't even sound like he lost much creatively (actually a lot less than I would have thought given Sony's involvement, even on a movie where production went great).

I get he's upset about Blakes lawsuit and suing over defamation there -- I get that and I dont' really have a comment on how that's going to work out (defamation against a public person is a tough sell but who knows). But this idea he was a victim during the making of the movie is just so stupid, I cannot entertain it. He's a bad director. It's okay, so are most people. Very few people have the skills to do that job, it's really hard. I think Baldoni is a rich guy who failed up and then it caught up with him, oops. It happens. But not a victim of anything but his own hubris.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics