Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is just silly. Somehow pro-Baldoners are telling Lively that it’s part of her job as an actress to accept and not complain about unscripted kissing and nudity scenes that are outside the norm, but yet Baldoni as the actual director of the film didn’t really have any responsibility for the situations either that he created by springing on unannounced intimacy or nudity, or that he allowed by letting Lively have more power than he was actually comfortable with. To you he only gets credit, no blame.

This includes the situation where I believe he took underage actors like Ferrer, filmed an unscripted intimate scene, and then remarked “I know I’m not supposed to say this, but that was hot” or similar at the end of it. I believe that’s one of the scenes that Lively took out of the final cut of the film.

You just overlook this stuff from Baldoni and it’s actually problematic, but to you everything bad adheres to Lively not Baldoni. It’s weird.

Ferrer wasn't underage. She was 21 or 22 I think when she filmed. Also the scene where Baldoni allegedly said the comment about practicing the scene was scripted to be a sex scene. He wasn't adding in intimacy that wasn't scripted. The allegation is that he added a shot where Ferrer's character (who is the younger version of Lively's character) is supposed to climax on screen during the scene, something that was not apparently in the original script and that Ferrer *allegedly* felt uncomfortable with (we haven't heard from her, this is based on Lively's complaint, I am not saying this is what happened), and also that he made these comments afterward that Lively alleges crossed a line of professionalism.

No comment on whether any of this happened or whether that could be part of a sexual harassment claim (I truly just don't know, I wasn't there, I don't practice that kind of law) but just wanted to correct the facts here.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is just silly. Somehow pro-Baldoners are telling Lively that it’s part of her job as an actress to accept and not complain about unscripted kissing and nudity scenes that are outside the norm, but yet Baldoni as the actual director of the film didn’t really have any responsibility for the situations either that he created by springing on unannounced intimacy or nudity, or that he allowed by letting Lively have more power than he was actually comfortable with. To you he only gets credit, no blame.

This includes the situation where I believe he took underage actors like Ferrer, filmed an unscripted intimate scene, and then remarked “I know I’m not supposed to say this, but that was hot” or similar at the end of it. I believe that’s one of the scenes that Lively took out of the final cut of the film.

You just overlook this stuff from Baldoni and it’s actually problematic, but to you everything bad adheres to Lively not Baldoni. It’s weird.

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's okay for Justin to be railroaded for being a collaborative director who gives leeway to his actors and it means he should leave the profession altogether, but Blake is allowed to be oversensitive about every single thing, even a minor question about weight. Okay, got it.

He is not "collaborative." He is spineless.

I am not endorsing Blake as an actor. I don't think she's particularly skilled and she sounds really hard to work with. I don't care about Blake.

But you can dislike Blake and still read all the info available about the filming of IEWU and see that it's fairly obvious Baldoni was bad at his job. He also should never have tried to direct/star/produce. I've read all his communications with Blake, his communications with producers and editors. I've also seen the communications between Heath and other producers dating all the way back to pre-production and concerns about Lively meddling too much. It is very, very obvious that Baldoni was simply incapable of saying no to her, to having that "iron fist" mentioned upthread and setting boundaries. I don't see a single text or email from him to Blake where he uses the word "no." It's his movie! That's not collaboration.

I guarantee that Blake showed up on Another Simple Favor with all her ideas and rewrites, too, and I also guarantee you that Paul Feig handled it a million times better, set boundaries, and knew when to throw her a bone too in order to keep her happy. Everything I see about that movie is that Lively had a lot of input into her character's clothes (which are ridiculous, of course, but also I guess it works for the sort of campy vibe they were going for) but that's mostly it. It looks to me like Feig knew how to play to Lively's interests and ego while also making the movie he wanted to make. That's what a leader does.

Baldoni sucks, sorry. I don't like Blake as an actor and won't see her movies and don't care if she wins or loses this case, whatever. But Baldoni is not a good director and if you are so obsessed with the he said/she said of this case that you can't see that, then I suggest you take a step back. This dude is not going to get other directing gigs with legit casts or studios and that's because it's abundantly clear he doesn't know how to do it. Maybe his studio will produce some stuff and they'll get young casts like with his first two movies, but he has no idea how to navigate a major production, with or without Blake Lively.

I think it's disturbing that you're victim blaming Justin, and it's cute that you think we can't see through you're "I actually don't like Blake, I'm neutral" schtick, even though it's obvious you're pro-Lively. Anyways, it'd be a waste of my time to dismantle your argument, but it's clear that you're being extremely overdramatic. Chaotic power plays happen on movie sets all the time involving inexperienced directors, but if they get another chance, they can learn from it. That Han Solo movie from a few years back was famously a disaster for the newbie directors who were attached to the point that Ron Howard stepped in, but most reasonable people don't think "these pathetic losers should never work again." They've probably learned that they shouldn't work with a conglomerate like Disney who will micromanage them every step of the way, and work on smaller-scale projects accordingly.

On the other hand, the "micro-managing" of Disney on that Solo movie may have saved Phil Lord and Christopher Miller from a total disaster of a production that they were in no way ready for, giving them space to develop as writers and directors before taking on a major studio project that they were woefully unprepared for.

Part of what happened on IEWU, imo, is that Wayfarer was cocky because they are a small studio and Baldoni founded it, and they had easily accessible funding via Sarowitz. But they really had extremely limited experience and their biggest commercial success was the Garfield movie which they were just the money for. Then they partnered with Sony on IEWU, with Sony taking on the marketing/distribution but Wayfarer owning production. The first time they'd worked with a major studio like that. I think they were arrogant and didn't realize how different this production would be, and didn't bring in experienced producers who could shepherd the project, and also didn't listen to people at Sony who were warning them of the problems starting from pre-production.

With Solo, Disney sussed out the problems early in the process and Ron Howard took over and it was 100% the right call because it was a big movie involving major established IP, with a huge and committed and highly critical existing fan base, PLUS some big stars attached (Han was played by an up and comer but Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Paul Bettany, and Thandie Newton also starred). Howard is a pro with an established reputation who could command respect on day one, and that's what that movie needed.

Lord and Miller focused on writing, directing TV, and continued to cut their chops on still highly commercial but smaller projects. They made 21 Jump Street and the sequel, and they also helmed the Lego Movie (totally different deal directing an animated movie). And now they have a movie coming out next year with Amazon Studios starring Ryan Gosling (also Sandra Hüller who I love, so I will definitely see) -- big budget, major star, major studio. Because now they are ready for it. They weren't ready for Solo.

Wayfarer should have made the same call with Baldoni but it sounds like a studio full of yes men with no one around with the gravitas and experience to say "Hey, actually, no -- you are not ready for this. We need to bring in a more established director." Baldoni still could have starred and produced -- it seems like people were happy with his performance in the role.

This all could have been avoided.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's okay for Justin to be railroaded for being a collaborative director who gives leeway to his actors and it means he should leave the profession altogether, but Blake is allowed to be oversensitive about every single thing, even a minor question about weight. Okay, got it.

He is not "collaborative." He is spineless.

I am not endorsing Blake as an actor. I don't think she's particularly skilled and she sounds really hard to work with. I don't care about Blake.

But you can dislike Blake and still read all the info available about the filming of IEWU and see that it's fairly obvious Baldoni was bad at his job. He also should never have tried to direct/star/produce. I've read all his communications with Blake, his communications with producers and editors. I've also seen the communications between Heath and other producers dating all the way back to pre-production and concerns about Lively meddling too much. It is very, very obvious that Baldoni was simply incapable of saying no to her, to having that "iron fist" mentioned upthread and setting boundaries. I don't see a single text or email from him to Blake where he uses the word "no." It's his movie! That's not collaboration.

I guarantee that Blake showed up on Another Simple Favor with all her ideas and rewrites, too, and I also guarantee you that Paul Feig handled it a million times better, set boundaries, and knew when to throw her a bone too in order to keep her happy. Everything I see about that movie is that Lively had a lot of input into her character's clothes (which are ridiculous, of course, but also I guess it works for the sort of campy vibe they were going for) but that's mostly it. It looks to me like Feig knew how to play to Lively's interests and ego while also making the movie he wanted to make. That's what a leader does.

Baldoni sucks, sorry. I don't like Blake as an actor and won't see her movies and don't care if she wins or loses this case, whatever. But Baldoni is not a good director and if you are so obsessed with the he said/she said of this case that you can't see that, then I suggest you take a step back. This dude is not going to get other directing gigs with legit casts or studios and that's because it's abundantly clear he doesn't know how to do it. Maybe his studio will produce some stuff and they'll get young casts like with his first two movies, but he has no idea how to navigate a major production, with or without Blake Lively.

I think it's disturbing that you're victim blaming Justin, and it's cute that you think we can't see through you're "I actually don't like Blake, I'm neutral" schtick, even though it's obvious you're pro-Lively. Anyways, it'd be a waste of my time to dismantle your argument, but it's clear that you're being extremely overdramatic. Chaotic power plays happen on movie sets all the time involving inexperienced directors, but if they get another chance, they can learn from it. That Han Solo movie from a few years back was famously a disaster for the newbie directors who were attached to the point that Ron Howard stepped in, but most reasonable people don't think "these pathetic losers should never work again." They've probably learned that they shouldn't work with a conglomerate like Disney who will micromanage them every step of the way, and work on smaller-scale projects accordingly.

Not PP but these pro-Baldoners who believe there are precisely two non-pro-Baldoners in this thread and that we spend our time posting under different personas are tiresome. I’m not sure who you think you’re helping by posting these paranoid conspiracy theories, but you sound crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s really rich that lively supporters, or maybe there’s just one, give Blake all the credit for this $400 million movie but say Justin can’t handle directing.

I don’t think people know how hard it is to get a movie like this made, and Blake had nothing to do with the first five years of buying the rights, hiring everyone, building the set, getting the script done, and all it takes to develop and build this production that she just flitted into and made some bad wardrobe decisions about.

He also did direct the movie despite Blake taking over some of it, she wasn’t even on set during all the scenes with young Lily which was like a third of the film.

And now you’re saying he will never direct again or he never should direct again or some other BS. Meanwhile, Blake has no other projects lined up and I am betting any project she’s going to get are going to be funded by Ryan.

Who is giving Lively "all the credit" for the movie?

I'm the PP who thinks Justin is a bad director who lost control of the set through his own incompetence. I don't think Lively should get all or most of the credit for the movie. But I also don't think Justin did a good job as director.

Also I think it's weird I'm being accused of being a Lively defender when I'm literally saying I don't like her, she seems like a total piece of work to work with, and I haven't seen this movie and don't like her as an actress. Where am I defending Lively?

I don't see how you can defend how Justin ran this movie. Like look at his actual interactions with Lively -- he gives her whatever she wants, and every time she gets mad, he falls all over himself apologizing. There are texts from other producers complaining about Justin's inability to rein in Lively -- do you think those people are "Lively defenders" too?

If you read the timeline and Baldoni's amended complaint, the picture that emerges is that Blake was trying to take over all aspects of the production from early on, Justin was letting her, Sony and other producers were freaking out about it, and Heath was agreeing with them while also trying to protect Justin (claiming it's being handled and it's getting better, though then you have texts from other producers flatly saying "no it's not").

If you can clearly see this established pattern, the jury will as well.

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s really rich that lively supporters, or maybe there’s just one, give Blake all the credit for this $400 million movie but say Justin can’t handle directing.

I don’t think people know how hard it is to get a movie like this made, and Blake had nothing to do with the first five years of buying the rights, hiring everyone, building the set, getting the script done, and all it takes to develop and build this production that she just flitted into and made some bad wardrobe decisions about.

He also did direct the movie despite Blake taking over some of it, she wasn’t even on set during all the scenes with young Lily which was like a third of the film.

And now you’re saying he will never direct again or he never should direct again or some other BS. Meanwhile, Blake has no other projects lined up and I am betting any project she’s going to get are going to be funded by Ryan.

Who is giving Lively "all the credit" for the movie?

I'm the PP who thinks Justin is a bad director who lost control of the set through his own incompetence. I don't think Lively should get all or most of the credit for the movie. But I also don't think Justin did a good job as director.

Also I think it's weird I'm being accused of being a Lively defender when I'm literally saying I don't like her, she seems like a total piece of work to work with, and I haven't seen this movie and don't like her as an actress. Where am I defending Lively?

I don't see how you can defend how Justin ran this movie. Like look at his actual interactions with Lively -- he gives her whatever she wants, and every time she gets mad, he falls all over himself apologizing. There are texts from other producers complaining about Justin's inability to rein in Lively -- do you think those people are "Lively defenders" too?

If you read the timeline and Baldoni's amended complaint, the picture that emerges is that Blake was trying to take over all aspects of the production from early on, Justin was letting her, Sony and other producers were freaking out about it, and Heath was agreeing with them while also trying to protect Justin (claiming it's being handled and it's getting better, though then you have texts from other producers flatly saying "no it's not").

I do not see how you can read all this and conclude Justin was doing a good job. He was quite obviously in WAY over his head. And bad luck for him that this happened on a movie with Lively who was happy to take advantage of that, but the truth is this would not happen with a better director. For people directing at this level, a huge part of your job is to be able to manage the massive egos of talent. He shows zero ability to do this -- he was obviously overwhelmed by her fame and intimidated by her connections, and he handled it by rolling over and giving her everything she wanted, even when everyone around him was screaming not to and it was actively hurting the production.

I think it’s really rich that lively supporters, or maybe there’s just one, give Blake all the credit for this $400 million movie but say Justin can’t handle directing.

I don’t think people know how hard it is to get a movie like this made, and Blake had nothing to do with the first five years of buying the rights, hiring everyone, building the set, getting the script done, and all it takes to develop and build this production that she just flitted into and made some bad wardrobe decisions about.

He also did direct the movie despite Blake taking over some of it, she wasn’t even on set during all the scenes with young Lily which was like a third of the film.

And now you’re saying he will never direct again or he never should direct again or some other BS. Meanwhile, Blake has no other projects lined up and I am betting any project she’s going to get are going to be funded by Ryan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's okay for Justin to be railroaded for being a collaborative director who gives leeway to his actors and it means he should leave the profession altogether, but Blake is allowed to be oversensitive about every single thing, even a minor question about weight. Okay, got it.

He is not "collaborative." He is spineless.

I am not endorsing Blake as an actor. I don't think she's particularly skilled and she sounds really hard to work with. I don't care about Blake.

But you can dislike Blake and still read all the info available about the filming of IEWU and see that it's fairly obvious Baldoni was bad at his job. He also should never have tried to direct/star/produce. I've read all his communications with Blake, his communications with producers and editors. I've also seen the communications between Heath and other producers dating all the way back to pre-production and concerns about Lively meddling too much. It is very, very obvious that Baldoni was simply incapable of saying no to her, to having that "iron fist" mentioned upthread and setting boundaries. I don't see a single text or email from him to Blake where he uses the word "no." It's his movie! That's not collaboration.

I guarantee that Blake showed up on Another Simple Favor with all her ideas and rewrites, too, and I also guarantee you that Paul Feig handled it a million times better, set boundaries, and knew when to throw her a bone too in order to keep her happy. Everything I see about that movie is that Lively had a lot of input into her character's clothes (which are ridiculous, of course, but also I guess it works for the sort of campy vibe they were going for) but that's mostly it. It looks to me like Feig knew how to play to Lively's interests and ego while also making the movie he wanted to make. That's what a leader does.

Baldoni sucks, sorry. I don't like Blake as an actor and won't see her movies and don't care if she wins or loses this case, whatever. But Baldoni is not a good director and if you are so obsessed with the he said/she said of this case that you can't see that, then I suggest you take a step back. This dude is not going to get other directing gigs with legit casts or studios and that's because it's abundantly clear he doesn't know how to do it. Maybe his studio will produce some stuff and they'll get young casts like with his first two movies, but he has no idea how to navigate a major production, with or without Blake Lively.

I think it's disturbing that you're victim blaming Justin, and it's cute that you think we can't see through you're "I actually don't like Blake, I'm neutral" schtick, even though it's obvious you're pro-Lively. Anyways, it'd be a waste of my time to dismantle your argument, but it's clear that you're being extremely overdramatic. Chaotic power plays happen on movie sets all the time involving inexperienced directors, but if they get another chance, they can learn from it. That Han Solo movie from a few years back was famously a disaster for the newbie directors who were attached to the point that Ron Howard stepped in, but most reasonable people don't think "these pathetic losers should never work again." They've probably learned that they shouldn't work with a conglomerate like Disney who will micromanage them every step of the way, and work on smaller-scale projects accordingly.

Exactly this. Paul Feig is in his 60s and has had his fair share of problems throughout his career, so it’s ridiculous to compare him to Justin and say Justin should just quit.

Here’s my prediction, Blake will work again but only in films where there are no A-list stars. She’ll never again work with an Affleck or Harrison Ford. A-list leading men won’t go near her after this. Only up and comers who are desperate for a break will be willing to put up with her as a co-star. There will be no Mr and Ms. Smith or Gone Girl roles in her future (not that she even has the acting chops to pull that off) b/c A-list male leads will use their influence and pass on lively.

I don't think women will want to go anywhere near her either. After all the crap they've put up with in Hollywood, who wants to be associated with the lady hellbent on breaking the Me Too movement? It's so insulting to real victims. I think she won't work unless it's something backed by Ryan or whoever they consider their closest allies, she's toxic to basically anyone else and has always been a lukewarm talent (at best) so it's not big loss.

I wonder if she and Ryan did their due diligence and consulted multiple lawyers to discuss the strength of her sexual harassment case before they hired them. I'm hoping she wasn't dumb enough to go to one powerful well known lawyer and believe everything told to her. People want to defend her in the name of women's rights, but her case isn't strong (from what is known so far) to meet the threshold of workplace sexual harassment. That is notoriously difficult to prove. The evidence presented by her team thus far to paint a hostile work environment has not been consistently and explicitly sexual in nature. And Baldoni has yet to be incriminated in any text messages, emails, or phone calls for sexual favors or threats. Unless more comes out in discovery that's damning, this is going to be a car crash.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's okay for Justin to be railroaded for being a collaborative director who gives leeway to his actors and it means he should leave the profession altogether, but Blake is allowed to be oversensitive about every single thing, even a minor question about weight. Okay, got it.

He is not "collaborative." He is spineless.

I am not endorsing Blake as an actor. I don't think she's particularly skilled and she sounds really hard to work with. I don't care about Blake.

But you can dislike Blake and still read all the info available about the filming of IEWU and see that it's fairly obvious Baldoni was bad at his job. He also should never have tried to direct/star/produce. I've read all his communications with Blake, his communications with producers and editors. I've also seen the communications between Heath and other producers dating all the way back to pre-production and concerns about Lively meddling too much. It is very, very obvious that Baldoni was simply incapable of saying no to her, to having that "iron fist" mentioned upthread and setting boundaries. I don't see a single text or email from him to Blake where he uses the word "no." It's his movie! That's not collaboration.

I guarantee that Blake showed up on Another Simple Favor with all her ideas and rewrites, too, and I also guarantee you that Paul Feig handled it a million times better, set boundaries, and knew when to throw her a bone too in order to keep her happy. Everything I see about that movie is that Lively had a lot of input into her character's clothes (which are ridiculous, of course, but also I guess it works for the sort of campy vibe they were going for) but that's mostly it. It looks to me like Feig knew how to play to Lively's interests and ego while also making the movie he wanted to make. That's what a leader does.

Baldoni sucks, sorry. I don't like Blake as an actor and won't see her movies and don't care if she wins or loses this case, whatever. But Baldoni is not a good director and if you are so obsessed with the he said/she said of this case that you can't see that, then I suggest you take a step back. This dude is not going to get other directing gigs with legit casts or studios and that's because it's abundantly clear he doesn't know how to do it. Maybe his studio will produce some stuff and they'll get young casts like with his first two movies, but he has no idea how to navigate a major production, with or without Blake Lively.

All this character assassination to ironically validate Justin's defense that he was a passive visionary who capitulated to Lively's whims and demands and got his own project hijacked and sent to the basement once released. Once this set of events gets presented to the jury, they will quickly put the pieces together about Lively's own vindictive nature and how her own hubris caused the subsequent marketing backlash and product bombs. This set of events and pattern recognition proves she was the dominate in the power dynamics all along and she was not intimidated or afraid to confront him or levy threats to him or Sony to get what she desired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's okay for Justin to be railroaded for being a collaborative director who gives leeway to his actors and it means he should leave the profession altogether, but Blake is allowed to be oversensitive about every single thing, even a minor question about weight. Okay, got it.

He is not "collaborative." He is spineless.

I am not endorsing Blake as an actor. I don't think she's particularly skilled and she sounds really hard to work with. I don't care about Blake.

But you can dislike Blake and still read all the info available about the filming of IEWU and see that it's fairly obvious Baldoni was bad at his job. He also should never have tried to direct/star/produce. I've read all his communications with Blake, his communications with producers and editors. I've also seen the communications between Heath and other producers dating all the way back to pre-production and concerns about Lively meddling too much. It is very, very obvious that Baldoni was simply incapable of saying no to her, to having that "iron fist" mentioned upthread and setting boundaries. I don't see a single text or email from him to Blake where he uses the word "no." It's his movie! That's not collaboration.

I guarantee that Blake showed up on Another Simple Favor with all her ideas and rewrites, too, and I also guarantee you that Paul Feig handled it a million times better, set boundaries, and knew when to throw her a bone too in order to keep her happy. Everything I see about that movie is that Lively had a lot of input into her character's clothes (which are ridiculous, of course, but also I guess it works for the sort of campy vibe they were going for) but that's mostly it. It looks to me like Feig knew how to play to Lively's interests and ego while also making the movie he wanted to make. That's what a leader does.

Baldoni sucks, sorry. I don't like Blake as an actor and won't see her movies and don't care if she wins or loses this case, whatever. But Baldoni is not a good director and if you are so obsessed with the he said/she said of this case that you can't see that, then I suggest you take a step back. This dude is not going to get other directing gigs with legit casts or studios and that's because it's abundantly clear he doesn't know how to do it. Maybe his studio will produce some stuff and they'll get young casts like with his first two movies, but he has no idea how to navigate a major production, with or without Blake Lively.

I think it's disturbing that you're victim blaming Justin, and it's cute that you think we can't see through you're "I actually don't like Blake, I'm neutral" schtick, even though it's obvious you're pro-Lively. Anyways, it'd be a waste of my time to dismantle your argument, but it's clear that you're being extremely overdramatic. Chaotic power plays happen on movie sets all the time involving inexperienced directors, but if they get another chance, they can learn from it. That Han Solo movie from a few years back was famously a disaster for the newbie directors who were attached to the point that Ron Howard stepped in, but most reasonable people don't think "these pathetic losers should never work again." They've probably learned that they shouldn't work with a conglomerate like Disney who will micromanage them every step of the way, and work on smaller-scale projects accordingly.

Right, it’s like the pro Lively shills on here know they can’t truly win an argument, so they’re moving to plan B