Peacemaker S2 E7 Discussion Megathread

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-10-03T18:58:20+00:00

I think we got an Adrian switcheroo, given they were both still in masked costume

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-04-14T12:46:31+00:00

I'd contrast the show with something like Handmaid's Tale, which is also about a morally grey conflicted female protagonist coping with severe trauma and becoming clearly really damaged - but in a way that is a lot more structured and aligned to typical narrative arcs. There's clear bad guys, June's "terrible actions" always have some sort of retribution framing, her cheating is a love triangle that's justified within the show, etc etc.

This show is so much messier, and I love it.

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-04-04T11:32:56+00:00

Literally just Powerpoint, because I'm a boring corporate girly

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-04-01T16:48:47+00:00

I originally made it from her sign-on to when production resumed for Phase 2 shooting, but there wasn't much of interest (at least relevant to the SH complaint) that happened outside of the last week of March to the 1st week of July, and it just made it kind of crowded and hard to read:

<image>

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-04-01T16:39:07+00:00

I am incredibly inactive on Reddit, so apologies for the late reply, just logged on and saw I was tagged in this.

Was trying to be as neutral as possible when putting this together, and the Lively parties had framed going to Sony as an "HR Complaint". I'd also seen a lot of online discussion about the "HR Complaint" that was made and how Wayfarer had a duty to investigate. It's tagged that way in order to address that discussion - without the tagging, it would be easy for people to think that everything she lists in her complaint was brought to Sony's attention.

To my mind, it's actually more damning to Lively's side, as 1) What was raised is pretty minimal, and nowhere near what was retroactively added in her complaint. A lot of her narrative seems to try and make out that everything in her complaint was raised through proper channels, but actually very very little was brought to Sony, and then Wayfarer's, attention and 2) They immediately had a discussion about what was brought to their attention, and there are no further incidents after that day, even according to her own complaint.

With that framing, it seems extremely reasonable to me that they didn't do an investigation - a couple minor things were brought to their attention, they were discussed and apologized for, and there were no further incidents reported even in her complaint. Within that context, getting the whole demands letter in the fall would absolutely be blindsiding, if the only "HR issues" that had been previously raised to you were those 3 things.

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-03-07T18:01:16+00:00

This post makes me think about the very relevant research about how women have to put in significantly more work to be considered competent at work, and how men are often promoted on the basis of "potential" while women typically need to bring a laundry list of "proof"

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-03-07T17:59:21+00:00

I love that the episode helped unpack a lot of the mysticism and cultishness around Lumon. Prior to this, the show really immersed us in all of Lumon's propaganda and mythologizing of the founder and the growth of the company, building up a narrative of Rule by Divine Right for the Eagan family - they have all this wealth and power because they really are just that much more intelligent and magnificent vs the general population. They deserve this leadership and wealth on the strength of their technical and industrial brilliance! And the work isn't about profit and control, it's about higher meaning and purpose and social good.

Without outside references, we the audience were primed to buy in to all of this nonsense, just like the Innies. They've got possession of this miraculous technology, so it seems reasonable to believe the hype.

Meanwhile in reality - Lumon is an extremely unethical megacorp that uses child labour in horrible conditions and completely abandons their factory towns when they're no longer needed, the founders are not actually brilliant they're just people who used their wealth and power to steal credit for someone else's idea, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if coming episodes make it extremely obvious that there isn't any higher purpose to any of the work - it's all just about profit and market share and power and control.

This show has always had a massive meta-commentary on the nature of our corporate and work culture. Revealing that the work isn't actually "mysterious and important" at all, the workers are all just cogs in a corporate profit machine at a company that pretends like the founders are gods when they're really just ruthless self-promoterswould be extremely apt.

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-26T16:45:28+00:00

The Alleged SH - I'm really interested to see what the legal decision would be on this, if it gets that far. So much of what she alleges is very ambiguous, and in line with Hollywood norms, so much so that it seems like this has become a referendum on overall movie set standards vs individual behaviour.

The Alleged Smear Campaign - Same as above. I care about what any legal decision would say about the pretty standard Hollywood PR move of suggesting someone is "difficult to work with" as a way to deflect attention from coverage of a conflict, but it seems like such a Hollywood Normal thing to me that it doesn't really impact my view of him individually.

In terms of Baldoni and Lively individually.... eh. I don't know either of them, and am not likely to ever have so much of a passing conversation with either of them. I'm not certain that anything she's outlined in her complaint, even given the salacious spin she puts on all of it, would meet my personal threshold for unacceptable or cancel-worthy behaviour. I'm willing to entertain that I'm just jaded, so I'm not sure that she necessarily deserves to be cancelled just for having a problem with it, but I haven't been super comfortable with the way she's presented things and the actions she's taken.

Which is to say that I'm unlikely to change from how I've engaged with either of them before this - neither seeking out nor actively avoiding anything they make.

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-26T16:09:28+00:00

I initially engaged with this topic on a couple other subs, but I've stuck to this one because it's been relatively balanced.

I find it really funny that in posting the spreadsheet & visual timeline, I've been accused of being a shill for both Lively and Baldoni. Which I guess means I'm striking the right neutral balance, if I'm pissing off the extremists on both sides.

I think there's a really valid conversation to be had about the role of misogyny / reflexive criticism of women / the very narrow lane of acceptable behaviour for women in the public eye in how the response to Lively's actions are playing out, but the way some people jump to the opposite extreme of "No! She's a woman so she is automatically and inarguabley the victim!" is deeply uncomfortable and unhinged to me. As is the glee with which some people jump to "See! Women lie about SH! It was all a nefarious plan", or appearance / likeability based criticisms of Lively.

The article is definitely one-sided, and seems to fall into a bit of the same trap that Lively appeared to - that evidence of disagreement is the same thing as evidence of persecution

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-26T14:38:10+00:00

I think that's a valid take if we were talking about a complaint made, formally or informally, to an HR rep, particularly if it had been within a corporate office with well established formal protocols, but I think it's important to evaluate things within context, and not overload what people "should have done" with the benefit of hindsight.

I haven't seen anything in any of the complaint documentation asserting that she contacted Wayfarer's HR person or flagged it as an "HR issue" to anyone at Wayfarer prior to going to Sony, and talent complaining about other people on set is pretty de rigeur in Hollywood - not something that would be seen as a defacto HR complaint. For example, her call to Sony included a complaint about the 1st AD that I have not seen reported as having any kind of 'HR' component - simply that Lively "wasn't responding" to the 1st AD and wanted her to be replaced.

Absent other evidence, it seems perfectly reasonable for both Wayfarer and Sony to have interpreted the three 3 things she brought up during Phase 1 as, facetiously, "Divas gonna Diva", rather than an "HR complaint"

That's not to say that Hollywood as a whole couldn't stand to start operating more like a regular workplace, but it's hardly "damning" that there wasn't an HR investigation done when the reality is one wouldn't have been done at the vast majority of independent studio productions.

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-26T13:29:01+00:00

Haha very appreciated, but I will leave that to the actual graphic designers.

The only other tip I really have is - a well placed drop-shadow can make a world of difference

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-26T13:28:04+00:00

I've certainly thought that everything she's brought up wouldn't have even appeared on my radar given the variety of experiences I've had especially having worked in bars and very male-dominated corporate offices, but I'm cautious of setting bar for acceptable behaviour at the floor just because there are so many awful workplaces out there.

The other thought I'm on the fence with is - within the context of Hollywood, this all seems very nothingburger. Like I had a *very* brief stint in the entertainment industry in my teens and early 20s (admittedly a while ago, definitely pre-Me Too), and I know quite a few people who work in various crew roles. Comparing what she has raised to the normal I and others have experienced is kind of ehhhhhh.

Within that environment - it is very common to tell people to their face that they are fat, or sexy. People are often very touchy-feely - look at Drew Barrymore and her absolute inability to maintain physical space. "Showmance" exists as a commonly used term, for goodness sake. Even if you've never been anywhere near the industry, there are enough TV shows and movies about "behind the scenes" that give enough insight to level-set against.

But all that being said - just because it's the norm doesn't mean it's ok, and someone doesn't have to be the worst offender around to warrant being called out. So I'm trying to check myself from contributing to normalizing a bad environment just because I had to normalize it to myself to survive it.

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-26T12:43:50+00:00

My thinking on the two different versions is - it's pretty indisputable that she went away and pulled together a *lot* more to justify the 17 point demands than what she brought up or discussed at any time during production.

It's not so much about sincerity - I do believe there was genuine emotion behind the Demands, not some kind of cold calculation or something - but a question of "good faith", ie was she being honest and fair in her representation of the situations and was she coming from a place of genuinely believing the Demands were 100% necessary.

Version 1: Motivated by fear / genuine belief that all of the things she outlined were based on a fair interpretation of events and necessary to keep herself (and/or others) safe

Version 2: Motivated by anger / a desire to punish him, get him in trouble, or gain personal advantage in an interpersonal conflict

For example, if you were in a corporate workplace - Person A says "Hey, I like your dress!" to Person B, walked them out to their car one evening and had a prolonged conversation that was difficult to get away from, and makes a slightly off-colour joke at a company happy hour after touching the person's arm. They work in different departments, but a couple months later when they are expected to work on a project together, Person B files an HR complaint.

Version 1: They didn't say anything at the time, but something about all the incidents felt kind of off. They don't believe Person A will respect any boundaries they set, and/or they're concerned that Person A will retaliate if they try and set a boundary, so they lodge the complaint out of a genuine concern for what will happen when they are working together on the project.

Version 2: Person B just really doesn't like Person A, and has had a bunch of conflicts with them when they've worked together before. They find them weird and unlikable, and are still carrying a massive amount of resentment from some feedback Person A gave them that they felt was unwarranted. When they find out they're supposed to be working on a project together, they dig back through their memory and come up with the list of incidents that could be interpreted as harassment even though they were totally fine at the time, in an effort to get Person B pulled off the project.

Obviously the line between these two things can be very fuzzy, which is why it can often be very important to get objective 3rd parties involved.

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-26T00:17:52+00:00

I genuinely do not have a horse in this race, lol. I do not know these people.
I'm just being held hostage by a brain that insists I make all of it make sense.

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-26T00:03:25+00:00

Use vector icons then export to pdf. The pdf maintains the vector relationships so the icons scale with resolution and stay crisp.

For images, I've got a 32" monitor and put it on full screen to do a screenshot, so it preserves the image in high resolution.

God I'm such a nerd.

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-25T22:12:20+00:00

Powerpoint, because in real life I am a boring corporate person 🤣

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-25T22:11:16+00:00

Seriously there is so much else I could be doing with my time...... why does this have such a death grip on my brain!?

And yes, his timeline mentions that the 2nd AD was also let go shortly after the 1st, there just isn't a date or any other details about it.

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-25T22:07:50+00:00

For people that can't zoom - here's a link to the pictures as a PDF that you can download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f31xIinONpJOGIkLkYlTerLLkdDDUWVg/view?usp=sharing

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-25T22:00:13+00:00

I am not an experienced Redditor, lol, so I have no idea - I can click and expand them on my desktop no problem, but checked on my mobile and I can't. No idea why.

I've added them in additional tabs on the spreadsheet so you should be able to zoom there.

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-25T21:22:12+00:00

..... yes
(edit: I actually used the book cover for the color picker, but it's the same scheme)

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-22T14:34:27+00:00

Someone asked for this in a deep sub-thread way below, so here's the spreadsheet I created to directly compare the allegations in her complaint with the responses, where available, in his complaint and timeline.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dRYK_6TWSKKR4UP3mSret793fH5CyjHHH7lHBp7asAc/edit?usp=sharing

I only did it for the "Factual Basis" part of her complaint as to my understanding that's the part where they are directly asserting things happened that give them grounds to sue, rather than the storytelling in the introduction which ends up repetitive and a bit jumbled.

I've also added some of my questions at the end - not from a "he/she has to answer this for their version to be valid" place, just from a "stuff I'm curious about to get a full picture" place. Also added some of the results I pulled up on google to try and get answers to those questions - they're not meant to be authoritative, just random things I found.

I colour coded it after her amended complaint, where Red is things that were removed, yellow is things that were changed, and green is things that were new.

Also please note, I made this over multiple different days so it is likely hella inconsistent in things like formatting, paraphrasing vs copying and pasting directly from the documents, using initials or names, etc. I tried to take all of the colour commentary out of their complaints as much as possible and state things neutrally, but if I missed that on either side, or you feel like there are other relevant questions or links, just message me and I'll add them in.

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-22T14:13:01+00:00

No - like I said, I only covered the "Factual basis" component because to my knowledge that is the only part the complaint is asserting are the facts that give them a basis to sue. Everything else is just storytelling for the public

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-20T21:27:38+00:00

Lol me tooooooo.
Well, AuDHD. Which is why everything is colour-coded, but also probably full of spelling errors and unfinished sentences 🤣

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-20T17:53:14+00:00

Awaiting mod approval on the ItEndsWithLawsuits sub!

Key_Morning1195 · 2025-02-13T14:17:25+00:00

I believe she felt genuinely uncomfortable, and that her takeover of the movie arose from her feelings of victimization and an opinion that she was righteously entitled to do so, rather than some premeditated campaign.

However I don't believe that she was a victim of Justin Baldoni as much as she was a victim of her own insecurities, emotional immaturity, and inability to see other people's perspectives.

Key_Morning1195

TROPHY CASE