Justin Baldoni Claims Blake Lively Stole His Film From Him: A Comprehensive Timeline

Public curiosity quickly spiraled into scrutiny that put the spotlight on both stars. Thirsting for answers in convoluted theories, Lively finally addressed the speculation in a legal complaint made public by The New York Times. This kicked off the start of a monumental PR and legal battle between the two Hollywood stars. Baldoni fired back with not one, but two lawsuits, and a vocal attorney making the rounds in the media—a stark contrast to Lively’s subdued approach. Her legal team clearly isn’t happy with Baldoni’s bold approach. Following recent leaks of video evidence to the media, her team has filed a gag order to avoid “improper conduct.”

For background, Lively has accused Baldoni of sexual harassment and retaliation in the form of a media smear campaign against her. For an unpacking of all the most contentious sexual harassment allegations, you can refer to Evie's own exhaustive reporting. Baldoni claims he never sexually harassed or retaliated against Lively. Instead, he claims these accusations are nothing more than an attempt to save face after her attempts to hijack his film through bullying and extortion and exclude him from all promotional materials backfired. Baldoni alleges a systematic takeover of production with the help of powerful allies in high places. When the public began to turn on Lively, she weaponized false allegations she had made throughout production as blackmail against Baldoni if he ever refused to cede power to her.

Baldoni Describes Timeline of Lively’s Shift From Friendly Collaborator to Uncompromising Diva

In both of Baldoni’s lawsuits—one filed against The New York Times and one filed against Lively—he describes a rapid expansion of her role in the film, which he had acquired the rights to make a whopping five years before Lively was ever attached. He describes an amicable, collaborative relationship with the book’s author, who admired his previous work and allegedly recognized the careful thought he had put into telling powerful stories. Hoover reportedly told Baldoni, “You are the right person to make this movie” after seeing his romantic drama Five Feet Apart—a true story about Claire Wineland, an inspiring young woman who documented her journey with Cystic Fibrosis, until she died in 2018.

Emails (provided in his second lawsuit filed against Lively) between the two show that it was Hoover’s intention that Baldoni not only adapt the book into a film, but that he play the lead, Ryle. The two linked up, confident in their shared creative vision—Hoover’s story perfectly aligned with Baldoni’s niche interest in telling meaningful stories that have the potential to make a positive impact on the world through his studio Wayfarer, which he co-founded in 2019. The studio’s mission has been to produce “world-class entertainment driven by a powerful vision for change.” Baldoni’s studio acquired the film rights to It Ends With Us in 2019, and they partnered with Sony to co-finance and distribute the film, with the condition that 1% of the proceeds be donated to survivors of domestic abuse.

When it came time to cast the lead actress to play Lily Bloom, Blake Lively, a well-known talent famous for hit TV shows like Gossip Girl and films like The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and The Town, was selected. Despite being significantly older than the character had been described in the novel, and her reputation purportedly being “difficult to work with” preceding her, Baldoni claims he thought she had sufficient talent and charisma to inhabit the character of Lily Bloom. Lively reportedly accepted the offer for the role around December 31, 2022, and as is typical of an actress of her standing, was offered an executive producer credit. 

While Lively ostensibly expressed her desire for a producer credit, both studios (Sony and Wayfarer) declined according to Baldoni, because the title would not accurately reflect the role she was asked to play in the production. Baldoni maintains that Wayfarer “did not request nor require that Lively contribute to the Film in any capacity beyond her roles as actor and executive producer.” He recalls getting on well with Lively in the beginning of the project through frequently shared texts, friendly banter, and bonding over personal matters. Texts provided by Baldoni show the two were truly excited to collaborate with each other on such an important project. 

However, Lively’s supposed refusal to read the story the film was based on and continual encroachment on departments and aspects of production outside of her contractual authority, began to spell problems almost immediately. Baldoni details in his lawsuit the alleged rapid expansion of Lively's role in the production process, which began with wardrobe, but soon expanded into rewrites of the script, directing, music, editing, and marketing strategy.

Baldoni Claims Lively Got Ahead of Herself After he Ceded Control of Wardrobe to Maintain Harmony

Almost immediately, Lively reportedly began exerting control over the production process in ways that exceeded her contractual entitlements, such as demanding full creative control over her character’s wardrobe. Ignoring not only the director’s vision for the character and discarding weeks of careful thought, planning, and selections intentionally made and purchased by the wardrobe team in favor of her own vision, Lively allegedly inundated the costume designer with hundreds of images reflecting her own vision for the character’s style, into the late hours of the night.

Baldoni clarified in his lawsuit that while lead actors are sometimes granted minimal approval over the general look of their character, it is generally unusual for them to receive full control over wardrobe decisions without oversight from the director or producers. But taking full control over the wardrobe is exactly what Lively did, Baldoni claims, forcing the costume designer to re-shop for Lively's clothing pieces. Per Baldoni’s lawsuit, she allegedly refused to attend wardrobe fittings at the production office, which was just 15 minutes away from her residence. Other allegations include insisting the wardrobe department load their entire department onto trucks, navigate through Manhattan congestion, and deliver them to her home for fittings. Baldoni lamented that these requests ballooned the wardrobe budget and wasted valuable time and resources. He emphasizes that Lively did not have the authority to make these demands, meant to be worked out during contract negotiations. As executive producer, she also had a greater responsibility to adhere to the film’s budget, but according to Baldoni, continually caused them to go over budget with frivolous wardrobe re-imaginings and in the process, threw months of strategic planning out the window. 

Additionally, Baldoni claims Lively’s wardrobe choices were fundamentally incoherent, as they were at odds with his pre-existing script that had been in the works for well over a year and approved by both studios. For example, Lively had ideas about her character that ran contradictory to her status and description in the script as a “fledgling small business owner.” Lively said she thought her character “had money” and could afford $5,000 shoes, causing him to rethink the entire script. Baldoni claims he regrettably ended up ceding full control of wardrobe to Lively in an attempt to foster good will at the start of their working relationship and avoid further delays, but that things escalated when her wardrobe choices sparked online backlash.

On the first day of principal photography, paparazzi photos were published of Lively wearing her self-selected wardrobe. Chatter that Lively did not meet audience expectations of what the character should look like caused concern for Sony, who criticized Baldoni and tasked him with confronting Lively. Baldoni claims he met with Lively in her trailer to discuss what necessary wardrobe adjustments needed to be made and to reassert his role as director. Baldoni characterizes the conversation as professional in nature.

Lively suggested to Baldoni that Sony and other producers were gaslighting him and that he should continue relinquishing control to her. This conversation, he claims, was later misrepresented in her legal complaint filed against Baldoni and was characterized as a lengthy outburst that caused considerable filming delays because Baldoni spent hours crying in Lively’s trailer over her appearance. Lively suggested that Baldoni’s concern primarily lay in her character not being perceived as attractive or sexy enough and made references to people calling her “old” and “unattractive” online. 

Baldoni says Lively grossly exaggerated the conversation, which took considerable time, but didn’t waste hours. While he admits to tearing up, he alleges it was in response to a perceived sincere compliment Lively made about Baldoni’s work—something he later recognized as a tactic to manipulate him into surrendering more authority. He maintains he was merely relaying the distributor of the film’s concerns, professionally. As for Lively’s insistence that he was preoccupied with Lively looking “old” or “unattractive,” Baldoni’s lawsuit against Lively suggests this was projection of Lively’s own insecurities about being over a decade older than the character in the novel. He claims Lively had requested Colleen Hoover make a public casting announcement explaining they had decided to “age up” the character, and was upset when Hoover failed to do so. 

Baldoni Claims Lively Used Mega Celebrity Friends to Pressure Baldoni Into Letting Her Rewrite the Script

During pre-production, Lively lamented that directors rarely ever allowed her to write scenes or credited her contributions, recalling times directors allegedly had her hand scribble her suggestions for lines so they couldn't be traced back to her, as well as contributions she made to her husband's films. She then asked Baldoni if she could "take a pass" at writing the rooftop scene in It Ends With Us. This scene, which shows the first time Ryle and Lily meet, is a critical scene of high significance, because it sets the tone for the rest of the film. It was also high stakes, because it’s a particularly beloved scene among fans of the book. Baldoni says he was reluctant to permit an actress rather than a union screenwriter to rewrite such a pivotal scene, but agreed to let her rewrite it and said he would look it over.

Source: (pg. 23)

When she showed him her draft, it reportedly deviated significantly from the original material. Hesitant about all the changes, Baldoni claims he politely complimented her for her passion and tactfully informed her the scene would amount to a middle ground between their two versions. Baldoni also met Lively at her penthouse for a meeting alongside Ryan Reynolds and a megacelebrity friend of theirs (who in one text is referred to as Taylor, suggesting it refers to their close friend Taylor Swift). During this meeting, Reynolds and Swift reportedly praised Lively's writing for the rooftop scene, not so subtly pressuring Baldoni to incorporate it into the film. Baldoni says that Lively responded to the mildest of resistance with radio silence for multiple days before sending a text that it "of course, didn't feel great for me. Or them. To have my passion be praised instead of any specific contribution. Or even that you just didn't like the pages. Which was fine also."

Source: (pg. 24)

Another text read, "They also know I'm not always good at making sure I’m seen and utilized for fear of threatening egos, or fear of affecting the ease of the process. They don’t give a shit about that. And because of that, everyone listens to them with immense respect and enthusiasm. So I guess I have to stop worrying about people liking me (shrugging emoji)." In another text, she bizarrely compares herself to Khaleesi from Game of Thrones and warns Baldoni that “like her, I happen to have a few dragons. For better or worse.” She added that her dragons “protect those I fight for. So really we all benefit from those beautiful monsters of mine (emoji). You will too, I promise.” Baldoni interpreted this as a threat that he had to give Lively what she wanted, like approving her changes to the rooftop scene, or her mega wealthy and influential friends, namely Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift, would make things difficult for him.

Source: (pg. 25)

Though Baldoni says he initially invited Lively to make some changes to the script, she reportedly began making sweeping and swift changes on a daily basis, which allegedly caused alarm for the film's director, producers, and the studio, who had already intricately planned how the film would be executed. Her constant changes, Baldoni says, caused significant stress on the production crew as well as financial strain. Over a year later, he says he was blindsided by a red carpet interview the actress made in which she admitted that Ryan Reynolds was responsible for writing an iconic rooftop scene in the film, saying "nobody knows that but you now," to the interviewer. 

This was news not only to the world, but to the film's credited screenwriter, who knew nothing of supposed unauthorized changes being made to the script by Reynolds, who had no credit or authority over the film. Even more concerning, Lively gave Baldoni the impression that she was the one who had written the scene, which Reynolds had given high praise. Baldoni provides emails from Sony’s legal team which appear to show them asking for clarification on Lively’s admission that Reynolds contributed to the film without any contracts for his services, to which Wayfarer responded they were not aware of any contributions until they were said publicly on the red carpet. Baldoni claims he had to think on his feet when asked what he thought of Reynolds writing the scene, insisting he decided to praise Reynolds because of the optics.

Source: (pg. 25)

Lively allegedly reworked her own dialogue and made unilateral changes to other characters' lines, according to Baldoni's claims, and continued to extend her influence to other areas of the film. In the months leading up to the film's release, Baldoni claims Lively and her team consistently scrutinized interactions with him using tactics he would describe as gaslighting. He claims she used this strategic behavior to pressure Sony, Baldoni, and Wayfarer into ceding more creative authority until she was given near-total control over production.

Tensions between Baldoni and the power couple escalated during the pre-production phase, when Reynolds reportedly accused Baldoni of "fat shaming" his wife. Baldoni’s account goes like this: he had privately messaged the trainer both Lively and Baldoni were using to ask how much she weighed to avoid injuring his back during a lift scene that would involve Baldoni (who has suffered with multiple slipped discs and chronic back pain) to lift Lively up in the air. He swears the question was made in good faith to ensure both Lively and Baldoni's safety.

When this information got back to Lively, who had recently given birth to her fourth child and communicated with Baldoni about being concerned about being in shape for the role, she informed her husband, who allegedly launched into an aggressive tirade, shouting at Baldoni, “How dare you fucking ask about my wife’s weight? What’s wrong with you?” in front of their celebrity friends. Baldoni says he was humiliated and left so shaken from the hostile interaction that he felt no choice but to repeatedly apologize and comply with their demands to remove the scene. 

Baldoni claims Lively later lied in her CRD complaint about this scene not existing in the film, claiming the only reason it wasn’t in the film is because they forced him to remove it, even though it had already been rehearsed with a stunt double. Texts between Baldoni and Lively show Baldoni had reassured her, at least on this occasion, that she looks amazing and that he would work with her over any insecurities she has to ensure she feels comfortable. Lively says that she understands she has a job to perform and that expectations for her to adhere to a certain aesthetic for the job isn’t problematic. Baldoni’s attempt to assuage her feelings of insecurity, he claims, were misrepresented as sexual harassment.

Source: (pg. 30) Source: (pg. 31)

Lively Threatens to Quit Production; Gives Baldoni an Ultimatum

After accusing Baldoni of fat shaming her, Lively reportedly threatened to quit the production of the movie entirely. Baldoni says she offered him an ultimatum: do things my way, or you have two weeks to recast the part. Per Baldoni’s first lawsuit, “recasting would be detrimental to production, sever Wayfarer's relationship with Sony, and cost millions.” He also worried that if they went the recasting route, Lively could use the allegation that he "fat shamed" her as ammunition to try and tarnish his reputation and destroy his career. Feeling boxed in, he contends he was left with no choice but to heed their demands. "Concerns about Lively's undue influence over the film began to grow even before filming started,” according to Baldoni’s lawsuit, and allegedly foreshadowed what was to come. Texts between Wayfarer's CEO Jamey Heath and another producer reflect this sentiment, warning "he cannot let her have opinions on everything" "or shes going to be codirecting this film." Baldoni claims it is "well documented on film footage how frequently she requested changes, and how, at every turn, Baldoni took her thoughts, and, out of fear of repercussions from Lively and her allies, he consistently tried to accommodate them."

Source: (pg. 32)

Baldoni Claims “Protections for Return to Production” Letter Was Extortion

Principal photography began on May 15, 2024. Production on the film shut down from the middle of June to the middle of November due to the writers and SAG-AFTRA strikes. To make up for lost time, Baldoni decided to begin editing the footage he'd captured so far, and Lively reportedly expressed excitement about returning to shoot in the fall, with no reference to discomfort or harassment.

Here’s where Baldoni claims things got really sinister. Lively sent a protection letter right after the strikes ended, after reportedly being apart for months, demanding 17 conditions be met before she would return to work. The way the points were worded insinuated that Baldoni and Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath acted inappropriately by [according to Baldoni] misrepresenting communications between the three. Lively demanded that they, along with Wayfarer, sign off on these non-negotiable conditions, agreeing that they would adhere to them, in order for Lively to return to production. 

To sign off on the document, Baldoni claims, was to admit guilt when there was no wrongdoing. Her "conditions" included inflammatory and accusatory language such as "no more showing nude videos or images of women, including producer's wife to BL and/or her employees," which of course implied that this behavior was already pre-existing. Lively was reportedly referencing a video (that was never played) of Heath’s wife giving birth, which he claims was shown for creative purposes of developing a birthing scene. Lively was, according to Baldoni, weaponizing innocuous interactions and characterizing them as sexual harassment.

Likewise, the condition that scenes be choreographed with an intimacy coordinator allegedly completely discounted the reality that Baldoni had already hired and implemented one before filming even began, and who Lively allegedly refused to meet. Wayfarer disagreed as to the basis for requesting these conditions, but since the terms were agreeable and, according to them, already being met, they reluctantly agreed to sign the document. Baldoni’s lawsuit against The New York Times reads, "By the time Wayfarer received the 'Protections for Return to Production' document, Wayfarer had invested millions of dollars, completed half the Film with Lively as the lead, and incurred substantial costs in preparation to resume production immediately following the strikes."

Expecting to finally return to work, they were allegedly blindsided by Lively's list of demands. Baldoni claims he and Wayfarer had grown accustomed to swallowing their pride to appease Lively. So, as had become regular practice, they agreed to Lively’s terms for what Baldoni says was the sake of her comfort and necessity of completing the film, despite contesting the insinuations laced throughout the document. Both parties believed if they had agreed to Lively's demands and moved forward with production, they could finish the film without any issues, Baldoni says. Besides, he insists they had no opposition to implementing safeguards that were common sense practices already in place.

Baldoni makes bold claims that Lively's Protections for Return to Work document was calculating and extortionistic in its insinuations about Baldoni and Heath, and accuses her of defamation: "To generate a list of demands that insinuate he and his business partner acted inappropriately and refuse to work unless they agree not to do it again is calculating and even extortionistic. But to then use Wayfarer, Baldoni, and Heath’s agreement to not do something they already did not do, were not doing, and had no intention of doing, as the basis to file a non-public CRD complaint against them and release it to the public herself in order to ruin their reputations, is defamation.”

Baldoni, along with Heath, multiple producers, the assistant director, and a representative of Sony, were reportedly invited to Lively and Reynolds's NYC penthouse under the pretense of planning the next day's filming. Baldoni says they came prepared with production materials but were blindsided by a list of grievances allegedly provided by Lively and Reynolds and that Reynolds reportedly launched into a tirade to defend his wife and demanded Baldoni apologize to her for claims he insists are demonstrably false. Baldoni claims he initially resisted apologizing for actions he wasn't guilty of, but this only further enraged Reynolds in what Baldoni describes as a "traumatizing" encounter. He claims everyone else in attendance left that meeting in shock and that a producer told him he had never seen anyone speak to someone like that in a meeting in his 40-year career, while the Sony representative allegedly said she would often think of that meeting and her one regret is that she didn't stop Reynolds' berating of Baldoni.

When Lively filed her CRD complaint, she claimed on the very first page that a 30-item list was agreed upon at the January 4 meeting. Baldoni claims this is a fiction, and that Lively cleverly references the 30-point list as if it were a written standalone document. However, Baldoni insists no such document was ever presented to him, Wayfarer, or anyone else, which would make it impossible to agree to. He says many items on the list, which were encountered for the first time in the CRD complaint, allegedly referenced highly disturbing events that never occurred, but were phrased with the repeated expression "no more" before each demand to give the false impression that they previously occurred and needed to stop.

Baldoni and Heath were unsettled by the perverse power dynamics they witnessed at the meeting, according to Baldoni’s legal filings. Nevertheless, Wayfarer decided to resume production despite reported concerns that Lively was manipulating facts, because shutting down halfway through production would have been financially disastrous. They had already invested too much money, hundreds of cast and crew had waited out the strikes for months to get back to work, and the film had been in development for five years. Baldoni echoes Lively's claim that no further issues came up during filming that there were no further grievances or references to prior disputes from Lively. As Lively put it in her CRD complaint: "The film was completed, marketed, and released safely and successfully" and "the film was a resounding success." However, their problems didn’t end there.

Before resuming production, Lively reportedly brought forth even more script notes and changes beyond what had already taken place during phase one of production. Facing a wave of disturbing allegations, Baldoni says he felt he had no choice but to let her take control of the script. In an email to his team expressing his frustration, he revealed his sadness at Lively's takeover of a film they had spent years developing. An email to his team declared he was resigning himself to "waiving the white flag" and "giving her 98% of what she wants." He was particularly concerned about how to handle intimacy scenes considering the accusations she'd already brought forth and admitted to fearing weaponization of any innocuous moment. However, for the sake of the film and its message, Baldoni insisted that he pushed on despite things feeling increasingly hopeless.

Source: (pg. 68)

Baldoni Claims Lively Takes Over Editing & Creates Her Own Cut of the Film

Baldoni claims that at this point, Lively essentially led a coup to take over the film. He recounts how she allegedly took over editing, fired the film's editors and composer, created her own version of the film at Wayfarer's expense, and ran a competing cut against the film's director, who had purchased the rights to adapt the story according to his own vision five years prior. Lively’s ever-expanding authority reportedly began with her request to access the film’s dailies (raw footage of each day’s filming, which is not provided to cast) and early cuts of scenes. An actress making this request from the director is incredibly unorthodox. Baldoni provided textual evidence of these requests and sought guidance from his editors in how to deal with what he saw as Lively’s persistent violation of boundaries—including their worry that giving her an inch would set the precedent for a complete takeover.

Source: (pg. 38) Source: (pg. 39)

Texts show an apprehensive Baldoni strategizing with his editors on how to politely push back while treading carefully, as it was still too early in the editing process to share any significant footage with her. Lively responded with lip service that she understood Baldoni, as the film's director, was entitled to the time and space needed to create his director's cut, but Baldoni asserts she didn't stop pushing. Baldoni compromised by sending limited scenes, recognizing that the impact of this film would never be realized if (in Baldoni’s opinion) he didn't bow to her demands.

Source: (pg. 40) Source: (pg. 41) Source: (pg. 42)

Lively began her encroachment into the editing of the film by reportedly requesting to join Baldoni in the editing bay, Baldoni clarifies is a highly atypical request from an actress, as this is well known in the industry as a sacred 10-week "protected" period for the director to bring their vision to life via a director's cut. According to Baldoni’s lawsuit, Baldoni, Wayfarer, and Sony reluctantly granted Lively two days of access to the editing bay, which turned into ten, which turned into requests to work in the editing bay, without Baldoni. Baldoni says she expressed dissatisfaction with mere collaboration, insisting she should have the opportunity to execute her own creative vision. Although editors were flown in to accommodate her request, Baldoni claims she fired them and replaced them with her own team, including an editor who had previously worked with Reynolds. According to legal documents, Lively subsequently fired the film's award-winning composer in favor of a composer from a recent Reynolds project and against repeated objections, proceeded to create her own cut of the film at the studios' expense. Sony then notified Wayfarer that Lively would refuse to promote the film unless her demands were met.

Baldoni, admitting to his own naivete, believed that Lively's edits would merely supplement his director's cut of the film, so he continued working on his own director's cut. However, under the looming threat of Lively refusing to promote the project or approve of any marketing materials—a total disaster given the utility of her star power—Wayfarer and Baldoni felt she had forced their hand, and had no choice but to comply, he claims. Baldoni reportedly surrendered to Lively’s editing encroachment in February and March of 2024. They claim that in yet another effort to appease her, they agreed to fund a "friends and family" screening of her cut of the film, which Baldoni and the studio had neither approved of nor seen before per Baldoni’s lawsuit. They again analyzed the sunk cost analysis, recalling how much time, money, and other resources had been invested in the film, reportedly seeing no viable alternative.

Source: (pg. 74)

Baldoni describes finding himself in a preposterous situation: two competing cuts emerged—one by the film's director, Baldoni, and another by Lively, the lead actress with no contractual or creative authority to edit the film. Acquiescing to Lively's alleged demands in light of her alleged threats, the studio agreed to test both versions with audiences with the understanding that if Baldoni's version tested higher, she would drop the matter and fully cooperate to finish the film according to his vision without any more interferences. After testing allegedly revealed that audiences overwhelmingly preferred Baldoni's cut, Lively allegedly backed out of her end of the deal and insisted that her cut be the one the studio releases to the public. Baldoni claims she even went so far as to threaten that the author of the book, Colleen Hoover, would also refuse to promote the film if they did not comply. Again, Baldoni says they conceded.

Source: (pg. 76) Source: (pg. 77) Source: (pg. 80)

Baldoni Claims Lively Forced Baldoni & Wayfarer to Write Letter Under Duress Requesting She Be Considered for Prestigious P.G.A Mark

In her final assertion of control over the film, Baldoni claims that she demanded a producer credit and, ultimately, what Baldoni believes to be an underserved p.g.a mark, at his and the studio heads' recommendation. According to Baldoni and Wayfarer, Lively did not meet the criteria for this highly esteemed distinction that certified a producer having done the majority of the work on a motion picture. He claims they at first refused to misrepresent her contributions to the film, which in their professional opinion, did not qualify for a p.g.a mark, she told them "any good will left between us is done."

In the face of persistent threats, Baldoni claims he and Wayfarer had little choice but to draft and sign a letter to the Producers Guild of America requesting that Lively be considered for the p.g.a mark on her behalf, but not without sending a copy of a letter to Wayfarer's lawyers documenting that they did so under duress. In the letter, Heath says her request felt unreasonable and cold hearted. The letter reads, "Essentially, the movie IEWU has been taken unjustly from Justin as a director and essentially from Wayfarer's control due to the extortion of blake." He continues, "without going into all the details of the events that have transpired over the months, Justin and I ended up agreeing to write the letter due to feeling trapped. she continues to hold a threat over our heads and every time we try and hold a line she uses that threat either directly or indirectly to get us to fold.” Baldoni maintains that Lively kept her word about making good on her threats.

Source: (pg. 90)

Lively Moves to Cut Baldoni Out of All Promotion of the Film & He’s Sent to Basement During Premiere of His Film

Finally, Baldoni alleges Lively leveraged her influence to systematically exclude him from every facet of the film's production and marketing. According to Baldoni, Lively pressured Sony to bar him from promotional activities, strip him of his "a film by" credit, and remove him from all marketing materials. Lively, Reynolds, the cast of the film, and the author of the book he adapted the movie from swiftly unfollowed him in unison on social media. This, Baldoni claims, created the false impression that he had done something wrong, especially as he had maintained a five-year personal relationship with Hoover, who was now appearing to side with Lively. This, Baldoni believes, was part of a larger contrived narrative that aimed to justify her alleged takeover of the film and forcing Baldoni out.

Baldoni also alleges Reynolds used his position of power in the industry to pressure Baldoni's agent at WME to drop him as a client, further damaging his career and reputation. Lively reportedly demanded Baldoni be excluded from cast events and the film's promotional efforts, including posters, screenings, photoshoots, and campaigns. During the premiere, Baldoni claims Lively threatened a cast boycott if he attended, leading to Sony reportedly groveling for approval for the director of the film to attend his own premiere. At the last minute, he was permitted to attend under what he describes as "humiliating" and “demeaning” conditions. He, his team, and friends and family who traveled from outside of New York City to support him and the film were allegedly relegated to a separate theater, barred from the main afterparty, and confined to a basement waiting area during the premiere on what was supposed to be the biggest night of his career. The conditions of this makeshift afterparty in the basement, which Baldoni had to self-fund in addition to Wayfarer covering the costs of the official afterparty they weren't allowed to attend, were quite minimalist in description. Baldoni’s team leaked a voice note of Baldoni recounting how he was sequestered into a basement at his own premiere on the biggest night of his career, which supported his account of events.

Source: (pg. 105)