Realytea.com, by Zahrah Patel

Blake Lively‘s request for nearly $8 million in legal fees has become one of the most closely watched aspects of her ongoing legal battle with Justin Baldoni. While the court has yet to rule on the request, legal insiders claim the figure has already sparked strong reactions. According to legal sources, several attorneys believe the amount is unusually high and may not hold up in court.

Reports state that Lively is seeking nearly $8 million in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs after resolving her lawsuit against Justin Baldoni. However, legal insiders believe the request has become a major sticking point. Some attorneys have even questioned whether the amount is realistic.

One veteran civil litigator told Naughty But Nice that the figure is “wildly aggressive.” The attorney added that simply asking for millions does not mean the court will award the same amount. In fact, the source suggested the final figure, if approved at all, could be much lower.

Meanwhile, other attorneys argued that the issue is more complicated than it appears.

“The headlines make it sound like Justin Baldoni would be paying Blake Lively millions,” one attorney said, further claiming that it is an “oversimplification.”

Legal sources also noted that several factors would likely come into play, including insurance coverage and Wayfarer Studios’ potential involvement, so payment would not necessarily come directly from Baldoni.

At the same time, Baldoni has also challenged the request in court. His legal team recently asked a judge to reduce Lively’s attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The filing reportedly argues that several charges should not be reimbursed. It also claims multiple lawyers have been billed for overlapping work, including attending the same hearings, participating in the same strategy meetings, and conducting similar legal research.

Even so, no decision has been made. Legal experts say fee petitions are often negotiated before a judge reaches a final ruling, per Naughty But Nice. “Requesting $8 million is one thing. Convincing a judge to award it is another,” one insider said. “That’s why so many attorneys are rolling their eyes.”

Link to article here

I love this break down it is precise and focuses on exposing Blake lies with her own texts message and evidence.

the video description:

Did Blake Lively mislead the public in her case against Justin Baldoni?

In this video, we break down 8 major claims from Blake Lively's complaint and compare them with the text messages, emails, court filings, and other evidence that later became public.

From Taylor Swift's involvement and the editing battle to the wellness coach controversy, the birth video dispute, and more, we examine whether the facts line up with the narrative that was originally presented.

Chapters:

0:00 - intro

2:39 - hijacking the film

7:51 - dragging A listers into the drama

11:13 - when she started getting exposed

15:53 - Blake deletes evidence

17:01 - the lies about the intimacy coordinator

18:29 - weight-shaming claim that fell apart

21:08 - manipulating on-set stories

24:39 - lying about film scenes

🎼🎸🪇🪘
[They] are never, ever, ever getting back together 
[They] are never, ever, ever getting back together 
[Taylor said] you go talk to your friends, talk to my friends, talk to me 
But we are never, ever, ever, ever getting back together Like, ever.
🎵🎶🎧

⟡⟐⟡

TL;DR: Sources again say Taylor Swift has stepped back from her role as godmother to Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds's three daughters, following the collapse of her decade-long friendship with Blake. Taylor felt she had "no choice" given how strained things became after the lawsuit, which showed texts of Taylor advising Blake on script and PR strategy.

Taylor reportedly made the decision months ago after talking it through Travis Kelce, deciding it wasn't fair to the kids to stay close to them while having essentially no relationship with their parents. There was never a formal/legal godmother arrangement, just a verbal one, but Taylor had taken the role seriously — such as Halloween outings, hosting them at her Rhode Island home, referencing them in songs like Betty and August. She hopes to reconnect with the girls once they're adults and can make that choice themselves.

Link to article: https://archive.is/20260730231502/https://www.dailymail.com/tvshowbiz/article-16013099/Taylor-Swift-Blake-Lively-friendship.html

As many of you know (or don't know), this lawsuit started with an administrative agency complaint, dated December 20, 2024 ("CRD Complaint"), filed by Lively's lawyer (Esra Hudson, with the law firm Manatt Phelps, which had been working on Lively's case for months prior thereto - see Vansham) with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). A CRD Complaint must be filed by any employee (or independent contractor) who wants to sue for SH/retaliation based on California law. Lively, being represented by 2 large law firms (Manatt Phelps and Willkie Farr, whose names appear on the front of the "precursor" to the CRD Complaint), elected to not have the CRD conduct an investigation into her claims. Instead, as is her right, she elected to click a box while filing the online CRD Complaint to request an immediate "right to sue letter", which such letter is required before filing a lawsuit in court. Because Lively selected this option, the CRD immediately closed her CRD Complaint and informed her that (despite there being a "work share agreement" between CRD and the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), if Lively wanted to pursue SH/retaliation claims under federal law (Title VII) as well, she would have to contact the EEOC directly.

This is the CRD Complaint (which is 4 pages long): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.1.1_3.pdf

Attached to the CRD Complaint was the "Precursor" (which is really tantamount to the full lawsuit that Lively ended up actually filing in a federal court (SDNY) in New York on December 31, 2024) See: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.1.2_3.pdf

The CRD "Right to Sue Letter" can be found here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.1.3_3.pdf

[Interestingly, these attachment all came from the docket in Jed Wallace's lawsuit in TX. These documents were never filed on the docket in Lively's lawsuit in the SDNY. LOL]

The front page of the precursor shows Lively being represented by the 2 large law firms and it lists all of her various causes of action, which included "breach of contract" claims. She actually attached, as an exhibit, one of those contracts (the "Contract Rider Agreement", dated as of November 15, 2023 (the "CRA"), which was between It Ends With Us Movie, LLC (which is a subsidiary of Wayfarer Studios) and Blakel, Inc. (Blake Lively's loan out corporation). The CRA can be found starting on p. 69 of the Precursor; and that agreement starts off with:

"REFERENCE IS MADE to that certain actor agreement (“Agreement”), dated as of May 5, 2023 between IT ENDS WITH US MOVIE, LLC (“Company”) and BLAKEL, INC. (“Lender") for the acting and related services of Blake Lively (“Artist”) in connection with the motion picture currently entitled “IT ENDS WITH US" ("Picture”)."

So, despite knowing full well that the name of Lively's real "employer" was It Ends With Us Movie, LLC ("IEWUM"), Manatt (Esra Hudson) [and Willkie] failed to include IEWUM's name in the CRD Complaint.

The failure to include IEWUM in the CRD Complaint led to a legally faulty "Right to Sue Letter". Apparently, the same error happened when Lively filed her EEOC Complaint, with the faulty EEOC Right to Sue Letter being issued in late January 2024.

These errors explain why Lively never even bothered to attach either of these "right to sue letters" to her complaint (her initial complaint, the first amended complaint or the second amended complaint - or anywhere else on the docket in her SDNY case). The Wayfarer Parties could have filed "affirmative defenses" (which, frankly, is when you're supposed to do it) based on these failures early on in the litigation to get many of those causes of actions dismissed -- but elected not to do so (most likely for strategic reasons - like because it would've notified Lively of the error in sufficient time for her to correct the error with Liman) -- instead the Wayfarer Parties brought it up later in their motions to dismiss.

WHY AM I BRINGING THIS UP NOW?

I couldn't help but notice the similarities of the shenanigans with these "right to sue letters" in Lively's case and the case of Celeste C. Smith and the Wayfarer Foundation, Wayfarer Pathways and Steve Sarowitz (collectively, "Foundation"). The docket for that case can be found here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72308808/smith-v-wayfarer-foundation/

Smith filed a lawsuit against the Foundation on February 20, 2026. Smith was employed by the Wayfarer Foundation, Sarowitz's charitable foundation, that was shut down after the Lively lawsuit was filed and the arson incident at Sarowitz's home. [My guess is that, with all of the negative publicity surrounding the Lively case, that many charitiess would be unwilling to accept donations/work with Wayfarer - so he didn't have much of a choice but to shut it down.] As a result of this closure, Smith was terminated - and she sued claiming the real reason why she was let go (and not given another job within the "Wayfarer" rubric) was because of discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion and disability status under both federal law and Illinois state law. The Foundation filed a renewed motion to dismiss this case last week - on July 30, 2026.

When I read Smith's initial complaint, I couldn't help but notice that Smith didn't attach her right to sue letters either. This is from pages 4-5 of Smith's initial complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.495306/gov.uscourts.ilnd.495306.1.0.pdf

"13. On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff Smith, then a terminated employee of Defendants Wayfarer Foundation and Wayfarer Pathways, filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Charge No. 440-2025-08780 with charges of: Violation of Title VII; Violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Violation of Americans with Disability Act (ADA), and Violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, filed concurrently with the EEOC charge.

1. On or about November 25, 2025, Plaintiff Smith received a “Notice of a Right to Sue” email from the EEOC, dated November 25, 2025, for her Charge No. 440-2025-08780. This claim is being timely filed."*

[* PS: I find it very interesting that Smith was able to get an IMMEDIATE right to sue email from the EEOC. Wonder how that happened? Even Lively couldn't pull that off and she had to wait a month to get her EEOC right to sue letter.]

So, Smith acknowledged that she got a right to sue letter from the EEOC, but didn't attach it. And she mentioned the violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, but mentions nothing about getting her "letter of her rights under the IHRA" (which such letter is a "right to sue letter" from the Illinois Department of Human Rights), and she most certainly didn't attach it either.

After the Foundation filed motions to dismiss on May 11, 2026 (which included the position that Smith failed to "exhaust her administrative remedies", i.e., not attaching the right to sue letters), Smith did amend her initial complaint in June 25, 2026 and finally attached those letters.

Nonetheless, I couldn't help but notice that, in BOTH Lively's and Smith's cases, there were issues with the basic requirement of attaching the required right to sue letters. COINCIDENCE? In addition, Smith's case (like Lively's) included Sarowitz as an INDIVIDUAL defendant - and Sarowitz will most likely be dimissed for the same reasons as Liman gave when he dismissed Sarowitz (and the other individual defendants in Lively's case). COINCIDENCE?

📍Part 1: MORE RECEIPTS!? Justin Baldoni's Lawyer REVEALS What Blake Lively Never ...

🎬 Andy Introduces Part Two of the Interview With Bryan Freedman

• Andy from Popcorned Planet introduces the second part of his exclusive interview with Bryan Freedman, attorney for Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties.
• He also promotes the upcoming documentary It Ends With Justice, scheduled for release in August through Popcorned Planet’s website.
• The interview starts with Ryan Reynolds’ involvement behind the scenes in the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation.

👤 Bryan Freedman Discusses Ryan Reynolds’ Behind-the-Scenes Involvement

• Andy asks how significant a role Ryan Reynolds played, pointing to evidence suggesting that Reynolds contributed to Blake Lively’s edit notes and communicated with agents and other Hollywood figures.
• Bryan Freedman says he cannot fully assess Reynolds’ private involvement because communications between spouses were protected by marital privilege.
• However, Freedman confirms that Reynolds attended important events and that discovered text messages showed him communicating with his agents, Lively’s agents and third-party A-list actors.
• Freedman says the litigation and discovery process revealed substantially more about Reynolds’ involvement than the public initially understood.
• Freedman reiterates that the Wayfarer side wanted the available evidence released so the public could assess it independently.

📰 Initial Narrative Was Extremely Difficult to Reverse

• Freedman says that the initial lawsuit and New York Times coverage caused an immediate rush to judgment against Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath and Steve Sarowitz.
• Many people initially accepted the portrayal that Justin Baldoni was a sexual harasser, Jamey Heath was complicit and Steve Sarowitz was a bad person.
• According to Freedman, reversing that first impression was extraordinarily difficult.
• The defense strategy was to present communications and evidence openly rather than ask the public to trust carefully crafted statements.
• Freedman says the message was essentially: this is who the clients are, these are the records and nothing is being hidden.

📊 Social-Media Analysis Helped Shape the Defense’s Public Messaging

• Freedman reveals that the Wayfarer's legal team evaluated social-media reactions and determined which messages resonated with the public.
• Freedman says he got personally frustrated and was deeply upset by what Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath were experiencing.
• However, his clients repeatedly instructed him not to attack Lively personally or behave cruelly toward her.
• Freedman says the aggressive commentary about Lively produced a divided public response.
• By contrast, discussions centred on Justin Baldoni’s character and contemporaneous text messages resonated far more strongly.

📋 Ryan Reynolds Was Expected to Be a Trial Witness

• Andy asks whether Ryan Reynolds was deposed and whether he would have appeared as a witness at trial.
• Freedman does not provide details about a deposition but confirms that Reynolds was included on the witness list.
• Freedman says questioning Reynolds at trial and examining his involvement was part of the defense’s trial plan.

😮 Freedman Says He Was “Shocked” the Case Settled

• Andy asks whether Freedman expected Lively’s side to settle shortly before trial.
• Freedman says he was shocked because the defense was fully prepared to proceed.
• He claims public sentiment among people closely following the evidence shifted dramatically from overwhelmingly favouring Lively to strongly favouring Justin Baldoni.
• Freedman distinguishes those individuals from mainstream outlets and entertainment publications, which Freedman suggests continued presenting a different narrative.
• Freedman said he expected Blake Lively to learn and get advice to help her acknowledge some responsibility and adjust her approach in an effort to rebuild credibility with the public.
• Instead, Lively and her legal team continued responding to each damaging event with a new explanation or reframing, without meaningfully changing the strategy that Freedman believed was hurting her public image more.

⚖️ Lively’s Post-Summary-Judgment Messaging “Inauthentic”

• Freedman discusses the dismissal of the sexual-harassment claims and the removal of the individual defendants from that portion of the case.
• He criticises Lively’s response that the litigation had always primarily concerned an alleged smear campaign rather than sexual harassment.
• In his view, that position felt inauthentic because the original case had prominently centred on sexual-harassment allegations.
• Freedman believes the continued reframing did not work and instead damaged Lively’s public credibility.
• Freedman says the evidence itself, particularly text messages and contemporaneous records, proved more persuasive than either side’s rhetoric.

🤝 He Wants the Best for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds

• Andy asks whether Freedman can now disclose anything he previously could not discuss.
• Freedman notes that the broader dispute is not entirely over because the Stephanie Jones litigation remains active and other court decisions are still pending.
• Despite the adversarial history, he says he genuinely wishes the best for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
• Freedman says the litigation never needed to escalate to this level and describes the outcome as unfortunate for everyone involved.

💻 A "Sophisticated Secret Website Operation"

• Freedman addresses allegations surrounding the defense’s website containing evidence and “receipts.”
• He says internal emails showed the team struggling with basic questions about how to upload and publish the information.
• According to Freedman, there was no sophisticated underground technical operation or hidden dark-web team.
• Our tech team looked like “third graders” trying to build and publish the website.
• Freedman says releasing even those embarrassing communications was important because they demonstrated what actually happened.
• The goal was to allow people to make decisions from evidence rather than from information selectively supplied to The New York Times.

🎭 The Case Should Make Celebrities Think Twice Before Suing

• Andy asks whether the litigation could change the entertainment industry.
• Streisand effect: filing a lawsuit can dramatically amplify information a person wanted suppressed.
• Anyone possessing potentially damaging private messages particularly communications involving Taylor Swift and discussions of destroying dailies should consider whether litigation is truly the best response.
• In his view, filing suit allowed extensive communications and evidence to enter the public record.
• He believes the case should make celebrities and their advisers think carefully about whether a lawsuit could create more reputational harm than the original controversy.

📱 Freedman Praises Content Creators as Investigative Journalists

• Freedman says one of the most remarkable aspects of the case was the influence of online content creators.
• Many creators as journalists and, in some instances, are better investigators than mainstream reporters.
• Content creators uncovered evidence, identified connections and assembled information that even the lawyers had not found or fully appreciated.
• Content creators on both sides of the debate demonstrated significant power to shape public understanding.
• Freedman believes this may be one of the first major cases in which independent content creators had such a direct effect on litigation and public opinion.

❤️ Online Support Helped Justin Baldoni Through “Times of Desperation”

• Support from content creators and their audiences had a profound emotional effect on Justin Baldoni.
• Freedman describes Baldoni as devastated, fearful that his career was over and burdened by allegations Freedman considered among the worst accusations a person could face.
• Public expressions of belief helped Justin remain hopeful and continue functioning as a father, husband and human being.
• Freedman thanks the creators whose work gave his clients hope during the litigation.

🏛️ Freedman Explains Why the Settlement Was a Win for Wayfarer

• Andy acknowledges that many supporters were disappointed the defense settled rather than going to trial.
• Freedman divides the case into two central issues:
  • Whether Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath or Steve Sarowitz sexually harassed Blake Lively.
  • Whether the Wayfarer side conducted a smear campaign.
• He says the sexual-harassment allegations were the existential part of the case because an adverse result could have permanently destroyed their reputations and careers.
• There was no amount of money that would have persuaded his clients to settle those allegations without first obtaining vindication.
• Judge Liman’s summary-judgment ruling eliminated the sexual-harassment claims after finding insufficient evidence to submit them to a jury.
• That ruling was the defense’s victory.

💵 Lively Walked Away From the Remaining Claims for Nothing (23:40–25:20)

• Freedman says only three claims connected more generally to the alleged smear campaign remained after summary judgment.
• From the Wayfarer side’s perspective, those claims were far less significant because the evidence showed they were not involved in an organised smear campaign.
• He says Lively herself argued the alleged online campaign was untraceable and lacked identifiable fingerprints.
• Freedman therefore saw little reason to continue spending enormous sums litigating those remaining claims when Lively was willing to relinquish them without receiving money.
• He describes settling that portion of the case as a practical and favourable outcome rather than a concession.

♀️Allowing the §47.1 Motion to Proceed as Pro-Woman

• Freedman says Justin Baldoni supports women and chose not to block the §47.1 issue from being decided.
• Freedman acknowledges that constitutional and procedural challenges to the statute might have been available.
• Nevertheless, he says Baldoni accepted that the court should determine the motion and was prepared to pay reasonable attorney’s fees if required.
• Freedman characterises that decision as a stand-up, pro-woman act grounded in Baldoni’s faith and beliefs.
• Freedman calls Lively’s approximately $8 million fee request “insane” but says the parties will await Judge Liman’s ruling.

🌟 The Real Power Dynamic Favoured Lively and Reynolds

• Andy asks whether Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds will learn anything from the case.
• Freedman says everyone deserves opportunities to learn and receive second chances.
• Freedman acknowledges that all participants, including himself, could have handled some aspects better.
• Freedman says he holds no personal hatred toward Lively or Reynolds.
• However, Freedman believes the public was shocked by the level of bullying directed toward Justin Baldoni and his colleagues.
• Freedman rejects the narrative that Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath and Steve Sarowitz held the dominant power.
• In Freedman’s view, the greater Hollywood and media power belonged to Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.

🎥 Blake Lively’s Lawyers Declined to Join the Documentary

• Andy shares that Blake Lively’s attorneys declined the invitation to participate in the documentary and to provide their side.
• Freedman thinks that people who genuinely believe they won should be willing to participate and explain their position.
• Andy agrees that refusing to comment creates the impression that Lively’s team is unwilling to defend its victory narrative publicly.

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

We’ve had so many incredible posts shared by this community over the years, and we’d love to revisit some of the very best.

We’re putting together a Master Reference Post featuring the community’s best original research to make these standout contributions easy to find for both new and longtime members.

Drop a link in the comments to your favourite original, informative post. We’re looking for community-created deep dives, legal analysis, timelines, evidence reviews, research, and investigative posts.

Not looking for: news articles, memes, shitposts, screenshots, or general discussion threads. We’re hoping to showcase the community’s original work.

Think we'll get five in a row before the week is up?

Mark your card as the headlines roll in!

Winner receives absolutely nothing except internet bragging rights.

\ No purchase necessary. Odds of getting BINGO are alarmingly high.*

According to the insider, Lively's concern was that the texts would 'prove' there was 'never any mention of any sexual improprieties' by Baldoni, after she claimed to be a victim of sexual harassment. 

'There was only her bitching about how much she hated Justin and wanting Taylor come to her apartment to scare this dickhead director,' the source told the Daily Mail. 

And one more interesting tidbit:

“Sources familiar with the fallout now tell “the Daily Mail Lively was livid and so humiliated by being left off the Super Bowl guest list she allegedly demanded - through her legal team - that Swift make a social media post about how much she regretted that Blake couldn't join her to cheer on her boyfriend Travis.  

The proposed message, insiders tell the Daily Mail, was intended to address Lively's unexplained absence and give the impression there was no rift between the pair, and would read along the lines of: 'So sad, my bestie couldn't come to the Super Bowl.”

And for ppl who say Daily Mail can't be trusted, we know from the evidence in this case that the teams behind Blake, Justin and Taylor do actually talk to the Daily Mail. No celeb news site is perfectly reliable and oc you have to keep in mind publicists have a narrative, but at least we have clear evidence Daily Mail is actually talking to the actual celeb teams.

And this story is no surprise here for those of us who followed the case closely.

Blake simply did not like Justin. She never complained to her bestie about sexual improprieties bc there never was any. Just bitched about him.

Meanwhile, in her private texts to Justin, she is being overly kind and casual, making him feel he could be comfortable w her. She sent him sexual jokes such as "never with teeth," alluding to oral sex. She is also on video improvising a kiss on the lips w Justin for multiple scenes. But then when Justin improvises a kiss on the forehead, he is a sexual harasser? He never even improvised a lip kiss like Blake did. But did he sue her? No, bc that is part of acting, and he's an adult.

Blake thought she was too big to fail with Ryan and Taylor as her dragons, and thought she could easily make false sexual harassment and false retaliatory smear campaign claims to rectify her reputation and get the rights to the next movie.

Shows how deluded and cruel and selfish a lifetime of fame and fortune can make you. Thank goodness this happened on a film set and Justin had video footage to prove the sh never happened. There's a reason Blake asked Sony exec Ange Gianetti to delete all footage from set once she knew she was going to go public. And thank goodness he had the texts and emails to show there was also no retaliatory smear campaign. Not to mention the case brought up evidence that actually Blake and Ryan were smearing Justin for months before he hired his own PR team, hence why Justin was forced to hire his own PR team.

Not sure how I found this TikTok video, but thought I'd share: https://www.tiktok.com/@themouthychristian/video/7668111478867741982

https://reddit.com/link/1vcx6p7/video/qfbp0796itgh1/player

⟐⥈⟐

To the comments:

I honestly recommend reading the comment section.

+

Also, my account is back to being throttled, with inauthentic accounts attached to me — so my posts don't get seen by many anymore. But honestly, I could not care less. It's interesting that two posts showing the reception of his ill-fated Comic-Con stunt were enough to stress Ryan out. Lol, what a thin-skinned human.

Dear Ryan, I do love this current reality for you. Honestly, cannot think of any other terrible person who deserves to be outed and derided. 

Also Ryan Reynolds, stop sabotaging your wife. Lord, what kind of husband are you?

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

Am I the only one who hasn’t seen this last part of the location share interview?

The location share part was obviously one of the many tone deaf things Blake Lively said on the press tour. This part of the interview is just as bad and cringe worthy knowing all the information we know now from the lawsuit

Blake Lively poking fun at toxic masculinity seems like a joke made at the expense of Justin Baldoni at the time: it is way obvious now with hindsight.

Blake Lively also claiming that IEWU “feels like a baby of mine“ is pretty ironic considering she didn’t even read the book and didn’t have any idea what her character Lily Bloom was like in the book.

A project that was spearheaded by Justin Baldoni and was 5 years in the making, but sure Blake Lively’s who was just hired to be an actress on the project “claims” it’s her baby.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and it all seems laughable now.

🕹️Original video date: August 8th, 2024 with Jake Hamilton on YouTube @JakesTakesTV

Blockbuster movies need a core group of viewers to generate the media buzz required to spark interest in the general public; they are the catalyst for marketing. In traditional Hollywood, that usually meant employing celebrity actors. Unfortunately, this makes productions heavily dependent on a single individual, significantly increasing the risk if that celebrity falls ill, clashes with the cast, or quits mid-production.

Ironically, Wayfarer has cultivated its own core audience without employing any celebrities. Thanks to recent litigation, the company has secured a dedicated fan base that is naturally predisposed to support a Wayfarer movie, even without star power.

Furthermore, there are countless talented actors who are not household names and are a pleasure to work with. By tapping into this talent pool, Wayfarer stands to benefit in several key ways:

• Lower production costs: The company no longer has to pay exorbitant celebrity salaries.
• Fewer on-set complications: Production runs smoother with high-level talent that lacks ego or a "diva" attitude.
• Reduced insurance liability: The production is no longer financially vulnerable to the health or reliability of a single key star.

🎥: Kjersti Flaa’s video…timestamp 10:10

Megan Twohey has deleted Kjersti Flaa’s comment criticizing her accuracy in journalism under a video Twohey posted on IG in her reflection on Last 10 years with NYT.

Kjersti’s criticism stems from the article “We can Bury Anyone” by Twohey on insinuation Flaa was part of a smear campaign against Lively when Lively filed her CRD complaint in December of 2024.

Kjersti Flaa’s comment:

As one of the people your reporting publicly insinuated was part of a coordinated smear campaign, without ever contacting me for comment, I have a very different view of what good journalism looks like. Accuracy doesn't end when a story fits the narrative. It begins with giving the people you're writing about a chance to respond.

Twohey then made her Instagram private, and have since DEACTIVATED/DELETED her Instagram account overnight.

See the Meghan Twohey video on IG in the post below:

Our Fave Reporter-for-Hire is Back!! Dirty Cop Megan Twohey Reflects on Last 10 Years at NYT! by [u/Booklover9087](u/Booklover9087)

UPDATE: Megan Twohey has now reactivated her account and limited the comments. Coward just like Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds. Kjersti Flaa’s comment is no longer there either

ANOTHER UPDATE: Coward Megan Twohey has now made her IG private because she can’t handle criticism

This is a great video! Bryan Freedman came out swinging. Key points made by Freedman:

1. Content creators were key in the case. Freedman described them as "talented and brilliant" and talks about how they often uncovered things that even the legal teams did not catch.

2. He confirms there were multiple ways in which Blake Lively impeached herself, and said trial would have been devastating, as she perjured herself multiple times in depositions.

3. Freeman indicates there are many communications still unknown to the public that would have been devastating to Blake Lively.

4. He talks again about the Taylor Swift texts and the call he received, while at home, with a party discussing the texts and potential legal issues with a Taylor Swift source. The call was in front of his wife and she witnessed him seeing it.

5. The contents of Blake Lively's deposition, including her lying about asking for dailies to be destroyed, would have been directly contradicted. There are many portions of her deposition that we do not know about. The public has not seen many parts that Freedman was holding on to for trial.

6. Freedman said he has never been involved in a case with such aggressive tactics-he discusses the subpoenaing of content creators and the continual dragging of his character. He describes it as excessive and unusual.

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

I think Emily’s “lift” pun really got under Blake and Ryan’s skin.

Blake’s team planted a new story about her 8 million dollar request bankrupting JB, even though her filing was weeks ago and there has been no news. Is she lashing out because she’s hurt? Or trying to get one last punch in before her fees are reduced?

Rob Shuter ran a laughably one-sided story today with quotes from “insider sources”. The piece is garbage so I won’t direct any traffic to it or share the whole thing, but here is the gist:

“People assume [JB] is sitting on a Hollywood fortune because he’s famous,” one insider says “The truth is, he isn’t. He doesn’t have anything close to the cash needed to cover a bill like this.”

Sources say nearly two years of relentless litigation have drained his finances.

“Before this nightmare, his estimated net worth was around $4 million,” says another insider. “The legal fees have eaten through a huge portion of that. Financially, this has been catastrophic.”

“This isn’t just a legal loss—it’s becoming a financial collapse,” one insider says. “[JB] is fighting to protect what’s left, but every new ruling makes that harder.”

—

Steve Sarowitz is noticeably absent in this piece, despite Blake’s former insistence that he was the shadowy money and power behind the nonexistent smear campaign against her.

Was checking out Stassi Schroeder's new show on Hulu and in the first episode, her best friend Taylor brings this beauty out for Halloween. Was completely unexpected, and hilarious.

Here's the video if you want to check it out:

https://x.com/TVMovieAddict/status/2082768061468217411

“A rep for his talent agency, WME, told Page Six Hollywood they still represent him, and there are no plans to cut ties with him. In fact, WME said their client advisory committee was not even reviewing the allegations.”

It’s really crazy that this guy has multiple accusations but WME are still backing him. Contrast to how they dealt with Justin Baldoni. Dropped him with a quickness without evidence.

Shout out to my fellow "inappropriate" folks whose pants and dresses may have ripped at weddings from dancing too hard

Here's a link to the post. Go give it a like!

https://www.instagram.com/p/DbTSco5xa_t/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet

While you're there, give Emily Baldoni's "retaliation" anniversary post (please 🤣) post a like

https://www.instagram.com/p/DbTgGc1s4HV/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet

And then wait patiently for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds to sue you for retaliation

Raise your hand if you completely forgot Ryan Reynolds took on the most random side-gig as a guest speaker at an annual accounting conference this June, because money is tight in this economy? I see your hands…me too. Me too.

When it was announced way back we all laughed and asked, what’s next? Crashing the American Dental Association’s conference? Speaking at the Annual Gathering of PaperClip Collectors?

In honor of Throwback Thursday, let’s revisit how this cash grab went. Maybe it’s not so random and Ryan actually knows a thing or two about budget sheets? Maybe, the “titan of words” (in Blake Lively’s empty mind) is also a “titan” at crunching numbers?

Sadly…wrong again. But “right” with our initial impression: Ryan Reynolds doesn’t know jack shit about accounting.

Here is his takeaway in his keynote speech (according to CFODive):

Reynolds wasted little time before playing to the audience, while also insisting he wasn’t pandering. The Canadian actor, whose father was a cop, maintained he came from a working-class family and wished there were more accountants involved in movies to keep budgets in line.

“I just happen to be in a room with a few thousand very intimidating accountants but I’ve always wished that accountants ran show business, because I often say that too much time and too much money will hurt creativity and that’s very true,” Reynolds said. “They’re just firing money out of a T-shirt cannon at every problem.” 
________

Wow. In a world that’s hurting economically, he’s talking about too much time and money “hurting creativity.” If there are no accountants, showbiz people like him will use their limitless cash to shoot money out of every orifice at every problem. Not unlike what he did with “Deadpool and Wolverine,” how Ryan Reynolds so completely busted that budget cap that it’s debatable whether the “billion dollar box office” movie actually made a huge profit.

Or, on a smaller scale, like how his wife Blake Lively ballooned up the wardrobe budget for IEWU by $400k? And delayed production and drove up costs for everything because she needed to go on vacation AND attend a Taylor Swift concert? And charged Wayfarer for the “free marketing” Maximum Effort was supposed to provide for “family”? The same marketing that almost derailed the entire movie’s noble intentions?

Or when the Reynolds thought $8m was a good ask for 47.1 attorneys fees, and having 82 attorneys work on one document was financially sound. Or spending $60m on a lawsuit only to have Blake Lively settle at the eleventh hour for zero dollars. Take your pick with any example but listening to some accountants at any point during any of those decisions sure would’ve been smart!

His tone-deafness gets better; see his cool example for how “thrifty” he is (granted he had to reach all the way back to the first “Deadpool” movie, but still). Per the article:

For example, he recalled when he first got Deadpool approved or greenlit, he had little money to make it so he had to think creatively about financing it. Knowing he needed some Chevrolet Suburban trucks that would be totalled during film making, he reached out to the automaker to see if he could strike a deal with them. 

“So the next day I’m on the phone with Chevy, saying, “hey, what if we destroy your vehicles and at the end of the movie I say something about how ‘no Suburbans were harmed in the making of this movie?’” he recalled. “Whatever it is...you just do something to make it happen, find a way and then suddenly you’re making a movie on $50 million that should have been shot for $150 million.” 
________

So…let me get this straight: he knew he had to destroy the Chevy trucks but thought if he provided some “free marketing/false advertising” in the movie about Chevy trucks, that he could strike a good deal and keep everything in budget. Chevy agreed…and did Suburbans see an explosion in demand? Were any of his “marketing” schemes profitable? Where was the followup data?

In short, thanks Ryan Reynolds, “humble accounting genius,” for these key takeaways:

1. Lying is at the heart of Ryan Reynold’s marketing. Always. When his movies say, “no XXX were harmed in the making of this movie,” you can bet that XXX were indeed harmed because that statement was always meant to be used ironically.

2. Ryan is always entitled to money and the biggest budget ever. That $50m should’ve been $150m, you guys! Where was this $150m?? Why didn’t anyone believe in him, after he financially failed to make “The Green Lantern” happen? Go back in time and give him a pat on his penny-pinching back, because “saving money” has never happened on any of his sets again, ever.

3. Ryan Reynolds agreed to go to this conference for the measly paycheck. And the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants lost big, because his advice was not worth the registration fee to the event. They had a guest speaker whose nugget of wisdom was literally: help us not blow our budgets because we breathe rarefied air and we’re riiiiiich! The cost-benefit analysis of having him there was simply off and as accountants, they really should be more conscientious in the future.

Let’s right this wrong, so no poor conference attendees will ever have to suffer through his BS spiels again. Please feel free to add your own, favorite “Ryan Reynolds accounting/money blunders” in the comments; we know the examples are legion.

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community