Baldoni’s lawsuit spends over 100 pages arguing that Blake Lively took over production. But then he claims she didn’t do enough to earn the PGA mark. If his first claim is true, she clearly met the criteria for a producer credit. So why was he withholding it
blake-lively, justin-baldoni

Did Baldoni Manipulate Lively’s Producer Credit?

Did Baldoni Withhold Lively’s Producer Mark to Damage Her Career? The contradictions in his lawsuit keep piling up. Let’s break it down.

Baldoni’s lawsuit spends over 100 pages arguing that Blake Lively took over production. But then he claims she didn’t do enough to earn the PGA mark. If his first claim is true, she clearly met the criteria for a producer credit. So why was he withholding it? 🤔

Producer — Actor. In general, contributions to the actor’s own character, marketing as an actor, and other creative input that is typical of an actor may not be counted towards the individual's producing duties if they also received an actor credit. Examples of creative contributions that are not typical of an actor include, but are not limited to: selecting and approving principal cast and crew (e.g. director, cinematographer, editor); consulting on the overall story arc beyond that of the actor’s character; consulting on and approving costumes, make-up, and hair on characters not played by the actor; viewing and commenting on dailies that do not involve the actor’s character; and consulting on the overall edit with the director, editor, studio, etc. If, in addition to performing the producing functions listed in Category A (below, required), an actor also personally performs at least two of the functions from Category B, that would be considered strong evidence that the actor has met the Producers Mark standard. Category A: Required Actor demonstrated that they personally made regular, continuous, and substantial decisions regarding production, budgetary, and legal concerns in a constructive and responsible manner. Category B: Actor personally: i) Was involved with the project prior to all other producers; ii) Created, identified, or secured the intellectual property on which the project was based; iii) Secured the director, writer, or financing before the film was greenlit or a majority of the financing was obtained (actor does not get credit for securing themself as a critical element of the film); iv) Resurrected an otherwise stagnant project or significantly reimagined the script or production before the film was greenlit or the financing was obtained. Actor personally rendered substantial creative contributions to pre-production and production that are beyond those typical of an actor. Actor personally rendered substantial creative contributions to post-production that are beyond those typical of an actor. 🧵 **Did Baldoni Withhold Lively’s Producer Mark to Damage Her Career?** A closer look at the contradictions in his lawsuit. ⬇️ Baldoni’s lawsuit spends *over 100 pages* arguing that Blake Lively took over production. But then he claims she *didn’t do enough* to earn the PGA mark. If his first claim is true, she **clearly met the criteria** for a producer credit. So why was he withholding it? 🤔 He also argues that Lively “used” the harassment complaint to “take control” of the movie. But filming only lasted *one month* after the complaint. In that time, she was somehow both “too lazy” to deserve a producer credit *and* a “master manipulator” who took over production? The PGA criteria (as per the *side letter* Baldoni submitted) requires a producer to make **regular, substantial** production decisions. His own texts show he **encouraged her input**, praised her ideas, and asked for her involvement. So what exactly is his argument? He also presents **no evidence** of her “threatening” or “demanding” control. The texts released so far show *cordial, professional exchanges*. No ultimatums. No coercion. Just an actor engaged in a project she was also producing. The timeline is even more bizarre when you consider Sony’s role. Reports suggest Lively **agreed to stay quiet** when Sony asked her not to speak publicly. Meanwhile, Baldoni was pushing this lawsuit **with a public narrative in mind**. So the question remains: **Did Baldoni deliberately try to block Lively’s producer credit to damage her career?** Was this about control, not merit? The PGA side letter Baldoni filed suggests a power struggle. He *admits* she was promoted from **executive producer to full producer** but still tried to block the mark, despite evidence that she did the work. Headlines should be asking: **Did Baldoni steal Lively’s credit?** Because that’s what this lawsuit is starting to look like. Was this about protecting production integrity, or was it a strategic move to discredit Lively’s contributions? #BlakeLively #JustinBaldoni #ItEndsWithUs #HollywoodPowerPlays #ProducerMark

He also argues that Lively “used” the harassment complaint to “take control” of the movie. But filming only lasted one month after the complaint. In that time, she was somehow both “too lazy” to deserve a producer credit and a “master manipulator” who took over production?

The PGA criteria (as per the side letter Baldoni submitted) requires a producer to make regular, substantial production decisions. His own texts show he encouraged her input, praised her ideas, and asked for her involvement. So what exactly is his argument?

He also presents no evidence of her “threatening” or “demanding” control. The texts released so far show cordial, professional exchanges. No ultimatums. No coercion. Just an actor engaged in a project she was also producing. This is an excellent simple explanation.

The timeline is even more bizarre when you consider Sony’s role. Reports suggest Lively agreed to stay quiet when Sony asked her not to speak publicly. Meanwhile, Baldoni was pushing this lawsuit with a public narrative in mind.

And let’s not forget: Baldoni leaked his lawsuit to TMZ first before filing it in court. That means he was crafting a media strategy before a legal strategy. Almost like he feared that, if this played out privately, he’d lose to Lively.

The PGA side letter Baldoni filed suggests a power struggle. He admits she was promoted from executive producer to full producer but still tried to block the mark, despite evidence that she did the work.

Headlines should be asking: Did Baldoni steal Lively’s credit? Because that’s what this lawsuit is starting to look like.

Was this about protecting production integrity, or was it a calculated move to discredit Lively and control the narrative?

#BlakeLively #JustinBaldoni #ItEndsWithUs #HollywoodPowerPlays #ProducerMark

One thought on “Did Baldoni Manipulate Lively’s Producer Credit?”

  1. Pingback: celebchai.com

Leave a comment