Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's cut was the winner, for a reason, and studio execs gushed to her about the success of the film. Do you think any of this helps Baldoni, who has zero projects now in the works per imdb? Studio execs wanted to muzzle him from doing press promo, not because of Lively but because of his tendency to say inappropriate and off-putting things. They had to cut the tape of one of his interviews.

From People:
Justin Baldoni was labeled a "moron" by a studio executive over remarks he allegedly made in an interview promoting It Ends With Us.

An alleged email sent by Danni Maggin, a senior marketing executive at Sony Pictures Entertainment, on Aug. 5, 2024, shows the marketing team took issue with Baldoni's remarks in one interview.

"... Justin is basically alluding to 'raping' Atlas out of Lily when talking to the Dallas Morning News. We cut the tape but he is a moron," Maggin wrote in the email, recently unsealed as part of Blake Lively's ongoing legal battle with Baldoni.

Maggin then appeared to refer to Josh Greenstein, then-president of Sony Pictures‘ Motion Group, alleging Greenstein said that director-star Baldoni, 42, "shouldn't do any more press but he has a lot left so maybe we can talk asap."

Perfect example of weird bot behavior.

Her cut was the low scoring one, bozo!

Her cut was the one execs selected, largely because Colleen felt it captured her vision, and the one that earned hundreds of millions of dollars, bozo! From a business perspective, Baldoni was a pathetic failure. In addition to being cut out of the social network and promotion because no one wanted to hear any more of his inappropriate remarks. He's the one who'll never work again.

Meh, Sony likely caused themselves to lose tens of millions of dollars because they ignored normal business practices and went with the cut markedly less popular with audiences. Then they lost more potential profit when Blake did stupid things like make the “bring your florals” comment. That’s what you get when you give in to a celebrity pressure campaign.

Regardless of how you feel about Blake or Justin, I think it's dubious to assert that Sony could have made more money with Justin's cut. The truth of the matter is that the actual cut of the movie is not what sold it -- it was the marketing campaign featuring a very recognizable actress (often alongside her very famous husband and friends) and a hugely popular author. That's why they went with Blake's cut. Because Blake and Colleen would sell the hell out of it, and they did. It's highly unlikely they would have gotten more money out Justin's cut, especially if releasing that one had meant that Blake phoned in promotion.

It was a short term gain though. they killed any hope for the sequel and Sony has been embarrassed and damaged by what has come out.

Considering Colleen Hoover’s next film regretting you also did about 100 million based on a less successful book and less known actors, they probably would have been okay with less box office sales plus a sequel plus their reputation intact.

Agree. For big companies like Sony, box office hits are a dime a dozen. The headache that is Blake is clearly not worth it to them, since neither they nor anyone else have offered her another role. They’re over Blake. She’s unhireable. On pause. Hathaway and Eva Mendes time. To use Sony’s own words.

The bolded is, uh, laughably false. Here's Ange Giannetti on the box office success of IEWU:

Q Was the opening of the film successful?
A Very.
Q And -- and how did it compare to other movies of the genre?
MR. FREEDMAN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It was gigantic.
BY MS. HUDSON: Q Was it a historically successful movie?
MR. FREEDMAN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Oh, you could say that. I think that's fair.
BY MS. HUDSON: Q And how much money has It Ends with Us made to date?
A I can't tell you to date. I can tell you to date theatrically. I think it's close to $350 million.
Q And is that a historically large success rate?
A For this size budget and this genre, incredible.

Emphasis on “for the genre”. Yes making this kind of money is a dime a dozen for Sony, just not in that genre.

You're leaving out "for this size budget." This return on investment is very unusual. Here's Sony's top films by box office for 2024, and how much they cost to make, ranked by ROI (box office as a percentage of cost):

IEWU -- cost 30m, total box office 350m (1167% ROI)
Anyone But You -- cost 25m, total box office 219m (876% ROI)
The Forge -- cost 5m, total box office 40m (800% ROI)
The Garfield Movie -- cost 60m, total box office 255m (425% ROI)
Bad Boys: Ride or Die -- cost 100m, total box office 400m (400% ROI)
Venom: The Last Dance -- cost 120m, total box office 474m (395% ROI)
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire -- cost 100m, total box office 200m (200% ROI)
Madame Web -- cost 80-100m, total box office 100m (bust)
Kraven the Hunter -- cost 110m, total box office 60m (bust)
Fly Me to the Moon -- cost 100m, total box office 38m (bust)

So only two Sony films grossed more than IEWU in 2024, and both cost several multiples what IEWU cost even after overruns. Of the films that cost less to make, both were profitable but still didn't touch IEWU's total numbers. IEWU was a major success for Sony in 2024 and helped salvage an otherwise pretty lackluster year with massive over-performance. And it did so as a romantic drama. Not a reboot of a successful franchise or a superhero tentpole.

No, a success like IEWU is not a dime a dozen for Sony. It's a cash cow that I guarantee every studio in town is looking for ways to replicate in spite of the legal fallout (they are just replicating it without Blake or Justin). Studios are actively looking for more "BookTok" stories to adapt, including those in the romantic drama category, and even to replicate aspects of the marketing campaign which took a page out of Barbie's book by encouraging women to make an event out of attending the film (dressing up, going with friends, etc.). So, yeah, grab your friends and wear your florals.

I truly don't care who you support in this dumb drama, but arguing that IEWU was not that successful or important to Sony is not a defensible position. Forgive me for being longwinded but I do market research for a living and this one is easy.

[Anonymous]

What is the genre— movies that should have gone straight to streaming?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the genre— movies that should have gone straight to streaming?

Why would it go straight to streaming when it was a box office hit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's cut was the winner, for a reason, and studio execs gushed to her about the success of the film. Do you think any of this helps Baldoni, who has zero projects now in the works per imdb? Studio execs wanted to muzzle him from doing press promo, not because of Lively but because of his tendency to say inappropriate and off-putting things. They had to cut the tape of one of his interviews.

From People:
Justin Baldoni was labeled a "moron" by a studio executive over remarks he allegedly made in an interview promoting It Ends With Us.

An alleged email sent by Danni Maggin, a senior marketing executive at Sony Pictures Entertainment, on Aug. 5, 2024, shows the marketing team took issue with Baldoni's remarks in one interview.

"... Justin is basically alluding to 'raping' Atlas out of Lily when talking to the Dallas Morning News. We cut the tape but he is a moron," Maggin wrote in the email, recently unsealed as part of Blake Lively's ongoing legal battle with Baldoni.

Maggin then appeared to refer to Josh Greenstein, then-president of Sony Pictures‘ Motion Group, alleging Greenstein said that director-star Baldoni, 42, "shouldn't do any more press but he has a lot left so maybe we can talk asap."

Perfect example of weird bot behavior.

Her cut was the low scoring one, bozo!

Her cut was the one execs selected, largely because Colleen felt it captured her vision, and the one that earned hundreds of millions of dollars, bozo! From a business perspective, Baldoni was a pathetic failure. In addition to being cut out of the social network and promotion because no one wanted to hear any more of his inappropriate remarks. He's the one who'll never work again.

Meh, Sony likely caused themselves to lose tens of millions of dollars because they ignored normal business practices and went with the cut markedly less popular with audiences. Then they lost more potential profit when Blake did stupid things like make the “bring your florals” comment. That’s what you get when you give in to a celebrity pressure campaign.

Regardless of how you feel about Blake or Justin, I think it's dubious to assert that Sony could have made more money with Justin's cut. The truth of the matter is that the actual cut of the movie is not what sold it -- it was the marketing campaign featuring a very recognizable actress (often alongside her very famous husband and friends) and a hugely popular author. That's why they went with Blake's cut. Because Blake and Colleen would sell the hell out of it, and they did. It's highly unlikely they would have gotten more money out Justin's cut, especially if releasing that one had meant that Blake phoned in promotion.

It was a short term gain though. they killed any hope for the sequel and Sony has been embarrassed and damaged by what has come out.

Considering Colleen Hoover’s next film regretting you also did about 100 million based on a less successful book and less known actors, they probably would have been okay with less box office sales plus a sequel plus their reputation intact.

Agree. For big companies like Sony, box office hits are a dime a dozen. The headache that is Blake is clearly not worth it to them, since neither they nor anyone else have offered her another role. They’re over Blake. She’s unhireable. On pause. Hathaway and Eva Mendes time. To use Sony’s own words.

The bolded is, uh, laughably false. Here's Ange Giannetti on the box office success of IEWU:

Q Was the opening of the film successful?
A Very.
Q And -- and how did it compare to other movies of the genre?
MR. FREEDMAN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It was gigantic.
BY MS. HUDSON: Q Was it a historically successful movie?
MR. FREEDMAN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Oh, you could say that. I think that's fair.
BY MS. HUDSON: Q And how much money has It Ends with Us made to date?
A I can't tell you to date. I can tell you to date theatrically. I think it's close to $350 million.
Q And is that a historically large success rate?
A For this size budget and this genre, incredible.

Emphasis on “for the genre”. Yes making this kind of money is a dime a dozen for Sony, just not in that genre.

You're leaving out "for this size budget." This return on investment is very unusual. Here's Sony's top films by box office for 2024, and how much they cost to make, ranked by ROI (box office as a percentage of cost):

IEWU -- cost 30m, total box office 350m (1167% ROI)
Anyone But You -- cost 25m, total box office 219m (876% ROI)
The Forge -- cost 5m, total box office 40m (800% ROI)
The Garfield Movie -- cost 60m, total box office 255m (425% ROI)
Bad Boys: Ride or Die -- cost 100m, total box office 400m (400% ROI)
Venom: The Last Dance -- cost 120m, total box office 474m (395% ROI)
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire -- cost 100m, total box office 200m (200% ROI)
Madame Web -- cost 80-100m, total box office 100m (bust)
Kraven the Hunter -- cost 110m, total box office 60m (bust)
Fly Me to the Moon -- cost 100m, total box office 38m (bust)

So only two Sony films grossed more than IEWU in 2024, and both cost several multiples what IEWU cost even after overruns. Of the films that cost less to make, both were profitable but still didn't touch IEWU's total numbers. IEWU was a major success for Sony in 2024 and helped salvage an otherwise pretty lackluster year with massive over-performance. And it did so as a romantic drama. Not a reboot of a successful franchise or a superhero tentpole.

No, a success like IEWU is not a dime a dozen for Sony. It's a cash cow that I guarantee every studio in town is looking for ways to replicate in spite of the legal fallout (they are just replicating it without Blake or Justin). Studios are actively looking for more "BookTok" stories to adapt, including those in the romantic drama category, and even to replicate aspects of the marketing campaign which took a page out of Barbie's book by encouraging women to make an event out of attending the film (dressing up, going with friends, etc.). So, yeah, grab your friends and wear your florals.

I truly don't care who you support in this dumb drama, but arguing that IEWU was not that successful or important to Sony is not a defensible position. Forgive me for being longwinded but I do market research for a living and this one is easy.

Completely agree with this. And though Blake may be deemed a pita, she was largely credited with the movie's success. The issue with her will be getting good directors to work with her; they're the ones who will be wary after Justin's experience even if he seems to have come across as pretty amateurish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the genre— movies that should have gone straight to streaming?

Why would it go straight to streaming when it was a box office hit?

Very rare for a movie in this genre, when so many flop or do go straight to streaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's cut was the winner, for a reason, and studio execs gushed to her about the success of the film. Do you think any of this helps Baldoni, who has zero projects now in the works per imdb? Studio execs wanted to muzzle him from doing press promo, not because of Lively but because of his tendency to say inappropriate and off-putting things. They had to cut the tape of one of his interviews.

From People:
Justin Baldoni was labeled a "moron" by a studio executive over remarks he allegedly made in an interview promoting It Ends With Us.

An alleged email sent by Danni Maggin, a senior marketing executive at Sony Pictures Entertainment, on Aug. 5, 2024, shows the marketing team took issue with Baldoni's remarks in one interview.

"... Justin is basically alluding to 'raping' Atlas out of Lily when talking to the Dallas Morning News. We cut the tape but he is a moron," Maggin wrote in the email, recently unsealed as part of Blake Lively's ongoing legal battle with Baldoni.

Maggin then appeared to refer to Josh Greenstein, then-president of Sony Pictures‘ Motion Group, alleging Greenstein said that director-star Baldoni, 42, "shouldn't do any more press but he has a lot left so maybe we can talk asap."

Perfect example of weird bot behavior.

Her cut was the low scoring one, bozo!

Her cut was the one execs selected, largely because Colleen felt it captured her vision, and the one that earned hundreds of millions of dollars, bozo! From a business perspective, Baldoni was a pathetic failure. In addition to being cut out of the social network and promotion because no one wanted to hear any more of his inappropriate remarks. He's the one who'll never work again.

Meh, Sony likely caused themselves to lose tens of millions of dollars because they ignored normal business practices and went with the cut markedly less popular with audiences. Then they lost more potential profit when Blake did stupid things like make the “bring your florals” comment. That’s what you get when you give in to a celebrity pressure campaign.

Regardless of how you feel about Blake or Justin, I think it's dubious to assert that Sony could have made more money with Justin's cut. The truth of the matter is that the actual cut of the movie is not what sold it -- it was the marketing campaign featuring a very recognizable actress (often alongside her very famous husband and friends) and a hugely popular author. That's why they went with Blake's cut. Because Blake and Colleen would sell the hell out of it, and they did. It's highly unlikely they would have gotten more money out Justin's cut, especially if releasing that one had meant that Blake phoned in promotion.

It was a short term gain though. they killed any hope for the sequel and Sony has been embarrassed and damaged by what has come out.

Considering Colleen Hoover’s next film regretting you also did about 100 million based on a less successful book and less known actors, they probably would have been okay with less box office sales plus a sequel plus their reputation intact.

Agree. For big companies like Sony, box office hits are a dime a dozen. The headache that is Blake is clearly not worth it to them, since neither they nor anyone else have offered her another role. They’re over Blake. She’s unhireable. On pause. Hathaway and Eva Mendes time. To use Sony’s own words.

The bolded is, uh, laughably false. Here's Ange Giannetti on the box office success of IEWU:

Q Was the opening of the film successful?
A Very.
Q And -- and how did it compare to other movies of the genre?
MR. FREEDMAN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It was gigantic.
BY MS. HUDSON: Q Was it a historically successful movie?
MR. FREEDMAN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Oh, you could say that. I think that's fair.
BY MS. HUDSON: Q And how much money has It Ends with Us made to date?
A I can't tell you to date. I can tell you to date theatrically. I think it's close to $350 million.
Q And is that a historically large success rate?
A For this size budget and this genre, incredible.

Emphasis on “for the genre”. Yes making this kind of money is a dime a dozen for Sony, just not in that genre.

You're leaving out "for this size budget." This return on investment is very unusual. Here's Sony's top films by box office for 2024, and how much they cost to make, ranked by ROI (box office as a percentage of cost):

IEWU -- cost 30m, total box office 350m (1167% ROI)
Anyone But You -- cost 25m, total box office 219m (876% ROI)
The Forge -- cost 5m, total box office 40m (800% ROI)
The Garfield Movie -- cost 60m, total box office 255m (425% ROI)
Bad Boys: Ride or Die -- cost 100m, total box office 400m (400% ROI)
Venom: The Last Dance -- cost 120m, total box office 474m (395% ROI)
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire -- cost 100m, total box office 200m (200% ROI)
Madame Web -- cost 80-100m, total box office 100m (bust)
Kraven the Hunter -- cost 110m, total box office 60m (bust)
Fly Me to the Moon -- cost 100m, total box office 38m (bust)

So only two Sony films grossed more than IEWU in 2024, and both cost several multiples what IEWU cost even after overruns. Of the films that cost less to make, both were profitable but still didn't touch IEWU's total numbers. IEWU was a major success for Sony in 2024 and helped salvage an otherwise pretty lackluster year with massive over-performance. And it did so as a romantic drama. Not a reboot of a successful franchise or a superhero tentpole.

No, a success like IEWU is not a dime a dozen for Sony. It's a cash cow that I guarantee every studio in town is looking for ways to replicate in spite of the legal fallout (they are just replicating it without Blake or Justin). Studios are actively looking for more "BookTok" stories to adapt, including those in the romantic drama category, and even to replicate aspects of the marketing campaign which took a page out of Barbie's book by encouraging women to make an event out of attending the film (dressing up, going with friends, etc.). So, yeah, grab your friends and wear your florals.

I truly don't care who you support in this dumb drama, but arguing that IEWU was not that successful or important to Sony is not a defensible position. Forgive me for being longwinded but I do market research for a living and this one is easy.

Completely agree with this. And though Blake may be deemed a pita, she was largely credited with the movie's success. The issue with her will be getting good directors to work with her; they're the ones who will be wary after Justin's experience even if he seems to have come across as pretty amateurish.

So why isn’t she getting movies? Her IMDB is crickets. 3 movies in there, one she was cast in may 2017 and hasn’t budged off pre production. When you google it there is a more recent article from 2022 that mentions a writer who is attached but no cast members. The others you can find a variety article on….from August 2020. Still sitting in pre production.

The third is her production company’s first film. She is the only cast member attached and there is one other person - the writer. No director or other crew. It may or may not get made.

Blake was a part of the success, but not the only part. Justin had the foresight to option the film, get financing for it, and hire everyone involved, including Blake. Brandon is being cast in everything… He has a pretty big fan base from the Taylor Sheridan show so he was definitely a draw and you can’t discount Colleen Hoover’s name and the fact that this was the best selling book that had a ton of built-in fans.

If studios thought Blake could make another $350 million movie, hell if she could make another hundred million dollar movie, they would be falling all over themselves casting her. It’s not happening.

Further, she has killed the rights of a sequel ever being being made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the genre— movies that should have gone straight to streaming?

Why would it go straight to streaming when it was a box office hit?

Very rare for a movie in this genre, when so many flop or do go straight to streaming.

Well the housemaid did it. Just passed the $300 million market and still going so there’s definitely a surge in female writers having their books adapted and doing really well.

That’s a paul Feig movie. Paul directed Blake and Anna in a simple favor and the sequel, also based in a book by a female writer that was adapted to a screenplay. Those movies did fine, but not nearly as well as the housemaid, and it ends with us.

You can’t just say, Blake will guarantee to get people in the seats. It really depends on so many factors. She was one factor.

[Anonymous]

In one of the emails Ryan / Blake wrote to their friends, I think it was Ryan who wrote a line in it about not working for the next 1.5-2 years - that they intended to take time off.

I don't remember the exact wording but it seems like they had already planned a work break by that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In one of the emails Ryan / Blake wrote to their friends, I think it was Ryan who wrote a line in it about not working for the next 1.5-2 years - that they intended to take time off.

I don't remember the exact wording but it seems like they had already planned a work break by that point.

Right. After the biggest movie of her lifetime she didn’t want to work? Why would her manager say on the deposition they were expecting offers to roll in? And why would she launch a production company? It seemed like the whole point of doing everything for this movie is that she could launch her directing and producing career. She wanted to direct and produce and star in the sequel- that was the next step. Confirmed in the documents as well, including by Colleen Hoover herself.

Ryan seems like a workaholic. He had 3 movies get cancelled by paramount and they opted not to renew their contract with him to develop films which expired end of 2026. It doesn’t sound like he wanted to slow down. It sounds like he is being forced to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the genre— movies that should have gone straight to streaming?

Why would it go straight to streaming when it was a box office hit?

Very rare for a movie in this genre, when so many flop or do go straight to streaming.

Well the housemaid did it. Just passed the $300 million market and still going so there’s definitely a surge in female writers having their books adapted and doing really well.

That’s a paul Feig movie. Paul directed Blake and Anna in a simple favor and the sequel, also based in a book by a female writer that was adapted to a screenplay. Those movies did fine, but not nearly as well as the housemaid, and it ends with us.

You can’t just say, Blake will guarantee to get people in the seats. It really depends on so many factors. She was one factor.

Honestly, i think it had little to do with Blake and a lot to do with the fact it was a popular book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In one of the emails Ryan / Blake wrote to their friends, I think it was Ryan who wrote a line in it about not working for the next 1.5-2 years - that they intended to take time off.

I don't remember the exact wording but it seems like they had already planned a work break by that point.

Right. After the biggest movie of her lifetime she didn’t want to work? Why would her manager say on the deposition they were expecting offers to roll in? And why would she launch a production company? It seemed like the whole point of doing everything for this movie is that she could launch her directing and producing career. She wanted to direct and produce and star in the sequel- that was the next step. Confirmed in the documents as well, including by Colleen Hoover herself.

Ryan seems like a workaholic. He had 3 movies get cancelled by paramount and they opted not to renew their contract with him to develop films which expired end of 2026. It doesn’t sound like he wanted to slow down. It sounds like he is being forced to.

I am just saying that something to that effect was already written by them long before the lawsuit. She had just had a baby and then made a movie, I can see her taking some time off. I think most actors do big features then take a break for awhile. Acting isn't really a day in day out, Monday to Friday, 50 weeks of the year type job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In one of the emails Ryan / Blake wrote to their friends, I think it was Ryan who wrote a line in it about not working for the next 1.5-2 years - that they intended to take time off.

I don't remember the exact wording but it seems like they had already planned a work break by that point.

Right. After the biggest movie of her lifetime she didn’t want to work? Why would her manager say on the deposition they were expecting offers to roll in? And why would she launch a production company? It seemed like the whole point of doing everything for this movie is that she could launch her directing and producing career. She wanted to direct and produce and star in the sequel- that was the next step. Confirmed in the documents as well, including by Colleen Hoover herself.

Ryan seems like a workaholic. He had 3 movies get cancelled by paramount and they opted not to renew their contract with him to develop films which expired end of 2026. It doesn’t sound like he wanted to slow down. It sounds like he is being forced to.

I am just saying that something to that effect was already written by them long before the lawsuit. She had just had a baby and then made a movie, I can see her taking some time off. I think most actors do big features then take a break for awhile. Acting isn't really a day in day out, Monday to Friday, 50 weeks of the year type job.

It’s already been two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the genre— movies that should have gone straight to streaming?

Why would it go straight to streaming when it was a box office hit?

Very rare for a movie in this genre, when so many flop or do go straight to streaming.

Well the housemaid did it. Just passed the $300 million market and still going so there’s definitely a surge in female writers having their books adapted and doing really well.

That’s a paul Feig movie. Paul directed Blake and Anna in a simple favor and the sequel, also based in a book by a female writer that was adapted to a screenplay. Those movies did fine, but not nearly as well as the housemaid, and it ends with us.

You can’t just say, Blake will guarantee to get people in the seats. It really depends on so many factors. She was one factor.

Honestly, i think it had little to do with Blake and a lot to do with the fact it was a popular book.

This. In fact the book fans seemed initially pissed off with her casting and thought she was too old, then compounded with the set photos that came out looking absolutely ridiculous in those outfits she put together. I think this movie would have done well with pretty much any halfway attractive and passable actress in that role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In one of the emails Ryan / Blake wrote to their friends, I think it was Ryan who wrote a line in it about not working for the next 1.5-2 years - that they intended to take time off.

I don't remember the exact wording but it seems like they had already planned a work break by that point.

Right. After the biggest movie of her lifetime she didn’t want to work? Why would her manager say on the deposition they were expecting offers to roll in? And why would she launch a production company? It seemed like the whole point of doing everything for this movie is that she could launch her directing and producing career. She wanted to direct and produce and star in the sequel- that was the next step. Confirmed in the documents as well, including by Colleen Hoover herself.

Ryan seems like a workaholic. He had 3 movies get cancelled by paramount and they opted not to renew their contract with him to develop films which expired end of 2026. It doesn’t sound like he wanted to slow down. It sounds like he is being forced to.

I am just saying that something to that effect was already written by them long before the lawsuit. She had just had a baby and then made a movie, I can see her taking some time off. I think most actors do big features then take a break for awhile. Acting isn't really a day in day out, Monday to Friday, 50 weeks of the year type job.

The filming wrapped in January 2024. It’s been two years.

And while I know Blake is painting the picture that she did everything in this movie, I’ll remind you that she was on set for 16 days. It really doesn’t seem that taxing and something she’d need a 2 year break from.

[Anonymous]

lol.