Leaked Texts Expose “Blake Call” Control

The core of the new scandal is a series of leaked text messages from Henry Grace, one of the film’s editors, which reveal the extent of Lively’s behind-the-scenes authority:

“Blake Call”: The texts mention that crucial creative choices were labeled a “Blake call,” implying Blake Lively had the final, decisive word on decisions typically reserved for the director (Justin Baldoni) or editors.
Approval Over Non-Character Scenes: The most damaging revelation is that Lively allegedly had approval rights for scenes she was not in, specifically a pivotal, emotional sequence involving “Young Lily.”
The Unsafe Rider: The editor’s text mentions, “She has approval of that scene even for young Lily… I was just thinking the same thing when she claimed she was unsafe as in Blake feeling unsafe. She redid the rider to get approval of young Lily.” This suggests Lively tied her comfort/safety requests to securing creative control over the project’s core emotional elements.
The Reaction: The editor’s messages expressed frustration and disbelief over her expanded authority, using “SMH” (Shake My Head) to punctuate his discontent, signaling internal friction within the production team.

This evidence of extensive control is used to challenge Lively’s public narrative that she was merely an actor or producer and a passive victim in the legal dispute.

Legal Team’s Backfired Strategy

Blake Lively’s legal team made a highly unusual move that legal analysts argue was a costly PR blunder:

Filing the Full Deposition: Lively’s team filed the entire unreviewed, uncorrected transcript of her deposition with the court, a move described as “unheard of.”
The Justification: Her lawyers claimed the full filing was necessary to demonstrate transparency, provide context, and counter allegations that her team was orchestrating a smear campaign.
The Blowback: Critics argue the move backfired by turning the deposition into a media spectacle. It created more opportunities for media leaks, irrelevant details (like her outfit and a false claim that Baldoni attended), and scrutiny over every single word, instead of just the two pages cited in their legal argument.
Redactions and Vagueness: Analysts have pointed out that her deposition transcript contained heavy redactions and relied on vague and inconsistent language when discussing the alleged smear campaign. This lack of concrete evidence, combined with the extensive redactions, has only fueled speculation that her team is hiding information, further weakening her credibility.

Shifting Narratives and Loss of Control

The current situation is framed as Lively’s struggle to control a narrative that is “slipping rapidly out of her hands”:

Smear Campaign Credibility: The strong evidence of Lively’s “overreach” on the film set makes her repeated claims of being the victim of an “orchestrated smear campaign” harder to sustain. Her actions are now viewed by some as the cause of her own reputational problems.
Attacking the Opposing Counsel: Lively’s team has shifted focus to attacking Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, alleging he defamed Lively through post-litigation statements to the media. Baldoni’s camp interprets this as Lively “slowly realizing there is no retaliatory smear campaign” and shifting to attack the lawyer who is successfully questioning her story.
Film’s Authenticity Questioned: Fans of the book are now expressing doubt and skepticism about the film’s faithfulness to the source material, fearing the emotional core has been altered to suit Lively’s personal vision rather than the author’s intent.