Blake Lively, the renowned actress and producer, has found herself at the center of controversy over her extensive control over the production of the film It Ends With Us. The movie, based on Colleen Hoover’s popular novel, saw Lively exert significant influence over various aspects of the film’s direction—far beyond what’s typically seen on movie sets. From demanding control over intimate scenes to restricting access to footage, Lively’s actions have raised eyebrows, with many questioning her motivations and the legality of her approach.

A 17-Point Document: The Heart of Lively’s Control

At the core of this controversy is a 17-point document that Lively reportedly presented to the production team. The document outlined several strict terms, most notably her demand for control over intimate scenes involving herself and her co-star, Isabella Ferrer, who portrayed the younger version of Lively’s character, Lily Bloom. Lively took on the responsibility of not only approving these scenes but also controlling the script, casting decisions, and the final edits of the footage.

Additionally, the document stipulated that only personnel Lively personally approved could view sensitive footage, and only those directly involved in the filming process could be present during the shooting of intimate scenes. This level of control extended to Lively’s interactions with the production team and crew, restricting physical contact or comments unless they were strictly script-related. This approach left little room for flexibility or personal interaction, creating an environment where all actions and responses had to be carefully considered to avoid crossing her strict guidelines.

Retaliation Clause: A Game-Changing Legal Move

One of the most controversial aspects of the 17-point document is the inclusion of a “retaliation clause,” which was designed to protect Lively from any form of negative behavior. The clause defined retaliation broadly to include changes in attitude, sarcasm, marginalization, and other undefined “negative behaviors.” This vague wording essentially gave Lively the power to interpret any slight—intentional or not—as retaliation. Such broad terms allowed Lively to claim that any disagreement or perceived slight could be grounds for legal action, effectively putting the production team, including co-directors Justin Baldoni and Jamie Heath, on edge and making them fearful of any action that might upset her.

This clause had significant implications, as it could paralyze the production. Even something as minor as a sarcastic comment or a perceived shift in attitude could be seen as retaliation, allowing Lively to potentially threaten legal action. This weaponization of a retaliation clause raised concerns that Lively wasn’t merely looking to protect herself from harassment but rather using the clause to assert power and control over the entire film.

A Shift in Power: Legal Strategy or Extortion?

While Lively’s actions might be framed as self-protective and intended to ensure a safe working environment, many have speculated that they were more about gaining creative and logistical dominance over the film. According to sources close to the production, Lively’s primary motivation for creating this document was not addressing issues of misconduct but rather securing the ability to control the direction of the film, especially in terms of the intimate scenes and overall editing.

When Lively was denied access to the daily footage—raw, unedited footage from the film’s shooting—she created this 17-point document as a way to regain power over the production. This move came after she was reportedly denied access to the footage and was not about sexual harassment or any personal mistreatment but about controlling her image in the film. It was a tactical decision to force the production team to comply with her demands, using the retaliation clause as a legal bargaining chip.

The Legal Battle: Challenges to Lively’s Claims

Lively’s retaliation claim and the overall validity of her document have come under intense legal scrutiny. One of the primary points of contention is that Lively, as a contractor, does not have the same legal protections as an employee, especially under federal law and California’s Civil Rights Department. Furthermore, her status as a contractor meant that her right to file complaints was significantly limited, and her legal options were fewer compared to full-time employees.

Lively’s legal team attempted to frame her actions as a selfless effort to ensure safety on set. However, the fact that no formal complaints were ever filed regarding harassment or mistreatment undermines her narrative. She did not follow traditional HR channels to address grievances, which raises questions about whether her demands were a strategic power move rather than a response to genuine misconduct.

Moreover, Lively waived her right to sue after completing the film without issue, suggesting that she was satisfied with the terms of the production. This complicates her legal standing, as her completion of the film without incident could be seen as a waiver of any future complaints. Critics argue that Lively used the 17-point document to gain leverage in the production process and then attempted to use legal threats to secure a settlement.

The Bigger Picture: Misrepresentation and Control

Blake Lively’s legal strategy appears to be less about addressing legitimate safety concerns and more about asserting control over the film’s production. Her retaliation claim, based on the broad and vague language in the 17-point document, has little grounding in actual misconduct. This could ultimately weaken her case, particularly if a judge considers the document self-serving and her completion of the film as an implicit acknowledgment that no issues arose during production.

Her portrayal of the document as a protective measure, rather than a calculated move to control the film, may have backfired. By focusing solely on her personal comfort and demands, Lively may have inadvertently undermined her own claims. The production team, led by Justin Baldoni, has denied any misconduct or inappropriate behavior, and the legal team is now seeking to dismiss the lawsuit based on her waiver and inconsistent legal narrative.

Conclusion: Is This a Power Move or a Legal Misstep?

Blake Lively’s actions on It Ends With Us have sparked intense debate about the role of power dynamics on film sets. While her demands may have been intended to protect herself, the document’s extensive control over the production process raises questions about her motives. Legal experts believe that Lively’s case will likely be dismissed due to her contractor status, her waiver of future legal action, and the lack of formal complaints.

However, the broader implications of her behavior go beyond this specific case. It highlights the importance of clear communication and proper legal channels when addressing concerns about safety and misconduct on set. The fallout from this case will likely have lasting effects on how actors, producers, and filmmakers navigate power dynamics in future productions.

As this case continues to unfold, it remains to be seen whether Lively will be able to prove any legitimate misconduct or if her actions were simply an effort to assert control over a film that, in the end, she ultimately wanted to dominate.