Nicepool and the Legal Battle: A Look Inside the Controversy

Takeaways:

• Justin Baldoni alleges the creation of the character “Nicepool” in Deadpool & Wolverine is a mockery of him amid his legal disputes with Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds.
• Key legal actions involve claims of defamation and a $400M lawsuit against Reynolds, Lively, and her publicist.
• The timeline and development of “Nicepool” suggest conflicting narratives, with creation predating Baldoni and Lively’s tensions but scenes shot during heightened disputes.

The entertainment industry is no stranger to drama, but the ongoing legal saga between Justin Baldoni, Blake Lively, and Ryan Reynolds has taken center stage in recent months. At the heart of this high-stakes dispute is the character “Nicepool,” a minor figure in Deadpool & Wolverine that Baldoni’s legal team claims was designed to mock him. Let’s dive into the details, timelines, and implications of this unusual case.

The Origins of Nicepool: A Character in Question

Introduced in Deadpool & Wolverine, Nicepool is described as a variant of Deadpool with exaggerated characteristics. While many Deadpool Corps members are rooted in the comics, Nicepool was a unique addition created by the movie’s writing team. Director Shawn Levy and star Ryan Reynolds described Nicepool as “clearly absurd” and noted his Canadian flair.

According to the film’s commentary, work on Nicepool’s costume began early in production, suggesting the character’s inception predated the conflicts between Baldoni and Lively. However, critical scenes involving Nicepool were reportedly filmed in late production, during a period marked by public and legal disputes between the involved parties.

The Baldoni-Lively Feud: A Timeline

The drama between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively escalated on the set of It Ends With Us, where Lively accused Baldoni of harassment. As tensions rose, Baldoni’s legal actions expanded to include her husband, Ryan Reynolds, and her publicist, Leslie Sloane. The accusations centered on alleged defamation and professional sabotage, culminating in a $400 million lawsuit.

The Controversial Scene

In one scene, Nicepool (played unmasked by Reynolds) comments on Ladypool’s recent motherhood, quipping, “That’s OK. I identify as a feminist,” followed by a remark about starting a podcast monetizing the women’s movement. Critics argue these lines could be interpreted as veiled jabs at Baldoni, who built his public persona as a women’s ally and co-hosted the Man Enough podcast.

Legal Moves: Bryan Freedman’s Letter

Representing Baldoni, attorney Bryan Freedman has taken aggressive steps to preserve evidence. A legal hold letter was sent to Disney CEO Bob Iger and Marvel Studios’ Kevin Feige, demanding documents regarding Nicepool’s creation. While Disney and Marvel have not commented, sources close to the studio find the accusations speculative at best.

Freedman’s letter also references unrelated incidents, including Tim Miller’s 2016 exit from the Deadpool franchise and past allegations involving other Disney projects. This wide-ranging approach has raised eyebrows about the letter’s scope and intent.

Industry Implications and Speculation

Though Baldoni’s legal team asserts Nicepool was a deliberate mockery, others in the industry suggest the character’s creation was coincidental. Levy’s commentary supports the idea that Nicepool’s design was finalized before Baldoni and Lively’s public fallout. Still, the timing of the scenes’ filming fuels speculation about the character’s true intent.

“We’ll never know,” a source close to the production stated. “But some of the things he says, looking back, feel pointed at Justin Baldoni.”

Moving Forward: What’s Next?

As the legal proceedings unfold, the case raises questions about the intersection of creative freedom and personal grievances in Hollywood. For Baldoni, the stakes are not just professional but deeply personal, as the allegations challenge his public image and career. For Reynolds and Lively, the dispute is a potential blemish on otherwise sterling reputations.

This legal battle serves as a reminder of the complexities behind the scenes in Hollywood—where creative expression and interpersonal conflicts often collide.