By Dustin Rowles | News | January 15, 2025 |
Yesterday, Justin Baldoni sent a letter “demanding” that Marvel and Disney preserve all documents relating to the character of Nicepool in Ryan Reynolds’ Deadpool & Wolverine. It was possibly the most misguided move Baldoni has made so far. The letter demands the studios retain “any and all documents relating to or reflecting a deliberate attempt to mock, harass, ridicule, intimidate, or bully Baldoni through the character of ‘Nicepool.’”
Nicepool, recall, is the alternate-Deadpool character with a man bun who, in the film, asks, “Where in God’s name is the intimacy coordinator?!” and compliments Ladypool for “snapping back” into shape after giving birth, adding that he can say that because “I am a feminist.”
Most of us have encountered a guy like Nicepool. There are countless variations of him, man bun or not—Joss Whedon and Neil Gaiman come to mind. Was Nicepool inspired by Justin Baldoni? Possibly! But now? Everyone is going to assume so, thanks to what might be the most spectacular self-own of 2025.
And to what end? Where is the lawsuit? Let’s assume, hypothetically, there is a smoking gun: evidence that Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively conspired to create a throwaway, faux-feminist character as a dig at Baldoni due to allegations of mistreating Lively. There are breadcrumbs, after all—Nicepool’s credited name is “Gordon Reynolds,” a name Lively thanked in the end credits of It Ends with Us. Lively even made an Instagram reference to “Nice men who use feminism as a tool” while tagging both films.
And? This character is a parody of a well-known archetype: the performative male ally. Baldoni is also a public figure, which makes any defamation or false light claims an uphill battle. Under First Amendment protections, satire and parody are generally shielded from such claims. To prevail, Baldoni would need to prove that the public made the connection between Nicepool and him, and that the content showed a reckless disregard for the truth. That’s an impossibly high bar.
Also, the Streisand effect is real, but it’s not a legal argument. You can’t walk into court and argue that your own actions established the connection in the public’s mind. Instead of protecting his reputation, Baldoni’s letter may have unintentionally amplified the association, turning a questionable legal strategy into a very public misstep. Idiot.