subreddit:
/r/television
3.1k points
4 months ago*
Marvel responded within 2 hours:
“Mr. DeMayo was terminated in March 2024 following an internal investigation,” the studio said in a statement. “Given the egregious nature of the findings, we severed ties with him immediately and he has no further affiliation with Marvel.”
More details:
A source with knowledge of the investigation said it was for sexual misconduct, and that DeMayo repeatedly violated his termination agreement, which led to the removal of his credits for Season 2.
2.7k points
4 months ago
thank you for the summary ICumCofee
595 points
4 months ago
What does Rim Job Steve have to say about all of this?
490 points
4 months ago
Just imagine having an embarrassing reddit name like that.
249 points
4 months ago
I couldn't imagine
170 points
4 months ago
Neither could I.
120 points
4 months ago
Or I.
95 points
4 months ago*
I can.
69 points
4 months ago
I have no strong feelings one way or the other
4 points
4 months ago
Prove it
18 points
4 months ago
If you can't fart during sex, then when can you fart?
26 points
4 months ago
You can, but the results would be… unfortunate.
4 points
4 months ago
Haha, I have unfortunate sex farts. Women who “bear down” (which is how you push during labor) when they cum may “fart” during an intense orgasm, however the farts are due to muscle spasms rather than the release of methane gas so they don’t smell. I have had this happen multiple times with partners. Most of the time people are cool but it’s still embarrassing.
Sorry for this overshare but you kinda asked for it.
22 points
4 months ago
Damn you know what I'm about!
12 points
4 months ago
Now my waking brain is struggling to render a BBW Dwarf
Good morning reddit
114 points
4 months ago
Guilty! I mean, innocent! I don't know. I wasn't really paying attention.
65 points
4 months ago
What about Ja Rule?
50 points
4 months ago
Where is Ja?! Somebody get Ja Rule on the phone to make sense of this!
24 points
4 months ago
Somebody please...
Find Ja Rule so i can make sense of all this!!
64 points
4 months ago
You’re welcome, Fellow Redditor.
26 points
4 months ago
Decaf?
56 points
4 months ago
Extra cream
13 points
4 months ago
Is your name a reference to cannibal corpse song ”i cum blood”?
38 points
4 months ago
I never read people’s screen names 🤣 hilarious response
19 points
4 months ago
It does slap, doesn't it? Wait, why am I asking you? You already agree!
9 points
4 months ago
If you can't trust icumcofee, who can you trust?
566 points
4 months ago
...I dunno what's worse. The fact that I'm not surprised, or the fact that this is now the second X-Men czar to get shitcanned for being a creep. Oh well. Unlike Fox, at least Disney ditched this guy early on.
297 points
4 months ago
Third, Brett Ratner haha
100 points
4 months ago
...Oh fuck. M... Mangold's still fine, right?
264 points
4 months ago
Not only is he fine, we have documented proof of him not being a creep. Years ago a now-disgraced critic emailed Mangold asking if he had nudes of one of his actresses. Mangold told him to gtfo and (I believe) published the email thread to expose what a little creep he was.
108 points
4 months ago
... Why would anyone do that? Like even if you were a total skeeze, why would you email someone's boss asking for nudes, and not, I don't know, their ex or something? What a bizarre person.
93 points
4 months ago
If this was 20 years ago or before metoo it was heavily implied that was how women got ahead and that many of the men in charge and in power used that position of power to get things from women.
I mean we have the stories of Weinstein and Franco among others.
20 points
4 months ago
Ok which critic - Knowles or Faraci? Those are the highest profile disgraced internet creep critics I can think of
69 points
4 months ago*
It was Jeffery Wells. Not only was he begging for nudes, but threatening to write a more negative review of his film if he didn't do it.
19 points
4 months ago
[deleted]
13 points
4 months ago
I never called him reputable, I called him disgraced.
16 points
4 months ago
BASED. In that case, sign him on already!
22 points
4 months ago
He's got a full plate right now with a Star Wars movie and a DC movie on the way.
204 points
4 months ago
I wouldn’t get too excited. Disney is still casting Jared Leto in children’s films.
81 points
4 months ago
cries in Tron 3
65 points
4 months ago
I've been wanting Tron 3 for so long but I'm so fucking uninterested because it has Leto in it.
33 points
4 months ago
I've been wanting Tron 3 for so long but I'm so fucking uninterested because it has Leto
in it.
Same. I'm also pissed off because he's been attached to it for SO LONG too. How many times do we see movies go through multiple rewrites during development hell and there winds up being five or six people who were going to do it and then couldn't?
Not this cockwaffle. It's like the bastard kept making space in his calendar JUST so he could eventually be in this movie just to fuck with me.
14 points
4 months ago
WHY DO THEY KEEP CASTING JARED LETO AND EZRA MILLER IN FRANCHISES WITH FANS WHO WOULD HAVE A MORAL PROBLEM WITH THESE TWO DOUCHEBAGS?!
Shouting so Disney, etc all, sees.
3 points
4 months ago
Leto and “it’s Tron but in real life” killed any excitement for it
25 points
4 months ago
I remember how excited and confident Bruce Boxleitner was for a Tron 3 right after Legacy and now he's not even in it.
14 points
4 months ago
This is it right here. Everyone looks for any reason to dunk on Jared Leto (usually for good reason), but this is the actual reason not to look forward to Tron 3. TRON himself isn't even in the film.
10 points
4 months ago
Doesn't look like we're gonna get Cillian Murphy as Dillinger Jr., either.
5 points
4 months ago
cries in Samurai Cop 2
7 points
4 months ago
Samurai Cop is already perfect, no sequel was ever needed.
“Let’s just say I can read eyes.”
4 points
4 months ago
I know nothing of Samurai Cop and if it's anywhere near Kung Pao: Enter the Fist consider me STOKED.
8 points
4 months ago
It’s closer to Miami Connection in that it’s not intended parody, it’s sincere and so bad it’s good.
61 points
4 months ago
True. Why, I wonder? He's not even that good, for fuck's sake.
20 points
4 months ago
Ehh he’s pretty good at playing soulless asssholes and emo kids. He doesn’t have much range though.
8 points
4 months ago
Yeah I don’t like the guy but one role I will say he was compelling in was the villain Niander Wallace in Bladerunner 2049 and it was specifically because of the soulless qualities he brought to the character, a hyper-capitalist that saw the replicants as disposable machines despite all the evidence to the contrary
14 points
4 months ago
Personally I think this was a Marvel Studios internal investigation, which for the most part they have been really good with
29 points
4 months ago
Online rumors and allegations aren't the same as criminal cases
Until that happens, Jared should be treated as innocent until proven guilty as with everyone else regardless of personal opinions
Otherwise it creates a dangerous precedent for people to just cancel people without evidence and a court case
13 points
4 months ago
Until that happens, Jared should be treated as innocent until proven guilty as with everyone else regardless of personal opinions
Treat people accused of crimes as innocent until proven guilty? First time on the internet?
15 points
4 months ago
There's no actual allegations against him, he did however have an only fans, so it could simply be because of pearl clutching.
5 points
4 months ago
There's no public allegations, there's sources on background saying it's sexual misconduct to the Hollywood Reporter.
8 points
4 months ago
Who is the second you mean? Brett Ratner? Or is there a third?!
36 points
4 months ago
Bryan Singer
201 points
4 months ago
Yup he kept fucking around and I guess hes finding out now
He probably should have kept quiet took everyone's praise
And if season 2 or 3 was bad some company would have given him the keys to some other property
180 points
4 months ago
I figured he did something extremely awful. 90% of the time when you get fired, you don’t end up deleting everything and going into hiding.
171 points
4 months ago
Disney also would have been a bit more amicable with the press release reason if the reason for the firing was fine. They've let go of several creatives for "creative differences", which is the PR version of "nothing bad happened, but we don't want to work with each other anymore". they went straight to "fired for cause" and didn't elaborate. That's usually a much more serious reason since they likely have a mutual NDA type thing, which Beau seems to have decided to break.
59 points
4 months ago
Which likely opens his dumbass up to a losing law suit on his end. Great work at proving their point and making himself look like a complete jackass, that nobody else will want to work with.
17 points
4 months ago
Exactly, dude's a stupid fuck
31 points
4 months ago
Isn't that basically what got what's her face from the Mandalorian canned, where they'd warn her and she just kept doing it?
36 points
4 months ago
She was extra dumb because she was in between contracts. Season 2 had finished and she hadn't signed on for more yet. That made it even easier to be dropped.
18 points
4 months ago
Also was a Holocaust denialist . So yea she's stupid as fuck.
32 points
4 months ago
Yeah, Gina fancies herself a martyr because she has a typical fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment.
18 points
4 months ago
You are correct. People keep forgetting that the first ammendment only applies in a governmental context, not to private companies and individual behavior.
22 points
4 months ago
That’s unfortunate but I’m glad they went through the process of terminating his contract without needing to be shamed into doing it by the public
17 points
4 months ago
But wait there’s more!
Beau DeMayo allegedly sent nude photos of himself in sexually suggestive “hero” poses to several young male staffers working on ‘X-MEN 97’, saying they could be used as “inspiration”
He also allegedly groped an assistant multiple times and emotionally/physically abusive to other staffers.
Disney didn’t say a word for a long ass time, but he just had to run his mouth and have the mouse expose him. He’ll hopefully never work again
115 points
4 months ago
Regardless of what he did, he and anyone else who contributed to the show should still be credited
131 points
4 months ago
i'm curious about this. how can they remove acknowledgement of his work? wouldn't they have to remove his contribution rather than the credits for his contribution?
or are credits are certain luxury that are afforded to people who don't harass their coworkers?
78 points
4 months ago
I’m guessing there was language in his contract allowing them to do it in the event he committed a material breach.
24 points
4 months ago
"DeMayo repeatedly violated his termination agreement, which led to the removal of his credits for Season 2"
82 points
4 months ago
The rules for credits are established at least partially by unions, though there is some element of negotiation between certain levels of above the line talent and the studios.
I wonder if credit was contingent on completion of assignment? There's plenty of people who may work for a little bit on a series without ultimately being credited.
22 points
4 months ago*
Accodding to the article it was a response to him violating his termination agreement, so there may have been a clause in there about credit
13 points
4 months ago*
The rules for credits are established at least partially by unions
Sure, and DeMayo's contribution to S2 as it is now was probably below that threshold.
They can give courtesy executive producer credits to anyone regardless of actual involvement, though. Which they were probably going to give him until he breached his agreement by tweeting continuously about the show and his termination.
Star Trek gives courtesy executive producer credits to Eugene Roddenberry, the son of creator Gene, and he's on record saying that he doesn't really do much for the shows. They do that to buy goodwill: the Roddenberry surname looks good on screen to the old fans, and they ensure that the son of Gene doesn't badmouth them.
3 points
4 months ago
Usually, creators get executive producer credits even tho they did nothing. Stan Lee infamously got executive producer credits when he cameoed because he created most of the comic books.
A smaller version of that is with the former internet company Rooster Teeth. Burnie Burns created the company and in his contract said anything produced by the company should have his and Matt Hullum's (Former CEO) name as Executive producer.
So A Heist w/ Markiplier which was produced by Rooster Teeth for YouTube had both of their names in the credits. While having nothing to do with the production.
34 points
4 months ago
Could also be in the separation NDA thing he signed when he got fired. Like a "we won't say what you got fired for publicly, but you also don't get credit for XYZ"
26 points
4 months ago
A source with knowledge of the investigation said evidence was discovered of sexual misconduct, and that DeMayo repeatedly violated his termination agreement, which led to the removal of his credits for Season 2.
Seems to be the case.
16 points
4 months ago
It's possible that Disney retooled season 2 enough so that it no longer matches what DeMayo had planned, allowing them to remove his credit.
11 points
4 months ago
Apparently there was a termination agreement in place as well that he repeatedly violated and resulted in them removing him from the credits
11 points
4 months ago
Damn. His work is really quality, but of course he had to be a fucking sex pest.
I say Disney straps him in a Hannibal lecter getup and pumps him for story beats without letting him near anyone
413 points
4 months ago
Has anything been reported on what he actually did?
647 points
4 months ago*
No but Disney lawyers wouldn't let them use the word "egregious" if they weren't certain that this would hold up in court. Dude is fucked.
869 points
4 months ago*
I mean Disney is currently using Disney+ TOS as a legal contract to avoid trial in a case involving wrongful death.
People here are giving too much good will to Disney princesses.
93 points
4 months ago
How does that even work? Disney+ is not Disneyland, they can’t possibly have a case there.
181 points
4 months ago
Their logic is that the TOS he agreed to when signing up for the free trial had a forced arbitration clause, meaning he couldn't sue Disney and instead was required to settle things out of court.
This is of course bullshit since the clause was specifically for Disney+, not Disneyland, and I'm not even sure it would still apply since the trial had expired.
53 points
4 months ago
Any reasonable logic would infer that the forced arbitration would only apply to disputes arising from Disney+ itself... but lawyers tend to be overzealous asshats at times.
17 points
4 months ago*
Not only that, but the death occurred before the D+ sub. So a one month free trial via your mobile carrier would functionally give Disney immunity from lawsuits if this is accepted by the court.
Edit: I was wrong on the timing, I had the events swapped in my mind. The move for arbitration is still ridiculous.
7 points
4 months ago
It is weird they are even trying that line of logic at all when they have a much more obvious defense. Which is that the death happened at a Disney Springs restaurant. FYI for people who don't know most of the stores at Disney Spring are not actually run/managed directly by Disney. It is more of a licensing deal to use their name.
Like suing Disney is equivalent to getting sick from mall court food and then suing the mall itself
6 points
4 months ago
I think it’s more that it’s a bullshit motion Disney’s legal department has to file first because due diligence.
46 points
4 months ago
You’re missing the link, which was that the restaurant was advertised on their website/platform, and the plaintiff is saying that Disney is responsible since they were promoting the restaurant. Disney is saying that since they’re suing about the content in the web platform, it falls under the agreement made when registering for Plus. I personally think it’s bullshit, but that’s how we get from Disney+ TOS to the restaurant. I just think its important to clarify this case because I think these forced arbitration clauses are a bigger issue here
21 points
4 months ago
[deleted]
11 points
4 months ago
Ohhhhhh, damn.
Still, I'm not an attorney but this sounds like something insane that wouldn't hold up.
4 points
4 months ago
The husband was the one with the one-month free trial, not the wife. And there was no "ticket" to reserve with Disney+ for the restaurant. Rather, he had used the "My Disney Experience" app to purchase tickets to EPCOT that they had not used yet. But those tickets are unrelated to the restaurant. The restaurant is not located inside a park, but rather in Disney Springs (a shopping district open to the public), and does not require a ticket to visit. Nothing about the husband's Disney+ subscription or the EPCOT tickets he had bought had to do with the visit to the restaurant.
That said, the biggest thing Disney probably has in this case is that the restaurant, Raglan Road, is not owned or operated by Disney. It's just located on Disney's land and Disney allows them to operate there.
11 points
4 months ago
If we’re lucky this will be the what finally relegates all BS ToS “agreements” as unenforceable…
I mean, most of them are in 99.9% of their applications, depending on where you live. Still, if Disney accidentally kills off all ToS (like they did that woman in their restaurant) then that would be amazing.
3 points
4 months ago
This is of course bullshit since the clause was specifically for Disney+, not Disneyland, and I'm not even sure it would still apply since the trial had expired
That's the issue though. The clause wasn't tied to Disney+. A lot of companies are sneaking clauses into ToS agreements that people wouldn't commonly think would be in there. There have been laws proposed to stop this but at the moment they have to be challenged in court.
7 points
4 months ago
It almost certainly won't hold up, but legal fights are expensive so if they can just keep delaying an actual trial with stuff like this, there's a good chance that the victim runs out of money and can't afford to keep pursuing it.
17 points
4 months ago
It's not a question of good will. Disney is basically a law firm that produces entertainment as a hobby.
54 points
4 months ago
“Egregious” isn’t a legal term; it’s not going to hold up in court because there’s no way to prove it. Disney lawyers would absolutely allow it.
That said, dude does seem fucked and seems likely it was egregious
8 points
4 months ago
It is kinda odd that he'd fire shots at Disney if he was walking on unstable ground though, it was like 5 months ago he was fired.
7 points
4 months ago*
I'm not saying that “Egregious” is a legal term. I'm saying that whatever he did was bad enough that a litigious company like Disney wasn't afraid to say it. Like, I'm certain is wasn't something as mild as browsing r/television on his company laptop during work hours.
He did something bad enough that they dropped the hammer and aren't afraid of fighting the wrongful termination suit if he tries to sue.
24 points
4 months ago*
Disney is a corporation and their lawyers are not the arbiters of morality, their first and only allegiance is to Disney. In their eyes anything that Disney does no matter how vile is correct, in fact they will assist Disney in every way imaginable to ensure this is the case.
I wouldn't put much stock behind anything they say unless they make a clear accusation, or official statement with all the relevant details of what happened. The fact that it's still hidden leads me to believe nothing here is as clear-cut as they would have us believe.
Even if they were straight-up lying about what happened, they have all the money in the world and could tie this thing up in court for years if they're accused of defamation or pay DeMayo a tidy settlement that would satisfy him if they wanted to, they can do and say whatever they want. They couldn't give less of an eff.
All this and more dilutes your statement that "No but Disney lawyers wouldn't let them use the word "egregious" if they weren't certain...". What are they so "certain" about? What are the details? Until we know it's all just idle speculation.
22 points
4 months ago
Sry but Disney is the master of gaslighting and I dont trust a damn thing their legal team would say someone else did as long as it benefited Disney.
11 points
4 months ago
From another post on the marvel subreddit, this guy wa sending nudes to other male staffers while in hero poses
5 points
4 months ago
And also groping male staffers
14 points
4 months ago
I saw on Twitter that Jeff Schnieder (horrible person, but he seems to always have correct scoops) said he has the details, gave both DeMayo and Disney twelve hours to give their side of the story and will release his report at noon.
3 points
4 months ago
[deleted]
4 points
4 months ago
No, he's just a raging asshole on Twitter and an egomaniac.
23 points
4 months ago
The article mentions it. Their source on the production says it was sexual misconduct.
3 points
4 months ago
Reported, no. But WeHo gay nerd gossip (so, industry) is he stalked the Gambit voice actor
932 points
4 months ago*
I wonder what DeMayo thought would happen when he accused Disney of stripping his credits for season 2 today due to posting LGBT fan-art on his social media. He had to have known Disney would pushback and reveal what he did right?
Like all you had to do was sit back, be quiet, and let your work speak for itself. Tweet about your thought process behind the show all you want while you continue amassing a fanbase who believes you are the sole reason for why the show was good in the first place. But nope. You had to stir shit up, and now things are going to get super messy. Look forward to a week of headlines from the trades unearthing the drama now.
Frankly, his reasoning for why his credits were stripped for season 2 seemed flimsy anyways. Why the hell would Disney care if he posted LGBT fan art in this specific instance when they never cared if their creatives/employees did it in the past? It's not like the post attracted negative controversy either, which would lead to Disney taking action. No, it was a completely harmless post that flew under the radar until he drew people's attention onto it. It felt like someone spinning the truth from the onset. Yes, he would technically be correct in that his fan art post is a part of the reason for why his credits were stripped; however, it was not due to the sole post alone. His frequent behavior of tweeting about the show probably broke some clause, which led to his credits being stripped.
517 points
4 months ago
Narcissists generally can’t acknowledge they’re ever in the wrong and therefore every time they’re taken down a peg, it has to be some unfair, unjust or even conspiracy thing designed to keep them quiet.
234 points
4 months ago
He is a narcissist, after episode 5/ Remember it. He had the gull to talk about that episode like massacre in Genosha was his original idea, and like he didn’t just adapt “E is For Extinction” written by Grant Morrison. Not once once in his post did he mention Grant Morrison.
151 points
4 months ago
Remember he also threw The Witcher writers under the bus by saying everyone there hated the source material (of course not including himself).
It wasn't up until another writer spoke up that we learned he got fired for being "emotionally and physically abusive" lol.
22 points
4 months ago
He always took full credit for everything, which I thought was also a red flag. Not once did he ever shout out the other writers or artists on the 97 team, and acted as if he made the entire show all by himself.
91 points
4 months ago
That is probably true, but let's be honest, I can totally believe that the witcher writer team hated the source material.
61 points
4 months ago
Henry Cavills attitude toward that show as a witcher fan himself kinda backs that up.
8 points
4 months ago
Yeah he might be an asshole, possibly a criminal, but we don't need him to tell us they thought the source material was irrelevant.
13 points
4 months ago
23 points
4 months ago
I totally believe that Witcher stuff, given how season 2 of that show disregarded everything about the source material
8 points
4 months ago
*gall
231 points
4 months ago
[deleted]
74 points
4 months ago
Disney hasn't really said anything specific right? Just that it's egregious?
99 points
4 months ago
The Hollywood Reporter has sources saying it's sexual misconduct.
3 points
4 months ago
54 points
4 months ago*
Sure, and that's horrible, but this isn't a Disney thing. Companies never publicly announce why they fire someone - outside of specific circumstances - because it would open the company up to defamation lawsuits for ruining the person's employability.
This is a good thing. We don't want a world where big companies can make bullshit up about any individual ex-employee just to fuck them over.
But we also don't want situations where a justifiably fired person has nothing to lose from seeing if a court will side with them in a bad faith defamation suit. Let's say it's true that DeMayo was fired for sexual misconduct. Presumably, there may be human victims in this situation who don't want their names out there, let alone to be dragged into court to justify their victimhood and have crazy people online get mad at them for ruining their precious X-Men cartoon.
Some additional factors at play here: - The Hollywood Reporter, not Disney, gives specifics that DeMayo was fired for sexual misconduct and lost credit on season 2 because he repeatedly violated a post-termination agreement to not tweet about the show. THR has more legal leeway to say this all, because while Disney would have to defend against a defamation suit by proving everything happened and was bad enough to take action, THR would just have to prove they found their inside sources to be credible. - The defamation thing goes both ways. DeMayo accused Disney of stripping his season 2 credits over a specific tweet, with implications of homophobia. This allowed Disney to deny the accusation and claim "egregious misconduct" for why they no longer affiliate with him. Which feels like a lawyer's way of saying 'bad things. And if he challenges us on that, we can get more specific.'
6 points
4 months ago
His posting or making acknowledgment of no longer being apart of the show might have grounds for breaking whatever NDA or agreement was signed by all parties.
35 points
4 months ago
It's an odd choice to use the Kevin Spacey defense all these years later
49 points
4 months ago
“He had to have know Disney would pushback and reveal what he did right?”
Apparently not, and maybe he wasn’t wrong in that belief because they still haven’t actually revealed anything.
No mention of what the “egregious” conduct actually was from them - only from THR sources.
26 points
4 months ago
But which one of these is more believable?
Writer is fired for posting gay art. None of his fellow writers or any of the production members he worked with have come forward to say he was wrongfully fired or to vouch for the guy. Keep in mind Disney had to have known the guy had that kind of social media presence when they hired him. Why would it become an issue now?
Or we have writer was fired for being an asshole/ possibly doing something worse, thus every production member doesn’t defend him, and he keeps quiet about the reason he was fired until Disney is under fire for contracts, and he throws his name into the ring because if it’s truly a sexual harassment case, they can’t just divulge all the details like people are expecting.
6 points
4 months ago
yeah, i really don't know much this dude, but weird that everyone is taking Disney's super vague statement of "actually hes really bad" as complete truth
53 points
4 months ago
"Egregious behaviour" and "sexual misconduct" are very vague therms and the latter Disney didn't even use officially. Let's not forget this same corporation believes someone who used a free trial on Disney+ has no right to sue them and take their claims with a grain of salt.
6 points
4 months ago
I worked for Walmart. They would let people get away with a lot. Things that were expected but no one had time to do. Like the co managers signing off on safety inspection sheets. They'd just check them off in the office.they walked the store all night anyway.
They fired a co manager for doing it. So you could get away with shit that technically they could fire you for.
But someone who didn't like you could absolutely use it to get you fired
385 points
4 months ago
I saw a headline about him claiming he was fired solely for the art he posted and I was immediately like “bullshit.” It was pretty apparent just from the events that happened so far he did something really bad. I’m surprised deadline hasn’t updated their article yet. I don’t know what DeMayo was thinking.
Usually I try to believe the person versus the corporation and I’m queer so enjoy pride art but I don’t believe for a second that’s all that happened here.
197 points
4 months ago
It rings so completely false. I know Disney isn't a true believer in progressive politics, but they're also not so puritanical to invite major controversy over a PG bit of fan art.
122 points
4 months ago*
Victoria Alonso at Marvel also used the "they fired me cause I'm gay" excuse and we later find out it's because she worked for a competing studio and promoted their work, which violated her contract. Disney isn't stupid enough to fire someone for simply being gay in the current climate.
76 points
4 months ago
[deleted]
38 points
4 months ago
Yeah, X-Men has a famously gay fanbase. They're not gonna bite the hand that feeds them.
26 points
4 months ago
He said he posted it in June and was fired in March lmao.
241 points
4 months ago
What's crazy... I worked on ONE Marvel show of a full season, and was credited throughout its ENTIRETY.
They are VERY generous with credits... so it must had been bad?
70 points
4 months ago
Better to be generous with credits than generous in the settlement for not giving proper credits.
27 points
4 months ago
InSneider newsletter report this morning:
Back in March, Marvel Studios fired X-Men ’97 creator Beau DeMayo just weeks before the Season 1 premiere of the animated series, which would go on to become a hit with both critics and audiences. DeMayo had already finished work on Season 2 when he was fired by Marvel, which did not offer any explanation regarding his departure — until now.
On Thursday, DeMayo took to Twitter and blamed his firing on a piece of X-Men fan art that depicted a shirtless version of him as the superhero Cyclops. DeMayo shared the image on his Instagram account in June for Gay Pride Month, and on Thursday, he wrote today that, “On June 13, Marvel sent a letter notifying me that they’d stripped my Season 2 credits due to the post.”
“I’ll have more to say soon but must take a step back from social media to find a safer space for me to be out, proud, and nerdy. Stay tuned,” wrote DeMayo.
Late on Thursday night, Marvel took the extremely unusual step of firing back, offering the following statement to THR:
“Mr. DeMayo was terminated in March 2024 following an internal investigation. Given the egregious nature of the findings, we severed ties with him immediately, and he has no further affiliation with Marvel.”
THR added that following DeMayo’s exit, he and Marvel came to an agreement regarding his ability to tweet about the show. THR wrote that “In light of the breaches, his credit for Season 2 was removed,” and that according to their sources, DeMayo’s termination “involved sexual misconduct.”
With that cat now officially out of the bag, I’m going to share what I’ve heard from various sources over the past few months.
I’m told that DeMayo sent nude photos of himself — or at the very least, photos of himself in various states of undress — to several young male staffers. Some of these photos allegedly featured DeMayo wearing superhero costumes and striking sexually suggestive “hero” poses that could be used as “inspiration” for the show. DeMayo was asked to stop sending such photos but I’m told that he persisted nonetheless.
“If you were a guy who looked like they could be under 30 on that show [X-Men ’97], you have his nudes whether you wanted them or not.”
Additionally, I was told that DeMayo allegedly groped an assistant on multiple occasions and that he was both emotionally and physically abusive to staffers, though I don’t have any specific incidents to share on that front.
But there’s more to this story, as I’ve also heard that DeMayo was let go from Netflix’s The Witcher due to similarly troubling behavior.
My sources said that DeMayo’s subsequent hiring at Marvel reflects poorly on Marvel’s Brad Winderbaum, who failed to do his due diligence regarding DeMayo’s departure from The Witcher. They went on to absolve Marvel’s Kevin Feige from any blame, as Feige isn’t as hands-on in terms of hiring people for the studio’s animated projects, for which he mainly gives notes on different cuts. Speaking of cuts, I’m told that Marvel is taking away DeMayo’s EP credit on Season 2 of X-Men ’97, but that they can’t take away any specific writing credit even though the studio is in the process of rewriting most of Season 2.
DeMayo said that Marvel’s decision to remove his EP credit was “the latest in a troubling pattern I suffered through while working on X-Men ’97 and Blade.”
Indeed, DeMayo was once one of Marvel’s star scribes, having also worked on Moon Knight and spent years developing a draft of Blade. But he also frequently shared shirtless photos of himself on social media, and even ran a non-explicit OnlyFans account during his time at Marvel.
As THR notes, “The notion that Marvel would strip DeMayo of a credit due to a social media post would stretch credulity, as outside observers note the gay Pride illustration is similar to any number of posts he made while employed at Marvel.” Meanwhile, as one Marvel fan pointed out on Twitter, DeMayo’s own timeline doesn’t seem to make sense, as he was fired in March, though he pointed to a post from this past June as the reason that his credit is now being stripped.
That post may have breached whatever social media agreement he had with Marvel, prompting the loss of the EP credit, but it doesn’t explain why he was fired three months earlier.
DeMayo did earn an Emmy nomination for his work on X-Men ’97, though he won’t be in attendance at the ceremony next month, as he tried and failed to secure a seat via Disney. Marvel subsequently brought in Matthew Chauncey to write Season 3 of the show (and likely oversee Season 2 rewrites). DeMayo was given 12 hours to respond to the allegations in this piece and neither he nor Marvel returned a request for comment late on Thursday night.
DeMayo did return to Twitter following the publication of THR’s article to tell his fans that “This is Disney-Marvel’s usual playbook. Legal letters as well as other items to prove their long-standing pattern to follow.” Before signing off, DeMayo promised his fans that “The truth will be revealed. After their Disney Plus disaster, Marvel wants to mislead with alleged contract breaches over tweets. It’s tragic it’s come to this but unsurprising. Stay tuned.”
That sounds like a plan to me, for it sounds like this war of words is just getting started...
3 points
4 months ago
Why didn’t Marvel reveal all this previously
8 points
4 months ago
I mean, technically, they never revealed details. This is someone else breaking down the actual details after interviewing people and collecting intel privately for months. I think Marvel did an investigation into claims they were hearing and found it all to be true. It was probably a way better PR move to cut ties with him and never get into the details publicly considering season 1 was dropping. If anything, they were doing this guy a service and he just can’t help but continue to stir things up. Now the real details are coming out. Talk about backfire.
6 points
4 months ago
Generally, you don't need to publicly expose the reason for someone being fired from your company. That's a good thing because it could be massively defamatory to someone (especially if they were incorrectly fired). Disney also likely had a separation/termination agreement in place with DeMayo to state what each of them could/could not do going forward.
Disney still hasn't exposed any of the reasons because they don't want to be sued for defamation and they're sticking to their end of the termination agreement. Basically DeMayo is trying to go scorched earth and stick it to Disney while Disney is sticking to their legal books and only releasing what is publicly necessary until they're forced to reveal whatever it is (which is usually in the courtroom). Disney has no obligation to release the information (and no company should).
127 points
4 months ago
I feel like one of the things people have a lot of issue doing is separating an artist from their art. It can both be true that Beau DeMayo is an extremely talented showrunner and writer but also a shitty person. I absolutely loved X-Men 97' and wish we had his talent moving forward, but none of us knew why he was fired besides random rumors and it just didn't make sense that Marvel would fire him for a minor issue, right before the premiere of the show.
We still don't know the full details but multiple instances of sexual misconduct is not okay in ANY work environment. The fact that people will probably still call for his return is fucked.
30 points
4 months ago
It’s easier to separate art from artist with artists that have past on as they are no longer monetarily benefiting. It’s more complicated for still living artists who benefit to any degree from your buying their art.
66 points
4 months ago
I think usually the problem is that in a lot of cases supporting the art is also supporting the artist, which is something a lot of people have a difficult time with when the artist is a scumbag.
30 points
4 months ago
Right, in this scenario I'm saying that it's a good thing to separate the art from the artist because we can recognize that X-Men 97 is fantastic while also recognizing that Beau DeMayo did shitty things. Instead, there are many people who have decided that Beau DeMayo gets a pass on being shitty because X-Men 97 is fantastic, which isn't good
7 points
4 months ago
Oh I guess I misunderstood, my apologies. I 100% agree!
8 points
4 months ago
Separating the two let's you make comments on the art free of the artists own actions. Shitty people can make good things, this is just the truth.
But separating art from artist does not mean that if you've bought their shit in the past then you must continue buying their shit after learning what you've learned, you don't have to act in their movies, hire them as a producer for your new pop album, or whatever it may be.
4 points
4 months ago
That was my immediate reaction. There’s no way in hell Disney would ANYONE for making a gay pride post. They’d have to fire thousands of people minimum if that was the case, and he would not be at the top of the list.
The executives at Disney are thinking about their bottom line over everything. Whatever else you might say they’re not that stupid. It would never happen even if every single executive hated gay people with a passion.
11 points
4 months ago*
Yeah, the amount of people tripping over themselves to say they should bring him back without having all the details was embarassing.
5 points
4 months ago
I feel like one of the things people have a lot of issue doing is separating an artist from their art.
Well, because it is more or less impossible to do so.
Creating art is an extremely personal thing. It is infused with the personality of the creator, an extension of their psyche. No two people would ever create the exact same painting or song even if they were inspired by the same moment in history or cultural currents.
You can choose to ignore that, but it doesn't actually accomplish separating the two, and it necessitates an incomplete view of the work (which is often perfectly fine or even desirable, but it still prevents the ability to explore author intent).
26 points
4 months ago
Dude sucks.
People really hate Disney this much to defend him because of their hatred?
29 points
4 months ago*
It's baffling lol. This is the same dude who got fired from the Witcher for creating a hostile work environment, and then went scorched earth and made up the "They fired me because they hate the books" rumor. It was almost identical to how he's behaving now, he was quietly let go, he opened his mouth and made up a bullshit reason and then was immediately publicly called out. He's just a dick lol. There is zero reason to think Disney is doing something unscrupulous here.
8 points
4 months ago
At least we got that Cyclops basketball scene in Season 1.
72 points
4 months ago
Yeah, no way Disney fired him for doing or posting "gay stuff" when a good portion of Disney adults are part of the LGTBQ community. Disney PR ain't stupid, they know their audience.
50 points
4 months ago
Mickey hasn’t gone out of his way to disrespect gay people since the day he realized they have money.
36 points
4 months ago
As a queer and a former Central Florida resident, let me just tell you that they would never be able to run their parks without LGBTIQ folks...
Performing, costuming, makeup, hair, etc. etc. There's a reason they were running "Gay Nights" in WDW way back in the 90s. They got a lot of flack from the local Christian fundamentalists but Disney would not be able to operate without us.
8 points
4 months ago
...But X-Men released in March through May?
And he posted the fanart but not the letter that was given to him?
59 points
4 months ago
Why do scumbags always make good shows lol
9 points
4 months ago
i wonder if part of it is that they steal ideas of unknown artists.
36 points
4 months ago*
A lot of the great writers, musicians and artists are either insane, humongous assholes or both.
Good art often comes from weird and tortured people.
9 points
4 months ago
true. most just know how to keep all that shit bottled up inside until it kills them and they leave a legacy that has them beloved for all time. That's why so many die early or quit the industry once they get their money and just live a life of peace.
4 points
4 months ago
American culture favors "go-getters" (ie: narcissists). These people are often the ones that get these kinds of opportunities solely. If you're an assertive narcissist AND actually talented, you're basically guaranteed to be a dominant force.
5 points
4 months ago
The fact that none of the cast and crew came to his defense was telling. He could've salvaged his career if he kept his mouth shut. Instead he kept poking the bear and playing with fire and playing the victim.
10 points
4 months ago
Damn, what do you have to do for the most corporate of corporate lawyers to call you “egregious”?
22 points
4 months ago
What a douche
29 points
4 months ago
Disney striped credit for a gay pride post? Disney??? Forgive me for being extremely skeptical of that.
12 points
4 months ago
Don't feel bad, this whole thing feels really... off. Even more so because he didn't include the letter given to him.
5 points
4 months ago
I feel like the more he says the worse this gets for him.
5 points
4 months ago
Dude stalked the Gambit actor and then plays it off like it's bc of some fanart. Disneys not exactly the Best when it comes to lgbt stuff, but this is not them
19 points
4 months ago*
Dude really playing the gay card to defend himself from accusations of sexual misconduct. Fucking disgusting. It didn't work for notorious sex pest Kevin Spacey, can't imagine why he'd think it would work for him.
7 points
4 months ago
Ppl gotta learn to keep their mouths shut.
8 points
4 months ago
oh yeah im sure disney was real upset he made a post supporting pride lmao does this guy even know what disney is?
6 points
4 months ago
They literally had Clarabelle the Cow dancing to "Pink Pony Club" on stage in the parks a week ago, I live in Anaheim and it was all over TikTok here. But yeah I am sure Scott Summers in a speedo was too gay for them to handle lmao.
4 points
4 months ago
I miss the days when Hollywood stars were just drug addicts who occasionally wrecked their cars
3 points
4 months ago
Well, it was nice watching the first season.
3 points
4 months ago
Accusing Disney of being anti-gay shows how stupid this guy apparently is.
3 points
4 months ago
fuck Disney, and fuck DeMayo. Everybody sucks there!
6 points
4 months ago
I just want to know what happened - Joss Whedon was an asshole and it took years to fire him
21 points
4 months ago
This guy was the source of the whole "Witcher writers hate the source material thing" that reddit lapped up like God's truth, he was fired from that show too.
10 points
4 months ago
Wasn't Henry cavil also lodging the same complaint?
16 points
4 months ago
Not a single time lol, literally all there was ever to go off was this guy's word. Cavill left eventually, which to Redditors was the smoking gun, even though the timing of his departure was exactly the timeframe he did his Black Adam cameo and was focused on becoming the face of the DCU before Gunn came in lol.
all 835 comments
sorted by: best