I wonder if Marvel using the superheroes that normies are less familiar with like Thor and Ironman helped them out. Like if it helped audiences get over the stigma of 'ewww nerdy superheroes'

well I mean people watched Thor for cheesecake

lets be real here

To be fair there wasn't much else going for the first movie.

but I think people enjoy at least the superificial difference of having a lesser known, more obscure character show up

MCU doesn't have the rights to my favorite guys, Magneto and Dr Doom

So I don't watch

didnt they buy Fox's shit?

or has that not gone through still?

idk, some ppl watched thor just to see how different it was...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCQug0FEvZ0

They bought Fox's entertainment stuff yeah.

All the X-men movie rights are Sony though, but they've been teaming up with them more

They should just make the X-people with characters like "Tazmanian Devil"

how were the X-Men movie rights Sony's if Fox was the distributor?

like the whole point behind buying Fox was getting X-Men and Fantastic Four (so they can stop being blown up in the comics :^) )

ya i thought spiderman was sony, xmen were fox

Oh yeah, I was wrong on that one

Also they can start putting the X-men on their merch

Like they were selling shirts of iconic comic covers in Target or whatever and removing the X-men from them

I'm genuinely disappointed that they didnt try to milk Civil War and actually do the whole thing

granted, they would have fucked it up

but it wouldnt have been dudes in suits on a runway

I mean they could actually do a better job of it now, since they have access to everyone finally

but they blew the name on Cap3

They did a better job at making Iron Man appear sympathetic though

In the movie than in the comic

hopefully they don't fuck up Avengers vs Xmen

When are they making a Marvel vs Capcom movie

when they can make a good game again

@Timcast based on the outline of what you mean by rare, and such, and saying over 50% would be what youd call common, i would say false accusations are common.

Seen as we can proof something between 29% and 41% of accusations individualy to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt (data from 2009 germany and 1994 US respectivly)

The disagreement isnt about the term rare its about the data

where I live it's over 50 percent

It may be but you probably cant proof it in over 50% of cases

or maybe you can

the 29% and 41% figures are actualy lowballs

based on ONE piece of evidence which in itself does proof that its a lie. In case of 29% and germany, selfinflicted injuries presented as stemming from a rape, in case of 41% in the US based on the accuser ADMITTING to have lied. There may well be evidence proving other accusations false as well

In any case i would aquitt if i was in the US and in the jury of a rape trial. Regardless of evidence

If i personaly saw the guy chasing then holding down a struggling woman, i would not convict

Reason being, it couldve been some BDSM playsession

she may have had a safeword