It’s an incredibly well made and reliable wooden spear but it costs ridiculously more than other wooden spears that are 95% as good.
And since they’re primarily concerned with big military contracts for wooden sticks, they make it clear that the persistence hunter market is one they actively disdain…but we still line up to buy their wooden sticks.
And of course you’d be wrong about how similar we are on guns, since most of them are part of the crowd that doesn’t own or use guns and therefore feel that because they’ve survived without them just fine that the only obvious and reasonable course of action is that of course we should simply outlaw all guns and just have everyone all over the country turn them in (not buybacks, not voluntary, just everyone come hand over all their guns). And they feel that anyone who doesn’t see how that’s the obvious choice is just crazy.
Also, I don’t even agree with what you’ve laid out here. So you’re off on both sides of your assumption of similarity.
It’s caused plenty an awkward turn in conversations with friends as well as friends of my girlfriend’s who are almost universally Classic American Liberal Democrat™
I’m with them on domestic policy, marriage equality, LGBT rights, racial justice, electoral reform, and abortion.
Then we get to guns.
And I’m certainly not some kind of NRA nut or Y’all Qaeda tacticool dope, so it’s a lot tougher to make a strawman against gun owners when there’s one sitting there across from you that you know, like, and respect.
That being said, those occasions also give me pause because I know if we’re falling into that easy line of thinking on guns, we’re probably also doing that sort of strawman on the issues we all agree on too, there’s just nobody present to challenge that view.
Largely because Reddit was so much more diverse. Even ol hive mindey Reddit tolerated differing views significantly better than the shit heap that is Lemmy.
Nah that seems like more of a strawman or moving the goalposts than anything remotely reflective of the actual situation.
Nobody is criticizing this movie because they went into it expecting an oscar-bait period romantic drama. Nobody.
Literally every single person knew what the movie was supposed to be: a superhero movie. An action/adventure movie with excitement, a few mild scares, some laughs, explosions, fights, etc. Sure, within the genre there can be “light-hearted, mostly comedy romp” and “dark, gritty, shades of grey” tones of film within it, but zero people are walking into this one expecting Pride and Prejudice, and it’s silly at best to suggest otherwise.
So when we’re talking about expectations, we’re not talking about the overall genre or tone expectations, we’re talking about expectations as to how well executed, well acted, well written, and well thought out the various elements were.
So yeah, when people say they found it disappointing, not being up to their expectations, they mean as a superhero movie. Further, given the steady diet they’ve been fed of the same, they mean, specifically, "up to the expectation set by many, many other similar films in the genre, in the same umbrella IP, from the same studio, released in the same broad time period.
It really doesn’t get a whole lot more apples-to-apples than expectations for a Disney/Marvel superhero movie in the 2020s.
So no, sorry, I can’t buy the angle that “if the film didn’t meet your expectations, it’s your unreasonable expectations that are to blame because you didn’t know what kind of movie it was supposed to be”.
Further, even if that were the case, that wouldn’t be so much lowering expectations as changing them. So when we see people specifically use the word “lower”, it suggests that’s not what they’re thinking at all.
Well if it didn’t meet your expectations, don’t keep it so high for these movies.
I’ve been seeing this sentiment a lot and it’s such a shitty take.
Basically you’re saying, “If a movie isn’t liked, it’s the fault of the viewer.” since the only option it leaves is, “Continue lowering your expectations until you’re happy with whatever you end up getting.”
But in a profit driven economy, hobbies are fertile ground to make great margins by creating the illusion of need and effectively price fixing with competitors without actual direct organization.
In so, so many fields, prices are set by no force more real than what the consumer is willing to spend. Not materials, not labor, not logistics…just “it costs this much because that’s what people are willing to pay”.
That’s why it’s worth getting into non competitive hobbies: the difference between expensive gear and basic gear has far less impact on overall enjoyment of the hobby when that difference doesn’t correlate to the difference between having a competitive edge, or not, due to gear. At that point, expensive stuff is a luxury and an option, rather than a prerequisite to be on equal footing.