VISNH: Apologies for calling you an idiot, but I think the discussion at hand is one of the great problems of not only film studies but art criticism in general.
The problem is that people have this notion that art isn't subjective. It clearly is. I understand that the situation is more complex than sweeping statements allow. But the biggest problem in art criticism, and to a lesser degree in media studies, is that the intelligentsia thinks it can state definitively if something is good or bad, on grounds that at the end of the day rely only on the degree of sophistication of their argument. Some teenage girl thinks Twilight is awesome. Someone may say, "why, its so simple and the characters are dumb!" and she may say, "no, they appeal to me, I think its a very good movie/book." At the end of the day, there is no reply to that. You can state why YOU think she SHOULD consider them to be stupid and hollow, but she can understand exactly what you are saying and still state "I just don't agree." And that's that. Hell, cinephiles can't even agree amongst themselves about films, and they are supposedly educated about all the mechanics, intellectualism, etc of films.
The illusion of the objectivity of taste is the great lie that cinema professors invented to justify their existance. Its elitism that stands on a pedestal of bullshit.
That's why it personally bugs me when people pretend that taste is something that exists outside of their perception, some greater truth to be discovered if only they can analyse something enough. But the bottom line is that people love stuff you think is shit, and you love stuff other people think is shit, and there would be a lot of time saved if everyone just realised, "hey, people have different tastes, interests, and criteria for what is appealing to them."