Bingowings said:

Your subjective opinion on Morrison's Star Wars significance has the same in utility as my subjective opinion on Marquand's Star Wars significance.

Exactly. Did I say something that would imply opposite? To each his own.

Sure quality over quantity any day but as much as I like Star Wars is any Marquand film up there with the Shirley's greatest hits?

Is any Marquand film as good as Morrison's performance in Once Were Warriors?

Short answer: it's a matter of taste.

Longer answer: once again, your thinking style derives from supposition that there some established, sacrosanct criteria exists, sort of paper patterns given by the Heaven once and for all. It's illusion. It's all up to your likes and dislikes: I watched Once We Were Warriors but would never watch it again. I found it unimpressive. But that doesn't mean it's bad, maybe it's quite contrary. Again, how many people out there who are able to recognize: "I don't like it, but it's good"? Rather than that you're going to hear "I don't like it and hence it's bad".

Good and bad is all subjective. Especially in art which is a product of personal psycho-emotional (= subjective) experience. It's all not about some ephemeral "generally" accepted rules of beauty, it's about how every single "recipient" reacts to this product. I don't know even who that Shirley is, but I've watched many other movies for sure and my inner aesthetical sense of what is "good" and "bad" for me personally has fleshed out my taste and selected what types of movies (music, painting, literature) I prefer. If to return to Marquand then my inner aesthetical sense gave thumb up. In the case of Once We Were Warriors, Space Odissey 2001 , it gave thumb down. Quit simple if you reject figmental "standards". I watch movie=>I like it=>good movie.