The Budget/Story Paradox

[uziel5000]

Based on a very common theme that seems to run through many threads here...

You know, I think there is a common misconception running around that loud, spectacular(from a production point of view) films can't be intelligent or have cohesive, sound stories or even interesting characters. It's either the big, loud (but obnoxious) film that's "a fun ride" or the quiet, introspective, low-budget film with the greatest story since the Bible and characters so real you can touch them. Can't there be a film that can have both?

Now don't get me wrong. I don't watch The Shawshank Redemption and then complain about the lack of explosions or watch Transformers and expect story and dialogue to be on par with Shakepeare. It's just that we discuss films here and this is the common exchange:

X: "Saw 2012. AWSOME!"
Y: "Really? I thought it sucked. The plot was laughable."
X: "Well, you don't go watch films like this expecting high art."

What are we really saying here? Are we justifying the fact that we indulge in "fun thrill rides" that allows us to shut our brains off for a while? Are we failing to admit that deep down we enjoy these films despite the gaping holes? Or do we simply want more than what Hollywood is throwing us more often than not? Should we expect more?

It is a rare thing indeed but films like Terminator 2 and The Dark Knight or The Lord of the Rings Trilogy prove we can have our cake and eat it too. They have extremely high production values, good acting, solid story and great characters. Plus, they have all been extremely successful. So why are they so rare?