It's a legitimate criticism. If you're pointing out a "problem" that, apparently, very few of the movie-going public were bothered by, then it's not really a problem, is it?
If the valuation of the quality of a film simply boiled down to box office receipts, then we would simply ask if a film turned a profit and how much. Film criticism would be reduced to accounting. Film discussion would reduce to public polling.
By this metric, we would have to estimate Twilight
as greater than every other film that it earned more money than. We would be forced to say that the Spice Girls eclipsed the Beatles in quality once they sold more records.
At most, it is defeasible
position. That is, if a film is popular, then it passes a prima facie
test as "not being terrible." Of course, it was never my contention that the film was terrible (indeed, I thought Trek 09 was better than most Trek films). And this brings us to another point, the argument is not only defeasible, but is coarse-grained. That is, appeal to general sentiment only offers us an "on face" test for general quality.
It has nothing to do with particular criticisms (such as those claiming, as I do, that it was good overall, but this aspect could have been even better).
The mistake is two-fold. One, appealing to a weak inductive argument as it if were strong (i.e., conversation stopping proof). Two, it fails to recognize that the face test is to coarse grained to offer a challenge to particularized criticisms.
The fact that you don't know how to respond is, well, unsurprising.
Personal sniping? Disappointing.
I didn't say that I personally didn't know how to respond, but rather that a person "one" (anyone would) scarcely know how to respond (i.e., they know how to respond, but the position is so mistaken, that you have to really back track to 101 aesthetics and logic to point out what's wrong with it).