This is just simply wrong.
At some point, the "character development and emotional impact" that a few cling tightly to becomes a entry barrier for general audiences. They want to be entertained and don't care about the minutiae. Creating yet another generic group of characters does nothing to really grow the brand.
It seems like whenever a JJ apologist pleads his case, it seems to run along these populist lines, that mainstream audiences don't care for any of the qualities most film buffs feel good quality movies should possess. It need only provide cheap thrills. And if you begin to talk about these important qualities, then you're accused of being an elitist out-of-touch film-snob.
Sorry, man, but good films are good films. The fact that lots of people like empty-calories for movies doesn't change that.
Suggestion: How about retiring the phrase "JJ apologist"? You really can't complain about being called an "elitist out-of-touch film-snob" when you use a loaded term like that.
What "qualities" do most "film buffs" think good films must posses?
Who said ST09 provided only "cheap thrills". Most people here have pointed many elements in the film that were more than "cheap thrills".
Yes a good film is a good film. But a good film can also be a cheap thrill ride with empty calories.