again, it's 12 year old logic.....
Maybe they should just give an honorary award for making the most money? Because a handful of fanboys/fangirls who see a movie 12 times by the droves doesn't exactly give the film an accurate perspective of who enjoyed it..
A handful of people see a movie 12 times by the droves? What the hell does that even mean? You insult people claiming there perspective is the mentality of a 5th grader/12 year old and yet you can't compose a basic sentence properly.
Multiple viewings only account for a small percentage of over all ticket sales in most cases. Most of the big block busters would still have sold the most tickets with out them.
There are plenty of movies that made millions through front loaded opening weekends but are reviled pretty much immediately and not fondly remembered.
Well marketed does not even necessarily equal most popular much less "best."
Pirates of the Caribbean 3 made considerable amounts more money than the first film and yet I've pretty much never encountered anyone who lists it as their favorite of the series.
McDonald's has served billions of burgers but it doesn't move it any closer to being gourmet food nor does it make it better than a family's Thanksgiving meal.
Every thing you said is flawed and/or off the topic.
Many films do have a huge opening weekend only to be sunk by bad reviews and bad word of mouth. None of them have ever gone on to be the top grosser for the year. It takes a long and successful run to do that.
P3 may not have been anyones favorite movie of that series but that's irrelevant since they didn't come out in the same year. P3 was the favorite movie of many poeople for that year.
MacDonalds vs gourmet food? that has nothing to do with film but if you want to make comparisons then you just compared film to soap operas. MacDonalds is fast food and they out sell most any other fast food chain therefore the majority does consider them one of the best fast food restuarants.
Is it really? That's the sole purpose? So self expression has nothing to do with it?
There are many ways to engage with a film more than merely being "entertaining."
A film can be utterly engrossing without being enjoyable.
Also some films are only made for a specific audience rather than the lowest common denominator.
A film that successfully takes on philosophical concepts or deals with adult subject matter is very likely not going to make as much money as a 90 minute children's film, even if the children's film is a total bomb by family film standards.
What about well made movies that only play on a few dozen screens vs the literally thousands of screens even the worst reviewed action film plays on?
I've been making my living as a small independant film maker for over 20 years so I know all about the motivations that film makers have to tell their stories but I also know it's a profession. We have sponsors or investors or both who expect you to make the best film you can and get their money back. They hope you make a profit. So even in the artsyist films money is always a factor.
No a film can't be engrossing with out being enjoyable and it certainly can't be engrossing with out being entertaining. That's absurd. You need to be interested in the subject matter to get engrossed. It doesn't have to be a thrill ride or a laugh a minute to be enjoyable. There are people that enjoy everthing from a sad tear jerker to a nail biting horror flick to a gory slasher film to a mystery or even a boring documentery that they learn something from. The fact is they wouldn't sit through it if they weren't enjoying it and weren't entertained by it.
Those well made films that only play on a few screens usually get expanded to wide release if they're any good and the audiences enjoy them.
Nobody said small films can't be good but if they only appeal to a small audience they are not the best film of the year. Elements of it might be. Often the screen play or an actor might be the best but the over all film, no.