The basic problem with this thread is that people are arguing at cross purposes. Or less colloquially, at positions that never really meet or challenge each other.
1. ConEsc - these films are good and worthwhile and together they are more than the sum of their parts - and they tell you about the world
2. Luka - good/bad/whatever - these words no longer matter, these films are huge and you need to watch them cos their hugeness reflects the world that makes them huge
3. Craner - I like to watch films and interpret them sure, but I also tend to prefer good films to bad films regardless of which tells you most about the world
4. Rich - a kinda sexy dilettante who drifts between worlds and, when it comes to films, is more interested in the aesthetic (and other value judgment type qualities) of the thing than how much it is rooted in the tedious mundanity which it must have, by definition, sprang from.
I guess the biggest contrast there is between the earthbound luka viewpoint - it came from the world and it must be of this world and so we must study it - and the opposite which is more akin to; perhaps magic is possible and perhaps it's not but, over the years, there have been some people who tried to find out by digging for that magic or, almost like Prometheus, firing themselves as far as they could into the sky to try and drag back whatever they found.... in simplest terms this debate is media studies vs art. And Luka writes very persuasively in terms of media studies but we all know that's not what he believes in.