Indeed. No one's saying they ARE all PF, they're comparing lesser works with a better work. Just like how LordAshur brings up Jackie Brown multiple times; comparison by presenting a greater work (as he perceives it). Avengers wasn't great fun because of special effects and "nerd jokes", it was great because it did a movie idea NO ONE thought could work out (for many, MANY reasons), and not only did it pull it off but it made a GREAT movie while doing so. 6 leading roles AND more supporting roles than you could shake a stick at, and the film still keeps you invested in every important character. You don't stop empathizing with the mind-controlled scientist just because he gets enslaved. You don't stop rooting for Tony Stark just because he gets heated and arrogant and starts clashing with the other good guys. In contrast with "typical" movie models, despite being "top heavy" with so many leading roles, the film gave them all enough exposure without detracting from the pace of the film's story, or each character's personal arc. It was a masterful balancing act. Know what it WASN'T that made it such a great watch? "Le nerd jokes". Banners line at the climax of the film ("That's my secret: I'm always angry.") was one of THE MOST DETESTED elements of the film... oh, but it was a Joss Whedon moment! It was a so-called "nerd joke"! So? It was breaking character and contradictory with his arc and his personal lore. It was cool (as defined by Joss Whedon types) for the sake of cool. But the various speeches by Loki were eloquent and devious and explained or cheated, depending on the scene. These weren't "nerd quotes", these were a character BEING a character. e.g. A MOVIE!!! Inglorious Basterds wasn't a poor film because of a lack of special effects and nerdisms. It was a bad film because it was boring, had unlikable characters, in contrast with "standard" Tarantino it was entirely linear, was ridiculously over-the-top without much substance to back it up, and more reasons. Worse, it fell into the death pit of "just another WWII story", so that didn't do it any favors. Was it an active crutch? No, but it didn't help the film any. At the end of the film, 3 different converging interests all clash at the same time, effectively accomplishing the same goal: kill/compromise the Nazi leadership, win the war for the Allies. But despite the fact that ALL 3 could accomplish this one massive goal on their OWN, and that by clashing with one another, needless lives are lost, you aren't interested in ANY of them, because the scene is all about pointless spectacle. The suicidal Basterds could finish this off with their psychotic plan to shred Hitler into explosive chunks of meat with their machine guns before exploding thanks to the bombs they strapped to themselves. The Jew Hunter could accomplish this by turning sides and getting the Nazi leadership killed as he sees fit (and he's portrayed throughout the film as more than capable of such feats). The theater owners could accomplish this by burning down and trapping the occupying Nazis as she already intended. But ALL THREE acted at the same time. In the end, one or all of them were needless and pointless. But do we care? Do was lament their deaths? No more than we lament the death-by-strangulation of the German actress for being a spy. She's just another character who gets snuffed out because the film wants a spectacle. It's sadly ironic that you're so adamantly defending a film that relies SO heavily on empty spectacle while bashing another film for being little more than "special effects" and shallow words.