I said that because you purposefully misconstrued my question to make your own point. And now you've been arguing a movie where you can't see or hear anything would be "good" by some measure. I don't think you actually believe that so I'm not going to engage with this anymore.

That's the opposite of a distinction. Both those directors would be making a bad movie.

I did not make that distinction. Talented people and untalented people can do good or bad work regardless of intent and i never asserted otherwise.

It should've been obvious to you that i was talking about movies made unskillfully, not directors or actors choices.

You're contradicting yourself. How can my opinion be objectively wrong but a movie cant be objectively bad? What if the camera is out of focus or the actors mumble their lines?

I disagree. Obviously you shouldn't insult anyone for having bad taste, but that's a bit of a strawman version of a snobby film fan or critic. Bad taste does exist and it is possible for a movie to be objectively bad or objectively good. If you are a film lover, you should probably see all the movies you mentioned and be able to appreciate them, or at least recognize their importance in the context of film history, even if they aren't your cup of tea. If you don't you probably aren't really a Film Lover, you're a Person Who Likes Movies, which is fine too. Also, all the movies you listed are very accessible. They were huge hits and aren't really snooty films at all.