This doesn't make any real sense if you think about it.
So, basically, if a movie has no real story, but tons of CGI and eye candy then it is arbitrarily "good"? And no one should question that?
I'm not trying to start a fight.
But this gets back to what I said earlier about how the standards for movies in America aren't that high... And this attitude may be the reason for it.
Compare TF to something like "Sunshine" (UK movie).
Both are big, sci-fi epics with an escapist element at the core. But at least "Sunshine" gives you more of a story that centers around the people versus the special and visual effects, IMO. It is why I would say "Sunshine" is at the same levle as TF, but surpasses it as far as having a solid story to back up the CGI.
As stated, not every movie has to be quote-un-quote Shakespeare. But given TF's huge back story and fanbase I felt it failed to present a logical, let alone compelling plot. Shia's portrayal of Sam is the only thing that saves this movie. And it is because of Shia himself, more than the actual role (the screenplay) he was given.
This is what I am trying to get at:
Do you think if you took at Shia and his ability to make the material he has to work with semi-palatable... Do you think TF would be that good a movie? I do not.