Yeah, Adam's point is a solid one when it comes to pretension vs artistic merit. Let's not fool ourselves with the idea that "artists" don't also have their key points to hit and formulas to follow.
If anything I think Bunuel was at his most influential at satirizing this, whether it was intentional or not. He was making a point about structure and intentionally breaking it for the value of the confusion, yet some read his films as having the deeper metaphorical meanings he was intentionally avoiding.
"See, the chicken the purse represents...."
No, the chicken in the purse is meant to not make sense, to draw attention to assumed structures and narrative meaning by throwing a monkey wrench right in the middle. It's somewhat annoying or difficult to view at times, but less than it is to listen to people decoding his metaphors.
But back on point, we all know that some filmmakers have a very clear sense of the audience expectations at the Indy Spirits, Cannes or Sundance, just as much (and as shallow/cynical) as Bruckheimer understands summer tentpole expectations.
Joe 6 audiences might not be as well trained in film but that doesn't make them without merit in noticing patterns that appear less than sincere when they come from outside their comfort zone. Outsiders always cue on the fundamental basics of a genre/style/culture more than the subtle variations, and often they do a better job of seeing those basic structures specifically because they aren't mired in the details.
I'm not saying they know better than us, far from it. But I am saying that those views have merit to those of us who have our heads 10 feet deep in this "high art" world. To me there is a sense of grounding when you hear those reactions.
Where I lose interest/respect is when those views are followed up with your standard intolerance and dismissal of "high art" as bullshit and stupid. But that's a problem with the messenger, not the message.
In short, a POV like George's is critical to good film discussion.