Fair enough. But you have to admit that by immediately criticizing the lighting and continuity of action sport films, among other flaws, it made it seem like you were looking at them from a very traditional standpoint. And don't get me wrong, I also agree that porn, action films, and action sport films are all redundant.
And I am definitely down for some progression in action sport films. I thought Life Cycles was a massive leap forward in that it focused on the filmmaking, and more specifically the feeling and nuances of mountain biking rather than try to show the gnarliest shit with mediocre filming.
From an artistic viewpoint, you're right. An Aronofsky film deserves way more respect than a porno, a Dali deserves more than a meme, and Mozart deserves more than cat videos. But to me, unfortunately, film is seeming more and more like a business rather than an art. And that's why I would say if an Aronofsky and a porno both successfully reach their target audience, they are equally "good." Artistically equal? no.
You are also sort of lumping different things together. Mozart's work is intended to be appreciated by those who can understand fine art. Films are not the same way. But if a meme or cat video made as many people laugh as Mozart or Dalí's work has put people in awe, then I would say they are all equally "good." I don't think what makes something 'good' is necessarily dependent on its artistic value (in the traditional sense of the word "art," of course)
Why else do you think people might enjoy watching them? I only just came to the escapism conclusion on my own so I could definitely be wrong. But why else would kids spend money every year to watch people ski better than they ever could in places that they will never go to? And why do a lot of kids like to watch pros skiing more mellow lines or even skiing in a public park rather than the steepest of steeps or superpark shoots? I think it's because it makes that fantasy more tangible. Obviously they also like just being wowed by the skiing as well, but I think the escapism aspect is a big part of it.
Your last sentence makes sense, but that's more about the filmmakers. I think the reasons why we film skiing and why we as filmmakers watch ski movies are different than the reasons that the general public watches ski movies.
Regardless, this is all obviously opinion. I was just saying there are a few different ways of looking at what defines something as good.
