Does quality determine a movie's worth?

I think we touched on this briefly at the beginning of the semester, but I want to revisit it. Does the video and/or audio quality of a film determine its excellence? For example, could a movie filmed on a Handycam potentially be better than something filmed on a RED? I'm pretty sure we came to the conclusion that yes, they can be superior occasionally, but what exactly are the main factors in deciding how good a movie is?

There is an art that goes far beyond the look and video quality. If you have a strong plot and script, the importance of video quality drops slightly. Granted, films always LOOK better when they are in full HD, but in the end it's just an added bonus. Kinda like Fridge, which wasn't necessarily bad quality, but it certainly wasn't the best either. But the content and tone of the film were sufficient to carry it through. Conversely, take a look at many recent films being rolled out by Hollywood today, and you'll see an amazing visual spectacle, but when the credits roll you realize that you gained nothing by watching it. But it sells, so Hollywood doesn't have to worry too much about that.

Think about a movie like Transformers though. If that was filmed on some cheap, grainy camera, not near as many people would have interest in it. There's just not enough substance to carry it through and it depends too heavily on visual effects. Now I'm not dissing video quality and visual effects by any means, I'm just saying that truly excellent films can stand no matter how good the camera. Like those illusion videos we watched in class where the tv would spin and stuff. Well, enough about that.

And now for a random video I stumbled upon the other day, which COMPLETELY contradicts everything I just said, but I think this video is pretty freakin' awesome. haha