Ha, are all visual arts to be reduced to this then? Is Michelangelo also nothing but eye candy? Rembrandt perhaps? You don't think film making shares a similar plane of existence, considering how crucial the visual element is to the form? If photography is to be considered art, then likewise for the visual counterpart of a film, which can become even more engrossing when you add other forms of stimulation (like music).
I don't have a preference, as long as a film aims at the highest order of craft and expression. 2001 does this, and i think it earns great distinction from being so peculiar in the first place.
I realise that this is how it usually is, but, it can get pretty annoying when people take one part of one of my my posts and reply at lenght pretending the rest doesen't exist. Let me just remind you that I also said it was superb cinematography.
Even if the graphics are out of the ordinary, I need a strong story to keep me interested. The sixteenth chapel it is not.