2) You seem to be elevating 'effort' as something of value to an audience. There was probably a lot of effort put into the guy who delivers the boxes of popcorn kernels to the concession stand. They're heavy! But, we don't consider this as being anything to do with art. Because effort and art have virtually nothing to do with eachother.
If you reread my statement, I called attention to the pay-off present in The Following. Not all movies full of effort are instant successes, with an example of my recent discoveries being the thorough but clunky Youth Without Youth, which presents a frustrating narrative. Besides, I'd rather watch a movie that tries and fails as opposed to a movie that didn't try at all.
3) Is there value to the work that is put into the special effects of something like Transfomers? Sure. And they can be appreciated on their own. And they can be instructional to those who want to get into special effects. These things aren't irrelevant, and on their own may even be considered artful, but they play only tangentially into whether or not the movie itself has anything to say. A movie is a product of many different things and how they interact. Pulling out one element for inspection is not a good way to get an idea of what a movie as a whole means to a person.
I judge a movie by the goal it sets for itself and decide whether or not the sacrifices made to reach it were justified. The goal of a Transformers movie is simply to be a blockbuster, and while much of the originality is sacrificed, there's still something enjoyable, especially in comparison to Manos. Now a higher-budget movie has every ability to be terrible, but I haven't seen that just yet. The highest I've seen would be Underdog with a 25 million budget, but at least Patrick Warburton can be funny by just being himself. For an absolute zero, 20 million for Disaster Movie.
4) You seem to want to strip movies that you don't like of having a purpose, when that is dependant on what we bring to the conversation. Transformers, as much as I might not like it, has purpose if someone is inspired by it. And this can inspire even me, if that person, can explain why it mattered to them. I still don't have to like the movie, but it still has a 'purpose'. You also seem to be assuming there is no effort in movies you want to dismiss, but as Thief has already pointed out, we're really not in any position to talk about effort. Or assume laziness on the part of the artist. There are a lot of movies I would almost guarantee you would dismiss as being 'lazy', that I would guarantee are absolute labors of love by those who made them.
Not true. I always take the purpose into account, but if you think movies like Transformers are empty shells, then you should read this. Harold Warren felt that it was "not difficult to make a horror film" and cited it as an easy venture into success, making a bet with a coworker that he could make his own horror movie. He sold himself out instantaneously by adding a gimmick to a horror movie: flashy cult that worships an original god and haunts a hotel. The purpose of this movie was to show off and win a bet that he could make a horror movie on his own. He made the movie because his inexperience got in the way of his judgment.
4) I'm not judging a movie on budget. I like all sorts of movies, big ones, small ones, smart ones and stupid ones. I am simply going to bat for movies that are being dismissed because of their cheapness or apparent amateurism. And then having them called 'pointless' or 'lazy'. I think there is an important thing to learn from a philosophy towards art that tries to understand all sorts of different films. Even the ugliest and most unloved ones that are out there. And for someone who wants to be a film critic, while I don't think it's important for you to actually like any of these movies, it would go a long way to understand why others might see the value in them. Or why some distrust films that appear to simply be going through the motions, and have no apparent heart to them beyond the 'effort' of the labourers who toiled on them.
Personally, I don't care if you see value Manos. I explained my opinion and I don't think you're "wrong" per say. In fact, if someone loved Manos for the "so-bad-it's-good" quality (which in my opinion is more rooted in subjectivity than most film-related discussions) then I'd consider myself an idiot to blame him. But Warren was known for his amateurish behavior. He miscalculated the struggles and sacrifices needed to film a proper movie all because he thought it was too easy to do.
Wrong. Dead wrong. Even in the 1960's, original horror movies were not easy. Horror has probably struggled more than any film genre because of originality issues, acceptable content issues, and on occasion, religious issues. This guy thought it didn't take much to be all that and a bag of chips. He was essentially an early Tommy Wiseau, except he didn't have the wacky vibrant personality to match his pretentiousness. At least The Room tried to have a realistic plot. Tommy was at least smart enough not to make a horror movie because it was "easy."