Hollywood loves money. This is no secret, surely; studios demand success from their productions, and success comes in the form of box office dollars. Of course, to say that most studios prioritize money over quality is short-sighted; there are more than a few who are aiming for those Oscars or Golden Globes. It’s just that in this business, money is everything. In fact, you actually have to pay to get considered for Oscar nominations. True story.

No type of film understands that money matters more than the blockbuster. You know what I’m talking about: the big hits, the summer movies, the ones with lots of CGI in them. Over the years, many critics argue, the rise of the blockbuster has given way to a “blockbuster mentality” where making money is the primary goal, originality and quality be damned. Proponents argue that this mentality leads to manufactured, soulless work that makes it to screen just to turn a profit. Yet, in spite of this criticism, the blockbuster hasn’t begun to fade; in fact, the way I see it, its presence is more widely felt than ever.

I have for a long time chosen not to subscribe to the blockbuster mentality theory. No offense to those who firmly believe in it--if you do, more power to you--but it’s never really clicked with me. Make no mistake, I have criticized many blockbusters for the same problems the blockbuster mentality points out. But, with that being said, I don’t think the concept of the blockbuster mentality is all that realistic.

Let me make something clear. Yes, studios want your money. They make movies to get rears in seats and green out of wallets. Yet, this is not just blind greed.

To make a long story short, any movie made in this day and age, be it an obscure indie film from an up-and-coming director or the next Marvel Studios film, is a financial risk. Movies cost money to make, of course, and there is no guarantee that those costs will be made up for in full. Financial success is really not a given, and thus studios have to choose carefully which films they want to send to screen.

“But what about movies that are part of an established franchise? Don’t they have a guarantee for good profit?” Well, actually not. Take a look at the earnings of any franchise’s films and you’ll probably notice it isn’t just a clear rise in profit from film to film. Also take a look at the franchises whose sequels didn’t do so hot. Remember “The Amazing Spider-Man 2”? Not a whole lot of people do, apparently, because that film underperformed compared to other films featuring the Spider-Man character.

And what happens when studios have a flop? They lose money. They lose opportunities. Suddenly the blockbuster is not the “be-all-end-all” financial answer it’s characterized as.

Also, I argue that proponents of the blockbuster mentality theory should take into account what the film world is like now. From the 1970s to today, it has been proven that films can make thousands, millions, even billions of dollars--something practically unheard of before the 70s. Blockbusters should be expected and embraced, not shunned; they are a part of an ongoing narrative, of an era that began in the days of “Jaws” and the original “Star Wars.”

Speaking of those two films, it’s time to talk quality over quantity. The nail in the coffin for the blockbuster mentality theory, to me anyway, is the simple principle of subjectivity. A critic may think that “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” sucks, but many others would disagree. Likewise, I think “Fifty Shades of Grey” is complete garbage, but there are probably plenty of people out there who are jumping onto their blogs as we speak to fight me, E.L. James included.

The point is that to categorize blockbusters as generic and boring is cynical, redundant given how many times we hear it and how many people throw it around, and just plain unfair. In fact, in my eyes, the blockbuster has proven itself worthy of praise; “Jaws,” “Star Wars,” “The Return of the King,” and “The Matrix” are all blockbusters, and they are some of the best movies I have seen.

Walt Disney once said, “We don’t make movies to make money. We make money to make more movies.” I think this is the best way to look at the nature of the blockbuster; it makes money, yes, but in order to serve the interests of audiences across the globe, not solely for personal, selfish gain. Are all blockbusters good? No, but that isn’t the point. Studios want blockbusters because of how competitive the industry is today, because of how expensive the industry is today, because of how demanding audiences have become. Like I said, it’s part of an ongoing story and ongoing circumstances.

And the blockbuster is going to stick around for a long time.