My larger point is that people often insist substance is good, style is bad. I disagree with endowing a value judgment on either. A movie with great substance can still be a terrible movie. Movies nothing going for them but style can be fantastic. And most try to balance the two, to wonderful or horrible effect.

I'm not saying people finding substance in a movie are wrong in their opinion. They're wrong in their definitions. I chose my list specifically to spark discussion about what does it even mean to say a movie has substance. What is style?

Movies aren't substantive because people like them. For the word "Substance" to be useful, it must mean something else.

One of the writers knowing the subject on which they're writing isn't substance. What is Aykroid saying about real paranormal investigations? That would be substance.

You can enjoy Ghostbusters without answering that question. I certainly do. I can't count how many times I've enjoyed watching it. Our enjoyment isn't trivialized or wrong if it's not a substantive movie.