Can you explain the difference? Is Interstellar not visually rich? Is Avatar not?

Let me tell you, it's times like these that made me wish I paid attention in art class. I'll give it my best shot. (If any film nerd is reading this, please help me out.)

So let me start by saying that I have not seen Avatar or Interstellar so I can't really use those movies one way or another. So let's take them out of the equation. When I was talking about comparing visual richness to eye candy, it was a response to this part of your reply . . .

That being said, I recognize that aesthetics are important in what I can only refer to at this point as "artistic arts" (painting, music, comic books, story-driven videogames etc.) and I understand how people might enjoy what appears to be an inferior product from someone's perspective

When I read this, I feel like metaphorically speaking that you're comparing a cheeseburger from McDonalds and a Cheeseburger from a gourmet burgers and beer restaurant. You think "Hmm. Cheese, buns, burger, onions, blah blah blah. They're both cheese burgers. They're probably on par." The thing is though, while on paper they may seem the same, the burger from the gourmet place will without a doubt be superior, due to use of better ingredients and better cooking techniques.

There are tons of elements to what makes a good “movie burger.” Script, acting, sound, musical score, blah blah blah. You get the idea. Since we're talking strictly visual though, the two main visual ingredients are composition and color. The more skilled a director/cinematographer/whoeverfuckingjobitistodothisbullshit, the more competent they are in framing shots so that they are visually appealing. The skill involved varies greatly and the more you watch movies, the more you pick up on it. I'm not very good at this whole comparing and contrasting bullshit, so I'll just throw out four examples here. Keep in mind that I know we're looking at movies from various times, but just look at the elements involved. Watch the trailers for each though, and get a feel for how each one is framed and how it has an impact on how you view the quality of the film. Ignore the acting. Ignore the proposed plot. Just pay attention to what you're seeing. Hell, if it helps, I recommend watching all four trailers with the sound turned off.

Toxic Avengers – This movie is a low budget, cult classic film. I'm using this as a baseline, not because it has eye candy (because it doesn't), but because it's a great example of how poor composition and lack of a strong color palette can take away from a movie. Scene after scene here, you see that there isn't much use of dynamic angles. Most shots are very straightforward and squared off. The director is content to just get the needed characters and elements in frame and call it a day. At the same time, there's no real color palette to give it an artistic flair, to grab your eyes and make things look exciting. Visually speaking, it's very boring.

Batman and Robin – Here things get a little bit better. In a lot of the scenes, the framing is better and the angles tend to be more dynamic. They're not perfect, but they're much better. At the same time, the directors chose to work with very vibrant colors. The problem with this film though, is that the colors demand too much attention. In a lot of scenes, the colors are overwhelming and distracting, making it harder for the viewers to pay attention to what is going on on screen. This is bad eye candy.

The Avengers – This movie is what I would point to as a good example of good composition and good color palette. The majority of shots are very well framed. They're exciting without being confusing. The color palette is almost perfect. It's dark where it needs to be dark, it's vibrant where it needs to be vibrant, and it all feels very natural, making it an easy movie to watch.

Fury Road – Look at each scene shown, carefully. Visually it's so good, almost every single scene could be taken and printed and hang upon your wall as a piece of art. The framing is phenomenal. The colors are bright and vibrant while at the same time feeling natural and not overwhelming the viewer. It is absolutely gorgeous.

So with those four examples in mind, you can kind of see why it's a step above. So what makes eye candy, “eye candy”? Movies that have visually exciting elements but don't pull you in all the way because there are other elements to the movie missing, such as acting, script, etc. They're pretty for the sake of being pretty but their prettiness isn't enough to make the movie good. Movies like After Earth and Fant-4-Stic are great examples. Fury Road on the other hand is stunning on top of being good.