True - you cannot argue your own experience into becoming a new experience. At least not without MK Ultra training.
And, again, there often are different personalities at play, conscious and otherwise, when watching a film or show or listening to music.
Do you guys ever think about how you watch something? Or read a comic book? Or then when you talk about it later?
When I break it down, it is similar to acting. On stage or in a scene, you are bifurcated into actor and character. Whether scripted or not, part of you is the character in the imaginary situation and part of you is your normal ego - your personality - who knows that this is a performance. Naturally, those two don't always agree and, naturally, it is not exactly like the normal ego is in control of the character. If anyone plays a musical instrument, you'd also compare it to moments where you are in the flow of the music and it is more like the instrument is playing you at times.
When watching movies, I think there is something similar going on. There is your immediate experience of the film, and then there is your reflective ego-centric point of view about it. And they won't always agree. AGE OF ULTRON and FURY ROAD are good examples for me. My immediate experience was very good - I was entertained - and a lot of that was also due to being in an audience in a good theater where everyone had a good time. However, my personal perspective of the film has a definite criteria for what is "worthy" in movies, and that was far more critical. If I watched the movies at home, I probably would have a different view entirely.
I think most people have this division of experiences whether they are aware of it or not. When we talk about the movies we see and the books we read or even the news stories that show up daily, I think we are really expressing our personalities - egos, the roles we play in our social groups - much more than the actual experience we had watching the films. I think the experiences are much harder to express since they are much more personal and less able to be expressed.
Now, add to that something that the film INCEPTION brought up (spoiler: whenever the movie is talking about "dreams," it's really talking about cinema as an experience). One of the early scenes where Cobb is explaining the dream tech to Ariadne, he asks her to explain how they got to the cafe where they are having the conversation. At that point, she realizes that she's dreaming and everything blows up - a metaphor for the collapse of the suspension of disbelief.
For most films (and especially comic books and novels), I'd say the majority of the movie happens in your imagination. A man holds a gun to the head of another man in the living room of a house. Cut to: the gunman drives along a road in the city, alone. Cut to: he stands on a dock and throws the gun into the river.
You probably assume he shot the guy in the first scene and is now getting rid of the murder weapon, right? Of course, it could be a set up, but it seems clear. On top of that, though, also think about how much of the story you created in your mind aside from that one clear point. In terms of practical active time (if it really happened), from the moment the gunman is in the living room to the moment he throws the gun into the river would take anywhere from 30 minutes to 3 hours (and days in time actually filmed) while the actual sequence of shots could take 3 minutes or less. There is a lot of stuff that is cut out, but we naturally fill it in as background.
In a book, everything is created in your imagination from the cues of the words on the page. In comics, we add what happens between the panels. In film, we create what goes on between the shots. In many ways, that is what the filmmakers are trying to achieve, using the medium to activate your imagination. So, really, you are the filmmaker.
So, if you don't like a movie, it's because you have made a bad movie in your head, and people who like bad movies just have better imaginations