Honestly? I tend to treat them not only as separate things, but as qualities unique to an individual. You know, like how almost nobody's got the same genetic code. I go to several places for my movie reviews, and I've seen too many movies get absolutely, positively diametrically opposite reviews (person A thought the plot was wandering and weak, person B thought it was tightly written and engaging) to believe that you can apply objective judgment to something like that and come out with a 'standard' opinion. Hell, I admired Blade Runner and I laughed my head off at The Fifth Element (which parodied some SF tropes that badly needed to be taken down a few pegs).

It's not even constant over time. You realize that Blade Runner and the novella off which it was based qualified as pulp-fiction when it was written? Now it's considered classic dystophic SF. Dracula was the pulpfiction bestseller of its period. SF and fantasy started out as pulp-fiction type mags. So where's the point in suddenly detaching this stuff from its roots and saying it's too good to be associated with it? Nothing starts out a classic; that happens over time.