question of the day: Should we -- films critics and movie lovers alike -- include TV movies when we talk about the best movies of the year?

And now VanAirsdale:

There is a very real chance that HBO will yield at least one of the best films many critics will see in 2011. Why not reward it, especially if it can make a difference for the development and exhibition of films the way they’re “supposed to be” — if it can possibly help stanch what Ebert calls the “erosion of community” around moviegoing by reversing such destructive mainstream cinema trends as sequels, toy/video-game adaptations and overwrought teen franchises?

Ultimately, this isn’t even a TV-versus-cinema issue. It’s an art-versus-accountants issue, and one in which anybody who believes in the transcendence of film should probably invest him- or herself sooner than later: Laud the best movies, not the best movies that were exhibited the way things are “supposed to be.” That mindset is as destructive as a sequel could ever be if only because it, too, fails to acknowledge the merit and risk and invigoration of something new.

The movie lover in me cheers at the proposition: Hoorah! Let’s celebrate all good movies wherever they appear. But the film critic in me despairs: Damn, I can’t keep up with the theatrical releases, and now I gotta make it a point to see all the major TV-movie premieres, too?

What do you think? Should we -- films critics and movie lovers alike -- include TV movies when we talk about the best movies of the year?

(If you have a suggestion for a QOTD, feel free to email me. Responses to this QOTD sent by email will be ignored; please post your responses here.)