I wasn't really talking about whether or not the film's basic concept was absurd or not. Plenty of films, major blockbusters and cult classics alike, have absurd concepts, some not all that more far-fetched than tornadoes full of sharks or prehistoric piranhas. When I say "technically bad" I'm talking about basic movie-making tools, things like editing, continuity, dialogue, acting, effects and so on. Sharknado was awful when examined from a film making perspective, but my question is: Does being technically bad still make it a bad film overall if it entertained people?
That's why Sharknado is getting scores like 91%. People don't care that it's absurd or terribly made, as long as it puts a smile on their face. Surely that's the true mark of whether or not a movie is good. You could make the most well acted, intricately plotted and beautifully shot film ever made, but it'll still get low ratings from the audience if no one is entertained.