I somewhat agree with that, but only somewhat. Dan Brown understands how to structure a book to hook the reader. Michael Bay often doesn't understand anything about good storytelling, but unlike a Dan Brown, I think his cinematic technique is actually very developed. You may not like it, but Bay knows how to put together some strong, almost pornographic images. He does what he does, and what he does he does better than almost anyone. I think the Transformers movies suffer in their action scenes because of the scale and design of the robots, but look at The Island, a film that was very much shat on and you'll see some pretty spectacular action with no story or character to anchor it all properly.
So in some ways Bay is like the anti-Brown.
Suzanne Collins is something else entirely. She doesn't understand technique, nor does she understand structure. In fact she's pretty terrible at both, but she managed to invent a premise that held strong for one novel and continued to hold for parts of a second. The minute she got away from the base premise in the third book it was all downhill.
Compare this to a writer like J.K. Rowling, who managed to write seven books that all showcase very good and even great technical writing, as well as some absolutely remarkable structure, both within each entry and through the series as a whole. And you can say that "well, these are kids books and we shouldn't always expect Rowling-level writing," but that's crap. I SHOULD expect good writing. Maybe not always right up to Rowling's level, but I shouldn't be fed crap and then just accept excuses.