The alphabetic language is, for many of us, merely there to inform, to clarify. In this way typography, when used in dynamic mediums, can lead a viewer through a narrative passively without them being allowed to deploy much in the way of their own interpretations. Hollywood would anyway. For example, if a viewer misses the intention of a scene in a film then a whole plot may become muddled. A labyrinth plot, such as a crime thriller has to be consummate in it's deployment of filmic language so as to allow the majority of an audience to keep up.
Films compromise their reality to better serve their narrative purposes.
Much in the same way as typography often remains legible to serve its overriding purpose. Of course the very best films somehow tread the line beautifully and these deservedly request our utmost respect. It is also interesting to note whether people who use typography in dynamic mediums feel liberated by the medium enough to consider alphabetic language as an extension of film language in this realm - and therefore exercise the right to become abstract with it, when they would never consider this on a printed page. The majority of typography in Motion Graphics works on the most primitive level. But, in my defence, I would say that to learn from your mistakes is to be worthy of them.