Allison, you are on a very wrong track. To make claims that you know better what "normal people" think like is pretty offensive, frankly, especially without stating creditials for that. What is it that makes you think you've seen most movies before us (maybe you're in the industry?), and for that matter, why does having seen it "first" make you more qualified to comment on it? Not any cause I can see.
I know that the criteria for "good" and "intellectual" examination is different. I also reduced the actual numbers quite a bit.
I'm not saying that visual focus makes a movie bad. However, someone who can make a movie BOTH visually stimulating AND thoughtful is inherently a superior movie-maker than someone who can only do one or the other, no? The implication is that superhero movies are not made to be thoughtful. My contention is that the best ones are both. And that saying that someone can do the visual aspects, and that's all he needs to make a great film is wrongheaded. A director is better if he makes a film, particularly in a genre that is noted by most people for it's visual aspects, not only visually interesting, but though-provoking as well. Further, to say that superhero movies are not thoughtful is an AWFULLY broad brush to paint with. If you accept is as valid, it's my contention that it is more valid to say all movies are terrible. Because there are more terrible movies, on average, than there are non-thought provoking superhero movies, on average.