Marvel movies are inherently only a tool for corporate profit

The argument

Cinema is a form of art. And true artists create their works for the art's sake. They work to release the creative spirit inside them, to convey great ideas to the world around them. This can be as true for a director filming a set, or for an actor in front of a camera, as it is for a painter applying oil to canvas. In the past, films have proven themselves worthy of being considered great art. Unfortunately, these movies are made by Disney. And Disney, for as much as people may have loved them, especially in years past, doesn't make movies for art's sake. They make movies because they want to make money. And they know what IPs, in this case superheroes, make the most money. Disney churns out basically the same movie with a different title year after year. Each movie brings little to the table with regard to artistic credit. But they know that sheer popularity will put money in their pockets. Under the pretenses of fanservice and even social awareness, they bait the people into paying for products that don't inherently mean anything to the company itself, except for what number they produce in the box office.

Premises

Counter-arguments

All movies are made with profit in mind. Otherwise filmmakers couldn't continue to make films. Every artist knows that while art for art's sake is ideal, art for the sake of paying bills is an inescapable reality as well. But Marvel knows that in order to really sell their stories, those stories have to be genuine, to have a lot of thought and effort put into every aspect of them, from the grandest plot twist to the smallest costume detail. Marvel's writers and directors take care to craft compelling stories, and the actors take them seriously when bringing them to life. These movies make money precisely because the stories they tell are so good.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The definition of cinema as art made purely for art's sake is stipulated rather than argued, and it would exclude most of the accepted canon. Studio-era Hollywood operated on contracts and box-office returns, the Renaissance altarpiece was commissioned work, and directors from Hitchcock to Ford made their most admired films inside commercial systems designed to turn a profit. [Rejecting P2] A profit motive at the level of the financing studio says little about the intentions of the people who make the film. Writers, directors, cinematographers, composers and actors bring the same craft to these productions as to any other, and the premise offers no way to read a corporation's balance-sheet reasoning off the choices made on set. [Rejecting P3] "Basically the same movie with a different title" is asserted rather than tested, and the premise treats popularity as evidence of artistic emptiness, which does not follow. The counter presses the point directly: films that are attended in these numbers over this long a period are more plausibly explained by stories audiences find worth watching than by an audience that has simply been baited.