It's not wrong, it's inevitable given that all of the marvel films are the work of the same hands-on auteur producer (Kevin Feige). Just think of Ant Man, they don't even have a director, yet Marvel already has a complete script (not the same script from Cornish and Wright) and the movie is fully storyboarded and primary cast is fully-selected. It will thus end up looking and feeling like other Marvel movies, not like the work of the incoming director.
Yes, all of this preproduction stuff has already been done while Wright was still the director. But with him leaving weeks before production starts, what is MS supposed to do?Throw it all out of the window and start from scratch?
Also similar editing, similar narrative structure, similar TV cinematography,
BS! Kenneth Brannaghs use of tilted angles is something no other MCU movie has done, the editing of CA:TFA was more oriented to movies like ROTLA than IM or TIH, Leterriers use of long, hand held tracking shots is something that is very unique to TIH and a lot more examples could be given, but I know you would either ignore them or call them insignificant or whatever. The narrative structure follows your typical three act blockbuster structure, but so does every other movie that came out over the last 20 years. And even here there are differences if you have an eye for detail. Out of the 9 MCU movies, two (THOR, IM) started with a flash-forward scene, one (IM3) with a flash back (IM3), one used bookends to make the rest of the movie one big flashback (CA:TFA), 3 used a voice over prologue (THOR, T:TDW, IM3).
It may all look similar to you, but looking at it, each movie had a different style, each director brought it's own ideas while, of course. the tone of the shared universe had to be kept intact.
similar preference for quips-based humour with the exception of Thor 2's slapstick humour, weak villains, similar level of depth, uniform absence of interesting musical scores, big huge battle at the end of the movie of comparable duration and intensity, similar number of action scenes throughout and probably always at the similar points.
and here is where you lose all credibility. Weak villains? How can you generalize that? Every script tried to flesh out its villain(s) as good as the writers were able to do so. sometimes it worked (Loki, Hydra, Killian), sometimes not (Malekith, Red Skull), but there is actually a huge difference, quality-wise, between some of them. absence of interesting musical scores? really? the theme for THOR is something I could hum for days, the Avengers theme is easily recognizable and all of the scores are better than that crappy, enervating Hans Zimmer waaaah-waaah-waaah that ruins so many movies today. I won't go in detail abou the 'big huge battle at the end of the movie of comparable duration' stuff, because I know you are fully aware that that's not true, since a lot of the criticisms of some of the movies had to do with the final battle bein either a) too short (IM, THOR, CA:TFA) or b) too long (TIH, TA, CA:TWS)
If you don't see the lack of diversity in the MCU films, then quite frankly you need to watch more films. Even if you only watch CBMs, there is nothing like Sin City, Watchmen, The Dark Knight, or First Class among the MCU films.
I can understand why they're doing it, they have found a formula that works well. They follow that formula every time, and I suspect they'll keep following it until it fails a few times in a row.
Don't worry, I watch more than enough movies, since I do that for a living (Yay, lucky me), in fact, I grew up watching movies since my very early years (saw A Clockwork Orange when I was five and fell in love with medium instantly) and even if I only watched CBMs, I know enough to tell you that TDK, FC and Watchmen bow to the same basic structure, the same usage of 'interchangeable' action scenes and so forth as any other given summer blockbuster. There is no real difference between FC or a MCU movie given your criterias (the MCU version probably would have less misogyny included and the X-kids would have been better cast/ less annoying), the only difference between TDK and the MCU is the tone and that this movie takes itself way too serious (and that Hans Zimmer score, which makes large junks of the movie unwatchable). Watchmen is a failed attempt of practically everything from a director who has a very obvious sexual relationship to the slow-mo function, but it still follows 'the formula' of '00er action movies. The only example of you that was different than the rest was Sin City. But if you really believe that FC or TDK did anything different by your own criterias, then I have to dissappoint you. They did not.
