My attitude to superhero movies is the same as my attitude to films of every single other genre: I judge them on the content of the movie in question, not by what genre it's part of. I think it's ludicrous to say that all superhero movies are degenerative. That's like saying all horror movies have too much unnecessary gore (and yet the first horror movie that comes to mind for me is The Others which has no gore at all, closely followed by The Cabin in the Woods where gore is used to serve a point).

However, I do have the additional bias of reading a being a fan of comics in general: DC, Marvel, Dark Horse, even the odd movie prequel (which seem so popular these days). After years of being ridiculed for reading Batgirl (Cassie Cain era) and Green Lantern, Guardians of the Galaxy is the most successful blockbuster of 2014 and Inhumans is getting a movie. The two most 'ridiculous' properties Marvel owns are being lapped up by a mass audience, and above all they're being done well so far. Let's forget the early 2000s, which gave us the likes of Daredevil and the Fantastic Four movies; since then we've seen Nolan's masterful Dark Knight trilogy (say what you like about Rises, but TDK was godly), Whedon's Avengers (entirely character-driven)

The "it's only a movie argument" doesn't apply to superhero movies at all; I refute that from start to finish. If anything, that applies to Bayverse works like Transformers, TMNT and G.I.Joe, some of which have still be hugely entertaining. Audiences are much less accepting of cinema stupidity these days (hence the ever-present shift towards realism) and when a superhero movie doesn't suspend disbelief, it fails (e.g. Green Lantern). When it does, as most since Iron Man have, the audience loves it. And the audience is loving it. Marvel's SDCC panel gets the rockin' reaction it does for a reason.

This is one of the things that often annoys me about film buffs, is the attitude that only artful works are worth the film they're shot on (not a perfect metaphor in the digital age, but bear with me). Film is first and foremost a visual medium, and the beauty of any artform is that your story can be as abstract and complex as you like, but can also revel in its own simplicity. And also, it's there to be enjoyed. Yes, a lot of mainstream cinema is mindless, but most mainstream audiences don't care about the spiral semiotics of Dark City or the visual matches in Talk to Her; most people just want to be entertained. That's what Transformers and that ilk do.

Superhero movies, certainly since Iron Man (forgetting Green Lantern) have delivered more than that. We have engaging characters (people want to watch Loki and Tony Stark for a reason) and fun storylines (come on, GotG was awesome) and we're finally at a stage with film technology where superhero action can look good.

And let's not forget that cinema is in part about escapism, and some people like to escape by being immersed in crazy superhero culture. George Mieles works were all about escapist visuals; I'm sure he would be able to appreciate the likes of The Dark Knight and The Avengers for their seemless visual prowess.

So basically, "all superhero movies are having a negative effect on film" is a really offensive generalisation to me. I didn't sit through years of mockery to not enjoy my hour of vindication now, and I'd rather have the engaging superhero movies that Disney, Sony, Fox and Warner are now creating than brainless shootouts like The Expendables, Transformers 2 to 4 (the first one was genuinely good) and films like those.

"Nothing goes down 'less I'm involved. No nuggets. No onion rings. No nothin'. A cheeseburger gets sold in the park, I want in! You got fat while we starved on the streets...now it's my turn!" -Harley Morenstein

This sums up very well about how feel about this trend. 

I can only speak fro myself, obviously (though this also seems to be Smeagol's vantage point) but for me personally I've become fatigued by the sheer volume of superhero movies coming out these days.  Apparently, there are no less than 27 superhero movies being made as of now, which at the very least should qualify as too much of a good thing.

There's nothing wrong with superhero movies in of themselves--The Dark Knight is one of my all-time favourite films, I really liked Man of Steel (and don't understand a lot of the hate directed at it), and, on the Marvel side of things, enjoyed Iron Man and Captain America: The First Avenger.  In addition I've become interested in comic books and Manga as a whole, and increasingly find myself turning to them for inspiration.  I think there are a lot of interesting visual ideas in these works that could work very well in film if done right (and I mean film-making in general, not just in straight comic-book movie adaptations a la Sin City or V for Vendetta).

But ultimately I feel like the current superhero movie trend is analogous to eating nothing but delicious chocolate cake for an entire year.  I mean, I love me some chocolate cake but I'd be pretty tired of it before a quarter of the hypothetical year had passed.  Even Marvel's use of terms like "phase 2" and "phase 3" sounds corporate and mass-produced, like the cinematic equivalent of fast food.

I agree dismissing an entire genre is stupid, but equally well it doesn't mean that all, or the majority, of the films of that genre are going to be good.  On the whole, I feel like superhero movies are just becoming repetitive.  I disliked The Avengers because, even though it was well-made, we already knew before the opening credits had started how this film was going to end (i.e. the heroes save the day), and, as such, any tension or dramatic build-up is surgically removed.  Loki is basically a spoiled brat with superpowers, which isn't bad per se but, I feel, is comparatively non-threatening.  The result is something that is well-crafted and nice to look at, but ultimately feels insubstantial--and therefore does only feel like "just a movie".  By contrast, The Dark Knight works because The Joker is genuinely terrifying, and completely unpredictable.

Also, "realism" =/= non-stupidity.

Yes, I'd have to agree with that.  I tend to instantly dislike anything that tries to outwardly appear "artistic" and pretentious.  At the same time, I'd rather see something artistically complex than something that's been done to death already.  And there's nothing saying that something can't both be artistic and entertaining--Christopher Nolan, for example, manages to balance both really well. 

Again, I myself wouldn't say that all superhero movies are negative, but I feel the majority are tending towards this.  It's getting to the point where I don't think that superhero movies are all that much different than brainless shootouts such as Transformers or The Expendables.  It's clear that this is your kind of thing, and I certainly don't hold that against you (or anyone else for that matter).  For my part, superhero movies sparked an interest in comics (and, indirectly, manga and anime), which has been a positive thing for me.  But I'd much rather see interesting, more obscure characters (such as Hellboy, as a random example) get movies instead of seeing endless Batman, Superman, Avengers, or X-Men sequels and prequels and re-boots.  At the end of the day, at this point if I intend to see movies in a hypothetical cinema I'd rather choose to see a film along the lines of Nightcrawler or Interstellar rather than Captain America 3 or Batman vs Superman.  That said, The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy seem to be something of a breath of fresh air so I'm kinda interested in seeing those.

Whew, didn't intend for that to become a wall of text.

Are The Expendables and Transformers not superhero films? Overpowered main characters battle forces of evil, do impossible things... I'd be tempted to say they at least fall into genre conventions occasionally.

I'm not universally against superhero films, and for a long time I was very much into superhero comics. I can't really maintain an interest in the comics anymore because the episodic format tends toward simple, repetitive stories with little or poorly done character development. There is the rare arc where a writer does something innovative and interesting, but in general the best superhero comics have been one-offs with no intention of continuing their stories (ie. Watchmen, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Dark Knight Rises). I can still enjoy a superhero film every once in a while, but I wouldn't want to see them flood the market.

For what it's worth, I think Smeagol's opinion is just as (maybe more) relevant when it's applied to the impact of superhero comics on sequential art as a medium.

Like the whole Fox? ALL of Fox? Is Disney going to buy out everyone and then replace the words for all types of media and entertainment?

Actually that would make a really interesting dystopian sci-fi setting, where everything is so colorful and "cheerful" but in a really bleak, grim way.