Yeah. They don't call it whoever is directing's film out of respect, they do it because that person's name will get asses in the theater and money in their pockets. If they get an A-list director to take over, they'l still call it that person's film, no matter how little creative control they have.
I don't understand why you seem to have such an issue with the way these movies are made, FSM. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but I haven't heard that many complaints from the people involved, and quite a few of them have been coming back for multiple movies, so I don't see the problem. Honestly, the movies have been good, and most people involved seem happy or at least content, so I say it is working and they might as well keep doing it.
Well, to be fair, they didn't complain. I mean Superhero films are on the upswing, and first phase or two of the MCU is pretty successful.. quantifiable, it's a good career move for any director.
But film directors don't get into that business to merely sell out, unless your last name is Ratner. They'd rather inject in their own soul into a film than someone else's. I think the television-model that Marvel is following his becoming more and more obvious as the phases continue.. and I also think that these directors see what I see: that much of the Avenger's success was a novelty thing (seeing heroes form different films together in one film). You can only really have that novelty once, but I guarantee it that Marvel is trying to capture that again. Mackey (who played Falcon in Winter Soldier) said what I said, that that film was actually Avengers 1.5.
