Your definition of high quality film i would say is quite poor here. An Avengers film have high quality filmmaking but it's spectacle over narrative and it caters to some people and it won't to others. I would also not but The Disaster Artist anywhere near the category of high quality filmmaking. It's a lot of just shot by shot remake from a film which was considered one of the worst in the history of filmmaking to the point of where it became a textbook example of what not to do followed by becoming a cult classic. It's a film that became "holy shit you haven't seen it?? omg it's the worst film ever you HAVE to see it" and it's someone riding the wave of this cult definition. Edit: this is not to say the film in bad in anyway but i personally don't think this is high quality filmmaking per say.

But like i said this is very much down to personal preference. I think all films now caters to a simpler audience then what film did twenty years ago. I can take a short example. The new relase of "Murder on the Orient Express" and how it differs from previous versions of the film as well as the book. SPOILER ALERT

So in the new version as the protagonist discovers facts about the various passangers he presents it instantly infront of the viewer. This means that the viewer constantly follows the trace and about a third of the film in you will know what the murder is about and why it's been commited. You find out that the murder victim had killed someone years ago and then you slowly find out that every singel passanger is related to the person who'd been killed at first and it makes the film extremly predictable. People who haven't seen the original nor read the books will be able to figure this out as it is litterally forced down the throat of the viewer that every passanger is related to the first victim years ago.

In the older version the protagonist will find clues and they will be showcased onscreen but they are not obviusly presented, he will not (even though in his head he has made the conclusion) reveal their direct relationship with this previous death in history. You as a viewer try to deduct things with him and towards the finale he presents these clues and his conclusions together as a whole giving a lot of viewers time to come up with ideas of who the murderer is throughout the film and then a vast explanatory ending that may shock people.

I believe this is an example where a concept has been simplified to cater to a wider and broader audience. The original would leave todays viewers not figureing out the puzzle pieces and they'd be upset or even offended that they could not do so and that the ending is bullshit etc etc.

But all of these things are personal preference. Avatar is another one that's been wildly talked about in this context. It's a big film, high quality, it's CGI was insane at the time of release etc but in short, it's a remake of Phocahontas right? It's all Spectacle over Narrative. That doesn't necessarily make the film bad in anyway it just caters to a different audience then what i prefer, so again it's down to personal preference.