When I think of Kubrick, I think of sophisticated intellectualism (and other less flattering things); when I think of Shyamalan, I think of empty-headedness.
Well, that's the "turning out to be Spielberg" part... I associate the three because of their visual precision and control. Just on a technical level. It's not about their intelligence or depth or anything else.
they're not pressuring a studio to back a project with the promise of another blockbuster later.
Oh, wait, maybe I misunderstood what you were objecting to? Or maybe I'm just confused generally. I do remember that in exchange for doing Ghostbusters, Bill Murray got to make Razor's Edge (which he didn't direct, but he did star & co-write). Those kinds of deals don't require that someone be such a huge star that their name alone can guarantee a blockbuster. It's when X star in Y project is a potential blockbuster that you get tit-for-tat deals; in general I think that kind of arrangement is less common. So if that specific idea is what you were objecting to, sorry if I confused the issue.
I think it's much more common that the actor directs and also stars. And because they star, the movie pays for itself. Or so they hope. I could swear that much is still true for Eastwood, at least sometimes. Didn't he have to be in Million Dollar Baby to get it made? I could swear I've seen something like about one of his recent-ish movies. Anyway, I think all I'm saying is, whichever variation, it's still using your star power to get a directing job.