I said seemed.
Which inferred it was my perspection.
And perception is an inherently individual thing.
That said, nothing you said in your post has swayed me. You take the tact of defending TA and making assumptions that I'm being overly critical of it, when I'm really not.
I wasn't trying to be dismissive towards its action or dialogue. It's great. It's what makes the movie a good movie. What diminishes TA's quality in my eyes its it's lack of subtext (this is literally the second time I've had this conversation in the past hour, btw
The Avengers presents a perfect opportunity to delve into some deeper social and political analyzations and questions, and while there's several scenes in the film that seem to elude that Whedon was trying to add some depth to the film, ultimately, I feel as though he fell short with his every attempt at injecting my real meaning into the film.
It's never a matter of seriousness for me. A movie could be a comedy, a children's film whatever, if it's good, with some really worthwhile intentions and ingenuity, I'll be into it. I liked Avengers' tone. I liked it's action and dialogue and characters, etc., etc. it's just that, ultimately, it doesn't seem as though it has any real meat on its bones like other superhero movies have.
That statement "it didn't come across as a sophisticated movie, it just concentrated on being a good one" irks me. Because sophisticated and good should be synonymous with each other. Sophisticated doesn't have to mean serious - there's sophisticated comedies, and sophisticated children's films - sophisticated should merely mean that a film is made with intelligence and talent.