Originally Posted by def28
Disagree 100% on Mystique. She doesnt connect to X1 or 2 well at all in the end and its a forced set up. She is one of the worst parts of the flick imo. Violence, being stealthy and mystery is a huge part of Mystique. All that was thrown out the window.
The themes in the X-Men films would not work as well without a character like her in there, she was needed for that story, much more important than simple run of the mill espionage stuff, that is something we have seen umpteen times in sci-fi/fantasy shows, and we got that all over X1 and X2, why do we need more of that over deep character exploration?
Again I think Avengers works better because it uses those characters to their full advantage, not just character wise but scale wise. While many X Men films (not just FC) hasnt. Cyclops, Gambit, Storm, Deadpool and just about every other X character have been thrown to the side or ruined for Logan, Prof X and Magneto screen time. These films have not came close to the potential of the comics or why people read them.
Avengers did not use the characters to their full advantage, the solo films *and*Avengers used the characters to their full advantage.
As I said, if the solo films did not exist, and you had no prior knowledge of the characters origins, the thrill would be far less felt.
I love the Cap/Loki fight, not for the choreographed action(although that is good), but because I know this was a wee skinny guy with asthma who is now standing up to a super-powered villan.
The dicotomy of Iron-Man's seeming irreverence and heroics would be puzzling, if not for the explanation as to how he got started as a hero.
Thor's speeches to Loki on not being ready to lead would carry far less weight if we had not seen his journey in his movie.
This is why BlackWidow, Hawkeye and Nick Fury are far less effective characters in the film.
edit: Whedon actually does a very good job of explaining the Hulk's predicament, we don't really need to see his solo movie beforehand, although, it helps.