Originally Posted by soundofyousick
Dude, you are taking me too literally, of course there is some character work in the film, but we do not get to see what makes these characters 'tick' in those particular ways, before we get to the interactions, we need the solo movies for that.
I said this already...
- We don't know what made Cap so special(in actual fact , we don't know why he was so earnest and clean cut in the first movie either, but for the purposes of what we are givem , I mean, we don't know of his weak, humble beginnings, it is an added thrill to know this when he goes up against a god)
- the dicotomy of Iron-Man's irreverence and heroics would be puzzling, and less interesting.
- Thor's speeches to Loki would carry less weight if we had not seen him grapple with his own problems when it came to ruling.
edit: and I'm sorry, but no, different rules apply when dealing with chapters in a series of films, you can't critisice chapter two if it brings no sense of what makes these characters 'tick'(as long as there is some further characterisation), but you can critisice chapter one if it does not do this job.
Characterisation and interaction does tell you what makes a character tick, because that's what defines how such things present themselves. If anything, character interaction is much better at delving in to a character as it allows them to test their convictions, change and evolve. You may not get specific character origins but they aren't necessary. To address your points though:
Cap's origin isn't told to the audience, yes, but this doesn't matter for two reasons. Firstly, it's not relevant to the specific theme of Cap's arc which relates more to his anachronism. This means the character is tested in different ways and, especially due to the fish out of water aspect, goes further than the solo film in that it helps redefine the character and underline the central tenets of him. Secondly, what you describe as an extra thrill is just that, extra. It supplements what's already there without being necessary in and of itself. More importantly though, the central metaphor of Cap's strength of will and earnestness becoming a physical strength is represented through his actions in that scene and the following one. The film ensures you understand that Steve is just a man so the fact that he willingly goes up against a god not once but twice, and feels like it's his duty to do so, tells the audience this about his character. It's informing through showing, not telling.
As for the other two points, they both fall under much the same response, the solo films supplement scenes in the Avengers but remain unnecessary in the long run. The Avengers isn't at all reliant on the solo films because it provides enough content to give the scenes their own dramatic merit in isolation of the other films. In the case of Thor's speech to Loki, it becomes meaningful in a different way in light of the Thor film, but still remains meaningful and has dramatic merit in the context of what's happening in the scene. You're point would only be valid if the entire purpose of the scene was based around the idea that Thor had wrestled with similar issues.
As for Iron Man, I'm not sure I understand how you perceive there to be a problem. His actions wouldn't be puzzling to the uninitiated, they're perfectly consistent with what the film establishes about him. There is no grounds for confusion. Furthermore, surely the character would become more interesting if you hadn't seen the Iron Man films as it poses the question of why that is so and invites the audience to examine the character through that lens.